1992-
Earlier this year, Judge Kinney sent me a letter asking me if I would be interested in performing a play at the newly restored courtroom. He thought, as I did, that there were a "number of excellent courtroom dramas that may be appropriate for the space". I immediately thought of some of the old "chestnuts" of the American theatre, but as I began my research I noticed a trend. Most of the trial dramas were written during the "Broadway Boom" period of the 40's and 50's, and had large casts (Witness for the Prosecution by Agatha Christie, 17 men and 3 women; Incident at Vichy by Arthur Miller, 27 men and no women). I needed a smaller cast, so I looked into the more intimate drama, characteristic of the 60's and 70's. There I found Nuts, which I had only known about as a film starring Barbra Steisand, but like many films was originally a play.

The popularity of courtroom dramas has always been due to the nature of a trial, where an individual's defenses are systematically broken down to reveal the truth. The "boom" plays of the 50's were usually plot-based, and dealth with finding who the real murderer is. Much like the old Perry Mason shows, the plays would culminate with a tearful confession of guilt ("OK, I did it! But it was 'cause Judd Marshall was blackmailin' me!") The intimate plays of the 70's were concerned with the psychology of the witnesses. The same formula is used, where character's defenses are broken down by clever examiners, but the result reveals more of the personality than it does the plot ("Maybe I did it, but only because Judd Marshall was co-dependent!")

Nuts is more like L.A. Law than it is like Perry Mason. You can expect the drama of cross-examinations and the weighing of evidence, but be prepared for what is revealed, for it goes much deeper than a commitment trial.

  --Jim Nuttall