For those of you in the Washington, DC area, the play, The Judicial Murder of Mrs. Surratt by Rich Amada, opened last evening and will be performed this weekend and the next two weekends. After this Sunday's matinee, Mr. Amada will talk about what happened after the conspirators' trial. After the matinee on October 8th, I have been asked to lead a discussion with the audience sitting as the jury.

For more information: https://acctonline.org/current-show/


From the website:

Show Summary: Four score and nine years the United States of America existed as an independent nation that had never once seen fit to execute a woman for any crime. Then came the infamous night of April 14, 1865. Inside Ford’s Theatre, Washington, D.C., the famed actor John Wilkes Booth fired a bullet into the head of President Abraham Lincoln and, in so doing, set into motion a frenzy of events. Shocked and outraged by its first presidential assassination, the United States government launched an unprecedented dragnet to round up every suspect it could. Among the people arrested was Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, the widowed owner of a Washington boardinghouse where Booth and others implicated in the assassination were alleged to have conspired. She was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and, along with seven male co-defendants, tried before a military tribunal convened by President Andrew Johnson especially for the occasion. Those convicted could be hanged. Mrs. Surratt was on trial for her life. The Judicial Murder of Mrs. Surratt is a play based on that trial.

The Judicial Murder of Mrs. Surratt? With a title like that I have to wonder how even-handed its presentation of the case and history will be.

I have seen two staged readings of this play over the past decade or so, and they were very well done. The title, of course, comes from the post-assassination book on the subject by David Miller DeWitt (see link below). The basic premise at the time of the staged readings was that the prosecution was intent on coercing Mrs. Surratt into telling them where to find her son, and she became hopelessly entangled in their dragnet. I don't know if that plot line has changed over the years.

http://www.freeclassicebooks.com/DeWitt%...urratt.pdf

(09-30-2017 01:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The basic premise at the time of the staged readings was that the prosecution was intent on coercing Mrs. Surratt into telling them where to find her son, and she became hopelessly entangled in their dragnet. I don't know if that plot line has changed over the years.

http://www.freeclassicebooks.com/DeWitt%...urratt.pdf

Charlene Sloan, who plays the role of Mary, says, "Her love for her children is the driving force in her decision-making and her fate."

I'd be curious to see how the same actor (Nicholas Barta) portrays both Louis Weichmann and John Wilkes Booth.

(09-30-2017 01:36 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-30-2017 01:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The basic premise at the time of the staged readings was that the prosecution was intent on coercing Mrs. Surratt into telling them where to find her son, and she became hopelessly entangled in their dragnet. I don't know if that plot line has changed over the years.

http://www.freeclassicebooks.com/DeWitt%...urratt.pdf

Charlene Sloan, who plays the role of Mary, says, "Her love for her children is the driving force in her decision-making and her fate."

I'd be curious to see how the same actor (Nicholas Barta) portrays both Louis Weichmann and John Wilkes Booth.

I thought the exact same thing, but good actors (and makeup artists and wardrobe people) can make it happen, I guess.

I don't go near the Washington Post, but if they happen to review it, I hope someone lets us know.

---

A note to me from the playwright: Last night’s opening was great. The director, cast, and crew did a phenomenal job. Very enthusiastic response from the audience. I received lots of questions about the history afterwards. The literature and comp tickets you sent me were placed right at the box office. So everyone will see them when they arrive.

And yes, I sent our museum's propaganda and some complimentary tour tickets...

Here is a review:

http://mdtheatreguide.com/2017/10/theatr...y-theater/

The DC area tends to have some harsh critics and reviewers, so this bodes fairly well for the play. I guess the reviewer is like 95% of the modern public who does not know that the accused was/were not allowed to testify in their own defense (except in the state of Maine). That would explain the lack of text for Mrs. Surratt while on trial.

And another review:

http://dcmetrotheaterarts.com/2017/10/02...y-theater/

Is the play based upon the book "the Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt", by David De Witt?

That book is available on the internet archive as an audio book. (free)
https://archive.org/details/judicialmurd...9_librivox

It has been about fifty years since I tried to wade my way through the ultra-Victorian jargon of DeWitt's book, and I'm not quite sure if I ever reached the end. That said, I think the similarities are more in name only. This play (if it's the same as when I saw it twice as a staged reading) runs on the premise that Mrs. Surratt became legally entangled while trying to protect her children, namely Johnny Boy.

There was another performance of the play this afternoon, followed by a session with our own Bill Binzel giving commentary on the legal angles of the Surratt case and fielding q&a from the audience. The playwright, Rich Armada, emailed me that it was a wonderful session, and that folks were still talking about it as he left the auditorium. Way to go, Bill!

(10-08-2017 07:41 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Way to go, Bill!

I second Laurie!

Thank you, Laurie and Roger. I was pleased (and honored) to represent the Surratt Society at last Sunday's matinee. In a separate post, I will offer my personal review of the play.

When I was first asked, I suggested to Mr. Amada that instead of a monologue on Mrs. Surratt, that we use the post-play session with the audience seriving as jurors considering the evidence. At the outset, based on what they had just seen, I asked for a show of hands of who thought that Mrs. Surratt was "innocent"; who thought that she was "guilty of something, but not exactly sure of what"; and who thought she "got what she deserved." I did not do a count, but would estimate that about 80% of the audience said innocent; 20% said guilty of something; and I don't think anyone said "got what she deserved." Respectively, I then asked some of those who "voted" innocent why they thought that; and did the same for some of those who chose guilty of something. I then attempted to objectively review the evidence against Mrs. Surratt, noting various elements where there were multiple witnesses or statements to corroberate details; where elements was based on testimony limited to one or two individuals, and whether those individuals were credible; and where elements were speculative at best. That was followed by some Q&A and, at the end of a total of about 20 minutes, asked the audience to re-vote. Interestingly, the outcome was reversed. About 20% said innocent; 75% said guilty of something; and a smattering said "got what she deserved." (I did not get the "What do you think?" question.) My impression is that the audience was very engaged, and the session could have gone a bit longer, but there was a time constraint on the use of the theater. I wrapped-up with a plug for the Surratt House Museum and the Surratt Society. My hope (and objective) was to generate interest in both. (Laurie had sent brochures which were set out by the door, as well as some complimentary tour tickets, all of which were taken.) Time will tell.

Time will tell...
Tell me now please, to an ordinary Dutch woman what, 'I wrapped-up with a plug' means?
Veronica

(10-10-2017 12:40 PM)Veronica Wrote:  Time will tell...
Tell me now please, to an ordinary Dutch woman what, 'I wrapped-up with a plug' means?
Veronica

It means that he ended his talk with a mention, or "plug", of the Surratt House Museum for promotional or publicity reasons.