by Julius Green
Saunders had exercised his own American option,44 so the agreement was technically between him and Miller. It stipulated that he would receive 10 per cent of the Broadway box office (of which two-thirds was passed on to Christie) as well as 25 per cent of profits. The production was to be billed as co-produced by Peter Saunders, and he was to receive ‘first class transportation’ to New York and ‘reasonable hotel and travel expenses’ during rehearsals. The production’s playbill,45 as well as its glossy souvenir brochure,46 does indeed clearly announce that it was presented by ‘Gilbert Miller and Peter Saunders’, although one suspects that the playwright herself might have taken issue with the tagline describing the play as a ‘Murder Mystery’. I’s were dotted and T’s were crossed on matters relating to the division of income from stock rights (which were to prove a substantial source of earnings) and the date by which a production had to be achieved in order for Miller’s licence to be activated; the latter was specified as 31 October 1954, subsequently extended to 30 November, failing which his £1,500 advance payment would be strictly non-refundable. All bases had been covered. Or so it seemed . . .
Miller signed his deal with Saunders on 27 November 1953,47 a month after the West End opening. Two months later he heard from Francis L. Sullivan, who had been notable by his absence from Christie’s theatrical projects since relinquishing his role in Murder on the Nile to David Horne. With Horne now playing Robarts in London and Miller under pressure from Saunders to cast English actors, this was clearly an opportune moment for Christie’s portly thespian friend, who had worked for Miller in London, to throw his hat into the ring: ‘A few months ago Mrs Mallowan, who is an old friend of mine, sent me the play Witness for the Prosecution as she thought the part of the QC for the defence would be an ideal part for me. Unfortunately I was engaged on a movie at the time and unable to do anything about it. Recently I heard from her again that you have now acquired the play for Broadway and so I am writing to you to ask you to consider me when you are casting the play. I am particularly anxious to do a play again as I have not done one for about five years, and think this part would suit me admirably. I hope you agree!’48
Like Saunders, Miller had found that performers and investors to whom he sent the script did not like the ending; indeed, correspondence indicates that, as well as half an hour of material being cut from the original, an alternative ending had been prepared in case audiences did not respond well to it on the pre-Broadway tour. There is no reference in the extensive Saunders–Christie casting correspondence to Sullivan ever having been offered the role in the West End production, but his letter to Miller was timely, and Miller wrote back immediately to say that he thought it would be an excellent idea for him to play Robarts. Saunders assisted the casting process by releasing Patricia Jessel from her West End contract in order to appear in the Broadway production, and another British actor, Ernest Clark – who had taken over the role of John Cristow for the West End production of The Hollow when Hubert Gregg left the cast in order to appear in Disney’s Robin Hood – flew out to play Mayhew.
Relations between Saunders and Miller got off to a bumpy start when doubts were raised over the original short story’s copyright status in the USA, and when Miller discovered that Harold Ober had already sold some American television rights. Miller felt that this risked stealing the Broadway production’s thunder and could also jeopardise the future sale of film rights. In the end it was confirmed that the television rights had only been sold for a number of one-off broadcasts, originally on the BBC in 1949 and then in America in 1950, and again in America in 1953, when a dramatised version had starred Edward G. Robinson. The television adaptations, being based on the original storyline, were not courtroom dramas (the BBC’s had a cast of seven), and despite much heated correspondence on the subject, this all turned out to be something of a storm in a teacup.
It rang a bell with Edmund Cork, though, who remembered that when the 1953 television play was broadcast in America, Francis L. Sullivan had written to Christie to say that it would destroy any chance of a Broadway production. Christie’s understandable concerns had been allayed by Ober’s assurances that the broadcast would, in fact, create interest in the play. Now, believing that Sullivan was likely to be responsible for stirring up trouble with Miller as well, Cork wrote to Ober:
You ask what is behind all this. I cannot tell you definitely, but I have seen in the press that Miller proposes to star Francis Sullivan in this play. Sullivan has always been a thorn in our flesh – he was very close to Agatha at one time, and has always imagined himself as the embodiment of Hercule Poirot. On a number of occasions over the years he has tried to make trouble over the way we have handled the Christie property. You will remember that it was his cabling Agatha that started the previous excitement when Edward G. Robinson starred in the J. Walter Thomson television show. Sullivan is rather an overpowering person, and if, when Miller was fixing up the arrangement with him, he made heavy weather about the TV exploitation of the subject – about which apparently Miller was unaware – I can just imagine Miller writing rather an intense letter to Saunders, which started the whole wretched business.49
All of this serves to highlight what an unknown quantity the new medium of television was when it came to the licensing of rights in the 1940s and 50s.
Sullivan was not the only Briton involved with Christie’s stage work in the UK to make contact with Miller. Douglas Clarke-Smith, who played Myers the prosecuting counsel in the London production, reminded him that he had another Christie connection: ‘Did you know I produced [i.e. directed] Black Coffee for Alec Rea at the St Martin’s in 1931 with Sullivan as Poirot. I have done four or five for Bronnie Albery since the war – they were all successes. Could I direct Witness for the Prosecution or something? If you do it in New York. Please. Yours ever, Clarkie.’50 Clarke-Smith, who had appeared alongside Sullivan and Wallace Douglas in the 1937 broadcast of The Wasp’s Nest, and whose Oxford law degree made him well qualified for the role of Myers, didn’t get the job, and sadly was to be involved in a serious domestic accident that would see Hubert Gregg standing in for him at the Winter Garden in the autumn of 1954.
In the meantime, Robert Lewis had been appointed director of the Broadway production. ‘Gilbert Miller had sent me a list of possible directors,’ writes Saunders in The Mousetrap Man, ‘and I suggested Robert Lewis, whose productions of Brigadoon and Teahouse of the August Moon had been so brilliant. I couldn’t have made a better choice . . . Bobby Lewis had never seen Witness in London and yet he directed it with exactly the same feel and touch.’51 In fact, the general consensus was that Lewis’s production was superior to Wallace Douglas’s; hardly surprising given that this was an exciting and credible directorial appointment in the same league as Irene Hentschel and Peter Cotes. In the 1930s Lewis had been a founder-member of New York’s Group Theatre, which took their inspiration from Constantin Stanislavski’s pioneering work at the Moscow Art Theatre. Stanislavski’s techniques, which informed his successful interpretations of Chekhov’s plays, are examined in some detail in Theatre in Soviet Russia by Andre van Gyseghem, the original director of Black Coffee at the Embassy Theatre before Clarke-Smith was put at the helm for its West End transfer. Stanislavski and New York’s Group Theatre were to inspire Peter Cotes’ London experiments in ensemble theatre, and Lewis meanwhile went on to co-found New York’s legendary Actors Studio in 1947 before leaving to focus on his career as one of Broadway’s most successful and respected directors.
Although this is probably the first time that the names Constantin Stanislavski and Agatha Christie have appeared in the same sentence, it is interesting to note the associations between some of her most successful stage work and advocates of the Group Theatre ethic like Lewis, Cotes and van Gyseghem. Cotes adopted the title No Star Nonsense for his 1949 book championing ensemble theatre; and it was Christie’s aversion to ‘star nonsense’ from Laughton and Sullivan that led her to excise the character of Poirot from her stage wo
rk. When Hubert Gregg comments that Christie’s plays were difficult to cast because each role only shines briefly and then fades into the background,52 he is effectively identifying the fact that they are best delivered by an ensemble company. And when actress Mary Law remarks of Christie’s dialogue that if actors ‘can make it real, make it sincere, then it works 100 per cent, let’s face it, but if they can’t it is better to give it up’,53 she seems to be implying that it could be best suited to Stanislavskian ‘method’ actors.
I am not implying that Christie herself was in any way a conscious disciple of the Group Theatre ethic, or that she would even have been aware of Stanislavski and his work. She knew that her plays needed stars in them to sell tickets, and even considered Charles Laughton ‘lucky’ for her despite his comprehensive destruction of the role of Poirot. But it is interesting to note that her work shines when it is interpreted by those who have an appreciation of these methodologies; and it is perhaps ironic that The Hollow, with its Chekhovian resonances, was entrusted to the relatively lightweight Hubert Gregg. When Richard Attenborough recommended Peter Cotes as director for The Mousetrap he would have been well aware of Cotes’ commitment to ‘Group’ work; now, on Broadway, a Christie play was again in the hands of an advocate of, and skilled practitioner in, ensemble theatre.
The pre-Broadway tour opened in New Haven on 18 November and it is clear that from the outset all was not well. Sullivan was slow to learn his part and erratic in its delivery; by the time the production reached its second touring date in Boston, he had lost his voice and was missing performances. In early December, with the Broadway opening a fortnight away, Miller’s lieutenant George Banyai wrote to Saunders that there was ‘so far no improvement’ in Sullivan and that Robert Lewis wanted him replaced as soon as possible ‘on a permanent basis’.54 Matters were made worse by the fact that business on tour was poor, although Saunders was able to reassure Banyai that this had also been the case on the pre-West End tour.
Clearly it was not practical to replace Sullivan before the Broadway premiere, but he appears to have been no more reliable once the production had opened in New York. Lewis, who was by that time in Hollywood directing Anything Goes for Paramount, wrote to Banyai, ‘As for Sullivan, I cannot tell you how shocked I am at the many letters and reports I receive about his sloppy performance. This is the first time this has ever happened to me in a production of mine and I frankly am at a loss how to act from this distance.’55 Sullivan, an egotist both on and off stage, of course represented the antithesis to Lewis’ cherished ensemble ethic. To make matters worse, Miller agreed to give Sullivan a week off from the Broadway run to undertake a television role. Lewis was apoplectic, writing to Saunders, in whom he appears to have found an unexpected ally, ‘This is outrageous and I don’t see why Agatha Christie permits such behaviour.’56
Witness for the Prosecution opened at Broadway’s Henry Miller’s Theatre on 16 December 1954 and the reception was every bit as good as it had been in London. Two days later, a clearly ecstatic Patricia Jessel wrote to Peter Saunders:
The first night reception was simply tremendous – as good as our London first night. My dressing room overflowed with flowers and cables before the show and with enthusiastic people after the show. Later, having sent a cable to George [her husband], I went over to join some people at Sardi’s and Peter, it was New Haven all over again. The entire restaurant applauded!! I couldn’t believe my ears! All sorts of people kept coming up to say nice things, and it was altogether wonderful. And Peter, don’t think that I have forgotten where all this began because I haven’t, and I shall always be grateful.
Father Miller [i.e. Gilbert Miller] now calls me Pat, he kisses me(!), and last night he brought in the proof of the new ad. for my approval. A large picture of me and a smaller one of Larry [Sullivan] – and lots of quotes from the reviews, most of which say lovely things about me. Heaven! I’m a very spoilt brat! I’m an ecstatically happy girl! . . . Don’t look now but Jessel’s a star! Get her!!57
The hugely successful American radio entrepreneur Donald Flamm, a friend of Saunders – though he had distinguished himself by turning down investment in both The Mousetrap and Witness for the Prosecution, much to both his own and Saunders’ amusement – cabled him in London at 2 a.m. with news of the show’s reception and wrote the next morning to say:
Your holiday season should be very happy indeed! The audience last night was wildly enthusiastic. Cheers for Sullivan and Jessel and many curtain calls. When Jessel made her grand entrance at Sardis after the opening everyone in the restaurant applauded her – the kind of an ovation that is usually reserved only for our theatrical ‘greats’ when they do something quite outstanding. That should give you an idea . . . Aren’t you going to come over and take some bows? After all you are the original producer and this is your once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cash in on the avalanche of personal publicity that is yours for the asking. And in this business modesty does not pay off; on the contrary, publicity sells tickets at the box office!58
On the face of it, Flamm was perhaps an unlikely ally, being a leading light of the American Anti-Defamation League which, in 1947, had taken Christie’s American publishers Dodd, Mead & Co. to task for allegedly anti-semitic references in the novel of The Hollow.
Miller’s own postbag from the great and the good of New York confirms the production’s sensational reception, and the audience’s response was echoed by the press. In a three-column rave the New York Times wrote:
In the murder mystery the British are the expert technicians. Frederick Knott’s Dial M for Murder played the game according to the rules for 552 performances in this city. And now Agatha Christie’s Witness for the Prosecution has skipped across the Atlantic to establish a career of its own. The rules of crime fiction are so exacting that they are known best to postgraduate students in the field. But Dial M for Murder and Witness for the Prosecution have one thing in common; they are frankly make-believe. You enjoy them all the more because you know that they are not real. In the last scene Miss Christie switches everything around so swiftly and decisively that the curtain falls on a sensational climax . . . good mystery plays are acted as if they were masterpieces of dramatic art. That is a traditional part of the game. In this respect Witness for the Prosecution is above reproach . . . Francis L. Sullivan . . . gives a grandiloquent performance with an undertone of humour. Imperiously realistic on the surface, he has his tongue in his cheek . . . by the breadth of his playing he represents the true spirit of the murder mystery. It’s a game. In the twists of the plot and the expertness of the playing, Witness for the Prosecution is one of the best.59
Peter Saunders’ new friend, Walter Kerr of the Herald Tribune, agreed:
Miss Christie is gloriously in her element. That element – the whodunit with a corpse, a chief suspect, and a thundering surprise at the thrill finish – isn’t regarded as one of the higher reaches of literature at the moment and most purveyors of simple-minded theatrical excitement feel called upon to dress their humble puzzles in various more worthy guises . . . Miss Christie is unembarrassed by her materials. She loves them, without apology . . . the plotting is beautifully deceptive; the tug and pull as our sympathies switch from one suspect to another is infinitely adroit. Everything is ingeniously prepared for, everything is meticulously laid before our eyes, and – a miracle in this day of weary formulas – everything is astonishing at eleven o’clock. Because Miss Christie takes her limited craft seriously, because she is perfectly at home in all its devious corridors, because she is superbly equipped to engage in a battle of wits and win it, this guessing-game at the Henry Miller is a perfect sample of its kind. Director Robert Lewis has caught the head-on, do-it-straight spirit of his author and succeeded in staging a crowded, crackling, tight-reined performance that is superior to the long-running London original. He has brought Patricia Jessel over – after two years in the part – to give dignity and unfaltering tension to the role of a wife whose testimony will ei
ther save or destroy her accused husband. Just how good Miss Jessel is cannot be suggested without giving away half of the plot . . .60
Despite a couple of doubters, it appears that the highbrow Broadway critics lambasted by Saunders in his correspondence with Kerr were prepared on this occasion to let their hair down and engage with the piece on its own terms. ‘The most delightful mystery-murder-melodrama in years. In Witness for the Prosecution Agatha Christie has given us something wonderful,’ said the New York Post.61 ‘The new Agatha Christie thriller is a major Broadway hit. The solution is a humdinger,’ said Life.62 ‘Expert Agatha Christie has fetched us a finely conducted English courtroom trial and then, when all is over, overturned it with not one shattering twist, but three,’ said Time;63 I count four, but they definitely stuck with the London ending. In a review headlined ‘Christie Mystery 100% entertainment’, the World-Telegram and Sun remarked that ‘For sheer, unadulterated entertainment there is nothing around town to equal Witness for the Prosecution. Surely Agatha Christie is responsible for more mystery stories and plays than anyone else alive. This time she has surpassed even herself for ingenuity and excitement . . . It is grand, tingling fun.’64 And the Daily News gifted the production’s publicist, the legendary Richard Maney, the headline ‘Murder Will Sell Out’.65