THEATRE REVIEWS

26. A Man’s Shadow (1889)

A Man’s Shadow
by Robert Buchanan (adapted from the play, Roger la Honte by Jules Mary and Georges Grisier, based on the novel by Jules Mary).
The play received a copyright performance on 29 November, 1888 at the Elephant and Castle Theatre, London under the title of Roger la Honte, or Jean the Disgraced.
London: Haymarket Theatre. 12 September, 1889 to 29 March, 1890. Followed by provincial tour.
Other performances:
London: Britannia Theatre, Hoxton. 25 September, 1893.
London: Her Majesty’s Theatre. 27 November, 1897. (Revival with Herbert Beerbohm-Tree).
Manchester: Queen’s Theatre. 26 May, 1903.

There is some confusion over the American production of A Man’s Shadow. Augustin Daly copyrighted his version of the play at the Library of Congress on 10th December, 1888 as “Roger La Honte; a drama in 4 acts, from the French.” However, there is a letter from William Terriss to Buchanan, dated 18th February, 1889, informing him that Buchanan’s adaptation of Roger La Honte had been sold to Augustin Daly for £250 (to which he was entitled to half). The American production, entitled Roger la Honte; or, A Man’s Shadow, received its New York premiere at Niblo’s Garden on 8 October, 1889, produced by Augustin Daly and starring William Terriss. An advert in the New-York Daily Tribune credited Buchanan as co-author, and his name was mentioned in some reviews. However, in others, Augustin Daly received the sole credit for the adaptation. Since there is this doubt about how much Daly altered Buchanan’s play, I have added a separate section on the American version.

Film: A Man’s Shadow, directed by Sidney Morgan, 1920.
(There have also been five French versions of the original novel, Roger la Honte, two silent (in 1913 and 1922) and three ‘talkies’ (in 1933, 1946 and 1966). Full details of these are available on imdb.com.

 The Stage (23 November, 1888 - p.9)

     Messrs. W. Terriss, Charles Cartwright, and C. Overton, have secured the English and colonial rights of Roger la Honte, which will be adapted by Robert Buchanan.

___

The New York Times (18 August, 1889)

     Robert Buchanan’s English version of “Roger la Honte,” the French melodrama that was founded on a sensational romance printed in Le Petit Journal, will be produced by Beerbohm Tree at the Haymarket Theatre Sept. 7. Mr. Buchanan is understood to have furnished his adaptation with a prologue in which some of the previous acts of Roger and his comrade in arms, Lucien de Noirville, are presented to the eye of the spectator instead of being merely described, as in the original. This must require some curtailment of the subsequent scenes, for “Roger la Honte” is in three parts, five acts, and ten tableaus, and, though it begins at the Ambigue, in Paris, punctually at 8, is rarely ended before midnight.

___

The Morning Post (9 September, 1889 - p.6)

THEATRICAL AND MUSICAL
INTELLIGENCE.
_____

     On Thursday evening, at the Haymarket Theatre, will be produced, under the strange title of “A Man’s Shadow,” Mr. Robert Buchanan’s version of “Roger la Honte.” The cast will be as follows:—Laroque and Luversan; Mr. Beerbohm Tree; M. De Noirville (an advocate), Mr. Fernandez; President of the Court, Mr. Kemble; Madame Laroque, Mrs. Tree; Madame De Noirville, Miss Julia Neilson; Laroque’s daughter, Miss Minnie Terry; Victoire, Miss Norreys; Picolot, Mr. Collette; Tristot, Mr. Robson. It had been Mr. Tree’s original intention to appear only as Laroque, but, at the suggestion of Mr. Buchanan, he has decided to assume the character of Luversan, the spy, in addition to that of the merchant, thus “doubling,” in theatrical phrase, parts of the highest importance. The French play is in six acts, the English in five only, the last being wholly the work of the adapter.

___

The Times (13 September, 1889 - p.3)

HAYMARKET THEATRE.

     During the past six months the French melodrama Roger La Honte has attained a degree of popularity at the Ambigu which has rendered its transference to London more or less inevitable. The taste of the English public, it is true, has latterly been somewhat indifferent to French adaptations, but there is always room on the English stage for a picturesque, pathetic, absorbing story of wronged innocence and rewarded devotion; and MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grisier’s play could not have fallen into better hands than those of Mr. Beerbohm Tree, by whom it was produced last night, under the title of A Man’s Shadow, amid unquestionable signs of popular approval. Roger La Honte has not undergone adaptation in the common acceptation of the word. Mr. Robert Buchanan, who is responsible for the English version, has retained the French scene and the French characters, contenting himself with such structural changes as tend merely to quicken and intensify the action. Considering that the story is intimately bound up with French methods of justice, and that the great sensational scene of the third act is a criminal trial in a French court, no other course appears to have been feasible. Even had it been otherwise, it is more than probably, indeed, that a thoroughly Anglicized version would have been less acceptable to a Haymarket audience, who in a general way may be said to have little admiration for the somewhat ad captandum devices of melodrama. So far from being an evil, therefore, the retention of the French criminal procedure, together with a certain French flavour which the adapter has communicated to his dialogue, may help to determine the popularity of the play, the story by that means being redeemed from commonplace.
     In its general aspect the story of Roger La Honte is far from novel. The conviction of an innocent man of murder or some other crime and the ultimate assertion of his innocence has long been a staple theme of melodrama, both French and English. MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grisier’s claim to originality lies in the ingenuity with which a net of circumstantial evidence is thrown around their hero, although it is evident that in working out their plot they had some recollection of Une Cause Célèbre, well known to English playgoers as Proof, the chief incriminating evidence in both cases being furnished by an infant daughter of the accused. Roger Laroque, a commerçant, and Raymond de Noirville, an avocat, are bosom friends, but on their return from the Franco-German war, where they have served side by side in the ranks, the former discovers to his horror that his friend’s newly-made wife is a former mistress of his own. Of a thoroughly vicious nature, Julie de Noirville seeks to renew her relations with Roger, but the high-principled hero regards the duties of friendship as paramount, and the scorned woman falls in accordingly with a scheme of revenge devised against Laroque by a spy named Luversan, who has suffered punishment at his hands. The vengeance is of a somewhat circuitous, not to say improbable, kind, but it results in this—that Luversan murders a banker, robs him of 100,000f., and, with an abnegation truly phenomenal, sends this money to Laroque, together with a note from Julie, begging him to accept it in order that he may tide over certain financial difficulties. As Laroque is on the verge of bankruptcy he falls into the trap, and is forthwith accused of being the banker’s assassin, while a regard for the feelings of his friend Raymond and for Julie’s reputation prevents him explaining how the stolen bank-notes have come into his possession. This is one link in the evidence against Laroque; another is that his own wife and child believe they saw him commit the crime, the banker’s house being exactly opposite his own. The cause of this misapprehension is a remarkable likeness between Laroque and Luversan, who has been reported to be dead.
     Seen through a window in the depths of the stage, the murder is a thrilling episode and provides some exciting material for the second act, inasmuch as the police make an inroad into Laroque’s house and ultimately arrest him as the criminal. But the interest of the play centres in the trial scene of the third act—a vivid and realistic representation of a French assize-court. Here Laroque is defended by his friend De Noirville, whose presence renders it absolutely impossible for him to explain his relations with Julie. Luversan, still thirsting for vengeance, is on the watch, and at a critical juncture passes a note to De Noirville, apprising him of his wife’s faithlessness, and, by implication, of Laroque’s innocence of the charge. For a moment the avocat, who is overcome by the terrible revelation, hesitates what course to pursue. He resolves to do his duty by his client; but, in the act of divulging the name of the “shameless woman” from whom Laroque had received the fatal bank-notes, he is struck down by apoplexy, and dies in open Court, bringing down the curtain. In the fourth and last act, Laroque is discovered as an escaped convict, meeting his wife and child by stealth. The gendarmes are on his track; but Julie, now repentant, appears upon the scene to save him, though not before Luversan, his double, has been shot down by the police in mistake.
     As will be gathered, the story is full of exciting incident, sometimes of a pathetic character, as when the child, in examination by the police, and afterwards in Court unconsciously prejudices her father’s case. It is inevitable in melodrama that acting should be subordinate to situation; but the evil is modified by the admirable versatility of Mr. Beerbohm Tree, who, after the manner of Mr. Irving in The Lyons Mail, doubles the parts of the hero and his evil genius. In Paris the characters of Laroque and Luversan are embodied by actors between whom no striking resemblance exists, and the alteration made at the Haymarket not only furnishes Mr. Tree with the opportunity of performing a congenial tour de force, but also adds to the plausibility of the story. Mr. Tree’s changes of individuality are sometimes of what is known at the music-halls as a “lightning” character, and extend not only to dress, but, what is more remarkable still, to voice and general bearing. “Doubling” is often a dangerous experiment for an actor to make, but in Mr. Tree’s hands it proves astonishingly successful. Mrs. Tree has some pathetic moments as Madam Laroque, and Miss Julia Neilson appears to advantage as the adventuress Madame de Noirville. The child is prettily played by Miss Minnie Terry. As Raymond, Mr. Fernandez is enabled to rivet attention in the culminating scene of the drama. At the Haymarket, Roger La Honte is altogether a more impressive play than it is on its native stage, where it is but indifferently mounted and acted.

___

The Morning Post (13 September, 1889 - p.5)

HAYMARKET THEATRE.
_____

     The play, in five acts and ten scenes, by MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grisier, entitled “Roger la Honte,” was produced originally at the Ambigu, Paris, on the 28th September last year. At first presented it was mainly on the lines of the old-fashioned school of melodrama of the pattern which the elder Dumas made so popular in Paris. “Roger la Honte,” it may be further stated, was a highly-coloured sensational novel by M. Jules Mary, and had, before its adaptation for the stage, enjoyed extraordinary popularity. When seen at the Ambigu many of the defects inseparable from too faithful a reproduction of the scenes of the novel were remarked in the drama, or melodrama, and Mr. Robert Buchanan, in his adaptation under the title of “A Man’s Shadow,” was too good a judge of the requirements of the English stage not to notice these defects. The Parisian playgoer, once excited by the complicated incidents in which the hero was involved, and already acquainted with the scenes through the medium of the novel, was prepared cheerfully to stay until the small hours of the morning for the dénouement. The English playgoer is contented with three hours of melodrama, however exciting it may be, and the adaptor has compressed “Roger la Honte” so much that he is able to present it in four acts, to reduce the scenes, and to cut out superfluous characters. Haymarket audiences need have no fear that the interest of “Roger la Honte” is sacrificed in the great changes Mr. Buchanan has made. On the contrary, the drama gains immensely in directness and force. The dialogue is telling and effective, and the march of the incidents is unbroken, the principal figures being constantly before the spectator. It was the happiest idea of Mr. Beerbohm Tree to take upon his shoulders the additional labour of representing the characters of the hero and the villain. The suggestion in “Roger la Honte” of a striking resemblance between Laroque and Luversan has been turned to brilliant account. As Laroque, Mr. Beerbohm Tree is the sympathetic hero, as Luversan, the unscrupulous rogue, and the manner in which by an extraordinarily skilful make-up, and wonderful changes of tone and gesture, the actor embodies these two characters, must be regarded as one of the triumphs of modern histrionic art. In the Parisian drama the parts were played by different actors, but the present method adds wonderfully to the interest, and increases the sense of reality in all the principal scenes. It will serve to show the difficult task Mr. Buchanan had before him if the leading incidents are recalled. Roger—now called Lucien—Laroque is a manufacturer, with a beautiful wife and pretty daughter, Suzanne; but at the outbreak of the Franco-German war he quits his home as a captain of Mobiles to take part in the defence. An incident truly Parisian is the entanglement of the hero with Madame de Noirville, the wife of a celebrated barrister. It appears that M. Laroque has, somewhat reluctantly, been drawn from his allegiance to his wife by the fascinations of Julia de Noirville, and he is glad of the opportunity to break off the liaison, and one of those coincidences so frequent in French melodrama occurs. Laroque has as his brother-in-arms M. Raymond de Noirville, the husband of the lady who still seeks to keep her hold upon him. But the manufacturer and the barrister become such firm friends that Laroque determines to make what amends he can for his past fault. When de Noirville is dangerously wounded, Laroque protects him at the peril of his own life. Madame de Noirville having no affection for her husband, is furious when she discovers Laroque’s loyalty, and spares no pains to injure him. She plans with the villain Luversan, who had been denounced by the hero as a spy, to ruin Laroque, who owes a large sum to a banker, M. Gerbier, whose house is opposite his own. The resemblance between Luversan and Laroque is great, and the scoundrel visits the banker, murders him, and steals 100,000fr. in notes. His departure from the banker’s house is witnessed by Madame Laroque and her daughter, who mistake Luversan for the hero. This is the chief incident in the setting forth of the story for stage purposes, but the rascality of Luversan does not end with the murder and robbery. He compels Madame de Noirville, under threats of exposure, to send the money to Laroque, who accepts the gift which proves his own destruction. He is suspected and arrested, and then comes the great scene of the trial. Raymond de Noirville determines, although in failing health, to defend his old companion-in-arms. Laroque was seen coming from the bankers. But Laroque is being defended with such wonderful ability that Luversan fears he will not have his revenge after all, and he determines to reveal to the barrister the secret of his wife’s infidelity. The blow is a crushing one to M. de Noirville, who has hardly strength to go on with the defence, but he resolves as a final effort to save his friend, even at the cost of exposing his own dishonour. But nature has been overtaxed, and the barrister falls dead in court ere he can fulfil his determination. Laroque is condemned and sent to New Caledonia, but escapes, and under another name rejoins his wife and daughter. Luversan shoots himself, but not until Madame de Noirville confesses the innocence of the hero. Mr. Buchanan has made short work of the long and complicated scenes in the latter portion of the drama, and has omitted the young lover Raymond altogether, so that Suzanne continues a child until the end of the play. Thus the main incidents are brought closer together, and the dramatic value of “A Man’s Shadow” is greatly enhanced. The coarser melodramatic scenes are toned down, and the finer elements of the piece are brought out effectively. “A Man’s Shadow” is likely to prove one of the most successful efforts of any modern dramatist to preserve the excitement and interest of a powerful Parisian drama, while imparting a far more healthy and natural tone than ever existed in the original. The dialogue, rewritten entirely, is also more in harmony with English taste, and the acting throughout is so admirable that it would give distinction to a far inferior drama. There is so much to attract the playgoer in “A Man’s Shadow” that it will most likely prove to be Mr. Beerbohm Tree’s greatest success at the Haymarket. His own share in the drama deserves unqualified praise. The difficulty of rendering two such opposite and strangely-contrasted characters as Laroque and Luversan must be enormous, but Mr. Tree accomplishes his task with ease. The changes of character, the transformations of style, the differences of tone and manner, are marvellously indicated. The artistic ability of the actor was never more convincingly shown. As Raymond de Noirville, the barrister, Mr. James Fernandez had a very strong and sympathetic character, and played it with a finish of style worthy of the warmest commendation. His scene in the court, when the heroic barrister, feeling his strength to be fast ebbing, makes one last desperate effort to save his friend was in the highest degree creditable to the actor. Mr. Allan played with good taste as the banker, and Mr. Kemble displayed considerable dignity as the President of the Court. Mr. Collette and Mr. Robson as Picolot and Tristot, a couple of soldiers, were excellent in their endeavours to relieve the darker shadows of the piece. Considerable interest was given to one of the most important scenes by the pathetic and graceful manner in which the wife of the hero was played by Mrs. Tree, and Miss Minnie Terry, who has had the great advantage of receiving some suggestions from Miss Ellen Terry, gives promise, by her remarkable talent, that she will do credit to a name already famous in the annals of the stage. There is nothing of the “drilled doll” in the performance of this young lady. She evidently feels and understands the character she plays with such conspicuous talent. Miss Julia Neilson has a difficult part as the unscrupulous but attractive wife of the barrister. Miss Neilson succeeded in making Madame de Noirville interesting, and displayed no little ability, giving distinct proofs also that she is making progress. Sprightly Miss Norreys was most welcome as the waiting maid, Victoire. The new scenery of Messrs. Johnstone and Hann is excellent, and nothing has been left undone to make the representation successful. The enthusiasm at the close of the play was what might have been expected from the interest taken in the piece throughout. Few actors of the present day have ever been greeted with a heartier welcome than that given to Mr. Beerbohm Tree when called to the footlights. He thanked the audience for the kind reception given, and also complimented the company. Mr. Buchanan was also called, and may be congratulated upon the skilful manner in which he has adapted the drama, some of the scenes of which are intensely powerful; the trial scene, for example, may be pronounced the most striking representation of its kind ever seen. “A Man’s Shadow” is certain to enjoy great popularity. It is full of human interest and exciting situations.

___

The Standard (13 September, 1889 - p.3)

HAYMARKET THEATRE.
_____

     Mr. Beerbohm Tree last night began his Autumn campaign with a production in bold contrast to the Shakespearian comedy and the modern psychological drama of last season. A Man’s Shadow, as the new play is called, is not exactly the piece that would have pleased a Haymarket audience of the old stamp. It would have been pronounced needlessly painful and a trifle crude, even in its most powerful passages; and the undeniable ingenuity of its mechanism would hardly have been held to compensate for its lack of truth to human nature, and for the inadequacy of motive underlying some of its most stirring action. Other times other tastes, however, and it must be admitted that the outspoken enthusiasm with which the more striking points alike of play and of acting were yesterday evening received seemed fully to justify the introduction at the Haymarket of an experiment which one might have expected to witness at the Princess’s or the Adelphi. For reasons which will presently be suggested, the warmth of the reception cooled down somewhat before the closing scene were reached. But nothing could well have exceeded the rapturous applause which, at the end of the third act, caused the curtain to be raised again and again, and twice brought Mr. Tree and his chief colleague, Mr. Fernandez, to the footlights.
     It has taken nearly a twelvemonth for the play which marked the revival of melodrama in Paris to makes its way to London, for it was on the 28th September, 1888, that Roger la Honte took its public by storm at the Ambigu Theatre. Based by M. Georges Grisier upon a popular story from the pen of M. Jules Mary, the piece was found by the critical to have many faults, but to possess one great saving merit, that of thrilling interest. Those who delivered formal judgment upon Roger la Honte complained, not without justice, of its too complicated plot, of the anti-climax involved in its later scenes—it had no less than ten altogether—and of a certain lack of dramatic concentration in its structure as a whole. But these mistakes were, in some instances, soon rectified, whilst in any case they were not practically of sufficient importance to interfere greatly with the enjoyment of the audience. The strange development of the intrigue between Laroque and Madame de Noirville in the friendship got up between the two husbands on the field of battle, the malignant use made of this strange relationship by Laroque’s enemy and “double,” Luversan, the murder deliberately committed by the latter, and imputed to the former, and the chain of circumstantial evidence which Madame de Noirville helps to forge round her former lover—these all led up with unmistakeable force, if with too much elaboration, to the great episode of Laroque’s trial at the assizes. It was here that Roger la Honte achieved its great triumph, partly in the harrowing appeal for sympathy made by putting the prisoner’s child in the witness-box against him, and partly by the ingenuity displayed in the introduction of De Noirwille as the advocate charged with the defence of his wife’s lover. These points made the play, and for their sake much tedious padding and many irrelevancies were forgiven.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, who has dealt very freely with his subject, has skilfully preserved in A Man’s Shadow all that was most telling in Roger la Honte, and has yet done much towards simplifying and condensing its rather straggling plot. He has not, however, quite succeeded in making Mme. de Noirville’s cruel and reckless treachery towards Laroque carry conviction. The mere circumstance of her discovery, in her husband’s newly-made friend of the man who was her lover eight years ago, and who now ignores her passionate advances, seems scarcely sufficient to account for her sudden confederacy with a scoundrel like Luversan, for the purpose of a revenge obviously involving her own ruin. To Luversan, however, Mme. de Noirville, in her mad jealousy, confides a compromising letter which she has written to Laroque, the tacit understanding between the precious pair being that this letter shall be used to the disadvantage of Laroque, who is threatened with bankruptcy, unless, by the aid of his friend de Noirville, he can obtain 100,000 francs within twenty-four hours. The act setting forth the relationship of these dramatis personæ is a little long-winded in its explanations, and is not much brightened by the would-be comic relief of the scenes between a couple of soldiers and a waiting-maid—the wife of one of them—who discuss their plans for a friendly divorce and a remarriage with more frankness than good taste. With the second act, however, matters soon grow more lively. Aided by chance—though to what extent is not made quite clear—Luversan succeeds beyond his highest hopes in avenging himself upon the man who denounced him as a spy, whilst Mme. de Noirville for her part has the satisfaction of helping, though less directly, to bring her recalcitrant lover to the galleys. By accident it happens that Laroque’s window overlooks that of M. Gerbier, the banker, who is pressing him for money, and accident brings Luversan to the room from which the old man can be seen over the way counting out his gold. Laroque himself has just left his house to seek the pecuniary aid of which he stands in such desperate need, and at his wife’s entreaty he has left behind him the pistol with which he has secretly thought of ending his unhappy existence. The temptation of Gerbier’s money and Laroque’s pistol is too much for Luversan, who, moreover, knows that even is he be seen committing the murder he will be mistaken—as he has often been mistaken before—for the man whose “shadow” he is. The deed is no sooner thought of than done, and its witnesses in the dim light across the courtyard are Laroque’s own wife and child. The situation is in itself of the strongest, and it seems to us a pity that its strength should be abused by piling up harrowing details of the mother’s frenzied effort to instil into her little girl’s mind the duty of perjury. On Laroque’s return he is confronted with the body of his supposed victim, and his vain protestations of innocence call from his wife the cry, “May God forgive him his blasphemy!” Though the agony here is inartistically protracted, and though the curtain is kept up several minutes too long, the general effect is not to be resisted, and is kept up with rare dramatic resource throughout the scene of the trial, which follows in the next act. This trial is, of course, conducted after the French manner, and the difficulties presented by its stage arrangement are overcome with much dexterity. The red-robed President interrogates the prisoner, and puts leading questions to the witnesses, while the whole case is talked over in what seems to our notions a curiously informal manner, but is perfectly true to the traditions of the Palais de Justice. Poor little Suzanne is brought forward to perjure herself, and aver, in tones of childish anguish, that she “saw nothing and heard nothing” on the fatal night. Laroque is called upon to explain the possession of a certain sum of money which is the strongest chain in the link of evidence against him, and, to the astonishment of all in court, he refuses. The fact is that the money came to him on the night of the murder, enclosed in a frantic love letter from the wife of his advocate, De Noirville. If he speaks he injures his best friend. So he will keep silent and meet his fate. But Luversan’s devilish scheme is not yet complete, and De Noirville just before he rises for his impassioned address on behalf of the prisoner, is told whose name it is that Laroque will not speak in self-defence. It was here that Mr. Fernandez, as the sorely-tried advocate, gained the popular triumph of the evening. The struggle between duty to the client and indignation against the apparently false friend was portrayed with tremendous effect, and when the struggle ended in death, just as the orator was about to proclaim his own dishonour, the sensational success was secure. After this, the act in which the balance of justice between Laroque and his villainous “double” is redressed falls, perhaps inevitably, somewhat flat. It is neat enough, but shows little of the constructive ingenuity of the earlier portion.
     The acting attains a high level of efficiency throughout. Mr. Tree, who plays both Laroque and Luversan, suggests, with his accustomed cleverness, both the similarity and the difference between the two men, though, perhaps, the former more markedly than the latter. In the trial-scene, the nervous tension of the prisoner is finely indicated by a series of very delicate touches. To Mr. Fernandez’s vigorous piece of oratory allusion has already been made; a trifle indistinct at first, he did best when most was asked of him, and honestly deserved the special thanks bestowed upon him by Mr. Tree in his managerial address. Miss Neilson, though still somewhat stiff and artificial, shows marked improvement in her earnest rendering of Madame de Noirville, and Mrs. Tree and Miss Minnie Terry are as pathetic as could be wished in their rôles. Mr. Kemble and Mr. Allen help to complete the thoroughly efficient cast.

___

Lloyd’s Weekly London Newspaper (15 September, 1889 - p.5)

PUBLIC AMUSEMENTS.
_____

HAYMARKET THEATRE.

     There could be no mistake concerning the genuineness of the interest evoked on Thursday evening during the performance of the new drama, A Man’s Shadow—an arrangement by Mr. Robert Buchanan of the now celebrated French piece, Roger la Honte. For the undoubted success obtained the utmost credit is due to the actors, the adapter, and the stage manager. In the original, Roger la Honte is a very lengthy piece, relieved by a few striking scenes. It is conventional in character, and frequently reminiscent of The Courier of Lyons. The likeness to the old-fashioned melodrama named is rendered greater at the Haymarket from the fact that Mr. Tree plays the double part of a high-minded gentleman unjustly accused of murder, and of the real criminal, who follows the example of Dubosc in watching with savage glee the sufferings of the innocent prisoner. Mr. Buchanan has considerably curtailed the action; he has to a great extent re-arranged the story, and has written a new final act. Though complicated, the plot in its main issues is now thoroughly clear, and the whole moves with smoothness and precision. It was inevitable, perhaps, that the most absorbing portion should be (as in the original drama) the trial scene, but by dexterous theatrical manipulation the hero and the villain preserve their strength and vitality until the close. Exhibiting a wisdom that can scarcely be too highly commended, Mr. Tree has engaged for the next most important character (or rather characters) to his own that capable and emotionally forcible actor, Mr. James Fernandez. Upon the sympathy evinced by the audience towards the manufacturer, Lucien Laroque, and the advocate, Raymond de Noirville, the piece must stand or fall. Through the malignity and craft of a despicable fellow named Luversan, who facially is his counterpart, the manufacturer, whilst trembling on the verge of bankruptcy, is accused of murdering a banker with whom he has just had vexatious monetary transactions. The most serious piece of evidence against Laroque is the possession of some notes, known to have been lately in the banker’s hands, for which he refuses to account. The reason is that he believes them to have been sent him by the wife of his dearest friend, Raymond de Noirville, the advocate who is defending him and is fully persuaded of his innocence. To tell the truth respecting these notes would be to demonstrate to the world the unfaithfulness of Madame de Noirville. Laroque prefers ignominy—even death—to destroying the happiness of his trusting friend. But the villain insists upon De Noirville knowing all, and passes him a letter which his wife had penned to Laroque. Though terribly unnerved by this awful revelation, De Noirville resolves upon pursuing the defence, and is just about to read the fatal letter to the crowded court when he falls dead. This is the crisis of the play, and the effect of Mr. Fernandez’s acting as the advocate, together with the surroundings—carefully prepared to seize both mind and ear—is tremendous. Eventually Laroque’s innocence is proved, and the pitiless Luversan is duly shot. These two parts are played by Mr. Tree with as much contrast as they will admit of, and equal skill is displayed in illustrating the lofty sense of honour of the one as in depicting the rascality of the other. Mrs. Tree plays the gentle Madame Laroque; little Miss Minnie Terry the child Suzanne, who, having been a witness to the murder, is questioned by the President of the Court of Justice; Miss Julia Neilson the wretched Madame De Noirville; and Miss Norreys a serving maid. These characters, however, are altogether secondary to those sustained by Messrs. Tree and Fernandez, which could not be in better hands. The reception of A Man’s Shadow on Thursday night was deservedly enthusiastic.

___

The Echo (19 September, 1889 - p.2)

PLAYS AND PLAYHOUSES
_____

“ROGER LA HONTE.”

     The Haymarket success shows us how universal au fond is the taste for crimson sensation. Roger la Honte, whether in French or English, is purely and simply a melodrama. Of polished dialogue, social satire, moral or immoral teaching, literary beauty, psychological study, there is absolutely no vestige. It is a powerful, compact, and thrilling drama, skilfully handled, and of cumulative interest. Had it been produced at the Standard, the Surrey, or the Adelphi, it would have been a great success. At the Haymarket it is, to a great extent, the triumph of hypocrisy. The blasé West-ender professionally turns up his nose at sensational melodrama; he passes through the Strand, and, looking at the flaming Adelphi poster, thanks his superior culture that his taste is not as that of the plebeians. But Mr. Tree knows his audience better than they know themselves. Abating no jot of the pretensions of his house to high artistic distinction and refinement, he commissions Mr. Robert Buchanan to adapt a fine crusted foreign blood-curdler for him. A first-night crowd saunters into the theatre. The curtain rises, and the spell works. Here is sensation, blood, murder, crime, mystery, scenes as strained, exciting, and unnatural as in a “penny dreadful” novelette. The patronising approval of the audience vanishes; here is something which appeals to their natural taste—the taste the dainty lady who talks of Colonel Olcott or Mr. Whistler shares in common with her maidservant. A genuine burst of applause escapes the audience; then comes a moment of reflection. “Are we not giving ourselves away?” “No, it is the exclusive Haymarket, it is Tree. ‘On with the dance; let joy be unconfined.’” Oh, clever Mr. Tree! It is not the habit that makes the monk, not the swallowtail that makes the man of refinement. This is the first lesson of Roger La Honte.

OTHER INTERESTING NOTES.

     Originally Mr. Tree was to have played one of the dual parts of Laroque and Luversan, Mr. Brookfield the other. Thus I announced some weeks ago, when I anticipated Mr. Buchanan in giving you an English version of the plot. Finally the poetical Scotch gentleman re-wrote the last act, and otherwise obviated the necessity of two actors for these rôles; and Mr. Tree decided to double. I submit that he made a mistake. Laroque and Luversan are too obviously one and the same man. They are merely differentiated by rendering Luversan grotesque—a comic opera villain. On his first appearance he looks like a cross between a Jack-in-the-Box and Mephistopheles. He pops up unannounced from nowhere, dressed in brown coat, dress waistcoat, and red cravat, and struts about with dancing-master gait. All through the play I think Mr. Tree does an injustice to his splendid acting in the more tragic parts by trying our gravity, as he does, by rushing out at one door as Laroque and back at another as Luversan, like Woodin, or some other quick-change “artiste.” As a general rule, when Mr. Buchanan adapts anything the programme contains an explanation, that though the central idea was suggested by the original author, the whole treatment of the subject is novel and Buchananesque. There was no such legend to be read in connection with A Man’s Shadow. The names of MM. Mary and Grisier were characteristically entirely omitted instead. Was this why there was just the ghost of a murmur when Mr. Tree, forgetful in the moment of jubilation that an actor is not an orator, burst into a few words of rhetorical gratitude to Mr. Buchanan before the footlights? Undeniably Mr. Fernandez’ grand scene in the Court-house, which reminded us of the stars of boyhood’s stage, was the finest feature of the night; unless it was the magnanimous generosity with which Mr. Tree insisted upon associating this actor with all the calls of the night.

LITTLE MINNIE TERRY.

     A more graceful, exquisite little lady does not exist on or off the stage. She shows signs of being every whit as clever as even her “Aunt Ellen.” All that she does is natural and childlike—to the manner born, in fact. But even this delightful little girl does not cause me to waive in my dislike, under any conditions whatever, and purely on artistic reasons, to stage children. But that is a mere personal idiosyncrasy. My objection to the hateful exhibition made of this child in A Man’s Shadow is based on broader grounds. Some people like to see a little girl in a white frock, white sash, white shoes, and nicely-brushed hair, stand up, with her hands behind her back, and spout a birthday speech about praying for “dear papa” and intending to be good. I do not think such a performance a bit less objectionable off than on the stage. But when this little mite is called upon to witness a brutal murder by (apparently) her own father, to be cross-examined by the French police, brow-beaten by a Judge in open Court, and finally placed on the mental rack by her own father, unwittingly seeking his own condemnation out of his daughter’s mouth, and tortured till she swoons with agony, I say no words can be found too fervent to protest against this rough violation of all good taste. People will got to see it—people go to see prize-fights; people went hoping to see Baldwin leave the clouds a man, and touch the earth a jelly. But this does not make the thing worthy of the Haymarket management, or complimentary to the friends of our little stage-queen.

___

Local Government Gazette (19 September, 1889)

Theatrical and Musical.
_____

     Theatrically we are just now in a very restless condition. We do not know exactly what we want, though we believe we want to be serious, or, at least, to be treated as though we do. Hence the theatrical atmosphere is charged with experiment - our dramatists and our managers are testing our appetites, and giving our tastes a wide scope. Thus we have dallied with the dogmatic drama of Ibsen, and toyed with the passionate realism of the Dutch author of “A Man’s Love.” We have striven to be impressed by the elaborate psychology of Mr. Henry Arthur Jones’s “Wealth,” and have been lured back to Shakespeare by the actor’s personality and a brilliant show; and now we have arrived at the happy cross-roads of criticism, where we may rest at least awhile with the dramatic beauties of “The Profligate” of Mr. Pinero, and the human strength of “The Middleman” of Mr. Jones, until we feel impelled to select some still nearer way to reach the eternal truths of the drama. In the meanwhile, no one is more alive to this spirit of unrest than Mr. Beerbohm Tree. He has been giving us all sorts and conditions of plays, and never one like its predecessor. Domestic drama, romantic drama, historical drama, psychological drama, and Shakespearian comedy, and now the latest development of French melodrama. He is always on the alert to catch the popular taste, and, what is more, his keen managerial instincts are allied to an eager artistic temperament. Thus, having deemed it judicious to transplant “Roger la Honte” from Paris, where such a play is indigenous, to London, where it is not, he wisely allowed Mr. Robert Buchanan a free hand in the process of adaptation; and accordingly “A Man’s Shadow,” as the English version is called, proved a decided success on Thursday night, for the two great startling situations that make the play are relieved of much in their episodical surroundings that would be wearisome and impossible on the English stage.

* * *

     As it stands, “A Man’s Shadow” is an exciting, though very painful and often harrowing play, of the uncompromisingly melodramatic order. Situation—strong, thrilling situation—is the desideratum, and to this end the wires of the dramatis personæ are pulled. Thus, consistent human motive is scarcely to be looked for; certain effects have to be produced by certain incidents, and the characters have to fit those. Psychology is out of the question, and motive must not be analysed. To bring about thrilling situation number one it is necessary that the villain should commit a murder so openly as to implicate the innocent hero; and to ensure agonising situation number two, it is imperative that a woman should league herself with this villain in the dark. But ordinary probability stands amazed before the manner of these things, or would, if it were not breathlessly hurried on from episode to episode by the knowing energy of the playwright, or rather playwrights, for we must regard “A Man’s Shadow” as the work of a trio—the two French authors and Mr. Buchanan. Starting with the old “Lyons Mail” notion that a virtuous and respected Parisian gentleman has a villainous “double,” they make the wicked one acting for purposes of revenge to destroy the good. The hero is accused of a murder committed by his “double,” who has woven an almost inextricable chain of circumstantial evidence about him; and his wife and child, happening to see the murder, are convinced that he is guilty, though the agonised mother trains the sensitive and terrified child to deny everything. Then comes the trial, and the child is brought to bear witness against her father, but still denies having seen or heard anything, though the perplexed prisoner implores her to speak the truth. The explanation of one piece of damning evidence could prove his innocence, and this it is in his power to give; but this revelation, though it saved his own life, would break the heart of his dearest friend, comrade, and advocate, for it would involve the public shaming of that friend’s wife, the prisoner’s former mistress. He therefore remains persistently silent on this point. But his “double” gives this information to the advocate just as he is about to make his speech for the defence, and believing his friend has been false to him, he is in the awful position of having to decide between proclaiming his own dishonour and the shame of his wife to save the innocent, or remaining silent and allowing the friend he believes to have wronged him to suffer unjustly. He chooses the path of duty, but sudden death spares him in the terrible act of performing it.

* * *

     It was in this episode that Mr. James Fernandez, by his splendidly intense acting, ensured the success of the play. It was a grand effort, the situation was thrilling, and the audience was intensely excited and surprised; consequently, when the tension was over, the house rose at the actor and thundered its applause. The startling situation of the previous act, when the murder was committed, albeit the agony was unduly prolonged, had distinctly prejudiced the audience in favour of the play; but the end of the trial scene clinched matters, and the sombre but still exciting, and in some measure pathetic, last act—which, by the way, is entirely Mr. Buchanan’s own—was followed with that substantial interest which assured success always awakens. Mr. Beerbohm Tree played the dual part of the villain and the hero with artistic effect, suggesting the difference in resemblance, though he will surely work out his double conception with still more subtlety and greater distinction—for versatility in characterisation is his forte. Miss Julia Neilson played the advocate’s wife and the hero’s cast off and jealous mistress with much nervous force and suppressed passion, and in the last act with pathos. It was not her fault that the character was extravagant in motive; the beautiful young actress showed nevertheless that she had in her that true dramatic instinct and power of which we recognised the promise from the first. Experience alone is what she requires. Mrs. Tree was sympathetic and tender throughout as the hero’s wife, and Miss Norreys, in a small part with few opportunities, struck a natural note. Mr. Charles Collette and Mr. E. M. Robson played the silly comedy scenes in the right key, and by their discreet acting saved these from being tedious. Neither actor overstepped the modesty of nature, which they might easily have done. Small parts were admirably filled by Mr. Kemble, Mr. Allan, Mr. Hargreaves, Mr. Tapping, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Robb Harwood. We doubt if a more beautiful and natural performance has ever been seen upon the stage than that of the hero’s child by that little genius, Minnie Terry. But surely no child of seven was ever called upon to play so harrowing and exhausting a part. A child of such exquisite sensibility as she is must surely be impressed by the significance of such distressing scenes. We have warmly advocated the right of children to appear upon the stage, but it is painful to see young children in terrible situations like those involving the child in “A Man’s Shadow.” It is, at all events, unnecessary to make her faint in the trial scene, since her consciousness is so soon necessary for the further dialogue. Mr. Buchanan was loudly applauded on Thursday night, but Mr. Tree was hardly wise to attempt a speech all about nothing. This “first night” speechifying is becoming not only ridiculous but a nuisance, and it is frequently merely a wrangle between the manager and one or two irresponsible youths in the gallery.

___

The Penny Illustrated Paper (21 September, 1889 - p.10)

MR. TREE has opened the autumn season at the Haymarket Theatre with a powerful new play from the French, “A Man’s Shadow,” adapted by Mr. Robert Buchanan from the successful Parisian drama “Roger la Honte.” Mr. Tree has furnished yet another proof that he is the bright particular stage chameleon of the period. I have so often dwelt in these columns on the unrivalled versatility of Mr. Tree, and on the rare skill with which he merges his own identity in the gallery of clearly defined characters he has created, that there is no occasion now to expatiate on the merits of his rotund Falstaff or of his shambling Russian spy in “The Red Lamp,” of his murderous Macari and his incisive Captain Swift, not to enumerate all his wonderfully real creations. A tall, fair young man in private—he is hit off to the life in the above photograph by the London Stereoscopic Company—Mr. Tree has very early in life won for himself a foremost place in the ranks of histrionic artists. He has a unique reputation. His peculiar talent gave exceptional interest to his assumption on Sept. 12 of the dual rôle of the hero and his criminal “shadow” in Mr. Buchanan’s strong new piece at the Haymarket. I don’t remember to have ever seen the theatre fuller. There could be no denying the expectant and sympathetic audience had plenty of robust dramatic fare set before them. There was great grip in the story. It opened with the generous intercession of the advocate, Raymond De Noirville, with an implacable creditor of his old friend and comrade, Lucien Laroque, who has incurred heavy monetary responsibilities which he is unable to meet. Laroque himself appears upon the scene. To his amazement and embarrassment, he finds his friend De Noirville has married a fair creature who was once his (Laroque’s) mistress. A married man himself, and, bound by ties of warm friendship to the husband, Lucien Laroque repulses with horror the overtures of Julie De Noirville, who on his departure determines to write one last amorous appeal to him, baited by the offer of a loan of money. It is while Julie is writing this missive that the vile “shadow” of Laroque—a villanous ne’er-do-weel, named Luversan—glides into the room, on burglarious thoughts intent. Bearing a close resemblance to Laroque, Luversan is mistaken at first by Julie as her quondam lover, and she hands him the letter. This puts him in possession of her secret, on which he forthwith trades. More. It enables him to revenge himself on Laroque for a wrong he conceived he had suffered at his hands during the war, when he was locked up in a barn as a spy and was near being burnt to death. Gaining admittance to Laroque’s apartments, Luversan finds a pistol in a drawer, and with this shoots the banker who lives exactly opposite Laroque, leaving the weapon there to throw suspicion on Laroque. This crime is witnessed by Madame Laroque, her little girl, and her maid-servant, each of whom fancies it is Laroque who commits the murder. There is even a stronger situation than this. It is in the trial scene, where Laroque is charged with the murder, and is defended by De Noirville. Laroque’s heroic daughter has, to save her father, persisted that she had seen nothing of the crime; and the fainting of the little witness causes the Judge to adjourn the Court. It is in this interval that the diabolical Luversan sends the billet-doux of Madame De Noirville to the barrister, who is overwhelmed when he learns the perfidy of his wife and (as he fancies) of the friend whom he is defending. Mr. Fernandez rouses the enthusiasm of the house by one of the strongest pieces of declamation delivered for some time—the closing passage in which, true to his trust, albeit cut to the heart, he lifts his voice to show that this imagined intrigue accounted for Laroque’s possession of the sum of money it was alleged he had stolen from the murdered man. At the height of his noble argument, De Noirville gasps for breath, totters, and falls dead on the floor of the court. Laroque is sentenced to transportation, but returns to France in time to unmask Luversan, and to clear his fair fame as the wretched existence of his vile “shadow” dies out. Admirable on the first night, Mr. Tree's embodiment of the parts of the well-set-up Laroque and the slouching spy and scoundrel Luversan is now more finished still. As Laroque he is the retired French officer to the life. In his impersonation of Luversan there are artistic suggestions of the criminal “masher” Prado, and various dexterous suggestions of the rascally lounger who is at home at Bullier’s, an adept at the can-can, and a haunter of the lowest wine-shops—in fine, an irreclaimable “bad lot.” Mr. Tree is equalled by Mr. Fernandez in the powerful situation which closes the trial. As Julie Miss Julia Neilson quite distinguished herself, making good the high promise I ventured to recognise she gave in “Brantingham Hall.” Mrs. Tree again proved herself to be the thoughtful artist she ever is, but her Henriette Laroque would command heartier sympathy were she to allow her love for her husband to banish all suspicion of him in the murder scene. Miss Minnie Terry was charmingly natural as Suzanne Laroque. Miss Norreys was worthy a better part; and the same may be said of Mr. Collette and Mr. E. M. Robson, the comic couple of soldiers. Mr. Buchanan has, on the whole, done his work skilfully and well; music and mounting are everything that could be desired; and the Haymarket Management has deservedly scored another unmistakable success.

___

Punch (28 September, 1889 - p.153)

[click the picture for a larger image]

___

The Theatre (1 October, 1889)

“A MAN’S SHADOW.”

New Drama, in four acts, adapted from the French play “Roger la Honte,” by ROBERT BUCHANAN.
First produced at the Haymarket Theatre, Thursday evening, September 12, 1889.

     In its original form as produced at the Ambigu twelve months ago in Paris, the “Roger la Honte” of MM. J. Mary and G. Grisier would most decidedly not have suited a Haymarket audience, but Mr. Buchanan has so deftly adapted the powerful story, retaining all that was valuable and casting off what was superfluous, that “A Man’s Shadow” secured one of the most decided successes. It goes without saying that the favourable reception was also due to the general excellence of the cast. The French version was founded on a novel that appeared in Le Petit Journal, and the story was spread over two generations, but as the strong scene of the piece as then played, which had been worked up to, culminated in the third act, the remaining scenes lost much of their interest. By his masterly condensation, and the writing of an entirely new last act, Mr. Buchanan has avoided all chance of weariness, and has retained the interest in the play right up to the final fall of the curtain. Lucien Laroque, during the Franco-Prussian War, has saved, at the imminent risk of his own, the life of Raymond de Noirville, and they have become firmly attached friends. On their return to Paris the latter resumes his profession as an advocate, while the former endeavours to re-establish his business as a manufacturer. But during the hostilities the business has dwindled away to nothing, and Laroque must become a bankrupt unless he can raise a sum of two hundred thousand francs due to M. Gerbier, a banker. During the war a spy named Luversan has been taken prisoner, and condemned to death by Laroque and De Noirville, but escaping by a miracle he owes a deep debt of hatred to the men who have convicted him. Laroque and Luversan so strangely resemble each other as to be readily mistaken for one and the same man. Laroque visits the advocate to explain to him the position of his affairs, and discovers in Julie, Madame de Noirville, a worthless mistress of his youth. Now happily married, and with one child, Suzanne, he repels Julie’s renewed advances, and transforms her into a bitter enemy. Luversan, who knows of her past life, threatens her with exposure unless she supplies him with funds, and, soon discovering her present feelings towards her former lover, persuades her to join with him in an endeavour to ruin him. Laroque has paid to M. Gerbier 100,000 francs in notes. Luversan, having obtained hush money from Julie, now determines to try his fortune with Laroque. Whilst at the latter’s house M. Gerbier, who lives opposite, is seen counting his money, and calls to Luversan, mistaking him for Laroque, to come over for the formal receipt for the sum paid. Luversan goes, determines to seize the opportunity to rob him, and, after a struggle with the banker, shoots him down, and takes the notes, the deed being witnessed by Madame Laroque and by little Suzanne and Victoire, the servant, who imagine that in the murderer they recognise husband, father, and master respectively. With fiendish cunning the spy then drops into Laroque’s letter-box the roll of notes accompanied by a letter purporting to come from Julie imploring him to accept the assistance thus offered. Laroque is arrested; his servant and child are called as witnesses; little Suzanne, faithful to a promise made to her mother, will disclose nothing, even though entreated by her father to speak the truth, and so, as he hopes, exculpate him. The possession of the notes is damning evidence against him, but he prefers to suffer condemnation rather than confess the source from whence they came, and so bring dishonour on his friend, who is defending him. Luversan, to wreak his spite on De Noirville, and as he thinks to ensure the ruin of his other enemy, causes Lucien’s supposed letter to be handed to De Noirville. He reads it. Notwithstanding the horror of his discovery, he determines to be true to the man whose cause he is advocating, though it will entail the confession of his wife’s shame. In a powerful speech he is addressing the jury, and asserting that he can prove Laroque’s innocence. He is just about to utter the name of the woman who sent the notes when he drops dead, the excitement having been too much for a constitution already weakened by wounds received during the campaign. Laroque is sentenced to penal servitude in New Caledonia. He escapes from thence, and returns to France. Luversan becomes aware of this, and is doing his best to hand him over to the police, when Julie de Noirville, repentant of the evil she has done, confesses everything to Madame Laroque, who is thus convinced of her husband’s innocence. The confession will also clear him in the eyes of justice. Soon after Henriette meets Luversan, and taxing him with the crime is detaining him. Her screams for assistance bring in the gendarmes, who, thinking it is Laroque endeavouring to escape, shoot the man down, the real Laroque almost at the same moment appearing at the head of the stairs as his wife and child rush forward to embrace him.

The third act is undoubtedly the strong one—the interior of the Assize Chamber, with its realistic and novel features of French procedure, the impressive ceremonial of the trial, the sufferings of the innocent prisoner, the agony of his child, all vividly impress themselves on the audience. Here Mr. Fernandez certainly took the honours of the evening, and was absolutely grand, not only in tke expression of the torture he was suffering at the discovery of his wife’s baseness, but in his impassioned pleading for the man who had so betrayed him. His address roused the usually apathetic Haymarket audience to a very storm of applause. Mr. Beerbohm Tree in a remarkably clever manner preserved the outward similarity of the two characters he was representing, and at the same time made the difference of their moral natures as apparent as possible; the one noble and chivalrous, the other a crafty vaurien, the voice and gait even were altered. His changes were most rapidly effected, and the final one was a perfect tour-de-force. Mr. Kemble’s manner as the President of the Court was admirably dignified and his delivery most impressive. Mr. Gurney rendered the character of Lacroix, the police agent, a most effective one. Mr. Collette and Mr. E. M. Robson, whilst thoroughly amusing, deserve the greatest credit for restraining any tendency to overdo their comic parts, in which they satirise the French law of divorce. Mr. Hargreaves gave an excellent bit of character acting as Jean Ricordot. Mrs. Tree, though pleasing, was scarcely intense enough as the wife, horror-stricken at the crime, as she thinks, her husband has committed, though the expression of her features left nothing to be desired. The Suzanne of Miss Minnie Terry was a surprising performance for so young a child, and would no doubt have been stronger but for the cough from which she was suffering. Miss Norreys gave an exquisite touch of pathos, and exhibited a true dramatic instinct in the one scene in which she had her opportunity. Miss Julia Neilson realised the success that her first appearances shadowed. Her handsome face and rich-toned voice conveyed the expression of the passions running riot in the person of the lovely but treacherous adventuress Julie, and her repentance at the close was tenderly and pathetically portrayed. Mr. Tree and his company were repeatedly called, special favour being shown to Mr. Fernandez. The author also appeared, and Mr. Tree, being forced to say a few words, announced that there would shortly be given matinées of classical plays.

___

The Graphic (5 October, 1889 -  Issue 1036)

“A MAN’S SHADOW” AT THE HAYMARKET THEATRE

     THIS piece has been ingeniously adapted by Mr. Robert Buchanan from a drama, by MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grivier, called Roger La Honte, which has been performed for several months with great success at the Ambigu Theatre, Paris. We need not again related the plot, but be content to mention a few of the leading features. A bad woman, Julie de Noirville (Miss Julia Neilson), desires to be revenged on a former admirer, one Laroque, because, being now married, he repudiates her renewed attentions. She accordingly conspires with a villain named Luversan, who has motives of his own for vengeance against Laroque. Luversan murders a banker, relieves him of 100,000 francs, sends the money, through Julia, to Laroque, who, being in financial straits, accepts the fatal cash, and is forthwith accused of being the banker’s assassin, because a strong personal resemblance exists between himself and Luversan. It will be noticed that these strange incidents belong rather to Stageland than to real life; nevertheless, the piece, which was produced at the Haymarket on September 12th, has achieved a decided success. As did Mr. Irving in The Lyons Mail, so Mr. Beerbohm Tree “doubles” the characters of the villain and his victim; while Julia’s husband, Raymond de Noirville, an honourable advocate, who has hitherto been ignorant of his wife’s previous history, is impressively enacted by Mr. Fernandez. His chief opportunity occurs in the trial scene, where, while defending his friend Laroque, a note from Luversan informs him of his wife’s faithlessness and treachery. He resolves to do his duty, but falls stricken down with apoplexy, and dies in open court. Another thrilling episode is the incident of the murder, which is witnessed through a window in the depths of the stage.

[click the picture for a larger image]

___

The Penny Illustrated Paper (26 October, 1889 - p.339)

     Mr. H. Beerbohm Tree (who had the gratification of being able to announce that the Haymarket matinée for “Box and Cox” Morton yielded over £250 for the veteran author) is depicted on another page in the successful drama of “A Man’s Shadow,” adapted skilfully from the French by Mr. Robert Buchanan. I have so fully, in noticing this powerful piece, cited the main points of Mr. Tree’s dual performance of the murderer and of the innocent man who suffers for his crime, and have already so warmly praised the strong acting of Mr. Fernandez as the barrister, and of Mrs. Tree and Miss Julia Neilson in the play, that I need now do no more than point to the fidelity with which our Artist has portrayed the leading personages in “A Man’s Shadow.”
                                                                                                      THESPIS.

[click the picture for a larger image]

___

Te Aroha News (New Zealand) (20 November, 1889 - p.4)

TABLE TALK.
_____

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
_____

                                                                                                 LONDON, September 20.

...

     Mr Robert Buchanan is perhaps the most misliked man of letters amongst his fellows in London. He has few friends, and many enemies, and I don’t suppose he ever in his life went out of the way to retain one of the former, or conciliate the latter. This being so, one may, I think, conclude (human nature being human nature) that when one finds the critics unanimously praising a new work of Buchanan’s it must be very good indeed. I, at any rate, thought so, and it was full of expectations I went with a friend to the Haymarket on Friday to see “A Man’s Shadow.” Nor were we disappointed. The French original of the piece “Roger le Honte” (now playing at the Paris Ambigu Theatre) is, from all accounts, a tawdry melodrama, spoilt at its strongest points by inane buffooneries, and reeking with sentiments which no English audience would tolerate for a moment. Mr Buchanan has converted it into a wholesome, sensational, yet sympathetic play, with crisp dialogue, and at least three singularly powerful situations. The plot turns (like the “Lyons Mail”) on the likeness between a good man and a bad one, Mr Beerbohm Tree. of course, acting both.
     Laroque, the hero, has incurred the undying enmity of his “double” Luversan, a Prussian spy, who schemes with the former’s cast-off mistress to ruin and destroy him. Laroque is accused of a murder committed by his double, who skilfully weaves an inextricable chain of circumstantial evidence around him. Even Laroque’s wife and child, who see the murder committed from the window of the house opposite, believe him guilty, although the agonised mother trains the terrified and sensitive child to deny everything. Then comes the trial, and the child is brought up to bear witness against her father, but still denies having seen or heard anything, though the perplexed prisoner implores her to speak the truth. The explanation of one piece of damning evidence could prove his innocence, and this it is in his power to give; but this revelation, though it saved his own life, would break the heart of his dearest friend, comrade, and advocate, for it would involve the public shaming of that friend’s wife, the prisoner’s former mistress. He therefore remains persistently silent on this point. But his “double” gives this information to the advocate just as he is about to make his speech for the defence, and believing his friend has been false to him, he is in the awful position of having to decide between proclaiming his own dishonour and the shame of his wife to save the innocent, or remaining silent and allowing the friend he believes to have wronged him to suffer unjustly. He chooses the path of duty, but sudden death spares him in the terrible act of performing it.
     It was in this episode that Mr James Fernandez, by his splendidly intense acting, ensured the success of the play. It was a grand effort, the situation was thrilling, and the audience was intensely excited and surprised; consequently, when the tension was over, the house rose at the actor, and thundered its applause. The startling situation of the previous act, when the murder was committed, albeit the agony was unduly prolonged, had distinctly prejudiced the audience in favour of the play; but the end of the trial scene clinched matters, and the sombre but still exciting, and in some measure, pathetic, last act—which, by the way, is entirely Mr Buchanan’s own—was followed with that substantial interest which assured success always awakens. Mr Beerbohm Tree played the dual part of the villain and the hero with artistic effect, suggesting the difference in resemblance, though he will surely work out his double conception with still more subtlety and greater distinction—for versatility in characterisation is his forte. Miss Julia Neilson played the advocate’s wife and the hero’s cast-off and jealous mistress with much nervous force and suppressed passion, and in the last act with pathos. It was not her fault that the character was extravagant in motive; the beautiful young actress showed nevertheless that she had in her that true dramatic instinct and power of which we recognised the promise from the first. Experience alone is what she requires.
     Little Minnie Terry, however, secured the greatest triumph of all in the painful part of Laroque’s child. During the trial scene the feminine part of the audience was bathed in tears. Even we men sniffed and blew our noses. Nevertheless there was a general feeling that a small child ought not to be acting such a tragic role, and that on every account little Miss Terry would be better in bed.

___

The Morning Post (17 December, 1889 - p.3)

HAYMARKET THEATRE.
_____

     The one hundredth performance of “A Man’s Shadow” took place last night in the presence of a very large and deeply interested audience. The success attending Mr. Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of “Roger la Honte,” and the brilliant ability displayed by Mr. Tree in the dual characters of Laroque, the unfortunate merchant, and the villain Luversan, further aided by the masterly rendering of Raymond de Noirville by Mr. Fernandez, promised from the first the result which has been achieved. It has been generally admitted that Mr. Buchanan’s play is an immense improvement upon the original. It is more sympathetic and human than the French play, and it is shorn of much that was mawkish and feebly sentimental in the original dialogue. In the construction also the main incidents have been brought closer together, so that there is a unity of design in “A Man’s Shadow” which was wanting in the first presentation. Besides the acting already referred to, which is so powerful and pathetic, admirable assistance is given by Mr. Kemble as the President of the Court, Mr. Collette and Mr. Robson, as the two eccentric soldiers; while the charming acting of Miss Julia Neilson, as Julie de Noirville, enhances the interest of the play in no ordinary degree; Mrs. Tree was extremely pathetic; and Miss Norreys, by her sprightly style as the waiting maid, imparts much attraction to a small part. There is every promise that the run of this striking play will be continued for months longer, and its high merits fully justify the favour with which it is received. Last night, with the view of making a contrast to the more sombre scenes of the chief piece, “Good for Nothing” was performed as the opening item, Miss Norreys representing Nan with so much humour, gaiety, and truth to nature as to win cordial applause and great admiration for her skill in depicting the merry Tomboy, so sound at heart and so true to her friends in trouble. Mr. Allan was a genial Tom Dibbles, and Mr. Gurney, as Harry Collier, acquitted himself well. Mr. Kemble appeared as Young Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Robb Harwood represented Charlie. The simple, homely drollery and pathos pleased the audience thoroughly, and the bright, clever, young actress, who was seen in the chief character, received ample acknowledgment of her talent.

___

The Stage (20 December, 1889 - p.9)

     The hundredth night of A Man’s Shadow and the performance of Miss Rose Norreys as Nan in Good for Nothing at the Haymarket are noticed elsewhere in this paper. The programmes given away on Monday were beautifully illustrated with portraits, reproduced from photographs, of Mr. Beerbohm-Tree as Laroque, and Luversan, Mr. Fernandez as the advocate, Mrs. Beerbohm-Tree as Henriette, and Miss Terry as the child Suzanne, while an admirably executed picture of the trial scene covers the front leaf.

_____

     Speaking of A Man’s Shadow reminds me that little Mabel Hoare, who has for four years been playing child’s parts with Miss Mary Anderson and Mr. Wilson Barrett here and in America, and has I am told, now reached the magic age of ten, has been engaged by Mr. Horace Lingard to play Suzanne during the tour of the Haymarket piece.

A Man’s Shadow - continued.