The Washington herald., 1909-10-31
Mistaken Zeal.


There is food for thought in the recent
announcement made by Nat c. Goodwin
that he contemplates returning TO must
cal comedy-the form Of entertainment in
which he first made a successful appeal
20 the public. II was I'm "Evangeline."
we believe. as the hind legs Of heller
or was It the fore legs?-that Nathaniel
first cayorted TO the strains OF light and
aiTy popular music.
The spectacle furnished by Nat Coed
WIN. as a really good comedian. In whose
breast there burned the fire OF a mis-
guided ambition 70 become a tragedian,
was one so pathetic that il has not yet
ceased to furnish a warning TO actors
whose ambitions may only be realized
by the consent OF the public Goodwin.
ar his hackers, spent a huge sum Of
money on fine production of THE Mer-
chant Of Venice" but the critics utterly
declined TO accept the comedian in the
role Of Shylock. a conclusion in which
they were backed up by the public. He
next essayed Bottom I'm a sumptuous re-
vival Of "a Midsummer Nights Dream"
but the classical environment was a
handicap. even though the role Itself was
the lowest Of Glowing.
The trouble lay I'm aiming too high. and
though Mr.. Coodwiu's work as Richard
Carewe I'm When We Were Twenty-one"
& regarded by many as his best dramatic
effort. other serious roles were attempted
and the result was discouraging. In de-
spair the great light comedian turned TO
vaudeville, aud now. as though Disguised
and beaten in his ambitions. wants to get
back 70 musical comedy.
His impulse is probably based on the
fact that musical comedy just now seems
20 have the call so far as public support
rs concerned. In passing. however. it
may be wen 20 say that i'm this he is mis-
taken. The public would far rather see
Nat Goodwin In similar plays to those I'm
which he appeared I'm his palmiest days
"A GIded Fool" I'm Mizzoura." and the
like. 1t is rather tired OF musical comedy
just now, because the supply Of original
ity IN this direction seems TO have given
out
The question. however. as TO a comedi-
ans right 90 regard himself as capable
OF portrayinE tragic roles with conviction.
still remains 20 he answered. Nat c.
Goodwin. Tor instance. will probably tell
you 70 is the publc's fault. Louis Mann
viii probably say that II Is because no
suitable play can be found. The judicious
critic win grant both points in meas
IRE. but viii put the balance of blame ON
the actor himself. The public liked David
Warfed I'm "The Music Master" al
though the play was worse than mawllish
melodrama. Goodwin could not. ON the
other hand. blame his play when ne ar
tempted one of the greatest of Shakes
pearean roles and failed
The difference is that Mann and Good
win are comedians naturally, while War
field iE not. The acting OF Warfeld comes
from the heart and is convincing. The
serious moments of Goodwin or Mann
come only from the head They are as
obviously assumed as the hat or gloves
Mann Is a fine character actor while ne
IS speaking comedy lines and doing
comedy business. I'm tragic moments ne
Is merely forcing himself 10 do what
does not come TO him naturally lie IS
fu measure not really acting. but
merely initiating
In this age OF specialists. when men
have 90 keep az top notch in their chosen
work IN order 20 maintain a place. it
IS well for the comedians to stick to the
business Of making folks laugh. They
should realize the scarcity OF good
comedians and try TO perfect themselves
rs such. rather than attempt 20 he
tragedians. and thus fail 10 be successful
IN either capacity
To regard one form Of acting as n
etep ur from the other IS a mistake. The
comedian and the tragedian repiIsent DIFF
ferent fields Of endeavor.