25. Professor Bernhandi
EXTRAOT FROM
THE BIRMINGHAM MAIL,
38. New Strest, Birmingham.
6 4U 1936
—
Propaganda Play.
New features in London’s theatre programme¬
are few. Apart from“ Professor Bernhardi #
(which was given performances by the theatra
societies before the removal of the ban enabled it
to be staged at the Pheenix Theatre), they are
lacking in inspirational qualities. This play is
deliberately controversial and like all plays of
that type its merits are rather hidden by its
propaganda. The theme is the Jewish doctor
who by denwing a Catholic priest access to a
dying woman stirs about him a political hornet’s
nest. Herr Schnitzler has presented for
Continental consumption his own plea for the
scientist and the Jew. It is a plea delivered
with a force that would have been irresistible
had the author been able to understand the real
arguments for the opposite side. Like all propa¬
gandists he dissipates his energy in knocking
down Aunt Sallies of his own conception. So the
triumph passes to Mr. Abraham Sofaer, who, as
a Jew himself, is moved to win hearts to the
doctor’s cause.
Under Mr. Priestley’s management the
Duchess Theatre has given its stage to“ Spring
Tide,? and to Miss Louise Hampton and Mr.
Arthur Sinclair. This comedy of boarding house
failures in rooms managed uneconomically but
delightfully by Miss Hampton, has a great deal
of clumsiness about it. It scems to be a good story
that has gone wrong, but, perhaps, not so far
wrong as many another good story. There areg
moments when the authors, Mr. George Billam
and Mr. Peter Goldsmith, offer promising;
situations, and artistes of the ability of Miss
Hampton and Mr. Sinclair are not found wanting
on such occasions. To hear Mr. Sinclair, in bis
significant brogue, puli a would-be playwright’s
highfalutin nonsense to pieces, is a joy. His
cheerfully cunning diplomacy is always amusing.
and with the shrewd Cockney landlady pietured
by Miss Hampton, as a contrast, the evening
contrives to escape dullness.
Of course, in “ Lady of La Paz?’ at the
Criterion prime attention is centred on
As a
Miss Nova Pilbeam's performancs.
matter of opinion, it is a rather disap¬
pointing one, for Miss Pilbeam seems less
happy on the stage than on the sereen.
Granted that the play leans tothe melodramatic,
the young film star herself is für too“ stagey.)
The story of a Spanish girl who marries a brute
on an impulse and lives to fall in love with a
Foung American, makes unbesitating use of the
appeal of the heroine's innocence. Tet the irony
of the affair is that it is Miss Lilian Braithwaite's
gay sophistication, as the head of the Spanish¬
American family, that saves the evening.
For lighter entertainment there is the new
Blackbirds?' show at the Gaiety, which,
however, scarcely comes up to Mr. Cochran's
usual standard, and certainly bears little!
Blackbirds“
comparison with previons
shtEs. To say that the two comedians had
to black their faces is a commentary
on
the show.
but a few scenes does it
get near the grandiloquent claims of the
programme, as an example of the culture of the
American negro. For the most part it is a verr
st revne, and not very funny.
K
box 3175
——
EXTRACT EROM
Kd
— 7 Aue 1936
De¬
Notes on the Drama
By Mrs. Steuart Erskine
PHOENIX THEATRE
DROFESSOR BERNHARDI, by Arthur
Schnitzler, was first seen at the
Embassy Theatre from whence it has been
transferred to the Phoenix, It is a grim
drama by an author whio is better known as
a cynical writer of comedy than as one
cccupied with the deeper sources of human
sentiment. The story, in a nutshell, is con¬
cerned with the scientist’s refusal to allow a
Ipriest to give extreme unction to a dying
girl, on tlie plea that it would make her last
sminutes on earth unhappy if she were told
Ithat she was about to die. The question,
What is happiness?“ arises and the inter¬
esting point is that it is shown under
different aspects as seen by the characters.
Meanwhile the girl dies.
This event occurs in the first scene of the
first Act, but the consequences are shown
throughout the play. Professor Bernhardi is
made to suffer for obstructing the priest, he
loses his post as head of the Elizabeth Insti¬
tute and is finally imprisoned for two
months. He comes out as determined as
ever that what he did was right and was
his duty. The priest, well acted by Mr.
Bernard Merefield, in a scene towards the
close of the play begins by expressing his
regret that the professor, who, after all, acted
according to his conscience, should have
suffered because of his complaint, but re¬
tracts his admission when he thinks that the
Jew acted really because he hated everything
that the priest stood for. But they shake
hands and part as honourable focs. The chief
motive of the play is worked out amid a
tangle of intrigue among the doctors and pro¬
fessors, most of whom are out to advance
their own interests at the expense of
Bernhardi. The Jew professor is the most
interesting character in the piece, and he
comes to life very convincingly in the hands
of Mr. Abraham Sofaer. Mr. Earle Gray is
excellent as his supplanter and Mr. Ronald
Adam, who was part translator and also pro¬
ducer of the play, scored as Dr. Flint, as
did Mr. Garside as Professor Cyprian.
The play, which was well acted, is one of
those“ conversation pieces“ which have
no action: long arguments and. with the ex¬
ception of the committee scene, very little
drama, yet with a tense interest which pre¬
vents stagnation. It is a restless production
in which there are constant entrances and
exits and in which thecharacters are always
standing as if they were just onthe point of
going somewhere to catch a train. A very
interesting play, unnsual and stimulating.
EXTRAOT FROM
THE BIRMINGHAM MAIL,
38. New Strest, Birmingham.
6 4U 1936
—
Propaganda Play.
New features in London’s theatre programme¬
are few. Apart from“ Professor Bernhardi #
(which was given performances by the theatra
societies before the removal of the ban enabled it
to be staged at the Pheenix Theatre), they are
lacking in inspirational qualities. This play is
deliberately controversial and like all plays of
that type its merits are rather hidden by its
propaganda. The theme is the Jewish doctor
who by denwing a Catholic priest access to a
dying woman stirs about him a political hornet’s
nest. Herr Schnitzler has presented for
Continental consumption his own plea for the
scientist and the Jew. It is a plea delivered
with a force that would have been irresistible
had the author been able to understand the real
arguments for the opposite side. Like all propa¬
gandists he dissipates his energy in knocking
down Aunt Sallies of his own conception. So the
triumph passes to Mr. Abraham Sofaer, who, as
a Jew himself, is moved to win hearts to the
doctor’s cause.
Under Mr. Priestley’s management the
Duchess Theatre has given its stage to“ Spring
Tide,? and to Miss Louise Hampton and Mr.
Arthur Sinclair. This comedy of boarding house
failures in rooms managed uneconomically but
delightfully by Miss Hampton, has a great deal
of clumsiness about it. It scems to be a good story
that has gone wrong, but, perhaps, not so far
wrong as many another good story. There areg
moments when the authors, Mr. George Billam
and Mr. Peter Goldsmith, offer promising;
situations, and artistes of the ability of Miss
Hampton and Mr. Sinclair are not found wanting
on such occasions. To hear Mr. Sinclair, in bis
significant brogue, puli a would-be playwright’s
highfalutin nonsense to pieces, is a joy. His
cheerfully cunning diplomacy is always amusing.
and with the shrewd Cockney landlady pietured
by Miss Hampton, as a contrast, the evening
contrives to escape dullness.
Of course, in “ Lady of La Paz?’ at the
Criterion prime attention is centred on
As a
Miss Nova Pilbeam's performancs.
matter of opinion, it is a rather disap¬
pointing one, for Miss Pilbeam seems less
happy on the stage than on the sereen.
Granted that the play leans tothe melodramatic,
the young film star herself is für too“ stagey.)
The story of a Spanish girl who marries a brute
on an impulse and lives to fall in love with a
Foung American, makes unbesitating use of the
appeal of the heroine's innocence. Tet the irony
of the affair is that it is Miss Lilian Braithwaite's
gay sophistication, as the head of the Spanish¬
American family, that saves the evening.
For lighter entertainment there is the new
Blackbirds?' show at the Gaiety, which,
however, scarcely comes up to Mr. Cochran's
usual standard, and certainly bears little!
Blackbirds“
comparison with previons
shtEs. To say that the two comedians had
to black their faces is a commentary
on
the show.
but a few scenes does it
get near the grandiloquent claims of the
programme, as an example of the culture of the
American negro. For the most part it is a verr
st revne, and not very funny.
K
box 3175
——
EXTRACT EROM
Kd
— 7 Aue 1936
De¬
Notes on the Drama
By Mrs. Steuart Erskine
PHOENIX THEATRE
DROFESSOR BERNHARDI, by Arthur
Schnitzler, was first seen at the
Embassy Theatre from whence it has been
transferred to the Phoenix, It is a grim
drama by an author whio is better known as
a cynical writer of comedy than as one
cccupied with the deeper sources of human
sentiment. The story, in a nutshell, is con¬
cerned with the scientist’s refusal to allow a
Ipriest to give extreme unction to a dying
girl, on tlie plea that it would make her last
sminutes on earth unhappy if she were told
Ithat she was about to die. The question,
What is happiness?“ arises and the inter¬
esting point is that it is shown under
different aspects as seen by the characters.
Meanwhile the girl dies.
This event occurs in the first scene of the
first Act, but the consequences are shown
throughout the play. Professor Bernhardi is
made to suffer for obstructing the priest, he
loses his post as head of the Elizabeth Insti¬
tute and is finally imprisoned for two
months. He comes out as determined as
ever that what he did was right and was
his duty. The priest, well acted by Mr.
Bernard Merefield, in a scene towards the
close of the play begins by expressing his
regret that the professor, who, after all, acted
according to his conscience, should have
suffered because of his complaint, but re¬
tracts his admission when he thinks that the
Jew acted really because he hated everything
that the priest stood for. But they shake
hands and part as honourable focs. The chief
motive of the play is worked out amid a
tangle of intrigue among the doctors and pro¬
fessors, most of whom are out to advance
their own interests at the expense of
Bernhardi. The Jew professor is the most
interesting character in the piece, and he
comes to life very convincingly in the hands
of Mr. Abraham Sofaer. Mr. Earle Gray is
excellent as his supplanter and Mr. Ronald
Adam, who was part translator and also pro¬
ducer of the play, scored as Dr. Flint, as
did Mr. Garside as Professor Cyprian.
The play, which was well acted, is one of
those“ conversation pieces“ which have
no action: long arguments and. with the ex¬
ception of the committee scene, very little
drama, yet with a tense interest which pre¬
vents stagnation. It is a restless production
in which there are constant entrances and
exits and in which thecharacters are always
standing as if they were just onthe point of
going somewhere to catch a train. A very
interesting play, unnsual and stimulating.