1873

97

24 June 1873, p. 3 GAIETY THEATRE MISS CHESTER.

Sir Charles Young is not a man of first-class ability in elaborating detail, but he has a strong liking for melodrama and a certain amount of original conception of plot. Mrs. Church is, on the other hand, as a writer somewhat tedious in her elaboration of detail, but less destitute of originality.1 From a union of two such authors a very fair melodrama might be expected, and Miss Chester, although in many points open to criticism, may be taken as a fair specimen of the playwriting of the present time. The situation of the play is in the fact that the Miss Chester who gives the name to the piece is wife of one of the characters, mother of another, aunt of a third, and sister-in-law of a fourth; and, strange to say, no one of the parties, not even the heroine herself, is cognisant of all the relationships until after the action of the play has well begun. We have already given a description of the plot, which is elaborate, and allows of many telling situations. The form of construction adopted that of limiting the scenes to three has definite advantage, inasmuch as it concentrates the action, and allows the audience from the very start to follow the minor complexities without effort of memory; but it is a form, which, if not used with great care is apt to cause the evil fact of the sever of the thread of interest from an exactly opposite cause. In this case, in endeavouring to group too much together, the authors are guilty of a fault which more experienced dramatists always try to avoid that of having a clear stage during the progress of any scene. In the second act, in the scene of the Grounds of the Villa Bolzano, this is painfully apparent. The actors enter alternately like the animals into the ark, but with the clean in pairs and the unclean in greater force. It would be better if it could be managed in such a way that some one member of each group should remain on the stage long enough to be a connecting link between it and that which next gathers. There is somewhat too much sameness in the opinions expressed by the various characters when introduced for the first time; before the first act is half over three persons Fortescue, Miss Chester, and Armishaw preach the doctrine that the heart is a useless encumbrance. This may have been done intentionally to heighten the effect of the play by strengthening the contrast between the no-heart of the first act and the allheart of the last; but if so it is too strong, as the opinion twice expressed would have been quite enough to impress it on the minds of the audience. These are faults arising from the inexperience of the dramatists which it is not too late to correct, and we would advise them to do so, as the play is a good one and worth improving. The various parts are fairly filled, Mr. Nelson, an old Dublin actor, being the first of the males as Michael Fortescue, with Mr. Lin Rayne, as Rupert a good second. Mr. Rayne, has much improved since his last visit to the Gaiety, but he has still much to learn of the inestimable value to the actor of the power

Copyright

98

Bram Stoker and the Stage: Volume 1

Copyright

of rendering commonplaces without distortion or exaggeration. Miss Jones as Countess Montressor and Miss Marie Lee as Isabel are fair, but nothing more. Miss Hermann Vezin deserves much more than a passing criticism for we have never seen a more finished or powerful performance than her Miss Chester.2 It is a difficult part which she has to play, but one worthy of her powers. In the conception of this character the two dramatists have risen to their highest. The commonplaces of Mrs. Church and the limelight heroines of Sir Charles Young are forgotten, and the character of this one woman and her sad story stand out boldly to challenge our admiration and compel our tears. The character is a fine one, and nobly Mrs. Hermann Vezin renders it. With a rare subtlety of voice and gesture, she shows all through the play two distinct beings in the one nature the woman hardened by constant self-watchfulness and a continual dread of exposure and heart-sore from years of every disappointment which a woman can suffer; and underlying all, the deep, loving, womans heart, which no years of pain, or dread, or neglect can heighten. At first we see Miss Chester as only sorrow has made her; then, when she hears that Rupert is her son, the old softness comes over her again, and the frozen heart begins to thaw; and last, when she is driven by her sons impetuosity, to reveal herself, the mother only speaks. Her falser self slips from her like a robe, and the studied callousness of years is all forgotten. Her two scenes with her husband are fine indeed. In the first, when she speaks of her old love, there is a thrill of sympathy in her voice which goes straight to every heart, and the one wild action of the hands tossed up with fingers, opening wide with intensity of feeling, as she foretells her despair to death releases her, is very powerful. In the last she exclaims, I never knew, too, till this moment how sweet revenge might be, and then places the hand of her son in that of the father, who believes him to be dead, murdered by himself, the effect is electrical, and throughout the house the tears spring to every eye, and the curtain falls amid a thunder of applause, which does one good to hear. No art could enable an actress to render a scene like this so powerfully unless she had in her heart a wealth of sympathy to conceive the situation as her own. All honour to Mrs. Vezin woman to feel, and actress to interpret to others such deep emotion. The dramatists have missed one great point in the last scene. When Miss Chester declares herself to be Ruperts mother, he stands silent for a little while, and not only does his hesitation allow time for the interest of the audience in the situation to cool, but it absolutely takes away from their appreciation of his character. A hero should be quick of sympathy, and Rupert in especial, who for months before the declaration had been proclaimed nameless and shame born, should on the instant recognise in the hand whose tender care had brought him back to life that of the mother who loves him. If the actors will but change this part of the scene for one night, and let Rupert acknowledge Miss Chester as his mother, and embrace her as he now does but without delay we will venture

1873

99

to assert that the applause of the audience will as speedily follow not the conventional applause, as at present, but genuine and sympathetic, straight from the heart. The mounting of the play is good, with two exceptions, whose mention may seem hypercritical; but in this age of realism, stage realism is especially desirable. In the Villa Boezano scene the moon is at the back of the stage, and yet the shadows of the actors fall across from the O. P. side. This is the first defect; the second is due to Mr. Lin Rayne, who, in the last act, commits the solecism of appearing in a frock coat and a felt hat. Dress is a feature in the mounting of every new play, and the hint will not, we are sure, be lost on so elegant a dresser as Mr Rayne. Last night there was an immense attendance, and the applause was so hearty that the piece is sure to have a successful run. The performers were called after each act. We advise all our readers to see the play, but especially to see Mrs. Hermann Vezins acting of the chief character.
1. 2. The novelist Florence Marryat collaborated with Charles Young to dramatize her novel, an upper class melodrama, Miss Chester. Jane Elizabeth Vezin (Mrs Charles Young) (18571902). She was an accomplished and successful actress and acted with Samuel Phelps at Sadlers Wells. She married the actor and manager Hermann Vezin (18291910) in 1863 and took his stage name. After her daughters death in 1901 she committed suicide. The American-born Hermann Vezin was a highly talented actor. He played Dr Primrose to Ellen Terrys Olivia in W. G. Willss highly successful dramatization of Goldsmiths novel at the Court Theatre in 1878. Terry revived the role at the Lyceum with Irving as Dr Primrose.

9 July 1873, p. 4 GAIETY THEATRE PYGMALION AND GALATEA

Copyright

The success of Pygmalion and Galatea is now a matter of history. Few plays produced in late years have been retained in popular favour so long, and from the pleasure which it still affords it is likely that its popularity is still only in its infancy. The play is so original in its conception, and its dialogue is so genuinely witty, that it has a charm for every class of the audience. In addition to its intrinsic merits, it was produced at a very auspicious time when the rage for the sentimental comedies of Robertson was beginning to tone down and burlesque to pall but whilst each of these class of entertainments had still sufficient charm for the public to make a union of them grateful, its success was further heightened by the wonderful acting, the perfection of pathos, united with the perfection of repose of Miss Robertson, and the quaint humour of Mr. Buckstone. It is only natural to expect that the more modern exponents of the parts of Mr. Gilberts comedy should follow the level of the original actors; and we can trace in Mr. Seftons Company a careful study of the originals. Miss Leclercq, who acts the heroine, follows Miss Robertson in many particulars, and in the last

100

Bram Stoker and the Stage: Volume 1

scene acts with much pathos and tenderness; but she will do even better when she acquires greater repose of manner and smoothness of diction. Mr Jordan is a little hard as the sculptor. With regard to his make up, we would advise him to be a little more Grecian and a good deal less French in his style of hairdressing. Dr Appleby takes the part of Chrysos, rendered famous by Mr. Buckstone. He gives out all his points with force, and often succeeds to perfection in mimicking not only the style but the voice of his exemplar. The remaining parts, Leucippe, Cynisca, Daphne, and Myrene are fairly arranged. The performance concludes each evening with the burlesque of Charmain the Badoura, in which the part of the hero and heroine are taken by Miss Minnie Harford, who was so great a favourite at the Theatre Royal the winter before last, and Miss Amy Burnette. The plot of this burlesque is somewhat new, as the hero and heroine each change sex, as it is described that, in the days of their infancy, a double substitution had taken place. Mr. Appleby, as King Kokatoo the Twenty second, receives a nightly encore for his song of Facts.

Copyright

18 July 1873, p. 3 GAIETY THEATRE THE PALACE OF TRUTH

The Palace of Truth, another of Mr. Gilberts charming productions, replaced Pygmalion and Galatea last evening. This piece is not entirely new to Dublin playgoers, but it is so fresh in conception, and so irresistibly mirth-provoking, that our interest is increased every time we see it. As a composition of great merit, it has been widely appreciated. To those who have not seen it the following outline of its construction will be acceptable:- A King of one of those realms, the position of which on the earths surface is only known to those versed in theatrical and romantic geography, his queen, their daughter, and a young prince to whom the daughter is betrothed, together with a group of courtiers of various characteristics, are assembled at the kings countryhouse. The king having some reason to believe that his daughter is not as sincerely attached to the prince as she should be, takes his family and court to a certain palace which possesses the remarkable property of compelling all persons who enter it to speak the exact truth on every subject that may arise; and this they do, without being aware of the extraordinary influence to which they are subjected. The manner in which the palace operates on the different personages of the comedy forms the subject of the second and third acts. It can be easily imagined that the mysterious power of the Palace of Truth produces many ludicrous situations. The fawning courtier becomes a bitter censor of his sovereign; the lover, who in a different position would have fought against the ungallant critic who should have been rash enough to find fault with the arch of his mistresss eyebrow, shows

1873

101

a cruel appreciation of her defects; and even conjugal love is shown not to be unalloyed. To see ourselves as others see us is a gift that, though sighed for by the poet, would hardly be enjoyed by ordinary mortals, and thus the exposure of the little failings of the dramatis personae is the source of irrepressible laughter. Miss Leclerq filled the part of the Princess Zeolide with surpassing ability. The deep emotion displayed whilst in the toils of love almost vibrated in the tender hearts of a sympathetic audience, and though she interpreted the passion with a keen fervour, the dignity of a noble nature rose above her womanly feelings and stifled for a while the strongest passion of the human breast. Hers was the sublime character of the play; all the rest were of the common herd, subject to the manifold weakness of human nature. Thus Mirza (Miss Amy Burnette) was held high in estimation for her wealth of virtues, yet when unmasked, she proved a cunning deceiver. So, too, the courtiers, whilst under the spell of the Palace of Truth, proved hollow and craven-hearted, and the bluff old King had his peccadilloes exposed. The artifice of the coquette was exhibited with much skill and success by Miss Harford. In all respects the piece was fairly represented, and, judging by the way in which it was received, it will, no doubt draw crowded houses. The principal performers were called before the curtain after the first act. This evening Miss Leclercq takes her benefit, when we hope her talents will obtain substantial recognition.

22 July 1873, p. 4 GAIETY THEATRE JEANIE DEANS.

Copyright

There is no need, of course, to give a resum of the plot of Jeanie Deans, for all who are acquainted with The Heart of Midlothian know it already; and in this age of enlightenment Scotts novels in themselves form a collection that no gentlemans library should be without. In Dr Hazlewoods dramatic version of the story the incidents of the novel are substantially adhered to, the great central point of interest being Jeanies efforts to reach Edinburgh with Effies pardon. The question of the possibility of fitly dramatizing a novel is a very wide one, and the play under consideration affords an illustration of several points, both pro and con. In the present day, when the functions of novelist and dramatist are often merged in one and the same person, it is always possible to dramatize any novel whose incidents are suitable, for the novelist, if not himself a dramatist, writes his story with an eye to stage representation. How far it is possible to make a drama from a novel which was written only as a novel and no more, is quite another matter. The author in this case has relied on description to perfect not only that idea of his character which on the stage is given in dialogue and action, but those scenes and incidents which require the aid of the readers

102

Bram Stoker and the Stage: Volume 1

Copyright

imagination to be realized. If, then, actors, scene-painters, and costumiers have not each the genius and taste of the novelist the result will not be the same in the drama as in the novel. Taken as stage directions, the descriptions of the novelist give only meagre assistance, and leave often a responsibility on dramatist and actor which neither is able adequately to fulfil. Added to this, also, the novelist has at times a wholesale method of combining expressions of countenance in one moment which a simple trial will show to be exaggerated, and which have yet a power of calling up a distinct idea before the reader. With these difficulties, then, the dramatist and actors have to grapple; but when they succeed in overcoming them, they reap a proportionate reward, for not only does their work obtain that share of applause which, per se, it deserves, but from all who are acquainted with the original work they themselves gain double praise for its suitable interpretation. From The Heart of Midlothian a stirring melodrama has been constructed one with the regulation pistoling, moonlight robbers, maniac, and soldiers, and even the inevitable bridge scene in the third act, but with what is better than all an opportunity for Miss Marriott displaying her great histrionic powers in the touching part of Jeanie Deans. The play as a whole is a good melodrama, the interest of which is well worked up to the last scene, and in which every incident bears directly on the story. At first there is a slight boldness, which arises from the sudden development of the situation, and in the end of the last act more stress might be laid on the danger of delay caused by Jeanies fainting. The parts which are best performed are Jeanie Deans (Miss Marriott), David Deans (Mr. Hilton); and Madge Wildfire (Miss Effie Macdonald). Miss Marriotts performance is throughout good, and in parts marked by great and noble feeling. Twice she renders her part in a way worth remembering once when she is pressed by Effie and her father in prison to forswear herself, and exclaims with a wild burst of despair, It is written above, Thou shalt not bear false witness, and how can I do it? and again, when she appeals to the Duke of Argyll, I kenned your heart would warm to the tartan. Mr. Hilton in the first act is fine. He gives the sturdy old Puritan with great force; but it is a pity that he has not sufficient opportunity to show the development of character, for he fails in our estimation when in the next act he pleads, seemingly without a struggle of conscience, for the perjury of his own daughter. Mrs. Macdonalds part is a difficult and unpleasant one, but she acts it with spirit and force.