"HAMLET."
To prepare a very own version of _Hamlet_ and play it with credit--that is
still the blue riband of the Stage. Mr. H.B. IRVING has fairly won it. The
version seemed to me apt. He tells us that his main purpose was to bring
out the story as if for those who had never seen the play before. It is a
rational point of view, and certainly it seemed a distinct improvement not
to lose sight of _Hamlet's_ adventure to England, as is commonly the case,
and to keep the essential sequence of events and the personality of the
Prince constantly before the audience. The justification of the heroic cuts
and adaptations was that the action did move faster towards the tragic end,
instead of seeming to drag rather tiresomely as (be it confessed) it
sometimes does.
[Illustration: "OUR SON IS FAT AND SCANT OF BREATH."
(We shouldn't have guessed it, but his own mother ought to know.)
_Hamlet_ . . . . . . . MR. H.B. IRVING.]
Observers contrasting this with Mr. IRVING'S earlier performance remarked a
gain in depth and fire and a happier restraint of mannerism. It was a very
notable and gracious piece of work. He has the player's first gift, an
arresting personality. His elocution has distinction. He conveys the beauty
of the words and the richness of the packed thought thoughtfully. The
complex play of action and motive--the purpose blunted by overmuch
thinking, the spurs to dull revenge, the self-contempt, the assumed antic
disposition, at times the real mental disturbance--all this was set before
us with a fine skill and resource. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was
masterly in its sincerity and restraint; the two broken love passages with
_Ophelia_ showed a fine tenderness through the distraught, bitter mood. An
ingenious turn was given to that difficult change of weapons in the fencing
bout, though I doubt if the Sword Club would wholly have approved the
technique of the fencing.
Miss GERTRUDE ELLIOTT'S _Ophelia_ in the Mad Scene was full of beauty,
sweetness and dignity--and we have so often been bored by our lesser
_Ophelias_. A very fine performance. Mr. HOLMAN CLARK was the foolish
prating knave, a _Polonius_ robbed of his best speech, and the more
consistent therefore. Mr. IRVING is obviously right in his view that
_Polonius_ could never by any chance have given any such advice to his
truculent son.
One may congratulate the producer on the courage of his convictions. But I
wonder if the Shakspearean tradition is really dying. The general quality
of the performance was, it must be confessed, not inspiring. There was
little of the king's divinity hedging _Claudius_; the _Queen_ (an always
difficult part) was elaborately unconvincing, though played by a clever
actress; _Guildenstern_ and awkward _Rosencrantz_ deserved any fate which
awaited them in England. Neither _Laertes_ nor _Horatio_ seemed authentic.
But Mr. TOM REYNOLDS' grave-digger had humour and avoided tedium. _Hamlet_
was the thing.