Tlie writer had the good fortune to see the original production of this play some 20 years ago. The impression was sufficiently vivid to have remained while other theatrical memories have faded. There is no doubt that it is a good play ; it has an unforced artistic unity of time and place, the central theme -- the impact of war upon normal decent men -- is dramatised in the form of a conflict which arises essentially, from the action, reaction and interaction of character and situation, and the characters themselves are clearly delineated and credible. The dialogue is authentic and spiced with a humour that at no point seems out of place or character. Finally, the movement of the action itself and the dramatic tension of climax and anti-climax are a challenge and a gift to the imagination of both producer and actors.
All those who took part in this production are, in my opinion, to be congratulated. Whatever its faults, one thing -- and that the most important of all -- was achieved : I refer to the atmosphere. Due to a misunderstanding, I was unfortunate enough to arrive late, but from the moment of stepping inside the door I had no difficulty in accepting the illusion of being in the front line in France in 1918. Yet, on examination, the walls of the dug-out were just a little too spick and span, the steps too regular, the painted sandbags too precise in their arrangement ! Even the pin-up girls displayed charms unmarred by a speck of mud ! The actors themselves, therefore, must bc awardede much f the credit for creating and sustaining the atmosphere, though in justice to the electrician, the stage manager and the " back-room boys, a goodly company of whom were so obviously and so enthusiastically letting their hair down in the field day of a lifetime behind the scenes, it should be recorded that both lighting and effects were well-contrived and convincing.
This play is an ambitious choice for any school for the reason that the emotions and motives of the four leading characters, Stanhope, Osborne, Raleigh and Hibbert, require in their portrayal the depth of understanding and sensitivity of the mature actor. Of those who played these four parts, E. C. Hill without a doubt deserves the greatest praise for an imaginative to create " in the round " the complex character of poor, brave, tortured, bitter cynical Stanhope. A moving performance which rose to considerable heights at the climax of the play and in the difficult party scene, with its violent change of mood. Hill's technique is conspicuously " un-amateur," and his timing, movement and general stage-sense reached a notable standard indeed. The very awkward and unsympathetic part of Hibbert was valiantly attempted by P. E. Osborne who did not fall into the error of making him despicable but, as he should be, pitiable. There is a Hibbert in most of us ; Osborne stifled him with sheer strength of character, Trotter with humour and, so to speak, lack of imagination; Stanhope with whisky. Even Hibbert himself sticks it out -- just ! R. Treadaway as Raleigh after a shaky start, grew almost visibly in stature as the play developed and by the last act was acting well particularly in the scene with Stanhope after Osborne's death. I think he missed an opportunity early on when making his exit for his first spell of duty. It is a very great moment for him ; he should be tense, expectant, eager, but Treadaway went up the steps, if he will forgive me, as if he were going up the street to post a letter ! D. E. Pincott's Osborne did not quite come off. I am not sure why, except that it is an excessively hard part for a young actor. (After all, Osborne is an ex-schoolmaster . . . ! ) I had the feeling that Pincott had not quite convinced himself of his own reality, and therefore did not achieve the necessary depth which makes Osborne such a moving character. Yet is was clear that he had given much thought to a painstaking performance of a part with which few amateurs would cope successfully.
Trotter and Mason are gems of parts and both A. J. Horswell and F. E. Worsfield seized their chances with both hands. Horswell's timing and pointing of his lines were exemplary, as was his clarity to diction, and he is to be commended for not caricaturing the part, as must Worsfield who rightly let his lines do their own work and got thereby the right number of laughs in the right places. The other " comedy " character, Hardy, was played with gusto by D. C. Long, who launched the play with a bang -- and how all-important that is !
A special word for J. W. Hersee, who was a most convincing colonel, with the correct air and bearing of authority aud a staggeringly rectangular pair of breeches! Nor must the remaining parts of L/Cpl. Broughton, the C.S.M. and the German soldier be forgotten, played successfully and respectively by`H. J. Bartlett, B. Woods and R. Field.
Two things worried me, the over-dim lighting which even at its brightest failed to reveal the features of the features of the players, and the lack of movement in Act I and Act II, Scene I, in which Stanhope sat almost invisible behind the candles throughout his long dialogue with Osborne, while the latter sat sideways-on to the audience with little change of posture. Surely Stanhope's longer speeches, especially the one about the sunrise, would have gained immensely from being spoken standing. When he said, " I was looking across the Boche trenches . . . "I felt he should have been leaning against the door looking out, and in general character seems to demand a restlessness contrasting with and adding point to Osborne's imperturbability. Finally I was sorry that the door of the dug-out remained intact at the end, which detracted from poignancy of Raleigh's death. But the sound effects at this point, as earlier in Act III, were very good indeed. The Science Department certainly "o'er-topped" itself!
In all, a most excellent and worthwhile corporate effort by
all concerned.
L.D.G.