MR MENZIES’S KO KO.

Evening Star, Issue 22336, 12 May 1936, Page 13

MR MENZIES’S KO KO.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The admission of “ A.E.S.” that he fails to understand why your reporter adversely criticised Mr Menzies’ Ko-Ko is also an admission that he fails to appreciate the character Gilbert created. Buffoonery has no place in any of the “ G. and S ” operas, and the artist who introduces it must always offend those who really understand and appreciate the subtle, rapier-like wit of Gilbert. One can readily understand that clowning would appeal to a certain section of the audience, but obviously it would be distasteful in the extreme to those whoso knowledge of and familiarity with “G. and S.” operas qualifies them to express an opinion. “ A.E.S.” tells ns that ho is “ old—very old.” One would therefore imagine that his acquaintance with Gilbert and Sullivan dates hack to the time of the original production of their operas in Dunedin. On that occasion the roles at present being played by Mr Menzics wore taken by the late Howard Vernon. He, with most of principals, had just previously appeared in the same operas in London, where they had been produced under the supervision of Gilbert himself. It follows, therefore, that the characters presented by this company were as the anther intended them to be. In ‘ The Mikado ’ Howard Vernon presented a study of Ko-Ko that will never be forgotten by those privileged to see it. but he did not descend to clowning or resort to cheap vaudeville tricks to secure his effects, Howard Vernon gave us Gilbert’s KoKo. Mr Menzies gave us Menzies’ Ko-Ko. We know Mr Menzies despises tradition, but that doesn’t excuse him for departing from it. And he has no need to. He is a first-rate artist, and has no need to resort to tomfoolery to secure the applause of a certain section of the public. In fact, one would imagine that his artistic > sense would revolt at such cheap antics. Let him teach people to appreciate the real Gilbert. He is clever enough. “A.E.S.” suggests that your critic is “ youngvery voung.” Perhaps he is. But his criticism showed a knowledge and appreciation of the true quality and value of Gilbert and Sullivan that one might reasonably have expected from the “ old—very old ” “ A.E.S.” May 1 suggest to your correspondent that he should read the libretto and stage directions of ‘ The Mikado,’ for in so doing he is more likely to arrive at a true appreciation of how the characters in this opera are intended to he portrayed. Then, and then only, should he venture a criticism in the daily Press.—l am, etc , Teaditiox. May 11.

[Perhaps the best commentary and most autnoritative ruling on the matter might be found in Gilbert’s adaptation of Hamlet’s advice to the players in his ‘ Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.’ There it is laid down: “For I hold that there is no such antjek fellow as your bombastical hero who doth so earnestly spout forth his folly as to make his hearers believe that he is unconscious of all incongruity; whereas, he who doth so mark, label, and underscore his antiok speeches as to show that be is alive to their absurdity seemeth to utter them under protest, and to take part with his audience against himself. For which reason, I pray you, let there be no huge red noses, nor extravagant monstrous wigs, nor coarse men garbed as women, in this comi-tragedy; for such tilings . are ns much to say: ‘ I am a comick fellow —I pray you laugh at me, and hold what I saY' to be cleverly ridiculous.’ Such labelling of humour is an impertinence to your audience, for it seemeth to imply that they are unable to recognise a joke unless it be pointed out to them'. I pray you avoid it.”— Ed. E.S.]