REPERTORY SUCCESS

Evening Star, Issue 22719, 5 August 1937, Page 11

REPERTORY SUCCESS

* libel; a legal play SOCIETY’S MOST COMPETENT PIECE Looking back,over the five years’ successful career of the Dunedin Repertory Society and with a bright to dim recollection of the 16, plays it has presented, one Jeft His Majesty s Theatre last night in full accord with the opinion of the large audience, that ‘ Libel ’ is the most competent and easy-moving play the society has presented. The strongest and best balanced team of players in any of the productions acted with ease and impressiveness in Mr \\ nulls skilfully dramatised play, which was m ovorv sense very proficiently produced. ‘ Libel ’ is unequivocally the best performed and most engrossing piece the society lias staged. —The Cast.— Sir Marl; t.udJon Mr l ; . S. Avt-m Uulv Loddon Miss Anita Winkel Sir 'Wilfred Kriling, K.C., Mr Ales. M‘Dowell William Bale Air B. Sullivan Tlmmas Koslev, K.C Mr Richard While George liemsby Mr Douglas Skene Mr Jus.lir.i 'I lining*on ... Air S* **• Patrick Puckenham .... Mr Lrneist (rriflhi kmilo Flordon Mi* Leslie jack Major Ikatrpum Mr W. H. Matthews Sarali CurUion ... ••• Miss Sybil Henderson Associate Mr J- Hannah Ushct Mr C. \\\ B. hreach Numero Ouin/e ... ... Mr I*. DennUloa

Only a single set is required for ‘Libel.’ The scene is a King’s Ikmch Court, in which a scurrilous newspaper seeks to justify its allegation that Sir Mark Loddon, who admits having lost his memory of events preceding the war, is not Sir Mark but an impostor. The whole story is told in the witness box and in counsel’s speech. Such a play, because it has only one scene, and no means of conveying information except that of legal process, requires (and received last night) quick and lively performance. No amateur players have given hero so sure, smooth, and. balanced a performance. Everything was neatly done, with a deftness and cohesion and grace that were, in fact, surprising. One may be inclined to think that the piece of evidence which in the end proves Sir Mark’s identity is deferred against probability; but that weakness rests not at the door of the players but that of the author, who displays undeniable possession of the dramatist’s skill in maintaining suspense of plot. ‘ Libel ’ is exciting, and the speed with which it was played made every climax after climax a sensation with an audience gripped with the tenseness of situations and expecting a tempestuous, scene for the denouement which never came. From the end of the first act, _ ‘ Libel ’ gained momentum in action, reached a crescendo with a highly dramatic collapse of the plaintiff at the end of the second act, and maintained that level yuf intensity right to the closing scene. In the past, the Repertory players, particularly the men, have not been altogether happy when the theatre has demanded of them that they make love or have plenty of movement. One remembers them being overwhelmed on over-polite; but in a piece _ such as ‘Libel,’ where rules of evidence are of more interest than irregularities of affection and even the final reconciliation of wife and husband is made in cool silence at the back of the court while counsel agree upon damages in front, they .rtro on an emotional level much more to their liking. With no amorous scenes weighing oppressively on them, the players gave excellent evidence of their power to do finished “straight” acting, with the emotions never overdone in' anxiety to hurry to, and through, the scenes in which they modestly believe they appear strange and ridiculous. Drama as is ‘ Libel,’ sure in its effect, challenging and commanding, without subtlety and romance, has definitely shown that the society may, with the aggregate of talent at its safely become more ambitious and give its- members more plays of realism. ‘ Libel*’ is a play of one major, and three minor, characters and several big parts. Most of the parts demand only shaded elocution, hut heavy emotionalism was expected of the character of Sir Mark, and Mr Ayent strolled away with. the honours of the play.. With most judicious restraint, he preserved the chief witness’s individuality through all seeming contradictions and so made the end credible when it came so swiftly. By gesture and voice, Mr Avent gave powerful dignity to the pathos of the final act, and materially helped the audience to draw out into an orderly pattern the tangled threads of the confusing legal argument and evidence. Miss Winkel shared in much lesser degree the acting honours. Her part was comparatively small, but she lent excitement to the wife’s tormented evidence, and her movements in the silent reconciliation were deeply impressive. Mr M‘Dowell was bland and lucid as the leader for the .plaintiff. His opening speech, was oriitorically a little masterpiece.’ Mr White was waspish - and scornful as Foxley, K.C., shading his impudent lines with evident relish of their penetrativeness ; and Mr _ Lock made a capital Tuttington J., with his discreet and entertaining interference. Of the two sketches that of the blackmailer and the French surgeon, Mr .lack’s was infinitely more sure than Mr Griffin’s. Mr Jack was very volatile, and did not overdo a characterisation which invited an unwary player to lose balance; yet Mr Griffin’s part wap well portrayed, if one forgets his hesitancy with his-lines. Mr Douglas Skene had only a few lines, and was coolly sure throughout the whole play; but Mr Sullivan caused an • uncomfortable moment when he slipped his lines and nearly upset Sir Mark’s narrative. Miss Sybil Henderson presented a very saucy adventuress; and of the numerous non-speaking parts Mr P. Denniston was splendid in a pathetic portrait of the human hulk, Numero Quinze. The staging of ‘ Libel ’ was almost perfect, the producer and the stage manager (Mr T. (’. Wynne) having watched every detail. The atmosphere of an English court of justice was caught from the Opening. ‘Libel’ is certain to have a wonderfully successful season.