The Washington times., 1909-10-26
"The Man Who Stood Still"
Enjoyable Despite
Its Flaws.
HUMOR AND PATHOS
IN EQUAL PORTION
Louis Mann Creates a Singularly
Human Character in That OF
John Krauss.

1.-THE Man who stood STILL" which
opened at the Columbia Theater last
evening, is a play structurally weak,
made thoroughly enjoyable by excellent
acting. Louis Mann bore the brunt Of
its redemption, and sharing his task in
almost equal part were Mathilda Cot
trelly, Louis Hendricks, and John
Charles. Others in the cast served faith
fully. but not so successfully.
If a thing don't so in this country
It amt no use" quoth the John Krauss
created by Louis Mann. So john the
man who stood still for nearly twenty
years, found himself warped, eccentric
proud, but kindness and native grain
of humor remained. And the neishbOrs
called him "Old Dutch Stir and Big
Dutch Lobster"
His rival, MacFergusons ruined his
business and Heterogeneous son robbed
him Of his daughter and his money
Young MacFerguson turned out to be a
bad one" and later it developed the
marriage was a mock ceremony. OLD
Krauss steeled his heart against his
daughter when she returned to him and
stood his ground until her little child
made friends with him.
Acting Hides Faults.
On paper this is wholly conventional.
In the hands of its interpreters its
banality is hidden behind singuarly hui
man creations.
The denOuement is worse than hack
neyed- It is improbable. Krauss has
wanted to forgive his daughter, he has
hated the MacFergusOn tribe with the
bitterest hate his soul could muster.
So il is wrenching the main beam OF
The play to MAXI this old man capituIate
l-onorrcaa Of r. ne
refused the Overtures OF his daughter.
A large part Of an audience may not
know what is wrong when an author
deserts mis- theme, but all or them Ieel u.
This author, Jules EckerI Goodman, sets
forth very early that his play is 10 deal
with the battle OF krausS against
world moving faster tnan ne .,, ontl.
the end of the second act he adheres
to his text In the third he takes a
new tack and touches on the race cues
ton. This comes about through the op-
position OF Spiegel krauss friend, %
The marriage of his daughter 10
Hebrew. Then there is long struggle
in the fourth act 10 bring the play
back to its old channel The tnlrd acl
Is distracting. and the fourth is weak.
The character OF John Krauss, pOr-
trayed by Mr.. Mann, had all the hnallty
8 power closely akin TO that or David
Warfseld TO bring hunOT and pathos III
very close succession Like David y ar
field he does IL by a slight change II
information He falls short OF Mr. War
field in his dramatic moments
Play Is Patchwork.
The play shows every evidence o
being rewritten In parts, and this MAJ
account for the curious crazy quilt ef
feet But whoever wrote the lines 70
Mr.. Mann and for Madame Cottrel!
showed literary power above that Of tn
average playwright The lines he puts Il
Mr.. Mann's mouth are Uerse and 10 Ia
point. The speech he gave Madame Cot
1relly in the third act, supplemented b,
her sympathetic delivery, furnished
gem of the evening acting.
Miss Emily Ann Wellman was handl
capped by the most Impossible part o
the cast She failed 10 raise II as IA
out Of the ruck as she might have done
Her acting is Conscientious but too me
The play is not all pathos and hume
Of the uuietCr kind. The pinOchle gam
IS q rich desert of farce OF the side
splitting kind. In itself IL IS wort
while, and il has more excuse for Oh
structing the action than several othe
interpretations.
These flaws, IL is fair 10 say. did no
chill the reception accorded Mr.. Mann
They did not substantially mar the en-
1ovTnent Of the performance.
J. r. HIDE BRAND.