RICHARD III.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2471, 18 February 1881, Page 2

RICHARD 111.

If Herr Bandmann can claim for his Richard 111. no merit, he can at least claim that of originality of conception. Bandmann’s Richard is a carefully thought-out character, not an imitative or traditional one. Whether we are disposed to concede that his is the true interpretation or not is beside the question. His interpretation is one far too striking to pass without remark—too cleverly worked out to be summarily dismissed. The play was materially abridged without marring the interest of the plot, the costumes were most appropriate, and the stage arrangements carried out with promptitude and skill, and the performers had for the most part devoted to the preparation of the piece the study which the works of the great dramatist require. That a play depending so much upon the completeness of the spectacular arrangements should have been performed with even moderate success by a small company, would have reflected credit upon the management, but in the case of last night’s performance we think something more than ordinary praise is due to the whole company. The minor characters were conscientiously and intelligently represented—in one or two cases something more than average ability was exhibited, notably in Mr (Jatbcart’s dual rendition of the unfortunate Henry VI. and Richmond —the former being an unusually accurate portrayal. Tliis unfortunate monarch was weak and yielding, bis faculties overpowered by Ids emotions, of morbid sensitiveness', in capable of a stern resolve or a bold action, and all this was made fully apparent by Sir Cathcart’s attitudes, tremulous tones and ready tears. Mr Reynolds, as Duke of Buckingham, went through his part with accuracy and good taste, his enunciation being specially good. In the scene with Richard where Buckingham asks of the usurper, whom he has helped to power, the fulfilment of his promises of reward, and being repulsed, goes away with rebellion in I

his heart, Mr Eeynolds bore himself with consummate skill, fairly dividing the honors with Herr Bandmann. Lord Stanley and Cateshy (the latter especially) were played with more than ordinary success. The Lord Mayor was a trifle inanimate, hut looked venerable and dignified enough for a Mayor if not for a Lord Mayor. Miss Louise Beaudet was pleasing as Lady Anne, the shallnwhcaited. Miss Crawford, mother of the unhappy young Princes,made a great impression by her powerful actum. In the parting scene when she is tonTfrom her child by liichard’s order, her actin'l- - splendid—we have seldom seen so pathetic a scene rendered with so much taste. Not a little of its success was due to the unobtrusive but very pleasin' 7style in which Miss Lucy Chambers rendered the part of the Prince of Wales. This young lady has grace and talent, and but for occasional nervousness goes through her part with success. Of Herr Bandmann himself one cannot doubt that he is an artist, a student, one capable of high and original conceptions. His Eichard 111. alone would prove this. For our own part we do not think the Duke of Gloster was quite so sparkling a comedian in his dissimulation as Herr Bandmann would have us suppose, or quite so facile and facial. In that respect we do not (speaking frankly) particularly admire his Eichard as a whole. But there were portions of the play in which Herr Bandmann exhibited magnificent powers. As Gloster he did not show so much to advantage as when he had obtained the Crown. The savage nature, the cruel relentless spirit of the King were fully done justice to. When on a solitary occasion,conscience strives to, and does feebly, assert herself over the fiendish King—while the young princes were being murdered within ear shot of him —the guilty attitude,the gasps, the tremor, the unnerved look, the momentary collapse of spirit, and the struggle with himself, afford line scope for histrionic powers and it is not too much to say that no tragedian we have seen did more justice to this than did Herr Bandmann. In the closing scenes he played with remarkable discretion and freedom from rant. The famous “horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse !’’ was with him not a hurried frenzied cry, but the long drawn, despairing call of one on whom the certainty of ruin is beginning to dawn. The fencing which ends in his death was a piece of magnificent swordsmanship, and Richard’s frantic efforts at the last were in the highest style of art.

The house was well filled, and the audience an appreciative one. We are prepared to expect a great treat to-night in Herr Bandmann’s “ Shylock.’.