Dramatic criticism

I find little that is impressive or constructive in 'An Lover's' comments on my review of the Unity production of 'With Malice Aforethought'. His letter reads to me like idle and perhaps malicious invective; as such. It is not even particularly original.

I am quite prepared to accept that the theatre was almost full the night he attended the play. However, I do not see what bearing that has on the quality of the performance he saw; or for that matter of the review that I wrote. He also mentions that the prompt was used only on four occasions. This perhaps indicates an improvement since I saw the play; to me, it still demonstrates an excessive reliance. I cannot accept that an actor can enter into his part with any conviction, when he is not even certain of the words he must speak. This is particularly true of a play like 'With Malice Aforethought', which depends upon a kind of verbal inventiveness (wit is too strong a word) for much of its effect. It is worth pointing out that for each occasion when the prompt was actually used, there were at least ten or fifteen other hesitations, mispronunciations, or simple verbal fumblings.

'Art Lover' also points out that the staging was 'adequate' — I am unsure as to what that means — and of a type which is 'not uncommon'. With his second point at least I am in entire agreement; it is one of the reasons we see so much bad theatre. I cannot help thinking that a further reason is the presence of such easily satisfied people such as 'Art Lover' in our audiences; if there are many around with the amount of intelligence and imagination he demonstrates, then things are worse than I thought. I wish he would write in and tell us what he liked in the production. It really is perplexing to think someone likes the kind of trash Unity gave out.

The only piece of judgement 'Art Lover' does show, is in his refusal to identify himself. The decision, though understandable, is no less despicable for that.

Martin Edmond