Skip to main content

Portrait of a Gentleman in Slippers

From Adobe


All kings and others who wield similar powers (e.g., the Prime Minister in a democracy) are counterfeit people. They hide their real selves behind many masks and facades and present to the public what they think is the ideal image of themselves. A A Milne’s short play, Portrait of a Gentleman in Slippers, entertains us with the motley masks worn by Henry XXIV, a 30-year-old bachelor king who is going to marry Princess Averil soon. Introducing him, Milne says that “He is all the Kings that there have been in fairy tales and history.” He is a paragon of all royal virtues, apparently. How many of those virtues are real, however? This is what the play explores.

The King is seen in the beginning of the play with his body-servant Brand. Brand knows, like anyone who has even the remotest association with royalty, how to keep the King pleased with subtle and not-so-subtle flattery. “It is a pleasure to deal with a beard like your Majesty’s” is one of his opening dialogues. He has just given the King a shave. He knows that his as well as his family’s survival depends on the ‘pleasure’ of the Majesty. Even when the King tells him to address him as ‘you’ instead of ‘your Majesty’, because “I am only a man like yourself,” Brand will put ‘your Majesty’ three times in a single utterance: “Thank you, your Majesty. Your Majesty will understand how devoted I am to your Majesty’s service.” Brand knows too well that Kings love obsequiousness. Kings see themselves as the heroes of most adventurous epics or as models posing for portraits. By and by they come to believe that those projected images of themselves are real.

But people who are close to them know the truth. Princess Averil knows Hilary (the original name of Henry XXIV) from their childhood. She knows that as a boy Hilary was coward and a liar. While playing in the garden as children, Hilary wanted to practise life-saving and asked Averil if she would jump into the pond. She jumped promptly. But Hilary didn’t follow her. The gardener saved her. She taunted Hilary, calling him a coward and wanted to marry the brave gardener. Hilary slapped her and said that his foot slipped and that’s why he did not jump in to save her. “But I promise you it will never slip again,” he added clinging to her.

Averil loved that boy with his cowardice and dishonesty. That boy was real. Today King Henry is counterfeit. “Am I going to lose that little boy?” Averil asks Hilary a few days before their marriage. Hilary is ready to shed his masks and facades before Averil. “I want you to know me as I am,” he says.

He does mean that in spite of himself. In spite of the numerous masks and facades that make up his royal ego. When a stranger comes with a wedding gift which is a magical mirror that shows the reality of a person, Hilary is flummoxed. He sees his own “cruelty, cowardice, deceit, vanity, cunning, arrogance, treachery, meanness, false humility…” in it. “Never have I seen such a face,” he tells himself looking at his image in the mirror. However, he gathers the courage to show that real Hilary to Averil before marriage even if it means rejection from her. The stranger counsels him against it. “The world is at an end if we lose our illusions about our friends,” he knows.

Can we love a person without some illusions that veil his/her flaws? Will we love a person if we see his/her real self in all its ugliness? Averil shows we can. Hilary reveals his magical mirror image to her. Initially Averil thinks the King is going to show her yet another projected image of his like in all the paintings of his. She mocks him listing some of the false images he has created already. “False, dressed-up images” of a coward.  

What she sees, however, amazes her as much as it delights her. “Toto!” She calls him his childhood nickname. “Toto! My darling! You’ve come back to me.” Hilary is not sure whether she is serious. But she is. “My ugly little, stupid little, vain little, bad little, funny little Toto!” She hugs him in genuine affection. Now there is no mask, no façade between them.

The real you is what others will accept gladly and honestly. Shed the masks and facades. Your vices will be seen openly. But people will love you for that transparency. The truth is that we are all flawed. The truth is also that people will see through the masks and facades we erect. If we insist on putting up those masks and facades for whatever reasons, people will pretend to love us for their own reasons – as Brand loves the King. [The stranger advises the King never to see Brand’s image in the mirror. Some illusions are necessary consolations in life.] When we shed those masks and facades, people love us genuinely. Now they know that you are not posing for a portrait. You are not advertising your false images. You are just what you are: a gentleman in slippers, a person without the burden of costumes and cosmetics.

A A Milne [1882-1956]

PS. My post on another play of A A Milne: The Ugly Duckling

 

Top post on Blogchatter

Comments

  1. Hari OM
    Quite so! I have made myself a little unpopular in the past for tearing off others' "masks", exposing them for who they really are. Turns out they have to come that themselves. We all of us must learn to become 'naked'. Only then can we rid ourselves of the vulnerability that drives the 'dressing up' in the first place. YAM xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's people's insecurities probably that make them wear do many masks. Now it's almost impossible to find genuine faces. Tough life.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

T he Sarayu carried more tears than water. Ayodhya was a sad kingdom. Dasaratha was a good king. He upheld dharma – justice and morality – as best as he could. The citizens were apparently happy. Then, one day, it all changed. One person is enough to change the destiny of a whole kingdom. Who was that one person? Some say it was Kaikeyi, one of the three official wives of Dasaratha. Some others say it was Manthara, Kaikeyi’s chief maid. Manthara was a hunchback. She was the caretaker of Kaikeyi right from the latter’s childhood; foster mother, so to say, because Kaikeyi had no mother. The absence of maternal influence can distort a girl child’s personality. With a foster mother like Manthara, the distortion can be really bad. Manthara was cunning, selfish, and morally ambiguous. A severe physical deformity can make one worse than all that. Manthara was as devious and manipulative as a woman could be in a men’s world. Add to that all the jealousy and ambition that insecure peo...

Abdullah’s Religion

O Abdulla Renowned Malayalam movie actor Mohanlal recently offered special prayers for Mammootty, another equally renowned actor of Kerala. The ritual was performed at Sabarimala temple, one of the supreme Hindu pilgrimage centres in Kerala. No one in Kerala found anything wrong in Mohanlal, a Hindu, praying for Mammootty, a Muslim, to a Hindu deity. Malayalis were concerned about Mammootty’s wellbeing and were relieved to know that the actor wasn’t suffering from anything as serious as it appeared. Except O Abdulla. Who is this Abdulla? I had never heard of him until he created an unsavoury controversy about a Hindu praying for a Muslim. This man’s Facebook profile describes him as: “Former Professor Islahiaya, Media Critic, Ex-Interpreter of Indian Ambassador, Founder Member MADHYAMAM.” He has 108K followers on FB. As I was reading Malayalam weekly this morning, I came to know that this Abdulla is a former member of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Kerala , a fundamentalist organisation. ...

Lucifer and some reflections

Let me start with a disclaimer: this is not a review of the Malayalam movie, Lucifer . These are some thoughts that came to my mind as I watched the movie today. However, just to give an idea about the movie: it’s a good entertainer with an engaging plot, Bollywood style settings, superman type violence in which the hero decimates the villains with pomp and show, and a spicy dance that is neatly tucked into the terribly orgasmic climax of the plot. The theme is highly relevant and that is what engaged me more. The role of certain mafia gangs in political governance is a theme that deserves to be examined in a good movie. In the movie, the mafia-politician nexus is busted and, like in our great myths, virtue triumphs over vice. Such a triumph is an artistic requirement. Real life, however, follows the principle of entropy: chaos flourishes with vengeance. Lucifer is the real winner in real life. The title of the movie as well as a final dialogue from the eponymous hero sugg...

Empuraan and Ramayana

Maggie and I will be watching the Malayalam movie Empuraan tomorrow. The tickets are booked. The movie has created a lot of controversy in Kerala and the director has decided to impose no less than 17 censors on it himself. I want to watch it before the jingoistic scissors find its way to the movie. It is surprising that the people of Kerala took such exception to this movie when the same people had no problem with the utterly malicious and mendacious movie The Kerala Story (2023). [My post on that movie, which I didn’t watch, is here .] Empuraan is based partly on the Gujarat riots of 2002. The riots were real and the BJP’s role in it (Mr Modi’s, in fact) is well-known. So, Empuraan isn’t giving the audience any falsehood as The Kerala Story did. Moreover, The Kerala Story maligned the people of Kerala while Empuraan is about something that happened in the faraway Gujarat quite long ago. Why are the people of Kerala then upset with Empuraan ? Because it tells the truth, M...

Empuraan – Review

Revenge is an ancient theme in human narratives. Give a moral rationale for the revenge and make the antagonist look monstrously evil, then you have the material for a good work of art. Add to that some spices from contemporary politics and the recipe is quite right for a hit movie. This is what you get in the Malayalam movie, Empuraan , which is running full houses now despite the trenchant opposition to it from the emergent Hindutva forces in the state. First of all, I fail to understand why so much brouhaha was hollered by the Hindutvans [let me coin that word for sheer convenience] who managed to get some 3 minutes censored from the 3-hour movie. The movie doesn’t make any explicit mention of any of the existing Hindutva political parties or other organisations. On the other hand, Allahu Akbar is shouted menacingly by Islamic terrorists, albeit towards the end. True, the movie begins with an implicit reference to what happened in Gujarat in 2002 after the Godhra train burnin...