|
|
Film of the week:
The Boy's back in town
There's a Wildean sub-text and shades of
Dreyfus... but is The Winslow Boy just a
good, old-fashioned play?
by Philip French, Sunday October 31, 1999. The Guardian.
Surprise has been expressed over David Mamet
wanting to make a movie of Terence Rattigan's
decorous The Winslow Boy as if he were some
roughneck seeking to be put up for the Athenaeum.
But, like his mentor Harold Pinter, Mamet has long
since cast off his early reputation as a chronicler of
low-life and demonstrated his interest in, and ability to
deal with, a wide range of themes and characters.
In fact, his decision to film The Winslow Boy is not
unlike Pinter's to direct No�l Coward's Blithe Spirit at
the National Theatre. It's a matter of respect for craft
and recognition of affinities. One is reminded of Jorge
Luis Borges's observation in his essay 'Kafka and his
Precursors': 'The fact is that each writer creates his
precursors. His work modifies our conception of the
past, as it will modify the future.'
First performed in 1946, The Winslow Boy saw
Rattigan, hitherto associated with light comedy,
engaging with serious social themes by fictionalising
the true-life Archer-Shee case. And like most of his
plays (chief exceptions being his large-scale works
about ambiguous gay heroes, Alexander the Great in
Adventure Story and T.E. Lawrence in Ross ), it takes
place on a single set, the Kensington drawing-room of
Arthur Winslow, a prosperous 60-year-old banking
executive, in the years immediately before World War
One. Winslow, subtly impersonated by Nigel
Hawthorne, is at the beginning a complacent
patriarch, a wry humourist who speaks in terms of
heavy irony. Punctilious in his use of language, he
constantly interrogates others, but he lives in a world
where people proceed by indirection, hardly ever
saying precisely what they mean.
On the point of retirement, he has his life that seems
near to perfection - his pretty, competent, conventional
wife (Gemma Jones) organises the household, his
elder son Dickie is at Oxford, his younger son Ronnie
is a cadet at the Osborne Naval College, his daughter
Caterine (Rebecca Pidgeon), an outspoken
suffragette, is shortly to marry an officer in the
Household Cavalry.
His only worry is that Dickie, the feckless charmer,
won't get into the Civil Service, but Winslow will find
him a job in the bank, and anyway, the beloved
14-year-old Ronnie will uphold the family name in the
Navy.
Then Ronnie is falsely accused of stealing a
10-shilling postal order and dismissed from Osborne
by the Admiralty authorities, and the stability of the
Winslows is threatened when Arthur sets out to
vindicate his son by taking on the Establishment. The
case becomes a cause c�l�bre , and an expensive
one. The press make Ronnie the centre of notoriety;
Dickie has to leave Oxford; Catherine's stuffy fianc�
breaks off the engagement because of the scandal
and her disappearing dowry; Mrs Winslow finds it
difficult to make ends meet. Catherine makes
common cause with Arthur because she feels British
society is inherently unjust.
But why is Arthur doing this - pride, family honour,
stubbornness, a sense of justice, a need to be
accepted? And in addition to ruining his own health,
what right has Winslow to sacrifice his nearest and
dearest in pursuit of this crusade?
There are elements of the near contemporaneous
Dreyfus Affair in the Winslow story, and the case even
has its Emile Zola in the form of the great politician
and barrister, Sir Robert Morton MP (Jeremy
Northam), who agrees to represent the Winslows. But
Dreyfus was sent to Devil's Island and the case
exposed the fissures of a nation; Ronnie Winslow just
goes to another school.
There is another way this story could have been told -
by returning to the original facts of the Archer-Shee
case, in which the family was Catholic, the story
began in 1908, the older brother a Tory MP and the
sister a Conservative. The politics and larger social
dimensions might thus have been brought out.
Mamet, however, realises that the combination of
cosiness and claustrophobia is part of the play's
meaning and appeal. The strengths and concomitant
weaknesses reside in its form as an old-fashioned
'well-made play'. Only rarely does his film leave the
Winslows' home, usually unnecessarily and never to
visit the dramatic events in the law courts, which are
laboriously reported in a succession of set speeches.
The Winslow Boy is a domestic drama that not only
deals with the tensions and unspoken conflicts within
a family, but offers that family as a metaphor for British
society at large. It is a period piece both in being
about a society on the brink of undergoing the
cataclysm of World War One, and in being written
when Britain, probably for the last time, might have
been viewed as a homogeneous family, and one that
had survived and been strengthened by the
experience of the Second World War.
Most of the words are from the original text, but
Mamet writes pastiche Rattigan dialogue that is as
convincing as Alaric Jans's pastiche Elgar-Vaughan
Williams score. He makes us look again at Rattigan's
structure and at his language, and there's something
else he brings out, which is the echoes of Wilde.
Fresh from appearing as Sir Robert Chiltern in the film
of An Ideal Husband , Jeremy Northam plays Morton
as a Wildean dandy, handling the epigraphs with the
style of a performer. This is clearly what Rattigan
wanted - his stage directions for Morton's first
appearance state: 'He looks rather a fop, and his
supercilious expression bears out this view.' Now the
model for Morton was anything but a supercilious fop.
He was Sir Edward Carson, the great Ulster politician
and advocate. As counsel for the Marquess of
Queensberry, he destroyed Oscar Wilde, his old
Trinity College, Dublin, contemporary, in the 1895 libel
case that led to Wilde's downfall. Was the gay
Rattigan making a point here?
|