Ever since I appeared as a callow 27 year-old in Dangerous Corner, I've always had an affection for J B Priestley's time plays. In Time and the Conways, as in the other time plays that Priestley wrote, an otherwise straightforward situation is given a metaphysical twist that raises it out of the mundane and makes for a thought-provoking evening.

For those readers who didn't see Jessica Hammett's production at Upstairs at the Gatehouse, and who don't know the play, I should explain the basic premise of the piece. Starting and ending in 1919 at Kay Conway's 21st birthday party, the middle act of the play transports the audience forward to 1938 (after, indeed, the play was first performed) where we see what has happened to all the characters as the roaring twenties turned into the hungry thirties. But is this real? Is it just Kay's dream? Might it not happen? Naturally when we land back in 1919 we see the characters through different eyes, having peeked into their future.

What has always impressed me with Priestley is the way he makes every character interesting. There are no irrelevant bit parts in Priestley plays. As such they are gifts to actors – every role is important and everyone has a proper back-story to help them along. The cast of this production certainly rose to the occasion and gave some superb performances. I'm not going to attempt to criticise any of the performances because I enjoyed each and every one of them. I hope that the cast will forgive me if I don't give a roll call of superlatives. I must, nevertheless, congratulate new member, Portia van de Braam who was a delight to watch as the gangly Carol, the baby of the family who has so much to live for, but who, as we find out, dies two years after the birthday party. A creditable performance as well from the company's other new member, Sarah Hudson, as silly Joan who marries the wrong Conway brother and lives to regret it.

I was impressed, too, by Dan Usztan's understated but powerful performance as elder brother Alan “ a miserable clerk with no prospects, no ambition, no self-respect, a shabby man that nobody would look at twice”, as his mother described him. Mrs Conway (Gerry Skeens) had her favourites among her brood, and poor Alan always lost out to the dashing wastrel Robin, as played by Nick Edwards. Initially a World War I flying ace, he snatches Joan from his elder brother (not that she needed much snatching) but then descends into drink and a series of dead-end jobs.

Would-be novelist, turned hack journalist, Kay, is very much the pivot of the play and Helen McGill rose to the occasion with a well-rounded performance. Her scene with Alan at the end of Act II was a delight to watch.

The Conways are very much a close-knit family group, as witnessed by their game of charades which dominates much of the first act. There are the outsiders, however, who infiltrate the family circle. Joan, who marries and is then ditched by the prodigal Robin, and the gauche Ernest Beevers, initially ill-at ease with the confident Conways who, apart from Carol, have little time for this denizen of the lower orders. Richard Brent gave a strong performance in the role (one I played myself over 30 years ago) and made a believable transformation to the hard-bitten self-made businessman of 1938. It is, unfortunately, never made clear in the play just how he manages to win the hand of the beautiful Hazel Conway (Amy Harrison), before turning into an unpleasant, wife-dominating bully.

I felt some sympathy for Sebastian Chrispin, in the role of family friend and solicitor, Gerald Thornton. This seemed to be most under-written role of the play with not a lot of character for the actor to get to grips with. To his credit Mr Chrispin made the most of what was there. If things had turned out differently, he might have married Madge, the eldest Conway sister. As played superbly by Helen Corbett, Madge turns from an ardent socialist to a querulous schoolmarm, old before her time.

On reflection, I do think that the play would have benefitted from two intervals, as it was no doubt intended to be played originally. I know that this would have extended the running time (but only by 10 minutes or so), but it would have permitted the stage crew to have made more subtle changes to the set to signify the passage of time and allowed the actors longer to assume an older persona. Some actors managed the change better than others. I did find a first half of 1 hour 35 minutes rather excessive.

I was also, a bit disappointed by Jude Chalk's set. I know the restrictions of the Gatehouse space, and the resultant problems of transposing what was intended as a box-set proscenium arch play to an open stage with audience on three sides, as well as the limited get-in time that we have there, but I did feel that a bit more could have been achieved to give a greater sense of period(s). I was initially confused too, from where I was sitting, by the anthracite stove, which was not referred to, nor specifically used by the actors. It was only at the interval, that I was able to make out what it was.

I couldn't really fault Lynda Twidale's costumes and all credit to her for sourcing appropriate clothing for two periods, as well as the host of costumes for the charades.

All in all, though, despite these minor grumbles, this was a highly enjoyable evening for which the director and cast should be congratulated.