It is with some misgivings I attempt to evaluate the recent Ngaio Marsh production of Macbeth. I find in discussing my impressions with others, that they are either very enthusiastic or strongly condemn the performance, while I find neither of these extremes answer my own impressions.

The actual technicalities of production I thought were excellent, the settings were those of an artist, the groupings were tastefully arranged, the banquet scene for its simplicity yet at the same time striking effectiveness must be recognised as one of the best seen in this town for many years. With such a background the play moved with pace, which is, after all, one of the most important things in presenting Shakespeare, for Shakespeare played poorly is bad but Shakespeare played dully is awful. As a play, then, I feel it had pace, vigour and unity, but the question I began to ask myself at the end of the first act was, "Is this Macbeth as I interpret it? Or as it is commonly interpreted? Or have I become too conservative and resent any varying interpretation?"

It was largely in the question of pace that I found myself most disturbed and disappointed. The pace was so well maintained that the scenes for me lacked variation and subtlety; they roared along at an even tempo of desperation, Macbeth attacking his soliloquies with almost the same tempo he used to address the "lily livered loon." One instance which struck me particularly was his "tomorrow and tomorrow" speech. He has just heard the Queen is dead; he is, I feel, in a thoughtful mood which is interrupted by the messenger. Our Macbeth, instead of dispairing, attacked the lines with a vicious impatience. Perhaps this is the correct interpretation but I did not like it.