Murmuring Judges
By David Hare
Old Fire Station Theatre, 2-6.12.03

David Hare’s 1991 play is an examination of the British legal system from Home Secretary down to prisoner, taking in every layer in between. The play originally formed part of a ‘state of the nation’ trilogy, with the other two (Absence of War and Raging Demon) examining the Labour Party and the Church of England.

In fact, not much happens in Murmuring Judges. Gerard McKinnon, a getaway driver, is sent to prison, appeals against his sentence and gets six months knocked off. We discover that bent copper Barry Hopper sent him there and that an incompetent, corrupt barrister Sir Peter Edgecombe QC allowed the unjust sentence because the case wasn’t sufficiently interesting to warrant the work. The other characters talk, worry and agonize over the problems contained within this quite static situation, but over the course of the play nothing really changes. We have a series of arguments, discussions, occasional revelations and confrontations, but by the conclusion of the play, little has altered.

However, the production itself is slick and accomplished. Jo Noble skillfully directs a large cast, and ensures the play comes together well. The acting is of a high standard throughout, although a number of the barrister’s lines were fluffed or tripped over, which dented his image of powerful authority. The scenes are well balanced and generally well paced, as a prison scene collides with a drinks party for the Home Secretary shortly before an evening in the local police station. There are particularly strong performances from Annie Bayliss as PC Sandra Bingham, Oliver Baird as DC Hopper and Ben Johnston as Woody Pearson. Indeed many of the performers manage to give their characters some well-needed humanity and allow us to feel for them, something which the text itself seems less inclined to do. The actor’s commitment to the individual people in this play shows the audience that these are human beings, not just mouthpieces for moral wrangling or opposing viewpoints, as Hare appears to have written. This gives the play another dimension, as it starts to become not just about individuals fighting for their own rights against the institutional anonymity of the judicial system, but actors fighting the dry and simple text to become more than sides to arguments or voices of set opinion; to become changeable, fallible, believable characters.

The design is simple and effective. The stage is bare, with a plain white backdrop that linking video sequences are projected onto. To use video in theatre successfully is rare, but here it is subtle and well placed. The sequences also further help the audience to see the characters as real people, and using up-to-date camera techniques and sound editing, they successfully update the feel of the play to remind us of its relevance today for issues of institutional racism and corruption in the judicial system.
Overall, therefore, the production is excellent and the subject matter topical and in need of discussion, but it is a shame Hare could not show us more, and tell us a little less.

Liam Brett, 02.12.03