Play discusses torture

February 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Submitted by IL Staff reporter Rebecca Berfanger:

“Sunlight,” a play that examines both sides of the debate on torture of detainees, opens tonight at the Phoenix Theatre in Indianapolis. It will be performed through March 20, including post-performance discussions March 5 and 14 featuring experts on the issues the characters present in the play.

The Phoenix invited me to attend a run-through of the play Tuesday night. After seeing it, I can say it will definitely encourage discussion on the legal aspects of the debate on torture and the rule of law following the terror attacks of Sept. 11.

Three of the four characters in the play are attorneys: Matthew, the zealous liberal president of a prestigious East Coast university; Vincent, the university president’s son-in-law and conservative dean of the university’s law school; and Charlotte, the president’s daughter and Vincent’s wife, herself a conservative lawyer in private practice. The fourth character is Matthew’s long-time assistant Midge, who tends to side with her boss, and provides comic relief from time to time.

The play opens the day after the president has allegedly ransacked the law school dean’s office in retaliation over the dean’s work supporting torture, including a course called, “The Law of Terror.” Due to the allegations following this incident, the university’s board is holding a meeting to vote on whether he should be allowed to stay in his position. Meanwhile, as Matthew’s daughter and lawyer, Charlotte is handling calls from the local media and shredding seemingly irrelevant documents at Matthew’s home.

Eventually Vincent and Matthew face each other in a passionate debate where Vincent explains why he is for torture, and Matthew takes a stand as to why he is adamantly opposed to it. Meanwhile, Charlotte, who has a very personal connection to Sept. 11 that affects both important men in her life, is torn between her loyalty to her father and to her husband, while coming to terms with her own views on the issue.

The play is especially relevant to Indiana’s legal community, considering Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington professor Dawn Johnsen’s nomination is still pending for the Office of Legal Counsel. While the play doesn’t expressly mention Johnsen, it does refer to the OLC’s work in allowing torture during the Bush administration. Johnsen’s reports against the work of the OLC under President George W. Bush are part of why she’s been a controversial nominee. (She was on the schedule for today’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, but was postponed for the fourth time since she was re-nominated earlier this year).

The first post-play discussion will feature Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis School of Public and Environmental Affairs faculty members Sheila Suess Kennedy and Jim White, who will be available following the 8 p.m. performance March 5. Kennedy specializes in civil rights and was executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana from 1992 to 1998. White served on the Indiana State Police for more than 20 years and serves as director of emergency management for Indianapolis/Marion County.

The post-play discussion March 14 will take place after the 2 p.m. performance and will feature history professor Peter DiMeglio. DiMeglio taught for 37 years at the University of Wisconsin, specializing in history of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and world civilization. He was also the director of the University of Wisconsin’s Institute of International Studies.

The Indianapolis theatre is the second venue to produce the play as part of its National New Play Network’s Rolling World Premiere, following its first production at Marin Theatre Company in Mill Valley, Calif.

Phoenix Theatre is located at 749 N. Park Ave., Indianapolis. For ticket information and show times, visit the theatre’s Web site or call (317) 635-7529.

If you make it to a performance, let us know what you think.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT