LOST GLAMOR OF LONDON STAGE

Dunstan Times, Issue 3464, 7 April 1930, Page 7

LOST GLAMOR OF LONDON STAGE

“Peterborough’s” recent comment m “London Day by Day” upon Gaiety first nights in by gone years will have recalled many happy memories to the older generation of* theatregoers. He hinted that a Gaiety premiere now is a very different, and far less exciting, affair than it used to be, and certainly no one who remembers the old order of things will disagree with him, writes Ernest Kulie in the London Daily Telegraph. ~ , • , But the Gaiety, which m recent years has experienced some very choppy seas—what with frequent changes ol management and policy and other disturbing influences —is by no means tec only theatre whose first nights have become but a pale reflection ol the glories of those in the past. What, for instance, of Daly s—tu.u other (and more exclusive) home ol George Edwardes—where first nignt* during the period, roughly, between the productions of “The Geisha aim “Gipsy Love” became almost as bulliant as those at the Savoy in davs of Gilbert and Sullivan? "' u was a first-night gathering of eolebnties of all sorts and conditions hist seen at Daly’s? And now its lustoi s as a musical comedy theatre is closed. But turn for one moment to iai mm'r exalted spheres than those o immicnt comedy and ask yourscli what l’ ie micros nowadays can be compaied,_ n point of interest, importance, an mospbere,” with those at the under Irving’s rule, or. Intel. at Majesty’s linden - Tree's. It is always easy, ol course, to extol the past to the detriment of the present. Hut certainly it is not a symptom of “old fogeyism to nunutf,in that a Gaiety first night such as we had last week, quite apart any question of the merits of the show itsell. is a sadly tame and nneyentl.il experience contrasted with the nnm or able first nights of the regime. Is comparative public apathy to/ie wondered at in the changed conditions of to-day, when long runs ate very scarce and new ■productions at this that, or the other theatre succeed one another with bewildering rß K d it y strange that in happier times .first-nighters went to the Gaiety, wh.c . S;'m';;F^cn^«onJe™gVhnho ; tiiat" tile audience, from stalls to rolllerv should have welcomed upioatinuslv the entry in. turn of such favoi ites’in the joyous family Edwardes was wise enough to keep together as Goitie Millar Connie Ediss (still happd.v harness), “Gaby” Day. George Ginsmith (still youthfully debmiall>, 1 dv” Payne, Fred Wright (Unimex brother), and the rest? All these, unless my uiemorx ons, were in the company at the old Gaictx. and joined hands again a few dom so when the new house was opened on October 26, 1903 with ‘T ie «. >d. The old theatre, home of the saned lamp” in John Hollmgshead s day, had n memorable closing night xvuth J last—and 676th— performance of Ibo Toreador.”

The whole theatre was made gav with festooned roses, and all sorts ot notabilities turned up. . Moll-known actors and actresses hurried away from the theatres xvherc they were ploying in order to be present at the valedictory scenes, the most distinguished figure being that of Irving, who stepped across from the Lyceum after the performance of “Dante.” Not so many years before, by the way, the great man had felt aggrieved'by a caricature given of him m a Gaiety burlesque by, I think. Fred Leslie. though there never can have been an actor in any age or country who was more frequently an object of goodhumored (and easy) mimicry. Even more brilliant than the last night at tho old Gaiety was the opening of the new seeing that it was attended by Kin. Edward and Queen Alexandra, who only on rare occasions were present at a first night. In “The Orchid.” another celebrity —but a politician, not an actor— was caricatured, the victim being Joseph Chamberlain, whoso features were unmistakably reproduced in the make-up of Harry Grattan xxhen in the character of a “Minister of Commerced’ he came on to sing a song called “Pushful ’’ of which either Percy Greenback or Adrian Ross—both very clever lyrists —wrote the xxords, and Lione. Monckton the muSic. _ . It xvas in the same piece that Gertie Millar delighted Gaiety audiences with a playful song called “Little Mary,” of which the point was suggested by Barrie’s comedy of that title, then successfully running at M’yiidliam’s. Mliere, one may well ask. are the pojmlar songs of the present day! Gaiety first-nighters of old would have been sadly disappointed il they had not heard half-a-dozen tunes that they could easily hum on their way home. Could anyone at the Gaiety the other night have memorised the refrain of a single song to save his life? And what/1 couldn’t help reflecting, would George Edwardes have thought at the sight of tho Gaiety without a pit ami everyone in the stalls smoking? (lie bad a perfect horror of the dangers ot fire in a theatre.) I can only recollect one Gaiety production at which booing was heard in the gallery. This occurred during the second act* of “Our Miss Gibbs,' in a scene representing the White. City Exhibition, ami was apparently caused by a concerted number in which some of the tallest chorus girls were pushed about in perambulators—“ Rush the Ream lor Baby” was its title. But the ominous sounds Irom aloft lelt the “Guv’nor” unperturbed. “This will be the biggest success xve’vo ex - or had, lie said. And he was right. “Our Miss Gibbs”' ran for nearly two years. The only approach to failure at the Gaiety in 12 years was “The New Aladdin,” produced in 1906, and oven that piece held the stage tor some six months—which would be considered quite a good run nowadays. In it appeared Gaby Deslys'-—whose startling frocks made some of the unaccustomed Gaiety patrons gasp—and Lily Elsie, who had not then taken the town by storm as (In' “Merry M idow. Bnl sbi' made a charming impression in, I fancy, a smallish part. No; tlir “great" first nights ol musical cornedv arc almost lliings of Mm past. Tim modern manager lii niseit is not w hoi 1 \ to blame. Ile is up against commercial difficulties undreamt ol fix In- predecessors. When Edward* ■ <ir.-l staged musical eomcilv at the Gaiety Ills weelJx expenses ‘lid not exceed 11.060. AI Dalx’s lie entire salary list -cast (and « bal a cast ! I and cboru - loi ' I b*> Merrv Widow" * anm to less (ban Mm

snlarx paid in a musical piece Mime n feu years ago (o lln leading lady. Edwardes certainly would Imxc con sidered anyone demented who predicted that the day would come xvli* n a musical play would be withdraw n from a London theatre xxdiil*’ playing to £2,600 *i week because tie, expense, wore more. \et that s xvhat actually happened a few month? ago