
In May 2011 my biography of W S Gilbert, "Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan," will be published by The History Press. In the meantime I'm going to write about aspects of the book and how it's affecting my life. Here goes....
Thursday, 31 March 2011
It's arrived!

Thursday, 17 March 2011
Plugging the Book

Wednesday, 2 March 2011
More about The Hooligan

In Dornford Yates's 1952 book As Berry and I Were Saying (House of Stratus edition, 2001):
"Berry put in his oar.
"'D'you remember Gilbert's The Hooligan? He was an East-End Jew. And that master, Jimmy Welch, in the title role?'
"'Shall I ever forget it? Women screaming and fainting all over the place. Scene--The Condemned Cell. A cut about twelve by eight in a great back cloth. At The Coliseum, not long before the first war. Which goes to show that Gilbert knew his world.'
"'I'll say he did,' said Berry." (p167)
It may be important to add that Yates's later "Berry" books were really disguised reminiscences, and this fictional conversation clearly derives from Yates's own memories.
In Holbrook Jackson's essay "Why Do We Laugh?" in his volume of essays Occasions (Grant Richards, 1922):
"I always felt that the laughter provoked by [James Welch's] characterization in The Man in the Street was an expression of relief from the underlying tragedy of the thing. But if there is any doubt about that, there could be no doubt whatever about the small gasps of hysterical laughter during his realistic interpretation of the condemned man in Gilbert's little tragedy The Hooligan. The theme is so painful as to be almost unbearable. I have seen people walk out in the midst of this play unable to stand any more of it. Yet those who remained in the grip of the horror, watching Welch revealing the fear of a condemned man during his supposed last few moments on earth--the fear of a man who is half idiot, and who has very little worth preserving in his life--those who remained laughed every now and then at the humour of it. Some things may be too deep for tears, but nothing is too deep for laughter." (pp94-95)
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
The Hooligan

I want to quote some of the responses to the original production, because I think they show that the play provoked a uniquely direct emotional reaction. I'm having difficulty thinking of a parallel in Gilbert's output. The nearest equivalent might be the reaction to Engaged over 30 years before, in 1877--many were shocked by Engaged, though not in the same way as with The Hooligan.
From The Illustrated London News of 11 March 1911:
"We all reckon any stage-work of that veteran, Sir William Gilbert, as peculiarly worthy of attention and respect, but how much more than usually must he challenge our interest when he, the successor of Robertson, the apostle of fantasy, suddenly elects to rival the newest school of our dramatists on their own ground! Has Mr. Galsworthy submitted to us his realistic tragedy of 'Justice' and pictured for us all the horrors of the isolation cell? Sir William Gilbert will go one better: he will confront us with that grimmest of all scenes of human misery--he will show us the condemned murderer being prepared for his fate on the very morning of his execution.... [Precis of plot follows.] So ends a drama that is absolutely sincere, unflinchingly realistic, and makes no concessions in the way of fine writing or sentiment. It bears the very stamp of truth, as it should do, for it is the work of a magistrate, and its whole pathos--and that is irresistible--depends on its never straining a point. If playgoers are not moved by the almost bald simplicity of the episode and by the superb acting of Mr. James Welch as the criminal, then nothing will move them. Mr. Welch's study of awful fear is really great and memorable art. And this play and this acting, if you please, are to be seen, not in an ordinary drama-theatre, but at the Coliseum, or so-called variety-house, for 'The Hooligan' is a 'sketch.'"
Here is a more disapproving reaction from The Observer of 5 March 1911, though I think the reviewer still conveys the power of the play:
"Those who are in search of a 'mauvais quart d'heure' had better hie forthwith to the Coliseum, where, with 'The Hooligan' in his condemned cell, they may be assured of finding what they want. That there are such seekers is shown at the Grand Guignol and elsewhere by the fact that for some men a good shudder is a luxury, just as is for some ladies a good cry. At the Coliseum, though they may be surprised, they will certainly not be disappointed by the masterly and relentless skill with which Sir W.S. Gilbert and Mr. James Welch between them administer the desired sensation as part of an evening's variety entertainment.

Finally, a comment from the Stageland column in the Penny Illustrated Paper of 11 March 1911 (a more racy and perhaps more working class paper than the others):
"It disturbed everyone. Most to applause; a few to resentment. There was the ruddy, ample gentleman whom I met in the bar during what the Col. calls the 'Intermission.' 'You come here to be amused, not to be----" He groped for the word and lost it. 'A man of a morbid turn of mind might think it all right, mightn't he?'
"A play that can wing a ruddy, ample gentleman; leave him puzzled, gasping, unsettled; stir up vague doubtings about killing folk and giving them 'no chanst'--a play like that is a play which you ought to pop in and see at once."
Well--I've nothing to add to that!