Noel Coward was known as the Master. A Master wit, a Master playwright, A Master songwriter, a Master Director, a Master Raconteur and a Master Impresario. Needless to say, I've always been a big fan.
Although Cowards heyday was in the 1920's and 1930's Relative Values was one of Cowards later plays which was not released until 1951, and although set in the 50's it still maintains a very 1930's art deco feel to it.
Set in an English country house, it's a comedy of manners (and class) that tells the story of an American movie star, treading on the stuffy toes of the British aristocracy as she prepares to marry an English Earl. Straight forward stuff......or is it?
Nothing in a Coward comedy was ever that straight forward.
It turns out our American Movie star is a working class English girl who ran off to America years before. Not only that, she is the long lost sister of her future mother in laws maid.
When the maid confides this nugget of information to the Countess prior to her sister's visit, and offers her resignation, so it doesn't cause embarrassment the Countess (who loves her maid dearly) offers her a way out.
Rather than be reunited with her glamorous sister as a lowly maid, the Countess makes her up to be an equal, a rich socialite who is a close friend of the family. But how long can such a deception last?
Also add to the party, the movies stars spurned Hollywood heartthrob ex-lover who gatecrashes the house party determined to win back his lost love.
Coward was an original, but I can't help but feel this offering borrowed more than just a little from Cowards contemporary and rival wit P. G Wodehouse.
This seems to be such a typical 'Blandings' style farce, and as we have Stephen Fry playing the butler, the Wodehousian feel is emphasised even further by his revival of 'Jeeves' in all but name.
Although there are great performance from Dane Julie Andrew's and Colin Firth (as a very Cowardesque character blessed with typical dry Englishness) the film does fail to hit the mark.
Although the play itself was a big hit at the time, the film fails in several areas. The build up goes on for far too long that the moments where the sparks could really fly and the excitement could really build is drastically cut short. It seems the contrasting characters finally all get together and the film comes to an end.
It is NOT the perfect way to introduce Coward (or Wodehouse to that matter) to new and appreciative audiences. It is a very poor adaptation of a very good play. If it's 1930's English societal farce you want, then I suggest watching Fry and Laurie's 'Jeeves and Wooster' or Richard Briers in 'Heavy Weather' or some of Cowards earlier film adaptations like Blythe Spirit or Private Lives, Those adaptations will quench your thirst. Unfortunately Relative Values will only whet your appetite and leave you thirsty for more.
Although Cowards heyday was in the 1920's and 1930's Relative Values was one of Cowards later plays which was not released until 1951, and although set in the 50's it still maintains a very 1930's art deco feel to it.
Set in an English country house, it's a comedy of manners (and class) that tells the story of an American movie star, treading on the stuffy toes of the British aristocracy as she prepares to marry an English Earl. Straight forward stuff......or is it?
Nothing in a Coward comedy was ever that straight forward.
It turns out our American Movie star is a working class English girl who ran off to America years before. Not only that, she is the long lost sister of her future mother in laws maid.
When the maid confides this nugget of information to the Countess prior to her sister's visit, and offers her resignation, so it doesn't cause embarrassment the Countess (who loves her maid dearly) offers her a way out.
Rather than be reunited with her glamorous sister as a lowly maid, the Countess makes her up to be an equal, a rich socialite who is a close friend of the family. But how long can such a deception last?
Also add to the party, the movies stars spurned Hollywood heartthrob ex-lover who gatecrashes the house party determined to win back his lost love.
Coward was an original, but I can't help but feel this offering borrowed more than just a little from Cowards contemporary and rival wit P. G Wodehouse.
This seems to be such a typical 'Blandings' style farce, and as we have Stephen Fry playing the butler, the Wodehousian feel is emphasised even further by his revival of 'Jeeves' in all but name.
Although there are great performance from Dane Julie Andrew's and Colin Firth (as a very Cowardesque character blessed with typical dry Englishness) the film does fail to hit the mark.
Although the play itself was a big hit at the time, the film fails in several areas. The build up goes on for far too long that the moments where the sparks could really fly and the excitement could really build is drastically cut short. It seems the contrasting characters finally all get together and the film comes to an end.
It is NOT the perfect way to introduce Coward (or Wodehouse to that matter) to new and appreciative audiences. It is a very poor adaptation of a very good play. If it's 1930's English societal farce you want, then I suggest watching Fry and Laurie's 'Jeeves and Wooster' or Richard Briers in 'Heavy Weather' or some of Cowards earlier film adaptations like Blythe Spirit or Private Lives, Those adaptations will quench your thirst. Unfortunately Relative Values will only whet your appetite and leave you thirsty for more.