“ARMS AND THE MAN”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25800, 22 March 1945, Page 6

“ARMS AND THE MAN”

REPERTORY SOCIETY’S PERFORMANCE

“Arms and the Man,” an antiromantic comedy in three acts, was presented in His Majesty’s Theatre last night by the Dunedin Repertory Society under the direction of Mr W. Russell Wood. This is Shaw and soda, and the soda is a mistake. Shaw, if taken at all, should be taken neat. The audience, however, was convinced that the players were not wasting their time or their talents. Probably that is because we are snobs in the theatre. When the Great Man is busy being great, and when he is displaying those quips and foibles which prove that he is only human after all, appreciation of the play is too often likely to be based on preconceptions and false values. Still, “Arms and the Man ” belongs to Shaw’s less mature and confident period, and even Dunedin audiences are entitled to approach it critically. ■ It has the. wit of the red beard, great vitality, the power of treating characters freshly, if a. trifle economically, an eye for the unexpected detail which gives life to both scene and dialogue, and, above all, the ability to give form to a play by tracing a theme through its characters without relying on the crutches of a conventional plot. Still, “Arms and the Man ” hardly fits in with Shaw of 1914, who moved the famous A. B. Walkley to write with his customary august suaveness “ O greatly daring Mr Shaw.” It is ,a play in which success is neither easy nor frequent, and it has to be confessed about last night’s performance that subtlety and verbal refinement were less prominent than they might have been. This, in 1945, is more Mr Shaw’s fault than Mr Russell Wood’s, because even though the author requires only three acts to tell his tale, there is still in the play that deliberate and irritating avoidance of formal construction which takes Mr Shaw nearly a quarter of an hour to get a weary fugitive from battle on to a bed. And yet Mr Russell Wood with some deft re-arrange-ment and direction has contrived to make the best of the good hearty dramatic issues of the play. At the same time some of the brightest of the detached Shavian sallies, in which the script abounds, are left to fly about loose in the air. Some parts of the play proceed at a snail’s pace, but that again is more Mr Shaw's weakness than the producer’s. Shavian actors are not two a penny. They require a proficiency in elocution that is far from common if they are to deliver long speeches at great speed and give point and life to them as they hurry along.

It is difficult to see how Miss Mary Jolly's performance as Raina could be improved, even granting her wide experience and generous opportunities. She is definitely the lady with an air, and one felt often that she would have been more helped than hampered by an inch or two off her nightdress in the bedroom scene, provided such intimate garments can be hitched up to the needs of the moment. Miss Jolly has a nicety of gesture and expression that her attractive enunciation demands, and even if the delivery of some of her best lines did not reward the anticipation which recollection of them evokes, she was a great deal more than pleasing. Mr Kenneth Palmer as the Chocolate Soldier gave another very fine performance, admirably modulated and well-judged in everything but voice. Even a congenitally neutral Swiss must have volume when he is as positive as Captain Bluntschli. At any rate, he acts (loyally and not selfishly) for all he is worth. There are many players of the same calibre in repertory, acquaintances rather than idols of the society, but working as hard as any star, and more competently than some. It is pleasant to pay a tribute to one of them.

' Miss Jolly rather overcrowded a good showing by Mr Roland Watson as Sergius. Star-crossed from the start he was, however, dynamic a’nd full of colour, and, in his usual fashion, very sure of himself. Miss Irene Hill scintillated very discreetly in the role of Catherine Petkoff, and her best moments were more than just good. Miss Shirley Williamson’s Louka was very attractive. She displayed flashes of self-consciousness, but distinguished herself by the admirable presentation she gave of that incalculable insight into the motives and contradictions of human conduct which is so essentially Shaw. Mr Charles Smith as Nicola was less comfortable than most of the cast. He was ridiculous where he should have been comic, and whimsical where he should have been pathetic, but in that he could blame an author who understands people less than ideas, more than he need blame himself. Mr Anthony Spears was exemplarily simple as Major Petkoff, but he did not make the best of a role that should have been primarily volatile and wayward. There was an inflexible and pointless monotony to his acting that was only faintly avoided by some others in the cast. Actually with the exception of Miss Jolly and Mr Palmer, Mr Shaw-was served rather too faithfully by a docile cast. In short, too much of the acting had a quality which was, in effect, a reminder that what the audience was watching was intended as a representation of life. Mr Russell Wood’s settings in all three acts were admirable for their taste and suitability. “Arms and the Man" will be repeated nightly until the end of the week.