The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-08
ADJUSTMENTS
Metropolitan - Modjeska In "Mary ,
Stuart" I

- MooJeSka III wary
Stuart"
In no character in her entire repertory
do Modjeska.'s peculiar talents and
transcendent artistry shine forth more
respondent than in Schillers classic
drama, MARY Stuart the bill which
opened her farewell engagement at the
Metropolitan last evening. The great Pol
ish artist, and she is indeed truly an art
list in the best and finest sense. belongs
to that school of acting which Is fast
passing into the shades of memory
Modjeska is one Of the last Of its ex-
ponents, and with the present tour. the
world gives to this lovely, cultured wonl-
an and finished actress, its ''vale." ~
It is more than a decade since Helena
Modjeska presented MARY Stuart here,
and altho so long period has passed,
time has not dimmed the luster of her
performance. Her voice last evening was
somewhat husky from cold, but there
was the same dignity and poise, the same
regal manner, the same hints Of the
levity and f1ckleness, those fatal blem
ishes In the character of Scotland's
queen, which the story as told by the
great dramatist, affords so little oppor-'
tunity to exploit. -
The one criticism that could with truth
be passed upon Modjeskas presentation
of drama in English is her pronunciation.
It is still marked by a formal accent,
which at times is quite noticeable. Yet
there never was moment when every
word she spoke was not plainly and
easily heard and understood. Indeed, her
enunciation was remarkable for its clear
ness. No one who has ever viewed
Modjeska's presentations Of the closing
scene in the somber drama will ever for
get it's power and pathos, as she bids
her fearful attendants adieu, and with
| eyes fixed on the crucif1x totters to her
block of doom. Nor Will the flash of
! regal imperiousness as she hurls back in
Elizabeth's teeth the taunt of her tainted
| birth, be soon forgotten. These are the
greatest scenes in the drama, and they
are masterfully written and played. In
deed, nothing more fitting than schiller's
sonorous lines could be imagined fol-
Mary Stuart, the subject, Of Helena
Modjeska, the interpreter. ..
| Modjeskas support was more than
adequate. William -HaZeltine as Dudley
Earl Of Leicester, and Edwin Caldwell
as Mortimer divide the histrionic hon
ors between them. The latter we'll in
terpreted the hot, impulsive supporter Of
Mary's cause, while the former was
equally facile in portraying the duplicity
of Elizabeth'ss favored courtier In botf
| cases the lines. were read with a clearness
and cleanness that was delightful. The
Sir Amias Paulet of Wadsworth Harri:
was another, good piece Of work, clea1
and convincing, while the Lord Burleigl
Of Charles D. Herman was deserving O.
| sincere communication. ... ..
OF the women of the cast, the mino
role Of Margaret, played by Miss Emma
L. Frederick, was charming in its sim
plicity and naturalness: The thank1es
task Of interpreting the unlovely role O
Elizabeth was allotted to Miss Lorett;
Wells. Her conception Of the characte
was in accordance with historical fact
The imperious pettiness, the jealou
vanity, the hesitant credulity, the shrew
ish rage, all were there. She was re
gal as a queen, but possessed in far NOR
than ordinary measure the common frail
! ties Of woman. It is to Miss. Wells
credit that she made SO fine a portrait
Mrs. Vandenhoff was somewhat forma
as the faithful nurse, but presented
consistent and effective character TIL
other parts were, in the main, well cast
| -. Howard Boardman.