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

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nora makes a last speech cursing Dan:

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

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

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

Cast

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

A comedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video

Nationalist objections

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

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

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

‘one of the nastiest little plays ever seen’ –

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

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

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

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

Nora

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

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

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

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


Related links

J.M. Synge reviews

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

Related reviews

  • Ireland reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 3

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Ten plays

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

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

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

7. Family Album: A Victorian comedy with music

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

8. Star Chamber: A light comedy in one act

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts

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

1. Wit

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

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

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

2. Abuse

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

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

The couple at various moments say:

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

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

A bit more elaborately:

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

3. Fantasy

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

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

Or ridiculous plans:

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

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

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

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

10. Still Life: A play in five scenes

Executive summary

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Encounter

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


Related links

Related reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 2

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Ten plays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Fumed Oak: An unpleasant comedy in two scenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slamming

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

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

Fumed oak

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

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

6. Shadow Play: A musical fantasy

Executive summary

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

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

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

VICKY: What does it matter…?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGE: The atmosphere reeked with conjugal infelicity…

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

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

MARTHA: Grab every scrap of happiness while you can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts

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


Related links

Related reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 1

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Ten plays

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

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

This blog post summarises and comments on the first three.

Songs

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

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

1. We Were Dancing: A Comedy in Two Scenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Shut up, Clara!’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBERT: Will everybody please be quiet for a moment.

HUBERT: Don’t talk like that…

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

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

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

LOUISE: Don’t go on evading…

KARL: Don’t, don’t speak

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

Servants

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

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

2. The Astonished Heart: A Play in Six Scenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHRIS: For the love of God, stop crying.

LEONORA: Don’t, don’t come near me.

LEONORA: Don’t be such a fool.

CHRIS: Stay still.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Shut up, Clara’

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

TIM: Shut up, Susan.

BARBARA: Don’t be unkind.

CHRIS: Stop being quarrelsome, Leonora.

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

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

BARBARA: That’s idiotic, unreasonable and idiotic.

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

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

BARBARA: Stop struggling.

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

KARL: What’s the use of arguing?

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

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

3. Red Peppers: An interlude with music

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

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

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

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

LILY: Oh shut up, you make me tired.

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

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

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

GEORGE: You shut your mouth…

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

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

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

GEORGE: Oh dry up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Related links

Related reviews

Endgame by Samuel Beckett (1957)

Conor McPherson’s production

I was lucky enough to stumble across this film version of Endgame, made in 2000, directed by Conor McPherson and starring Michael Gambon as Hamm and David Thewlis as Clov, with Charles Simon as Nagg and the wonderful Jean Anderson as Nell.

It’s not only brilliantly acted, but inventively directed. McPherson uses a range of camera angles and techniques to break up the action, to give different segments or passages of the play their own visual style or technique.

Take the passage where Nagg in his dustbin tells the story of the English lord and the Irish tailor and watch the way McPherson cuts between different angles of Nagg in his bin to create a particular dynamic, but also to differentiate this specific joke-telling passage from everything else in the film.

Or take the passage where Hamm insists on being pushed round the circumference of the room – note the way McPherson switches to using a handheld camera, the only time this happens in the film. This maybe emphasises the sudden and rather hysterical nature of the chair-pushing but, as with Nagg’s joke, it also makes the sequence stick out from the more static technique used in the rest of the play.

The acting is great – but the direction is also extremely inventive and responsive to the changing moods and passages of the text.

Dates and first production

Endgame is a one-act play with four characters. It was originally written in French, entitled Fin de partie, and Beckett himself translated it into English. The play was first performed in a French-language production at the Royal Court Theatre in London, opening on 3 April 1957. The follow-up to Waiting for Godot, it is generally agreed to be among Beckett’s best works.

Part of the reason for this is because, as you investigate Beckett’s oeuvre further, you discover that he only really wrote four proper-length plays (Godot, Endgame, Krapp’s Last Tape and Happy Days). All four are masterpieces, but it’s striking to learn that most of Beckett’s many other stage works are far shorter, none of them long enough, on their own, to make a full evening in the theatre.

Cast

Hamm – unable to stand and blind
Clov – Hamm’s servant; unable to sit. Taken in by Hamm as a child.
Nagg – Hamm’s father; has no legs and lives in a dustbin.
Nell – Hamm’s mother; has no legs and lives in a dustbin next to Nagg.

Setting

We are in a bunker in a post-apocalyptic world. Everything has ended. No more people, no more nature.

Hamm is a blind old man sitting in the middle of a dark room which has two small windows opposite each other, in a chair on castors.

Clov is his servant or lackey, who comes whenever his master whistles and does his bidding. Clov has a gammy leg which immediately reminds us of the characters in The Beckett Trilogy whose legs fail, who are forced to use crutches and, eventually, to crawl on their bellies, a theme emphasised by the story Hamm tells intermittently, about a poor man who came begging to him begging for a few scraps of bread for his son, crawling on his belly (as Molloy and Moran in the Trilogy end up crawling).

The references to the death of nature and the obliteration of humanity in some unspecified apocalypse titillate those of us who like science fiction stories and end-of-the-world dramas. I have recently read The Death of Grass by John Christopher (1956) and The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham (1951). The 1950s were drenched in h-bomb paranoia and end-of-the-world terror (The Day The Earth Stood Still 1951, Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1956, On the Beach by Neville Shute 1957).

But these hints are not vital for the story. The story is about the test, it is about the strange dynamic between the four characters trapped in a small room.

The master-servant relationship between Hamm and Clov is not unlike the master-slave relationship of Pozzo and Lucky. This is not a forced comparison. We know that Beckett deliberately echoed themes and structures throughout his works, to create a kind of hall of mirrors where similar characters appear doing or even saying similar things: plays come in two acts (Godot and Happy Days), characters come in pairs who act out what you could call the bare minimum of human interaction. In fact in sociology the dyad – the relationship between just two humans – is the smallest possible social unit. Thus Nagg and Nell have their moments but the play is essentially about the dyad of Hamm and Clov.

Plot summary

Clov enters a dimly lit room, draws the curtains from the two windows and prepares his master Hamm for his day. He says ‘It’s nearly finished’, though it’s not clear what he is referring to. Clov wakes Hamm by pulling a bloodstained rag from off his head. They banter briefly, and Hamm says ‘It’s time it ended’. Presumably they mean the tragi-comedy of their wretched existence after everything else has died.

Hamm’s parents, Nell and Nagg, lift their heads from two trash cans at the back of the stage. Hamm is a sometimes angry and aggressive character and abuses his wretched parents, though his rough words are leavened with bitter humour.

Hamm tells his father he is writing a story, and recites it to him, the fragment I mentioned above, which describes a derelict man who comes crawling on his belly to Hamm, who is putting up Christmas decorations, begging him for food for his starving boy sheltering in the wilderness (very reminiscent of Moran and his son lost in the wilderness in Molloy).

Clov is continually disappearing offstage into a supposed kitchen to prepare things for Hamm and then returning. The pair engage in endless dialogue, quite harsh masculine exchanges, sometimes wryly funny, sometimes quick-witted, sparking off each other.

Clov is continually threatening to leave Hamm, but the exchanges make clear that he has nowhere to go as the world outside seems to have been destroyed. Much of the stage action is deliberately banal and monotonous, including sequences where Clov moves Hamm’s chair in various directions so that he feels to be in the right position, as well as moving him nearer to the window.

They are trapped in an abusive relationship, where both are unhappy, taunt each other, but cannot leave.

By the end of the play, though, Clov appears to finally pluck up the guts to leave his abusive master. Earlier Clov had had to prepare a dose of the painkiller which Hamm appears to rely on to get through the day. Now he tells Hamm there’s none left. Decay. Entropy. Things fall apart.

While Clov bustles into the other room, apparently to pack his bags, Hamm finishes his dark story about the man who crawls to his feet at Christmas. In the story he mocks the degraded man for the futility of trying to feed his son for a few more days when they are obviously doomed to die.

When he finishes this story, being blind, Hamm believes Clov has left. But Clov is still standing in the room silently with his coat on, going nowhere. Throughout the play Hamm has been fiddling with objects and belongings such as his stick. Now he chucks it away. His final remarks are that although Clov has left, the audience ‘will remain’.

It occurs to the thoughtful viewer/reader, that maybe we, the audience, are also trapped in an abusive relationship with the characters onstage and, behind them, with their taunting, bitterly comic creator.

Thoughts

I shy away from the big moral and philosophical interpretations. Typical of this sort of grand sweeping reaction to the play is this critic who said that Endgame is ‘a powerful expression of existential angst and despair, and depicts Beckett’s philosophical worldview, such as the extreme futility of human life and the inescapable dissatisfaction and decay intrinsic to it’.

Maybe I’m too old to have the energy to feel that really biting despair any more, but I seem to find a lot of things about the world – Donald Trump, COVID – grimly hilarious rather than despairing.

Thus, even if the world outside has been devastated by some global catastrophe, the reality of the play is we are stuck in a room with two peculiar characters driving each other round the end. And at two moments, a couple of wizened old crones appear up from two dustbins in the corner of the room, rather like the flowerpot men in Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men. (The Flowerpot Men was first broadcast by the BBC in 1952. Was Beckett inspired by it 🙂 )

In other words, lurking behind the ‘grimly nihilistic’ is the broadly comic. As I commented on Acts Without Words, I think the play is less about ‘the human condition’ and all those 1950s existentialist clichés and something more to do with the ambivalence of discourse, of dialogue and literature and performance. In all these domains the bitterly tragic can be quite close to the unintentionally hilarious.

And if you compare Beckett’s plays with ‘the real world’, where civil wars are raging, rape is a weapon of war, cyber-attacks are increasing, global warming is wiping out entire ecosystems, and COVID-19 is killing hundreds of thousands – then I think you can see in a flash that Endgame is much closer to the comic end of the spectrum than its earnest, initial audiences thought.

There’s also something ‘Irish’ about a sense of humour which expresses bleak sentiments in such a deadpan way as to make them funny. When Hamm remarks: ‘You’re on Earth, there’s no cure for that!’ it can be taken as a bleak expression of hand-wringing despair… or as a sly one-liner delivered in a Dublin pub, to which the listeners are meant to burst into laughter.

So one of the things I enjoy about this play are not the bleak ‘existentialist’ comments – which have become clichés in the 60 odd years since it was premiered – and more the text’s delicious walking a tightrope, this fine dividing line between savage, angry despair, and suddenly whimsical humour.

Beckett’s novels delight in playing with registers and tones and vocabularies but in such a dense and clotted way that it’s sometimes difficult to really isolate and enjoy them. The switch to writing drama made this aspect of his work far more overt, defined, easy to register, and enjoyable.


Credit

Endgame by Samuel Beckett was premiered at the Royal Court Theatre, London, in April 1957 and published by Faber and Faber later the same year.

Samuel Beckett’s works

An asterisk indicates that a work was included in the Beckett on Film project, which set out to make films of all 19 of Beckett’s stage plays using leading actors and directors. The set of 19 films was released in 2002 and most of them can be watched on YouTube.

The Second World War 1939 to 1945

*Waiting For Godot 1953 Play

Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature 1969