"Catonsville 9": Over Staging History

◊◊◊ out of five.  90 minutes, no intermission.  Graphic images of war. 

There is something decidedly unsettling about seeing a performance about an actual historical event where it actually took place.  Such is the case with The Trial of the Catonsville Nine, which opened last night at the Catonsville campus of CCBC.  The relevance of this dramatization of the court action against nine individuals who raided a draft board office and burnt hundreds of files of potential draftees during the Vietnam conflict to today's public distaste for our current situation in Iraq is clear.  Whole books comparing the two have been written, and countless stage productions have sprung up that emphasizes this.  This production has some punch to it, though its impact is seriously lessened by some weak cast members, some serious sound issues, and direction that is all over the place. 

That "all over the place" quality is seen in pretty much every aspect of the production, which is written by Catonsville Nine member Daniel Berrigan, based on actual court transcripts.  The setting is a generic American court room, designed by Marc W. Smith, dominated by a huge witness stand center stage, a jury box full of silhouettes, and giant screens across the back of the entire gallery.  Smith's set gives the play an authentic feel and a sort of "it could be anywhere in America" generality.  The giant screens on the sides are used to project still images and film clips, including footage of the actual event (videography by Daniel Freundel).  This offers a stunning reminder of the scope and range of horrors associated with Vietnam, as well as a way to bring the actual history to the audience.  It is used to most excellent effect at the beginning of the play, when a protest song is sung and the images are first being shown.  It is used to obvious, but good use, when the court testimony describes the actions of the Nine, with the actors pantomiming the exact actions of those in the news footage.  This brings immediacy to the proceedings which might otherwise be absent if all we heard were court records being recited.  But then, the videography gets rather heavy handed and simultaneously trite, particularly when one of the defendants starts talking about the legality of the war being the responsibility of the President, and a picture of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush pops up. 

The action is supplemented by music, played live on stage by Skip Smaldone, a decent folk singer.  But the problem with this device is that he is amplified, while the rest of the company is not.  The result is a loss of easily 75% or more of the dialogue, helped only by the shouting required of the more impassioned speeches of the defendants, and few merciful periods of silence.  The idea behind the music is a terrific one - especially in the opening moments of the play while the projected images set the scene for us.  It is a good idea when it is used to symbolize larger ideas such as when the singer hums the words to the National Anthem, somewhat subtly suggesting that patriotism has lost its voice amidst the senseless violence of war.  But, then there are times when the music is either laughably obvious ("We Shall Overcome" as we see a slide of Martin Luther King, Jr.) or down right silly ("Seasons in the Sun"?)  Given the seriously religious bent this production has (Berrigan and his brother were both ministers, while most of the other Nine had much experience with global missionary work) I'm surprised they didn't break out the 70's light rock version of "The Lord's Prayer." 

Given the "great-good-bad" leanings of the musical and setting aspects of the production, it really is no surprise that the casting has the same pattern.  The director's notes point out the most excellent aspect of this production, when he explains that casting was done without consideration of age, gender or race, and that the Nine are all played by college students to represent a hopeful youth and future.  What an excellent and subtle way to make a point.  The court is played by older adults as lawyers and the judge, and the bailiff is played by a young boy (the director's son, Daniel Freundel).  The contrast is startling and again makes a good point.  The Nine are uniformly good; each has clearly done their homework, embodying the fear, the bravery and the anger required of people who must defend their actions to a body not interested in right or wrong, but rather the written law.  The not so great thing here is the older adults.  Bernie Noeller is oddly monotone as the Defense, William Hauserman is annoyingly whiny as the judge (exacerbated by the fact that only his head and hands are projected, larger than life over the courtroom - interesting at first, but heavy-handed and dull by the end), and Raymond Weglein as the Prosecution offers nothing in the way of menace or conflict, largely due to the fact that he obviously does not know his lines.  There is much good in the rest of the cast, though.  Sara Baker (as Mary Moylan) and Brandi Sheppard (as George Mische) stand out with their passionate speeches and excellent body language.  And there is some true excellence on the stage as well.  That excellence comes from Graham Smyth as the central defendant, Daniel Berrigan.  Mr. Smyth delivers each speech with a power and passion that seems completely genuine and un-acted.  He also has an air of spontaneity that makes it seem like this is actually happening to him as we see it.  His naturalness extends all the way to the tips of his fingers as he gestures and moves to accentuate meaning, a skill hard to teach, but one that the rest of the cast might benefit by learning or emulating.  He is a young actor to watch for in the future. 

The biggest great-good-bad aspect of this production though lies solely with the direction.  Carl Freundel has done some truly excellent work here, creating several long-lasting stage images that are stunning.  The opening has a 60's/70's garbed woman reciting a new list of draft birthdays, and members of the cast, in 2007 gear come on stage from the audience, at once bringing us to the point that the cycle of senseless war goes on in this country.  They stand before us, young, and most importantly, alive and still full of dreams, while we know that many, if not all, of them are going off to die; it is a powerful image and chilling moment.  Much later, as the prosecution throws around words like "patriotism" and "duty to country", he drapes the flag over the large witness stand such that it looks horrifyingly like a flag draped coffin.  Some of the good things Mr. Freundel does, though somewhat less effective, include having the draft board secretary reconstructing the burnt files while the trial goes on, only to have them taken again as the "crime" is reenacted a second time.  This must have been a great idea on paper, and it sort of works, but I'll bet maybe 3 other people in the audience even realized what she was doing the whole time (and I'm only 95% sure that was what that was myself).  And reenacting the "crime" more than once, and showing the actual footage several times amounts to overkill.  But there are other times when the director is very heavy-handed and really pushes too hard.  Aside from the overkill of the message in the videos, the judge being a disembodied head works in a "Big Brother" kind of way, but is over the top when you add in the bizarre Phantom of the Opera mask and white face (worn similarly but the lawyers).  I suppose the effect is meant to suggest that these are puppets of the government or that they are too ashamed to show their real faces (who knows?), but they, with the black suits and white gloves really look like Al Jolson-style minstrels.  And that comes perilously close to inappropriate.  Also enigmatic is the ending which has the Nine back in 2007 garb, being issued Army fatigues and given a government document.  This really makes little sense given that this is one area where the two conflicts are different - if they are being drafted, we are currently not drafting, and if they are joining up, this makes no sense given the critically low number of new recruits the armed services has to draw from.  (Of course, if I am misinterpreting the staging, forgive me.  But then, it should be clearer.) 

There is so much to recommend about this production, and a lot of it really sticks with you long after the stage clears.  But sometimes conclusions to be drawn and lessons to be learned are more powerful when the medium is left to speak for itself.  Maybe a littler less would have ultimately meant more.

 

PHOTOS by Timothy Gill.  TOP: Graham Smyth.  BOTTOM: (Foreground) Graham Smyth and Shawn Vain, (Background) William Hauserman.