The one catch with this Rattigan play is that its so famous I actually do remember the plot - young boy returns from naval college having been expelled for stealing a five shilling postal order and father hires most prominent barrister of his day to defend him. I knew that without ever seeing the play. But I am glad I did see it. The play is more than a morality play from a bygone era where reputation meant everything (and how bygone can you get - 5 shillings? And a postal order? From a different era.)
But there is plenty more to conjure with. How far do you go to defend what is right? The father nearly ruins his family, his eldest feckless son loses the end of his Oxford career, his slightly dippy maid may have to be let go. If it hadn't gone to the courts no-one who mattered would ever have known about the incident. Letter writers (and the Government) take the view that their time should not be wasted on such an incident - a distraction from affairs of State. The latter is quite redolent now when the Government is taken to task for matters which aren't to do with the economy as being a distraction. But of course, the defenders are just as much distracting as are the proponents - its just a way of justifying the indefensible. And while doing the right thing isn't always right - one must keep a sense of proportion - but on the other hand if one always gives in when faced with great odds well then determined wrong will always win, to the general detriment. So what makes this play so good is the way a small matter becomes a metaphor for larger ones.
It is all played out on a domestic scale and to a different, distant social background. The Winslow boy's sister is a suffragette, and her marriage is called off because of the disapproval of her fiancé's father, and the lack of a dowry. All as a result of pursuing the case. I also liked the non-modern ending. Left-leaning suffragette sister and right-leaning libertarian barrister part with mutual respect. If this was a Hollywood story they would have fallen in love and married.
No very high profile actors, but well-acted nonetheless. Not so sure about the lad who played the boy, mostly because he is a tall 16 year-old and just doesn't convince as timid innocent 13 year old.
Also a lesson in the travails of being a lawyer. We should have been a party of four for this, but in the end two were stuck at work. You almost need to be a lawyer to afford the ticket prices these days, and then you can't afford the time!
No comments:
Post a Comment