04. Jonah and the Whale (1961)

For the annual School Play, the producers, Mr. P. L. P. Clarke and Mr. A. J. Tisdall, chose James Bridie's Jonah and the Whale, which was performed on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, 16th, 17th and 18th March, 1961. The choice was not an obvious one, for the play is certainly not a run-of-the-mill favourite for school productions ; yet it is very suitable material for such occasions. The story itself possesses inherently dramatic qualities, without the need for intense or emotional acting which boys generally find difficult. The main roles are limited to five or so, none of them inordinately long or taxing. There is an abundance of smaller parts, many of which offer rewarding scope for imaginative characterization, the costumes and the settings are attractive, even exotic and the latter, together with the technical effects required, present the stage staff with considerable problems, of which the solution is by no means unattainable, yet sufficient ingenuity and skill is demanded to make the effort and the success satisfying.

And success, on that score, there was in good measure. Most effective use was made of lighting, and of sound effects; Mr. Tilbrook and his hard-working assistants presented us with some fine, adventurous and well-managed sets; and the many colourful costumes, and the make-up, maintained the quality. The production was in every way smooth and imaginative. Nor was the acting overshadowed ; indeed, in some respects, the standard was more consistent than in previous years. And yet, when all this has been said, one cannot escape the feeling that the total effect of Jonah and the Whale was somehow unsatisfying, and that this production, compared with others, was disappointing.

What does Bridie achieve and set out to achieve in this play, based very closely on the well-known Old Testament story? Firstly, there is the realization of human character within the story. Duncan Rooke gave a very able and confident performance as Jonah, and brought a commanding presence to the chief part; there were perhaps times when he seemed to be portraying a truly great man, instead of merely one with pretensions to greatness, but that is an understandable-even commendable—temptation, if the ambiguous nature of the play is borne in mind. Russell Allen's Bilshan, a commercial traveller, was superb in its nonchalant and amused air of down-to-earth worldly-wisdom. David Olley realized the tenderness of Euodias, though her youthful gaiety was a little too over-shrouded by earnestness. Among the many successful smaller parts, Deryck Cumming's aged, querulous Hashmonah, Gareth Wilkinson's rough and vigorous Sea-Captain, and Victor Bryant's smooth and languorous Sophereth were particularly impressive.

Secondly, the author displays a rhetorical facility, a delight in the sound of words, almost for their own sake. This, too, came over well, from Jonah and others, but nowhere better than in the amplified voice of Goodwin, who made of the Whale a truly overpowering, bombastic moraliser.

Thirdly, one could savour Bridie's clever and often masterly originality in the delightfully incongruous modernisms woven into the story. ("... and Nineveh is really rather a big job to be tackled by a provincial prophet."') And here one is forcibly reminded of one of the most brilliant features of the production Simon Margutti's Eshtemoa, a shrewd and devastatingly observant study of the lady chairman of a dilettante discussion group.

But are these features, worthwhile and entertaining enough as they are, the sum total of Bridie's achievement? Has he any deeper unifying purpose? The producers' note on the programme reminded us that critics have given various labels to this play: Bridie, in his own prologue, tells us that the subject is "Man and his Inspiration". This is vague enough, to be sure. As has already been remarked, the story of Jonah has considerable dramatic possibilities: one could quite conceivably fashion out of it a tragedy of the classical mould. But one must have a hero cast in nobler guise, whose very weaknesses command our respect, than the Jonah we see here. Is he ever anything more than a provincial prophet? Furthermore we must see the tragedy working to its climax unswervingly, we cannot afford diversions, however clever or entertaining. I have never seen a professional performance of this play, but I can well believe that a sophisticated cast might successfully join forces with the author to beguile one into pondering some deeper significance in the work. The less subtle cast of a school production sheds a colder, truer light, and one is inevitably left with the memory of a play which had some successful features and some very entertaining episodes, but which gave no lasting satisfaction, either because its real object was obscured by engrossing frills, or, which seems more likely, because it lacked any real purpose or goal. 

H.W.W.