Ordinarily the critic of a student production is dealing with an amateurish version of a good play, and his duty is to say whether the company has done well enough by its material to warrant praise. But in the case of the Harvard Theatre Group's production of Corionanus, the situation is exactly the opposite: the performance is good, the play is undoubtedly bad. The makes it hard to criticize.

What prompted the HTG to burden itself with Coriolanus I cannot imagine. The play is justly neglected, being long, badly constructed, unimaginative in expression, and infertile in characterization. It is saved from being a complete loss only by the character of Coriolanus, an interesting and at times moving study of pride and the conflict between private and public virtue. But no single character can justify the exhuming of a dead play.

The HTG, then, has set itself an unreasonably hard task. But it has made a gallant attempt, and, because it is a talented group, has done most creditably. Much of the acting is excellent, particularly that of the principals. Donald Stewart stands out in my mind because he brought a special power to a rather small and hopelessly dull part, but Michael Mabry, Frances Oliver Loud, Irving Yoskowitz, and Robert Layzer all deserve high praise for their performances. Among the principals I would criticize only Theadore Gershuny, who made Coriolanus a much more neurotic man than he should be. Coriolanus is meant to be a great man, great in stature, great in battle, great in his defiance of the Roman mob, great in his pride. There is nothing petty about him, but Gershuny, by sweeping about with a Byronic cloak and consistently overplaying, managed often to defeat his purpose and reduce the great man to mere neuroticism. But this is a question of interpretation and perhaps I am wrong; certainly Gershuny is an actor of great ability.

My only other serious objection concerns the unhappy wisp of men who represent the Roman and Volscian crowds, Senators, Guards, etc. and etc. Of course one expects to find the same faces in opposing armies, and one expects "crowds" to be small in number, but unfortunately the mob has a very important part in the construction of the play, since it is Coriolanus' distaste for the common herd which sets the whole plot in motion. But one cannot imagine his being the least bit aroused by the six or seven who, hot from their most recent costume change, are set against him. What is needed is a large and gusty crowd, to fill the stage and stand up to Coriolanus.

The rest of the production passes muster easily. The set (by Holland Olivus) is excellent, simple and yet by no means bare; the minor parts are well enough handled, though there are a few rough spots; the direction (by Harold Stone) was good, as near as I can judge. The program also calls attention to some directed by Karl Kanter. They were great.

Seeing this production made me want to see what his group can do with a good play, preferably modern. I would be surprised if it were not a really first-class job. Mcanwhile, if you are interest in Shakespeare (even his second-string) or in good acting for its own sake, go by all means to the Brattle.