Omaha daily bee., 1903-03-29


an individuality to last week in local amuse-
Alent annals. Neither Of the other attrac-
lions was such as would attract more than
passing notice. unless II may be that the
unusual ardor with which Mr.. Daniel Sully
entered upon his work last Sunday evening"
should be worthy Of note. On that occasion
Mr.. Sully gave a performance which will
long be remembered by those who saw It.
Mrs. Campbell fully sustained her reputa-
tion for seriousness, and afforded those who
attended her performances an intellectual
treat Of the very highest order.
. Neither Of the three plays she presented
IL especially attractive. dealing as they do
with a serious topic in a most serious man
ner, yet each is entitled to respectful con-
sideration as embodying the concrete senti-
ment Of modern thought along the line fol-
lowed by the dramatist. Mrs. Campbell Is
peculiarly qualified to give intelligent and
%forceful expression to these arguments. and
mat she presents the case of each OF the
unfortunate heroines In It's best light is ad-
mitted. Personally she looks upon her pres
ent work as much in the nature Of a cru
sade. Since beginning her present Ameri-
can engagement she has said on several oc-
caslons that she is trying to make the peo-
pie understand the case from the woman's
viewpoint. In a measure at least she has
Jucceeded in this. One observant Omaha
woman remarked after 9Th Joy of Living
she is the only actress l have ever seen
who cLn show Just how a woman feels"
Admitting that her crusade has drawn much
serious tho"ght 20 the condition, the
thought occurs, "What is the e%fect?" It
would he unfair to say that such persuasive
preaching as that Of Mrs. Campbell is all
without effect, but surface Indications do
MT AZ net aA1wr --..L
n the established order Of things.
Suderman appeals directly to the intellect,
not the emotions. He is matter Of fact,
analytical, in his method and almost en-
lively devoid OF sentiment In his treat
ulent OF the Copies. He pleads for the
eight OF personal selection and to illustrate
his rgument gives us the most powerful
contrasts. In THE Joy OF Living" he
shows how the lives Of all within the
range OF the influence Of Countess Beata
we're illumined after she had found her
affinity; he makes 1t clear that she might
have remained v%irtuous and commonplace,
but preferred Illicit love and brilliancy;
and he also makes plain the price. In
"Magda" he brings into juxtaposition the
extremes and emphasizes the warfare that
subsists between them. Magda in her
INV OOAbntl ptuNdIIE III HIS were
happy; when an attempt was made to inS
troduce one to the others sphere disaster
followed. Magda did what she deemed
good for herself, but her father could not
understand this; he used a different stand
\ ard In measuring up his moral stature.
Another thing is made clear in this con-
n%ection. Magda was forgiven by society
because she was successful. In silks and
laces aud diamonds she was welcome; In
rags she would have been spurned. Suder-
mans analysis only makes clearer the con-
ditlons. but added light hardly seems to
make the end any palmer.
'In The Second Mrs. Tanqueray'
an effort Is made to show a way
out Of the labyrinth. but the memorable
logic OF events forces both author and actor
to admit the hopelessness Of the situation
Admitting all that, Suderman directly ant
by implje Ntion urges in defense Of hi,
b~eroines unpleasant predicament; sym.
pathize all we may with Pinero's ingenioui
and earnest effort TO show the lane b,
which the one who has stepped aside maj
get back into the straight and narrow way
saying all the time to ourselves, Though
they may gang a kenning wrang, to steI
aside is human" feeling each Of us tina
charity which 'covereth a multitude o
SINS we all halt, and while unwilling 4
cast the first stone at the offender, we ar,
also unwilling to TAX the first step to de
Btroy the barrier society has erected agains
her. 1t is unfair TO q great many earnes
people to insist that this view is the uni
versal one; many good men and women ar
there in every community who are willinI
to assist in restoring the tarnish to a sui
lied name, even willing to forgive and for
get even such lapses as those OF Magda
but Mrs. Bulson-Porter cannot be eluded
and Sir Daniel Carteret is always willinI
to assist in her confounding to the ute
undoing OF the object OF his chivalrous in
reference. II can hardly be said that tn
status of the problem has been much al
tered by It's latest discussion.
Ever and again crops out the debate as I
The value Of individuality OF the actor
whether II is the play or the player. an
what, II any. effect the one has on tn
other. One OF the most recent instances G
this Is Afforded by the Chicago Chronicle
which gives up a considerable amount G
It's last Sundays space to an explanation @
he difficulties that attended the efforts G
Francis Wilson to divorce himself from tn
character OF Caddy in "Erminie." and {
James O'Neill to disassociate himself froI
the part of Edmond Dantes. From tn
column Of the Chronicle. presided over b
Its very able dramatic critic, whose sobe
judgment is always entitled to a hearing
the following is taken:
This is one OF the penalties OF these lon
and exclusive runs in one part. There ar
other penalties entailing themselves d
rectly on the player, but most OF them |
such cases live In the memory Of observer
They, the observers, do not reflect that pei
sonal and artistic peculiarities OF an
player who evinces any individuality {
power at all. must of necessity impres
themselves on his every impersonatiol
That this Is a quality inseparable from hi
art without which, II II were absent frOl
all. all representations Of any particula
character would be alike. and, Individual
considered, colorless. This truth Of stag
and the tragic and all grades between
The peculiar or personal element-peculis
or personal to the player as man OF q
artist-remains a constant quantity, {
practically constant. The power and eftel
tiveness OF the player is determined
very large degree by his capacity to kee
his personal and artistic peculiarities hel
ible and to adapt them to the illuminate
of differing characters.
In a large measure this conclusion Is a.
eurate, but that Il is logically correct seen
debatable. Instead OF the actor giving Il
,olor Of his own personality to the differel
parts be plays. isn't It rather the fuhctiC
OF the true artist to discover the real COLI
Of the character he is supposed 10 assuH
and conform his individuality TO that? Or