James Hitchcock
Sir Alan Ayckbourn is one of Britain's most successful and prolific playwrights, but the British film industry, unlike the British theatre and British television, has never taken much interest in his work. Although he has written more than seventy full-length plays, most of which have been performed in London's West End and many of which have been adapted for television, the number of feature films based on his work can be counted on the fingers of one hand. (Two have been made by the French director Alain Resnais; the only other one in English is Michael Winner's version of "A Chorus of Disapproval"). "The Revengers' Comedies" is the other British exception to the general cinematic disregard of Ayckbourn's work, although I must say that it was a strange choice to adapt for the screen. The original play was not a success when it was put on in the West End in 1991, largely because it runs for five hours and was presented in two parts over two successive evenings. Malcolm Mowbray's film makes no attempt to match the play in length; indeed, at only 86 minutes it is shorter than most films these days. This means that, inevitably, much of Ayckbourn's original material has to be jettisoned. Mowbray, however, keeps the plural noun "comedies" in the title, which Ayckbourn used to signify that this was a two-part play. The title is a play on "The Revenger's Tragedy", the Jacobean tragedy which has been attributed to both Cyril Tourneur and Thomas Middleton. The plot owes something to Alfred Hitchcock's film "Strangers on a Train". It starts with the two principal characters meeting when they attempt to commit suicide by jumping from Tower Bridge. (The Albert Bridge in the play). Henry Bell, a middle-aged business executive, has recently been sacked from his job. Karen Knightly, the eccentric daughter of a wealthy country family, has been involved in an unhappy love affair with a married man. When both fail in their suicide bids, they compare stories and agree that each will exact revenge for their misfortunes on behalf of the other. Karen will seek revenge on Henry's unpleasant former boss Bruce Tick while Henry will seek revenge, not against Karen's former lover Anthony Staxton-Billing, with whom she is still in love, but against his wife Imogen whom Karen blames for her misfortunes. A complication arises, however, when Henry meets Imogen and starts to fall in love with her. The film features a number of well-known names from the British acting profession, most of whom play their parts very well. I felt that Sam Neill perhaps made Henry too staid and conservative compared to Griff Rhys Jones' interpretation when he played the part on stage; I felt that Henry must have had a darker side to his character to have gone along with Karen's mad scheme in the first place. Helena Bonham Carter, however, was brilliant as Karen, a spoilt, wilful upper-class brat, wildly eccentric to the point of insanity. I felt that Steve Coogan's Tick was insufficiently arrogant and bullying, but Martin Clunes' Anthony was suitably obnoxious, essentially a crude thug in the clothing of an English country gentleman. Kristin Scott Thomas seems to play upper-class horsey types at regular ten-year intervals; her Brenda Last from 1988's "A Handful of Dust" and her Veronica Whittaker from 2008's "Easy Virtue" are, socially speaking, very similar characters to the one she plays here. Imogen, however, is more sympathetic than either Brenda or Veronica; although she initially comes across as a hard-bitten snob, we soon realise that underneath she is a vulnerable figure, the victim of a selfish, womanising husband.There is a lot of humour in the film; the funniest scenes, I felt, were those where Karen disguises herself as a frumpy office temp in order to infiltrate Tick's company and that strange duel between Henry and Anthony. And yet the film as a whole did not work for me quite as well as the play. (I seem to be not only one of the few people who actually saw the 1991 production but also one of the even smaller group of people who liked it). Ayckbourn's success as a dramatist is due not merely to the quality of his plots and dialogue but also on matters which transfer less easily to the cinema screen, such as complexity of structure and his knowledge of stagecraft. (Besides being a playwright, he is also the artistic director of a theatre). By condensing the five hours of his "Revengers Comedies" into less than an hour and a half, much of the dramatic material in the plays has had to be sacrificed, and the result is something less complex and less well-structured than the original play. (The ending in particular is rather disappointing). The film version also loses something of the dark quality of Ayckbourn's black comedy. It is a valiant attempt to adapt Ayckbourn for the screen, but it perhaps also indicates why such an attempt is fraught with difficulty and why so few films have been based on his plays. 7/10
NJMoon
Like Harvey Fierstein's TORCH SONG TRILOGY, this two-part play almost demanded a name change before lensing, but all except the US market chose to do so (SWEET REVENGE, to us Yanks). Alan Ayckbourn's cutting comic caper concerns two desperate losers who opt for revenge instead of a midnight dive into the Thames. Fine Britress Helena Bonham Carter is the controlling "she" while sedate Ozian Sam Neil is the duller "he". Stick insect Kristin Scott Thomas replaces the much-missed Joanna Lumley from the stage version while a mopey Rupert Graves is serviceable as the wayward brother. This is only one of three Ayckbourn plays (out of 69) to make it to the big screen (A CHORUS OF DISAPPROVAL and SMOKING/NO SMOKING, the other two) and it's compression proves it's failing. The quaint Liz Smith is antic as the doddering maid. In the end, though, the fabric has been sliced and mended till the narrative is less than satisfying.
DaveZ
This is a waste of 90 minutes, starring some excellent actors. What happened?I think this was intended to be another quirky English comedy. Unfortunately, the supposed humor generally feels mean-spirited. I kept expecting the plot was all about a scam or practical joke, and that the dead folks would pop up and start laughing. No such luck. The ending seems arbitrary and abrupt. The narration is pointless (was it intended to "fix" a major re-editing?).The other comments talk about this being a wonderful example of droll English humor. Yes, I realize the English tend to have a different sense of humor, but I wouldn't have considered this an example.
