Sherlock Holmes in Town
Sherlock Holmes in Town is an article published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on 29 january 1901.
About the play Sherlock Holmes at Broad Street Theatre, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sherlock Holmes in Town
William Gillette Gives a Stage Portrayal of the Sleuth at the Broad
William Gillette, supported by a competent company, appeared at the Broad Street Theatre last evening in a new play entitled "Sherlock Holmes," written by himself in collaboration with Dr. A. Conan Doyle. The cast:
- Sherlock Holmes ... William Gillette
- Doctor Watson ... Fred K. Truesdell
- John Forman ... Ruben Fax
- Sir Edward Leighton ... Harold Heaton
- Count Von Stahlburg ... Alfred S. Howard
- Professor Moriarty ... George Wessells
- James Larrabee ... Ralph Delmore
- Sidney Prince ... George Honey
- Alfred Bassick ... Henry Harmon
- Jim Craigin ... Thomas McGrath
- Thomas Leary ... Elwyn Eaton
- "Lightfoot" McTague ... Julius Weyms
- Alice Faulkner ... Maude Fealy
- Mrs. Faulkner ... Jane Thomas
- Madge Larrabee ... Olive Oliver
- Therese ... Louise Collins
- Mrs. Smeedley ... Gertrude Dawes
- The place is London.
- First Act — Drawing room at the Larrabees'.
- Second Act — Scene 1 — Professor Moriarty's underground office. Scene II — Sherlock Holmes' Apartments in Baker street.
- Third Act — The Stepney Gas Chamber.
- Fourth Act — Doctor Watson's office, Kensington.
Both the character of this play and the controlling reason which impelled Its production under the present management are indicated with entire clearness by the title which it bears. It is a frank melodrama, as any dramatization of a story having Sherlock Holmes for a hero or any play in which that distinguished person might appropriately figure, could not fall to be; while any one who is at all familiar with the style of acting which Mr. Gillette most willingly affects and which of late years he has almost exclusively cultivated, and who is also acquainted with the distinctive traits of Dr. Doyle's imperturbable and resourceful hero, will at once perceive why the actor-author should have been attracted by the subject which his latest production illustrates. He could play the part of Sherlock Holmes and play it well without deviating in the slightest from the manner which he has elaborated and practiced until it must have become second nature.
Applying the only test to which melodrama is properly open, the test of interest, and there can be no question of the success and effectiveness of Mr. Gillette's latest effort. Sherlock Holmes is intensely interesting, absorbingly, even thrillingly interesting, during each of its four acts, and every one of its several scenes. It constantly holds the attention and arouses the curiosity even of the hardened theatre-goer, while it is a long time since anything has been seen here so full of creepy sensations. The theme, which forms the basis of the story, the rivalry between two intellects, one of which is with and the other against the law, is one full of large dramatic possibilities and pregnant with deep moral impressiveness: and for a while it looks as though something out of the ordinary, something above the common level of melodrama, was about to be attempted. This expectation is disappointed. The character which promised to develop into a Vautrin degenerates into a very commonplace kind of villain, and all the interest in centred in, all the admiration is reserved for the character of Holmes himself. Nothing serious is left of Professor Moriarity after he has made his comic exit from the stage at the conclusion of the second act.
But within the limits to which the author has restricted it, the play is strong and striking, and there can be no doubt as to the pleasure with which it was witnessed last evening. There are, of course, a great many improbabilities which must be over-looked, as if only the probable and natural took place there wouldn't be any play. There are also some crudities of construction, such as that which involves a two-fold repetition of the circumstances which had been antecedent of the action; and it may be doubted whether the extent to which Mr. Holmes is permitted to exploit his superhuman cleverness in irrelevant directions might not advantageously be circumscribed. But the play is ingeniously put together, and it has an abundance of sensational situations. What more could one desire?
It is all very well done. Mr. Gillette sustains the part of the detective with that air of nonchalance which comes so natural to him and which is always so especially effective when the conditions under which it is exhibited are of a kind to try the nerves. Yet it must be said that he made Holmes a good deal of a poseur, so much so that in actual life he would be voted an intolerable prig and an insufferable bore. On the stage it's different. It is not necessary to go through the cast in detail. No one performance figured so conspicuously above the rest as to entitle it to special comment, although it may perhaps he remarked with all due gentleness that it can, hardly be essential to present the man Larrabee as such a violent and obvious kind of villain. He was supposed to be a scoundrel of the polished variety, and be should not so constantly and so unmistakably give himself away. The play is very effectively staged, and the management of the lights is excellent. There was much applause, and Gillette was called upon for the inevitable speech.
