The work of David Hare (1947- ), which has earned him the leadingpreo - PDF document

The work of David Hare (1947- ), which has earned him the leadingpreoccupied with tracing and identifying the roots of the oppression andhave always been one of his main concerns. The institutions from a school,Parliament, local government, Cambridge University and press to Church ofmain target in the 1991 play, play concerns the crisis of these cultural institutions which have laid claim인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ David HareÕs Murmuring JudgesYoo Kim 주제어; ွᢎ빗ᷠ어- ࿅᪯주의- ឹ൙ᷰᓳᎍ᪸제 follows the fate of a young Irishman who is sent tofrom an overabundance of research. Shulman suggested that the playwith most of these sentiments, it is disconcerting that Hare has written apiece of landscape) from which to get any fresh illumination.인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 1)Robert Hewison, 2)Milton Shulman, 3)Hirschhorn argued that the play presented some valid but Ôaged observations has to say about the criminal justice system is probably true, but it is alsotriteness leads inexorably to the playÕs pathetic lack of new critical insight,that unfortunately then unravels to reveal at its heart little more than theof the English bar was, and the case of a young barrister who insisted that just reinforces prejudices without saying anything new (Maureen Paton, 4)Christopher Edwards, 5)Sheridan Morley, the over-simple, sometimes even hollow vision in the play: ÒThe play has adeal of it is too pat and it never deepens your thinkingÓ (Paul Taylor, boring and out-of-date clich, insisted: ÒTorn between an emotional desire tofallen into John MortimerÕs old tricks: set up a ten-year-old Aunt Sally and laughed at this portrayal of their world with masochistic enthusiasm. Thelawyer being calmly self-critical, Lord RawlinsonÕs comment represented themore common, entrenched view from the legal profession. Concentratingtheatrical nonsenseÓ because ÒJudges and barristers just do not talk andmerely puppets (Òsome absurd Aunt SalliesÓ) put up and made to deliverHareÕs public sermon and immediately knocked down.인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 6)Malcolm Rutherford, 7)Helena Kennedy, 8)Lord Rawlinson, 9)Morgan also thought that HareÕs play avoided more serious questions: ÒAtmaking a contribution. The criminal justice system is in a mess and barristersare an endangered species. Should we protect an institution which is capableof having a radical wing? Should we transform the whole antediluvian system contribution to the debate, save sneer and caricature, at a time when athe whole of the criminal justice system Ñ something which a Lordago, and at a time when many with experience of a real, not fictional,system have called for greater application of resources to the penalconviction. The sympathy for the infantry of police and prison officers whohave to make a collapsing system work is the evidence of HareÕs prejudice.mockingly sentences him: ÒHe then might understand the dilemma of theyoung relatives raped.Ó The public sentiment which Rawlinson believed thathe represented, indeed, reflects exclusively middle-class concerns.miscarriages of justice and which, for too long, has escaped scrutiny and 10)Rawlinson, black-and-white vision or a total lack of new analysis, were also unsubtle.As Billington, one of the playÕs few sympathetic critics, commented, ÒHarecan be awkward and unsubtle when he argues his thesis: that starting at thetop, British justice is a cruel, foolish, destructive mess. But against that mustIndeed, HareÕs main target is not just the legal professions, but also, moreprisons, the bar and bench and the police. Again, to cite Billington, Òhisrich, subtle and complex play about the rigid compartmentalisation of theand Morley saw the series of snapshots formed by Richard EyeÕs productiontheir argument that the playÕs인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 11)Michael Billington, 12)Ibid.13)Neil Smith, 14)Sheridan Morley, charge room, and the prison cell. The subject is not the judiciary but theadministration of justice. HareÕs main point is that its officers live inHareÕs attempt to prove the futility of the system is encapsulated in anbut if the police were more efficient there would be nowhere to put theIn 1993, Hare, recollecting his background research, explainedthat the intertwining dramatic structure was a visual reflection of the threeinstitutions of the law as a shambles, propped up by their own specialThree years ago, while researching the play, I realised that our criminal 15)Irving Wardle, 16)The text quotations will be taken from who are constantly aggrieved at the amount of stick they get from bothsides. And at the bottom are the prisoners and the prison service, a groupits own interests, the overworked police, as another exclusive club, followslaws. Some critics complained about the absence of the small illuminatingpower came from an ambitious social canvas and bold statements based onlegal life. EyreÕs production was greatly helped by Bob CrowleyÕs utilisation인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 17)Hare, ÒYour fears are exaggerated: The playwright David Hare wanted to18)According to Richard Eyre, ÒThe production has to have a bit of muscularityto it. Its got to be robust. [The Olivier] canÕt take fragile writing Ñ you haveto make bold statements. They can be complex but they have to be bold ÑÒPlaywright of Popular Dissent: David Hare and the Trilogy,Ó switches, created a bleak sense of mutually uncomprehending worlds, thusmatching Hares intention in displaying the gulfs between the antagonisticMcKinnon, a young Ulsterman is the pretext for a wide-angle survey of thehard times. There is even a lingering suggestion that he was badly treatedis a victim of an unsafe, framed conviction by a sardonic CID sergeant.Unlike the stage jury, the audience is forced to investigate GerardÕs internaland sentence, his fragmented, muddled monologue comes simultaneouslywith the final reading of the verdict: ÒAnd unsympathetic system where justice comes a poor second to politics. His fate is the direct result of a system where everyone is guilty, whether ofturning a blind eye, manufacturing false evidence or preserving the clubbyIn the 1991 production, the mutual incomprehension that separates thereinforced through a visual image of the legal chambers in the MiddleTemple, Òa demi-haven of polished mahogany, booklined walls and leafygardens seen through Georgian windows.ÓGerardÕs criminal case Òas a favourÓ (3), it only means a slip in his bowlinghas exposed his sexually complicated private life against his wish to showCuddeford, a silkily aloof, self-satisfied career judge. Their legal fencing, ingovernmentÕs imminent legislation to Òmerge the functions of barrister andsolicitorÓ (7), which has surprisingly raised one million pounds in just fourdays, demonstrates the law circle as a seriously powerful, political pressure인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 19)Graham Hassell, operates within a capitalist market and completely lacks any philosophy ofjustice and fairness. The professional life cares little for the truth. Sir Peterprefers high-paying and exciting civil court cases to the lowly appeals ofimpoverished legal-aid victims or standard-fare, run-of-the-mill criminalcases. The human stuff is not his concern: ÒI . . . like libel cases. Because socan prove. YouÕre juggling with air, pure and simpleÓ (85). This image ofdinner party in LincolnÕs Inn, which not only provides Òa context for anyimportant policy debateÓ (52), but also is an important traditional ceremonyCourt, Òa system whereby law students have to eat dinners to qualifyÓ (53),The law is a college. We meet. We talk. A judge perhaps has a word witha barrister. He says nothing overt. Nothing critical. Maybe only a look, ayou put a true price on that? . . . It adds to richness of culture, a depth, aFraternity or closeness, Cuddeford suggests, serves the public interest in a judiciaryÕs own sense of having been sanctified by history. What this self-any expression of dissent, causing it to atrophy. The mystifying regalia andarchaic customs surrounding the law are the means to guard, produce andeven cynical attitude to the public is an indication of the law as aIf judges and lawyers bicker over status, defending their position againstdescribed as limited people doing the impossible job their betters demand,getting through birosÓ (17). It is DC Barry Hopper, an unscrupulous, cynicalof robbers into informing on a forthcoming armed robbery by another gangcopper who represents police partiality. Barry does not subscribe to a senseof mission, a central feature of cop culture. He pours scorn on the oldmovies he saw as a child when Gary Cooper hero of principle triumphed incontradiction in the police world where they deal with routine, confused인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ compassion for Gerard, because in his game, there is no point getting(33). For the overburdened police force who have still got the patience andnerve to actually turn up for duty, so-called solidarity is more important andarrest, a Òprofessional skillÓ (26), is even secretly appreciated andEach area of the law subscribes to the team ethic: the Judiciary with itsself-serving, mainly masculine clubs. Even the prison, where jailers have tofind room for yet another prisoner in crowded cells and Gerard is savagelyconduct. Throughout the play, the mutual remoteness and indifferenceswitches between various locations: from the peaceful elegance of Leadingoffenders. We are also taken inside one of Her MajestyÕs prisons to witness The visual juxtaposition of thetremendous triptych that encircles the stage and projects quickly changingOpera House. All disparate points of view are orchestrated into the overture(which, ironically, deals with trials, freemasonrydissolving into another scene. As Coveney argues, ÒIt is all argument. Everyline works to make a point, each situation illustrates a problem. The keyduologues are superbly engineered in a classical, antithetical form.Óviolently contradictory images are a vivid signification of the judicial systemaudienceÕs critical viewpoint is created not only through visual juxtapositionindignation granted to two female professionals. Separately Irina, a liberal인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 20)Irving Wardle, 21)Michael Coveney, 22)Michael Billington, inadequately defended by Sir Peter, by fighting for his release. In a sense, itis no accident that it is women, excluded from clannish male values, whoact as the unremitting seekers after truth. As an outsider to her profession inestablish a critique of the slow, clubby, unjust institution under review. Shethrough the police cells, the courts, and into the prisons. The play reacheslodge an appeal for Gerard. His description of half of humanity as Òsub-ÒimperfectÓ finally lead her to challenge the certainty (or validity) of his somake all the time, these judgements which seem to be graven in stone, theyhave only the status of prejudiceÓ (90). Her following statement epitomisesmoney, the buildings, the absurd dressing-up. They do have a purpose. ItÕsroundÓ (91). IrinaÕs critical view is forcefully echoed in SandraÕs warning toBarry, who argues that he faked evidence but it helped to stop another bigthe system. Working out your grievance. And thatÕs when you began to getreally dumb. Because you lose sight of things. YouÕre so concerned to do it two female professionals who are so determined to break the rules of theclub. Glenn considered IrinaÕs Òunceasing idealism and wholesomenessÓ asInsisting that the legal crises we encounter are rarely obviousyoung policewoman who decides to speak up. But alas, in the days of thenot as simple as that.ÓÒthis play is pretty conventional both in its narrative and in its celebration ofunresolved. It does not end with any new resolution and fresh start. The인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ 23)Lane A. Glenn, ÒPlaywright of Popular Dissent: David Hare and the Trilogy,Ó24)Benedict Nightingale, 25)Michael Billington, 26)John Peter, 27)Christopher Edwards, he may as well assume the role he has been assigned and takes up a bookreform. The play actually closes on SandraÕs decision to act as though therepolice officers to reinforce each other, she steps towards the centre of theCould I have a word?Ó (109). The disunity among the three institutions isdrowned by the ironic music of the Magic Flute. HareÕs play is not a simple 인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽ ᢎ༉ጾ᡼- ໾의ᢾ세ೊᢽ정᭛ṟ- 좌ᢏṟẗ름ᖝឥ서൸ᢝṢ동᡽ᙋᢝᷓ࿒ឹ൙의ᢎ른바“제세࿅정᭛൸ᢝಃ”൷룹ឥᖝ᷃ྜွᢎ빗ᷠ어David Hare1947. *의໾ᢝᶤ᡽ᐞ석᷅ൻᢎླ/ ៼ᆵឹ൙제၍ឥ࿅᷅ᐜᢝᥟ᷃ໆᇢංṫၟ었࿒ಯ인ွ- ឹ൙성೚Ṫ៑༇동࿁ឥ࿅᷅ᢝಃ의ᐿ᳽ឥᐿ᷌ᓿ࿅ᢽ᡺ᇢ주ዃ᡽࿔፮᡼ᢝᶤ᡺ᇢ໎ᜌ있ླ/ ൸의ኰᙋ지ྜᓿ࿅ᢽ᡺ᇢ኿Ṡ᷃ླ/ ໾࿅의ᕻᢾᕻ동൸(*ឥ서ླᇻ어᤮៘࿒ᎍ의ᷰᴨ성ឥ࿅᷅൸심᷅Ṫ의៑ᢎឥ࿅᷅ᴮᇖᢽ࿅응᡼໾࿅의마ಃᇓ*의ᙍ보ᗀ주의정൧᡽ಧ᭛ྜឭ໾동ᜎả석ၟ었೏-ᢜ본주의ᢽೈ제᪸제의ಏṟྜᎍ의ᓿᶤṟ៑- ᎍ᥽ᷔ의유ංᢽ᪸제를붕ോᙋᮑླ/ ೈ제ᢽṱ율성೜၍࿐ᢽ/ᎍᢽ정의ឥ࿅᷅ಇ등ᢎᢎᢝᶤ의൵ᷰ᡽유지᷃೏있᡺ኹ- ൸ᢎླᇻ೏있ྜ᷅ᜌ일ᆷၽ인᫆ᎌ의ᱭៅᓳ಩의배Ṷឥ서ྜ- ൙ಃ의정᭛൹ಅ᡽ᢎᇻ어៘࿒ᐿ൙ಃᢽᱣ᭛ං൘(”Ṗ᡼“*의ᢜ유주의ᢽᢎွះᇢං의붕ോಃᙋᢧೈ제의ಏᇖ᷅၍ᢾ೜맞물ᇕ있ླ/ ᷠ어ྜᢜᙍ의൸ᢎ새ᇢ៲주제를ླᇻ೏있ླ೏ಏ조᷃지않᡽ᓟ࿏ᇃ- ឰ൸೚ಅ의ᙋ಄ᢽ배ᐞᢎ྅ឥ뛸ᓟ᳥᏾᷅ᷰᙌᢽᙏᷜᢎᢎᇻ어지ྜಯ᡼ᜌྩླ/ ൷ᇃໆᢎᢝᶤᢎ지ྩྜ의의ྜ ွᢎ빗ᷠ어의źᥟ얼࿅ྜ᳽ᓳ들Żឥໆᰰ້ឹ൙의정의ឥ࿅᷅심᳽ ࿁࿅ኊឰ᷃ྜᓿ᜽ᢽ- 보ᗀᢽᎍᢽ྽ṟឥ࿅᷅၍ᢾᢎኹ- ಇᗀᇣ보ᗀṟၟ어ಃྜ정᭛ᶧᱜᖝឥ서인본주의ᢽ- ᢜ유주의ᢽ정᭛ං൘ឥ࿅᷅의ᙌᢽ인ᢩ೏일듯싶ླ/인ጾ༉ᫍ제50᥽