Charles Yelverton O’Connor (1843-1902), a legendary figure
in the history of Western Australia. The three things I knew about him – he was
responsible for the building of the Kalgoorlie pipeline and of Fremantle
Harbour… and that he committed suicide “… exhausted by over-work, libellous
press criticism and lack of political support.”
This play proceeds on the basis of: what if he had been “put
on trial to answer the accusations levelled at him during his lifetime and
beyond.” An interesting notion though I was curious about how a hypothetical
courtroom drama would be handled.
The script is by AG Evans who wrote the biography CY O’Connor, His Life and Legacy. More
on this later.
Firstly though, the set is indeed configured as a courtroom
with a prominent Judge’s chair, a dock for the accused, a witness stand, and a
table for the prosecutor and defence attorney, at the head of which sits the
Clerk of Courts directly below the Judge.
The first act sees the Prosecutor (Dale James) call her
witnesses; the second, the case for the Defence (Trish Theisinger). The Judge
(Norm Heath) gives instructions to the audience as if they were the jury and
(amusing to me at least) everyone (else) would rise when called to do so by the
clerk. Witnesses include an Historian (Francesca Meehan); a scurrilous
journalist, Vosper (Mario Piccoli); businessman Alexander Forrest (Dale
Lovett); his more famous brother Sir John Forrest (Justin McAllister); the
widowed wife Mrs Irvine (Caroline McDonnell); former engineer now farmer,
Hodgson (Piccoli); and lastly, O’Connor’s daughter Kathleen (Meehan). O’Connor
himself is played by Tim Prosser.
Herein lies our problem. O’Connor sits in the dock mute for
the majority of the play while the Prosecutor and Defence examine and
cross-examine these witnesses. When finally he is called to the stand he meekly
complies and is dispatched in short order. He is talked about rather being at
the centre of the story. In effect, he doesn’t face his accusers at all – it is
subcontracted out to a defence lawyer who is far too calm and matter of fact.
Where is the fire, the thunder, the anger, the drama, the
rage?
Everything is so dry and polite, the courtroom device acting
as a noose that constricts the drama. Even the sparring between the two lawyers
is overly restrained. As a person said at intermission, I wanted to stand up
and shout Objection on behalf of the defence lawyer.
James makes the most of what she’s given to work with and Theisinger
adds brief moments of sly humour but a lot of this feels like the restating of
historical facts and the regurgitation of rumour rather than true emotional
human drama. The witnesses give their resumes and talk in odd ways dropping
dates, names and technical data, presenting different angles of the controversy
swirling around O’Connor. It is way too prosaic and worst of all Prosser can
only react with facial expressions. I wanted him to rail at those who
besmirched O’Connor’s name. I wanted to understand why O’Connor took his life.
I wanted to know how this all affected him as a human being not as an engineer.
I didn’t see the torment or doubt or anger. The question of his guilt or
innocence was entirely secondary for me. Those arguments are repeated three
times – in the trial, in the lawyers’ closing statements, and in the Judge’s summation.
There were no escalating stakes or drama. There was no building to the climax
that should have been O’Connor taking the stand. There was no ‘wow’ factor.
I apologise while I put my screenwriter’s hat on but if you’re
going to re-imagine an alternate timeline then make O’Connor front and centre.
Have him defend himself. Have him berate and question and cajole the witnesses.
Have them respond in kind and have genuine conflict and interaction with
O’Connor in the spotlight. Don’t sideline him for 90% of the play. Build
towards a climax – Judas confronting Jesus in the penultimate scene of The Last
Days of Judas Iscariot; Juror number 3 breaking down to reveal the source of
his anger before changing his verdict in Twelve Angry Men; Colonel Nathan
Jessup striding into the courtroom in A Few Good Men. Memorable courtroom
dramas all. Sure, you don’t have to go all “You can’t handle the truth” but I
wanted to understand more about the man, not the fine details of the historical
record and the rainfall figures for Kalgoorlie between 1894-6.
Would this be true to the history? I don’t care. I’m looking
for drama, human emotion and insight and it’s perhaps in trying to be too faithful to
the past that the drama suffers here. The play was also largely flat and
emotionless, the etiquette of the English style courtroom an inhibitor.
McAllister adds authority as John Forrest but Meehan is overly theatrical,
especially as Kathleen, though maybe the play needs more of this sort of
texture and colour to bring it to life.
O’Connor is a fascinating figure and the conceit of the
trial has merit but it needs to allow an actor like Prosser to flourish in the
title role. It needs O’Connor to ‘hang himself’ (or not) based on his own actions
and words, not the testimony of others while he impotently looks on.
Directed by Peter Nettleton, The Trial of C.Y. O’Connor is
on at the Latvian Centre in Belmont until 31 May.
