Andrew Haydon
posted 4 May 2007

Since 1994’s Half the Picture – a reconstruction of the edited transcripts of the Scott Report into the sale of, well, of weapons of mass destruction to Iraq - the Tricycle Theatre has made a name for itself as a crucial point on the landscape of British political theatre. Its latest addition to its series of tribunal plays also marks a departure for this form of verbatim theatre which it pioneered. Instead of contenting itself with bringing an accessible, dramatised version of a pre-existing inquiry or trial (previous tribunal plays have included Srebrenica, the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, the Hutton Inquiry and Bloody Sunday) Called To Account employs Philippe Sands QC and Julian Knowles as prosecution and defence lawyers in hearings toward the indictment of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair for the crime of aggression in the run up to the Iraq war.

The theatre has, in essence, run its own inquiry; called its own witnesses – it is notable that eight of the invited witnesses, not bound by any legal obligations, declined to undergo cross-examination – and edited the results into the two hours ten minutes of theatre, in much the same way as it edited the earlier pieces. Everything that the audience sees is still verbatim. It is a representation of reality, albeit a reality that was wholly manufactured by the theatre in the first place. It is a intriguing area to have moved verbatim theatre into – a kind of half-way-house between the improvisational techniques of, say, Mike Leigh, and the totally factual basis for something like the Nuremberg Trials. It is interesting as an idea, not least because it focuses our attention on the very stageyness of a real trial, with all its traditions, and public show.

That said, for all that this is a fascinating formal experiment, as drama it drags. I suspect how much anyone enjoys Called To Account would depend hugely on their tolerance/comprehension of legalese, their preoccupation with the Iraq war, and quite possibly their political standpoint. Committed theatregoers who like a good night out should not feel duty bound to attend. This is theatre made specifically for interested parties. Casual passers-by will have demands made of their attention that are over and above the call of duty.

For all that, there is some very fine acting on display here. Given the total dedication to recreation, and the slightly stagey nature of tribunal proceedings, it is easy to forget that the craft on display here is that of the actor and not the lawyer. This is perhaps most noticeable during Diane Fletcher’s turn as Claire Short. Short is probably the most famous face involved in the hearings, and Fletcher one of the more well-known actors in the cast (most famously Francis Urquart’s wife in the three House of Cards series). Her performance is an expert blend of convincing mimicry and straight-down-the-line truthful acting. Also excellent is Shane Rimmer as Richard Perle, whose testimony, as one of the few full-on supporters of the war prepared to give evidence, albeit from an American perspective, is far and away the most interesting of those heard.

However, there is the question of whether this inquiry holds any real legitimacy now. After all, the Tricycle theatre, in holding this inquiry, is effectively calling into question the UN Security Council, which has never issued a statement suggesting that the Iraq War was illegal; the two previous inquiries into the conduct of the government in the run up to the war, both of which acquitted the prime minister of any wrong-doing; and lastly the British people, who following the inquiries into the conduct of the government and re-elected New Labour with another considerable mandate. In this context, the Tricycle’s continued harrying starts to look more than a little impertinent. Worse, the play fails to make much of a case for its own existence. By the end of the evidence presented, it would be hard to claim that an ironclad case has been presented that could result in Blair being charged with the crime of aggression.

The case hinges on the evidence presented by the Attorney General, and that a 17-page document made available on 7 March was revised to a more hard-headed one-page document distributed to cabinet ten days later. The suggestion that the AG was ‘leant on’ in this period is one constantly tabled, and continually rebuffed. There is the question of ‘good faith’, which is so difficult to prove as to be meaningless, particularly after this much time. One is left with a nagging feeling that it is quite possible, plausible even, that the prime minister and a small cabal did indeed finesse the evidence used to make the argument for Britain declaring war on Iraq, but that there isn’t very much we could do, even if we were absolutely positive this were the case. Which we’re not anyway. Added to this is the fact that the UN Security Council Resolutions are so woolly and indistinct as to neither excuse nor condemn anything. Ultimately it is hard to see what has really been achieved other than instilling a sense of the futility of international law into a theatreful of concerned parties.

Till 19 May 2007.

Andrew Haydon discussed Called to Account and This is England on Culture Clash on the web TV station 18 Doughty Street, 24 April.