View source for Theatre Royal — Mr. William Gillette in "Sherlock Holmes"

''Mr. William Gillette in "Sherlock Holmes"'' is an article published in [[The Morning Mail (Dublin)]] on 20 may 1902.

About the play [[Sherlock Holmes (play 1902 Theatre Royal, Dublin)|Sherlock Holmes]] at the ''Theatre Royal'', Dublin, Ireland.


== Mr. William Gillette in "Sherlock Holmes" ==
[[File:the-morning-mail-dublin-1902-05-20-p2-theatre-royal.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[The Morning Mail (Dublin)]] (20 may 1902, p. 2)]]

'''THEATRE ROYAL'''

'''MR. WILLIAM GILLETTE IN "SHERLOCK HOLMES."'''

Last night a crowded house endorsed by marked tokens of its approval the favour able, almost enthusiastic, reception already accorded by the London public to the dramatisation of [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Dr. Conan Doyle]]'s famous detective hero. There are two views as to the modern tendency of producing plays which shall present in the flesh the heroes of successful and widely-read novels, and it is more than doubtful whether it was politic of [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Dr. Conan Doyle]], in conjunction with [[William Gillette|Mr. William Gillette]], to bring "[[Sherlock Holmes (play 1902 Theatre Royal, Dublin)|Sherlock Holmes]]" on the stage. The great detective has become for most people a familiar figure, but the picture he presents to their minds is largely due to an exercise of their own imagination. A picture of any character painted by the pen of the skilful writer has always one advantage over the representation of the same char acter by means of the stage. It leaves a far wider field in which the imagination free to work. Dramatisation, though adding to the vividness of the picture, leaves the imagination far less scope. In the case of [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Dr. Doyle]]'s hero there was always a certain air of mystery, a suggestion of something not quite human about him which his appearance upon the stage, if it has not succeeded in altogether destroying, has certainly not maintained intact. But, whatever be the impression left by the right [[Sherlock Holmes]] in the flesh, there can be no doubt at all that the joint authors have succeeded in writing a play which is bound to at tract and to hold the attention of an audience closely rivetted upon its action from start to finish. The reason for this is probably be found in the fact that for a large section o the theatre-going public a melodrama pure and simple, provided always it be well acted, has s fascination that is absent in those plays which lay more serious claims to be judged by the standard of literature or dramatic art. For "[[Sherlock Holmes (play 1902 Theatre Royal, Dublin)|Sherlock Holmes]]" is melodrama undiluted by any attempt at character study or criticism of the current code of manners or morality. As such, it depends for its success almost entirely upon the skill with which the plot is elaborated, upon the sensational incidents and striking situations with which the play abounds, and upon the mere machinery of effective staging. And let it be said at once that in none of these respects could the most critical find anything wanting. The main characters of the play wit be familiar to most, and though the plot deals with a hitherto unpublished episode in the career of the great detective, it is sufficiently nearly allied to those already published to make a detailed summary unnecessary. Although it hinges upon a certain compromising packet of papers which are in the possession of a Miss Alice Faulkner, it resolves itself into a duel of intellect and resource between the great detective and [[Professor Moriarty]]-styled by [[Sherlock Holmes]] himself the Napoleon of Crime. Revolvers, handcuffs, ropes, signals, disguises, even a lethal chamber, are strewn with a lavish hand along the course of the play's action. But it is never to intricate for the full comprehension of all the subtle details that mark it as perhaps, some thing more than the best type of conventional melodrama. The incidents are always sensational, and the situations full of dramatic force.

Of the acting it is not so easy to speak. The standards of art or literature need not, perhaps, be applied too closely to the results of the author's labours, but there is, unfortunately, only one de finite standard for the actors in the play. And it is hardly possible to judge of their power as artists in a play that requires them but to speak the lines written for them, and to perform the acts devised for them. An exception must be made in the case of [[William Gillette|Mr. Gillette]]. His acting in the title role was a most capable and finished performance. Looking the hero to the life, his impressive manner and slow somewhat peculiar intonation greatly helped to keep alive the strange personality of [[Sherlock Holmes|Sherlock]]. It would, in fact, be impossible to find a better personation if we are to have him on the stage at all. And his restrained and dignified acting went a long way towards palliating the impossible sentiment which is introduced, with out any apparent necessity, into the play towards its close, and which prolongs it beyond its legitimate conclusion. In this he was ably assisted by [[Amy Betteley|Miss Amy Batteley]], who acted the rather colourless part of Alice Faulkner with considerable skill and charm. [[W. L. Abingdon|Mr. Abingdon]]'s representation of the [[Professor Moriarty|Professor]] was over emphasised and reminiscent of the conventional acting of villains in less ambitious melodramas. [[Ralph Delmore|Mr. Ralph Delmore]] and [[Alida Cortelyou|Miss Alida Cortelyon]] made an excellent pair of knaves, male and female. The acting of all the minor parts was noticeably above the average, particularly that of [[Sydney Herbert|Mr. Sydney Herbert]] as John Forman. And it is needless to add that with so much of the play's success dependent upon them the scenery and stage effects were most elaborate and convincing. The play will be repeated each night during the week.








{{footer_periodicals}}