Titanic Disaster Hearings

[Steve Arnold]

Our community theatre has begun planning our 2001-2002 season. We are interested in commemorating the 90th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic as part of of that season, and so, of course, Titanic the Musical is on the table for consideration. But we are also looking at another idea that I would like to put forth here. I post infrequently but I read this message board every day and I respect your diverse and incredibly knowlegable views and I value your opinions very highly.

This idea was inspired by a play which ran in New York last year, which consisted of performing transcripts of in flight recordings made immediately prior to actual plane crashes. We are considering performing word for word cuttings from the transcripts of the 1912 Senate hearings into the Titanic Disaster. The appeal of this project would be to portray the human face of the disaster in the exact words of the survivors, unembellished by the playwright's creative hand. In reading the transcripts we find many portions very playable and gripping. Harold Bride's testimony alone would make remarkable theatre, and there are easily several hours of good material there.
Are there ethical considerations we would be overlooking by such a production? Is this a worthy means of respectfully honoring this disaster and giving our audience a factual rather than a fictionalized account? Are 90 year old Senate transcripts in the public domain, or would there be copyright restrictions so that we would need permission or would need to make payment for the right to such a performance? And do you theatre buffs out there, especially our resident playright Cook, think it would work in the first place?

We are looking at two different approaches for this -- either to simply choose two hours worth of material to be given for several performances or else make it one continuous performance over several nights with new material each evening. In any event, we would begin our run on April 19, 2002, the 90th anniversary of the start of the hearings.

I would be interested in any opinions you would have. I think the project will be a relatively easy sell to our theatre board, but I defer to the judgement of the posters here as to whether this would be a valid and respectful project. I will look forward to reading your views.

 

[Mike Herbold]

Steve:
The problem, as Pat Cook explained to me, is that the Senate hearings had no dramatic conclusion -- they just kept hearing testimony and then one day it just ended. So you might need to use some dramatic license and have someone rearrange the testimony so that it had a logical beginning and end. This would be especially true if you tried to have the same performance every night.

Have you heard the audio version of "The Titanic Disaster Hearings"?
I haven't listened all the way through, but the jacket says the running time is 6 hours. This abbreviated version, like the abbreviated book, was edited by Tom Kuntz. I doubt if he would mind if you used his version, because it would probably be a good venue to promote his book. Heck, you might give everyone in the audience a copy of the book to read along, just as people read along from their Bibles at church. The audio version is produced and distributed by NewStar Media, Inc., 8955 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90048.

Sounds like a wonderful idea, though. Since you're from the Cedar Rapids area, I'm sure Mahala Douglas' testimony would be included, even though she only provided an affadavit.
Good Luck,
Mike Herbold

 

[Steve Arnold]

Yes, for local interest alone the Mahala Douglas affadavit would likely be used, though I wasn't sure how to handle it and other affadavits. Perhaps audio recordings would make affadavit testimonies more authentic since they weren't given in person. I haven't heard the audio version you mentioned, we'll have to track that down.

And yes, giving the piece an appropriate conclusion is the principal dramatic concern that I have about doing this. It will take some careful thought.

 

[Jan C. Nielsen]

Steve,

You have an interesting idea, and I encourage you to pursue it. The hearings are in the public domain, and can't be subject to copyright. Additionally, I don't think that copyright laws took effect until after 1919 - - but I could be wrong on that. Of course, if you use the tapes, or someone's selection of the hearings, that could present a problem. Check the copyright information in the book, and check with a local attorney, too.

I would encourage you to adopt a less than traditional perspective on the hearings. There's an extreme British-American bias about the Titanic story which inevitably portrays everyone as brave, heroic and victims of fate. Even persons who believe that they are offering a factual account of things, color their perception in this way, including, no less, the highly respected Walter Lord. But when you get down to it, and read between the lines of the testimony, there's rehearsed and evasive testimony, lying, feigned ignorance, and all sorts of typical dubious stuff going on.

Some of the worst testimony, for example, is Harold Cottam's. He couldn't remember the day he was born, much less, what he did secretly for Marconi, Ismay and Rostron.

Further, many witnesses, like Cottam, made a circus out of the hearings. Officer Lowe came across as kind of a wiseguy. But truly, his attitude reflected in my mind the kind of contempt which many inwardly felt for Smith and his committee. The steamship company was successful in thwarting much of Smith's effort. Therefore, I disagree with the portrait of the hearings painted in Wade's book, i.e., that the Senator did an effective job. In the end, Smith was left with loose end, after loose end, contradictions, and a lot of unanswered questions. The witnesses made a fool out of him, not vice versa.

Even worse, these pathetic hearings have left us with a legacy. True, they provide us with a record. But, unfortunately, the hearings framed the debate, and we're still - - even to this day - - fleshing it all out. How much more can we talk about the Californian? Doesn't anyone think that it's at least possible that the whole Californian thing is a red herring? To me, the real story here to is watch a course of events unfold that somehow enables a powerful American company to walk away from a scene of extreme criminal negligence, and the death of 1,522 people - - without so much as a sneeze. IMM and WSL did just that. They spit in the Senator's face.

 

[Pat Cook]

Steve wrote: > And do you theatre buffs out there, especially our resident playright Cook, think it would work in the first place?

At the risk of soundling like I'm hawking my wares, I wrote an adaptation of both the events on Titanic and the subsequent U S hearings afterward which was published by Eldridge publishing in '98. If you'll email me at: [email protected] I'll be more than happy to tell you more about it.

Best regards,
Cook