The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-06
MUSICAL AND DRAMATIC.
siFonI PInYn at the ON hernut.

AOOAOAh AMI OhhhAAAOe
"FouI Play" at the Chesnut
Bsfore the novel of Foul Play" was COM
pleted, Messrs. Boucicault and Reade dissolved
their literary partnership, and each of them
was anxious to take advantage for his own
pecuniary benefit OF the popular interest which
had been excited about the story, by getting
his own particular dramatizRtion OF IL on the
stage In advance OF his late co.laborer In this
manner we have two rival dramas of Foul Play,
each of which Is set forth as the only true aud
genuine article by one of the authors OF the
story. Mr.. Charles Reade's version was brought
out at the Walnut some weeks ago, and last
night at the Chestnut we had an opportunity to
make q comparison OF its merits with Bouci-
caulps play. IL is Of course not to be expected
that firstrate dramas can be produced
in the manner these were. even II such
q thing as a really good dramatizstion OF a
novel is possibility, which our experience of
81 ch efforts almost forhids us to admit. Weak
dialogue and weak Characterization, however,
may sometimes be redeemed by few strong
and really dramatic situations, by effective
acting, and especially by good scene painting
and stage carpentery This was the case with
Reades play, viii, III was brought out at the
Walnut IL gave the main points of the story in
q atolerably understandable style, the different
characters were very fairly represented, and
Inc piece WHb put upon bne bbhR6 III 0XC6llouk
style. OF the two plays we think that Reades
is the best, independently OF any extraneous
advantages which 1t possessed in representa-
lion. 1t is drama Of action, whereas Bouci-
cault's version is mainly narrative, especially
in the early scenes. The actors at the Walnut
therefore, had great advantage over
those at the Chestnut, inssmuch as
they were able to bring up some
of the exciting scenes and incidents of the
novel bodily before the eye, instead OF being
obliged to relate them at second hand. Bouci-
cault has not confined himself as closely to the
story as Reade, and he has exercised what we
consider perfectly justifiable license On the
part Of dramatist. in departing from his ORR
ginal when he imagines that the play will be
improved by so doing But, unfortunately
BoucicaulL's changes are not always improve.
ments. sand his stage version of the novel is, as
o whole, the least meritorious OF the two. The
strongly-drawn and original character OF
"Helen Rolleston" he has, with q singular want
of tact, reduced 10 the complexion of o namby.
pamby schoolgirl sort of q miss, without the
slightest In iividuslity; and his treatment Of the
other characters has not been much better. In
one or two points we think that he improves
on Reade. The scene where "Wylie'' thrusts
his money through the wall into "Nancy
Rouse's" house was utterly meaningless
At the Walnut, but Boucicault has
arranged 1t so that it is in some degree
effective. His idea Of making "Robert PEN
fold," In the disguise of detective. become the
main instrument for the exposure of the guilt
Of "Arthur Wardlaw" and "Wylie" is also
good one In some respects, and the scene where
s'Wylie," after being locked up In the cellar
with the gold, is confronted by "Peufold," who
has been hiding behind the boxes listening to
the conference OF the conspirators, is more
startling situation than any in Reade's play.
So much for the respective merits of the rival
amas.
The company now performing Foul Play at
the Chestnut are scarcely competent to make 1t
appear any stronger than 1t really is The male
actors in particular are too boisterous and vio-
lent, and 1t is an absurdity that such confer
ence as that of "Wylie" and "Arthur
Wardlaw," in the first act, where the
sailor relates how he has obeyed the
orders OF his master in scuttling the Prosre-
pine should be carried on in the loud
tone OF voice assumed by Messrs. Wallace and
Burnett. Mr.. Harkins, who assumes the part
Of "Robert Penfold," is also too noisy, especially
in the early scenes and his performance does
not come up to that Of Mr.. Walcot. Mr.. War.
wick makes better representative OF arthur
Wardlaw" than the gentleman who assumed
that character at the Walnut, but his acting
would also be improved by a little more mode
ration.
The version Of FoH Play at present under
consideration has been announced as an acting
rather than q scenic play, and comparison
between the scenery at the Walnut and the
Chestnut is therefore, scarcely fair. We may
state. however, that the desert island is repre-
scented by two pieces of scenery which are quite
pretty, although they fall short of being equa
to the corr esponding scenes at the Walnut.with
the we'll managed effect Of the waves breaking
npon the shore
The City Amusements.