Terence Rattigan

Terence Rattigan was one of the most popular British playwrights between 1945 and 1955, with a string of West End successes including 'The Winslow Boy', 'The Browning Version', 'The Deep Blue Sea' and 'Separate Tables'. After 1956, his reputation went into deep decline and he became for some the personification of all that was wrong with British theatre.

Over the next few weeks, this blog will be looking at a different 1945-68 playwright each week and recommending a particular play to read and comment upon. The first play is Rattigan's 'Separate Tables'. Is this two-hander still of interest today? Does it bear out Rattigan's contention that he was a dramatist who preferred to write about people rather than things (and if so, is this effective?)? What do you think about it?

Over to you!

Comments

[Sarah Tough]

In 1950, Rattigan famously stated that “the only theatre that has ever mattered is the theatre of character and narrative.” As a playwright, he firmly believed that issues distinctively and solely affiliated with society, politics and morality did not assume a very significant place on stage, and therefore turned his attention to personifying human feeling through creating an array of emotionally-charged characters within his work.

The nature of Rattigan’s writing in ‘Separate Tables’ reveals a lucid connection between his personal life and the theatrical microcosm which he constructs on stage (particularly pertaining to the predicament of Major Pollock). His characters embody a certain emotional vulnerability with which Rattigan and the audience can identify with, hence universalising the implications and significance of the play for audiences of both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

In my view, Rattigan’s expressive dramatisation functions to create a critical reflection of the constriction which governed Britain in the 1950’s, whilst simultaneously (and perhaps most crucially) upholding the most prevalent and enduring human preoccupations of love, sexuality, fear and conflict on a much broader and universal spectrum. For this reason, I believe that Rattigan has fulfilled his objective to reach out to the hearts of humankind in dealing with such complex and convoluted emotion, and that the deep-rooted meaning embedded in ‘Separate Tables’ is still relevant to audiences today.

[Sophie Barnard]

The development of Absurdist theatre in the 1950’s gave rise to a series of plays, such as Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’, that were intended to question and comment on contemporary society. Although Rattigan’s ‘Separate Tables’ was not an Absurdist production, and therefore considered self indulgent to playwrites such as Pinter and Beckett, the ethos of social awareness is still evident throughout. In 1957, the Wolfden Report advocated the decriminalisation of homosexuality. This new freedom to incorporate previously unacceptable subject matter into scripts is palpable in ‘Separate Tables’, particularly through the exploits of Mr Pollock. Although the cause of discrimination towards Mr Pollock is largely anachronistic in modern society, prejudice is a timeless theme that retains relevance in the twenty-first century. Through the characterisation of individuals such as Mr Pollock and Mrs Railton-Bell, Rattigan successfully narrates a drama that inspires strength in disposition and the need for tolerance. These moral comments were common in Rattigan’s work and, owing to the narration and characterisation, are transferable into modern society. It could also be argued that ‘Separate Tables’ was more successful in the 1950’s as a social commentary than ‘Waiting for Godot, for example, as audiences could relate to the developed characters and follow the linear plot with ease.

[Agnieszka Sikora]

John Sheppard said in one of his interviews: “I don’t think we realised at the time that they (Rattigan’s works) were actually as good as they are now reckoned to be…”
Time distance and social and political contexts today allow a contemporary reader to understand “Separate Tables” with a larger and more profound approach.
At that time “Separate Tables” was considered as a threat to the social order. Without a direct message in the text , the play clearly enlightens and criticises (through different characters) Lord Chamberlain’s policies and his restriction on the theatre, and therefore is an accurate picture of Britain in the 1950s.
Rattigan created a rich gallery of characters who represent important and- some of them- controversial issues and features, all of which are perfectly relevant to today’s audience .
One of the examples may be the character of Ann Shankland, a beautiful vain former model (a profession that had not been seen as “appropriate” at that time) who uses all her charms to get what she wants.
As her accurate contrast we can evoke Mrs Railton-Bell who perfectly represents the old order, conservative ideas and absolute intolerance.
The “fake Major” and Sibyl are outsiders that do not fit into society.
Charles and Jean embody intellectuals and therefore add to the play its essential witty comments and remarks.
The fact that T.Rattigan wrote mainly about PEOPLE rather than things or general issues underlines the universality of his plays. The impact he puts on typical human feelings and emotions such as weakness, loneliness or superiority makes the play actual and as a matter of fact, closer to its reader.

[Alison Norden]

I believe that this play would still be of interest today because themes in the play are current issues such as homosexuality. The historical element portraying post war Britain may appeal to a present audience, and philosophical ideas such as questioning the self and what it is to be normal are issues that many people still face. It certainly feels a little dated in terms of setting and the circumstances of post war Britain however, the play appeals to the audience because it is based upon everyday circumstances which people can relate to rather than imagination and thought. The colloquial style is appropriate to persuade the reader to feel sympathy and relate to difficult situations.

Separate Tables demonstrates Rattigan’s intentions to portray people rather than things. This is evident from the beginning where stage directions suggest a minimal setting such as, ‘It is small, rather bare, and quite unpretentious’. Attention is removed from the set and placed upon characters. Strong characterisation engages the audience. The act of gossiping is present, dominantly seen from the predatory Mrs Railton-Bell who deliberately puts people down such as when taking the paper back from Major Pollock, pushing exposure. She also gives little resistance in telling Sybil the news, proposes to demand removing Major Pollock, and says ‘I hope you all understand it’s a duty I hardly relish’, which is clearly false as the characterisation portrays her in an interfering manner. Much attention is placed on characters because of their actions, particularly evident where we follow Mrs Railton-Bell’s attempts and failure to bring down Major Pollock. Paralanguage such as movement, volume and eye contact are heavily used to set a mood or perceived opinion, for example ‘MRS RAILTON-BELL, speaking now in a rather louder and more self-consciously well-bred voice’ in order to portray high status. The focus on people is effective because we can examine traits and relate to feelings, and see the diminishment of Mrs Railton Bell through subtle techniques. Mrs Railton-Bell tries to counterbalance resilience by moving her body and then her chair, but Miss Cooper suggesting Major Pollock can stay, conversation engaged with from Charles, Miss Meacham and Mr Fowler, and Sybil’s refusal to recline brings about her downfall.

David Rudkin said Separate Tables ‘speaks to the people, yet keeps itself hidden’ and I believe it truly does. It is a marvellous play because the idea of hiding is both relevant for censorship, but more importantly for the fact that the encoded theme of homosexuality in the play can reflect how life can truly be secretive for people. The characterisation and themes are a true reflection of life which some people may be able to relate to. I really like the setting which I imagine to be quite dark, but cosy and somewhat old fashioned. I think it is great that something as simple as a dinning room can be used to expose the differing traits in human beings and how people can be made to feel. The confined hotel space draws attention to behaviour. The gossip and therefore judgement by people in this space mirrors the oppressive judgements which can be made by people in the real world. Something from the everyday and ordinary becomes something which can appeal to the audience by showing them things they might already understand, but is appealing to them for greater support. The fact that Mrs Railton-Bell is defeated by action highlights Rattigan’s intentions in deviating from the norm to expose homosexuality for control, but to expose it and then accept it.
Many of the characters are representative of the differing opinions that still exist today, for example Charles may express the view of a younger generation where he notes that he cannot relate to these feelings, but because he does not understand it he is therefore not in the position to pass judgement. Charles also feels ‘a little light-headed at finding myself, on an issue of common humanity, in a minority’, demonstrating a realisation that homosexuality is an important issue faced by people. In society there will also be people holding more traditional values, which is expressed by Mr Fowler, ‘impure and immoral…sexual excess…due to the decline of old standards’, and, ‘Tolerance of evil may itself be an evil.’ MRS RAILTON BELL says ‘people like that should be locked up’, enforcing the point that homosexuals can have identity removed, alienating them from society.
Sybil represents a more youthful perception and I think that through Sybil, Rattigan might also be expressing another factor of homosexuality that can be difficult to deal with, which is the fact that you consider yourself not to be normal. Miss Cooper and Sybil discuss what it is to be normal and are inconclusive. This would appeal to the audience because it is exhibiting that we should not judge when none of us are the same or perfect.
Finally, Major Pollock himself exposes the life of a homosexual, expressing fear and anxiety, and referring to a difficult childhood and family life, which once again many people can relate to today. I think that one of the most important lines of the play is ‘I’m made in a certain way and I can’t change it.’ If you have these feelings, it is something you find that is out of your control, you may not want things to be like this but you do not have a choice. Society should understand that particular choices are not made, and support should be given as Major Pollock displays many hardships that are considered when you do not like something about yourself, for example suicide, self hatred, and inability to speak to people, overall expressing a need for talking and support. In my opinion the play is effective for challenging perceptions as reality is exposed and an alternative, supportive way of thinking is introduced.

[James Morris]

"Is this two-hander still of interest today? Does it bear out Rattigan's contention that he was a dramatist who preferred to write about people rather than things and if so, is this effective?"

There is no question in my mind that Separate Tables is 'still of interest today’. Encountering the play(s) for the first time I was immediately drawn to parallel with the understated, bittersweet comedy of manners that is Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘The Remains of the Day’, and also, more pertinently, with Tennessee William’s ‘A Cat On A Hot Tin Roof’. Rattigan’s play sits comfortably between these, outshining them, at times, in moments of pure emotional characterisation and in the sensitivity with which he handles the ‘extraordinary’ people of the Beauregard.

Rattigan’s contention that he was ‘a dramatist who preferred to write about people rather than things’ certainly seems to be born out in Separate Tables. Indeed, the ‘isolation’ of his characters is almost too pronounced, too forced. One is almost inclined to view them much in the same way as Rattigan intended the Major’s persona to be seen, as ‘too exact a replica … to be entirely true’. The ‘interest’ of the play lies in it’s status as something of a ‘well-made play’, at least to my mind, while containing too much unspoken. Gripes of a socially-reflective nature certainly seem to be present here.

Separate Tables appears to be, consciously or not, a play about ‘persona’ and about ‘class’. The play’s bi-polar nature only serves to emphasise its inherent divisions yet, interestingly for the modern reader, Rattigan does not deny his play resolution or a ‘happy ending’. The explicit, unguarded point that Rattigan makes in his last stage direction is telling: “…the Beauregard Private Hotel no longer gives any sign of the battle that has just been fought and won between its four, bare walls”. The focus of the ‘battle’, of course, may owe its outward appearance to the culture of censorship which surrounded Separate Tables, but the satisfaction which the play’s author appears to have gleaned from it’s having been ‘won’ is telling.

Finally, it is interesting to note that, as the work of an apparently homosexual playwright, ‘happiness’ in Separate Tables is found in conforming to societal norms, specifically relational ones; the young bohemian couple marry and mature, the divorced couple (however passionately) are restored to unity, and the transgressor of the play, the Major, is re-instated as ‘the gallant ex-soldier’ in the innocent Sybil’s eyes. Perhaps comparisons to Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest would not be too obvious?

[Matt WIllis]

With the arrival of the fresh, innovative playwrights such as Pinter and Osborne at the death of the 1950’s, it could be said that Rattigan fell out of favour with the audiences that at one time used to find continuing delight and entertainment in his well crafted and meticulously structured plays. In ‘Separate Tables’, we can see Rattigan’s focus on characterisation and human relationships, with the narrative being the imperative medium to communicate his theatrical ideals. Major Pollock and Sybil are both afraid of “life, people and sex” and it is with such blatancy of narrative that Rattigan shows how characterisation and the development of such personal relationships are essential his theatrical philosophy. Rattigan aimed to appeal to the audience by communicating messages on a very deliberate level, wholly different from the more interpretive and somewhat mesmerising nature of the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’. It would be easy for Rattigan to be seen as an out-of-touch, conservative individual who had nothing to provide for the “Swinging Britain” culture of the 60’s, which became somewhat damaging for the overall popularity of his plays during this shift.

This interpretation of Rattigan was not totally accurate and the lapse in popularity was not ad-infinitum as Rattigan’s plays are continually revived and enjoyed by audiences today. For me, one of the most interesting tools utilised by Rattigan in 'Separate Tables' is the degree of self-censorship where there is definate scope for further elaboration into Major Pollock's disgrace. By doing this, Rattigan is on one level preventing alienation from a segment of his audience who may disapprove of such 'vulgarity' while also potentially providing satirical comment about needlessly protective and petty-minded society that restricts freedom in theatre. Alongside John Gay, Rattigan was able to write the screenplay for the film version of ‘Separate Tables’ in which Major Pollock’s initial homosexual act was changed to the molestation of a woman. I feel that the way that the script had been altered by the same petty mindset that is being explored in the play, adds even more scope for a satirical reading of the play.

[Francesca Soper]

'Separate Tables' reveals the personal trials of a group of long-term residents of a hotel in Bournemouth, and is a classic tale of lies, class judgement and repressed passions of these characters. However the play is actually made up of two plays, 'Table By The Window' and 'Table Number Seven'. I think the fact that he has two plays in one emphasises the fact that he was a dramatist who preferred writing about people rather than things, as there is a wide range of characters in the play as a whole, and therefore more opportunity to show more personal lives and relationships in the play.

Rattigan's work is autobographical, and has many secret references to his homosexuality and society's reaction to it, which resulted him in keeping his sexuality a secret to everyone but his closest friends, which again highlights the fact that he wrote about people and was interested in the way they interacted and their high emotions.

However, when Osborne came onto the theatre scene in 1956 with 'Look Back In Anger', a new kind of emotional intensity was proved, and Rattigan's plays were seen as 'old fashioned'. In 'Separate Tables' however, I found that the combination of sex, class war and its portrait of marriage as a violent background, mirrors the emotional intensity found in 'Look Back In Anger'.

[Louise Harrison]

I would state that Separate Tables is a play to support Rattigan's assertion that he wrote about people rather than things. The focus of the play is on the interactions between the characters and much ink has been spiilt detailing the way that they interact both in terms of dialogue but also in the way they physically move around the stage. The play is human in a very raw way in exposing human weakness as none of the characters are really very admirable, with the possible exception of Miss Cooper. In very carefully exposing the weak and unlikeable sides of his characters Rattigan also exposes the pretensions and the very obvious humanity of the hotel guests and management, particularly in the cases of Sibyl and Major Pollock. I think it is also worth commenting on the fact that the play is set in a hotel, a setting that is not unusual and that audiences would be used to. As well as this the stage directions at the beginning of the two plays spend very little time describing the setting but rather carefully detail where the poeple are as well as what they are doing and their attitude. For these reasons I think it is a play that shows us how Rattigan focussed his writing on people rather than on things.

[hannah hassack]

Rattigan focuses on the relationships within a small group of people. He seems to magnify human behaviors by concentrating on the interactions between characters in small groups and in one on one situations. The play itself seems rather undramatic for the most part, Separate Tables concentrating on the casual conversation and interaction between people. That is until Table Seven in which there is some drama but not to the degree, in my opinion, that would have audiences gripped. However what I found gripping was the authenticity of the human emotions expressed in this play. Emotions are not over dramatized in Separate Tables and therefore the audience can identify with what is being portrayed. An example would be the understated relationship between Jean and Charles, a realistic portrayal of the mundane in relationships. The downplaying of romance within this relationship means the audience can identify with the couple. In this I would suggest Rattigan successfully touches audiences, yet perhaps opens their eyes to less than agreeable realities of life. Such as the small-minded gossip of Mrs. Railton-Bell, the vanity of the beautiful yet vulnerable Mrs. Shankland and the falsity of Major; a strong figure deemed weak and precarious once exposed for what he really is. In this Rattigan is daringly exposing the vulnerability of human nature and questions how well do we really know ourselves? And more importantly do we like what we see once all falsities have been exposed?

[ellie purkis]

With regard to the first question, I certainly believe 'Separate Tables' to be of interest today, as whilst perhaps the setting and some of the stereotyped characters are rather dated, ultimately, as mentioned above, its central themes of homosexuality, alcoholism, ageing, appearance versus reality (Major Pollock the supposed war hero), and most centrally, love, are all universal and timeless. In simplistic terms, 'Separate Tables' is a study of a selection of broken and lonely people, who whilst able to hide from the world in the sanctuary of the hotel, are unable to evade their problems.

Indeed 'Separate Tables' certainly bears out Rattigan's self-confessed preference to write of people as opposed to things. A writer for 'The Sunday Times' once described Rattigan as '...the English Tennessee Williams' due to (amongst other things) their shared tendency to depict within their plays the 'drama of lost souls and misdirected lusts...'. This similarity can certainly be seen within 'Separate Tables', whereby
both the fragile Sibyl and Ann Shankland direct their affections towards men who do not, or should not return them, (cf. Laura Wingfield's love for Jim O'Connor in 'The Glass Menagerie' to give but one example), whilst the play is generally characterised by an atmosphere of helplessness, tragedy and foreboding comparative to that of Williams' plays.

I believe that like Williams, Rattigan is successful as a writer of this type of relationally centred play, and both writers' subtlety in depicting problems at the heart of the human condition will be justly praised and enjoyed for years to come.

[Cerian Jones]

I feel that Separate Tables offers an emotional and human look at interlinking relationships. I think that the popularity of Rattigan’s play can be partially linked to audiences being able to relate with and recognise personality traits of the characters. For instance, Mrs Railton-Bell is easily identifiable as an interfering and prying woman who could remind the audience of a neighbour or colleague. However, Rattigan manages to make his play very different by intensifying the situation due to the play being set in a hotel. Immediately emotions become concentrated and by only using the lounge and dining room Rattigan ensures that the audience are not distracted by any unnecessary actions or set changes. Rattigan proves his belief that he writes about ‘people rather than things’ by using few props and simple sets, this in turn magnifies the emotions and sentiments that are on display throughout Separate Tables. I believe that the these two one-act plays would still be of interest today because the main issues that arise in each act are still very much relevant in society today. Also, human curiosity plays an important part in the play, as the characters feel they have a right to be involved in other characters business and to know the details of their lives. This intrusive attitude is still very much prevalent today as are other themes throughout the play such as vanity, cowardice and deceit. In all, I think that Separate Tables is a play that is still relevant today due to continuing attitudes in society.

[Sarah Burbridge]

I would argue that aspects of 'Separate Tables' are still very much of interest today. Whilst obviously the settings, dominant ideologies and many of the characters' traits are largely alien to modern society, the interactions and themes- mainly those relating to relationships- still hold relevance today. This would seemingly uphold Rattigan's claim that he was a Dramatist who preferred to write about people rather than things.
Whilst the topics may no longer be so prominent, for example the subtext of Pollock's homosexuality in the second section, the nature of individuals can still be related to now. For instance, Mrs Railton-Bell's role as personification of an oppressive force.
The way in which Rattigan focuses on reactions to incidents, rather than the incident itself is what lends the play a sense of timelessness.
Due to censorship, Pollock's 'crime' could not be explicitly portrayed, and therefore is hinted through alternative actions. What he actually did was barely a crime, and as he explains his himself, was more the result of sexual abnormality than perversion. This is perhaps the message that Rattigan himself wanted to convey; that homosexuality is not criminal or perverted- simply a different form of sexuality.
In a similar way, the first half of the play focuses more on the emotions and reactions of the characters than actual narrative, thus again allowing the play more meaning to a modern ausdience than perhaps others of the time.

[alison parry]

In my opinion Rattigan’s ‘Separate Tables’ undoubtedly supports the view that his plays centred on issues of people rather than things. Rattigan conveys this preference with his intense focus on human relationships and the portrayal of class structure within 1950’s society. One of the ways in which Rattigan conveys the stifling nature and intensity of human relationships is through the claustrophobic dining room setting of the ‘Beauregard Private Hotel’. The ‘Private Hotel’ in fact offers little privacy for its residents, even the ‘separate tables’ are positioned within a highly public setting of the dining room, a place subject to social norms, customs and restraints let alone gossip and dinnertime conversation. The ‘Bohemian’ couple Charles and Jean are frowned upon by some of the permanent residents for their young and carefree nature. Indeed, Mrs Railton-Bell believes it unthinkable to wear ‘trousers at diner!’ The stifling nature of the dining room setting in this example emphasises the growing gap between the generations. The young ‘Bohemians’ disrupt the social order of the dining room and as a result receive disdainful looks from the older generation of residents. Charles and Jean’s non-conformist attitude and eventually, the actions of Mrs Railton-Bell’s daughter at the end of the play can be seen to indicate a new wave of thinking and a growing divide between the generations. This is something Miss Meacham alludes to in the opening scene when she remarks ‘It’s not a disgrace at all. Why should we old has-beens expect the young to show us considerations? We’ve had our life’. Rattigan successfully conveys this notion at the end of the play in the next generation of Sibyl, whereby she finally stands up to her mother, the middle class and socially superior Mrs Railton-Bell and asserts her independence. This leaves the audience with the impression that social change is approaching and that new ways of thinking and conventions will arise with the succession of the next generation. Ultimately, through the importance of setting and emphasis on place to convey human relationships Rattigan leaves the audience in no doubt that people, rather than things are his primary concern as a dramatist.

[Kate Fleming]

'Separate Tables' bears out the contention that Rattigan preferred to write about people rather than things. He shows little interest in the setting by providing minimal detail.The choice of hotel is telling as its business is people as was his own. Rattigan's intention was to deal with complex human emotions. Therefore, the setting was not of importance merely a place for the strong characters to be played out.

Geoffery Wansell explains that Rattigan preferred to invite his audience's interest obliquely by the creation of character, rather than by polemic or ideology. This can be explained by Rattigan's sexuality.Like his characters he relied on disguise agaisnt the threat of judgement.It was because of the element of disguise that Rattigan's plays became dated. The new breed of playwrights believed that theatre should become an environment in which everything could and must be spoken about openly. Rattigan did not change and he was cast aside by 'new drama' more modern than what Wansell describes as Rattigan's'discreet examinations of human emotions'. Yet, 'Separate Tales' is of interest to a modern reader as it discusses issues such as man's humanity, inhumanity and discrimination which are timeless topics.

[Sarah Strachan]

Any theatre whos focus is primarily on character, and not a time specific theme or event, can be adapted to remain revelavent to a contempory audience. Although the characters and setting of 'Separate Tables' may seem outdated, much of the human interaction between the characters can be applied to a modern setting. For example, the 'love triangle' plot, in which a man must decide between returning to his past or having the courage to persue his future, shown through the relationships between Ann Shankland, John Malcom and Pat Cooper, is easily applicable today.

The setting of the play is particulary interesting, as the close quaters of the hotel's resisdents allows for little privacy in the depiction of the character's relationships. As an audience, we always feel that any interaction is prone to interuption, through the entrance of another character. The presence of a dominering, intrusive character such as Mrs Railton-Bell only emphasies how fragile any privacy is.

While Separate Tables may be dated in its 'happy ending' simplicity, where all loose ends are resolved and characters reach a cathartic moment, its portrayal of human relationships is still revalent and interesting to a modern day audience.

[Emma Nolan]

Similarly to all pieces of literature, the time and society in which Terence Rattigan’s Separate Tables was written can be identified, notably through its themes and ideas etc. It is unavoidable, as all writers take influence and inspiration from the world around them, whether or not it is intentional. However, this rarely means that later audiences do not understand or relate to them, or that they become unappealing. Reading through it, I felt that Separate Tables was an engaging and ‘entertaining’ play, and would argue that it would still be of interest today.

It is true that Separate Tables is not the most dramatic or controversial of plays, but the audience does still have interest and empathy for the characters. Rattigan had said that he was a dramatist that preferred to write about ‘people, not things’ and I would agree that the play is very character-based. It is quite clear that Rattigan’s play is not about the hotel, the dining room, the menus etc. but about the individual characters. Each of the ‘separate tables’ in that dining room has a story; Rattigan gives the character the chance and the time to tell it. The audience are then allowed to build up a sort of relationship with the characters; constructing opinions, making connections with them. Through this, Rattigan engages the audience – they eventually begin to care about the characters and what’s going on, and subsequently want to know what’s going to happen – What happened to John and Anne? Where did they go!?

Rattigan structures the play so that each of the main characters have something of their own ‘subplot’, deriving the play’s drama from these individual issues and the characters’ involvement with the social taboos. The taboos themselves are not particularly prominent and are generally just mentioned or implied, but the fact is, they are still there. For example, there is divorce, imprisonment, alcoholism, domestic violence, secret affairs, fraud and indecent, possibly even homosexual behaviour. Although not as shocking in today’s society, these issues would still evoke reactions and opinions of the modern audiences.

The subtle implications and hidden themes of the play are arguably reasons as to why Rattigan received a lot of his criticism. He was writing just before the ‘turning point’ of British theatre – which occurred through the work of dramatists such as Osborne – and so was criticised for working within the repressive conventions and restraints of old British drama. However, I would disagree with Rattigan’s ‘stigma’ of representing ‘all that was wrong with British theatre’. True, he was not as radical or as forthcoming as the subsequent playwrights; but in Rattigan’s defence, he did manage to involve many controversial social issues that he wished to highlight and worked as much as he could to comment on them within his restrictive environment – what else could he do?

With regards to Rattigan’s contention of being a dramatist that wrote about ‘people, not things’, I actually think he does this. The play isn’t about one thing, one concept, or one event: it’s about individual characters – their relationships, their mindsets, their emotions. Rattigan makes the general, consistent themes personal to each of the characters, for example, loneliness. Miss Meacham and Miss Cooper are both said to be lonely, but their loneliness is approached differently and individually. Rattigan deals with it as a personal ‘affliction’ rather than a general thematic concept. Additionally, the ‘two-handed’ form of the play helps to convey this; as although it is unusual, it allows the audience greater individual contact with the characters, and also demonstrates how people and things can change over time.

I would argue that this is effective. I felt for the characters, I wanted to know what happened to them and what was going on. I was maybe not as impassioned or as ‘into’ the characters as Rattigan may have liked, but I still picked up on the loneliness, the awkwardness, the love and sadness etc. of each of the characters – they were understandable and relatable – which he was arguably aiming to achieve. He was trying to express the emotions of the individuals, not just do it as a concept.