|
|
The Boy's back
in town
Philip French, Observer, October 31 1999
There's a Wildean sub-text
and shades of Dreyfus...
but is The Winslow Boy just
a good, old-fashioned play?
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 lithe 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?
Review � 1999 The Observer. All Rights Reserved.
|