The best ghost story I know is Henry James' 'The Turn of the Screw.' It may be the only really good ghost story I have ever read. James' ghosts occupy psychological spaces, for the most part, and are the more disconcerting and the more convincing for it. Susan Hill's 'The Woman In Black' is different. It's ghosts are more old fashioned, and are to be found in graveyards, behind locked doors and barred windows, and in fog choked swamps and marshland. And when I first met them, on the London stage.
Stephen Mallatratt's theatrical adaptation of Susan Hill's short novel has been running at the Fortune Theatre, London, since time began, or thereabouts. I went to see it a couple of weeks ago, just as time was rumoured to be winding down. The cast of characters is played by two actors, both excellent. The staging is simple and clever, the theatre small and intimate. When the play finished I bought the book, and I read the book with the images and the sounds of the stage still resonating. And so this review can not help but be a review of the play and the book together.
The story begins as so many ghost stories do, with a frame narrative, in which our narrator, an ageing, somewhat subdued, "even-tempered . . . predictable" Arthur Kipps, sits by a fire blazing in the hearth, engaged in the "soothing business of lighting a pipe", his family sat around him. He is invited to join in with the traditional Christmas Eve telling of ghost stories. Shaken, he abruptly makes his exit, leaving his family "in a state of consternation and bewilderment" and the reader with the lingering, ominous thought that, "the truth is quite other, and altogether more terrible" than the "ghoulish, lurid inventions" of the usual stories. This is how the book opens. The play opens with Kipps standing centre stage reading the opening lines of the book ("It was nine-thirty on Christmas Eve. As I crossed the long entrance hall of Monk's Place on my way from . . .") in a slow, deliberate monotone. Both beginnings point to the ostensibly plain, unadorned, and so credible character of our narrator, and, in turn, the credibility of his story.
The "altogether more terrible" truth unfolds in Arthur Kipps' past, in a small, insular, fog-swathed town called Crythin Gifford, where, as a junior solicitor, he is sent to attend to the affairs of the recently deceased Mrs Drablow. And it is here that the eponymous 'Woman in Black' appears (a young woman "so pathetically wasted, so pale and gaunt with disease, that it would not have been a kindness to gaze upon her") and disappears, usually preceded by a rustle. Soon after Kipps moves to Eel Marsh House, a suitably gothic structure, surrounded by marshland, approachable only via the narrow "Nine Lives Causeway" and isolated from the town when the tide is in and the causeway submerged. Here he is haunted by strange, ominous sounds - a horse and carriage sinking into the surrounding marshland, the screams of its occupants, one a child; a rhythmic bumping, a "familiar sort of sound" from behind a locked door. When reading these passages I could not but hear again the sounds from the theatre, and so recall the tension evoked there. The success of the theatrical adaptation depends I think on these sounds, which in combination with the simple, sparse staging, commit the audience to engaging with the story on their own terms, and with their own imaginations. Little is directly shown. Susan Hill does likewise. Enough is left unsaid, and enough unseen.
In both the novel and the play, the space that is most vividly seen is that of the room behind the locked door. In the novel it is described with the same detail as are the marshes, or the house, but it is more vivid, more conspicuous, because it does not fit. It does not fit with those other settings, or with the impression of the woman in black who stands gazing out over the marshes from its barred window. Outside of the room, and until the room, the story is monochromatic, a sort of dull russet brown. And until this point, everything has a feeling of weight, and decay. When Kipps finally shines his torch into the room there is colour and lightness. The effect is, in context, disconcerting. On the stage the effect is similar. Whereas for most of the story the staging has been minimal, a couple of chairs and a basket serving for half a dozen different settings, the room behind the door is busy and cluttered. For the first time the audience is jolted from their own imaginations and asked to really look at something - a fixed, meticulously arranged space. The sudden shift is disconcerting, and disorientating. It is doubly so when our eyes fix upon the source of the rhythmic bumping "familiar sort of sound" that has been haunting Kipps' nights.
This then is a ghost story which in its component parts is familiar. There is the frame narrative, the reliable narrator, the claustrophobic settings, the barred window and the locked door. There is also the twist at the end, which although not especially surprising is perhaps all the more dramatic for its tragic inevitability. And yet, despite or because of its familiarity, it works. The book is well written and the play is entertaining. In both, the plot is well handled. I don't know if I would have liked the book as much if I had not seen the play first. Both together took about five hours. I would gladly have given a few more.
