Is Leo Frank Sympathetic? (I didn't think so from the Donmar recording)

I can't tell if it's just the Donmar recording (and I didn't get this impression from the OBC - but there isn't much Spoken dialogue), but is Leo Frank an unsympathetic character? The way he went on about being in a cell and having doctors' instructions about nutrition etc....it just seemed a bit bratty.

I don't want to add this to the list of trolling threads e.g. about LuPone and Caroline, or Change being overrated and Mormon being hyped, it's a genuine question :P.

---

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 07:14 AM

He is an unsympathetic character. However, my feeling, when seeing it at the Donmar, was that even when we begin to realize that he may not be guilty of the crime, he really doesn't help his case with his high-handed attitude - that adds to the tension of the piece.

I don't think he is unsympathetic, he's human - he's a fully fleshed person not a symbol or an icon and he has his dark side. It's one of the things that makes the show so powerful - we can sympathize with him without necessarily liking him. The actor in the London production, Bertie Carvel, brought that out more clearly than I think Brent carver did in the original production.

As to whether or not he did the crime, the show comes down pretty firmly for not guilty.

---

That's one problem I have with the musical, it makes Leo Frank into someone like Woody Allen. According to accounts he wasn't really like that, though he did come across as nerdy and anxious.

But then that also plays into my basic issue with the musical, which is that it entirely overemphasizes the role of Frank being Jewish in the case.

---

OK, here I go on my soapbox ...

Well, if you are Jewish, you know about the story. It is seen as the American version of the Dreyfus affair, with many asking would he have even have been suspect but for him being Jewish? Would the investigation been allowed to proceed in the way it had if a white man had been accused?

I can tell you that as someone who grew up as a reform Jew in a very tolerant part of the country, I still felt the "otherness" associated with being Jewish. In the South (I have worked in Arkansas) it was otherness on Steroids. (when I mentioned that I was Jewish, someone actually said to me "I know one of them").

So, I think the story, the suspicion, and the willingness to believe he to be the monster accused is specifically related to his "otherness." I do not think the story can be told without recognizing that many believe he would never have been charged but for his faith and his "otherness". The willingness to believe despite the flimsy evidence what he was accused of only happens if you play to people's bias and prejudice. So, his faith has to be a major part of the story - and reiterating that he is different is important throughout the story to justify how he is treated.

In real life, Frank was later pardoned, as it became clear that testimony used to convict him had been based on perjury.

For the record, many Jews fled the state after his death and his hanging was the motivation for the development of the Anti-Defamation League. (Who I do not always agree with).

It also seems like a very timely story will all of the anti-Muslim hate going on.


OK, off soapbox.

Great thread, qolbinau.

"In real life, Frank was later pardoned, as it became clear that testimony used to convict him had been based on perjury."

No exactly true, YWIW (always loved your screen name, btw). Frank was denied a pardon around 1984. In 1986, he was finally pardoned, but was not exonerated. He was granted his pardon on the basis that the state of Georgia had failed to protect him from a lynching mob.

"With what the actor is given in the libretto, it's easy to make him unlikable and fussy to the point that he's unsympathetic, but it's also easy to wring the tears out of the audience and really get them on his side."

I actually do agree with this, alice. Leo sings lines like "These men belong in zoos" referring to the Georgians he lives and works with. I agree with the others (particularly Mallardo's post) that say Leo begins as an unsympathetic character but gradually does become sympathetic as he grows more fearful and closer to his fate.

"But then that also plays into my basic issue with the musical, which is that it entirely overemphasizes the role of Frank being Jewish in the case."

For beginners it's a musical, not a history lesson. Literary license was taken to a degree, but in any case, I really don't agree with you. His Jewishness was a huge factor in his conviction. Had Frank been a Southern Baptist, the case would have a very different ending (imho). Jim Conley, the black superintendent who was the chief witness against Frank (and in all likelihood, probably the actual culprit in the case) would have been convicted instead.

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 01:27 PM

His Jewishness wasn't as big of a factor as people think. There were Jewish people on the jury. And the "Frank is innocent" camp was just as driven by prejudice because they didn't believe that a white man could commit the crime. The protests that the conviction was rooted in anti-Semitism only further alienated the Georgians and provided fodder for people like Tom Watson to claim that a murderer was able to cry victim because he was Jewish. Of course, Watson and a few others were undeniably anti-Semitic.

Frank was convicted because of a botched investigation, yellow journalism, and his lawyers using a personal defense when his character was not on trial. It was also a reaction to the industrialization of the South. Mary Phagan represented southern innocence and she supposedly died at the hands of a Northern factory boss, who represented everything the Southerners resented and hated. Her murder and alleged sexual assault confirmed the fears of the Atlantans that industrialization would bring corruption and misery. Parade does try to capture this aspect by tying the Civil War into the story.

I know it's a musical, not a history lesson, but IMO they made it look so obvious that Frank was an innocent American Dreyfus that it oversimplifies the matter and misrepresents the real issues in the case. Even now there are still plenty of people who believe Frank was guilty, and not just because he was Jewish. I understand they don't want the court scenes to be boring, but there are a lot of little choices they made throughout that they could change, IMO. One of them being the portrayal of Leo Frank and the idea that he disliked living in Georgia.

---

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 01:44 PM

I'll have to look it up and get back to you. I remember for sure that Mary Phagan Kean always mentions that, but she's not a trustworthy source IMO.

---

"I'll have to look it up and get back to you. I remember for sure that Mary Phagan Kean always mentions that, but she's not a trustworthy source IMO."

Yes, please do get back to us on that, Spork. The only mention I can find of jewish jurors (on the grand jury) in the Frank case are in incredibly racist screeds full of misspellings. I'd also be interested in your citing for this statement:

"Even now there are still plenty of people who believe Frank was guilty, and not just because he was Jewish."

Also this:

"Frank was convicted because of a botched investigation, yellow journalism, and his lawyers using a personal defense when his character was not on trial"

His character was absolutely on trial. Witnesses testified that he had sex with young girls in his office. That he was a homosexual (which begs the question as to why he was having sex with girls in his office, but never mind that). That he went to a whorehouse with a girl to rent a room. These are courtroom documented facts. I'm looking forward to your citations for just about everything you've written about this case, because right now it sounds like you're basing your facts on some things you've simply heard about, and on your only citation is someone who you yourself doesn't think is a trustworthy source.

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 03:01 PM

Well, the "Frank was guilty" people I've seen aren't famous--they're just people I've argued with via message boards and email. The one I'm mainly thinking of cites evidence that Leo Frank bought his wife chocolates not long before the murder, mentions Albert McKnight's affidavit, and argues that Mary Phagan's cause of death was by strangulation and not a head injury, which Frank could have done.

I admit that I can't find a citation from Oney, which is the only source I have on me at the moment. He does list the jurors, but I can't find information about their religions. I have other books (including Dinnerstein's work) but they're at my parents' house back in my home state so I can't refer to them at the moment. I will concede on that point, and I apologize for the error. It has been a while since I've read these books so it's possible I mixed sources in my head.

Because I don't have all of my books I also can't find a citation about the character trial. I did find Slaton claiming that the defense introduced it into the trial in his commutation document (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankclemency.html).

I wasn't trying to say that anti-Semitism wasn't present at the trial, just that the issue wasn't as black and white as Parade makes it seem.

Edit: Wait, I found something else. From an interview with the maker of "The People vs. Leo Frank", Ben Loeterman (http://www.forward.com/articles/106027/):

"The defense made errors of commission by bringing in lots of people from New York, which didn’t mean a damn thing in an Atlanta courtroom, talking about how wonderful Leo Frank’s character was. They allowed the prosecution to end the trial by putting on a parade of girls who said, no, he had a bad character. He leered at us. He touched someone’s breast. That would have never happened if the defense had not tried to build a case around Frank’s good character. That was not good lawyering. Because of that bad lawyering, Frank’s appeals were denied."

---

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 03:38 PM

Do you think that I believe Frank was guilty? I'm definitely not saying that Frank was guilty. I completely believe that he was innocent, and I wrote a scathing review of Mary Phagan Kean's book on Amazon if you don't believe me. But I still think we should consider all of the arguments, outlandish as they may seem.

---

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 04:26 PM

I think we do need to at least listen to all arguments, YWIW, but Spork is now using quotes from a film maker, which definitely doesn't carry much weight with me as courtroom documents and other material from the time does.

"His Jewishness wasn't as big of a factor as people think."

I honestly don't know how you can say that.

"I completely believe that he was innocent"

I don't. I think it's quite possible he could have done it. I found the Donmar version of Parade far less interesting because they made Leo's innocence a near done deal.

Fair enough, ghostlight. I didn't realize the Donmar production made him look obviously innocent because I only have heard the cast recording. That's interesting.

---