What do you think?
Rate this book
Private Lives: An Intimate Comedy in Three Acts
'Private Lives' is one of the most sophisticated, entertaining plays ever written. Elyot and Amanda, once married and now honeymooning with new spouses at the same hotel, meet by chance, reignite the old spark and impulsively elope.
After days of being reunited, they again find their fiery romance alternating between passions of love and anger. Their aggrieved spouses appear and a roundelay of affiliations ensues as the women first stick together, then apart, and new partnerships are formed.
After days of being reunited, they again find their fiery romance alternating between passions of love and anger. Their aggrieved spouses appear and a roundelay of affiliations ensues as the women first stick together, then apart, and new partnerships are formed.
58 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1930
About the author
Noël Coward
354 books203 followersSir Noël Peirce Coward was an English actor, playwright, and composer of popular music. Among his achievements, he received an Academy Certificate of Merit at the 1943 Academy Awards for "outstanding production achievement for In Which We Serve."
Known for his wit, flamboyance, and personal style, his plays and songs achieved new popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, and his work and style continue to influence popular culture. The former Albery Theatre (originally the New Theatre) in London was renamed the Noël Coward Theatre in his honour in 2006.
Known for his wit, flamboyance, and personal style, his plays and songs achieved new popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, and his work and style continue to influence popular culture. The former Albery Theatre (originally the New Theatre) in London was renamed the Noël Coward Theatre in his honour in 2006.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 163 reviews
October 12, 2020
Private Lives, regarded as Coward's most pristine play, is a fine example of his art which although elegantly simple works so well. This piece seems to exist in a kind of stylised limbo, lacking consequence or context. And yet it also hints at something darker in its close-knit characters and their interior lives, and that of its creator's, both concealing and revealing at the same time. There are four characters (two couples), that being Sibyl & Elyot Chase and Amanda & Victor Prynne, unknown to the Chases, the Prynnes are honeymooning at the same hotel, which causes problems to flare up as there is a past love between two of them.
Sibyl loves married life, she is as much in love with the idea of being a bride as she is with her husband, Elyot, and perhaps more so. On the first night of their honeymoon, Sibyl had gone into raptures over Elyot, but she did not forget, or let him forget, that she knew he had loved his first wife Amanda madly. When Amanda and Elyot see each other again, each wants to move out of the hotel before their respective mates knows about the presence of the other couple. Sibyl and Victor, however, who are not accustomed to making abrupt changes without reason, refuse to leave. Amanda and Elyot thereupon decides that they are not culpable when they talk together again and recall their happy times together. Both try for a time to avoid the issue uppermost in their hearts and minds, but at last Elyot breaks off the polite conversation to say that he his love for Amanda still remains.
Scenes 2 & 3 were my favourites, when it switches to Amanda's Parisian apartment, which plays host to conflict and bickering, where the use of dialogue was quite superb. It's a dazzlingly constructed piece of drama, exquisite, funny and tender, and showcases Coward as one of Britain's
great playwrights. Would love to see on stage.
Sibyl loves married life, she is as much in love with the idea of being a bride as she is with her husband, Elyot, and perhaps more so. On the first night of their honeymoon, Sibyl had gone into raptures over Elyot, but she did not forget, or let him forget, that she knew he had loved his first wife Amanda madly. When Amanda and Elyot see each other again, each wants to move out of the hotel before their respective mates knows about the presence of the other couple. Sibyl and Victor, however, who are not accustomed to making abrupt changes without reason, refuse to leave. Amanda and Elyot thereupon decides that they are not culpable when they talk together again and recall their happy times together. Both try for a time to avoid the issue uppermost in their hearts and minds, but at last Elyot breaks off the polite conversation to say that he his love for Amanda still remains.
Scenes 2 & 3 were my favourites, when it switches to Amanda's Parisian apartment, which plays host to conflict and bickering, where the use of dialogue was quite superb. It's a dazzlingly constructed piece of drama, exquisite, funny and tender, and showcases Coward as one of Britain's
great playwrights. Would love to see on stage.
February 3, 2014
I went to see this on Friday with a dear friend of mine. We sat watching the MTC production. I had never read the play before or seen it, so I was expecting a romantic comedy as light as a feather and just as ticklish. But then Amanda says that Elyot used to hit her, and not just once, but frequently. And then in act two he hits her again...
Now, both me and the woman I was watching the play with were more than a little taken aback by this. In fact, like the music that had been updated to stuff from the 1970s, we thought this theme might just have been added so as to better suit the tastes of a more ‘modern’ audience. But I’ve check and all this is in the original play.
Ok, the main bits of the story. Two couples are on their honeymoon. The husband of one had been married to the wife of the other five years previously, but after a really tempestuous marriage, based mostly on jealousy, they had separated. It is utterly clear to everyone from the beginning of this play that they are both still in love with each other and have ‘settled’ for their new partners. They do not know it, but they have organised for their honeymoons to be spent in the same hotel in adjoining rooms – This is the world of a romantic comedy, you can’t get worked up over such things. Worse things happen at sea and all that.
They meet up again, declare each other’s undying love to the other and then run off to Paris with each other. But their delight at being back together again is short lived – they have collectively stuffed up three marriages now in relatively quick succession, so things are a wee bit stressful at least now and again. They try to work out strategies for avoiding their tempers destroying each other, but this doesn’t really work either, and so he hits her again which brings them to the end of their relationship yet again.
The other two arrive, obviously somewhat pissed off, and so talk of divorce is pretty well the main topic of conversation. But then it isn’t all that clear who should get divorced or if they should bother, given it seems clear Amanda and Elyot now hate each other yet again. There is a longish part of the third act where it isn’t at all clear who is going to end up with whom. And this is really surprisingly uncomfortable. In any other comedy you would be willing and wanting and needing Amanda and Elyot to end up together. But he spends a lot of his time hitting her. Victor might well be a boring little tit, but sometimes you can have just too much excitement in your life. You know, who wants to end up in a Punch and Judy show?
After the play was over we were talking about the whole domestic violence theme. You know, when Amanda says Elyot hit her numerous times and in numerous places, Victor calls him a cad. I really don’t think that this aspect of the play would have been any more comfortable to watch in 1930 than it was in 2014. The fact domestic violence wasn't spoken about back then surely would have made that topic in the play feel like a red hot poker.
This is a really savage look at male / female relationships. It would hardly make you want to run off and get married. In fact, it would make you want to run in exactly the opposite direction. It also basically says that all relationships are doomed to end in either loathing or worse. So, as a ‘romantic comedy’ this is hardly a little ray of sunshine. All the same, it really was quite funny in parts and I’ve come away thinking about it much more than I expected I might.
Now, both me and the woman I was watching the play with were more than a little taken aback by this. In fact, like the music that had been updated to stuff from the 1970s, we thought this theme might just have been added so as to better suit the tastes of a more ‘modern’ audience. But I’ve check and all this is in the original play.
Ok, the main bits of the story. Two couples are on their honeymoon. The husband of one had been married to the wife of the other five years previously, but after a really tempestuous marriage, based mostly on jealousy, they had separated. It is utterly clear to everyone from the beginning of this play that they are both still in love with each other and have ‘settled’ for their new partners. They do not know it, but they have organised for their honeymoons to be spent in the same hotel in adjoining rooms – This is the world of a romantic comedy, you can’t get worked up over such things. Worse things happen at sea and all that.
They meet up again, declare each other’s undying love to the other and then run off to Paris with each other. But their delight at being back together again is short lived – they have collectively stuffed up three marriages now in relatively quick succession, so things are a wee bit stressful at least now and again. They try to work out strategies for avoiding their tempers destroying each other, but this doesn’t really work either, and so he hits her again which brings them to the end of their relationship yet again.
The other two arrive, obviously somewhat pissed off, and so talk of divorce is pretty well the main topic of conversation. But then it isn’t all that clear who should get divorced or if they should bother, given it seems clear Amanda and Elyot now hate each other yet again. There is a longish part of the third act where it isn’t at all clear who is going to end up with whom. And this is really surprisingly uncomfortable. In any other comedy you would be willing and wanting and needing Amanda and Elyot to end up together. But he spends a lot of his time hitting her. Victor might well be a boring little tit, but sometimes you can have just too much excitement in your life. You know, who wants to end up in a Punch and Judy show?
After the play was over we were talking about the whole domestic violence theme. You know, when Amanda says Elyot hit her numerous times and in numerous places, Victor calls him a cad. I really don’t think that this aspect of the play would have been any more comfortable to watch in 1930 than it was in 2014. The fact domestic violence wasn't spoken about back then surely would have made that topic in the play feel like a red hot poker.
This is a really savage look at male / female relationships. It would hardly make you want to run off and get married. In fact, it would make you want to run in exactly the opposite direction. It also basically says that all relationships are doomed to end in either loathing or worse. So, as a ‘romantic comedy’ this is hardly a little ray of sunshine. All the same, it really was quite funny in parts and I’ve come away thinking about it much more than I expected I might.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 13, 2015
"Extraordinary how potent cheap music is." Now, kiss me, you poor darling.
Though "Blithe Spirit" is surely Coward's best play, "Private Lives" is his most famous, most romantic -- and most produced. NYT Times critic Clive Barnes called it "a little masterpiece." First seen in 1930, co-starring Coward & Gert Lawrence, the critics here and in London were thoroughly engaged, but always cautioned that it was pretty flimsy. Like a good wine it has aged well and today it's a modern classic.
In a nutshell, Amanda and Elyot -- divorced for 5 years -- have finally remarried and now, on their respective honeymoons at a posh French resort, find themselves in the same hotel, sharing a balcony. They hate each other because they love each other. Pandemonium results. Love, in all its nasty, sticky splendor, remains potent.
With his usual modesty, Coward said that he wrote it in four days, giving himself and Gertie fat roles. Knowing audiences eagerly await the Amanda-Elyot brawl with flying pillows and lamps at the end of Act 2, but after Act 1 nothing really "happens." Which shows the genius of Coward : No other playwright can find something antic and also very real in dazzling nothingness. His nothingness, with its saucy flippancy, is Something else.
Amanda-Elyot and their new spouses are in their late 20s and early 30s -- as were Coward-Gertie when the play bowed. They repped giddy, spoiled, heartless Bright Young Things. (For the 2d husband, Coward cast a brutally handsome young actor -- Laurence Olivier). Oddly, the play is performed today by the middle-aged, except in colleges. I'm thinking of Elizabeth Taylor-Richard Burton, 1983, and a disastrous 2002 production w Lindsay Duncan-Alan Rickman, almost senior citizens (this misconceived venture, which I saw, was dir without laughs and moved so slowly that the riotous Act 1 groaned for an hour).
After its 30s debut, "Private Lives" was mothballed until 1948 when Tallulah Bankhead, adding monkey gland extract, made it an explosive Broadway hit. She graced the cover of TIME. The play ran a season in NYC, competing w Kiss Me Kate, South Pacific and Death of a Salesman, and 2 years on the road. Cued by Tallu's success it has since been revived 6 times on Bwy.
Back in 1930 one critic pondered if audiences, years hence, would be baffled by the popularity of this "flimsy trifle." Audiences, where Coward is concerned, are ahead of the critics. Simply, his plays do not "date" because he is not grabbing hedlines -- social and political issues; there's no "message." (Who today revives Maxwell Anderson, Robert Sherwood, Clifford Odets, Elmer Rice, Lillian Hellman, among Americans?)
Coward is concerned with character, human behaviour, with our quirks and vanities, jealousies and idiocies, and our vulnerabilities. He realized as did the comic masters of manners - Congreve and Sheridan - that these fancies are changeless, especially when topped with verbal lunacy.
Though "Blithe Spirit" is surely Coward's best play, "Private Lives" is his most famous, most romantic -- and most produced. NYT Times critic Clive Barnes called it "a little masterpiece." First seen in 1930, co-starring Coward & Gert Lawrence, the critics here and in London were thoroughly engaged, but always cautioned that it was pretty flimsy. Like a good wine it has aged well and today it's a modern classic.
In a nutshell, Amanda and Elyot -- divorced for 5 years -- have finally remarried and now, on their respective honeymoons at a posh French resort, find themselves in the same hotel, sharing a balcony. They hate each other because they love each other. Pandemonium results. Love, in all its nasty, sticky splendor, remains potent.
With his usual modesty, Coward said that he wrote it in four days, giving himself and Gertie fat roles. Knowing audiences eagerly await the Amanda-Elyot brawl with flying pillows and lamps at the end of Act 2, but after Act 1 nothing really "happens." Which shows the genius of Coward : No other playwright can find something antic and also very real in dazzling nothingness. His nothingness, with its saucy flippancy, is Something else.
Amanda-Elyot and their new spouses are in their late 20s and early 30s -- as were Coward-Gertie when the play bowed. They repped giddy, spoiled, heartless Bright Young Things. (For the 2d husband, Coward cast a brutally handsome young actor -- Laurence Olivier). Oddly, the play is performed today by the middle-aged, except in colleges. I'm thinking of Elizabeth Taylor-Richard Burton, 1983, and a disastrous 2002 production w Lindsay Duncan-Alan Rickman, almost senior citizens (this misconceived venture, which I saw, was dir without laughs and moved so slowly that the riotous Act 1 groaned for an hour).
After its 30s debut, "Private Lives" was mothballed until 1948 when Tallulah Bankhead, adding monkey gland extract, made it an explosive Broadway hit. She graced the cover of TIME. The play ran a season in NYC, competing w Kiss Me Kate, South Pacific and Death of a Salesman, and 2 years on the road. Cued by Tallu's success it has since been revived 6 times on Bwy.
Back in 1930 one critic pondered if audiences, years hence, would be baffled by the popularity of this "flimsy trifle." Audiences, where Coward is concerned, are ahead of the critics. Simply, his plays do not "date" because he is not grabbing hedlines -- social and political issues; there's no "message." (Who today revives Maxwell Anderson, Robert Sherwood, Clifford Odets, Elmer Rice, Lillian Hellman, among Americans?)
Coward is concerned with character, human behaviour, with our quirks and vanities, jealousies and idiocies, and our vulnerabilities. He realized as did the comic masters of manners - Congreve and Sheridan - that these fancies are changeless, especially when topped with verbal lunacy.
October 1, 2017
"Love is no use unless it's wise, and kind, and undramatic. Something steady and sweet, to smooth out your nerves when you're tired. Something tremendously cosy; and unflurried by scenes and jealousies. That's what I want, what I've always wanted really."
November 6, 2018
رواية إنجليزية اجتماعية للكاتب الشهير نويل كوارد، نشرت تحت عنوان شهر العسل في نسختها المترجمة
رواية غزيرة الاحداث .. كثيرة الكلام ... ولكن
منذ متي كان الحب بهذا الصخب والصراخ والشجار ؟
منذ متي كان الحب بالغيرة والشك والتعب والهرب والتفكير والسهر ؟
الحب ليس كذلك .. والزواج الصحيح السليم بلا شك يختلف تماما عما كان يحدث في هذه الرواية الغريبة
عندنا في مصر مثل ��عبي شهير نقول فيه: القط يحب خناقه !! ولكن الحب بلا مودة وسكن ليس حبا .. الزواج بلا احترام وهدوء وطمأنينة ليس زواجا .. بل تعايش مضطرب لا يرتقي لمستوي العيش الهادئ المطمئن .. تعايش لا يتمناه او يطيقه او يتحمله أحد
في رأيي هي وطليقها لا يصلحا لبعضهما مرة اخري
وهي مع زوجها الحالي طبعا لا يصلحا لبعضهما
والطليق وزوجته الحاليه لا يصلحا
كلهم لا يصلحوا لبعضهم
!!!!
كان الارتباط كله خطأ فادح من البداية
علي الرغم من النهاية المبتورة غير المتوقعة إلا أنني استمتعت كثيرا، كانت تجربة جديدة جيدة مع الأدب الإنجلبزي
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZxpk...
September 8, 2020
Reviewed for Books and livres
I thought I'd never seen anything by the much renowned Noel Coward until I learned that "Sérénade à trois", filmed by the great Ernst Lubitsch, was based on one of his plays. Watching an Ernst Lubitsch film is like reading "Private lives" : have a glass of champagne and enjoy the bubbles ! Forget about real troubles, the characters will distract you with their own problems of rich, idle people who don't have a care in the world.
It was an elegant, witty, funny time that I spent reading this short play (58 pages) about a couple who can't live together but can't live apart. They spend their time trying to get away from each other, marrying other people to try and do the sensible thing, falling back in love, fighting again, getting their spouses back and finally eloping together again. They're never bored and never bore us, but tenderness is also there.
I would love to watch the play with Anna Chancellor and Toby Stephens but it's only available on Digital Theatre, so if anyone has a tip ?...
I thought I'd never seen anything by the much renowned Noel Coward until I learned that "Sérénade à trois", filmed by the great Ernst Lubitsch, was based on one of his plays. Watching an Ernst Lubitsch film is like reading "Private lives" : have a glass of champagne and enjoy the bubbles ! Forget about real troubles, the characters will distract you with their own problems of rich, idle people who don't have a care in the world.
It was an elegant, witty, funny time that I spent reading this short play (58 pages) about a couple who can't live together but can't live apart. They spend their time trying to get away from each other, marrying other people to try and do the sensible thing, falling back in love, fighting again, getting their spouses back and finally eloping together again. They're never bored and never bore us, but tenderness is also there.
I would love to watch the play with Anna Chancellor and Toby Stephens but it's only available on Digital Theatre, so if anyone has a tip ?...
June 9, 2021
A sparkling comedy about a couple who can't live with each other and can't live without. They have divorced, and by chance are both honeymooning in the same hotel with their second spouses. Soon that passion they had for each other re-ignites, and they elope together.
March 3, 2011
Read this + Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf back-to-back and you'll never fall innocently in love again.
December 21, 2016
After Blithe Spirit, Private Lives is Noël Coward’s most famous play, which packed the house in its 1930 West End run, 1931 Broadway run, and many subsequent revivals, several of which won Tony and Olivier awards. The 1931 film adaptation was a great hit. And I don’t get any of this.
I found Private Lives pretty lackluster — despite being so frequently produced: contrived, overblown, and lacking much witty dialogue or message. It doesn’t hold a candle to the less frequently staged but more thought-provoking Design for Living.
I found Private Lives pretty lackluster — despite being so frequently produced: contrived, overblown, and lacking much witty dialogue or message. It doesn’t hold a candle to the less frequently staged but more thought-provoking Design for Living.
January 11, 2024
sidder til undervisning og min professor har lige kaldt den "artsy-fartsy"
March 14, 2016
“I think very few people are completely normal really, deep down in their private lives. It all depends on a combination of circumstances. If all the various cosmic thingummies fuse at the same moment, and the right spark is struck, there’s no knowing what one mightn’t do.”
I had quite a lot of fun with Nöel Coward’s Private Lives. It’s clever, entertaining, charming… and incredibly vulnerable. It’s fantastic how these rather eccentric characters seem to be everything at the same time. And love, oh love… instead of having hate as its opposition, it chooses it as its partner in crime. There’s no space for indifference.
Elyot: “It doesn’t suit women to be promiscuous.”
Amanda: “It doesn’t suit men for women to be promiscuous.”
July 20, 2024
خیلی جالب بود، واقعا کیف کردم، مرسی از حدیث برای معرفی.
October 6, 2020
After having experienced the first act as a virtual table read with Emma Thompson, Emilia Clarke, Robert Lindsay & Sanjeev Bhaskar I wanted to know how it all ends... suprisingly and with a clever twist!
March 11, 2024
This couple is so delusional it hurts
February 17, 2020
This is a comedy?
July 20, 2014
Another Noel Coward light comedy full of flippant, blaisé, young characters engaged in a rondeau of sexual attraction, witty repartees and a coquettish disdain for social conventions. One of the play's characters, Elyot, at one time seems to express Coward's credo:
"You mustn't be serious, my dear one; it's just what they want. [...:] All the futile moralists who try to make life unbearable. Laugh at them. Be flippant. Laugh at everything, all their sacred shibboleths. Flippancy brings out the acid in there [sic!:] damned sweetness and light."
That's all very well, I'm all for a deconstruction of Matthew Arnold's Victorian pathos of culture as "sweetness and light". And I do enjoy a nihilistic don't-take-life-nor-death-too-serious stance. Unfortunately Coward's characters lack the bite for a real fight. We never get to see any of those moralists, so there is no worthy enemy for Elyot in sight and he certainly never has to suffer for his views. It's an easy pose for him, since he never has to fear any repercussions, being obviously wealthy enough that he neither has to work nor worry about any of the necessities of life beyond cocktails and dinners. To me at least, Coward's 'critique' rings hollow and conceited at best.
"You mustn't be serious, my dear one; it's just what they want. [...:] All the futile moralists who try to make life unbearable. Laugh at them. Be flippant. Laugh at everything, all their sacred shibboleths. Flippancy brings out the acid in there [sic!:] damned sweetness and light."
That's all very well, I'm all for a deconstruction of Matthew Arnold's Victorian pathos of culture as "sweetness and light". And I do enjoy a nihilistic don't-take-life-nor-death-too-serious stance. Unfortunately Coward's characters lack the bite for a real fight. We never get to see any of those moralists, so there is no worthy enemy for Elyot in sight and he certainly never has to suffer for his views. It's an easy pose for him, since he never has to fear any repercussions, being obviously wealthy enough that he neither has to work nor worry about any of the necessities of life beyond cocktails and dinners. To me at least, Coward's 'critique' rings hollow and conceited at best.
March 8, 2018
This really is an awful play. The wit is purely of the derisive variety, but nothing as sharp as Dorothy Parker came up with on one of her off days.
There are four characters, two are "smart", as in "smart set", sophisticated, etc. Two are meant to be the lesser-mortals they each hooked up with after splitting up themselves. The lesser beings must be made into simpletons, just so we are sure to realize how smart the other two are. When the smart pair are left alone, the dialog is dull, and even they seem bored. They need the other two to display their wit, or what passes for it.
I'm sure Noël Coward was great fun at parties. But if there weren't legions of people telling us how terribly witty he was, no one would be reading this play.
There are four characters, two are "smart", as in "smart set", sophisticated, etc. Two are meant to be the lesser-mortals they each hooked up with after splitting up themselves. The lesser beings must be made into simpletons, just so we are sure to realize how smart the other two are. When the smart pair are left alone, the dialog is dull, and even they seem bored. They need the other two to display their wit, or what passes for it.
I'm sure Noël Coward was great fun at parties. But if there weren't legions of people telling us how terribly witty he was, no one would be reading this play.
May 4, 2016
What an awesome play! I couldn't put it down and when I had to, I picked it up again at the first opportunity. The dialogue is so well interwoven between the characters and it propels the story forward from start to finish. This is why I like reading plays. The ending caught me off guard and made it all the sweeter.
November 21, 2017
when i go deeper in reading the old american plays , i make sure that the most romantic comedy movies come from them , at least the general plot .
it's a good play , but it's awful characters ! , all this screaming and jealousy and rage and child acting .. Horrible !
that is not love at all .. no one can holding life with all this pressure !
but it's a good play .
it's a good play , but it's awful characters ! , all this screaming and jealousy and rage and child acting .. Horrible !
that is not love at all .. no one can holding life with all this pressure !
but it's a good play .
June 20, 2011
I know, I know, how can I only give two stars to Noel Coward, he's a genius, etc.
But I didn't really like any of the characters, nor could I relate to them or their stories.
I do want to see it performed, though. (And it is coming to Toronto starring Kim Cattrall and Paul Gross.)
But I didn't really like any of the characters, nor could I relate to them or their stories.
I do want to see it performed, though. (And it is coming to Toronto starring Kim Cattrall and Paul Gross.)
February 11, 2020
This play has the sharpest dialogue I’ve ever read. “I’d rather marry a boa constrictor” is a line I wish Bette Davis could have delivered. Such a wonderful play!
October 17, 2019
Obras de este tipo ya se hicieron tantas veces que inevitablemente Vidas privadas resultará predecible y cercana al cliché en sus enredos matrimoniales. Pero recordémonos, para corregir la perspectiva, que Coward la escribió cuando todavía faltaban cinco años para que naciera Woody Allen.
El título de esta obra supone cierta ironía. Los diálogos cruzados del primer acto nos vienen a mostrar que no existe algo así como una vida privada, porque incluso lo que consideramos más íntimo es siempre frágil en la medida en que lo compartimos con otros.
El título de esta obra supone cierta ironía. Los diálogos cruzados del primer acto nos vienen a mostrar que no existe algo así como una vida privada, porque incluso lo que consideramos más íntimo es siempre frágil en la medida en que lo compartimos con otros.
January 30, 2018
Considered his masterpiece, I would rank this one just below Present Laughter which I find far more entertaining. This one focuses on two mixed up couples, a pair of husbands and wives. Only one husband and one wife from opposite couples has been married already -- to each other. Antics ensue and they're a load of fun.
January 30, 2021
90 years ago, on 27 January 1931, "Private Lives" debuted on Broadway after touring the UK and finishing a short three month run in London. The well-known tennis match style dialogue had me very easily imagining a stage version while sitting in my living room - live theatre of the mind.
March 17, 2020
Um prazer ler o texto depois de ter assistido à fantástica peça dos Artistas Unidos!
Brilhante e irónico! 💛
Brilhante e irónico! 💛
September 29, 2024
Very funny love story. Two people who divorced , meet again and realize they still love each other but also drive each other crazy.
I would love to see this play live.
I would love to see this play live.
October 31, 2016
I'm gonna rent Anna Chancellor's stage version tomorrow
February 16, 2024
Blithe Spirit was better but still laughed
April 1, 2022
A witty play that is enjoyable when performed by skilled actors, although the third act sags a tad perhaps. It charts the impossibility of smooth human relations. The other is either too clingy or too aloof, too straight laced or too impulsive and different moods and conflicting motivations abound at any given moment.
July 9, 2022
2.5
من الغباء إدخال نفس المدخلات والأمل بنتائج مختلفة
من الغباء إدخال نفس المدخلات والأمل بنتائج مختلفة
Displaying 1 - 30 of 163 reviews