THEATRE The Immoralist. By Ruth and Augustus Goetz. (Arts.)—The Matchmaker.
By Thornton Wilder. (Haymarket.) MARK the title. The new play at the Arts la not (repeat not) by Andre Gide (the well- known French author). It is perhaps sug- gested by various passages in one of his more suggestive novels, but it is not by him. story of the typical homosexual tragedy has very little indeed to do with the novel of the same name which dealt with the Huguenot Conscience, and which we read and failed to understand at the age of eighteen. This Once clearly understood, it can then be said that the production is deserving and uncle- !crying at the same time. It is deserving Pecause it presents a problem which has not peen presented on the London stage ,recently (and won't be if the Lord Chamber- lain has anything to do with it). It is Undeserving because it does it badly. Con- 11,,,Ider the plot: Michel (who has been up to Nu and games at the /ycee and got expelled Reoause of it) marries Marcelline—why? 'or an alibi? An escape-hatch? Anyhow oe marries her and they take their honey- oon in North Africa, where the expected 8P pens: Michel falls for the local Arab °toys and, though he has not got the strength to be quite ruthless about it, succeeds in Wrecking his marriage. However, Marcelline Is going to have a child, and this, combined With the fact that she has taken to vin rosé, ,,.otings Michel to his senses—if it can be put (um that.
Now there are many things to say about this simplification of human nature; in the first place that it is false; in the second that It is undramatic; in the third that it seems fragmentary as a play. The Arts adapta- tion presented itself rather as a series of tableaux than as a biological unity, and, Shift it was quite apparent from the start What Michel was, there was little surprise about the course of events. Still, there were scenes that came home: the TB scene was shocking; the temptation of Michel by Ilachir had the audience squirming in their seats; the drunkenness of Marcelline (how tln-Gidean this whooping it up on Chat- eatineuf du Pape—of all wines!) was con- _vincingly sordid. But then everything that Yvonne Mitchell did was convincing. In lta extraordinarily difficult part with no Precedents to guide her she managed to be Painfully accurate in her dissection of a w..cartan being put through the tortures of Lae damned. Her fall from the blouse of Dformandy to the nightie of Tunisia was rather terrible—one wouldn't have said that tie would have gone that way. Outraged rIiSItanism, yes: drink, no. Miss Mitchell a considerable actress; she uses her head 101 well as her body. To back her she had Michael Gough who gave a gruesome ,eliough performance as Michel, while olfe Morris and Marne Maitland played ‘Ifte devil's advocates with more abandon Pan success. Still, in spite of all the draw- packs, the intention—that of presenting a serious treatment of a disputed sexual question—was a good one. The Arts ?eserves credit for that; it was too much to °oPe they would get it right first time. The Matchmaker has been speeded up a bit since Edinburgh and is still very well played by Sam Levene, Ruth Gordon and Eileen Herlie. This rather than any intrinsic merit in the play itself makes it a hilarious (that is the word) example of what can be done by production and plugging it. Indeed, Tyrone Guthrie's production is a little too successful: its attempt to play upon the audience's nerves succeeds too well and it is all we can do to keep our seats as Miss Gordon talks on and on and on in exactly the same tone of voice. This farce set in the New York of Ulysses S. Grant or McKinley (my dates are a little vague) distinguishes itself by abounding high spirits, first-class acting, lack of wit and avoidance of sex. Anyone who likes this combination of qualities should go to see It.
ANTHONY HARTLEY
Previous page
