New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-04-10

f,.r., NIsffe-. ........... g.0IarI E,HHs.t
NJ. Ho.msir ................ H,i,a L. q e..
NJ ta-'s.r~. ....... Helen Wac
George Hewitt. ....-..... wins /. T"cal am
The trouble with Bosom Friends" Is
that it does not burrow quite deeply
enough into the bosom. lts sentimen-
tality is never much more than SKIN
deep. ana accordingly the heart re-
mains well out OF reach OF it. But
with It's humor It is more fortunate.
Il is not necessary for a good joke 20
have depth. and there is many good
surface joke in Bosom Friends" \
somewhat superficial and loosely hung
play. it is nevertheless highly amusing
for much of It's length.
The audience at the Liberty last
night seemed 70 evlnce greater IN
torest in the cast than IN the play
which was as it should be. For the
presentation Of this quite unpreten-
tious play Lew Fields has assembled a
most pretcntious company. 1t Is the
first Of the several many-starred casts
which the spring of the year generally
brings TO Broadway. and future pro-
ductions are unlikely to excel 1t IN
that respect. Mr.. Fields has been TO
great pains 10 round up an imposing
aggregation. but he might have saved
himself much OF his labor. tie - NM
self the most valuable member Of tho
company. and not even his list OF stars
can make the play enjoyable when he
is not on the stage.
MIR. Fields's production OF bosom
Friends" according TO the story, grew
out OF his desire TO enact role whicn
would have its serious moments. MOST
of the serious moments in Bosom
Friends" are compressed into few
minutes at the end of the second act
and concern. as may be imagined. the
quarrel of the bosom friends. ms
scene is somewhat badly and theatri-
cally written, and cannot be taken as
test Of any mans ability to move an
audience to tears. Mr.. Fields, never
theless. won the tribute of an occaS-
onal nose blowing from his auditors
last night. although il can quite safely
: be stated that his forte IS still comedy.
: Frank Mandel's play hews to the ira
home of an unsOphisticated old gentle
man-in this case the old gentlemen
are two in number there comes the
prospect of overwhelming wealth; all
hands are presently enmeshed IN the
tolls of a get-rich-quick schemer; there
follow the sentimental moments and
the happy ending. OF this pattern was
"The Bubble" which was, however. a
4: .lf1fnf ~ t.
ment than il Bosom Friends" The
latter complexities matters a little by
giving a son to one OF the old gentle
men and daughter to the other. but
the various movements OF the plot are
hardly made less obvious thereby.
To make familiar stage material
even halfway acceptable II must have
humor. and in this respect Mr.. Mandel
has done we'll. The play has many
humorous and homely touches, and
J these are made the most of by MIR.
/ Fields and Mathilde Cottrelly. Il is
rather a pity that Mr. Mandel did not
choose to set his play deeper within
this home atmosphere. A few scenes
showing the extent of the friendship
Of Sebastian Krug and Aaron Mather
for example, would have been of in
NdlEuAdDlt dAu III lhoNAliS bitNAA bRAe
ton more pathetic.
Mr.. Fields walks off readily with the
honors of the performance. and Nine.
Cottrelly is equally capable in a role
which offers limited opportunities. The
role of the other friend is intrusted to
John Mason, who is not at all the man
for the part. Melowness. for example,
is not one Of Mr.. MasOn's Characters
tics, and n friendship of thirty years
standing demands more than a touch Of
that quality. Mr.. Mason was melo-
dramatic, but never mellow.
Richard Bennett, although a trihe
mature for the role. gave an excellent
performance as the Maynard son who
brings on the trouble, and Irene Fen
wick played appealingly part which
made no great demands on her. Helen
Ware, who has not acted hereabouts for
long time, was f. good adventures,
and Helen Lowell repeated her charac-
terization of grotesque ruralite. Will
lis 2. Sweatnam was his usual dark
self i'm the role Of gardener who had
nothing at all TO do with the play.