THE ART OF LOW COMEDY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2023, 18 August 1880, Page 3

THE ART OF LOW COMEDY.

I have received the following communication (says the editor of the "Figaro") from a correspondent who has often contributed sensible letters, on dramatic subjects, to the columns of the " Figaro." I need hardly say his remarks on the present occasion are worthy of attentive perusal:—" The Art of Low Comedy.—lt is a very delicate task to write about the principles of art to experienced artists. Especially is this the caso with rogard to actors, many of whom entertain tho notion that no one con know anything of their art except themselves. But an actor's judgment of acting is invariably prejudiced. Of course a critic, however carefully he study or think, is liable to make mistakes; but, as long as he speaks earnestly, without animus or flippancy, his words deserve respect. Why is it that tho low comedian of a oompany is so frequently its weakest point? Because nine out of ten character comedians form a false idea of their business. They make fun a personal matter between themselves and the audiences. But the highest and best form of comedy is impersonal. It is the same even in burlesque, the essence of which is to do grotesque things seriously. Nothing is bo utterly outside art as deliberately actiDg the fool. Yet nearly every comedian who aspires to be popular commences with a fatal error: he takes the audience into his confidence. He is always outside the character he is supposed to represent. He takes his part in his hands, as it wore, and doea what he likoa with it, making funny effects at all costs. There is no greater bore in real life than the man who is for ever trying to be funny. The funny people of real life are the eccentric characters who are funny unconsciously. It is just the same . with acting—Che artist who personates a funny character naturally, i.e. soriously, gains the true effect. We feel tho fun ; because what is going on before us is not labelled ' funny.' Why is good clowning such a difficult art ? Because it is so difficult to be originally ridiculous without constant repetition. It is only in natural character that one findß endleßS variety. Every artist in any branch of art must display a mannerism, because every artist possesses individuality; it is the sign of a true artist to ever preserve sufficient illusion to prevent the mannerism becoming offensive. There is great confusion of ideas respecting the comedian's art in this matter. It is artificial mannerisms that aro so offensive, i.e. bits of business, grimacing, or attitudinising, which are Btock funny effects introduced into any part indiscriminately. This is buffoonery, not acting. The method of the true artist is always the same, yet be preserves each character distinct. No two comedians ever had stronger individuality than Buckstone and Oompton ; yet each character they played was distinct, and so carefully worked out, that if you saw them play any one character many times it was always played the same way. No hesitation, no confusion, no dragging bits of one impersonation into another. Instance Charles Mathews, again, the lightest of light comedians, with, moreover, an extremely limited range of expression, yet who ever wearied of him ? Nothing was more wonderful than to see this artist in 'My Awful Dad' and ' Cool as a Cucumber' in one night, or to note the marvellously subtle distinction between Sir Fretful Plagiary and Puff—two widely different parts played by an artist whose range of expression was almost painfully limited. An actor whose range of expression is good and full checkmates himself, and proves himself a bad artist if he clings to bits of business which have brought him rounds of applause, and repeats them in every part he takes. So often have I seen comedians fall into this fatal error, which is as bad as the old tradition that always puts the low comedian into a shock wig and reddened his nose. A comedian who allows himself to indulge in stock tricks and ' funny bits' soon loses all freshness ; ho loses all power of emphasising character, and the public coouor or later will come to regard him as ' flat, stale, and unprofitable.' A true comedian will always remember that the real source of humor lies in his part, not in himself. Characters written to fit comedians should be measured by their range of expression only—thiß leaves plenty of room for variety in detail; but it is a vicious mistake to write partj expressly to bring out stock bits of businoss, grimaces, or tricks. It may be said in reply to all this that a popular artist must do what pays best. It is, of course, absurd to expect a manager to provide entertainments that fail to draw. But an actor is hardly bound by the same considerations as a manager; because it must always pay an aotor better to be an actor rather than a buffoon. However low the range of art he may be compelled to work in, still it will always answer his purpose best in the long run to do all things artistically. Loss of freshness, and bad or slovenly habits, must in time prove the ruin of the meanest actor."