Variety (January 1923)

LEGITIMATE , Friday, January 12, 1923 BROADWAY REVIEWS S4C MOSCOW ART THEATRE (Tsar Fyodor Ivanovitch") Tmr Fyodor Ivanorltch Iran Moekvln Tsarina Irina Fyodorovna, Ois;a Knlpper-Tchekhora Boats Godunoff Alexander Virtuevsky Ptfcce Ivan Petrovitcb BhouUky, Vesslly L,uzh»ky Prince Vasal J 7 Ivaoovltch Bboulsky, Olorgl Bunlthaloff Prince Andrei flhoulaky.. .Nikolai Podfomy Prince Matlslavsky... .LoonId M. I^eonidoff Prince Shakhovakoy Vladimir Yershoff lfflkbailo Oolovln Akim Tamlroff Andrei Petrovitcb Ix>up-Kleahnin, J'eter BakohelcIT Prince Tureynln Ivan Latarieff Princees Metialavakaya... .Lydla Korenieva Bogdan Kuriukoff Vladimir Urlbunin Ivan Kraasl'nlkoff Nikolai Alexandroff Golub, Senior Alexei Bondlrieff Golub, Junior ..Boris Dobronravoff At Jolson's 69th St. Monday night (Jan. 8) there was gathered for the American premiere of the famed Moscow Art Theatre, presented here by F. Ray Comstock and Morris Gest, one of the greatest audiences ever assembled under one roof. It was the climax of a feat in show- manship, bringing together the cream of all the classes of persons resident in the metropolis. The first night held society that inhabits the Metropolitan opera, along with the really highbrow Inside and out of Bohemian circles, along with rep- resentative journalists. Upstairs was an equally large crowd, perhaps many hailing from Russia. Several hundred standees crowded the foyer, doubtless coming from the line of persons trying to buy tickets. The line was In evidence long before curtain time and stretched half a block northward along Seventh ave- nue. The Moscow Art Theatre Is an in- stitution, having been in existence about 25 years. Save for annual spring appearances in Petrograd prior to the war, it never left its native city but once, that being in 1905, when the revolution resulted in chaos and drove the players to a temporary refuge in Germany and Austria. Before sailing for New York, which is announced as en- gagement limited definitely to eight weeks, the organization toured the capitals of the continent outside of Russia. That the success of BaliefTs ."Chauve-Souris," so skillfully di- rected by Gest, smoothed the path for a venture such as a New York showing of the Moscow Art Theatre there can be no doubt. The latter Is similarly priced as to admissions, $5 top being charged, and $11 (with tax) for the premiere. But there is a vast difference in the two attrac- tions. "Chauve-Souris" is compar- atively light and gay, a vaudeville inspired by artists and Illumined by them with a deal of curious music and movement. The Moscow Art Theatre is a serious acting group, essaying the weighty dramatics of its great native playwrights, who despite their topics write down to the people. Interest in the performance of the Moscow Art may be credited to the web of illusion that has been weaved about the Importation. The wealth of clever advance* preparation went into minute detail. Stories of the attraction's coming were hardly finished when a set of rules and con- duct for the purchase of tickets and patrons was set forth. On top of that the principal dramas to be enacted were published in English and placed on sale in the bookshops, the plays being "Tsar Fyodor Ivan- ovitch," by Count Alexei Tolstoy; "The Lower Depths" (known, too, as "The Living Corpse"), by Maxim Gorky; "The Three Sisters," by An- ton Tchekhoff, and "The Cherry Or- chard," by the same author. Only the latter play of the quartet is de- scribed as a comedy. As a final preparation the pro- grams, which follow up the illumi- nated booklets sent to interested persons last week and cleverly done by Oliver M. Sayler, are about the most descriptive yet given out for a piny. Each character is explained fully with his and her historical status. Then there is a scene analysis fully as explanatory. So that any person in the audience wishing to follow the story may glance at the program during the in- tervals between acts. For the first week the Moscow Art Theatre gave "Tsar Fvortor Ivanotich." Count Alexei was kin to Count Leo Tolstoy. Alexei was a poet, diplomat and soldier and in addition to "Fyodor," he wrote '"Ivan the Terrible" and "Boris Godunoff" the trilogy being considered classics of the Russian theatre. Two of the plays were forbidden because it was believed the author humanized royalty. All three plays are set late in the 16th century and ar~ really historical dramas. Ivan was one of the strong fierce men of early Russia. He extended the domain into Siberia and was the first ruler to call himself tsar of all the Rus- sians. He made the Duma im- potent and often complained of the tyranny of-the Boyars, breaking down all authority save his own. Ono of his despairs was that he had no heir with an iron will like his own. After the death of the two eldest children, one of whom he killed In rage, there was only Fyodor, a weak, timid man, who was a strange *>on for so terrible a father as Ivan, and a very young son, Dimitry. Fyodor was 87 years of ape. but Iran appointed a regency for him. The Boyars, however, looked for a restitution of their rights, since Fyodor was a kind man, very pious in spite of his stupidity. At the head of Fyodor*s court were Boris Godunoff and Prince Ivan Petrovitch Shouisky. Between them In the play they finally bring the weak em- peror to his knees calling to Heaven and asking why he had been made Tsar. The plot and counter plot of the two clashing aids to the Tsar had in the end brought the tartars to the gates of the palace. "Tsar Fyodor Ivanovitch" Is given in five acts but there are only three scene changes and only two 10- minute intervals. The curtain went up at 8.05 and the show was over at 10.40. There was therefore little need for the closing of the doors at the time the curtain rose and keep- ing late arrivals out in the lobby. That caused a hubbub in the rear of the house until the end of the first act, around nine o'clock. Hold- ing to the "tradition" of the organ- ization in Moscow can hardly be made a hard and fast rule for such an engagement in New York where traffic conditions alone make it next to Impossible to assemble as large an audience (1,800 and more with standees) in a theatre at so early. The program stated that the tradi- tion of the Moscow Art Theatre was that no applause be given until the finale and the audience was re- quested to honor It. That was done. Desultory applause during the play was hissed down. At tho finale there were cheers and a lot of them as the curtain was raised and lowered. Whether that came from enthusiasm over the acting or because of the reputation of the players or from a clacque is a toss-up. There were quite a number of auditors on the lower floor who understood the dialog, as shown when they lightly laughed at the few comedy points. But for the large proportion the show was more a spectacle. Four principal players of whom three are men. Ivan Moskvin as Fyodor was easily the star. His per- formance grew as the play pro- gressed and his characterization stands as one of the best seen here in years. Alexander Vishnesvky made a powerful Boris Godunoff, his spirit of strength being felt at every line and action. Vassily Luzhsky as the Prince Ivan was a much kissed and beaten man. Olga Knipper- Tchekhova played tho Tsarina Irina excellently, a woman deeply at- tached to her lord and master. * "Fyodor" is played in all the voluminous robes that were Russia's in the days of the period. The men were long bearded, with very few exceptions. The exchange of kisses between the men was more a prac-. tise than between men and women. Often it was a smack on the brow but as often the lips of the men met—and no stage kisses as we know them—honest loud-sounding caresses. The signs, religious and otherwise punctuate the dialog and action and like the kisses were al- ways three in number. The settings were not exceptional except in their design which was completely Rus- sian. The big men of the Moscow Art Theatre are Constantln Stanislavsky and Vladimir Nemirovitch-Dant- chenko, they being directors and co- founders of the organization. The former took the curtains with the company at the close, though there was no inclination for an expression from the stage in English. The Moscow Art Theatre had al impressive and expressive an open- ing here as hoped for by its spon- sors. How long sustained the in- terest will be held for it will be disclosed within the next 10 days. That it will or could repeat the suc- cess of "Chauve-Souris" is not ex- pected. Gest took Jolson's because of its exceptional size and he likely recog- nized the fact that such a booking could only be limited. That the en- gagement Is for eight weeks only, may be on the level and it is im- probable a longer period could be played. In that time a lot of money can be drawn however for the house is reported scaling around $40,000 on the week. Putting over the Mos- cow Art Theatre in America Is an achievement and a feather in the cap of Gest. who has brought here the greatest collection of jaw- breaking names ever known to Broadway. Ibet. MIKE ANGELO T^rec-art comedy by Bdward Locke, starring Loo Car Wo In tbe name part. Presented by Oliver Morocco (M&roaeo Holding Co., Inc.). Play staged by Clif- ford Brooke. Produced experimentally on ihe Pacific coast and brought east. Opened St tho Moroaco, New York, Jan. 8. . Mike Angclo I^eo Carrillo Newton Carlton Onnt Stewart Annabclle Carlton Wanda Lyon Ivan Smirnoff Robert Strange t'arlotta Swift Dorothy Mackave Tommy Sloane Gerald Oliver Smith Peter Smith Byron Deaa'ey Mischa Tarkoff Adrian H. BoMev Some day some manager will give this engaging young actor a fighting chance. I>eo Carrillo has a consid- erable following in New York, and they all hope to find him at each try in something an nearly worthy of him as "Lombard!, Ltd." But they have been disappointed, particularly in this current attempt. A manager who gambles to the extent of one ehsap set and a east of eight characters, several played by extremely mediocre actors, isn't smoothing the way to any extent for a promising dramatic leading man. "Mike Angelo" has nothing but Car- rillo. He has several appealing mo- ments, he has flashes of sparkle, but he goes down gallantly amid the dreary surroundings of a trashy play, mechanically written and pro- duced in a penny pinching style. To begin at the beginning of the trouble, "Mike Angelo" is a poor play. It Is done in a tone of crude comedy with never a moment of genuine humor except that with which Carrillo and one other char- acter (played by Dorothy Mackaye) manage to color their lines and scenes. The rest of the proceedings are drivel, made up of trivialities that they vainly try to foist on the stage as portentous happenings. The thing never touches or even amuses one. It's just a synthetic play made up of theatrical contrivances. It hasn't an illuminating idea behind it, even if it does deal with the pic- turesque locale and the colorful people of the Greenwich Village art studios. It has the worst fault a play can have—in short, you Just can't get Interested in it. The scenes are rough hewn with a broadaxe, and the devices by which characters are got on and off the stage with casual elaboration fairly creak with manuscript me- chanics. When a dramatist gasps for breath every time he has to clear the stage for a love scene all hope is lost. Almost a third of the time occupied by the play is taken up with moving puppets into and out of sight. A lot of other time is wasted with poor acting and hokum comedy lines. A sample of the facile style might be vaguely intimated by the statement that twice as many lines in "Mike Angelo" end with a "hell" or a "damn" as any burlesque show that has played the Olympic on 14th street this season. When a stage manager is driven to the ex- pedient of coaxing laughs by having a sweet young thing or a millionaire art patron or the hero reply "The hell* you say," or something equally pertinent, he must be hard pushed. The profanity was needed to keep a listless audience at attention. What can be said of a play in which a garrulous, pompous art patron ex- plains the terms of a students' con- test at full length not less than four separate and distinct times? This character, played by Byron BeasJey, would bore any theatre crowd to ex- tinction with the long winded speeches and offensive Joviality. He was paired with a pale old person who talked Incessantly about Art in the identical manner of Webster of "The Old Soak." The Barrymore family couldn't have stood off the handicap of these two, and the sup- porting company is no Barrymore family. Carrillo managed to get some color into the characterization of a poor Italian boy returned from France to work as a drudge in an art school. His rich Italian dialect might have been the vehicle for a real character sketch. Instead it was forced to the front brutally. No producer ever worked the Weberfleldian tangled English so hard. That's all there was to the first two acts, and the principle is here set down that gar- bled English (excellent as it is in its- place) never made a polite comedy. The dramatic situation was nil. The complications hung upon the circumstance that a snob of a Rus- sian art student painted a picture for a scholarship contest and Mike Angelo painted another. They both chose the same subject. But in the mistaken idea that he was doing a service to the girl he loved, Mike switched paintings with the Russian snob. Ivan didn't know of the sub- stitution (both pictures being cov- ered with cloth of identical kind), and he smeared the picture he thought was Mike's, but which turned out to be his own. Exposure of the villainy brought the heroine to Mike's arms at 10.50. The picture episode occupied three minutes of the second act. The rest of the eve- ning was spent in getting ready for the event and then talking about it. The whole thing might have been done in an 18-minute playlet. Wanda Lyon is the heroine and is a singularly tepid actress, although a ravishing blonde beauty. Gerald Oliver Smith did one of those con- ventional English comedy lounge lizards as well as the part can be played, and Grant Stewart was penalized with the role of the talka- tive old art teacher. "Mike Angelo" came Into Moros- co's own theatre under peculiar cir- cumstances. The piece developed small strength on the road. It is re- lated that it drew $180 the opening night in Wilmington and totaled about $1,400 on its introductory two- night stand. Broadway gossip has it that it was booked for tho New York Morosco before the then current at- traction, "Why Men Leave Home." knew it was going to be succeeded, although "Why Men Leave Home" was doing a falr-to-middllng busi- ness. The derision to bring "An- gclo" to Broadway was made after it had once been taken off for re- vision and after the report was around it would probably finish the season on the road. It tried out on the coast, with Carrillo also in the lead out there, but when taken off. shortly after opening, it was said the supporting company gathered in the west ruined its chances. Ths western support Is vindicated by th€ Broadway support. Hush. OUT OF TOWN REVIEWS JITTA'S ATONEMENT Washington, Jan. 10. Mrs. BUllter Phoebe Coyne A Girl Grace Kober Prof. Bruno Haldensted t Jobn Craig Jltta Lenkhelm Bertha Kallch Prof. Alfred L*nkhelm FrancU Byrne Dr. Ernest Fesaler.......Walton Butt erne Id Agnes Haldenstedt Thais Lawton Edith, her daughter Beth Elliott As was to be expected, George Bernard Shaw shoots many a straight shaft of truth without that shaft being sugar coated in this new play of his, "Jitta's Atonement," opening Monday at the Shubert Gar- rick. The work is an adaptation from a play by Siegfried Trebitsch, and Shaw has done so extremely well with it the old eternal triangle is made to appear as entirely a new theme. With Shaw must be men- tioned Mme. Bertha Kalich, who measures up to the work, and it might also be said that the work of Mr. Shaw is equal to the artistry of Mme. Kalich. Tnroughout the pen of Shaw sparkles. To fully recount the story of the play would be. a sacrilege, it would suffer so in the telling. It tells of a wife who loves another than her husband, that man also be- ing a husband, the father of a daugh- ter, who, as a scientist, has created with his wife a child that resembles the woman he loves. The man, suf- fering from a heart affliction, dies in an apartment in a questionable house, the woman gets away before the arrival of the police, but leaving the wife and daughter of the man humiliated because of the circum- stances surrounding his death. The woman has promised the man that his latest work, a book com- pounding a new theory, would be accredited as to authorship after the man's death to her husband, who has assisted in some little measure in writing the book. It is the man's idea of giving his life's work to the husband as payment for having stolen his wife. These characters of Shaw's are of middle age, the husband, naturally, .to the wife, is a chump, but after reading the work of the man he flatly refuses to permit his name to stand as its author, and it is then that Mr. Shaw through the lips of the husband puts a million pins into the little bubble the erring wife has created of self pity and her great love. • In the character of the daughter, who because of a great love for the father knows he could do nothing wrong and who wants to meet and know and tell the woman of her love for her, Mr. Shaw "overwrote" him- self, if the term may be used, while in the wife of the man, her char- acter is told in a moment. In Jitta there is all that goes to such a woman, a woman carried away by her own sincerity, who when hus- band states he, too, has had his lit- tle affairs—well, hands the situation over to "friend husband" and takes him home. Mme. Kalich plays with the same remarkable suppression that has always been a source of delight to her admirers. Another feminine role whose opportunities do not ar- rive until the final act is remark- ably well done by Thais Lawton, while Francis Byrne as the husband gave a delightful performance. John Craig as the man has but a few moments in the first act; those few moments, however, create such an impression as to remain a dominant figure throughout the remainder of the play. The balance of the cast in each and every Instance is deserving of unlimited praise, Lee Shubert, the producer, having evidently taken the greatest care in his selections for the several roles. Beth Elliott as the daughter and Walton Butter- field as the boy whom she Is to marry both give excellent perform- ances. Lester Lonergan has most ably di- rected the play, the holding power of which can be best attested by the fact that during the action of the last act a colored maid, who evi- dently had not learned that the proper place to cross the stage was behind and not In front of the back drop went giggling across in full view of the audience, and there wasn't a titter out front. George Bernard Shaw and Mme. Bertha Kalich have a play that will appeal to not only the lovers of Shaw, a:s well as the good things of the theatre, but to the average the- atregoer as well. Mcakin, TIGER LILY Washington, Jan. 10. ?o T'On* Leslie King ( hlrig Wong Arvld Paulson Yellow Jade Fay Courteney Kong Koo Harry Llewellyn 1/OtUH Sen Mary Carroll l.ee W;ih Hesnuo ll:i> akawn Jnmes Connor Frank M. Thorns* "Bg Bill" Dougherty William Iloldcn Kxjiressman Perclval I^ennon Mm. Connor Jane Klliaon Hele n Jiii'kmui Cluriya Valerie rani ". r s rlfc e Bo r o s Bessue Hayakawa, in making his initial bow before the footlights in a concoction referred to as "Tiger Lily," makes good and will prove of value to those sponsoring the pro- duction, lie has a splendid Stage presence, handles himself excellently and, barring an accent that at times considerably interfered with the clearness of his lines, this Japanese* film star is entitled to the honors given him in ths legitimate field. Hayakawa has a role, that of a* Chinese, who for three acts ejudes, defies and battles with two secret service men. Hayakawa is not given to pos'ng, his gestures are natural, and al- though his performance is dominated with the suggestive mystery of the Orient, his facial expression te'.ls a story in itself. Considerable cen- sure could be aimed at the direc- tion, particularly in regard to the Jap, it having evidently been said to him that he mustn't or couldn't do certain things, and there are times, as a result, when he seems to be feeling his way. As to the play it is apparent that the uppermost thought on the part of the producers wan a role for their star, one that would have romantic as well as emotional appeal; they got this but practically little else. Fred de Gresac is accredited, with the authorship, and the'very neces- sary items of credulity and conti- nuity seem to be entirely lacking. To bring about a happy ending the girl who has confessed her love for the detective rushes in at the last min- ute and throws herself into the arms of the Chinese Just in time to stop his taking poison. Many other such "grand stand" plays.could be pout- ed out. The piece is a combination of a dozen others that have gone before, and its characters, in the most in- stances, are totally unreal. The Chinese girl as created in the au- thor's mind and directed by Law- rence Marston is a musical comedy Ingenue, whom we expected every moment to turn out to be no Chinese girl at all. Mary Carroll, as the play developed, was at first blamed for this, but when the final curtain fell the fault had to be shifted to other shoulders. The play has but one part, and as a play does not prove worthy of be- ing considered either as a comedy, a melodrama or a mystery play; it does give the Jap opportunities to shine brilliantly, as he did on the screen, and as his audiences will un- doubtedly be attracted from devotees of the silent drama the blatant shortcomings may be overlooked. The show had been out for a week and a half before reaching Wash- ington and should have had many things "ironed out"; lighting effects went wrong at the opening, a storm, produced by Langdon McCormack, lost its effectiveness because of the clearness of the mechanical work- ings of it, such as roped tree branches that could be plainly seen. Meakin. LOLA IN LOVE Springfield, Mass., Jan. 10. F. C. Coppicus' initial effort in the dramatic field, after having been a concert manager for several years, is the sponsoring of "Lola in Love," a comedy with music. The piece opened Christmas Day in Scranton, Pa., and was at the Court Square here Jan. 8-10. The piece is an adaptation by Irving Caesar of the Berlin operetta by Qusave Kadleburg and Arthur Rebner. The score is by Hugo Hirsch. Julian Mitchell staged the numbers and Herman Beyer directed the comedy. The chief charm of "Lola in Love" is its rich score, admirably -played by a capable special orchestra under the direction of Anton Heindl. Hugo Hirsch has supplied music that Is a delightful reminder of the days when the Viennese operettas were at their best, several of the numbers, especially "One Day" quite captivat- ing the audience, even when the singers failed to get all that there is in them over the footlights. While the ''One Day" number car- ries the dominant theme of the music, several others show that the composer certainly was not forced to play on only a single string. But the book is different. Not so much can be said about It. It is one of "those" translations. A person with a vivid imagination can en- vision the piquancy they possessed in the original, but this piquancy somewhat disappeared after the re- writing. Musical comedy may be piquant if it likes, but a comedy with music must be the most in- nocent of amusements. "Lola" is all of that and, taken literally, makes one wonder what all the emo- tion is about. William Morris, the actor, is at work on the book and the sparkle that seems to be lack- ing now may be injected. I^ay Marbe brings her vivacity, her back kick, and her swirling skirts into play, as the faithful look- ing brunct Lola of the title with occasional livening effects. Her costumes are gorgeous creations. She dances much of the time during the action and at these moments Lola is given purpose. The Spanish dances have decided verse and bril- liance, with Miss Marbe as their fiery exponent. Hal Forde works energetically and often with excellent effect. Tho fact, however, Is that Miss Marbe and Mr. iForde have too much on their shoulders for two persons to (Continued on page 17)