Petticoats

‘There are no men in “Petticoats,” the new comedy by Mr. H. F. Maltby, produced at the Garrick Theatre last night. All the seventeen characters are feminine, the reason for this being that the action is supposed to take place at a time when all the men really have been “called up.” There is some fun of the “women-doing-men’s-work” order, but the plot is rather too economical even for war-time' (Sunday Mirror, 11 March 1917). ‘To write satirically concerning the war at the present moment is clearly dangerous, for many people are in a sensitive state and easily wounded. Mr. H. F. Maltby has written such a satire, and can hardly be surprised if some of his lines are generally regarded as offensive. Still, assuming it to be permissible to treat the subject satirically, he may be said to have been skilful on the whole in avoiding serious offence when using his lively wit. The play is supposed to pass in London in the year “ 19—?”, when the war is still on. All the men except the very aged arc at the front, so the women run everything, and this state of matters has been going on so long that every unmarried woman is assumed to be longing intensely for a mate ... Rather a thin dramatic scheme to serve for three acts; but fortunately Mr. Maltby has invented some clever comic business, and, thanks to his wit, there are but few really dull moments in the play, and they will be lessened when it is performed more briskly' (Westminster Gazette, 12 March 1917). ‘A rough, slashing, often clever, always wholesome and good-humoured, evidently popular war satire, “Petticoats,” the all-women play at the Garrick by Gunner H. F. Maltby, author of “The Rotters,” is by no means to be dismissed as mere trivial nonsense. To begin with, it is a thoroughly good entertainment. It can boast some of the most brilliant “ragging” dialogue that has been written since the war. Beyond this, there is genuine thought instead of trite convention the back of it. There is sympathy as well as raillery. This Aristophanes of the Artillery pillories our war life, and, above all, the woman’s side of it, to the tune of almost continuous laughter. But the end there are all sorts of sidelights upon ideals and realities left behind that are well worth thinking over - as, for instance, upon the pseudo-democratic cult so prevalent just now in so many feminine organisations. And a play that makes people both laugh and think has not been “presented” in vain' (Pall Mall Gazette, 12 March 1917). ‘Mr. H. F. Maltby’s new comedy “Petticoats,” which was produced at the Garrick Theatre, London, on Saturday night, has the merit of originality. Dealing with a late period of the war when men are supposedly scarce in England, and when military rank and achievement is the passport to social fame, the play gives an opportunity for a cast of seventeen ladies to show what might happen if most of them fell in love with one V.C. Miss Louie Tinsley, Miss Dora Gregory, Miss Gwladys Gaynor, and others made the play go with a swing and they all showed what can be done with an exclusively female cast’ (Manchester Evening News, 12 March 1917). 'If witty dialogue alone would make a play, then “Petticoats,” the new comedy, by Gunner H. F. Maltby, would be a signal success. The play was produced last night at the Garrick Theatre, and with its jests and satirical references to the war-time conditions now prevailing caused roar upon roar of laughter. Despite the unmistakeable cleverness, there is no underlying motive or principle in the play ... Gunner Maltby, the author, took his call, and appeared in khaki’ (Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 12 March 1917). ‘After many postponements, “Petticoats” was produced at the Garrick Theatre on Saturday night. It proved to be well worth the waiting for - a brilliant, satirical, fantastic study of a situation which Mr. H. F. Maltby suggests, may be set up on the end of the war; but not yet. He puts his period as 19. —. The women are dominant; but, every one of them, eager for the return of mankind. “Petticoats” is by far the best thing Mr. Maltby has given us yet - indeed, in wit and humour, and intellectual ingenuity, far beyond any vista of promise which his earlier work opened up ... One fears that the women critics will be down on this most amusing study of war women. For, from busy, ineffectual Mrs. Fletcher, with her infinity of committees, to the clumsy upholsteresses, they are all supplied in a plenty with the foibles of their mere-men counterparts’ (The Globe, 12 March 1917). ‘The audience last night at the Garrick enjoyed the jokes about the war, and the many satirical references to war-time conditions contained in Mr H. F. Maltby’s new comedy, “Petticoats.” The cast of the play is entirely confined to women, as every man up to the age of 80 is supposed be called up. Furniture-removers, doctors, solicitors, and even M.P.’s, are women. They exhibit on the stage, however, all the traits of their sex. They know how to be spiteful, particularly so in the competition amongst them to win Captain Fletcher, V.C., in matrimony ... The author took his call at the final fall of the curtain and appeared wearing khaki – a gunner in the Artillery’ (Aberdeen Press and Journal, 12 March 1917). ‘There is very little to be said about “Petticoats,” the new play at the Garrick, except this - that its writer, Mr. H. F. Maltby, has hardly maintained the success which he undoubtedly achieved in “The Rotters.” It is a satire on women and the war, and much of it is in questionable taste’ (Daily Mirror, 12 March 1917). 'Full of point ... was “Petticoats!” the new comedy by Mr. H. F. Maltby, which we saw for the first time at the Garrick on Saturday evening; but, alas!, the witty author a little marred the effectiveness of his work by setting himself the impossible task of inflating that point into a small balloon. As a one-act sketch, his jeu d’esprit might be acclaimed as something of a tour de force; as a three-act comedy, the pumping-up process becomes here and there a trifle too apparent, and reveals some tendency towards the monotonous. There are, however, a number of flashes in his domestic pan, and the leitmotiv certainly makes for mirth ... on the whole the play was not unlike a compartment “for ladies only – more amusing in aspect than within’ (The Era, 14 March 1917). ‘“Petticoats" ... was a disappointing production. “You cannot make a play with dialogue alone” ought to be inscribed over every dramatist’s writing-table. There must be some action. Something must happen. In “Petticoats,” which supposes the war prolonged for an indefinite period, we have a skit on an England entirely denuded of men who are all “at the war” ... It must be admitted that the dialogue is always bright and often really witty, but dialogue alone, however good, is not enough ... I do not predict a long life for “ Petticoats”’ (Truth, 14 March 1917). ‘Purely a thing of the moment, as ephemeral and as fleeting in its interest as could be conceived, is H. F. Maltby’s new comedy ... with its attractive title of “Petticoats" ... In it the author of “ The Laughter of Fools “ and of “The Rotters” has started with a fairly good idea, which, however, he has hammered out very thin, with a great number of repetitions of incidents and phrases, in the course of three insubstantial and episodic acts. Further, his dialogue, smart and amusingly topical as many in the first-night audience at the Garrick apparently thought it to be, is little more than a rechauffé of the cheap facetiae and impertinent badinage with which certain of the inferior journals are full. Long before the end of the piece one becomes tired of the “When the War is over “ applied chiefly to the supposedly imminent return of Captain Felix Fletcher ... In such conditions (set forth with sundry qualities, negative and positive, of taste and humour, for which the author must bear the responsibility) all the wearers of petticoats that toil their way upstairs to Mrs. Fletcher’s new flat promptly become enamoured of the portrait of the home-coming V.C. ... “Petticoats,” produced by the author, for whom there were friendly calls at the close of the performance on Saturday, had its “All Women” cast sustained with almost uniform success' (The Stage, 15 March 1917). The Stage, 15 March 1917, listed the cast: Liz (from Furniture Depository) … Louise Tinsley Melia (from Furniture Depository) … Frances Wetherall Clara (from Furniture Depository) … Pollie Emery Mrs Fletcher … Millie Hylton Smith (a servant) … Elspeth Dudgeon Robertson (a chauffeuse) … Phyllis Desmond Telephone Girl, G.P.O. … Cherry Muir Dr. Ethel Howell, M.D. … Audrey Ford Miss Frances Brown, M.P. (solicitor) …Marga La Rubia Rev. Iris Colt, M.A. … Dora Gregory Winifred (from Window Cleaning Co.) … Kitty Crichton Irene (from Window Cleaning Co.) … Gwladys Gaynor Captain Randall … Violet Cameron 1st charwoman … Esmé Hubbard 2nd charwoman (Mrs. Cholmondeley) … Dora Levis Lydia Jones, P.C. … Elaine Sledall The Foreign Lady … Hope L’Estrange. ‘Mr. H. F. Maltby is to be congratulated on his delightfully entertaining three-act comedy, “Petticoats!” which Mr. Jose G. Levy is successfully producing by arrangement with Mr. Dott at the Garrick. As the title suggests it is an all-women’s effort, and the story circles round the doings of Mrs. Fletcher, wife of Lieut.-Colonel Fletcher, and their son, Captain Felix Fletcher, who by his prowess has won the V.C. There are many fine characters in the play and all interested in how the fair sex would shape in the event of the management of the country being entrusted to their guidance should not miss seeing “Petticoats"' (West London Observer, 16 March 1917). ‘A play in which all the characters are women starts with an inevitable handicap, however much as it may pique curiosity, and must be very skilfully managed to overcome that handicap. The times, to be sure, lend themselves to the scheme of such a play as Mr. Maltby’s “Petticoats,” and help to give plausibility to its all-feminine atmosphere. Since in so many directions in these war-days women are being employed as substitutes for men, the playwright’s comic fancy is only carrying the process of social transformation a stage further than it had reached already when he shows us not only women-chauffeurs, women window-cleaners, and women-doctors, but women policemen, a woman-clergyman, and a woman Member of Parliament. Good enough, however, as Mr. Maltby’s idea is, it only half comes off, and scarcely more than half his women possess even a fantastic vitality. All his mob of females invading a flat are farcically supposed to be in pursuit of the newest V.C. and hero of the hour, and they are foiled at the last when, in place of the man, walks in one more woman - his wife. But somehow, despite no little wit, despite his reliance on feminine bickering and plotting, despite the play he makes with the war’s modification of social distinctions, the author scarcely maintains sufficient movement and fun and variety to sustain interest in his story through three acts. Some of his dramatis personae, we must add, are little more than dummies; and one part, with which Miss Millie Hylton struggles gallantly, is overloaded with talk' (Illustrated London News, 17 March 1917). ‘There used to be discussion somewhere about something - it was all before the war - in which frequent reference was made to the idea static and the idea kinetic. This means, as I understand it, that if you think of something which stands still all the time you have got the idea static; but if what you think of gets a move on it becomes kinetic ... Now in a play what you want is a reasonable degree of the kinetic. You cannot look at it for a few moments, say “How nice,” and pass on ... You are there for a couple of hours or more ... and if it does not after a short time begin to move, you feel as in a railway train when the passengers’ heads are all hanging out of open windows in the dark and officials walking up and down outside think there is a block on the line three miles ahead and decline, officially, to say whether it will ever be removed. It may be a very nice train, but that is no comfort. Even so a play may be a very nice play, but the human mind is fickle and likes change. That was the main trouble about Mr. Maltby’s exclusively feminine play, “Petticoats.” He had quite a nice idea and he talked round it brightly ... But as an idea it was static in a high degree ... One watching very carefully might occasionally say, “Look, it moves!” But it didn’t, really. It only seemed to. Yet there was a cleverness in Mr. Maltby which made it not altogether so monotonous as you might expect though an account of its merits would be but a remembering, and a recording of some of the funny things that were said: a collection of topical allusions to woman and the war, occasionally quite happy though in a tone of satire not particularly deep ... All well enough this, for Mr. Maltby has a quick wit and a neat way of saying things; but he should exercise them upon something of more form and substance - and something that moves’ (Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 17 March 1917). 'The organic structure of the play is weak, but the wit and sallies on passing fads and conditions are very bright and to the point, though some people may object to making the war a butt for any sort of wit' (The Graphic, 17 March 1917). ‘Three acts, seventeen characters, and not a man in the whole entertainment! Such is the composition of H. F. Maltby’s comedy, which was seen for the first time at the Garrick Theatre last Saturday. “Petticoats” is an amusing play, with no very definite action, but with an almost continual ripple of entertaining dialogue that is frequently witty. The “story” is negligible ... the whole company of “ladies all” at the Garrick Theatre work with a will, and are also very ornamental, which nobody of the male gender will deny, with Marga La Rubia, Audrey Ford, Gwladys Gaynor, Kittie Crichton, and Violet Cameron gathered in the bouquet of loveliness’ (Sporting Times, 17 March 1917). ‘The war has not yet produced a British Aristophanes, but we have had two efforts at satire. One was Mr. Shaw’s “Adolphus Doing His Bit,” a feeble thing; the second is Mr. Maltby’s new play called “Petticoats!” just produced at the Garrick. Mr. Shaw was the wiser, for he saw the danger of going beyond one act. Mr. Maltby has tried three, so his play has repetitions and obvious padding; there is sufficient matter in it for two acts. What a pity that the intense conservatism of the English theatre frowns upon the two-act play! Scores of thousands of pounds are lost yearly because pieces that would have been delightful in two acts are dragged out to three and ruined. I am not suggesting that “Petticoats” is dull - merely that it might have been brilliant if severely cut even; then people would have complained that some of the jokes are in bad taste because they hurt the feelings of those who have, or have had, dear ones at the front. That was bound to be the case with any satire upon war subjects written during the war. There are plenty of amusing passages and witty lines in “Petticoats,” neat little bits of character too, so the house was laughing during most of the evening, though some of the jokes were not understood by part of the audience. What a field for the satirist!' (The Sketch, 21 March 1917). ‘The main thing lacking in Petticoats, Mr. H. F. Maltby’s new fantastic farce, is, to put it vulgarly, a “wee pair o’ troosers” - or even a kilt. There is just a little too much of that feminine garment which, my women friends assure me, ladies no longer wear. It was all rather like tipsy cake without any rum. The taste was delicious, but it lacked “bite” ... [The characters] are all very amusing as far as they go. The trouble is that they all go a little too far. The ladies on the stage were all calling out for a man, and so, figuratively speaking, were the audience. Petticoats would have made one of the wittiest, most entertaining one-act comedies imaginable. It was rather ponderous as a three-act farce. And yet it had many brilliant moments. Mr. Maltby poked fun at most of those things which dull people approach in all seriousness and without thinking. He hits home at most of the patriotic foibles of the day, and he hits home fairly and with wit. But his piece is nearly all talk and too little action ... I don’t think I ever missed a man so much in any piece. There always seemed to be something wanting which none of the women - amusing caricaturers though they were - could quite make up for ... By the third act we began to feel something of what a woman must feel when she hasn’t seen anything in trousers for years. We should have welcomed the sight even of a suit of ready-made clothes. When the end came, and still another woman appeared we were rather glad to get out and feast our eyes upon a ‘bus conductor. Not that we had not found these women vastly amusing. We had. But the joke lasted too long, and a joke too-lengthily spun out encourages the “fidgets” ... Nevertheless, hasten to see Petticoats - it’s well worth it’ (The Tatler, 21 March 1917). The columnist Touchstone wrote in The Era, 21 March 1917, ‘I am relieved to announce that the withdrawal of “Petticoats” on Saturday night just synchronised with the final fall of the curtain’. The Globe, 21 March 1917, thought that the play 'certainly deserved a better fate’; and The Scotsman, 27 March 1917, also thought that it had had a shorter run at the Garrick than it deserved.

The Hampshire Telegraph, Friday 30 March 1917, advertised at the Theatre Royal for next week ‘The play of the moment “Petticoats.” The Company and Entire Production from the Garrick Theatre’. Also, ‘That sparkling comedy “Petticoats!” which has met with such phenomenal success [sic!] at the Garrick Theatre, London, will be staged at the Theatre Royal next week. “Petticoats!” is the ploy of the moment, and Mr. Arthur Gibbons will present the entire production, as witnessed at the Garrick. This new comedy is by the author of “The Rotters,” and it imparts so much humour that it is said one can get half a dozen laughs in a minute. The cast is a particularly strong one, and Miss Frances White takes the leading role of Mrs. Fletcher' (Hampshire Telegraph, 30 March 1917). And, ‘This week’s play, “Petticoats,” is having a most successful run. There are two performances nightly, and there will be a matinee on Saturday at 2.30’ (Hampshire Telegraph, 6 April 1917).

‘“Petticoats” will be seen here [The Brixton] for the first time next week’ (The Stage, 12 April 1917). Arthur Gibbons advertised in The Era, 18 April 1917, for a theatre for next week for the ‘enormously successful comedy, “Petticoats”. Playing this week, Brixton Theatre’.