Photograph 51 (Anna Ziegler)
A few years ago I was at a dinner party, and some people were discussing… something. Trivia, nonsense, presidential stuff, who knows? But someone claimed to know a thing that was wrong, it had to do with how presidents pick vice presidents, how the party system worked, it was all inconsequential, really not necessary for living life well, but it was wrong. When challenged, she said she knew it because of Hamilton.
Now, Lin Manuel-Miranda knew that he was contorting history in his musical- he says so directly in the annotated version of the Hamilton script, but stories are like viruses and since this story said it was based on actual events, this woman knew something untrue.
As an exceedingly amateur historian and storyteller, I’m concerned about how people learn history through stories. It’s why we care more about presidents than the legislatures that actually accomplished things, it’s why we have trouble correcting historical inaccuracies, and it leads people to think they have proof of any number of things, simply because they remember a story which told them that.
Photograph 51 by Anna Ziegler is a mild danger in that regard, in that it is far more interested in telling a story than representing historical accuracy and it happens to be an exceptionally well-told story.
Critics would have you believe that it is the story of a woman mistreated and robbed of her place in history by misogynist institutions and attitudes. That’s not the play I read.
Photograph 51 details the tense working relationship between Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, two doctors researching DNA at King’s College. Franklin and Wilkins don’t work well together, whether it is due to her coldness or his unyieldingness is the wrong question. They are counterpointed by their colleagues at Cambridge, Watson and Crick who ultimately model DNA in the play as they did in real life.
At its heart the play is less demonstrative about the stultifying effects of sexism than it is about the magical progress which is made through cooperation. Wilkins and Franklin, in addition to not working well with each other and hardly sharing equipment, notes, or research, also don’t think to ask their colleagues about their own advancements. When Watson is spurned by Wilkins early in the play Watson finds Crick and the two make mistakes, even careless ones, but continue to push each other and to incorporate the research of others. They work as a team and it yields impressive results, our heroes fail to find a way to work with each other and their work, as well as the world, languishes.
Historically, Ziegler is upfront about playing with history to make a better story. She even notes that actors should not try to research the historical persons because there is too much she added or removed for it to be of use. The play, I think unfortunately, is not presented as such though, and although I loved the experience of reading it, and would thrill to watch it, I don’t know how much of what I read is true. I know a rather critical moment (Franklin’s assistant showing the photograph to Wilkins who later shows it to Watson) is fabricated and ignores historical developments which I think soften the anger some might feel for Franklin’s treatment.
Regardless, Anna Ziegler knows how to write tension and humor, and how to make subtle characters speak volumes with small, but potent, choices.
As a Producer
Although I could see myself (hopefully) writing something like this one day, the play is still more reserved than a traditional Pronoia offering. If we produced it it would almost certainly be part of us branching away from our core style.
