AustLit

The critics writing for the two major Melbourne newspapers appear to be divided in their appreciation of both Eville's introduction and the production overall, although both reviews note the impressive scenic art by Henry Holmes and assistants. The Age records, for example:

'The first scene, which treats the audience to a resurrection of King Cheops and a lot of mummies, is pure irrelevancy and ought to be excised. Its only redeeming features were figures of the Sphinx and a gigantic Egyptian idol, which amused the audience somewhat by opening its mouth, rolling its eyes and apparently joining in a chorus. The next scene, representing the Mountains of the Moon, was a vile daub; and the action being totally unconnected with the plot, the whole should be cut out with the first.... The third scene is described as an Elysian Grove, and presented a very pretty tableau when disclosed. A cascade of real water (and no mistake) tumbled at the back of the stage, being however covered for the comfort of the performers and audience with glass. Down each side of the scene there were ranged half a dozen ornamental pedestals upon each of which ranged a very elegant young lady in white and gentlemen in red, attired al la Watteau. The effect was remarkably striking...we have to remark [however] that it is a pure excrescence, but still too beautiful and novel to be done away with. Although suggesting that 'the subject is a splendid one for a children's pantomime', the critic's overall opinion of the premiere was that much work was required if the management wanted to make the production a success (28 December 1868, p.3).

The Argus review, which focuses its critique on the artistic settings (described overall as 'charming'), while also providing a synopsis of both the introductory and main plotlines suggests a more positive experience:

'Sinbad the Sailor, as adapted and localised for the Duke of Edinburgh Theatre is a light, agreeable and amusing piece', writes the paper's critic. '[It is] one that can be enjoyed alike by old and young folks, and which on account of its moderate but sufficient length can be witnessed without fatigue' (28 December 1868, p.6).

The Age and Argus critics also disagreed in their opinion of the topical hits and local allusions.

The Age review indicates that most were poor and could be cut with no disadvantage. 'The factors of these puerilities seem to image that it is only necessary to mention the name of a public man in an absurd style in order to bring down a guffaw', writes the critic. 'What earthly amusement can be afforded by Miss Gougenheim inquiring of a puny child with a big crown on his head whether he is Mr Bindon, and then remarking that he is too small for Higinbotham? This pointless wit fell flat upon the audience, and had better be confined to Melbourne Punch'.

The Argus critic reports alternatively that Eville's localisms were 'very good and some of them extremely apt. They also possess the merit, not always a characteristic of such allusions, of not being in the least degree offensive'.