 |
|
|
|
|
ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841-1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THEATRE REVIEWS 30. Sweet Nancy (1890)
Sweet Nancy Published: New York: S. French, 1914. 76 p. : plans ; 19 cm. (Series: French’s Acting Edition. No. 2455) |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[Lyric Theatre handbill announcing the end of The Bride of Love
The Stage (11 July, 1890 - p.9) Last week I told you that Robert Buchanan’s new three-act comedy, Nancy, was being rehearsed for production at the Lyric. The piece, which is founded upon Miss Rhoda Broughton’s novel, has been re-christened Sweet Nancy, and will be presented on Saturday evening. In the cast will be found Mr. H. Neville, Miss Frances Ivor, Miss Harriett Jay, and Miss Annie Hughes, who, you see, has not retired from the stage into private life, as she first thought of doing when she was married. Sweet Nancy will be preceded by a new comedietta, entitled, An Old Maid’s Wooing. ___
Reynolds’s Newspaper (13 July, 1890 - Issue 2083) LAST NIGHT’S THEATRICALS. Mr. Robert Buchanan having withdrawn the charming play, “The Bride of Love,” replaced it last night by a new comedy, entitled “Sweet Nancy,” founded on Miss Rhoda Broughton’s famous and charming story, “Nancy.” The story, familiar to many, tells of a young girl’s sacrifice, in order to benefit her brothers and sisters—brow-beaten and bullied by their father—who enters into a May and December marriage with an elderly general, Sir Roger Tempest, and who at first, doubtful of her love for him, ends with being violently jealous of his attentions to a Mrs. Huntley, a grass widow, who had previously set her cap at him, and now ridicules Sir Roger for having a girl-wife, and marrying not only one member, but the whole family. The play is much too long, and at times verbose, but the length of the piece was everywhere condoned by the admirable acting of the excellent company engaged. There is an abundance of juvenile characters, but playgoers, having been surfeited with Fauntleroys, princes and paupers, and the like, would certainly exclaim, “Not too much juvenile, but juvenile enough.” It is here we think the play could be curtailed, inasmuch as the characters serve little or no purpose in forwarding the action of the play, though they help towards making a series of pretty stage pictures. Miss Annie Hughes, as Nancy, the tomboy girl-wife, endowed the part with a pathos, a spirit, and a charm that was quite enchanting; in fact, had the part been written purposely for her, it could not have suited her better. Mr. Henry Neville, sound actor as he is, was perfect in every way as Sir Roger Tempest; and Mr. Ernest Hendrie, as the tyrannical and somewhat parsimonious father, gave an excellent character sketch. Miss Harriet Jay, as Nancy’s sister Barbara was excellent, and Miss Ethel Hope as the mother of the tribe of paternally-awed juveniles, lent excellent service. Other characters were carefully portrayed by Mr. H. Esmond, Mr. Bucklaw, and Mr. C. M. Hallard. Miss Frances Ivor as Mrs. Huntley, not quite perfect in her part, looked charmingly, and acted excellently. The comedy was preceded by a delightful and well-written comedietta by Messrs. Arnold Golsworthy and E. B. Norman, called “An Old Maid’s Wooing,” in which the Squire and the Rector of Churton are each in love with the same woman. The former enlists the service of the parson to make known his affection, but the lady preferring the latter, the Squire, though defeated, acts honourably. Mr. E. B. Norman undertook the part of the Rev. James Braithwaite; Mr. E. Hendrie was excellent as the uneducated Squire, who made his money in hams; and Miss Ethel Hope played quietly and admirably as the Old Maid, Miss Hester Grayson. It was close on the witching hour of midnight when the entertainment terminated, when calls were given for the principal characters, to which they responded, as did also Mr. Robert Buchanan. ___
The Daily News (14 July, 1890 - Issue 13813) THE THEATRES. “SWEET NANCY” AT THE LYRIC Miss Rhoda Broughton’s “Nancy” has been some years before the world, but no dramatist appears to have seen in it promising material till it occurred to Mr. Buchanan the other day to take it in hand. Mr. Buchanan is, however, the most skilful of those playwrights who practice the art of transferring works of narrative fiction to the stage, and his tact and ingenuity have not forsaken him on this occasion. “Sweet Nancy,” which on Saturday evening took the place of “The Bride of Love” at the Lyric Theatre, is not without faults; but happily its faults are of a kind very easily remedied. It is not merely that the three acts are too long, though the play, beginning at the late hour of nine in the evening, detained the audience till not very far from the stroke of midnight. It is rather that the subject is too slight to bear the elaboration which Mr. Buchanan and his interpreters bestow upon it. Of pathetic or serious interest there is really none. It is a mere storm in a matrimonial teacup, which is not even brewing in anything like earnest till the play is well nigh at an end. The charm of the piece—and it is a rare charm indeed upon the modern stage—is the uncompromising truthfulness of its portraiture, and the unconstrained freshness of its dialogue. The spectators who had the misfortune on Saturday to arrive early enough to witness the performance of the little one-act play by Messrs. Goldsworthy and Norman, with its milksop parson, its painfully exemplary heroine, its imbecile squire, and its much-too-highly-coloured village poacher, could not fail to feel a welcome relief in the presence of Mr. Buchanan’s Nancy, who has at least the merit of speaking and acting like a human being, and who, with all her failings, is, in the congenial person of Miss Annie Hughes, a really delightful personage. ___
The Scotsman (14 July, 1890 - p.8) LONDON, Saturday night — Mr Robert Buchanan has taken advantage of his brief tenancy of the Lyric Theatre to produce there a new comedy from his own pen, founded on Miss Rhoda Broughton’s novel called “Nancy,” withdrawing “The Bride of Love.” On Friday night he followed on with “Sweet Nancy” (as he calls his latest venture.) This evening there was a large audience, including Mr A. M. Palmer, the American manager; Miss Genevieve Ward, Miss Wallis, Miss Kate Santley, Mr Edward Terry, and other well-known people, and it proved very liberal in its applause, especially at the conclusion of the first and the second acts. The third act was found inordinately long, the performance not ending until close upon midnight; nevertheless very few hisses mingled with the cheers that followed the fall of the curtain, and so far the reception given to the comedy was favourable. The third act, however, will need to be relieved of much of its verbosity and repetition, and even then the play will not rank high in the list of Mr Buchanan’s productions. The subject is thin, and it is treated for the most part conventionally. The first act, which exhibits Nancy as the “tomboy” of a large family of children, and illustrates the processes by which she yields to the addresses of her middle-aged lover Sir Roger Tempest, is fresh and bright, but as soon as the illicit lover Frank Musgrave and the scheming “grass widow” Mrs Huntley come upon the scene, the interest begins to lag. Nancy gets jealous of Mrs Huntley. Her soldier husband is called to the wars, the lover whom Nancy has all along regarded as the suitor of her sister Barbara pays violent court to the former, the husband returns to find Nancy’s name linked slanderously with Musgrave’s, and after explanations too many and too long, Musgrave’s treachery is exposed, Nancy’s innocence vindicated, and Sir Roger reassured. All this is very jejune, besides being clumsily worked out, and it would not have been tolerated to-night but for the admirable acting of Miss Annie Hughes as Nancy. This clever young artist, delightfully naive in the opening scenes, showed herself capable later on not only of pretty pathos, but of genuine passion, and altogether enhanced her reputation very considerably. The sound method of Mr Henry Neville was of great service in making Sir Roger an impressive figure; Mr Hendrie was humorous as Nancy’s father, of whom, however, there is too much; and Mr Henry Esmond was effectively natural as Nancy’s brother, who is ensnared by the wiles of Mrs Huntley. Apart from these, the cast is not especially strong, for Miss Harriet Jay as Barbara is amateurish. Mr Bucklaw as Musgrave seems ill at ease, and Miss Ivor, clever in many things, is not well suited as the “grass widow.” ___
The Times (14 July, 1890 - p.4) LYRIC THEATRE. Mr. Robert Buchanan is not as careful of his reputation as he might be. The comedy of Sweet Nancy, which he brought out upon his own responsibility at the Lyric Theatre on Saturday night, is not in his best style. Adapted from a novel of Miss Rhoda Broughton’s of the year 1873, it bears every sign of being an early an d immature work, and exhibits none of that happy blending of the arts of the playwright and the novelist which has distinguished the author’s Sophia and Clarissa. The courtship and marriage of a sedate, elderly gentleman with a young romp of 19, who knows that he has “been to school with father,” is not an interesting subject for the stage, where there beats a fiercer light than on the pages of a novel; and when the serenity of the household is disturbed by jealousies for which there is no real foundation, and which a timely and natural word of explanation would dissipate, the spectator’s patience is apt to be a little tried. Sweet Nancy is a very small story— a mere episode, indeed—beaten out into three acts of extraordinary tenuity. Here and there it contains pleasing suggestions of truth and human nature, as in the case of the tyrannical father who is followed about by a brow-beaten wife and a troop of insufferable children of all ages from 12 upwards; but, as often happens in a piece which has been derived from a book, the odds and ends of character put forward are somewhat inconsequent; they look for the most part what they are, the mere débris of a novel rather than the living material of a play. Mr. Henry Neville acts the middle-aged lover, and Miss Annie Hughes the hoyden of 19 in a pinafore. The choleric paterfamilias finds a very plausible representative in Mr. Hendrie. In an incidental part appears Miss Harriett Jay. Oddly enough, a new first piece, entitled An Old Maid’s Wooing, also deals with the unsympathetic subject of an elderly courtship. ___
The Era (19 July, 1890 - Issue 2704) THE LYRIC. Sir Roger Tempest ... Mr HENRY NEVILLE Those familiar with Miss Rhoda Broughton’s charming story “Nancy” must have expected a great treat from Mr Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of the same, announced for production at the Lyric Theatre on Saturday last. There is certainly little plot in the novel; but it has been proved, in the case of Little Lord Fauntleroy and other pieces, that a story can be almost dispensed with, provided idyllic charm is present. Enthusiastic applause followed the descent of the curtain on the first act on Saturday, and the audience prepared themselves for an evening of enjoyment. Unfortunately, the high expectations thus created were not realised. Mr Buchanan, experienced adaptor as he is, had missed his way in his treatment of Miss Broughton’s delightful book, and had overloaded hii idyll with commonplace dramatic effects. If the promise implied in the programme had been fulfilled—if Sweet Nancy had begun at nine and ended at eleven, it would have been difficult for the most clumsy versionist—and that character does not describe Mr Buchanan—to smother in weariness the enjoyment which the audience could not fail to take in the humour and sentiment of the story. But, altogether, the work of dramatic presentation was unadroitly and carelessly done. A piece which of all pieces required finished rehearsal was so imperfectly prepared for performance that blunders and hesitations on the part of the artists were frequent; and what with the dialogue being taken in too slow time, what with the unnecessary elaboration of certain situations, the audience, when a quarter to twelve was reached, were utterly out of patience. When the curtain fell a difference of opinion was freely expressed, and Mr Buchanan, coming before the curtain, in vain endeavoured to shift from his own shoulders some of the responsibility of the failure by referring to Miss Rhoda Broughton as the responsible authoress of the piece. It was not Miss Broughton’s book but Mr Buchanan’s adaptation that was hissed and hooted by a large number of those present. “AN OLD MAID’S WOOING.” Rev. James Braithwaite ... Mr E. B. NORMAN This sketch, previously played at the St. George’s Hall, proved too tame and conventional to interest the audience at the Lyric Theatre last Saturday. The idea of a vulgar suitor getting a friend to plead his cause with a lady, with the result of the said friend winning her love, is far from novel. That, however, would have mattered little had the authors utilised the notion in a fresh and dramatic manner, but the reverse was the case. An Old Maid’s Wooing is an instance of the managerial notion that anything will do to play thee stalls and dress-circle in with and to keep the pit and gallery quiet for half-an-hour. This system has brought levers de rideau into such disrepute that everyone endeavours, if possible, to escape from seeing a “first piece.” So long as managers look upon the curtain-raiser only as a necessary expense to be reduced to a minimum, so long will this state of things exist. Mr Hendrie may be commended for his neat impersonation of the sporting squire, and Miss Ethel Hope and Mr Norman were efficient as the old maid and her clerical wooer. There can be no doubt that the irritated feeling produced in the popular parts of the house by the feebleness of the first piece had a good deal to do with the severely critical verdict passed upon Sweet Nancy by the pit and gallery. ___
The Graphic (19 July, 1890 - Issue 1077) |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
THE jaded playgoer who is always pining for something fresh and truthful—something which betokens observation of life as opposed to a mere re-dressing of the too-familiar puppets of the playwright’s conventional world—has just now an excellent opportunity of showing his sincerity. Freshness and disregard of stage tradition are the pre-eminent characteristics of the new play which Mr. Buchanan has fashioned out of a novel by Miss Rhoda Broughton, and produced at the LYRIC Theatre; but the obligations which the author of Sweet Nancy has conferred upon the playgoing public do not end here. He has not only furnished an original and interesting play, but contrived to get it acted by a company who are with scarcely an exception able to free themselves from that besetting failing of their profession—a tendency to fall into the vein which is popularly known as “stagey.” There are no intricacies of plot, no very startling situations, no “sensations” of any kind; but the story is nevertheless interesting, and the types of character are admirable both in themselves and in the skill with which they are contrasted in the working-out of a clearly-defined purpose. All that happens between the rising and the fall of the curtain upon the third and last act may be summed up in the facts that a middle-aged officer in the Army falls in love with a schoolgirl, marries her, grows needlessly jealous àpropos of her alleged flirtations during his absence abroad, discovers his mistake, and finally takes her to his arms again. Yet the spectators follow the history of the courtship and wedded life of General Tempest and Nancy Grey with a constantly increasing sympathy, and find in the dialogue and incidents of the play—in spite of some occasional redundancies which may easily be removed—unfailing entertainment. For this fortunate result the author is indebted in no small degree to Miss Annie Hughes’ delightful portrait of the impulsive, wayward, but thoroughly sound-hearted heroine, whose career put in so strong a light the truth of the maxim that if a free and open nature and a habit of giving unconstrained utterance to thoughts and feelings in plain English have their inconveniences, they may also have their countervailing advantages. Nancy is at all events a very natural as well as a very womanly personage. We not only grasp her character, but we also understand how it has been nurtured and developed in the unruly playground of Mr. Grey’s ill-regulated establishment. The very frankness and honesty of the overgrown schoolgirl appear to be fostered by the harsh domestic despotism and systematic self-seeking of her father—a character played, by the way, with a very artistic eye to essentials and a true sense of humour by Mr. Hendrie. It is the natural antagonism of an unsophisticated nature. The General is the man of her father’s choice, and Nancy does not pretend to have any sentimental regard for him; but what regard she does profess is at least honest, and the spectator is quite prepared to find her feeling towards her high-minded and chivalrous husband develop into genuine affection. If Mr. Henry Neville would but pitch the tone of the elderly officer’s passion in a little less heroic vein, the situation would gain a touch of truth. “Bobby,” “The Brat,” and “Tow-Tow,” together with their brother Algernon, aged twenty, who falls so romantically in love with the “grass widow,” Mrs. Huntley—the evil genius of the story—are cleverly “differenced,” and presented with wonderful spirit by Mr. Hallard, Master Walter Highland, Miss B. Ferrar, and Mr. H. V. Esmond respectively; while Miss Harriet Jay gives a pleasing individuality to the portrait of Barbara, who in the play fills a less important part than in the novel. We are not quite sure whether the perfect harmlessness of its story will recommend the piece to the jaded playgoer; but we are certain, at least, that Sweet Nancy ought to prove to be one of the most popular of the recent productions of our stage. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Theatre (1 August, 1890) “SWEET NANCY.” Comedy in three acts, founded by ROBERT BUCHANAN, by express arrangement with the novelist and |
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
Not having read Miss Broughton’s novel, I cannot say how much Mr. Buchanan is indebted to her book, nor how far he has varied the incidents, but can only treat on his work as a comedy, and am sorry to have to say that he has just missed writing a very good one. His first act was delightful in its freshness; the second was interesting but wanted cutting down; the third became tiresome, for we all knew what was coming, but were kept going round and round the catastrophe and explanation without advancing on our way. At least a third of the last act could be spared; the play could then be made to wind up crisply. The events come about quite naturally, and the conduct of all the characters is explicable but that of our heroine, Nancy, who sits mumchance under a dreadful accusation, and allows herself to be thought guilty by a husband to whom she is really attached, merely from an overstrained sense of honour towards her sister. And the plague of it is that were she to explain at once, her sister would suffer in no one’s estimation, for it is only that she has perhaps too readily given her heart to a contemptible scoundrel. Nancy, as will be seen by the programme, is one of a large family, of all of whom she is very fond, except, perhaps, of her father, who is a tyrannous old humbug. He has made up his mind that one of his daughters shall marry his rich middle-aged friend, Sir Roger Tempest, a noble fellow, whose thoughts turn to Nancy. In a charming scene he proposes and is accepted, for the girl likes him and thinks of the benefits she will be able to confer on her brothers and sisters. Three months after, we find her married, very happy, for she has everything she can desire and has become really attached to Sir Roger—the only cloud on their domestic bliss is her husband’s familiarity with Mrs. Huntley, “a grass widow.” They call each other by their Christian names, and are certainly on the best of terms; but this is explained by the fact that she is the wife of one of Sir Roger’s oldest friends and brother officers, who has entrusted her to his comrade whilst he is abroad. Sir Roger is ordered on foreign service, and has to leave to take up a command. Nancy feels the separation deeply, and is delighted when, after a year’s absence, a telegram arrives announcing Sir Roger’s immediate return. Frank Musgrave has been constantly about the house on the assumable pretext that he is attached to Barbara. This is, however, only a cloak to hide his designs on Nancy, for whom he feels a mad passion. When he learns of Sir Roger’s approaching coming, Musgrave declares his love for Nancy. She at first takes his words as conveying a proposal for Barbara, but when she understands them as addressed to herself, she bursts into a fit of hysterical weeping, for she knows how her sister loves him, and as he is leaning over her still pleading his cause, they are discovered by Mrs. Huntley and Algernon, who is over head and ears in love with the heartless coquette who has led him into even more than a flirtation. Sir Roger returns and almost immediately hears from Mrs. Huntley, who hates Nancy, the very worst account of her conduct during his absence. He will scarcely believe evil of the woman he loves, but naturally asks for an explanation. This Nancy will not give, but retaliates on Mrs. Huntley’s character for her open encouragement of Algernon, and insists on being brought face to face with her. Mrs. Huntley justifies her statements and there seems but little hope of a reconciliation, when Barbara, who becomes aware of the sufferings Nancy is undergoing for her sake, fetches Musgrave, who actually before Sir Roger and Barbara admits his base conduct and acquits Nancy of ever having looked on him otherwise than as her husband’s friend, and acknowledges how badly he has treated Barbara. And so the curtain falls on the reconciliation. Mr. Henry Neville represented completely the noble loving nature of a man who cannot but see the danger of having married a girl so much his junior, but who is determined to win her entire love by his devotion. Miss Annie Hughes surprised every one by the strength she displayed. She was known to possess great pathos, but to mingle with it the brightness of a thoroughly ingenuous girl, full of life and spirits, and later to exhibit the woman’s nature so truthfully, was a great triumph for a young actress, who really carries the play almost entirely on her shoulders. Miss Harriett Jay was a very sweet brave girl as Barbara; but I am inclined to think that the love of the sisters would have been sufficiently apparent without quite so much embracing and twining of arms about each other. Mr. Buckland did well in a very repulsive part; and Mr. Henry V. Esmond deserves the greatest praise for his acting of a youth, just at that age when he fancies he thoroughly understands the world and is made a victim to “calf love.” Mr. Ernest Hendrie was quaint and amusing. Miss Frances Ivor was a little too supercilious in her manner. Miss Blanche Ferrar was delightful as the tomboy, Tow-Tow. On the fall of the curtain, there were some expressions of disapproval of the piece, but all in the “cast” were enthusiastically called at the end of each act. “An Old Maid’s Wooing,” which preceded, is by Arnold Goldsworthy and E. B. Norman, and is a pretty idea, but one that has been used several times before. Hester Grayson (Miss Ethel Hope) is placidly drifting into becoming “an old maid,” when the even current of her life is disturbed by proposals from the rich squire, Henry Higgins (Mr. E. Hendrie), and the poor clergyman, the Rev. Jas. Braithwaite (Mr. E. B. Norman) the latter offering himself and being accepted, when he learns that his lady-love has dismissed his wealthy rival. A lighter vein of comedy is introduced into the more poetic vein in the loves of Naomi Wild (a little serving maid, remarkably well played by Miss Blanche Ferrar) and George Gammon, a young poacher, effectively rendered by Mr. Henry Bayntun. Mr. Hendrie threw much kindly feeling into the part of the disappointed squire. ___
The Stage (8 August, 1890 - p.8) Mr. Charles Bernard has secured the Royalty for a lengthened period for Mr. Robert Buchanan. So Sweet Nancy, which was withdrawn at the Lyric on Friday last, when in the full tide of success, in consequence of the expiration of Mr. Buchanan’s tenancy, will be produced with but little alteration in the cast at the Royalty on September 15. ___
The Theatre (1 September, 1890) The wail raised from time to time against the inexorable infliction of the stage child, old and familiar though it has become, acquires fresh force as the thing itself grows in frequency and terror. Perhaps the “wickedest and the worst,” as was once sung of the Colorado beetle, is that fiendish specimen which is supposed to emanate from the States. The past month has given us two of exceptional horror. In “Aphrodite Dodge,” old playgoers were driven to believe that the climax of infamy in things juvenile on the stage had come at last. “That Girl” was taken by Mrs. Oscar Beringer and Mr. Henry Hamilton from a story by Miss Clementina Black, and the part of Aphrodite, an important one, was given to Miss Vera Beringer, who played it with fatal intelligence and skill. American children, we are told, are very different from our own, or perhaps it would be more correct to say, there are no American children; they are only immature little men and women. Consider that theory pushed to its utmost extreme; make the child, rude, conceited, inquisitive, forward; deprive it of all reverence and respect for its parents, elders, and superiors; endow it with preternatural sharpness, with a tongue and voice of deafening volubility; and a rich vocabulary furnished strictly up to date with all the hideous attractions of American slang, and you may possibly form some faint idea of the charms of the character who was made the dea ex machina of the play. Such persons—it is impossible to call them children—there may be, but their existence would prove an irresistible argument in favour of systematic infanticide; whilst the dreariest solitude would be preferable to their obnoxious presence. A character possessing many of these points of objection was recently given us in “The Great Unknown” at the Lyceum, and was impersonated by no less charming an actress than Miss Ada Rehan. This is the case of an older girl, of marriageable age, and yet young enough to wear pinafores and carry a slate suspended round her neck by a string. The really witless character of this part, the humour of which consisted of profuse recourse to American slang, was mitigated by a love scene delightfully played by Miss Rehan, but the amplitude of the vocabulary was nothing less than amazing. “Great sakes!” “There are no flies on me,” “I should smile,” “On my sacred say so,” “That’s just lollypops,” “Suits you down to the ground,” “Give him the bounce,” “Who are you, anyway?” “Oh, cut all that,” “I’ve got the Bard down fine,” are a few of the colloquial gems”with which Miss Rehan favoured us. Not that Americans are the only offenders in this respect. In “Sweet Nancy” we are introduced to a very fine specimen of that kind of family whose uncomfortable sayings contribute so liberally to the repertory of the comic journalist. We know that children, even amiable ones, do say grossly unpleasant things, sometimes with and sometimes without intention, and sometimes we may prefer frank outspokenness, even if it hurts us a little, to deceitful reserve in children. But that is no reason why the flippant rudeness of youngsters should be crystallised into stage dialogue more than is necessary for the purposes of illustration. No doubt it was desirable, in following out the design of Miss Broughton’s novel, that emphasis should be given to the bad bringing up of these children; this was amply done, and a little more, in the first act; but it was a mistake to continue hammering on the same note all through the second. The result was that, whereas the pert utterances and spoilt-child-like behaviour might have been amusing in moderation, people began to think what terribly unpleasant young people these must be to have always about you, and how great was the need for a little stiff corporal punishment. In fact, the audience might have laughed as guests laugh at the antics of their friends’ children when they have only to submit to them occasionally for a few minutes at a time, but who would savagely resent the same conduct if they were constantly exposed to it. ___
The Guardian (7 October, 1890 - p.8) Miss Harriet Jay went into management at the Royalty Theatre last evening, opening her campaign with Mr. Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Miss Broughton’s “Nancy.” Considerable changes have been made in the third act since the play was first produced at the Lyric Theatre, and though the conclusion is still rather feebly led up to, it is at least more effective and less long-drawn than before. The play as a whole is very entertaining, and the impersonation of Sweet Nancy by Miss Annie Hughes deserves to rank among the freshest and most truthful pieces of acting which the English stage has seen of recent years. Mr. Yorke Stephens (who replaces Mr. Henry Neville) has not sufficient weight for the part of Sir Roger Tempest, and acts with no great sincerity. Otherwise the cast is as good as need be. Miss Harriet Jay’s staid, subdued Barbara afforded a valuable foil to the exuberant vitality of Miss Hughes’s Nancy. ___
The Era (11 October, 1890 - Issue 2716) THE ROYALTY. Sir Roger Tempest ... Mr YORKE STEPHENS After the production of Sweet Nancy at the Lyric Theatre on July 12th last, we remarked that the charming idyll of the popular authoress had been overloaded with dialogue by the adaptor, and that the chances of the success of the play would be greater if it were shortened to the extent of three-quarters of an hour by judicious condensation. Mr Buchanan has now taken half-an-hour out of his piece; but we are not certain that the elisions made have been altogether judicious. It was not so much with regard to incident that we recommended curtailment as with respect to dialogue and detail; and the adaptor has, besides “cutting” a good many lines, removed the dénouement of his play bodily, gaining brevity at the expense of interest. Originally, Mrs Huntley came on the scene at the conclusion, and made insinuations which were disposed of by the return of the repentant Musgrave, who had been summoned back by Barbara to confess his folly and to clear Nancy of all blame. This was a satisfactory and effective conclusion to the play, and might well have been retained, even had it been necessary to dispense with certain redundancies of eloquence which still remain in the mouths of the principal personages, and with the rhyming tag which Mr Buchanan has written for the revival, and which is totally out of place in an entertainment of so unaffected and simple a sort. In several cases, the situations are still insisted upon with undue verbosity, though what has been done in curtailment is work in the right direction, and quite commendable. The result was shown in the more favourable reception of the piece at the Royalty Theatre on Monday. There are a few changes in the cast, an important alteration being the substitution of Mr Yorke Stephens for Mr Henry Neville in the character of Sir Roger Tempest. Mr Stephens’s “General” shows but few marks of age, and thus, perhaps, the actor renders more probable the love of Nancy for her elderly husband. Mr C. W. Garthorne undertakes with firmness and solid merit the rôle of Frank Musgrave, formerly filled by Mr Bucklaw; and Miss J. McNulty now sustains that of Mrs Huntley, originally performed by Miss Frances Ivor. Despite occasional peculiarities of accent and style, Miss McNulty had an excellent idea of the character, and rendered it with cleverness and decision. Mr Ernest Hendrie was again the Mr Grey, and Miss Ethel Hope his submissive spouse. Miss Harriett Jay as Barbara, “aged 25,” was agreeably sweet and gentle; and Mr henry V. Esmond repeated his excellent performance of the part of Algernon Grey. We have already praised Miss Hughes’s charming rendering of the rôle of Nancy, and have only to repeat our warm laudation thereof. Mr Smithson, as before, was comical as the butler, and the children’s parts were intelligently filled by their previous representatives. The smaller size of the Royalty Theatre was rather in favour of the success of the performance of Sweet Nancy, and the curtain was raised upon the company on the stage at its conclusion. Mr Buchanan’s adaptation was preceded by a new comedietta, in one act, by Arthur Morris, entitled “PEPPER’S DIARY.” Mrs Dorothy Pringle ... Miss JENNIE McNULTY Internal evidence suggested an origin in a French vaudeville; and the sketch had the crisp consistency of an entertainment of that kind. The Hon. Robert St. John, a much bored young man of the day, finding in the pocket of a coat which has been given him by mistake in the cloak-room of a theatre a diary of the prospective appointments of one Mr Pepper, a stockbroker, resolves, as a novel adventure, to live a day’s life according to the notes. One of the memoranda in the book was to have reminded its owner to call upon a certain pretty widow, named Mrs Dorothy Pringle, and to make her an offer of marriage. This the Hon. Robert duly does, much to the astonishment, and, subsequently, to the amusement of the lady. Finally, she takes a fancy to the young man for his whimsicality, and, after a certain amount of amusing badinage, Pepper arrives only to find himself too late in the field, as Mrs Dorothy has already accepted the Hon. Robert. Miss Jenny McNulty looked well in a pretty costume, and acted agreeably as Mrs Pringle; Mr E. Hendrie played the Hon. Robert St. John neatly and smartly; Mr Esmond was energetic as Mrs Pringle’s irritable uncle, Major Bunderput; Mr Smithson’s eccentric appearance as Pepper was amusing, and Miss May Jocelyn was lively and intelligent as a lady’s maid. Pepper’s Diary will probably go even better after a few nights, when even greater briskness and polish have been attained by the cast. It formed an acceptable prelude to the piece of the evening. ___
The Penny Illustrated Paper (11 October, 1890 - p.9) The little Royalty Theatre, reopened by Mr. Robert Buchanan on Monday with his clever stage adaptation of Rhoda Broughton's novel “Sweet Nancy,” should be full to overflowing for many autumn and winter nights to come. Miss Annie Hughes, in the title-rôle of Sweet Nancy, a charming lass just out of her teens, and married to a middle-aged officer, who loves her devotedly, presents us with the freshest, most natural, and most delightful bit of girlish human nature conceivable. Don't fail to see “Sweet Nancy”—a gem of a play calculated to engross all classes of playgoers, replete with characterisation true to life, and greatly improved in its closing act since it was played at the Lyric. Mr. Yorke Stephens, in lieu of Mr. Henry Neville, enacts well the grizzled General who falls over head and ears in love with Nancy Grey. But it is the sweet, artless, bright, emotional creation of the young girl-wife by Miss Annie Hughes that should draw “All London” to the little Royalty. It is no exaggeration to say that her admirable acting is the very perfection of histrionic art—e.g., of the art that hides art. Words and expressions come spontaneously—not as if learned by rote. She is Nancy. Few prettier stage-pictures have been seen than the one in which Nancy is found seated on a high wall by her fond admirer, Sir Roger Tempest, of whom she speedily makes conquest. How Nancy’s love for her devoted husband develops after marriage, and triumphs over jealousy of the pretty grass-widow (Miss Jenny McNulty), and how her love and constancy are proof against the insidious addresses of a brother officer of the General are worked out in a series of domestic tableaux, the strong sentiment of which is judiciously relieved by the antics of Nancy’s brothers and sister, and by the selfishness of her crossgrained father. I strongly advise all who relish real dramatic art to hasten to see Miss Annie Hughes in what is undoubtedly her greatest stage triumph—her creation of bright and ingenuous “Sweet Nancy,” who has so noble a sister Barbara in Miss Harriet Jay. Well done indeed, Miss Hughes! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[Advert for Sweet Nancy from The Scotsman (14 October, 1890 - p.1)]
The Era (12 December, 1896 - Issue 3038) MISS ANNIE HUGHES’S MATINEE. At the Criterion Theatre, on Thursday Afternoon, Dec. 10th, General Sir Roger Tempest Mr EDMUND MAURICE Mr Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Miss Rhoda Broughton’s novel “Nancy” was first seen at the Lyric Theatre on July 12th, 1890, with Mr Henry Neville as Sir Roger Tempest, Mr Buckland as Frank Musgrave, Me Ernest Hendrie as Mr Gray, Miss Ethel Hope as Mrs Gray, Miss Harriet Jay as Barbara, Mr Henry V. Esmond as Algernon Gray, and Miss Frances Ivor as Mrs Huntley. The version was subsequently transferred to the Royalty Theatre on Oct. 6th of the same year, Mr Yorke Stephens being the Sir Roger, Mr C. W. Garthorne the Frank Musgrave, and Miss Jennie McNulty representing the designing widow. Mr Buchanan’s adaptation formed the chief attraction at Miss Annie Hughes’s matinée at the Criterion Theatre on Thursday last. We have already twice dealt with the merits and demerits of the work, and need now only record that Mr Edmund Maurice made an easy, natural, and quite gentlemanlike Sir Roger Tempest; that Mr C. M. Hallard was thoroughly effective as Frank Musgrave; that Mr Charles Rock, though emphatic and domineering enough, made Mr Gray rather too common and vulgar; that the “boys” were well played by Mr Martin Harvey, Mr Kenneth Douglas, and Master Grose; that Miss Henrietta Cowen duly depicted the meek supineness of Mrs Gray; that Miss Lena Ashwell was sweet and gentle as Barbara; that Miss Annie Hughes was as charmingly simple and ingenuous as ever as Nancy; that Miss Marion Bishop made a pretty Theresa, and hat Miss Helen Ferrers acted with skill and tact as Mrs Huntley. ___
From The Theatrical ‘World’ of 1896 by William Archer (London: Walter Scott, Ltd., 1897 - p.341-342) “SWEET NANCY.” On Thursday last Miss Annie Hughes revived at the Criterion, for a single afternoon, Mr. Robert Buchanan’s dramatisation of Miss Rhoda Broughton’s Nancy. When first produced at the Royalty, this clever and really human little play was less successful, I fancy, than it deserved to be. It certainly delighted the audience at the Criterion, where it was acted with excellent spirit. Miss Hughes seems born for the title-part, in which she displays admirable humour, vivacity, and tenderness. Her performance is a genuine and most sympathetic character-creation. Mr. Edmund Maurice was good as Sir Roger Tempest, and the Gray children were capitally played by Mr. Martin Harvey, Mr. Kenneth Douglas, and Miss Beatrice Ferrars. ___
The Stage (11 February, 1897 - p.13) THE COURT So much favour was given to Sweet Nancy on its revival at Miss Annie Hughes’s matinée at the Criterion, on December 10, that its reappearance in an evening bill, with Miss Hughes again in the title character, will be welcome to very many playgoers, more especially when it is preceded by a new play from the pen of Mrs. Oscar Beringer, a writer whose work always deserves careful criticism. Thus the double bill with which Mr. Arthur Chudleigh reopened the Sloane Square house on Monday, February 8, ought certainly to prove attractive, until Easter, at all events. The cast of Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Rhoda Broughton’s novel is in most respects identical with that of the Criterion matinée, and the interpretation given of this delightful comedy on Monday was such as fully to justify the genuine applause of an emphatically well-pleased audience. We have nothing further to say about Miss Annie Hughes’s charming embodiment of the girlish heroine, her Sweet Nancy being now indeed an impersonation flawless in the blending of childlike candour and sisterly devotion with the keen love and passionate jealousy of a rapidly growing woman. Mr. Edmund Maurice gave again a bluff and manly performance of Sir Roger Tempest; Mr. Martin Harvey as Algernon, Mr. C. M. Hallard as the would-be seducer, Frank Musgrave, and Miss Henrietta Cowen as the downtrodden and submissive Mrs. Gray repeating their excellent portrayals. Miss Beatrice Ferrar appeared on Monday as that lively tomboy, “Tow-Tow,” instead of her sister, Miss Marion Bishop. The character of the mean, intriguing domestic tyrant, Mr. Gray, was assigned to Mr. George Canninge (vice Mr. Charles Rock), who by his make-up imparted a certain oddity to the rôle. Miss Helen Ferrers made the grass widow, Mrs. Huntley, as worldly and superficially fascinating as necessary, other parts being filled by Mr. Hubert H. Short and Mr. Trebel as the younger Gray lads, Mr. Williams as the butler, and Mrs. Campbell Bradley as the housekeeper. Miss Lena Ashwell was succeeded as Barbara by Miss Beryl Faber, a young actress of much culture and high intelligence, whose dignified and sympathetic playing of her important scenes in the last act counted for much in the success of this Court revival. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[From The Penny Illustrated Paper (29 January, 1898 - p.68)]
The Guardian (26 September, 1899 - p.8) THEATRE ROYAL. SWEET NANCY. Manchester playgoers already know Miss Hughes’s performance in “Sweet Nancy.” Mr. Robert Buchanan did not make a highly skilful adaptation of Miss Rhoda Broughton’s novel “Nancy.” The play is rather episodic, and unity of purpose is necessarily wanting, particularly after the first act. The points that draw us are those of the story-teller rather than of the dramatist; we see in them the worldly knowledge and sagacity of Miss Broughton, the bias of cynicism that leads her to choose situations always on the verge of the unpleasant, even though they are true and natural and common; and, lastly, we see the unconventionality. Last night we felt that we owed everything to these traits of the novelist that visibly lie behind the work of the adapter, and to Miss Hughes. Nothing else and nobody else mattered. Miss Hughes has many qualities that fit her to present the captivating mixture of Nancy’s character. Nancy is a hoyden and an altruist, a vixen and a devotee, “a pleasant little devil” (in her own phrase) and a sister of mercy. She is a mere child, and the old man who marries her is a natural and obvious foil to her gusty but affectionate caprices. Where Miss Hughes fails is that her purpose is not perfectly consistent. Occasionally a sentence drops that seems detached in tone from the rest, that strikes the ear as a little incongruous piece of insincerity—a burlesque almost of her own manner and the play. Again, a few passages seemed to us to speak rather of a loud young woman than of what Nancy was at her wildest moments—a madcap. But Miss Hughes’s performance was still very pleasant, and never more attractive than when she was being followed about by that unconventional retinue of inquisitive and inconvenient young brothers and sisters. The playing of the rest of the company wanted finish and in most cases experience. _____
Next: The English Rose (1890)
Back to the Bibliography or the Plays or Harriett Jay Theatre Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||