 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER VIII.
Artistes and the Press.
It is a pity that, in choosing a cast, more attention is not paid to the prospective candidates’ elocutionary powers. I regret to say that a great number of the artistes themselves seem to think their vocal abilities sufficient to pull them through a part.
Some committees are fairly particular, but the majority not to the extent which is very necessary.
I know an old gentleman, chairman and “father” of a society, who is very keen in this respect when on a selection committee, and who frequently lectures the members.
Now, he himself could never be convinced of his own impediment, and year after year is very indignant because he is thrown out of a cast.
He had played in the old days, and still possesses the remains of a decent voice.
The committee, however, are adamant, and rightly so, for the last time I heard him his dialogue sounded something like this: “Yats die in holes and coyneys—dogs yun mad—man has nobly yemedy than death—Yevenge.”
This may account for press representatives occasionally going astray. I have just come across a report, written after one of my productions of “Ruddigore” in 1912, the third that season.
The wicked baronet, Sir Despard, was exceptionally fine and received a good notice, but I wonder why our friend the reporter wrote “Mr. —— gave a capital rendering of the song ‘Oh, why am I moody and Sankey?’” (sad).
I once saw an inexcusable notice of a “Mikado” production, and people not in it; some, even, who had long since joined the great majority.
The reporter had evidently purchased a libretto, turned to the front page, where the original cast, with date of production, is to be found, and used their names in his report, even going so far as to give one late celebrated artiste a “slating.”
Whilst on the subject of press notices, I have come to the conclusion that, as a rule, amateurs are let down very lightly. It is seldom one comes across very adverse criticism, and I can’t help contrasting the modern contrasting the modern type of theatrical notice with the style of a hundred years ago, more especially, perhaps, in the criticism of individual artistes.
I was glancing through some theatrical notices published as far back as 1825. They certainly are peculiar.
Whether of a laudatory nature, sarcastic, blunt “home truth,” or educational style, they were invariably spiced with the flowery lanuage of the poets.
A few extracts may be interesting by way of comparison, and give food for thought.
“His actions, always strong, but sometimes such
That candour must declare he acts too much.”
“We cannot conclude without observing that there is much obliquary thrown upon private theatricals, more, we believe, than they in general deserve. We saw no impropriety or indecorum; everything was conducted in a regular and decent manner. One thing we particularly observed, the frail sisterhood had no admittance there.”
—— “In fact, he was as merry as a funeral and as lively as an elephant.”
—— “No one could compare her for an instant with Mrs. ——, or even Mrs. ——. Her comic efforts never enlivened the spirits, the auditor never went with her, and she appeared to us as if she felt herself in an awkward predicament.”
—— “He occasionally forgets in the height of his performance that he is enacting a gentleman; and that twitching up his trousers and cleaning his mouth with his fingers, is more characteristic of a sailor than the part he is taking.”
—— “She is, in a word, in the theatrical world, what the white rose is in a flower garden: she has the sweetness, beauty, and fragrance of the red rose, without its colouring.”
—— “Mr. —— would do well to avoid attempting too much, lest his auditors, seeing him do many things ill, may cease to remember that he can do anything well.”
—— “If we had never seen her in a garb of her own sex, we should say we had seldom beheld any being more lovely than she appears in opposite attire. Indeed, the little notion we personally have formed of angels of the masculine gender, are derived from seeing this lady in male habiliments.”
“The epilogue by Mr. ——, disguised as a gentleman (his first appearance in that character).”
—— “Of his face we say nothing; to those who have viewed it, description would be unavailing; to those that have not, no description could convey an adequate idea. Of Mr. ——’s merit as an actor, we confess we entertain no very high opinion. Those that judge the merit of an artiste by the emolument he obtains, or think a man great because the town runs after him, will call our judgment in question, when we say, we consider him only a second, rate comedian, yet we feel we then compliment him.”
—— “Mr. B—— is about five feet three inches in height; of dark complexion; and his legs are not quite symmetrical; his countenance is expressive, but bears a strong impress of the land of Jerusalem.”
 |
 |
Page modified 16 September 2020