Actorviews (1923)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Mr. Arliss Speaks of Mr. Archer 175 Arliss with what humility and hard work Warfield approached the part. “I can understand that,” he said. “If I evei played Shakespeare it would be with the fear of God in my heart, the fear of making an awful hash of it.” And he went on to say that an actor’s actual performance frequently was not his original conception of the part ; because an actor’s performance was restricted by his physical appearance. “ Iago , I always feel,” he said, “should have brawn and muscle. I see Iago as quite a pleasant kind of villain — a big soldier, rather charming to look at, and not trying to be too damned subtle. But when an actor tries to make himself physically different from the way Nature molded him he’s losing the most valuable thing he brings to the stage — himself. No thin man,” he epitomized, “can play a fat part convincingly.” “Did you ever see Tree’s Falstaff?” “Entirely unconvincing,” said Arliss, shaking his head from side to side more in criticism than sorrow. “He was a very lean man when I saw his Falstaff, and I could always, as with the aid of an X-ray, see the thin Tree through the fat stomach.” We talked of Tree in happier parts than Falstaff . . . and of Mrs. Patrick Campbell (with whom Arliss first came to these not inhospitable shores) in wittier roles than that of autobiographer. Her comment on Max Beerbohm’s thicker-thanwater family-story biography of Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, “Why didn’t they call it ‘Our Father Which Art in Heaven’?” he recited with delicious brevity. And in the fewest possible words he narrated her answer to George Alexander’s request that his incorrigible colleague please refrain from laughing at