"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA."

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 103, 30 April 1908, Page 6

"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA."

A FINE PLAY WELL PERFORMED.

There is an always delightfully arguable point, and one much discussed of late, "over the walnuts and wine" (or the teacup and pipes which replace them in New Zealand /. as to whether, when a famous novel is dramatised, one should read the book before going to the play. Whether to do so, that is, adds to or detracts from one's enjoyment of either or both. For the very obvious reason that a novelist must have achieved a wide spread popularity with his work before he himseii or anyone else thinxs of dramatisation, the larger bulk of any | ordinary audience have usually first read the book on which the play is founded, j and these are, it may be at once said, | in more critical mood than the coterie I who come to the theatre ignorant of the characters, or the turn of the plot. Everyone who reads history or romance worthy oi the name lives himself, as ! Emerson says, in the characters, and j consciously or unconsciously forms his j opinion of how he or she would have acted j in such a given set of circumstances- ! Wherefore, all who have read a novel which is subsequently seen as a play have decided how the hero shall look, speak, and act under most of the favourite ritua- ; tions, and are therefore liable to disillusion, if the actor's thoughts and nietb- j ods do not travel with theirs on practic- i r.lly parallel lines. For example, those ! who had read " The Scarlet Pimpernel," j while agreeing it made a fine play, were : far less enthusiastic in their verdict thereon than those who saw the drama- . tised ver=ion first, and devoured the novel j

after. And nine times out of ten this will be the case. With " The Prisoner of Zenda '" revived in Auckland after a lapse of some ten years, it is otherwise. Perhaps the dramatisation has been specially well done. Mr. Hope has diawn his characters with so firm a hand that the outline can scarcely be altered. He is, moreover, an acknowledged master of dialogue, so that much of his own quick play of wit, verbal and nervous English is incorporated in the play, so that the fact remains that to have read his most admirable and spirit-stirring romance in no way detracts from the satisfactory enjoyment with which one follows the swilt movement of the telling situatipn.-, and the

tout ensamble of Mr. Rose's dramatised version. There are no long speeches of explanation, covering certain situations of the book, as are usual in such cases. The characters unfold themselves and their motives naturally; the situations develop with that apparent capriciousness which we yet feel to be inevitable, which is the very kernel and' secret of success in drama, and the final scene touches a high point indeed in the art of the stage. In short, " The Prisoner of Zenda " — fir=t of the long series of romantic dramas which have followed it in the past eleven years or more, remains still easily supreme. When first produced, many, indeed, the bulk of the critics, if one recollects rightly, condemned the prologue as unnecessary, considering that the "Kassendyll scandal," which gives the raison d'etre of the play, might have been explained in a short speech between two characters in the play proper. The present writer rather thinks he originally joined also in that view. If so. Time has mellowed judgment, for the prologue now appears as good as anything in the production, being indeed a very excellent and tolerably complete little one act drama of itself. For the rest, this most fascinating play is, speaking generally, admirably reproduced. The story of the wild harumscarum Englishman turned king for the nonce by freak of fortune, and a resemblance with a scandal behind it, is never allowed to flag. We follow him first taking up his position recklessly as a huge joke, and afterwards, as occasion turns, jollity into grim earnest, with seriousness, decision and quick wit followed by quicker action, and we see him renounce love at the call of honour, and we feel we have spent the evening wilh a soldier and a gentleman, and a most

entertaining one to boot. Mr. Julius Knight has mellowed and polished his acting of the part since first we saw him. He is still at his best in the King scenes, and still just a shade unconvincing as Wilfrid in the first scene than we could wish.

It is not given to every decade to witness such a "creation" as that which Mr. Hawtrey gave us years ago as the veteran Colonel Sapt, an impersonation so perfect that it stands out in the greyblack background of memory like a flame amid the shadows, but Mr. Clinton does excellently. There is an all round tendency (in which, by the way, Mr. Knight joins) to add a soupcon too much of burlesque to the Coronation scene, and it is near the pitfall of burlesque that Mr. Clinton finds his greatest, his only dangers. Miss Ola Humphrey has really not a great deal of chance till the farewell scene, and though we should never class her as a great emotional actress, she bore the stress of this great situation with a fine restrained passion which was extremely satisfying. Moreover, as one of the most striking and beautiful women yet seen on our stage, she looked the part to perfection, and wore her magnificent dresses as one born to the purple. Mr. Denniston. as that delightful person Fritz Yon Tarlenheim, was, as he should be, bright and engaging, and to the older play-goer who remembered young Majeroni in the part, called up no regretful memory of that taientcd actor who also made a mark in the play. Mr. Plimmer as Michel was —well, was Mr. Plimmer. One could wish this painstaking and useful stock actor could, if one could coin a word, de-plummerse himself more even if occasionally. The rest of the cast is good, and the Coronation scene dresses gorgeous. Could not, however, the town big drum be subordinated, so to say, in this scene? Surely the Salvation Army did not exist in Ruritania; and it worries one.