 |
|
|
|
|
ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841-1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THEATRE REVIEWS 26. A Man’s Shadow (1889) - continued
The Stage (28 February, 1890 - p.12) THE GRAND. Although the company organised by Mr. Horace Lingard have been introducing A Man’s Shadow to a few of our country cousins, Robert Buchanan’s adaptation is as yet practically unknown in the provinces, pending the visits of the company organised under the direction of Mr. Tree himself, who commenced operations as near home as the Grand, where their rendering of this interesting play has been received with a unanimous concensus of favourable opinion. As a whole, the performance has been judged by many who had witnessed the original production at the Haymarket to be more than satisfactory. In some cases a character is represented on lines that follow more or less closely the ideas of the creator of the part in England: in others a distinct endeavour is to be noticed to strike out an individual line of action independently of any predecessor, but in all the results are found to be more than praiseworthy, and the tout ensemble presents an excellent degree of finish and completeness. Mr. J. G. Grahame, who plays the parts of Laroque and Luversan, has far surpassed the anticipations of his most friendly of critics. The salient features of two widely different characters are, as he conceives them, distinctly individualised, and though he may be at times a trifle lacking in strength of method, it is perfectly evident that he has devoted both brains and study to his conception of the character, and his impersonation is not only clever but interesting. Mr. J. S. Haydon, a very capable actor, who is, perhaps, not so well known in London as he deserves to be, though in his time he has done much good work, has made a well-deserved success as De Norville, and is more particularly to be praised for the favourable verdict he has forced from fairly critical audiences, by the fact that Mr. Fernandez, the original whom most had seen, was undeniably almost perfect in the part. That Miss Maud Milton, who is spoken of by an esteemed contemporary as “painstaking,” made the most of the opportunities afforded to her in playing Henriette follows as a matter of course. Miss Milton is an artist in the best sense of the word, and if we have seen her in parts which gave her better opportunities, there can still be no hesitation in recording our opinion that we have few actresses who could have done so well in the circumstances. Miss Ina Goldsmith has won good opinions for a careful and intellectual rendering of Julie. Miss Edie King as the little Suzanne is almost beyond praise, for these children’s characters are, after all, seldom well-played, and Miss King possesses an evident savoir faire which is far beyond her years. It is difficult to separate Picolet from Tristol, or Tristol from Picolet, these two worthy heroes being capitally represented by Messrs. John Benn and Lytton Grey, who have between them worked up the humours of the piece in a highly diverting manner. Miss Floyd as Victoire, and, indeed, all the members of the Co., strive hard to show that they give the most conscientious attention to the smallest detail of the production, and their efforts have met with the heartiest approval of well-filled houses during their short sojourn in the North. The farce, Done on Both Sides, has been played as a first piece. ___
The Scotsman (25 March, 1890 - p.4) At the Royalty Theatre another adaptation by Mr Robert Buchanan from a French work—namely, “A Man’s Shadow”—was presented last night before a good house. As a play it bristles with striking dramatic incidents, and is a powerfully-written work, but its sentiment is hardly suited to the Scottish taste, although the play, from its clever acting, had a very favourable reception last night. A feature of the play was the staging. ___
The Stage (11 April, 1890 - p.5) NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE — TYNE (Sole Lessee, Mr. Augustus Harris; Manager, Mr. C. T. Burleigh).—Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of A Man’s Shadow, is occupying the boards of the Tyne this week. On Monday a holiday audience filled the house from floor to ceiling. The production is under the direction of Mr. Beerbohm Tree, which is a sufficient guarantee of its excellence in every detail. The success of the drama depends very materially on the capabilities of the artist selected to play the two widely distinct characters of Laroque the merchant, and Leversan the spy. The performance of this dual rôle, by Mr. J. G. Grahame, is of the most praiseworthy description, insomuch that to the large majority of the audience it seems the work of two individuals. Mr. J. S. Haydon is very fine as the advocate, Raymond de Noirville, especially in the trial scene in act three. Miss Maud Milton is always welcome here, and probably upon no occasion has her acting evinced more art and brought her higher praise than the part of Henriette, wife of Laroque. Mr. John Benn and Mr. Lytton Grey are amusing as Picolot and Tristot. Suzanne, the child of Laroque, is so pathetically played by Miss Edie King as to leave few dry eyes among the audience. Other parts are well filled by Miss Ira Goldsmith, Miss Floyd, Mr. Wilfrid, Mr. Lake, &c. ___
The Stage (8 August, 1890 - p.9) THE SURREY. There are melodramas and melodramas, which distinction it is only just to make in the case of A Man’s Shadow. Mr. George Conquest on Monday afternoon began the experiment of ascertaining how far the higher form of this prolific variety of the dramatic family, as seen in the Buchanan adaptation of this Ambigu play would be acceptable to his audiences. The precise result it would be rash to predict; A Man’s Shadow reaches a degree in melodrama to which the Surrey playgoers may find it more difficult to rise than the Haymarket playgoers found it easy to descend. On Monday evening the audience was a little doubtful to begin with, but later it warmed under the influence of the powerful interests, and did not depart without a hearty verdict of approval. Whatever the upshot, of two things—certainty: Mr. Conquest deserves every praise for adventuring the piece, and his company the like meed for their spirited presentation of it. Mr. H. Beerbohm-Tree’s dual rôle falls to Mr. C. J. Hague, and Mr. J. Fernandez’s avocat with the famous speech to Mr. Philip Cunningham. Mr. Hague’s Lucien Laroque plus Luversan is a highly commendable tour de force, marked by no little ingenuity and no little ability; and Mr. Cunningham’s Raymond de Noirville, if without the robust quality of declamation instinctively looked for in the trial scene, is well finished and genuinely artistic. Other of the male characters are played by Mr. Henry Belding, a good Gerbier; by Messrs. Cruickshanks, Edward Lennox, Reuben leslie, E. S. Vincent, a capital Jean Ricordet; and by Messrs. George Conquest, jun., and Fred Conquest, who freely elaborate the queer humours of Picolot and Trislot. Mrs. Bennett plays with excellent vigour and full effect as Julie, and there is much to speak well of in Miss Annie Conway’s Henriette. Miss Cissy Farrell acts neatly as Victorie, and little Miss Jennie Humm is wholesomely natural in the not very naturally wholesome part of poor wee Susanne. That his audience should have plenty for its money, Mr. Conquest has put on the two-act comic drama, Old Phil Hardy, as the forepiece, in which with his usual skill he himself plays the part of Old Phil, supported by Mr. E. Lennox (Harry), Mr. E. S. Vincent (Charles), Mr. H. Belding (Peter Grip), Mr. B. Shelton (Captain Rough), Miss Jenny Lee (Mrs. Hardy), and Miss L. Dyson (Amy). ___
The Era (26 September, 1891 - Issue 2766) THE MARYLEBONE. Henriette ... Mrs HENRY GASCOIGNE It was evident on Saturday evening from the favourable reception given to A Man’s Shadow that Mr Gascoigne’s policy of producing the melodramas and plays that have won popularity in more fashionable centres is one that meets with the entire approval of his patrons. The story that Mr Robert Buchanan has adapted with such skill from the Ambigu piece Roger La Honte is once that appeals with irresistible power to a popular audience. The force of cruel circumstance that overwhelms Laroque and makes him suffer for the crime of Luversan is due to the strong facial resemblance between the two men; and in this respect only A Man’s Shadow resembles Le Courrier de Lyon, known to Lyceum audiences as The Lyons Mail. Mr Buchanan in his slightly compressed version has skilfully retained all the best situations of the original piece; and none of these have created a more powerful effect at the Marylebone during the week than the solemn trial scene, where Raymond De Noirville, under the burden of an imagined dishonour put upon him by the man he is defending, quenches the bitterness of hate that gnaws at his heart, bravely attempts to do his duty as an advocate, and falls dead in the attempt. When A Man’s Shadow was produced at the Haymarket the fine acting of Mr James Fernandez as the advocate produced a very remarkable impression in this same scene—one of the best of its kind that has ever been composed in melodrama. Mr J. Frederick Powell, the Raymond De Noirville of the Marylebone cast, attacked its difficulties bravely and successfully, his savage and whispered upbraiding of Laroque, as well as the working of his facial muscles indicating the intense excitement under which the advocate is labouring. His speech for the defence was powerful in its intensity, and there was no undue forcing of the note. The part is one that some actors might be tempted to “tear a cat” in. Mr Powell avoids the Scylla of rant, without falling into the Charybdis of tameness. An altogether artistic piece of acting, too, was that of Mr Acton Bond, on whose shoulders fell the double responsibilities of the rôles of Laroque and Luversan. The difference in the characters is a remarkable one, though the lineaments are so alike. Mr Bond’s success at the Marylebone is greatest when, as soon as the dignified and manly Laroque has left the dock in the trial scene, his villainous counterpart, with a horrible chuckle, makes his appearance opposite to hand Julie De Noirville’s fatal note to her husband. Could it be one and the same individual playing the two parts? was a question that naturally arose in one’s mind, and this very doubt is perhaps the greatest tribute that can be paid to the young actor, whose elocution is so excellent, and whose power is already so well under restraint. Mrs Henry Gascoigne made an excellent Henriette, delineating with no little skill the conflicting emotions of the distraught wife, and Miss Madge Denzil’s Julie was a careful and painstaking performance. Miss Lucy Murray as Victoire, the waiting-maid, also did well. The puerile humour of Picolot and Tristot does not add strength to the trial scene, but it seemed to be relished by the Maryleboners, who roared at the “business” of Mr Wilford Bailey and Mr Charles R. Stone. Mr T. S. Deller had a comic appearance as Jean Ricardot; Mr Charles Morgan was a good Lacroix; and Mr John Henderson’s president could scarcely have been improved upon. Miss Lily Ivanhoe’s pronunciation as little Susanne left something to be desired. Other parts were adequately played by Messrs Edward Boddy, Arthur Hart, Williams, J. Vivian, and G. Francis. The Waterman preceded the principal piece of the evening. Mr John F. Storer, the courteous acting-manager of the house, carries out his duties with real tact. ___
The Stage (28 September, 1893 - p.12) THE BRITANNIA. A powerful and impressive presentment of Robert Buchanan’s adaptation from the French, A Man’s Shadow. is the fixture for this week, and until further notice, at the great Hoxton theatre. This performance is as good as any we have seen on the Britannia boards. It goes without saying that the staging is excellent, and the acting is in all respects worthy of the reputation which the company here have won. There are many points in this play which appeal to lovers of strong dramatic effect. Mr. Algernon Syms is in his very best vein in the double rôle of Lucien Laroque and Luversan. His work in the second act is quite masterly, and deserves to be ranked among his best efforts. The intense naturalness of it, the repressed emotion, the well portrayed despair of the man who finds himself falsely accused of the most terrible of crimes, and the distinctly limned personality of the shadow, Luversan, are strong points on which Mr. Syms may well pride himself. Mr. Walter Steadman shows what true dramatic fibre is in him in the trial scene of the third act, in which Raymond de Noirville figures so prominently. Mr. Steadman acts brilliantly in this critical scene. It is a splendid effort, and one of the finest things Mr. Steadman has given us. Mr. W. S. Parkes is an effective M. Gerbier. Mr. W. H. Perrette is distinctly successful as Picolet. Mr. Joseph Rowland does well as Tristot. Mr. G. B. Bigwood causes much amusement by his droll portrayal of Jean Ricordot. As President of the Court Mr. Bruce Lindley displays his usual natural style, and has a good make. Mr. F. Beaumont is an effective Advocate-general. Mr. Walter Copley’s brisk and telling manner is well in accord with the part of Lacroix, the police agent. As Henriette, the wife of Laroque, Miss Oliph Webb puts forth all her best powers of tenderness, pathos, and realistic portraiture. Miss Winnie Whyte, who has been specially engaged for these performances, is remarkably effective as Suzanne. There is real talent in the acting of this clever child. Much of her good work is doubtless due to careful training, but there are, too, lights and shades of facial expression and inflections of tone which cannot be other than spontaneous and natural. Miss Lalor Shiel is as vivacious and attractive as ever as Victorie. Miss Beatrice Toy is a charming Julie. The remaining parts are in good hands. The varieties are entrusted to Harry Lemore and Adeline, the latter of whom goes through her clever trapeze performance. The afterpiece is My Turn Next. ___
The Stage (10 June, 1897 - p.12) THE MATINEE. Messrs. Acton Bond and Charles Meyrick, who are starting on tour with their company in A Man’s Shadow, are filling a week’s engagement at the comfortable theatre in Langham Place, where the performance of Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Jules Mary and Georges Grisier’s popular melodrama, Roger La Honte, was received with great cordiality on the evening of Whit Monday. Many things have happened in Mr. Beerbohm Tree’s progress since September, 1889, when he was seen at the Haymarket in the characters of Lucien Laroque, the honest man and brave soldier, who is the victim of circumstantial evidence, and the so-called “Shadow,” Luversan, spy, blackmailer, and murderer. Though not so fine a dual rôle as that of Lesurques and Dubose in The Lyons Mail, the Laroque-Luversan combination offers excellent opportunities to an actor of versatility and resource, and of these chances Mr. Acton Bond made generally good use in the representation given at the Matinee on Monday. perhaps he did the better work as Luversan, making that jaunty rascal blithe and debonnair even in his desperation, and reproducing frequently the characteristic tones of Mr. Tree. Besides managing the changes adroitly, Mr. Bond differentiated admirably between the physical and psychological traits of the two men, and his demeanour as the wrongly-condemned Laroque was refined, gentle, and earnest, the beseeching of the child Suzanne to speak the truth in the Trial scene, and the grave reproach to the still suspecting wife in the last act, being among the other noticeable points in an excellent and highly creditable performance. Provincial playgoers who appreciate artistic acting should enjoy Mr. Acton Bond’s twin assumptions of Laroque and Luversan. The company supporting him in this in parts powerful, but, speaking generally, artificial, melodrama, are on the whole efficient, and some of the characters were very well played, although in the inept and dramatically worthless “comic relief” supplied by Mr. Buchanan, Messrs. H. G. Payne, W. Devereux, and Robson Paige were unable to do very much as the little Corporal Tristrot; the big Sergeant Picolot, and the egregious expert in handwriting, Jean Ricordot. It is a wonder, indeed, how such feeble comedy ever passed muster. In the part of Raymond de Noirville, which at the Haymarket Mr. Fernandez played with such tremendous effect, Mr. Frederick J. Powell gave on Monday a performance studiously restrained up to the scene where the advocate works himself into a frenzy and falls dead of heart disease in the Assize Chamber as he is on the point of confessing his wife’s shame to save his comrade’s life. Herein Mr. Powell acted with considerable [Note: there seems to be a missing line here.] juncture was followed, as before at the Haymarket, with warm applause. Julie de Noirville and Henriette Laroque appear respectively in two only out of the four acts, and hence the characters are less important than they should be in a more skilfully contrived dramatic scheme. Miss Dora de Winton, however, as Julie showed with emotional intensity and deep-toned voice the fluctuations between passion and revengefulness experienced by Laroque’s ci-devant mistress, and Miss Keith Wakeman, although almost too subdued in the matter of utterance, brought out well the affection and perturbation of the soul-harrowed wife. As the little girl Suzanne, who refuses at the trial to inculpate her father, Miss Lulu Valli spoke and acted with the true ring of childish sorrow, and indeed at all points her performance was one of high promise. Miss Edith O. Crawford did capital work as that unwilling witness Victoire, the waiting maid; and Mr. Reginald Rivington as the police agent Lacroix, and Mr. John Henderson (who also stage managed a carefully-executed “production”) as the President of the Court, were both of much service. The other parts were passably filled, and the effects were suitably made. Mr. Charles Meyrick is business manager of the company. ___
The London Musical Courier (17 June, 1897) Never were the theatres more interesting than now. There are good things coming and going everywhere. The scribe who would see them all should have, like Argus, a hundred eyes, of which only two go to sleep at one time. This week those who could not get to the Grand Theatre, Islington, have missed Mr. Forbes Robertson in Pinero’s splendid sermon, “The Profligate.” ___
The Morning Post (29 November, 1897 - p.6) HER MAJESTY’S THEATRE. A large and brilliant audience filled Her Majesty’s Theatre on Saturday night, and greeted with enthusiasm Mr. Tree’s revival of “A Man’s Shadow.” It is more than eight years since Mr. Robert Buchanan’s version of “Roger la Honte” was produced at the Haymarket Theatre, and of the original cast only Mr. and Mrs. Tree and Mr. Robson remain. But the play loses nothing by the new interpreters, and the performance was effective in the extreme, the actors being called at least half a dozen times after the third act, and again repeatedly at the final fall of the curtain. “A Man’s Shadow” is pre-eminently a play of effect. The author, doubtful of his power to conjure up visions of the sublime and the beautiful by holding the mirror up strictly to Nature, has preferred to excite our feelings by what is strange and harrowing at the expense of truth rather than run the risk of merely reproducing the commonplace by a too rigid fidelity to human life and character; he has written a melodrama. Everything is sacrificed to effect, but, thanks to the exceeding ingenuity and technical skill of the playwright, the desired result is attained. Printed and read, the story would not rouse our interest and sympathy as the acted play does. This is because in reading we pause and think. In the theatre the events follow one another so rapidly that there is no time for reflection. The plot is founded on a case of mistaken identity. Lucien Laroque, an honest merchant, and Luversan, a spy, are so alike that they are constantly taken for one another. The spy commits a robbery and a murder, and the honest man is arrested, tried, and condemned. He escapes from prison, and in the last act he is confronted with the villain, who shoots himself; the hero’s innocence is established, and the drama has a happy ending. There are three powerful situations. The murder, which takes place in a house seen across the street from Laroque’s room, is witnessed by his wife, his little daughter, and his maidservant. They are convinced of his guilt; but the mother, in an agony of fear, makes her child promise that she will reveal nothing whatever of what has occurred. Suzanne has seen nothing—heard nothing. The intelligent little creature is steadfast to her word; no inducement can move her to incriminate her father—not even his own entreaties to her to speak the truth before the full Court of Assize. There were few dry eyes when the pretty child, overcome by the solemnity of the scene, was carried fainting out of the Court. The merchant’s advocate is his great friend De Noirville, who has married Julie, formerly Laroque’s mistress. But of this De Noirville is ignorant, and for no consideration in the world will Laroque disclose a secret that would ruin his friend’s happiness. And yet it is a question of life and death, for the circumstances are such that on this admission lies Laroque’s only chance of proving his innocence. He prefers the claims of friendship to those of his own honour and his own life. But the most powerful situation of all is that in which the barrister finds himself. Suddenly, in the middle of the trial, he learns the truth. He is placed in the terrible dilemma of neglecting his duty and abandoning the friend whom he loves and whose guiltlessness he can prove, or else proclaim to all the world the worthlessness of his wife. He decides to sacrifice his own peace. But he was grievously wounded in the late war, and before he can conclude the impassioned speech which is to make all clear he falls dead in the Court. It is necessary, in order to bring about these situations and make them sufficiently plausible, to introduce a large number of motives and circumstances, such as the relations between the spy and Laroque’s wife and Julie, the merchant’s financial distress, the giving of money by Julie to a M. Gerbier (the murdered man) to whom Laroque was in debt, the finding of a pistol at the opportune moment, a compromising letter, and many other essential facts. Herein lies the weakness of the play, for these circumstances and coincidences are so numerous and so complex that we labour under the impression that they have been carefully and artificially produced to bring about the catastrophe. The story lacks simplicity and spontaneity. It also lacks the requisite of tragedy—the development of character. The personages are what the author requires for certain actions. They are fixed quantities, and their characters are not re-acted on by the events. Nothing could be finer than Mr. Tree’s rendering of both the merchant and the spy. The men are alike only in face and size; otherwise they are differentiated by innumerable little traits, which show the perfection of the actor’s art. Each has a characteristic gait, a different expression, even the involuntary movements of their muscles, especially of the hands, betray idiosyncrasies. As Laroque Mr. Tree is especially remarkable in the trial scene, a performance on which it would be difficult to improve. Our young stage aspirants would do well to master it in all its details—a task impossible at a single visit to the theatre, where a thousand things claim our attention. But night after night the students should be at their post observing and taking notes. From Mr. Lewis Waller, too, they would learn much. It would be hazardous after this lapse of time to compare his performance with that of Mr. Fernandez as the advocate. But the effect produced by the great speech at the trial, where, torn by conflicting emotions, the faithful friend falls dead before he can incriminate the wife he loves, was in both cases the same—it brought down the house. Mr. Waller enjoyed a well-deserved triumph. The minor parts were likewise excellently rendered, and to Messrs. E. M. Robson, Lionel Brough, and Gerald du Maurier the greatest credit is due for the humorous scenes, which, naturally and appropriately introduced, afford welcome relief from the strain and gloom of melodrama. The actresses had fewer opportunities of distinction. Mrs. Tree was graceful and sympathetic as Laroque’s unhappy wife, and little Miss Dorrie Harris, as Suzanne, was the sweetest, most innocent, and natural little heroine imaginable. It would be hypercritical to find fault because she was dressed as a pretty English girl; for had she appeared more correctly in the usual garb of a French child much of the charm of the picture would have been absent. Miss Lily Hanbury’s talents and devotion to her art have won for her much regard, and she is too true an artist to feel hurt if it is pointed out that to reach perfection it is necessary to conceal that art as much as possible. She has mastered the methods of the stage, but they appear somewhat too obvious in all she does. Let her watch the women of her acquaintance, especially in their emotional moods. She will notice that they rarely speak and move as she does on the stage. The inflection of their voices, the rise and fall of their sentences, is more varied, more abrupt—in a word, more natural. When by chance this is not the case we say: This woman is an actress. It is exactly the converse that we wish to feel of the actress. She does not seem to be acting at all; she behaves as any woman would behave in the circumstances. This is the effect produced on us by Eleonora Duse. And it does not imply that all that is natural ought to be reproduced at the footlights. On the contrary, what takes place there should be altogether art. But the test of its real existence is that it should be mistaken for nature. ___
From Dramatic Opinions and Essays - Volume Two by George Bernard Shaw (New York: Brentano’s, 1906 - p. 380-382) A Man's Shadow. Adapted from the French play “Roger la Honte” by Robert Buchanan. Revival. It is not in human nature to regard Her Majesty’s Theatre as the proper place for such a police-court drama as “A Man’s Shadow.” Still, it is not a bad bit of work of its kind; and it would be a good deal better if it were played as it ought to be with two actors instead of one in the parts of Lucien Laroque and Luversan. Of course Mr. Tree, following the precedent of “The Lyons Mail,” doubles the twain. Equally of course, this expedient completely destroys the illusion, which requires that two different men should resemble one another so strongly as to be practically indistinguishable except on tolerably close scrutiny; whilst Mr. Tree’s reputation as a master of the art of disguising himself requires that he shall astonish the audience by the extravagant dissimilarity of the two figures he alternately presents. No human being could, under any conceivable circumstances, mistake his Laroque for his Luversan; and I have no doubt that Mr. Tree will take this as the highest compliment I could possibly pay him for this class of work. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in saying that if the real difficulty—one compared to which mere disguise is child’s play—were faced and vanquished, the interest of the play would be trebled. That difficulty, I need hardly explain, is the presentation to the spectators of a single figure which shall yet be known to them as the work of two distinct actors. As it is, instead of two men in one, we have one man in two, which makes the play incredible as well as impossible. ___
The Westminster Budget (3 December, 1897 - p.11) REVIVAL OF “A MAN’S SHADOW.” Mr. Beerbohm Tree has promised a revival of “Julius Cæsar,” one of the noblest and most neglected of Shakespeare’s tragedies, and consequently even those of us who affect a lofty standard may well forgive a revival of “A Man’s Shadow,” unless, indeed, the piece which thrilled the audience and was received with very great favour should defer too long the production of the Shakespearean play. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||
It is easy to see the temptation to produce “A Man’s Shadow,” for the melodrama enables the actor-manager to give an interesting exhibition of his power, and also to present a very popular actor, Mr. Lewis Waller, in a part that is remarkably effective. It will be forgotten by most people that “A Man’s Shadow” is an adaptation by Mr. Robert Buchanan of a French melodrama founded upon a sensational feuilleton which appeared in Le Petit Journal—such a parentage is somewhat awe-inspiring. It was produced at the Haymarket by Mr. Tree successfully in September, 1889, and was noteworthy not only for the cleverness of Mr. Tree’s acting, but also for the hit made by Mr. James Fernandez. Eight years is a long life for an adaptation made in the fashion adopted by Mr. Robert Buchanan, and it is not surprising that the critical groaned sometimes at the crudeness of the workmanship, the mustiness of the technique, and gasped at the efforts at comic relief, intruded, with a colossal want of tact, in the trial scene. At the same time, all must recognise the force of the situations in the second and third acts. It would be difficult to escape a thrill at the scene in which a virtuous woman and her child watch a murder committed on an honourable old man by one who seems to them to be husband and father. Even more effective than this is the position of the advocate, De Noirville, who, when pleading in court for the life of his friend Laroque, by whom his life once was saved, finds suddenly that his client has been the lover of his wife, and that the only way to save his client from an unjust sentence is by proving his own dishonour in court. There seems no reason why we should compare the acting of Mr. Lewis Waller as De Noirville with that of Mr. James Fernandez, and it would be difficult to make the comparison, since the actors represent different schools. Therefore, I limit myself to asserting that Mr. Waller profoundly moved the audience although the keynote of his work was restraint, and he avoided the elaborate facial movements which marked the presentation of the part by the elder actor. The applause and the enthusiastic calls for Mr. Lewis Waller showed how deeply impressed the audience had been by his admirable acting. |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
Mr. Tree’s performance in the two parts of Laroque the ill-used hero and Luversan was of remarkable merit. It may be hinted, by way of criticism, that he perhaps differentiated them a little too much, and made it unlikely that those who knew Laroque intimately would be deceived. But possibly this in reality touches a difficult question of what may be called stage optics. The actual presentation of Luversan was a most ingenious piece of character-acting in its suggestion of the low French type of bully, spy, and blackguard. More difficult, however, was the task of presenting the innocent Laroque at his trial. The suggestion of the dazed and broken-down state of the man who had been through that form of modern inquisition which occurs in France before a man is sent for trial on a capital charge was exceedingly fine. And quite as noteworthy is his attitude when his child is put in the witness-box, and also when his friend and advocate is about to sacrifice his honour for his sake. One hardly expects to find acting of such artistic value in melodrama, and it is proportionately the more welcome. I think that Miss Minnie Terry, a very clever child actress whom we have not seen lately, made her first appearance in “A Man’s Shadow,” and it seemed unlikely that another little one barely in her teens should be found successfully to take so difficult a part. But little Miss Dorrie Harris played it amazingly, and not only showed that she understood exactly what she ought to do, but also did it exactly as it ought to be done. Mrs. Beerbohm Tree, in the part of the wife, which she played very well in 1889, shows how valuable has been her advance in the art that she has studied sincerely. One could not help thinking of poor Miss Norreys and her charming performance in the part of Victoire, now played intelligently by Miss Winifred Leon. The play, though professedly but a stop-gap, has been handsomely mounted, and the cast is capital throughout. I think I ought to have mentioned Mr. F. P. Stevens who acted excellently as the police agent. E. F. S. ___
The Penny Illustrated Paper (4 December, 1897) “A Man’s Shadow” (Mr. Robert Buchanan’s translation of “Roger la Honte”) was most enthusiastically received on its revival by Mr. Tree, at Her Majesty’s, last Saturday night. Miserably wet outside, it was most cosy within this admirably managed new theatre. By the opening scene of Lucien Laroque’s introduction by De Noirville to his wife (a former mistress of Laroque), one was irresistibly reminded of the leading incident in “The Tree of Knowledge,” albeit it is not a Tree, but an Alexander who reaps as he sows at the St. James’s. If anything, the impersonation by Mr. Tree of the respectable Lucien and his disreputable double, Luversan, has gained in finish, and in the diablerie of the murderous scoundrel of whose crime Laroque is accused in the tragic trial which ends in his counsel’s sensational death. This last bit of strong characterisation is the best thing Mr. Lewis Waller has done. But the acting that pleased me best of all was the very lifelike Jean Ricordot of Mr. Gerald Du Maurier, and the infinitely pathetic and natural little Suzanne of Miss Dorrie Harris. Admirable in their parts also were Mrs. Tree and Miss Lily Hanbury, Miss Winifred Leon, Mr. Lionel Brough, Mr. E. M. Robson, and Mr. Charles G. Allan, the impressive President. “A Man’s Shadow” deserves to enjoy a fresh lease of popularity. |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
[From The English Illustrated Magazine Vol. XXI, April to September, 1899 - p.178]
The Stage (22 November, 1900 - p.14) THE BRITANNIA. The Britannia management have selected a safe draw for this week in that interesting drama, A Man’s Shadow, which, it will be remembered, Robert Buchanan adapted from the French play Roger La Honte. Not the least interesting features of the narrative which it sets forth are the haunting of Lucien Laroque’s life by his mysterious double, Luversan, for whose crime he is arrested owing to the extraordinary likeness between them; and the dramatic Trial scene in act three, wherein the chainwork of circumstances is wrought into one of the most powerful situations that a dramatist could conceive. Laroque’s counsel discovers that, in order to prove his client and friend guilty of the crime of which he is accused, he (the counsel) must proclaim the shame of his own wife and her guilty connection with Laroque; and in steeling himself to the performance of this terrible duty he falls dead. This scene was presented with real power on Monday by Mr. Edwin Fergusson, who has rarely done better work. His portrayal of De Noirville’s mental suffering and high sense of honour which bade him do his duty at all costs was admirable. Mr. Roy Redgrave is also to be complimented upon the effective and versatile manner in which, in presenting the double rôle of Laroque and Luversan, he portrayed the different natures and manners of the two men—the straightforwardness and candour of Laroque, the brutal cunning and reckless gaiety of Luversan. The contrast was a skilful and well-emphasised one. Mr. Frank Carlile and Mr. Fred Lawrence were highly successful in their respective delineations of those two good-hearted but excitable old soldiers, Picolot and Tristot. From Mr. R. A. Beaton came a sound and forcible study of Lacroix, the police agent. Miss Louisa Peach was in her best vein of emotional power in her well-sustained exposition of Henriette. Miss Judith Kyrie was an excellent and convincing Julie. Victorie was well delineated by Miss Marie Brian. Miss Maud Mead spoke her lines clearly and played well as Suzanne. A capable M. Gerbier came from Mr. J. B. Howe. Mr. B. Johns presented a capital study of Jean Ricordot. Mr. Ronald Douglas was a dignified President of the Court, and Mr. C. Weathersby a satisfactory Advocate-General. The remaining parts were sustained by Messrs. Broughton, Barrett, and Gregory. After the drama, which is well staged, comes variety contributions by Arthur Stacey and Teddy Mosedale, and a display of Bert Bernard’s Rayograph. The programme concludes with The Boarding School, presented by members of the company. ___
The Guardian (26 May, 1903 - p.6) THE QUEEN’S.—Mr. Robert Buchanan’s drama “A Man’s Shadow” is presented here this week by Mr. Arthur Hare’s company. Mr. Hare himself plays the two parts of the injured hero and the villain, the resemblance between whom is the cause of all the mistakes which go to make the melodrama. The villain is a poor specimen of his kind, but the hero is a strong creation, though we are never allowed to forget for long that he is, after all, only an English translation of a Frenchman. It is through the English eyes indeed, that we are shown the France and the Frenchmen of the whole piece, and the court scene might have been written to cast ridicule upon the judicial procedure of our neighbours. Mr. Hare acted last night with much force, but it was noticed that the necessity which he is under of speaking at short intervals in two different voices produces a huskiness which should hardly be in these grand melodramatic speeches. Miss Sydney Fairbrother performed her important part with an uncommon restraint, and the part undoubtedly gained from her treatment of it. Mr. Bertram Steer was highly successful in the “speech for the defence”—made by an advocate who has just discovered that his wife has addressed to the prisoner a compromising letter,—and the unpleasant part of Julie was well taken by Miss Elise Clarens. The agony is more skilfully heaped up than in the every-day melodrama, but there is a great deal of it.
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
[Advert for A Man’s Shadow from the Daily Mail (6 April, 1905 - p.4)] |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
[Poster for A Man’s Shadow at the Grand Theatre, Leeds, 7th June, 1909.
From Herbert Beerbohm Tree: Some Memories of Him and of His Art collected by Max Beerbohm (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1920), from the section, ‘Herbert and I’ by Maud Tree, p.43: |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
p.45-46: Immediately upon our return, we must have plunged into hard work; the long and difficult rehearsals of A Man’s Shadow, Mr. Sydney Grundy’s version of Roger la Honte. In this, Herbert accomplished one of the many of his amazing tours de force—doubling the parts of Luversan and Laroque. The play was produced on September 12th, and was an immense success. Herbert’s double performance was startling in its perfection; whether as the bewildered and tortured hero (Oh, how exactly like himself was Herbert in his tender, agonized appeal to his little child, who unconsciously condemned him! The tears of blood in his eyes and in his voice!); or as the debauched, absinthe-sodden villain, with his harsh, satiric singing: |
||||||||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Minnie Terry, a child of eight, was the exquisite little exponent of Suzanne, with the historic phrase, “I saw nothing—I heard nothing.” That daughter of the gods, divinely fair, brilliant Julia Neilson, was the “wicked woman,” and what a wonder of beauty she was! Gifted to an inordinate degree, and born with the dramatic sense, she, an amateur, had nothing to learn. Indeed, her fault in those days, if she had a fault, was that her acting was too technical for her years. An isolated entry in the aforesaid blue diary tells me: p.48-49: The Village Priest followed A Man’s Shadow, which was attended on its last night (in April) by Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
[From the Daily Mail (11 December, 1920 - p.1)] _____ The American production of Roger la Honte; or, A Man’s Shadow _____
Next: Theodora (1889)
Back to the Bibliography or the Plays
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||