‘THE FOURTH WALL’

Evening Star, Issue 22440, 10 September 1936, Page 1

‘THE FOURTH WALL’

MILNE DETECTIVE STORY REPERTORY SOCIETY'S PRODUCTION It is the fate of all amateur theatrical companies to halt at some stage in their careers, if they are honesty ami ask: “Is this art? ” Now in its fourth year, the Dunedin Repertory Society has maintained a standard of art that has won an increasing patronage, but recently the productions have been on a lower plane. Though the authorship is that of A. A. Milne, ‘ The Fourth Wall,’ which the society presented for the first time at His Majesty’s Theatre last night, cannot be called art. Certainly it is good entertainment, but jt demands only moderately proficient acting, unlike some of the more whimsical and fantastic of Milne’s plays. With the production itself and the quality of the acting no fault could be found, but the society’s have been served with so many good plays that they have almost become connoisseurs—will have reason to cavil at the actual play. Like most detective stories, it is tenuous in plot. Unlike that gruesome collection of dilettantes in De Quincey’s ‘ Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts,’ one would not rapturously exclaim of ‘ The Fourth Wall ’ that: “ Why, now, here’s something like_ a murder—this is the real thing—this is genuine—this is what you can approve, what you can recommend to a friend.” The murder proper is ingeniously done, but the denouement is worked out too thinly. Although Milne’s craftsmanship as a playwright marks the construction of the whole play, it is in the elaboration that he has failed. One’s credulity is rather over-tested -when a man, who 27 years before was in peril of his life from two murderous men, forgets even their names and does not have even a glimmer of recognition when they live within the walls of his own home. The development of the alibis in the story is expertly done—almost perfectly—but the curious mixture of psychology, womanly sagacity, and bland stupidity of the murderers who for years had concocted their crime to the finest detail _ makes the denouement one impossible to be taken seriously by a rationally-minded observer.

Weak though it may be to those who take their detective fiction seriously, | The Fourth Wall ’ is very entertaining; and that quality is next in demand, if art is not on offer. Its entertainment value and its clever construction as a society s production.Tast very smooth, expertly so, the characterisations were on the whole most adequately drawn, and the staging was worthy of a far more pretentious and higher-quality play. The three acts all took place in the one setting, the sitting room of a Sussex home, through the fourth wall of which the audience watched the mysterious happenings. The staging was elaborate, finished in every particular with artistic refinement, and the lighting, too, ■was professionally excellent. If ‘ The Fourth Wall ’ itself was not art, the staging certainly was. The society has the talent to produce plays; but more discrimination, it is suggested, should bo used in the future selection of vehicle. The performance was neatly managed, moving'with pace, and with only a solitary mis-cue. The cast was large and able, being perhaps the strongest yet seen in the society’s plays. The players were well balanced and were thoroughly versed in their lines. The two players who singled themselves out by the adroitness and smoothness of their performances were D. F. Dali, as Edward Carter, and E. W. Lees Bullot, as Edward Laverick, the bad men of the piece. The part of Laverick gave Mr Bullot the wider opportunities for expression, and his transition from the mild ornithologist to. the distraught criminal anxious to make his get-away was a splendid piece of acting. Mr Dali’s work had the ball mark of quality. In the most tense and exciting episodes his restraint was admirable. Although in a less prominent part, Mr Maurice Janies, a newcomer to the Dunedin amateur stage, was very finished. He played Arthur Ludgrove, “ always the gentleman,” as his butler Adams (D. Finlayson) remarked.

The feminine honours went to Miss Dorothy Clark, whose Susan Cunningham was a very Jive, astute, and personable characterisation. Histrionics were not demanded in the part, a simple one in which all that was required was precision and confidence, and Miss Clark filled the requirements most adequately when she dropped affectations of speech overdone in the first, act. Miss Ivy Bolwell was not expected to' be other than attractive as Mrs Fnlverton-Fane. and Miss Marion Crow was delightfully languid as .lane West. Bruce Grieve’s Jimmy Ludgrove was loss satisfactory. He was lacking in confidence in the opening scene, and, like Miss Clark, he was far too composed when being interrogated by the police after his beloved uncle had been found murdered. In the final scene he under-played the part. Krnest Griffon provided the comedy element as P. C. Mallet. Moreover, he looked the part of the country constable, and was not made to appear as a clown by his dress. D. G. Skene was excellent during the inquiry scenes. Miss Bessie Thomson’s expert hand was evident throughout the presentation. and she had much for which to thank Mr T. C. Wynne (stage mani\ rr <?r). The Fourth Wall ’ will'be presented every night this week.