LADY AUDLEY'S SECRET.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 19, 4 July 1863, Page 6

LADY AUDLEY'S SECRET.

The general opinion in Melbourne seems to be decidedly against the Dunedin dramatised version of this famous novel, and we extract from the "Weekly Herald" the following critique, which seems to be more impartial and less violently written than any that have appeared in the Victorian press: —

a Lady Audley's Secret," as most people know, is the title of a popular novel by Miss Braddon, an authoress who has only very recently become known to the world, but who, being known, is recognised as one ef those stars in the firmament of letters which, though not as yet a long way above the horizon, is destined eventually to reach the utmost zenith of fame. If, however, she had had no better means of becoming known than through the medium of Mr. Vogel's dramatised version of her story, she would have but small chance of escaping from the obscurity by which even genius is not seldom surrounded. We are quite ready to admit that Mr. Vogel, who was, we believe, at one time connected with the provincial press, and who is now editor and part proprietor of the " Otago Daily Times," may be a man of many social virtues, and, perhaps, he is not destitute of enthusiasm in the vocation he has chosen. But, if he can give us nothing better than the strange medley in five acts, which was produced at this theatre on Saturday night, it will he well for society if he will adopt some other calling than that of a playwright. For nothing, surely, could he more unconnected, incoherent, and in the truest sense undramatic, than the "sensation" play he assumes to have made out of Miss Braddon's very clever novel. To those who have read the story, the drama might appear less incongruous than to others who were not so prepared beforehand. For one insensibly fills up what seems to he lacking in an acted story when the memory is in possession of all the materials of which a complete story is composed, and the absence of connexion in its parts, is not immediately perceptible where the chain of circumstances has been followed through all the details of a three volume novel. The spectator thus uninformed, however, must have been sorely bewildered by the fragmentary and non-dependent scenes, which were made to pass before him on Saturday night; and if he had not been told that the story upon which the play was founded, is one of the most successful books of the day, he would have gone away from the theatre not by any means favorably impressed with the genius of the author. Nor would it be at all true to say that this impression was communicated by reason of inferior acting. On the contrary, the several parts were 'sustained in every instance with extreme care, and in some with remarkable ability. But it was felt that in spite of the best of acting, the piece was so remarkably deficient in the qualities necessary to ensure success, that only by the most strenuous exertions could it be made to pass muster. The tribute of approbation offered by the audience was due entirely to the actors, and it was well deserved. But there was a manifest feelin? prevailing in all parts of the house, pointedly condemnatory of the piece. And this, not because the actual story was improbable, nor because the characters were unreal, but because the author had not possessed the necessary dramatic skill to make the action cumulative, the episodes interdependent, the dialogue pointed, and the situations strikine, without being prolonged. These are conditions so essential to dramatic success, that no amount of interest in the story, and no completeness of histrionic skill can compensate for their absence. Of the language, it was, with occasional exceptions, flat and unadorned. The "sensation" scenes were distinguished by the character of unwieldiness, a quality, however, in no way the fault of incomplete stage management; and the last scene of all, where Lady Audley dies, was prolonged to such a wearisome extent, that the audience was becoming manifestly impatient, and the fall of the curtain was regrrded as a positive relief. We have not yet spoken of Mrs. Holt, who sustained the character par excellence of the piece. It is only fair to this lady to admit that she acted with immense energy, and an abundance of intelligence. But she somewhat mistook the character. Judged, however, by the rule according to which she had herself measured the part, her acting was consistent and commendable, and, perhaps, in a more capable dramatised version than that of Mr. Vogel, she might more clearly apprehend the strictly proper attri »utes of the character. The management, however, is unfortunate in having been furnished with so inadequate a reflex of Miss Braddon's novel, and we trust, at a future time, to see it placed upon the Melbourne stage in a form more worthy of the genius of that very gifted lady, and better suited to do justice to the actors who may be concerned in it.