The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-10

send wireless telegram 10 fetch her here
20 my rescue That is the gist OF a lie
which. By a fortuitous chance. turns out
70 be the truth. There really IS Yankee
cruiser within reach Of the Mareoni telc-
graphic station and IL responds TO the
call. Its marines rescue Ananias at the
moment when the ground has a grave
ready 10 swallow him up. simultaneously
ne gets the news that the caDman wasn't
killed. That lets him out OF his difficulties
and presumably he lives a happy liar ever
afterwards
Richard Harding Davis has suffered
through actors unable to play his heroes
rightly. William Collier has suffered
through authors unable to create the right
heroes for him TO play But this author and
this actor have got together for mutual
prosperity. Collier is one Of the few COM
edians who can look modest when auGa-
ciOus. That Is TO say, his cheekiness be-
longs apparently-probab bly, il really does
MOTTO the fellow he assumes 70 be ana
not to himself Stories are told Of his self
satisfaction. but none OF it is betrayed IN
his professional demeanoT. That makes
the vital difference between success and
failure In the stage representation OF a
mendacious hero. III audiences are to ac-
cept and enjoy him he must make the eX-
cuse Of good humor for his sins IL
wouldn't matter that Brooke Iravers y
written by a genius IN depicuOn, ne WOulu
be rejected if embodied BY an actor with
the manner OF a brash braggart. So Davis
and Collier ought to feel much obliged TO
each other
In the simultaneous case Of f. c. Bur-
maud, Charles Hawtrey and 'Saucy Sally
all the thank you should be said by the
author to the actor, as l see it; for the
farce has no merit of oddly and is forced
into considerable success by the acting Of
it. Hawtrey would be as effectual in "The
Dictator as Collier is and perhaps more
50, as his quiet humor IS as distinct, ms
knack of doing impudent things with no
air OF assurance Is as potent and ne might
add a distinction of a handsomer presence
and more gentlemanly bearing. The farce
fof "Saucy Sally was taken from the
French by Burnaud before King Edward
knighted him as editor OF Punen, else ne
wouldn't have put into II some lnapprecla-
tive passages on the knighting of Tom,
Dick and Harry through personal favor
He has transferred lie Flambeau' 10 Eng
land for scene and Individuality but lett il
still French in subject and treatment. Sure
ly there Is nothing 10 surprise uS-l mean
at the theater-in the husband who divides
his time between a country home with a
sober wife and London chambers with a
gay girl. accounting to each woman for his
absences by pretending TO have gone on
voyages OF discovery in ship named Saucy
Sally. And the presence of a mother-in-law
TO harass and almost expose him is not
calculated TO enhance Burnand's reputation
as an original humorist However. the
details are numerous: ingenious and. as
leven New York sophisticated first-night
audience found them amusing.
=
Hawtrey. you know. is a stage pet of our
smart gang-I mean set. How could it be
otherwise? Are not well aware that he
was a chummy rounder with Albert Edward
when the King was a prince? So those of
US who take our social cues from London's
smart gang-again l mean set-are bound
to talk about Chawley Haw-aw-trey as
quite the propah thing in aw gentlemen
looks exactly n xuh
are told he is a London swell you have
no thought of doubling it, He has the big
and beefy beauty, the lazy lounging, half
bored yet wholly goOd-natured department
and the London pronunciation that doesn't
approach the cockney TO satisfy our ideal
OF the English town aristOcrat of the West
End clubs and drawing rooms.
These two farces prove again the extreme
popularity of Ananias on the stage. Then
why not Sapphire? If a man liar is so
amusing, why wouldn't woman liar be,
If a husband tickles US by telling every
thing but the truth to his credulous WIFE
why wouldn't we laugh at a wife who fools
her husband with falsehoods? The only
answer Is compliment 10 women. We
demand higher degree of probity i'm them
at least in moral matters, than we are able
or say, willing to maintain in ourselves
Women accept that view of the subject
merrfly when it is exploited in the theater.
They think IL merely funny when Hawtrey
darkest Africa, cruises instead to foggiest
London. They seem to be more pleased
too, when he gets out of the mess scot free
than when he seems sure to be punished
1t was just so when William Gillette. cool
est and cunningest of stage liars, performed
In Too Much Johnson" a farce which he
bought outright for $500 in French and
turned into probably $4,000 English I am
reminded of that piece by the similarity of
its plot to that of 'Saucy Sally" The
husband there, as here told OF imaginary
voyages in q certain vessel until his wife
and mother-in-law drove him TO it; but
the Englishman has to go farther than
the wharf at Southampton, whereas the
American had TO embark TO Cuba. where
his experiences on a plantation were very
punitive.
To get back to the question which 1
raised: Suppose that some playwright were
to reverse the sexes in a farce and give
an inning TO Sapph,ra in the game of mar
ital Implicitly? Would we think il funny
when the wife. instead of the husband,
strayed away from her home for disloyal
outing, returned to a fond and trustfuI
spouse unashamed and covered her wicked
ness so deep with lies that he never sus-
pected anything wrong? Indeed we would
not and we'll the dramatists know IL.
FRANKLIN FYLES.