Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-09

tainly q magnificent theater. From St.
Louis came great floral horseshoe for
Mr.. Havlin, and there were other floral
tributes. The surprise curtain proved
to be gallery of portraits, and McCul-
Tough and Barrett were applauded be-
fore the face of Keene appeared. Ham,
let was the bill, and 7. w. Keene was
the recipient of boisterous applause
that re-echoed through the house. The
press unanimously praise him, and hail
him as the greatest of our tragedians.
His engagement is for two weeks, and
next week he will be seen as Richard
III.
Bad acting is 90 seldo m written about
that it has almost the fascination of a
new and unexplored territory of disser-
tation. People who gather their knowl-
edge OF the metropolitan stage from the
daily papers might be excused for
doubling its very existence. They hear
OF minor faults in actors, and in draw
backs to the excellence OF actresses, but
their sympathies are hardly excited by
victim stigmatized as guilty of down
right, plain unqualified incompetence.
An actor may be somewhat crude,"
or 'ill.suited to the part" or he may
"fail to grasp the authors concep-
ton of the character" and be "occa-
casionally inaudible," or nervous, or
''melodramatic." An actress may be
'hardly strong enough for such trying
part" or wanting in experience" or
"unsympathetic." There or therea-
bouts the liability OF the player to ad-
verse criticism generally ends, and the
mora 0riQuof1o fhiuuo bot srxhk 10 co; II
are wrapped up in vague remark that
1T is unnecessary to criticise in detail
the remainder of the cast" or that the
principal performer "was not well sup
ported" Yet every manager, and
most actors outside of the mono
logue line OF business know that there
is such thing as bad acting. The
bad acting that is my subject is the bad
acting OF New York players who clas-
sify themselves as actors and actresses,
who are eligible for membership of the
A. A. A. A. AL, and free admission to
performances; who get benefits and
"touch" when resting" In handling
such an unfamiliar subject it is we'll to
be cautious. Actors know too much
about it for me to rush into the matter
hastily. It might, perhaps, be we'll to
get on the safe side by prefacing that
this article is not addressed to bad actors
at all, but is designed for the use of those
who know themselves to be good &C tors,
and whose only use for it will be to mark
it in blue pencil, and send it to some
intimate friend" For bad acting is
really serious thing, only to be joked
about by the critics and the managers,
and often very bad joke for both par
ties. 1t deserves to be treated on scien-
tifc lines, analyzed, differentiated,
classified. labeled and put away in glaes
bottles for use as more or less powerful
soporofic or irritant. We might classify
it in dozen different ways. It may be
a natural faculty or an acquired habit it
may be deliberate or unintentional; it
may be easily curable, or susceptible to
lenitive treatment, or hopelessly
incapable of either modification
or cure. A parallel might be
drawn between it and greatness !;
some are born to bad acting. and some
have bad acting thrust upon them.
How? The man who is born bad actor
does not requirs explanation; the
woman who'is born bad actress re-
quires only exploitation. The player,
male or female, who achieves bad act.
ing, does so by sacrificing art to popu-
larity. The actor who has bad acting
thrust upon him is the victim of the
author who cannot evolve character con-
sistently or construct plot coherently.
At this stage in the consideration of
bad acting it's becomes apparent that,
before I can pursue the subject profit
ably, definition is an indispensable
necessity. What is bad acting, anyhow?
There are go many different standpoints
for judging the thing that it is rash
to define at all. From the managers
point of view, acting is bad when it fails
to draw good houses. From the authors
point of view, almost all acting is bad,
except when it is worse. An actor is
liable to the delusion that bad acting is
the acting of the other people with bet
ter parts than his own. A critic inclines
to the belief that it is malignant de-
vice Of the devil, which comedies with
an irritable condition of his nerves or q
strike of his digestive appliances. There
is no finality about any Of the defini-
tions. After all, where are we to find
the evidence of bad acting? Excluding
hearsay testimony, in accordance with
the sound practice of the law, and
examining witnesses only as to
their own experience, I shall have
an obvious difficulty in getting even
one instance of Incompetence. There is
at least one tradition as to lady who
declared that she could not act 'for
nuts" and owed position entirely to her
manager, her costumer, and the boun-
teous provision of nature in attributes
not identical with histrionic ability.
But that deposition was not made upop
oath, or intended for publication. ]
really come to a deadlock when called
upon for proofs, and an ex-psrte
statement, unsupported by evidence
and liable to contradiction, will
count for very little. It would
appear, on the whole that bad acting
partakes of the nature of bogus man.
agement. 1t is understood to exist, and
many stories are current as to its repel-
liant characteristics and its evil
influence on those who claim tc
have been exposed to it. But it il
much safer not to 60 looking about for q
concrete example of it. Its powers ol
mischief are as comprehensive as those
of boarding-house cat, which breaks
anything from sewing machine to q
new-laid egg. and has an appetite that
embraces uncut tin cans and blocks o.
toilet soap as heartily as cold meat. II
has ruined the finest plays ever pro
duced, and spoilt the greatest
effects of the greatest actors
and destroyed the temper of in
Vulnerable stage managers and die
gusted an indulgent public with many
meritorious productions. But it is al
| ;ntopuihlo oa tho Hnaraoua1 naunati m /,