A. A. Milne’s Mystery Play

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 340, 28 April 1928, Page 24

A. A. Milne’s Mystery Play

Secret Disclosed to Audience In Neat Way

“THE FOURTH WALL” A SUCCESS A. A. Milne, whose work, in spite of one or two pieces of distinction, has not always been so ■fortunate in the theatre as in the nursery, has won, and has deserved, success in his neio play. "The Fourth Wall," which has just been performed at the Haymarket, London. To those who are familiar with his dramatic writing it is something more than a good entertainment —it is a remarkably interesting experiment. Mr. Milne is a stylist and the impression of his personality will appear on whatever he -writes, hut he has now definitely changed his method of approach to a theatrical audience. Hitherto he has generally been content to rely upon a light treatment of some fanciful idea and has aimed at casting upon his audience a spell which shall so delight them that they will not inquire too closely into the substance of his work. The obvious danger of this method lies in the difficulty of sustaining such a spell throughout three acts. If, after a whimsical opening, and expanding philosophy is revealed to the audiences’ view to tempt them forward, all may be well; or, if a dramatist possess the inexplicable charm of Barrie, fantasy may prove to be enough even, in the absence of profound idea. Sometimes it has been enough to enable Mr. Milne to delight us, but sometimes it has left us vainly drifting at the end of the first act. We have fallen into the habit of asking ourselves the uncomfortable question; “Can he keep it up?” NOT A THRILLER

In “The Fourth Wall” he avoids all fanciful ground. This is a detective play, hut a detective play of an unusual sort. It has no association with what is commonly called a “thriller” —no groping hands, no lights that are suddenly switched out, no elaborate deceptions of its audience, no false clues intended to bewilder us. Instead, it begins at the beginning and goes on straightforwardly andVopeirly. Arthur Ludgrove is entertaining a party in his country house. His young ward. Susan, is there, and Jimmy Ludgrove, his nephew, to whom Susan is engaged. There are several guests, and among them Mr. Carter and Mr. Laverick, who are chance acquaintances of Arthur Ludgrove’s rather than his friends. One afternoon every one except Carter, Laverick and Arthur Ludgrove himself, goes out. either to a local flower show or to play tennis at a neighbouring country house.

Arthur Ludgrove is alone in his writing-room. Carter enters and warns him that Laverick is not the man he supposes him to be —-that he is, on the contrary, one of a pair of criminals sent to gaol by Ludgrove many years ago, and that he has probably introduced himself to this house for the purposes of revenge. Lud-

grove, remembering that Laverick has asked for a private interview with him that afternoon, perceives what danger he is in, and, laying a pistol on his desk, prepares to defend himself, *while Carter conceals himself behind a curtain so that, when Laverick has been given time to declare his murderous intention, he may spring out to Ludgrove’s assistance. Laverick arrives, the threat is made, Ludgrove- remains quite calm, and Carter, leaving his place of concealment, comes to the rescue. And suddenly you realise that he is not a rescuer, but Laverick's accomplice. Ludgrove is shot with his own pistol, and Carter, w-ho appears to be an experienced and imperturbable criminal, proceeds to arrange the room in such a way that all the evidence may point to suicide. Part of this evidence is concerned with the telephone, part with an anonymous letter that Ludgrdve had received. It is enough to say that, when the police arrive, suicide seems to them the only reasonable theory. But we know that Ludgrove was murdered and we know who the murderers were. FREE TO WATCH The remaining two acts of the play show how Susan and Jimmy gradually arrived at the truth which was hidden from the police, and how, when they were sure in their own minds that Carter was guilty, they tricked him into final exposure of his own guilt. The fascination of the tale is that the secret is already known to us and that we are therefore free,

without any feeling of muddle and mystification, to watch Susan and Jimmy pursue their logical way toward discovery. The obvious danger in a play constructed on this plan is that it might be all argument and no action. This difficulty Mr. Milne has overcome with the utmost ingenuity. Though we saw the murder, we do not know what little slip Carter may have made in the arrangement of the room or the coneoction of his own and Laveriek’s alibi. Thus, while Susan continues her investigation, we do not know what clue she will discover or how she will arrive at the truth; nor when slje has a part of the information in her hands do we know how she will force Carter to reveal the rest. The first act, which shows the murder, is admirable in its suspense and surprise; the second act is a very clever piece of “middle-writing” that carries on the story, develops its possibilities and prepares the way for its end; the third act has a delightful scene in which Susan and Carter are face to face, each seeming in turn to triumph over the other, until, with a final twist of ingenuity and humour, villainy is defeated. It is all so carefully contrived that it would be easy, and not altogether unjust, to accuse it of artificiality; one does certainly remain aware of the dramatist’s manipulation. But that manipulation is so smooth, so quiet, so pleasantly relieved by observation and smiling grace that we should be churls indeed to complain of it.

The National Repertory Theatre Society at Wellington has returned to comedy for its next production on May 3,4, and 5. “Hay Fever,” by Noel Coward has been chosen. Harison Cook is again the producer. “Hay Fever” is one of Coward's lightest and best comedies. Marie Tempest played the leading role for a long season in London

An “Expressionistic Drama,” by George Kaiser, translated from the! German by Ashley Dukes, is being presented for the first time in Australia at The Play Box Theatre, Sydney, by Duncan Macdougall and his troupe of players. It is considered by critics to be one of the “most! provocative dramas of our time.” It certainly is “provocative.” The action is in a small city in Europe at the present time, and there are seveu scenes. There are no fewer than 37 i characters in the cast, who are baldly 1 designated “The Cashier,” “The Stout ! Gentleman.” “The Muffled Gentleman,” “The Lady,” “The Lady’s Son,” j and so on. Most of the roles are duplicated by the amateur actors, some of whom show histrionic talent. Mr. Duncan Macdougai carries the brunt of the theme on his shoulders as a defaulting cashier, -who, although (or perhaps because) he has a perfectly good wife, mother, and two daughters, and a permanent “job,” falls fif.m grace and common honesty and “goes gay” in a regrettable but highly spectacular manner. The torrents of talk in which foreign dramatists delight deluge the play, and its hectic situations and ideas are handled more or less successfully by the players, of whose efforts the audience expressed warm admiration.

It is a long time since such a notable cast has appeared in musical comedy in Melbourne as will be associated with Annie Croft in “The Girl Friend,” which will open on April 28. With the famous London musical comedy star will appear May Beatty, who has returned from America under special engagement to the firm; Lorna Helms, fresh from her triumphs in London; Reginald Sharland, the wellknown London musical comedy leading man; Leo Franklyn, the popular comedian; Gus Bluett, one of the most popular young artists on the Australian stage to-day; Rowena Ronald, and others. The play will be produced by Frederick Blackman, producer of “Madame Pompadour,” “The Student Prince” (for J. C. Williamson, Ltd.), and other successes.