Old Yorker

  • The Hotel in Amsterdam (TV)

    Anthony Page (1971)

    John Osborne’s The Hotel in Amsterdam was first staged at the Royal Court in 1968 before transferring to the West End, where it enjoyed a commercially successful run into 1969.  It was well received by plenty of critics too and named Best Play of the year in the Evening Standard awards.   The play’s success was no doubt helped by the presence in the cast of Paul Scofield, then at the height of his public popularity after the film of A Man for All Seasons (1966).  Although The Hotel in Amsterdam wasn’t revived on the London stage until 2003 (at the Donmar Warehouse), the play was adapted by Osborne for television and broadcast in 1971 in ITV’s Sunday Night Theatre slot.  BFI screened the ATV production this month as part of the AHRC-funded ‘Forgotten Television Drama’ project based at Royal Holloway.

    The piece concerns six friends – three married couples – on a midwinter weekend in Amsterdam, a refuge from life in London and the tyrannical film producer, referred to throughout as ‘KL’, with whom they’re all directly or indirectly connected.  Paul Scofield, who was keen for there to be a filmed record of his performance, recreates the role of the writer Laurie, whose line of work and vitriolic volubility immediately suggest a self-portrait of John Osborne.  In his excellent biography of Osborne, A Patriot for Us (2006), John Heilpern confirms this – and that KL is inspired by Tony Richardson, Osborne’s long-time collaborator who, by the late 1960s, had turned into of his greatest bêtes noires.  The other visitors to Amsterdam are Laurie’s second wife Margaret (Isabel Dean); his best friend Gus (Michael Craig), who also works in the film industry, and Gus’s wife Annie (Jill Bennett); KL’s secretary Amy (Susan Engel) and her artist husband Dan (David Burke).  John Heilpern rates The Hotel in Amsterdam highly, describing it as:

    ‘… a chamber piece about love and friendship, betrayal and loss.  Beneath the gauze of its cauterized, escapist surface is the undertow of melancholy and need that seeps through all of Osborne’s plays.  It’s about growing older and the sting of the Bitch Goddess of success.’

    This is right enough though John Osborne is selective in his distribution of the melancholy and need, and of the good lines:  the lion’s share of all three commodities goes to his alter ego Laurie and what remains to Annie, a role written for Osborne’s then wife Jill Bennett, although she hadn’t been available to play it on stage.  (Bennett was appearing at the time in another of her husband’s plays, Time Present.)   For most of the seventy-five minutes of the TV adaptation, The Hotel in Amsterdam comprises alcohol-fuelled bitchy gossiping and little in the way of plot – although there’s a potent sense of desperation in the characters’ making the most of their brief escape, of rising gloom at the prospect of what they must return to on Monday morning.  Osborne’s getting things to happen is forced.  The weekend is meant to be a secret then Margaret admits that she let her sister Gillian, who’s going through a bad time and might need to get in touch, in on it.  As the others are preparing to go out for dinner on the Sunday evening, Gillian (Gillian Martell) arrives – in order to break up the established order of the play.  The unexpected interruption and change of mood in effect provide the opportunity for Laurie and Annie to admit their unspoken love for each other.  We learn that Gillian told KL about the weekend away in Amsterdam (though it’s not clear what her connection with KL is or why they would be communicating).  The proceedings are brought to a startling ending by a telephone call, in which Amy is informed, by KL’s chauffeur, that the boss has committed suicide.

    Osborne’s fluent nastiness is formidably witty but tends to wipe the smile off your face and rule out the possibility of laughter.  Fortunately, much of the acting in The Hotel in Amsterdam does the reverse.  The mask that Paul Scofield creates is extraordinarily rich:  Laurie’s words and eyes are often saying different things but Scofield also shows a mind constantly at work, working for and assessing reactions to his comic flow, which is both self-assertive and self-protective.  Scofield restores your good humour even though you’re aware it’s the actor’s phenomenal skill that’s the source of your pleasure.  There are moments too when you sense in the laughter on the screen that you’re hearing the other members of the cast loving what Scofield is doing rather than their characters enjoying what Laurie is saying.  This is especially true of a bit when Laurie recites from memory the contents of a letter received from one of his despised relatives – a virtuoso sarcastic turn.  According to John Heilpern, Laurie’s text is taken almost verbatim from letters written to Osborne by his abhorred mother and other relatives.  Paul Scofield is so brilliantly inventive and individual, however, that he turns Laurie into something more than John Osborne’s principal mouthpiece, into someone nearly tragic.

    Scofield gets excellent support, especially from Jill Bennett.  Annie’s eventual expression of her feelings for Laurie makes perfect sense of Bennett’s earlier playing of her:  we come to understand Annie’s almost exaggerated determination to enjoy herself while in Laurie’s company and the combative edge to her exchanges with him, reflecting Annie’s need to show, in a kind of code, that her communication with Laurie is special.   Isabel Dean is less effective:  she plays cool, sensible Margaret according to how she’s described by others but this isn’t enough to suggest how Margaret ever got married, let alone has stayed married, to the volatile, regularly adulterous Laurie.  As Gus, Michael Craig convinces in just the way Dean doesn’t. Craig’s line readings are nothing special but his warm, easy presence makes it believable that Annie is prepared, even if she’s not content, to spend her life with the perhaps bisexual, affably acquiescent Gus.  It’s important to the already nostalgic John Osborne (who wasn’t yet forty when he wrote the play) that Amy and Dan are a generation younger than the others: they’re mutually satisfied in their physical relationship, as well as less cynical.  They’re also outliers in that Amy tends to like people and Dan seems untroubled by his working-class background.  Susan Engel exudes a practised amiability; David Burke speaks relatively slowly and when Dan makes jokes he’s less aggressively witty than the others.  Neither Amy nor Dan feels the need to compete with their elders.  Both, in their different ways, frustrate and seem to frighten Laurie-Osborne.

    Early on, a few of the camera movements are too blatant, swooping in irrelevantly for a close-up, but things soon settle down.  Anthony Page’s direction is, for the most part, admirably unobtrusive; he achieves a good variation of pace in the delivery of Osborne’s abundant words.  The opening shots show the tourists and their luggage heading down a corridor towards their adjacent rooms in the hotel; once they’re inside, they stay there the whole time.   This adaptation is a good example of how a single-set stage play can seem at home on television in a way it rarely does as cinema.  More remarkably, you realise this even watching the piece in a film theatre (NFT3) – rather than on a TV screen of the size for which the production was designed.

    2 February 2017

  • The Fountainhead

    King Vidor (1949)

    The Fountainhead’s inclusion in this month’s BFI’s ‘Big Screen Classics’ slot prompts the question of what constitutes a classic.  The dictionary definition that best confers such status on King Vidor’s film is ‘unusual example of its kind’:  The Fountainhead, adapted by Ayn Rand from her best-selling novel of 1943, looks and sounds like no other mainstream Hollywood movie I can remember.   Its protagonist Howard Roark (Gary Cooper) is a uniquely innovative architect, based on Frank Lloyd Wright (one of Rand’s heroes).  His designs, by their unfettered originality, transform the conformist mediocrity of the New York City skyline but the examples of Roark’s work realised in Edward Carrere’s production designs for the movie are a sort of grandiose, futuristic kitsch.  The physical scale of things is generally bizarre:  as a review in Monthly Film Bulletin noted at the time of the picture’s original release, ‘hardly any scene takes place in a room less than a hundred yards long’.  Much of the dialogue is dialectic:  the characters trade more or less explicit assertions of the individualism that Ayn Rand promotes and the ‘collectivism’ she abhors.  The chief mouthpiece for the forces of darkness is Ellsworth Toohey (Robert Douglas), hugely influential architecture critic for ‘The Banner’ newspaper.  Rand intends the self-interested genius Roark to trounce his opponents’ arguments but she supplies stiffly rhetorical lines and, in effect, the same voice to all concerned.  The visual and verbal novelty of The Fountainhead wears off quickly.   The only entertaining clash of opposites that persists is between the inflexible dialogue and Max Steiner’s incongruous plushy score.

    The dramatic climax to the film occurs through Roark’s allowing Peter Keating (Kent Smith), a compromising and therefore mediocre architect, to claim the creative credit for a huge housing project which Roark will himself design.  I didn’t get why the proudly egocentric Roark would agree to such an arrangement, even with the condition he imposes – that Keating build the development precisely according to Roark’s specifications.  Keating inevitably caves in to pressure to alter the original designs so Roark rigs explosives to the newly erected buildings, blows them up and goes on trial.  He conducts his own defence, calls no witnesses but makes a speech to the jury, defending his right to operate as an independent agent without obligations to (there-is-no-such-thing-as) society.  It’s not clear what crime Roark is being tried for but, since he appears to have no qualms admitting that he dynamited ‘his’ development, you’d have thought he’d plead guilty.  Except, of course, that he believes he hasn’t done anything wrong.  The jury, who compel admiration by staying awake through his summation, must admit that Roark is right and he’s acquitted.  You might think the verdict of a jury – as the expression of a collective point of view – would take the shine off this triumph but you’d be wrong.   In the light of the public vindication of Roark, the vanquished Gail Wynand (Raymond Massey), owner and publisher of ‘The Banner’, presents him with a contract to design, carte blanche, a building that will bear Wynand’s name.  As soon as Roark has left his office, Wynand takes a gun from his desk drawer and commits suicide.  This leaves his widow Dominique (Patricia Neal) free to marry Roark:  they had an affair earlier in the story – after Dominique had broken off her engagement to loser Keating, before she married Wynand.  In the film’s final scene, Dominique, who also helped Roark blow up the blighted project, ascends in an open elevator to the top of the new Wynand Building.  The Übermensch hero Howard Roark stands proudly at the summit, unwavering in the wind that gusts about the most phallic skyscraper the world has ever seen.

    Just as Roark permits no tinkering with the plans he supplies to Peter Keating, so Ayn Rand stipulated that no changes could be made to her script for The Fountainhead.  In his introduction to this BFI screening, Matthew Harle, a postdoctoral researcher at the Barbican Centre & Guildhall, claimed that Rand was so determined to guard against Keating-esque dilution of her words that she personally supervised the shooting of the film, and virtually co-directed it.  Harle suggested that, as a result, King Vidor was as ‘absent from’ the finished work as Rand was ‘present in it’.   This confirmed my increasing feeling, as I watched The Fountainhead, that what went on behind the camera was more interesting than what ended up on the screen.  Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal had an off-screen affair:  you wouldn’t guess it from the florid yet soulless quality of Roark and Dominique’s liaison.  Howard Roark is a winner and Cooper easily takes the prize for most boring and pompous performance in the movie (with Raymond Massey a distant second).  Matthew Harle got off to an amusing start by noting how well represented architects are as a professional group in latterday romantic comedies – Sleepless in Seattle, Love Actually and It’s Complicated among them.  He went on to characterise The Fountainhead as a romcom sui generis, with Howard Roark his own love interest.

    Towards the end of his introduction – one of the most cogent and enjoyable I’ve ever heard at BFI – Harle mentioned Donald Trump, as both ‘another builder of New York skyscrapers’ and a fan of Ayn Rand’s novel:  in an interview in December 2016, the then president-elect told USA Today that the work ‘relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions.   That book relates to … everything’.  Harle closed with a question he admitted he couldn’t answer:  what it does mean for a twenty-first century audience to watch The Fountainhead when Donald Trump is the leader of the Western world?   For this viewer, I think it meant I wasn’t in the mood to find the film extravagantly but irresistibly ridiculous – or, to put it more simply, a laugh.  Soon after seeing The Fountainhead, I caught up with Emily Nussbaum’s brilliant New Yorker article ‘How Jokes Won the Election’ (23 January 2017)[1].  Nussbaum’s piece makes it all the harder just now to see the funny side of OTT individualism.

    1 February 2017

    [1]  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election

     

Posts navigation