Friday, November 05, 2010
The Winslow Boy - Spring 2011
The Winslow Boy by Terrence Rattigan was written in 1946 and is set over a two-year period from 1912 (the year that the Titanic sank) to 1914 (just before WW1). It is based upon a true story which actually happened a couple of years before this. The play was later made into a famous film, starring Robert Donat as Sir Robert Morton KC, Sir Cedric Hardwicke as Arthur Winslow, and Margaret Leighton as Catherine Winslow. Another film version was made in 1999, directed by David Mamet, and starring Nigel Hawthorne and Jeremy Northam as Arthur Winslow and Morton respectively, and Rebecca Pidgeon as Catherine. (You can watch a 10-minute extract of this version at www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRQbflNb1M4) The play has also been adapted for television, including a 1990 version starring Gordon Jackson as Arthur Winslow, Ian Richardson as Morton and Emma Thompson as Catherine.
More recently (2009) it was revived at The Rose Theatre, Guilford, starring Timothy West amongst others. Michael Billington’s review of this production is included in these notes.
Background
Set against the strict codes of conduct and manners of the age, The Winslow Boy is based on a father's fight to clear his son's name after the boy is expelled from Osborne Naval College for stealing a five-shilling postal order. The play was inspired by an actual event, which set a legal precedent: the case George Archer-Shee, a cadet at Osborne in 1908, who was accused of stealing a postal order from a fellow cadet. The most respected barrister of the day, Sir Edward Carson was persuaded of his innocence by the family, and insisted on the case coming to court. On the fourth day of the trial, the Solicitor General accepted that Archer-Shee was innocent, and ultimately the family was paid compensation.
In this dramatised version, however, the cost of the “success” is immense both financially and in many other ways. Was it worth it? The audience is left to decide.
Plot Ronnie Winslow, a thirteen-year-old cadet at the Royal Naval College, is accused of the theft of a five-shilling postal order. An internal enquiry, conducted without notice to his family and without benefit of representation, finds him guilty, and his father, Arthur Winslow, is "requested to withdraw" his son from the college (the formula of the day for expulsion). Winslow believes Ronnie's claim of innocence and, with the help of his suffragette daughter Catherine and his friend and family solicitor Desmond Curry, launches a concerted effort to clear Ronnie's name. This is no small matter, as under British law, Admiralty decisions are official acts of the government, which cannot be sued without its consent—traditionally expressed by the Attorney General responding to a petition of right with the formula "Let right be done". The Winslows succeed in engaging the most highly sought after barrister in England at the time, Sir Robert Morton, known also to be a shrewd opposition Member of Parliament. Catherine had expected Sir Robert to decline the case, or at best to treat it as a political football; instead, he is coolly matter-of-fact about having been persuaded of Ronnie's innocence by his responses to questioning (in fact, a form of cross-examination, to see how young Ronnie would hold up in court) in the presence of his family. Catherine remains unconvinced of Sir Robert's sincerity, perhaps not least because of his record of opposition to the cause of women's suffrage, but also due to his dispassionate manner in the midst of the Winslow family's financial sacrifices.
The government is strongly disinclined to allow the case to proceed, claiming that it is a distraction from pressing Admiralty business; but in the face of public sympathy garnered through Winslow and Catherine's efforts, and of Sir Robert's impassioned speech on the verge of defeat in the Commons, the government yields, and the case is allowed to come to court. At trial, Sir Robert (working together with Desmond Curry and his firm) is able to discredit much of the supposed evidence. The Admiralty, certainly embarrassed and presumably no longer confident of Ronnie's guilt, abruptly withdraws all charges against him, proclaiming him entirely innocent.
Although the family has won the case at law and lifted the cloud over Ronnie, it has taken its toll on the rest. His father's physical health has deteriorated under the strain, as to some degree has the happiness of the Winslows' home. The costs of the suit and the publicity campaign have eaten up his older brother Dickie's Oxford tuition, and hence his chance at a career in the Civil Service, as well as Catherine's marriage settlement. Her fiancé John Watherstone has broken off the engagement in the face of opposition from his father (an Army Colonel), forcing her to consider a sincere and well-intentioned offer of marriage from Desmond, whom she does not love. Sir Robert has also declined appointment as Lord Chief Justice, rather than drop the case. However, the play ends with a suggestion that romance may yet blossom between Sir Robert and Catherine, who acknowledges that she has misjudged him all along.
Michael Billington’s review (The Rose, Kingston, 2009)
Terence Rattigan was a famous victim of the Royal Court revolution. But his best work, as Stephen Unwin's production of this 1946 play triumphantly proves, lives on through its mixture of traditional form and progressive ideals. It was very moving to hear an audience, in these supposedly cynical times, cheering on a play about the pursuit of justice.
You can gauge Rattigan's skill from the crucial changes he made to the case that inspired his play. George Archer-Shee was a naval cadet expelled from college for allegedly having stolen a postal order. The 14-year-old Ronnie Winslow is in exactly the same position; and, believing in his innocence, his father hires a distinguished lawyer, Sir Robert Morton, to bring the case to the Commons and challenge the Admiralty's right to block legal proceedings. In real life, Archer-Shee's MP brother and Sir Edward Carson prosecuted the case for purely political reasons. In the play, both Ronnie's father and Morton are driven, at great cost to themselves, by a passionate belief in abstract principles. It is that change of motive that gives the play classic status.
What is also fascinating is how much information Rattigan manages to pack in. He gives us a state-of-the-nation play about the battle between the individual conscience and an entrenched establishment. Setting the action just before the 1914-18 war, he shows middle-class society on the eve of disintegration.
Above all, Rattigan pursues his obsessive theme of the inequality of passion. The pivotal figure, in this respect, is Ronnie's suffragette sister, Catherine. Though she ultimately sacrifices her fiancé to the family cause, she loves him far more than he does her; and Catherine, in turn, is doted on by an ex-cricketer haunted by memories of past glory. Whatever justice there may be in the world, Rattigan suggests, there is none in matters of the heart.
Unwin's production gets all this across and is acted with superlative finesse. The showcase role is that of Sir Robert Morton, whom Adrian Lukis invests with just the right mix of supercilious languor and inner radicalism, implying the role might almost be a portrait of Rattigan. Timothy West admirably shows that Arthur Winslow's caustic wit and patriarchal sternness conceal an implacable determination that right be done. And there is fine support from Claire Cox as Ronnie's militant sister, Diane Fletcher as his protective mother and Roger May as the discarded cricketer. But what the evening buoyantly confirms is that Rattigan, while always claimed by the right wing of British theatre, was instinctively a man of the left.
The characters
The Winslow family is a middle / upper middle class family living in a large house in South Kensington.
Ronnie Winslow (The Winslow Boy)
Ronnie is nearly 14 as the play opens (and almost 16 at its close). He is (or rather was!) a student at Osborne Naval (Boarding) School. Although a very confident young man, we do sometimes see the “little boy”, especially at the beginning.
Arthur Winslow (his father)
Arthur is a man of about 60, “ with a rather deliberately cultured patriarchal air”. Totally persuaded by his son’s innocence, he becomes almost obsessed with the task of publicly proving this.
Grace Winslow (his mother)
Grace is about 50, and “has the faded remnants of prettiness”. Whilst no less certain of her son’s innocence, she is, well certainly becomes, less sure than her husband and daughter that the cost of proving this to the world is worth the effect it is having on the family.
Catherine Winslow (his sister)
Catherine is approaching 30 and “has an air of masculinity about her which is at odd variance with her mother’s intense femininity”. However, the femininity should not be completely hidden, she has two suitors in the play, and at the end, there is a definite implication that she and Sir Robert Morton may well develop a relationship - there is certainly a certain je ne sais pas between them. She is a suffragette and is the driving force in bringing the case to court - especially as Arthur’s health begins to deteriorate. Arguably the central role in the play.
Dickie Winslow (his brother)
Dickie is an undergraduate at Oxford, and should be around 19. He is described as “large, noisy & cheerful”, although the “large” element is not particularly important. He is what we think of as typical middle class young man of that time - selfish, preferring music & dancing to studying & work and is oblivious as to where the money comes from to pay for his education and general life-style. In spite of all this, he does remain a likeable character
Violet (the maid)
Violet is described as ”elderly”. She doesn’t have to be very old, but she has been with the family for very many years and has a close relationship with Ronnie. Also, as part of the cost-cutting which becomes necessary Arthur & Grace discuss firing her - but are loath to do so as they fear she would not get another post at her age. This is no walk-on role, she is an important character.
John Watherstone (Catherine’s fiancé)
John is a man of about 30 and is a subaltern in the army. His army income is supported by an allowance from his relatively well-off father. It is said that Catherine loves him far more than he loves her. This love becomes very severely tested as the play progresses.
Desmond Curry (the family solicitor)
Desmond is a man of about 45, “with the figure of an athlete gone to seed. He has a mildly furtive manner”. A bit boring, but very much in love with Catherine; a love which is not reciprocated.
Sir Robert Morton (barrister and M.P.)
Sir Robert is in his early 40s and is “tall, thin, cadaverous and immensely elegant”. The elegant quality being more important than the cadaverousness! This is a guy who mixes with the very top of society, even royalty. He is an ambitious politician and the country’s leading (& horrendously expensive) barrister.
Miss Barnes (a journalist)
“A rather untidily dressed woman of about 40 with a gushing manner”. A small part - only a few pages.
Fred (a photographer)
A “listless” chap of indeterminate age. Only has about 3 lines - plus takes a photo
More recently (2009) it was revived at The Rose Theatre, Guilford, starring Timothy West amongst others. Michael Billington’s review of this production is included in these notes.
Background
Set against the strict codes of conduct and manners of the age, The Winslow Boy is based on a father's fight to clear his son's name after the boy is expelled from Osborne Naval College for stealing a five-shilling postal order. The play was inspired by an actual event, which set a legal precedent: the case George Archer-Shee, a cadet at Osborne in 1908, who was accused of stealing a postal order from a fellow cadet. The most respected barrister of the day, Sir Edward Carson was persuaded of his innocence by the family, and insisted on the case coming to court. On the fourth day of the trial, the Solicitor General accepted that Archer-Shee was innocent, and ultimately the family was paid compensation.
In this dramatised version, however, the cost of the “success” is immense both financially and in many other ways. Was it worth it? The audience is left to decide.
Plot Ronnie Winslow, a thirteen-year-old cadet at the Royal Naval College, is accused of the theft of a five-shilling postal order. An internal enquiry, conducted without notice to his family and without benefit of representation, finds him guilty, and his father, Arthur Winslow, is "requested to withdraw" his son from the college (the formula of the day for expulsion). Winslow believes Ronnie's claim of innocence and, with the help of his suffragette daughter Catherine and his friend and family solicitor Desmond Curry, launches a concerted effort to clear Ronnie's name. This is no small matter, as under British law, Admiralty decisions are official acts of the government, which cannot be sued without its consent—traditionally expressed by the Attorney General responding to a petition of right with the formula "Let right be done". The Winslows succeed in engaging the most highly sought after barrister in England at the time, Sir Robert Morton, known also to be a shrewd opposition Member of Parliament. Catherine had expected Sir Robert to decline the case, or at best to treat it as a political football; instead, he is coolly matter-of-fact about having been persuaded of Ronnie's innocence by his responses to questioning (in fact, a form of cross-examination, to see how young Ronnie would hold up in court) in the presence of his family. Catherine remains unconvinced of Sir Robert's sincerity, perhaps not least because of his record of opposition to the cause of women's suffrage, but also due to his dispassionate manner in the midst of the Winslow family's financial sacrifices.
The government is strongly disinclined to allow the case to proceed, claiming that it is a distraction from pressing Admiralty business; but in the face of public sympathy garnered through Winslow and Catherine's efforts, and of Sir Robert's impassioned speech on the verge of defeat in the Commons, the government yields, and the case is allowed to come to court. At trial, Sir Robert (working together with Desmond Curry and his firm) is able to discredit much of the supposed evidence. The Admiralty, certainly embarrassed and presumably no longer confident of Ronnie's guilt, abruptly withdraws all charges against him, proclaiming him entirely innocent.
Although the family has won the case at law and lifted the cloud over Ronnie, it has taken its toll on the rest. His father's physical health has deteriorated under the strain, as to some degree has the happiness of the Winslows' home. The costs of the suit and the publicity campaign have eaten up his older brother Dickie's Oxford tuition, and hence his chance at a career in the Civil Service, as well as Catherine's marriage settlement. Her fiancé John Watherstone has broken off the engagement in the face of opposition from his father (an Army Colonel), forcing her to consider a sincere and well-intentioned offer of marriage from Desmond, whom she does not love. Sir Robert has also declined appointment as Lord Chief Justice, rather than drop the case. However, the play ends with a suggestion that romance may yet blossom between Sir Robert and Catherine, who acknowledges that she has misjudged him all along.
Michael Billington’s review (The Rose, Kingston, 2009)
Terence Rattigan was a famous victim of the Royal Court revolution. But his best work, as Stephen Unwin's production of this 1946 play triumphantly proves, lives on through its mixture of traditional form and progressive ideals. It was very moving to hear an audience, in these supposedly cynical times, cheering on a play about the pursuit of justice.
You can gauge Rattigan's skill from the crucial changes he made to the case that inspired his play. George Archer-Shee was a naval cadet expelled from college for allegedly having stolen a postal order. The 14-year-old Ronnie Winslow is in exactly the same position; and, believing in his innocence, his father hires a distinguished lawyer, Sir Robert Morton, to bring the case to the Commons and challenge the Admiralty's right to block legal proceedings. In real life, Archer-Shee's MP brother and Sir Edward Carson prosecuted the case for purely political reasons. In the play, both Ronnie's father and Morton are driven, at great cost to themselves, by a passionate belief in abstract principles. It is that change of motive that gives the play classic status.
What is also fascinating is how much information Rattigan manages to pack in. He gives us a state-of-the-nation play about the battle between the individual conscience and an entrenched establishment. Setting the action just before the 1914-18 war, he shows middle-class society on the eve of disintegration.
Above all, Rattigan pursues his obsessive theme of the inequality of passion. The pivotal figure, in this respect, is Ronnie's suffragette sister, Catherine. Though she ultimately sacrifices her fiancé to the family cause, she loves him far more than he does her; and Catherine, in turn, is doted on by an ex-cricketer haunted by memories of past glory. Whatever justice there may be in the world, Rattigan suggests, there is none in matters of the heart.
Unwin's production gets all this across and is acted with superlative finesse. The showcase role is that of Sir Robert Morton, whom Adrian Lukis invests with just the right mix of supercilious languor and inner radicalism, implying the role might almost be a portrait of Rattigan. Timothy West admirably shows that Arthur Winslow's caustic wit and patriarchal sternness conceal an implacable determination that right be done. And there is fine support from Claire Cox as Ronnie's militant sister, Diane Fletcher as his protective mother and Roger May as the discarded cricketer. But what the evening buoyantly confirms is that Rattigan, while always claimed by the right wing of British theatre, was instinctively a man of the left.
The characters
The Winslow family is a middle / upper middle class family living in a large house in South Kensington.
Ronnie Winslow (The Winslow Boy)
Ronnie is nearly 14 as the play opens (and almost 16 at its close). He is (or rather was!) a student at Osborne Naval (Boarding) School. Although a very confident young man, we do sometimes see the “little boy”, especially at the beginning.
Arthur Winslow (his father)
Arthur is a man of about 60, “ with a rather deliberately cultured patriarchal air”. Totally persuaded by his son’s innocence, he becomes almost obsessed with the task of publicly proving this.
Grace Winslow (his mother)
Grace is about 50, and “has the faded remnants of prettiness”. Whilst no less certain of her son’s innocence, she is, well certainly becomes, less sure than her husband and daughter that the cost of proving this to the world is worth the effect it is having on the family.
Catherine Winslow (his sister)
Catherine is approaching 30 and “has an air of masculinity about her which is at odd variance with her mother’s intense femininity”. However, the femininity should not be completely hidden, she has two suitors in the play, and at the end, there is a definite implication that she and Sir Robert Morton may well develop a relationship - there is certainly a certain je ne sais pas between them. She is a suffragette and is the driving force in bringing the case to court - especially as Arthur’s health begins to deteriorate. Arguably the central role in the play.
Dickie Winslow (his brother)
Dickie is an undergraduate at Oxford, and should be around 19. He is described as “large, noisy & cheerful”, although the “large” element is not particularly important. He is what we think of as typical middle class young man of that time - selfish, preferring music & dancing to studying & work and is oblivious as to where the money comes from to pay for his education and general life-style. In spite of all this, he does remain a likeable character
Violet (the maid)
Violet is described as ”elderly”. She doesn’t have to be very old, but she has been with the family for very many years and has a close relationship with Ronnie. Also, as part of the cost-cutting which becomes necessary Arthur & Grace discuss firing her - but are loath to do so as they fear she would not get another post at her age. This is no walk-on role, she is an important character.
John Watherstone (Catherine’s fiancé)
John is a man of about 30 and is a subaltern in the army. His army income is supported by an allowance from his relatively well-off father. It is said that Catherine loves him far more than he loves her. This love becomes very severely tested as the play progresses.
Desmond Curry (the family solicitor)
Desmond is a man of about 45, “with the figure of an athlete gone to seed. He has a mildly furtive manner”. A bit boring, but very much in love with Catherine; a love which is not reciprocated.
Sir Robert Morton (barrister and M.P.)
Sir Robert is in his early 40s and is “tall, thin, cadaverous and immensely elegant”. The elegant quality being more important than the cadaverousness! This is a guy who mixes with the very top of society, even royalty. He is an ambitious politician and the country’s leading (& horrendously expensive) barrister.
Miss Barnes (a journalist)
“A rather untidily dressed woman of about 40 with a gushing manner”. A small part - only a few pages.
Fred (a photographer)
A “listless” chap of indeterminate age. Only has about 3 lines - plus takes a photo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)