‘GRUMPY’

Evening Star, Issue 16626, 8 January 1918, Page 4

‘GRUMPY’

NOTABLE IMPERSONATION BY MB CYRIL MAUDE. A very large audience assembled at His Majesty’s Theatre last night to witness tho first presentation here of the famous play ‘ Grumpy,’ with tho celebrated English actor, Mr Cyril Maude; in the name part. First nights are usually burdened with a sense of responsibility. The piece has to be adjudicated upon, or the star actor lias to bo weighed up. Last night’s patrons were relieved of any such duty. All tho judging of ‘ Grumpy, ’ has been •done in England and elsewhere, and the audience realised that they had only to sit and enjoy the performance. Such circumstances make for a happy night, and that was the experience. The onlookers as a body did not know exactly how the play would develop, but they were comfortable in the assurance that nothing could go wrong. What they found, as the drama progressed, was that ‘ Grumpy' is primarily comedy, but with a sensational melodramatic thrill at the nerve centre. We do not often find these warring elements individually complete and yet in strict relationship. That is the peculiarity of ‘ Grumpy.’ It involves a peril to the actors —the peril that the audience, not thinking fast enough, may mistake the first of the tragic business for a joke. And that really did happen last night. When the pleasantry caused mainly by Grumpy's irascibility was suddenly interrupted by a felonious assault, with the object of stealing the £90,000 diamond, half the audience kept on giggling for a moment or two, evidently expecting that the putting up of the lights would discover a fresh departure in playfulness. But we do not suggest it is a fault in the drama that it fails to exclude the possibility of temporary misunderstanding on tho part of the superficial observers. As a matter of fact, the author has taken pains to lead up to what is a particularly good “curtain”-at- this stage, and those of tho audience who were alert found it easy to follow tho story, though told with amazing swiftness. We see Ernest Heron fingering and admiring the jewel which was entrusted to his care in South Africa, and which he is to deliver to the head of his firm next morning ; wo see the shadow of a suspicious-looking character who is lurking on the verandah; we remember Grumpy's advice that the stone had better be placed in the safe for the night—these happenings create the atmosphere; then a hand comes into view from the outside and linns out the light, and wo hear a struggle, a fall, and a groan. That is the end of the act. It is quite plain to the observant that a tragedy has intervened. Ihe author could not go any further bv way of explanation, short of anticipating the revelation as to who committed the rime; and that, of course, is the purpose of the acts that follow. The playwright is not to blame if people laugh ‘at the wrong place. If pressed for a candid opinion on ‘Grumpy’ as a whole, we think that wo could mention one nr two faults; hut tliis is not one of them. We take leave to express the belief that the comedy in the hands of tho principal is not quite free from anti-climax. The cross-question-ing by Grumpy of .Virginia's maid Busan is the scene we refer to. The fun is at its height before the end. Further, it becomes obvious a little too early that Mr Jarvis is the offender. His introduction to the household is purely casual—ho is a wayside pick-up—and lie hangs his head rather suspiciously. Again, the Jewish dealer is not properly in the picture. He is of the Muss Jewell type that Bland Holt gave us, and as such not the soit of person that would be likely to be admitted to a conspiracy for big stakes. )Ve do not charge Mr Frank Elliott with inadequately impersonating Mr Jarvis, nor ■T'ggest that Mr Robert Ayrton miscrcates the Jew. Onr point is that the faults named are inherent in the play. Nevertheless 'it is a good play, full of newness, abundant in idea, smart ns smart can be. and it runs interestingly to the verv finish. The part of Grumpy is not only quite central, hut dominating. It must fie,.as a matter .of words, one of the longest parts known to the stage. Mr Maude has not come to the ends of tho earth to ask for an opinion as to how lie performs it. ft is simply onr pleasant duty to record that Dunedin falls into line and joins in the chorus of praist. Hero and there the action js pushed a woe hit too far. That is the only fault wo have heard suggested. Mr Maude has a very fine voice. He does not worry with any mannerisms. His business is distinctly on the English model. Of whom docs he remind one? Hard to say. At the first, in his way'of breaking in on the other’s speech, and in his running on in advance, as it were, he brought up recollections of Charles Mathews, the greatest English comedian of liis day. Just a little reminiscence of Toole appeared now and again, but perhaps that was more from the body motion than from the. tongue. In the last act, where Grumpy is at his table in the library, tracing the steps by which he. used hir, old profession to recover the diamond, we had a touch of Wybert Reeve, in bis great part of Count Foseo. But Mr Maude, is borrowing nothing from these or any sources that we know of. Tho fugitive resemblances mentioned wither away when one trios to find whether thev stand projecting. They moan no more than that Mr Maude is one with Mathews and the rest of the big men in having drunk from the same fount. Bo far as can be judged from the somewhat limited opportunities supplied bv this play, it is a strong company that Mr Maude has with him. Mr Herbert Eaivson plays the part of the. nephew Ernest Heron in a distinctly clever manner on reserved lines. Mr Edward Lester could bo safely entrusted with a much more important role than that of Ruddock, the valet. We thank him for his conscientiousness in thankless conditions. Mr Frank Elliott seemed last night to be under a promise to keen in the background. The idea conveyed was that he was not lotting hinpself go. The action also sacrifices him to some extent, as mentioned above, by revealing him rather early as the scoundrel. Mr Robert Ayrton is apparently in a similar position—given a part which is suspended between the tragedy and the comedy and having no foothold of its own. If Mr Ayrton had his way he would probably give us a better picture of his part, but then it might not fit in as well with the author's icL a, Mr Stephen Scanlan, Mr F. Gatenby Bell, Mr Harvey Sweeney, and Mr H. H. Wallace were all of service, but their parts are purely subsidiary. The ladies of the company do well. Miss Dorothy Camming, cast as Grumpy’s fondled granddaughter Virginia, was in Dunedin with ‘ Evcrvwoman,’ she also came with Julius Knight when he produced 1 Milestones ’ and 1 Man and Superman,' and we saw her again in ‘ Tho Man Who Stayed at Home.’ Her Virginia with Mr Maude’s company is very much superior to anything she did on those previous occasions. Her carlv tendency to pose is now vitalised, thus making use of her natural grace and litheness, and in certain scenes Miss Gumming displayed subtlety and keen insight. We are sure that this coring actress has native ability of a high order. Miss Stella Payter had little to do but wear fine frocks and talk nonsense. Miss Betty Murray earned praise for her really skilful impersonation as Busan. The author has given Susan a chance. It is the one secondary character that ho has perfected. And Miss Murray has got to the real heart of it. We beg of her not to alter a gesture, or a glance. Everything is just “so.’’ Wc have only to add that the piece is well dressed and adequately mounted, and that the orchestra’s soft playing was a delight. ‘ Grumpy ’ is to be repeated this evening.