Life — May 26, 1910 — page 20: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

iy James the Too Expert Chirographist RANTING that even now, twenty-five years after its first production, “Jim the Pen- "js still a strong play, it remains prob: at Sir Charles Young would have ed it in some particulars if he were writing it for the stage of to-day. The story and its development he could not have arranged very differently or much better, but he would have cut out the soliloguies id some of the speeches would have been made less heroic and others less obvious in the conclusions they lead up to. We al- lowed some things even so short a time ago which to-day have become old-fashioned and offcnd what we are pleased to con- sider our greater sophistication. It is grateful evidence, though, of the underlying sound- ness of the appetite of some of our theatregoers that the re- vivals of such plays as “ Caste’? and “ Jim the Penman "’ are able to attract large audiences. It may be that the “all-star” lure is partly responsible, but it is pleasant to flatter ourselves that perhaps the public is beginning to weary a little of musical farces, problem plays and dissection dramas. It would be too much to expect that an under-educated public should renounce the chorus girl and jingly music for the in- tellectual drama, but there is encouragement in the patrons and interest given to a play so simply dramatic as “Jim the Penman.” — WO One The present production is valuable as a sort of measuring standard of a quarter century's difference in the quality of acting. There are a good many theatregoers of to-day who preserve a distinct impression of the Madison Square per formance, and they were not so young then that they were carried away with the enthusiasm of youth nor so old now that they may truly be charged with prating of the “ palmy * “The present cast is representative of the best that our stage has to offer, even more so than the company that Mr. Palmer gathered for the early performances. Withou! going into comparison of character for character, the gen- eral conclusion remains that this revival gives marked evi dence of deterioration in staging and acting. There was a distinction, an case, a finish in the ensemble work of Mr. Palmer's company which the present one lacks. The latter is acting on a larger si nd in a much larger theatre, which should in a way minimize this defect, but it really scems to emphasize it. Taking the two casts name for name and no one who saw both performances would say that in any instance the work of the present artist equals that of his or her predecessor. There may be other mitigating reasons, but if the comparison is a fair one there is no denying that we have not advanced, but have gone back This is not by any means saying that the company at the days.” weacallivs wt THE ELEPHANT IS AN INTELLIGENT ANIMAL Lyric does not give a good rendering of the 4 In fact as our stage exists it is a remarkably smooth and interesting performance. Perhaps the selection of “all stars" y together is not calculated to produce the utm; effect, but in this case there scems to be no pronounced striv ing for individual prominence, at least not to the point of spoiling the values. In one or two characters better choices might have been made for the roles, but in choosing ar “all- star" cast some sacrifice has to be made for the drawin power of the names imber the old play will find their pleasure renewed in sceing this rendering. Those who have never ‘Those who r seen “Jim ihe Penman’? should not miss the opportunity of enjoying a good, sound drama, comicbooks.com