No Sex Please, We're British: A Comedy in Two Acts

by Anthony Marriott, Alistair Foot

This riotous comic farce notched up a staggeringly successful sixteen-year run in the West End. Peter and Frances could reasonably expect to look forward to a calm, happy start to their married life together. Owing to an unfortunate mistake, however, they find themselves inundated with pornographic material from the "Scandinavian Import Company." Senior bank officials, Peter's snobbish mother, and a prim, respectable bank cashier become inextricably entangled in the rumbustious events that follow.

Genres: Plays, Theatre

78 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1973

Reviews

[Keith Moser]

Read this quickly today because my local theatre is doing it in the new year and is holding auditions tomorrow!

For the type of play (farce with lots of slamming doors) it's quite funny and well-written. A lot of the times, I find the writing in these plays a little hard to follow—all the "reasons" characters are just barely missing each other's entrances and exits are a little too hard to believe.

But this script is tight and fast-paced and mostly believable. It's hard to imagine a time when the actual events could take place (a bunch of pornographic postcards seem to cause way too many problems—but I guess 1970s England was different than 2017 America?) but if you can get past the general conceit that these characters are very uptight around sex, then the rest flows pretty well.

I'll probably audition, but I really need to watch some Inbetweeners or IT Crowd or standupmaths to try to get a British accent down!

[Rachel]

Honestly I loved this play, and eventually I would love to see it live.

Overall, it was an easy read that only took me around a day to finish. Typically I do not find myself giggling at jokes in literature, but I am pleased to say this was an exception. I found it hard not to chuckle at the absolutely bizarre predicaments these characters found themselves in.

Since this takes place in Britain, of course there were going to be some words of British slang I didn't 100% understand, but with context clues they were all quite self explanatory. The lesson of the day is to not let British slang scare you away from this masterpiece.

The one thing that was confusing in this play is that I did not know the main house/area this takes place in is above the bank where some characters work. I literally had to have my friend clarify that. Other than that small setback, it was a joy to read.

Anyways, I also have an unhealthy obsession with Brian. I will not be taking questions at this time.

[Lauren]

I’m normally a sucker for comedic plays involving mistaken identities and the physical farce of perfectly timed entrances and exits. This one did not suck me in (and apparently I’m not alone – although a success in England, it closed on Broadway after less than 20 performances). For an American, part of it may be the instigating event: the arrival of pornographic material via the mail. I didn’t get the fuss or why it escalated as it did or why the married couple was so mean to the assistant, especially since it was their problem. Not recommended.

[pritha]

HILARIOUS #TeamBrian4Lyfe

[Charlie Lee]

A pretty funny farce about some accidentally ordered pornographic materials and the chaos that ensues. There certainly is sufficient snowballing going on as is to be expected with a good bedroom farce. 16 years was a long time for this one to be running though! The false image of repressed sexuality by highly sexualised characters definitely dates it. I would imagine even in the 70s when this work came out the little town they were satirising would have been considered highly conservative.

[William Harris]

A huge hit, somehow, at the time. Surprisingly mediocre fare, though. Not quite enough machinations for a farce, going through the motions somehow low-keyed and half heartedly. And hardly enough inneundo for the genre. Tame and joyless.

[Kelsey Burnette]

I guess I’m not so much in the mood for a farce.

[Colin]

Very funny play - quite different from the film with the superb Ronnie Corbett. It is a bit dated now and probably wouldn't appeal to modern tastes. It has not passed the test of time.

[Cristian Quiroga]

I read it because I performed it in 2009 and had a wonderful experience playing the role of Peter. A comedy full of funny moments and worth seeing in the theatre.

[Sawyer]

3.5

[Andrea]

I was Barbara (the hooker in training). Funny but had to be toned down a bit for community theater :). 1992

[Robert]

Read with Portland Playreaders

[Sally]

An exhausting door-slamming farce.