In the Shadow of the Glen by J.M. Synge (1903)

‘In the Shadow of the Glen’ is a one-act play by the Irish playwright J.M. Synge (1871 to 1909), first performed in Dublin in October 1903. It was the first of Synge’s plays to be performed on stage at the start of the short career which saw him become a key figure in the Irish literary renaissance. It is set in an isolated cottage in County Wicklow in ‘the present’ i.e. circa 1903.

Synopsis

We are among peasants in a remote valley in rural Ireland. We are inside an isolated peasant cottage. The curtain goes up on Nora Burke, a bereaved wife, sitting in the same room where her deceased husband, Dan Burke, is laid out in bed with a sheet over him.

The action starts when a tramp knocks at the door and asks shelter from the pouring rain outside. They talk: Nora explains the presence of the corpse, explains how her husband was much older than her, was always a cold man, died that morning and she hasn’t had time to trek to the nearest settlement and find someone to mourn with or help her. Dead he is and her with 100 sheep on the hill and no turf cut for the fire.

NORA: Then he went into his bed and he was saying it was destroyed he was, the time the shadow was going up through the glen, and when the sun set on the bog beyond he made a great lep, and let a great cry out of him, and stiffened himself out the like of a dead sheep.

And: ‘it was only after dying on me he was when the sun went down’, so just that evening.

When the tramp asks why the body isn’t properly laid out Nora explains the dead man made her swear nobody could touch his body except his sister, and she lives ten miles away.

Conversation weaves round to the death of a legendary local figure, Patch Darcy, and the tramp tells how he was the last to hear his voice alive. Nora fondly remembers Darcy who’d always pop into the isolated cottage to say hello and cheer her long lonely days.

When she asks if he saw anyone on the way, the tramp says he saw a young man with a drift of mountain ewes. Nora recognises the description of a young man who lives locally; her husband would go to a certain place in the path and whistle for him if he needed any help. Nora suddenly asks if the tramp can stay in the cottage and mind the corpse while she goes to get this man. Reluctant to stay the tramp says he’ll go but Nora insists there’s a special place she has to be whistling from and only she knows it. So she wraps a shawl round her and exits into the rain.

As soon as she’s left, to my incredulity, the corpse in the bed sits up, the sheet slipping off him, and the old white-haired man reveals that he’s not dead after all! In fact, his pretending to be dead is a trick to catch his wife out!! Once the tramp has gotten over his shock, Dan asks him to pour him a whiskey: he’s parched and has been plagued by a fly walking round his nose.

TRAMP: (Doubtfully.) Is it not dead you are?
DAN: How would I be dead, and I as dry as a baked bone, stranger?

The tramp warns Dan that he can hear Nora returning, so Dan lies back down and gets the tramp to rearrange the sheet over him.

Enter Nora with the simple, handsome young man Micheal Dara. He’s shocked to see the corpse. Nora suggests the tramp goes and rest in the other room, obviously wanting to get him out of the way, but he insists on staying where the whiskey is.

Nora and Micheal’s conversation dwells on how lonely she was, how she looked forward to any man passing by and stopping for a chat. Micheal complains how difficult it is to control a herd of ewes and she says you need to be a real man to do that, someone like Patch Darcy, ‘God spare his soul’ – and they both pause to revere the memory of Patch Darcy, obviously a local legend for his fitness and charm, although he apparently went mad.

MICHEAL: (Uneasily.) Is it the man went queer in his head the year that’s gone?
NORA: It is surely.

Nora tells Micheal she’s a hard woman to please as she was a difficult girl. So why did she marry an ornery old man like Dan?

NORA: What way would I live and I an old woman if I didn’t marry a man with a bit of a farm, and cows on it, and sheep on the back hills?
MICHEAL: (Considering.) That’s true, Nora, and maybe it’s no fool you were, for there’s good grazing on it, if it is a lonesome place, and I’m thinking it’s a good sum he’s left behind.

Nora has a great speech about the loneliness of living in such an isolated place:

NORA: I do be thinking in the long nights it was a big fool I was that time, Micheal Dara, for what good is a bit of a farm with cows on it, and sheep on the back hills, when you do be sitting looking out from a door the like of that door, and seeing nothing but the mists rolling down the bog, and the mists again, and they rolling up the bog, and hearing nothing but the wind crying out in the bits of broken trees were left from the great storm, and the streams roaring with the rain.

She lists the local people she’s seen growing old or the children growing up and getting married, all while she’s been stuck in the same kitchen boiling food for her husband, or the brood sow, baking cakes at nightfall. The loneliness and sense of futility. What with tramps and futility, I couldn’t help hearing anticipations of Samuel Beckett, whose Waiting for Godot would be staged exactly 50 years after Shadow.

Before these speeches Micheal had asked how much Dan left and she had plonked down on the table a stocking full of coins, their complete savings. During her speeches Micheal had been totting these up and now announces it amounts to £5 and ten notes (shillings?). He goes on to say he recently sold his lambs at market for the princely sum of £20, and then out of the blue announces that he’ll marry her in the chapel of Rathvanna, and they’ll have the property, lots of sheep and money in the bank.

But Nora isn’t relieved, she dismisses this as more pipe dreams, saying Micheal himself will only get as old and gaga as Dan. Again this emphasis on the inevitability of bodily decay strongly anticipates Beckett’s miserabilism.

NORA: Why would I marry you, Mike Dara? You’ll be getting old and I’ll be getting old, and in a little while I’m telling you, you’ll be sitting up in your bed—the way himself was sitting—with a shake in your face, and your teeth falling, and the white hair sticking out round you like an old bush where sheep do be leaping a gap…

It’s a pitiful thing to be getting old, but it’s a queer thing surely. It’s a queer thing to see an old man sitting up there in his bed with no teeth in him, and a rough word in his mouth, and his chin the way it would take the bark from the edge of an oak board you’ld have building a door.

Micheal puts his arms around her and is starting in on persuading how fine life will be living with a young man like him when Dan the corpse sneezes (again, as he had at the start of his chat with the tramp) and scares the daylights out of Nora and Dan.

Dan makes a bolt for the door but Dan in his nightshirt waving a big stick beats him to it and stands with his back to the door, barring egress. While the other two are still adjusting, Dan opens the door and tells Nora that despite all her talk of the mist coming down and young men and old men he’s kicking her out.

The tramp intervenes to say this is harsh, what will she do? Dan launches in on a great diatribe, envisioning homeless Nora become a beggar, sleeping in ditches and begging at crossroads.

DAN: It’s lonesome roads she’ll be going and hiding herself away till the end will come, and they find her stretched like a dead sheep with the frost on her, or the big spiders, maybe, and they putting their webs on her, in the butt of a ditch.

In effect a great curse. The tramp says maybe Micheal will go with her, marry her after all. But both Nora and Dan point out, what would he want with her now? Still married and penniless?

At which point the tramp plays the part of a gentleman and offers to accompany her out.

TRAMP: (Going over to Nora.) We’ll be going now, lady of the house—the rain is falling, but the air is kind and maybe it’ll be a grand morning by the grace of God.

He is kind and starts to wax lyrical about the life of a tramp, greeting each day as new and really knowing the weather, rather than stuck in this house day in day out for years of frustration. He’s in mid-lyrical flow when Dan crudely interrupts him and tells her to get out. But the tramp resumes and delivers a lyrical description of the freedom of the road:

TRAMP: (At the door.) Come along with me now, lady of the house, and it’s not my blather you’ll be hearing only, but you’ll be hearing the herons crying out over the black lakes, and you’ll be hearing the grouse and the owls with them, and the larks and the big thrushes when the days are warm, and it’s not from the like of them you’ll be hearing a talk of getting old like Peggy Cavanagh, and losing the hair off you, and the light of your eyes, but it’s fine songs you’ll be hearing when the sun goes up, and there’ll be no old fellow wheezing, the like of a sick sheep, close to your ear.

Nora makes a last speech cursing Dan:

NORA: (turns to Dan.) You think it’s a grand thing you’re after doing with your letting on to be dead, but what is it at all? What way would a woman live in a lonesome place the like of this place, and she not making a talk with the men passing? And what way will yourself live from this day, with none to care for you? What is it you’ll have now but a black life, Daniel Burke, and it’s not long I’m telling you, till you’ll be lying again under that sheet, and you dead surely.

And so she and the tramp exit. Dan makes as if to strike terrified Micheal but changes his mind and invites him to share a glass with him. So the pair sit at the table and toast each other, Micheal sincerely wishing the crabby old man long life and health, in an ironic conclusion.

(Hugh Kenner in his book about the Irish Literary Revival, points out that this last-minute reconciliation actually signposts that Dan realises that Micheal is himself when young, harmless, timid, fond of a drink: Dan is the bitter old age weak Micheal is fated to. ‘They epiromise the first and last of all she has walked out of’ – Kenner, page 154.)

Cast

  • Daniel Burke, an elderly farmer
  • Nora Burke, his young wife
  • A Tramp
  • Michael Dara, a youthful shepherd

A comedy

When I opened ‘In the Shadow of the Glen’ online and started reading it I had no idea it was a comedy. The sadness of Nora’s loneliness, the railing of her angry old husband, her final curse on him, and her bleak exit into the pouring rain, condemned to a life of vagrancy – all this struck me as harshly tragic. It seemed to me a bleak and hard piece of work with only the weird conceit of the husband playing dead at its centre like a piece of surreal absurdism. It was only when I came to read introductions and commentary around it that I discovered it was a comedy.

Forty-six years ago I learned a profound truth about the theatre, which is that audiences need to have it clearly signposted to them what kind of play they are watching and only then feel confident in reacting appropriately.

In 1980 I went to see the Old Vic production of Macbeth starring Peter O’Toole. This was a famous flop, the bad set and terrible acting bringing down a storm of obloquy on all concerned. What amazed me was that, having been told it was bad, the audience started laughing and tittering as the curtain went up, before the play had even started. Given license to find the funny side, the audience howled with laughter at the crudity of the witches and the naivety of the thane, at the obviously fake knives Macbeth and wife used to kill the king and so on. Every detail which, in a successful and serious production, the audience would quail in horror at, was, because the audience had been informed beforehand that it was a flop, greeted with howls of laughter.

Here’s a video of a great production by the Druid Theatre Company directed by Garry Hynes and filmed by RTE. You can hear from the audience response that they find some lines of dialogue funny, and certainly find the two moments when Dan rises from the dead funny (although, in my opinion, neither moment is really as startling as it should be). And the director’s added the farcical detail of Micheal shinning up a ladder when Dan threatens him which isn’t, I think, in the text.

So there are certainly comic elements. But it’s not really a comedy, is it? It doesn’t leave you with a smile on your lips. The vision of Nora wasting her life away, the picture of the women she’s seen go mad and handsome young Patch Darcy go mad, and her and the tramp’s (initial) vision of living as a vagrant in the rain and the fog, and Dan’s merciless kicking her out of his house forever, and her vision of the inevitability of death and decay – not a barrel of laughs, is it? Leaves a pretty bleak aftertaste.

Instead what it has, still has, is a vision of the serious treatment of peasant life which (the commentaries tell me) was absolutely new and revolutionary at the time and, like all real innovations in the arts, remains powerful and unsettling to this day.

Video

Nationalist objections

At the time, the play caused a furore. It was slammed by Irish nationalists for portraying Irish womanhood as debased and immoral. Reviewers seem to have thought that Nora voluntarily left her husband to go a-tramping whereas, as we’ve seen, she is unambiguously thrown out by her furious husband. Nonetheless it was roundly attacked in the press.

Nationalists were super-sensitive to slights against the Irish character. For centuries Irish characters had been portrayed by the Protestant English as comic stereotypes; for strict nationalists, a play like this looked like a small cohort of cosmopolitan (and mostly Protestant – Yeats, Gregory) writers doing just the same kind of thing, albeit in a pretentious way – again, making out Ireland’s peasantry to be drunk and promiscuous. Hence:

‘A foul libel on Irish womanhood’ – the Irish Independent

‘one of the nastiest little plays ever seen’ –

‘excessively distasteful and cast slurs on Irish womanhood’ – the Irish Times

‘Synge is pandering to the enemies of Ireland. The play is a corrupt version of an old tale that derives its imagination from the decadence that passes current in the Latin Quarter and the London Salon. Synge, who is utterly a stranger to the Irish character as any Englishman, has yet denigrated us for the enlightenment of his countrymen… [the play represents] adultery as a feature of Irish moral life ‘ – Arthur Griffith in the United Irishman

[the theatre should support] ‘the forces of virile nationalism in their fight against the widespread spirit of decadence, instead of undermining them’ – James Connolly, one of the leaders of the Easter Rising

You have to admire the guiding spirit of the theatre, poet and playwright W.B. Yeats, for standing up to all this bullying; and Synge, for not giving a damn. (All these quotes are given in the chapter devoted to the original production in Ulick O’Connor’s gossipy, readable account of the Irish Literary Renaissance.)

Nora

The name ‘Nora’ obviously triggers memories of Henrik Ibsen’s famous play A Doll’s House (1879) in which the docile and compliant housewife Nora (Helmer) comes to realise what a doormat she’s become and decides to leave her husband to become a free woman. Clearly something very similar happens here to an identically named woman, Nora (Burke). There must be thousands of essays comparing the two. Here’s a handy summary:

Shared themes: both plays highlight patriarchal constraints on the female lead, her loss of self within marriage, and the need to leave and find her true identity.

Context: Nora Helmer acts within a 19th-century urban middle-class setting while Nora Burke acts within a rural, peasant setting. Helmer lives a sociable life in a busy city but realises she is trapped by society’s imposition of patriarchal gender roles, whereas Burke’s motives are more to do with crushing isolation, and the frustration of her healthy desire by being tied to a cold and (by implication) sexless old man.

Result: Both Noras choose to walk out of their homes into the unknown, choosing freedom over security.


Related links

J.M. Synge reviews

  • In the Shadow of the Glen (1903)
  • Riders to the Sea (1904)
  • The Well of the Saints (1905)
  • The Playboy of the Western World (1907)
  • The Tinker’s Wedding (1908)

Related reviews

  • Ireland reviews

Noel Coward reviews

Theatre

Short stories

Biography

Noël Coward: A Biography by Philip Hoare (1995)

Philip Hoare’s hefty 1995 biography of Noel Coward is vast, encyclopedic and immensely enjoyable. It feels like it tells you every detail you ever wanted about The Master’s life and yet manages at the same time to be brisk and pacey and immensely readable.

The central take home is Coward’s awesome drive from the earliest age to be a star, a success, to take London’s theatreland then New York’s Broadway by storm, and how this fed his relentless drive to network, know everybody, work the room, schmooze and socially climb climb climb, baby. One minute he’s occupying the poky attic in his mother’s Pimlico boarding house, the next he’s hobnobbing with the greats of British theatre, dining with Somerset Maugham, hanging with Tallulah Bankhead, his understudy is John Gielgud, and then it’s off across the Atlantic to party with Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, get to know Ben Hecht and Katherine Hepburn, then a luxury liner back across the pond during which he charms Earl Mountbatten and his notoriously promiscuous wife, Edwina. (Hoare has a gossipy page about the scandal caused by her libel case against People magazine which accused her of having an affair with the Black actor Paul Robeson.) He writes a musical with Ivor Novello and his breakthrough play is turned into a film by Alfred Hitchcock, he performs with a young Laurence Olivier, becoming such good friends with him and his wife that there is speculation to this day about whether they had a homosexual fling. Olivier is on the record as saying emphatically not.

And all this culled from just a few years in the mid-1920s. But Coward’s career was to last another 40 years, as he mined a new historical vein in the 1930s (Cavalcade), then made the great patriotic movies of the 1940s (In Which We Serve, This Happy Breed), then reinvented himself as a cabaret star after the war. At each stage, on every page, we meet a host of characters from each era, from Ivor Novello, Cecil Beaton and Michael Arlen, Rebecca West and Virginia Woolf in the 1920s, to his bizarrely close friendships with both Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo in the ’30s, and so on and so on, in a never-ending carnival of high grade showbiz gossip.

Coward’s life is like a silver thread guiding us through the glittering worlds of music and entertainment, theatre and film, of his era, as well as the gay underworld scenes in London, New York and select spots around the Mediterranean (Capri, Algiers) and Hoare treats us to and endless supply of fascinating and often hilarious anecdotes. I laughed out loud at the story of American producer Jed Harris in England to cast a production of The Green Bay Tree and going to loads of Shakespeare productions, claiming he was getting very tired of seeing English kings being played by English queens (p.195).

And this is just the socialising and the gossip, before you get to the actual work. Coward’s work ethic was phenomenal and his output prodigious. If this or that play was a disaster, don’t worry darling, there’s always another revue or musical or operetta just round the corner, or a new hit song about to take the gramophone and radio by storm, or a new movie just about to hit the screens, and then there are his books of short stories. And the novel.

He was a phenomenon, able to act, dance, write ravishing musicals, smash hit songs and era-defining plays, and then the great wartime movies. I don’t think genius is quite the right word, but man of phenomenal, extraordinary talents and, above all, the burning, quenchless drive to succeed succeed succeed. As his friend Esme Wynne said, he was:

‘frightfully ambitious… He was full of determination and willpower’ (p.43)

Or as he archly put it in his autobiography:

‘It was a matter of pressing urgency… that I should become as rich and successful as soon as possible.’ (quoted p.63)

Distinctive speech

When a girl, his mother, Violet (1863 to 1954), developed a fever which left her with poor hearing in one ear. This was one reason he developed such an idiosyncratic manner of speech, clearly enunciating every syllable of every word, for her benefit.

Closeness to mother

Violet’s first child, a boy, Russell, died at the age of 6 from spinal meningitis, and this made her especially protective of her second child, Noel (p.10). She cosseted him, and dressed him nicely, and danced attendance. He grew up emotionally spoiled, though not materially, for the family was poor.

Distance from father

Noel’s father, Arthur (1856 to 1937), was a failure. After a series of jobs he became a piano salesman which took him away from home a lot, so was absent during Noel’s boyhood. He was also ineffectual. Eventually he dwindled down to being a sort of servant at the boarding house Violet ended up running.

Suburban

Noel was born in Teddington but the family moved a lot, sometimes out as far as Chobham, living for a while in the Battersea/Clapham area of London, settling in Ebury Street in Pimlico, just north of Victoria Station. I was struck by the fact that next door lived the Evans family, whose daughter, Edith, was to become a dame of the theatre.

He was always aware of his origins in the impoverished lower middle class. Hoare quotes Gertrude Lawrence after they had danced a number in his 1922 review London Calling, standing in the wings and listening to the loud applause and excitedly saying: ‘That’s for us, the two kids from the suburbs. We’ve definitely arrived’ (quote p.119).

Noel

He was named Noel because he was born on 15 December i.e. close to Christmas.

Poverty

When his father’s work petered out, Violet was forced to turn their house in Pimlico into a boarding house, with Alfred helping with the serving and chores. Whenever he made money Noel was quick to pay off the family debts and never lapsed in his attachment to his mother.

But their poverty was easily used as a slur by anyone who wanted to hurt or denigrate him. Before meeting Noel, Cecil Beaton was told his mother was a charlady (p.123). (Compare the universal snobbery against H.G. Wells whose mother was housekeeper at a grand country seat.) For me, it’s this unashamed loyalty to his mother and humble roots which I found the most winning element in Noel’s character, far richer than the so-called wit.

Precocity

What really comes over very quickly is how precocious Noel was and how extraordinarily determined to succeed. He started acting at the age of five and his mother was taking him to auditions and local amateur talent shows before he was 10. At home in Clapham he made a toy theatre and spent the day writing plays for the little puppet figures he made to act out. His first professional engagement was in 1911 at the age of 14, where he appeared in the children’s play The Goldfish in London. By the time he hit his teens he had acted, danced and sung onstage and had a vivid sense of his own potential. He wanted to be a star.

Vicars and sex

He was put off religion by several groping vicars he encountered as a boy. Last year the Archbishop of Canterbury was forced to resign after admitting to not doing enough to sanction or report a paedophile vicar. It is a long tradition within the Church of England but also, of course, within the Catholic Church. Noel never respected either.

Homosexuality

He had homosexual experiences before heterosexual ones. Girls were so much more closely chaperoned and protected whereas boys were encouraged to play, share rooms, go camping etc together. And all without the heart-stopping risk of the life-ruining risk of getting pregnant.

(The ever-present threat of pregnancy is echoed a lot later in the book, when Hoare describes Coward meeting the man who was to be the love of his life, Graham Payn, towards the end of the Second World War. Payn had previously been heterosexual and had numerous affairs with chorus girls. But after the third abortion – ‘and they cost £75 in those days’ – he’d had enough and was ready for a change of orientation, p.358. Compare and contrast Kingsley Amis’s horrible depictions of abortion in his early novels, and the squalid abortion scenes in the 1966 movie, Alfie. Gays were well out of the whole thing. )

Uranians

The Uranians was one of numerous names given to late-nineteenth century associations of homosexuals in the arts who wrote about the love of adolescent boys.

Young Noel was introduced to this world when still a boy via the figure of the painter, Bohemian and prominent Uranian Philip Streatfeild. One version of the story goes that Noel’s mother, Violet, was working as a cleaner, cleaning Streatfeild’s Chelsea studios and one day brough along her 14-year-old son. With his eye for adolescent boy beauty, Streatfeild was taken with Noel and asked him to sit for him. Streatfeild introduced to other artists and performers in his circle (which included Robbie Ross, Alfred Douglas and other survivors from the Wilde circle of the 1890s).

Then, in 1914, Streatfeild asked Violet’s permission to take the boy on holiday with him to Cornwall. Knowing Streatfeild and obviously trusting him, and also concerned for her son’s ongoing health issues in the polluted London air, Violet gave her permission and young Noel was whisked off to Cornwall to meet more stylish gay artists who probably included the distinguished painter of young men Henry Scott Tuke. Here he could sunbathe and swim nude, and be worshipped by older men.

Nobody knows whether he had sex with any of these men but it must have shown the impressionable young boy that homosexuality and the wonderfully sybaritic lifestyle these men led, was possible, was a lifestyle option. Here’s a photo of Streatfeild and Noel.

Philip Streatfeild

Photo of Philip Streatfeild and a teenage Noel Coward

They were in Cornwall when war broke out in August 1914. Coward just seemed to have a magic touch when it came to making contacts. As soon as the war broke out Coward was sent back to London in the charge of a friend of the group, the novelist Hugh Walpole.

Streatfeild enlisted and died a year later from tuberculosis contracted in the army. He was just 35 (p.44). But not before he’d introduced Noel to other members of his regiment, especially the gay officers, who took part in what sound like orgiastic parties (p.36). Thus began Coward’s lifelong attraction to men in uniform and comfortableness around members of the forces of all classes and all sexual persuasions.

Hambleton Hall

Coward’s social ascendancy began thanks to Streatfeild who, before his death, asked wealthy socialite Mrs Julia Astley Cooper to take Coward under her wing. Mrs Astley Cooper continued to encourage her late friend’s protégé, who remained a frequent guest at her estate, Hambleton Hall in Rutland (pages 39 to 43). Among her guests were notables like CK Montcrieff, the translator of Proust, the conductor Malcolm Sargent, the diarist James Lee Milne and so on.

But young Noel not only met and learned how to talk to high-powered members of the literati, but was also trained in the rhythms and decorum of country house living, numerous details of which were crucial to his plays of the 1920s. Mrs Astley Cooper even claimed, a lot later, that he had a little black notebook with him and took down remarks and whole conversations between the Bohemian members of her family and that these turned up wholesale in plays like Hay Fever and The Young Idea. Hoare says his experiences there were ‘pivotal to Coward’s progress’ (p.43).

Penetrative sex

As to sex with any of these Uranians, his close friend throughout his boyhood, Esmé Wynne, decades later insisted that Noel was not homosexually active as a boy. In fact Hoare broadens this out to the claim that he had a lifetime aversion to penetrative sex (p.34). Much later in the book I laughed at the story that he and American producer Jed Harris were having a late night conversation about sex and when Jed asked him if he’d ever slept with a woman, Noel replied: ‘It would be like going to bed with a porpoise’ (p.195). Well, I dare say porpoises can be sexy 🙂

Saki

At Hambleton Hall Noel picked up from Proust as a name to drop (he later named a cat Proust) but the real revelation was the writings of the camp humourist Saki, real name Hector Hugh Munro. Saki’s humorous contempt for the values of the older generation, his worship of camp young men, yet all drenched with a sentimental fondness for the English countryside and the quirks of English life, all of these were things Noel would adopt wholesale. He never got to meet his hero because Munro was killed in the trenches in November 1916, when Noel was just 17.

Esmé Wynne

Noel had a deep boyhood and adolescent friendship with Esmé Wynne (1898 to 1972). They met at child auditions and in 1914 both appeared in the first production of Clifford Mills’ Where the Rainbow Ends. Soon after Wynne attended Coward’s 12th birthday party and their friendship blossomed. In 1912 Wynne had her first writing success at the age of 13 when her first play The Prince’s Bride was put on for one night by Charles Hawtree at the Savoy, including Coward in the cast. From then on they were inseparable, spending time together whenever possible and writing to each other constantly. In 1915 they were part of the cast which undertook a lengthy British tour of Brandon Thomas’s play Charley’s Aunt.

Between acting appointments collaborated on sketches and songs together and wrote a number of one-act plays under the joint pen-name of Esnomel; Ida Collaborates (The Last Chapter) (staged 1917), To Have and To Hold (not staged) and Women and Whisky (staged 1918). They also got up to teenage pranks.

A very naughty boy…

As an adolescent Noel got into all kinds of trouble. He bit teachers, answered back.

He was addicted to shoplifting, pulling off amazing feats of theft, one time simply walking out of Fortnum and Mason with a suitcase, strolling along to Piccadilly to Hatchards, filling it with books and walking out (p.48). On numerous occasions he nearly got caught and had to leg it. This kind of behaviour associates him much more with the urban tearaways of the working class than the soignée upper classes he realised he wanted to move among.

On page 202 Hoare has a passage describing how Noel, arguably, never really grew up, from the childish tantrums he threw in the theatre or with his ‘family’, to his impish subversive sense of humour, his quickness to ridicule royalty, church of state. Kenneth Tynan is quoted as saying he was never entrapped by maturity (p.202). And Hoare thinks Private Lives shows its protagonists having endless wildish tantrums (p.223).

No education

An important point is that he had little or no formal education. He was educated briefly at a choir school and later received dance lessons, but more or less left school at 11 and had no formal schooling thereafter. Forget university, he didn’t get anywhere near finishing secondary school. Instead The Theatre was his education and his teachers and his life. To this lack may fairly obviously be attributed the legendary thinness of his plays and their almost complete lack of depth or meaning beyond the hour and a half’s distraction they provide.

When he published his first volume of autobiography, Present Indicative, in 1937 the novelist St John Ervine was staggered at its shallowness: ‘I was amazed and disturbed at the slenderness of his intellectual resources. [I wonder if he has] ever read a great book, seen a fine picture or a notable play, listened to music of worth, observed a piece of sculpture, or taken any interest in the commonplaces of a cultured man’s life.’ (quoted, p.276)

Piano

He learned some good striking chords with which to open almost any song to get the audience’s attention (p.54). Although he never learned to play the piano very well. I was struck when he himself admits he was only comfortable in three keys, E flat, B flat and A flat. He joked that the sight of sharps on sheet music threw him into a tizzy (p.14).

First World War

In 1918, Coward was conscripted into the Labour Corp. He bribed his way to a day pass and spent it tracking down every contact he’d made via Streatfeild or Mrs Cooper and eventually persuaded a sympathetic officer to phone the CO and get him transferred to the Artists Rifles. But he was useless. Having not attended school since 1918 he had no sense of discipline and esprit de corps. He developed headaches and insomnia, fell and cracked his head and was sent to a hospital in Camberwell mostly filled with shell shock victims. Esme thought he was malingering and even here he made influential friends, and discovered a way of escaping for evenings back in the West End. In June 1918 he was discharged from hospital and sent back to the Artists Rifles camo in Essex where he was given light duties such as cleaning the latrines. Not surprisingly, he developed psychosomatic symptoms again and again was sent to hospital. This one includes lots of epileptic patients and Noel briefly worried that he was one too. Weeks passed and he drafted a bad novel. Eventually, in August 1918 he was given a discharge. He was free to resume his career in his beloved theatre.

In the 1930s Coward wrote as flippantly as possibly about his period in the army, exaggerating for comic effect the extent to which he had faked his symptoms to escape service. This came back to bite him very hard when the Second World War kicked off, not only among his enemies in Britain but also in the States, where his endless foreign travel in the war’s first few years drew extensive criticism.

Elsie April

In 1922 he met Elsie April who worked with many composers to improve and orchestrate their compositions. She was prodigiously gifted. She had perfect pitch. If someone hummed a tune to her in a noisy rehearsal room she was able to notate, harmonise and transcribe it on the spot. Her biographer credits her with introducing ‘the unusual key changes and poignant angularities of phrase’ to be found in Coward’s mature music. I think I know what he means. If you listen to the songs in Conversation Piece it’s rare that a song stays in the same key for more than two lines and the vocal line often jumps dramatically. Although the orchestration is sickeningly sweet, the actual vocal lines are often strikingly jarring and angular.

Burning ambition

He had an extraordinary commitment to becoming successful and famous. In his discussion of heroin and cocaine a propos of The Vortex, Hoare gives the impression that, although mixing in circles which took drugs, he never did himself. He was not the sort. He never lost control. He was always watching and alert and driven.

He devoted himself to making contacts and social climbing while still a teenager. There isn’t space to describe the extraordinary range of artists, writers, poets, playwrights, producers, designers, directors, other actors, as well as aristocrats and even royalty that he met. On a trans-Atlantic liner he managed to get on first name terms with the Earl Mountbatten and his wife. He became so friendly with the dissolute brother of the Prince of Wales that people speculate to this day whether they had a gay affair!

The family

Noel early gathered around him a coterie of friends and collaborators who became known jokily as ‘the family’. One of the earlier members was the actress Lorne Lorraine who became his devoted secretary for 40 years, and is captured as the long-suffering secretary Monica Reid in Present Laughter, and later friends such as his assistant Cole Lesley (recruited when he was working as a shop assistant in Kent, p.272), and his life partner Graham Payn.

‘Bubbers’ is what he called his sacred afternoon nap.

Backchat and bickering

I was astonished when I first read Noel Coward’s plays at the almost complete absence of the famous wit and humour I’d heard so much about. Instead I discovered almost nothing but argument and bickering rising, from time to time, to really angry exchanges and even, in Private Lives, physical attacks.

This view felt a bit like blasphemy against the great man, and I worried I had profoundly misread him, so it’s reassuring to have Hoare quote so many, many critics and contemporaries who entirely agree with my own reading.

The swift, hard, rattling farcical-comedy, at which he aimed so many shots, is brought to glittering perfection in Private Lives. It is technically a masterpiece – not of writing plays but of writing Noel Coward plays. For, as I think we have discovered by now, Mr Coward’s plot is the contrast between brilliant cosmopolitanism and stodgy Anglo-Saxondom, his standby is Infidelity and his device of stagecraft is the Bicker… (author and critic A.G. MacDonnell, quoted p.213)

The Times wrote of Private Lives that the dialogue ‘which might seem in print a trickle of inanities’ became onstage ‘a perfectly times and directed interplay of nonsense.’

The Observer found the play superficial and that the characters’ ‘style is mainly in their clothes; as conversationalists they are mere back-chatterers‘. Looking up back-chat I find it defined as ‘To respond in a disputative, often sarcastic manner’, ‘rude or cheeky remarks made in reply to someone in authority’, ‘the act of answering back, especially impudently.’

Brooks Anderson: the playwright ‘has nothing to say and says it with competent agility for three acts.’

New York Review: ‘They are only adults under the skin. They are really adolescents on long legs.’ (p.229)

But what did Noel care what the critics said? That year (1930) he was declared the highest paid author in the world. Nothing succeeds like success.

Fame and extraordinary output

The Vortex, written in 1923, performed in late 1924, shot him to fame. Hoare cites contemporaries recording that young people started to dress like him, affect his clipped speech, attempted never to be seen without a cigarette or a cocktail in one hand, wore Cowardesque dressing gowns. Like the earlier fad for Valentino and later crazes over Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles.

The mass media – with the arrival of ever-increasing numbers of newspapers, magazines, radio and silent movies – demands stars and celebrities to write about and he basked in dizzy fame from the premier of The Vortex in November 1924.

And it was followed by a giddy rush of productions, plays, reviews, musicals and some silent movie adaptations of the plays. Old plays he’d written were dusted off and eagerly sought by producers. He turned out new plays at a dizzying rate, alongside songs and music, as well as working on screenplays. It’s a dizzyingly record of work and achievement.

Plays

  • Sirocco (1921) (Revised in 1927)
  • The Young Idea (1922)
  • The Better Half (1922)
  • The Queen Was in the Parlour (1922) (first Produced in 1926)
  • The Vortex (1923) (first Produced November 1924)
  • Easy Virtue (1924) (first Produced in 1925)
  • Fallen Angels (1925)
  • Hay Fever (1925)
  • Semi-Monde (1926) (too rude to be licensed in Britain; first produced in 1977)
  • This Was a Man (1926)
  • The Marquise (1927)
  • Home Chat (1927)

Musicals

  • London Calling! (1922, 1923)
  • Weatherwise (1923) (first produced in 1932)
  • On With the Dance (1924, 1925)

Songs

He wrote lots of songs for the musicals including some wonderful hits, namely:

Failures

But there were failures too. In fact it seemed for a moment like there was a steady decline: after the runaway rave success of The Vortex (1924) and Hay Fever (1925) came two plays which did OK, Easy Virtue (1926) and The Marquise (1927) had been modestly successful. And then two disasters, Home Chat (25 October 1927) and Sirocco (November 1927).

Regarding Home Chat, the Illustrated London News called the play ‘an amusing little trifle on the whole – but it is thin in its material and there are signs about it of hasty and careless composition’.

In the Observer St John Ervine took a similar view: ‘Had Mr Coward spent another week in writing his play it would have been a much wittier one than it is.’

This is very much the view I took of even his most successful plays. Knocked off in a matter of weeks or even days, they all show it in their thinness of plot and characterisation and astonishing lack of wit, of funny or quotable lines. Instead, as I’ve said in my reviews, even his most famous plays basically rely on people getting angry and shouting abuse at each other (true of Hay Fever, Easy Virtue, Fallen Angels, Private Lives).

Anyway, Sirocco did even worse. The first night was a famous theatrical disaster, the worst night of Coward’s professional career, 24 November 1927, pretty much three years to the day after the barnstorming success of The Vortex (25 November 1924). The audience booed and hissed. When he went out the stage door he was spat at. The reviews were uniformly disastrous.

But Hoare draws an interesting point. Coward, he says, realised a great truth from this experience. The media, the press, like to build up celebrities and then knock them down but this isn’t because the press is particularly malevolent. It’s just stupid. In the popular press everything is either black or white, good or bad. You’re either up or down. Coward had had several years of being The New Thing, super-fashionable, adored by his fans. But in the moron press it doesn’t take much to tip you over and as soon as you’re not at the top, you’re at the bottom. Black or white. Up or down. And so it was that just a couple of so-so plays led to excoriating notices and the critics (and some of his cattier friends) saying it was all over, Noel was a busted flush (p.189).

Of course he wasn’t, as the next 45 years (he died in 1973) were to show.

Cavalcade

Philip Hoare sees the 1932 extravaganza Cavalcade as a turning point in Coward’s ideas, that he consciously moved on from the provocative and controversial attitudes of the 1920s plays, with their incessant references to cocktails and cocaine, with their clever riffs on infidelity and sexual immorality. Cavalcade‘s sentimental patriotism inaugurated a new feeling of respect and avoidance of controversy. Those bastions of conservative conformism and backward-looking philistinism, the Daily Mail for the lower middle classes and the Telegraph for the pompous upper middle classes, praised it and the Mail even serialised the script/book.

In 1932 Coward was at the height of his success with Cavalcade making a mint with provincial tours of Private Lives and Bitter Sweet all contributing to the coffers. He bought a mews cottage, Burton Mews in Belgravia, and had it gutted into a huge space appropriate for big parties of the great and the good from the worlds of theatre, movies, aristocracy and even royalty.

I laughed when I read, on page 254, Virginia Woolf writing to her nephew Quentin Bell, complaining that she had to go to dinner with Coward, whose work she ‘despised’. Good old Virginia. His ubiquity as a celebrity turned her against him. And Hoare goes on to quote her quoting Aldous Huxley at some dinner describing Coward as beating an omelette with no eggs: beating and beating and beating, but with nothing there, just the action of the beating. That actually gets close to Coward’s essence: a kind of quintessence of pure ambition, with all the plays and songs and revues merely tools, expedients, to raise their author to that level of superstardom. But when you look at the works closely: nothing there except the frantic beating. The subtext of all of them isn’t Queer, it’s Burning Ambition.

E.M. Forster dined with Coward at Lady Colefax’s, a pushy society hostess, and reported that he spent the entire time talking the most awful drivel. You can easily see how, from Forster’s cultured perspective, this would be true. Hoare entertainingly says that for all their differences in style and depth, Forster and Coward were both middle-class mummies boys.

Second World War

The Second World War came at a good time for Noel Coward. After the madcap Twenties and bleak Thirties, the war redefined Britishness and served as an antidote to the disillusion and decadence of the inter-war period. Its revival of the values of empire and Britain’s greatness was congenial to Coward: the quality of fortitude required (and mythologised) by the war neatly coincided with the fortitude displayed by Noel… the values he espoused dovetailed with the Dunkirk / Blitz / ‘Britain can take it’ spirit and he was able to exploit them fully. Cavalcade had announced his patriotism; the films, plays and concert tours of the early 1940s helped cement his image in the hearts and minds of the British public. (p.329)

In fact it was quite a bit more complicated than that and Hoare gives a fascinating account of how unpopular Coward became in the first few years of the war. He was quickly involved in spying combined with morale boosting trips to France, then America several times, then as far afield as Australia and New Zealand. I was struck to learn that he met President Roosevelt not once but twice, on charm offensives to persuade him to support embattled Britain.

But these busy trips don’t seem to have had much practical outcome and mainly generated critical articles in the press and even questions in the House from MPs asking why he was gallivanting round the globe at public expense. Hoare shows how the deliberate misreporting of his activities and hostile press conferences steadily put him off the small-minded, carping tone of British public life, especially the vendetta against him pursued by the Beaverbrook newspapers, namely the Daily and Sunday Express. Coward got his own back by having a scene in ‘In Which We Serve’ when, after the ship is sunk by Germans, we see a copy of the Daily Express float by with the headline ‘No War This Year’. Lord Beaverbrook was incensed.

There was also an anti-queer undertone. Hoare quotes Joyce Grenfell of all people lamenting in a letter to her mother that Britain should be represented abroad by someone everyone knew was ‘queer’ (p.313) and other commentators, less party to theatrical insider knowledge, still criticised a figure most associated with dainty young things in dressing gowns and slippers mocking all their parents’ values. ‘God, what enemies I must have,’ he wrote in his diary.

When his lovely mews house was bombed out he moved into the Savoy, widely thought to be safe because constructed of steel girders. He overheard a street seller and promptly knocked out the song ‘London Pride’, a popular hit with the people who didn’t read or care about gossip columns and querulous MPs. According to Hoare, a ‘soundtrack to Coward’s war, banal but touching.’

He met Churchill on a number of occasions, lobbying to be given more intelligence work. He was frustrated when Churchill told him not to but to go and sing and entertain the troops i.e. to do what he did best, to entertain and raise morale.

Blithe Spirit

He had been mulling over a comedy about a haunted house, went to stay at Portmeirion in Wales on a brief holiday with Joyce Cary, and wrote Blithe Spirit in just seven days (!). It quickly went into production, opened in the West End on 2 July 1941 and proceeded to break box office records, running for a record 1,997 performances.

In Which We Serve

Soon after Blithe Spirit was premiered Coward was introduced to the producer Anthony Havelock-Allan who was working for Two Cities Films. This company was set up by two Italians, Filippo Del Giudice and Mario Zampi. Two Cities played an important role in British wartime films, producing a series of classics which helped bolster morale including adaptations of Coward’s plays ‘This Happy Breed’ and ‘Blithe Spirit’, along with ‘The Way Ahead’, Laurence Olivier’s ‘Henry V’, ‘The Way to the Stars’.

Noel was asked for a scenario and drew on the recent incident of his friend Louis Mountbatten, captain of a ship that was sunk. This became the germ of the wartime classic movie ‘In Which We Serve’ where the sinking of the ship becomes a pretext for flashbacks to their civilian lives of a cross-section of the crew, and thereby of British society.

Coward was introduced to the established cameraman Ronald Neame, and the editor and wannabe director David Lean, then 33. He brought with him his loyal set and costume designer, Gladys Calthrop.

On the writing front it’s amusing to learn that Coward’s initial idea of a screenplay, starting off in the Far East and featuring a huge cast, would have ended up with a film 7 or 8 hours long. He had to learn what worked and didn’t work on the job.

On the gossip front, I was a bit amazed to learn that during the production Coward had a passionate affair with the glamorous male actor, Michael Wilding, nine years his junior. Reading a book like this makes you wonder whether any of the actors from the classic era were not gay.

In ‘Which We Serve’ premiered in September 1942. In 1943 Coward was awarded an Academy Award for ‘outstanding production achievement’.

After the film was launched, he embarked on a provincial tour playing his three most recent plays – Present Laughter, This Happy Breed and Blithe Spirit – in a package titled ‘Play Parade’. During the day they visited munitions factories and hospitals. When the plays arrived back in London they were triumphant.

Wartime tours

Of the Middle East, then to America for radio broadcasts and to meet Roosevelt (again), a pit stop in Jamaica which he fell in love with, then back to North Africa and then a tour of South Africa, with piano accompaniment from Norman Hackforth and valet and dogsbody by a new employee, the frank and often foul-mouthed Bert Lister. Then is invited by his old friend Mountbatten to tour the Far East, which he does dutifully and exhausts himself, eventually having collapsing and taking R&R in Ceylon.

The film of ‘Blithe Spirit’ opened in April 1945. Coward hated what David Lean had done to it, but it was a box office success.

Post-war

The hectic pace of Coward’s work life doesn’t let up in the immediate post-war years which saw a constant round of revivals of his plays in London, New York and Paris, interspersed with the writing of another musical and a steady stream of new works, which pass almost in a blur.

Jamaica The standout fact is that he fell in love with Jamaica and bought a plot of land on the island’s fashionable north coast, just down the road from Ian Fleming, and had a house built there which was named Blue Harbour. Ironically it was, according to all the guests who stayed, uncomfortable and unhygienic but Coward loved it. The food was, by all accounts, terrible. Said John Pringle:

‘The food was awful, always covered in pickled walnuts… The deserts looked like they’d been made in toilet seat moulds.’ (p.397).

Nudity was almost compulsory, especially round the swimming pool, which some guests found bracing.

The King and I He was offered but turned down the part in The King and I which was then given to Yul Brynner.

Ace of Clubs His musical, Ace of Clubs, was a flop. Hoare implies because his musical director, the immensely talented, Elsie April, had died (1950) and she was the secret ingredient of all his musicals.

Farewell Jack Wilson He finally severed business relations with his former lover Jack Wilson, who had for decades represented him in the US but had become an alcoholic and presided over a run of failed productions.

The Astonished Heart 1950: the film version of ‘The Astonished Heart’, in which he starred, was panned. He had asked Michael Redgrave to play the lead, as the psychiatrist who finds himself torn between wife and lover and ends up committing suicide. But when, in late 1949, Coward saw the rushes, he thought Redgrave was doing it all wrong and squeezed him out of the production. Nonetheless it failed. The original one-act play moves so fast you don’t notice the basic implausibility but stretched to nearly three times the length, the play’s thinness of characterisation became obvious. Variety magazine accurately summarised: ‘While film has a clever veneer, yarn lacks the more basic quality of credibility due to insufficient motivation of the central character.’

Relative Values The next genuine hit was Relative Values (1951), a satire on the Labour government and the new ideas of social equality which the war had seen triumph. It was ten years since he’d written Blithe Spirit. Reviews were mixed but many critics just didn’t like the monologue where the lead character mocks dreams of equality.

Joke Although people go on and on about his tremendous wit, there is in this biography, as in the plays, not a lot of evidence of it. One slight anecdote made me laugh. Walking across Leicester Square with a friend, Coward saw the hoarding for a new film starring Dirk Bogarde and Michael Wilding called ‘The Sea Shall Not Have Them’. ‘I don’t see why not.’ Noel said to his friend, ‘Everyone else has.’

Ann Rothermere Interesting that Ian Fleming’s mistress, who he subsequently married, Ann Rothermere, was a real aristocrat, and so quite disdainful of Noel with his airs and graces and painful reminders that he was on first name terms with various Royals. Trying too hard. Arriviste. On the other hand, what do you expect from a boy from Battersea who would never have the genuine, bred-in-the-bone aristocratic hauteur. Coward attended Ian and Ann’s wedding.

Musicals In 1946 his musical, Pacific 1860, had not been a success. In 1951 another musical, The Globe Review, starring his boyfriend Graham Payn, opened to good reviews. Whereas the next play, Quadrille (1952), was panned.

Churchill visited and they spent time painting together for painting, we now learn, had been a hobby of his since boyhood (p.398). He painted local Black men, looking muscular (p.399). You can see quite a few of them on the Noel Coward website.

Cabaret In October 1951 he undertook an experiment, to perform a solo show of songs at the Café de Paris. This was the start of a new type of career. Over the coming years he slipped in more runs of these kinds of performances before, of course, succumbing to the lure of America.

Apple Cart In 1952 he was persuaded to star in a revival of Shaw’s political satire, The Apple Cart (p.400). The musical After The Ball (1953) was badly directed and performed (p.404).

The coronation He watched the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II (2 June 1953) on television. It was the occasion of his most famous quip. As the carriages of visiting dignitaries rolled past one came into view bearing the huge Queen of Tonga beside a small man. When someone asked who the little man sitting beside the queen was, Noel quipped ‘her lunch.’ The only snag with this bon mot is that Coward himself denied actually saying it. He said it was David Niven (p.401).

Nude with Violin He was working on Nude with Violin, a satire on contemporary art which thinks it is all a hoax. It was 30 years since The Vortex and he had become a crusty old reactionary (p.402). Hoare makes the sweeping and controversial statement that Coward might well have been a run-of-the-mill entertainer and playwright if it wasn’t for his outsider status as a homosexual. It was this outsiderness which gave everything he wrote its edge (p.402). Really? What this book shows is just how many other playwrights, novelists, artists and actors were gay as well starting, for example, with Somerset Maugham and Ivor Novello. If it was his gayness which gave him his ‘edge’, why didn’t the other two popular entertainers have the same ‘edge’? No. As a theory or explanation for Coward’s style it’s a non-starter.

One thing which didn’t change was his amazing facility. He wrote Nude with Violin in just over three weeks.

Autobiographies The second instalment of his autobiography, Future Indefinite was published in 1954. There’s a puzzle here. Coward wrote three volumes of autobiography but they left big gaps. Present Indicative (1937) ends in 1931 while Future Indefinite (1954) starts in 1939 and only goes up to 1945. Why the big gap in the ’30s? He was maybe attempting to fill it with the third volume, Past Conditional, which he left unfinished at his death and which only covers 1931 and 1932.

Violet His beloved mother, Violet, died, aged 91. She had been his uncomplaining rock.

Idiotic I noticed this word recurring in ‘Blithe Spirit’ and then noticed it cropping up in quotes from Coward’s diaries or reported speech, in this biography. I think ‘idiotic’ may have been his favourite word.

  • ‘This week has been fairly idiotic.’
  • ‘I have made one of the most sensational successes of my career and to pretend that I am not absolutely delighted would be idiotic.’
  • In 1956 in Paris he met the Duke of Windsor, now deaf, who he found ‘completely idiotic’.
  • He was in Jamaica during the filming of ‘Dr No’ which was ‘enjoyable but idiotic’.
  • When he learned that half of Hollywood was having Dr Niehans’s rejuvenating injection of goat placenta, he commented ‘They can’t all be idiotic!’

Marijuana We learn that when Laurence Olivier visited Coward, he sought out a neighbour, Morris Cargill and demanded the best ganja. Who knew that Laurence Olivier smoked dope? (p.408)

Jamaica II He moved to a new retreat at a place called Firefly Hill, on the ruin of a lookout tower built by the pirate Captain Morgan (p.397), with a magnificent view of the Blue Mountains sweeping down to the sea, and a sandy beach. He commissioned a local architect to design it but it turned out as ugly as Blue Harbour. According to Ian Fleming its walls all leaked resulting in permanent damp.

Local Jamaican politics inspired him to start what turned into a satirical comic novel, ‘Pomp and Circumstance’ (p.409).

Las Vegas American producers came calling, with offers for salaried writing jobs in Hollywood etc but he didn’t want to be tied down. Instead he opted for a 3-week run of performances in Las Vegas, as his friend Marlene Dietrich had done. His usual accompanist was forbidden a visa so he took up Dietrich’s suggestion of using her accompanist, Peter Matz. According to Hoare, Matz rearranged many of Coward’s songs, giving them a more American swing and arrangement. Coward’s success in Vegas owed a lot to Matz (p.410). $15,000 a week. A bit like the Beatles, his set only lasted half an hour, but was enough to wow the crowd with his presence and charisma. The concerts were recorded and edited into the record Noel Coward in Las Vegas.

He was persuaded to play a cameo part in the movie Around The World In Eighty Days in exchange for a Bonnard painting valued at £4,500.

He rehearsed and performed live on TV a musical special, despite fierce arguments with the crass American sponsors (Ford).

Exile His tax affairs became more and more complicated, with him paying tax in Britain, plus supertax, and tax in America as well sometimes. Now that his mother was dead, his last real tie with the home country, his accountant and tax advisers told him to leave. So he sold up everything, the London house and Goldenhurst in Kent, resigned all his positions, and moved permanently to Bermuda. This was because it was in the sterling zone but had different tax laws. In reality he was to spend more and more time in America, especially Hollywood.

1956 ‘South Sea Bubble’ was one of the three works set in his fictional Pacific country of Samola. It is a comedy built around a strong Diana Cooper-Edwina Mountbatten type figure. As long ago as 1950 Coward had asked Vivien Leigh to play it, and in April 1956 she did, to very good reviews. In September he saw the premiere of ‘Nude with Violin’ in Dublin and was, as usual, sniffy about John Gielgud’s performance, but then Gielgud was sniffy about the play.

But the press continued very anti-Coward, publishing cartoons lampooning the great tax avoider and accusing him of unpatriotism – all of which confirmed Noel in his decision to leave the country and made him more reluctant than ever to return. It depressed him but he was cheered up by publication of the ‘Theatrical Companion to Coward’, latest in a series which had covered Shaw and Maugham.

Osborne The first night of John Osborne’s ‘Look Back in Anger’ on 8 May 1956 sounded the death knell of the old school of drama. It was as radical a breath of fresh air as Coward’s ‘The Vortex’ had been 32 years earlier. The future lay with the Angry Young Men and kitchen sink dramas.

Volcano Coward was working on ‘Volcano’, a play about the storm and stress of a problem marriage, largely based on Ian and Ann Fleming’s marriage with infidelities on both sides.

Bill Traylor He had a disastrous love affair with young actor Bill Traylor who he cast, against advice, in the Broadway run of ‘Nude with Violin’. The play bombed and such as Coward’s insensate pursuit of Traylor that the young actor tries to commit suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills, a scandal which was only just kept out of the papers. Coward was miserably unhappy for months, first at lowering his ferocious self-discipline and then worrying that he would never find true love.

1958 He was tired of Bermuda and thought Jamaica was on the turn. He travelled to France and visited Switzerland, realising he wanted to settle in Europe, in a temperate climate.

Cuba He agreed to a bit part in Carol Reed’s film of Graham Greene’s novel ‘Our Man in Havana’. He had Alec and Merula Guinness to stay first, then they all flew to Havana. Here they met Graham Green and Ernest Hemingway. Namedropping doesn’t get much better. Hemingway hated Noel’s affected manner and endless theatre gossip. Quelle surprise.

Switzerland He finally bought a house overlooking Lac Leman. It was to become his final home. It was dubbed Chalet Coward or, amusingly, the Shilly Chalet.

‘Our Man in Havana’ was released on 30 December 1959 and his role was praised. This opened the door for more cameo roles which were to become a useful source of income (p.453).

Meanwhile his attempt at a serious ballet ‘London Morning’, completely flopped, the music and scenario completely out of date. And his play ‘Look After Lulu’, a translation of a Feydeau farce, also bombed, despite starring Vivien Leigh.

1960 His refusal to exercise, give up smoking or eat sensibly began to catch up with him, as he was stricken with various ailments including phlebitis.

Pinter Surprisingly when he saw The Caretaker in 1960 he was thrilled by it and when he met its author, Harold Pinter, they both realised they had a lot in common: the use of incomplete patter or banter as a style; more deeply, a feel for the theatre not as the expression of the self but as an objective medium for expressing any given situation to the full. In 1963 he put up some of the money to finance a movie version.

Waiting in the Wings about a home for ageing actresses, opened in August 1960. It was savaged by the critics, much to Coward’s anger. The times really had changed and he was de trop.

Pomp and Circumstance His novel was published in November 1960. It wasn’t intended to be literature but entertainment and was reviewed as such. I wonder what it’s like.

Sail Away Hoare describes the immense amount of effort which went into not just writing but staging and funding a lavish musical called ‘Sail Away’ which he hoped would compete with the classic American musicals and provide a tidy pension. it did not. Despite bringing in the same choreographer who’d done West Side Story (1957) and the larger-than-life Elaine Strich. It opened to packed houses in London but was similarly panned. By now Coward loathed theatre critics.

  • The Girl Who Came To Supper
  • High Spirits, a musical version of Blithe Spirit – ran for 373 performances and became one of the smash hit musicals of the season

In the mid to late 1960s his work underwent a revival and a reconsideration. Hay Fever and Private Lives were successfully revived, the National Theatre and then the BBC staged Coward seasons.

He was finally awarded a knighthood in 1970. Apparently Harold Wilson was not too keen, largely because of his brush with the law over tax evasion, but the Royal Family insisted. He was on very friendly terms with Elizabeth, Margaret and their mother.

His health steadily deteriorated. Eventually he could barely walk. He retreated to Firefly on Jamaica where he was looked after by a Black man named Miguel (married, not gay). He suffered from stomach pains, variously diagnosed as cancer or kidney stones. He died one night, collapsing on the bathroom floor, being carried to his bed by Miguel and passing with just this illiterate Black man for company.

Turned out that burial in England was out of the question because of the legal and tax implications. After worrying and consulting friends, Lesley Cole and Graham Payn decided to have him interred in the grounds at Firefly. Later there was a memorial service at the actor’s church in Covent Garden. Several years later a tablet was placed on Poets Corner in Westminster Abbey.

He worried about being forgotten but Coward is still very much remembered. His best songs endure and his best plays are regularly revived. He lived on as he would have wanted to. As to soul and an afterlife and all the rest of it, he despised Christian belief. When he left the stage, he left it, and that was that.

Quips

He found it difficult rehearsing with Claudette Colbert for a TV production of Blithe Spirit, leading to several good jokes. When she apologised for fluffing her lines and said she knew them backwards the night before, Noel said ‘and that’s the way you’re speaking them this morning.’

Colbert was sensitive about having a short neck, so took umbrage when Noel quipped to someone else that ‘if she had a neck he’d wring it.’

When asked on the Ed Murrow show to describe the style of his painting (he’d brought one along to show) Noel joked that it was ‘erratic’. In fact his friends called it his ‘Touch and Gauguin’ style.

Omissions

This is an excellent biography and its thoroughness helps it weigh in at an impressive 605 pages long. It seems churlish to say it, then, but in the last hundred pages I had an increasing sense of how much had been left out. Not about Coward himself, but about the context around him. I realised this when Hoare mentioned the premiere of John Osborne’s play ‘Look Back in Anger’ in 1956, and later mentioned Harold Pinter’s The Caretaker (1960). Later he mentions Coward reading Waiting for Godot. Of course Hoare has to stick to his brief of describing Coward’s life, the writing and production of his musicals and plays, his relations with umpteen producers, directors and actors and backers for them all, and then, of course, developments in his private life – mother dies, lovers come and go.

I think it’s that in the first 400 pages of the biography, up to and including the patriotic films he was involved in during and just after the war, there’s an assumption that Coward in some sense represented the wider times, was the new young thing, represented the febrile 1920s, and popular theatre of the 1930s and then managed to strike a national patriotic mood during the war. Working with David Lean and Laurence Olivier represented the peak of his timeliness.

Then some time during the 1950s he loses it. Play after play, musical and ballet, fail or underwhelm. And then, only very casually and in passing, Hoare mentions Osborne, Beckett and Pinter and we suddenly realise, with a jolt, that the outside world has moved on light years beyond Coward’s light cocktail entertainments.

But this had been going on all the time. For example, his close neighbour and friend in Jamaica, Ian Fleming first appears on page 328, during the war, and Coward knows him from 1948 onwards. But it’s only on page 473, and 13 years later, that Hoare even mentions the James Bond books. Yes the first of these had been published back in 1953 and so the success of the almost annual new Bond book must have transformed their relationship. And yet it isn’t mentioned until the biography is almost over.

What I’m getting at is that at moments like this you realise with a bit of a shock how very narrowly and parochially and blinkeredly the biography has focused entirely on Coward. God knows he was so hard working and prolific there’s easily enough material to fill the 600 pages but it’s here, in the closing passages, that you realise that while we’ve been locked in the Coward bunker, the real world outside has been changing at tremendous speed. (Incidentally, Coward had been offered the role of playing Dr No in the movie, but turned it down. Imagine if he’d said yes!)

Best moment

There are lots of memorable moments but the best one must be the scene of the 66-year-old Noel and the Queen Mother singing a duet of ‘My Old Man Said Follow The Van’ at Sandringham. Hard to beat.


Credit

‘Noël Coward: A Biography’ by Philip Hoare was published by Sinclair-Stevenson in 1995. References are to the 1996 Mandarin paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Blithe Spirit by Noel Coward (1941)

‘There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Mrs Condomine.’
(Madame Arcati the medium, humorously quoting Hamlet in Blithe Spirit, Act 2, scene 2)

Blithe Spirit, first staged in 1941, has turned out to be one of Noel Coward’s most popular and regularly revived plays. From my reading of half a dozen of the others I’d hazard a guess that this is because it’s actually about something. ‘Hay Fever’, ‘Easy Virtue’, ‘Private Lives’, ‘Design for Living’, ‘Present Laughter’ – if they’re about anything, it’s farcical arguments and misunderstandings based around people’s fractious love lives; whereas Blithe Spirit has an interesting and genuinely comic premise.

This is that a medium, one Madame Arcati, who a group of cynical upper middle-class types have invited round to hold a séance amid much joking and banter, turns out to everyone’s amazement to be real. There is an afterlife, the spirits of the dead do live on there, and people called mediums can get in touch with them.

But the comic premise goes further than that. The lead male character – witty, cynical Charles Condomine who hosts the séance – lost his first wife, Elvira, seven years ago (to be clear: she died: in a comic detail we are told she laughed so hard at a BBC radio programme that she dropped dead of a heart attack).

He has subsequently married the fragrant and sensible Ruth. But when the medium, Madame Arcati, succeeds in getting in touch with the ‘other world’, guess who’s waiting there to transmit a message to the living? His first wife, Elvira!

His first hint of it is when the medium’s ‘contact’, a girl called Daphne, insists on picking out the record of an Irving Berlin song, ‘Always’, to put on the gramophone to help set the mood. Charles starts a bit, because that was one of Elvira’s favourite songs. But then, once the lights are turned low and Madame Arcati has gone into a trance, Charles insists that he can hear Elvira talking to him, even though no-one else can.

This freaks him out so much that he leaps up and turns the lights on, to reveal Madame Arcati unconscious and flat on her back. To backtrack a bit and explain the plot more fully:

Brief synopsis

Act 1

Scene 1. Setup and arrival of the guests

Charles Condomine is a successful novelist. While dressing for dinner, he and his second wife, Ruth, discuss his first wife, Elvira, who died young, seven years earlier. They also fuss about the new maid, Edith, who is gauche and over-keen, always racing hither and thither and constantly having to be told to calm down and walk.

Charles has invited round for dinner a local couple, Dr and Mrs Bradman. When the guests assemble they make jokes about the third guest who hasn’t yet arrived, for Charles has invited a local eccentric, Madame Arcati, who claims to be a medium. He explains that he’s invited her in order to get background information and colour for a novel he’s planning to write about a fake medium. Madame Arcati arrives, all clattering ‘barbaric’ jewellery.

(As Philip Hoare points out in his excellent biography of Coward, the playwright’s lesbians are often dressed ‘barbarically’ i.e. in modernist necklaces, bangles, patterns and designs. In addition it is made to appear outlandishly eccentric that Madame A likes cycling everywhere. In addition she is given to schoolgirl pep talks: ‘mustn’t give up hope–chin up–never day die’. Coward is quoted in the Hoare biography as saying that as her part grew and grew as he thought up funnier and funnier aspects of her character.)

So now the guests are all assembled they settle down to dinner and the scene closes.

Scene 2. The séance

After dinner the characters prepare to hold the seance. The character of Madame Arcati and her preposterous profession are rich in comic details: such as how the best ‘contacts’ in the other world are children, although Indians are also good. Unless they get over-excited, in which case they go off ‘into their own tribal language’ and are unintelligible.

Madame Arcati’s contact is called Daphne and is ‘rising seven’ years old. Contacts respond well to music and Daphne has a fondness for the songs of Irving Berlin (Madame A drolly remarks that ‘She likes a tune she can hum’). Rifling through Charles’s collection, Madame comes across ‘Always’ by Berlin.

After a lot more palaver, as described above, Madame A raises the ghost of Elvira whose voice only Charles can hear. When he leaps to his feet and turns the lights on Madame A is unconscious on her back. The doctor helps bring her round and after further chat, she leaves. As she does so Elvira appears to us, onstage, dressed in grey with grey make-up on face and flesh, although not seen by anyone else. After some more sceptical chat, Dr and Mrs Bradman also leave.

So now there’s just Charles, Ruth and ghost Elvira onstage. What quickly emerges is that only Charles can see or hear Elvira. Elvira is exactly as selfish and imperious as she was in life and soon she and Charles are bickering like characters in all Coward’s other plays. The cleverness or conceit of this play is that Ruth can only hear Charles’s part of the dialogue. So when he says something rude and sharp to Elvira, Ruth thinks he’s talking to her and gets understandably upset and then cross.

So although the premise is novel enough, the actual meat of the play is like all Coward’s other plays in that the only way the characters can relate to each other is through arguing and bickering and telling each other to shut up.

  • CHARLES: Shut up.
  • CHARLES: Be quiet, Elvira.
  • RUTH: Stop talking like that, Charles.
  • CHARLES: Be quiet, she’s doing her best.
  • RUTH: Be quiet, you’ll ruin everything.
  • CHARLES: Do shut up darling, you’ll make everything worse.
  • CHARLES: Don’t be childish, Elvira.
  • ELVIRA: Don’t call me your child.
  • CHARLES: For heaven’s sake don’t snivel.
  • CHARLES: I’m sick of these insults, please go away.

ELVIRA: Oh Charles.
CHARLES: Shut up!

And Coward’s favourite word, idiotic.

  • RUTH: Charles, how can you be so idiotic?
  • RUTH: Sit down for God’s sake and don’t be idiotic.
  • CHARLES: How can I control myself in the face of your idiotic damned stubbornness?
  • CHARLES: Don’t be idiotic.
  • RUTH: And now, owing to your idiotic inefficiency, we find ourselves in the most mortifying position.

Coward is so aware of the issue that even he himself uses the word ‘bickering’ to describe everyone’s behaviour.

CHARLES: I wish you two would stop bickering for one moment.

ELVIRA: When I think what might have happened if I’d succeeded in getting you to the other world after all – it makes me shudder, it does honestly… It would be nothing but bickering and squabbling for ever and ever and ever.

And all this bickering, as in all Coward’s other plays, tends towards what I’ve called the futility point, the moment when one or both participants in the argument just give up even trying to communicate to the other.

  • RUTH: It’s no use arguing any more.
  • CHARLES: It doesn’t matter, Ruth… We’ll say no more about it.
  • CHARLES: There is nothing to be gained by continuing this discussion.

So in this early phase of Elvira’s haunting the comedy, if it works as comedy, comes from Ruth’s bewilderment at Charles’s unexplained remarks, while there is equal comedy in Charles’s frustration at his inability to make Ruth understand or believe that his first wife has returned from the dead to haunt him.

RUTH: I am not going to stay here arguing any longer.
ELVIRA: Hooray!
CHARLES: Shut up!
RUTH [incensed]: How dare you speak to me like that!
CHARLES: Listen, Ruth, please listen.
RUTH: I will not listen tom any more of this nonsense. I am going up to bed now, I’ll leave you to turn out the lights. I shan’t be asleep – I’m too upset. So you can come in and say goodnight to me if you feel like it.
ELVIRA: That’s big of her, I must say.
CHARLES: Be quiet!

From this little excerpt you can see how what I’ve described as bickering isn’t an incidental feature of the dialogue, it is absolutely central to Coward’s method, the core of his idea of drama, and, if acted correctly, the source of most of the alleged comedy.

There is another thread of comedy which is that Elvira is comically banal and under-excited about being dead or the afterlife. We get no confirmation of whether there’s a heaven or hell, or the Big Question – whether there’s a God, and his Son is Jesus etc. None of that kind of detail. This is a comedy after all. Instead she talks like a blasé Mayfair cocktail party character, can’t really remember any of the details but has gossip about various characters in the afterlife. Thus we learn that Joan of Arc is really ‘a lot of fun’ while Merlin bores everyone with the same old party tricks. So the afterlife sounds exactly like a Noel Coward 1920s cocktail party.

Elvira has only the vaguest sense of where she was and thinks she’s appeared to haunt Charles because she was ‘summoned’ though he swears to her and Ruth that he never summoned anyone. This is an important plot point which we’ll return to.

Meanwhile, Ruth refuses to believe Elvira is there, is instead convinced that Charles is drunk and storms off to bed leaving Charles to recriminate with Elvira.

Act 2

Scene 1

The next morning at breakfast Ruth tells Charles he behave abominably to her the night before and was disgustingly drunk. As you might expect, this quickly degenerates into another Coward slanging match, with both spouses dragging up stories about flings or affairs they had with other people. Charles is given speeches declaring his exasperation with women and claims Ruth is always trying to boss him around (‘You boss and bully and order me about’). This is an important theme, maybe the central theme of the play, which has given rise to predictable accusations of misogyny (see below).

They carry on the argument through and after breakfast and are sitting in armchairs when Elvira walks in through the French windows. Charles is again shocked and starts arguing with Elvira, which Ruth misinterprets as more abuse of her until… Charles persuades Elvira to prove to Ruth that she exists. She does this by moving a bowl of flowers around the room to prove her existence. Ruth thinks it must be a trick, then becomes hysterical, fearing that she’s going mad, while Elvira picks up a chair and waltzes with it. When Ruth tries to escape through the French windows Elvira slams them in her face. When Elvira smashes a vase, Ruth goes into hysterics. End of scene 1.

Scene 2

Later the same day, Ruth has invited Madame Arcati to tea. She has accepted Elvira’s existence, to the extent of casually mentioning that her husband is off driving the ghost for an outing to Folkestone.

In the midst of a lot of banter it emerges that Ruth has invited Madame Arcati round with the simple wish of wanting her to get rid of Elvira, to send her back to ‘dematerialise’ her. But when Ruth admits that Charles didn’t believe she was a real medium and only invited her round to take notes on ‘the tricks of the trade’, offended Madame Arcati leaves in a huff.

Enter Charles and ghost Elvira. Ruth accepts and understands the distinction between when Charles is talking to her (Ruth) and when he’s talking to Elvira. In fact she asks questions of Elvira directly and asks Charles to report back her answers, which he does tactfully since many of Elvira’s replies are barbed and aggressive. When Ruth reports that Madame Arcati doesn’t think she can dematerialise Elvira, the latter crows in triumph: she will spend the rest of her life with her beloved Charles!

But the conversation degenerates and Ruth says next day she’s going up to London to the Psychical Research Society to see if they can help, and if they can’t she’ll go to see the Archbishop of Canterbury, and she slams out of the room (again).

Charles and Elvira have a relatively civilised conversation and he says he’s going off to dress for dinner and exits. The scene ends with some comic business when Elvira puts the record of ‘Always’ on the gramophone and is dancing round to it when Edith the gawky maid comes in, turns the gramophone off and files the record away, at which Elvira takes it out and puts it back on the gramophone – with the result that Edith runs out the room screaming.

Worth mentioning that this is a tried and tested Coward strategy, of having one song be repeatedly played and mentioned throughout a play, so that at the end of the evening the audience would come out humming it. In this play it’s Berlin’s song ‘Always’, compare Coward’s use of his own song, ‘Someday I’ll Find You’, in Private Lives.

Scene 3

A few days later, in the same drawing room, Ruth is talking to Mrs Bradman because the doctor has popped round to have a look at Charles’s arm, which he appears to have sprained. The doctor says he’s a bit worried about Charles because during his inspection, he kept letting fly irrelevant remarks. Of course Ruth and the audience know these were aimed at Elvira, of whose existence Dr B knows nothing. Also, Edith seems to have had an accident and fallen, on the same day.

At this point Charles enters with his arm in a sling. He’s insisting he drive into Folkestone but the doctor advises against it. Ruth knows the Folkestone trip is because Elvira wants to go to the cinema. Charles sees the doctor out while Elvira teases Ruth by throwing rose stems at her from a vase.

When Charles returns Ruth tells him she’s convinced Elvira is trying to kill him. This explains the recent accidents: Edith fell down the stairs and banged her head because the whole of the top stair was covered in axle grease, while Charles had the accident on the ladder which hurt his arm because the ladder had been sawed nearly in two. Why? So Charles will pass over into the spirit world and be Elvira’s forever.

Ruth convinces Charles she’s right and they are discussing what to do, whether Madame Arcati can do anything, when Elvira sweeps in again. Charles alerts Ruth to the fact, and they change the subject. Although she still can’t see or hear Elvira, Ruth tells her off for making her husband drive her to Folkestone that evening, and storms out (again).

Charles and Elvira engage in some more banter and bickering about how poor Ruth’s taste in household furnishing is etc. This is padding to cover time because when Elvira asks Charles can’t they go into Folkestone now, he casually says no, because Ruth’s taken the car to go and see the vicar.

At this news Elvira leaps out of her chair and becomes extremely agitated, repeating ‘Oh God oh God’. Charles begins to suspect something about the car, then suddenly realises that Elvira has sabotaged it. He is just accusing her of it when the phone rings. He picks it up and we only hear his side of the conversation but it’s something about an accident down by the bridge.

And at this moment the door swings open and Elvira steps back in horror, then shields her head from blows and cries out, ‘Ruth, stop it’.

Clearly 1) Elvira did sabotage the car 2) Ruth crashed it and was killed 3) she has ‘passed over’ and now exists on the same spectral plane as Elvira where 4) she is attacking her. And on this bombshell the scene ends.

It is an important plot point that the audience, and Charles, at this point cannot see Ruth. But there’s no doubt that she’s died and come back from the dead.

Act 3

Scene 1

It is a few days later. Presumably there’s been a funeral for Ruth etc. Charles is waiting by the fire and Madame Arcati is shown in. She offers her condolences but is spookily aware that Elvira had something to do with Ruth’s death. Elvira appears – note that even Madame Arcati can’t see her and has to have Charles point out to her where she is and what she’s saying.

Part of the comedy is that Madame Arcati is as gleeful as a child that Elvira has returned. She asks for proof and Elvira blows on her ear which makes Madame A cackle with pleasure.

Elvira, for her part, is fed up, she hates Ruth being on her plane because she’s endlessly taunting her. She now wants to be exorcised or dematerialised. Charles asks Madame A to step into the dining room for a moment because he wants to talk to Elvira. This, of course, turns into an argument, with them both taunting each other with the affairs they had during their marriage, she with Guy Henderson and Captain Bracegirdle, he with Cynthia Cheviot.

As this bickering makes them both really miserable Elvira begs Charles to call Madame Arcati back into the room., She comes and there’s a lot of palaver and stage business with salt and pepper and herbs as she lays everything out for her dematerialisation. She claims to be following a formula from Edmondson’s Witchcraft and its Byways.

She puts music on the gramophone, turns off the lights and asks her contact on the other side to tap the table for messages, but the tapping gets stronger and stronger until Madame Arcati falls over, pulling the table on top of her.

When Charles switches the lights on and pulls the table off her and revives Madame Arcati, he points out that Elvira is still here, nothing happened to her, but Madame Arcati insists that something happened, and at that moment the figure of Ruth, herself as grey as Elvira, sweeps in through the French windows. I think that up till this moment she had been an unearthly presence. So I think what’s happened is that Madame Arcati’s spell has backfired and fully invoked or materialised her to the same level as Elvira.

Now Charles has two angry ex-wives to cope with. End of scene.

Scene 2

It’s a few hours later and the room is in disarray with various objects (crystal ball, Ouija board) arranged to give the impression that a variety of further spells and incantations (‘the most humiliating hocus-pocus’) have been tried and all failed. Madame Arcati is fast asleep on the sofa.

The two women ghosts are exhausted and humiliated. They complain that they’ve had to sit through no fewer than five séances and innumerable spells and have completely failed to dematerialise.

What begins to develop or become clear is the division between Charles and the two women. Elvira and Ruth have buried the hatchet and are now in league against him, joining common cause in finding him boorish and unhelpful. And he finds himself outnumbered and exasperated with him. It’s now that he delivers what in one sense is the play’s defining line (and the defining line of so many Coward plays):

CHARLES: I wish you two would stop bickering for one moment.

So the ghosts goad Charles into waking Madam Arcati up for one last try. It is that this point that a key fact is discovered: All the women (Elvira, Ruth and Madame A) have been insisting it was Charles who called them into being: the two ghost women recall answering an overwhelming call for them to appear in the Condomine house. Suddenly Madame A has a brainwave. She grabs her crystal ball and sees something white, like a bandage. She scampers round, waves a bunch of garlic, makes cabbalistic signs and chants a spell.

And into the room comes Edith, the scatty servant. Wearing a white bandage round her head. She asks Charles why he called her but of course he didn’t – Madame Arcati did! At first she pretends she can’t see the two ghosts but soon makes a slip and they realise that she can. It was her. She has the gift. She is a Natural.

Madame Arcati swiftly hypnotises Edith and tells her she knows what she has to do i.e. reverse her call to Ruth and Elvira. So Madame A gets Edith to softly sing ‘Always’ (remember what I said about Coward cannily threading a theme song throughout many of his plays?) Sensing they are about to disappear, both Ruth and Elvira hurry to get in some last messages to Charles but their voices fade and then disappear.

Hooray! Madame A wakes Edith from her trance and Charles gives her a pound for her troubles. For a split second there is a moment of naughtiness, because Edith can’t remember how she got there or what’s just happened, and for a moment she misinterprets the pound to mean that she’s been taken advantage off and she runs out the room squealing.

Charles, rather like the confirmed misogynist Henry Higgins in Pygmalion, doesn’t understand, though the audience – or some of the audience – does.

Charles is hugely relieved and is effusively thanking Madame A when she utters words of caution. She tells him to pack his bags and leave. Why on earth? And Madame A explains that… they may still be here! Even though he can’t see or hear them… the house may still be haunted. She gives him a parting warning to pack his bags and go far away (while she herself is packing up all her paraphernalia) and then she takes her leave.

Charles is alone onstage, pondering. Tempting fate, he starts to talk to Elvira and Ruth, teasing them, telling them how happy he is to be free of them, and of women generally in his life. At which the vase on the mantelpiece falls to the floor. Of course! They are still here!

So: he takes the opportunity to let rip: first he tells Elvira that he knew about her affairs all along, what she didn’t know about was him and Paula Westlake! Then he turns to Ruth and says he was faithful to her but was being alienated by her increasingly domineering behaviour and it was only a matter of time… at which the clock strikes sixteen!

He bids them both goodbye as a sofa cushion is thrown at him, ducks it and tells them they’re welcome to smash up the house as much as they like – as the curtains are pulled up and down, the gramophone lid opens and shuts, the overmantel shakes. He eggs them on, telling Ruth to give Elvira a hand, as a statuette on the bookshelf falls down, and as he makes his amused exit all hell breaks loose, with vases falling, the curtains falling, the gramophone playing ‘Always’ speeded up, the overmantel collapsing, the curtain rod crashing down and anything else the director can think of.

THE END

Misogyny

In his biography Hoare quotes a woman director as saying the play is very funny but the ending reeks of misogyny. Certainly the last couple of pages where he delights in getting rid of the two ghosts, and then taunts them, have a certain fierceness. A series of remarks about being free of women climaxes with this little peroration.

CHARLES: You said in one of your more acid moments, Ruth, that I had been hag-ridden all my life! How right you were – but now I’m free Ruth dear, not only of Mother and Elvira and Mrs Winthrop Llewellyn, but free of you too and I should like to take this farewell opportunity of saying I’m enjoying it immensely!

Not Andrew Tate, is it, but it is the conclusion of a distinct trend in the play. Why does this play and not most of his others display this tone? Maybe it comes from something in Coward’s attitude. But maybe it’s simpler, maybe it’s simply the logical conclusion of the tendency of the of the characters, implicit in the initial setup, maybe Coward followed the logic of the basic scenario and Charles’s gratitude to be rid of the two haunters is comic vehemence.

Movie version

‘Blithe Spirit’ was promptly made into a movie, released in 1945, directed by David Lean who Coward had collaborated with on another adaptation of a recent play, ‘This Happy Breed’. The film starred two of the main actors from the original stage production, namely Kay Hammond as Elvira and Margaret Rutherford as Madame Arcati. Constance Cummings played Ruth and Rex Harrison stepped into Coward’s shoes to play Charles.

Out of the country during the filming, Coward was less happy with the result than with Lean’s version of ‘This Happy Breed’, thinking it too static and stagey. Watching it, you can’t help agreeing, despite the film version’s attempts to get out of the living room at every opportunity, with several scenes driving along in a car or at Madame Arcati’s house.

The general clunkiness is driven home by the film’s drastic departure from the play’s ending. The play ends with Charles swanning off abroad, leaving the women smashing up his house in frustration. The film ends with Charles merrily driving down towards the bridge where Ruth crashed, while the ghosts watch smiling, because they’ve sabotaged the car, again. The car crashes and seconds later Charles plonks down on the bridge beside his two ex-wives. In the play, man triumphs, two women left fuming. In the film, the two women win. No doubt this sounded like a funny idea in the script conferences, but the clumsy clunkiness with which it’s shot, the lack of any punchline and the film’s abrupt ending, all leave you with an impression of clumsiness.

Coward’s negative opinion was reflected in the film’s lack of box office success – but it has subsequently come to be valued for its Technicolor photography and Oscar-winning visual effects.


Related links

Related reviews

This Happy Breed by Noel Coward (1939)

‘There’ll always be wars as long as men are such fools as to want to go to them.’
(Frank, the ex-soldier, in This Happy Breed, Act 1, Scene 1)

‘This Happy Breed’ is a play by Noël Coward. It was written in 1939 but, because of the outbreak of World War II, not staged until 1942. He wrote it at the same time as another of his best works, ‘Blithe Spirit’, also put on hold because of the war. Coward suspended writing for the stage the duration of the war and many critics think that, when he resumed, his writing never regained its charge and brilliancy. So, the argument goes, these two plays, ‘Breed’ and ‘Blithe’, represent the peak of his achievement.

Title

The play’s title is a phrase from John of Gaunt’s famous speech in Act 2, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s play ‘Richard II’ where he gives a lyrical description of the England of his youth:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England…

But in the play, all this stirring patriotic imagery is just the preliminary to Gaunt going on to lament that this wonderful England had in fact declined into a state of decay and mismanagement under the disastrous king Richard II, who had exiled Gaunt’s son, Henry Bolingbroke. Understandably, patriotic writers like Coward leave that bit out, but anyone who knows the play knows that these fine words are an exaggerated and rose-tinted view of the past of a country which has now fallen into decay and decline. How much of this heavy irony Coward intended to hang over his play is not clear.

Class

‘This Happy Breed’ is one of the few Coward plays not to be set among the affluent middle or upper middle class. Its consciously lower-middle class milieu recalls just a handful of other works in the same setting, namely ‘Cavalcade’ (1931) and the short play ‘Fumed Oak’ from ‘Tonight at 8.30’ (1936). But he does it well, persuasively. His mum kept a boarding house and his family was often on the verge of poverty. He captures the speech rhythms and in particular the clichés of the class. You can almost hear the shrill voices of the women working class characters as you hear them in movies from the period.

  • I’m not going to stand here catching me death.
  • Well, I like that I must say.
  • It doesn’t matter, I’m sure.
  • I don’t know what you mean, I’m sure.
  • A nice way to behave, upsetting me like this.
  • These boots are giving me what for.

And Frank’s recurring catchphrase, ”Op it’, which I’ve been trying out on the wife, daughter and cat, with varying degrees of success.

Synopsis

The play is made of three acts, each containing three scenes, which cover exactly 20 years, starting in June 1919 and ending in June 1939. They are all set in the same location, the front room of the Gibbons family in Clapham.

Act 1

Scene 1: June 1919

It’s seven months after the end of the Great War and the Gibbons family is just moving into 17 Sycamore Road in Clapham, South London (an area Coward knew well, having lived in various houses around the area in his boyhood). They lived for the four war years with her mother, Mrs Flint, in a shabby house in Battersea.

The room is mostly empty of furniture with packing cases scattered about.

Ethel Gibbons manages her grumpy mother, Mrs Flint, while Frank fixes up the curtains. Mrs Flint doesn’t like Sylvia, Frank’s sister, who Ethel asked to move in after her fiancée Bertie was killed in the war. Frank comes down and puts his arms round Ethel, they stare into the garden (which needs work) and she tells him how relieved she is that he returned safe from the war, unlike so many of the men they knew.

They’re just having a connubial kiss when the next door neighbour, Bob Mitchell, startles them by knocking on the window. Turns out he used to be an old army colleague of Frank’s and they reminisce about the war, and then details of each other’s kids.

Scene 2: December 1925

Christmas 1925 and the kids are all about 18. The grown-ups (Frank and Ethel, Ethel’s mother (Mrs Flint) and Frank’s sister, the permanently unwell Sylvia) have gone into the front room leaving the young people to clear the table, being Frank and Ethel’s children (Vi, 20, Queenie, 21, Reg, 18). Reg hero worships his friend Sam who proposes a toast but Queenie interrupts and mocks him which triggers him to an earnest speech against capitalism and injustice, anticipating the great day of the revolution:

SAM: She is only one of the millions who, when the great days comes, will be swept out of existence like so much chaff on the wind…

The others carry on mocking so he and Reg go up to Reg’s room. The young women are tidying up when there’s a knock at the window and it’s Bob Mitchell’s son Billy from next door. The others leave him with Queenie who he’s sweet on. He’s a sailor and he asks whether, in a few years, they might get married. But Queenie tells him she hates suburban life, she wouldn’t make him a good wife and rushes out.

Frank enters and cheers up a disconsolate Billy. The latter asks if Frank will put in a good word for him with Queenie and Frank kindly agrees to. Billy leaves and Ethel comes in. Sylvia’s started singing in the living room and they’re both relieved to avoid her.

Scene 3: May 1926

Set during the ten days of the General Strike of 1926. Frank is up in town breaking the strike as a volunteer bus driver, along with Bob from next door. Meanwhile young Reg had a blazing row with his dad about the strike and stormed out a few days earlier.

We learn all this because Ethel is beside herself with worry for both of them. Her nerves are on edge and she gets into an argument with tearful Aunt Sylvia, herself continually picked on by nasty old Mrs Flint.

In the middle of this bad-tempered bickering Frank and Bob arrive home a bit tipsy from the drinks they’ve had on the way back from their shift. Barely has Ethel tutted over them and told him, no, he can’t have another drink, than the front doorbell goes and it’s Sam and Reg.

Reg has been absent since he ran away a few days earlier and Ethel has been worried sick. His head is bandaged with where someone threw a stone at it. Vi confronts Sam for leading Reg astray and throws him out.

Left alone together, Frank doesn’t tell Reg off as the latter was expecting. He says everyone’s entitled to their own opinions. But he criticises Reg for falling for other people’s slogans and language. Also points out that the idea that society is unfair is very old. And thinks where Reg goes wrong is blaming it on government and systems whereas he, Frank, thinks it runs deeper than that, it has its origins in ‘good old human nature’.

After sharing a drink and having this little man-to-man chat they bid each other goodnight and go off to their separate bedrooms. I wish my Dad had been that understanding or articulate.

Act 2

Scene 1: October 1931

It is Reg’s wedding day. The scene opens with Frank having a nice cup of tea after breakfast while all the women in the house run round in a panic, getting ready, fussing about dresses, their hair etc. The family servant or maid, Edie, tells him about her own son, Ernie, who’s just started shaving and cut himself.

Bob pops round for a chat and a smoke. His wife isn’t doing too well since her miscarriage six years ago. God, the great abortionist.

We learn that Reg has abandoned all his socialism, in fact was critical of the last Labour government, has settled down and got a job. His firebrand pal, Sam, has settled down and married Vi.

In comes Reg and Bob leaves allowing Frank to give some fatherly advice. This is to always put your wife first but then, rather surprisingly, to tell Reg it’s alright to have a bit on the side, just make sure nobody finds out and nothing causes upset to your wife and family. Reg is embarrassed, father and son share a little hug, then Frank exits.

Billy from next door comes in, wearing a naval Petty Officer’s outfit. He’s going to be Reg’s best man. Some banter which establishes Billy as a jolly, flippant fellow, before Reg leaves, bumping into Queenie in her bridesmaid’s dress. Remember he had a pash for her? He still does. In fact it turns out that last night he proposed to her and she said no. He asks if she’s in love with someone else and it comes out that yes she is, and he’s a married man. What a fool.

Billy exists and Frank and Ethel come in, dressed for the wedding. Their conversation with Queenie develops into an argument (but then all conversations in Coward tend towards argument), with Queenie eventually saying she thinks her family are common, and hates their narrow horizons and she wants to make something of herself. ‘I’m sick of this house and everybody in it’ etc. She fears being seen by the girls in the posh shop she works in. She flounces out and Frank and Ethel have a parently post-mortem on where they went wrong bringing her up.

Then Reg and Billy come bounding in and his mother bursts into tears and says it seems only yesterday he was a wee baby boy etc, Billy drags Reg out the front door to get into the fancy wedding car to take them to church. Enter grumpy old Mrs Flint and sickly Aunt Sylvia. Then Vi and Sam enter, Sam looking smart and respectable. In effect, we are reviewing the entire cast of characters at this pivotal moment. Even more pile in until there are about 8 characters all talking and fussing onstage. The most striking one is old Mrs Flint complaining about everything but whose conversation is dominated by her own ailments and stories about lots of other old women falling ill or dying. It all leads up to a blazing clash between Mrs Flint and Sylvia and the classic Coward situation of everyone telling everyone else to shut up. ‘Shut up’ must the commonest phrase in Noel Coward’s lexicon (see below).

At the height of the argument the wedding car arrives and they all have to fix their hats and bustle out the room to go to the wedding.

Scene 2: November 1931, midnight

It’s midnight when Bob and Frank tiptoe through the french windows into the living room. They’re both a bit tiddly having attended their regimental reunions and joke and banter and raid the pantry for snacks (fishpaste on Huntley and Palmer crackers with a dash of AI sauce). Through them we catch up on news of the other characters: Billy the sailor is in Malta; Reg and Phyllis are settling into marriage; Vi and Sam have had a baby, making Frank a grandfather.

They drunkenly discuss whether they’ll see another war: not in their time, thinks Bob, but Frank, the more realistic and cynical character, says Don’t bet on it. What about the threat from Japan? They need to keep the Navy up to scratch.

Then, in trying to prevent him pouring him another bog Scotch, Bob grabs Frank’s arm and makes him drop the bottle with a crash. This brings Ethel downstairs in her curlers. She sees Bob off the premises and is just launching in on Frank when she sees a letter on the mantlepiece. It was left there at the start of the scene when we saw Queenie, dressed and in a coat and carrying a suitcase, put it there. Obviously she’s done a bunk.

Sure enough, when they open it, the letter tells them Queenie has run off with her married man because his wife won’t divorce him. She doesn’t say where. This triggers an argument between Frank and Ethel, both claiming the other one spoiled Queenie. Ethel is the harshest. When Frank says he’ll track her down and bring her back, Ethel says she doesn’t want Queenie back. She’ll never forgive her till her dying day. Frank is taken aback at her vehemence.

Scene 3: May 1932

Six months later. Mrs Flint and Sylvia aren’t arguing so much. Mrs F credits it to the new job Sylvia’s got at the library, thanks to a Mrs Wilmot. The regular hours and company have done her good. Frank gets cross with Sylvia for bringing a spray of may into the house and putting it in a vase: bad luck. When he exits, Sylvia remarks that he’s been more short-tempered since Queenie ran away.

They’re in the middle of more bickering and low-level resentments when the front doorbell rings, Vi comes running in with the appalling news that Reg and Phyll have been in a car accident and are both dead. God, how brutal.

Act 3

Scene 1: December 1936

The play really asserts its continuity with ‘Cavalcade’. That play followed a family through major historical incidents from 1900 to 1930. This one has been more domestic but still features contemporary historical events. We’ve had the 1926 General Strike and this scene focuses on the ex-king Edward VIII’s abdication broadcast on the radio. (He abdicated because the Establishment wouldn’t allow him to be king and marry his true love, Mrs Wallis Simpson, who was divorced from her first husband and in the process of divorcing her second.) The scene begins just after the king’s historic broadcast has concluded.

Frank and Ethel have aged since their son’s death. Sylvia, by contrast, looks older. She has adopted the Christian Science faith and its confidence obviously agrees with her. In fact she has an argument with Sam about it, in which she infuriatingly refuses to lose her temper,

We learn that in the past four years Mrs Flint has passed away and the servant Edie has left and not been replaced. Bob next door, his wife Nora has died, after being ill for year.

After some nattering there’s a knock at the french windows and Billy comes in. He’s now an experienced and impressive Royal Navy Warrant Officer.

He has some staggering news. He’s seen Queenie. Ethel bridles because that name has been banned in the house for five years. But Billy quickly gives a recap of Queenie’s adventures, how the married man she ran off with dropped her after a year and her struggles to earn a living, then a case of appendicitis, then taking up with another Brit she met in hospital to set up a tea room in the South of France, and that’s where he met her and…

All in a rush he tells Frank and Ethel that he’s married Queenie. He always said he’s wait for her and he did and she finally accepted him, and she’s next door. Frank shakes Billy by the hand then runs out the french windows and moments later reappears with Queenie. Ethel breaks down in tears etc and there is an awkward but loving reconciliation between her and Ethel. To be honest, I had tears in my eyes when I read it. God, what a world.

Scene 2: September 1938

More of the ‘Cavalcade’ mentality in that the next scene is based round yet another major historical event, this time Neville Chamberlain’s return from Munich and the famous piece of paper he waved around in the hope that it would assure peace in our time.

Developments in the Gibbons household include that Billy and Queenie have had a baby son, currently four months old. Queenie is ill, still recovering from the birth which was difficult.

Sylvia never believed there would be a war and the smug superiority of her Christian Science belief triggers an angry response from Vi, as it did from Sam in the previous scene.

Ethel tells Frank Queenie’s had a letter from Billy asking her to go out and stay with him in Singapore. If she goes she’ll leave the baby with them to look after. For maybe a year.

Bob pops in. Years after his wife died, he’s taken the plunge, is selling up and moving to the country. They’ll miss him. Ethel gives him an embarrassed kiss.

Bob says goodbye to Frank. They reminisce about all the things they’ve seen in the past 20 years and Frank wonders what happens to rooms and houses which have been lived in so intensely by people who then move away. Does a little part of them stay behind…? They drink a toast to happy days.

Scene 3: June 1939

Symmetry. Just as in the first scene, the room is mostly emptied with everything packed up into crates, because Frank and Ethel are moving out. They’re moving to a flat with a fine view of Clapham Common and running hot water.

We learn that Queenie has gone off to Singapore, leaving their baby, who I think is called Frank, with them. It irritates Frank who calls it ‘his lordship.’

Frank and Ethel share a sentimental moment, looking out over the garden as they did in the first scene, before Ethel bustles off in her busy way. This leaves Frank with the baby in a pram and Coward has him deliver a page-and-a-half monologue. This consists of Frank’s cynical view about ‘peace’ i.e. it’ll never happen. He expands the idea he’s mentioned briefly once or twice earlier, that there’ll never be peace because of human nature.

The trouble with the world, Frankie, is there’s too much idealism and too little horse sense. We’re human beings, we are, all of us – and that’s what people are liable to forget. Human beings don’t like peace and good will and everybody loving everybody else. However much they may think they do, they don’t really because they’re not made like that. Human beings like eating and drinking and loving and loving and hating. They also like showing off, grabbing all they can, fighting for their rights and bossing anybody who’ll give ’em half a chance.

Which segues into a passage more specifically about British politics. Frank admits that just recently Britain has allowed itself to be bullied by noisy foreigners and has let other people down.

But don’t worry, that won’t last. The people themselves, the ordinary people like you and me, know something better than all the fussy politicians put together – we know what we belong to, where we come from and where we’re going. We may not know it with our brains, but we know it with our roots.

He ends with defiance of our enemies, based on the optimistic notion that we (the ordinary British people) have fought for human decency for ourselves and won’t let it go lightly.

We ‘aven’t lived and died and struggled all these hundreds of years to get decency and justice and freedom for ourselves without being prepared to fight fifty wars if need be, to keep ’em.

Ethel comes in and finds him delivering this great speech and wonders what on earth he’s doing. When he explains ‘talking to the baby’ she tells him to close the french windows and come along for supper. Loudmouth men, practical women. Reassuring stereotypes to the end.

Thoughts

As you can see it’s not really a play with a dramatic narrative which tells a long complicated story or addresses distinct themes. It’s more like a kind of diary of a family. Or snapshots in a family album, very like Cavalcade. A continuation of Cavalcade but in another class.

Bickering

As you know, as I’ve read my way through Noel Coward’s plays I’ve been surprised at the absence of his supposed wit and the prominence, the ubiquity, of bickering and arguing. The core of all his famous plays is people snapping at each other, bad-tempered squabbling which frequently rises to real abuse and shouting matches. That’s what I associate Coward with.

To take it a bit further, all his characters – whether posh Mayfair types or lower class types as in this work – despite all their superficial differences, all have one basic function or activity, which is to try and shut down other people, and make their version of events or opinions prevail. His plays are battlefields, not of ideas because there are few if any ideas in his plays, but battlefields of will.

And ‘This Happy Breed’ is no different. In Act 2, scene 1, just before Reg’s wedding, there’s a huge argument in which about half a dozen characters are all trying to talk over each other, shut up and silence the others, in order to impose their version, to control the narrative.

MRS FLINT: I’ll thank you not to call me names, Sylvia Gibbons.
SYLVIA: You make me tired.
ETHEL: Don’t answer back, Sylvia, it’ll only mean a row.
SYLVIA: I’m sure I don’t want to say anything to anybody, but really–
MRS FLINT: Pity you don’t keep quiet then!
SYLVIA: Who are you to talk to me like that – I’ve had about enough of your nagging –
FRANK: Shut UP, Sylvia!

Or the passage in Act 2 scene 3 where Ethel tells Mrs Flint (her mother) to just hold her tongue, in response to which Mrs Flint huffily says ‘the less I open my mouth the better’. Once you notice it, you see it everywhere; on almost every pages characters tell other ones to shut up or they don’t like how they talk.

  • FRANK: I do wish you wouldn’t talk like that Sylvia.
  • QUEENIE: I wish you wouldn’t say things like that, Dad.
  • ETHEL: It’s not a fit subject to talk about.
  • ETHE: How often have I told you I won’t have you talking like that, Frank.
  • ETHEL: Don’t let’s talk about it, shall we?
  • ETHEL: Don’t talk so silly.
  • ETHEL: Don’t snap at your father, Queenie.

They even disapprove of the king speaking, in the scene following the abdication speech:

FRANK: Well I suppose he ‘ad to make it but I somehow wish he hadn’t.

There’s another way of looking at it. Philip Hoare writes that Coward knew – like presumably most playwrights – that the essence of drama is conflict. But other playwrights use clashes of ideas, or really the different points of view of vividly conceived characters. Take Virginia Woolf’s favourite play, Antigone, which has at its core the completely irreconcilable positions of Creon and Antigone. Or take any of Ibsen’s mature plays, which dramatise real clashes of deeply portrayed and profoundly conflicting characters.

There’s nothing like that depth anywhere in Coward. A regular complaint is that his characters are generally too alike. In a play like ‘Design for Living’ it’s difficult to tell Otto and Leo apart, just as it’s challenging to tell the two women in ‘Fallen Angels’ apart. They’re basically the same characters given more or less the same qualities, but just set against each other over fairly superficial issues – in both plays squabbling over a shared love object (Gilda in ‘Design for Living’, Maurice in ‘Fallen Angels’).

What I’m driving at is that there’s conflict in Coward plays, alright, but it doesn’t arise from profound differences in character and point of view, as in the ancient Greeks, or Shakespeare, or Ibsen or Shaw. They’re just very similar types of people having an argument. Squabbling. Bickering. Often over absolute trivia. Their arguments don’t shed light on any great issue or illumine deep and interesting characters. They just yell at each other to shut up.

And it’s this which accounts for the regular criticism that Coward’s plays are ‘thin’. They are. The arguing and bickering may well work onstage, by raising the temperature and giving the impression that there’s dramatic action going on. But the superficiality of their bickers and arguments explains why, a few hours later, you can hardly remember what the play was even about. Like the proverbial Chinese dinner. Full of vivid, palate-pleasing flavours at the time. A few hours later you’re hungry again.

Caveat

I wrote that before I read the final scenes in which irritating Aunt Sylvia blossoms into a devout believer in Christian Science. This is an ideology or belief and it does give rise to something like actual debate between the characters as others, like Sam and then Vi, simply refuse to accept her outlandish beliefs (there is no such thing as evil, therefore there is no such thing as pain) and both end up raising their voices.

This is a debate about ideas, I suppose. But it’s not what the play is about. It’s a minor side issue, peripheral to the main narrative. And even here my rule applies, that the characters don’t really debate, none of them are educated or intelligent enough; instead they bicker in order to gain control of the field of discourse and shut each other down.

FRANK: Now listen ‘ere Sylvia, don’t you talk to me like that because I won’t ‘ave it, see.

So many times these bad-tempered quarrels end up in the same dead end as characters realise the pointlessness of even trying to have a discussion. What we could call the futility point which so many of these arguments arrive at.

REG: It’s no use talking, Dad, you don’t understand, and you never will.

QUEENIE: If you’re going to turn nasty about it there’s no use saying any more.

ETHEL: What’s the point of arguing with her, Frank? You know it never does any good.

FRANK: If you feel like that it’s not much good talking about it, is it?

VI: There’s no use arguing with her, Dad, she’s getting sillier and sillier every day.

It’s this sense of stasis, this inability to escape the limitations of the characters they’ve been assigned by their creator, which links Coward, despite all the superficial differences, with the plays of Jean-Paul Sartre, whose characters are similarly trapped in roles they can never escape.

So despite the little flurry of what appears to be actual debate about Christian Science (like the little flurry around Sam’s superficial communism in the first scene) it soon sinks under the usual attempts of everyone concerned to shut everyone else down. So I think the fundamental truth of my analysis remains valid.

Patriotism

Although he is a cynic about idealists and socialists like young Sam and the chances of peace – Frank’s final speech is an unalloyed rousing piece of patriotism. Coward was just going into the patriotic phase which would see his great war films, war work, and significantly change his public image. As Philip Hoare puts it in his excellent biography of Coward:

The Second World War came at a good time for Noel Coward. After the madcap Twenties and bleak Thirties, the war redefined Britishness and served as an antidote to the disillusion and decadence of the inter-war period. Its revival of the values of empire and Britain’s greatness was congenial to Coward: the quality of fortitude required (and mythologised) by the war neatly coincided with the fortitude displayed by Noel… the values he espoused dovetailed with the Dunkirk / Blitz / ‘Britain can take it’ spirit and he was able to exploit them fully. Cavalcade had announced his patriotism; the films, plays and concert tours of the early 1940s helped cement his image in the hearts and minds of the British public. (Noel Coward: A Biography by Philip Hoare, p.329)

Movie version

A 1944 film adaptation, with the same title, was directed by David Lean and starred Robert Newton and Celia Johnson. Interesting to see Johnson doing ‘common’ rather the refained middle class in ‘Brief Encounter’. It’s a fantastic performance. Newton looking fresh and young, nothing like the ramshackle twitcher of the Disney version of ‘Treasure Island’, just 6 years later. Apparently this was his breakthrough role, he was 39. And Stanley Holloway looking exactly as middle-aged as he does in ‘My Fair Lady’, 20 years later (1964). He was 54.

Or… is bickering actually a form of love?

Watching the film version made me reconsider a number of things about the play. The film is fuller and more varied than the play could ever be with, for example, more outdoor scenes and settings, and more historical touchpoints.

But the main thing the film made me reconsider was my hobby horse about arguing. Yes, in the film the characters do spend an inordinate amount of time arguing and bickering and telling each other to shut up and declaring there’s no use even talking to each other, in the classic Coward style, reflecting its ubiquity in the text, as I noted.

But in performance, in this wonderful film, you come to wonder whether the incessant arguing of pretty much everyone with everyone else, doesn’t at some deeper level indicate the enduring ties, and a deeper level of love and affection, between the members of this close-knit family of three generations plus in-laws, all living on top of each other.

Being trapped in each other’s presence in a small terraced house for their entire lives, means they not only know each other’s triggers and sore points and how to provoke and exasperate each other – but also, whenever anything really serious happens, they are there to support and sustain each other. Not very far beneath the bickering surface are the unbreakable ties of family.

At the end of watching the film, despite nearly two hours of bickering, squabbling and falling out, your abiding sense is of deep and enduring love, very beautifully and heart-warmingly portrayed.

Philip Hoare’s view

In his excellent biography of Coward, Philip Hoare says of the movie version that it is ‘an affecting tribute to a mythical England; a Cockney neo-romantic townscape, a snapshot of a city and a people that only existed in Noel Coward’s head’ (Noel Coward: A Biography, page 337).


Related links

Related reviews

Present Laughter: A Light Comedy in Three Acts by Noel Coward (1939)

Executive summary

This is a very entertaining portrait of a successful comedy actor, Garry Essendine, and the comic interplay among his coterie of servants, secretaries and sycophants (‘a tightly knit group like us’, as his wife puts it), plus a succession of outsiders whose arrivals are timed to create the maximum of comic confusion. This is the first Coward comedy that I found genuinely funny.

Background

Noel Coward wrote ‘Present Laughter’ in 1939. The title comes from a song sung by Feste the fool in Shakespeare’s comedy ‘Twelfth Night’. The song is on the age-old subject of taking pleasure while you can, the so-called carpe diem topos which we’ve seen mentioned in several other Coward plays (for example, ‘Design for Living’).

O Mistress mine where are you roaming?
O stay and hear, your true love’s coming,
That can sing both high and low.
Trip no further pretty sweeting.
Journeys end in lovers’ meeting,
Every wise man’s son doth know.

What is love, ’tis not hereafter,
Present mirth, hath present laughter:
What’s to come, is still unsure.
In delay there lies no plenty,
Then come kiss me sweet and twenty:
Youth’s a stuff will not endure.

This struck me as the funniest Coward play I’ve read and watched so far. It’s the only one I didn’t want to fast forward to get to the end of. I’ve been watching the highest quality productions available on the internet, in this case the 1981 Donald Sinden production.

Obviously Sinden was a notorious old ham but that means he was perfect to play the part of a notorious old ham, turning every possible moment into a Grand Scene which allows him to declaim and grandstand, the comedy sometimes deriving from the way he is sublimely indifferent to the reactions and feelings of all around him, sometimes from the way he artfully or cynically manipulates those around him.

Watching it also made me realise that although a lot of Coward’s lines are humdrum on the page, if they are delivered with the right emphasis and timing, apparently flat lines can be very funny. This makes me think badly of all the productions of the other plays I’ve watched which, by comparison, throw away or mute or lose the kinds of lines which here, in Sinden’s magniloquent performance, become comic gems.

Anyway, the plot such as it is, is that the comedy actor, Garry Essendine is in a more than usual tizzy because he is on the eve of a tour of Africa.

Built onto the premise of his outrageous self-absorption and the sycophancy of all who surround him, are piled events such as: having to deal with two women who want to seduce him, to placate both his long-suffering secretary and his worldly wise wife, cope with an infatuated young playwright, and overcome his impending mid-life crisis (he has recently turned forty).

Coward freely admitted that the character is a caricature of his real-life persona and he himself starred as Garry in the play’s original run. Because the part is such an obvious star vehicle, it has been performed onstage by a who’s who of British actors, including Albert Finney, Peter O’Toole, Donald Sinden, Ian McKellen, Simon Callow and, most recently, the hot priest from Fleabag, Andrew Scott.

It’s obviously based on a lifetime as a professional actor and he had been mulling it over for years, but the actual writing of ‘Present Laughter’ took him just six days. Fans of Coward cite this kind of thing as proof of The Master’s genius but critics might point out that it also explains the sustained thinness of the characters’ interplay and dialogue. Maybe if he’d spent a few days more working on it, the comic effects might be sharper and more effective.

Cast

  • Daphne Stillington – shallow young woman Garry invited to ‘spend the night’ and soon leaves
  • Miss Erikson – Swedish housekeeper with comic attitude and phlegmatic attitude
  • Fred – breezy, whistling servant
  • Monica Reed – Garry’s humorous and businesslike secretary
  • Garry Essendine – ageing, larger-than-life comic actor
  • Liz Essendine – Garry’s former wife, now separated
  • Roland Maule – over-excited young playwright who switches from damning Garry’s lack of interest in politics and ‘commitment’ to revealing a worrying obsession with him
  • Henry Lyppiatt – Garry’s agent
  • Morris Dixon – Garry’s producer
  • Joanna Lyppiatt – Henry’s wife who, it turns out, for seven long years has been secretly in love with Garry
  • Lady Saltburn – ‘a majestic but rather effusive society woman’

Plot

All three acts of the play are set in Garry Essendine’s London flat. He is a successful West End actor who has just turned forty and dominates every scene with his grand gestures and star quality.

Act 1

Daphne Stillington, 24, a young admirer of Garry’s, has inveigled herself into the flat and has spent the night there although, as she emphasises, in the spare room.

Garry is still asleep, and while waiting for him to wake, Daphne encounters in turn three of his employees: the housekeeper (Miss Erikson), valet (Fred) and his secretary (Monica). None of them display any surprise at her presence.

Garry finally wakes and plays the lead in a very funny scene, coping with Daphne’s slavish adulation while all the time looking at his watch and rushing her out. The housekeeper comes in leading to a characteristic joke.

MISS ERIKSON: Fred said I was to go and speak to the young lady.
GARRY: Very well, Miss Erikson.
MISS ERIKSON: What shall I say to her?
GARRY: I really don’t know.
MISS ERIKSON: I have been to the grocer’s and–
GARRY: That’s as good an opening gambit as any.

His secretary presents him with various letters, the phone keeps ringing (as it kept ringing in ‘Design for Living’) and people keep arriving. Piccadilly Circus.

Garry’s ex-wife, Liz Essendine, arrives, which leads to an embarrassing meeting between Daphne, emerging from having a bath and dressing, with her. But Liz is all suave urbanity and offers Daphne the use of her (chauffeur-driven) car.

Once the young woman has left we settle down to enjoy the interplay between Garry’s coterie – his ex-wife, his secretary, his servant, Fred, breezing around, whistling and dispensing coffee.

You know the difference between this and his 1920s comedies? It’s good humoured, it is good-humoured and comic throughout, in fact its high spirited mood highlights the genuine bitterness, anger and abuse which fill ‘Hay Fever’, ‘Private Lives’ and ‘Design for Living’ and make them very mixed amusements.

I’d just written that when there was an extended argument between Garry and Liz. I can’t help thinking irritable bad temper is the central Coward quality.

Anyway, Liz tells Garry that she thinks his manager, Morris Dixon, is having an affair with Joanna, the glamorous wife of his producer, Henry. The point is this intrigue might be picked up by the press and damage Garry’s reputation, so can he find out more and do something about it? Garry is having lunch with Morris, so Liz tells him to phone her and indicate whether the affair is or is not true by using a codeword.

Miss Erikson comes onstage to announce there is a lady at the back door with ‘a tiny baby’. Flummoxed, Garry tells his secretary to go and find out who on earth she is. Liz, too, is intrigued. She stays long enough for the arrival of a young man from Uckfield (!), Roland Maule, an earnest young playwright who’s sent Garry a copy of his play to read. Liz has time to say hello to this young chap and then leave. Comic dialogue with this young man:

GARRY: So you’ve come all the way from Uckfield?
ROLAND: It isn’t very far.
GARRY: Well, it sort of sounds far, doesn’t it?
ROLAND [defensively]: It’s quite near Lewes.
GARRY: Then there’s nothing to worry about, is there?

Monica enters to say the woman with the baby knocked at the wrong door, she was looking for her sister who lives further down the mews. Garry introduces her to Roland. She leaves to get the manuscript of his play. In ‘Design for Living’ Coward included newspaper reviews of one of the characters’ plays, as a way of satirising his critics. As far as I can see this Roland Moule character is a satire on the earnest and politically committed writers who scorn Coward for producing shallow entertainment just for money, instead of making his audiences think!

ROLAND: Every play you appear in is exactly the same, superficial, frivolous and without the slightest intellectual significance. You have a great following and a strong personality, and all you do is prostitute yourself every night of your life. All you do with your talent is to wear dressing-gowns and make witty remarks when you might be really helping people, making them think!

This, as you can imagine, does not delight Garry but it provides Coward with the opportunity to reply with a prolonged broadside, telling the young man that his play is rubbish, a farrago of adolescent pseudo-intellectual poppycock, then tells him to join a repertory theatre, and play numerous parts until he understands how plays work.

To his and our surprise this blunt attack makes Roland announce that he loves Garry. He is obsessed with him. He’s his number one fan. He even offers to come to Africa with him. Garry manages to talk him down and then usher him out, spilling his gratitude at giving him new insight into his life etc.

He’s barely updated Monica (the secretary) before the front doorbell rings and it is Henry his producer and (‘rather dapper and neat’, about 40) and Morris his agent (‘a trifle younger, tall and good-looking and a little grey at the temples).

There’s a gag that on the way in they found a young man sitting on his steps, crying. Garry says it’s a young playwright and he’s just given him his opinion about his play. Henry laughs that he’s glad to see he hasn’t lost his touch.

The big news they’ve arrived with is that the leading lady in the troupe going to Africa, Nora Fenwick, has tripped and broken her leg! Now they’ll have to find a replacement though Garry takes violently against their proposed substitution of the old stager Beryl Willard.

Henry exists, leaving Morris with Garry. Garry asks him whether he’s having an affair with Joanna and explains why it’s important, namely the closeness of their little gang.

GARRY: Here we are, five people closely woven together by affection and work and intimate knowledge of each other. It’s too important a ‘set up’ to risk breaking for any outside emotional reason whatsoever.

Funny how this echoes comparable speeches by Leo and Otto in ‘Design for Living’, the sense of a tiny cohort of extremely close friends against the world. Anyway, Morris assures him he’s not having an affair with Joanna and the act ends with Garry telephoning Liz and using their much made-of code-word to assure her (Liz) everything is all round.

Act 2

Scene 1. Three days later, at midnight

A bit of preliminary business between Garry and his man Fred, who’s dressed up to go to a nightclub where his girlfriend, Doris, sings and does a turn with a skipping rope. When Garry says he knows Fred has been having relations with Doris, Fred says: ‘ Why not? She likes it, I like it and a good time’s ‘ad by all’ – a repetition of the carpe diem argument which echoes through Coward’s works and, more specifically, the idea that traditional conventional morality can simply be ignored if those involved agree and it hurts no-one else (see ‘Private Lives’ and ‘Design for Living’).

Anyway Garry is just preparing to go to bed when the front doorbell rings and it is… Joanna, who, the stage directions tell us: ‘ is an exquisitely gowned woman in the early thirties. She has a great deal of assurance and considerable charm.’

In the kind of echo/symmetry/repetition which Coward delights in, Joanna tells him she’s forgotten her latchkey which was, of course, the excuse Daphne gave for having to stay overnight in Act 1.

The comedy of this scene is that they are both artificial over-actors, triggering one among several gags at Garry’s expense:

JOANNA: I know that voice, Garry, you’ve used it in every play you’ve ever been in.
GARRY: Complete naturalness on the stage is my strong suit.

Garry has a barely concealed hostility towards her. She married Henry five years ago and swears she has done her best to stay outside their precious charmed circle. He sees that she has an ulterior motive – I thought it might be something cunning and complex but it turns out, a bit disappointingly, that she has been in love with him for seven years and just wants to seduce him. So he lets her.

But not before she delivers a little speech which is briefly earnest, and reminiscent of the serious and bitter speeches about emotional pain found in ‘Private Lives’ and ‘Design for Living’. Then it’s back to banter and a memorable exchange about which is better, the Queen’s Hall or the Albert Hall, as they move in for their first Big Kiss.

Scene 2. Garry’s flat, next morning

In a further example of Coward’s love of parallelism, Joanna emerges from the spare room wearing Garry’s pyjamas just as Daphne did in Act 1. She too encounters Miss Erikson, Fred and then Monica, who is horrified at her presence in such compromising circumstances.

Liz arrives, is taken aback by Joanna’s presence and threatens to tell Henry that she has had affairs with Morris and now Garry. Liz, again, paints the picture of a small, tight-knit group she is threatening to disrupt. Their exchange teeters on the real angry bitterness we know to be Coward’s core mode.

The doorbell rings and Liz takes advantage of it to say he knows it’s Morris, and this throws Joanna into a panic, she says she can’t face him and her temporary confusion allows Liz to extract from her a promise that she won’t see Garry again before he goes to Africa, and shoves Joanna back into the spare room where she slept.

The caller isn’t Morris but Roland Maule who says he has an appointment with Garry. Monica takes him into another room to wait for him.

The pace picks up as more people arrive. First Morris who virtually bumps into Garry coming out of his room. When Garry makes a casual reference to a lady in the spare room, Morris demands to know who it is and knocks but it is Liz who emerges, to Morris’s surprise and Garry’s astonishment.

Things become farcical. Morris melodramatically announces that he’s madly in love with Joanna (married to Henry, remember), has promised to keep it a secret, told Joanna how she feels, but she left and he hasn’t seen her for days. We are teetering on the brink of revealing that Joanna has had a fling with Garry when Liz lies that Joanna spent the night with her, well aware that she is saving Garry’s bacon and he will owe her one.

Ripe comedy when Liz calls the phone in the spare room, gets Joanna to answer it, and hands the phone to Morris, having persuaded him Joanna is at her place. He wails down the phone how much he loves her but she slams the phone down.

Garry takes this as an opportunity to complain to everyone how he is pushed from pillar to post and everyone exploits him. In the middle of which Roland Maul emerges from the other spare room, to Garry’s horror.

He’s in the middle of coping with this mad fan when the doorbell rings and Henry comes in. He, too, wants to know where Joanna is, saying she’s disappeared, she hasn’t been home all night. Garry looks panic-stricken but Liz repeats her lie that Joanna spent the night with her. They do the phone trick again, ringing through to the spare room as if it’s Liz’s flat, so that Joanna can answer and reassure Henry.

Henry doesn’t understand when Joanna says she feels like she’s in a French farce but it makes the entire audience realise that she is, and how close Coward is to straight farce, stripped of the supposed elegance and wit his fans insist on.

The doorbell rings yet again and Fred the butler announces Lady Saltburn and Miss Daphne Stillburn i.e. the young lady the play started with. Lady S is polite but Daphne is, of course, very enthusiastic. They remind him that Garry promised to give her an audition, which is what triggered her seduction of a few nights before.

Morris and Henry make their excuses and leave, though irritating Mr Maule insists on remaining. Rather inconsequentially Daphne insists on reciting a poem, ‘We Meet Not as We Parted’ by Shelley, the very same one Garry used to paint his passion and then get rid of her at the start of the play – another example of Coward’s penchant for repetition and echoing.

She’s only just finished when Joanna storms out of the spare room where she’s been stuck for most of this scene. Liz suavely tells her she can borrow her car and Daphne – to big laughs – repeats what Liz told her in that first scene, describing the appearance and name of the chauffeur.

Joanna delivers a biting accusation of Garry and mocks his loyal band of satellites, then storms out. Daphne faints.

In the production I watched his secretary, Monica, rushes to get a glass of water to revive Daphne but as she reaches it past Garry, who’s kneeling beside the fainted young lady, he grabs it and drinks it himself. This isn’t in the original script. If only there were a few more comic touches in the original… but maybe that’s always the point of comic plays, that the script leaves it open for actors and director to come up with comic business…

Act 3

It’s a week later and the act opens with Monica reading out some of his mail, generally from people he has no memory of ever meeting. After this preliminary, Monica asks Garry why he won’t go and see Liz. He says she knows Liz is in a rage, he hasn’t seen her for a week, since the Joanna incident.

As she puts on her hat to depart the dialogue becomes charged with poignancy. We are allowed to see how much he means to her and how much she relies on him. They have a moment when she could kiss him but then it passes. She knows she’d be a fool to join his list of conquests.

Left to himself for a few minutes we realise he is bored and lonely. Mrs Eriksen emerges. She is dressed to go out. Garry rather desperately asks her to stay and have a cigarette, and tell him about her life. There’s some comic banter about a friend of hers who lives in Hammersmith and is a medium. It’s not actually very funny, more sad.

The front doorbell rings and he leaps up, obviously relieved, but then dismayed when Daphne walks in in travelling outfit carrying a suitcase. She announces she’s bought a ticket and is going to accompany him to Africa. She explains that she’s realised the truth: that he is desperately lonely and needs someone to look after him, realising this when she saw that dreadful prostitute come out of the spare room. She is, of course, referring to Joanna and he is appalled.

She is in the middle of explaining that she has True Love for him when the doorbell rings again. Daphne refuses to be bundled into the spare room and so he bundles her into the office instead.

The new caller is Roland. He is worryingly demented. He announces that he too has a ticket for the voyage to Africa. Garry tries to get him to leave, but the doorbell rings a third time and Roland bolts into the spare room and locks the door.

The third caller is Joanna, who has also bought a ticket for the Africa voyage. She explains that she needs him and he needs her and they are fated to be together. Determined to do something about all this Garry phones Liz and delivers the code-word from the first scene, triggering her to pop round.

She is just explaining that she’s written a letter to Henry and Morris telling them everything when the doorbell rings again. It is Liz, come at the bidding of his code-word to save the day.

Confronting Joanna, Liz announces that she too is travelling to Africa. In her urbane way she thinks it will be most amusing for them all to be together, dining at the same table and sharing so many stories.

Moments later the doorbell rings again and Henry and Morris enter. Morris demands to know whether the contents of Joanna’s letter are true and whether Garry has been Joanna’s love. He immediately admits it. But he deflects it by saying that the person who minds the situation the most is Morris, who has also been Joanna’s lover and genuinely loves her.

Shocked, Henry asks them if it’s true. But Garry counter-attacks by telling everyone about Morris’s affair with Elvira Radcliffe for over a year.

He accuses them all of hypocrisy and then delivers the Author’s Message:

GARRY: I believe now and I always have believed that there’s far too much nonsense talked about sex. You, Morris, happen to like taking your paltry attachments seriously. You like suffering and plunging into orgies of jealousy and torturing yourself and everyone else. That’s your way of enjoying yourself. Henry’s technique is a little different, he plumps for the domestic blend. That’s why he got tired of Joanna so quickly. Anyhow, he’s beautifully suited with poor Elvira. She’s been knee-deep in pasture ever since she left Roedean! Joanna’s different again. She devotes a great deal of time to sex but not for any of the intrinsic pleasures of it, merely as a means to an end. She’s a collector. A go-getter and attractive, unscrupulous pirate. I personally am none of these things. To me the whole business is yastly over-rated. I enioy it for what it’s worth and fully intend to go on doing so for as long as anybody’s interested and when the time comes that they’re not I shall be perfectly content to settle down with an apple and a good book!

Relax. It’s only sex. It was to be another half century or more before the great British public accepted this simple philosophy without offence or horror, if it actually yet has.

Joanna angrily slaps Garry’s face and stomps out but her departure goes unnoticed because Morris let slip that they’ve booked the Forum theatre for his next production despite his expressly saying he didn’t want it. This triggers a far more important argument between Garry, Henry and Morris than all the sex and infidelity in the world.

In fact it triggers a bravura last few minutes as Garry goes into theatrical overdrive, delivering a grand histrionic speech accusing everyone of being vultures that eat his life’s blood before melodramatically sinking to the floor. Completely unimpressed, Morris and Henry depart in good humour.

MORRIS: That performance wouldn’t deceive a kitten.

You can see how Coward has dodged all the logical or psychological problems of these revelations of infidelity and betrayal with this one piece of theatrical legerdemain.

Melodramatically gasping, Garry begs Liz to fetch him a brandy to revive him but spits it out when she announces that she’s not only genuinely coming with him to Africa, but is coming back to good. She’s going to move back in. Not because she loves him especially, she’s thinking of the good of ‘the firm’. Without someone to chaperone him he goes off the rails at the slightest opportunity. He needs a minder and it’s going to be her.

At which point he remembers Daphne and Roland hidden in the adjoining rooms and tells Liz, ‘You’re not coming back to me… I’m coming back to you’ and – repeating the ending of ‘Hay Fever’ and ‘Private Lives’ – they quietly tiptoe out.

THE END

Donald Sinden production

1981 theatre production at the Vaudeville Theatre, filmed by the BBC, directed by Alan Strachan, and starring Donald Sinden as Garry, Dinah Sheridan as Liz, Gwen Watford as Monica, Elizabeth Counsell as Joanna and Julian Fellowes as Maule.

Part 1

Part 2


Related links

Related reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 3

‘Tonight at 8.30’ is a cycle of ten one-act plays by Noël Coward. It was first staged in London in 1936 with Coward himself and Gertrude Lawrence in the leading roles.

The plays are mostly comedies but three – ‘The Astonished Heart’, ‘Shadow Play’ and ‘Still Life’ – are serious. Four of the comedies include songs, with words and music by Coward.

One play, ‘Star Chamber’, was dropped after a single performance. The other nine plays were presented in three programmes of three plays each. There have been numerous revivals of many of the individual plays, but revivals of the complete cycle have been much less frequent. Several of the plays have been adapted for the cinema and television.

Background

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Coward wrote a succession of hits, ranging from the intimate comedies ‘Private Lives’ (in which Coward also starred alongside Gertrude Lawrence) and ‘Design for Living’, to the operetta ‘Bitter Sweet’ (1929) and the historical extravaganza ‘Cavalcade’ (1931).

After performing in ‘Private Lives’, Coward felt that the public enjoyed seeing him and Lawrence together on stage, and so he wrote the play cycle ‘Tonight at 8.30’ expressly as ‘acting, singing, and dancing vehicles for Gertrude Lawrence and myself’. But he also had the conscious motive of reviving the moribund form of the one-act play. As he wrote in the Preface to the printed plays:

A short play, having a great advantage over a long one in that it can sustain a mood without technical creaking or over padding, deserves a better fate, and if, by careful writing, acting and producing I can do a little towards reinstating it in its rightful pride, I shall have achieved one of my more sentimental ambitions.

Ten plays

The cycle consists of ten plays. In order of first production they are:

  1. We Were Dancing: A comedy in two scenes
  2. The Astonished Heart: A play in six scenes
  3. Red Peppers: An interlude with music
  4. Hands Across the Sea: A light comedy in one scene
  5. Fumed Oak: An unpleasant comedy in two scenes
  6. Shadow Play: A play with music
  7. Family Album: A Victorian comedy with music
  8. Star Chamber: A light comedy in one act
  9. Ways and Means: A comedy in three scenes
  10. Still Life: A play in five scenes

This blog post summarises and comments on numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10.

7. Family Album: A Victorian comedy with music

It is the evening of an autumn day in 1860. The entire 20-page play takes place in the same setting, the drawing room of a house in Kent belonging to the Featherways family. The play depicts this prosperous middle-class Victorian family, all wearing mourning and gathered after the funeral of their father. The group comprises his five children (in bold) and their spouses, if they have them:

  • Jasper Featherways, the facile flippant one, played by Coward
  • Jane, married to Jasper
  • Harriet Featherways now married to…
  • Charles Winter
  • Emily Featherways, now married to…
  • Edward Valance
  • Richard Featherways, unmarried
  • Lavinia Featherways, unmarried

They reminisce and call for madeira wine to drink a toast in. This is brought in by the ancient butler, Burrow, who is very hard of hearing which leads to utterly predictable and very enjoyable misunderstandings.

Jasper takes the lead in proposing toasts and is given a stream of comic and flippant remarks throughout. Lavinia is the most stern and Victorian of them all, strongly objecting to drinking after a funeral, and to many of the jokes and flippant remarks – ‘This is so wrong, so dreadfully wrong.’ As he proposes the toasts, Jasper breaks into song, the first of four songs in the piece:

At which point Jasper suggests it’s time to get the big old family trunk down from the attic. Jasper asks Burrows to fetch the box, to which Burrows comically replies that, yes, he’s wound them all up, to which Jasper says significantly louder, The box not the clocks.

So Jasper and Richard go up into the attic and fetch down a bog old dusty box. But when he goes to unlock it, discovers it’s already open and then realises it’s an old box full of their toys and dressing-up costumes. The Featherways offspring get these all out and start playing an old favourite game of theirs, Princes and Princesses which, again, triggers a song, ‘Princes and Princesses’, which I can’t find on the internet.

Incidentally, they have all continued drinking the madeira very liberally and have now finished the first bottle so ring for Burrows to bring another one which they pour out with gusto. This strikes me as not very 1860s behaviour, much more the drunken behaviour of Leo and Otto in ‘Design for Living’ or Elyot and Amanda in ‘Private Lives’.

They drink a toast to Burrows, who was so sweet and kind to them when they were all children. Any the next thing they find in the old trunk is a musical box which they wind up and which, of course, provides music for more songs, which they sing, amid more drinking. Here’s a medley of two of the songs, ‘Hearts and Flowers’ and ‘Music Box’.

The others are continuing uttering pious sentiments about their dead father when Lavinia amazes them and the audience by declaring she hated him.

LAVINIA: I hated Papa, so did you … He was cruel to Mama, he was unkind to us, he was profligate and pompous and worse still, he was mean.

Worst of all, he kept her at home as if imprisoned in the dark old Victorian home, counting his bills and sorting his linen and putting up with his silence or his insults. She hated him and she’s glad he’s dead.

(All this resonated with me much more since I read Virginia Woolf’s searing feminist polemic Three Guineas which, among other things, gives a horrible sense of how the Victorian home was a prison and a tomb for countless million unmarried middle class women, a plight dramatised by the case of Eleanor Pargiter in her novel, The Years.)

She then astonishes the others by telling them that the will read out to them that morning, the one which distributed family fortune equally among the five children, was not the old man’s final will. Just a week before he died he had made a new one, leaving the children nothing but dividing his fortune among his three mistresses and the rest to pay for a new church containing a grandiose memorial to himself in black marble.

This will was witnessed by Lavinia and Burrows, but now, she tells the flabbergasted family, precisely seven minutes after the old man expired, they burned it! Flabbergasted Jasper calls Burrows in to ask if all this is true but the deaf old retainer wisely and diplomatically states that his deafness is getting worse so that he will never be able to hear questions about the will.

They all realise what an excellent chap he is and invite him to join them for a (yet another) glass of madeira although it is Burrows himself who has the last toast, drinking to the whole family as, to the tune of the musical box, they dance round him hand in hand.

Comment

Immensely enjoyable because it’s one of the few Coward plays where the characters don’t spend a lot of the time shouting at each other or feeling miserable. It is wonderfully warm and happy and the plot, too, is simple but charming.

8. Star Chamber: A light comedy in one act

This is the one play in the set which was quickly dropped only being performed once. Maybe this was because it had by far the largest cast, with ten named parts.

It’s set on a West End stage around noon i.e. no question of a performance taking place. Instead one by one the ten or so characters arrive and we learn that they are all members of a ‘committee’ including its secretary. It takes a while to learn it’s the committee of the ‘Garrick Haven Fund’. The characters are:

  • Jimmie Horlick, stage manager
  • J. M. Farmer, secretary of the Garrick Haven Fund, amiable looking man between 30 and 40 carrying a briefcase stuffed with papers
  • Hester More, a vague, absent-minded and fanciful actress, ‘vague to the point of lunacy’
  • Johnny Bolton, a star comedian, middle aged, of working class origin, outlandishly dressed in ‘plus fours, a camel-hair coat, a check cap and a very bright scarf’
  • Julian Breed, the leading young actor in London
  • Violet Vibart, an elderly actress of considerable reputation
  • Maurice Searle, an exceedingly handsome virile young actor, mortally embarrassed because he’s had to grow long hair for a film role
  • Dame Rose Maitland, a grande dame of the theatre, majestic and autocratic, a vice president of the committee
  • Elise Brodie, an actress, pretty and respectable, another vice president of the committee
  • Xenia James, an actress, president of the Fund

I loved all these caricatures, very enjoyable. I loved Hester’s wild flights of fantasy (flights which I’ve noted running like a thread through so many of his plays), I loved the way the Johnnie character sticks out a mile because of his Cockney accent and the way he keeps trying to tell people long boring scenarios which everyone drifts off and ignores and so which are never finished.

I love the lofty way the grande dame ignores everyone and fails to hear anything she doesn’t want to. It takes a while for all these thespians to arrive and settle down and it’s funny how they’ve just agreed that, in the absence of the chair, Xenia James, Dame Rose will chair the meeting when the very same Xenia James makes a grand entrance dragged along by a vast great Dane, who she’s named after a fellow actor who passed away, Atherton.

Synopsis

Anyway, on the bare stage of a West End theatre the stage manager, Jimmie Horlick, is arranging chairs round a large table in preparation for a meeting of the committee of the Garrick Haven Fund. The committee members arrive in dribs and drabs.

First, Mr Farmer, Secretary of the Fund, briefcase packed with papers, methodical and harassed. Next Hester More, a dizzy young actress; Johnny Bolton, ‘a star comedian of middle age but perennial youthfulness’; Violet Vibart, an elderly actress of great distinction; Julian Breed, a popular juvenile lead; Maurice Searle, a character actor who has grown his hair to shoulder length for an historical role and feels self-conscious about it; the majestic Dame Rose Maitland; the preoccupied Elise Brodie; and finally, and very late, Xenia James, chairman of the committee, with her dog, Atherton.

The whole thing from start to finish is characterised by all the characters’ complete inability to concentrate, focus or obey rules. Instead the continually gossip, talk over each other, interrupt whoever else is speaking, undermine the chair and ignore Farmer’s long boring presentation.

In a nutshell, this is a meeting of the Garrick Haven fund, established in 1902 to provide a home for destitute actresses. The fund is well off, with a balance of £58,000, largely generated by the annual fun fair. Mention of this characteristically triggers all present to wander off into memories of the fair and complaints about all aspects of its management.

With difficulty, Farmer tries to quieten them down and get their attention back onto the issue the meeting’s been called for which is to give formal consent for much-needed structural alterations to the retirement house (notably an extra bathroom and inside toilet).

At this point Atherton starts farting and Xenia gets nice Mr Horlick to take him (very gingerly) off to the props room. Farmer reads a letter from the residents politely asking for the extra loo and bathroom and then proceeds to read out, at very great length, the precise and exact quote for the building works which he’s received from the builders (Messrs Joyce and Spence) and the committee has to sign off on, amounting to £3,082, 17 shillings and fourpence.

The comedy derives from the way it’s like herding cats: the actors are completely incapable of concentrating on anything without wandering off into digressions and lots of private conversations, in one instance a suggestion that the new buildings be decorated with framed posters from old play productions.

Xenia sneaks off to check on Atherton and finds her darling fast asleep and twitching as though chasing rabbits in a dream.

Farmer attempts to read out a further quote for the plumbing work but by now the actors have had it. A press photographer arrives and they are all instantly distracted by this, As Farmer drones valiantly on all the others arrange themselves with much fussing for a group photo.

The actors start to leave in ones and twos as they arrived, Julian and Maurice leaving with the photographer. Xenia makes a speech appealing for donations and promises to give £100 to set the ball rolling not having really grasped that donations are not at all needed, what was needed was attention and responsibility. Then, without formally closing the meeting, she too dashes off, forgetting her dog.

Johnny gets to his feet to second Xenia’s fine sentiments and is droning on about what a worthy cause it is, and how we may all suffer poverty one day etc but he is drowned out by the sound of the remaining thespians all saying goodbye to each other, giving air kisses, promising to meet again soon etc until he becomes utterly demoralised and gives up.

Only valiant Mr Farmer is left to Johnny, with no-one else to snare, invites him to lunch at his club and Farmer is incautious enough to accept. As they walk off he tells Jimmie to turn off the lights, thus providing a mirror of the opening of the play (lights on, enter Jimmie, then Johnny, then Farmer).

And, in a last gag, after everyone has exited the bare stage and the lights have gone off, we hear the mournful howling of the dog Atherton, locked up and abandoned in the props room.

Maybe I’m in a relaxed mood today, but I found this as entertaining and funny as Victorian Album.

9. Ways and Means: A Light Comedy in Three Scenes

We are in the South of France, on the fashionable Cote d’Azur. We are in the house of the very well-off Mrs Lloyd-Ransome. The curtain opens to reveal a bedroom and in the bed, having breakfast off a tray, are the unhappy married couple Toby and Stella Cartwright.

Briefly: he has gambled away all their money. They’re in debt to their banks and everyone they know including their hostess in this house. The dialogue mostly consists of despair at being so broke, alternately flippant / humorous and genuinely despairing.

Toby tells their Nanny (‘a capable looking, middle-aged woman’) to pawn Stella’s jewellery and the gold buttons off his waistcoat. They then go back to the casino to gamble with the cash but in the second scene we find them a few hours later, back in the bed, and utterly despairing, since they have lost everything they got from the pawnbrokers in four minutes flat. Toby had got a place at the big table and was feeling lucky when he was asked to give up his place by an American lady, Mrs Irving Brandt. Ever the gentleman, he gave up his place when a lady requested it and Mrs Irving Brandt went on to ‘run the bank’ 17 times and win 175,000 francs. When she had utterly cleaned up she graciously let Toby have the seat and he promptly lost everything.

Angry, he goes into the bathroom where he manages to bang his head on the mirror and cut himself. There’s a big song and dance while Stella tells him not to be such a baby and gets some iodine to dress the wound.

After much more fuss and flippancy and lamenting, they go to bed and put the lights out. This sets the scene for the third and final scene in which they’re awakened by a burglar. When they call out and put the lights on he pulls a gun on them. However, he’s not a very good burglar and they first demoralise him by telling him they have no money and then manage to disarm him, seize the gun and turn the tables.

When they take his mask off they discover it’s the chauffeur of posh people in their circle, a man named Stevens. Now we understand why there’d been some chat in the first scene, among their posh friends, about some scandal involving this chauffeur. He had been dismissed for having a fling with his employer (Mrs Bainbridge)’s daughter, May. Now he explains that, thus thrown out of work, he decided to try his hand at crime.

So, as in these posh comedies, as for example in P.G. Wodehouse, the posh protagonists turn out to be on good terms with their would-be burglar, and have a civilised chat and a drink. Suddenly a plan occurs to Toby. Remember the 175,000 francs won by Mrs Irving Brandt? Toby suggests Stevens sneaks down the hall and into her room and steals that 175,000 francs.

Despite Stevens’ and Stella’s initial objections, this is what he ends up doing, returning five minutes later not only with all the cash but with some diamonds he pinched as well. They secrete the money in their clothes to look like it’s theirs, then get Stevens to tie them up.

The plan is to look like he broke into their room, tied them up, burgled them, then onto Mrs Brandt, before returning to their room and escaping. So this is what he does, ties them to their chairs and finally ties gags over their mouths. Up to that point they’d been conducting a comic Wodehouse-style conversation in which they promised to help him out with his choice of a new career and he answered all their requests with yes sir, yes ma’am.

He bows politely and leaves them tied to their chairs, gagged, and laughing hysterically.

The way the whole thing is a kind of conspiracy or scam which leaves the actors hooting with laughter is identical with the end of ‘Design for Living’ where the more the outraged husband preaches old-fashioned morality, the more Leo, Otto and Gilda fall about laughing.

In one sense his plays are a kind of conspiracy by imaginative tricksters against the conventional values and morality of the older generation and the poor saps among the current generation who still believe them.

Thoughts

His fans and blurb writers endlessly praise Coward for the wit and stylishness of his writing and dialogue. The plays certainly are almost entirely about posh upper-middle-class people, and they contain much 1) posing and prancing and characters drawing attention to their own poshness with their drawling flippancy and ‘wit’. But this summary or cliché ignores two other major elements of his approach or style or schtick, which are 2) arguments and abuse and 3) flights of fantasy.

1. Wit

STELLA: You seem to forget that one a certain bleak day in 1928 I gave my life into your keeping.
TOBY: Marriage is a sacrament, a mystic rite, and you persist in regarding it as a sort of plumber’s estimate.

TOBY: You play bridge too merrily, Stella.
STELLA: My merriment is entirely a social gesture. I loathe bridge.
TOBY: That is no excuse for playing it as if it were lacrosse.

TOBY: From now onwards I intend to live in the past – the present is too unbearable. I intend to go back to the happy scenes of my boyhood.
STELLA: I’m sorry I’m not a rocking horse.
TOBY: You underrate yourself, darling.

2. Abuse

It had previously been axiomatic that a gentleman never lost his temper and was chivalrous and respectful to woman. The Coward male is neither of these things. The Coward male loses his temper all the time, every few minutes flies into a frothing spitting rage, see ‘Private Lives’ or ‘Design for Living’ or Toby, here.

The furious Coward male also doesn’t mince his words, hurling the most astonishing abuse, insults and threats at his woman. The level of hatred, cursing and threats in ‘Private Lives’ staggered me.

The couple at various moments say:

STELLA: Be quiet… Oh shut up!.. Don’t be so idiotic… Don’t be so silly… Don’t be so childish… Shut up… Toby, don’t be such a fool…

TOBY: Shut up!.. Be quiet, Stella… Don’t be an idiot Stella…

A bit more elaborately:

STELLA: You have the moral values of a warthog… You have a disgusting mind, Toby…

3. Fantasy

The really characteristic thing about Coward, I think, is when his lead characters go off on wild imaginative flights of fancy. Mad frivolous fantasies were Elyot’s distinguishing feature in ‘Private Lives’ and all three protagonists in ‘Design for Living’ cook up fantastical scenarios, and it crops up again here, as Toby in particular expresses his unhappiness in terms of far-fetched similes and scenarios.

TOBY: It is possible, in my present state of splendid detachment, that I might go off into a yogi trance and stay upside down for several days.

Or ridiculous plans:

TOBY: Let’s go quietly but firmly along the passage and murder Pearl Brandt.

Stella’s suggestion that maybe she could do a little light prostitution to earn the money they need. Or her absurd exaggeration:

STELLA: We’ll deliver ourselves over to Olive bound and gagged in the morning.

Coward’s imaginative characters are always overflowing with absurd and fantastical scenarios. It’s this, I think, the vein of fantasy which pops up, a smaller or larger ingredient of each play, much more than the alleged ‘wit’, which makes his plays so entertaining. (Cf ‘Shadow Play’ which is one big fantasy.)

10. Still Life: A play in five scenes

Executive summary

The play portrays the chance meeting at a suburban railway station, the subsequent love affair and eventual parting of a married woman, Laura Jesson, and a doctor, Alec Harvey. The sadness of their secretive affair is contrasted throughout the play with the boisterous life of the tea shop and station staff. ‘Still Life’ differs from most of the plays in the ‘Tonight at 8.30’ cycle by having an unhappy ending. It was also, of course, the basis of the 1945 film, ‘Brief Encounter’, directed by David Lean and starring Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson, which is regularly cited as one of the top ten British films of all time.

Synopsis

The five scenes are set in the same location, namely the tea room at Milford Junction railway station, which is dominated by the elaborate refreshments counter / station buffet, overseen by the strict Myrtle Bagot who bosses around her downtrodden assistant Beryl Waters, and flirts in an imperious dismissive way with Albert the ticket inspector. The action takes place in five scenes across the span of a single year, from April to March.

Scene 1 5.30 on an April afternoon. Myrtle’s character is established as she bosses around her assistant Beryl and rebuffs the attempts of Albert, the ticket-inspector, to flirt with her. Laura is waiting for her train home after shopping. She goes out onto the platform as an express races by with an enormous noise and re-enters moments later complaining of having a smut of grit in her eye. Myrtle gets some water and Albert offers advice but it’s the handsome young Alec introduces himself as a doctor and uses his hankie to remove it for her. She thanks him and goes to catch her train, he goes back to his cup of tea.

Scene 2 Three months later, in July. The ‘rude mechanicals’ i.e. the working class characters provide a foil or backdrop for the main love story. (The phrase ‘rude mechanical’ comes from Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ where it refers to the working class artisans who have their own farcical love story which parallels the love story of the main protagonists who are lords and ladies. Three hundred and forty years later Coward is still using much the same device.)

And so the scene opens with Myrtle telling Beryl about a fortune teller who told her love life accurately before Albert breezes in wanting tea and cakes for some travellers on the platform. Against this bright and breezy background, enter Alec and Lara together. He buys two teas and two bath buns.

It becomes clear that after their first meeting they encountered each other a second time by chance and like each other’s company and have had lunch and gone to the pictures together. He took an afternoon off work. Now he’s praising her as ‘awfully nice’, but she feels guilty. When she was a girl living in Cornwall, she and her sister used to sneak out the house at night to go swim in the sea but always felt guilty. Now she feels the same. She’s ‘a respectable married woman with a husband and a home and three children.’

They ask each other to describe their spouses, as people having affairs often do, out of guilt and also to make it seem more homely, more real. She gets him to talk about his work and he explains his passionate interest in preventive medicine, and then goes into more detail about his interest in lung diseases. She sits entranced until it’s time for his train. Suddenly he wants more than to bump into each other by accident but begs that she’ll meet him the following Thursday, in a week’s time, and after initial reluctance, as he takes his hand and prepares to run for his train, she agrees.

Scene 3 Another three months have passed so it’s October. As usual the scene opens with the proles, Albert and Myrtle, flirting. They seem to have reached a new level of intimacy, as he asks her for a kiss over the counter and, on entering, slaps her behind as she’s bent over. She scolds him but permits it. In his tussle to get a kiss they know some cakes on the floor and are picking them up when Alec and Laura come in.

As usual, Alec buys two teas and takes them to their usual table. From their conversation it becomes clear that they have seen a good deal more of each other and have fallen in love. He accepts it and wants her to but Laura is fighting against it, says it’s wrong, ‘dreadfully wrong’. He wants to arrange an afternoon at a friend, Stephen’s, house, presumably to have sex. She, of course, thinks it’s horrible and squalid and will be spoiled by the fear hanging over them. He tells her they’ve both been in love before but neither of them have known this ‘something lovely and strange and desperately difficult’ and, as usual, when she listens to him she is entranced.

As with so many of these Coward plays it’s a question of hermeneutics, of clashing and competing interpretations. They both feel a tremendous attraction to each other but whereas Alec argues strongly for giving into it, Laura bridles and argues against it. She vividly describes going home after their Thursday meetings, and feeling adrift and alien in her house, weirdly detached from all the humdrum objects of her normal domestic life. He becomes more ardent and passionate, holding her hand, saying how he counts the hours till Thursday comes round again.

This intense conversation is completely overshadowed by two loud soldiers entering the room and asking Myrtle for some alcohol. She can’t serve it because it’s out of hours and this develops into an extended argument with them making all kinds of reasons why they need a nice drop, why can’t she put it in the tea etc, while she absolutely refuses to break the law. Eventually she tells Beryl to fetch Norman who takes charge of the situation and tells the two squaddies to ‘op it, before saying he has to return to his gate. Myrtle asks Beryl to get her a glass of brandy for her nerves and tells Beryl that Norman Godby may be on the short side ‘but ‘e’s a gentleman.’

After this extended interruption we return to Alec and Laura at their table. He delivers a speech about how they have to be strong enough to live up to their love, ‘clean and untouched’ by other people’s knowledge, ‘something of our own forever’.

He scribbles the address of his colleague’s flat on a piece of paper for her, says he’s going to miss his train and go to the flat and he’ll be waiting for her and leaves. Laura stares at the paper, then we hear a train steaming in and Myrtle comments on the time, making it quite clear that it’s Laura’s train. Laura gets up, goes to the platform door, pauses, the whistle blows and the train starts to puff out, while she slowly exits the tea room.

I.e. she is going to keep her rendezvous with Alec at his friend’s flat. Presumably to have sex and thereby break her fidelity to her husband, and also the law.

Scene 4 It’s December. As usual the scene opens with comic business among the working classes. If tea room boss Myrtle is carrying on with Norman the ticket collector, Beryl is continuing to be wooed by the man who carries a tray of refreshments round the platforms, Stanley. He asks if he can walk Beryl home, asks her to lock up early, so they can have an extra five minutes, presumably for snogging. Thus the mating game, played at every level of society. In all three relationships, it’s the men who are constantly pushing for more, and the women who, in their various ways, are reluctant or refuse. Is that true of ‘real life’? Or just the convention of the time, and of many times, but not of our modern liberated age?

Laura comes in looking pale and anxious, asks for a brandy, and a pen and paper, which Beryl reluctantly gives her, then sits down to write – presumably an important message to Alec – but breaks down in tears and then Alec comes in anyway. We quickly learn that they were together (presumably for the umpteenth time) at this friend of Alec’s flat, when he came home unexpectedly early and caught them. At least, Alec darted out to chat to the fellow while Laura had to get dressed in a hurry and nip out the back, feeling like a prostitute. She bets they chatted and had a good laugh about her, like men of the world.

He apologises then we get to the heart of the matter, the clash of worldviews or values. Because Alec claims that nothing else matters except their love, except their knowledge that they love each other. But Laura says that other things matter too, such as self respect and decency. So he is the voice of unbridled passion, she, as so often, embodies the weight of social convention, conventional morality etc.

Alec walks over and faces a picture on the wall because he can’t face her as he agrees that this thing will have to end: not their love, he will go on loving her to the end of his life; but their being together. He returns to the table and tells her he is going away. He’s been offered a post at a hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. It’s a golden opportunity. He’s been agonising for weeks but now he can see this thing is ending and so… Should he go or should he turn it down? This, of course, is cruel of him, handing the whole responsibility of ending the affair to her, specially as she’s shown how vulnerable and conflicted she is. Of course she tells him to go.

He asks her to meet him one last time. Not at the flat, that’s now out of bounds, but at a café in town and they’ll go for a drive in the country. His train chuffs in and he has to go. He apologises for ever meeting her, falling in love with her, for causing her so much misery and she apologises back.

Even this scene, obviously designed to be heart-wringing, is interwoven with comedy from the proles because, before the moments, Alec has to bribe stroppy surly Beryl not to close the café at 10pm as she ought to do, but leave it open for just a few minutes more, so that he can have these final words with Laura.

In other words, this device, of paralleling the main love affair with the shenanigans of the rude mechanicals does a number of things: it provides comic relief for the high emotion of the central couple; but it also sets off and heightens their emotional moments; and it creates a vivid sense of the pressure and constraints under which an affair is carried out. The mechanicals are emblematic not only of society’s moral constraints but of the busyness of life, all the timetables of work and spouses and children and responsibilities and duties which any affair has to find time amid, stolen moments, always limited, which eventually come to seem sordid and sneaky, and make the protagonists, like Laura, feel cheap and miserable.

Scene 5 The fifth and final scene is set in March. Albert is more cocky and confident with Myrtle and sends Beryl into the back room ready to steal a kiss, when Alec and Laura enter. It’s a lovely touch that the station staff have, of course, noticed their romantic trysts, and have taken to calling them Romeo and Juliet. To ourselves, in our own minds, we live intense and tragic lives. To other people, we barely register or only as comic figures of fun.

Obviously this is the last scene between Alec and Laura and meant to be intensely moving but it is typical of the play that almost half of it is taken up with a great palaver among the proles. Mildred, who keeps the newspaper and bookstall comes running in to bring the message that Beryl’s mum’s been taken ill again and they’ve rushed her off to hospital. This leads to a cascade of consequences as Beryl is told, gets in a fret, Myrtle says she’d better go to the hospital straightaway, Mildred better go with her for moral support, she (Myrtle) will stay till locking up time (10pm). Which irritates Albert because he’d bought them tickets to see a show, Broadway Melody of 1936, and he slams his teacup down in exasperation.

Only after this extended palaver do we get to Alec and Laura. This is the last time they’ll meet before he leaves for South Africa and she has come to see him off. He asks if he may write but she says no, better not.

He tells her he loves her with all his heart and she quietly whispers that she wants to die. God. Tortured illicit love.

It is their last few minutes together and they are utterly ruined by the entrance of a friend of Laura’s, the fussy and talkative Dolly, who is overjoyed to bump into her old friend, joins them at their table, and sets about telling her all about her day’s doings, while Laura and Alec can only stare into each other’s eyes.

With the result that their last few minutes together before his train arrives are completely swamped and their goodbye is cruelly limited to a formal handshake. And so Alec goes out while Laura remains, trapped listening to prattling Dolly, who now whitters on about a couple they know who are getting divorced because he had a mistress up in town, the wife spotted it then it all came out etc.

You can imagine how this is daggers to the heart of Laura who has always been more conscious of how society sees these things i.e. crudely, dismissively, heartlessly.

They all hear the express through train approaching and Dolly goes to the counter to buy some chocolate for her son, when Laura suddenly snaps and rushes out onto the platform. Dolly turns and notices her missing and Myrtle says she didn’t see her go.

For a moment there is the strong implication that Laura has run out onto the platform to kill herself by throwing herself in front of the train. For a minute. But then the café door opens and she comes back in, looking ‘very white and shaky’.

Solid practical Dolly asks if she’s alright and when Laura says she feels a bit sick, persuades Myrtle to pour some brandy for Laura (tenpence). They hear the sound of their train, the stopping suburban train coming, Dolly gathers up her parcels and accompanies Laura out as the curtain falls. Masterpiece.

Brief Encounter

Various of the plays were adapted for TV or cinema. Coward himself adapted ‘Still Life’ for the screen as ‘Brief Encounter’, one of the most famous British films of all time.


Related links

Related reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 2

‘Tonight at 8.30’ is a cycle of ten one-act plays by Noël Coward. It was first staged in London in 1936 with Coward himself and Gertrude Lawrence in the leading roles.

The plays are mostly comedies but three – ‘The Astonished Heart’, ‘Shadow Play’ and ‘Still Life’ – are serious. Four of the comedies include songs, with words and music by Coward.

One play, ‘Star Chamber’, was dropped after a single performance, although I rather liked it. The other nine plays were presented in three programmes of three plays each. There have been numerous revivals of many of the individual plays, but revivals of the complete cycle have been much less frequent. Several of the plays have been adapted for the cinema and television.

Background

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Coward wrote a succession of hits, ranging from the intimate comedies ‘Private Lives’ (in which Coward also starred alongside Gertrude Lawrence) and ‘Design for Living’, to the operetta ‘Bitter Sweet’ (1929) and the historical extravaganza ‘Cavalcade’ (1931).

After performing in ‘Private Lives’, Coward felt that the public enjoyed seeing him and Lawrence together on stage, and so he wrote the play cycle ‘Tonight at 8.30’ expressly as ‘acting, singing, and dancing vehicles for Gertrude Lawrence and myself’. But he also had the motive of reviving the moribund form of the one-act play. As he wrote in the Preface to the printed plays:

A short play, having a great advantage over a long one in that it can sustain a mood without technical creaking or over padding, deserves a better fate, and if, by careful writing, acting and producing I can do a little towards reinstating it in its rightful pride, I shall have achieved one of my more sentimental ambitions.

Ten plays

The cycle consists of ten plays. In order of first production they are:

  1. We Were Dancing: A comedy in two scenes
  2. The Astonished Heart: A play in six scenes
  3. Red Peppers: An interlude with music
  4. Hands Across the Sea – A light comedy in one scene
  5. Fumed Oak – An unpleasant comedy in two scenes
  6. Shadow Play – A play with music
  7. Family Album – A Victorian comedy with music
  8. Star Chamber – A light comedy in one act
  9. Ways and Means: A comedy in three scenes
  10. Still Life – A play in five scenes

This blog post summarises and comments on numbers 4, 5 and 6.

4. Hands Across the Sea: A light comedy in one scene

Maureen ‘Piggie’ Gilpin, wife of Commander Peter Gilpin, RN, is a society hostess who is notoriously forgetful and slapdash, living in a chaotic social whirl, continually inviting people dinner, tea and parties, then forgetting about them.

When Piggie is out of the room, her and Peter’s maid, Walters, takes a phone call that the Rawlinsons are in town and, having hosted Piggie and a friend out in the Pacific, on the (fictional) island of Samolo, are taking up the invitation she made then to look them up if they’re ever in London. Moments later Piggie returns, sees the message and panics, feeling obliged to lay on a good show for the Rawlinsons. So she sets about a series of panicky phone calls to friends to try and persuade them to come round and help her entertain the Rawlingsons. She prevails on Peter to persuade a naval colleague (Major Gosling) to take the Rawlinsons on a tour of the naval dockyard at Portsmouth during their stay.

Piggie and Peter dash out to change to receive guests and Walters ushers in Mr and Mrs Wadhurst, a couple whom Piggie and Maud met in Malaya. As with the Rawlingsons, Piggie has invited them to tea and then forgotten about the appointment. Another visitor is shown in: Mr Burnham, a young employee of a company that is designing a speed boat for Peter. He and the Wadhursts make polite, slightly stiff conversation. While they wait for the Gilpins to appear, Clare Wedderburn and Bogey Gosling, close friends of the Gilpins, arrive. Clare and Bogey make themselves loudly at home and liberally hand round cocktails.

Piggie enters, greets her old friends and welcomes the Wadhursts, whom she mistakes for the Rawlingsons. Conversation is continually interrupted by the telephone on which Piggie and later Peter and Clare are called to talk to other friends, which they do uninhibitedly, to the confusion of the Wadhursts. At one point, Burnham rises and tries to give Peter a long roll of cardboard, but is thwarted when Peter is again called to the telephone. The conversation is interrupted again when Piggie takes a call from Mrs Rawlingson, who apologises that she and her husband cannot come after all. Piggie, realising her error, tries to discover tactfully who the Wadhursts actually are. Just as they are about to leave to go to the theatre, Mrs Wadhurst mentions Pendarla, where she and Wadhurst live. This finally jogs Piggie’s memory, and she bids them an effusive farewell, inviting them to dine one evening and go to the theatre. She and the Wadhursts leave the room.

Clare, like Piggie, has assumed that Burnham is the Wadhursts’ son. She is puzzled when he does not leave with them. He explains who he is, and that he has brought the designs for Peter’s new boat. Piggie, meanwhile, takes another telephone call and apologises to her caller for forgetting their engagement that afternoon. As Burnham creeps out, she, still unaware that he is not the Wadhursts’ son, bids him goodbye: “It’s been absolutely lovely, you’re the sweetest family I’ve ever met in my life.”

There’s a mild bit of biographical interest in that Peter and Piggie were widely recognised as caricatures of Coward’s friends Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife Edwina. Coward is quoted as saying the couple ‘used to give cocktail parties and people used to arrive that nobody had ever heard of and sit about and go away again; somebody Dickie had met somewhere, or somebody Edwina had met – and nobody knew who they were. We all talked among ourselves, and it was really a very very good basis for a light comedy.’

Light is the word. This doesn’t read at all funny. The trick must be in the performance and, in particular, the brio and comic timing of the actress playing Piggie.

In a reading the most convincing character is the telephone, which doesn’t stop ringing, or which Piggie is never off.

5. Fumed Oak: An unpleasant comedy in two scenes

Another play based around bitter arguments, but in an unusual setting for Coward i.e. not the posh pukka upper middle classes in Mayfair (‘Hands Across The Sea’) but a pinched and narrow, lower middle class household in Clapham.

It opens with a grim portrait of breakfast time with three generations of women – Mrs Rockett, her daughter Mrs Doris Gow, and her daughter, Elsie, all arguing, dominated by narrow-minded Doris, ‘mean and cold and respectable’, bossing and nagging everyone:

DORIS: Never you mind… Get on with your breakfast… Stop sniffling… Don’t start that again… You’ll do no such thing… Do as I tell you… I wish you’d be quiet…Don’t untidy everything… Oh do shut up mother…

Doris tells her daughter, Elsie, she can’t put her hair up like a friend at school. Tells her she can’t have an extra slice of toast. When her mother gives Elsie twopence to buy a bit of cake they argue about that. Mrs Rockett complains about the gurgling of the pipes in her bedroom, complains about the baby next door who cries and wails at the slightest provocation. When the daughter finally leaves, Mrs Rockett complains about Doris’s husband, Elsie’s father, Henry, getting home late and banging about the place keeping her awake. When Doris says at least he’s not a drunk like her father, Mrs Rockett’s deceased husband, was, they flare up into a real argument.

The point is that throughout most of this, Doris’s husband, meek Henry, has been sitting silently eating his breakfast, not saying a word. How could he get a word in edgeways and what would be the point? Mrs Rockett complaining about him getting home late is done after he’s left the room to dress for work. He re-enters, interrupts another flaring row between mother and daughter, then quietly exists. End of scene 1.

The second and final scene is in the same setting but 7.30 that evening. Henry’s come home late from work again, to find cold ham for supper and Doris and Elsie dressed up to go to the cinema.

He’s had a couple of drinks (whiskey and soda) on the way home and is going to give Doris a piece of his mind. He tells her her hat looks awful. He says he’s celebrating the first time they had sex. Doris is shocked and tells Elsie to go upstairs but Henry insists she stays. Remember how I’ve noticed that Coward plays are all about control, about who controls the narrative, about clashes of interpretation.

DORIS: Go upstairs Elsie.
HENRY: Stay here, Elsie.
DORIS: Do as I tell you.

Henry angrily tells Doris to stop nagging him, and explains that he works hard all day to earn the money that keeps them all but all he gets is endless nagging and cold dinner, and to demonstrate his anger he throws the plate of food onto the carpet, and then the butter dish, to Doris’s horror.

When Doris tries to exit Henry nips to the door and locks it. he orders Elsie, who’s crying by now, to bring out the bottle of port and pour him one. More nakedly than usual, this Coward play is about giving orders. Everything is in the imperative mood i.e. a command.

HENRY: Stop working yourself up into a state…
DORIS: Look here…
HENRY: Sit down…
DORIS: Elsie, come with me..
HENRY: You’ll stay where you are…
DORIS: Keep away…
HENRY: Drink it…

When Mrs Rockett darts to the window and opens it as if to escape, Henry grabs her, she starts screaming for the police, he drags her away, lightly smacks her and locks the window as she faints against the piano. As you can imagine the womenfolk are all in tears by this time.

And then it’s simple: Henry announces that he’s had enough and is leaving. He reminds her that sixteen years ago they had sex in her parents’ house which was empty for the night, how she’d set her cap at him months before, how she was anxious to get married seeing as her two older sisters were married, how a few months later she lied and told Henry she was pregnant and so how he chucked in all his plans to become a steward and see the world and took up a crappy job at Ferguson’s Hosiery and has been a wage slave ever since.

Now he announces that he’s leaving, for good. He’s been salting away a little of his pay every year and now has £572 saved up. He’s giving her £50 and the freehold of the house, so she’ll have a roof over head and can make money by taking in lodgers (‘though God help the poor bastards if you do’). And now he’s leaving. He’s got his ship’s ticket and a passport in a new name in his pocket.

Henry has a page-long speech fantasising about what life will be like in the South Seas or New Zealand or Australia, and rhapsodically describing the warm seas with their typhoons and flying fish not the cold little waves at Worthing. After subjugating himself to this cold bitch Doris for 15 long years he’s going to break free and live a little. Think of Elsie, says Doris. Why, replies Henry, Elsie’s awful, a horrible selfish snivelling little kid. She’ll be able to earn her keep in a year.

And he throws down the envelope with the £50, delivers a final speech and leaves. Arguably the main thrust of the speech is that they’re not the only family like this, but there are millions like them, living in very English misery.

HENRY: Three generations. Grandmother, Mother and Kid. Made of the same bones and sinews and muscles and glands, millions of you, millions just like you.

After a few final barbs, he leaves them for good with a cheery: ‘Good-bye one and all! Nice to have known you’ slamming the door behind him.

Slamming

This isn’t the only pointedly slammed door in Coward.

  • Hay Fever: towards the end of the play, the ignored guests of the Bliss family slam the door after they’ve sneaked out
  • Design for Living: at the finale of the play, outraged Ernest slams the door shut as he leaves the three protagonists collapsing in giggles

Fumed oak

The title ‘Fumed Oak’ refers to a wood finishing process that treats the oak with ammonia fumes to darken it and emphasise its rough grain. The finish is matt and dull rather than glossy. I assume this style of wood is associated with the dark heavy ‘respectable’ furniture associated with the kind of narrow, shabby-genteel, lower middle-class household Coward is portraying.

But it is maybe also a metaphorical reference to Henry, the idea that he is the good old English oak which has been subjected to 15 years of the ammonia of the horrible women in his life, ammonia being a sour poisonous gas, who have ‘fumed’ him i.e. made him dull and dark and ‘respectable’ and nearly killed him in the process.

6. Shadow Play: A musical fantasy

Executive summary

‘Shadow Play’ depicts a husband and wife, Simon and Victoria ‘Vicky’ Gayforth, whose marriage is on the brink of collapse. Under the influence of an unwisely large dose of sleeping pills, the wife has a dream that retells their story in hallucinatory form. Musical intervals weave in and out of the dream. The husband is so concerned for his wife’s condition that his love is rekindled, and when she comes round they are reconciled.

Synopsis

It’s about midnight in the Gayforths’ flat in Mayfair, to be precise, the setting is Vicky’s bedroom.

Enter Vicky and her friend, Martha Cunningham. They’ve been to the theatre together but Vicky refuses to accompany Martha to ‘Alice’s party’ because she knows her husband will be there making up to Sybil Heston who she thinks he’s having an affair with. She asks the maid for three sleeping pills, which Martha thinks excessive. While Vicky’s in the adjoining bathroom, the phone rings and Martha answers it. It’s Michael who is clearly an admirer of Vicky’s first in line to replace Simon if the couple split up. Vicky re-enters and takes the phone and tells Michael she can’t come out, she’s taken sleeping pills and is about ‘to go into a coma’.

As usual, there’s lots of characteristic Coward bossiness, and the usual conflict about who gets to talk, with characters telling each other to shut up.

VICKY: Don’t be idiotic… Be quiet, darling… Will you kindly shut up… Stop it, I tell you…

Which gives way to what I’ve noticed is the characters’ tendency to give in to futility, at some point wondering what the bloody point is:

VICKY: What does it matter…?

Unexpectedly Simon enters and after a little banter, Martha leaves the unhappy couple alone. from the get-go they have displayed the characteristic Coward mode of arguing and bickering.

VICKY: Are going to bicker? There’s nothing like a nice bicker to round off a jolly evening.

Simon has not gone to the party because he wants to have a serious talk, despite all Vicky’s frivolous attempts to deflect the subject. He wants her to divorce him. She asks distracting questions about the details: should she cite Sibyl as correspondent, will he go to the South of France or just Brighton (in those days, in order to get a divorce one of the party had to be found guilty of adultery, and often hired a stooge of the opposite sex and checked into a hotel in Brighton, and made sure all this was witnessed by a private detective who then gave evidence at the divorce proceedings – the partner they spent the night with was hired as a freelance and no sex was involved, it was purely a performance for the courts).

Vicky asks whether he really loves Sibyl and he refuses to answer but as their conversation continues the effects of the three sleeping pills start to kick in and they both… start to hear music! And Simon bursts into song and Vicky joins him, and they launch into ‘Then’. Here are Coward and Lawrence speaking the dialogue which leads into the song, a bit more dialogue, and then the play’s main song ‘Play, Orchestra, Play’:

So, presumably we are in her consciousness as she drifts into a drugged state, or it is just a stage fantasia beyond explaining, but the set disappears, spotlights come up, a dresser brings them evening dress and they burst into song. In some way they are going back to and reviving the initial happiness they felt at the start of their relationship and Simon delivers a variation on the carpe diem trope which we’ve seen echoing through Coward’s play:

SIMON: Don’t be such a fool – grab it while you can – grab every scrap of happiness while you can.

The scenery has disappeared, there are just spotlights on an apparently empty stage and on this appear the three figures, Simon, Sibyl and Michael. First Sibyl is egging Simon on to tell the truth about them. Then Michael enters and tells Simon to hurry up and leave Vicky so she can be his, but this is all clearly a hallucination because Sibyl starts repeating word for word a speech Vicky made earlier, when she asked Simon what made him fall out of love with her, was it a dress she wore, or did she become dull etc, and all this leads into a reprise of ‘Play, Orchestra Play’.

Cut to a scene in a moonlit garden where Vicky is sitting with a young man who’s awfully keen on her but their dialogue is dreamlike in that he repeats her phrases, out of synch and muddled up, while she claims to be waiting for someone, and then Simon enters through trees.

Now they re-enact their first meeting when they made pleasant conversation and fell in love, except that they are aware it is a re-enactment with Vicky scolding Simon for forgetting his lines or skipping important bits. Simon tells her to stick to the script but Vicky delivers a line which could be a kind of motto, applied to lots of Coward’s work.

VICKY: Small talk – a lot of small talk with quite different thoughts going on behind it.

They banter about gardens (because they’re in a garden; maybe this really was the setting of their first meeting), then break into another song, ‘You Were There’:

At the end of which a spotlight reveals the servant, Lena, entering with a glass of water and the tablets and reprising the last lines from ‘Then’ which describe the pair having to face the future apart and alone.

Fade out and then lights up on a new scene, Vicky’s friend Martha with her husband George Cunningham in the back of a limousine. He’s complaining about the tense evening they just spent with the Gayforths.

GEORGE: The atmosphere reeked with conjugal infelicity…

Which could also be extracted and made into the motto of so many of his plays. Anyway George asks why the Gayforths are so unhappy so Martha explains that Simon is falling in love with Sibyl Heston – to which George bluntly says that such women should be shot – while Vicky is mildly encouraging Michael Doyle to woo her, though she isn’t serious.

This appears ‘realistic’ until Vicky runs onstage and tells them they’re ruining everything. So is this in her drug-fuelled dream or not? Simon appears and behaves as if they’re in a railway carriage and tells them they’ve reserved this compartment and mimes helping them get their luggage down from the overhead rack. The train is heading to Venice. Vicky explains that they’re on their honeymoon and Martha repeats the carpe diem theme:

MARTHA: Grab every scrap of happiness while you can.

The train compartment turns into a tax and Simon and Vicky are in it after their wedding, excited and recalling the events such as her mother’s terrible hat and his uncle slapping him on the back but their conversation keeps referencing rhymes from the play they saw that evening, or words from earlier scenes such as someone dressed in pink, and Simon keeps warning her she’s about to wake up again, for some reason she must go, and steps out of the car/compartment, leaving Simon alone and he reprises singing ‘You Were There’.

Cut to the pair sitting at a little table, on their honeymoon in Venice. The conversation is even more mixed up with Simon saying he wants to tell her something (as he did at the start, when he told her he wanted a divorce) but as she trembles with dear, he instead declares that he loves her. Fantastical mixed references:

VICKY: You mustn’t make people cry on their honeymoon, it’s not cricket.
SIMON: Dearest, everything’s cricket if you only have faith.

They spin into repeating the words of ‘You Were There’ before Vicky shakes herself free and asks him to repeat his big love speech, which is really a warning that they can’t stay in their love bubble forever, other people will come along and spoil things because people are like that, everyone following their own agenda, but he tells her to hang on to memories of this moment of complete togetherness, like the White Cliffs of Dover.

The lights fade, music plays and Sibyl and Michael dance onto the stage, representing those ‘other people’ who come between couples. Vicky and Simon rise and dance together then they all swap partners as the music gets faster and they call out the names of fashionable nightclubs, representing the fashionable world, London high society, which comes between the pair.

Onto the stage at opposite sides come Lena and Martha each holding phones. Lena is phoning Martha and asking if she can leave the party and come at once back to Vicky’s house, she’s ill, something’s wrong, it was that extra sleeping pill.

In the darkness Vicky’s voice, confused, as she tells Simon she’s trying to hold onto the White Cliffs of Dover, while Simon’s voice reprises his speech from the start, where he says he has something important to tell her…

The lights come up to reveal Vicky sitting on the edge of her bed, Simon by her side, and Martha who’s arrived from Alice’s party, all encouraging Vicky to drink more coffee and be sick if she has to. Everything is back to normality and reality. Vicky asks for a cigarette which Lena provides and Simon lights.

Vicky wonders what happened and Simon explains that she was raving, the sleeping pills, hallucinations. Seeing she’s now restored Martha says she’ll leave and exists, leaving the couple alone together. When Vicky says can’t we talk about the divorce in the morning Simon claims not to know what she’s talking about. When she asks Simon if he really loves her (Sibyl Heston) he also claims not to know what she’s talking about.

Is he lying to be sweet to her? Or was that entire scene where he said he wanted to divorce her part of the hallucination?

The music starts again, softly, but as he leans Vicky gently back into the bed, takes the cigarette from her fingers, tiptoes across the room and turns out the light, it rises to a sentimental climax.

Thoughts

Some critics and online commenters claim the ‘Tonight at 8.30’ plays are slight and second rate, but I’m thoroughly enjoying them, in many ways more than the full-length plays which often feel strained and contrived. Here everything is quick and to the point and also, he can try out a greater variety of ideas and scenarios.


Related links

Related reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 1

‘Tonight at 8.30’ is a cycle of ten one-act plays by Noël Coward. It was first staged in London in 1936 with Coward himself and Gertrude Lawrence in the leading roles.

The plays are mostly comedies but three – ‘The Astonished Heart’, ‘Shadow Play’ and ‘Still Life’ – are serious. Four of the comedies include songs, with words and music by Coward.

One play, ‘Star Chamber’, was dropped after a single performance. The other nine plays were presented in three programmes of three plays each. There have been numerous revivals of many of the individual plays, but revivals of the complete cycle have been much less frequent. Several of the plays have been adapted for the cinema and television.

Background

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Coward wrote a succession of hits, ranging from the intimate comedies ‘Private Lives’ (in which Coward also starred alongside Gertrude Lawrence) and ‘Design for Living’, to the operetta ‘Bitter Sweet’ (1929) and the historical extravaganza ‘Cavalcade’ (1931).

After performing in ‘Private Lives’, Coward felt that the public enjoyed seeing him and Lawrence together on stage, and so he wrote the play cycle ‘Tonight at 8.30’ expressly as ‘acting, singing, and dancing vehicles for Gertrude Lawrence and myself’. But he also had the conscious motive of reviving the moribund form of the one-act play. As he wrote in the Preface to the printed plays:

A short play, having a great advantage over a long one in that it can sustain a mood without technical creaking or over padding, deserves a better fate, and if, by careful writing, acting and producing I can do a little towards reinstating it in its rightful pride, I shall have achieved one of my more sentimental ambitions.

Ten plays

The cycle consists of ten plays. In order of first production they are:

  1. We Were Dancing: A comedy in two scenes
  2. The Astonished Heart: A play in six scenes
  3. Red Peppers: An interlude with music
  4. Hands Across the Sea: A light comedy in one scene
  5. Fumed Oak: An unpleasant comedy in two scenes
  6. Shadow Play: A play with music
  7. Family Album: A Victorian comedy with music
  8. Star Chamber: A light comedy in one act
  9. Ways and Means: A comedy in three scenes
  10. Still Life: A play in five scenes

This blog post summarises and comments on the first three.

Songs

Four of the plays in the cycle are musical. The songs from ‘Tonight at 8.30’ are:

  • We Were Dancing – ‘We Were Dancing’
  • Red Peppers – ‘Has Anybody Seen our Ship?’ and ‘Men About Town’
  • Shadow Play – ‘Then’, ‘Play, Orchestra, Play’ and ‘You Were There’
  • Family Album – ‘Drinking Song’, ‘Princes and Princesses’, ‘Music Box’ and ‘Hearts and Flowers’

1. We Were Dancing: A Comedy in Two Scenes

Set in Samolo, Coward’s fictitious country in the South Pacific, which also appears in his play ‘South Sea Bubble’ and is the setting of his 1960 novel, ‘Pomp and Circumstance’.

Hubert and Louise Charteris are at a dance. They have been married 14 years. The plot or premise of this slender 20-page ‘play’ is so bizarrely unrealistic as to be surreal but what happens is that Louise dances with a complete stranger, Karl Sandys, and just on the strength of this one dance, having never met before, they both fall deeply and hopelessly in love with each other. By the end of the dance they are kissing passionately. Several other dancers see them kissing on the club veranda and go off to gossip about it, before Louise’s husband, Hubert, appears, accompanied by his married sister, Clara Bethel.

And from that point onwards most of the play consists of Hubert telling Louise to come along and stop being so silly, and Louise insisting that she has fallen head over heels in love, has been swept away on a great wave of passion. What helps to make it so surreal is she doesn’t even know the man’s name, she has to ask him. It’s nothing to do with their names or histories or even personalities – some force has descended on both of them and transformed their lives.

If you regard this from the strictly realistic standpoint of most of Coward’s works, which is epitomised in the conventional and scandalised husband, Hubert, then the whole thing is preposterous nonsense. But I think that’s the wrong way to see it. It’s better to approach from the other end and see it as more like a symbolist play, or the descent of God’s grace in a religious novel. The advent into a pair of ordinary lives of a force much larger than them. From this perspective its very silliness made it, for me, rather wonderful.

Slowly, by their persistence, the lovers persuade Hubert that they’re really sincere, though his sister, Clara, never stops being outraged and scene 1 ends.

The second scene opens with the same four characters who’ve stayed up till dawn the next morning, are very tired and pecking at some sandwiches. The idea is that, in the cold light of day, Louise and Karl’s wonderful love evaporates. Karl announces that he has to leave for Australia for his work and Louise tells him she can’t go with him (because a couple they know are leaving on the same boat and she doesn’t want to be seen ‘living in sin’) and so, as casually and inconsequentially as they fell in love, they sober up, become sensible again, and she kisses him goodbye. And so, after some regretful chat, in the same unreal dreamlike way that they fell in love, he simply walks out of her life.

I think it was intended to be a realistic vignette and so was criticised for being thin and silly. the introduction says it’s the slightest of the set and quotes Gertrude Lawrence as agreeing. But as I’ve explained, the basic idea is so unrealistic and preposterous as to transport us to an altogether different dimension of fantasy. Which I liked.

It contains one of the set’s most popular songs, ‘We Were Dancing’. This recording of it opens with Coward himself reciting the passage describing how his character has been overcome by love. Hearing him is a reminder of how rapidly he declaimed his lines. Must have been quite hard to follow in the theatre.

‘Shut up, Clara!’

Something occurred as I read this short play. I’ve mentioned in other reviews how Coward is famous for or often credited with writing ‘witty’ and ‘sophisticated’ dialogue but how, when you actually pay attention to it, you realise that a lot of his dialogue actually consists of shrill argument, often descending to vitriolic abuse.

The supposedly dapper, sophisticated and witty ‘Private Lives’ actually consists of a couple who spend over half their time shouting poisonous insults at each other, slapping and then assaulting each other, and that’s when they’re not having furious rows with their new spouses, and those spouses aren’t themselves having a furious row with each other. Change the clothes and accents and it could be ‘Eastenders’.

Well, something similar happens here but in a slightly different way which I found thought provoking. This is the extent to which the characters tell each other to shut up:

CLARA: Please be quiet and let me speak.
LOUISE: Hubert, do make Clara shut up.
CLARA: You must be insane.
HUBER: Shut up, Clara.

Not that witty, is it? Or even entry-level polite. And they do it a lot, tell each other to shut up.

LOUISE: Oh my darling–
KARL: Don’t, don’t speak

KARL: What’s the use of arguing.
LOUISE: Answer me.

HUBERT: Will everybody please be quiet for a moment.

HUBERT: Don’t talk like that…

What all this began to convey was a sense of these four characters clamouring for their version to be heard. It began to feel like the text is a kind of battlefield. I know they say the heart of good drama is conflict but in these Coward plays, quite regularly, this is reduced right down to who has the right to speak. The phrase ‘Shut up’ recurs in so many of these plays that the plays themselves can be seen as created in large part out of the conflict of who will get to speak; a little more widely, the conflict of whose interpretation will prevail. It is a battle of hermeneutics.

CLARA: Rubbish!
LOUISE: It’s not rubbish!… Be quiet!

One a slightly wider level, the plays overflow with orders. The ‘shut ups’ and ‘Be quiets’ are accompanied by plenty of ‘Tell me’s’, ‘Answer me’, ‘Tell him’, do this, that or the other.

LOUISE: Don’t go on evading…

KARL: Don’t, don’t speak

The characters are like so many automata programmed to say ‘Shut up and do what I say’ and the reason they arguments quickly become so toxic is because they refuse to shut up or listen to each other and so are in almost permanent conflict.

Servants

Most of Coward’s plays feature servants who the posh characters, appropriately enough, order around. Do this, don’t do that. Yes Furby, no Saunders.

I suppose you could see the inability of the posh characters to get along at all without endless bickering and squabbling, as a kind of category error: as characters brought up to have instant and complete control over their servants, mistakenly trying to apply the same spoilt privileged control over people of their own class.

2. The Astonished Heart: A Play in Six Scenes

Concerning a married couple Christian and Barbara Faber. The first scene opens a bit obscurely but slowly you realise that Christian is a distinguished psychiatrist (‘one of the most celebrated psychiatrists in the world’) but is lying very ill in the bedroom, attended by his secretary Susan Birch, his assistant Tim Verney, and his wife Barbara (35).

We learn that Barbara is his devoted wife of many years, but that there has been a rupture in the relationship because Christian, on what we begin to realise is his death bed, has called for another woman to be with him and during this first scene she arrives. She is Mrs Leonora Vail and we realise she has been having an affair with Christian.

Having established that the play very cleverly flashes back to exactly a year ago, when Barbara is meeting an old school friend Leonora Vail née Ames (‘Leonora Ames, terrible at games’ they used to chant at school). After a few pages of reminiscence, which includes reference to Leonora casually divorcing her (much older, rich) husband, Barbara introduces her to her husband, Christian.

Christian, as always in a tearing hurry, is not impressed by her preening personality and passes out of the room again. Leonora jokes that that foils her cunning plan for seducing him before having an ‘old friends’ reunion where everyone behaves jolly decently. But that’s what happens.

Because in scene 3 we discover Chris and Leonora in the same living room, after midnight and they’ve been out together, having a big snog, after which they talk about how quickly they’ve fallen in love etc, filling the space, as lovers in this kind of play do, with chatter about Barbara (she will be terribly hurt, won’t she) and previous lovers etc, all designed to give these mannequins the illusion of depth.

In scene 4 it is three months later, 6am and Chris is sneaking quietly into the house but is confronted by Barbara who has stayed up all night to wait for him. With stiff upper lip restraint she doesn’t scream or shout but just wants to confirm that The Other Woman is Leonora and whether he really loves her, whether he wants to marry her, which leads to an over-civilised exchange about just exactly how Chris has been overcome by passion and yet it doesn’t affect his love for Barbara. She tells him to go away with Leonora for two or three months to get her out of his system. After more chat she says he better get some sleep and he thanks her and exits – all frightfully civilised.

Scene 5 is in the same location seven months later, the night before the opening scene when Chris was lying seriously ill in bed. So we know something bad is going to happen. What it turns out to be is that Chris and Leonora have reached the bickering squabbling stage which is all Coward characters’ habitual state, and are seeking to stop and control each other’s actions and utterances:

CHRIS: For the love of God, stop crying.

LEONORA: Don’t, don’t come near me.

LEONORA: Don’t be such a fool.

CHRIS: Stay still.

Possibly the sense of thinness in Coward derives from the way he conceives of ‘drama’ as simply negation and contradiction. One character wants to do something and the other one tries to stop them. At bottom, that’s it.

Anyway Leonora tries to leave but Chris grabs her arms to stop her, then tells her how she twists and torments him etc, the exact same kind of accusations as in ‘Private Lives’ but played for tears and not for lolz.

CHRIS: Stay still.
LEONORA: You’re mad.

He accuses her of falling in love with – and spending the night with – another man and keeps on badgering her until she finally admits that she doesn’t love him any more, not in the same way as at the beginning etc.

Infuriated he kisses her one last time against her will then shoves her away and she falls to the floor as he delivers a long speech about how it’s all over and he used to have a vocation but now he’s burned out etc. She gets up and exits while Chris goes over to the big window, looks out for a bit, then steps over the ledge i.e. throw himself out the window in a suicide bid.

Ah. Now we understand how the situation in scene 1 came about. And with that we are onto the sixth and final scene, exactly as scene 1 ended, but now Leonora – who Chris has been calling for on his deathbed and Barbara, Susan and Tom have been waiting for – arrives and, after some strained pleasantries, is taken by the butler into Chris’s bedroom.

Now that I’m reading Coward’s plays in terms of characters battling to force each other to their wills, I see added significance in the way Barbara, apparently from good manners, offers Leonora a cocktail, Leonora refuses, but Barbara insists. On the surface all politeness, Coward dramas are in fact a constant battle of wills.

The last twist of the knife comes in the last few seconds, as Leonora emerges to say Chris has died but tells the others that he didn’t recognise her, thought she was Barbara and her last word was ‘Baba’ (Barbara’s nickname). You can see how this is intended to wring the last drop of melodrama from the situation. But well before then, I have been reading it in a different way, non-naturalistically.

‘Shut up, Clara’

As usual, the play resounds with the kinds of orders and attempts to shut down the other characters, which I’ve highlighted above:

TIM: Shut up, Susan.

BARBARA: Don’t be unkind.

CHRIS: Stop being quarrelsome, Leonora.

LEONORA: Don’t – please, Chris – don’t.

BARBARA: Don’t be silly… Don’t worry about me…

BARBARA: That’s idiotic, unreasonable and idiotic.

It’s striking how regularly Coward characters tell each other to stop:

BARBARA: Stop trying to balance yourself… Do stop whirling about among fictions…

BARBARA: Stop struggling.

And yet they can’t because they can’t because they are trapped in play where they are doomed to play the same roles and act out the same scenes again and again. Beneath the posh accents and civilised dialogue are creatures tormented in hell. Coward and Jean-Paul Sartre have a surprising amount in common. And this, maybe, explains why so many of the characters express an explicit sense of futility:

KARL: What’s the use of arguing?

LEONORA: Oh what’s the use, what’s the use?

LEONORA: It isn’t any use, you know it isn’t.

3. Red Peppers: An interlude with music

Just 20 pages long in two scenes: in parts one and two we see a second-rate music hall double act, a husband and wife team, George and Lily Pepper, going through their act, combining ‘I say I say I say’ type jokes with musical numbers. In the first scene they are dressed as naval ratings and sing ‘Has Anybody Seen our Ship?’

In the third scene they go back on dressed in white ties and tails. But in between, when we see them in their dressing room, there is – as I’m now expecting of all Coward characters – a great deal of bickering and arguing, both between themselves and with the manager of the theatre.

LILY: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
GEORGE: Oh you don’t, don’t you?
LILY: No I don’t, so shut up.

What triggers it is that as they were trooping neatly offstage at the end of the sailor number Lily dropped the telescope they both had tucked under their arms and had to go back to fetch it, ruining the effect. In their dressing room George is furious and this little mistake triggers all kinds of simmering resentments, the kind Coward is expert at depicting. Lily says the orchestra conductor, Bert Bentley, took it too fast and that made her stumble. George leaps to Bert’s defence but Lily says that’s just because they’re drinking buddies.

LILY: Oh shut up, you make me tired.

Their break is provided by another act, a faded West End actress, Mabel Grace, doing a piece. When Alf the call-boy comes in to provide the costumes for their next number, Lily is tactless enough to criticise Mabel as way over the hill in front of him, while George immediately defends her.

LILY: You make me sick, sucking up to the topliners.
GEORGE: Oh shut up nagging.

And when Lily is caustic about the age of the material and criticises George’s dear old granny:

GEORGE: You shut your mouth…

A knock on the door and enters the theatre’s musical director, Bert Bentley, ‘a flashy little man wearing a tail suit’. He also is pretty dismissive of the serious actress, Mabel Grace – ‘the old cow’s tearing herself to shreds’. When Lily demurs:

GEORGE: Oh dry up, Lil, for heaven’s sake.

When they start arguing about the speed of the music, Lily comes over all sarcastic and George, predictably:

GEORGE: Oh dry up.

But when Bentley is rude to Lily, George comes to his defence and Bentley ends up calling them ‘a cheap little comedy act’ which ends up incensing both of them, and George calls him ‘a twopenny halfpenny little squirt’ while Lily accuses him of drinking i.e. being drunk when her conducts.

They might have come to blows except Alf comes in with the Peppers’ steak and chips and tells Bentley he’s needed back in the orchestra pit. The argument with Bentley has drawn the couple together. They tuck into their steak and pour the Guinness that came with it in a friendly way. Lights down, end of scene 2.

The third scene opens in the dressing room as they’ve finished their dinners and are now getting dressed for their item in the second half of the show. Enter Mr Edwards the theatre manager. He runs everything and is well-dressed and smoking a big cigar. He says he saw their first half performance and was not impressed. They blame Bentley and the conversation takes the same kind of turn as virtually all Coward conversations i.e. turns into a row. Lily is needlessly sarcastic to Edwards so George tells her to cool it.

GEORGE: Shut up, Lil, leave this to me.

Edwards threatens to kick them off the bill but they retort that the theatre’s getting a bad reputation anyway. They’re now shouting at each other so loudly that the faded West End actress Mabel Grace comes in from the dressing room next door to tell them to be quiet.

At the height of the argument Alf pops his head in to say they’re on in three minutes. Sudden panic! and they push Edwards and Miss Grace out and hurriedly finish dressing.

Cut to them onstage performing the second number, Men About Town. Taking his revenge, Bentley the conductor plays faster and faster, until George slips over and Lily furiously throws her hat at Bentley in the orchestra stall, screaming ‘You drunken fool’.

I enjoyed this very much. It has unusual depth and saltiness to the characters and dialogue, unlike most of the Coward plays I’ve read.


Related links

Related reviews

Design for Living: A Comedy in Three Acts by Noel Coward (1932)

LEO: It should be easy, you know. The actual facts are so simple. I love you. You love me. You love Otto. I love Otto. Otto loves you. Otto loves me. There now!

GILDA: Ernest, if you only realized what was going on inside you, you’d be bitterly offended!

‘Design for Living’ is a comedy play written by Noël Coward in 1932. It concerns a trio of artistic characters, Gilda, Otto and Leo, and their complicated three-way relationship. Originally written to star Lynn Fontanne, Alfred Lunt and Coward, it was premiered on Broadway, partly because its risqué subject matter was thought unacceptable to the official censor in London. It was not until 1939 that a London production was presented.

‘Design for Living’ was a success on Broadway in 1933, but it has been revived less often than Coward’s other major comedies. Coward said:

‘It was liked and disliked, and hated and admired, but never, I think, sufficiently loved by any but its three leading actors.’

The play was adapted into a film in 1933, directed by Ernst Lubitsch, with a screenplay by Ben Hecht, and starring Fredric March, Gary Cooper, and Miriam Hopkins.

Background

In the second half the 1920s Coward became one of the world’s most famous playwrights, with a succession of popular hits ranging from the operetta Bitter Sweet (1929) and the extravaganza Cavalcade (1931), to the intimate comedies Hay Fever (1924) and Private Lives (1930). Back when he was penniless Coward had met Lunt and Fontanne Lunt on his first trip to new York and had promised he’d write a play to showcase them as an ensemble. By the early 1930s the time was right for Coward to write their star vehicle.

The play was based on the Lunts’ own marriage. They were a devoted couple but had an open relationship with ‘triangular relationships in their private lives’. Coward wrote:

‘These glib, over-articulate and amoral creatures force their lives into fantastic shapes and problems because they cannot help themselves. Impelled chiefly by the impact of their personalities each upon the other, they are like moths in a pool of light, unable to tolerate the lonely outer darkness but equally unable to share the light without colliding constantly and bruising each other’s wings…. The ending of the play is equivocal. The three of them… are left together as the curtain falls, laughing…. Some saw it as the lascivious anticipation of a sort of a carnal frolic. Others with less ribald imaginations regarded it as a meaningless and slightly inept excuse to bring the curtain down. I as author, however, prefer to think that Gilda and Otto and Leo were laughing at themselves.’

‘Design for Living’ opened in New York on 24 January 1933, at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre on Broadway. It was such a success that Coward was persuaded to relax his usual rule against appearing in any production for more than three months, and he allowed the play to run for a total of five months. So great were the crowds of fans in the street that special police had to be called in during the last week of the run.

Ménage à trois

A ménage à trois is a domestic arrangement or committed relationship consisting of three people in polyamorous romantic or sexual relations with each other, and often dwelling together.

Cast

  • Gilda – ‘a good-looking woman of about thirty’, ‘a permanent spectator’
  • Ernest Friedman – ‘any age between forty and fifty, rather precise in manner’
  • Otto Sylvus – ‘tall and good-looking’
  • Leo Mercuré – ‘thin and nervous’
  • Miss Hodge
  • Photographer
  • Mr Birbeck
  • Grace Torrence
  • Helen Carver
  • Henry Carver
  • Matthew

Plot

Act 1. Otto’s studio in Paris, 1932

Gilda is an interior designer who lives with the painter Otto, who was previously attached to Leo, an author. Ernest Friedman arrives, an art dealer and friend of all three. He is excited about his newly acquired Matisse and wants to show it to Otto. Gilda says that Otto is in bed, ill, has had neuralgia and absolutely cannot be disturbed.

Their conversation consists of classily phrased arguments and insults. ‘Private Lives’ taught me that a good deal of Coward dialogue consists of bad-tempered arguing.

ERNEST: If, in my dotage, I become a bore to you, you won’t scruple to let me know, will you?
GILDA: Don’t be an idiot!

He wonders why she doesn’t marry Otto and she replies because he loves her too much. To be tied legally to him would kill the love. She tells him to mind his own business.

ERNEST: I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why I’m so fond of you. You have such abominable manners.

Ernest tells her that Leo is back in Paris after making a success in New York. They both find it hilarious that he’s staying at the Georges V hotel.

Gilda’s discourse is all on stilts, on a high register of shrill self-awareness occasionally tipping over into hysteria, so much so that Earnest confesses she scares him.

GILDA: I’m yelling! Can’t you hear me yelling like mad?
OTTO: What on earth are you talking about?
GILDA: A bad joke, and very difficult to explain.

For example, she delivers a little speech about how she hates her own femininity, hates being trapped in a woman’s body.

There’s nothing funny in the scenario and few comic lines or jokes. It’s just listening to a posh man being mildly abused by this wilful neurotic. Everything is overdramatised. When Ernest makes the slightest of comments on her claiming to be in love with both Otto and Leo at the same time, she flies into a wild dramatisation of the threesome.

GILDA: Look at the whole thing as a side show. People pay to see freaks. Walk up! Walk up and see the Fat Lady and the Monkey Man and the Living.

To the audience and Earnest’s surprise, Otto – not at all in bed and suffering from neuralgia as Gilda claimed – enters from the street carrying luggage. Gilda lied fluently as so many Coward characters do cf Elyot and Amanda in ‘Private Lives’. In fact Otto’s just returned from a trip to Bordeaux where he was doing a portrait for an unknown client who he insulted by telling her she was fat, and got thrown out.

When Ernest tells Otto that Leo’s back from America, Otto insists that they go and see him straightaway and Gild eggs them on so they both depart.

Then Leo stumbles in from the bedroom and we realise why Gilda lied to Ernest about Otto being in bed with neuralgia and he couldn’t go into the bedroom even to whisper hello. It’s because it wasn’t Otto in the bedroom it was Leo. When he says ‘What we did was inevitable. It’s been inevitable for years’ it makes it sound like they’ve had sex for the first time after fancying each other for years. In other words, that the ménage à trois I’ve read about in all the blurbs and summaries of the play isn’t as established as I thought.

Anyway, he’s racked with guilt about it and they spend some time discussing what it means to have betrayed their best friend etc. As usual with Coward this takes the form of an argument or a squabble. His character suffer from an over-articulacy, they are far too fluent and articulate for their own good – which almost guarantees that they pick up on stray words here and there and magnify them into huge arguments. This was Elyot and Amanda’s way in ‘Private Lives’ and the same here. Leo says something sweet and reassuring which Gilda takes to be an appalling cliché and explodes:

GILDA [viciously]: Let’s have some more! ‘Passion’s only transitory’, isn’t it? ‘Love is ever fleeting!’ ‘Time is a great healer’. Trot them all out, dear.
LEO: Don’t try to quarrel with me.
GILDA: Don’t be so wise and assured and knowing, then. It’s infuriating.

The key word here is ‘viciously’. All Coward characters flip from civilised banter to vicious recriminations and insults in a second, and then back again. It makes them all dislikeable. And it gives the plays a constant sense of walking on eggshells, anxiously waiting for the next character to explode. It’s more like living with a wife beater than attending a sophisticated ‘comedy’.

At the height of their discussion-squabble-argument, Otto walks in and discovers them. Ah. He and Ernest got to the Hotel Georges V only to discover Leo wasn’t staying there at all, so he’s come back to his apartment and found…

They come out and tell him that they slept together in his absence. With crushing inevitability they start arguing and finding articulate fluent ways to describe how miserable they are and to accuse each other. Posh people fighting in a Noel Coward play! Yes.

LEO: What right have you to be hurt and grieved, any more than Gilda and me? We’re having just as bad a time as you are, probably worse.

Much like the audience. Coward’s alleged ‘wit’ is only intermittently apparent. Much, much more present in all these plays is the bad-tempered arguing and insults.

OTTO: I’ve seen something in you that I’ve never seen before; in all these years I’ve never noticed it—I never realized that, deep down underneath your superficial charm and wit, you’re nothing but a cheap, second-rate little opportunist, ready to sacrifice anything, however sacred, to the excitement of the moment.

Not that funny. Otto is violently unpleasant and Gilda collapses in tears.

GILDA (collapsing at the table): Stop it! Stop it! How can you be so cruel! How can you say such vile things?

Otto makes clear his contempt and hatred for both of them, wishes they were dead and in hell, and storms out.

Act 2

Scene 1. Leo’s Flat in London, 18 months later

Most of Coward’s plays take place over a few days. A gap of 18 months is a big thing, more like a novel.

Leo and Gilda are now living together and he is writing plays which are being produced and are tremendously successful. The scene opens with Leo reading out the reviews of his latest play, ‘Change and Decay’, to Gilda,

A playwright nervous about his reviews writing a play about a playwright nervously reading his reviews – you could consider this delightfully meta and cleverly postmodern – or tiresomely self-obsessed and narcissistic, according to taste.

Coward does that thing which numerous modern-ish authors do, which is have a character in one of their novels or plays repeat the popular criticism of them: in this case he has Leo read out the Daily Mirror‘s criticism that his latest play is ‘thin’. This exasperates him and stings him to tell Gilda that in future he will write fat plays about fat characters. This is, of course, to ignore the substance of the criticism: Coward’s plays are thin. The basic scenarios are often quite winning, but the characterisation is generally shallow as a puddle and the dialogue is astonishingly lacking in the wit and humour I have for decades associated with Coward until I actually came to read and watch his plays, and be rather disappointed. Instead of genuine wit or comedy you have exchanges like this.

GILDA: Anyhow, you can’t expect a paper like the Times to be really interested in your petty little excursions in the theatre. After all, it is the organ of the nation.
LEO: That sounds vaguely pornographic to me.

Schoolboy humour. Here’s another example of Coward’s shimmering wit, Gilda pretending to be a brainless newspaper interviewer:

Gilda [conversationally]: Tell me, Mr Mercure, what do you think of the modern girl?
LEO: [politely]: A silly bitch.

Not scintillating repartee, is it?

A phone call from some aristocratic inviting them to dinner prompts Leo to say these social situations are awkward when they’re obviously a couple but not married. So he proposes to her but she sagely turns him down and even says it would be against her moral code.

Presumably this kind of suave, sophisticated exchange was designed to shock and outrage the older, Edwardian generation with their Victorian morals.

The phone rings incessantly, a symptom of the modern world. Leo calls their maid or servant, Miss Hodge, in and tells her to answer the phone for him. Next time the phone rings working class Miss Hodge answers the phone with comic ineptness. The working classes, eh, ha ha ha.

What’s obvious is how bored they are. Gilda is bored to death.

GILDA: Perhaps you’re wise about our marrying; perhaps it would be a good thing. I’m developing into one of those tedious unoccupied women, who batten on men and spoil everything for them. I’m spoiling the excitement of your success for you now by being tiresome and gloomy.

Watching posh bored people torment each other, throwing ‘cheap gibes’ at each other, that’s entertainment. ‘Tiresome’ – that’s the key word. And Leo is as irritated and frustrated.

LEO: This looks like a row but it hasn’t even the virtue of being a new row. We’ve had it before several times, and just lately more than ever.

A journalist, Mr Birbeck, and press photographer from the Evening Standard arrive to do a feature on him. After arguing with Gilda Leo is in a bad mood and gives sharp replies to all the questions. Here is an example of his authorly wit:

MR BIRBECK: Do you believe the talkies will kill the theatre?
LEO: No. I think they’ll kill the talkies.
MR BIRBECK (laughing): That’s very good, that is! It really is.

It isn’t though, is it? It’s not in the slightest bit funny. It’s flippant and cynical and sounds like it ought to be a joke, but it isn’t. Leo gives up answering questions and tells him he’s tired and doesn’t he find asking all these stupid questions ‘grotesque?’ and tells him to come back dome other time when he’s less… tired.

Nonetheless he lets the photographer take some snaps and the scene ends with Mr Birbeck tentatively asking whether Leo could, just maybe, possibly, give them a teeny weeny smile? This is one of the few things I’ve found funny so far, these poor professionals trying to do their job in the face of Leo’s self-important moodiness.

Scene 2. Leo’s London flat, a few days later

A few days later Leo is away. After some comic business with the working class character, the maid Miss Hodge (Gilda asks if she minds that she and Leo are not married; Miss Hodge says she doesn’t mind, having herself been twice married and not thinking much of the institution) departs and Otto turns up.

He too is now successful, as an artist. He’s just back from staging an exhibition in New York.

There’s a joke, a joke with a punchline, such a rarity in Coward it’s worth recording.

OTTO: This seems a very nice flat.
GILDA: It is. You can see right across to the other side of the square on a clear day.

Ooh, immediately followed by another one. Otto says he bumped into a woman just leaving. Gilda explains that that was the maid, Mrs Hodge.

GILDA: That was Miss Hodge. She’s had two husbands.
OTTO: I once met a woman who’d had four husbands.

And a little later, after Otto explains that he went away for a while, on a Norwegian freighter:

OTTO: I can say, ‘How do you do?’ in Norwegian.
GILDA: We must get to know some Norwegian people immediately, so that you can say ‘How do you do? to them.—

Noel’s on fire! Maybe you can see what I mean when I say that this kind of thing isn’t really funny in itself. These aren’t really jokes, or barely. What makes them funny (if it does) is how they exemplify the attitude of these posh, superior, self-absorbed arty types. It’s so exactly the kind of flippant throwaway remark that a posh character in a Coward play ought to say.

Anyway, she asks why he’s avoided them for so frightfully long and he says yes, it has been frightfully long, hasn’t it. Did you miss me, darling etc.

Remember I commented on a playwright having a character in his latest play commenting on newspaper reviews of the character’s previous plays which sound very like the reviews and criticism Coward got for his plays? Happens again here. Otto asks what Gilda thinks of Leo’s latest play, prompting quite a serious reply:

GILDA: Three scenes are first rate, especially the last act. The beginning of the second act drags a bit, and most of the first act’s too facile—you know what I mean—he flips along with easy swift dialogue, but doesn’t go deep enough. It’s all very well played.

‘Doesn’t go deep enough’. Well, there’s no point criticising Coward for what he isn’t. No Ibsen or Strindberg, he. He concocted effective and extremely popular entertainments over a career spanning decades. An awesome achievement.

Back in this play, Otto and Gilda have a picnic dinner together: cold ham, salad, cold rice pudding, and slowly revive their friendship turning back into love. Or whatever it is they have. Maybe just opportunity.

Otto jokes about what would happen if they ended up fighting over Gilda, reminiscent of the fight scene between Elyot and Victor which fizzles out in ‘Private Lives’.

The conversation is frequently difficult to distinguish from an argument or row.

OTTO: Shut up! Don’t talk like that…
GILDA [breaking down]: Don’t—don’t laugh at me.

Author’s message

Remember how I’ve pointed out that the fundamental dichotomy in Coward isn’t between the straight and the gay, it’s between what my son calls ‘the normies’ – the normal, everyday people with their conventional beliefs and lives and morality and behaviour – and the Coward characters who proclaim that they are special, different, exceptional, Well, the same sentiment is expressed here in a pat little speech by Otto. For when Gilda has a moment of ‘normality’ and says that their falling in love is sordid and gross, Otto suavely replies that this is only so if measured by other people’s standards. I might as well give the whole speech, as it amounts to a manifesto of sorts.

GILDA: Why should we flatter ourselves that we’re so tremendously different?
OTTO: Flattery doesn’t enter into it. We are different. Our lives are diametrically opposed to ordinary social conventions; and it’s no use grabbing at those conventions to hold us up when we find we’re in deep water. We’ve jilted them and eliminated them, and we’ve got to find our own solutions for our own peculiar moral problems.
GILDA: Very glib, very glib indeed, and very plausible.
OTTO: It’s true. There’s no sense in stamping about and saying how degrading it all is. Of course it’s degrading; according to a certain code, the whole situation’s degrading and always has been. The Methodists wouldn’t approve of us, and the Catholics wouldn’t either; and the Evangelists and the Episcopalians and the Anglicans and the Christian Scientists—I don’t suppose even the Polynesian Islanders would think very highly of us, but they wouldn’t mind quite so much, being so far away. They could all club together—the whole lot of them—and say with perfect truth, according to their lights, that we were loose-living, irreligious, unmoral degenerates, couldn’t they?
GILDA [meekly]: Yes, Otto, I expect so.
OTTO: But the whole point is, it’s none of their business. We’re not doing any harm to anyone else. We’re not peppering the world with illegitimate children. The only people we could possibly mess up are ourselves, and that’s our lookout. It’s no use you trying to decide which you love best, Leo or me, because you don’t know! At the moment, it’s me, because you’ve been living with Leo for a long time and I’ve been away. A gay, ironic chance threw the three of us together and tied our lives into a tight knot at the outset. To deny it would be ridiculous, and to unravel it impossible. Therefore, the only thing left is to enjoy it thoroughly, every rich moment of it, every thrilling second.

This is no different from the ancient trope of carpe diem, Latin for ‘seize the day’, which is a literary phrase for the pretty obvious idea that you should enjoy life while you can. (The original Latin phrase comes from Horace’s Odes, which I’ve reviewed for this blog.)

The banter goes on for page after page until they realise they need to go to bed together. They embrace passionately. So it’s partner swapping again, as in ‘Private Lives’.

Scene 3. The same, the next morning

10.30 the next morning. Otto is still asleep when Ernest calls on Gilda. He asks to see Leo but Gilda lies, saying he’s not very well and can’t be disturbed. In reality, as we know, Leo is away at a weekend house party and it’s Otto asleep in the next room. This is quite funny because it mirrors the situation in the first scene, where Ernest arrived wanting to see Otto and Gilda lied, saying he was in bed with neuralgia when it was, of course, Leo who she’d illicitly slept with, who was in the bedroom.

This explains why Gilda is, once again, as in the first scene, slightly hysterical. And in this hysteria liable to sound off and make sweeping statements. For a start she says humanity is a great disappointment, has barely risen above the primeval slime. But this leads onto a more revealing statement.

GILDA: The human race is a let-down, Ernest; a bad, bad let-down! I’m disgusted with it. It thinks it’s progressed but it hasn’t; it thinks it’s risen above the primeval slime but it hasn’t—it’s still wallowing in it! It’s still clinging to us, clinging to our hair and our eyes and our souls. We’ve invented a few small things that make noises, but we haven’t invented one big thing that creates quiet, endless peaceful quiet—something to pull over us like a gigantic eiderdown; something to deaden the sound of our emotional yellings and screechings and suffocate our psychological confusions—

Coward hated critical analysis of his plays, so I’m going to do something he would have loathed and subject this little speech to tuppeny-ha’penny analyses according to several classical schools of literary criticism.

A Marxist interpretation

Most of Coward’s characters come from the parasite rentier class which doesn’t work for a living. Thus, lacking the purpose given to existence by the need to work, they are often bored to death, as Gilda is. In this particular play, the two male leads do in fact work for a living, after a fashion, as a playwright and an artist.

But the real point is that none of them are aligned with the forces of History, specifically the Proletariat which is, in late capitalism, the embodiment of the spirit of History and which must, as Marx proved with his scientific socialism, soon overthrow the exploitative capitalist system and its imperial extensions, and usher in the triumph of the working class.

So on the Marxist view of his day, it is only by throwing in their lot with people with a cause, committed to the liberation of humanity, that Coward’s characters can discover meaning and purpose to life and stop indulging in their squalid, petty bourgeois intrigues.

Thus Gilda’s wish for ‘something to pull over us like a gigantic eiderdown; something to deaden the sound of our emotional yellings and screechings and suffocate our psychological confusions—’ is the cry of the rootless, aimless, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie adrift from the unstoppable march of History, and for which there is only one cure or solution. Align with the class of the future, the proletariat. See the plays of Jean-Paul Sartre which dramatise just this issue.

A Freudian interpretation

Freud’s first, pre-war model of the mind, developed between about 1895 and 1918, attributed the central driving force of the unconscious to Sex, broadly speaking the Darwinian drive of the human organism to reproduce which, more narrowly, creates erotic drives which had to be channelled ‘correctly’ in order to be socially acceptable. Freud was among the first to discover how easily these drives get blocked and misdirected in childhood and adolescence to turn into the florid array of sexual ‘perversions’, or be stifled and emerge was a wide variety of neurotic and obsessive symptoms, which his patients described when they presented to him.

However, the colossal slaughter and destruction of the First World War persuaded him that his theory was inadequate. Nothing about sex could explain the hecatombs of corpses and entire empires brought to their knees.

Thus in the 1920s he developed his second model of the mind and this time posited that alongside the positive Life Force or Eros, of which reproduction and sex are merely subsets, an equal and opposite drive in all humans, indeed (he speculates) in all organisms, which he called the Death Drive or Thanatos: the widespread wish that the whole wretched business of life, all the anxieties and worries and responsibilities, not to mention illnesses and accidents, would all cease once and for all.

Thus Gilda’s wish for ‘something to pull over us like a gigantic eiderdown; something to deaden the sound of our emotional yellings and screechings and suffocate our psychological confusions’ is a textbook expression of the deep wish, a key component of all human minds – sometimes buried deep, sometimes (as here) freely acknowledged – for the whole stressful business just to end.

Anyway, this big speech is all preparatory to Gilda telling Ernest she is leaving. Leaving Leo and Otto. Running away. She feels stifled. She wants to be free. She wants to be her ‘unadulterated self’. She’s going to run away, stay in a hotel, go to Paris, no, Berlin. Explaining all this makes her feel very tender towards Ernest and she throws her arms round his neck. She leaves two letters on the desk and then leaves with Ernest.

The phone rings, Miss Hodge answers it and this prompts Otto to slouch out of his bedroom in his pyjamas and dressing gown. Miss Hodge lets him know she disapproves, and he tells her to go away and mind her own business.

Leo sneaks in through the front door, and for a moment mistakes the back of the head on the sofa and the cigarette smoke rising to be Gilda and shouts Hi honey, I’m home. So is appalled when it’s Otto who turns to greet him.

This turns into a row, with Leo telling him how vile he is, just as Otto told him how vile he was in the earlier scene. As with so much Coward, this is studiedly symmetrical and patterned.

OTTO: I said all that to you in Paris. Do you remember? I thought it was true then, just as you think it’s true now.

They have a long conversation about how they’re doomed to repeat the same situation (infidelity with Gilda). Leo says he needs to be tolerant which Otto, understandably, finds hard.

Then they notice the letters, reading them and concluding that Gilda has escaped. So, rather pathetically, they decide to get completely pissed on brandy and then sherry. Difficult for actors portraying steady descent into quite wild and then tearful drunkenness. Otto delivers a semi-drunken rant:

OTTO (with sudden fury): So many words! That’s what’s wrong with us! So many words—too many words, masses and masses of words, spewed about until we’re choked with them. We’ve argued and probed and dragged our entrails out in front of one another for years! We’ve explained away the sea and the stars and life and death and our own peace of mind! I’m sick of this endless game of three-handed, spiritual ping-pong—this battling of our little egos in one another’s faces! Sick to death of it! Gilda’s made a supreme gesture and got out. Good luck to her, I say!

Apart from the detail of it being a trio, the basic idea of being sick to death of choking themselves with words and dragging their entrails out, this could come from one of Elyot or Amanda’s rants in ‘Private Lives’.

Coward drags out this scene to inordinate length with Leo and Otto arguing at length, though it’s dressed up with fancy ideas, for example:

LEO: Science is our only hope, the only hope for humanity! We’ve wallowed in false mysticism for centuries; we’ve fought and suffered and died for foolish beliefs, which science has proved to be as ephemeral as smoke. Now is the moment to open our eyes fearlessly and look at the truth!

Which might mean something in a more serious play but, spoken by one of Coward’s superficial mannequins, comes over as flippant and inconsequential as everything else they say. For example, increasingly fanciful digressions, for example about the absurdity of the words ‘macaroni’ and ‘wimple’. Eventually they get so drunk that they embrace, sobbing helplessly.

So the act ends with two old friends having got hopelessly drunk and feeling hopelessly lonely and sad. Not immediately comic, in fact quite sad for us…

Act 3

Scene 1. Ernest’s apartment in New York, two years later

Like the gap of 18 months before Acts 1 and 2, two whole years is another long period of time to jump. So we find ourselves in Ernest’s New York apartment. Gilda has married Ernest and become a commercially successful designer. Ernest is away and, on this fine summer’s evening, Gilda is giving a reception for some important clients, namely: Henry and Helen Carver, ‘a comparatively young married couple, wealthy and well dressed’, and Grace Torrence, ‘slightly older, a typical Europeanized New York matron’.

Gilda has grown up. She is elaborately and beautifully gowned. Her manner has changed a good deal. She is much more still and sure than before. A certain amount of vitality has gone from her, but, in its place, there is an aloof poise quite in keeping with her dress and surroundings.

Gilda takes Grace off to show her something and Henry and Helen have an extended argument about the merit of interior decorators, Henry thinking it’s all a racket, Helen defending her. Couples fiercely arguing, it’s Coward’s basic situation.

Doorbell rings and Henry lets in… Otto and Leo, both in fine fantastical moods. They come over as very camp i.e. over self-consciously mocking everything everyone says.

OTTO: There’s something strangely and deeply moving about young love, Mr. and Mrs. Carver.
LEO: Youth at the helm.
OTTO: Guiding the little fragile barque of happiness down the river of life. Unthinking, unknowing, unaware of the perils that lie in wait for you, the sudden tempests, the sharp jagged rocks beneath the surface. Are you never afraid?
HENRY I don’t see anything to be afraid of.
LEO (fondly): Foolish headstrong boy.

This is deliberately aggressively offensive but cast in such suave politeness as to be hard to talk back to. Part of the purpose of camp which is a power play.

Otto and Leo’s fast-talking sophisticated banter startles and puzzles Henry and Helen. This is also a classic scenario – clever, fast-talking smartarses bewildering the normies. Which conceals, not very well, their anger. They are cattily, bitchily angry with Gilda and their anger quickly comes out, constantly teetering on the brink of… yet another argument, a fight, a flaring row. The basic Coward content.

Gilda responds to their aggressive flippancy with bitterness of their own and barely controlled fury. On a general point, lots of twentieth century drama seems to be about people behaving badly on stage. Drunken angry bitterness being the speciality of, for example, Tennessee Williams a generation later.

Their intense, recriminatory conversation drives Helen, Henry and Grace away. Grace recognises boorish behaviour when she sees it. Gilda insists Leo and Otto leave as well but secretly gives them a key and tells them to come back.

After they’ve all gone she compulsively finished one of the other’s drink, with tears in her eyes.

Scene 2. The same, the next morning

Ernest returns the next morning and is greeted by his Black servant who makes him a coffee, he puts down his luggage etc and then… Otto and Leo come down the stairs wearing his pyjamas and dressing gowns.

He is completely flabbergasted and triggers their ‘brazen impertinence’ i.e. more camp flippancy. They tell him they gatecrashed Gilda’s little party the night before, she gave them a key, but when they came back she had gone.

They call him ludicrous for claiming that Gilda is his wife, but they dismiss this as nonsense, claiming she belongs to them just as much as to him (Ernest).

Cue Gilda walking in and explaining that she spent the night at a hotel. Ernest explodes in anger but once again, as in the previous scene, it’s a case of the two tricksters, jokers, sparky and flippant and imaginative people, against the ‘normie’, Ernest, who can’t keep up with their smooth repartee. Just as straight-laced Victor couldn’t keep up with Elyot’s smart repartee in ‘Private Lives’. So:

ERNEST: I think your arrogance is insufferable. I don’t know what to say. I don’t know what to do. I’m very, very angry.

Of course he doesn’t know what to do. He’s the normie in a play about tricksters.

Now it turns out that Gilda has realised she is bored with her life with Ernest and so she’s going to leave him. She reveals that being her wife has no value to her, it’s been very convenient and comfortable but now she realises she has to go back to the tricksters.

Ernest tries to argue that Gilda knows too much to be taken back by them but she denies it. He thinks she’s gone mad but she declares they are all of a piece, they all share the same ‘difference’ from normal society which I commented on earlier.

GILDA: It’s silly to go on saying to yourself that I’m different from Otto. and Leo just because you want to believe it. I’m not different from them. We’re all of a piece, the three of us. Those early years made us so. From now on we shall have to live and die our own way. No one else’s way is any good, we don’t fit.

‘We don’t fit’, cry of the alienated teenager for at least the last 70 years. And more manifesto:

ERNEST: Your values are false and distorted.
GILDA: Only from your point of view.
ERNEST: From the point of view of anyone who has the slightest sense of decency.
LEO: We have our own decencies. We have our own ethics. Our lives are a different shape from yours. Wave us good-bye, Little Ernest, we’re together again.

Ernest accuses them of wallowing in a ‘disgusting three-sided erotic hotch-potch’. But the more angry he gets – the more he invokes conventional morality – the more flippantly amused the naughty threesome become and, as Ernest stomps to the apartment door, leaves and slams it shut, the threesome collapse into hilarious laughter.

Thoughts

I’ve made my main comments: not many comic lines; thin characters; the whole effect achieved almost entirely by the posh self-centred self-satisfied smug superiority of the characters, which the audience is invited to alternately identify with and/or laugh at.

What impresses, maybe, is the professionalism with which the initial premise or scenario is worked through, with clever structural echoes and parallelism. But it gets pretty monotonous at moments, since the audience quickly develops a strong idea of what’s going to happen.

Is it even a real ménage à trois?

Short answer, no. It isn’t. Our three heroes do not live in a relaxed happy ménage, so they? The opposite. What really happens is Gilda sleeps around, betraying first Leo, then Otto and then, a year or so later, her husband Ernest. It is not a ménage at all but the story of a serial adulteress or promiscuous woman. The idea that the three of them can somehow happily co-exist only really comes at the end, in the Betraying Ernest scene.

But again, as with The Vortex, there’s little point judging the scenario by our own modern standards: in its day, the play’s timid hints at a genuine ménage were enough to cause shock and scandal among the bourgeois newspapers, critics and staid theatre goers.

Mocking the provinces

I wonder how long the English upper classes have been mocking the provinces. Maybe since the Norman Conquest. One of Coward’s other plays mocks Newcastle, and there’s a slight dig here.

GILDA: Have you been married much, then?
MISS HODGE: Twice, all told.
GILDA: Where are your husbands now?
MISS HODGE: One’s dead, and the other’s in Newcastle.
GILDA (smiling): Oh.

More sustained metropolitan snobbery is dispensed by Otto in Act 2.

OTTO [drawing up a chair]: What delicious-looking ham! Where did you get it?
GILDA: I have it specially sent from Scotland.
OTTO: Why Scotland?
GILDA: It lives there when it’s alive.
OTTO: A bonny country, Scotland, if all I’ve heard is correct, what with the banshees wailing and the four-leaved shamrock.
GILDA: That’s Ireland, dear.
OTTO: Never mind. The same wistful dampness distinguishes them both.

A post-colonial interpretation

Hilarious (that’s sarcasm). But if you were an Irish nationalist, an Indian nationalist, any educated inhabitant of one of Britain’s 57 colonies, dominions, territories, or protectorates, you might have read this kind of thing as precisely the kind of ignorant, self-centred, privileged, smug indifference that you had to shoot your way through in order to gain independence.


Related links

Related reviews