"THE AWFUL TRUTH"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 60, 8 September 1926, Page 11

"THE AWFUL TRUTH"

AN AMERICAN DIVORCE COMEDY

A NEW ZEALANDER'S SMALL PART,

(From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 31st July. "The Awful Truth," an American play, has been brought to London by Mr. Denilia Eadie, but the critics will have none of it, which only proves what a hopelessly precarious business is that of an actormanager in London. On the second night the house was meagrely patronised, and no doubt the actors were thoroughly alive to the fact that their play was doomed. "The thin littje theme drags its way through three thin little acts," writes one imporant critic, "and the brightest advantage of the play ia that it is over early." The same critic says:— "But," Mr. Eadie is almost justified in saying to his public, "if you don't like this, what do you like?" A question not easily answered. Mr. Eadie's last production was a comedy that intelligent people could listen to with pleasure, "Billeted." It didn't run. His production before that was a satiric comedy of extreme brilliance, "Dr. Knock." It was intellectual comedy, i£ you like, but it is no use pretending it need have been too intellectual for poor Londoners. I have heard the same play drawing roars of laughter both from a Parasian audience and from a crowded French provincial audience. But "Pr. Knock" didn't run at the Royalty. Why isn't Mr. Eadie justified in flinging at our heads such stuff as we saw last night—and starring with himself a lady who gave a performance that waa in no sense up to London requirements? The New- Zealand interest in this play is that the young Auckland actress, Miss Una Dysart (Miss Una Buddie) has a small part in it. The general interest lies in what the critic above quoted observes: '"What does London want?" This ia the story. Lucy Warriner, having divorced Norman Satterly, ran short of money, and decided to marry a millionaire from Texa3. This person, being a pure-souled son of the Great Outdoors, required a high standard of morality in his bride;, and he had an aunt (of the kind addicted to good works and thinking the worst of her neighbours) who wai prepared to see that he got it. So Lucy had to lend for Norman, her former husband, in order that he might aay that all the rumours connecting Lucy's name with that of one,- Kufus Kempater, were baseless. This Norman j was gentleman enough to do; although as j a matter of fact, he believed the rumours to be true. Having met again, Norman and Lucy discovered that they loved one another even more than before, and Lucy now explained that the Kempster rumours had been started by herself as the only means of Retting Norman to agree to a divorce. Norman refused point-blank to believe this story; go Lucy concealed him behind a door while Kempster came to call, and let him overhear their innocent —not to say, dull—conversation, and thus attempted to convince him. The .Texan, by the way, had been given his dismissal earlier on, and had received it with a relief not altogether flattering. There are great deficiencies in the plot, but it appears as if not a single London critic hag appreciated the real significance of the plajr, and the main point is entirely misaed. There is a serious attempt on the part of the playwright (Mr. Arthur Richman) to work out a problem based on the old adage, "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tig folly to be wise." Finally, they miss the point that Satterly at the end ia still ia doubt as to his wife's innocence, but he has the courage to make it up with her in spite of the doubt. Although Miss Una Dysart has been understudying Miss Irene Vanbrugh, this is perhaps the first occasion on which she has had a speaking part on a West End stage. Celeste is a French maid, and Miss Dysart makes the very most of her opportunities, besides looking very attractive. It is rather unfortunate that her opportunity should come in a play that may not run for very long.