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

Shakespeare and War @ the National Army Museum

A tale of two Henries

In 1944 Laurence Olivier produced, directed and starred in a movie version of Shakespeare’s play ‘Henry V’. Shot in bright primary colours it dealt in bright primary patriotic emotions and 30 years later my Dad and his best friend could remember seeing it in the cinema as 12-year-old kids and being stirred by its patriotic fervour, its stirring invocation of England’s valour and fortitude, at a time when German V rockets were falling on London and the south-east. (A V2 rocket fell on the house next door to my Dad’s, killing the occupants. The one time he mentioned it was the only time I ever saw him cry. Britain needed all the patriotism and determination it could muster.)

Installation view of ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum showing posters, cartoons, photos and programmes from the Second World War including a poster for Olivier’s Henry V

Those ardent schoolboys will have noticed that the film was ‘dedicated to the ‘Commandos and Airborne Troops of Great Britain the spirit of whose ancestors it has been humbly attempted to recapture’ because this appears as a caption at the start of the film, but won’t have known that the production was partly funded by the British government as a form of soft propaganda.

Forty five years later, in 1989, the actor widely seen as inheriting Olivier’s mantle, Kenneth Branagh, directed and starred in a new movie version of ‘Henry V’. Much was made of the fact that, instead of stylised sunny sets, the play went for a darker, grittier look, most notably in the battle of Agincourt scenes, filmed on a lovely sunny day in the Olivier version, but in a downpour of rain in the Branagh, which turns the battlefield into a quagmire, spattering all the characters with mud and also gore from the countless bodies which have been hacked and stabbed. Critics weren’t slow to point out that it was made in the aftermath of the Falklands War and so carried a strong message against war and warmongering.

Poster for the original 1984 Royal Shakespeare Company production of Henry V directed by Adrian Noble and starring Kenneth Branagh, as featured in ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum

The same play, the same author, the same plot, the same characters, the same stage directions and the same words – and yet supporting two very different productions, reflecting very different societies, mindsets and values.

These are just two examples of the way Shakespeare’s plays about war – the causes of war, the preparations for war, the experience of war, wartime emotions from terror to exhilaration – and the greatly varying opinions of his many different characters about war and warfare, have been quoted, adapted, distorted, illustrated and recycled, used both to support and attack Britain’s wars, in the 400 years since his death.

Shakespeare and War

The National Army Museum in Chelsea is currently holding a FREE exhibition titled ‘Shakespeare and War’ which sets out to review the huge history of the national playwright’s role in Britain’s many wars and conflicts and how his words, stories, characters and scenes have been used in widely different times and situations.

The exhibition sets out to document how the plays, characters and speeches have been excerpted and exploited propagandists, governments, commentators, satirists and anti-war activists, soldiers and civilians – during the turbulent 400 years since Shakespeare’s death, in 1616. As the curators put it:

The plays have been used to rally the nation at times of crisis and to reflect on the human cost of conflict. But they have also been used to critique war and to consider the more challenging aspects of the military experience. They have inspired soldiers and civilians alike, helping people face adversity on the battlefield and at home.

After Shakespeare

Thus the exhibition starts after Shakespeare’s death. There’s none of the usual fol-de-rol about his biography or the Globe Theatre or the parabola of his career, just the blunt facts that he was a very successful actor-dramatist-manager, who died in 1616, before the British Army even existed.

Instead we are thrown straight into the first major conflict which occurred after his lifetime, the civil war or wars of three kingdoms which broke out 23 years after his death, in 1639, and lasted until Cromwell’s pacification of Scotland in 1653.

The exhibition is divided into six broad historical sections, each of which is introduced by a wall label and then features all sorts of bric-a-brac from the period in question – broadsheets, posters, cartoons, pamphlets which cite or reference, quote or parody scenes, characters or speeches from the plays to suit the purpose of polemicists and propagandists of the moment, paintings or photos of Shakespearian actors or patrons, posters for productions through the ages, and then – in the modern era – recordings of radio and TV productions and so on. At the most basic level, it’s a curiosity shop of historical Shakespeariana.

1. Royal Shakespeare: The Civil War and Beyond

During the English Civil War Shakespeare was often associated with the monarchy. While in prison awaiting trial, King Charles I read Shakespeare’s (Second) Folio (the First and Second Folios were the first attempts to publish all Shakespeare’s works in one volume). The King made notes on its pages and the exhibition has his copy on show. This did not go unnoticed by the great poet and Puritan propagandist, John Milton, who is represented here by a first edition of his pamphlet, Eikonoklastes.

Installation view of the civil war part of ‘Shakespeare and War’, showing, on the left, engravings of Charles I (above) and Cromwell (below) along with Charles’s copy of the Second Folio beneath an English mortuary sword (photo by the author)

This little collocation of objects overflows with meanings. Eikonoklastes was written and published late in 1649 to justify the execution of King Charles which took place on 30 January 1649. It was a point-by-point rebuttal of a pamphlet titled Eikon Basilike, a Royalist propaganda work, which purported to be a spiritual autobiography of the saintly king. The Basilike set Charles up as the type of a perfect enlightened monarch who ruled by the Divine Right of Kings and through the ancient constitution. Milton refuted all these points and more, claiming that Charles’s rule had degenerated to a tyranny over a people who could only be free by executing him and abolishing the monarchy altogether.

Where does Shakespeare come in all this? Well, he was part of the culture wars between the two sides. Theatre was encouraged and sponsored by the King, the Court and aristocrats. Shakespeare’s younger contemporary, Ben Jonson, ended up writing masques – elaborate ritualistic performances, accompanied by music – for the King and Court, which reinforced the ideology of royalty and monarchical rule and in some of which the king himself took part.

In the eyes of radical Puritans all this was blasphemy. Representing people on stage came close to breaking the commandment about not worshipping images. Plays diverted people’s minds away from the only thing they should be contemplating, the glory of God. Playhouses were notorious sites of crime and prostitution. Shakespeare’s plays, even the sternest tragedies, are littered with outrageously rude puns and euphemisms, the kind of thing Parliamentary Puritans had in mind when they accused the theatre of staging ‘spectacles of pleasure, too commonly expressing lascivious mirth and levity.’

For all these reasons and more the Puritans protested against the theatre in the years leading up to the war, and this explains why, when Parliament took control of the capital in September 1642, they promptly shut down all the playhouses. Which explains why there’s an engraving of Cromwell in this exhibition showing him wearing a suit of armour above a pile of discarded theatrical bric-a-brac, such as masks and disguises. For 18 long years the theatres were dark. Shakespeare’s Globe was torn down in 1644 and turned into ‘tenements’.

The Restoration

In 1660 the monarchy was restored and Charles II assumed the Crown. His 25-year reign was troubled by political and religious issues along the old civil war schism, at its most fundamental the clash between devotees of the Protestant cause and Charles’s Court which became tainted with accusations of Catholic sympathy, especially after he married the Catholic princess Catherine of Braganza in 1662.

Like his father Charles was a great patron of the arts, including theatre, and his rule saw the flourishing of the movement referred to as Restoration Comedy. The theatre once again became associated with all the vices of Londoners at play, and this, like the theatre of his father, became the target of religious criticism. The ongoing schism between Catholic-leaning court and Protestant nobles came to a head during the three-year reign of Charles’s brother, James II, who with typical Stuart arrogance, not only took a Catholic wife but made it clear that the new infant son she bore him would be raised a Catholic. The Protestant aristocracy rebelled and overthrew him in what their propagandists named The Glorious Revolution, inviting the Protestant Prince of Orange (in modern Holland) to come and be our king.

The curators skimp a bit on this period, displaying just one work, a copy of a book by the playwright John Crowne adapting Henry VI parts 2 and 3 and titled ‘Misery of Civil War’.

Shakespeare’s history plays

The thing is, Shakespeare’s history plays amount to a sustained investigation of the nature of authority and ‘good’ rule. All of them are named after the English king they focus on and ask questions like, What makes a good king? What makes a bad king? Are nobles, or ‘the people’, ever justified in overthrowing a king? If two noble houses fight for the crown, what are ordinary people to do? Follow their conscience, try to avoid the conflict, or fight for their local lord and master? Is there such a thing as a ‘just’ war in which case, how do you define one?

Questions like these echo throughout the obvious plays i.e. the ones about English history, but are also central to the Roman plays and three of the four great tragedies.

The history plays are usually divided into three groups:

  • the series depicting the Wars of the Roses, being: Henry VI parts 1, 2 and 3, and Richard III (4 plays)
  • the second tetralogy – including Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V
  • the standalone plays King John, Edward III and Henry VIII

The Roman plays which discuss the nature of authority and leadership focus on Julius Caesar and its sequel, Antony and Cleopatra. Both cover wars and include battle scenes.

The tragedies all feature war, in different ways. Macbeth is about a successful soldier and includes actual battle scenes. King Lear and Hamlet feature the invasion of their respective countries (England by the French and Denmark by the Swedes) but no actual fighting. And Othello is all about a highly successful mercenary general, which features no battles but is drenched in reminiscences of fighting and the rhetoric of battle.

What I’m trying to convey is that these 17 or so plays are rarely about war as such, but but are far more about the nature of power and authority and what happens when authority collapses.

The eight classic history plays are about the collapse of authority in one country and civil war among the English. The two Roman plays are the same: in both the Romans aren’t fighting any external enemy, but among themselves. Similarly, the three tragedies (excluding Othello) are about the collapse of royal authority in one country – the French only invade England in Lear and the Swedes invade Denmark in Hamlet once the native rulers have made a complete horlicks of trying to rule themselves.

And again, although the English come to the aid of the rightful heir to the throne at the end of Macbeth, they only have to do so because, yet again, the ruling class of the country in question (this time Scotland) have made a total mess of ruling themselves, as a result of all the murders Macbeth finds himself voodooed into committing.

Thus, the seventeen or so plays about history are almost entirely about the collapse of political authority in one country leading to civil war. The fifty years from the collapse of Charles I’s power in the 1630s through to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 are, therefore, the most relevant or applicable to Shakespeare’s concerns. It is, therefore, strange and intriguing that contemporaries, apparently, according to this exhibition, made so little application of the huge amount Shakespeare wrote on this subject to the one era in the past 400 years which most suited it.

This little survey of Shakespeare’s history plays also explains something else. Henry V is the only one in which is not about a civil war. Henry V is the only one in which we are not fighting among ourselves, but go abroad and fight somebody else. This explains why Henry V crops up in this exhibition as the spearhead for patriotic fervour more times than the ten other history plays put together – because once we’d sorted out our own political problems via the civil wars and rebellions of the seventeenth century, we turned our warlike energies against foreigners.

2. Revolutionary Shakespeare: Change and Political Debate

The late eighteenth century saw a major global war (against France) and two revolutions (in America and France) which changed the world. In each of these conflicts Shakespeare’s plays, characters and the Shakespeare brand were used to define, critique and support both a patriotic war and new political movements.

The Seven Years War

By the start of the eighteenth century Shakespeare had become established by numerous writers, critics and commentators as a national icon. The exhibition skips over the wars of the early 18th century, in Europe and India:

  • War of the Spanish Succession 1701 to 1714
  • Great Northern War 1717 to 1720
  • War of the Austrian Succession 1740
  • Carnatic Wars 1744 to 1763

Instead it jumps to the Seven Years’ War (1756 to 1763), the war against France which saw British victories on the Continent, in India, in the Caribbean and North America. The exhibition includes a number of interesting mementoes from the war.

David Garrick, the leading figure in London theatre by the mid-century, wrote a Dialogue to preface a 1756 production of The Tempest, in which two characters debate the rights and wrongs of the new war. It reminds us that for hundreds of years actors, managers and playwrights felt perfectly free to preface Shakespeare productions with prologues like this, tailoring the play to the issues of the day, or even cutting and rewriting bits of the plays to reflect current concerns.

In 1768 Edward Capell produced an edition of the plays in which he states what had, by then, become orthodoxy, that the 38 or so plays amount to ‘a part of the kingdom’s riches’. Not only this, but Britain’s standing ‘in the world’ depended on ‘the esteem within which these are held.’

The fact that Shakespeare’s one play which takes a foreign enemy is directed against the French did not escape numerous writers and commentators as Britain embarked on a global struggle against…the French. There’s a playbill for a production of Henry V staged in Covent Garden in 1761 which has two significant aspects. 1) For this occasion, the play was unsubtly subtitled ‘the Conquest of France’ and 2) each of the 23 productions were followed by a lavish recreation of the coronation of King George III which had just taken place (22 September 1761).

If Shakespeare’s association with kingship had been deeply problematic for Milton in the 1640s, long before a century had passed the name of Shakespeare, the Shakespeare brand, had become indissolubly linked to celebration of the solidly Protestant and anti-French monarchy.

The American War of Independence (1775 to 1783)

Following on from, and partly a result of, the Seven Years War, came the American War of Independence. Unsurprisingly, American patriots seeking to break from Britain drew on Shakespeare’s classical histories. Plays like ‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Coriolanus’ helped support the idea of republican government and liberation from imperial rule.

The two sides (British and American) both staged plays and the curators display playbills from both sides, which use Shakespeare texts to propagandise for their cause. So there’s a playbill for an American production of Julius Caesar which applauds the ‘noble struggles for Liberty by that renowned patriot Marcus Brutus.’

There are rather more relics from the British side and the curators display pictures focusing on New York. This is because early on in the war, the British Army under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Clinton occupied New York City and turned it into a garrison town. Members of the Army staged regular productions of Shakespeare at the newly-renamed Theatre Royal, confirming the by-now well-established link between drama and royalty. the performances were staged ‘with permission’ of Clinton, who was also a patron of the performances. Plays were staged to raise funds for wounded soldiers. The British tended to favour Shakespeare’s monarchical plays, whilst American Patriots used plays with a republican ethos (such as Julius Caesar and Coriolanus) in their satirical prints and posters.

Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Clinton, 1st Regiment of Foot Guards, 1758 (National Army Museum)

The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (1789 to 1802, 1805 to 1815)

As explained above, Shakespeare’s plays can be used to provide examples of resistance to oppression and corrupt politics and so justify insurrection against corrupt rulers. The French Revolution amounted to a massive ideological upheaval in the thinking of all Europe. In the three years after the initial overthrow of the monarchy in 1789, politicians and intellectuals all across Europe took the sides of either the revolutionary liberators or the rule of monarchy, hierarchy and order. But in 1792 revolutionary France declared war on Austria and Prussia and the conflict became military in nature. Many former sympathisers retracted their support, especially after the situation in Paris descended into The Terror of 1793 to 1794.

The French Revolutionary War lasted from 1792 to 1802, when it was terminated by the Treaty of Amiens. Fighting broke out a year later in what came to be called the Napoleonic Wars which were to last from 1803 to 1815.

During this long period of ideological and military conflict, Shakespeare plays, characters and lines were mobilised to justify both sides of the ideological and military divide. In Britain, politicians, public figures, actors, and the Army drew on the playwright’s characters and speeches to justify their reasons for going to war, and to criticize rebellions against royalty.

This 25-year period also happened to be a golden age of political satire, featuring two of the greatest British caricaturists and cartoonists, James Gillray (1756 to 1815) and Isaac Cruikshank (1764 to 1811). Amid the many visual jokes and references they and many cartoonists and commentators like them used to pillory the politics of the day, Shakespearian references loomed large.

So the exhibition has some excellent cartoons by both men, which invoke Shakespearian references for the purposes of mockery and exaggeration. This print by Cruikshank uses The Tempest to praise the patriotic Tory Prime Minister William Pitt and ridicule his chief political opponent, Charles James Fox, an opponent of the British monarchy who was an initial supporter of the French Revolution.

Prospero and Caliban in the Enchanted Island by Isaac Cruikshank (1798)

Smoothly dressed Pitt is depicted as the wonder-working magician Prospero, telling his creature:

Hence! – fetch us fewel and be quick
Thou wert best – shrugst thou malice?
If thou dost unwillingly what I command
I’ll rack thee with old cramps –

While Fox, portrayed as big ugly Caliban, and wearing a tricolour scarf (symbol of the revolution) shrugs with savage disgust, saying:

I must obey! his art is of such power
It would control a Setebos,
And make a vassal of him.

There’s a brilliantly vivid print by Gillray titled ‘A phantasmagoria – conjuring up an armed skeleton’ which depicts contemporary politicians as the three witches from Macbeth. The print criticises the Treaty of Amiens which was widely seen as a capitulation to France. In the picture the witches are replaced by three leading supporters of the treaty, Henry Addington, Lord Hawkesbury and William Wilberforce and their magic spells for peace have, it is implied, reduced Britannia to a skeleton. Note the sack of gold at bottom left implying that these ‘traitors’ were bribed to betray their country and the French cockerel at bottom right, mockingly standing astride a skinned British lion.

‘A Phantasmagoria; — Scene – Conjuring-Up an Armed-Skeleton’ by James Gillray (1803)

The exhibition includes probably Gillray’s most famous image, ‘The Plumb-pudding in danger; – or – State Epicures taking un Petit Souper’. The image depicts British Prime Minister William Pitt and French Emperor Napoleon carving up the world between them. I’ve seen it many times but didn’t realise that the epigraph directly under the title, at top right, is an adapted quote from The Tempest, namely ‘”The great globe itself and all that it inherits” is too small to satisfy such insatiable appetites’.

The Plumb-pudding in danger; – or – State Epicures taking un Petit Souper by James Gillray (1805)

In these cartoons you see something interesting happening. Many of the previous objects (from the Seven Years or American Revolutionary Wars) indicated that Shakespeare was best promulgated via productions of entire plays. Here, in these cartoons, you can see the way that Shakespearian tags and clichés now lend themselves to much more pithy and succinct visual media.

Satirical prints had been around all through the 18th century, in fact they go back to Shakespeare’s day and even earlier. But somehow the Gillray and Cruikshank feel new. They demonstrate how Shakespeare, as well as representing the ‘the kingdom’s riches, according to high-minded editors such as Edward Capell, could also be the source of popular jokes and gags.

From now on, alongside all the stirring patriotic stuff, the exhibition features a strand of often very funny works using Shakespeare for comic purposes.

3. Imperial Shakespeare: The Victorian Army

After Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, the British Army’s role began to change. Rather than fighting major campaigns on the Continent, it was regularly used to protect and expand Britain’s imperial possessions, to fight Queen Victoria’s ‘small wars‘. But further to what I just mentioned about comedy, my favourite bits from what amounts to the Victorian section of the exhibition, were comic.

It must be said that some of the exhibits in the show seem to bear a pretty slender relationship with its supposed subject, Shakespeare and War. For example, the eighteenth century section has a set of images around the death of General James Wolfe at the 1759 Battle of Quebec which have no direct relation to Shakespeare, don’t quote or cite Shakespeare, seem to have no relationship except that Wolfe’s death was made the subject of ‘patriotic plays’.

Less utterly irrelevant is this entertaining print. In 1823 British aristocrats still carried out duels and this print mocks the practice by having the duellers and their seconds portrayed as monkeys. Apparently the title derives from a quote from ‘The Merchant of Venice’ but it’s a pretty flimsy pretext for including it in an exhibition about Shakespeare and War.

Awful Moments or Monkeys of Honour, colour print by John Lewis Marks after an unknown artist (1823)

More directly relevant if irreverent are the excellent prints taken from a later book, the Military Misreadings of Shakespere by Major Thomas Seccombe. It contains 31 beautifully delineated cartoons of military cockups, clumsiness and pratfalls, each offset by an ironically serious Shakespeare quotation. In this one a beautifully dressed member of the Life Guards has just been thrown by his horse to the accompaniment of a grand quote from Titus Andronicus: ‘That what you cannot, as you would, achieve, you must perforce accomplish as you may’ which thus acquires a completely comic meaning.

‘That what you cannot, as you would, achieve, you must perforce accomplish as you may’ from Military Misreadings of Shakespere (1880)

The Crimean War (1853 to 1856)

It wasn’t all lolz. The great exception to the century of generally small colonial wars which the British Army fought was the Crimean War, the one major conflict we were involved in in the century between the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) and the start of the Great War (1914). This famously highlighted significant problems with the Army’s organization, notably in the famous and futile Charge of the Light Brigade. Newspapers reported on the poor conditions in which soldiers found themselves, leading to demands for improvements and reforms to the Army’s culture and structure.

Only one exhibit relates to this badly managed and bitter war, a watercolour done by the Swedish artist Egron Sellif Lungren which depicts a kind of cinematic reimagining of a production of Henry V (what else?) staged by Charles Kean at the Princess’s Theatre in 1859 i.e. a few years after the war ended. Queen Victoria attended the play and commissioned Lundgren to do a watercolour version of it for her Theatre Album. Of all the scenes in the play Lundgren chose to depict the siege of Honfleur which is not only the setting for Henry’s famous speech ‘Once more unto the breach dear friends’, but will have reminded many people of the long and gruelling British siege of Sebastapol.

Installation view of ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum showing Egron Sellif Lungren’s watercolour plastered across one wall, with Gillray and Cruikshank cartoons on the left

Imperial Shakespeare

Obviously the nineteenth century was the one in which Britain cemented its grasp over the largest land empire the world has ever known, as well as almost total control of the world’s oceans. This is a very big subject indeed and it is not really properly explored. Take just India. Were there no British theatres in India, Shakespeare productions in India? Did the growing Indian middle class every stage Shakespeare productions with Indian casts? Was Shakespeare’s name, plays or quotes never invoked to justify British rule in India? Were there comic or satirical pamphlets or prints using Shakespeare quotes to mock British rule in India? Not in this exhibition, nor anything about the British Army’s involvement in Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East or Far East.

Instead, as I’ve already pointed out, some of the exhibits have only a tenuous or oblique connection to the exhibition topic. For example, a picture caption tells us that amateur theatricals were often staged by regiments and soldiers as peacetime entertainments, which we might well have guessed. And that’s the fairly flimsy pretext for sharing a photo of members of the East Yorkshire regiment staging a production of Hamlet at their barracks in Cheltenham in 1895.

The Cast of Hamlet, Winter Gardens, Cheltenham, 1895 (National Army Museum)

Meanwhile, there’s nothing about the second war of the period which shook British confidence, the Boer War of 1899 to 1902. Were there no Shakespeare productions mounted here in England to raise funds or stir patriotic fervour? Did the besieged populations of Ladysmith, Mafeking or Kimberley put on productions to keep their spirits up? Didn’t domestic commentators or cartoonists use Shakespeare quotes or characters as material? If so, none of it is displayed here.

4. Patriotic Shakespeare: The First World War (1914 to 1918)

During the First World War great service and sacrifice were required of both the Army and the civilian population. As in the last great campaign in Europe a century before, Shakespeare was used in Britain to rally the troops and the country behind a sense of national duty.

As mentioned above, some exhibits are included on pretty flimsy grounds: for example, there’s no real reason to include some of Lord Kitchener’s recruitment posters (Your country needs You) except for the fact that, after Kitchener drowned when the ship he was sailing in hit a German mine (HMS Hampshire, 5 June 1916) the League of the Empire started publishing and presenting special editions of the ‘Complete Works of Shakespeare’ to wounded and disabled soldiers in his name, an edition which quickly became known as ‘the Kitchener Shakespeare’ – but there’s nothing at all about Shakespeare in the famous posters.

‘Lord Kitchener’s Appeal’, recruiting poster, 1914 (National Army Museum)

More tenuous examples include: a sketchbook by a John Henry Jenkins, a front line soldier, which depicted not only trench life but the watercolours of amateur theatricals which the soldiers put on, although Shakespeare is nowhere mentioned; or a 1915 recruitment poster which includes the image of St George and the dragon and so, the curators suggest, might have reminded some viewers of Henry V’s famous call, ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’ Pretty tenuous.

Much more relevant is a book of Shakespeare quotations arranged under themes or headings relevant to the war and distributed to soldiers, ‘Shakespeare in Time of War: Excerpts from the Plays arranged with Topical Allusions’, edited by the artist Francis Colmer and published in 1916.

Another apparently random object is this photo of Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps personnel packing boxes in a factory in 1918. Spot the Shakespeare connection? No, because there isn’t one…

Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps personnel packing boxes in factory, 1918

…until you look at the photo beneath it, which is a photo of Maggie Smale’s all-women production of Henry V, staged in a munitions factory in Leeds which had been operated by the ‘Barnbow Lasses’ during the Great War. Is this to do with feminism? Or pacifism? Or a celebrating of provincial grit? I wasn’t sure.

Still from Maggie Smale’s all-female production of Henry V as featured in ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum. Photo by Mike Oakes

Amateur productions of Shakespeare were mounted across the country, sometimes to raise morale, to entertain wounded soldiers, for the benefit of the public. Three hundred years after his death Shakespeare was not only a well-known brand but possibly the only literary writer a lot of working class people had heard of. As in his own time, he catered for an audience of elite intellectuals, the educated middle classes, and illiterate workers. You can see why Shakespeare productions abounded because he was 1) possibly the only playwright everyone had heard of and 2) safe –unlike more recent troubling playwrights of the previous generation (Shaw, Ibsen etc).

There’s a clip from an official film showing wounded soldiers watching open air production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scenes like this 1) the British heritage which the soldiers were fighting for 2) to a wider audience demonstrated the care the government was taking of its fighting men. This clip appeared alongside footage of scenes of artillery and war preparation, thus dovetailing Britain’s cultural heritage into the war effort.

in my own life I’ve met plenty of people who don’t give a toss about official culture, art or theatre. You’ve got to wonder how many of the sock and maimed soldiers forced to watch this kind of thing actually enjoyed it or even understood it. Because that’s a thing about Shakespeare – unless you’re pretty familiar with the play beforehand, it’s impossible to get the most out of a theatrical production, in fact it’s often impossible to understand what’s going on and especially difficult to get any of the comedy in his plays.

It’s fascinating to learn about the Shakespeare Hut. In February 1916, to commemorate 300 years since his death, this mock-Tudor retreat was opened on a plot of land in Bloomsbury. The hut was built on a site cleared for a planned Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, which was abandoned because of the war.

The aim was to provide shelter for wounded Australian or New Zealand troops. Over the next two years it would welcome in more than 100,000 soldiers far from their New Zealand homes. Queen Mary visited in 1917, took up her post behind the tea counter, and poured cups for all the men.

The troops were subjected to regular Shakespeare productions, including an all-female Henry V starring Ellen Terry, one of the most famous actors of her day. Hah! So the Maggie Smale production was following in venerable footsteps.

The exhibition features photographs and playlists from the Hut and you can read more and see photos in an interesting Guardian article about it. Interesting to learn that it the site is now occupied by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

One of the most interesting learnings from the exhibition is about the role of theatricals among British prisoners of war held in Germany. The exhibition focuses on the Ruhleben Camp in Germany which housed some 5,000 POWs. Prisoners were allowed to construct a theatre and, for the same tercentenary which prompted the Shakespeare Hut, staged a series of productions, including Twelfth Night and Othello. The exhibition features photos and a programme from a 1915 production of As You Like It.

In a similar spirit, the British Red Cross mounted a Shakespeare Exhibition at the Grafton Galleries in 1917. Quite clearly, if you go looking for Shakespeariana during the First World War, you’ll find it.

Installation view of ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum, showing a poster for the Red Cross Shakespeare Exhibition of 1917 (photo by the author)

5. Democratizing Shakespeare: The Second World War

Same goes for the Second war. Once again Shakespeare was trotted out as the exemplar of the culture and values that were under attack from Nazi Germany, that we were fighting to preserve. The motives and means were very similar to the first war – am dram productions across the country to entertain wounded troops or raise money, leading actors of the day giving patriotic productions in London to stir patriotic fervour, footage of productions shot to be show in cinemas and raise morale.

With the new angle of radio. For the first time productions could be broadcast, to a large radio audience which steadily grew throughout the six war years. As part of the government’s attempt to mobilize society to support the war effort, British theatre was sponsored by the state for the first time in its history.

The Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA) was created to promote and maintain the fine arts and British cultural life. It later became the Arts Council of Great Britain. The Entertainment National Services Association (ENSA) provided for the forces, organising shows and performances by well-known actors, singers, and comedians.

Photo of an ENSA production staged in a London underground station in 1942 (National Army Museum)

Despite the challenges of wartime, both theatre and Shakespeare thrived. Once again, his words helped to frame the experience of conflict both in Britain and across the world. The exhibition features a recording of a radio programme originally broadcast by the BBC Overseas Services on Shakespeare’s birthday on 23 April 1942. It included extracts from ‘As You Like it’, Henry IV part 1 and, of course, Henry V. It was introduced and performed by leading Shakespearean actors Peggy Ashcroft, Robert Donat, Edith Evans and Ralph Richardson. You can listen to it on headphones and marvel at their phenomenally posh plummy English voices.

There’s a section devoted to the Laurence Olivier production of Henry V described at the start of this review.

And once again there’s a section devoted to British prisoners of war staging Shakespeare productions in camps in Germany. The exhibition includes a list of plays staged at Stalag 383 in Hohenfels, which included ‘The Merchant of Venice’.

6. Just Shakespeare: Adapting After 1945

After the Second World War the patriotic tone of Laurence Olivier’s Henry V lingered throughout the 1950s. But the second half of the 1960s saw radical changes in all aspects of art and culture, with a variety of new approaches to all the arts including theatre. This included the anti-war movements triggered by Vietnam, as well as new attitudes to sex and nudity, which now began to appear in Shakespeare productions.

For 200 years the name and plays of Shakespeare had acted as a kind of recruiting sergeant for the British Army and rallying point for the nation in times of real threat (particularly during the Napoleonic, First and Second World Wars). From the late 60s onwards, Shakespeare’s relationship with the state, the Establishment and the Army came under increasing critical scrutiny. Not in every production, but in an increasing number.

Hence Kenneth Branagh’s 1984 RSC production. Unlike earlier productions it shows the execution of French prisoners onstage and then left the bodies and corpses from the Battle of Agincourt at the back of the stage, behind a gauze curtain, for the later, supposedly reconciling scenes between the English king and his French bride-to-be.

The last section of the exhibition, in the central booth of the (fairly small) exhibition space, takes the Branagh production as setting the tone for productions which followed the Falklands War (1982), the Gulf War (1990 to 1991), and the Iraq War (2003 to 2011).

It includes video clips of stage productions including:

  • a 2013 production of ‘Othello’ which depicts the characters in the modern-day Army uniform used during the Iraq War
  • a 2015 production of ‘Othello’ which features graphic scenes of waterboarding Iraqi suspects
  • ‘Days of Significance’, a play by Roy Williams based on ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ which looks at the impact of British troops who fought in the Iraq War

The strong anti-war flavour of these productions and the pretty intense criticism of the British Army and its techniques, could hardly be more unlike the innocent patriotism of the Shakespeare Hut or the brightly colours optimism of Olivier’s Henry V. If we go to war with Russia I wonder if Shakespeare will be trotted out to inspire patriotic spirit as it was 100 and 70 years ago. I doubt it. Shakespeare hasn’t changed, that’s to say the texts remain pretty much what they were 400 years ago. But our understanding of war, gained in the brutal conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, has made any thoughts about the glamour or heroism of war impossible to modern Brits.

Availability bias

This is a fascinating premise for an exhibition and I thoroughly enjoyed working my way through the wealth of objects and their captions. It proves that Shakespeare is like the Bible, so compendious and diverse that you can find words to justify more or less any opinion on any subject (as demonstrated by the opposing sides in the American War of Independence using Shakespeare to bolster their arguments).

However, it throws up an obvious issue which is to do with the availability of objects to display. The exhibition was curated by – and is based on the scholarly books by – two Shakespeare scholars, Amy Lidster and Sonia Massai, namely Wartime Shakespeare: Performing Narratives of Conflict. Just from the synopsis on Amazon you can see how a book-length work like this is free to range over all and any productions it likes because words are easy. On the other hand, an exhibition in a museum is severely limited by the objects it can get its hands on.

In fact, like every exhibition at every gallery or museum, this one is an exercise in the art of the possible. Objects which denote important productions or topics may not be available (or may not even exist) while other topics throw up a glut of barely relevant artefacts.

In addition, it’s difficult and expensive to get objects on loan from other collections whereas it’s cheap and easy to get them from your own storeroom, so all exhibitions in all galleries are biased towards the host institution and its collection.

Plus there’s the common problem with any historical overview which is that objects from three or four hundred years ago are rare whereas, as you get closer to the present day, the number of objects rapidly increases, until you are drowning in a surfeit of stuff.

These imbalances in the real world threaten to unbalance or distort the picture painted by any exhibition, an imbalance which is easily managed in books and articles where issues and ideas can be easily conveyed by text alone.

So, at various points, I couldn’t help feeling that the curators had included some objects more because they were just related to one of the conflicts during the period in question than for their Shakespearian relevance. As mentioned above I couldn’t see any Shakespeare connection to the three or four pictures of General Wolfe and the capture of Quebec except that the event was turned into patriotic plays and prints. To put it another way, some of the links between specific conflicts and Shakespeare were pretty tenuous. I still don’t understand why there was an English mortuary sword in the Civil War section except that maybe the curators felt they just needed a physical object, any object, to go alongside the half dozen books and pamphlets.

All the objects (photos, pamphlets, diaries and whatnot) are interesting, it’s just that I was left scratching my head why some of them were included.

Shakespeare and conflict

There’s another, more scholarly, issue. This, as I touched on earlier, is that taken together, Shakespeare’s dozen or so history plays, plus the relevant Roman plays and the tragedies, build up into a subtle, sophisticated, multifaceted meditation on the themes of power, authority, legitimacy, insurrection, rebellion, revolt and overthrow.

Arguably, to really address the topic which this exhibition sets out to explore, you would need a really sound grasp of how all these issues are dramatised and explored in the 20 or so relevant plays, before you even started your review of how they’ve been applied to Britain’s wars and Britain’s Army.

But this, of course, is a massive task – after a lifetime reading Shakespeare I still haven’t read all the history plays and have nothing like a complete grasp of the issues of legitimacy and political power which they raise.

And an exhibition like this has to be practical, finite and manageable. This one achieves what it sets out to do, in a relatively small space, as well as it probably could do. But, in my opinion, the ghost of the larger political, social and cultural issues raised by the plays hover over it, unmentioned and undiscussed.

To take just one aspect of what I’m driving at, many of the characters in the history plays (the ones I’m familiar with) describe and discuss the horror of war, the fear experienced by soldiers, the terror of innocent civilians, the horrific injuries, killing and massacres involved, the fields strewn with bodies, the devastated landscapes and ruined economies. Descriptions of these kinds of things are commonplace in the plays and yet, somehow, hardly occur anywhere in this exhibition.

At some point I realised that this is not an exhibition about Shakespeare and War as about Shakespeare and the British Army. This explains why it’s divided into chronological periods based entirely around conflicts the British Army engaged in right up to the present day, rather than the themes of war encountered in the plays which I have just listed. And this is why, although it’s a very enjoyable trot through British military history, with an emphasis on how Shakespeare’s name, characters and words have been exploited in times of war – it feels, ultimately, despite being packed with shiny objects, intellectually thin.

You can see how an exhibition about Shakespeare and war would actually be something quite different: instead of taking a chronological approach it would take the topics I’ve mentioned several times now – the collapse of authority, civil war, rebellion, interstate war – and then the aspects of war – recruitment, training, fighting, sieges, inspirational rhetoric, the exhilaration of fighting, the horror of wounding, the devastation of the countryside, the mourning of widows – and explore how all of these are described and critiqued in Shakespeare’s multifaceted dramas. It would be something completely different from this exhibition. But then again, maybe what I’ve got in mind would be so wordy and text-heavy that it couldn’t be staged as an exhibition at all.

What this exhibition does, it does very well. It is small but beautifully staged and is FREE.


Related link

Related books

Shakespeare reviews

National Army Museum reviews