New-York tribune., 1904-09-25

II IS strange thing this going night after
night TO plays, and night after night record
ing ones impressions OF them It may be one
questions sometimes II the diet does not Play
not inoonsiderable part IN the formation Of Judg-
ment, and wonders II a training table foT critics
would be excellent institution. Alas! the
relative merits Of salad dressings would probably
prove an uEmasticatable bone Of contention, and
there would surely be one stubborn New-Eng-
lander who would insist on pie! Yet there
one occasion last week when a little more kind
ness the part OF reviewers would not
have come Ruiss, and another occasion when a
little clearer yisiCn-perhaps little less kindness
would have held theatrical efairs IN q true
perspective In the rush OF daily recording widely
divergfng happenings It IS not easy 70 keep the
vanishing point IN the true horizon. TO observe the
proper respect toward ones vocabulary, allowing
the larger adjectiyes TO lie untouched until their
is justly demanded by tho event; yet it is
surely one OF the first duties Of the chronicer to
Sttempt TO maintain his perspective true and IL is
ong a correction OF the vision TO point out that
81 the acting OF W. II. Crane in Business Is
Business" is futile. II he is 'hopelessly miscast
and merely ''the same old Crane" then the acting
OF Mrs. Bloodgood In THE Coronet OF the Ouch
ess' and the performance OF Ernest Lawford IN
The same play DO not deserve the adjeotives ''su-
preIne" and brilliant" which were in some quar-
tsTs respectively attributed TO them The tense
of criticism is distortinE the view.
Yet II was probably a kindly instinct which
prompted fhe laudation OF these players IN Mr..
Fitchs drama But shall kind critics be moro
than corOnets2 Shall the desire to mitigate some
what the harshness OF just condemnation OF q
VERY bad play cause the reviewer 10 forget his
perspective? No acting can be supreme" which
does not arouse 81 the beholder TO a bic
pitch The emotions supposed to be filing the play
ers bosom No acting can be brilliant" which
does not create most vivid illusion Of life Now
n may be questioned by the 5udicious vhsthsr
AIRS. Bloodgood, mediocre actress whom a pleas
ant naturalness makes attractive and appealing in
her euiet1r moments Of mirth sweetness could
ever lay mold OF the elemental passions ever rise
70 be supreme" even in play which truly rep
resented life, and it may also be questioned IL
Mr. Lawford has YET shown the capacity to create
picture OF character in styls worthy OF the
choice and superlatiVe word brilliant" even should
that character have been endowed by its author
With the instincts Of a vivid creation And in
''The Coronet Of the Duchess" Mrs Bloodgoo5 "a
deprived by the playwright OF an opportunity
even 10 lay hold OF elemental passions, while Mr.
LeWford walks through part that Commands no
appeal 70 the beholder's imagination. that prob
ably permits OF no contrasts between surface pol
ish and indwelHrg caddshness that is vitalized by
no Firility on the part OF the author To use tbe
words supreme" and brilliant on the work of
Mrs BlooogoOd and Mr.. Lawford IN this play is IN
reality much like squandeTing ones choicest ad-
5ectives on the heroine of a novel by THE Ouch
ess" and the silly ass" Englishman OF musical
comedy.
On the other hand. perspective Is equally distort
ed by condeTnuing utterly MI Cranes performances
IN Bushes Is business" Admitting for the mo-
ment that Mr. Crane fell far short OF the possili-
ues OF the character OF Lsidore Lechat that he
oo fall short TO some extent be admitted (as
it must be admitted OF all performances save one
CT two In generationD still because the vitality
sno magnitude OF the character. the tremendous
call On the resources ana physical energy OF the
performer. the impressive theatric situations of
Which It was the pivot IN playing It even with such
small measure OF success OF his critics an
nounced he attained Mr.. Crane displayed far great
az power actor. achieved far more emotional
results painted far more vivid picture on the
mind OF the beholdeT. and deserves far greater
crsoit. To laud high Mr.. Lawford and Mrs Blood
good and TO damn Mr.. Crane Is TO shout I'D the
composer OF -Goodby. Ny Blue RelP as an artist
and shout down Puccini for the failure OF Nine
Butterfly.
But how Ear did Mr.. Crane really fail? How far
were the various attrfbutons of failure due TO the
shortsighfedness OF reviewers, who could not-one
hesdtstes 20 say would not, and there 10 be
no possible for having to say it-forget BIr
Cranes past ana look only his present? II is a
difhcult. n not impossible. thing disassociats
the recoectons OF the past from the present event.