New-York tribune., 1920-03-14

tion of Richard III" by Arthur
~ Hopkins it seems to US that in
the stress of expressing the
proper appreciation due to the producer,
to John Barrymore and Robert Edmond
Jones Shakespeare was somewhat neg
scted. And yet we can hardly feel that
he was wronged. Certainly "Richard
H. for all the unusual opportunities
which it gives to actor and scenic
artist, is not among the greatest of
Shakespeare's plays. Perhaps it is not
even good play. We are inclined to
( think that in the present production
more came out than the dramatist
put in.
As a matter Of fact, most fine actors
who have played "Richard III" have
found it necessary to help out the au-
thor with devices of their own. The
great moment In the Mansfield produc-
non was the invention of the star him
self. Ask almost any one what incident
ne remembers Of the Mansfield perform
anee and he will tell you that in the tent
scene sentinel was stationed at the
entrance, and that when Richard awoke,
after his ream-harried sleep, he ap-
preached the soldier fearfully and
slowly and at length stretched out a
hand and touched him. Then, finding
MIN real, and not part of the ghostly
crew which had lately thronged the
tent, ne gave fearsome yell of relief
from tension, or what not, which sent
toe shlvers down the back of every
oody in the audience. Nothing in the
text provides for this 1t was Mans
"eid's gift to Shakespeare.
"nile there are some fine speeches
IN Richard ILL.," much of it is bonn
Dass. Although sublimated by its oc-
casional eloquence and by the fine
'nough by no means detailed sketch
.. Richard, the play is a blood and
thunder melodrama. 1t is designed to
please tho scarcely suppressed sadism
OF the mob In our opinion Mr.. Barry
morn has done much to vivify and am
eins the sketch of Richard which the
s'~' sliofds him. His Interpretation
's"s 70 Us one Of extraordinary IN
.eress' and yet 1t is not possible for
a'm to avoid certain Inconsistencies
.s'"use they lie in the text. While
."sfe Is assuredly sanction for the DOR
ssyai OF Richard as a villain of mag
n'1'cent moral irresponsibilitv. Shakes
ps.1e has also burdened him with an
"s wy, conscience. 1t Is hard to rec
,''e the dream scene and the fine
"e1e -, speech to the soldiers which
-o''o~s few minutes later. Nobody
""o mad bathed in blood as Richard
.'@u zone could have been so easy prev
s % t~1nges of remorse. Probably
".Asspeare put that in to reassure
1uen folk as felt that evil was pros
yst'ng unduly in the play. OF course,
~e 1act that Richard is slain at the
- 1u does not in the least subtract from
%s sympathy which he is likely to
'a from the audience. The scene Of
.esFor in the tent is supposed to be
the antidote.
."'ess the audience can accept Rich
a - figure Of heroic proportions
70 becomes dull stick. He must be
.'"ething moro than pork butcher on
holiday II we are to retain interest
-. s1 his murders. Barrymore sup
s''ss that interest by allowing US to
~ into Richards mind, to watch him
Isss his first choice for power at all
,sssrds and to appreciate the fact that
10 man who wins his way by the
sssnnsss Of his mind and the inflexi-
S'.sy OF his purpose in spite Of physi-
-. -. nandicaps. Too many Richards Of
-e past have been madmen or huge,
sssenng bullies. Such type is
1se 70 create an early wish forhis down
,an and make the many villainies Of
A'saard more tiresoms details. which