THE HAWTREY DRAMATIC COMPANY.

Evening Star, Issue 12068, 14 December 1903, Page 6

THE HAWTREY DRAMATIC COMPANY.

; "Mr W. F. Hawtrey and his company reappeared at the Princess's Theatre on Sat- , nrdar night to commence their farewell season. and found the public ready to bestow thos-o rewards of merit that stage folk covet ; and appreciate—a good house and an interested audience. The drama chosen for the occasion, Mr ST. John Hankins's 'The i Two Mr Wetherbys, ’ has found favor elsej where, and Dunedin playgoers looked for--1 ward to its first production here. It is an j uncommon play. Not as to its framework, for the theme of a disagreeing husband and wife is as antique as the story of the Fall. There is nothing remarkably original, either, about the character drawing that Mr Hankins presents. But we do not remeni- | her ever seeing or reading of a drama in I which everyday domestic experiences are used as this author uses them. To describe it as a great play would be misleading, for that phrase implies the elaborate working out i in lofty language of an inspiration or the dramatic development of a momentous chapter ( ,f history, and 'The Two Mr Wetherbys ’ is as simple an a Gospel parable. To claim for it high artistic merit would be to challenge severe criticism, since according to our judgment the author has iu several places struck a false note. Here is a ease in point: Margaret has convicted her husband, James Wetherby, of a lie—he said that he went out to visit his club, and she finds a music-hall programme in his coat pocket—whereupon she declares that she can never trust him again, they must part, and so on, winding up with the remark “ I leave this house to-morrow, after breakfast.'" The “after breakfast" is broad comedy, not merely irrelevant, but dissonant. ' Then, again, Richard Wetherby giggles too much —his perpetual and sometimes unseasonable levity seems to justify Aunt Clara's reproaches on that s'cure, and it appears to us tear it would be a help to the consistency of the play, if not absolutely indispensable, that the fretful and worrying aunt, whose impracticability and harshness give the key to mucli of the action, should be deprived of any justification whatever, and presented simply in the capacity of a family nuisance. Further, as to Richard, is there not an aspect of his character that has been kept nut of sight? He is really the hem of (he drama, and as such surely the author his been unkind in representing him or; a man who permits bis wife, Constantin, to pm upon herself the indiguitv of a separation, and acquiesces in a defective and makeshift family arrangement, mainly. according to his own showing, in order that he may enjoy an immunity from vexation. We 'do not, regaia! the final reconciliation as inartistic. [* js t)|,. only possible ending. But Richard does not, appear to advantage in the first and second acts. Tic seems selfish. Strong man ■as ho is, he doubtless tried some other means before consenting to the separation. He is the sort of fellow who would have taken masterful charge in his- own house, I and, after using gentle, corrective measures. ! found for his wife a cosy place of repent- j ance. His character stiffen- hv this view of I it not being disclosed. Whits' urging James to “stick up for his rights" with Margaret, he. himself has- fled the field. Tide is a mistake on the playwright's part. But s '° far as our judgment can he relied on, this occasional discoidance is the only weakness of *'lhe Two .Mr Wetherbys.’ Its merits are many and large. As already remark-**!, it is quite new m design. Then, of primary consequence, it is an interesting pluv. «aturday’s audience watched it attentively right through, taking up the points of the business with conspicuous keenn-vs. In one scone, where Richard says "I have, nothing against Con, in fact I rather like her. hut 1 il never live with her again." a man's voice from the pit cried: “Thar’s right. ( Id man." Further, the play is glorified hv downright honest literary work as distinguished from the artifice,---' that some authors cm.i lea to gam effects ov violence. We see such a result occasionally in an art gallery. A painter by sheer good painting makes an attractive picture out of a hnmtlv subject. That is a triumph of art. And. though Mr Hankins-s artistic jseroeption may be here, ano there a little fantastic, these deviations are exceptional and not of sufficient importance to outweigh the merits of the piece as a whole. The author rigidly abstains from the. forcing process. He dares: to use long sp.-eches, yet no one would a.-k that they be shortened. Once again, the play is remarkaoK pure and wholesome. Children would not understand it. but any hov or girl might see ii without risk. In some respects- it reminds one of ‘A Doll's House,’ but free of the nastiness that Ibsen employed. This catalogue of merits may suffice for the present as to the drama itself. As -to the way it is played, everybody prevent on Saturday seemed to be satisfied. Mr Hawtrev, appearing in the part of Richard, was seen to marked advantage, and the evidence of the ears was equally satisfactory, for Mr Hawtrey spoke iris lines with a fine suggestion of impromptu. It is one of the besfof this good actor’s clever studies. James Wetherby, Ihe brother whose sincere love for Margaret makes him try to renounce bachelor habits rnd thus acquire a spurious reputation for saintliness, found an able exponent in Mr Jregau Macmahon. This part, the pivot of ■■he play, gives: an actor a wide option- as to ireatment. and Mr Macmahoa’s sound dismet ion seemed to fully meet requirements. . Miss Klsie Austin as Constantia and Miss Winifred Austin as Margaret were content o act quietly, missing none of the points, mt not seeking for individual praise. Mr rleggie. in his eccentric character study of Robert Came, brother to the two wives, took i are to dodge the Aminadab Sleek conception, bough obviously tempted in that direction! i md bliss Emma Bronton is to be thanked ; or her impersonation of Aunt Clara. The \ inly other member of the company engaged ' n the cast was one of the ladies who played ' he servant. Her name was not mentioned >n the programme. A competent orchestra ! applied pleasing music. ‘The Two Mr 1 Wetherbys’ is to be repeated this evening ; It may be taken for granted that all regular ■ playgoers will tnake a point of seeing it—- t hey ought to, at any rate. ° i