From the opening of the evening it, self, this critic was vaguely uneasy; if the play was as good as we, were told at some length; if the ideas so good, then why the Introductory speeches and backslapping, the little pep talks on how successful it had been in other countries, the horribly coy and lipstickless chorines pale in the glare of the footlights with the too, too rousing choruses? Why, not let the thing stand fan Its own feet?. However, we were willing to understand that in their enthusiasm for the movement, its advocates were rather over-anxious to impress us with its worth, and rather over-reached themselves in their anxiety to do it. We personally could never stand revivalist meetings, and this looked like deteriorating into the intellectual equivalent of one.

Let's take the play from the technical angle apart from its "message" as it was termed. Frankly, it was lousily done. The producer had some ability—the timing was occasionally good—but it would have taken two cheer leaders and a battery of competent West-end producers to make anything at all out of the cast Some of them rose to the mediocre on acting ability; others were not quite so convincing. Unfortunately, Betty, the millionaire's daughter, and also her mother neither of whom had very important parts) were better than the rest. The male lead, on the other hand, suffered the disadvantage of being quite the least convincing actor they possessed: his movements somewhat irritated, because they were singularly ungraceful—even if he had been smitten by a sudden change of heart in the best tradition of the old-time theatre he had no need to look quite so out of this world. To some extent the lack of polish in the acting may have been the result of the gross overdrawing of the characters—which is the fault of the playwright, not the producer.