Troilus and Cressida

The recent mushrooming of critical interest in "Troilus and Cressida" has placed it in every possible category, chiefly because its inconclusive ending prevents any sort of definitive judgment as to what kind of a play it is Bafiling crities, it has also bafiled producers. This, along with analytical rather than dramatic dialogue, has kept it almost entirely from the stage, Polonius probably gives the most accurate description: "tragical-comical-historical." But you must also add satirical, for that, too, is an important element in the current production by the Harvard Theater Workshop.

There will be a good deal of dispute whether or not their interpretation is "true" to Shakespeare. I think this is unimportant For production, the play must be dramatically feasible. The HTW has succeeded in doing this, and the result is a rewarding experience in theater. More than that, Thersites satirical comments on the war have been emphasized to give the play added relevance.

In the part of Thersites, Albert Marre is a sufficiently detestable cynic. Last night, however, much of the pertinence of his comments was lost either through the excess of music, the crowding of his lines by other players, or the distraction of action elsewhere on the stage. If he is the spokesman for the production, and he must be, for he opens and closes the play, he should not be obscured.

The character of Ulysses, played by Jerry Kilty, is more ambiguous. His chief function is pulling the decadent Greeks back together and rousing Achilles from his lethargy. But this is not all--he always seems to have a deeper design. Although Thersites later calls him a "dog-fox," the addition of this slyness is only dramatically confusing. Otherwise, Kilty fulfilled the requirements for the predominant, dynamic, and unifying force.

Edward Finnegan makes an impressive and pompous Agamemnon. Gregg Martin, as Achilles, is quite as conceited and despicably treacherous as intended. And John Peters plays a delightfully stupid and proud Ajax.

Excellent performances upheld the "Honour" of Troy. Robert Fletcher was impressive, commanding, and noble as Hector, the pillar of Troy, and the only admirable character in the play.

The love problem, the core of the play, is handled with a skill and understanding which make it the most competent aspect of the production. The clear definition of each of the three important characters avoids the ambiguity which prevails in the Greek camp, and in the attitude toward war. Jan Farrand is gorgeous, graceful, and convincing as a Cressida who wants to be faithful but simply cannot say no. Bryant Haliday plays a tragic Troilus with maturity and restraint. His statement of utter despair when his world collapses about him is impassioned, but unexaggerated.

Last of all, Thayer David presents a thoroughly revolting amusing, and accurate Pandarus. Once again it is remarkable how well he can play doddering old men (John of Gaunt last year). His voice and actions are completely convincing.

The scenery and costumes are magnificent to look at. Working only with frames and curtains, some furniture and a few dead tree limbs, Fletcher has achieved a striking effect.

Considering the problems which confronted them and the success with which they have resolved them, I think this is the finest piece of work the HTW has done. This is high praise, for in the last three years they have approached professional standards.