TCDE-Team at 18:58, 3 July 2026

2026-07-03T18:58:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 3 July 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:

	== Article ==		== Article ==
	[[File:hartford-courant-1900-10-29-p4-mr-gillette-s-performance-at-parson-s-theater.jpg\|thumb\|~~250px~~\|right\|[[Hartford Courant]] (29 october 1900, p. 4)]]		[[File:hartford-courant-1900-10-29-p4-mr-gillette-s-performance-at-parson-s-theater.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|right\|[[Hartford Courant]] (29 october 1900, p. 4)]]

	It is not an easy thing to analyze [[William Gillette\|Gillette]]'s subtlety. You watched him for a time-say Saturday night in "[[Sherlock Holmes (play 1900 Parsons' Theatre)\|Sherlock Holmes]]" — and you were thinking that you had divined the secret of his success in these crowded houses when you suddenly came to the conclusion that there was no secret — indeed, that it was the absence of secret that gave him his power. He was simply a tall, lithe, well-voiced, manly man, natural in every tone and action. But it's not enough to rest with the critics who are saying. "He's just [[William Gillette]], naturally brilliant and attractive, the same on the stage as off, hence the perfection of realism in acting." The laziness in such criticism is realized when we think back over the professor, Mr. Bean and Captain Thorne. Taking these three alone of his many characters, one man could not be all of them and yet be the same on the stage as in private life.		It is not an easy thing to analyze [[William Gillette\|Gillette]]'s subtlety. You watched him for a time-say Saturday night in "[[Sherlock Holmes (play 1900 Parsons' Theatre)\|Sherlock Holmes]]" — and you were thinking that you had divined the secret of his success in these crowded houses when you suddenly came to the conclusion that there was no secret — indeed, that it was the absence of secret that gave him his power. He was simply a tall, lithe, well-voiced, manly man, natural in every tone and action. But it's not enough to rest with the critics who are saying. "He's just [[William Gillette]], naturally brilliant and attractive, the same on the stage as off, hence the perfection of realism in acting." The laziness in such criticism is realized when we think back over the professor, Mr. Bean and Captain Thorne. Taking these three alone of his many characters, one man could not be all of them and yet be the same on the stage as in private life.

TCDE-Team: Created page with "''Mr. Gillette's Performances at Parson's Theater'' is an article published in the Hartford Courant on 29 october 1900. The play was Sherlock Holmes at the Parsons's Theater, Hartford, CT, USA. == Article == [[Hartford Courant (29 october 1900, p. 4)]] It is not an easy thing to analyze William Gillette|Gil..."

2026-07-03T18:58:32Z

Created page with "''Mr. Gillette's Performances at Parson's Theater'' is an article published in the Hartford Courant on 29 october 1900. The play was Sherlock Holmes at the Parsons's Theater, Hartford, CT, USA. == Article == thumb|250px|right|[[Hartford Courant (29 october 1900, p. 4)]] It is not an easy thing to analyze William Gillette|Gil..."

New page

''Mr. Gillette's Performances at Parson's Theater'' is an article published in the [[Hartford Courant]] on 29 october 1900.

The play was [[Sherlock Holmes (play 1900 Parsons' Theatre)|Sherlock Holmes]] at the Parsons's Theater, Hartford, CT, USA.

== Article ==
[[File:hartford-courant-1900-10-29-p4-mr-gillette-s-performance-at-parson-s-theater.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[Hartford Courant]] (29 october 1900, p. 4)]]

It is not an easy thing to analyze [[William Gillette|Gillette]]'s subtlety. You watched him for a time-say Saturday night in "[[Sherlock Holmes (play 1900 Parsons' Theatre)|Sherlock Holmes]]" — and you were thinking that you had divined the secret of his success in these crowded houses when you suddenly came to the conclusion that there was no secret — indeed, that it was the absence of secret that gave him his power. He was simply a tall, lithe, well-voiced, manly man, natural in every tone and action. But it's not enough to rest with the critics who are saying. "He's just [[William Gillette]], naturally brilliant and attractive, the same on the stage as off, hence the perfection of realism in acting." The laziness in such criticism is realized when we think back over the professor, Mr. Bean and Captain Thorne. Taking these three alone of his many characters, one man could not be all of them and yet be the same on the stage as in private life.

Arrived, then, at this point in your attempt at analysis, you say to yourself, "There must be a secret." Magnetism? That doesn't explain it. Repression of power? Not that exactly. Tenderness? Next moment you could as well say severity. In your despair you are tempted to ask whether after all you are not seeking for something that is not to be found, and therefore whether you are not under the fascination of pique.

But now can you think of him in the role of Hamlet? When the possibility was suggested recently, you may have tossed your head, for fresh in mind were the ludicrous professor, the humorous Mr. Bean and the dashing Captain Thorne, in all of which characters he won your affections. Yet study him more closely as he is to-day and he certainly cannot be considered very remote from the personification made dramatically sacred by Booth. He may never essay that role. but your attempt to fathom his qualities has led up to this test. In the professor, you could not have foreseen Captain Thorne; in Mr. Bean, not [[Sherlock Holmes]].

Is it then, the personal charm? Is it the "realism?" Is it not the rather a combination of all of them? Can we dismiss it with a word unless that word be art, high art?

{{footer_periodicals}}

Mr. Gillette's Performances at Parson's Theater - Revision history

TCDE-Team at 18:58, 3 July 2026