Skip to main content

Never So Good

Eyewear went to see Never So Good, the new play on at the National Theatre, by Howard Brenton, which details the resisted rise of Harold Macmillan, of "the winds of change" and Profumo fame. It was great entertainment, and smart, thoughtful writing as well, despite the startling pyrotechnics that blasted my eardrums (I grow old).

The British do good history plays - and this one, with elements from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Coward's Cavalcade, and Brecht's - well, anything by Brecht - ends up feeling like good, solid Shaw: witty men and women hold forth on the issues of the day, as each decade is depicted shifting by new pop songs, and the latest dance craze ("dance to the music of time"). Macmillan is movingly portrayed by the great Jeremy Irons, and his youthful "echo" - the suitably Yeatsian double (Macmillan published Yeats, among other poets) by Pip Carter.

Political junkies will love the backroom boys, the deals, the power struggles (from Churchill outmaneuvering Chamberlain, to Eisenhower bullying over Suez). The love story (Macmillan was terminally cuckolded by his ballsy wife) is less convincing. What emerges is how significant Suez was for Britain ("goodbye British Empire") - and how forcefully (threatening to bankrupt England in three days) America turned its former ally into a panting lapdog in 1957. Poets and critics will no doubt note that Larkin's Little-Englander cultural ascendancy begins, in poetic terms, not with the Beatles' first LP, but with the humiliation of Anthony Eden six years before, when the Beats began their San Francisco rise. In many ways, Suez demanded an English poetry that would not kow-tow to American poetics, or diction - yet another reason for The Movement to have outgunned Dorn and Co., whose influence was always resisted in the UK, even as the avant-garde picked up on it.

Ultimately, Brenton portrays a leader, who, when he came to power, was too old, too "moral", too other-century, to fully appreciate it - Supermac quickly giving way to the fuddy-duddy cruelly mocked by Beyond The Fringe. His play documents a moment echoed in our own time: Brown is poised to be eclipsed by younger, more Zeitgeisty men (contrast Macmillan with the virile Kennedy across the pond) - Obama, perhaps, and surely Cameron. Power is portrayed as empty (Macmillan said power was a "dead sea fruit") - but the most desired thing. The men who chase it are therefore somewhat hollow themselves. What to make of the empires and nations built by such dead, nothing personages? What to make of "us", the common people, who dance in the halls shaped by such hollow historians?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".