Sunday Telegraph, 17 April 1994, by John Gross "The Arts: Old rope shows signs of fraying" ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Hamilton's *Rope* is a superior melodrama--or, if you prefer, an inspired pot-boiler. Written when Hamilton was only 24, in 1929, it kept him in funds for the rest of his career. It deserved its success, and it still has the power to thrill. But it isn't serious, in the sense that Hamilton's novels are. If it raises interesting questions, it remains content to toy with them, and its psychological explorations never get beyond square one. It is also, in some respects, unmistakably dated. The theme at the time, was an original one an English version of the Leopold and Loeb case, two Oxford undergraduates who commit a murder in order to demonstrate their freedom from commonplace moral restraints. But both the setting (a flat in Mayfair) and the characters come straight out of the so- called Golden Age of the detective story, with its attendant unrealities. So does much of the dialogue. "Listen, I tell you." "What in Heaven's name do you think you're playing at?"--it is in terms like these that the characters tend to address one another in moments of stress. None of which means that the play isn't worth reviving. But it needs to be taken on its own terms, as a period piece. A director is far more likely to produce the shivers at which Hamilton aimed if he sticks to the rules within which Hamilton worked. From this point of view the production by Keith Baxter at Wyndham's Theatre could hardly get off to a worse start. It opens in the dark. We gradually make out three naked bodies (male) entwined on the floor. One of them turns out to be a corpse; the other two get up and bundle him into an antique wooden chest. Limbs and buttocks glimmer in the half-light. It is a mistake to underline the homosexual motifs which Hamilton only hints at, of which he was perhaps only half- aware. It is an even bigger mistake to violate the theatrical conventions of 1920 so crudely--as disruptive to the mood of the piece as it would be if the characters suddenly started using four-letter words. The production takes time to recover; the opening scenes of the play itself, which include some fairly creaky exposition, are in any case rather slow. But Hamilton knew how to tighten the screws. The tension builds up as the killers serve dinner to their guests, using the chest as a table; it is reinforced by such devices as having two of the guests chatter away as they tie up a parcel with a length of rope--rope like the rope that was used to strangle the victim, rope like the rope on which the killers are liable to end up being hanged. There is a satisfactory climax, too, in the long battle of wits, and wills, between Brandon, the dominant partner of the murder team, and Rupert, the guest who gradually sussses things out. Realistically considered, Rupert is an impossible amalgam of world-weary, 1890s-style poet ("Damnably brilliant," we are told) and embittered First World War veteran. But as a piece of myth-making he is an intriguing, even a commanding figure, and he has one speech which is of a different order from anything else in the play: a meditation about London at night, and the hour at which "pleasure itself is found wanting", which really belongs to the world of Hamilton's novels. At Wyndham's he is played by Anthony Head, who is equally admirable in all the requisite moods--languid, cynical, desolate, roused to action. The rest of the cast do well with their more predictable parts: Tristan Gemmill's Brandon in particular manages to suggest that the line between hubris and mere conceit is sometimes a thin one. I wasn't altogether sure about Simon Higlett's fashionably sloped and slanting set, but perhaps that is one anachronism we can accept. ----------------------------------------------------------- Bentley's Bedlam http://www.BetsyDa.com/bedlam.html This website is for information and entertainment purposes only and is not intended to infringe on copyrights held by others.