Los Angeles herald., 1906-02-18
MISS ROBERTS
AND HER PLAY
pY wflIam hamilton Cllne.

MOI Otten IS Los Angeles asked W
pass judgment on a theatrical produce
tion in its original state, with its first
company, for the purpose OF affirming
an opinion as to its possibilities for
New York presentation. When such
an occasion does arise It merits more
than ordinary notice.
Florence Roberts in giving "The
Strength of the Weak" here last week,
deliberately sought this city's opinion
for that purpose 1t was avowed that
on the basis of Los Angeles and San
Franciscos judgment would depend
whether or not she would brave Broad
way in this play.
The ordinary exigencies of dramatic
review do not always permit the de-
tailed and careful critique that Miss
Roberts desires. The usual play given
here has been passed upon long before
in the east and must contain certain
elements of either merit, sensational
ism or vitality of some sort, to have
survived the trip across the continent
Hence, here, instead of criticism, they
are offered merely a review, and dra-
matte reporters here largely confine
their efforts to that line. writing hast
lily and specifically they therefore do
not enter into the dramatic verities,
nor do they presume to do So they
merely chronicle an event, much as
would be done in case of any other
item of news.
Miss Roberts is In a sense a coast
product. one would therefore natur-
ally wish to treat her kindly. In the
main one may. She undoubtedly pos
sesses talent, though not in the meas
ure that she believes, or, at lesat, has
hoped to demonstrate. She is an emo
tonal actress of considerable power.
Her great fault is lack of originality.
She Is reminiscent of too many other
great actresses. One catches in her
work tricks so identified with these
others as to convince one that she has
studied them till she portrays their
actions-reflects them as does a mir
ror. Certain little gestures insistently
remind one of Mrs. Leslie Carter
others are beyond doubt the replica of
Mrs. Fiske's, and still others belong
to other players.
The same applies to her voice meth
DDS as does to her gestures, her walk
and her attitudes-they are not hers,
but she is mosaic, conglomerate of
others stage points. These she has
taken, consciously or unconsciously,
and has used. She has not made them
her own; she has grated them on; and
the jointures show.
This is confirmed by the knowledge
that she has been an assiduous stu
dent of the women named, and of
others of prominence. There is moth
ing wrong in studying other actresses;
it is an excellent school. But in that
study one should be careful to profit
by developing ones own personality,
not merely by absorbing the tricks Of
the others and engrafting them upon
an otherwise sterile stock. The lat
ter is Miss Roberts mistake.
AS she lacks originality so she lacks
personality, and probably for the same
reason. She is never herself; she is
always reminding one of someone else.
AS she acts one seems to see now a
bit of one person, now of another, but
one wonders why one doesn't see Miss
Roberts. She should develop her own
self: even though she may lack the
greatness that these others, her models,
possess, she will at least be identifia-
bic; and now she is not.
Consequently just as she lacks iden-
tity so she must lack following. Out
here we may be little acquainted with
her models and can readily forgive
her ABSORPTION of their parts. But on
Broadway, where they do know them,
it will be another story.
Let our fair star, then, break the
shackles that bind her, blossom forth
as a being with identity, personality
and parts, and even though she be the
poorer actress for a while-if she be
yet in the end, If the stuff is in her, she
will win-and then the winning will
have been worth while. And even if
she lose she will have done more for
herself and for the stage than she can
do along her present lines. For she
has talent, a winsome appearance and
ability, and these are everything.
Just as its star is a. composite so is
her play. But whereas she may have
some excuse for her action, the play
has none. 1t is made up of sugges-
lions from "Magda," MRS. Tanquery''
and "Hedda Gabler," including few
others-a very pousse cafe of a play,
and it's taste is bad. The comedy in it
is far ahead Of the tragedy, which is
Photographic, morbid and pointless.
Why should woman shoot herself
because she loves her guardians son
and he loves her, and so does the
guardian, but without desire for we'd
lock? The result is not logical, it is
not even fantastic; it is melodramatic
and Theatre to a fatal degree.
Combining parts of the plays named,
it yet lacks the merits of any Of them.
1t is salacious, but it points no moral,
hence is salacity is ineXcusable. 1t
has tragedy, but the tragedy is so