25. ProfeseBernhand
S
HXTRAOT FROM
ILLOSTRATED SPORTING & DRAKTTIC HENS,
346, Strand, M.0.2
Date -A6-IE-1936—
would be difficult to imagine less
1 fruitful material for comedy-at first
sight—than the refusal by a Jewish doctor
to allow a dring Roman Catholic woman
to be attended by a
priest — not on religious
grounds but because he
thought that the sight
of the priest would lessen
her hold on what little
life remained. That, and
its aftermath, is the plot
of Professor Bern¬
hardi,“ a version at the
Embassy of a play by
the famous Schnitzler.
A verv good version,
too, by Mr. Louis Borell
and Mr. Ronald Adam,
who also appears in it.
do not say that
here is roaring farce:
that would be in the
extreme unscemly. But
the irony of the subse¬
quent religious and poli¬
tical discussions (for the
dloctor’s action puts the
whole town in a fer¬
ment) has its comedy
aspect. The original
solemn situation is used
only as a peg on which
to hang an abundance of
issues, most of which are
of interest to English
audiences, though some
are not.
Had this play been
acted even fairly to mod¬
erately it would have
been a bore, and pos¬
sibly an inegpplicable
bore. Fortunately the
acting, above all that
of Mr. Abraham Sofaer
as the Jew, is on as
high a plane as the dia¬
logue, and that is the
best praise. Mr. Adam
as a vacillating politician,
Mr. Bernard Meredith (the priest) and
Mr. Alan Wheatley are to the fore in this
original but attractive play.
box 31/5
.L.4.
EXTRACT FROM
A#u
#ruld
26 JUN 1936
Date —
The Play
PROFESSOR BERNHARD!'
4
KIND LADY? HELEN HOWE
WINTER SUNSHINE'
*
It is too mild to say that Professor Bern¬
hardi is an unfortunate play—it would be
nearer the truth to say that it is definitely
a pernicious play in that it deliberately
misrepresents three classes of people who
have already seen much too much mis¬
representation: doctors, Jews, and Catho¬
lics. It also succeeds in reducing all its
horrid characters to#the same low-prin¬
cipled, spiteful, and sinall-minded level.
Its theme is the Jew versus Catholic con¬
troversy (or the ancient Church versus
Science controversy), and the play has
been translated from the German original
of Arthur Schnitzler.
The opening scene (the only one with#
any semblance of action) gives the im¬
petus to set the ball of discussion and dis¬
sembling rolling.
A girl lies dying in a ward off-stage and
the audience learns that although her state
gives absolutely no hope for recovery, she
is blissfully unaware of her dangerous con¬
dition and happily imagines that she is
waiting for a friend to feich her home.
The priest (a Catholic) arrives to visit##
her and is met at the door by the doctor
(a Jew) who forbids the priest access to
the ward.t is my business,' says the
doctor, to see that my patients have a
peaceful and happy death, and he infers
that the sight of a priest will necessarily
terrify his patient and cause her to die
less peacefully than if she were allowed to
remain in her present fool’s paradise. He
forbids the priest access, he avers, not for
anti-clerical reasons but because the action
appears the cnly humane thing to do.
So starts the row which continues amid
scheming and intrigue among doctors and
politicians until the end of the play.
If the Church comes off badly in the
hands of a gentlemanly but completeiy in¬
effectual and unspiritual stage prelate, the
Jews come off equally badly from the
priggish self-righieousness of the semitic
doctor, and the medical world is revealed
as a network of jealous intrigucs.
I. C.
—.—
S
HXTRAOT FROM
ILLOSTRATED SPORTING & DRAKTTIC HENS,
346, Strand, M.0.2
Date -A6-IE-1936—
would be difficult to imagine less
1 fruitful material for comedy-at first
sight—than the refusal by a Jewish doctor
to allow a dring Roman Catholic woman
to be attended by a
priest — not on religious
grounds but because he
thought that the sight
of the priest would lessen
her hold on what little
life remained. That, and
its aftermath, is the plot
of Professor Bern¬
hardi,“ a version at the
Embassy of a play by
the famous Schnitzler.
A verv good version,
too, by Mr. Louis Borell
and Mr. Ronald Adam,
who also appears in it.
do not say that
here is roaring farce:
that would be in the
extreme unscemly. But
the irony of the subse¬
quent religious and poli¬
tical discussions (for the
dloctor’s action puts the
whole town in a fer¬
ment) has its comedy
aspect. The original
solemn situation is used
only as a peg on which
to hang an abundance of
issues, most of which are
of interest to English
audiences, though some
are not.
Had this play been
acted even fairly to mod¬
erately it would have
been a bore, and pos¬
sibly an inegpplicable
bore. Fortunately the
acting, above all that
of Mr. Abraham Sofaer
as the Jew, is on as
high a plane as the dia¬
logue, and that is the
best praise. Mr. Adam
as a vacillating politician,
Mr. Bernard Meredith (the priest) and
Mr. Alan Wheatley are to the fore in this
original but attractive play.
box 31/5
.L.4.
EXTRACT FROM
A#u
#ruld
26 JUN 1936
Date —
The Play
PROFESSOR BERNHARD!'
4
KIND LADY? HELEN HOWE
WINTER SUNSHINE'
*
It is too mild to say that Professor Bern¬
hardi is an unfortunate play—it would be
nearer the truth to say that it is definitely
a pernicious play in that it deliberately
misrepresents three classes of people who
have already seen much too much mis¬
representation: doctors, Jews, and Catho¬
lics. It also succeeds in reducing all its
horrid characters to#the same low-prin¬
cipled, spiteful, and sinall-minded level.
Its theme is the Jew versus Catholic con¬
troversy (or the ancient Church versus
Science controversy), and the play has
been translated from the German original
of Arthur Schnitzler.
The opening scene (the only one with#
any semblance of action) gives the im¬
petus to set the ball of discussion and dis¬
sembling rolling.
A girl lies dying in a ward off-stage and
the audience learns that although her state
gives absolutely no hope for recovery, she
is blissfully unaware of her dangerous con¬
dition and happily imagines that she is
waiting for a friend to feich her home.
The priest (a Catholic) arrives to visit##
her and is met at the door by the doctor
(a Jew) who forbids the priest access to
the ward.t is my business,' says the
doctor, to see that my patients have a
peaceful and happy death, and he infers
that the sight of a priest will necessarily
terrify his patient and cause her to die
less peacefully than if she were allowed to
remain in her present fool’s paradise. He
forbids the priest access, he avers, not for
anti-clerical reasons but because the action
appears the cnly humane thing to do.
So starts the row which continues amid
scheming and intrigue among doctors and
politicians until the end of the play.
If the Church comes off badly in the
hands of a gentlemanly but completeiy in¬
effectual and unspiritual stage prelate, the
Jews come off equally badly from the
priggish self-righieousness of the semitic
doctor, and the medical world is revealed
as a network of jealous intrigucs.
I. C.
—.—