![](https://www.sardinesmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/HANGMEN-jpg.webp)
Show: Hangmen
Society: Lewes Theatre Club
Venue: Lewes Little Theatre. 17 Lancaster Street, Lewes BN7 2PX
Credits: By Martin McDonagh. Directed by Simon Hellyer.
Type: Independent (registered user)
Author: Paul Johnson
Performance Date: 16/03/2024
Hangmen
Paul Johnson | 19 Mar 2024 21:12pm
Mark Pelham, Tom Messmer and Rob Hustwayte (L-R)
REVIEW FROM TERENCE HATTEMORE
It was only my second visit to this theatre and having no previous knowledge of the piece and in seeing some published photographs in the days leading up to this opening night, I joked it looked like a `fun` night. In reality, I expected either a treatise on the rights and wrongs of capital punishment or a damming indictment of the men prepared to undertake this role in a modern society.
I was wrong on all counts for this proved to be an incredible piece of theatre. I often say that “in lesser hands this might have fallen short” and rarely truer. Simon Hellyer has assembled a strong cast but headed by two actors this company are lucky to have attracted. Rob Hustwayte and Mark Pelham are `dues paid` actors with a great deal of stage experience in amateur theatre. That alone would not explain the stellar performances we witnessed last night, both gave finely judged characterisations of two key players in the proceedings, Rob Hustwayte as Harry Wade, the last UK hangman, and Mark Pelham as Syd Armfield who became an assistant to Harry Wade.
The disturbing opening scene in a condemned cell where the terrified real life convict Hennessy is having to be subdued and restrained in preparation for execution. It is not new probably for the audience to see this on film but in the immediacy of the small theatre nonetheless disturbing. This was very well staged and had added projections in black and white which those days we were more familiar with form newspapers and television. Immediately Rob and Mark are there totally in character dominating the stage.
The main action of the play takes place on the day in 1965 when hanging for most capital offences was officially abolished in the UK. As a small child the idea of execution was too fearful to consider or grasp the many issues involved. Down the decades come the voices of adults whose life experience was different from mine, and I do not recall anyone who was not in favour of capital punishment `A life for a Life` was the Biblical/Christian view, which we were mostly all indoctrinated in. Certainly, the church has endorsed or at least not opposed the most brutal torture and execution of people, especially if their own agenda/position, was threatened. Parliament on this issue normally has a free vote as this subject, in modern times, this has been treated as a vote of conscience. Therefore, an elected assembly, in general, provide a more balanced approach than the pontifications of the regulars in Harry Wade`s bar. Civilisation and Citizenship is too be valued, but beneath that thin veneer is mob rule without due process of law and trial by jury. It has long been speculated, that had the Moors murders (Hindley and Brady) of the poor children been earlier, unearthed and in the public domain at the time of the debate the result might been different. High profile miscarriages of justice in the age of more modern communications gave an awareness not realised before.
There are so many threads in this play. There may well have been times when executioners were conscripted or induced with lucrative remuneration. We can but wonder really, why Harry Wade is an executioner or how he will fare now this role is being removed. True he has his pub bar where he `preens his feathers`, adjusts his bow tie and pulling himself up to his height and like a rooster, struts around his territory. Even his manner of dress sets him superficially above his regular customers, These are effectively played and roles doubled (condemned cell opening scene) by Aidan Mconville, Alan Lade, Darren Heather, Nigel Sharpe and Harry Hoblyn. (There was a late cast substitution, the paper programme insert having been mislaid) .
Rebecca Warnett gives a fine performance as Alice Wade, running the home and pub. She appears too be somewhat inured to her husband`s occasional occupation and had met his nemesis the arguably most memorable exponent Albert Pierrepoint, well played by David Rankin appearing towards the very end of Act 2. Alice Wade, whilst partially inhibited by Wade is a modern woman for 1965, the actual brains behind the family and it is her who will secure their future. Now his reason for, in modern parlance, celebrity has been `executed` in one clean action, where will his underlying uncertainty find compensation. Their daughter, Shirley, played competently by India Tindley is disparaged by the parents, but that is more irritation with her being moody and her mother is clearly concerned. Her father is more distant but as a father of the time, this may not be unusual and on the day, we see them interacting he is distracted by his life changing with the abolition. His alpha male pretensions are supported by being in such a distinctive role, maybe his ability to kill when directed, by the state engenders a fear, maybe not openly expressed by his listeners, However, the very title sets him apart from them.
The stirring of the pot and indeed the plot thickens with the arrival of Peter Mooney played so well by Tom Messmer. Mooney is from the south. Once as now, in physically isolated communities and then because people did not travel as widely and were more insular with less exposure to outside influences, culture, beliefs and outlook. Mooney arrives looking for accommodation, the tension is `in the air` as he `plays` Wade`s bar crowd. The following morning, he reappears earlier than expected and like a cat stalking a mouse with the daughter,15-year old Shirley, having first diverted the attention of her mother with his prepared references. Peter Mooney`s performance succeeds brilliantly in making you feel uneasy, his apparent grooming of Shirley and a particular line of inappropriate questioning with a slight frisson in his voice but she was impressed enough to arrange to meet him later. It is a devious plan but with results you could only guess might be the outcome.
As with all the best manipulators he evades his `victims` by disarming their thoughts by his sudden and erratic outbursts. Mooney is also `enticing us as the audience into a train of thought. He later meets Syd Armfield in a café. Their acquaintance is like all the worst characters based on a mutual need for a revenge or perhaps a, brief superiority. They might seem to need each other to achieve their aims of one upmanship on Wade but Mooney moves in on him with his amoral unemotional expressionless delivery. Armfield further shrinks before your eyes, his own criminality and lowly position in this criminal jungle is almost pitiful but Mark Pelham makes you feel no pity for him.
Later, Mooney returns to the bar to almost gloat. My immediate thoughts was, that this was in keeping in those killers who return to the scene of their crime and are `high` but have no emotion or remorse and even have the temerity to assist the police. It is the misuse of a power in an arguably ineffectual life. Is this wickedness or a cruel lack of given empathy, nature or nurture ?
If you are intrigued so far, I am not disclosing any more……. I must direct you to book for one of the remaining performances. The play and plot contains many threads but is the original knitting pattern adhered too or are the threads unravelled and a new tapestry and depiction created?
As Act 2 took a meandering course. the play`s plot became somewhat bizarre and less plausible but in the final sentences some form of summary justice is delivered. Is this from the authorities or from the criminal element. Questions are posed as to whether it matters, yes really! One character appeared to be rather one dimensional that of Inspector Fry who fails to act as might be expected since he has nothing to lose or does he? We are, as a generalisation feel comfortable when a book, film or play has a neat conclusion. Is life always like this, sadly no.
I must mention Rob Hustwayte, who I have not seen on stage for far too long. He dominates the stage throughout, great northern accent, demeanour, posture and totally credible performance. What is clever is the gradual erosion of his stature and bearing as the one thing he has over others is this power which people are curious about. He earlier makes his exit by dealing with a press reporter and you would think from his approach to this and satisfaction at the published article which his self-delusion, persuades him he has controlled, it was major article in a national broadsheet rather than a local gazette. A final and feeble flourish of a skill no longer needed.
Mark Pelham is superb on every entrance, wheedling, whining, always the beta male who was never nurtured and guided into a more fulfilling life.
When these two perform with Tom Messmer in the same play we can see their skills unfold. In nature Wade & Mooney would have fought in the due season for domination of the herd.
Driving home in the darkness and reflecting on the evening, I realised just how much we had all laughed throughout, when I had expected everyone, applause aside, to have left the in total silence, which I have on occasions witnessed in a cinema. In a regrettable age of selected cancellation culture when the moral minority wish to dictate what our own consciences are capable of judging, it was refreshing to see this piece if theatre played to the full.
I urge you to go along and see this production.