At this time rationing was still a part of everyday life: ‘On the table is a small box of chocolates…probably the Crocker-Harris’ ration for the month.’ Over the Second World War Britain had acquired a debt of £3000 million and unemployment rates peaked in 1947 at 800000, which is what motivates Millie’s thirst for money. This is an aspect of her that makes her as unpleasant as she is. I think that Millies obsession with her social life and the Crocker-Harris’ money also puts a strain on the relationship as she is constantly expecting money and has to depict her and her husband as socially acceptable. Andrew is always under the stress to be socially acceptable.
This story is a parallel with Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, written in 458 BC, which Taplow and Crocker-Harris happen to be working on which makes the parallel more clear. I think that the audience would have ‘an irrational urge to shake Andrew until he acts’ [James Berardinelli, Film critic] and deter him away from Agamemnon’s fate. Also a tragedy, Agamemnon shares the main plot of ‘husband killed by wife’: although Agamemnon is actually killed whereas Andrew is only metaphorically. I think this makes the audience feel more reluctant to see Andrew eventually ‘killed’ by his wife, as they would have realised, through the knowledge of the story of The Agamemnon, what will happen to him in the end. There are other subtle parallels. Before going to fight in the Trojan War, the bad weather keeps Agamemnon from sailing and so he sacrifices his daughter, Iphigeneia to the gods. This works but also encourages Clytemnestra’s hate for him to grow. This sacrifice is a bit like Andrew sacrificing his talent, Classics, and almost wasting it on teaching. Once he starts teaching, he has no other ambitions. I think that when he started to teach, he put pressure on his marriage. He could have spent more time with Millie; which may have led to a different, happier ending. The difference between both sacrifices is that Agamemnon was doing the sacrifice for the gods whereas Andrew was just wasting his talent; sacrificing for no one, so it wasn't even worth it. The sacrifice triggers Clytemnestras hate for Agamemnon.
The book of the Agamemnon that Taplow gives to Andrew triggers Andrews metamorphosis and realisation that he has to rid himself of Millie. These things are the base of what begins to form a snowball effect: as the snowball rolls down a hill it gets larger and eventually crashes into something which makes the snowball explode. The explosion in this story is the denouement. The Trojan wars could be a parallel with Andrews teaching career: trying to teach pupils, but never coming out with a success. However, Andrew wasn’t a war hero and not victorious, like Agamemnon. He has also been with his wife all the while, slowly being poisoned by her, ‘killed’ by her. The difference of the endings, I feel, is that the Agamemnon finishes, with a proper sense of denouement, with death and no other consequence, whilst The Browning Version is rather open ended, leaving us asking questions. The Agamemnon is part of the Oresteia trilogy so it isn’t a play that definitely ends, but continues onto the other two parts of the trilogy. However it gives more of a sense of finality than The Browning Version because it is the end of a chapter of the story: Clytemnestra and Aegisthus have murdered Agamemnon, the protagonist, and so this marks and ends it because the story was about Agamemnon himself. The Browning Version leaves us wondering: there is no final divorce that we hear about or any particular event that makes the ending final.
Public schools at the time were still single sex and were very reminiscent of Tom Brown’s School Days. Schools were the microcosm of a macrocosm of Britain and the British society. They were a mini community of their own in which nothing outside school touches the children, which I think causes a type of selfishness and possibly the hierarchy that appears in schools, as it does in society. Rattigan, I think, uses this effect of a mini community to give off a claustrophobic surrounding. I think that it is suffocating because the children are blocked off from the outside world and taken into the care of the teachers. As it was said of the 1951 film of The Browning Version, ‘Rattigan’s decision to open out the setting, showing other members of the school and adding a new ending, destroyed the tight, intense atmosphere of the original’. So ‘tight’ and close a community is bound to let the slightest mishap cause gossip to spread like wildfire, which is perhaps why Andrew is such a weak character: anything he does that seems ostentatious will be likely to cause rumours, and I think that Andrew has enough pride and sense not to let himself be a subject of a malicious rumour. I think that this is what gives Millie pressure in her social obsession: she has to be careful with all her affairs to remain socially acceptable. I think that we can see how easy it was for rumours to spread by a looking at one of the covers for Rugby’s school magazine. Although these times are known for being prim and shocked easily, affairs did happen within the common room: the school magazine was banned for indecency for a cover showing the masters riding the airplanes that depicted other masters’ wives.
The description of the Crocker-Harris’ flat, where the whole play is set, can tell us what the relationship between Millie and Andrew; and Millie’s character is like. ‘The Crocker-Harris’ have the ground floor and their sitting room is probably the biggest- and the gloomiest in the house.’ We can see that this adds to the intense atmosphere because the audience feel as if it is in this living room with the Crocker-Harris’, making it seem crowded and claustrophobic. I think that the reason that the play is set in this one room is to give the play a sense of reality for us. There are no lighting directions throughout the book but I think that the lights, to depict this gloom, should be weak and from above, as this creates more shadows and makes the facial features sharper and more ragged. This room is ‘furnished with chintzy and genteel cheerfulness’ which is of the typical forties or post war style: this shows that Millie likes to keep up with fashions, which may be another reason why Millie is so financially obsessed. There is a copy of ‘Tatler’ in the room: this shows us how socially obsessed Millie is as well, and the walking sticks emphasise Andrew’s sickness and old age.
At the end, Andrew Crocker-Harris says ‘Occasionally an anticlimax can be extremely effective’ in light of Frobisher’s rudeness and snobbery earlier on. I believe that when Andrew says this he means that it is an anticlimax perhaps because of what he will speak of (as portrayed in the films). This would be of his wrongs in his career; of his failure as a master; his apology; his only chance to escape being remembered as ‘Himmler of the Lower Fifth’. I think that he means an anticlimax literally as a ‘disappointing outcome’ as in he speaks of grave things, not just because he will, as Frobisher perceives, be boring. This use of an anti-climax is effective as Andrew sees this as a chance to put things right: it wins him respect and genuine applause as he shows that he isn’t actually ‘dead’ or ‘shrivelled up’ like most people would think but truly human and able to realise his faults. I think that Andrew also uses the word ‘anticlimax’ for the effect: by echoing Frobisher, Andrew could turn the snobbery back on Frobisher, to remind him of how crass and rude he had been. Perhaps to make it easier for him to feel guilty and to let Andrew speak second, as Andrew wants. If the phrase was said with sarcasm, it could make Frobisher feel very small, giving Andrew the position of authority. During this scene I think that the spotlight should be concentrated on the dining room table, as this would increase the tension in the room, adding a little claustrophobia. Andrew and Millie proceed to have dinner as usual; after all, life must go on.
Two films were made of The Browning Version: one in 1951 by Anthony Asquith with the famous actor Sir Michael Redgrave and one in 1994 by Mike Figgis with Albert Finney. Both famous actors played Andrew Crocker-Harris. Both versions of the book are highly acclaimed films. The endings of the films differ to that of the book, but both films have the same addition, which is his speech on the last day of term, when we see him gain his respect. There was one big difference between Figgis’ version and the other story lines: Millie becomes human, not so cruel and so she returns to the school to watch Andrews big speech. I think this ruins the effect and turns it into a rather sentimental version of The Browning Version. I think that, in doing this, Figgis turns The Browning Version away from the fact that there is a definite antagonist- Millie. We see how tolerant Andrew has been when we see how cold-hearted and cruel she is. When she returns to see Andrew’s speech this completely destroys the effect, as we are shown that Millie becomes human when actually in the book it is Millie who is not human and Andrew who is although it is thought of as the other way round.
I think that the ending of The Browning Version is successful in that it gives us a little relief in knowing that Crocker-Harris gets the upper hand in the book and films, and Millie is disposed of. I think the subtlety of Millie’s cruelty is just right, if overdone it wouldn’t seem realistic. She is cold and cruel only to her husband then completely polite and ‘nice’ to other people, showing us what she is capable of doing. The first film is set in the forties while the second is set in the nineties. I think the forties a more effective time as it really brings out the snobbery and social hierarchy that was particularly typical of the forties. When put into the nineties, I was a little confused as to what time that film was set in. If the plot was more complex I think this would lead to confusion and less reality, which is why the simplicity of the plot works. The intense pity felt for Andrew would also be lost as the audience would have to ‘share their pity’ in a more complex plot. The plot definitely shows Andrews metamorphosis clearly and certainly makes the audience feel that they should do more with their life; to not become so downtrodden as Andrew does. In comparison to the ending of the Agamemnon I think that the ending to The Browning Version is better. I think that the ending to the Agamemnon is more of an anticlimax because it ends so finally, whereas The Browning Version could carry on in whatever way you imagine. I think that this makes The Browning Version successful. This play lets you make up your own ending and so is successful. The technique used by Rattigan in leaving the denouement open achieves what it is left open ended for. This would be to keep the audiences imagination running and evoke more emotions.
