Litchfield enquirer., 1872-02-29
The Washington rheatr,ca,a.

The Washington TheatrIcais. , DEAR ENQUIRER :-I was one of the ex- cursionists to the Washington Theatricals. on Friday last. If had more time than I happen to have now I might write you a few columns about the whole expedition As it is, I confne myself to the perfor- nance.
 I have seen much of theatricals, both public and private, and in the latter have frequently participated myself. I went down to this performance purposely to "view it with critics eye" that is, to satisfy my curiosity as to the quality of it and the result is that (though had no intention of writing anything about it) now feel impelled to pay brief but hear ty tribute to it's merit. I can't stop for much criticism in detai1or ofseparate act ors, but I say very emphatically that, as regards both plays, the exhibition was good and very creditable to all concerned. The stage, scenery and appointments were .abundantly adequate to the necessities of the occasion. There was nothing poor in the acting, there was much that was very good, and there was some as good as can be looked for anywhere. If ] were going into comparisons should give the green est laurel of the occasion to Miss Gum for her rendering of the part of Mrs. Ca. rev. She had part lengthy and trying, keeping her almost constantly on the stage, ranging over considerable variety of emotion, and calling for sudden changes and transitions of action She filled it out fully and satisfactorily, without exag- geration, and without feebleness or uncer- tainty. While sufficiently spirited her playing was simple and natural, and both conception and execution were true to the varied demands of the text. And the ease with which she handled her role indicate 8 power equal to much larger necessities. The part of the servant in this play q for get his name) was very well done too. So also was the servants part in the after piece. 77.-@ =-1 .....-
 In regard to this afterpiece-" The Young Collegian"-I have one qualifca- tion to make. The young man who play ed the leading part, the Collegian, did not catch quite the true conception in my opinion, which is due I presume to the fact that as yet he lacks the information for it. Neither his experience nor his reading have supplied him with the mate rials for the conception, as they will have done probably few years hence. The character is Cambridge undergraduate of the fast description, twenty two or three years old and in the 6lose condition which belongs to such fellows. The actor made him rather too young rather too much of rough boy. But according to his own concep3bn of it, he treated his part very we'll indeed. The e1ecutio5a was good. It showed that he has plenty of the raw ma terial in him for future successes.
 There is one other criticism I have to make, which concerns however not the acting proper, but the stage ''business. ' In this matter several of the company were somewhat deficient. For instance, two or three times the last words before an erm were given at the centre of the stage and the actor left to tame walk across to the wing, which always has bad effect. All this sort of thing tells on the total effect of play. Perhaps it was due to want of drill. Either way 1t can be remedied by attention. And when this is remedied the Washington theatricals will L e-1a UiIe dVtrdSc UI any P11's-S> representations that l have seen. .~ Hastily Yours, -~..s. 1a D. PnURIBUs UNUM
 Litchfeld, Feb'y 27th, 1872.