Currently playing at the Theatre Royal Haymarket, the Rattigan revival Flare Path is an enjoyable piece of mainstream theatre. This was my first Rattigan play and, given my previously stated affinity for Tennessee Williams, I was curious to see the work of his British counterpart (in age at least). The differences were striking, although of course not solely attributable to geography.
Flare Path treads fairly familiar ground: Teddy, an RAF pilot struggling to come to terms with fighting a war; his wife Patricia, the result of a whirlwind war-time romance, who doesn’t really know him very well; his wife’s ex-lover who wants her back. The secrets and complications are expressed with reserve, very British, I suppose you could say, and it is a credit to the cast that the emotion was engrossing throughout, despite the generally subdued script. Although the characters speak to each other with civility, there is a humming undertone suggesting all of them are very close to falling apart, mirrored in the dangerous ‘do’ of the RAF officers that could lead to their deaths.
Despite being a war-time story, or perhaps because of it and because it was first performed while the war was still going on, it is an optimistic play - almost naively so. Tennessee Williams would have had Patricia torn apart by her love for the film star and her deep duty to her husband, but Rattigan’s Patricia seems to have only a little difficulty making the ‘right’ decision. There is potential in the character of Peter Kyle, the film star, to create a real toad of a man who exploits Patricia’s obvious weakness to make her return to him, but instead he is overcome by emotion and admiration for the fighters and he is changed. I almost wished he would come out and tell Teddy about his affair with Patricia, but he decides against it, leaving the only real emotional conflict in the play neatly avoided. Tennessee Williams would have crashed into it head on.
The main interest to provoke thought is the examination of marriage. It was undoubtedly one of the themes Rattigan set out to explore, although this could very easily pass the audience by in all the dramatic talk of Gerry and gunners and comrades dying. The topic is addressed with such a light touch - a throwaway comment here and there - but it is nonetheless the heart of the play. Patricia says to Peter that she left him before because she couldn’t stand not being his wife. It is a reference to Peter’s ex-wife, from whom he’s only just divorced, but it also highlights the key difference between her relationship with Peter and her relationship with Teddy. She knows Peter well, their relationship was previously very close and intense, they are both actors. She admits she doesn’t know Teddy well, and yet by the simple state of being his wife, he is family. She is not morally troubled by the idea of breaking up a marriage - she actively took part in planning to leave Teddy. It is not a moral issue of marriage, but a practical one, which was quite refreshing to see.
The developing power dynamic between Teddy and Patricia is also a fascinating aspect of their relationship which is barely touched upon in the script, and yet is central. It is a credit to the actors that by the time this theme was articulated, it seemed more an answer to a question already asked than a new idea to be introduced. When Teddy clumsily admits he was afraid of his wife (i.e. intimidated by her success - not such an old-fashioned concept), it is a light bulb moment for the audience, although Teddy had previously blustered and seemed completely sure of himself. Perhaps this is the real strength of this play and perhaps all of Rattigan’s writing (I would be curious to see). The characters do not say what they mean and yet the audience understands.
Mention must be made of Sheridan Smith as Doris, the barmaid-turned-Countess married to an exiled Polish aristocrat. I could have watched her and listened to her all night. Always cheery and seemingly naive, she nonetheless understood her situation exactly. Her loyalty to her husband was unquestioned and unquestioning, despite the fact that they could barely converse and she pronounced her own last name only badly. She was funny and heartbreaking in the same moment. From my vantage point in the front row, Sienna Miller was also convincing as Patricia, although I was curious as to how it would have looked from further back. She’s so very thin and the part calls for so much emotional struggle I wonder how she would have managed without her face clearly visible - although I may be slightly prejudiced against screen actors in general for this. James Purefoy was excellent as Peter Kyle. He was nicely arrogant while also simmeringly weak. If anyone steals the show it is more likely to be Harry Hadden-Paton as Teddy. It is a very difficult role. Teddy seems rather wet; he’s full of bluster that conceals a lack of self-confidence. One of my favourite lines is an indication of the dilemma of Teddy: “When I asked you to marry me, I didn’t think you’d say yes!” And yet the audience needs to understand why Patricia married him in the first and why she decides to stay with him at the last. He also has the most openly emotional scene, where he breaks down in front of Patricia after a raid. It was truly engrossing and completely convincing - all to Hadden-Paton’s credit.
That the ending is happy was a most unexpected outcome for me, accustomed as I now somehow am to complications that are impossible to resolve. But I have always been an advocate of happy endings where they are appropriate and a play is not of lesser quality because it has a happy ending. It is a highly polished production, with excellent staging and effects (the planes taking off were very creatively suggested). For people who aren’t sure if they like theatre, it’s an excellent production to start with - engaging and accessible. The only problem for me is that now I think I need to see Cause Célèbre as well!
No comments:
Post a Comment