King Henry IV- Part I

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30191, 24 July 1963, Page 6

King Henry IVPart I

Sir,—l found the remarks of “PR.S.” about the play most stimulating, although of course I do not agree with all of them. To name the critic an “erudite caviller” is a breach of good taste. R. N. O’Reilly would do better to castigate, in his own inimitable style, the people of Christchurch, so few of whom bother to go to see this exciting spectacle. Here is a play that can capture the imagination of a seven-year-old child, and yet provide intellectual meat for the most intelligent What better introduction could there be for our children to the study of our greatest playwright than this fine production? How many hours of painful studying of annotated texts eliminated by these. few pleasant hours at the theatre? My young offspring want to know, and so do I ‘‘when are we going to see Henry IV— Part ll?—Yours, etc., M. S. STARKY. July 23, 1963.

Sir,—Your correspondent, R. N. O’Reilly, is justified in protesting at the cavilling of your theatre critic. While drawing attention to certain small weaknesses in the production of “Henry IV,” the critic has lost sight of its over-all excellence. In fact, he contradicts himself by at first describing the production as “disappointing” and then later declaring it “a memorable night in the theatre.” However, we should be thankful that a local critic can review a Shakespearean production constructively and critically, although in this instance he has tended to review hypereritjcaJly. That this can be done is a tribute to the very high standard set by the University Drama Society and Miss Marsh—a standard of which any professional company could be proud.— Yours, etc., W.I.S. July 23, 1963.