The elegantly furnished Brooklyn brownstone that comprises the set of “Manuscript” suggests a strange mix of adult veneer and inner childishness: Toy action figures stand amid the bookshelves, exposed brick walls, and vases of roses. This contradiction was not only an element of the set (designed by Ethan A. Davis ’10)—it proved to be one of the defining characteristics of this Loeb Experimental Theatre production.

Writer Paul Grellong’s characters may be undergraduates at Harvard and Yale, but the entanglement of conspiracies that unfold as the play develops makes them old beyond their years. Director Mia P. Walker ’10, producer C. Alex Tremblay ’10, and the cast combined to create a strong and intelligent production of “Manuscript,” but the admirable efforts of all involved only barely overcame the limitations of the script itself.

“Manuscript” takes place in the home of Harvard freshman David (Daniel E. Catomeris ’11), who has invited over two Yale freshmen—his best friend, Chris (Joseph “Jack” Cutmore-Scott ’10), and Chris’ girlfriend, Elizabeth (Sophie C. Kargman ’08)—during winter break. David, an aspiring writer, and Elizabeth, who has already launched a successful literary career as a published author, soon relaunch a long-running argument over the true authorship of one of Elizabeth’s works. When the three characters find themselves in possession of the unpublished manuscript of a famous but recently deceased author, they are at odds over what to do with it. Their plans and alliances constantly shift until the play’s climactic revelation.

The main challenge that Walker and the cast had to confront in their production was Grellong’s melodramatic script. The play’s complex intrigues come off as somewhat contrived—even though its story of publishing and plagiarism is not unfamiliar to Harvard—but the dialogue often rang even more false. Twice throughout the play, Elizabeth tried to win David to her side, telling him that unlike Chris, the two of them are “old inside.” Moments like this one, where the script was too self-consciously trying for depth, fell flat, puncturing the light-hearted, quick-moving mood of the play.

Despite the far-fetched plot, the actors managed to turn out strong performances, keeping up the energy and tempo throughout the evening. Catomeris, a freshman, and Harvard theater veteran Cutmore-Scott were very believable as best friends. Their relationship, especially as “Manuscript” drew to a close, was one of the most convincing aspects of the play. Kargman managed to give Elizabeth a wide emotional range, despite her character’s manipulative and unsympathetic nature. All three actors took on their roles with enthusiasm, embracing the melodrama and rising above it.

The actors also managed to highlight the funnier moments of the play. Often the humor was a matter of timing, especially each time a new layer of plot was revealed. The moments of silence as David and Elizabeth waited to hear the click of the lock behind Chris as he left them alone for the first time in the evening made David’s explosive “fuck you” all the more rewarding.

As a director, Walker also livened up the theatre with her dynamic blocking. While the conspiracies within the play developed, her blocking neatly reflected the changing relationships of the characters. At one point, Catomeris and Cutmore-Scott stood at opposite sides of the stage, facing away from each other, with Kargman sandwiched between them in the role of peacemaker. Later, she effectively reversed the picture as Catomeris and Cutmore-Scott circled Kargman triumphantly, stopping on either side of her in order to clink champagne-glasses over her head.

Walker and her performers salvaged Grellong’s sometimes-ridiculous script with their comedy, exuberance, and dedication. While there were times when the performance faltered, the fault lay more with the triteness of the words themselves than with the actors’ delivery of them. Otherwise, they created an entertaining and witty performance out of the twists and turns of “Manuscript.”