THEATRE ROYAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4811, 23 August 1876, Page 2

THEATRE ROYAL.

“ Richelieu” was produced for the first time by the present company in the Theatre Royal last night. The attendance was good, but not so large as might have been expected, provided there could have been any foreknowledge of the treat in store for lovers of high-class acting. Speaking thus of last night’s representation of a great work is no empty compliment. The principal actor, it may be asserted with confidence, was little less than perfect, for seldom have we seen a character pourtrayed with greater effect than Mr. Bates pourtrayed the character of the great Cardinal of France. The word “ effect ” is used advisedly, for it is often the custom of newspapers reporters to speak of a character being pourtrayed to the life, notwithstanding that they have as much idea of the reality they speak of as the American savage had of mustard before he swallowed a few spoonfuls as desert. The merit of acting consists in the approval of the audience after all, and no amount of puffing will found a good reputation for an actor who has not the stuff in him of which good actors are made. _ Mr. Bates does not require puffing. He is sufficient in himself, and acquaintance with his performances cannot fail to beget respect for the man and admiration of his undoubted talent. His acting generally is remarkable for independent thought. Having conceived an idea of the character, Mr. Bates works out that idea from a standpoint honestly his own, and does not depart from it in obedience to any preconceived notions of propriety either in the matter of the business or delivery. This was never more noticeable than in his performance last evening as Richelieu. He distinctly departed from the ordinary business in several instances, and the changes appeared to be a decided improvement, the which is said with a perfect consciousness of the fact that there are some who might be disposed to think otherwise. The audience were more than satisfied with the acting of Mr. Bates, ' and displayed their thorough appreciation of it in a way which was quite unmistakeable. The applause was genuine whenever accorded, and Mr. Bates had on one occasion to respond to a call, which though the audience was not very numerous, was of such a decided character as to be more flattering to the subject of approval than pleasant to the ears of the less demonstrative of the spectators. As Julie do Mortemar Mrs. Bates displayed the dramatic talent for which, it is generally acknowledged, she is remarkable, and received a large share of the applause liberally bestowed throughout the representation of the play. Mi*. Stoneham played the King ; Gaston, Mr. Creighton ; Baradas, Mr. Holloway ; Do Mauprat, Mr. Metcalfe, who succeeded well. Miss _ Morgan represented with credit ; and Mr. Howard appeared successfully in the character of Deßeringham. Mr. Oily Deering’s Joseph would have been better it it had possessed less of low comedy, but Mr. Deering is not answerable for a want of that character. All men are as nature made them, and it is generally acknowledged that this gentleman has a vein of

humor which it would he difficult to conceal were He engaged in the representation of Hamlet's Ghost, which is the last character under the sun we could conceive of his effecting. The remaining parts were fairly sustained, and generally speaking the play has never been put upon the stage-more creditably in this city. To-night the company will appear in Robertson's comedy of “ Caste.”' Regarding Mr.’ Bales’s ' appearance in this piece we find the following critique in the Brisbane Telegraph of a back date ; “To the Editor of the Telegraph. —Sir, — Acting a part means etymologically doing a part, but acting and doing a part, theatrically, are not synonymous. There is a conventional way of acting a part, and there is a natural way of doing a part, and these ways are not only different, but opposite. In the play called ‘ Caste,’ Mr, Bates—well, did his part with a power most rarely witnessed in these ‘conventional’ days. I state, at ■ once, after much experience, that I never saw a more perfectly natural impersonation. It was truly wonderful, and presented the unmistakeable proofsof dramatic genius. In nothing was this more observable than in his- magnificent selfrepression, his abstention from the making of comic ‘ points.’ Here was the irreclaimable drunkard without one single redeeming trait, without any of the joviality attending, for example, the character of the Irish Attorney. I affirm, undiffidently, that a more excellent sermon on temperance could not be delivered than that which was, delivered by Mr. Bates last evening. In effect it was simply the reenaction of the Spartan habit of intoxicating their helots, and exhibiting them as a deterrent to their sons. Those persons, therefore, who as a rule object to drunken impersonations on the stage, can hardly object to this particular om Could any clergyman pourtray in pulpit won the hideousness of a certain vice so strongly, .. awfully, as a great actor ? The great orator appeals merely to the ear ; the actor appeals to both ear and eye, and consequently excites all the inter-actionary feelings and emotions that arise from the united exercise of . both senses. Although an utter stranger te Mr. Bates, I cannot refrain from letting him know through the Press that there are persons in Queensland! who thoroughly appreciate his powers, and who will never forget the moments of exquisite pleasure which they enjoyed while studying (for his characters are to be studied) hi* astonishing transformations.”