New Theatre, London

Cast included: M Dusquesne (Colonel Felt), Yvonne Mirval (Monique, his wife), M Van den Bosch (Glogau and the mayor), R Tourneur (wine merchant Comte), M Claude Berton (Marcel Beaucourt), Mlle Minne (Therese), Mlle Vara (Annette), Mlle Depernay (the Baron's wife)

'The piece has many amusing moments, and the first act promised very well. The succeeding acts are, perhaps, too reminiscent in familiar stage business, and such wit as there is in the dialogue is too much of the purely verbal kind' (Reynold’s Newspaper, 18 April 1915). ‘Farcical comedy seems to have one idea, which, however, is exploited with a good deal of success in “The Joker” [which] deals with its conventional situation ingeniously and effectively ... The plot is worked out with much ingenuity, and the authors have the assistance of a really fine cast ... The piece had a friendly reception, and seems to be bound for success’ (The People, 18 April 1915). The play ‘has the merit of touching upon the war without containing anything “hurtful,” although it must be confessed that even the most accomplished of farce actors could hardly have saved the last act from being tedious’ (Sporting Life, 19 April 1915). '... there are stretches ... of sheer romping in the action of the piece, that seem to reflect a study of past successes in this medium rather than the natural development of a humorous idea. There is too much mechanical piling on of detail, and too violent alternation of the probable and the preposterous’ (Pall Mall Gazette, 19 April 1915). 'Whether it is good taste to write a farce upon topics connected with the present war is a matter upon which opinions may differ . Some people will probably take offence. There is certainly no intention to offend in [this] complicated mechanical piece ... There is a great deal of rushing about, of mistaken identity, of lying, and the other ingredients of farce, but the work lacks freshness of treatment. The somewhat jejune plot was handled with no great skill, and before the end was reached most of the easy humour had evaporated’ (The Scotsman, 19 April 1915). '“The Joker” is a laborious work. The machinery creaks and groans, and the fun is not fast or furious: indeed, such as it is, it flags sadly during the last act … it lacks the element of freshness, exhibits no great mechanical skill, and does not possess the grain of good sense desirable, even necessary, in farce' (Westminster Gazette, 19 April 1915). '“The Joker" ... recalls the old unhappy far-off things of the early ‘nineties. [It] is a curious blend of farce and melodrama and not very successful when viewed from either aspect’ (Daily Citizen (Manchester), 19 April 1915). ‘Towards the end of the first act, and even beyond it, I was quite prepared to chronicle a genuine success for the farce at the New Theatre last night ... Ernest Schofield and John Ramsay had conceived an original idea and had endowed it with plenty of wholesome, honest fun; but only up to a point. There was a dreadfully weak third act, and the briskness and merriment “petered” out woefully, much to the disappointment of a disillusioned audience' (Manchester Courier, 19 April 1915). 'The whole thing, despite the army of comic German spies, is very English and old-fashioned in its humour, but that does not make it any the worse. Some of it reminded me of “Charley’s Aunt,” and one scene is strongly reminiscent of “Are You a Mason?”’ (Daily Mirror, 19 April 1915). ‘If only the fun could have been kept up through the last act! This is the concluding reflection on “The Joker"' (Globe, 19 April 1915). 'The farcical comedy is amusing enough, and that is the main thing’ (Gloucester Citizen, 21 April 1915). ‘It was inevitable that sooner or later other plays should appear of the same type as the farcical spy play, “The Man Who Stayed at Home" ... “The Joker” ... is just the same sort of “jolly good fun,” and can be enjoyed in the same uncritical, indiscriminating fashion' (The Era, 21 April 1915). ‘If the following acts had been as bright as the first and had carried out as happily the root-idea of that act, The Joker would have been an entertaining piece enough. But [the authors] do not maintain their very promising start, and The Joker shares the too common fate of three-act farces, too common for the reason that pieces of these dimensions call for uncommon ingenuity and resource to keep the fun going act after act. Unfortunately the second act of The Joker shows, as it seems to us, wrong lines of development, and the last is very weak. The device of female masquerade in farces has been fairly well exhausted in Charley’s Aunt, and at all events to be employed successfully it must be treated with more comic invention than the present collaborators reveal … The piece on Saturday aroused a good deal of laughter, but some sounds of disapproval mingled with the applause on the final fall of the curtain’ (The Stage, 22 April 1915). ‘“The Joker” … presented at the New Theatre, does not seem to have satisfied those who sit in judgment on plays. It is alleged to be “mechanical,” and to suffer from having three separate stories not well welded together ... it does not promise to be a great success, though modifications made since the first night’s production make its prospect more hopeful’ (Leicester Daily Post, 24 April 1915). ‘Had only the promise of the first act been fulfilled, success would have followed ... but unfortunately the farce fell all to pieces about halfway through, and visions of “Are You a Mason,” “Charley's Aunt,” and “The Man who Stayed at Home” got so mixed up that the poor Joker ceased to be funny and became merely reminiscent’ (The Queen (The Lady’s Newspaper), 24 April 1915). ‘The reception was not too enthusiastic, and we fear that the farce hardly possesses sufficient grip to presage a long run’ (Sporting Times, 24 April 1915). 'The authors of “The Joker" ... have taken notice of the criticism passed on their play, and have realised that to be successful a piece must not mix up the dramatic elements. They have, therefore, cut out the melodramatic episodes in their work, and by doing so have considerably lightened it. “The Joker” is now played as a rollicking farce, and as such is an excellent entertainment’ (The People, 25 April 1915). 'It is ... one of the most extravagant and least plausible of the recent crop [of farces]' (The Sketch, 28 April 1915).. 'The play is not really in the least funny, and even if it were, the time has hardly come yet to be funny about the war. And a dull farce about the war seems to have no possible raison d’être. I do not think “The Joker” will be with us for very long’ (Truth, 28 April 1915). The Daily News (London), Saturday 1 May 1915, advertised matinée and evening performances of The Joker at the New Theatre that day. ‘… the short life of “The Joker” does not, by any means, impair the vitality of the Fenn- Clarke management, shortly to be responsible for another production’ (Globe, 3 May 1915).

Performed until 12 June. All proceeds donated to the Wounded Allies' Relief Committee. Performed by Martin Harvey and Charles Glenney as the German villain. 'a crowded and enthusiastic audience. If Mr. Stephen Phillips failed to rise to the height his great argument, the applause and frequent calls seemed to ignore the fact. He has set himself stupendous task.' (Liverpool Daily Post, 3 June 1915) 'We are still of the opinion that he is the wise dramatist who makes no attempt to build a play upon this world-war. Sir James Barrie made effort in miniature in 'Der Tag' and failure was the result; Mr. Stephen Phillips has put his colours upon a larger canvas, but has not succeeded in giving the great play, destined some day, perhaps, to link the drama with the fields of Flanders. Both Sir James Barrie and Mr. Philips have realised that only by loftiness of theme and treatment is it possible to give expression to the thoughts and emotions that are sweeping across Europe. But the latest as in the earlier essay the theme is too great for expression, and only in transitory moments do we get a suggestion of that epic drama which the author has sought to unfold. It seems to us that Mr. Phillips has overweighted himself by the form in which he has cast his play, for while he gives us prologue in Hades, by no means lacking in dramatic strength, he carries us from the Shades to scenes contrast of banal melodrama. Mr. Phillips shows his mastery of the written word in this as in other of his and the address of Satan to Attila, Moloch, Beelzebub, and Belial not without its fine phrases. [...] . But while we applaud the author in his bigger moments, his treatment of what we can only describe as incidents and episodes the war itself add nothing to the vigour or dignity of his effort. The scene in French chateau overlooking Pdieims a bullying German officer, a brave Frenchman who dares to keep silence under brutal threats, a peasant girl, insulted who averts the worst with a pistol shot, and an asphyxiating bomb which “petrifies” the enemy, has little about it of epic. Nor can we applaud the succeeding episode," entitled An English Orchard,” where a mother and a lover learn of the death of a lad in the trenches. There is so much of the real poignancy bereavement that such cardboard emotions were offered last right jar upon the senses, and seem to be of the nature of theatrical impertinence. As for the satire on the German Press Bureau, it seemed to us but poor fooling, and it was not until we reach Cologne, where the victorious Allies tread at last the soil of Germany, that the author came anywhere near to that fine seriousness which is the only proper treatment for a vast and dreadful theme. Three commanders of the Allied forces discuss the fate of the great cathedral. France and Beltrium in burning words claim the reward that only a great revenge can give, and last night’s audience was moved by the pleadings of the French commander, admirably offered Sir. Edward Sass, and even more by the eloquence of the spokesman for ravished Belgium in the person of Mr. Fisher White. [...] The piay was well received. (Globe, Weds 2 June 1915)

‘A matinée is to take place at the New Theatre, on Friday, March 16, being St. Patrick's Eve, in aid of the Comforts Funds of the Royal Munster Fusiliers. The Duke and Duchess of Connaught and the Princess Patricia have promised their patronage. The programme will include … sketches performed by Mr. Charles Hawtrey and Miss Gladys Cooper, and by Mr. Gerald du Maurier and Miss Mabel Russell respectively’. The Sketch, Wednesday 14 March 1917. The sketch performed by Gerald du Maurier and Mabel Russell is likely to have been A Bit of a Lad which they were performing at other charity events in March-July 1917.

Performed by G. H. Mulcaster (Private Dowie), Jean Cadell Mrs. Dowie), Claire Greet, Ivy Williams, Pollie Emery (charladies). Other pieces on the same bill were: 'Wurzle- Flummery' by A. A. Milne, and 'Seven Women' by J. M. Barrie, with Irene Vanburgh.

‘On behalf of the West London Training Ship, Stork, which is moored in the Thames, off The Mall, at Hammersmith, a successful special matinee was held on Friday afternoon [presumably 18 May 1917] at the New Theatre, St. Martin’s Lane, W.C. … The Stork has been lent by the Admiralty to the Kensington Branch of the Navy League for the purpose of training working lads for the sea … The matinee was largely attended, the audience including a number of wounded soldiers. Some well-known artistes gave their services … The piece “A Bit of a Lad,” by Mr. A. Neil Lyons, was admirably acted by Miss Mabel Russell, who took the part of “Hookey Walker,” and Mr. Gerald du Maurier who represented “The Lad.”’ West London Observer, Friday 25 May 1917.

‘A most enjoyable afternoon was provided on Thursday [12 July 1917] at the New Theatre, in aid of hostels for limbless sailors and soldiers by the Eccentric Club … It was announced that the matinée would produce no less than £1,000 - the fund has in all raised some £10,000 … In “A Bit of a Lad” the toffish private and the frank, well-meaning shopgirl were delightfully impersonated by Mr. Gerald du Maurier and Miss Mabel Russell’. The Era, 18 July 1917. ‘To the considerable fund that the Eccentric Club is accumulating for its hostels for soldiers and sailors who have lost limbs in the war another £1,000 or so was added by means of the matinée given at ]the New Theatre] on Friday. An attractive programme drew together a large audience, undeterred by guinea stalls and half-guinea circle seats … A. Neil Lyons’s “A Bit of a Lad,” [was] once more most happily played by Mr. Gerald du Maurier as the lad and Miss Mabel as the cockney girl’. The Stage, 19 July 1917.

'At the New Theatre next Friday a matinee will be held in aid of the Royal Naval and Marine Orphanage Home and the British Club for Belgian Soldiers. This will be the only occasion on which will be performed Libre Belgique a play by the Belgian actor-dramatist, Mr. Charles Montbars. Five of the most famous Raemaeker war cartoons will he arranged as tableaux vivants by Lady Diana Manners, who will figure these, together with Lady Gwendoline Churchill, Lady Drogheda, and the Hon. Mrs. H. Nicholson, Mrs. John Lavery, Mrs. Aubrey Herbert, and little Lord Eleho (Globe, Monday 2 July 1917)

The Times, Monday 18 December 1933, announced that the Queen would that day attend a matinée performance of A Kiss for Cinderella at the New Theatre in aid of the Winter Distress League. The Scotsman and several other newspapers, 19 December 1933, reported the occasion.

The Times, 2 January 1934, advertised a special matinée performance of A Kiss for Cinderella in aid of the Winter Distress League at the New Theatre on Monday 15 January. Also The Bystander, 10 January 1934.

The Times, 28 February 1934, announced that a Star matinée performance of A Kiss for Cinderella would take place at the New Theatre on Monday 5 March in aid of the Winter Distress League.