The San Francisco call., 1905-04-23

There is sf7oat just now a deal of
nonsense concerning the substitutions
in the casts Of some of the recent New
York productions seen here. Lightly.
the srgumentative process employed is
known as dragging a red herring
across the trail" 1t is true that the
said productions have been untruth-
fully and quite superfluously adver-
tised as identical with the original
ones. II is further true that we have
been long suffering in the matter of
inferior productions foisted upon us
with such cheerful persistence. And
here is the real point at issue. What
concerns the public is not that il shall
get a production at every point identi-
cal with the original one. What does
concern the public is simply that it
shall get good one.
The mistake is in supposing that
original cast" is a synonymous term
for the best cast There are arguments
in favor OF the supposition: such argu-
ments as that for the original produc-
ton the greatest possible care in the
choice Of sympathetic actors will be
made But such choice is not infalli-
bic Take the first Beckmesser of our
acquaintance the very good one of
David Bispham. Before last weeks
presentment Of Die Meistersinger''
regrets were loud in the land for Mr..
Bispham s absence. But who now re-
members it2 In face of the classic por-
trait of the old meistersinger presented
by Mr.. Goritz. Mr.. Bisphams Beck
nesser sinks almost TO the level of
farce. And such things are constantly
occurring. Not that the cast is not
the original one but that it is an in
ferior one is where grievance begins.
There are cases where one is out for
q personality. where substitution is an
offense. ] want my MIS-. Fiske when
] 20 10 see Leah Kleschna," and
should certainly say things if they
tried TO palm off a May Irwin on me.
But such substitutions are rarely
made. They are made occasionally.
Los Angeles was the scene Of one just
lately II was a particularly wicked
one in that the substituting actor was
quite as good as the original and Sc
dUced the critics not only into praise
Of his work, but into the discovery Of
family traits that only the other one
could. have honestly come by. Lionel
\ i
Marshall the brilliant offender. The
offence IN this case has been frequent.
While Mr.. Barrymore lay III for many
weeks the audiences Of The other
Girl put up with entire satisfaction
with the clever Mr.. Marshall. Their
comment upon the remarkable influ-
ences of heredity must have amused
both actors. Mr.. Marshall did play
played il exactly as well as Mr. Barry
more-One cannot imagine Kid Garvy
better played than by Barrymore-and
in the East. where the regulations of
the two actors are pretty much on
par. the affair seems to have been
taken entirely as a joke.
THE Other Girl is one Of the afore-
mentioned productions. Though we
did have Miss Ethers brother in the
cast there were substitutions made.
Because Of this the management has
been accused Of imposition upon the
public and In fact was technically
guilty. But what is the truth of the
case? Drina de Wolfe. who was the
original ingenue. Miss Fulton, has not
beer here: but careful inquiry fails to
discover any particular reason for Miss
de VOTES importation save a pretty
face and a genius for wearing gowns.
Miss Doris Keane, who took her place.
is on the contrary an actress Of notable
charm, pretty winsome, accomplished
and altogether one Of the most en-
gaging ingenues seen here for long
days. But, nevertheless, had Miss
Drina de Wolfe not been otherwise en-
piness Of seeing her pretty face and her
eleverly worn gowns during the en-
Eagement.
There can again be no two opinions
that the part Of the minister was well
played by Richard Bennett. 1t was as
well played as even Frank Worthing,
who was the original DR.. Bradbury,
S