When I was asked to come and see this play I had to confess that I had never heard of it. That was, perhaps, not surprising as it has only been given twice (?) in England before. I went and bought a copy and read the thing straight through. This will be good, I thought. The night came and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. There is plenty of incident and (more difficult) plenty of characterisation, and although the performance could not be called perfect, we were given what I felt to be the right flavour -- a very important point in the presentation of any play.
The Bishop seemed to me to have managed to extract the most from his part. He spoke his words excellently and, though inclined to overact, varied his gestures in a manner which several other members of the cast might have copied with advantage. This was Skule's great fault -- poverty of gesture -- which spoiled an otherwise sincere and convincing rendering. Knowing what to do with your hands and then doing it naturally is of paramount importance. Of the other men Haakon looked every inch a king (without his helmet), and spoke with admirable restraint and dignity. He would have been even better if he had varied the tones of his voice more. Peter, I thought, was another whose rendering was particularly good. He had the right youthful impetuosity and made you feel he would stick at nothing to gain the realisation of his father's great ideal.
The women were disappointing. Perhaps they were afraid of seeming unwomanly if they raised their voices, but they were so decorous as to be often almost inaudible. If they had let themselves go a little more they would have brought their scenes to life.
The scenery was simple but not quite simple enough. The three arches in the background were an excellent idea, but would have looked still better if their rough-hewn stones had been a little less roughly hewn -- and wouldn't it have been easier if the great doors had opened inwards ? The marshalling of processions was made unnecessarily difficult.
I hope that no one imagines from the foregoing remarks that
the play was a failure. It was most emphatically worth doing as I
am sure all who took part in it will agree. But it is only
through mistakes made in the past that perfection can be reached
in the future. What is particularly encouraging is to find that
plays such as " The Pretenders " are being given at schools in
preference to works which are, perhaps, easier, but which
everybody knows.
G. A. C.