Evening star., 1960-12-05

the only drama group anywl
production of "The Knight of ii
its first one.
We are all the richer, of
course. for the fact that these
1860 players are rollicking in
the footsteps of their campus
antecedentS. All of US, that is,
who can get tickets during the
plays customary two weeks at
the University Theater.
This early 18th Century Jest
may have been more potent
satire back in the day when the
on and OF stage manners at
which it poked its fun were
present and visible targets.
But it still packs an evening
full of laughter. and. Director
William H. Graham and his
cast bring it to life as a spirit
ed and zany frolic. =
&s& -
Catholic University, Incl
dentally, seems to line up here
on the side of the collabora-
tionists. The c. U. program un-
equivocally attributes The
knight Of the Burning Pestle"
to Francis Beaumont and John
Fletcher, but not everybody
does.
You can find one authority.
for instance, who declares that
Beaumont's best work was done
in collaboration with Fletcher,
as witness THE Knight Of the
Burning PeStle." You can find
another authority who will
state fatty that Beaumont did
his best work before he be-
came entangled with the
Fletcher fellow, as witness his
solo effort. "The Knight of
the Burning Pestle."
You even can find o theater
handbook in which the play is
credited in the paragraph on
Beaumont to him alone and in
the paragraph on Fletcher to
both Of them.
This doesn't prove anything,
OF course. except possibly that
they must have been drinking
more than coffee around that
Mermaid Tavern to leave be-
hind such confusion about who
wrote what.
Whoever wrote it, 1t is u
vastly more comic caper than q
lot Of things written since 1907.
Its principal targets, in case
you never encountered "The
Knight Of the Burning Pestle,"
are the pretentious chivalry Of
its day and the over-rich purple
heroics Of stage extravaganzas.
It lets fire at these and other
things through Noteworthy
daft use Of the play-within-a-
play. In the outer one q grocer
and his wife Chamber up on
stage charging that the play
about to start ISLANDERS the COM
mon folk Of London. They want
to see o play In which the groc-
er's apprentice is 50 chivalrous
that alongside him King Arthur
would have been o square king
at round table.
Being able to pay for it. that's
what they get-deeds Of chiv-
airy by the knight Of the Burn.
ing Pestle interspersed between
scenes Of the regular play, a hi
lariously dull exhibit. Whether
or not it ISLANDERS Londoners, it.
indubitably ISLANDERS most play
wrights Of the day with its tale
Of the apprentice who wants to
wed his boss beautiful daugh-
ter. whose father wants her to
marry a rich suitor, only True
Love triumphs.
This rocks along dizzily as
the two plots touch briefly now
and then, but never really get
into any relationship with each
other. Mr.. Graham and his ac-
tors make the most of it by
playing 1t, with only q few ex-
ceptions, as If 1t were deadly
serious business.
Ralph, the grocer's appren-
tice. never becomes aware, for
instance, that his mock heroics
as the knight are anything but
heroic and make him o figure
Of fun. It's q first-rate imper-
sonation Of an untalented actor
by Philip Graneto. The grocer
and his wife, played firmly and
well by Mark Hammer and
Catherine Gafngan, are the soul
Of earnestness in their desire to
see some respectable entertain.
ment.
In the play-within-a-play.
the robust and rascally opti-
mist named Merrythought, a.
sort of cross between Falstaff
and Pollyanna who has an
endless supply Of cheerful
songs, is brought of splen-