EXTRACT FROM
DAILY MIRROR,
Gereidine House, Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane,
E.C. 4
16 JUl. 1936
Date
FIRST NICHT
Doorek PaLst
BV DUR DRAMATIC CRITIC
AS a doctor the right to refuse a priest
H access to a dying patient?
This is the question which is argued skilfully
and fiercely in“ Professor Bernhardi, the play
by Schnitzler, which was recently produced at
the Embassy, and has now been transferred
to the Pheenix.
The play, banned in Germany and Austria.
Idevelops into an exposition of anti-Semitism,
quite foreign to anything that could happen in
this country. Nevertheless, it makes an excit¬
ing dramatic entertainment, and people argue
the point warmly in the intervals.
Abraham Sobaer repeats his forceful port¬
B. B.
rait of the Jewish surgeon.
Extract from:
JEVISH CHRONTCLE
—
London
17.7.36
JULY 17, 1936
THE JEWISH
Theatre
* Professor Bernhardi
Schnitzler’s Magnificent Drama
A STUDY IN ANTI-SEMITISM
Only a few weeks ago, this brilliaut classic of Schnitzler’s was
presented at the Embassy Theatre. It has now been put on in the
West End at the Phenix Theatre; and even seeing it again after
80 short an interval, the power and interest ofthe work grip one
afresh.
Apart fromthe intense interest which holds the attention from start
to finish—the brilliant dialogue and the valuable light which the play
throws upon the psychology of anti-Semitism —the very evenness with
which the anthor holds the seales in the case of the Trofessor, lends the
story a vivid reality and raises the discn-sion to a pläne of immediate
importance. What Schnitzier shows—and it is a depressing thought that
this is as evident to-day as it was when he wrote the play many
Fears before the War—is that the antipathy to the Jew in its“
original primitive form, is only a
very little of the whole
trouble. It is the thousand and onc interests and occasions for
sellish opportunism which, building upon the brutish base of hate, raise
upthe hideous super-structure of anti-Semitism as a political or social or
superstitions erced. Again I must point out that this play in no way
attempts to portray the conflict between the Jewish and Christian attitude
on the purely religions plane. Schnitzler carefully shows us the priest
and the Jewish doctor respecting eachother as two honest men, separated
by differences of dogma, but both capable of contributing to the good of
mankind. It is the intrusion of the mean, the selfish, the billiously¬
hating and dishonestly-jealons among men that produces the urge to
persecute the Jew, and raises an incident into a malicious generalisation.
It has been suggested by no less an authority on theatrical matters
than Mr. Sydney Carroll, writing on this great play, that, from bis
experienee, Christians as a rule are far more interested in plays of a
Jewish problem nature than are Jews theinselves. There may be some
truth in this, truth which is by no means a pleasant reflection on Jewish
theatre-goers. But, thank Heaven, it ouly applies to the least admirable
along our Community, and is not unconnected with that ugly symnptom
of immnority self-consciousness which, misunderstood and not examined
with a symnpathetie reference to its causes, mag have helped to produce
that popular theory that the persecuted “generallv ask for it.“' Let
us hope that on this occasion the London Jewish Comnmunitv will give
practical refutation to Mr. Carroll’s suggestion—no oue will be more
gratified than that distinguished writer himself.
The cast at the Phoenix is largely the same as that at the former
production. Again Abraham Sofaer gives a magnificent performance
as the Professor. It it amusing to hear people blaming the Jewish
doctor’s stubbornness, merelg because he insisted on doing what was,
in his view, unquestionablz right. How the forcc of morality has weakened
since the day's of the categorical imperative! Mr. Sofaer suggests a
genuinelg Jewish moral determination and thie prophetie refusal to com¬
promise, combined with a deep humane kindliness which sees in man,
physical and suffering man, not a play-thing for the gods, but the image
of God Hunself. It is a noble and inspiring performance, inevitably
winning our syinpathy ichere we are not too prejidiced. Ronald Adam’s
version of the political opportunist is again delightful, wickedly true to
life and oozing the unctuonsness of the fellow. Earle Grey takes the
cold and scheming Ebenwald in a very convincing manner, the true
obnoxionsness of which, as happens in real life with such persons, rises
more as an after-odour thian upon innnediate contact—a clever piece of
acting.
For every one who is not entirely devoid of brains,“ Bernhardi''
presents a real theatre treat—intelligently, exeiting, topically valuable
and lasting in its impressiveness. For the Jew, it presents a double
attraction, for-beeis not merelg outstle it all but verr much Vof'’ the
Grama.
No! No! Nanette“
DAILY MIRROR,
Gereidine House, Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane,
E.C. 4
16 JUl. 1936
Date
FIRST NICHT
Doorek PaLst
BV DUR DRAMATIC CRITIC
AS a doctor the right to refuse a priest
H access to a dying patient?
This is the question which is argued skilfully
and fiercely in“ Professor Bernhardi, the play
by Schnitzler, which was recently produced at
the Embassy, and has now been transferred
to the Pheenix.
The play, banned in Germany and Austria.
Idevelops into an exposition of anti-Semitism,
quite foreign to anything that could happen in
this country. Nevertheless, it makes an excit¬
ing dramatic entertainment, and people argue
the point warmly in the intervals.
Abraham Sobaer repeats his forceful port¬
B. B.
rait of the Jewish surgeon.
Extract from:
JEVISH CHRONTCLE
—
London
17.7.36
JULY 17, 1936
THE JEWISH
Theatre
* Professor Bernhardi
Schnitzler’s Magnificent Drama
A STUDY IN ANTI-SEMITISM
Only a few weeks ago, this brilliaut classic of Schnitzler’s was
presented at the Embassy Theatre. It has now been put on in the
West End at the Phenix Theatre; and even seeing it again after
80 short an interval, the power and interest ofthe work grip one
afresh.
Apart fromthe intense interest which holds the attention from start
to finish—the brilliant dialogue and the valuable light which the play
throws upon the psychology of anti-Semitism —the very evenness with
which the anthor holds the seales in the case of the Trofessor, lends the
story a vivid reality and raises the discn-sion to a pläne of immediate
importance. What Schnitzier shows—and it is a depressing thought that
this is as evident to-day as it was when he wrote the play many
Fears before the War—is that the antipathy to the Jew in its“
original primitive form, is only a
very little of the whole
trouble. It is the thousand and onc interests and occasions for
sellish opportunism which, building upon the brutish base of hate, raise
upthe hideous super-structure of anti-Semitism as a political or social or
superstitions erced. Again I must point out that this play in no way
attempts to portray the conflict between the Jewish and Christian attitude
on the purely religions plane. Schnitzler carefully shows us the priest
and the Jewish doctor respecting eachother as two honest men, separated
by differences of dogma, but both capable of contributing to the good of
mankind. It is the intrusion of the mean, the selfish, the billiously¬
hating and dishonestly-jealons among men that produces the urge to
persecute the Jew, and raises an incident into a malicious generalisation.
It has been suggested by no less an authority on theatrical matters
than Mr. Sydney Carroll, writing on this great play, that, from bis
experienee, Christians as a rule are far more interested in plays of a
Jewish problem nature than are Jews theinselves. There may be some
truth in this, truth which is by no means a pleasant reflection on Jewish
theatre-goers. But, thank Heaven, it ouly applies to the least admirable
along our Community, and is not unconnected with that ugly symnptom
of immnority self-consciousness which, misunderstood and not examined
with a symnpathetie reference to its causes, mag have helped to produce
that popular theory that the persecuted “generallv ask for it.“' Let
us hope that on this occasion the London Jewish Comnmunitv will give
practical refutation to Mr. Carroll’s suggestion—no oue will be more
gratified than that distinguished writer himself.
The cast at the Phoenix is largely the same as that at the former
production. Again Abraham Sofaer gives a magnificent performance
as the Professor. It it amusing to hear people blaming the Jewish
doctor’s stubbornness, merelg because he insisted on doing what was,
in his view, unquestionablz right. How the forcc of morality has weakened
since the day's of the categorical imperative! Mr. Sofaer suggests a
genuinelg Jewish moral determination and thie prophetie refusal to com¬
promise, combined with a deep humane kindliness which sees in man,
physical and suffering man, not a play-thing for the gods, but the image
of God Hunself. It is a noble and inspiring performance, inevitably
winning our syinpathy ichere we are not too prejidiced. Ronald Adam’s
version of the political opportunist is again delightful, wickedly true to
life and oozing the unctuonsness of the fellow. Earle Grey takes the
cold and scheming Ebenwald in a very convincing manner, the true
obnoxionsness of which, as happens in real life with such persons, rises
more as an after-odour thian upon innnediate contact—a clever piece of
acting.
For every one who is not entirely devoid of brains,“ Bernhardi''
presents a real theatre treat—intelligently, exeiting, topically valuable
and lasting in its impressiveness. For the Jew, it presents a double
attraction, for-beeis not merelg outstle it all but verr much Vof'’ the
Grama.
No! No! Nanette“