According to Samson Raphaelson’s words, comparing to a playwrights, he is a better craftsman. He is self-administered, wiry and tough-minded. He never sentimentalizes himself. He also never wrote things that matter most to him because of the lack of instincts and emotional richness. He never talked profoundly and with authority about what he knows.

He is right and wrong about his evaluation of his work. He is wrong about that he didn’t give himself his due. One of the most different points between O’Neill or Williams and Raphaelson is that in their film, the audience cannot feel nostalgic or see a theatrical style of ‘civilized’ or as soigne charmers. The films Raphaelson wrote for Lubitsch are more preserved iridescent. Differ from the films Lubitsch made with other writers, the ones wrote by Raphaelson are more puckish, full of texture, fullness and surprise. They play naughtiness very well. For Raphaelson, screen writing is more like writing down what he wants to say, what he has called ‘wild doodles’. So he could try out some ‘crazy’ ideas come into him mind without much responsibilities. ‘He could trust his impulses, his instinct.’ Raphaelson is good at keeping in reserve, however audience know that there will be tensions and the elegance of feelings.

‘Artists are better off when they’re not worrying about greatness and posterity; when they take off their frock coat they stand a better chance of being themselves. Raphaelson knows that.’ However when he starts writing seriously, his article published in The New Yorker is actually very good and doesn’t lack profundity and authority. His emotion and his control are put together very well and in a complete harmony way.

Reference: ‘Introduction’ in Three Screen Comedies by Samson Raphaelson. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. 1983. pp. 13-19