What do you think?
Rate this book
Dangerous Corner
At their stylish country retreat, Freda and Robert Caplan host a dinner party for their colleagues and friends. Young, beautiful and successful, they have the world at their feet. Then a cigarette box and an ill-considered remark spark off a relentless series of revelations and other more dangerous secrets are painfully exposed.
Priestley wrote this play to prove that a novelist could write an effective play using the strict economy of the stage.
It was first produced at the Lyric Theatre in May 1932, with Flora Robson in the role of Olwen Peel, Richard Bird as Robert Caplan and Marie Ney as Freda Caplan. In his biography of Priestley, Vincent Brome wrote of Dangerous Corner: "Directed by Tyrone Guthrie, it ran for just five performances, then the backers withdrew their support. Priestley took a cold hard look at the situation, made some swift calculations with his agent A.D. Peters, and plunged in daringly to rescue it. He was by now a relatively rich man and he drew on the accumulatuion of royalties to keep the play running at a loss. In the end his audacity paid off. The destructive notices in the daily press were followed by favourable reviews by Ivor Brown in the Observer and James Agate in the Sunday Times. It became one of the most popular plays Priestley ever wrote."
Priestley wrote this play to prove that a novelist could write an effective play using the strict economy of the stage.
It was first produced at the Lyric Theatre in May 1932, with Flora Robson in the role of Olwen Peel, Richard Bird as Robert Caplan and Marie Ney as Freda Caplan. In his biography of Priestley, Vincent Brome wrote of Dangerous Corner: "Directed by Tyrone Guthrie, it ran for just five performances, then the backers withdrew their support. Priestley took a cold hard look at the situation, made some swift calculations with his agent A.D. Peters, and plunged in daringly to rescue it. He was by now a relatively rich man and he drew on the accumulatuion of royalties to keep the play running at a loss. In the end his audacity paid off. The destructive notices in the daily press were followed by favourable reviews by Ivor Brown in the Observer and James Agate in the Sunday Times. It became one of the most popular plays Priestley ever wrote."
96 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1932
4 people are currently reading
242 people want to read
About the author
J.B. Priestley
470 books288 followersJohn Boynton Priestley was an English writer. He was the son of a schoolmaster, and after schooling he worked for a time in the local wool trade. Following the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, Priestley joined the British Army, and was sent to France - in 1915 taking part in the Battle of Loos. After being wounded in 1917 Priestley returned to England for six months; then, after going back to the Western Front he suffered the consequences of a German gas attack, and, treated at Rouen, he was declared unfit for active service and was transferred to the Entertainers Section of the British Army.
When Priestley left the army he studied at Cambridge University, where he completed a degree in Modern History and Political Science. Subsequently he found work as theatre reviewer with the Daily News, and also contributed to the Spectator, the Challenge and Nineteenth Century. His earliest books included The English Comic Characters (1925), The English Novel (1927), and English Humour (1928). His breakthrough came with the immensely popular novel The Good Companions, published in 1929, and Angel Pavement followed in 1930. He emerged, too, as a successful dramatist with such plays as Dangerous Corner (1932), Time and the Conways (1937), When We Are Married (1938) and An Inspector Calls (1947).
The publication of English Journey in 1934 emphasised Priestley's concern for social problems and the welfare of ordinary people.
During the Second World War Priestley became a popular and influential broadcaster with his famous Postscripts that followed the nine o'clock news BBC Radio on Sunday evenings. Starting on 5th June 1940, Priestley built up such a following that after a few months it was estimated that around 40 per cent of the adult population in Britain was listening to the programme.
Some members of the Conservative Party, including Winston Churchill, expressed concern that Priestley might be expressing left-wing views on the programme, and, to his dismay, Priestley was dropped after his talk on 20th October 1940.
After the war Priestley continued his writing, and his work invariably provoked thought, and his views were always expressed in his blunt Yorkshire style.
His prolific output continued right up to his final years, and to the end he remained the great literary all-rounder. His favourite among his books was for many years the novel Bright Day, though he later said he had come to prefer The Image Men.
It should not be overlooked that Priestley was an outstanding essayist, and many of his short pieces best capture his passions and his great talent and his mastery of the English language. He set a fine example for any would-be author.
When Priestley left the army he studied at Cambridge University, where he completed a degree in Modern History and Political Science. Subsequently he found work as theatre reviewer with the Daily News, and also contributed to the Spectator, the Challenge and Nineteenth Century. His earliest books included The English Comic Characters (1925), The English Novel (1927), and English Humour (1928). His breakthrough came with the immensely popular novel The Good Companions, published in 1929, and Angel Pavement followed in 1930. He emerged, too, as a successful dramatist with such plays as Dangerous Corner (1932), Time and the Conways (1937), When We Are Married (1938) and An Inspector Calls (1947).
The publication of English Journey in 1934 emphasised Priestley's concern for social problems and the welfare of ordinary people.
During the Second World War Priestley became a popular and influential broadcaster with his famous Postscripts that followed the nine o'clock news BBC Radio on Sunday evenings. Starting on 5th June 1940, Priestley built up such a following that after a few months it was estimated that around 40 per cent of the adult population in Britain was listening to the programme.
Some members of the Conservative Party, including Winston Churchill, expressed concern that Priestley might be expressing left-wing views on the programme, and, to his dismay, Priestley was dropped after his talk on 20th October 1940.
After the war Priestley continued his writing, and his work invariably provoked thought, and his views were always expressed in his blunt Yorkshire style.
His prolific output continued right up to his final years, and to the end he remained the great literary all-rounder. His favourite among his books was for many years the novel Bright Day, though he later said he had come to prefer The Image Men.
It should not be overlooked that Priestley was an outstanding essayist, and many of his short pieces best capture his passions and his great talent and his mastery of the English language. He set a fine example for any would-be author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
January 17, 2024
Dangerous Corner is a great title. But a play or novel with that title today, would be assumed by its audience to be a thriller. This is decidedly not a thriller. The title is metaphorical, although there is a crime - and a magnificent twist at the end.
J.B. Priestley spent just one week writing this, his first play, in early 1932, "to prove that a man might produce long novels and yet be able to write effectively, using the strictest economy, for the stage."
The play was not initially very popular. After three days he was told that it would be taken off, and in a rather defensive introduction to the plays, which J.B. Priestley wrote much later in 1948, he makes it clear that the performances only continued on his own insistence. The play then ran for six months, and had subsequent worldwide success, as he says,
"from the Arctic to the Amazon, and even now must appear in about dozen playhouses every night." However, he clearly had mixed feeling about the play, remarking earlier in 1938, "It is pretty thin stuff when all is said and done." His introduction goes on to say,
"It has never been a favourite of mine, for it seems to me merely an ingenious box of tricks, which I constructed to prove - for it was my first play - that I could think and create like a dramatist, and not necessarily like a novelist, and also
It is possible to take this play to pieces and analyse how it works, if that is your wont. I first read this just over a couple of decades after its first performance. Double that time again, and in the interim I have seen various performances, and now listened to the play on audio alongside the text. But is it still enjoyable or relevant, getting on for 70 years after it was written? I have to admit to mixed feelings.
The play is a popular choice for amatuer dramatic societies. The three Acts are all set in the drawing room of the Caplan country retreat, in 1932; therefore being contemporaneous with when the play was written. It also has a small cast of just seven, most of whom are related, and all of whom are part of the same business "family". It is therefore carefully controlled and manipulated by the author, and doubly confined. Robert Caplan is perhaps the pivotal character. He is a good host with a taste for the finer things, and considers himself to be a great believer in speaking the truth. He heads a publishing company, having originally been hired by his wife, Freda’s father, who recently retired from the business.
As the play opens Robert and his wife, Freda, are entertaining guests. These guests, the entire cast of the play, are all associated with the firm. There is Freda’s brother, Gordon Whitehouse, who works with Robert, and Gordon’s wife, Betty. There is Charles Stanton, who is also a publisher with the same firm, Olwen Peel, secretary to the publishers, plus a rather out of place character, the novelist Maud Mockridge.
Dangerous Corner opens very dramatically, with the timeworn theatrical technique of a muffled gunshot, followed by a woman's scream, in total darkness. But this is the playwright's little joke. After a few moments' pause, the lights are switched on over the mantelpiece, and we can see that there has been no murder after all. A group of noticeably well-dressed women have been listening to a radio play, and are now discussing the programme’s title, “The Sleeping Dog”.
Our first view therefore, is of the prosperous-looking female characters, and for the first half of the first Act, the talk is all very inconsequential chat. The men rejoin the group, and the audience is lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that this is a bright social drama, with slightly artificial (and it has to be said, now rather boring) conversation. Perhaps it is to be a comedy of manners? When the men return, they all begin to discuss the title of the play, and someone suggests that that the ‘sleeping dog’ could represent Truth. Charles Stanton says,
“I think telling the truth is about as healthy as skidding round a corner at sixty”, and Freda counters with,
“And life’s got a lot of dangerous corners – hasn’t it Charles?”
We deduce from this that the confirmed bachelor, Charles Stanton, has a cynical sense of humour, and we also deduce that Freda is nobody's fool. In fact we know very early on that there is more than one elephant in the room.
We have heard that another member of the family, Martin, is no longer there, having shot himself a few months earlier. There was also a scandal to do with a missing cheque, which nobody seems to want to talk about. Perhaps after all there are to be some dark secrets, and this play will have some intrigue? Perhaps it will be a suspense drama. This brief exchange sounds quite portentous, and does in fact prove to be quite prophetic as the evening unfolds.
There is a chance moment in time, when someone picks up a cigarette lighter, and something metaphorically ignites. Something shifts and changes. Another chance remark by one of the guests, and the course is set for a series of devastating revelations, each exposure gradually spaced at regular intervals, to crank up the tension, and to extract the most shock from both the characters and the audience.
Although this was J.B. Priestley's first play, he clearly demonstrated his talent for developing interesting characters and intriguing situations, which he was to hone to a fine point in his later plays, for instance, "An Inspector Calls". (Link here for my review of "An Inspector Calls".)
J.B. Priestley was to write several of these "Time Plays", in the 1930s and 40s, and in each of them, a different concept of time is explored. The effect of that concept on the lives of the characters is a key factor. In this one we learn of a hitherto undiscovered tangle of clandestine relationships and dark secrets, the disclosures of which have tragic consequences.
By the end, the pivotal character Robert has all his questions answered. Robert now realises that truth can shatter illusions, and that he should have "let the sleeping dog lie." We have learnt some home truths about his wife Freda Caplan too. She is elegant, certainly, but completely self-absorbed. Freda pushes other people to reveal their secrets, but unfairly prefers to keep her own secrets to herself. She then selfishly offers to prepare food because she is hungry herself, completely disregarding the havoc that has just been wreaked, and for which she is partly responsible. Gordon Whitehouse comes across as ridiculously sentimental, (although as the play proceeds, we realise why that is.) Betty, his wife, is a tiresome character, whom it is almost impossible to find diverting. She behaves like a spoiled, wilful child at times, and yet objects vociferously to being treated like one. When the topic of telling lies is raised in conversation, she attempts to be cute and disarming, saying,
“I’m always fibbing. I do it all day long … It’s the secret of my charm”.
We wonder if the characters are politely concealing their true feelings, and really finding her as irritating as the audience does. Olwen Peel, as an unmarried secretary to the publishers, comes across as a mediating character, and initially seems the most honest and straightforward. Her opinion on truth-telling is perspicacious and full of foreboding. It is similar to Charles’s, as she says,
“I think telling everything is dangerous. The point is, I think there’s truth and there’s truth.”
The inclusion of Maud Mockridge, a novelist who is published by Robert’s firm, is initially a bit of a mystery. Perhaps she is included for light relief, we wonder? She is deluded, thinking herself to be an intelligent woman, yet we clearly see that she is a notorious gossip, imagining herself to be terribly clever when she says,
“People who don’t like gossip aren’t interested in their fellow creatures.”
The other characters are courteously long-suffering of her, and after she leaves, Gordon drily remarks,
“She’ll probably start a new novel in the morning and we’ll all be in it.”
She plays little part in the action, disappearing before anything really interesting happens, and it is only at the end of the play that we see her true function. All the characters seem thus to be masking their true natures in their bonhomie; they are all equally full of pretence and subterfuge.
Dangerous Corner was heavily edited and given an American context for Broadway, and was then filmed two years later, in 1934. Because of the strictures of the time, the Hollywood version was further censored, removing some of the most controversial elements of the play, including It makes a present-day reader wonder what on earth could be left! The answer is that material was added. The film began further back in time, with scenes set in the year prior to the dinner party. Whereas in the play the discovery of the theft and the discovery of Martin's body after his death are reported action, recalled by the characters within their dialogue near the beginning of the play, they are directly acted out in the film.
So the answer to the question, how does this stand up as a play for a modern audience, is mixed. It is worth watching or reading - the original version of course - merely to see the early signs of J.B. Priestley's skills. In several ways he is recognisable, in the critical attitudes to society's hypocrisy and the interest in "if only" scenarios, for instance. In all his work, J.B. Priestley made his analogies perfectly clear; he believed that there should be never be any question about the meaning of an author’s symbols. So in this one, truth itself is the sleeping dog that they should let lie, specifically the truth regarding
It would probably be better to watch (or read the text of) the play rather than listen to it, since the beginning and end can otherwise seem a little confused.
In the early 1940s J.B. Priestley was extremely popular, and a regular broadcaster on the BBC. It has been suggested that the political content of his broadcasts may have influenced the political climate of the time, and helped the Labour Party to win by a huge margin in the 1945 general election. In fact the BBC broadcasts were eventually cancelled, because they were thought to be too left-wing. He always held very strong views and "spoke his mind" as a true Yorkshireman is prone to. In 1958, J.B. Priestley was a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He was awarded the title of honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Bradford in 1970, and officially opened the J.B. Priestley Library there in 1975. Other tributes to him include a larger than life statue, in front of the "National Media Museum" in Bradford, West Yorkshire.
It always strikes me as strange that this bluff, pipesmoking Northerner, epitomising a typical Yorkshireman, should write dramas about upper class folk, and set them in drawing rooms. Despite its dated feel, I enjoyed this as a quirky suspense play, by an author whose work I admire, but who seems sadly out of fashion. The situation is ingenious, the resolution very clever, and the ‘dangerous corner’ is avoided. I don't personally think that the play itself, this particular sleeping dog, should be let lie.
J.B. Priestley spent just one week writing this, his first play, in early 1932, "to prove that a man might produce long novels and yet be able to write effectively, using the strictest economy, for the stage."
The play was not initially very popular. After three days he was told that it would be taken off, and in a rather defensive introduction to the plays, which J.B. Priestley wrote much later in 1948, he makes it clear that the performances only continued on his own insistence. The play then ran for six months, and had subsequent worldwide success, as he says,
"from the Arctic to the Amazon, and even now must appear in about dozen playhouses every night." However, he clearly had mixed feeling about the play, remarking earlier in 1938, "It is pretty thin stuff when all is said and done." His introduction goes on to say,
"It has never been a favourite of mine, for it seems to me merely an ingenious box of tricks, which I constructed to prove - for it was my first play - that I could think and create like a dramatist, and not necessarily like a novelist, and also
It is possible to take this play to pieces and analyse how it works, if that is your wont. I first read this just over a couple of decades after its first performance. Double that time again, and in the interim I have seen various performances, and now listened to the play on audio alongside the text. But is it still enjoyable or relevant, getting on for 70 years after it was written? I have to admit to mixed feelings.
The play is a popular choice for amatuer dramatic societies. The three Acts are all set in the drawing room of the Caplan country retreat, in 1932; therefore being contemporaneous with when the play was written. It also has a small cast of just seven, most of whom are related, and all of whom are part of the same business "family". It is therefore carefully controlled and manipulated by the author, and doubly confined. Robert Caplan is perhaps the pivotal character. He is a good host with a taste for the finer things, and considers himself to be a great believer in speaking the truth. He heads a publishing company, having originally been hired by his wife, Freda’s father, who recently retired from the business.
As the play opens Robert and his wife, Freda, are entertaining guests. These guests, the entire cast of the play, are all associated with the firm. There is Freda’s brother, Gordon Whitehouse, who works with Robert, and Gordon’s wife, Betty. There is Charles Stanton, who is also a publisher with the same firm, Olwen Peel, secretary to the publishers, plus a rather out of place character, the novelist Maud Mockridge.
Dangerous Corner opens very dramatically, with the timeworn theatrical technique of a muffled gunshot, followed by a woman's scream, in total darkness. But this is the playwright's little joke. After a few moments' pause, the lights are switched on over the mantelpiece, and we can see that there has been no murder after all. A group of noticeably well-dressed women have been listening to a radio play, and are now discussing the programme’s title, “The Sleeping Dog”.
Our first view therefore, is of the prosperous-looking female characters, and for the first half of the first Act, the talk is all very inconsequential chat. The men rejoin the group, and the audience is lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that this is a bright social drama, with slightly artificial (and it has to be said, now rather boring) conversation. Perhaps it is to be a comedy of manners? When the men return, they all begin to discuss the title of the play, and someone suggests that that the ‘sleeping dog’ could represent Truth. Charles Stanton says,
“I think telling the truth is about as healthy as skidding round a corner at sixty”, and Freda counters with,
“And life’s got a lot of dangerous corners – hasn’t it Charles?”
We deduce from this that the confirmed bachelor, Charles Stanton, has a cynical sense of humour, and we also deduce that Freda is nobody's fool. In fact we know very early on that there is more than one elephant in the room.
We have heard that another member of the family, Martin, is no longer there, having shot himself a few months earlier. There was also a scandal to do with a missing cheque, which nobody seems to want to talk about. Perhaps after all there are to be some dark secrets, and this play will have some intrigue? Perhaps it will be a suspense drama. This brief exchange sounds quite portentous, and does in fact prove to be quite prophetic as the evening unfolds.
There is a chance moment in time, when someone picks up a cigarette lighter, and something metaphorically ignites. Something shifts and changes. Another chance remark by one of the guests, and the course is set for a series of devastating revelations, each exposure gradually spaced at regular intervals, to crank up the tension, and to extract the most shock from both the characters and the audience.
Although this was J.B. Priestley's first play, he clearly demonstrated his talent for developing interesting characters and intriguing situations, which he was to hone to a fine point in his later plays, for instance, "An Inspector Calls". (Link here for my review of "An Inspector Calls".)
J.B. Priestley was to write several of these "Time Plays", in the 1930s and 40s, and in each of them, a different concept of time is explored. The effect of that concept on the lives of the characters is a key factor. In this one we learn of a hitherto undiscovered tangle of clandestine relationships and dark secrets, the disclosures of which have tragic consequences.
By the end, the pivotal character Robert has all his questions answered. Robert now realises that truth can shatter illusions, and that he should have "let the sleeping dog lie." We have learnt some home truths about his wife Freda Caplan too. She is elegant, certainly, but completely self-absorbed. Freda pushes other people to reveal their secrets, but unfairly prefers to keep her own secrets to herself. She then selfishly offers to prepare food because she is hungry herself, completely disregarding the havoc that has just been wreaked, and for which she is partly responsible. Gordon Whitehouse comes across as ridiculously sentimental, (although as the play proceeds, we realise why that is.) Betty, his wife, is a tiresome character, whom it is almost impossible to find diverting. She behaves like a spoiled, wilful child at times, and yet objects vociferously to being treated like one. When the topic of telling lies is raised in conversation, she attempts to be cute and disarming, saying,
“I’m always fibbing. I do it all day long … It’s the secret of my charm”.
We wonder if the characters are politely concealing their true feelings, and really finding her as irritating as the audience does. Olwen Peel, as an unmarried secretary to the publishers, comes across as a mediating character, and initially seems the most honest and straightforward. Her opinion on truth-telling is perspicacious and full of foreboding. It is similar to Charles’s, as she says,
“I think telling everything is dangerous. The point is, I think there’s truth and there’s truth.”
The inclusion of Maud Mockridge, a novelist who is published by Robert’s firm, is initially a bit of a mystery. Perhaps she is included for light relief, we wonder? She is deluded, thinking herself to be an intelligent woman, yet we clearly see that she is a notorious gossip, imagining herself to be terribly clever when she says,
“People who don’t like gossip aren’t interested in their fellow creatures.”
The other characters are courteously long-suffering of her, and after she leaves, Gordon drily remarks,
“She’ll probably start a new novel in the morning and we’ll all be in it.”
She plays little part in the action, disappearing before anything really interesting happens, and it is only at the end of the play that we see her true function. All the characters seem thus to be masking their true natures in their bonhomie; they are all equally full of pretence and subterfuge.
Dangerous Corner was heavily edited and given an American context for Broadway, and was then filmed two years later, in 1934. Because of the strictures of the time, the Hollywood version was further censored, removing some of the most controversial elements of the play, including It makes a present-day reader wonder what on earth could be left! The answer is that material was added. The film began further back in time, with scenes set in the year prior to the dinner party. Whereas in the play the discovery of the theft and the discovery of Martin's body after his death are reported action, recalled by the characters within their dialogue near the beginning of the play, they are directly acted out in the film.
So the answer to the question, how does this stand up as a play for a modern audience, is mixed. It is worth watching or reading - the original version of course - merely to see the early signs of J.B. Priestley's skills. In several ways he is recognisable, in the critical attitudes to society's hypocrisy and the interest in "if only" scenarios, for instance. In all his work, J.B. Priestley made his analogies perfectly clear; he believed that there should be never be any question about the meaning of an author’s symbols. So in this one, truth itself is the sleeping dog that they should let lie, specifically the truth regarding
It would probably be better to watch (or read the text of) the play rather than listen to it, since the beginning and end can otherwise seem a little confused.
In the early 1940s J.B. Priestley was extremely popular, and a regular broadcaster on the BBC. It has been suggested that the political content of his broadcasts may have influenced the political climate of the time, and helped the Labour Party to win by a huge margin in the 1945 general election. In fact the BBC broadcasts were eventually cancelled, because they were thought to be too left-wing. He always held very strong views and "spoke his mind" as a true Yorkshireman is prone to. In 1958, J.B. Priestley was a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He was awarded the title of honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Bradford in 1970, and officially opened the J.B. Priestley Library there in 1975. Other tributes to him include a larger than life statue, in front of the "National Media Museum" in Bradford, West Yorkshire.
It always strikes me as strange that this bluff, pipesmoking Northerner, epitomising a typical Yorkshireman, should write dramas about upper class folk, and set them in drawing rooms. Despite its dated feel, I enjoyed this as a quirky suspense play, by an author whose work I admire, but who seems sadly out of fashion. The situation is ingenious, the resolution very clever, and the ‘dangerous corner’ is avoided. I don't personally think that the play itself, this particular sleeping dog, should be let lie.
July 6, 2019
به نظر من بهترین نمایشنامهی پریستلیه. ماجرای بسیار پرکشش، روند آشکارسازی تدریجی حقیقت، و این سوال همیشگی که آیا گاهی پنهان موندن حقیقت بهتر از آشکار شدنش نیست؟
March 5, 2017
Watched it yesterday at the local theater, which had great moments and very poor moments, but I was very intrigued with the idea. Then watched the Soviet 1972 film of it, and it was a masterpiece (though, there is a variant where they cut "the gay" out of there, I'm not sure what the audience was supposed to think). Anyway, polished it with reading the play and dear me, it still cuts deeply. Everyone lies and everyone loves, and it doesn't make them good or bad people. They are just... people.
September 13, 2025
ENGLISH: This is the second time I've watched this play by Priestley, in the RTVE archive. The first time was half a century ago. This time I've liked it more, and saw the similarities to An Inspector Calls, my favorite play by Priestley.
The first two acts tell what happens at a meeting of seven people associated with a publishing house, when their lives derail in a dangerous corner. They are determined to uncover the truth about what happened when another member of the publishing house committed suicide, or so everyone believes.
The third act is a repetition of the first, but the dangerous curve is navigated without a hitch and life goes on as usual.
ESPAÑOL: Esta es la segunda vez que he visto esta obra de Priestley, en el archivo de Estudio-1. La primera vez la vi hace medio siglo. Esta vez me ha gustado más, y he visto las semejanzas con An Inspector Calls, mi obra favorita de Priestley.
Los dos primeros actos cuentan lo que pasa en una reunión de siete personas relacionadas con una editorial cuando su vida descarrila en una curva peligrosa, y se empeñan en descubrir la verdad de lo que pasó cuando otro de los miembros de la editorial se suicidó, o eso es lo que todos creen.
El tercer acto es una repetición del primero, en el que la curva peligrosa se recorre sin problemas y la vida sigue igual.
The first two acts tell what happens at a meeting of seven people associated with a publishing house, when their lives derail in a dangerous corner. They are determined to uncover the truth about what happened when another member of the publishing house committed suicide, or so everyone believes.
The third act is a repetition of the first, but the dangerous curve is navigated without a hitch and life goes on as usual.
ESPAÑOL: Esta es la segunda vez que he visto esta obra de Priestley, en el archivo de Estudio-1. La primera vez la vi hace medio siglo. Esta vez me ha gustado más, y he visto las semejanzas con An Inspector Calls, mi obra favorita de Priestley.
Los dos primeros actos cuentan lo que pasa en una reunión de siete personas relacionadas con una editorial cuando su vida descarrila en una curva peligrosa, y se empeñan en descubrir la verdad de lo que pasó cuando otro de los miembros de la editorial se suicidó, o eso es lo que todos creen.
El tercer acto es una repetición del primero, en el que la curva peligrosa se recorre sin problemas y la vida sigue igual.
July 7, 2021
إن الحقيقة كلب نائم......
هل يستطيع الشخص بعد معرفة الحقيقة أن يحيا بنفس السعادة ؟
هل الأوهام ضرورة حتي يستمر الشخص بالعيش براحة بال إلي حد ما ويظل مفعماً بالأمل والثقة؟
يريد روبرت أن يسلط الضوء علي الحقيقة وعلاقة كل شخص بموضوع مارتين الذي يعتبر انتحاره النقطة الأساسية التي تناقشها المسرحية.
يكتشف أن لكل شخص أسراره الخاصة التي يجب أن لا يكشف القناع عنها حتي زوجته وحتي هو نفسه يوضع علي كرسي الاعتراف.
هل سيسعد بعد معرفته للحقيقة أم أن الجهل في بعض الأحيان مفيد حتي يستمر الشخص بالحياة؟
اقتباسات
--إننا فعلاً نقضي جزءًا كبيراً من وقتنا نقول الكذب بل ونحياه أيضاً.
--أعتقد أن قول الحقيقة صحي تماماً كالتزلج حول منعطف في سن الستين.
هل يستطيع الشخص بعد معرفة الحقيقة أن يحيا بنفس السعادة ؟
هل الأوهام ضرورة حتي يستمر الشخص بالعيش براحة بال إلي حد ما ويظل مفعماً بالأمل والثقة؟
يريد روبرت أن يسلط الضوء علي الحقيقة وعلاقة كل شخص بموضوع مارتين الذي يعتبر انتحاره النقطة الأساسية التي تناقشها المسرحية.
يكتشف أن لكل شخص أسراره الخاصة التي يجب أن لا يكشف القناع عنها حتي زوجته وحتي هو نفسه يوضع علي كرسي الاعتراف.
هل سيسعد بعد معرفته للحقيقة أم أن الجهل في بعض الأحيان مفيد حتي يستمر الشخص بالحياة؟
اقتباسات
--إننا فعلاً نقضي جزءًا كبيراً من وقتنا نقول الكذب بل ونحياه أيضاً.
--أعتقد أن قول الحقيقة صحي تماماً كالتزلج حول منعطف في سن الستين.
September 13, 2014
From BBC Radio 4 Extra:
A happy gathering of friends begin to probe events which happened in the past and discover that the relationships they have with each other aren't what they seem: "truth is like skidding round a corner at sixty".
Stars Martin Jarvis as Robert Caplan, Stephanie Turner as Olwen Peel, Heather Stoney as Freda Caplan and Helen Worth as Betty Whitehouse.
Directed by Alfred Bradley.
A happy gathering of friends begin to probe events which happened in the past and discover that the relationships they have with each other aren't what they seem: "truth is like skidding round a corner at sixty".
Stars Martin Jarvis as Robert Caplan, Stephanie Turner as Olwen Peel, Heather Stoney as Freda Caplan and Helen Worth as Betty Whitehouse.
Directed by Alfred Bradley.
September 13, 2014
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 8, 2024
Priestley experiments with genre and time. He uses a thriller to ask if we’re better off with truth or illusion.
August 24, 2014
7 characters are gathered at the home of Robert Caplan to have a relaxed and pleasurable weekend. They are bonded by family or business ties. As Freda Caplan (Robert's wife) offers Olwen Peel (a close friend) a cigarette, Olwen makes a throw away remark that she has seen the box before. Freda, who is in possession of the box because she took it from her deceased brother-in-laws house the night he died, knows it is impossible that Olwen has seen the box, because Freda, in love with her Brother-in-law, had given it to him only hours before he died. Freda becomes interested in how Olwen could have seen the box and what she was doing with Martin just before he died. As each character is forced through exposure by someone who is guilty, but innocent of their section of the story, to reveal their secrets, the facade of the cheerful group is destroyed as are the lives of those in the room. The play then ends with the exact same moment Freda offered Olwen the cigarette, only this time, Olwen’s comment is drowned out, Freda misses it, and the night continues to mask the deadly secrets we now know each character hides.
This is Priestly’s point, that the facade is not only about what we are revealing (that is what we wish were true about ourselves) but also what we are concealing. With a particular tilt of a cigarette box, a string of discussions and questions reveals not just affairs, thefts and counter-affairs, but unrequited loves, homosexuality and drug abuse. Priestley’s intention is for us to see the precarious nature of middle class safety, and the way that each individual fits in to an overlaying narrative that is the very essence of the upper middle class. That the narrative is kept in place by the very behavior that would also destroy it. This narrative, or story of what a respectable upper class should be is a lie (of course) but because of the nature of each others hidden falls from grace, it is a secret lie, with each individual doing more to uphold its image depending on how far they are from it in reality.
This is Priestly’s point, that the facade is not only about what we are revealing (that is what we wish were true about ourselves) but also what we are concealing. With a particular tilt of a cigarette box, a string of discussions and questions reveals not just affairs, thefts and counter-affairs, but unrequited loves, homosexuality and drug abuse. Priestley’s intention is for us to see the precarious nature of middle class safety, and the way that each individual fits in to an overlaying narrative that is the very essence of the upper middle class. That the narrative is kept in place by the very behavior that would also destroy it. This narrative, or story of what a respectable upper class should be is a lie (of course) but because of the nature of each others hidden falls from grace, it is a secret lie, with each individual doing more to uphold its image depending on how far they are from it in reality.
October 16, 2011
This play is BRILLIANT. From the first lines onward. WOW!!
August 31, 2025
Nooit gedacht dat J.B. Priestley dit kon: een perfect geconstrueerd theaterstuk, de ene dramatische wending na de andere en toch geloofwaardig.
Een mooi huwelijk tussen Tsjechov en Albee: de leugens en illusies waar mensen zich aan vastklampen.
Een prachtige BBC-versie, met een jonge Daniel Day-Lewis en de fascinerende Sarah Badel.
Lezen of zien!
Een mooi huwelijk tussen Tsjechov en Albee: de leugens en illusies waar mensen zich aan vastklampen.
Een prachtige BBC-versie, met een jonge Daniel Day-Lewis en de fascinerende Sarah Badel.
Lezen of zien!
watched-not-read
February 25, 2019Opasnyy povorot (1972)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481287/...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481287/...
January 17, 2024
My wife reckoned I should include this on Goodreads, since I spent so much time reading it when learning my lines for an amateur production. November 2023 was the second time I had been in the play, the first in February 2011. On that occasion I played Charles Stanton, the outsider with something of a chip on his shoulder. This time I played Robert Caplan. I really relished the chance to do the play again, but from different perspectives.
I like Priestley's plays, obviously An Inspector Calls. But I particularly like how he plays with choice and possibilities in these "Time" plays.
What's particularly good about Dangerous Corner is the way an innocent remark is dropped like a pebble in water. The ripples reveal everyone's secrets, and no-one is left unchanged to the point of devastation by the "end" But it's a Time play...
I like Priestley's plays, obviously An Inspector Calls. But I particularly like how he plays with choice and possibilities in these "Time" plays.
What's particularly good about Dangerous Corner is the way an innocent remark is dropped like a pebble in water. The ripples reveal everyone's secrets, and no-one is left unchanged to the point of devastation by the "end" But it's a Time play...
January 12, 2023
Autoplay on YouTube just sort of threw this at me and I’m glad I let it play. Even though this is 90 years old, it’s pretty entertaining and a definite recommend. If you can keep track of who’s who at the beginning, this is a really nice play that has a satisfying circular narrative, exploring how people perceive each other and how this changes after death.
September 23, 2024
It was going along so well, and then it ended with a thud.
This is a strange play. Revolving around a group of people who work for the same publishing firm all enjoying a party together, there are several characters, the two siblings who own the firm and their spouses, another partner, and the long suffering devoted secretary/office girl type. There is another small character, one of the clients of the firm. And an offstage presence, another dead brother, who seemingly committed suicide after being caught stealing money from the business. In any case, as the evening wears on, a small event ignites a firestorm of buried secrets, relationships (including one quite shocking one for the era the play was written), and lies are exposed. The characters round a "dangerous corner" and cannot come back until every secret has been exposed and the firm and the lives of illusion they had been living destroyed.
It's incredibly compelling, and I would love to watch, up to a certain point in Act 3, it performed by a cast of talented actors. The roles are all meaty and well developed and each character gets their moment(s) to shine.
Unfortunately-I understand what the author was going for, and I can't fully explain it without spoilers, but suffice it to say there's a...change...in the 3rd act that completely lets the air out of everything that has gone before. While it works thematically, I can't believe it works at all dramatically as it's a huge let down from all the suspense that had been built up in the past two hours of theater. I can't say much more than that, except to say that it was an incredibly disappointing end, and I'm sure it's why the play is not better remembered today.
This is a strange play. Revolving around a group of people who work for the same publishing firm all enjoying a party together, there are several characters, the two siblings who own the firm and their spouses, another partner, and the long suffering devoted secretary/office girl type. There is another small character, one of the clients of the firm. And an offstage presence, another dead brother, who seemingly committed suicide after being caught stealing money from the business. In any case, as the evening wears on, a small event ignites a firestorm of buried secrets, relationships (including one quite shocking one for the era the play was written), and lies are exposed. The characters round a "dangerous corner" and cannot come back until every secret has been exposed and the firm and the lives of illusion they had been living destroyed.
It's incredibly compelling, and I would love to watch, up to a certain point in Act 3, it performed by a cast of talented actors. The roles are all meaty and well developed and each character gets their moment(s) to shine.
Unfortunately-I understand what the author was going for, and I can't fully explain it without spoilers, but suffice it to say there's a...change...in the 3rd act that completely lets the air out of everything that has gone before. While it works thematically, I can't believe it works at all dramatically as it's a huge let down from all the suspense that had been built up in the past two hours of theater. I can't say much more than that, except to say that it was an incredibly disappointing end, and I'm sure it's why the play is not better remembered today.
February 19, 2018
A quick introduction: J. B. Priestley was a popular, prolific British novelist and playwright who lived from 1894 to 1984 and whose most successful writing years seemed to be from 1930 to 1950. He also had a political career.
To me, he seemed most comfortable at writing comedy, but his two best known plays, An Inspector Calls and Time and the Conways are dramas. He also seemed better at creating male characters than female.
This is another one of his five time plays -- plays that experiment with flexible time, mixing the past, present, and future -- and to me, it's another of his less successful ones. It also may be his earliest in the mode, so you can partly excuse it by saying he was still working things out. The script mostly turns on a gimmick, and the stereotyped characters yell a lot, without having any new or real reasons to make all that noise. There's a bit of O'Neill's influence here, too -- that people's inner thoughts don't represent their outer ones -- and Priestly does it faster, and maybe with a bit less ponderousness, but with no greater depth than O'Neill. The problem is that we all know that what we think isn't always what we say, so finding out that other people's minds work the same way is no big surprise, and we don't need a writer, actors, and a theater to make that discovery.
To me, he seemed most comfortable at writing comedy, but his two best known plays, An Inspector Calls and Time and the Conways are dramas. He also seemed better at creating male characters than female.
This is another one of his five time plays -- plays that experiment with flexible time, mixing the past, present, and future -- and to me, it's another of his less successful ones. It also may be his earliest in the mode, so you can partly excuse it by saying he was still working things out. The script mostly turns on a gimmick, and the stereotyped characters yell a lot, without having any new or real reasons to make all that noise. There's a bit of O'Neill's influence here, too -- that people's inner thoughts don't represent their outer ones -- and Priestly does it faster, and maybe with a bit less ponderousness, but with no greater depth than O'Neill. The problem is that we all know that what we think isn't always what we say, so finding out that other people's minds work the same way is no big surprise, and we don't need a writer, actors, and a theater to make that discovery.
September 22, 2021
Не очень длинная пьеса, читается легко (насколько легко мо��ет читаться пьеса, когда приходится время от времени заглядывать в список действующих лиц). Вполне себе занятная история. Хотя люблю такие вещицы, кажется, особенно за чувство ностальгии по далёким временам, когда книжным ребёнком влюбляешься в английские романы (начиная с Холмса, конечно же), в Англию, в тот великосветский дух непременных аристократических гостиных, и манеру английских леди и джентльменов изъясняться, и вместе с тем, еще толком этого не понимая, очаровываешься тем незримым миром, в котором эти книги читались, переводились и издавались в 80е и 90е. Потом все это как будто сгинет с приходом перестройки и нового тысячелетия с другой эстетикой и мироощущением. Но как приятно снова ощутить себя ребёнком, упоительно поглощающим очередную чудесную книжку, лёжа на полу в притихшем от летнего зноя бабушкиной доме.
January 28, 2018
A melodramatic mystery with lots of twists and an interesting ending - similar to some of his other plays like An Inspector Calls. Also interesting that he wrote a different beginning and ending as an option for American theatres.
July 16, 2020
I really liked the idea that one can write a thrilling play set in ONE room, I liked the "what if...", liked these dramatical characters from the 30-s, though sometimes I really laughted when I was supposed to be "amazed" but it was fun anyway. My favorites are Betty and Miss Mortridge.
July 18, 2023
Well constructed, but rather like a formula radio play in which everyone has a secret love or hate of someone else that must be talked into revelation. In fact, a little like a practice play for Priestley.
January 17, 2021
There are lies and lies. And truths and truths. And timing. Really intriguing epilogue.
July 7, 2023
У каждого свои скелеты в шкафу.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 16, 2025
An exploration of truth and lies, actions and consequences.
October 29, 2019
Мне нравится то, что создает Пристли. Чувствуется какое-то отчаянное веселье в этом. Словно он устал говорить и решил показать. Это и в 31 июня чувствуется и в Опасном повороте и там и там немного фантастики, и там и там есть любовь и запутанные взаимоотношения. Но если в 31 июня любовь победила все, то в Опасном повороте такого не произошло, лишь намек на то, что иногда хорошо бы держать язык за зубами спас ситуацию... Ну или не спас, это уж оптимисты мы или пессимисты)
Read
May 6, 2023Apparently JB Priestley at some point read a book called An Experiment with Time by J. W. Dunne. This book suggests that time is…well a flat circle and that one can have precognitive dreams of future events and that that can lead one to make different choices at certain crossroads. I don’t know how trippy the book itself is as I haven’t read it. I also don’t know what influence it had on Priestley’s actual life, but he definite wrote a handful of plays in which this convention is at work. In one of them, he even almost mentions the book by name, only by reference.
In this play, we begin with several women listening to a radio play and there’s a gunshot, indicating that one of the characters has shot himself. The several women begin discussing the play intensely. It’s a sort of weekend away, and the conversation about the play leads the women to discuss the idea of “truth” meaning, if you know something, what kind of responsibility do you have to share it if it will cause pain. In the previous year there was an incident at the publishing firm where most of the women’s husbands work and one woman, a writer, is published. It seems that one of the brothers-in-law was implicated in the theft of an amount of money and this led to his suicide. The play goes from there.
The title of the play is about those afore mentioned crossroads. “There’s corners in life” and you never know what’s around the next one kind of thing. I won’t say much more about the plot because it’s rather intricately plotted ultimately.
In this play, we begin with several women listening to a radio play and there’s a gunshot, indicating that one of the characters has shot himself. The several women begin discussing the play intensely. It’s a sort of weekend away, and the conversation about the play leads the women to discuss the idea of “truth” meaning, if you know something, what kind of responsibility do you have to share it if it will cause pain. In the previous year there was an incident at the publishing firm where most of the women’s husbands work and one woman, a writer, is published. It seems that one of the brothers-in-law was implicated in the theft of an amount of money and this led to his suicide. The play goes from there.
The title of the play is about those afore mentioned crossroads. “There’s corners in life” and you never know what’s around the next one kind of thing. I won’t say much more about the plot because it’s rather intricately plotted ultimately.
June 4, 2015
A really intriguing premise about truth and lies - would everything be better if we could just leave well enough alone? Or to put it in the play's terms, if we let sleeping dogs lie?
Despite this, there is very little action to keep things moving along, and the massive amounts of dialogue can make the play plod a bit. Also the characters are entirely unsympathetic; I made the comparison to Waiting for Godot, in that the character you most want to meet never actually appears on stage. Martin is clearly the most interesting person in the play, but we never actually get to meet him, which is a shame. The other characters are all so unsympathetic that it's hard to feel too much for them. Nevertheless, an interesting premise that is reasonably well carried out, it's just hampered a bit by its own wordiness.
Despite this, there is very little action to keep things moving along, and the massive amounts of dialogue can make the play plod a bit. Also the characters are entirely unsympathetic; I made the comparison to Waiting for Godot, in that the character you most want to meet never actually appears on stage. Martin is clearly the most interesting person in the play, but we never actually get to meet him, which is a shame. The other characters are all so unsympathetic that it's hard to feel too much for them. Nevertheless, an interesting premise that is reasonably well carried out, it's just hampered a bit by its own wordiness.
January 16, 2016
Não. Essa definitivamente não é uma das peças mais famosas de Priestley, estando longe da popularidades de peças como O tempo os Conway e A chamada do inspetor. Talvez o fato de ter sido encenada e filmada com alterações devido à censura tenha redundado na sua menor popularidade quando comparada com as anteriores. Fato é que em tempos modernos A esquina perigosa não só é mais atual, como também a mais dramática. Mais espantoso é o fato de ter sido escrita em uma época em que sequer tinha sido cunhada a expressão efeito borboleta, já tendo Priestley levado as últimas consequencias o incipiente problema dos três corpos proposto por Henri Poincaré.
November 8, 2021
J. B. Priestley's first play, Dangerous Corner, was written to show that he (a popular novelist) could also write for the theatre. The play is mainly about a sextet of friends and colleagues spinning webs of deceit after a friend's death.
Not so good things: a melodramatic suicide in Act III; a confusing "time reversal" at the end--the play doesn't explore this theme, so why does Priestley make the ending so confusing? Priestley could certainly write thought-provoking pieces for the theatre. In my opinion, he's a playwright with a slightly wider range than his compatriot Terence Rattigan.
Not so good things: a melodramatic suicide in Act III; a confusing "time reversal" at the end--the play doesn't explore this theme, so why does Priestley make the ending so confusing? Priestley could certainly write thought-provoking pieces for the theatre. In my opinion, he's a playwright with a slightly wider range than his compatriot Terence Rattigan.
December 18, 2023
I’ve read this and I’ve seen a *very* amateur performance and once again Priestley knocks it out of the park. The king of plays that take place in only one room that don’t bore people to death. His use of space and how he plays with time in this is very clever. You don’t realise what’s going on until the final curtain call and you’re left reeling in your seat, whether you’re reading in your living room or watching a performance. Chefs kiss!
January 11, 2013
Reading a Pristley-play always feels a bit like watching the author jump up and down in front of you, yelling 'Don't you see how clever I am? You simply must see that!'. This is so far the worst of the lot.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews