Earlier this year, in the summer, I received some play scripts and Weathers’ was of them. I gave a brief overview of this play and the four others here. I chose to read Tell Tale Murder first as I was intrigued by the cold case aspect to the plot and I liked the idea of a lawyer being an amateur sleuth. The events of the play take place over three days. The production notes also tantalisingly suggest that:
‘In order not to reveal too much too soon, it is preferable that the cast list on the programme should not be in order of appearance, nor should it state relationships.’
I wonder how common it is for play scripts to make this recommendation.
Synopsis
‘Since the disappearance of her husband seventeen years before, Jane Mannion has lived a life of seclusion on the Cornish coast with her children, David and Vanessa and a macabre old woman called Ellen. Suspected by local gossips of poisoning her husband (her mother was also a suspected poisoner) she shuns village society and extends a grudging welcome to her son’s fiancée Maureen and her father. This last is a lawyer with a firm belief in hereditary, and he wants to make a thorough check of his future son-in-law’s family history. When a body is found in a disused mine shaft on the moors he discovers more than he has bargained for…’
[From the 2019 Concord Theatrical Edition]
Overall Thoughts
The stage directions suggest that the living room in Jane Mannion’s house, the setting for the whole play, ‘has a most definite personality, but no charm, and no “lived-in” quality.’ Jane is not a newcomer, so the fact the public spaces in her house do not appear ‘lived-in’ is arguably an extension of her secretiveness. She has no social life, yet her home looks like it is ready for viewing at a moment’s notice. The viewer, or in this case reader, no doubt wonders what Jane is hiding, particularly once she says to her housekeeper Ellen that she must not be around when Bentley Richmond, her son’s future father-in-law, turns up. This is because she fears Ellen will let something slip – but what might that be?
Jane and Ellen’s relationship is set up antagonistically:
Ellen: […] You always push me out of the way when strangers come.
Jane: Your memory’s going.
Ellen: I remember years ago well enough. (Plaintively) It’s “now” I forget.
Jane: And you say silly things.
Ellen: (looking evilly at her) Some people I know’d be interested to hear ‘em.
Jane: (with a hint of a blackmail) Bentley Richmond’s a lawyer, Ellen […] So when you’ve seen to that bed, get to your room and stay there.
I like how this prickly relationship is presented as nothing is entirely clear cut and the ambiguity opens several narrative possibilities for the future.
Jane and Ellen are not the only source of tension, as there is conflict between Jane and her son, David, since he is fed up with the social ostracism his family has received over the years. Once he is married, and he comes into his majority share of his late father’s money, he intends to move away. This leaves Jane in a difficult position as she says she cannot stay where she is and live on a quarter of her income. Yet she is adamant she will not sell the house and move elsewhere. In this opening scene I feel like Jane is unreasonable and toxic in her handling of other people, particularly in the way that she wants her daughter Vanessa to remain socially isolated with her, and not trained for any form of work. Consequently, it is hard to feel sympathy for Jane.
She certainly does not put her guests at their ease, reinforcing the violent history of Cornwell:
Jane: You see, here we’re still living in the shadow of our ancestors – their beliefs and practices handed down to us by word of mouth from generation to generation – ancient, savage creeds, in which the sanctity of human life had very little place […] Would it surprise you to know […] that out there on those rocks, less than a century ago, ships were deliberately lured to their destruction by the people of this very village? No, Mr Richmond […] in Cornwall, neither the creating of life nor the taking of it has the same importance as in newer civilisations.
Maureen: (breaking the atmosphere) You’re making us feel quite creepy, Mrs Mannion.
Bear in mind that this is the first conversation Jane has had with David’s future son-in-law and he is accompanied by Maureen, his fiancée. It doesn’t seem like the best opening gambit for conversation, unless you are wanting to put people off. The audience/reader starts to wonder if that is exactly what she is trying to do…
Since this is a play, rather than a novel, the backstory to Jane’s missing husband (who was an author) is given to us directly by David when he talks to Bentley Richmond. Jane’s marriage was not a happy one, pitted with abuse and misery:
David: He brought her home here and she became his housekeeper. But she also became a sort of guinea pig for him to experiment on […] He fancied himself as a sort of Pygmalion with her as Galatea, and turned her, at least superficially into a lady. And all the time he dissected her, recording her emotions.
I think the dialogue and stage directions do a good job of sharing how Bentley reacts to this information. There is a strong use of facial features and body language.
A key question of this play is: Who is Jane Mannion? It is one that Bentley and his daughter discuss:
Bentley: Have you managed to form any opinion of her?
Maureen: I’ve tried to – but I’ve changed my mind so many times I – (she makes a gesture of helplessness) just haven’t an opinion […] To begin with I couldn’t help feeling there was something […] evil about her. That closed face – the silent watchfulness of her. Then – when I learnt more about her – I began to think. Almost any woman with her background – living in her circumstances – would keep her face like a mask – would have every right to be bitter – would have cause to be wary and watchful. None of it may be natural to her. She may be a perfectly ordinary woman that circumstances have made seem – sinister, I suppose is the word.
When it comes to deciphering Jane, the characters and the audience have to decide if she is responsible for her husband’s disappearance e.g. death. She delayed reporting his absence for 48 hours, for example, and there is seemingly only the testimony of Jane and Ellen to go on. Bentley and the audience must assess how much of what is said, is true.
The plot has one large coincidence that the audience needs to swallow but I think to see it on the stage would not be too problematic. The finale unfurls several reversals of events, and the action concludes with unorthodox justice. I was not too surprised by some of the reveals at the conclusion, as I think a mystery reader will spot a few things early on. I am not sure if an audience would make the same connections though, as hearing the dialogue live, rather than reading it on the page, makes a difference.
Nevertheless, I thought this was a very interesting play to read, with some engaging characters and themes, laced with ambiguity which gets you thinking. However, I think any production would need to give some attention to how they play the flashback scene.
Rating: 4.5/5