: Today, Rat © | “Gay drama’ Buthis theunderyingho veo tes fp sxmintos ls thee ronson fevonl image of» espe smile ages aide a6" ete mane owbeow erent, oto! stisaction an spent? He mapped ie producing» modern equtlent of Pines Pra { Rantigan’s themes are subtly subversive, his plots revolve around widely centric sd his chratershave considerable depth Bur because feed become dened with iy average specttor, hs plays sd Leo ed when Look Boo ngerappeated in 1956 ‘Aihough sbometsdsessdin dt ionic as tha oak as jal to the first half of inning), thesame les which opened went composed of two con locale, The Table o fas mares ses andy he eens os nent ASPB ACS Litour politician, driven out of public lfeater being convicted ofassa his wife, who is now desperate fora reconciliation. The ther playlet traces the relationship between twovictims ofsocity:afadingspinster, dominated vir rh by the mother who Rox, 1960 Noe! Coward's P 1935, frst London performance 1947)~anda Mi nonentity whoselow estimate of self worth has caused him to masquerade as ‘A Bequest 0 the Nation, 1970 2 retired major and molest women in es of cal cinemas, leading ise of Love, 1973 to the ignominy of a trial that exposes his pretentious upper-class accent se Cilebre, 1977 i and claimed military background as fraudulent idowand Look Back A selationship in which a cool and se-possessed woman (the manageres! 3 forseriousEinglish the Alison's best fiend) fils to replace the upper-class wife of a socialist from cal 2 proletarian background (the ex-poitcan/Jimmy Porter) Each martiage is career. Ashe commented, “There was in 1956, has erupted in violence, which leads to separation, but the battered wives! ‘laywright with Separate Tables just opened, and sud- emotional needs drive them both back icir husbands’ arms. Surface deny the whole Royal Couct thing [George Devine’s ‘new writers” seas “detail may be slightly different. Osb isa seedy provincial Jat instead of a shabby Bournemouth hotel. Jimmy is 2 university graduate without a jab, not an ex-cabinet minister reduced to hack journalisms and veseszitb 34 Terence Rattigan (1911-77): updating the Well-Made Play CHECKLIST OF MATTIGAN'S MArOR PLAYS Separate (The Tabl fed her ~ a situation borrowed in turn from rdealwith triangular Terence Rattigan was widely admiredand st the t4 9 0 Sut92s fo agp © dipsooou [eaiSepoyased daap coy 8 uewsyes? 9iLL, quo — yaa seynonied Swojaq 995) 1wa!9j1p os s} eureAp AaeuoIsIa pur sneod pied jo iuauissasse ayy us pue cwon2e a4) yo Summoned yeutzo) ay) Us. Buoye sau sys, wonowa so wowssardss srapesey> 24) [ease pur [euONe: pot yj oan asour ay “Skeid sty dn sas 4} 29} 30sE4P 24) 98,0061 1ygns-js,jenxase se pau 1s poss yids ona apg BusBeutep Ajenbo se to9s 218 yoy S>ves Om 259K Jaq aoyyuoo ay punoie s2ajonos eked sty yo avo AuDaa asousTe “(9P61) .dou pue oissasqo yensas jo sojod Lust apayd astox2ese4 pu ‘aq astmsoyio aySinu yey oF ldap eUay) said Aypxayduso> fosmINs I, sosuodsas siowepeds ayp jo Suiqoad ayigas e st aroys Busey emP=q aL gqjeoneteap aaroayy> iq ate swwawsp> sou 94s us uana ssauyf940] 405 euaied ap diy souenwadde yeu uanbasqs ssani9e ox ey sy 94D ‘ur paysyqersa Aaneag yo seus, ay. Suruonsonb ue sayyey siausopzad aq ‘oy anaas soBuey9 2]os sueRayey souEUZopIOd [eOUTE ‘an pue syeapt jo Auisey a4 toys OF AaMag (ryLPNOX jon fue ue suuuoysuen dn-oyeus azayn(gs-96r "dd puaapas Ape 1yroszatuog ‘duues> 10} “9 aouvuiojiad jo Ajenb yuacuupeo1uo ay Surziseqda sq sorersads oBesa0e Jox]uo> Yo,ospioae ERE {yo pe] uateddle ayy qyrouag pue: jaeamo{ "Kt 40 5 susop jo susoyed puepuers { rseatuo> 24) sup paso] sayioue Lug) Bunuivaus euotiouo 01 s>>uaps Jo asm 5 sanbtd pIOseH Os PUE ‘usquosssoadiun paztyequna éjazeq, duro yporeadas ur 4 satsuodsos pu uppp panes rogeyjo> ayy Surpuewap Aq ‘pur 9150s, 40 s5UuL ae BuExpoguia (0) deme Suyuuny uous soypes “UsOUy sifeano> ay punoy sey win ruossod (ear siy 21949 Xe18 OF aH soley pasodxe 941 so ainSy irytuid 241 aou3t 0} Suisnyes us Jayious snowosus> 494 soysp s2iysinep popzeia: pur peso aif, qUDUUYRUNUED jeLUTUTLH v Jo LoNsaSBns pareisun yt Aq paMozoy st worssed jo 2402943 24, J9ps0 jo 9n6 W298 Sonfey Om By) “aaUE|T ASIY TV “(uoyypiia7 asvBseyy pue Ueusiog 213g sfjeusd120) st01>€ ures oyp Aq paxeyd ag 01 pautsap axe sued yiog ‘int: ue sjestineay dypestsusaiuss1 Sunseyd-apoo ypng -puoses ay) wr uonAasse-yfos ‘wut payonord Aiyouy 51 ssourysoss yeau ayn say ay sop Susaa0> soueunsse-js Jo soupsvadde ue qyum ‘siupjeainba se uaDs aq Ose WED J ypeo uy uum 24 S9uN119 x95 JOUR! 01 Apoq snonays8 aim sty Buysne> 405 el 01 poruaiuas ua9g sey 2UQ) SEAUAP! {25[ej pu suXuopnosd ur anjos uoyen 2404 sisquoSei0sd 2[eur tpog awIONMO Sunuttaaatap pue uorrenys a}eureap 31) BuasAyere> yo 2yqede> ‘siox>ese4p> ponenprarpur ox dojpaap [ey way 241 1 punosBypeq snowAuoUE sOUNTE tte pawaoy oy saundy zoulus sures 24,1 diysuonejzs sou eyo sfuiuurBog ‘aanequs 94 4g pamojoy st ised oxy Sutsenooun ‘uon>e aanpadson=3 Y “kad afluys ou saxyey oma oxp SoutuM ey (qp1045 syearig puvosneng pauzen Aqpeoquos 4) Sumas paseys e Ayu0 YoU st ang “sanyiinep 24-plRyD axp UI SoPjnonswu Aswinys pue AauNDasut jo sspeLE aif 01 ‘ssaaBeueus 2yp pur 2}1 suetonyjod aq1 yiog ut asi0d pue a>ue¥o[9 pjetas Jo autouds ayp woxy sy2ys sn20) a4) Ae ag 29 a4e soUEsWIdde [uanonxo ssej>-1addn pu ssasioid [ens2s 0 siseog 25044 PUNols 218 a4 -enuarod satstuHus aunLad pute suLBLO Sse -uosiad auyjmseu fuons pue jrys2uoj v jo pearsuy “setsoddo sour suoyenys oss aya ao5juns aq UO was9g 29gUNIN a}QHL tH sajdd9 jeuONOLS possaudau ypuonse ove Yoo aut reys ots “S9jew flog oF sefsdosdde Aqjenbs st jynHL Jo SUNS a4 WON ‘aes Bujeor ‘aay ‘susnuas e, yo vondLsop ay, "spuegsny 94) PEG Suis 1y ea iuaMsesege soy) ‘2oUCUTUMOP yUaLEdde 21o4p YpEDUDG ssOUEDN JO se pozuaiseeyp 2 weiuaw st we52) were both originally conceived ‘way they have been transpased into male and jing qualities of perversion’ wwable’ subject-matter 1950s by imports from (mostly Rattigan's metaphorical masking was a «theatrical advantages, adding depth tensity by setting up barriers to direct the necessity for disguise made Rattigan’s drama ess Lueatments of homosexual 1958) or Mi te of Ho Delaney wrote A Ta n the way Rattigan igan’s primary concern was still what the aver- accepted as ‘normal’ After 1956 there was clearly discernable i attitudes, fostered by the ‘new wave’ playwrights: is change in focus ean be was now ‘elassless, rejuvenated” \ce' 4 more open treatment of his dramatic ma- sami time, the sense that Rat some senual exp terial was possible, Yet at inis sacrificing 2 8 artis sell-selective in the flects the majority opinions of ts audience. So. per partheid oF nuclear dis pe ai spectator ms ean be defended as f nal quali he most universal terms, where the emot is more significant than its specific sexual orien His public rejection of the “Theatre of Ideas’ that drew attacks from the whole spectrum of dram: Christopher Fry to Sean O'Casey and, of course, Ber However, Rattigan’s defence that ‘plays should be ‘not mainly about things’ is a useful corrective; and it is reveal rejection of intellectual drama is stated in terms of style rather than content Wsonly Aunt Edna's propaganda, enraged at bein her what is going te happen net, hates a nothing happening a al Even Brecht would have agreed that ‘entertal per se! was me ‘an unworthy object of drama! The danger is that if plays are ‘desi to entertain’ (as Ratt jement 10.4 principal reduces any thematic st Rattigan’s drama consistently raises sign lems faced by his characters ‘An example of th Rantigan act playsarealso paiced in 198) and In Praise of Love (19 plays like Adventure Story (1949) cal discussion, o Cause Celebre 977), in which 1wo different plots are