Feb 1955

"THE KNIGHT OF THE BURNING PESTLE" "What is the play to be this year?" That is the question which greets the producer every year at the beginning of the Christmas Term. Mr. Burgess remains reticent. After all, he does not know the answer himself until he has carefully sifted many possibilities. And when he has made his choice, rather than be drawn into explanation or discussion, he wisely prefers to let the performance speak for itself. Again this year his quiet confidence was justified.

The success of "The Knight of the Burning Pestle", greatly enjoyed by juvenile and adult audiences alike, and not least by the players themselves, gave one more proof of that shrewdness in casting and skill in production which we have come to expect of him.

The choice of a play may often resolve itself into the question whether to offer the audience a glimpse of some acknowledged masterpiece at the risk of some inadequacy, particularly among the minor players, or whether to be content with a play of less intrinsic value which is within the compass of the whole cast. That the first course is worth attempting was shown by last year's production of "Macbeth". The second course, however, is more likely to lead to a balanced and finished production. "The Knight of the Burning Pestle" is a dull reading play, but its authors have contrived situations —the coffin scene, the encounter with Barbarossa, the muster of soldiers—which could hardly fail in popular appeal when acted on the stage. It does not pretend to the poetic and dramatic intensity of Shakespearean drama; but its cheerful atmosphere of boisterous burlesque comedy falls more easily within the range of the average schoolboy player. Where there is poetry or subtle characterisation it is so important to strike just the right note. The burlesque spirit is not so exacting and can even survive such accidents as befell Jasper on the final evening, when he nearly lost his trunk hose leaping out of his coffin.

Not only was the play well suited to schoolboy talents, as might be expected in a play originally performed by boy actors, but the roles had been distributed with particular care. So well adapted were they to what each player could do that, though we knew that some were more gifted than others, we were never made painfully aware, as so often happens, that the leading players were being poorly supported. That thread of the play which contains a vein of sentiment was perhaps played a little less convincingly than the rest; but the general standard was good, and the eye was caught not only by the star performers but by the minor player admirably suited to his part. Wright as Michael and Elliott as the Boy were good examples. So shrewd was the casting that at times one reflected with some amusement that the player had only to caricature himself to fill the role to perfection.

Of the principal players both Staines and Moore maintained their reputations. We knew that Staines had the swagger to carry off 37