THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 55, 7 March 1899, Page 2

THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

'The Sign of the Cross,' which has caused more comment and controversy than any drama of our clay, was revived at the Opera House last evening, when the Williamson and Musgrove Dramatic Company opened what promises to be a highly successful season. However greatly we may differ from those who pronounce the 'Sign of the Cross' a fine play from a literary point of view, there can be but one opinion on the matter of its being a magnificent draw, and looking back, one is at a loss whether more to admire the smartness of Wilson Barrett in realising the splendid business possibilities of the religious play or to marvel *at the blindness which prevented other clever playwrights from seizing on so obvious an opportunity for a boom. There can be no doubt that the talented actor-dramatist got his inspiration from that immensely powerful Russian novel 'Quo Vadis.'

The main idea and principal characters are, indeed, lifted pretty well bodily from that work, and trimmed and altered to suit the exigencies of the stage. The novel of the 'Sign of the Cross' was, of course, a mere afterthought on Barrett's part. There is no need to re-tell the story of the play, which is now familiar to everyone, either through the medium of the book or the drama. Mounted as superbly as of yore, the revival was in every way Avorthy of the magnificent reputation the play has gained, and of the well-known management under whose auspices it is reintroduced. There is therefore little more to say than to allude to the individual efforts of a company who, as a whole, give an admirable rendering of a remarkable play. And one is immediately struck with the necessity of giving to Mr Knight even greater credit than, he received when the play was first produced here for his impersonation of Marcus. The part is so showy that one is apt to lose sight of the fine points and delicate shadings which Mr Knight introduces here and there, wherever, indeed, opportunity offers. Take, for instance, an incident in the first act. Tigellimie enters and brings a message for Marcus from the Emperor. He holds it out at some distance from Marcus, but the latter merely looks at him, and after a moment's hesitation Tigellinus is forced to acknowledge the superior rank of his rival by stepping forward with a very ill grace and delivering the parcnmeiit. This is a particularly clever bit of business, because at the very beginning of the play it exactly explains the position of affairs between these two characters. Mr Cecil Ward, a Stirling actor, whom one is delighted to see again, succeeds Mr Caleb Porter in the part of Nero. Though far more in accordance with history iri some points, Mr Ward's conception of the part is not so dramatically sue cessful as that of his predecessor, despite the fact that Mr Porter overacted lamentably on occasion. Something between the two would probably hit the mark. Mr Ward is over hilarious, if one may say so, and scarcely brings out the insane pride and vanity which alternated with Nero's moods of familiarity. Of Mr W. F. Hawtrey's performance of Glabrio, there is nothir.,'-' to say save to praise. It is a mo; I careful and well-studied piece, of worl< by an actor of quite exceptional abii ity and experience. In every particular his conception and impersonatkm of the part is immeasurably superior to that of the actor who took tin part in London, and whom the write; iiappened to have seen. The Mercia o Miss Ferrar has already been so high iy praised by all the critics that fur ther laudation here would be super Huous. The other parts are ably fillc and everything goes extreme I, smoothly. Anyone who has not yi seen the drama should certainly <: so, for not only is it a magnin'cei: spectacle and of great melodramat interest, but it certainly gives an in« pression of Home under Nero and 11 ■ :urly sufferings of the Christians fhn could not possibly be gained by ai. other means.