London Road - the moral dilema

As anyone who I have met or had any kind of social contact with since Saturday will know, I went to see London Road at the National Theatre. I haven't been able to stop myself telling everyone and anyone to go and see it, however, in my excitement about what the NT have achieved with London Road I have come across lots of debate about the morality of the piece.

The musical which is running in the Cottesloe until early June tells the story of the events surrounding the 2006 Ipswich murders from the viewpoint of the community living in London Road, the home of serial killer Steven Wright. This documentary piece was written by Alecky Blythe using verbatim accounts that she recorded at interviews she conducted with a number of residents of London Road over a number of years. These recordings have been edited together and set to music by composer Adam Cork to create a score that is based on rhythms of speech complete with ever stutter and stammer. The effect is quite incredible and captures the essence of the people - the play's characters - so uniquely. This is not your average musical.

The controversy that has arisen about the piece is rarely a dispute on it's artistic merit - hands down it deserves the four and five star reviews that it has been credited with. No, the controversy is about whether it is exploitative and disrespectful of the victims and their families. Is it wrong to derive "entertainment" from such a tragedy, and so soon after the event?

I have to say that I had no major issues with the subject matter or indeed the way it was handled. I think it all comes down to a point of view. Had the piece been about the girls who were murdered I believe the reaction would have been very different. But this piece is about another set of victims who were less mentioned in the media - the unsuspecting neighbours of the murderer. Those who thought they were living in a safe community who had their lives turned upside down and their privacy invaded by the media. I believe that they have a right to tell their side of the story too. And I think it is right that their side was told without censorship. It would have been untruthful to have glossed over what they truly felt towards the girls.

To say that I think their story has a right to be told does not mean that I categorically agree with their viewpoint on the events that unfolded, nor do I believe that that is the aim of this production. I believe that good theatre should provoke this kind of public debate, in my opinion that is what the arts are about. Theatre should be about opening people's eyes to a subject and making them question their viewpoint. It's about social empathy, putting ourselves in the shoes of others and working out how we would react or feel. Thus I would argue that we can not claim theatre is merely made as "entertainment".

London Road documents - in a highly artistic, and utterly touching fashion - the responses of the residents of London Road, to all that unfolded in their community as their worst nightmares were played out right amongst them. It presents (through song and speech) the facts of the events as lived and seen through the eyes of the residents themselves. It is utterly true in so far as the libretto itself is written by them - through their recorded interviews. That truth of course is not universal. It is the truth according to the individuals who Blythe conducted her interviews with.

The whole debate reminds me of a similar dilema I grew interested in during my final year of my BA studies. The company that I was on placement with at the time were working with recovering addicts and professional actors to produce a new play for their main stage that centered around a local and historical (although in this case fictionalised) account of drug-dealing and addiction. I grew interested in the reason for the project and what the after-care would be like for the non-actors who were involved.

I think in both cases my verdict lies in the treatment of the situation and those involved. If those who are central to the story that is being told know what the deal is and do not voice objection then no exploitation occurs. If those whose personal experience is involved receive the correct support and after-care then in my opinion, there is no exploitation.

The problem with London Road lies in the objection from the families of the girls who were murdered. Should they have had the right to censor the residents' telling of the story? What makes the experience of the residents any less valid?

I believe Blythe's intention was merely to tell their side of the story. I do not believe that in doing so, she necessarily agrees with any or all of their actions or opinions. But of course with any telling of a story, you will have others who witnessed it differently or disagree with the stance that is taken. I don't think that there is any easy answer to the moral question. All I know is that I thought it was a captivating piece of theatre that made me think more deeply about what happened in Ipswich 5 years ago, and more widely, about the human condition...

And, despite the raging debate, I would still recommend it to everyone and anyone...

All pictures courtesy of National Theatre