Photograph 51
Our ASM communications ambassador Binod Rayamajhee, PhD Candidate, School of Optometry & Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine & Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia shares an interview with Anna Ledwich, Director of Photograph 51 by playwright/scriptwriter Anna Ziegler. Anna’s plays also include Dov and Ali, BFF and Variations on a Theme.
1951: The race is on to unlock the secret of everyone’s life. An ambitious young scientist, Rosalind Franklin, might hold the key to decoding DNA and have a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery within her reach. In a world dominated by men, a dedicated woman sacrifices her life in a relentless pursuit of science. Photo 51 is the nickname given to an X-ray diffraction image taken by Raymond Gosling in May 1952, under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin. X-ray crystallography, the technique Franklin used to produce Photo 51 of DNA, is a method scientists use to determine the three-dimensional structure of a particular crystal.
What have been your greatest influences to become the Director of the award-winning play Photograph 51? What are the things that influenced you most to direct this play?
I was asked to direct the play by Mark Kilmurry, who runs the oldest humble theatre here in Sydney, the Ensemble Theatre. And the play had its premiere in a very highly profiled early production, with Nicole Kidman playing the part of Rosalind Franklin. I was aware of the play but hadn't seen it when Mark sent it then I read it, and I was very struck by the story at the heart of it.
For someone who isn't hugely in the history of scientific discoveries, I knew about Watson and Crick as a pair of names connected to the discovery of DNA structure. I was very struck by the collegiate nature in which the discovery was made, but I always wondered how it got tangled up in gender politics. Perhaps the politics between different universities at that time, and individual ambition perhaps played the role. The idea I’d had of scientists studiously working towards the facts has been somewhat turned on its head by this play. When I realized that the pursuit of facts it can be colored by a person's individual character, working methodology, temperament, own sense of ego, and that touched everyone.
Additionally, the story of a really fascinating female character who was uncompromising, unwilling to change herself to fit into a hostile environment, and quite difficult for her to work with colleagues really dragged my attention. But perhaps she played a role of architect for that situation. So, the play possesses a lot of those questions in terms of how much was. The environment in which she worked; how much was her that led to this sense of her contribution being contested?
What made you want to direct a play about Rosalind Franklin who is also named, DNA’s unsung hero or the mother behind the DNA, what's the main thing that attracted you to direct this realistic play?
At the end of the day, theatre is about stories and it's all about human beings, it has to work on that level. And it's very drawn to the casts and the characters that have been chosen to be in the play. They are all very interesting and distinct and uncompromising in their pursuit of this goal, and in particular, being a woman and it having this woman at the heart of it is like she defines any kind of categorization. Additionally, she died so young, she hasn't had an opportunity to set the record straight in terms of her experience at that time. We've had multiple autobiographies from lots of the other participants from that time in the story, she is sort of unknowable. There are lots of reports of what she was like. The best part of the play is showing those bits of the puzzle together and to know why Rosalind Franklin behaved in that particular way, or perhaps someone else might, but she's just so fiercely as occupying her own space at the heart of it. So that was a big appeal for me, certainly.
What is the main message of Photograph 51: in praise of difficult women?
The main takeaway message from this play is about those last couple of years in the race to discover DNA structure, the secret of life. But the way in which the play is structured is it's being told from various viewpoints. You will see people lie in front of their conflict, they're contradicting each other and telling slightly different versions of events. And so, what I find fascinating as human beings is that we think we have an absolutely iron clad to recall the past and yet we discover that perhaps it is colored by our own agendas, and sense. The general understanding is that history is written by the winners and somehow this is being explored in this play. A story can be presented in many different ways, but can we trust that is the correct version of a particular event? So, what I like is that the play isn't saying this is the definitive version of that event in terms of putting words into Rosalind Franklin's mouth. Instead, she's acknowledging. We as human beings have this innate fellow fallibility. We can't control the outcome of the past in any way even our recall of past is flawed. And I think that's a really wonderful and slippery idea which is at the center of this play for me.
How was it challenging to select cast members for such a true story-based play? Amber McMahon is playing the role of Rosalind Franklin, so why did you select her? Have you selected based on rehearsal? Did you have any initial concerns about the casting?
Obviously, the cast aren't going to physically resemble the real-life characters, and there's always a choice that you have to make when you're creating a piece of storytelling based on real-life events. Do we go for absolute look alike so that people can hold up the photographs of the original person and see the similarity? Or is it about capturing the essence of the character that has been created by the playwright? Though it's based on historical events still it’s a piece of fiction and that's the important distinction to make. We have many characters such as Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, Francis Crick, and James Watson to name a few. The story has to be entertaining, accessible and enjoyable. So what I was looking for actors was they should fit briefly in terms of age. Additionally, theatre is a metaphorical space filled with metaphors such as chairs as mountains etc. So there's a degree of going, actually finding an actor who connects to the materials. It’s all about capturing the essence of the characterization that the playwright has made. So for me, it was about that essence of the character and whether the actor that walks into the room and auditions for that really captures it and gets it the rest. Then when you put it all on stage, you're saying to the audience this isn't a real laboratory, these aren't the real people, but what we want you to hear is the story. We want you to connect with the characters and their desires and needs. And that e is the most important thing for me to serve.
Which references, or scientists, did you consult for the turn of events surrounding the discovery of DNA covered in the play?
We’ve consulted with Dr. Chris Marjo from the UNSW, who has got a very long job title, but he has particular expertise in crystallography. His information was incredibly useful about the types of equipment, and processes used in the theatre as technology was reasonably rudimentary during Rosalind’s time. Additionally, archival information from King’s College in London, as well as videos, were very informative.
X-ray crystallography is an abstract technique, and directors often struggle with incorporating scientific details. Was it difficult to include the appropriate level of scientific detail into the story without making it too complicated for general audience?
There should be always a balance to be struck. In this play there are these long scenes of the laboratory where characters play their particular role. We’ve done a lot of rehearsal and will best perform but I'm sure that any scientists watching the play will take one look at the process and say that's not how you do it. It may be because of the way in which the play is set up is that we don't have enough time to be able to actually set up the full experiment or activities as in real. We've tried to be as specific as possible but people who work in the field are going to absolutely see that it's not done that way. It's not how it's to be done but then also the world of our play is not entirely naturalistic play. So hopefully we'll be forgiven for that.
Does Photograph 51 contain themes that you’ve explored before? Or does considering science in a play represent your main theme of “profession”?
No, this is the first time I've explored a play which is based on scientific discovery.
Scientists are often portrayed as inhuman or superhuman in play/fiction/movie, so how we can see casts in Photograph 51? Did you make a conscious effort to buck stereotypes?
I completely agree with this, and we were very conscious about it. This play is written in a very human way. In this play, we see them in terms of their flow, little moments of triumphs, pettiness, personal ambition and ego, and moments when they're acknowledging that they've got it wrong. I think that's what the real power of a play is showing human beings struggling with something keeping science aside. The play actually is all about successful pairing of Watson and Crick versus the very unsuccessful pairing of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. The humanity of the scientists is actually the most apparent in this play, and that's what makes it so compelling.
More generally, you – like many directors of fictionalized histories of famous scientists – have modified reality/originality. How does such fluidity help create the story you want to tell a broader audience?
Striking between balance is the key to any play. I think by presenting an unfamiliar and intriguing world, we can create an impact on those who see it. But that doesn’t mean immediately holding the audience at arm’s length. It’s the job of the playwright to strike the balance between providing information to the audience and also the job of us as the theatre maker is to try and strike that balance because you don't want an audience to feel that they're being patronized and being talked down because audiences are generally well informed and well educated about our whole range of topics. In the past I've done two plays from the world of finance; as we all know the world of finance has its own language, it has its own set of rules which are completely impenetrable. And my role as a theatre maker is to make the storytelling as clear as possible focusing broader range of audiences.
Would you direct about scientists play again in the future? Any plans in your pipeline?
I do not have any plans at the moment but of course, if I get an opportunity, I would be fascinated to direct plays about science in the future.
Who is your favorite scientist character in a work of literature/history and why?
I would just say Rosalind Franklin at the moment as she is a very inspiring character. And one thing that I find appealing about her is she is so difficult to grasp and is unwilling to be pinned down.
Photograph 51 plays at the Ensemble Theatre in Kirribilli until 8 October. Tickets are available here.
All ASM members can get discounted $60 tickets using code: SCIENCE