The Washington times., 1906-09-04

Stanley Dark's Man and His Angel,
which opened the National Theater yes
terday. does not introduce startling
~ new theme to theatergoers. Advance
notices lead one to believe thai Mr..
Dark had taken a dip into the pysehic;
had played up the crooked mind in "a
crooked body idea; had chosen the men
tai struggle Between a deformed mad
man. and a woman Of extraordinary in
tellectual powers. a mental and moral
aristocrat That idea is present in the
last act. and somewhat suggested ia
the first three. but the story IN a word
is the old idea Of "a pure woman giving
Up the man she loves because she dis
covers bar sinister or her family
escutcheon-and only one generation
back at that
The PLAY suffers from the character
OF the Hon. Cecil sranforth. the man
to whom Sonia Stepniak gives her love
The part is intrUsted 90 Wallace Ed
dinger, who was the heavy lover in
Sydney RoseHfeld's idioGc "OTumist"
played at the Columbia last spring. In
fairness Ia Mr.. Eddiuger 1t must De said
that the author is largely responsible
for his uncCnvincing work. For fhe sake
Of consistency and realism the English
man should he made q strong character
- explain the Russian beaUtys prefer
cnce for hlm al the expense Of many
rivals. one Of whom, Lord Arthur Dat
tan as played by Fred Tyler, IS made au
unusually loyable man. The action #
The play continually gives the audience
an opportunity 10 compare the two men
the comparison is always bad FOR
StanfOrtn. Only on OyeTmasteTinE love
for the younger man could explain Tire
fair Sonja's choice, yet when she con-
fesses her love and falls into his arms
neither seemed particularly moved. and
their first kiss is far from the average
theatergoer's conception OF the first kiss
Of passion.
Fred Tyler is consistently good all
through the play. His work never fails
to ring true and his acceutuation of
Important lines is a distinct pleasure 10
the ear. Norman Tharp as Keith FOrs-
ter, IS excellent Hls is a very minor
part. but he makes it stand out like O
cameo. Alice Butler Is Mrs. Brandon
Gallus The major part Of the comedy
work fails 70 her and she proves
thoroughly worthy u the trust
As suggested before. the pert assign
ell 70 HoIbr0ok BIiun is a distinct dis
appointment. He IS excellent in it.
But it will not bring him any addition
90 the recognition he received as Napo-
leon B0naparte in The Duchess OF
DantZlE." What the author had I'm mind
may De clear 10 him. but the impression
received across the fOotiights is that
Of crabbe cripple cherishiug q selfish
love for the girl who had saved his life.
He IS neither "a sinister villain nor an
example OF brilliant mind ENGAGED IN
def0rmed body. HIS best accomplish
meut Is an aptitude for forgery. and his
chief occupation during the play IS 10
work against an possible suitors for the
hand OF Sonia When one recalls such
characters as Bertuccio I'm The Fool 3
Revenge" not To mention Shakespeare s
Richard HI the comparison of David
Tryne is disastrous. Mr.. Blinn lends
the character a dignity It really does
not deserve.
Frances Rings work is interesting.
She does not measure ursto some ~ the
strongest situations, and, as noted above.
her abandonment 20 love is cold and
unconviucing. With more experience IN
the role she should improve rapidly, as
she displays intelligence and skill IN the
reading OF her lines.
Most OF the defects in Tho production
we have noted can be Temcdied. In the
opinion Of the writer the play can be
reconstructed on stronger lines. Mr.
Dark viii have 20 do some reWrltlnR-
There are several minor deficiencies as.
for instance the anaChTOnism in using
thin UypeWTirJCn sheets TO represent the
letter bequeathed Sonia by : Jepn.ak,
and its forgery. r. +. NJ.