Punch and Judy.

In another part of this paper a member of the Staff crosses swords with the Committee of the Debating Society. The question at issue is whether "The Lucky One," recently produced by the Club, was, or was not, a play of sufficient merit to warrant its selection. This paper feels that if sufficient stress is placed on the lack of initiative displayed in the past by the Dramatic Club, then we hope that in some idealistic future we may see an improvement in the standard of play chosen for production.

The Club has defended its choice on a number of grounds. The first of these is that "it provides a pleasant relief from the cruel brilliance of the sexual problem play of to-day and the crude emotions of the O'Neill type." The same remark might, with far more justice, be applied to a score of modern plays. If relief is wanted, why go to the other extreme and choose something that has not even the interest of these others. Milne excels himself in this play as a drawing-room trifler. Has the play a serious motive or is it humorous? Sometimes it seems quite farcical, and yet the curtain rings down on a scene intended, we thought, to be tragic. The maudlin pessimist is bad enough, but the maudlin nothing is worse. In plain English, the play "perishes miserably in its indecision."

Again we are told, "It is a pleasure to listen to the sparkling dialogue of Milne." The sparkling dialogue of Milne occurs so seldom that one is inclined to think that sparkle must be a rather precious and rare virtue with the playwright. Take this for example:—

Miss Farringdon: Smoke, Bob, and tell me how horrible the city is.

Bob (lighting a pipe and sitting down): It's damnable. Aunt Harriet.

Miss F.: More damnable than usual?

Bob: Yes.

Miss F.: Any particular reason why?

Bob: No.

At the very grave risk of driving the reader to utter boredom we give another example:—

Miss F.: How is Mrs. Wentworth?

Wentworth: Wonderfully well, thank you, considering her age.

Miss F.: Dear me, we first met in 1850.

Gerald: All frills and lavender.

Miss F.: And now here's Gerald engaged. Have you seen Pamela yet?

Wentworth: Not yet. I have been hearing about her from Tommy. He classes her with the absolute rippers.

Gerald: Good old Tommy.

Mises F.: Yes, she's much too good for Gerald.

It might be wiser after this to move on to another point submitted by the Dramatic Committee. Sparkling dialogue! The null and dull prattlings of a notoriously null and dull middle class.

The third head of favour is that "the play is enriched by the serious ideas which are introduced into the comedy." As we have earlier remarked, it was impossible to decide whether comedy or tragedy was meant. The only real comic scene was Gerald proposing ways and means to his brother of spending with profit a jail sentence. Listen to this:—

Gerald: Well, there'd be Some book there anyway. If it's a Bible, read it. When you've read it, count the letters in it; have little bets with yourself as to which man's name is mentioned most times in it; put your money on Moses and see if you win, etc., ad nauseam.

Can anyone imagine a brother talking in this fashion and in such circumstances? And a member of the Diplomatic Corp to boot. Comic, perhaps, but very sad for Mr. Milne's reputation.

Now we learn that "The principals are all young people and the play is well within the scope of the Society." There is not even the vestige of an argument here. Most plays contain young principals who rise above the level of machine puppets. Well within the scope of the Society is merely a lamentable admission—which, to our mind, is quite untrue. The Society is quite capable of doing better world than this.

The final point made is that "The characters are exceedingly well drawn." At least four of the said-characters are absolutely unnecessary, and in our humble opinion the play would be of much greater merit if written as a one-act comedy with three characters As it stands, who can say that either Gerald or Bob are satisfactory? Their character: vary from act to act. For Pamela, she remains greater mystery at the final curtain than any woman has the right to be.

In minor matters, criticism might be offered until further orders. Of the arrangement of entrances and exits it may well be said that they page 2 were farcical. One person went off and it was quite easy to know who was coming on next. Everything works so smoothly and so artificially in Mr. Milne's dramatic technique.

In their reply the Committee assures us that "The author regards it as his best work." The only authority for this statement we can find is contained in the Introduction to the volume, "First Plays." The outhor says:—

" 'The Lucky One' was doomed from the start with a name like that. And the girl marries the wrong man. I see no hope of its being produced. But if any critic wishes to endear himself to me (though I don't see why he should) he will agree that it is the best play of the five."

This half-hearted and rather apologetic praise then refers to five plays which are the earlier work of Mr. Milne. This rather derogates from the absolute statement that Mr. Milne regards it as his "best play." It would be absurd to even suggest that it is a better play than, say, "Mr. Pym Passes By."

We are told also that St. John Irvine and Arnold Bennett hail it as "a sheer delight" and "a most charming play." Assuming that these two quotations are slightly more correct than the preceding, all we can say is that St. John Irvine's opinion must always be respected—he is an Irishman of sorts— and, of course, the views of Mr. Arnold Bennett on anything are always interesting.

Les us have no more of these "Lucky Ones." Let us leave Mr. Milne to those edelightful trifles such as "The Mouse with the Woffelley Nose."