Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AMUSEMENTS.

(From the New Zealand Mail.) “A crown’s worth of good interpretations." —Shakspere. “ The Lancashire Lass ” is about as good a play (of the class of which it is a type) as I know. I do not assert that its class is the best, or that the play itself is one to be much valued. My meaning simply is that the absurdities and incongruities necessary to this class of drama are less prominent in “ The Lancashire Lass ” than in other works, and that it contains a great quantity of what is neither absurd nor incongruous. It has, besides, the advantage of having been constructed by a practised dramatist, and, as a consequence, its situations come in appropriately and its language is well put together. Of course, the piece would be nothing without “A party by the name of Johnson,” which, to my mind makes that part all the easier to a good actor. Mr. Hoskins being a good actor, and the part being a good part, he naturally obtains a large share of applause for it; but this by no means convinces me that the part could not be better played were it in the hands of a comedian of a more unctuous and active type than Mr. Hoskins, though at the same time I confess that an actor of this type might perhaps, fail where Mr. Hoskins most succeeds, and that is in the forcible and pathetic side of the' character. The part of Ruth Kirby affords so little scope for acting, and the part of Kate Garstone is so thoroughly melodramatic (I might indeed say melo-dramaticer), that it is but a poor compliment to assure Miss Colville and Mrs. Hill that in their parts they succeeded in making as much of the characters respectively as could be well conceived. When I first saw “ The Lancashire Lass,” the gentleman who recently .played Jellick played the Irish policeman, if my memory serves me and I mistake not. In that, as in many other parts which I have seen Mr. Stark playing, notably that of the policeman in “ Formosa,” he contrived to make a hit, which I can scarcely say his successor accomplished. I would therefore have preferred to have seen Mr. Stark again as the policeman, were it not that he played Mr. Jellick. and played it remarkably well too. In Dr. Paugloss and Mr. Puff an audience not only secs Mr. Hoskins at his best, it has the further advantage of seeing those parts played as I am certain no other man in the colonies can play them. Nay, I will go further and assert that, however much another actor outside the colonies may claim to rank a very little above Mr. Hoskins in Puff, I do not think he has his equal anywhere in Dr. Pangloss, and that is a weighty assertion. By the way, it may perhaps be worth noticing, as indicating the difference between the dramatic -taste of our ancestors and that of ourselves, that when dolman’s “ Heir at Law” was first played, the leading feature in it was all the excessively weak and maudlin sentimentwhich Henry and his betrothed in poverty talk, and that Pangloss was a mere subsidiary character to either of these. The manner in which these parts are now cut dowuin deference to popular -will, is well evidenced by the fact that I positively do not at the moment remember their stage names, nor, I think, does one out of every hundred playgoers. It may be noted too that “The Critic” had the effect intended for it by its author, that of killing the artificial and bombastic plays of Cumberland and others. Indeed, there is but little doubt that Sir Fretful Plagiary was intended for Cumberland. But after the mock heroics of Don Ferolo and Tilburina, the dramatists’ heroics would not go down, and so “ The Critic,” besides becoming a standard play, fulfilled a most useful purpose. And, talking of mock heroics, I want to know if any one wants anything more utterly funny than the Don Ferolo of Mr. Hydes. I have seen Mr, Hydes play the part now more times than I can well remember, and I can avouch that the last time he made me laugh quite as heartily as he did at the first. Gilbert’s fairy and mythological comedies well deserved the praise they received at the time of their first production. At that time the good old-fashioned burlesque which Marie Wilton and the Strand Theatre had made most popular—which, besides absurdity, contained some wit, and which did not depend for absurdity or wit wholly upon indecency and slang—had degenerated into an exhibition in which shameless women, without ability of any kind, reduced themselves as nearly to the costume of our first mother as the Lord Chamberlain would permit. “The Palace of Truth,” “Pygmalion and Galatea,” and “The Wicked World,” showed that it was quite possible to unite well-chosen language to wit and fun, that was piquant without being indelicate, and, whilst it did not profess to inculcate any very high moral lesson, could amuse without being immoral. Mr. Hoskins has done right in playing “ Pygmalion and Galatea ” first, because, good as it undoubtedly is, and firmly as it has secured the favor of those who go down to the theatre in Wellington, “ The Palace of Truth” will, I am confident, be found to • exceed it in each of these respects. I am not about to give a lengthy account of the plot of “Pygmalion and Galatea,” deeming that such would be absurd and out of place here. Those who have seen the play and cannot comprehend it would not, I feel very certain, be assisted to a better understanding by wadinf through a dry detail of what, as worked out by Mr. Gilbert, becomes a most pretty story. Those who have seen the play and comprehend it perfectly (and these are nearly all who have seen it), would not thank me for performing a work of supererogation, and telling them that which they already know very well. Those who have not seen the play and are likely to be induced to go and see it, will, I hope, be better persuaded to do so by my telling them that, in my poor judgment, they will derive more pleasure from a visit to the theatre, than they would be persuaded were I to tell them beforehand a complete history of what they are about to see. And, finally, I cannot fancy that a recital by me of the story of “ Pygmalion and Galatea ” would induce any one who had made up his mind not

to go to the theatre, to change it. But I can assure every member of the classes I have mentioned, that if they go to see “ Pygmalion and Galatea,” they will not be unrewarded for their expenditure of time and money. On a former occasion, and under different skies, I have given my opinion (need I say to be taken merely for what it is worth) of Miss Colville’s Galatea, Need I also say that that opinion was altogether favorable, and that it would seem to me wearisome to repeat it now ? I may note, though, that Miss Colville has lost none of her excellence in the part. If anything, she has gained by time. Her deUvery of the beautiful lines at the close of the first act was better even than when I first heard them from her That heaven, who sent me ffivea me One all-absorbing duty to discharge—lo love thee, and to make thee love again. Mr. Hoskins’s Chrysos is funny—exceedingly so. The part is a funny one, and Mr. Hoskins is an actor not altogether likely to lose a chance of being' funny when circumstances admit of his being so. Yet X may say that the remarks X made concerning this gentlemans playing of “A party by the name of Johnson seem applicable in the present case too. I have an idea that in Ghrysos Mr, Hoskins is not at his best, and I have an idea that Chrysos might have a better, interpreter than Mr. Hoskins. But that does not take away from the fact that it would be very difficult to find a better, and that there is no reason to be dissatisfied with Hoskins. Mrs. Hill’s Cynisca and Mr. Booth’s Pygmalion were not as good as the Cynisca and Pygmalion of anotherlady and gentleman whom I have seen. Mrs. Hill hardly seemed to realise the character, the key-note of which is found in her own speech, when she tells the peculiar bond between herself and her husband that the goddess Artemis has decreed— Whichever one shall falsify the vow Of perfect congugal fidelity— To le e^T°rt n „ ged ??- e ’„ he or she ’ s,laU have th -e power To eaU down blindness on the backslider. And sightless shall the truant mate remain Until expressly pardoned by the other. She seemed, too, to miss the effect which I have seen produced by the speech Oh ! pitiful adventurer— He dares to lose, but does not dare to pay. Come, be a man ! See, lam brave enough. And I have more to bear than tbou ! Behold ' I am alone, tbou bast thy statue bride ! Oh, Artemis, my mistress, hear me now, Ere I remember how I love that man. And in that memory forget my shame! If he in deed or thought hath been untrue. Be just, and let him pay the penalty. _ As for Mr. Booth, his calmness under exciting influences destroyed the meaning which his otherwise careful reading and attentive study should have given the part. In a word, when the statue Galatea game to life he seemed to take it a matter of the merest course that statues should come to life.. Until I had seen Mr. Burford play Leucippe, I was ignorant how much could be made of the part, and I was also ignorant that the part might he dressed in a manner that effected an agreeable combination of the costumes of some twenty different centuries. It is a pity that Mr. Burford, by an inattention to detail in the matter I have mentioned, will compel one to take away whatever of good there may be in a highly favorable opinion of his acting. Histriomastix.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18750612.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4440, 12 June 1875, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,719

AMUSEMENTS. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4440, 12 June 1875, Page 2

AMUSEMENTS. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4440, 12 June 1875, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert