Waterbury evening Democrat., 1894-10-23

ex-gucst could have circulated such stories with authority, they arc manifcsfly un- worthy of crcdencc
 Never was tho furue of Shakespeare's dictum, The plays tho thing" moru viyidly e1cmplifiOd than by tho experiences Of Tim Murphy, George Richards and En- gene Garfield. These three men have for years been members Of Farce Constructor HOyt's companies Murphy gave an i'm pcrsOnation of Maverick BrAndcr in "A Texas Steer" which was as clear cut as . cameo. md, although the character Is not cast upon a high plane. artistic in the extrcne.
 Richards and Garfield did excellent work in several of Hoyt's skits. tho former being exceptionally droll. particularly iu "A Tcmpcranco Town" All thrcc of thesc men wcre violently attacked by the starring fever. and they determined to mako for themselves the fortunes which they had been pouring into H0yJ's coffcrSl Their abilities would then have the oppor- tunity to shine with uncontrolled CfFul- gencc, and their hank accounts would speedily wax pleth0ric-
 Richards and Caniiold had ''hulshic'' entitled "A Circus Clown specially written for them. while Murphy got Hen ry Guy CariCton's impossible pastoral,
 ENENNAG- 4nE NA0Nu ms GAArEu Its season, and its stars have joined Mur- phy. Nearly all the steam has run out of tho Kettle" and the thrcc ck-HOytites are announced to produce n new play within a short time They arc all prOiIa bly, convinced by this time that Shake spcarc was in the prophet class when he expressed the opinion that tho play-and by inference not tho actnr-is the thing
 An actor connected with n prominent organization, who has done some fairly good and some very bad work during his stage carccr. and whose handsome face and fine fgurc are responsible for his pms ent status to a much grCater extent than his histrionic ability, informed me the other day that he did not carc n rap for what the dramatic critics say of him As hc has experienced the pleasure of what he dcnominatc< '-roastinE." pcrhaps his opinion Is not valuable us it might oth- erwise bc, but he Is not alone. Most acturx of his class believe with him Maintained by pleasing personal appearancs In posi- tions to which they arc not justly entitled they feel that shCy are as good as those In whose company they find themselves The | critics do not scc 1t in that light, and they of cOursc earn the enmity of thcse | dcsultOry mcJliOcritics- The particular in dividual Ia whom I rrfcr said thnt be could not scc why an actor should not be a better judge of stage work than n dra- | mAtic critic He doubtless loses sight of | the fact that n well trained theatrical writer Is prepared for his calling by years | of study and experience. and thnt his
 mind necessarily acquires a judicial turn | Besides he attends mOrc performances in one season than the average actor does in ten. Why, then. should he not be mon | competent to judgcs Most critics are con | scicntiOus, and n great many arC capable | It Is therefore manifcstly unjust tO blame
 the entire guild for the shortcomings O. | the few. Another thing. n good critics | opinion Is not that of one man In nine cases out of ten 1t is indOrsei by theatcI gocrs and justified by subsequent events
 Thcrc arc just about enough exceptions C | prove the general rule