New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-16
THE LONDON STAGE.
Mr.. IRvING'S AUDIENCES-PANTOM AT
COyENT GARDEN AND DRURY LANE.

HI none OF the accounts OF Mr. Irving SappearaIce
as Dgby Grant has it been mentioned that his face
bears a curious likeness to that of the late Lord
Beaconsfeld II might be too much to say that this
is intentional. 1t is rather a suggestion than an
actual imitation. Lord Beaconsfield had counten-
ance which lent itself readily to copying or TO
carieature. The curl on the forehead, the protrud-
ing under lip the tuft of hair the chin and other
traits could be hit off by the clumsiest mimic. Mr..
Irvings process is more subtle He omlts alters
these marked characteristics, puts on NOUS
tacle. which Lord Beaconsfed did not wear, and
presents himself to the spectator with as many
points of dissimilarity of similarity to- the late
Conservative leader. AS Mr.. Digby Grant is a
broken-down spendthrift, spongng shamelessly
his friends, billdng his creditors, trading his
daughters attractions full of all egotsm and mean
ness, and in word, Prince of Humbugs it
would have been thought an offence IN Mr.. Irving
to make his portrait too close TO Lord Beaconseld.
don't know that he had any purpose of limiting at
any resemblance whatever between the personal
appearance and outward figure of these two celeb
rites But there it Is, and palpable enough to be
seen by everybody whom one asked for opinion.
One of the best Of the London dramatic writers
has a striking remark apropos of this performance.
The audience says he. unaccustomed TO the study
of true and powerful comedy. hung upon every ut
terance of the actor and his very strength OCCASION
ally killed the rest, as does powerful bit of color
by contrast. Mr.. Irvings Djgby Grant is in truth,
full of minute touches that the secret of its eff
fectiveness is by no means obvious'to an unframed
audience; and ii must be said that a Lyceum
audience is unframed to the exact observation of
the best comedy. One good result of this perform
ance viii he to create, or to enlarge a good
critical public. Without a good public a good
school of actors is not to be hoped for.
Mr.. Irving's admirers, thus far. have been
too much disposed to accept whatever he
did excellent They had intelligence enough
to perceive in him the evidence of great powers; not
always intelligence enough TO distinguish between
a right and wrong use of those powers. His per-
severance in very marked faults Is due to this
want of discrimination in his audiences The critics,
several of whom are men of knowledge and sound
Judgment, told him frankly enough of his mistakes.
But the public went on applauding good things
| and bad together, and it is eXcusable enough in
actor to prefer the verdict of the multitude. when
it Is his side, to the of more fastidiOus
minority, numerically Insignificant Those same
audiences will now have opportunity of contrast
ing Mr.. Irving with himself They may, and should
say must by degrees, become aware of the difference
between their idol struggling heTOicaly with parts
which lie outside the range of his physical powers
and the same Mr.. Irving in character which he
embrace completely. Digby Grant offers abundant
opportunities for acting of very high order indeed
and nothing i'll Mr.. Irving's ImpersOnation of this
brilliant scamp is more remarkable than the ease
with which he moves through intricate situations
and his thorough mastery of techncalities. They no
more hamper him than sword hampers a man who
wears il daily. 1t is all rapid, to continue the
comparison, as the play of two accomplished
fencers and as difficult to follow. sThe audience
did not, in fact follow it. They admired results
and effects not processes which is what the critic
began by quoting perhaps really meant, but with
prudent politeness lett half unexpressed.
In things theatrical, rs in things political and
social the English are curiously conservative. 1t
has been the fashion for know not how many gen
erations to treat the Christmas pan tOnimes as the
most important feature of Boxing Night These
pieces have long ceased to have any real importance
but the treatment survives. Most of the papers be-
gan their long record of Mondays entertainments
with elaborate descriptions Of the performances at
Drury Lane and Covent Garden, which are the two
pantomime houses, par excellence. In all essential
points one pantomime is much like another as
the sunrise of to-day is like that of yesterday. They
are each wonderful in their way, but there is limit
to the reading, though it would seem not to the
writing of descriptions of such phenomena.
Whether the play is called Robinson CTusoe Little
Bo-Peep the Forty Thieves or the Babes in the
Wood, the lines on which the exhibition is
structed will never much vary. A great deal of
scenery with ingenious tricks of transformation, COS
tunes innumcrable, partly grotesque, partly splen-
did, an army of people of all ages and both sexes
to wear Them a ballet two ballets one grand
combination of scenic magnifcences at the end.
The whole saturated with stupid vulgarlty and fol-
lowed by pantomime proper of clowns, colum-
hines harlequns policemen, and the stalest of Oft
repeated practical Jokes That is what is served up,
wear after year, to British children of every
growth, who seem never to tire of the banquet
spread before them.
There is a pecuniary reason for the perennial per-
petuity of the pantomne. successful pantOmime
is enormously profitable 1t rams from Christmas to
perhaps the end of February hardly more than two
months, and in that brief period lively manager,
who has bit the taste of the town, has been known
to clear thirty forty thousand dollars; perhaps
more. On the other hand, there is no slight risk of
failure. If all pantomimes are alike in the sense
explained above, the public taste is tickle. 1t is
so doubtful whether taste has much to do with
the matter that il is safer to say that the
public from year to year is capricious.
Nobody ever knows why one pantomime succeeded
and another failed Neither plot dialogue
can contribute much to the result for neither is in
telIgble. All that can be said is that the same
house, with pantOmme by the same author, with
the same actors, and the same gorgeousness of
mounting, Is thronged one year ana empty the next
To bring ont piece on the scale now reckoned es-
sential to success requires an expenditure of not
Iesssthan 300 900, and a cautious manager may
well hesitate in presence of such figures. heard of
one case not long since where enthusiastic youth
spent nearly twice that sum in order to make sure
that certain spectacle should be given and that
certain gay woman to whom he bore an affection
should have part IN it. The spectacle was duly
given, and admired or nOt-I forget which
but the manager who produced the pantomme
omitted 10 provide the young woman