Katherine:

 
“Need the two of you to do a scene from Tone Clusters for May 4th. What do you want to do? Needs to be 5-7 minutes. Ellen.” It seemed like a simple enough email to figure out. The play is basically a two-hander (two character play). Alan and I are the two hands performing it – Joyce Carol Oates’ amazing play Tone Clusters – this season at Theatricum Botanicum. May 4th was to be a fabulous celebration of the 40th year that the theatre had been in operation officially as a theatre. Each of the plays of the season – A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Taming Of The Shrew, The Royal Family, Merlin and Tone Clusters would have scenes performed for the approximately 300 folks who would be there to celebrate with us that day. I found a great piece of one of the nine scenes that make up the play for the event. Great “sneak preview.” Funny, provocative and with that little touch of “holy smokes!” that would make people want to come back and see us in it. It was easily three weeks away. Plenty of time for Alan and me to rehearse and get it ready to share with the crowd.

So why was I as terrified as I was thrilled?

The lines. Oh, yes. When I was a kid I used to think it was funny when people would say, “How did you memorize all those lines?” It came to me as easily as breathing. And then after I was 26 and had Jordan it was still easy, but more like as easily as a dolphin breathes. You know – it was a conscious voluntary thing rather than an involuntary instinct. And then it was less like breathing and more like huffing and puffing. Proving that it was age and not motherhood that was screwing with my ability to get the words in my head. And then it gradually became a little like watching the flat line in the monitor in the hospital on an hour long medical drama. Apply the paddles a few times and – oh, yes – there they are! The Words! Right in my head!

Now, you have to understand that when I say “the lines,” I mean “all the lines that everyone says in all the scenes I am in.” Many actors just memorize their own lines and their cues (the half line that some other actor says just before they themselves have a line). I’ve never been like that. I have to know ALL OF IT. I have to have all the lines in my head, in the back of my skull. Otherwise I am not free just to “act.” I feel like I am like a slave to “what’s next…?” I can’t bear that. It means being earthbound instead of flying. It means not operating on all cylinders, taking in whatever comes – be it a move by another actor that needs to be “played with” or an audience response that needs to be leaned into or the sheer delight of getting a brand new idea of how to say the line in this moment because it is coming to me as if I am thinking of it for the first time.

And then as I was torturing myself with Joyce Carol Oates’ evasive haunting lines with “come on, you can do it! For heaven’s sake you have been doing this for 56 of your 61 years!” I thought of…drum roll…all the trial lawyers I have the privilege of working with.

I watch the same process when someone is getting ready to try a case. What lawyer worth his or her salt doesn’t want to “have the case” perfectly in head and hand so that he or she can just “play it” as it comes out? You know – what one of my old acting teachers, Alan Fletcher, used to call “pre-planned spontaneity.”

And once again I remembered what lawyers and actors will forever have in common. And once again I was humbled by how lawyers have so much pressure on them to be perfect since at least one other person’s future is sitting squarely on their shoulders as they get the case in their heads. And all I have to do is not screw up too badly in front of 300 people. And suddenly the words were in my head. All the words.

May 4th I flew. I soared. I played. I reacted. I was operating on all cylinders.  I leaned into the audience as they gasped and laughed and were taken by surprise. And I did the acting dance of partnership with he who is my perfect scene partner on stage and in life. I was having the time of my life as I only can onstage and in my element.

If you are a trial lawyer and you are reading this and you have shown me your soft vulnerable underbelly in a workshop or a case or a conversation or even a tweet – thanks. I needed that.

Katherine:

Is there anything more glorious than to be in the theatre on an opening night?

Not in my experience. Is the show going to be amazing? If so, there is nothing more glorious than the feeling in the whole theatre of the rush of energy – the communal feeling that you are in the presence of a hit.

Is it going to suck? Our great mentor, Bill Ball, founder of The American Conservatory Theater, taught us to always say something positive. My favorite is, “If you could only have been where I was and saw what I saw this evening!”

The fantastic production of George Farquhar’s The Beaux’ Stratagem at A Noise Within was one of those amazing nights in the theatre. Not only was it my mother’s birthday, it was a very special landmark for us as a family that we had promised ourselves to attend. Since my father, who died eight weeks ago, was a big Farquhar scholar, one of our “touchstone” dates was this night. And so we were ALL there – my mother, Alan’s father, my sister and her husband and children, our children and their wives, Alan onstage and me next to my mother. The family remarked about the wonderful full page tribute to Daddy in the program. “Is that really Aunt Kathy?” said nine year old Harry looking back and forth between the photo of twelve year old Aunt Kathy and sixty-one year old Aunt Kathy. He recognized his grandfather, my father, from the photo montage from the funeral.

The house doors were closing – the show would be starting soon – please, God, let it be good. We are all counting on this one being good much too much. My mother whispers to me, “Oh – look how beautiful the set is! Daddy would have been so pleased!” And then the houselights dimmed and there it was before us – the glorious world that Daddy loved so much. The still hysterically funny English Restoration. Filled with witty language and extraordinary daring and courage and fun, fun, fun! A brilliant production – the audience was seized with it. The critics were delighted. And I was bathed in it. Curtain Call already? “No!” the audience wanted to say. None of us were ready to leave this glorious world, this amazing place, this great production and go back to our ordinary lives. Another mark of a great show in my experience – you never want to leave.

Was Daddy there with us? Not in body – not even in spirit – but in passion, love, the thrill of the promise of the opening – all the reasons he loved that most magical of art forms, the living theatre.

We have experienced it, we will experience it, and my grandchild’s child will experience it. We may come and go…but THAT is forever.

Katherine:

Every little girl has the right to believe that her daddy is the most brilliant mentor she’ll ever have.

For the lucky little girls, this is true.

I am one of the lucky ones.

My daddy was the greatest influence I had in my life, in my career, in the theater.

My daddy, Dr. Eugene Nelson James, was recognized internationally as THE authority on George Farquhar, the great English restoration playwright. When the Royal Shakespeare Company did one of G.F.’s plays, they used my father’s theories and scholarly work. So did many other theater companies and universities (not everyone produced “The Beaux Stratagem” by the way). His knowledge of the scholarly world of western theater, from the Greeks to Shakespeare to Stoppard, was not matched. From the time I could toddle, he taught me about the greats who came before us – who they were, why they wrote the way they wrote – what it all meant. My love and reverence for the theater is all Daddy.

My daddy E. Nelson James wrote plays. He was produced in theaters from The Goodman to universities to his own favorite playhouse, The Stagecoach Players of DeKalb, Illinois. He taught me that there was always time to write, that if you write roles for the people you love that they will work hard to fulfill them (what amazing roles he wrote for me!). He would say to me, “Look at your first page! How do you do that? You are amazing – you have them spring to life right away!” My belief in myself and my ability to find time to write my plays is all Daddy.

My daddy Nelson James was a nurturing director. He directed lots and lots and lots of plays – from the classics to modern light plays to his own plays. He was my first director – when I was five years old – and I worked in shows he directed until I left for California after college. Anytime I was directing a show and ran into a problem, I could call on him. Daddy always had my back.

My daddy Nelson James loved to act. Before I acted (so since I started when I was five years old we are going back) I remember how astonishingly brilliant it was to see him change at rehearsal. First he would be Daddy – talking with the other actors and the director, laughing and having a grand time…and then he was magically Reverend James Mavor Morell – George Bernard Shaw’s uptight husband of Candida in the play of the same name – and not my daddy at all. And then the scene was over, or they stopped to discuss the moment during a work-through rehearsal, and he was Daddy again. It took my breath away, that transformation. Daddy first brought me into that world of art where artist uses self – literally – as the interpretive medium. Acting.

My daddy was the best audience member you could ever want to have. Ever. I loved sitting next to him in the theater as he experienced every moment of the play as if he was a part of the action himself. I thrilled when he watched my performances with the same intent – I could always feel him there. Daddy taught me how to be alive in the theater, even from a seat in the house.

I miss him. I miss him every day. I don’t imagine there will ever come a time when I don’t want to turn to him and ask him what he thinks so I can soak it in. But he is inside me. He helped shape and mold me as an artist. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

Katherine:

Brilliant film, amazing performances, Silver Linings Playbook is truly not to be missed. It is no mistake that four of the actors – Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver are up for Academy Awards. A rare, but well deserved honor! I had no idea who Bradley Cooper was. I whispered to Alan a few moments into the film, “Who IS that?” I said it largely because not only did I not recognize his name, he looks like a lot of guys who appear on the large screen and have great careers right now. Alan whispered back, “He’s the star of all the Hangover movies.” No wonder I didn’t know who he was before this – definitely not my oeuvre, those Hangover movies. Jennifer Lawrence we met, of course in Winter’s Bone and said, “Holy cannoli, this gal is great. Of course, she’s just a kid. Wonder if she can make the transition from child actress to adult?” Apparently she can. Damn is she good. If you are a fan of Australian films and television, how many times have you seen Jacki Weaver? Just look at her IMDb page and say “Oh, yeah!” And then there is De Niro. Of course, he is masterful and amazing and everything we have come to hope and expect and love about spending time with him in a darkened theater.

If you are an attorney, it is De Niro for whom you should see this film. Why? Because this is a funny, sad story about falling in love – and mental illness. And we have spent decades watching De Niro play mentally ill characters.

What struck me is that in the world of film, our growing understanding of mental illness as a society is reflected in the characters and stories we create and enjoy and explore from three quarters of the way, through the 20th century, to now. Think of De Niro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. He was terrifying, wasn’t he? The dark horror that we all fear who needed to be destroyed. And he was. At that time, we still harbored a belief that mentally ill people needed to be destroyed. Or institutionalized. They certainly needed to be kept away from us and were hopeless on some level. Now, fast forward a few decades, and think of the mob boss Paul Vitti in Analyze This who seeks out a therapist. This comedy explored the now very acceptable relationship of mentally ill patient and therapist. At this point, many of us had been to therapy and recognized that talking through issues and problems might be a good thing. I remember reading somewhere De Niro’s Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver might well have benefited from having Billy Crystal as a therapist. And now this wonderful turn as Pat Sr., an obsessive compulsive with a kid who also has problems. Now we are in a time where we recognize that pharmaceuticals can help many people overcome mental health issues and problems. Silver Linings Playbook is very outspoken about this truth of our modern time. Can you imagine if Travis Bickle had both talk therapy and prescription drugs?

Now here’s what I don’t understand. How could we, as a society, have progressed so far in the past several decades in our understanding about mental illness…but so little in terms of what happens when mentally ill people break our laws? Almost every time I work on a criminal case, it is obvious to me that the defendant is suffering from some form or other, or sometimes multiple forms of mental illness. I find it extraordinary that the question “does he know the difference between right and wrong?” continues to be the criteria for mental health in our legal system. It’s like we are stuck with some at-minimum 19th century criteria in a 21st century world. I mean I get it intellectually – we got rid of our mental health programs awhile back and so now our jails and prisons are where our mentally ill citizens are spending their time. But – that the law says that this is legitimate I find truly amazing.

TIP: Was Chico Marx right? Is there “no sanity clause”?
 
 

Katherine:

When my mother asked me if she had to see Les Miserables on screen since she had already seen it 5 times on stage, I said, “God, no. I’ve seen it for both of us.” Many people who are big fans of the musical, like I am, were and are bitterly disappointed in the film version, which is getting all kinds of kudos and tons of Academy Award nominations. I am in the camp of the review Anthony Lane gave it in The New Yorker, “I screamed a scream as time went by.”

If you saw it and loved it, great. If you saw it and hated it, great. The important question here is, what can lawyers learn from it?

The most controversial performance in the film seems to be that of Russell Crowe who is taking a lot of heat for how much he, well, was less than stellar. Yes, no argument from me, he was ridiculous in the film. However, there is a great video of Crowe and Jackman, impromptu, singing some tunes that is making the rounds of social media amongst those of us who are what I guess you might call “Les Miz-ophiles.” Crowe is fabulous, free, and frankly, verges on brilliant at times. So how did director Tom Hooper squelch and stomp out the Russell Crowe from the bar?

It strikes me that he did it the same way many lawyers squelch the lifeblood and best testimony out of their witnesses and then throw them on the stand. “Do this, don’t do that! Be this, don’t be that! Say it like this, say it like that!” Compare and contrast the Crowe you see in the trailer of Les Miz (keeps you from having to sit through the whole thing) and the Crowe from the bar scene. Then ask yourself, “Do I do that to my witnesses?”

By the way, if you want to watch Les Miz sung and acted brilliantly in front of a camera, watch the 25^th Anniversary Concert Performance. Knocks my socks off every time. Just like good lawyers are with their witnesses.

TIP:  Stop squelching your witnesses.
 
 

Katherine:

Once again, the Golden Globes are over and it is Oscar season. Once again, I promise that Alan or I will try to comment on the contenders upon which we haven’t already commented in this blog. Once again, I promise you that there are movies that I have absolutely NO intention of seeing, despite their nominations (you know me and my proclivities regarding films that simply aren’t my kind of catharsis which include the entire cannon of Quentin Tarantino). If Alan decides to see any or all of the movies I simply can’t give up two hours of my limited time on this earth to see, then he can tell you about them. So be it!

Now…here’s one you CAN’T MISS.

Lincoln. Saw it on the big screen when it first came out. LOVED IT. Can’t stop loving it and thinking about it. When I was sitting in the darkened theatre and we were a few moments into it, I thought, “Oh, my GAWD. That’s what we are going to do with Mary Todd? Seriously, Tony?” By that I meant, “Seriously, Tony Kushner?” Tony Kushner is one of the truly brilliant writers alive today. I am completely blown away by everything he has written. He is one of those artists of whom I have said (out loud to my friends and family and written a few times in this blog), “I just feel so damned lucky to be alive at the same time so I can be surprised and thrilled by the new work as it comes along.” Other folks of other less enfranchised groups in these United States (yep, call me “Female”) have told me they had responses like, “Oh, my GAWD. That’s what we are going to do with Frederick Douglas? Seriously, Tony?” (yep, call them “African American”).

Here’s the beauty. Once I stepped back for a moment and stopped MY agenda for what THE story of this part of Lincoln’s presidency SHOULD be about…Kushner’s story came out loud and clear. This story of all these white men – all with power – making, at long last, a clear moral decision that was going to cause them to relinquish some of that power for the greater good.

And then I thought about all the wonderful attorneys who read this blog and who try so hard to find THE story of THE case that is going to win the day. With a bunch of people around them screaming the equivalent of, “GAWD! What about Mary Todd and Frederick Douglas?” Go see Lincoln. Not just because everything about it is simply extraordinary – it is – but to remind yourself that finding your way to the perfect simple story that will change and influence is not easy. But it is vital. And in the hands of a master like Tony Kushner, transcendent.

TIP: Is your trial story too broad, too encompassing or just right?

Katherine:

College. Literature. Departmental Politics. Insight into the hearts and minds of professors and students – both undergrad and eternal. As a child of academics, these are the subject matters of my life. Usually when there is a film about college, I cringe. This one had me laughing, tearing up and saying, “Ain’t that the truth.”

Josh Radnor has made a truly lovely and heartfelt film without straying from the truth of what life in The English Department can be about. My dad was in The English Department. I was raised there. What can I say? I have a special critical eye when it comes to this subject matter. Also, I met Josh Radnor when Alan was performing Awake And Sing with him in The Berkshires a dozen years ago. Even as a young professional, Josh told me of his plans to make films – and over the years he has done just that with his hiatus time from his hit show (How I Met Your Mother). This time, he really comes into his own as a filmmaker in my opinion. He is a lovely actor as well and does beautifully in the role of the college recruiter visiting his old Alma Mater and finding himself falling in love with a student. There are wonderful performances in addition to his own. Richard Jenkins as the retiring professor who wants a “do over” is brilliant. Alison Janney as the tough as nails professor of the English Romantic takes what might become a cliché into ironic delight.

What is it in for lawyers? Other than a sweet ride? I must say, as soon as it was clear that the college recruiter in his mid-thirties was falling for the student in her early twenties, I started getting really uncomfortable. Over the sixty years I have been alive, I have watched the relationship between students and faculty/administrators change for the better. When I was a kid, professors (male) met their spouses when they were teaching them in class. There are many famous examples of this – I keep thinking Walter Kerr and Jean Kerr, although there were tons in my real life. Then, when I was a student, it was widely accepted that professors and students were allowed to sleep together – again, surprisingly, male professors and female students. I consider myself really fortunate for not getting involved in anything like that. Since leaving school and moving on and looking at this whole situation through legal eyes, I have a different perspective on the issue. A person with power over another person in a relationship will always have an unequal relationship. I think Radnor makes his character’s college a different place from the one in which he falls in love with a student for good reason. It certainly dodges this legal bullet. But I still felt uncomfortable. I still found this relationship to be unequal in terms of power. It really got my “is this an ethical situation” antennae up. What do you think?

TIP: If it feels unethical – is it…?

Katherine:

 
Is there anything worse than spending the summer too busy to go to the movies and then finally going to the movies and seeing The Master? I don’t think so.

So, the first part of the film I thought, “How could such a brilliant filmmaker (Paul Thomas Anderson) and such an amazing cast make such a horrible film?” Then I spent the next part thinking, “I’m at The Westside Pavillion. I could leave right now, tell Alan I’ll meet him in a couple of hours and get those shoes.” And then I thought, “Oh, my GAWD. I am having the experience of a juror in a poorly conducted trial.”

Of course, that is when I got interested in learning something over the two hours there were left of the film that might be helpful to those of you who read this blog.

Let’s start with the most extreme issue. I could not follow the plot. Once in a while I thought I could – but then I couldn’t. And it went on and on and on and on senselessly for way over two hours. How many jurors have told me over the years that they were clueless as to what was going on?

I disliked Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character. But I really really really hated the main character, played by Joaquin Phoenix. There was nothing interesting or redeemable about him. He was weird and creepy and I wanted to spend absolutely no time with him at all. How many times does a criminal defense lawyer make the wise decision not to put on the accused? How many times has a civil lawyer said, “The jurors hated our guy. Of course they poured us out.”?

I am crazy about Amy Adams. I felt sorry for her being a part of this mess. But then I thought, “Girlfriend – read the script the next time.” How often do jurors say, “I felt sorry for the witness, but, really – she must have gotten into this mess all by herself. I sure can’t help her out of it. Too bad.”?

Yes, gentle reader – I stayed instead of getting those shoes because I felt the horror that I hope your jurors never ever feel when sitting in a courtroom while you are trying a case.

Just follow the tip. You don’t have to see this one, trust me.

TIP:  Don’t confuse the jurors, make them angry, and otherwise make them hate you.
 
 

From Katherine:

Now that the dust is cleared and we are all moving on, I wanted to tell you what I was thinking Tuesday night during Mitt Romney’s Concession Speech: “Wow – he is like the most improved witness ever!” A comparison of the Mitt of the campaign and the Mitt of Tuesday night is like the difference between a witness before being prepared and a witness after.  Here are some great things he did:

He was Real. This is something that I work on with witnesses again and again and again. Remember how forced and not himself he was in so many speeches and debates? The campaigning Romney reminded me of so many witnesses who stop acting like themselves and start acting like other people during the stress of testifying. Tuesday night, the real Romney appeared. Warm, compassionate, a real and regular guy. That is always a goal for which to strive as a witness.

He was Connected. He not only connected with everyone in that room, he connected with the American people who were watching him. Getting a witness to understand the importance of connecting with the jurors is almost always a big task. Witnesses often think the connection is between themselves and their attorney or opposing counsel. Far from it. It is always with the jurors.

He was Gracious. The time for negative campaigning was clearly over. He didn’t treat his opponent like the enemy. The same is true for a witness on the stand. Don’t fight opposing counsel – let your lawyer and the jurors do that. That is their job, not yours.

He was Humble. Not humiliated – humble. There is a big difference. Getting a witness to be humble rather than defensive is a major task in many cases. Many people’s attitude toward the other side begins with the phrase, “How dare you –.” Instead, the attitude toward the jurors needs to be, “Thank you so much for being here.”

Whether he was your guy or not your guy, if you are an attorney and you put witnesses on the stand, you can learn a lot from what Mitt Romney did on Tuesday night during that speech. And so can your witnesses. I’m planning on using him as an example for a long time.

Katherine:

 
One of the best things about being so busy with performance and travel this summer is catching up on movies in the hotel room and the airplane that I didn’t get to see when they were released. I clearly remember seeing the trailers for Darling Companion and whispering to Alan, “I am SO there!” Of course, then, when it hit the big screen I wasn’t. Funny how I always think I screwed up and missed a film instead of thinking, “Wow, that sucker must have been pulled after being on the big screen for about 26 seconds.”

So…why was this sucker only on the big screen for about 26 seconds and what is the big lesson for lawyers about the short lived release? Why would something created by Lawrence Kasden and starring Diane Keaton, Kevin Kline and Dianne Wiest only be out for 26 seconds and what should you learn from that?

Pretty quickly into this movie you realize that this is sort of The Big Chill revisited 30 years (yikes!) later. A series of disparate stories united by a common thread. And yet…it is amazingly unsuccessful. More disparate than united. It is really three pretty interesting separate movies forced into one film. Whoops.

It reminds me of cases that are tried as rubber stamps of one another. Cases tried by “specialists” in a certain kind of law (pick ANY specialty) as rubber stamps. This is not only a bad idea in the movies (you actually CAN’T recreate The Big Chill today) but really a bad idea when trying cases. I know I have said this in other reviews of other films…but…it is still a point worth embracing.

What is unique about this case? How is it not just like all your other cases? And, what is the main story for crying out loud?

TIP: Are you trying them one at a time – and uniquely?