The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-23

When an indulgent audience called on
Nat G. Goodwin for a speech on Monday
night he improved the shining hour by
contiding to his hearers that he had sew
eral new plays in view for next season and
that in the meantime he had on hand a
lot of English and Australian plays for
sale cheap. This tempting offer may have
been little joke on Mr.. Goodwin's part
he has rather grim ideas of humor at
times-but if he really meant that he pos
sesses a plethora of plays, why in the
name of common sense does he not produce
some OF them himself?
Goodwin has come back to US after an
absence scarcely long enough to make the
heart grow fonder and he has brought
only one novelty (sic) with him, David
GarricK." l should imagine that q come
dian who has 10 resnrrect one of Tom
Robertson's old comedies must be very
hard up indeed for a play, and for one
was prepared to pity Goodwin as victim
TO the prevailing barrenuess of the play
market. After hearing him say, however,
that he had plays to SELL the only logical
conclusion to arrive at was that he had
found s netting to tempt and allure him
in the role of David Garrick
Just where the bond of sympathy be.
tween Goodwin and the role of David
Garrick lies was not perceptibIe to the
naked eye and the uuaided intelligence
from seeing him play the part. The
sympathy was not in the costume, par
tleularly in those parts of it EN- bracing
silk stockings, for nature did not design
the lively Nathaniel for the exposing of
his neither extremities in cinging hose,
and in his top boots he looked like man
walking about on two slender pipe
stems. The sympathy certainly did not
lie in the powder, which was unbecoming,
nor in the satin suits and the sword, for
the comedian wore them all with the
air of a nineteenth century farmer
masQuerading at a fancy dress ball.
There was not q touch, not suggestion
of the grace belonging to an age that
thought more OF external polish than it
did of inward and spiritual grace.
In his conception of David's character
Good win came no more in touch with the
ideal David Garrick than he did in bearing
and appearance. He was an essentially
fin de steele David Garrick, the sort of
swain who might be expected to allude to
Ada Ingot as MY theater mash" or to
her father as 1.-The Old Man." and ami
hiIating space as we'll as time Goodwin
transplanted England's historic actor to
this side of the Atlantic This naturaliza-
ton of David Garrick was involuntary on
the comedians part but none the less was
il aggressiveIy apparent, for be has a
touch of the banjo in his voice which
proudly proclaims in every accent, Made
in America"
Altogether David Garrick" is entirely
out of Goodwins mental and physical
grip. but this need cause no waiIing and
lamentation, for the comedy, like Robert
sons other works, was made for a more
artificial and conventional generation and
does not appeal strongly to end OF the GEN.
fury play-goers. The only matter for re-
gret is that Goodwin revived it at all
when we have it on his own authority that
he has plays to sell.
Since returning home from his foreign
travels T. Daniel Frawley seems to have
been changing his mind to an extent
usually supposed to be the sole preroga-
tive OF what society novelists call "the
fair SEX" On the night OF his arrival l
heard Frawley remark for publication
that he intended to retire from the stage
for the present and devote himself to the
duties of stage management. II feel that
l have not been able to do myself justice
in the acting line. Ny mind has been
burdered with the response bilties of the
performance and l have not given myself
q oh
Pacific Coast have been exceedingly leni-
ent with me, but in spite OF their kindness
realize that my acting has not been up
to my usual standard
After being a witness to the throwing of
this bouquet at the critics it was some
thing of surprise to take up the Mirror
and read that saving ana excepting one
"old sage" T. Daniel Frawley's opinion OF
the San Francisco critics is that they mis-
take personal comment for criticism and
forget that any one may be funny by
brutality" The versatile Mr.. Frawley
has since put himself on record as affirm
ing that the Mirror misquoted him. There
were able critics several "old sages" in
fact-though the Mirror had sifted them
down to one Whether Frawley's personal
opinion OF the critics is favorable or other
wise is matter that is not at all likely 10
interest the public, but some remarks that
he makes in this connection are worth quot
ing by reason of their exceeding naivete.
In denying the correctness Of the Mirror
interview he says: ''If a mans acting is
suitable isn't it enough to say sof But
why say, ooh, yes, his acting is good
enough, but one of his legs is shorter than
the other or one OF bis ears is longer
than its mate? An actor, male or female,
naturally has a sensitive organization, if
he or she is entitled TO the name of actor,
and the public little know the anguish
caused by unmerited abuse"
Now this is ridiculous. No one would
and 20 abuse an actor for being lame or
lop-eared would be positively unchris
tan, but such man has no business in
the profession. An actors appearance is
part of his stock in trade, and as such can
and must be commented on. Goodness
dowed with good looks make capital
enough out of the fact and never display
any constituencies about letting their press
agents boom their beauty in the columns
oil every newspaper that will consent 10
boom it. A man with zone les shorter
than the other has not the necessary
stock in trade for becoming Romeo or a
in the face Of providence for him to at