User Reviews

Contains Spoilers Fourteen years after its PBS broadcast, this superb production has not been transferred to a video recording! Its general unavailability is a great cultural loss.

This production is not a movie more-or-less based on a play, but the play itself, word for word as written for the stage. A movie might carry the action out into the world, with much physical motion and visual excitement. The audience could be taken to the naval academy from which the Winslow boy was expelled, and then to the office of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to debates in the British House of Commons, and to a trial before the Lord Chief Justice, in the family's effort to secure fair play. [See, for example, this approach in the 1948 film version.]

But the play, as written by Terence Rattigan, stays home. Although excited by the crusade, the author is most interested in its effects on those closely involved: members of the Winslow family, their intimate friends and their lawyer. What the case does to or for them, and how they react, have more room to emerge in conversations and interactions en famille.

At first hearing or reading, the play may seem a straightforward tale of youthful innocence vindicated against governmental injustice. Braving tremendous odds, the good guys challenge the bad guys, and win. But on closer inspection, one finds that the boy's innocence is never proved, and that some in the family deny or doubt it. Moreover, even if he is innocent, the harm to members of the family and to the country from pursuing the case might be greater than the harm from letting it drop.

Ronnie Winslow, about 14 years old, was expelled for stealing and cashing a money order worth five shillings, belonging to a fellow cadet. He maintains that he did not, and we want to believe him. But when we first meet him, he is urging his older sister, Kate, to join him in lying about something important. If about that, then is he also lying about the money order?

His older brother, Dickie, assumes that Ronnie is lying, but that "pinching" is no big deal for boys his age. Kate thinks Ronnie is not lying, but she is unsure: what is important to her is the violation of his right to a fair hearing. His mother, Grace, though emotionally very supportive of her stricken son, never expresses an opinion concerning his guilt. His father, Arthur, after putting the question quietly and firmly, is convinced by Ronnie's denial. His lawyer, Sir Robert Morton, after an aggressive cross-examination that leaves Ronnie muddled and weeping, announces that he is "plainly innocent."

The navy has relied on the opinion of a famous handwriting expert, that the endorsement on the stolen money order was in Ronnie's handwriting. Toward the end of the play, we learn that at trial the expert's testimony has been discredited by Sir Robert, who is widely considered the ablest advocate in the kingdom. One can't help wondering whether the expert was actually mistaken, or simply collapsed under our man's forensic fireworks.

But life is like that. Crusades are often launched for ends whose worth is unclear. Moreover, the actions and motives of crusaders may be a mixture of good and bad. This can make them harder to join, but more interesting and instructive to watch.

One admires the boldness, determination and persistence of the father, Arthur Winslow, without whose initiative the crusade would not exist. Yet he is rather a sourpuss, often dominating or humiliating others. His indispensable lieutenant, Kate, is the most attractive member of the family, bright and realistic but often blinded by partisanship. Sir Robert is a supercilious, cold fish and a brilliant, (unscrupulous?) forensic champion. All three make substantial sacrifices for the sake of their crusade.

Much of the dramatic excitement comes when esteemed characters behave badly, or disregarded characters greatly please. Perhaps the most beautiful moment in the play is a marriage proposal to Kate by Desmond Curry, an old family friend whom she rather disdains. And when the crusade has triumphed, it is the genuine, powerful, fully human excitement of Violet, the family maid whom Arthur has long wished to fire, that brings to the living room the roar of the crowd. Ronnie's mother, Grace Winslow, claims no understanding of the legal issues, but her emotional richness, founded solidly on love, matches the intellectual wealth of Sir Robert. She makes a powerful case that the crusade, out of pride and stubbornness, is destroying her husband and family for a son who is uninterested in the result.

I hope the author, who died in 1977, was lucky enough to see his play this well performed. No actor was less than satisfying. Ian Richardson as Sir Robert, Emma Thompson as Kate, Gordon Jackson as Arthur, Gwen Watford as Grace, David Troughton as Desmond, and Rosemary Leach as Violet could scarcely have been bettered. The existence and excellence of this production must owe a great deal to Shaun Sutton, the producer, and Michael Darlow, the director.