Tag Archives: Rattigan

The Browning Version – September 2009

8/10

By Terence Rattigan

Directed by Peter Hall

Venue: Rose Theatre, Kingston

Date: Thursday 10th September 2009

How embarrassing. This was a double bill; the first play was Swansong, a piece by Anton Chekov. However I’m not able to rate Swansong as I kept nodding off through it; not a reflection on the actors, just that I was more tired than I realised. I heard a fair bit of laughter, so it must have been pretty good.

The Browning Version is another matter altogether. I’ve only seen this once or twice before and my memory wasn’t clear on all the details so I had to pay close attention to this one. The story concerns an older teacher, Andrew Crocker-Harris, steeped in the classics, who is about to leave the public school he’s taught at for eighteen years due to health problems. He has another job – he’s due to start next term at a ‘crammer’ – but he won’t be earning as much, and today the headmaster tells him he won’t be getting a pension as he hasn’t done the full twenty years. This piece of information drew a few gasps from the audience, and there was more to come.

His wife’s unfaithfulness throughout their marriage is represented here by her latest lover, a younger science teacher, and we learn about Crocker-Harris’s reputation amongst both staff and boys through a chat between a student, Taplow, and this science teacher, Frank Hunter, while both are waiting in Crocker-Harris’s study. Crocker-Harris himself becomes aware of this reputation through the innocent use of his school nickname “the Himmler of the lower fifth” by the youthful chap who’ll be replacing him next term. This, coupled with an almost sadistic barb from his wife over a book which Taplow has given him as a farewell present (more gasps from the audience) appears to put the final nail in his coffin, and his disappearance from the stage clutching his medicine bottle made more of us than just his wife think he was going to end it all.

He didn’t, and with the science teacher’s eyes being opened by the wife’s behaviour another opportunity emerges. The wife’s off to Bradford, but Crocker-Harris has decided to stay at the school until he goes to Dorset to take up his new post. Frank Hunter has taken his address and arranged a date to visit him there. Before sitting down to dinner, Crocker-Harris calls the headmaster to tell him that he will, in fact, make the final speech tomorrow, a position he’d allowed himself to be pushed out off for a more popular, but junior master. As he and his wife start their meal, there’s a lovely sense of the worm turning and the possibility of some happiness in the future.

I do like the way that Rattigan sets these people before us without much in the way of judgement, so we can see the situation from a number of points of view. Crocker-Harris comes across as a dry old stick to begin with, but as we get to know more about him and the people around him, we see more to the man than that. All the performances were fine as was the set. Now all I have to do is make sure I stay awake in future, and all will be well.

© 2009 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

The Winslow Boy – June 2009

8/10

By Terence Rattigan

Directed by Stephen Unwin

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Friday 12th June 2009

This was another Simon Higlett design, which we’d seen previously at an afternoon talk at the Rose Theatre. The whole set was encompassed by a huge picture frame, set at an angle. The sitting room itself had double doors to the left with a glimpse of the hall through them when they were opened, another door on the right to the library and French windows centre back. The furniture was simple but of good quality, with a sofa to the left of the double doors, a table in the middle and Mr. Winslow’s chair to the right near the front.

No need to go into the story here. The performances were excellent, among the best I’ve seen. The dialogue was wonderfully well delivered and I don’t think I’ve seen another production get so much humour out of the play. In particular, I loved the underplaying of many of the reactions which made each situation funnier. For example, when Ivy inadvertently breaks the news that Master Ronnie has returned home early despite everyone else conspiring to keep Mr. Winslow in the dark, there was very little obvious reaction amongst the characters but we got the point loud and clear (and laughed loud and clear as well).

The whole ensemble performed brilliantly, but I will just mention two of the cast. Timothy West was superb as Mr. Winslow, showing a wide emotional range as well as delivering some wonderful lines to perfection. Adrian Lukis played a more oily version of the QC Sir Robert Morton than I’ve seen before, but it worked very well. I found myself wondering what it’s like to make your first entrance towards the end of the first half,and to build up so quickly to such a magnificent exit line. I didn’t feel he and Kate would be so likely to get together this time round, but you never know.

Finally, I must mention that interrogation scene just before the interval. The interruptions by the family were spot on and I was able to feel their concern along with them. The climax was just as good as ever, and I had to wipe away a tear in the interval. I do like Rattigan’s work.

© 2009 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

The Deep Blue Sea – March 2008

6/10

By Terence Rattigan

Directed by Edward Hall

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Monday 3rd March 2008

This is one of my favourite plays, but I have seen productions I prefer to this one. Rattigan is the master of restrained emotions, of showing people who have deep feelings within themselves that rarely, if ever, find expression, and when they do, it’s usually not convenient for themselves or others. Here the emotions were clearly displayed, almost overly so, and that feeling of social restraint was completely lost. I couldn’t see why Hester, the wife, wouldn’t just say, “Sod this for a game of soldiers”, and leave with the husband the first time he came calling, but then we wouldn’t have had a full evening, which would have been a shame.

The set was the usual tatty flat. This one was tattier than most, and the back wall had a see-through cut-away so that we could see the action on the landing and stairs. The performances were fine – no criticism of the actors is intended here – but the direction made the whole play seem flabbier than it is. There’s a lot of power under the surface, but when it’s not held back, it doesn’t come across as strongly. Greta Scacchi was a fairly robust Hester, who looked as if she’d be perfectly capable of seeing off several Freddies. Probably captained her school hockey team, you know the sort. She was more restrained in the final scene with Mr Miller, and that worked better for me. Simon Williams was almost too good as the husband. He came across as more understanding and less straight-laced than I’ve seen before, which was fine in terms of relating to the way his character suffers as he sees the woman he loves going under, but doesn’t help to explain why she doesn’t just pack a bag and scarper back to a reasonably good life with a loving husband. I would have.

And given this Freddie, I might not have waited till my husband turned up. I couldn’t make out why Dugald Bruce-Lockhart was veering into campness in his portrayal of Freddie. I realised afterwards that they might have been trying to suggest that the problem with the relationship was that Freddie was a closet homosexual, and so couldn’t love Hester as she wanted to be loved. If so, I can see where they’re coming from. Rattigan was gay, and this play was triggered by his own grief at an ex-lover’s suicide. Not being able to put such matters explicitly on the stage (although the first draft was apparently about two gay men), Rattigan changed the characters round to be more acceptable.

It’s a fine idea, and with another play, or another production, it might work, but although Rattigan has plenty going on inside each character, he doesn’t have a lot of ambiguity going on in his plays. Freddie is clearly an ex-RAF pilot who is having trouble adjusting to regular life after the excitement and lack of responsibility of the war years. If he is a closet gay, he’s not out even to himself, and if they were trying to insert this as a possible motivation for his character, then I feel they did the play a disservice. Trust the text. Whatever the cause, I felt this portrayal unbalanced the play, making it more about Freddie than about Hester’s unreasoning and uncontrollable passion. Given all that, Dugald gave a fine performance of a character that Rattigan didn’t write. His borrowing of the shilling to leave for Hester brought a gasp from the audience. It’s certainly a shocking moment, and came across as well as I can remember.

The other supports were fine. Jacqueline Tong was good as the gossipy landlady Mrs Elton, while Geoff Breton and Rebecca O’Mara grated just enough as the unsophisticated young couple determined to help, and gave us a nice insight into other people’s relationships. Jack Tarlton as Jackie Jackson did a good job of showing us just how embarrassing Freddie had become. But the accolades for the evening had to go to Tim McMullan as Mr Miller, the foreign ex-doctor who helps Hester in more ways than just the medical. He conveyed a sense of that character’s hinterland, which I often feel is as big as most people’s countries. I was moved to tears as he did his best to persuade Hester not to have another go at suicide.

For once, Hester’s paintings were actually visible on the stage, including a study of Freddie. Unfortunately, they were of a quality to stretch credulity when Hester’s husband professed to like one of them. The earlier piece over the fireplace was better, but now I see why they’re often left invisible to the audience.

Although it wasn’t entirely to my liking, I still enjoyed the evening, as it’s a very good play, and the production did have its good moments.

© 2008 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

French Without Tears – February 2007

6/10

By: Terence Rattigan

Directed by: Paul Miller

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Friday 16th February 2007

I was well confused by all the signs that were up in the foyer before the performance. On the one hand, we were informed that the part of Lord Heybrook(?) would be played by some chap, and on the other, that the part of Kit Neilan would be played by Ben Lambert. What was going on? Especially as Lord Heybrook wasn’t mentioned in the cast list? Total confusion, finally cleared up at the very end of the play. So read on.

We were in the Circle for only the second time at the Yvonne Arnaud, and I wouldn’t recommend it. The front row is fine, but the other rows are very snug, both sideways and for leg room. Somehow it seemed steeper than in the second circle at the RST. But we managed. Our view was OK, though we couldn’t see faces very well, and some of the dialogue was lost.

There was an announcement at the start about the replacement for Kit Neilan’s part. Apparently Hugh Skinner had needed surgery last Sunday, and Ben Lambert had taken over at very short notice. (They had two rehearsal days scheduled, the Monday and Tuesday, then the opening night!) As a result, Ben was using the script, and they hoped we would be OK with that (well of course we would). Given that the setting is a language school, it didn’t seem too out of place to have one of the characters carrying a script around – they had notebooks most of the time anyway.

The set was a living room – door back left, French windows beside them to the patio and garden, door to kitchen back right, fireplace on the left wall with a couple of chairs and some stools in front of it, and in the centre of the room, a long table with eight chairs. There wasn’t much decoration on the walls – a map of Europe, a couple of pictures – and so the room seemed very sparse. Maybe the effect was different from another angle.

The play opens with a chap, Kenneth, sitting at the table with his books, apparently working on some exercise or other, as the maid brings in the breakfast things – bread and coffee, basically. We then meet the other characters as they trickle in for breakfast. There’s Brian, the man about town who’s only after a good time with lots of women, drink, fun and minimal work. Kenneth has to translate “she has ideas above her station” into French, for which Brian helpfully suggests “elle a des idées au dessus de son gare”, a line I remembered, but didn’t know from where. Now I do. As a general point, there were lots of French lines in this, and apart from not always hearing them clearly, I couldn’t have followed most of them anyway. It’s been a long time since I did any French, and it wasn’t up to this standard. So that did take off a bit from my enjoyment. Perhaps a copy of the text and a French/English dictionary are called for before we see it again.

The plot revolves around Kenneth’s sister, Diana, a total vamp. She readily acknowledges that her only talent is to make men fall in love with her, and while she’s staying at the villa while her brother learns enough French to join the Diplomatic Service, she’s put herself about a bit. One student, Kit has already fallen under her spell, and another, Alan (the son of an ambassador, and therefore expected to follow in his father’s career) has been resisting manfully. The action (such as it is in a Rattigan play) hots up when a new man arrives to start studying with them. Lt-Commander Rogers, or Bill, is treated to Diana’s charms from the off, and she manages to tell both him and Kit that she’s not really interested in the other, but loves only them. Matters come to a head when both men finally stop fighting long enough to discover her deception, and confront her together, demanding to know which man she truly loves. The devious manipulative she-devil-bitch then indicates that it’s Alan she’s really in love with, and he desperately enlists the help of the other two to protect him from her seductive spell.

Alan decides to leave the villa and take up writing full-time, partly because that’s his dream, and partly to avoid Diana. She’s all for going with him, but as Lord Heybrook is about to arrive, she sees a better chance, and hangs on. Everyone has a good laugh as she makes her entrance, all titivated up to entice the new student. It turns into an even bigger laugh as he comes through the French windows – all of fifteen, and not even shaving yet! Her disappointment was a pleasure for all to see.

There’s also a sub-plot concerning Jacqueline, the professor’s daughter, who’s been in love with Kit for a couple of months. She has a chat with Diana at one point, and it becomes clear that Diana isn’t prepared to share her men, even though she’s got more than she can handle. Fortunately, once Kit realises Diana’s deceitfulness, he starts to consider other options, assisted by Alan’s betrayal of Jacqueline’s confidences. It also becomes clear that for all Diana’s seductions, she’s not actually prepared to take things beyond the kissing stage – when Brian tries it on, she gives him a good slap.

Given the newness of the production, and having one cast member still reliant on the script, I thought they did this very well. All the performances were fine, and I particularly liked Alan, Brian and Bill, while Diana was seriously believable as a woman who can snare men without even lifting a finger. The scene where the men discover Diana’s duplicity was well done, and will come on more when Kit can drop the script fully. I also enjoyed the drunken aftermath, when the men have come back from the casino and are well sloshed – we get to see a different side to Bill. The French went largely over my head, and although it got a lot of laughs from the stalls, I suspect I wasn’t the only one missing out. I did find the amount of laying and clearing of the table a bit distracting, but on the whole I enjoyed this, and would like to see it again, to see how it develops.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

In Praise Of Love – June 2006

Experience: 10/10

By Terence Rattigan

Directed by Philip Wilson

Venue: Minerva Theatre

Date: Tuesday 27th June 2006

This was a superb production of a masterful play. Rattigan at his best. Four characters, three scenes/acts, one set, tightly scripted and brilliantly performed. A great evening.

It took me a while to get Suzanne Burden’s accent for Lydia – Estonian – but once I’d tuned in I was amazed at how well she carried it through all the emotional ups and downs the character goes through. I lost some other of the lines in the early stages, but not enough to give me any problems. How to relate my impressions of this play in detail without churning through the whole story? I reckon this is one play and performance that will live long in my memory, but no harm in giving it a helping hand.

The key for me was Michael Thomas’s performance as Sebastian. He was willing to play the appearance of a real bastard, and never mind the audience’s sympathy. Initially he seems uncaring towards his wife, Lydia, telling her not to bore people with her refugee stories, being completely absent-minded about what she’s doing, and expecting her to fetch and carry all the time, fixing this and that – a real chauvinist pig. He even forgets to turn up for a very important occasion for his son – the first TV screening of his first play, and has been carrying on an affair with another woman for some time. However, there are one or two clues, especially his response to his wife’s near-collapse at the end of the first act, rushing to support her up the stairs to bed. Turns out they’re both lying to each other, for the best possible reason – to protect the other from the horrible truth. Only a friend, Mark, who’s been in love with and loved by Lydia for over twenty years, can be told the truth, by both of them, although we don’t hear Sebastian’s version till the final act.

Surprisingly, after this description, there was a lot of humour in this play. I don’t know what else to add. Words fail me. Just go and see it again if you can.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me