Lolah

Extensive description of scenes and list of all cast members.

Long, detailed negative review of the play, with no mention of the music. “The play of ‘Lolah’ is simply filthy, and its presentation is an insult to respectable people. . . . The first act is unspeakably revolting. The stage discloses the deck of a ship, which is supposed to be at sea, in the Indian Ocean. The time is night. The deck is deserted. Suddenly a lady, one of the passengers, rushes forth from her cabin, pursued by the captain of the ship, who is represented as infuriated by drink and by lust, and whose business in the play it actually is to attempt then and there, the act of rape. But, failing in this, he shoots the lady, who falls into the sea, clasping her child in her arms. We describe this offensive scene in plain language, and without exaggeration, in order that the reader may judge as to the justice of our emphatic censure of the play. . . . The solo object of the play would appear to be the exhibition of the personal charms of Miss Rushton . . .  She is a large, phlegmatic person, who makes graceful gestures, but moves awkwardly, whose face is singularly inexpressive, and whose voice, though sweet, is weak. The part of Lolah, which she personated in this play, affords but few opportunities for acting, and those—whether from timidity or inability we cannot undertake to say—Miss Rushton failed to improve.”

“Something new.—We are promised something new, and altogether lovely, at the Olympic, this evening, when a fresh spectacular sensation drama called ‘Lolah’ is to be presented, in which Miss Lucy Rushton will be introduced to our notice, being her first appearance before an American audience.  Miss Lucy is advertised as coming from the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, London, but that won’t help her along any here; if she possesses talent, and understands her business, and does it well, we will not be slow to acknowledge it; but should she rely altogether upon a Haymarket reputation for her success here, Miss Lucy will have to bide her time, and take her chances with our own stock actresses.”

“ ‘Lucy Rushton,’ after being heralded with a great flourish of trumpets, as a great actress from . . . London, made her debut in this country on October 2nd, at the Olympic, in a drama called “Lolah,” said to have been written expressly for her.  The time was when leading parts were filled with men and women of cultivation and genius; but now, even those who essay to play the heroes and heroines of tragedy have fallen from their ‘high estate,’ and in a majority of cases are little superior to their less ambitious brethren. It would appear to be the effort of an expiring struggle that two capitalized names, in accordance with the starring system, stood conspicuously at the head of the bills of the Olympic last week.  Had Miss Rushton appeared in a minor character in almost any other piece and come forward without any pretension as a star, we should not find fault with her performance, for her merit had not then, perhaps, exceeded her desire.  But she boldly challenges criticism by having assumed a different and higher task.  If any of our second rate walking ladies should have the courage and effrontery to go to England and announce herself as a star, and attempt to force herself as such upon the London public, and possessed of there, nor allowed to make a second appearance.  By what right did Miss Rushton claim our support when she possessed of so very little dramatic talent? She has a pretty face, a well-shaped leg and takes every opportunity to let her audience know it, but her voice is not at all suited to the stage, and she is inclined to embonpoint, so much so that her stage walk is very awkward. Backed up by the influence of money, plentifully distributed in the way of printers’ ink, and an expensive wardrobe, the lady entertained the foolish idea that with this, combined with her personal claims, she would succeed, in spite of her lack of talent and a bad piece. The result has shown the lady to be in error, and that the public are not always to be gulled by appearances only. The piece which the lady claims as having been written expressly for her is taken from the spectacle of the ‘Sea of Ice,’ the plot being as near as possible; but it was so badly worked up by the author, and such commonplace language introduced without being at all powerful, the dramatic situations so lamentably deficient, the thoughts not brilliant, and the language so simple, that from the length of the piece it becomes tedious and insipid. The second act represents an island where Lolah is the goddess of a lot of savages.  For this scene, Mr. Baker wrote some very pretty music, for an Indian dance, for the corps de ballet, and it proved to be so ridiculously done by the ballet that it was laughed at and guyed by the audience, and was wisely left out of the piece after the first night. Instead of executing an Indian dance, the ballet had been taught an old-fashioned country dance, and there they were doing all hands round, waltzing up and down the centre, and other figures belonging to an English country dance to the music of an Indian dance. The audience laughed and ridiculed it so heartily, [illeg.] ballet mistook the meaning, and they actually [illeg.] to the delight of many, who enjoyed a hearty laugh over it; one of the ladies of the ballet appeared on the stage without tights wearing merely the long stockings with a string holding them up by being placed around the waist. In attempting to turn a pirouette she presented a scene which can better be imagined than described. This, coupled with the very bad acting of the so called ‘star’ and the weakness of the piece, gave the audience an opportunity of witnessing one of the worst performances seen on the stage of any Broadway theatre for a very long time. The lady was a dead failure, and this is not to be wondered after we knew she played Olinska (an inferior part) at Astley’s Theatre, London, Eng., to Menken’s Mazeppa, and even there and in that subordinate part was a failure. How could she then expect to succeed here as a star at a first class theatre, and before such a critical audience as witnessed her debut? It is a pity that so much money should have been wasted on a piece, as was done by the management. The scenery was really beautiful, and we are told that the success of the piece was looked for more from its scenic effects than the acting or the piece itself. The house was crowded the first night, but the second night it was very queer, or, as the showmen say, ‘quizby.’ So much for the debut of Miss Rushton.”

Rushton “closed her inglorious career at the Olympic, on the 11th, much to the relief of the full strength of the company, as well as of the patrons of the establishment.  Miss Rushton may be said to have grievously failed in her mission here.”