AMUSEMENTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4785, 24 July 1876, Page 2

AMUSEMENTS.

"A crown’s worth of good interpretation.’* , A strict attention to the morelegitimate duties of ordinary journalism, caused by the talking power of Parliament, has prevented my visiting the Theatre Royal, since the opening of the Bates’ season, until Saturday night. I may mention, though the matter has little relevancy to the subject, that the discharge of the legitimate duties aforesaid consisted largely in listening to frequent interrogations as to the probable fate of the Ministry, and the successor to Dr. Featherston. In all cases the most agreeable ’fiction which came uppermost in my thoughts supplied a ready answer. Practically, my first acquaintance with the merits of Mr. Bates, as an actor, was made by seeing his Hamlet. It is about a year since another gentle, man, with some little prefatory prelude, played Hamlet here. That gentleman was at the time supported by a company, really remarkable for what is technically called strength. There is no necessity for recalling exactly the opinion I expressed of the performance at the time, but it will be sufficient to say that the Hamlet of the occasion did not appear to me to be altogether satisfactory, whilst at the same time the admirable maimer in which all the other characters were played made the performance in many respects a remarkable one. Now, in the representation of Hamlet on Saturday night last . the reverse of these circumstances occurred. Mr. Bates’ Hamlet was a performance of unusual excellence, and was all the more difficult to attain excellence in, seeing that little praise could be bestowed upon anyone else in connection with the representation. Of all Shakspere’s tragic characters Hamlet is the most colloquial, and therefore requires the most essentially natural and subtle treatment, and it is nottoo much to say that Mr. Bates’ thoroughly thought out and unstrained rendering of the part derived no small portion of its effect from the natural manner in which he delivered the conversational passages, and those partaking of soliloquy, whilst his accompanying gestures, and what I must best describe by the professional term “ business,’’ was so unstagy that in many respects it approached that rational type which Mr. Feohter inaugurated, and Mr. Montgomery not unsuccessfully copied. And yet Mr. Bates dressed the part and interpreted it a good deal from the traditional point of view. But where he departed from the traditional was in his carefulness never to sacrifice the harmony of his interpretation by striving after well-known “points,” or in efforts to give mere melodramatic effect to particular passages for the sake of the applause which the split ears of groundlings might tempt them to bestow. As I noticed a year since, and have often had occasion to notice, Mr. Eechter, by the introduction of quite a new line of business, gave additional point to the words “there’s ne’er a villain, dwelling in all Denmark, but he’s an arrant knave.” Mr. Fechter was wont to draw Horatio and Marcellus to him, as if he were about to really reveal what the ghost had told him, but at the word “ Denmark” the flourish of trumpets, celebrating the draining down of cups of Rhenish by the King, was heard outside, and this recalling to him the danger of betraying what he knew, he went on to say “but he’s an arrant knave.” Now Mr. Bates in this passage acts as follows : He comes close to Horatio, who, it will be remembered, is his great friend, and gets as far in telling the secret as is indicated in the lines, but then suddenly noticing that Marcellus is listening intently, he breaks off with “ but he’s an arrant knave.” And subsequent events in the play abundantly justify this reading, for there are not wanting passages which show that Hamlet took an opportunity subsequently of confiding all his knowledge of his father’s fate to Horatio.

I have said that Mr. Bates was thoroughly natural, and I could cite numerous instances in proof of what I have said.. His way of speaking the words “ man delights me not,” is only one out of many. But it was perhaps in the more passionate passages that his naturalness displayed itself most completely. Hamlet was a refined and educated gentleman, and accordingly Mr. Bates gave what others might have made mere rant—the speech in which the king’s villany is qualified by many strong adjectives—in a tone of amentiated hate and passion, not in a blusterous thundering voice, with wild gesticulation. Aud there was nothing in this interpretation to destroy the effect of his reproach of himself for having given way to cursing, for it must be remembered that the passion which he would, for shame of having been passionate, compare to that of a scullion, could not in such a nature be low and vulgar in tone or gesture. Whilst praising Mr. Bates thus, it is but fair to point out that he should not even, though unintentionally, take such liberties with the text as to say And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than rush to others that we know not of. But really Mr. Bates labored under such difficulties for want of proper support that I could well understand the difficulties against which he had to contend making him distracted and in places forgetful. If I may suggest, too, the importation of the natural manner he so well displayed in other parts into his dialogue with the grave-digger would, be of no little service. In this brief article I cannot pretend to give the analytical and exhaustive criticism which, had I time or space at my disposal, it would be my pleasure, so far as my capabilities admitted, to give of Mr. Bates’ Hamlet. I can only say that liis acting of the part is one that no student of Shakspere could witness without pleasure. I should prefer seeing Mrs. Bates in some part other than than that of Ophelia before writing of her. The gentleman who played Horatio was in many respects the most efficient supporter of Mr. Bates. Another gentleman “doubled,” as it is called, the parts of the Ghost and Laertes rendering necessary the excision of Voloniua’ advice to his son. The representation of Laertes, was far more satisfactory than that of the Ghost. As for the pourtrayal of the King, it is sufficient to say that it was enough to make a thorough democrat of the most earnest supporter of monarchy. Histriomastix.