Judicial Murder of Mrs. Surratt

[wpbinzel]

The views expressed herein are solely mine and do not reflect the thoughts or positions of any other entity or organization.

Two thumbs up for Rich Amada’s play, The Judicial Murder of Mrs. Surratt. It moves the story along, it keeps your attention, and it presents a plausible version of the events of 1865. When it comes to my scorecard for a play based on historical events: check, check and check.

The underlying premise is that the government put Mary Surratt on trial solely to pressure her to reveal where her son, John Surratt, Jr., could be found and captured so that the government could use his testimony to implicate Jefferson Davis in Lincoln’s assassination. In the final minutes of her life, Mrs. Surratt is offered a reprieve from the gallows in exchange for her son’s location, which she refuses. It is a plausible theory, although not one to which I subscribe. (While I think Mary knew that her son was in Montreal, I do not believe she knew where or who was hiding him. But, if she had known, just as resolute as Mr. Amada’s Mary is, I do not believe that the mother would have surrendered her son.)

In the courtroom scenes, Mr. Amada incorporates actual testimony into the play, and does so in an even-handed manner for the prosecution and the defense. The point–counterpoint arguments of the lawyers on the validity of the military tribunal is actual and brilliantly done.

To be sure, Mr. Amada takes some literary license, but it is generally done to move the story along or to introduce details that would otherwise require a much longer play. For example, the play’s premise required Mr. Amada to invent dialogue between Mrs. Surratt and her attorney, Fred Aiken, and Assistant Judge Advocate General, John Bingham. It tends to lead to sympathy for Mrs. Surratt, but other elements of the play make an effort to present events fairly and accurately.

Those who have tried to tell the assassination story can appreciate the need to provide a lot of detail and context in a 90-minute production. Many aspects, such as how the carbines came to be hidden in Surratt’s Tavern, while mentioned, may be lost on those who are not intimate with the history. But, as my wife pointed out: “It is a play, not an 8-part documentary.” Her point (and while I am well-advised to agree, I am not automatically obliged to) is well taken. There are so many details that we Lincoln-assassination nerds take for granted, Mr. Amada needed to incorporate them to the extent and as rapidly as possible. He succeeded.

I also want to salute the actors, Charlene Sloan (Mary Surratt), James Pearson (John Bingham), Mytheos Holt (Frederick Aiken), Emily Golden (Anna Surratt), Nicholas Barta (JW Booth and Louis Weichmann), and Michael Schwartz (John Lloyd and John Surratt); and the production crew lead by Eleanore Tapscott, Jayn Rife, and Marg Soroos for a marvelous production. I had never seen the use of a flashback in a live play before, but it, too, was brilliantly done.

The investigation into Lincoln’s assassination is on-going. Many of our questions will never be answered with any degree of certainty. Consequently, I have great respect for those who proffer a plausible version of events, especially in a compelling theatrical production. Rich Amada’s The Judicial Murder of Mrs. Surratt is certainly within those parameters. My hope is that the play will spark an interest in its audience to take a deeper look into history. If it accomplishes that, how can I not like it?