“Macbeth” Played in Modern Dress

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 323, 7 April 1928, Page 20

“Macbeth” Played in Modern Dress

No Aesthetic Value

AUDIENCE LAUGHS AT TRAGEDY

The popular success of “Hamlet,” in present-day clothes, made it a foregone conclusion that Sir Barry Jackson would soon experiment further in the same direction.

( N° . doubt “The Taming of the Shrew,” which London is promised, may prove to be a genuinely amusing modernised farce, but I hope that Sir Barry will attempt no more similar revivals of Shakespeare’s more important plays, writes a London theatrical critic.

We are all aware, by this time, that Shakespearean drama, if well enough acted, must always be absorbingly interesting in whatever costume it be shown. But productions such as that recently played at the Court Theatre have no aesthetic value, and instead of elucidating Shakespeare only debase him while they introduce at least as many and as great anomalies as they get rid of. The audience, when not actually laughing, was on the verge of laughter almost throughout this tragedy.

This is not to say that certain scenes did not come out neatly. Several of them did, among the best being that between Lady Macduff and her son; and especially the triologue between Macduff, Malcolm and Ross, in which the first-named hears of the calamity that has befallen him. These three parts were cleverly played, in the modern manner, by Scott Sunderland, Laurence Olivier, and Xigel Clarke, and that episode genuinely pleased the audience, as also did the knocking-at-the-door scene, with the porter cleverly transmuted by Frank Pettingell, into Lady Macbeth’s butler. The house also particularly enjoyed Lady Macbeth’s opening letter scene, which was taken with a fine degree of subtle, if slow, comprehension, and of neat histrionic finish. The witches were played without the essential mystery, imagination, or rhythmic cadences that are imperatively necessary for the success of the cauldron scene; and, almost throughout the play, the noises “off” were distressing, and often meaningless. Several members of the cast could, or would, make nothing but prose of the blank verse; and Eric Maturin, the Macbeth, though an excellent actor in modern plays, possesses almost none of the technique requisite for Shakespearean drama, with the result that ! the most successful scenes were usually | those in which he did not appear. The outstanding success of the I eA'enlng was the Lady Macbeth of i Mary Merrall, who, after her own j quietly incisive manner, was as good las any who have played the part in ; recent years. Ignoring the modern | “small” acting, that was going on around her, Miss Merrall used the traditional broad gesture to which contemporary fashions in womans dress offer every facility; and—had her vocal powers permitted her to do so—would, perhaps, have spoker her lines with almost corresponding bigness. Miss MerralTs voice, though not powerful, is well under control, and the actress’s close intellectual grip of the part, her poise, subtlety, balanced phrasing, and clear enunciation made that modernised Lady Macbeth' the one feature of the evening’s entertainment to which I shall look back with real pleasure and profit. Much of the rest was a travesty. This production. T hope, will do good by finally destroying the fallacy prevalent among many young players, uhat Shakespearean parts can ever be effectively acted without special tr in- I ing or special gifts.

Elsie Prince, Jimmy Godden and company are back in Xew Zealand. They are drawing good houses in Wellington, where three musical comedies will be done. The company is due in Auckland to open the new Fuller Theatre next month. * * * The libel action by Winnie Melville (Mrs. Derek Oldham), the musical comedy actress, against Clayton and Waller, theatrical producers, arising out of statements published concerning her displacement from the cast of “Princess Charming” at the Palace Theatre, London, was settled. The statements were unreservedly withdrawn, and regret was expressed that they had been made.

It seemed strange, in view of recent experiences, to hear “The Wrecker” cheered instead of booed from the gallery, says a London paragraph writer. The show, of course, is very good, but after the Xoel Coward fiasco, we were assured that there exists an organised gang of play “knockers” who are out to boo all new plays, good or bad. They must, therefore, have been taking a night off when “The Wrecker” came on at the New Theatre, for the audience even stood it good-humour-edly when a ridiculous number of bouquets were handed up to an actress who had given a very tepid sort of performance.