AMUSEMENTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4452, 26 June 1875, Page 3

AMUSEMENTS.

“ A crown’s worth of good interpretation." —SIIAKSriIRE. Mr. Hoskins’ position is not an enviable one. For some weeks he produced plays which the newspapers recommended the public to go and see, and from the representation of which the majority of the public seemingly preferred to stay away. Then he put on a play which the public went in crowds to see, and the newspapers directly, or by implication, condemned the public taste for doing so. As it is to the patronage of the public that Mr. Hoskins has to look for the wherewithal to pay his salaries, it does seem to me that the matter in dispute between the Press and public is one which confers all the loss upon him. And yet, as it unfortunately happens, . neither Press nor public are exempt from blame in this matter. I do not want to seem to criticise critics, perhaps I am no better myself in respect to what I feel inclined to condemn than others, but it doesseemtoraethat the public doesuot generally rely on what, the newspapers tell it as to the merits of theatrical performances. And for this I cannot altogether blame the public, seeing that it too frequently is assured that such and such an entertainment was versatile and charming, when it was dull with sameness and inefficiency. In other words, for some reason or another, what appears in print is not exactly a true statement of what a theatrical or other performance really is. This may perhaps arise from the fact that persons undertake to criticise who are powerless to judge. Such will tell us, for instance, that “ Much Ado About Nothing ” is above the ordinary type of melodrama ; that it is not one of its author’s happiest efforts, and that Beatrice is an unpleasant character. Ido not know whether I shall offend your susceptibilities, Mr. Editor, when I assert that in newspaper work any one is considered good enough to write “ the theatre par’* (I use technical language), whilst, as a matter of fact, to do justice to that “par” requires perhaps a more special knowledge of his subject thau is demanded from the writer of much else that is very highly valued in the columns of a journal. But, as I said, this is an unpleasant subject to touch upon, and therefore I am content to rest with what I have written, and merely to record the fact, that, owing to some cause or another, those who stayed away from Shakspere and Sheridan, crowded to Fitzball. Personally, I cannot approve of the taste indicated by this fact, yet I can account for it. without being too indignant with its possessors. “The Pilot” is an honest play in some re speots. What- though it make Finnimore Cooper, metaphorically, stand with his heels where his head ought to be, as it would have assuredly made him stand in fact, had he seen it—it is an honest play. There is no subtlety about it. All who are not English, are worthless. The British Navy is represented by officers, whose language is exhausted on three subjects, honor, glory, and love, and ; by seamen who can beat six of any other nation ; with ease. The odious characters are all ; ; sons of guns, or swabs, and are con-. tinually being threatened with having ’ “ their foretopsail figure heads spliced to’ ■/; marling spikes.” The author extols virtue, and depresses vice in words of the most elevated yet feeble character. And the sensations have no mistake about them. Some one is always on the point of shipwreck or shooting. Men skim the ocean in vessels about the size of a large washing tub, or bear away their brides in boats like a lucifer matoh,box. It is the old old drama which thousands have applauded, but which, I fear, is too innocent in its trust to the innocence of an audience to please some knowing fellows now-a-days. Personally, as I have said, I cannot care about listening to it, but it has one recommendation—the enjoyment of those who do enjoy itis produced by the most harmless means. It may he • rank heresy on my part to say that “ Love’s Sacrifice” is a most dreary play, and that of its dreariness that portion intended to be comic is the most wearisome. Taking this into consideration, and also the fact that Miss Anste'ad’s part, Hermine, is of that kind best described as namby-pamby, I am at a loss to comprehend on what principle she could have selected the vehicle for her reintroduction to a Wellington audience. On Thursday night she appeared'in a part which she can do justice to. Her Mrs. Malaprop, like her Mrs. Hardcastle, is very near perfection. In connection with this, it isworth noticing how well, on the whole, “The Rivals” was played. That this was due to the very strong working company which Mr. Hoskins has got together there can be little doubt. It was pleasant, too, to see a play produced in which nearly every member of the company worth anything had a good part. I expect Wellington people know Mr. .Hoskins’ Sir Anthony Absolute and Miss Colville’s Lydia Languish pretty well by this time, but that does none the less render them worth seeing. Then there was Mr. Hydes’ Bob Acres, a part in which so many comedians fail, but in which Mr. Hydes succeeded. It is scarcely fair to criticise by a severe standard Mr. Burford’s Sir Lucius O’Trigger, as that is a part requiring something more than mere ability as an actor, an acquaintance with dialect, and a knowledge above all of how an Irish gentleman should be played; that belongs, of course, only to a few actors, who have made such things their study. But Mr. Burford can take heart of grace. Sir Lucius O’Trigger is essentially “a character part,” and out of his line ; yet he played it sufficiently well to escape the condemnation that bofoi its first representative, a Mr. Lee, who, by his had acting, nearly mined the success of the piece on the first night of its production—the 17th of Junitary, 177 5, By the way, there may bo no harm in noting that “ The Rivals” is its author’s youthful production, he being only twenty-three years of age when it ’ was first performed. This naturally suggests the reflection that we are not likely to come across a second Sheridan m a hurry. During the week we have had amusements in Wellington other than the theatre. On the same principle I suppose that the Turkish merchant lent dignity to his ware by crying, “In the name of the Prophet—figs” a company of performers was introduced to us under the modest title of the Gem Company, accompanied by such adjectives as “superlative” and the like. The company consisted of a passable comic singer, a tolerable negro singer and dancer, and a lady who could not sing at all. Even the best “ comique ” (the professional title I believe), has little recommendations for my taste, which I doubt not is a vitiated one, but this gentleman, if truth must be told, was by no means the best comique that I have seen or heard. In addition to endeavoring to sing without a voice, the lady did some conjuring tricks, as it struck me, in imitation of Grace Egerton. She was not as good as that lady. Ido not want to be hard on these people, who I doubt not arc deserving of credit for what they do, but it would bo as well for them to remember in coming to Wellington, that we have had some good artists in most lines here, and that we arc not likely therefore to go into eostacies even over such “ superlative” talent as they possess. That thoy received applause from their limited audiences is quite true, and does not take away from the correctness of what I iiavo written. Indeed, I can distinctly bear witness to the enthusiasm of two small boys, who, at the termination of a patriotic song, shrieked “hi” several times, and with their fingers and their teeth produced a shrill whistling. _ Another amusement this week was a Good Templar soinSe, which would have been pleasanter had the younger the audience refrained from throwing “ lollies at each other. I have not noticed the performance of Leah at the Theatre Royal, or the Choral Society’s . concert at the Odd Fellows’ Hall, for many ■ reasons. One reason, however, will perhaps be . sufficient to give. I was not present at either. Hibxbiomasiix.