Curtain Up (49 page)

The enclosed script is loose-leaved, so either send me your notes with the relevant page numbers, or send me actual pages with your alterations.

I have sent the script round to the barrister and his new notes are very few, as you will see.

There are a few minor touchings-up which I think you can trust me with. For instance, Leonard is accused of murder on Thursday, October 14th, 1952 – which happens to be a Tuesday.

The only rather more substantial change I wanted to ask about is this. Can we omit Lily Mogson's name completely. When she arrived, can she decline to give her name? Then, on the programme, she can be described as ‘The Other Woman'. On the programme, ‘The Other Woman' will be the girl at the end. But the audience will assume it is Lily M. If you agree, I can easily do this with a few pencil strokes.

I am delighted that you like the barrister's alterations. I did think they were so good myself, but hesitated to say so in case you hated them.

I am anxious to know if you like the idea of J.H. Roberts for Mayherne. Roberts wouldn't play the judge as the part isn't big enough. [Milton Rosmer eventually played Mayhew]

I only hope the play isn't too long. But I am sure it is good.

The Mousetrap isn't quite so healthy as before, but it is still doing excellent business and I think we shall do that 14 months.

Sorry to keep on worrying you with this play, but I think it is right now. I hope you think so too!

[Peter Saunders]

Christie to Saunders: 25 March 1953

Saunders' Folly

Dear Peter,

I think your idea of ‘The Other Woman' is a brain wave, nothing less. Nothing could be more misleading and yet strictly fair. Haha!

Play, I think, is now quite all right to go ahead with, except for the first act. And that's definitely wrong. It may pass legally, but it outrages common sense. Would any level headed solicitor, if a young man rushed into his office, said he was in trouble over a murder, hare off with him to counsel without even hearing his story first? I don't want the play to seem bogus at the beginning.

We can get round this in two ways.

A. (the easiest) Leonard has already told his story to Mayherne, but M is anxious for Sir Wilfrid to hear L's story in his own words, to see if latter finds L. as convincing as he has done. This involves bringing Sir W. in almost as soon as they arrive and removes the weakness of Sir W. appearing to know all about the case without having ever been told about it!

Only disadvantage, it reduces Mayherne's part and increases Sir W's. This may suit you. I adore J.H. Roberts. He's a wonderful actor. Perfect for Mayherne. But he could play Sir W. I think. His keen brain countering Romaine's equally keen brain. Anyway, that I leave you. I enclose an outline of A.

And I might as well say now that I find myself instinctively disliking the opening between the clerks. Honestly, did I ever write it? I can't feel I did. Have a suspicion it's carried over (by me, perhaps) from the radio play done by someone else. For one thing, Leonard's picture would not have been in the paper as wanted by the police. The one thing the police know is his name which will have been given to them by Janet though it's feasible that she doesn't know his address and so it takes a little time to find him. If you definitely want two clerks talking
the reference must be to an item in paper such as, ‘It is believed that the last person to see the murdered woman alive was a Mr Leonard Vole who visited her that evening. The police are anxious to interview Mr Vole etc'. Something like that. But I think it's a mistake to pinpoint the thing in the first few lines. Also I don't see why we shouldn't cut out the one clerk (surely that would suit you?) All this I have incorporated in A. But if you like it, have the clerks as before.

B. Leonard follows Mayherne to Sir W's chambers. I've also done a rough outline of this. It's for you to choose. But I'm not satisfied with the opening as it is.

No more now, as I want to get this off to you as soon as possible. Vile Weather.

Yours,

Agatha

[a page of notes and rewrites is attached]

Saunders to Christie: 31 March 1953

Saunders' Folly

Dear Agatha,

Many thanks for your letter of March 25th. I am using for Act I alteration A, and have amended the rest of it as you suggest.

I am having scripts duplicated, and will send one out to you in about two weeks' time.

Giving most of Mayhew's first act dialogue to Sir Wilfrid does, as you say, make Sir Wilfrid a star part. I don't think he's ever off the stage!

It helps me from the point of view that I can now offer it to a ‘name'. I think the first choice must be Ralph Richardson, but if necessary I should be very happy to finish up with J.H. Roberts.

I should like to do this play in the autumn, but – as I believe you know – Bertie is threatening at long last to do ‘Towards Zero', and if he really is going to do it this time I must obviously wait for him. [Bertie Meyer had optioned a new adaptation of
Towards Zero
by Gerald Verner, which threatened to undermine Saunders' ability to schedule Christie's work successfully. More of this later.]

Edmund is away at the moment, but on his return he is going to try and find out definitely what Bertie wants to do.

I don't know if you can get England on your wireless, but we are on Henry Hall's Guest Night programme on Easter Sunday, which is transmitted at 2.15 our time.

Looking forward to seeing you,

Kind regards, and many thanks for all your trouble.

[Peter Saunders]

Saunders to Christie: 7 April 1953

Dear Agatha,

I hope to send you the script within the next few days, and as soon as I get them I want to start sending them out to various people.

I append a list of possible Sir Wilfrids, and should be grateful if you would let me know as soon as possible the order in which you would like them to be approached.

We shall probably end up with somebody like J.H. Roberts, but would like to try the stars first.

Roger Livesey: Robert Donat: John Mills: Ralph Richardson: Clive Brook: Felix Aylmer: Charles Laughton: Claude Rains (I can dream, cant I?) Cecil Parker: Eric Portman: Basil Sydney.

If Flora Robson would do it, would it be worth changing it to a woman Q.C.?

Kind Regards

Yours Sincerely,

[Peter Saunders]

Saunders to Christie: 10 April 1953

Dear Agatha,

I enclose a copy of the script, and hope that it is roughly our production to be.

I find, to my dismay, that Dorothy and Campbell Christie have written a play [
Carrington VC
] all about a court martial. I don't know if there is any similarity, but I am getting a script over the weekend, and if there is it might be necessary to go into rehearsal at the beginning of May for an immediate production.

This would mean that there would be no time to get your approval for the cast, other than the major parts, and I wonder if this would worry you.

I hope very much that it will not be necessary to rush this play on, as I really aim for a late autumn production.

I am eagerly awaiting your reaction to my Sir Wilfrid suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Peter Saunders

Christie to Saunders: 14 April 1953

Dear Peter,

A very handsome list of Sir Wilfrids! Not a woman Q.C. definitely. It would remove reality. I know there are women barristers but one always feels that they are rather a joke. Besides a bit of man woman sex antagonism between R. and Sir W. would be good. I'll give you my list of priority – but would prefer you to follow your own. Some of my likes and dislikes are prejudices – and I've no real objection to any of them.

 
1) Richardson – Because he would be a draw and is a good actor. I can't imagine him as it, because I've
always thought him best at unassuming everyday men, but his queer face might look rather arresting under a wig.

 
2) Laughton – Has great attack and temperament, and is rather ‘lucky for me' I think. Haven't seen him for years, however. Don't know how popular he is or what he's like now. [Laughton would later play the role in the 1957 film of
Witness for the Prosecution
. Richardson would play it in the 1982 television film.]

 
3) Roger Livesey – I like him very much as an actor. Any plays he's been in I always remember the character he played. A lot of people don't like him, though. That funny voice of his might be effective.

 
4) Felix Aylmer – Best as a Bishop, but wonderful in his irony. A different kind of Sir Wilfrid – but effective. But isn't he much too old?

 
5) Claude Rains/Robert Donat – Never seen either of them on stage. Know nothing and can't judge. Obviously a great many peoples' dream?!

 
6) Portman – Probably good. Does he overact a bit? Probably wouldn't matter for Sir W. On reflection might be very good.

 
7) John Mills – Can't imagine him in a part. Always visualise him as gentle and romantic character.

 
8) Cecil Parker – I've never liked him in anything I've seen him in – but lots of people think he's very good.

 
9) Clive Brook – Nice but deadly dull. I think you want somebody who can be a personality – even an odd one.

        
10) Basil Sydney – Not seen him for years. Always thought him bad.

I don't suppose any of these remarks will be at all helpful to you. You just go ahead and have whoever you fancy. You're very quiet about Romaine? What are you up to?

Yours in haste,

Agatha

Just got script – but I'm sending this off.

If you want to [go] into rehearsal beginning of May, go ahead. You're very sound on casting and I do feel this is Saunders' Fun.

We shall be here until about May 3rd, I should think. Then a few days in Kurdistan, perhaps, and to Baghdad by the 7th or 8th. Flying home May 12th.

A.M. [Agatha Mallowan]

What about Jean Cadell as the housekeeper? Or is she dead? [The Scottish actress was by no means dead, though at sixty-nine would arguably have been too old for the role.] No hope of Irene Worth for Romaine I suppose?

As well as casting, the issue of its scale was at the forefront of concerns about
Witness for the Prosecution
's potential right from the start. On the one hand, its widely advertised Old Bailey setting was one of its biggest selling points, but on the other it made the piece expensive and difficult to create and run. Christie's original dramatis personae
of fifteen had expanded to thirty by the time the production opened, in order to include court officials, additional barristers and some members of the jury; although the play was widely promoted as having an actual cast of thirty it was, in fact, twenty-eight, including two doubles. Aware of the importance of her work to the repertory market, Christie herself offers some introductory notes in the acting edition, explaining how less well-resourced companies might approach the piece. There are a large number of non-speaking roles which exist largely for the purposes of courtroom authenticity, and her preferred option is to use amateur supernumeraries for some of these or, indeed, to bring members of the audience onto the stage: ‘I believe this would be greatly to the benefit of the play rather than lose a lot of people in the court scene.' Failing that, she suggests how the piece could be performed by ten men and five women through the doubling and cutting of roles. Sensitive to the fact that disguise is a central feature
of the story, she specifies two small female roles that should not be doubled ‘as the audience will think it is “plot” – which, of course, it isn't'.
¹⁵

And it wasn't just the cast that was unusually big. Michael Weight's set, although not an entirely accurate recreation of the Old Bailey, was an impressive representation of it. The problem lay in the fact that there are two locations in the play, and this necessitated large trucking units to effect the scene changes from Robarts' chambers into the courtroom. Built by Jack Brunskill and painted by Harkers, leaders in their respective fields, these were impressive items. Saunders' loyal lieutenant Verity Hudson, credited in the programme in bold type as ‘Stage Director and Business Manager', was proud that her team were able to achieve the first scene change, which reveals the Old Bailey, in twenty-eight seconds.
¹⁶

The issue of the jury is particularly interesting in terms of both cast numbers and the physicality of the set. Integral to the conceit of any courtroom drama is the fact that the audience is, in effect, the jury. Instead of struggling to second-guess a maverick detective as they unravel a mystery through a combination of homespun forensic techniques, psychological analysis and eccentric intuition, much of which would be inadmissible in court, the audience is asked to make an assessment based on the evidence as it is presented, supported by sometimes complex and often impassioned legal argument. The system itself, of course, is not infallible, so the audience must keep their wits about them; and with the character accused of murder facing the gallows if convicted, the stakes in 1953 were that much higher. Saunders and Christie exchanged notes on whether the jury should be physically represented on stage or whether the defence and the prosecution should simply address the audience. The problem with the jury being featured on stage, as well as the obvious issue of increasing the payroll by twelve people, was the practical one of where to seat them, without pulling focus from the important characters and while remaining relatively faithful to the Old Bailey's layout. Having actors playing the jury also
to an extent disenfranchises the audience, who want to inhabit their own role as jurors. In the end, the set was designed so that only three jurors were visible, effectively minimising their on-stage impact and giving the audience the opportunity to make up the numbers.