SOURCE: Clurman, Harold. “Theatre.” Nation, New York, N.Y., (27 May 1961): 467-68.

In the following review, Clurman derides the acting in the 1961 New York production of Becket and asserts that the play is “intellectually (as well as historically) skimpy; of true religious sentiment there is barely a trace, and its morality is without real commitment.”

Readers may have noticed that I frequently omit discussion or appraisal of actors from my notices. In view of my belief that acting is the crucial ingredient of the theatre as theatre, my failure to comment on the acting of many of the plays I see must seem peculiar.

The reason for this contradiction is that in most productions the acting is reasonably competent rather than creative. The actors—usually chosen because they physically approximate the characters the dramatist may have had in mind and because they have formerly proved some ability—illustrate the...