Theatre Review: Witness for the Prosecution at META

The name of the play seemed familiar. The actors, dressed formally, sat around a table in a living room bathed in yellow light, with Sir Wilfred (Shahid Siddiqui) querying the young Leonard Vole (Nishant Gaharwar) in a pleading voice. In the background, for I was seated in the balcony, I could see the alternative set for a courtroom. Familiar setting, indeed, and within a few minutes, I realized that this was a theatrical version of Witness for the Prosecution. After which, I more or less knew what would happen.

Now normally, that is the worst that can happen to you when watching a movie or a play: even worse than the odd mobile phone ringing during the performance (which it did). But the play was still made interesting by almost faultless acting by the entire cast, barring Nalini who played Romaine Heilger - she was expected to have both a Russian (or was it more German?) accent and a high pitched British accent, neither of which she was able to carry off effectively. The high pitched British accent was barely understandable. Some dialogues had distinctly British humor, but the audience didn't catch on. At the same time, the sound effects were abrupt and poorly executed.

During the interval, I was informed that it was not based on a Jeffrey Archer story, but was written by Agatha Christie. Jeffrey Archer's play The Accused, in which he himself had acted, and the audience was innovatively involved by being given the role of the Jury, was based loosely on the same Agatha Christie story.

Warning: Spoilers ahead

What I didn't like about the play was the ending. If I remember correctly, in the Agatha Christie version, the play ends with the startling revelation that the wife had tricked the court into believing that she had lied about her husband being guilty.

The logic: No one would believe an honest wife proclaiming the innocence of her husband, but they would believe that a vindictive wife is lying about her husband being guilty. Hence, if she is found out, then the Jury would find him 'not guilty' of the crime.

Now, the first time one reads or sees it- it's a great good plot with an innovative twist (and not a first from Christie). In itself, it's quite a powerful. This Indian adaptation fails because it provides another couple of twists, both more predictable and weaker than the original.

The first of the two was palpable: after the wife declares her sacrifice for her husband, declaring that she's willing to go to jail for perjury to save his skin, a pretty young thing runs across the room and hugs the husband. He haughtily declares that now he's got all that he wanted - lots of money, willed to him by the woman he killed, and a young girl whom he can go on a cruise with. Fairly believable, I thought, though not as strong an ending as the first. It could have ended here with a sobbing wife.

But no, they have to provide a final and Bollywoodish closure, since this is an Indian audience: So the wife picks up a large kitchen knife from the evidence (exhibit two, I think) table, and stabs her husband to death. She then walks over to the witness stand, and a single light focuses on her as she declares a final memorable quote that I didn't care to remember. I found this bit of melodrama irritating, and unnecessary. Even my friend, who didn't know the story, felt that the play could have ended at the first twist.

On the whole, the acting was excellent but day one at the Mahindra Excellence in Theatre Awards saw remarkably poor attendance, with more seats empty than full.