Rutherford and Son

by Githa Sowerby

First staged in 1912 and described as "the most powerful play produced in England in this decade," Githa Sowerby's Edwardian classic on family and labour enjoyed huge success in London and New York Set in the North Yorkshire home of the oppressive patriarch John Rutherford, Rutherford and Son's portrayal of the father's obsession with glass manufacturing business and his tyranny over the wrecked lives of his family is on a par with the dramas of Ibsen, Gorky and Granville Barker.

Genres: Plays, Drama

108 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1912

Reviews

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd never heard of this 1912 play (or its playwright) until its sudden renaissance via several high profile revivals in the UK (including the National Theatre), and the surrounding hoopla of its being an early feminist propaganda piece. That's a bit of a stretch, although several strong female characters are in evidence. After some, perhaps obligatory, overly expository exchanges in the first act, the play settles down to being an exemplary examination of family dynamics, with a domineering father browbeating all within his household to do his bidding - until both his daughter and daughter-in-law defy him. NOT a great lost masterpiece, but an interesting trifle.

[notgettingenough]

I happened to come upon a newspaper report which suggested there was some sort of sexist conspiracy that means Sowerby was not the household name she should be.

She was acclaimed at the time of writing this, early 1900s, as the first female playright of note. This play came out with her gender disguised and there is an argument, which can't be proven, that it would not have been the big hit it was at the time otherwise. Her gender was quickly made public, but the feminist view is that she would have received bad reviews if not for her anonymity to begin with.

So, 100 years down the line, has there been some sort of plot to 'airbrush her' as one commentator put it, from history?

It's a Guardian report (should that not surprise me?) http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/... which puts what I think passes these days for a feminist spin...

May I counter with a couple of obvious points. I gather from all reports of its various revivals over recent years, that it isn't much of a play: one of those fixed in its time and the very reasons for it being a contemporary hit contain the seeds for it being uninteresting with the passing of time.

Add to this - and more importantly than the quality of the piece - the sad fact that the Play is astonishingly ephemeral. It might seem to have a solidity lacking in ice sculpture, but in practice that isn't so. I go to see a lot of theatre and this preys upon me, that the many new plays I watch, thrilled by them, will all, or almost all, be completely forgotten for ever in next to no time.

So, around the time of Sowerby, in this case, there were many talented playwrights, almost every one of whom has been completely unknown for most of the period since then and will continue to be. Supposing only one of these was female, the chance of what happens to be the only female being 'airbrushed from history' are enormous. It would have been the most felicitous bucking of the odds for anything else to happen. Playwrights are airbrushed from history all the time. I doubt many of them are more deserving of this fate than Sowerby.

[Pauline Butcher Bird · Rating 3 out of 5]

First performed in 1912, this play about an autocratic father, Rutherford, a self-made millionaire, who steals his son's patent for a new method to manufacture glass; who throws out his 36-year old spinster daughter for having an affair with his foreman who Rutherford considers to be beneath her social status; and suffers his other son, a vicar, to break away, is put together well, but do we care? As I read the script, I found I did not. It is extremely wordy and could be cut by a third and not lose the plot. I can imagine, though, an actor relishing Rutherford's role.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tale about inheritance, the family business, and making a way for oneself. Class, sexism, servitude - all good themes. Needs to be produced more. Reminds me a bit of Succession only this was written in 1912 and is better.

[Betül · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had no idea this playwright existed! Good read.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5

[Daisy Leather · Rating 3 out of 5]

ay lass, it's grim up north. quite a few comparisons can be drawn against hobsons choice and the women great- strong, firm, rising against the oppresive patriarchal society that rutherford represents. You go Janet! you go mary!

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a very happy play, but a very interesting one. It is an aspect of the dark side of the American Dream, even though it takes place in late 19th century Scotland: the disappointment that a father who has worked his way to the top feels in his children when they don't live up to his expectations, as well as the damage that kind of situation can cause to the children. Obviously, there is more going on in the play, but its core is a family tearing itself apart.