Curtain Up (48 page)

Baghdad sunshine is lovely and not conducive to work.
But I really deserve a rest, after being bullied over the play by you and goaded to a book by Edmund.

Yours,

Agatha Mallowan

Saunders to Christie: 10 February 1953

Dear Agatha,

Very many thanks for your letter of February 1st, which I was delighted to receive.

I like your opening idea of a rather loveable elderly clerk and a pert young woman. It won't save any characters as far as I can see, but – as you say – it will give us some laughs to start off with.

I know that you are always satisfied that producers [i.e. directors] will always find laughs in your script, but it may be that because there may not have been enough in ‘The Mousetrap' to start with, that we rather looked for them and caused some unwanted ones.

Aubrey Dexter is still off, and the more I see of Huntly-Gordon the more I prefer his interpretation.

So do please try out your idea of the new opening, and I am also very much hoping that you can work up a verbal duel before Romaine is trapped. Each time I read it I feel that she gives in far too easily.

I am most appreciative of your gipsy's warning. The old formula, as you say, is a fairly safe gamble because of the reps and tours, and you have proved with your books that the public don't get tired of your formula.

On the other hand, it does seem that this is an exciting play to tackle, and my only fear is that if the press turn round and criticise you for departing from your normal type of play, I should feel very bad about it.

I am so delighted with the script to date that I should hate to drop the thing. In fact I don't think I could. So let's jump into the deep end and see how cold the water is!

Patricia Jessel and Jack Watling are not, of course, names, but I would like to cast this play with the people you had in mind. I shall try Ann Todd, but I don't think that Romaine is a big enough part to attract her.

I mentioned this play to Dickie, and he is dying to read it. I suppose he couldn't play Leonard, and Sheila couldn't dye her hair black and play Romaine? No, I thought not!

I have not had the script back from Leo Genn, but as soon as I do I will let you know of his observations.

I have arranged with the Common Serjeant to spend the whole of the next murder trial at the Old Bailey in one of the V.I.P. seats, as I would like to get a bit of atmosphere.

I still don't know when I shall do the play. Two things would affect the date. If ‘The Mousetrap' happened to flop suddenly (and I still think it will do the fourteen months I forecast at Nottingham) I should forge right ahead.

The only other danger is that there is an enormous amount of talk in theatrical circles that ‘it's about time someone put on a play with a court scene in it'. To follow one with ours would make it appear as if we were copying, and if I heard any news that one was to be done I would get in first. That is another reason why I would like the script settled as far as possible.

Can you tell me why you are [seeing the] defending Q.C. as a pompous windbag? It seems that it would be more effective theatrically if the audience liked him. If they didn't like him they would more probably anticipate his eventual deflation . . .

I haven't approached any producer [i.e. director] for W.F.T.P. as yet, but I have in mind Glen Byam Shaw, who directed ‘The Winslow Boy', or Charles Hickman, who has a string of successes to his name – such as ‘Black Chiffon' which I seem to remember you liked. I also have a leaning towards Frith Banbury, who directed ‘The Deep Blue Sea'. What do you think? [Both Hubert Gregg and Wallace Douglas are, significantly, absent from this list. It would have been interesting to see what Frith Banbury, who the previous year
had directed the premiere of Rattigan's play, starring Peggy Ashcroft, would have made of
Witness for the Prosecution
]

Kind regards and best wishes to you both,

Yours Sincerely,

[Peter Saunders]

Continued:

I have just spent two hours with Leo Genn, who says that there is rather too much work for him to tackle, but he is putting me on to another theatrical barrister [Humphrey Tilling].

He [Genn] says that there are quite a number of minor points which will present no difficulty, and he does observe that evidence is given in half an act which normally takes a couple of days.

I pointed out that the audience would get rather tired of sitting in the theatre for two days at a time.

He does, however, make one serious objection – and I do not suggest you do more than think about it until I have seen his barrister friend. He says that it is quite unthinkable that a Q.C. should visit a solicitor. This could not, he says, possibly happen because of the laws of the Temple.

He says it is just all right for the solicitor and the Q.C. to be in the solicitor's office in the Lily Moggson scene, although he should start off by being an observer.

The first scene in Mayherne's [original name of the solicitor, Mayhew] office seems to be the problem, but by no means insoluble, so don't bother about it until you hear from me again – which may not be for a week or two.

Christie to Saunders: 19 February 1953

Dear Peter

Herewith various startling improvements (?)! I think I've done what you wanted with the scene of Romaine's break down and got it more dramatic.

I've also revised the first act, and I think it now covers Sir Wilfrid being in Mayhew's office since he comes there in a friendly fashion, off duty so to speak [on his way to play golf]. Also I think it is better this way, since it builds him up better. I didn't really mean he was a windbag. Yes, he must be sympathetic. But I meant more the histrionic type of Counsel – the Marshall Hall type [Hall was a celebrated Edwardian defence lawyer] rather than the cold keen shrewd type. Really, I rather like the play now. And am getting all excited.

Let me know what you think about the revisions and don't be too much bullied by the legal pundits. ‘Several days' is such a silly remark. Time on stage isn't real time, it's illusion. Only the more flagrant errors need doing. Anything exactly like a criminal court would be dull . . .

There must be a Personality for Romaine. She has all through to suggest so much that she isn't saying.

Well, here's luck. Hope this typing isn't too much of a mess but I think it's quite clear where it joins on and fits in. Court Scene can dim off anywhere we choose, but I think the sooner the better after Romaine. Anyway, I am really quite fogged now about length. Is it too short or too long? The former, I hope. So much easier to add.

Yours

Agatha

Saunders to Christie: 24 February 1953

Dear Agatha,

Many thanks for your letter of February 19th and re-writes.

I like the opening very much indeed, and I think we might get a bit of fun out of it. Also it gives us the chance to have an attractive girl in the part of Greta, which I think is a good thing in a play where there isn't much feminine appeal.

The new scene of Romaine in the box I like very much indeed, but it has disappointed my barrister friend [Tilling] who has just written his own suggestion for it. I haven't seen
it yet, but for what it is worth I will send it on to you at the end of the week when I get it.

Regarding the arrival of Sir Wilfrid at Mayhew's office, I am not quite sure what to say. It is still, even as re-written, completely contrary to all the ethics of the Temple. If you feel that it is better theatre that way, and the inaccuracy doesn't matter, then of course I withdraw all objections.

This barrister, however, has got an idea which would not involve great alterations but might make it ‘right', so I will send on his observations on this as well.

As you say, we must of course bear in mind that this is the stage not a court, and I have the greatest faith in your theatrical ‘feel'.

What I am afraid of is sending you repeated screeds of requests and notes to such an extent that you will come to the conclusion that you shouldn't have written the play at all.

I will send to Mosul, I hope on Friday, the barrister's observations, but if when you get them you feel that I could be of more use on the spot, for the purpose of discussing how far we should go as regards accuracy, I could easily fly out for a couple of days. Planes leave twice a week, and it is only two and a half hours by train from Baghdad.

However, I suggest you leave everything till you hear from me again, which would be in three or four days' time.

Kind Regards,

Yours Sincerely,

[Peter Saunders]

Saunders to Christie: 27 February 1953

Saunders' Folly

Dear Agatha,

I enclose a loose leaf edition of the play, with the barrister's observations. I have not returned your revisions (hoping
you have a copy) as I would like them by me to refer to. If you need them, a letter or a cable will bring them by return.

You will find that he has written in on the script minor changes, and anything major he has done on green paper so that you can easily pick it out.

I hope, and believe, that you will think he has done some useful work. Most of it (particularly legal arguments) I like very much, and I don't think it makes it too long winded, because his legal interpolations are usually backed up by sarcasm, irony or dramatic conflict.

The major problem is the Q.C. visiting the solicitor. As you will see, he has switched the entire thing (both scenes) to the Q.C.'s office, and if this satisfies you it certainly does me. On the other hand, if you think that the unethicality of having the Q.C. visiting the solicitor doesn't matter for the stage, then I accept this just as happily. But I am slightly inclined towards the accuracy, providing we don't lose ‘theatre' by it.

But there is another snag. If you have it in the Q.C.'s office then I am afraid it might have to wash out your new beginning, as a Q.C. wouldn't deal with messages and things like that. This wouldn't worry me, as your original beginning was very acceptable.

He says, incidentally, that before Romaine arrives in the first instance the Q.C. should have been put in the picture, which of course you have done on your revised script.

Regarding his final scene, where Romaine breaks down, I don't like it. She is trapped far too easily, and I think yours is infinitely better – although he may be right in saying that for Romaine to be forced to read the letter herself might be more effective. [This suggestion wasn't taken up]

I feel I am giving you an enormous amount of work. I have a copy of all his notes and, if you agree that it is better to keep the Q.C.'s office, would it save you the trouble if I had a completely new script typed out, with all his interpolations (except the Romaine witness-box scene) and incorporating some of your revisions which you sent me?

I don't suggest that this would be the final script, but I feel it would save you a lot of time to alter a fairly up to date script, rather than to have to type most of the thing again.

If you would like me to do this, would you be good enough to cable ‘Send new script' and I will know what it means.

Again, my apologies for all this extra work, but I am very excited about it, and do sincerely believe that it is going to be worth it.

Kind regards to you both,

Yours Sincerely

[Peter Saunders]

Christie to Saunders: 7 March 1953

Dear Peter,

Have just sent you a wire approving the new script which I think is excellent in every way
bar
the Romaine breakdown –

        
(a) There should be no mention of ‘fabricated evidence' – the last thing you want to do is put
that
idea into the audience's head.

        
(b) I think my ‘trap' is better. She must appear absolutely flabbergasted by the production of letters . . .

Other points . . .

        
(1) The ‘left handed' idea is good. I should think one small suggestion (
not
from Counsel) that Janet [the murder victim's housekeeper] is or may be left handed – perhaps when she is sworn? Take book in left hand, etc. As I see it Defence tries to indicate young intruder ‘cosh murderer' what is
audience
going to be clever about? They spot – the sharper ones – that one indication of left handed Janet and say ‘Ha ha!' –
I
know – the house keeper really did it.

        
(2) What is the point of not having any specimen of Romaine's handwriting?

I'm enormously cheered up now by the legal embellishments – I've got copies of my last revision so don't bother about those – keep them . . .

Delighted to see you if you . . . fly out – but as we seem to be in agreement I don't think there is any real need – Mosul is not 2½ hours from Baghdad but a whole night's journey!! And the line has just been cut for nearly a week . . . we only got here today! . . .

Agatha

Saunders to Christie: 11 March 1953

Dear Agatha,

Just a brief note to thank you for your letter of March 7th. I am having a script typed, and will send it to you in a few days for your final approval.

I think the idea of no specimen of Romaine's handwriting is that if they did have a specimen then it would be easy to prove the letters were hers, instead of trapping her into admitting it.

I think I shall refrain from flying over to see you, and I do agree that the legal embellishments are extremely good.

[Peter Saunders]

Saunders to Christie: 18 March 1953

Saunders' Folly

Dear Agatha,

My secretary is away wintersporting, so please ignore errors and omissions!

I enclose an up-to-date typed copy. Will you be good enough
to tell me whether it is now sufficiently complete to have it roneoed and sent out to various people. While it is easy to leave alterations until rehearsals, I do like to give the people concerned as far as possible the ‘right' script.