Unfortunately I was standing at the back of the hall when seeing the play and pobably missed quite a lot of the detail which was obvious to your critic. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, the play was well done in both production and acting. There was a noticeable over-characterisation, but this, I feel, helped point the moral. The play seemed to me to be directed to a particular type of audience—after all, the organisers did send invitations to selected people—and the approach and presentation were adapted to suit this audience. This is also a probable reason for the preliminary back-clapping and the too, too rousing choruses, which didn't impress me much either. I agree that the play should stand on its own feet and for its limited purpose, I think it has. Instead of presuming with your critic that the play was intended to "convert" people "on the spot" I think that its intention was primarily to arouse our interest sufficiently actively to cause people to learn more of the movement Those who parted with a few shillings for any of the "How it's done" books on sale at the hall would have considered their money well spent.

Why stop at national boundaries?

Yes, I quite gree with Jiminy Critic on this point which he answers himself. The MRA does move beyond national boundaries as, mentioned in his opening remarks on the success in other countries. The reference to national boundaries in the play itself, I apparently missed, but it is of no importance since it was not the point of the play and the idea is far bigger than nationalism anyway.

If, as Jiminy Critic points out, the sincerity of the followers of the MRA is being used viciously to create a well-disgused hatred, I can only ask, a hatred of what? There to an answer to this, but I don't think it is the one your critic has in mind.