DOI Heft:
June 3, 1882
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17752#0262
256
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[June 3, 1832.
Anson. defying the Limelight.
COURT AT LAST !
A few remarks on “ The Parvenu ; or, the Match-Making Mother
and the Magic Match-Box.” Also on “ Lili” at the Varietes,
and Parisian Theatres generally.
Ciecumstances towards whieh we stood in an attitude similar to
fhat of Mr. Paknell towards the Ultra-Land-Leaguers, inasmuch
as they were beyond our control, prevented us from seeing The
Parvenu till one night lastweek, when, we believe, it was close upon
its fiftieth representation, and therefore carried by a lucky breeze
out of reach of the deadly guns of criticism. We had read two or
three enthusiastic notices on its
tirst appearance, and sinee then
had received favourahle reports
from fairly trustworthy sources,
so that we were prepared for a
piece which, if not absolutely a
work of dramatic genius, should
be at least well worth hearing
and seeing.
Its first and chief merit is that
it is not taken from the French ;
and therefore the French authors,
who have not been particularly
successful on their own ground.
lately, will not reap any ad-
vantage from Mr. Godeeet’s
Parvenu.
As to its being “ new and
original,” it is about as much
that as any piece can be in
which such remarkably new
and original materials are em-
ployed as are represented by a
proud but wicked and impecuni-
ous Baronet, a match-making,
scheming mother, a daughter to be
sacrifi.ced for money, a self-made
millionnaire, a combination of
Itoughand “ Ready,” who proves
himself to be one of “ Nature’s noblemen ; ” the inevitable “ poor
artist ” in love with and beloved by the heroine ; and the heroine’s
comic confidante, who is a relief to the sentimentality, and has to pair
off with the “ Charles, his friend,” of the piece, called the “ Honour-
ahle Charles Tracey this sort of conventional character being
usually an “ Honourahle” and a “ Chakles,” and brought in to act
the part of a chorus, say whatever good things may occur to the
Author, and make himself generally useful.
We had heard this piece described as “ Robertsonian ”—andif by a
“ Robertsonian play” is meant a piece full of inconsistencies of
character and improbahilities of situation, of dialogue so broken up
as to sound like spasmodic efforts at conversation, of opportunities
for smoking on every possible occasion, with one Act invariahly
devoted to wearing evening dress, with a good deal of out-of-door
life in the limelight, with love-making, sentimental and comic, then
is The Parvenu Robertsonian, and its Author a promisingfourth-form
student of the R-obertsonian School, as well as of Ours and Society\
The story is as simple as it is uninteresting ; the dialogue is at its
best when serious,
. \ \u n
and at its worst
when liippant.
Mr. Anson, in a
part similar to the
one he played in
New Men and Old
Acres, is very good
throughout. The
Author has cailed
this millionnaire
tradesman, “ Mr.
Ledger,” a style
of nomenclature re-
minding us of the
names in the comic
business portion of a pantomime, i.e., Butcher, Mr. Spakebib ;
Fishmonger, Mr. McKekel; Banker, Mr. Moneybag ; Clerk, Mr.
Ledger, and so forth—and has made him “M.P.,” whieh at all
events should be some kind of guarantee for his being a trifle less
ignorant of the ways of_ Society—a Society in which, from the
necessity of the plot, he is hound to move—than he appears to be.
Ridiculous he should be, hut not improbahle.
The conduct of the match-making mother, a woman of the world,
a sehemer, a iady of rank (hy marriage) and fashion, is simply im-
possible. A Miss Gusher, or some such name, writes to inform her
that a JSTobleman, incog., is visiting the neivhhourhond. An Artist
Lady Macbeth—only Larkin.
Little Lottie Yenne and Great Lot o’ Clayton.
appears, who happens to have in his pocket this Nobleman’s silver
fuzee-box, on which are engraved its owner’s crest and monogram.
On the strength of such evidence, this match-making mother, this
woman of the world, concludes that the Artist is the Nobleman m
disguise, forces her daughter upon him, invites him to stay in tht
house, makes no inquiries whatevei
about him, does not allow her husbanb
—a very knowing old man—to rnakt
any, and breaks the engagement be-
tween the millionnaire and her daugh -
ter. So flimsy a motive does wel>
enough for a farce like The Wandering
Minstrel, hut it would want all the
working-up of situation, individuality
of character, and witty dialogue that
characterises She Stoops to Conquer
(which is the merest farce in plot) to
raise it to the rank of serious Comedy,
as we understand the word in English.
It is well played, decidedly well
played all round ; though Mr. Clayton
is not suited as Charles his friend, and
Mr. Forbes Robertson, the emotiona]
Artist, talks like an Archdeacon iu
disguise. Miss Lottie Yenne as the
daughter of Mr. Ledger, is capital in
everything she has to do. It is a sort
of Naomi Tighe part, which, in the
palmy days of the Rohertsonian drama, would have fallen naturally
to Miss Marie Wilton, at the Prince of Wales’s Theatre, where
this play, with Mr. Bancroet for drawling “ Charles his friend,”
Mr. John Hare as the Baronet, and Johnny Clarke as the Parvenu,
would have been suited to perfection.
There is only one Scene for the three Acts, admirably painted by
Mr. Perkins—but monotonous.
In Paris, a few days ago, we saw Mdme. Judic as Lili. She sings
and acts charmingly throughout two Acts. But, in the third, where
a strong demand is made on her histrionic powers, her acting is not
equal to her singing.
She has to represent first
a grandmother, then a
granddaughter. The
change is very rapid, to
the detriment of her
make-up as the old
woman, so that she sim-
ply appears as Mdme.
Judic in a white wig,
her face as youthful as
that of the ingenue, and
her one idea of conveying
the notion of age to the
audience being appa-
rently stooping shoulders,
walking with a crutch,
and quavering like a
Pantaloon. Such a con-
ventional imitation is
quite unworthyof Mdme.
Judic. Dupuis was at
his best from first to
last, and Lassouche ex- The Doleful Lovers; or the Irving-Terry
cellent. They all have Movement.
the great French fault of taking the audience into their confidenct
over the footlights ; and Baron grossly exaggerated a small, anc
not very good part, in order to extort laughs.
The piece is utterly unadaptable, thank goodness ! as its chieJ
situation is about as grossly immoral as it can be ; and, all questiom
of the Lord Chamberlain’s licence and our Judic-ature apart, ii
would be hissed off the Stage hy an English audience. It is ap-
plauded to the echo by a French audience.
At the Franyais, Les Portraits de la Marquise, by M. Octaye
Feuillet, was a failure ; so, perhaps, we shall not hear of its being
purchased by an English Manager. Hot even fussy little Daubrav
can make anything of such a dull piece as La Brebis Egaree at the
Palais Royal, and there is scarcely anything worth seeing just now
at those wretchedly-constructed, miserably uncomfortable, ill-venti-
lated buildings, cailed, in Paris, Theatres, and considered by a long-
suflering public as places of entertainment.
BILK AND WATER.
Ie 142,000,000 gallons of London water contain (as they doubtless
do) 20,000,000 gallons of London sewage, how many gallons oi
London sewage would be found, on analysis, in 142,000,000 gallons
of London milk ?
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[June 3, 1832.
Anson. defying the Limelight.
COURT AT LAST !
A few remarks on “ The Parvenu ; or, the Match-Making Mother
and the Magic Match-Box.” Also on “ Lili” at the Varietes,
and Parisian Theatres generally.
Ciecumstances towards whieh we stood in an attitude similar to
fhat of Mr. Paknell towards the Ultra-Land-Leaguers, inasmuch
as they were beyond our control, prevented us from seeing The
Parvenu till one night lastweek, when, we believe, it was close upon
its fiftieth representation, and therefore carried by a lucky breeze
out of reach of the deadly guns of criticism. We had read two or
three enthusiastic notices on its
tirst appearance, and sinee then
had received favourahle reports
from fairly trustworthy sources,
so that we were prepared for a
piece which, if not absolutely a
work of dramatic genius, should
be at least well worth hearing
and seeing.
Its first and chief merit is that
it is not taken from the French ;
and therefore the French authors,
who have not been particularly
successful on their own ground.
lately, will not reap any ad-
vantage from Mr. Godeeet’s
Parvenu.
As to its being “ new and
original,” it is about as much
that as any piece can be in
which such remarkably new
and original materials are em-
ployed as are represented by a
proud but wicked and impecuni-
ous Baronet, a match-making,
scheming mother, a daughter to be
sacrifi.ced for money, a self-made
millionnaire, a combination of
Itoughand “ Ready,” who proves
himself to be one of “ Nature’s noblemen ; ” the inevitable “ poor
artist ” in love with and beloved by the heroine ; and the heroine’s
comic confidante, who is a relief to the sentimentality, and has to pair
off with the “ Charles, his friend,” of the piece, called the “ Honour-
ahle Charles Tracey this sort of conventional character being
usually an “ Honourahle” and a “ Chakles,” and brought in to act
the part of a chorus, say whatever good things may occur to the
Author, and make himself generally useful.
We had heard this piece described as “ Robertsonian ”—andif by a
“ Robertsonian play” is meant a piece full of inconsistencies of
character and improbahilities of situation, of dialogue so broken up
as to sound like spasmodic efforts at conversation, of opportunities
for smoking on every possible occasion, with one Act invariahly
devoted to wearing evening dress, with a good deal of out-of-door
life in the limelight, with love-making, sentimental and comic, then
is The Parvenu Robertsonian, and its Author a promisingfourth-form
student of the R-obertsonian School, as well as of Ours and Society\
The story is as simple as it is uninteresting ; the dialogue is at its
best when serious,
. \ \u n
and at its worst
when liippant.
Mr. Anson, in a
part similar to the
one he played in
New Men and Old
Acres, is very good
throughout. The
Author has cailed
this millionnaire
tradesman, “ Mr.
Ledger,” a style
of nomenclature re-
minding us of the
names in the comic
business portion of a pantomime, i.e., Butcher, Mr. Spakebib ;
Fishmonger, Mr. McKekel; Banker, Mr. Moneybag ; Clerk, Mr.
Ledger, and so forth—and has made him “M.P.,” whieh at all
events should be some kind of guarantee for his being a trifle less
ignorant of the ways of_ Society—a Society in which, from the
necessity of the plot, he is hound to move—than he appears to be.
Ridiculous he should be, hut not improbahle.
The conduct of the match-making mother, a woman of the world,
a sehemer, a iady of rank (hy marriage) and fashion, is simply im-
possible. A Miss Gusher, or some such name, writes to inform her
that a JSTobleman, incog., is visiting the neivhhourhond. An Artist
Lady Macbeth—only Larkin.
Little Lottie Yenne and Great Lot o’ Clayton.
appears, who happens to have in his pocket this Nobleman’s silver
fuzee-box, on which are engraved its owner’s crest and monogram.
On the strength of such evidence, this match-making mother, this
woman of the world, concludes that the Artist is the Nobleman m
disguise, forces her daughter upon him, invites him to stay in tht
house, makes no inquiries whatevei
about him, does not allow her husbanb
—a very knowing old man—to rnakt
any, and breaks the engagement be-
tween the millionnaire and her daugh -
ter. So flimsy a motive does wel>
enough for a farce like The Wandering
Minstrel, hut it would want all the
working-up of situation, individuality
of character, and witty dialogue that
characterises She Stoops to Conquer
(which is the merest farce in plot) to
raise it to the rank of serious Comedy,
as we understand the word in English.
It is well played, decidedly well
played all round ; though Mr. Clayton
is not suited as Charles his friend, and
Mr. Forbes Robertson, the emotiona]
Artist, talks like an Archdeacon iu
disguise. Miss Lottie Yenne as the
daughter of Mr. Ledger, is capital in
everything she has to do. It is a sort
of Naomi Tighe part, which, in the
palmy days of the Rohertsonian drama, would have fallen naturally
to Miss Marie Wilton, at the Prince of Wales’s Theatre, where
this play, with Mr. Bancroet for drawling “ Charles his friend,”
Mr. John Hare as the Baronet, and Johnny Clarke as the Parvenu,
would have been suited to perfection.
There is only one Scene for the three Acts, admirably painted by
Mr. Perkins—but monotonous.
In Paris, a few days ago, we saw Mdme. Judic as Lili. She sings
and acts charmingly throughout two Acts. But, in the third, where
a strong demand is made on her histrionic powers, her acting is not
equal to her singing.
She has to represent first
a grandmother, then a
granddaughter. The
change is very rapid, to
the detriment of her
make-up as the old
woman, so that she sim-
ply appears as Mdme.
Judic in a white wig,
her face as youthful as
that of the ingenue, and
her one idea of conveying
the notion of age to the
audience being appa-
rently stooping shoulders,
walking with a crutch,
and quavering like a
Pantaloon. Such a con-
ventional imitation is
quite unworthyof Mdme.
Judic. Dupuis was at
his best from first to
last, and Lassouche ex- The Doleful Lovers; or the Irving-Terry
cellent. They all have Movement.
the great French fault of taking the audience into their confidenct
over the footlights ; and Baron grossly exaggerated a small, anc
not very good part, in order to extort laughs.
The piece is utterly unadaptable, thank goodness ! as its chieJ
situation is about as grossly immoral as it can be ; and, all questiom
of the Lord Chamberlain’s licence and our Judic-ature apart, ii
would be hissed off the Stage hy an English audience. It is ap-
plauded to the echo by a French audience.
At the Franyais, Les Portraits de la Marquise, by M. Octaye
Feuillet, was a failure ; so, perhaps, we shall not hear of its being
purchased by an English Manager. Hot even fussy little Daubrav
can make anything of such a dull piece as La Brebis Egaree at the
Palais Royal, and there is scarcely anything worth seeing just now
at those wretchedly-constructed, miserably uncomfortable, ill-venti-
lated buildings, cailed, in Paris, Theatres, and considered by a long-
suflering public as places of entertainment.
BILK AND WATER.
Ie 142,000,000 gallons of London water contain (as they doubtless
do) 20,000,000 gallons of London sewage, how many gallons oi
London sewage would be found, on analysis, in 142,000,000 gallons
of London milk ?