AMUSEMENTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4470, 17 July 1875, Page 3

AMUSEMENTS.

(From the New Zealand Mail.) “A crown’s worth of good interpretation.” —Suaksveke. An authority having pronounced definitely that “ The Palace of Truth ” is not so good a play as “ Pygmalion and Galatea,” it will perhaps be presumption on my part to say that I think quite the reverse to be the case. The authority having made its pronouncement dogmatically, and without any assignment of reasons, doubtless has added weight to its opinions. I can only say that I have seen my opinion supported by numerous audiences in a city where “The Palace of Truth ” ran, as is the saying, some fifteen nights. As the cast of “ The Palace of Truth ” was better here than there, and as the east of “Pygmalion and Galatea” was better there than here, it does seem to me that I have corroborative opinion in my favor. One thing is evident to me, however, namely, that Mr. Gilbert, as Artemus Ward said sarcastically when writing of the American treatment of Shakspere, lacks the requisite fancy and imagination to excite much attention in Wellington. “The Palace of Truth,” though successful to a certain extent, has not hit the popular taste. What that popular taste is may be gathered when I repeat a “travelling opinion” I heard given in the street. Some people were on their ways home after the first performance of the piece under mention, and I heard one of them, a lady, say, “ It’s a foolish play. Fancy a lot of men and women going about and speaking the ■truth without knowing it.” It was evident that the great deal of wit, and the no little wisdom, which the dramatist has worked out of such a state of things, was quite thrown away upon criticism like this. I have said that the cast of “ The Palace of Truth,” as played in Dunedin, was weaker than here. The additional strength here was given by Mrs. Hill playing Mirza and Mr. Hjdes playing Celanor. The most taking part, considering its brevity, is that of Azema, and the same lady plays it in Wellington who played it in Dunedin. I fail to see that she has fallen off in her acting, yet the part does not seem, technically speaking, to “go” here. Down South, Miss Mainwaring was invariably recalled at the termination of her first scene. Truth to tell, I fear that Mr. Gilbert’s plays are not of the class relished by the majority of Wellington playgoers. Singular to state, the more delicate irony, the prettier sayings, were in Dunedin best appreciated by the frequenters of the pit and stalls, and it was from these portions of the house that the greater part of the considerable applause attending the production of these plays came. But it is evident that this is scarcely the case here, and that such a play, for instance, as “The Woman in Red " best suits an audience. This assertion is forced on me, even in spite of the occasionally large houses drawnduringtheDarrell’s engagement to hear Shakspere. The rare completeness with which Shakspere was done justice to, if it had not been successful in attracting audiences, would have argued even a worse state of affairs dramatically than that wliich exists. Under the circumstances, I feel scarcely inclined to offer my opinions on the merits of the different performers who took part in the representation of “ The Palace of Truth.” It seems enough to say that those merits were unappreciated. And yet the performers did ample justice to their parts, so perfect had been rehearsal, so well had each actor and actress endeavored, apparently, to grasp the idea of the character it was his or her duty to pourtray. However, all this trouble was in many instances thrown away. When Mr. Hoskins, as King Phanor, said, (with an intention that should have driven the meaning into a head as hard as a brick), one of the inexpressibly witty sayings in his part, it was curious to look round the house and notice how the meaning .was taken by some half dozen persona who laughed with thorough enjoyment, whilst the rest of the audience looked on stolidly and “did not see it.” I was forcibly reminded of a performance I once saw given by a witty wizard to an audience in which was one very thick-headed, yet appreciative man, and a number of faint approvers. When the poor wizard cut a very good joke, the faint approvers being just able to see that something funny was intended, gave a kind of dutiful, but damping, titter. Presently, whilst the wizard was at some matter involving no jest whatever, the thick-headed man having thoroughly fathomed the fun, would burst into a roar of hearty laughter, even more disconcerting to the performer than the aforesaid titter. Though the circumstances with Mr. Hoskins were not precisely similar to this, the damaging effect must, I fear, have been much the same. Mr. Douglas, too, was most thoroughly conscientious, but his various gestures showing plainly that he was unaware of his speaking the barest truth, though perfect in themselves and most natural, were lost ; the vast majority of those present, to all intents and purposes, seeing nothing ridiculous about his tender manner and cruel words to Zeolide. And Zeolide, acted by Miss Colville about as well as Zeolide could be conceived to be acted, suffered by the same apathy or ignorance on the part of those for whom it is acted. On Thursday evening, “ The Palace of Truth” gave place to “Woodcock’s Little Game,” and “The Serious Family.” Both are familiar, and lose little of their excellence by being so. They do not, however, require much comment from me, unless, indeed, it be to notice how admirably Miss Flora Anstead plays parts like Mrs. Carver or Lady Sowerby Creamley. Such are specialties with Miss Anstead But I might point out to Miss Anstead that whilst she plays these parts very well, she is apt to lose much of the effect of her good acting by a disinclination to make her face seem suitable. It is rather disconcerting to find the old woman of a piece looking as young as the youthful heroine. Whilst remarking on the “ Serious Family, a word of praise for Mr. Douglas’s Captain Murphy Maguire may not he out of place. He makes Maguire what the dramatist intended him to he, an Irish gentleman. Mr. Douglas neither occasionally forgets the brogue, nor does he at times make it too redolent. Added to this, that Mr. Douglas is most easy, natural, and unaffected, and it will bo seen that his Murphy Maguire is a rendering of the part of rather rare occurrence.

The Fakir of Oolu has produced a now illusion this week, which, like all his illusions, is capital. This praise, however, I can only accord to the illusionary portion of Anoetos. I do not see that separation from the body should necessarily make a head misquote Shakspere, or strongly aspirate the “h” in hour. Perhaps decapitation has the effects indicated, and lam hypercritical. Or it may be that the air of the Harz Mountains tends to produce these results. Still, the results are disconcerting. Are indeed, equally disconcerting is the q. Au'ion of Shakspere in a dialogue supposed to have occurred 1000 years ago. In this instance, M' . Puff’s excuse can scarcely be pleaded. Two great men may have hit upon the same idea, but it was Shakspere who used it hast. They do not indulge in dramatic criticism in Dunedin, but they do go in for what is called “ Theatrical Gossip,” and the writer of one gossip (“ Footlights,” in the Otayo Guardian), seems to keep up the character implied by the word, and to state things which are not. Thus, he fell foul of another gossip for having said Mr. and Mrs, Douglas were playing at the Theatre here, and got quite angry over a matter not of much importance to the Dunedin people, and in which he was quite wrong, because Mr. and Mrs. Douglas at the time of writing were really playing in Wellington. Then my gentleman fell foul of Mr. Hoskins, and undertook to manage his business for him, by pointing out what ho should or should not do, and by referring to his financial chances and affairs in a manner that, to say the least of it, smacked of impertinence. Amongst other matters, he asserted that Mr. Hoskins relied upon pieces already played to death, and this his opponent has answered very effectively. But what seems to me strange about this matter is that there should bo so much fuss about what is the merest gossip, and yet nothing whatever said of the merits or demerits of the company now performing at Dunedin. Histiuomastix.