The Potting Shed

Ever since the publication of his first novel in 1929, Graham Greene has been a master of the psychological thriller. He has turned out a long series of serious novels, mystery tales and short stories. A few years ago he took his first crack at drama by writting The Living Room; and he followed that up last year with The Potting Shed.

This new play enjoyed a considerable run on Broadway this spring; and fortunately it has come to Boston for two weeks? Let me say at once that The Potting Shed is a truly distinguished work--amazingly so for a second attempt. As a matter of fact it was by far the finest new foreign play of the past season--despite the temporary corporate insanity of the New York Drama Critics Circle, which gave the nod to a bit of French froth. And it is Greene's best accomplishment since his novel The Heart of the Matter of a decade ago.

Traumatic Experience

The Potting Shed has been billed as a "suspense drama" and a "mystery thriller." Both terms are quite accurate. But the play is not a whodunit; it is rather a whatdidhe. It concerns James Callifer, who, good newspaperman that he is, tries to ferret out the story of what happened in the potting shed 30 years ago--something so traumatic that it blanked out all memories of his pre-adolescence and caused both him and his uncle to be shunned by the rest of his family.

Now the element of pursuit is strong in all of Greene's work. Here, James' mother refuses to tell all in the belief that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. So James pursues his long-lost uncle and the old widow of a discharged gardener, who have relevant information. But it is really his own past that James is pursuing.

The play is an exciting tale and it has plenty of wit and humor. But it is at heart a serious play about religious faith. Religion has been an important concern to Greene since he embraced the Roman Catholic faith. (He says it is wrong to call him a "convert"; he insists that he only "accepted" Catholicism, because it was for him an intellectual act, not an emotional one.)

Study in Gray

One must not think, however, that this play is a piece of propaganda. It is not a pitting of black against white in which white finally triumphs. It is a complex study of grays. Almost every character undergoes a change of religious attitude during the play, but at the end we still see a pattern of grays. And this is as it should be.

A striking virtue of the work is the absolute honesty of the author. He tackles thorny questions and presents in dramatic form some of the mental wrestling he must have gone through himself. We have a militant author of atheistic books; a devout Catholic housekeeper; a Catholic priest who says, "It's a difficult thing, though, practicing a faith, day in, day out, when you don't believe one jot of it"; a woman who believes in God "on Sundays if the music's good"; a man who exclaims, "I don't want God. I don't love God, but He's there--it's no good pretending; He's in my lungs like air"--clearly not a simple bunch.

Greene's psychological insight enables us to examine both the conscious and subconscious minds of the characters, one of whom complains to James, "You've spoilt our certainties." Greene's dramatic craftsmanship is not yet complete, and the first act betrays a number of weaknesses. But the third act goes pretty deep. It is act two, however, that is Greene's lofty achievement in this play. Its two scenes--especially the second, with its study of the alcoholic Catholic priest--are classic confrontation scenes of the first order. This act constitutes some of the most moving, forceful and compelling theatre since Eugene O'Neill.

Frank Conroy

This production is extremely lucky to have secured Frank Conroy, who played the priest in the Broadway original. His performance rightly won him two awards as the best supporting actor of the season, and it has lost none of its mastery. His years of playing Shakespeare in London have stood him in good stead, and he projects with perfect clarity even when his back is to the audience. Conroy is here only this week, so try to get to the show by Saturday. If you cant, go anyway next week; Conroy's role will be taken by Chris Gampel, who is a fine, reliable actor.

Gene Lyons makes the role of James wholly believable and he picks up his cues with model alertness. Edward Finnegan's Dr. Baston is a delightfully sympathetic old codger--a carefully filled out characterization. Robin Morgan sparkles impeccably as the perky, mischievous and not always truthful adolescent, Anne.

Tom Bosley is genial as the psychiatrist, who believes that "we all have great unconscious wisdom." Joan Croydon repeats her warm Broadway interpretation of the priest's housekeeper. Adele Thane makes the most of Mrs. Potter's one scene. And Maureen Hurley brings the right amount of neuroticism to the part of Sara. Edmund Roney and Lawrence Spector give capable support as the prim banker and the easy-going roommate.

Frances Starr

The only real shortcoming in this production is Frances Starr's performance in the important role of James' mother. Of course almost anyone would be at a disadvantage in having to follow Dame Sybil Thorndike, who premiered the role with such magnetic grandeur. But Miss Starr is woefully inadequate to the demands of the part. Mrs. Callifer is a protective woman who is used to having her way and being the boss; hers is a dominant personality. In Miss Starr's hands she emerges as a soft and weak character. It's too bad that Florence Reed was not retained for the role from last week's play.

Finally, a word of thanks to producer Lee Falk for his new policy of presenting only plays of high quality. I hope the box office returns will encourage him to continue this policy next summer. His current efforts have done much to make this the most outstanding summer theatre season that Boston has had within my memory.