The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-29
:LOVE'S SACRIFICE."


above name, at the Varieties Theater, OF
Wednesday last by the amateur dramati,
club known as the New Testimonies, we thinl
IS deserving of some notice, since it wa
another instance of that trait of human char
acter which may be termed "Youth's Sacri
fice." To be ambitious is always laudabl,
condition of mind in youth, but when "Vault
ing ambition" etc. (see Macbeth") we are
very apt to be selfish enough to condemn.
The selection of the above named play by
this club was perhaps nothing more than tha
natural progression which will ultimately
lead them toattempt sc Hamlet" or, may be,
t'Richelieu." The cast included Mr.. Brooks
-Garnes, Mr.. J. H. Spearing, Mr.. En-. Wiel
and Mr.. O'Sullivan, with whom we were
already somewhat familiar. Of the ladies
we shall speak anon.
We would surmise that the character OF
Mathew Eimore is the most difficult under
taking which has yet fallen to the lot of Mr..
Carnes. We are led to the conclusion from
his acting in this part. There is in the whole
range of the drama, perhaps, no character SO
faulty in construction and fine delineation
than this. 1t is fine conception loosely
wrought The situations and lines are, how
ever, such as can be rendered effective and
we are inclined to think that Mr.. Carnes
strove hard to master both. That he did not
altogether succeed is not entirely owing to
himself. His voice and figure are against
him. He lacks also finished grace and
'ease which, perhaps, practice may yet give
him.
But he does possess an acute mind, and
the power of acquiring knowledge, though
he may not always be able to express it in
action. of the subtleiies of the character he
undertakes. So, in his acting on Wednesday
night, where he was best, we think, was
where he had nothing of importance to do in
stage business, and did have in his text. AS
for instance, his interview with Margaret, in
act 4, and for the contra, his fall in act 8,
which last was so palpaole following Of the
stage direction in taking the center, that it
destroyed all naturalness, and consequently
the proper effect.
In his readings, throughout, he showed
care and attention to study, and was generally
good. Specially may be mentioned his de-
scription of the remorse of a murderer in act
2-(which fine as it is, is entirely out of place
in Elmore's mouth at that time), his render
ing of the lines commencing:
"No, not all, etc.
In which he describes his early love and
the encounter with DeLorme; and also his
interview with LaFont in act 3. In the last
act of the play the character having nothing
of prominence, saving the pictorial one of
stage center, Mr.. Carnes had nothing to do,
and yet he might have done it better. To-
gether with all on the stage, we think he
showed rather a falling off. 1t seemed as if
all knowing that it was a play, and almost
ended felt the schoolboy's desire to "get out
of school
This is fault too common with all actors,
professional as we'll as amateurs, and as it is
but natural one perhaps, will be vainly
preached against. Leaving Mr.. Carnes, we
must note one thing: his apparent imitation
of Lawrence Barrett. Mr.. Barrett, for some
unaccounable reason, is certainly favorite
with our ladies, but we would suggest to Mr..
Carnes the sdvisability of ingratiatirg him
self into their favor by his own individuality
rather than by copying questionable
original.
In the Eugene DeLorme of MIR. Spearing
we recognize cloves sacrifice" on the part
of Elmores daughter, not intended by the
author. We have seen MIR. Spearing in all
ne has essayed this year, as the priest, in |
~Don Carlos" the old soldier, in "First
Love-" the young soldier, in "Pygmalion
and Galetea." and, lastly, the slower" on
Wednesday night. We like his young soldier
the best Though he did transform the part
into low comedy, contrary to the intention of
the author, we think), and like him least as
the lover Were we of the feminine gender
we should have left the theater after witness
ing his performance, "a sadder, yet O wiser
woman. His part was not much, yet what |
there was of it is good but he failed to grasp
it. In the first place, his '.make up" to use
the stage slang, was very bad he looked too
effeminate, and, what was worse, coarsely SO.
In his manner. also, there was an uncertainty,
an awkward timidity, which made one feel as
if he himself was conscious of his own I'M
fitness for the part. He has naturally style
too declamatory, and under the embarras-
ments CT his position on Wednesday night
this became more than usually apparent.
His description of his love for Elmore, in
act l, was said in so "schoollsh manner
that every word might have been easily pen
ned as it was delivered, and this fault accom-
panied him from the first to the last. His
meeting with the Friar was altogether too
much like recitation on the part OF both al
though it was this scene that Mr. Spearlng
should have made the most of, since it was
the best opportunity afforded him by the au-
thor. In the trying scene in act 5, between
him and Margaret, he was very philosophical
in manner, and quite content to part with his
betrothed, although his lines would, and the
author desired that they should, convey the
opposite impression. Wehope we shall never
have occasion to see Mr.. Spearing again IN
such part For the welfare OF his future
as a man of family let him forbear
10 play Romeo-in public.
M Wei had the fortune Of having the