INTER ALIA - Suzie Miller

It's been a big weekend for me regarding Suzie Miller plays. It feels a little like cramming for a test at the last minute, but it has its advantages. The details remain fresher in your memory and the writer's techniques, story telling devices and frames are easier to remember, to contrast and to compare.

The quick take... "Inter Alia" is a very good play. It's cleverly written and follows some of the same ground both in terms of style and message as "Prima Facie" while still being its own individual piece of theatre. I didn't like it as much as "Prima Facie", and so what you may ask. Each show is unique and independent of others, it's not a competition, comparisons are odious etc etc. It's just that playwright Suzie Miller has hinted that these two plays form the first two parts of a loose trilogy so making connections isn't that strange.

"I've looked at it from the complainant's side (Prima Facie), now from the family's side (Inter Alia)... the next one will be another portal again," Miller told the Guardian in September 2025. 

A couple of things. I do like the visual and philosophical link of using latin two-word phrases for these loosely related plays ... and as long as she can keep her hands off the latin phrase Vox Populi for the third part, she and I will have no beef. But even without Miller's acknowledgement that these are sort of companion pieces, a viewer would pretty easily come to the same conclusion. 

The opening, consisting of the lead character dissecting a court case from a specific viewpoint, could be a photostat from it's slightly older sibling, some of the loose festivity vibe carries over... but I'm getting ahead of myself. back to the play.

Inter Alia

"Inter Alia" is another legal drama from Suzie Miller whose combined experiences of legal background and training and writing serve her well for both ideas and process detail. Whereas "Prima Facie" is told from the viewpoint of a senior barrister, Inter Alia is told from the viewpoint of a judge... Jessica Parks.

We are given to understand that Jessica has a strong moral base from her exposition to the audience. She cares about the witnesses and tries to ensure they are not mistreated by the process. But she is also a conflicted parent, trying to manage a home life around professional career with all of the guilts and frustrations that can entail.

Early in the play she briefly suspends the case before her to answer an urgent call from her son, Harry, who is struggling with the almost unsolvable problem of not being able to find his shirt. She helps with that, and in the process of explaining away how she manages it all, she shares with the audience memories of parenting moments with young Harry.

Then it's back to the court case.

Jessica has a happy home life alongside who son and husband Michael, also a member of the legal profession. They are cosy-cute, enjoy each others company and appear to be reliable supports for each other. She is at times a bit of a nosy mum... nothing terribly weird about that... but she cares, it's evident and part of what matters to her.

The play gives us a bit of her fund side as well. Singing at a karaoke... rocking it out... and having some raunchy lounge-room connubials with hubby after a party at their home.

And then, it hits. The dramatic centrepoint of the play... and again, there will be spoilers.

Harry has attended a party... the girl he likes is no longer talking to him and apparently has been nasty about him online. Awkward stuff for a mum to navigate. But as that expands, we find that harry has been charged with the rape of this girl, and now we're of to the races.

The parents have slightly different takes on the matter and that leads to quite a bit of tension. While Jessica loves and trusts her son unconditionally, she also wants to check if there is ANY chance his actions could be interpreted as rape... was consent gained unambiguously, did he treat the young woman respectfully. Dad, though not entirely on another page, wants to ensure that Harry is entirely covered from a legal perspective, not wanting to dig too deeply for the finer details.

As the investigating and legal proceedings continue, eventually news services link Jessica with the sons case and there is plenty of questioning through the media... traditional and social...on whether she is a fit and proper person to adjudicate over legal matters. But most difficult is a heart to heart she has with her son.

My thoughts

Again, it's a very good play. The subject matter of consent and the vague adaptations people cloak that concept in is very much part of a crucial ongoing current conversation. The TV series "Adolescence" handled it brilliantly... the idea of a young man charged with a horrible crime, and parents trying to find ways to accommodate that information into the young man they know. And sadly the answer is simple... rapists, predators and abusers can be and often are people that appear in other ways quite nice.

But I have to admit that I am stuck with this comparison in my head between "Inter Alia" and "Prima Facie" which I know is unfair and irrelevant, and they are two different plays, and comparisons are odious, yada yada yada... and I think my thoughts on this are actually useful in my assessment of this play.

Firstly, I saw "Prima Facie" live in a wonderful theatre amidst audience reactions that elevated the experience. Possibly that provided an unfair advantage.

Also, there were tropes and methods and story telling techniques in "Prima Facie" that I noticed again in "Inter Alia", meaning they were fresher and more novel and more able to spring surprises in the former than in the latter. If I'd seen "Inter Alia" first, it may have been a different story.

And the third point that comes to mind is the performance. And just like comparing plays, how do you compare actors. You're Gandhi was so much better than that guy's Goering? A good part can do so much and I thought the part of Tess was a better part than Jess (yes, I noticed that quirk too... I'm expecting Bess or old Cec in the final part of the trilogy).

Now, forgetting the "seeing it live part", I did find some parts of the format of the show a bit repeated, or unoriginal. As mentioned, the blow by blow dissecting of things happening in the court room is in both shows, and obviously I found it fresher the first time around in "Prima Facie". 

Also, from seeing the earlier of Miller's plays, I was more focused on the seemingly unimportant background information and how, like Chekhov's gun, it was never wasted and would come back. The party? Why aren't you and your girlfriend talking? The scratch? I'm not Sherlock (no shit) but I saw it coming a long way off and began to intellectualise (not always a good thing mid-play) how that was the intent of the play, to present a similar story from a different perspective. That guessing where it's going thing is not necessarily unwanted but I enjoyed being snuck up on the first time around.

And this part I feel a bit guilty saying. I'm a big Rosamund Pike fan (my stand out memory was from "World's End", "Wrath of the Titans" and "Gone Girl") but I didn't love her in this role. And, AGAIN, it's partly by comparison with Sheridan Harbridge from "Prima Facie", and they're different roles, for God's sake, and different bloody plays and who the hell am I to sit in judgement of such a wonderful actress.

I just don't feel she delivered enough variance in the light and shade department. Very god in the frantic, worried, stressed shade area. A bit les sin the light. And yep, "Prima Facie" offered quite a lot of quirk, and sass, and fun and Sheridan absolutely chewed it up. But there's also moments in the "Inter Alia"... the karaoke, the couch-sex sessions, where I didn't get the same sense of letting go and vulnerability or the connection with the audience to the same degree.

BUT what do I know. No doubt the playwright's vision and intent was to not show a carbon copy of Tess, and a more harried and put-upon professional woman/mum and she nails that.

They ARE very different plays. "Inter Alia" is NOT a one hander, with hubby and son also in the scenes. The stage has a bit more going on and is less stark and finite. The sound is completely different with a bit more rocking out going on. It addresses such an important topic and, like Adolescence, drums it home more effectively by taking a seemingly clean living "nice " boy from a nice home and revealing the horrible thing he did. And I feel guilty for finding fault in it but the simple fact is I didnt walk away as wowed as I did with "Prima Facie" so this lengthy collection of words is largely trying to figure out why.

I would definitely pay to see it live, and definitely reckon it could be delivered brilliantly in Goulburn.

Materials accessed

• "Inter Alia" - pro-shot video (2025) - Available upon subscription on National Theatre at Home.

PRIMA FACIE - Suzie Miller

Just under 24 hours ago I saw this play live at the Ros Packer Theatre in Sydney, and it was amazing.

I am going to try and stick to my resolution of much shorter blog posts but that still leaves a bunch of things to say.

Firstly, I want to mention this in passing. It was my first visit to the Ros Packer Theatre and out of it, The Wharf Theatre and the Belvoir, it's easily my favourite, at least in how it's configured and how the others were when I saw them. It's a traditional theatre orientation and it turns out that's my preference. I think.

But to Prima Facie

Some background

Prima Facie started it's life in very recent times (2019) at the Stable Theatre in Sydney. That original production was directed by Lee Lewis and starred Sheridan Harbridge in the lead (and only) role and the show was a big winner with the Awgie (Australian Writer's Guild) Awards..

From there the play continued to gain momentum and popularity. It toured Melbourne, then Adelaide and then Perth. It then took wing and was performed at the Harold Pinter Theatre on the West End with Jodie Comer playing Tessa and THAT production won Best Play and Best Actress at the Olivier Awards, and Best Play, Best Actress an Best Graphic Design at the WhatsOnStage Awards.

It then went to Broadway (again with Jodie Comer who won Best Actress at the Tonys and a bunch of other awards). Despite being only seven years old, it has already been performed in over 50 countries and in more than 30 languages.

I say this up front to establish that the play is worth assessing not only as a great Australian play, but a great modern play full stop. 

The Play

Prima Facie is a one woman play told from the perspectives and experiences of top flight barrister Tessa Ensler.

Two things that hit me instantly. Tessa is confident, she's fun and she's sassy, and the sound design absolutely pairs beautifully with the spoken word and deliver... each beat emphasised and underscored.

As with most if not all one handers, the story involves fourth considerable/total wall breaking. Tessa is talking to us. It starts with her divulging the tricks of her craft... the ways she lures unsuspecting witnesses into giving up information that they have no interest in giving up and which can potentially cause them nothing but grief. It

It's a tactical process akin to fishing... allow a bit of line, pull in a little, and let it play. She feigns confusion to lull a little extra misplaced confidence, does her best to appear non-threatening and easily overlooked, and then... POW. A master class I would imagine for up and coming barristers and certainly a riveting Ted's talk for a willing audience.

And so it goes for almost the first hour of the 90 minute play. It's like a day in the life, or a few weeks in the life of barrister Tessa. Her family life, her professional goals, her loves and dating misadventures... it's bloody engaging and entertaining just on that level... even if something more didn't lurk just around the corner.

But something did lurk. And this next bit is a spoiler I guess, although most promotions make it clear that this is a central topic of the play.

A date moves rapidly from consensual sex to forced and painful rape turns Tessa's life upside down. The date, a guy she liked and had already had sex with before, is a workmate. She is torn about whether she should report the case to police, knowing it will be complicated by previous consensual sex, by the fact it is a workmate... and mostly by the fact that she knows first hand how tough the system is ... how tough she has PERSONALLY made it for those who have experienced, and claimed sexual assault.

The play completely changes gear at this point... and if you are like me and walked into the play with no knowledge of the subject matter, it is a powerful switch and suddenly all of the previous advice about how she has tripped people over, how she liked this guy... so many elements become clearly more than accidental and interesting story telling and crucial threads.

I that final section, screens in the background guide the audience between time zones in the trial with the simple words THEN, NOW and AFTER displayed. All the time with graduated soundtrack, adjusting to the moments and lighting that matched them equally. In a one hander, lighting and sound are almost characters and in this play they definitely displayed Tessa's experience around her.

Thanks to adjournments and other legal processes, It takes Tessa 760 days to finally have her case heard. Things DO become difficult at work. Tessa finds herself doing so many of the things that she has critiqued clients doing. She over-speaks, becomes emotional, and the biggest crime of them all, becomes confused and unconvincing.

And the big whammy comes in the form of the motive the defence lawyers accuse her of. I don't want to spoil that one.

My thoughts

This is a stellar performance and it is so bloody enjoyable knowing that the actress, Sheridan Harbridge, and the director, Lee Lewis, have been given the chance to present a show that they originated and that since has become renowned and beloved. I imagine it's a very different experience to presenting it when it was largely unknown and finding its feet.

I know there are phrases that are overused in theatre, and I know that I am an occasional offender, so here I go again.

The phrase tour de force gets used a lot but I felt the term was apt for Sheridan's performance. She is SO fun and sassy... so engaging... then so hurt and vulnerable... and these are the tasks of actors and certainly in one person shows that demand a range of emotions and levels, that's probably expected... but if you're asking what I saw... I saw a master performance that dragged me inside emotionally and left me in awe of the actresses ability.

And I think Suzie Miller is an incredible crafts-woman. Her dialog is so rich with genuine vernacular, but also with legal terms that I don't personally understand but started to understand through her usage. Her creation of a flawed, almost arrogant but at all times likeable character is no mean feat and when the big hits come... what happens to Tessa, and then the experience of the courtcase... the room seemed unitedly stunned with emotion by the end. God I envy her brevity with dialog and clever plotting.

I do not in any way wish to diminish the work of the director and other creatives, but I felt the combination of Miller's script and Harbridge's performance complemented each other six ways to Sunday. There were plenty of Standing O's at the end of the play and it's subject matter was truly moving and stayed with... well certainly me but I suspect a great deal of the audience.

I am a sucker for two word play titles in latin (IYKYK) but irrespective of that, I liked this play so much that i think many of the renowned and established "great plays" will have their jobs cut out for them to move me more.

Could it work in Goulburn? It's worked in over 50 countries so abso-bloody-lutely. 

The version I have been referring to is currently showing at the Ros Packer Theatre from 3 June to 21 June 2026, and is presented by the Sydney Theatre Company.

THE CRUCIBLE - Arthur Miller

I feel very fortunate to have studied "The Crucible" back in Year 10 and again for the HSC in Year 12. I thought then, and have continued to think that it is in my top three favourite pieces of literature of all time... along with "Catcher in the Rye" and "Catch 22" (something about starting with the letter C perhaps). And I have seen the Daniel Day-Lewis movie since, but aside from that, haven't looked back in on the work as either a piece of writing or a performance. So I've anticipated going back to this play and seeing if I felt it still stands up.

In a word... Yes.

In its original context, Arthur Miller wrote this as a searing indictment of the Communist "witch hunt" being conducted by Senator Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. Even a hint of having communist tendencies, or sympathies, or even conversations ... or not even that, even the hint or suggestion of any of those things could call you before the Committee. People were required to name names, and the pressure on careers and the potential for incarceration was such that people were encouraged into even making up names, and falsely pointing the finger at other parties... often innocent parties... to ensure their own safety.

And a great way to provide an analogy for these metaphoric witch hunts was through a story about the actual witch hunts of Salem in 15th century America. It's great grist for the dramatic mill, and Miller didn't simply take the vague idea of the witch trials but his researched delivered a story based on the actual names and specifics of a brief but disgraceful chain of events that resulted in 30 people were found guilty of witchcraft and 19 of those hanged. The use of real names and real outcomes adds an even more sickening depth to the story.

So let's get to the play.

The Crucible

It's the late 1600s in puritan America and the town of Salem is a particularly pious and publicly Christian community. And, as luck would have it, it's a time when a number of crop and animal related issues occurred. Work of the devil? Let's put that on hold.

It's also a time in which some of the young and allegedly head strong girls and young women of the community have been capering and dancing in the woods at night (oh my stars!). Some have even made daring statements about being able to create poultices and potions with profound effects. Which leads to more base level naturist experimenting, and then to accusations of witch craft against others and so on.

So, with crops, and herds, and even newborn births experiencing a statistically higher than usual rate of failure, some scientifically challenged but religiously enhanced members of the community, particularly the more pious ones, are quick to attribute these outcomes to witches. It couldn't be nature... God wouldn't forsake them... it must be the devil. And from there, evidential outcomes weren't even essential. Accusations began to be accepted as proof, and even accusations of strangeness, or difference, or insufficient church attendance were levied at people and weaponised.

Into this situation stumbles average-joe farmer, John Proctor. In the midst of the "you're a witch" hysteria sweeping the town, John's wife Elizabeth Proctor (or Goody Proctor, short for Goodwife) sacks a young maid, Abigail Williams, who it is subsequently revealed John had slept with while his wife suffered a lengthy illness. John admits this to his wife, and his remorse at this out of character lapse and his complete self-disgust, and that might have been an end to it. Abigail is sacked but still harbours feelings for Proctor, mixed with a will for revenge.

But as the story starts, ten year old Betty Parris lies in bed, dreadfully ill and being tended to by the families West Indian slave Tituba. Betty's father, local preacher Samuel Parris had busted Betty along with some other towns girls and Tituba dancing naked in the forest and involved in some pagan practice. Preacher Parris puts one and one together... and he questions the ringleader of the girls, his own niece Abigail Williams, who denies all allegations. The preacher isn't buying it and brings in first witchcraft expert and Puritan preacher Reverend John Hale to investigate, and then as the situation careens out of control, Judge John Hathorne and Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth.

There are a lot of engaging story threads running through the play as it gains momentum. Their is Abigail’s desire not to be found out for exaggerations and false witness, and so she orchestrates an apparently convincing display alongside other girls in court that apparently demonstrates how they were being controlled by spirits, and specifically those controlled by Tituba. Tittuba, threatened with the blame for all, initially holds strong to her truth that she had no involvement before pressure leads her to say what the court wishes to hear.

There are many other story elements but I’m rushing this a bit. The one that is central to my appreciation of the play is John Proctor, having realised he has fallen short in his own measure of integrity, that when offered a chance of freedom if only he’d sign a document alleging false claims against others, that he could not put his names to lies… even though making that stand would see him killed.

The versions I saw

Because I’m a bit rushed I’ll limit these descriptions. The two pro-shot versions I saw were surprising different given they worked from the same script. One of the key differences were the portrayals by the two actors… both very enjoyable but with significantly different choices.

The 2014 version from the Old Vic starred Richard Armitage as Proctor in a production that earned the show Best Revival at the Olivier awards, and earned the lead best Actor. It’s a very powerful and brooding delivery, probably in keeping with many previous portrayals. Armitage’s Proctor is incredibly conflicted and over-wrought and the entire production carries a tone and a sound design that keeps it all feeling dark and foreboding.

Australia’s own (how I love saying that) Brendan Cowell took the lead in the 2023 production filmed at the Olivier Theatre production at the National Theatre. Cowell strips the role back and delivers a more put upon everyman, perhaps less dramatic and powerful and more an average man stumbling his way towards a moral decision. This version in general… and I’m not entirely sure of what elements contributed to this… seemed less ethereal and a slightly more easy to follow rendition of the script. Just a vibe. And Abigail in this version seemed less assured controller of events and more young woman caught up in her own lies and trying to panic-survive with ad hoc contrived solutions.

Both VERY good versions… I’d suggest watching both if you can.

My thoughts

While the writing and original performance of this play has a historical context in which it resonates particularly poignantly, it still hits (unfortunately) in the present day.

Hysteria, both genuine and performative, is used to sway public opinion and even legal results.

Mythical solutions (witchcraft in this case but in contemporary times, xenophobic stereotypes and minority blame attachment to name a few) are given as explanations to appease broad sections of the public while offering a blame and a scapegoat.

Related to that, authorities seek populist solutions, even ones they know to be untrue or flawed, as a way retain their positions and power.

And the better-late-than-never heroism of John Proctor… the decision to make a stand and live up to his ideals at great cost… is still a potent moral signpost especially in any period of tough times when rights are eroded and unreasonable punishments are meted out.

As I said, I am especially lucky to have studied this twice during secondary school as it gave me a guided tour through the themes, but I’d like to think any reader or audience member could make those connections through their own viewing or reading of the play.

Is it’s message timeless? Maybe. It is certainly as relevant today as when it was written, and who can say if that will continue. Is it still one of the great plays. I haven’t changed my mind… this is still one of the greatest plays I have seen, read or studied. While it covers a past event, its portrayal of an even older event help to unmoor it from a fixed point in time so that it remains an allegory to any time in which “witch-hunts”, scapegoats, mob mentality and hysteria take root.

I realise that there is a play called “John Proctor is the Villain” in which the character is re-evaluated, with special consideration to the fact he was a predator and child abuser for starters. Well, he was, wasn’t he. Can’t argue with that. I haven’t seen the show and don’t know much about it other than my guesses, so I can’t really argue or agree with the points it makes. But I understand the central idea of that play and agree the central character could do with a bit of post-modern revisiting and deconstruction and I do not seek to defend him or justify his bad acts because of his final good deeds. And of course it’s worth remembering "The Crucible" this is a fictionalised depiction of real-life characters and real-life events.

So, WITHOUT focusing on John  Proctor (real or fictional) per se, the trope of a flawed person finding their integrity at the last is not new. I think it was even borrowed from this work and used in stories like the French film “The Return of Martin Guerre” and its American retelling “Sommersby” in which a flawed man returns home, faking to be someone else, and then making a decision to be put to death as a good man rather than live as the bad man he was. It’s French so it’s complex, but you get the gist. One grand heroic act as a means to redemption. And that ELEMENT of the story remains powerful and still rings true even if more thorough assessments of Proctor indicate he was considerably more than just a little flawed.

Miller’s decision to tackle a contemporary problem with a piece of work that endangered his career has in it some echoes of John Proctor’s decision to make an integrity based stand. I suspect the very people he was critiquing weren’t even fully aware this piece was about them. While I have already stated that “All My Sons” showed Miller’s capacity for dialog and intricate dovetailing plotlines, I feel this work will continue to attract more and greater currency due to its ongoing application to modern but seemingly unchanging times.

I’ve rushed the end of this blog a bit, particularly the summation of the play, because real life is dragging me elsewhere, but I do want to emphasise this IS one of the truly great plays and would not only work anywhere (including of course Goulburn) but I believe at any time.

Materials accessed

“The Crucible” - script (1953). Available many places but commercially and for free including this link from the Internet Archive.

“The Crucible” - pro-shot video (2014). Available by subscription on Digital Theatre.

“The Crucible” - pro-shot video (2023). Available by subscription on National Theatre at Home.