The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-08
"THE ROMANCE OF A POOR YOUNG
MAN."
THE o. D. A. PERFORMANCE.

ply have to record another handsome achiev
ment by one Of our leading amateur dramat
clubs, on delightfully."- cool evening, in CHAIR
ing theater, and before an audience immense
numbers, and comprising much beauty and intel
gence As it is, and without our solicitation, v
are required to decide on the relative merits of IL
amateurs of the Garrick and the Orleans clut
in their respective parts and further, to stat
in plain terms which, the Garrick or the o.
leans, performance OF "Ths Romance Of Poo
Young Man, was the better.
The latter proposition simplifes our task, al
though in some particulars it may not be pleas
ant The possibility is not heavy one, how
| ever for the Garrick Club performance was, a
we have already said, an eXtraOI binary one for al
amateur exhibition of talent whilst there wa
| little extraordinary in that of the Orleans Club
We make this statement In justice to the latte
club, whom we have seen perform much more
difficult and intricate plays with superior effect
| the 81 Honeymoon" for example.
The Garricks had Enthusiastically the advantag
| in point of physique and voice in Messrs
| Braughn and Onorato, the personators OF tn
leading male parts; to which must be added al
| experience of over twenty years on the stage, o
Mr.. Braughn, (as an amateur), who, beside
natural talent, has proverbial aptitude II
study. The ensemble Of the Garrick perform
snce was marked by a careful study of details
great homogenuity in the general conception o
| the play, smoothness OF performance, with thu
requisite alterations of vigorous and energetic
ana sustained action and elocution.
The smoothness of the performance by the
Orleans Club was marred by frequent hem-and
haws in the dialogue, and at no time old any OF
| the situations rise to intensity. 1t lacked III
| snap or even vigor. In this connection we must
sce4e. between Marguerite and Manuel. Ii
| at the Garrick performance the effect was a
"thud," at the o. D. A. performance it bordered
on the extravagant. In our criticism OF the Gar
Lawrence Barrett's, who has no reputation fol-
originality of compelling Manuel to climb higher
! to break his neck with more certainty.
The stage manager of the o. d. A. paid no at
| tention to the warning. What was the result
That he, himself presented ludicrous spectacle
to all that portion of the audience in the tiers
above the parquette. Imagine the dignifed
Manuel pirouettlng over matrass and scamper-
ing off on all tours behind the scenes, when he
is supposed to have fallen into the moat and
met with his martyrdom.
We will not refer to the ridiculous Madame
Aubrey, only to pay compliment to Miss Stroud.
back, who like Miss Toole, made the most of an
execrable part. As for DR.. Desmarets, Mr..
Onorato's acting and elocution surpassed that OF
Mr.. Stern, but we prefer the modified conception
OF the latter. 1t was clever piece OF acting,
and a justifable departure from the dramatist It's
idea. A little moro tidyness in his dress and
head gear would have improved Mr.. Stern.
We have another favorable comparison to
make between Mr.. Coleman of the Garrick and
MIR. Cairnes OF the Orleans, both of which were
excellent, and if we can venture preference, it
must be in favor of the latter. 1t was neater,
and the makeup more perfect.
Mr.. de Bevannes is I" q man of the world"
which Mr.. Pickles understood far better than
Mr.. Cowan of the Garricks. Not only personal
appearance was in favor of Mr.. Pickles, but his
speech, and cay and graceful acting was also
superior. II he did not make many points as
some would claim, ard we agree with them, on
the other hand Mr.. Cowan was too pointed at
times. The part is entirely in Mr.. Pickless line,
and as entirely out of that of Mr.. Cowan's.
We were given an excellent treat in the per-
sonation of Monsieur Laroque by Mr. Carrie,e,
who, by the way, appeared for the first time on
public stage or in an English part. MIR. Car
riere's makeup could not be improved, and his
playing, without beng perfect, was grand enough
to give him the loudest applause Of the evening,
wi b the exception OF the recall of Marguerite
and Manuel. Mr. Carriere's diction, however,
was what Frenchman would call impossible-in
fact, Onehalf of his lines were inaudlbie, and the
remainder pronounced with an unmstakable
French accent. We believe, nevertheless, that
his Mr.. Laroque was the marked feature of the
evening, and compared very favorably with the
OF Mr.. Buck, who is, however a very
good actor and reader.
Oflittle Mamie Wood, we can say she did bet
ter than on her first appearance Christine, but
We must now speak of Miss Biumerthal, whom
the writer used to consider very Indifferent, and
who now surprises Miss Bumenthal had no
little task before her when she undertook to play
the part of Mile. Helouin, the ambitious and
tricky governess, and yet, If she lacked the re-
quisite vivacity and readiness compatible with
the part, it filed with great ea of tact and
coquetry. Miss Blumenthal has ceased to play
entirely by impulse, and now gives art a fair
share in the parts which she plays. She is better
nd her En- liah Mo
demoiselle Helouln, without being perfect, con-
lrasted pleasantly with the gushing exhibition of
Miss Vernon.
Among the episodes of the evening which |
berger by Miss Aurene Wilson is mentioned with |
The satisfaction that there can be no dispute On
hat subject. We say simply that it was excel |
ent. We have but little space to conclude and |
must dismiss Miss Freeman with our acknowl- |
that she endeavored to surpass her.
elf, and partially succeeded. We can not agree |
With her in her conception of the naughty yet |
omantic, digniied yet impulsive Marguerite |
Iaroque. Miss Freeman's personation, at least |
turing the first five tableaux, presen ed to our
lenses vaiIA glorious dashing Am, rican princess.
Jhe closing scenes Of the play, however, pre-
tented this lady in her womanly character which |
eryed to alter many Of our unfavorable impress
no s..
The distinction we would have to make be-
ween Mr.. Braughn and Mr.. De Camp, to be
complete, would be too long. Mr.. De Camps
lanuel was too serious throughout. Mr..
5raughn is varied and versatile. knows when and
low to smile, and in the dialogue manifests
thickness where Mr. De Camp "tarries." Mr..
,raughns composure before the footlights gives
i'm marked superiority, while his voice is rich,
ure and cor ect, and easily undergoes infection
rom the oratorical to the didactic, down to the
athletic and conversational, while it is with ap.
aren't effort hat Mr.. De Camp accomplishes the
anne effects.
In Short Mr.. Braughns voice has power and
1tensity, MIR. De Camp only some intensity
Without always taking advantage of the delicate
hadings in the action and elocution necessary
, reach perfection, Mr.. Braughn, nevertheless,
bowed much dexterity in the dialogue. never
yerdoing anything, and preserved an admirable
quanimlty and dignity throughout his part.
lr. De Camp forgot too frequently that whatever
ere his relations with the Laroques, he vas still
hlgh-bred gentlemen, who should not exceed
LAIN IN his Difference to them.
The foregoing remarks must, however, be con. !
dered as strictly comparative, and particularly
the case OF Mr.. De Camp, should not detract a +,
t from the clever effort which the Orleans Ora
atlc Club have achieved. Manuel was one of
r. De Camps best personations, but was not ,
lual to his Rolando In our opinion the reason
% In the fact that he had never before under
Ken a part similar to that OF Manuel, but has {
WAYS been cast for heavier oh roctoru ,yh,ol, |