El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-10-21

CYRIL SCOTT
the reception accorded it in this city has
perhaps not been of the most enthusiast
tic nature, it is pretty good indication
of the cleverness of a farce when four
ffths of the persons comprising a very
slim matinee audience almost laugh
themselves into Mysteries at several
scenes, and that is just what 1 saw at
the Manhattan the other day.
Considered from high critical stand
point, "a Stranger In a Strange Land"
is worth about line. Regarded as an
entertainment for amusement only, and
assuming that the management will have
the intelligence to remedy the present
defects, which are glaringly conspicuous,
"a Stranger In Strange Land ought
to prove a success. The story, in the
case of most farces, is very light and
tenuous and is scarcely worth repeating,
and yet as entertainments of this sort go
1t is pretty good story after all. There
is fun enough in "A Stranger In
Strange Land" to supply half a dozen
farces and have a goodly portion left
over. The great trouble with the piece
is that the authors, apparently being i'm
bued with conscientious desire to stick
to the text, as it were, have subordinated
everything to the concentrating of the
attention of the audience at brief inter-
ValS upon the Ind1an VINO makes the cOm-
plications possible.
This may be all right as general prop
osition in dramatic construction, but as
applied to knockabout farce it simply
won't do. The play now gives the i'm
preston of being loose jointed and not
well knit together. Besides, the points
which one would naturally expect to be
effective are weakened by being sprung
too suddenly, without the necessary pre-
-orl-i ncr rrhI nv %
way, would be a thousand times more
humorous than the dialogue which takes
its place and which, it must be admitted,
Is rather dreary at times, despite the
snappy lines which every now and then
crop out.
The authors of "a Stranger In a
Strange Land Messrs. Sidney Wilmer
and Walter Vincent, will bear watching.
If these men are able to show any i'm
provement whatever upon their work in
this farce, they are destined to become
prominent concocters of this class of
plays. There is scarcely an idea in the
piece which is not exceedingly clever and
which in the hands of Charles II. Hoyt
would not have been made screamingly
funny. The individual lines bristle in
spots with bright, snappy retort which it
would be difficult to improve upon, but
there is the ever present handicap of in
effective pictures which greatly mar the
effect of the play an entity. Another
factor which has initiated against the
success of the piece in New York is that
most of the players were not overfamiliar
with their lines, and those even who were
letter perfect had not played their parts
long enough to be able to impart that
snap and go which are Indispensable to
the bringing out of all that is best in a
farce. The acting was really excellent,
as the shortcomings alluded to were sim
ply due to the fact that the performers
have only appeared in the piece short
time. Cyril Scott and George Osbourne
made great personal successes. The cast
was as follows:
Jack Thorndyke. Cyril Scott
Mr.. Charles Dudley. ............M NJ. A. Kennedy |
Or- Johh Boiler. waiter Hale
Ta-mo-nee- George Osbourne
Arthur Love-. Walter Clifford
Harrington James T. Galloway
Watson. Charles w. Swain |
Alice Wellington. Maud White |
Hon. Mrs. Barton Holcombe. Kate Lester |
May Holcombe- Angela McCaull |
Grace Thorndyke. ..............K Katherine Mukins |
Matilda. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Jane Corcoran |
1t may be only a press agent story, but |
there are many persons who implicitly |
believe in the accuracy of the little para
graph recently published in English |
paper to the effect that Cecil Raleigh's
income is greater than that of any other
playwright in the world At first this