Who would have thought double homicide could be so, well, dull? In fairness, the murders are carried out off-stage, before the action of this play starts, but playwright Emily Mann has still crafted a rather listless piece from one of the most dramatic moments in the gay rights movement. Part of her problem is that most people watching the play, myself included, already know the bones of what will happen: Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person to be elected to office in the US, was shot and killed by Dan White, along with the Mayor at the time. White was found guilty of “voluntary manslaughter” instead of first-degree murder, which lead to riots which were dealt with violently by the police. So far, so dramatic.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is so dramatic and tragic, and Milk himself had such an eloquent turn of phrase, that Mann’s attempt to dramatise it fall rather flat. The extended court-room scene is leaden and drags, making the play feel longer than its hour and 40 minutes. Further, the court-room testimony, which draws heavily on verbatim text, is intercut with witness reports, character reports and remembrances from those who knew the murdered men, making the whole piece feel disjointed. This is compounded by the staging (James Turner): the minimal court setting sits in between two banks of seating. This has the effect of half-heartedly putting the audience in the position of the jurors, but also means that the action – such as it is – takes place on a long, thin strip of stage, making me feel as though I was watching a slightly tedious tennis match.
Director Joss Bennathan also intercuts the piece with video footage, both of Milk himself and of the riots. The most powerful image in the whole piece is footage of the candle-lit march and vigil that was held, peacefully, immediately after Milk and Moscone were shot and killed. Unfortunately for Mann and Bennathan, this image is so striking that the remaining 20 or so minutes of the play feel superfluous.
Christopher Lane as the lawyer for the defence is superb, weaselling his way to a verdict of voluntary manslaughter instead of pre-mediated murder, but the script does not allow us to understand much of his motivation, nor does it allow him much depth. He does a remarkable job of making himself both hateful and understandable, but is not a well-rounded character. Philip Duguid-McQuillan also does a fine job of playing Dan White – a manic-depressive who had a momentary breakdown, or a bitter homophobe carrying out a politically motivated assassination? It’s not left ambiguous that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated here, removing a great deal of potential suspense. This, coupled with too much dependence on loud noises and bright lights (George Dennis and Richard Williamson, respectively) to bring tension, makes what should be a powerful play feel rather flat.
In the end, it is the weight of its authenticity which drags it down – it makes one realise how cumbersome are the machinations of justice systems, and made me never want to be called for jury service.
Execution of Justice is at Southwark Playhouse until 4 February. For more information, visit the website here: http://southwarkplayhouse.co.uk/whats-on/
January 26th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Very well written and well reasoned piece El. I found it hard to disagree with most of the points you made, although I very much liked the traverse staging specifically because it gave the audience the role of the jury, the lawyers addressed us directly, adding to the effect and helping to communicate the message. I thought both lawyers were really very good, and I’m glad that you enjoyed Phil Duguid Mcquillan’s performance, as he’s a dear friend of mine. For me, the fact that the text is 100% verbatim added to the production rather than hindered it (although some of the testimonials were superfluous), especially when Phil told me in his research he had listened to the entire recorded confession of Dan White. The fact his edited speech in the play was in the man’s exact words made it all the more chilling.
I was very aware of the story, although I think it works as an interesting companion piece to Sean Penn’s film (which I love and he is superb in-performance of a career), because this shows both sides of the story a little more-and even though doesn’t sanction White’s actions, allows you to consider the motives for them more, the place where the film leaves off.
Agreed it does lag in sections, a little too much labouring of the same points, when presumably the liberal audience attending the show will have sympathy enough for Harvey Milk, we know he was a great man with a great legacy. The Candles speech was very moving though-agreed, it would be more fitting to end it there.
January 27th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Harvey Milk was not the first openly gay politician elected to public office in the country, however he was first elected from a major city. I knew Harvey as a friend as well as Mayor Moscone. I saw the original play when it premiered in S.F.in 1984 and several more recent productions. The latter had improved with use of video clips and digital images. Several productions included my images. I also knew many of the characters depicted in the play. I thought the script was pretty accurate. In the movie Milk, there were many timeline and location mistakes and scenes that never happened… however in both circumstances, it has introduced Harvey Milk ,Mayor Moscone and that era in gay rights to thousands and thousands of people,young and old,gay and straight, here in America and around the world.(The play is now London). I would like to recommend a great web-site that is dedicated to the evolution of the Castro from a changing S.F. neighborhood into America’s gay mecca. http://www.thecastro.net and I have some images on the site under my name.