“THE WAY OF THE WORLD”

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25367, 15 December 1947, Page 3

“THE WAY OF THE WORLD”

THE STAGE

CONGREVE’S COMEDY REVIVED A Restoration comedy. William Congreve’s "The Way of the World,” written in a period when English wit and comedy reached their most dazzling pitch, was staged by the Canterbury University College Drama Society on Saturday evening as its final production for the year. Congreve’s last and most distinguished comedy has not been done in Christchurch before, but it was well worth bringing from the textbook to even such a restricted stage as the Little Theatre s. The Drama Society players made it more natural than artificial, and the text was necessarily abbreviated, but this did not reduce the ease and brilliance with which Congreve expresses the lively spirit of the Restoration or dim the scintillating, audacious conversation in which he excels.

“The Way of the World” is a comedy of intrigue; it is also a comedy of manners. Its morality is slightly relaxed, but that is because it mirrors a society in which profligacy was fashionable. Above all it is an artificial comedy, full of intellectual brilliance, but with little breadth or depth. The characters have more wit than feeling, and the men in the main are only caricatures. The women are attractive, but because they are graceless instead of charming. There is abundance of wit, but this tends to obscure the plot, and some, coming fresh to the play, might be like Witwoud at the end of it, and “understand nothing of the matter.” With the abbreviated text Miss Pamela Mann, who produced the play, was able to achieve a better balance between the wit of the dialogue and the complications of the plot, and each scene was clearly defined. What “The Way of the World” lacked was a sense of style, and understanding of the period. This was not so much the fault of the producer as of the players, most of whom were intense when they should have been urbane. Too much emotion overlaying the wit produced a warm glow instead of an icy glitter. This fault was less noticeable among the women, who gave their parts the lightness that the artificiality of the comedy demands. Brigid Lenihan. as the fine lady. Mistress MilJamant. came closest to Congreve in her conception of the role. Whether grave or gay. she was never too intense, and played her scenes with a hard brilliance which was entirely appropriate. Mirabel, who is m love with Millamant. should be equally brilliant and urbane, but Bernard Kearns was too serious in the part, and was more the suppliant lover with all the cares of the world on his shoulders. Ruth Mandi played Lady Wishfort, the one character in the play that has any depth, and brought to it an intensity of feeling that at times was almost overwhelming. Her movements were scarcely those of a woman “full of the vigour of 55,” but she was full of passion in her angry moments. Sir Wilfull Witwoud, the country squire “rustic, ruder than Gothic " was finely played by Michael Cotterill. who conveyed exactly his sturdy contempt for foppery, his stupidity, and his eagerness to be of assistance. This was a part which could have been made farcical, but it was kept within the limits of broad comedy. John Jenkins was well cast as the scheming Fainall, but the nonchalance which marked his opening scene was replaced by an intensity more suited to melodrama. William Scannell and Keith Thomson as Witwoud and Petulant, the foppish followers of Millamant, conveyed “a pretty deal of an odd sort of a small wjt" 31th:.an air that was lacking in the ■ real of the cast. Mrs Marwood. who is privy to Fainall’s intrigues, was played with easy grace by Min Stroebant* and Nancy Bell was delicately emphatic as Mrs Fainall.