THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST (1952)

I have tried and tried to like this ridiculous Oscar Wilde play. It has some very funny lines, amusing situations, and the Lady Bracknell character, an exaggerated figure of class privilege, is one an actor can sink her teeth into. But the characters and the story are so bizarre, it's hard to care a straw for anything that happens—yes, I know the very title warns me. Perhaps this is why it's almost always performed in a campy manner; it’s even become common for a man to play Lady Bracknell in drag. I recently saw a filmed production of the play by the National Theatre of Great Britain which is not only campy but throws in actively queer bits that don't really belong in a play which has little gay subtext (more on that later). So I decided to revisit this first filmed version, shot in a very stagy manner which seems appropriate for a story with no action.

Ernest Worthing (Michael Redgrave) and Algernon Moncrieff (Michael Denison) are buddies of some wealth and class. In the city, Worthing calls himself Ernest though his real name is Jack, the name he uses in the country where he lives most of the time as guardian to his young ward Cecily (Dorothy Tutin). Algernon only uses one name, but when he wants to skip out of his city obligations, he has made up a friend named Bunbury who he claims to visit in the country, usually saying Bunbury is sick and needs attending to. Jack/Ernest is in love with Gwendolen (Joan Greenwood), Algy's cousin, but her mother, Lady Bracknell (Edith Evans, pictured above right with Denison), is hesitant to give her consent, especially when she discovers that Jack has, as he puts it, "lost both parents"—Lady Bracknell replies, "To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness"—and his lineage can only be traced to having been found abandoned in a handbag in a train station. Bracknell can't let Gwendolen "marry into a cloakroom and form an alliance with a parcel." For her part, Gwendolen has always been enamored of the name Ernest which is pretty much her only reason for wanting to marry him. To make trouble, Algernon goes out to Jack's country estate and poses as Ernest, whom Jack has always referred to as a bad sort. Cecily has, sight unseen, fallen in love with Ernest (she, like Gwendolen, loves his name) and has written a series of diary entries about her imaginary relationship. Of course, Algernon (as Ernest) is a hit in the country and falls head over heels for Cecily, and when Jack arrives, all hell breaks loose. Then Lady Bracknell shows up.

This is basically a farce with comedic wordplay rather than physical humor. The construction of the narrative is tight with everything locking together by the end, but I can't get past some of the ludicrous situations, primarily that two young women would have dreams of marrying someone named Ernest to the exclusion of anyone else. The circumstances of Jack's birth are equally silly but are dealt with more cleverly. It comes down to pacing and acting. Redgrave and Denison are both fine. Redgrave, though still handsome, was in his mid-40s and pretty much looks it; Denison, in his mid-30s, is a better match for his role. Cecily and Gwendolen don't have much in the way of character backgrounds or personalities, so any competent actress could handle these roles, and Tutin and Greenwood suffice. Lady Bracknell will make or break any production of this work, and Edith Evans is quite good, tamping down the camp element just a bit (her delivery of the line, "A handbag??" is a highlight). In the smaller but very important role of Miss Prism, Margaret Rutherford (Miss Marple in a series of 1960s movies) is every bit as good. I'd love to have seen her take on the role of Lady Bracknell. The production is stagy and static but colorful with great sets and costumes. Of course, the title of the movie mocks my own problem with it: when the line is uttered at the very end of the film, we know that Wilde thinks the whole idea of earnestness being important is silly, so I should just get over my problems with logic and enjoy the wit, and generally, I do. [DVD]

A word on the gay element in the National Theatre production: Wilde was gay, and queer subtext in Dorian Gray is important, both in the relationship between Dorian and his mentors and in the decadent but undescribed behavior that Dorian eventually falls into. Some critics have read a similar subtext in Earnest in terms of the "bunburying" that Algernon does, implying a homosexual double life, and the very term itself suggests such a reading. But nothing in the play suggests that Algernon and Jack are queer besties, nor Cecily and Gwendolen. But in the 2025 film, the four are constantly engaging in retro-gay asides like bumping asses or kissing on the lips. I could deal with a production that bares Algernon as a closet case, or suggests a repressed attraction between Algy and Jack, but otherwise the queering up of the performances feels like an empty gimmick. Still, the production, with colorblind casting, is energetic and colorful. Sharon D. Clarke as Bracknell is actually better than Judi Dench was in the 2002 film; Dench, as she admitted later, tempered her performance a bit too much. Pictured at left are Hugh Skinner as Jack and Ncuti Gatwa as Algernon. Gatwa does come very close to making Algernon a gay stereotype which makes hash of his sudden attraction to Cecily. A production making both men queer, marrying women only for money or position, might be interesting.