The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-11-19
A DRAMATIC STUDY.
FRoU-FRoU AND THE TWO ORPHANS.
A Cemparises and CritiIue Of their Lit
erary ana Dramatic Merits.

MISS Cla&ton mas d0ne q very Wise ana happy
thing in adding Frou.Efou to her repertoire, and
we trust most sincerely that the New Orleaus
public, before which she first essayod this very
beautiful but intensely sad dramatic creaticn
will be vouchsafed the pleasure Of seeing her in
IL after she shall have perfected the study II
we are not mistaken she has fallen upon what is
known in theatrical orioles as "hit"-in other
words, she has assumed o role for which she is
singularly and happily suited, and one, too, OF
immense possibilities, out of which she can
make as much 40 Bot'lern has of D,n.d,ea,y, or
Jefferson OF Rip Fdoa Wiashte, or Lottie OF
the Mdrcltoness. Indeed, but for "Frou-
Frou." the just ended engagement at the
Varieties would have been dead failure as
Clarion engagement, though, with the exception
Of that abominsble affar called "Consoience, y
most delightful one for the public. Simply 10
play. q complete ani harmonious work of the
playwright, the 1.-TWO Orphans 10 one Of the most
admirable dramatizations that has ever been put
upon the stage; but for this very reason, because
Of its exceptional uniqueness the lack Of any too
great prominence Of any special character, tho
play is the very poorest possible for starring pur-
poses. Certainly the attempt to make OF the
vapid innocence OF Louise dramatic sensation
must always prove melancholy failure, and the
best proof of this is the fact that Miss Claxton,
with her absolute perfecti on OF this tender but
trfing study, was almost lost sight OF, while the
two persons who enlisted public admiration
we're Miss Clark and Mr.. Stevenson. and this be-
cause they rendered with truth and ability tho
far more salient characters OF HenrieAe and the
Chevdtter de Taud,y. Itis very difficult indeed
to make any other characters than the lover and
his mistress The hero and heroine of romance,
and 1t can be done only by the attribution to
some other character Of an intense dramatic in
terest which tho character OF the blind Louise
never can possess, There 10 great difference
between mere pity and active sympathy-sympa-
thy for feebeneas and helplessness and sympa-
thy NTH sorrow and distresB There is always
something Of contempt In the former, while there
may be nothing but admiration in the latter sem
timent. Yet pity, compassion, is the only feel
ing that Louise ever arouses, and Miss Claxton
has only shown herself q true and generous lover
of her art in consenting to make the character,
what 1t should be, simply pititul.
1t would be by no means o dramatic impossi-
bility to make Of Louise most effective and
affecting character, but In order to do this her
blindness must have an evident and Just purpose.
Dickens has impaired touching interest to the
character Of Bertha, the blind daughter OF old
Caleb Pturn,er in the "Oricket on the Hearth, and
Bulwer has invested Nidid, the blind girl Of
Pompeii. with heroic dignity and grandeur, and
In both instances the effect 10 produced solely by
their misfortune. But in the creation Of Louise
there is o bald and palpable absence OF anything
like dramatic purpose, and really the only situa-
tion In the whole play in which her calamity adds
does not appear at all--the chateau scene, where
Henriette gets the entire benefit OF it.
But 1t was OF Frou-Frou We meant to speak
poor, unhappy Fron- ff0u! How deeply and
49,.
her love and joyousness, her jealousy and shame
and c)ntrition, and what contrast Is this strong
emotion aroused by her SORROWS to that mere
"trick OF tears" provoked by the purely ADVENT
tious and inartistic blindness Of Louise. For her
we feel commsseration, intense and profound as
sorrow, while for Louise We only entertain ten
derness and pity.
As dramatic entity Frou- F1.ou is by no means
faultless or complete. 1t has this advantage,
however, that it's merits have positive excel
lence, while its faults are mere omlssions-in
other words, there possibilities in it that have
not been developed; 1t is crude and unfinished.
striking deficiency is the failure to bring out
with proper and just effect the contrast between
weak, erring FFou Frou and the cold. blooded
Femme. Gdldnte, who are barely suggested by the
Countess de Cdmbre. This character, which in the
play is but an Insignificant one, could have been
made admirable in itself, as well as most perfect
foil to that OF Frou.Fsou, from which would have
arisen q contrast Of great dramatic power. Per-
to appear from the following description Ouida
gives of Madame Mia in ga Winter City" in
which there is also very just allusioa to Frou-
FFou.
"The Femme Galante has passed through many
various changes, In many countries. The DANES
OF the Decamerone were nnlike the fair athlete
seekers of the days of Horace; and the pow
cred coquettes OF the years OF Moliere were
sisters only by the kinship of a common
vice to the frivolous and fragile fagot OF impulses
in ron Ernn
"rhe Femme Galante has always been feature |
in every age. Poets, from Juvenal to Musset, |
have rallied at her; artists, from Titan to Win
terhalter, have painted her; dramatsts, from |
Dumas Fills, have pointed their arrows at her; |
caricaturists, from Archilochus to Hogarth and
Gava-ni, have poured out their aqua fortis on |
her. But the real Femme Galante Of o.day has |
been missed hitherto.
"Frou-Frou, who stands for, is not in the least |
the true type. Frou-Frou is creature that can |
love, can suffer, repent can die. She is false
in sentimentality and in art, but she is tender |
after all; poor, feverish wistful, changeful NOR
sci Of humanity slender, helpless, breathless
sinks down to death.
"But Frou-Frou is in no sense the true Femme |
Galante of her day. Frou-Frou is much more
fancy than q fact. 1t is not Frou-Frou that Mo-
lions in enduring ridcule had he been living now.
To Frou-Frou he would have doffed his hat with |
1im eyes; what he would have fastened for all
time in his pilory would have been very differ
snt and far more conspicuous offender.
'The Femme Galante, who has neither the scru-
oles nor the foes of poor Frou-F Frou; who neither
orfeits her place nor leaves her lord; who chal
enges the world to find flaw in her, and who
smiles serene at her husbands table on a society
The is careful to conciliate; and who, incapable
like Of the self-abandonment of love or OF the
'elf-sacrifce of duty, had not even such poor,
,heap honor as may make guilt loyal to it's dupe
md partner"
This is the Femme Gslante of the passing GEN.
ury, who babbles of her virtue in compIacent
,oast-the s'female Tartuffe" of infdeity, the
Precieuse Ridicule of passion, the parody of
Love, the standing gibe of womanhood" and
his is what the Countess should be were all the
possibilities Of this play realized.
A MUTINY.
statement of the sailors Who Were Ar