Nobody, after visiting Terry's Theatre, can apply to Mr. PINERO's
piece the hackneyed phrase,--used apologetically by an unconscionable
reader after detaining the leading journal for three-quarters of an
hour,--"Oh, there's nothing in _The Times_," for, in Mr. PINERO's
piece there is plenty of amusement, if not of absorbing interest.
[Illustration]
The story is that of a _parvenu_, whose sole object in life, to
be recognised by "Society," is thwarted by the marriage of his
good-for-nothing son with the daughter of an Irish lodging-house
keeper. The struggles of _Mr. and Mrs. Bompas_ to conceal this
_mésalliance_, and the assistance given them in their difficulties by
the _Hon. Montague Trimble_, constitute the motive of the play. But
the question that must occur to the critical mind is, "Did the author
mean this piece for high comedy, or farcical comedy?" If the former,
then Mr. TERRY is wrong in his conception of the part; if the latter,
everybody else is wrong in their conception of their parts.
It seems to me as if, in the course of rehearsal, the peculiarities
distinguishing the character of _Percy Egerton Bompas, M.P._, had
gradually become assimilated with the individualities of the actor,
Mr. EDWARD TERRY. If Mr. PINERO so meant it, if he so wrote it for Mr.
TERRY and for Mr. TERRY only, then there is nothing more to be said;
Mr. PINERO's ideal is realised. But if the author did _not_ intend Mr.
TERRY's impersonation, then he must be content to sacrifice the ideal
to the real, shrug his shoulders, and pocket his profits. Yet, as if
making an appeal to the public to judge between the auctorial abstract
and the representational concrete, Mr. PINERO not only publishes his
playbook, but sells it in the theatre. Visitors to TERRY's, who buy
the book, will judge the play by its stage interpretation that has had
the advantage of the author's personal supervision and direction. The
representation, therefore, is either more or less in accordance with
his teaching, or flatly contradicts it.
[Illustration: One of the Leaders in _The Times_.]
The publication of the book of a comedy in a theatre may be thankfully
received as a present help to the audience, and an aid to memory
afterwards, or it may be considered as a protest on the part of the
author who says, "Here's what I have written. See how they act it:
whether it be farce or comedy, judge for yourselves. You pay your
money, and you take your choice." Suffice it, then, to record that, on
the night of this deponent's visit, the piece played from eight till
past eleven, and that the audience from first to last was generally
amused, but, I should be inclined to say, particularly disappointed
at the collapse of Mr. TERRY's part in the last Act (the principal
portion of which he passes curled up on a sofa, with the top of
his forehead powdered white! Why?), and mystified by the sudden and
apparently unnecessary revelation, made by _Miss Cazalet_, to the
effect that _Lucy Tuck_ (a mentally and physically short-sighted girl)
is her illegitimate daughter; and these two last-named personages,
though essential to the plot, fail unfortunately in rousing any
sentiment of pity or of sympathy.
Mr. ELLIOT is excellent as the _Hon. Montague Trimble_; nothing
better, apart from Mr. HARE's eccentric characters, has been seen on
the stage for some considerable time. I hope the author is of the same
opinion. Mr. FRED THORNE is capital as the Irish Member; and as _Mrs.
Hooley_, an obtrusively Irish eccentricity of Thackerayan extraction,
Miss ALEXES LEIGHTON is very good, for the character, as drawn by
the author, _is_ obtrusive, and is so meant to be. The _Mrs. Egerton
Bompas_ of Miss FANNY BROUGH is _the_ woman to the life, and, in my
humble judgment, Miss BROUGH's impersonation is well-nigh faultless.
Whether, if the part of _Egerton Bompas_ were played as high comedy,
this would still improve Miss BROUGH's impersonation of _Mrs. Bompas_
or not, it is difficult to decide; but I am inclined to think this
would be the result. What does the author think? Most likely he will
continue to "think"; it is the wiser course. Mr. HENRY V. ESMOND makes
the lad, _Howard Bompas_, unnecessarily repulsive; but if, in doing
so, he is only exactly carrying out the author's idea, i.e., "Master's
orders," then he is no longer responsible for the overcharged
colouring. The probable fate of this unhappy pair, an impulsive
uneducated kind of Irish orange-girl married to a contemptible
young sot, is not a pleasant termination to the story, nor is the
anticipatory sadness felt for the future of this ill-assorted couple
in any way dissipated by the stereotyped and perfunctory offer of
marriage made by the young London Journal Nobleman to the daughter of
the utterly crushed snob just before the Curtain descends.
Why the piece is called _The Times_, remains a mystery. _To-day_
would have been better; that is, if by _The Times_ is only meant "The
Present Day." And if it doesn't mean this, what meaning has it? For
alliterative advertisement it may be useful; e.g., "Times at TERRY's."
The dialogue generally is easy, natural and telling.
Yours,