Easy Virtue: A Play in Three Acts by Noel Coward (1924)

Charles: It’s certainly astonishing how quickly one becomes disillusioned over everything.
(Charles Burleigh voicing the disillusion of the post-war generation)

SARAH: Lari dear, what’s happened?
LARITA: Lots and lots and lots of things.

Immediately, this feels like a different read from The Vortex, Fallen Angels or Hay Fever because the play directions are much longer and more descriptive. They are more like the extensive descriptions of Bernard Shaw which not only describe the scene but give psychological portraits of the characters. Nowhere near as bloated as Shaw, but fuller than the short, sweet introductions to the three works I mentioned.

The action of the play takes place in the hall of Colonel Whittaker’s house in the country.

Executive summary

Young John Whittaker marries Larita, a divorcee and brings her home to live, to the horror of his narrow-minded mother. Three months later, Larita is going out of her mind with boredom and is triggered by the family’s dislike of her into a Nora Helmer-level diatribe against their sexually repressed narrow-mindedness. In the third act, Larita appears at Mrs Whittaker’s big society dance in all her finery, squashes her enemies, promises to one day meet again her few allies, then leaves forever (in her own car, with her own maid).

Author’s intention

According to the Wikipedia article, in his autobiography, ‘Present Indicative’, Coward said that his object in writing ‘Easy Virtue’ was to present a comedy in the structure of a tragedy in order ‘to compare the déclassée woman of to-day with the more flamboyant demi-mondaine of the 1890s’. Like a lot of what Coward said about his own plays, this sounds impressive but is, in the end, not particularly useful in helping you read or respond to the play.

Act 1

In the first part of Act 1 the Whittaker family – affable Colonel James ‘Jim’ Whittaker, strict and easily offended Mrs Whittaker, fat plain religious eldest daughter Marion, and excitable brainless Hilda – await the return of the son, John, who has jilted his jolly nice local fiancée, Sarah Hurst, met someone while staying in the South of France, and married her, all without their ever meeting his bride.

John telegrams to say he’ll be arriving this morning i.e. later in this act. Lots of excited speculation among the daughters, with Mrs Whittaker affecting to be offended by her son’s high-handedness. Several times she refers to what seem to be affairs her husband, the Colonel, has had.

COLONEL: Your mother stood by me through my various lapses from grace with splendid fortitude.

Mrs W doesn’t quite say ‘Men! They’re all the same’ but it’s strongly implied. And emphasised by a minor sub-plot in which we learn that plain eldest humourless daughter, Marion, was jilted by her fiancée, Edgar, who appears to have gone abroad for some time to avoid her. It seems that that was the moment when she discovered she had a religious vocation and was ‘above’ things like love and – ugh – sex!

MRS WHITTAKER: All my life I’ve had to battle and struggle against this sort of thing. First your father—and now John—my only son. It’s breaking my heart.
MARION: We must just put our trust in Divine Providence, dear.

Despite or because of this, the Colonel is the most relaxed and tolerant of the family. Coward makes the traditional connection between being sexually uptight and moralistic intolerance in the opening description of the characters before the play proper has even begun.

Mrs Whittaker, attired in a tweed skirt, shirt-blouse, and a purple knitted sports-coat, is seated at her bureau. She is the type of woman who has the reputation of having been ‘quite lovely’ as a girl. The stern repression of any sex emotions all her life has brought her to middle age with a faulty digestion which doesn’t so much sour her temper as spread it. She views the world with the jaundiced eyes of a woman who subconsciously realizes she has missed something, which means in point of fact that she has missed everything.

Uptight sexuality = sour temper = bitter sense of having missed out.

Hilda phones Sarah to say John’s coming home and she (Sarah) says she’ll pop over to see old John again and meet the new bride, and that she’ll bring one of the guests currently staying at the Hurst family home, a Charles Burleigh.

John finally arrives, says hello to his family, then introduces his new wife, Larita.

She is tall, exquisitely made-up and very beautiful—above everything, she is perfectly calm. Her clothes, because of their simplicity, are obviously violently expensive; she wears a perfect rope of pearls and a small close traveling-hat.

It’s only now that he reveals that this is Larita’s second marriage. Mrs Whittaker primly asks when her first husband died, but Larita airily explains that he didn’t, he divorced her. John has married a divorcee! She goes on to explain that he beat her so she ran away, according to John: ‘He was an absolute devil.’

Mrs Whittaker is profoundly shocked. Her daughters try to explain that nowadays manners are more relaxed, that ‘social barriers are not quite so strongly marked now’ and ‘everybody’s accepted so much more—I mean nobody minds so much about people…’ but to no avail. Her upset comes out in acid remarks which, I suppose, can be played for laughs.

COLONEL: Larita’s an extraordinarily pretty name.
MRS WHITTAKER: Excellent for musical comedy.

Now the playwright arranges entrances and exits. Hilda takes Larita upstairs to the room they’ve prepared for her and Mrs W claims to have a headache and is taken to her room by Marion – which leaves John alone with his father to have a chat. This exchange confirms that Larita is notably older than John and therefore it’s doubtful that they’ll have children. His father gently regrets that the family name will as a consequence expire.

At the end of this little chat John runs upstairs to see his love and the Colonel goes into the library, leaving the stage empty. The (female) servant, Furber, now brings in two arrivals, Sarah Hurst and her guest Charles Burleigh.

  • Sarah is boyish and modern and attractive.
  • Charles is a pleasant-looking man somewhere between thirty and forty.

Sarah asks the servant, Furber, where the family is and he explains their various locations. It immediately becomes obvious that Charles has a satirical sense of humour, which Sarah enjoys trying to quell.

CHARLES: I suppose this is a slightly momentous day in the lives of the Whittakers.
SARAH: Very momentous.
CHARLES: Is your heart wrung with emotion?
SARAH: Don’t be a beast, Charles.

Presumably this is all played for laughs. Sarah explains to him that she and John were never officially engaged and she’s had 3 months to get over the news of being dumped. In fact she genuinely finds the whole thing funny and predicts how funny it will be to observe starchy old Mrs Whittaker’s reaction.

Hilda comes pelting downstairs, greets Sarah, says it’s all too howlingly exciting and insists on dragging her out to the garage because a) she’s got to tell the chauffeur something and b) she can fill Sarah in on all the juicy details on the way.

This is all done to leave Charles alone and feeling embarrassed, doubly so when Larita comes down the stairs. The scene is arranged like this because after some embarrassing small talk they discover that they’ve got a mutual friend in Paris, Cecile de Vriaac, and this opens the floodgates. Larita realises Cecile has shown her photographs which included Charles, they have numerous other friends in common, and they open the latest edition of Tatler which is lying about in the hall, and start swapping the gossip about all their posh pals and their relationships.

Returning to the subject of John, she is able to speak freely to someone her own age and tells Charles she was attracted by John’s youth and ingenuousness. Doesn’t sound like a long-lasting basis for a marriage, does it?

At which point Mrs W, Marion and John come downstairs. Mrs W is even more mortified to discover another stranger in the house (Charles) and getting on like a house on fire with the resented daughter-in-law, Larita. Then Hilda and Sara re-enter. Everyone shakes hands and Furber announces that lunch is served.

Act 2

Three months later, summer. Larita is lazing on the sofa smoking and pretending to read. Mrs Whittaker enters and asks her why she isn’t playing tennis with everyone else. It’s clear they have arrived at a frosty detente. Mrs W is fretting about the big dance she’s organising for tonight (I’m guessing this will be the setting for Act 3 and various revelations!).

MRS WHITTAKER: I’m quite used to all responsibilities of this sort falling on to my shoulders. The children are always utterly inconsiderate. Thank Heaven, I have a talent for organization.[She goes out with a martyred expression.]

John rushes in to fetch a sweater for tennis, he’s playing a match with her. Larita asks him to fetch her a fur coast since she’s cold. No wonder, if you lay around all day indoors. When he’s gone we see that Larita is crying. She is very unhappy.

The Colonel comes in, observes this, and tries to cheer her up by playing a game of bézique farcically badly. She admits that she’s excruciatingly bored. He sympathises and says why doesn’t she suggest to John that they move up to London. Suddenly she bursts out that the whole thing has been a complete failure and runs out. The Colonel lights a cigarette.

Marion comes in fussing about the lanterns they’re setting up for the dance. She notices Larita was reading a book by Proust and calls it ‘silly muck’. There’s a little reprise of the sex theme started in Coward’s description of Mrs W as sexually uptight. Marion, remember, is an earnest Christian, I think a Catholic.

MARION: All French writers are the same—sex, sex—sex. People think too much of all that sort of tosh nowadays, anyhow. After all, there are other things in life.
COLONEL: You mean higher things, don’t you, Marion? much higher?
MARION: I certainly do—and I’m not afraid to admit it.

Marion and Mrs Whittaker, the two bigots, agree how awful Larita is and how she won’t join in the games. Then they both criticise the Colonel for pandering to her and entertaining her. Ghastly man.

The others come in from the tennis and Hilda complains that Larita was making eyes at her partner, Philip (a callow, lanky youth’). The others disappear off, to plan the seating plan or whatnot, as a pretext to leave John alone with Sarah. It becomes clear that he’s not exactly still attracted to her but likes her company, asks her to keep dances for him this evening. He’s surprised that Sarah and Lari get on so well but Sarah explains that Lari is intelligent and so is bored. Being dim himself, John doesn’t understand. Sarah makes a joke of it by saying she’s growing up but John isn’t.

All this banter leads up to John revealing that he still lover her. He realises he wanted staid friendship she offers rather than the rush of cosmopolitan excitement he liked in Lari. Sarah is appalled and tells him to shut up.

Lari re-enters and after some polite chat, Hilda, Sarah and Philip exit to play more tennis, leaving Lari and John alone. if you think of it schematically, we’ve had Lari and the Colonel which made it clear how bored and unhappy Lari is; followed by Sarah and John, showing how unhappy and regretful John is. Now, knowing both their situations, we have John and Lari confronting each other. Or will they?

They really are unsuited. When she makes jokes or ironic remarks he just doesn’t get them and thinks she’s ‘twitting’ him. No real communication is possible and this develops into a real argument. They both accuse the other of stopping loving them and both deny it. What’s interesting to the viewer is that it’s not a case of stopping loving each other so much as that the so-called ‘love’ was really based on a profound mismatch of temperaments and they are only now realising it. The ‘love’ masked it. The fading of the initial infatuation is now revealing it, like the tide going out.

Larita sounds the sexual repression theme again:

LARITA: Marion is gratuitously patronizing.
JOHN: She’s nothing of the sort.
LARITA: Her religious views forbid her to hate me openly.
JOHN: It’s beastly of you to say things like that.
LARITA: I’m losing my temper at last—it’s a good sign.
JOHN: I’m glad you think so.
LARITA: I’ve repressed it for so long, and repression’s bad. Look at Marion.
JOHN: I don’t know what you mean.
LARITA: No—you wouldn’t.

‘Repression’s bad’, can this be attributed solely to Freud’s influence or was it proposed by numerous other outlets to become part of the Zeitgeist? Anyway, Larita speaks her truth:

LARITA: I’ve been watching your passion for me die. I didn’t mind that so much; it was inevitable. Then I waited very anxiously to see if there were any real love and affection behind it—and I’ve seen the little there was slowly crushed out of you by the uplifting atmosphere of your home and family. Whatever I do now doesn’t matter any more—it’s too late… You’re miles away from me already.

This argument goes on for a long time making crystal clear that John doesn’t get Larita at all. When he suggests going away, to Venice or Algeria, she laughs and says they can stay with some friends of hers who she met in New York. This opens up fathoms between them as John realises that he knows next to nothing about her life before they met or her first husband, Francis.

Anyway, somehow – rather implausibly in my view – this long sometimes quite bitter argument circles round to them apologising and forgiving each other. She powders her nose. He kisses her. She tells him to push off back to his damn tennis.

He’s barely exited before Marion enters. Because that’s how theatre works. Theatre is unavoidably stagey.

Marion wants to have a girl-to-girl talk which is, of course, a bad move because she is thick and sexually repressed and religiously bigoted while Larita is a sexually frank woman of the world. the comedy consists in Marion’s extended lack of awareness. She asks Larita to stop leading her father, the Colonel, on, which of course outrages Larita. When Marion goes on to say that she thinks she helped to ‘save’ Edgar from his ‘immoral’ i.e. sexually open, ways, Larita eventually explodes and is just telling Marion what a revolting hypocrite she is when skinny Philip comes in.

Philip tells her that, as well as the twelve guests invited for dinner, ten more will arrive afterwards for the dance, and asks if he can dance with her. Then if he can sit on the sofa beside her. He’s obviously smitten with this exotic creature while Larita just finds him funny.

LARITA: I’m sorry—but you are rather funny.
PHILIP [Gloomy.] Everyone says that.

So Philip is comic relief. Larita mocks him, quoting high-minded phrases we’ve just seen Marion using at her, about living ‘a straight and decent life’. When the boob is thoroughly confused she gets up but Philip grabs her hand preparatory to making some declaration of love. She furiously pulls it back just as Hilda enters through the French windows and sees it. She takes this as confirming everything she thinks about Larita as a flirt, while Larita is infuriated to be surrounded by all these dolts.

Sarah and John enter after finishing their tennis match and Mrs Whittaker comes absent-mindedly downstairs. Sarah grabs Philip’s hand and says they need to go back to her parents’ house to change for dinner.

As they all sit down to tea Hilda drops loads of bitter remarks about Larita and then says she found Larita ‘canoodling’ with Philip on the sofa. Larita is infuriated, the Colonel tells his child to shut up, but Hilda then goes to a book on the shelves and extracts a cutting from the Times and hands it round the whole family.

The bigots (Hilda, Marion, Mrs Whittaker) instantly see it as shame and outrage. The Colonel reads it and says it is nothing to do with them what Larita did before she married John. The bigots say that’s typical, just the kind of thing they’d expect from ‘his sort’.

At this moment Mr Harris arrives, the Cockney workman who’s due to set up the coloured lights in the garden. The point of the scene is that Mrs Whittaker is too distressed to talk to him and Marion is holding and comforting her but Larita briskly tells the little workman exactly where the lights should go (strung between the four trees and decorating the arch), checking with the Colonel who affably confirms. So then Harris goes out to get on with the work.

This makes Mrs Whittaker even more insensate with rage and she boils over when she tells Larita to go to her room like a naughty schoolgirl and Larita says, Certainly not, I haven’t finished my tea yet. In fact she insists on staying and clearing up any misapprehensions. Again there’s a direct stab at Marion, when she says:

MARION: In the face of everything, I’m afraid there’s very little room for misapprehension.
LARITA: Your life is built up on misapprehensions, Marion. You don’t understand or know anything—you blunder about like a lost sheep.

Only now does Larita leak out what was in the newspaper cutting. Apparently it linked her with the suicide of a man she’d spurned, and attributed a long list of lovers to her. She says only two on the list ever actually loved her and the suicide killed himself out of his own weakness. When the Colonel says maybe they ought not to be too hasty in judging Larita, Mrs Whittaker predictably tells him he’s let her down countless times and is doing it again, to which Larita delivers an Author’s Message kind of speech:

LARITA: The Colonel’s not failing you—it’s just as bad for him as for you. You don’t suppose he likes the idea of his only son being tied up to me, after these revelations? But somehow or other, in the face of overwhelming opposition, he’s managed to arrive at a truer sense of values than you could any of you ever understand. He’s not allowed himself to be cluttered up with hypocritical moral codes and false sentiments—he sees things as they are, and tries to make the best of them. He’s tried to make the best of me ever since I’ve been here.

And when Mrs Whittaker calls her a wicked woman:

LARITA: That remark was utterly fatuous and completely mechanical. You didn’t even think before you said it—your brain is so muddled up with false values that you’re incapable of grasping anything in the least real.

She’s turning into Nora Helmer from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. She goes on to state that she loves John (the only member of the Whittaker family not present) but it’s not working out.

LARITA: Unfortunately—I can see through him –he’s charming and weak and inadequate, and he’s brought me down to the dust.

And then delivers a frontal blast at Marion:

LARITA: It is what I mean—entirely. I’m completely outside the bounds of your understanding—in every way. And yet I know you, Marion, through and through—far better than you know yourself. You’re a pitiful figure, and there are thousands like you—victims of convention and upbringing. All your life you’ve ground down perfectly natural sex impulses, until your mind has become a morass of inhibitions—your repression has run into the usual channel of religious hysteria. You’ve placed physical purity too high and mental purity not high enough, And you’ll be a miserable woman until the end of your days unless you readjust the balance.

Marion stalks into the library and slams the door. Mrs Whittaker retreats upstairs. The Colonel tries to be conciliatory but Larita tells him to be quiet. Hilda rushes over in tears asking to be forgiven, but Lari tells her not to be such ‘a little toad’ so she runs into the garden.

Then, alone on stage, she tries to calm herself, picks up the Proust and lays on the sofa. But she can’t focus and flings the book at a revolting replica statuette of the Venus de Milo, knocking it to the floor where it smashes. I’d have thought it would be quite hard for any actor to achieve this pinpoint book-throwing feat at the end of such an extended passionate set of speeches.

And so the curtain falls on a long and exhausting second act.

Act 3

The dance, of course. Lots of Young People exchanging meaningless banter. We learn that Larita has stayed in her bedroom as Mrs Whittaker commanded her. The guests notice how out of sorts the Whittakers are. Charles makes the obvious point:

CHARLES: They’re a tiresome family.
SARAH: Very.

Which I realised is also true in spades of the Bliss family in ‘Hay Fever’ and the grotesque Lancaster family in ‘The Vortex’. From one point of view these early Coward plays are all about tiresome families. Charles makes the equally obvious point that ‘She’s all wrong here—right out of the picture.’ What puzzles him is why anyone as intelligent as her ever married such a dimwit as John.

Abruptly Charles proposes to Sarah. Now in ten thousand Victorian novels this is the climax of the whole narrative, but here Coward shows his modish 1920s ways by having Sarah laugh, say of course not and then for the pair of them to rationally analyse why it probably wouldn’t work. They’re good friends, they like spending time together, but marriage would kill all that.

SARAH: Marriage would soon kill all that—without the vital spark to keep it going.
CHARLES: Dear, dear, dear. The way you modern young girls talk—it’s shocking, that’s what it is!
SARAH: Never mind, Charles dear, you must move with the times.

In other words they’re positioned here as an intelligent and self-aware contrast with the lack of awareness plaguing John and Larita’s union.

There’s delicious farce when, just as Mrs Whittaker is telling Mrs Hurst, Sarah and Mrs Phillips that Larita is upstairs in bed with a blinding headache and must be allowed to rest, the girl herself appears at the top of the stairs.

(Stairs, especially with a kind of balcony or gallery leading to them, are vital elements in a farce stage. It is from the top of the stairs that Florence Lancaster sees her beau Tom Veryan kissing young Bunty Mainwaring in The Vortex; it’s from the top of the stairs that Judith Bliss sees her husband David kissing sexy Myra Arundel in Hay Fever; and it’s from the top of the stairs that Larita makes her dramatic entrance to the dance in Easy Virtue.)

She is dressed to kill and proceeds to flout all the restrictions placed on her activity and attitude, telling Mrs Whittaker to her face that she was lying about Larita’s headache, telling Marion to get out of her way or she’ll squash her, ordering Johnnie to run off and fetch her champagne.

For people her equal in intelligence and sophistication – Sarah and Charles – she is witty and sociable. When John says she’s over-dressed she tells him to go and dance with someone if he can’t be nice to her.

The Whittaker women go into a little huddle to share their poisonous whispers. Charles is impressed and tells Sarah the end is nigh (he actually says, this is the swan song). John is utterly perplexed. He doesn’t know what’s come over Larita because nobody has told him about the enormous row that afternoon.

After a dance Larita finds herself sitting with Charles and they agree that they have the same kinds of minds and talk the same kind of language. She confesses that marrying John was a huge mistake. Also the most cowardly thing she’s ever done. She was running away. As she puts it in a comic speech:

LARITA: I can look round with a nice clear brain and see absolutely no reason why I should love John. He falls short of every ideal I’ve ever had—he’s not particularly talented or clever; he doesn’t know anything, really; he can’t talk about any of the things I consider it worthwhile to talk about; and, having been to a good school he’s barely educated.

Charles tells her he can bet how this will end (Larita and John divorce) but Larita tells him to shush. All through this dialogue, Bright Young Things are moving backwards and forwards, laughing and drinking and the band is playing. After Charles leaves, young puppy Hugh Petworth comes to ask her to dance but Lari easily spots that he’s been put up to it by his friend for a bet and sends him packing.

Sarah comes over. Lari tells her candidly that she’s leaving tonight, forever. When Lari tells her about the argument this afternoon triggered by Hilda showing her family the Times cutting Sarah tells her Hilda showed it to her three days ago and Sarah made her promise not to share it. The little beast!

She realises John has had enough of her. It was always only calf love. She should never have come. She’s out of place. In their eyes she has shamed their family. best for everyone if she leaves.

Lari tells Sarah to look after John, meaning marry him. She should have and would have if Lari hadn’t come along. Sarah is abashed but says she’ll try. They’re interrupted by John coming in and apologising and asking her to dance. She says she can’t, has a headache, is going back up to bed, then says goodbye in a particularly final way. As John starts to ask what she means, Lari tells Sarah to take him for another dance and thus gets rid of him.

Furber arrives to announce that her car is ready. Her maid, Louise, has packed and loaded all her things and is in the car waiting. Lari takes one last look out the window onto the veranda where the party is in full swing then turns and walks out the front door.

THE END.

Sexual repression

Coward explicitly attributes Mrs Whittaker’s sour temper to her sexual repression. Marion also is severely repressed, and disappointed by her fiancé chucking her, which explains why she has taken to religion, as sublimation and consolation.

With this clearly established it is, then, funny whenever either of them attributes their sourness or strictness to higher morals than the others, as both Mrs W and Marion attempt to do, so we laugh when Marion, with astonishing lack of self awareness, tells Larita:

MARION: No one could be more broad-minded than I am.

It’s funny not only because it signals her complete lack of self awareness, but because it belongs to a type, it confirms her type, she is precisely the kind of obtuse, plain, bigoted person who would have to even say something like that. Indeed the fact that she has to say it disproves it, rather like the joke phrase of our time ‘I’m not a racist but…’ There mere fact that you have to say it…

So the play lines up two teams, the sexually confident and aware ones (Larita, the Colonel, Charles) and the sexually repressed and uptight ones (Mrs Whittaker, Marion).

But the attitude-to-sex binary is reinforced by or part of another binary, between the clever and the stupid: Mrs Whittaker, Marion and John (alas) are stupid, humourless, slow on the uptake, some references, jokes or subjects go clean over their heads; while Larita, the Colonel and Sarah are not only more relaxed about sex but are simply more intelligent.

Greater intelligence = more frank and candid attitude towards sex.

Lower intelligence = sexual intolerance and religious bigotry.

Which is all brought out and made explicit in Larita’s tremendous speeches at the end of Act 2.

Easy virtue

So I suppose that is that the entire play turns out to be about: Larita accusing Mrs Whittaker and Marion of choosing the path of easy virtue. How easy it is to be sanctimonious, superior and self-satisfied with your own moral superbness if you have never lived, never dared or risked anything. What tiny but ‘pure’ lives you will lead.

Compared to Larita who has lived a more full, complicated, difficult and challenging life, with many more moral choices in it, not all of which she has necessarily got right.

But better to live a full if ‘morally compromised’ life, than a long, narrow and frustrated one.

Thoughts

It’s a less well-known Coward play and, apparently, not staged very often, partly because of the large cast in the final act – but I liked it more than the more regularly staged The Vortex, Fallen Angels or Hay Fever. There are some laughs, some sharp ironic moments along the way, but it was the diversity and plausibility of the characters I liked, and their many nicely observed interactions.

All characters in plays have to be broad brush caricatures, they have to be established very quickly for the audience to understand what’s going on – that’s the great drawback of theatre compared with the novel which can explore characters and events with far more subtlety.

And so the figures of the strict and disapproving mother, the more relaxed and sympathetic father, the religious zealot daughter, the jolly hockeysticks daughter, the dim son, the worldly and sophisticated divorcee who makes an unlikely friendship with the clever girl she supplanted – all these are types we instantly recognise from countless other dramas, plays, TV shows, sitcoms, movies and what not.

But I just enjoyed their interplay. I think Coward does it well. The Vortex is madly over-the-top. Hay Fever is a broad and implausible farce (hence its popularity). Fallen Angels is funny in concept but not so much in delivery. Whereas ‘Easy Virtue’ delivers – not laughs – but enjoyably recognisable exchanges in every scene. For example the scene where the Colonel tries to cheer Larita up by offering to play cards badly with her. That felt sweet and plausible.

And then the extraordinary Confrontation Scene at the end of Act 2, with Lari doing her Nora Helmer impression and delivering some home truths to the stiflingly small-minded bourgeois family.

The relaxed, sophisticated bonhomie between Charles and Sarah, the genuine understanding between Charles and Lari, the genuine friendship which springs up between Lari and Sarah… Everything in the Vortex felt, to me, forced and strained. Everything in this play felt plausible and beautifully imagined.

Movies

The play has been made into two movies: a 1928 black-and-white silent version, directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

And a lavish 2008 version starring housewife’s favourite, Colin Firth and glamorous Jessica Biel in the Larita role.


Related links

Related reviews

The Vortex by Noel Coward (1924)

‘Oh, my God, look at that lampshade!’ (Pawnie is camp)

‘It’s never too early for a cocktail.’ (Florence is sophisticated)

‘We’re all so hectic and nervy.’ (Nicky is neurotic)

‘Mother’s impossible.’ (the crux of the play)

Executive summary

A self-centred mother and her spoilt unstable son are both jilted – she by their toyboy lover and he by  his unsuitable fiancée – and, in a blistering final act, spend twenty minutes blaming each other for their failures and neuroses, amid tears and breakdowns.

Noel Coward

Obviously I’ve known the name Noel Coward for decades and seen a couple of his films, but never actually read any of his plays. So I was astonished, on reading this his breakthrough play, to discover the limits of its wit, that most of it is not funny at all, and that all attempts at comedy are swept away by the tsunami of overwrought melodrama in the third and final act.

Even in the earlier, lighter scenes, instead of wit it has posh upper-class attitude – ‘Oh darling, it was simply too super for words!’ This attitude is exaggerated for comic effect, exaggerated to make the characters seem absurd, exaggeration which passes for wit but isn’t actually witty.

To this end the dialogue is packed with too’s and perfectly’s and divine’s, and stuffed with exclamation marks! which largely only make sense when read on the page. How should an actor speak an exclamation mark, especially when the next sentence ends in an exclamation mark, and the one after that, and after that?

Too’s:

  • It’s too marvelous for words.
  • She’s too divine to be in any marked category.
  • She ought to have been a flaunting, intriguing King’s mistress, with black page boys and jade baths and things too divine—
  • Isn’t it too awful for him?
  • Oh, you’re really too tiresome for words!
  • she’s too, too marvelous.
  • Isn’t it too divine?
  • How too divine!
  • It’s too wonderful.
  • How too intriguing.

Perfectly’s:

  • How perfectly marvelous!
  • How perfectly sweet of you!
  • How perfectly fiendish!
  • Take off that perfectly divine cloak and have a cigarette.
  • How perfectly heavenly!
  • I adore her—she’s a perfect angel.

Divine’s:

  • He’s divinely selfish; all amusing people are.
  • You’re smelling divinely, Florence. What is it?
  • Isn’t it too divine?
  • Good-bye, Helen. It’s been divine—
  • You’re a divine creature, Florence.
  • Oh, is she coming down to the house? Divine!
  • What a divine thing to say!
  • She does say divine things—she’s supremely intelligent.
  • How too divine!

Somewhere regarding Coward I read the word ‘flippant’ and yes, that’s the word: ‘The Vortex’ betrays an attitude of sustained flippancy to everything. There are some lines which distantly echo Oscar Wilde but without the bite of his astonishing paradoxes. Instead all the supposed jokes build up, not to a punchline, but to the revelation of the same flippantly superior attitude.

PAWNIE: Oh, my God, look at that lampshade!
HELEN: I gave it to her last Christmas.
PAWNIE: Wasn’t that a little naughty of you?
HELEN: I don’t see why; it’s extremely pretty.
PAWNIE: Too unrestrained. Such a bad example for the servants.

Six lines to deliver what? A titter. Almost any modern sitcom you can possibly think of is better written.

Comedy is often triggered by unexpected reversals (such as Wilde’s paradoxes). In the discourse of this play this tone, this superior flippant attitude, is what you very quickly come to expect from the characters and so it comes as no surprise – there are no surprises – all the characters radiate the same smart-alec flippant attitude, with the result that it is all sort-of amusing without ever becoming actually funny.

Coward titled one of his later plays ‘A Talent To Amuse’ which Sheridan Morley then picked up as the title for his biography of Coward, and the phrase perfectly captures the way Coward was consistently amusing but gave few if any belly laughs, the kind of laugh when you are suddenly tricked into delighted hilarity and explode with laughter.

‘The Vortex’ contains a few sort-of bon mots or up-to-a-point words of wisdom – but no really shrewd insights, no real zingers, and so nothing very memorable. This is one of the most quoted insights from the play.

‘The great thing in this world is not to be obvious, Nicky—over anything!’ (Helen to Nicky)

I’m remembering now that maybe I did read some Coward when I was at school and just found him to be a cut-price Wilde, a supermarket Oscar.

(In Philip Hoare’s excellent 1995 biography of Coward I was amused to find that the office of the Censor, the Lord Chamberlain, agreed with me. Its reader, George Street, commented: ‘The theme of this play is grimly serious and painful in an extreme degree. Until the end, however, the atmosphere is that of frivolous people who speak in a tiresome jargon – everything is “too divine” etc – and attempt wit with rather poor results.’ Exactly. (Hoare, p.133) And so did Cecil Beaton. He saw the play on New Year’s Eve 1924 and wrote in his diary: ‘I thought the first act was amusing but very ordinary – it’s so easy to write those flashy remarks that are not absolutely brilliant’: (Hoare, p.137))

Cast

Preston – Florence Lancaster’s female servant

Florence Lancaster – mother to Nicky, about 40: ‘David’s always loved me and never understood me—you see, I’m such an extraordinary mixture. I have so many sides to my character’ — took me a while to realise that she is the ‘vortex’ of the title, everything caught up in her stormy narcissism, :

‘I can’t help having a temperament, can I?’

‘Thank God I’ve got instincts about people.’

David Lancaster – Florence’s husband, Nicky’s father – ‘an elderly gray-haired pleasant man’, manages a farm in the country (actual manager is a man named Peterson); doesn’t like dancing to beastly modern music.

Nicky Lancaster – their son, 24, classical musician, just back from Paris – ‘extremely well-dressed in traveling clothes. He is tall and pale, with thin, nervous hands’ – according to Tom, ‘up in the air—effeminate.’

Helen Saville – friend of Florence, bit critical. At first you think she’s needlessly critical but come to realise she’s a voice of common sense, for both Florence and Nicky. The understander. As she tells Nicky:

‘I’m one of the few people who know what you’re really like, and you won’t give me the credit for it.’

Pauncefort ‘Pauncie’ Quentin – friend of Florence, older and effeminate, camp, bitchy.

Clara Hibbert – friend, soprano i.e singer.

Tom Veryan – Florence’s boyfriend, ‘the very nicest type of Englishman’, in ‘the Brigade’.

Bunty Mainwaring – Nicky’s fiancée – ‘very self-assured and well-dressed. She is more attractive than pretty in a boyish sort of way’.

Bruce Fairlight – dramatist we meet in the second act.

Act 1

The scene is the drawing-room of Mrs Florence Lancaster’s flat in London.

Mrs Lancaster is an upper class lady who has tried her best to remain young at heart while her devoted husband, David, has let himself age.

‘I’m devoted to David—I’d do anything for him, anything in the world—but he’s grown old and I’ve kept young.’

David devotes a lot of energy to running their place in the country and its farm. Florence goes there for the spring and summer, enjoying the tennis parties, local cricket week etc.

Florence still loves London, with its high society parties and first nights at the theatre. And she has taken a young lover, Tom Veryan who is pretty much the same age as David and Florence’s son, Nicky.

The play opens with Florence at home to a rather effeminate male friend her own age, Pauncefort ‘Pauncie’ Quentin, and a woman friend, Helen Saville, ‘a smartly dressed woman of about thirty’.

Pleasant conversation turns a bit nasty when Helen is cynical about the lover, Tom, saying Florence loves him more than he loves Florence. Whereas Florence thinks that she has ‘awakened’ Tom and, as a result, he is devoted to her. Helen thinks he was infatuated but it’s starting to wear off. Florence says Helen is unsympathetic, in fact wonders whether they’re friends at all.

Enter Nicky, Florence and David’s son, a musician, who has been away in Paris. He’s surprising her by arriving a day earlier than he’d said. They chat, Florence shows him the latest photos she’s had done of herself. Narcissism.

They talk about friends then Florence tells Nicky about Tom; explains she and Tom are going out tonight, for dinner and then to see this new play, ‘The New Elaine’, then onto the Embassy (nightclub?). They slightly bicker about the actors in this play, more tiny examples of how Florence hates being contradicted.

Florence puts a record on the gramophone and invites Nicky to dance with her which is, maybe, the first sign of their unorthodox relationship.

Enter David who, seeing Nicky, gives him a hug and a kiss and invites him to his room for a chat (because he can’t stand the gramophone), goes out.

Nicky surprises his mother by announcing that he’s engaged to be married, to a lovely gel named Bunty Mainwaring. She’s come over from Paris with him, staying at her mother’s place round the corner, is going to call by any minute because Nicky wants to introduce them.

It becomes clear that Florence’s main reaction to the news is not that of a detached, objective parent, but of a middle-aged woman trying to hang onto her youth and disconcerted; her son’s engagement with marriage behind, makes her realise she is no longer young.

When Florence says she has to go and dress because Tom is picking her up at 7.30 Nicky replies ‘Damn Tom.’ He is nettled, jealous?

The doorbell rings and Preston the butler shows in Bunty. She is ‘very self-assured and well-dressed’ and ‘more attractive than pretty in a boyish sort of way.’ This boyishness, is it a reference to the play’s gender fluidity or simply reflecting the style of the 1920s was for slender boyish women?

Florence and Bunty shake hands and kiss and gush etc until Florence mentions that she’s going out tonight with Tom Veryan, which makes Bunty start a little. She knows him. Florence shows her a photo on the piano, which confirms it’s the same man. Aha. Do they have a history?

A friend phones for Florence, an Elsa who tells her she’s having a party, and Florence asks if it will be OK to bring Nicky and Bunty. She hands the phone to Nicky and exits to get dressed.

Only in the staged production do you realise how the several phone calls – five in all – add to all the banter in the first act designed to bring out how Florence keeps herself at the centre of her hurricane of activity and socialising.

After a bit of chat with Elsa Nicky ends the call and he and Bunty chat, reminiscing about how they first met. Nicky wishes they could do something romantic like elope. Bunty tells him he has so much temperament, and ‘so much hysteria’, and he agrees that ‘We’re all so hectic and nervy…’

They’re almost arguing when Preston announces Tom Veryan who has arrived to collect Florence. It immediately becomes clear that Tom and Bunty knew each other, at Sandhurst, during the war. Nicky is nettled and Bunty tells him to calm down and has to explain away his ‘nerves’ to Tom. Nonetheless, he announces he’s going to take up his father’s offer of going to his room to chat and so exits.

This leaves Bunty and Tom alone together. He is astonished when Bunty tells him she and Nicky are engaged. Tom doesn’t think Nicky is her sort at all, far too ‘effeminate’.

The butler brings cocktails and Bunty meaningfully says she’s just realised that they’ll both be going down to the Lancaster place in the country for the weekend. And with that, end of Act 1.

Act 2

The scene is the hall of Mrs Lancaster’s country house, about forty miles from London.

The Sunday of the weekend party, after dinner, the gramophone playing and a bunch of house guests. Florence, Helen, Pawnie, Nicky, Tom and Bunty and two new characters: Clara Hibbert, ‘an emaciated soprano’ and ‘Bruce Fairlight, an earnest dramatist, the squalor of whose plays is much appreciated by those who live in comparative luxury.’

Everyone is dancing and talking at once, though we only hear what they’re saying as they dance to the front of the stage. So the effect is a very modernist one of lots of fragments of speech.

We overhear Pawnie and Helen. Helen laments that Florence is so sharp about her husband in front of everyone at dinner. Pawnie calls Bunty ‘at stupid little fool.’

Nicky plays the piano to give the gramophone a break. Helen sits next to him on the stool and reaches into his pocket to find cigarettes. When she draws out a little box he leaps up and over-reacts, shouting, making everyone momentarily stop.

Moments later Florence is telling Tom off for dancing so badly, he tells her not to nag and she stops at once: ‘How dare you speak to me like that?’

Old Pawnie tries to break the tension by suggesting they play a game and after some debate they settle on Mah Jong and Clara, Bruce and Pawnie exit. But others are still bickering. Florence accuses Tom of being ‘exceedingly rude’ to her at dinner, which is revealed to be jealousy of when he talks to other women, and paranoiacally claiming that ‘everyone’ is setting him against her.

They manage to recover, he tells her her dress suits her, she forgives him, they remember first meeting at Oxford. But when she invites him to another theatre first night he says he can’t come, and hesitatingly says he’s promised to dine with his mother.

David enters and Tom makes the excuse of wanting to see how the others are getting on, to exit. Uneasy conversation with David then he exits and Nicky comes in to find his mother with her head in her hands.

Florence is temperamental, changeable, paranoid, unhappy. She tells Nicky to tell Bunty to stop contradicting her. He finds her unbearable, they argue, she storms off.

Enter Helen, the voice of reason. Slow beginning builds to her saying she realises that he takes drugs. He furiously denies it, she tells him to give it up, he says he only takes it once in a blue moon, but they’re interrupted by Nicky’s harmless old dad entering. When he asks why their voices were raised, Nicky says:

‘Helen and I have just had a grand heart-to-heart talk; we’ve undone our back hair, loosened our stays and wallowed in it.’

This is a good example of what I mean about the thinness of the play’s comedy. It’s not a joke, it’s not very funny. What it is capturing the exaggerated, mock heroic, over-dramatic pose of all the characters and by extension, of this class.

His Dad kindly asks after his health, says he looks worried, invites him to come down and stay quietly in the country and Nicky takes him up on it. David goes to bed and Nicky sits tinkling at the piano (remember all the other characters are in the other room playing games).

Bunty emerges and tells him she thinks the engagement should be broken off. She thinks it’s silly. She thinks he doesn’t love her. They argue about Florence who Bunty says hates her but Nicky insists that deep down she’s marvellous ‘in spite of everything’. He gives the longest speech in the play so far about how ghastly it must be to grow old, but Bunty thinks he’s being sentimental, maybe also unnerved by the depth of worship of his mother he reveals.

At this point their argument is broken up by Clara and Bruce entering from the back room where they’ve been playing Mah-jong, and then all the others including Florence who appears drunk. Nicky, mortally upset, listens to all their stupid banter until someone asks him to make the gramophone slower and he turns it down to crawling pace, makes some bitter remarks and storms out.

The others are all commenting on this when Bunty steps forward to explain that she’s broken off the engagement. That puts the dampeners on everything and the others all declare themselves tired and head off for bed, leaving just Tom and Bunty. Aha.

They clearly have some understanding. Tom knew she was going to break it off. They both agree they hate the atmosphere in the house and can’t wait to get away. He didn’t realise how much he hated it till she arrived, and she didn’t realise she didn’t really like Nicky till Tom arrived. They have triggered each other.

But he is ahead of her in his dislike of the Lancasters. Also he’s a dim soldier. He says Bunty is worth ten Nickys, how he’s useless, can’t play games, can’t be funny. Bunty tells him to stop then bursts into tears. He holds her then passionately kisses her.

It is, of course, at this moment that Florence has appeared on the gallery above leading to the stairs down to the lounge. She calls Tom’s name and demands to know what this means. Tom apologises but says he loves Bunty. Florence is outraged, tells Bunty to leave her house immediately – she says it’s too late and goes upstairs to bed.

At this point Nicky bursts in wondering what all the shouting is about and concerned that someone is hurt. He doesn’t understand why his mother is so furious but as the arguing continues sits at his safe space, the piano, and plays classical music while Florence has a massive showdown with Tom, you don’t know what love is, you lied to me all these months, get out of my sight etc while Nicky plays, rather madly, through it all.

Act 3

The scene is Florence’s bedroom 2 hours later the same night.

Florence is lying on her bed crying her eyes out, ‘I wish I were dead’ etc. Helen, the voice of reason, is with her, trying to comfort her. This goes on for some time, as Florence finally gets up, goes to her dressing table, sprays on some perfume. When Helen goes to the window she joins her and they admire the view.

Helen shrewdly points out that Florence is draping her feelings in her usual ‘worthless attitude of mind’. Nicky knocks and enters and Helen is relieved to get away.

There follows Florence and Nicky’s big scene. Nicky wants to know the truth about his mother’s life and reveals himself to be pretty dim when he says Tom Veryan has been her lover. She goes mad, wailing and begging him to stop. The reader/audience wonders what all the fuss is about – of course Tom was her lover!

Nicky makes a big claim that they’ve arrived at a crisis of their lives, and need to face it. He says he’s noticed lots of things about her but always suppressed them, heard lots of slander about her but always denied it etc.

The melodrama detector goes off the scale as Nicky warns that if they’re not careful something terrible might happen? What exactly? Finally, Nicky bullies Florence into admitting that Tom was her lover. And there were others before him. She’s in tears, he’s yelling. But she pleads that she’s different from other women, she has a ‘temperament’. But he says that’s just self-serving flannel.

‘You’re deceiving yourself—your temperament’s no different from thousands of other women, but you’ve been weak and selfish and given way all along the line—’

He blames her for the fact he’s ‘grown up all wrong’ and it’s all her fault. When she claims she’s provided him with a safe home he laughs bitterly and says it’s just a den for her endless amusements and distractions.

‘You’ve given me nothing all my life—nothing that counts.’

He in turn says that finding out about her philandering has all been a great shock (really?), but now he knows the truth he ‘means to get it right’. The speeches suddenly become substantial.

I’m not angry a bit. I realize that I’m living in a world where things like this happen—and they’ve got to be faced and given the right value. If only I’d had the courage to realize everything before—it wouldn’t be so bad now. It’s the sudden shock that’s thrown the whole thing out of focus for me—but I mean to get it right. Please help me!

You’ve wanted love always—passionate love, because you were made like that. It’s not your fault—it’s the fault of circumstances and civilization; civilization makes rottenness so much easier. We’re utterly rotten—both of us——

How can we help ourselves? We swirl about in a vortex of beastliness. This is a chance—don’t you see—to realize the truth—our only chance.

He accuses her of narcissism and delivers some withering home truths:

‘It isn’t that you love him—that would be easier—you never love anyone, you only love them loving you—all your so-called passion and temperament is false—your whole existence had degenerated into an endless empty craving for admiration and flattery.’

And then hits her where it really hurts: pointing out that she is no longer young or beautiful but a painted lady with fake blonde hair. She collapses and says she can’t bear it any more and tells him to leave.

At which point he produces the little box and confesses that he takes drugs. He doesn’t even specify which ones though everyone assumes the little box has cocaine in it. Florence hysterically over-reacts, as if it’s the end of the world. She tosses the box out the window and warns him to stop taking drugs now, at which he breaks down in terrible tears and begs her to be different, begs her to be his mother for the first time in his life. And they find themselves in an embrace, telling each other they love each other. He has become her little boy again as she calms and comforts him, stroking his hair. And that’s their position as the curtain comes down.

Thoughts

And this was the hit which made Coward’s name, his breakthrough work which led theatres to reconsider earlier plays he’d submitted and had rejected? Wow. I watched the Granada TV production (see below) and was embarrassed for all concerned. Fancy having to make a living performing rubbish like this! What a mad farrago of over-wrought melodrama.

Maybe it has Freudian, Oedipal undertones. Maybe the portrayal of a boozy washed-up adulterous alcoholic mother defied all the moral values of the older generation. Maybe it was shocking to make one of the characters a cocaine addict (if that’s what Nicky truly is). Maybe, as I’ve read in numerous places, the entire schtick of Nicky’s cocaine addiction was in fact a metaphor for Nicky’s homosexuality. Yes, I’m sure articles and reviews can be written to expand on these obvious interpretations at tedious length.

But the actual experience of either reading or watching ‘The Vortex’ is to submit to a farrago or overwrought tripe! My heart was with Tom and Bunty. Pack up and leave this house of madness and go and live happy well-adjusted lives together somewhere else, anywhere else.

Michael Arlen

The Wikipedia article tells us that most West End theatre managers considered the subject matter too controversial to handle and so Coward:

abandoned attempts to convince West End managements, and arranged to stage the play at the Everyman Theatre, Hampstead, a fringe venue in north London. When the money for the production threatened to run out during rehearsals, Coward secured the necessary funding from his friend the author Michael Arlen.

Arlen had had a tremendous success earlier the same year (1924) with his bestselling novel The Green Hat, which is also about the scandalous goings-on of the upper classes, and which also contains references to cocaine. The difference in the two works is instructive. Arlen’s novel builds to an equally if not more melodramatic climax than the Coward play but, before it gets there, it contains numerous vivid and brilliant sentences, and is often very funny. It also takes a relaxed and humorous attitude to drugs:

She never saw her parents, she would say, because of a funny idea they had that it was bad for her health to take cocaine on an empty stomach. (The Green Hat, chapter 7)

Coward has neither of these attributes; neither really well-turned phrases nor real humour. Just a snappily modish attitude which, during the first two acts often makes you smile, but which in the final act degenerates into hysteria.

Cocaine

I’m still reeling from Florence’s hysterical over-reaction to Nicky’s production of his little box of drugs in fact to the issue of drugs in the play. Whenever you read about it, on the cover, in online summaries, in reviews of productions, they often refer to it as a daring play about drug addiction, but it simply isn’t. It’s a play about two hysterically self-involved narcissists. The cocaine connection – if indeed it is cocaine – is peripheral to the hysterical accusations which mother and son fling at each other in the final act. It is emphatically not a work about drug addiction, but in which the cocaine thing seems bolted on as a transitory extra.

And why the hysterical over-reaction? In his long, detailed and extremely enjoyable biography of Coward, Philip Hoare makes two points: 1) cocaine and heroin use was surprisingly common in the theatrical-arty-Bohemian circles Coward moved in in the early 1920s, and had leaked out into parts of wider society. So much so that an author like Michael Arlen could conisder it a subject for jokes (see above) rather than hysterical over-reaction.

2) And The Vortex wasn’t even the first play to address the subject. The sensational death from a drug overdose of the starlet Billie Carleton in 1918 was not only front page news in all the newspaper, and triggered a moral panic about drugs, but also a little wave of plays including Dope by Frank Price, Drug Fiends by Owen Jones, and The Girl Who Took Drugs by Aimée Grattan-Clyndes (Hoare, p.75).

1964 Granada TV production

This production comes with an affable introduction by Coward himself in which he makes clear how transformative this, his breakthrough play, was for the young actor and playwright. It also demonstrates what I’ve realised, that nothing he says is particularly funny in and of itself, in fact some of it would sound sad if voiced by a normal person. What is funny is his entire attitude, the wonderfully flippant persona he invented, the verbal trills and flourishes which make everything he says amusing, because of the way he says it, and his droll attitude towards himself, the theatre, the whole world. The works are a triumph of attitude over content.

Philip Hoare’s view

In his biography Philip Hoare writes:

The Vortex is simplistic, naive and shallow but it is also entertaining and well written, albeit with the facility and brilliance of effect which often disguise a slight work. The play also evinced his increasing economy of language which, as with Hay Fever, he had come to recognise as essential. It was a reaction, whether conscious or not, against the flowery, polysyllabic language of the previous generation. Verbose Edwardian and Victorian speech and prose had been replaced by short abbreviations. 1920s slang worked on such principles (the dialect of youth, to confuse the elders) and Coward assimiliated it. The result was a dramatic language drawing on Wilde, Pinero and Shaw, but his own. Noel had found his voice, one which became recognisable as ‘Cowardian’. (Noel Coward: A Biography by Philip Hoare, page 131)

As usual with Hoare, good interesting points. It was the discovery of the voice which mattered, not the ludicrously over-the-top subject matter. And yet, for all that it appears a strange combination of under-cooked comedy in the first two acts, topped off with ridiculous melodrama in the third, it defined the era.

For the younger generation, the 1920s was a period of neurosis; lthey saw a foreshortened future and the search for new sensation – whether through dancing (as new and faster steps succeeded one another), alcohol (ever nore sophisticated cocktails) or drugs – induced a frenzied hedonism in poor little rich girls and boys for whom ‘the craze for pleasure’ steadily grew. The Vortex is more than a nod at this culture; it defined it. (p.130)

That’s the point. There had been previous plays on the subject of drugs or Oedipal themes. The nervy, thin, wired over-the-topness of The Vortex, the very qualities that make it seem ludicrous today, were the qualities which touched umpteen nerves at the time and propelled Coward to fame and notoriety, as the authors of works which crystallise the feel and anxieties of their time so often do. Overnight it became the talk of the town. Everyone claimed to have been at the first night (24 November 1924) or to have attended the after-show party. He had arrived.

Meeting the Lord Chamberlain

Hoare recounts the amusing story that the Lord Chamberlain’s office was on the verge of not giving the play a licence to be performed but when Coward heard about it he insisted on a face-to-face meeting with the Lord Chamberlain (Lord Cromer), where he gave a reading of key scenes and explained that the play delivers an extremely moral message: both the dissolute mother and the drug addict son are shown to be utter wrecks. In fact claimed it was ‘little more than a noral tract’.


Related links

Related reviews