by Julius Green
I have arranged with the Common Serjeant to spend the whole of the next murder trial at the Old Bailey in one of the V.I.P. seats, as I would like to get a bit of atmosphere.
I still don’t know when I shall do the play. Two things would affect the date. If ‘The Mousetrap’ happened to flop suddenly (and I still think it will do the fourteen months I forecast at Nottingham) I should forge right ahead.
The only other danger is that there is an enormous amount of talk in theatrical circles that ‘it’s about time someone put on a play with a court scene in it’. To follow one with ours would make it appear as if we were copying, and if I heard any news that one was to be done I would get in first. That is another reason why I would like the script settled as far as possible.
Can you tell me why you are [seeing the] defending Q.C. as a pompous windbag? It seems that it would be more effective theatrically if the audience liked him. If they didn’t like him they would more probably anticipate his eventual deflation . . .
I haven’t approached any producer [i.e. director] for W.F.T.P. as yet, but I have in mind Glen Byam Shaw, who directed ‘The Winslow Boy’, or Charles Hickman, who has a string of successes to his name – such as ‘Black Chiffon’ which I seem to remember you liked. I also have a leaning towards Frith Banbury, who directed ‘The Deep Blue Sea’. What do you think? [Both Hubert Gregg and Wallace Douglas are, significantly, absent from this list. It would have been interesting to see what Frith Banbury, who the previous year had directed the premiere of Rattigan’s play, starring Peggy Ashcroft, would have made of Witness for the Prosecution]
Kind regards and best wishes to you both,
Yours Sincerely,
[Peter Saunders]
Continued:
I have just spent two hours with Leo Genn, who says that there is rather too much work for him to tackle, but he is putting me on to another theatrical barrister [Humphrey Tilling].
He [Genn] says that there are quite a number of minor points which will present no difficulty, and he does observe that evidence is given in half an act which normally takes a couple of days.
I pointed out that the audience would get rather tired of sitting in the theatre for two days at a time.
He does, however, make one serious objection – and I do not suggest you do more than think about it until I have seen his barrister friend. He says that it is quite unthinkable that a Q.C. should visit a solicitor. This could not, he says, possibly happen because of the laws of the Temple.
He says it is just all right for the solicitor and the Q.C. to be in the solicitor’s office in the Lily Moggson scene, although he should start off by being an observer.
The first scene in Mayherne’s [original name of the solicitor, Mayhew] office seems to be the problem, but by no means insoluble, so don’t bother about it until you hear from me again – which may not be for a week or two.
Christie to Saunders: 19 February 1953
Dear Peter
Herewith various startling improvements (?)! I think I’ve done what you wanted with the scene of Romaine’s break down and got it more dramatic.
I’ve also revised the first act, and I think it now covers Sir Wilfrid being in Mayhew’s office since he comes there in a friendly fashion, off duty so to speak [on his way to play golf]. Also I think it is better this way, since it builds him up better. I didn’t really mean he was a windbag. Yes, he must be sympathetic. But I meant more the histrionic type of Counsel – the Marshall Hall type [Hall was a celebrated Edwardian defence lawyer] rather than the cold keen shrewd type. Really, I rather like the play now. And am getting all excited.
Let me know what you think about the revisions and don’t be too much bullied by the legal pundits. ‘Several days’ is such a silly remark. Time on stage isn’t real time, it’s illusion. Only the more flagrant errors need doing. Anything exactly like a criminal court would be dull . . .
There must be a Personality for Romaine. She has all through to suggest so much that she isn’t saying.
Well, here’s luck. Hope this typing isn’t too much of a mess but I think it’s quite clear where it joins on and fits in. Court Scene can dim off anywhere we choose, but I think the sooner the better after Romaine. Anyway, I am really quite fogged now about length. Is it too short or too long? The former, I hope. So much easier to add.
Yours
Agatha
Saunders to Christie: 24 February 1953
Dear Agatha,
Many thanks for your letter of February 19th and re-writes.
I like the opening very much indeed, and I think we might get a bit of fun out of it. Also it gives us the chance to have an attractive girl in the part of Greta, which I think is a good thing in a play where there isn’t much feminine appeal.
The new scene of Romaine in the box I like very much indeed, but it has disappointed my barrister friend [Tilling] who has just written his own suggestion for it. I haven’t seen it yet, but for what it is worth I will send it on to you at the end of the week when I get it.
Regarding the arrival of Sir Wilfrid at Mayhew’s office, I am not quite sure what to say. It is still, even as re-written, completely contrary to all the ethics of the Temple. If you feel that it is better theatre that way, and the inaccuracy doesn’t matter, then of course I withdraw all objections.
This barrister, however, has got an idea which would not involve great alterations but might make it ‘right’, so I will send on his observations on this as well.
As you say, we must of course bear in mind that this is the stage not a court, and I have the greatest faith in your theatrical ‘feel’.
What I am afraid of is sending you repeated screeds of requests and notes to such an extent that you will come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t have written the play at all.
I will send to Mosul, I hope on Friday, the barrister’s observations, but if when you get them you feel that I could be of more use on the spot, for the purpose of discussing how far we should go as regards accuracy, I could easily fly out for a couple of days. Planes leave twice a week, and it is only two and a half hours by train from Baghdad.
However, I suggest you leave everything till you hear from me again, which would be in three or four days’ time.
Kind Regards,
Yours Sincerely,
[Peter Saunders]
Saunders to Christie: 27 February 1953
Saunders’ Folly
Dear Agatha,
I enclose a loose leaf edition of the play, with the barrister’s observations. I have not returned your revisions (hoping you have a copy) as I would like them by me to refer to. If you need them, a letter or a cable will bring them by return.
You will find that he has written in on the script minor changes, and anything major he has done on green paper so that you can easily pick it out.
I hope, and believe, that you will think he has done some useful work. Most of it (particularly legal arguments) I like very much, and I don’t think it makes it too long winded, because his legal interpolations are usually backed up by sarcasm, irony or dramatic conflict.
The major problem is the Q.C. visiting the solicitor. As you will see, he has switched the entire thing (both scenes) to the Q.C.’s office, and if this satisfies you it certainly does me. On the other hand, if you think that the unethicality of having the Q.C. visiting the solicitor doesn’t matter for the stage, then I accept this just as happily. But I am slightly inclined towards the accuracy, providing we don’t lose ‘theatre’ by it.
But there is another snag. If you have it in the Q.C.’s office then I am afraid it might have to wash out your new beginning, as a Q.C. wouldn’t deal with messages and things like that. This wouldn’t worry me, as your original beginning was very acceptable.
He says, incidentally, that before Romaine arrives in the first instance the Q.C. should have been put in the picture, which of course you have done on your revised script.
Regarding his final scene, where Romaine breaks down, I
don’t like it. She is trapped far too easily, and I think yours is infinitely better – although he may be right in saying that for Romaine to be forced to read the letter herself might be more effective. [This suggestion wasn’t taken up]
I feel I am giving you an enormous amount of work. I have a copy of all his notes and, if you agree that it is better to keep the Q.C.’s office, would it save you the trouble if I had a completely new script typed out, with all his interpolations (except the Romaine witness-box scene) and incorporating some of your revisions which you sent me?
I don’t suggest that this would be the final script, but I feel it would save you a lot of time to alter a fairly up to date script, rather than to have to type most of the thing again.
If you would like me to do this, would you be good enough to cable ‘Send new script’ and I will know what it means.
Again, my apologies for all this extra work, but I am very excited about it, and do sincerely believe that it is going to be worth it.
Kind regards to you both,
Yours Sincerely
[Peter Saunders]
Christie to Saunders: 7 March 1953
Dear Peter,
Have just sent you a wire approving the new script which I think is excellent in every way bar the Romaine breakdown –
(a) There should be no mention of ‘fabricated evidence’ – the last thing you want to do is put that idea into the audience’s head.
(b) I think my ‘trap’ is better. She must appear absolutely flabbergasted by the production of letters . . .
Other points . . .
(1) The ‘left handed’ idea is good. I should think one small suggestion (not from Counsel) that Janet [the murder victim’s housekeeper] is or may be left handed – perhaps when she is sworn? Take book in left hand, etc. As I see it Defence tries to indicate young intruder ‘cosh murderer’ what is audience going to be clever about? They spot – the sharper ones – that one indication of left handed Janet and say ‘Ha ha!’ – I know – the house keeper really did it.
(2) What is the point of not having any specimen of Romaine’s handwriting?
I’m enormously cheered up now by the legal embellishments – I’ve got copies of my last revision so don’t bother about those – keep them . . .
Delighted to see you if you . . . fly out – but as we seem to be in agreement I don’t think there is any real need – Mosul is not 2½ hours from Baghdad but a whole night’s journey!! And the line has just been cut for nearly a week . . . we only got here today! . . .
Agatha
Saunders to Christie: 11 March 1953
Dear Agatha,
Just a brief note to thank you for your letter of March 7th. I am having a script typed, and will send it to you in a few days for your final approval.
I think the idea of no specimen of Romaine’s handwriting is that if they did have a specimen then it would be easy to prove the letters were hers, instead of trapping her into admitting it.
I think I shall refrain from flying over to see you, and I do agree that the legal embellishments are extremely good.
[Peter Saunders]
Saunders to Christie: 18 March 1953
Saunders’ Folly
Dear Agatha,
My secretary is away wintersporting, so please ignore errors and omissions!
I enclose an up-to-date typed copy. Will you be good enough to tell me whether it is now sufficiently complete to have it roneoed and sent out to various people. While it is easy to leave alterations until rehearsals, I do like to give the people concerned as far as possible the ‘right’ script.
The enclosed script is loose-leaved, so either send me your notes with the relevant page numbers, or send me actual pages with your alterations.
I have sent the script round to the barrister and his new notes are very few, as you will see.
There are a few minor touchings-up which I think you can trust me with. For instance, Leonard is accused of murder on Thursday, October 14th, 1952 – which happens to be a Tuesday.
The only rather more substantial change I wanted to ask about is this. Can we omit Lily Mogson’s name completely. When she arrived, can she decline to give her name? Then, on the programme, she can be described as ‘The Other Woman’. On the programme, ‘The Other Woman’ will be the girl at the end. But the audience will assume it is Lily M. If you agree, I can easily do this with a few pencil strokes.
I am delighted that you like the barrister’s alterations. I did think they were so good myself, but hesitated to say so in case you hated them.
I am anxious to know if you like the idea of J.H. Roberts for Mayherne. Roberts wouldn’t play the judge as the part isn’t big enough. [Milton Rosmer eventually played Mayhew]
I only hope the play isn’t too long. But I am sure it is good.
The Mousetrap isn’t quite so healthy as before, but it is still doing excellent business and I think we shall do that 14 months.
Sorry to keep on worrying you with this play, but I think it is right now. I hope you think so too!
[Peter Saunders]
Christie to Saunders: 25 March 1953
Saunders’ Folly
Dear Peter,
I think your idea of ‘The Other Woman’ is a brain wave, nothing less. Nothing could be more misleading and yet strictly fair. Haha!
Play, I think, is now quite all right to go ahead with, except for the first act. And that’s definitely wrong. It may pass legally, but it outrages common sense. Would any level headed solicitor, if a young man rushed into his office, said he was in trouble over a murder, hare off with him to counsel without even hearing his story first? I don’t want the play to seem bogus at the beginning.
We can get round this in two ways.
A. (the easiest) Leonard has already told his story to Mayherne, but M is anxious for Sir Wilfrid to hear L’s story in his own words, to see if latter finds L. as convincing as he has done. This involves bringing Sir W. in almost as soon as they arrive and removes the weakness of Sir W. appearing to know all about the case without having ever been told about it!
Only disadvantage, it reduces Mayherne’s part and increases Sir W’s. This may suit you. I adore J.H. Roberts. He’s a wonderful actor. Perfect for Mayherne. But he could play Sir W. I think. His keen brain countering Romaine’s equally keen brain. Anyway, that I leave you. I enclose an outline of A.
And I might as well say now that I find myself instinctively disliking the opening between the clerks. Honestly, did I ever write it? I can’t feel I did. Have a suspicion it’s carried over (by me, perhaps) from the radio play done by someone else. For one thing, Leonard’s picture would not have been in the paper as wanted by the police. The one thing the police know is his name which will have been given to them by Janet though it’s feasible that she doesn’t know his address and so it takes a little time to find him. If you definitely want two clerks talking the reference must be to an item in paper such as, ‘It is believed that the last person to see the murdered woman alive was a Mr Leonard Vole who visited her that evening. The police are anxious to interview Mr Vole etc’. Something like that. But I think it’s a mistake to pinpoint the thing in the first few lines. Also I don’t see why we shouldn’t cut out the one clerk (surely that would suit you?) All this I have incorporated in A. But if you like it, have the clerks as before.
B. Leonard follows Mayherne to Sir W’s chambers. I’ve also done a rough outline of this. It’s for you to choose. But I’m not satisfied with the opening as it is.
No more now, as I want to get this off to you as soon as possible. Vile Weather.
Yours,
Agatha
[a page of notes and rewrites is attached]
Saunders to Christie: 31 March 1953
Saunders’ Folly
Dear Agatha,
Many thanks for your letter of March 25th. I am using for Act I alteration A, and have amended the rest of it as you suggest.
I am having scripts duplicated, and will s
end one out to you in about two weeks’ time.
Giving most of Mayhew’s first act dialogue to Sir Wilfrid does, as you say, make Sir Wilfrid a star part. I don’t think he’s ever off the stage!
It helps me from the point of view that I can now offer it to a ‘name’. I think the first choice must be Ralph Richardson, but if necessary I should be very happy to finish up with J.H. Roberts.
I should like to do this play in the autumn, but – as I believe you know – Bertie is threatening at long last to do ‘Towards Zero’, and if he really is going to do it this time I must obviously wait for him. [Bertie Meyer had optioned a new adaptation of Towards Zero by Gerald Verner, which threatened to undermine Saunders’ ability to schedule Christie’s work successfully. More of this later.]
Edmund is away at the moment, but on his return he is going to try and find out definitely what Bertie wants to do.
I don’t know if you can get England on your wireless, but we are on Henry Hall’s Guest Night programme on Easter Sunday, which is transmitted at 2.15 our time.
Looking forward to seeing you,
Kind regards, and many thanks for all your trouble.
[Peter Saunders]
Saunders to Christie: 7 April 1953
Dear Agatha,
I hope to send you the script within the next few days, and as soon as I get them I want to start sending them out to various people.
I append a list of possible Sir Wilfrids, and should be grateful if you would let me know as soon as possible the order in which you would like them to be approached.
We shall probably end up with somebody like J.H. Roberts, but would like to try the stars first.
Roger Livesey: Robert Donat: John Mills: Ralph Richardson: Clive Brook: Felix Aylmer: Charles Laughton: Claude Rains (I can dream, cant I?) Cecil Parker: Eric Portman: Basil Sydney.
If Flora Robson would do it, would it be worth changing it to a woman Q.C.?
Kind Regards
Yours Sincerely,
[Peter Saunders]
Saunders to Christie: 10 April 1953
Dear Agatha,
I enclose a copy of the script, and hope that it is roughly our production to be.