The Trials has an eco-fascism problem.
There are spoilers ahead (although the play has finished its run).
Dawn King’s new play which has just finished its run at the Donmar Warehouse is set in a near future where a jury of children are asked to judge the climate crimes of their elders. Set over the course of 95 minutes we watch as ill-informed arguments are used to justify guilty verdicts for 3 accused climate criminals who are then put to death. And whilst the morality of such trials is addressed in the play, the ambiguous stance taken leans dangerously into eco-fascist rhetoric.
The in-text justification for the trials is two-fold. First we are witnessing expanded trials. The initial trials were of politicians, CEOs, and others who had the power to make change when it mattered (now!). The trials we witness are of anyone who met three criteria — they earned above the median income, produced more than their allotted annual carbon-budget, and were over the age of 18 on 8th October 2018 (the date of the IPCC special report on the impacts of 1.5 degrees of warming) — basically many normal people with limited power to individually change policy. So this first reason for the trials is one of justice and accountability, and it is fairly well explored in the text. Many debates are had between jurors Mohammad and Noah on the morality of holding these individuals responsible for systemic issues. Comparison is made to the Nuremberg trials and we get a suitably childish reductio ad Hitlerum argument, which in this instance isn’t a totally unreasonable one to make. Although Mohammad correctly argues that the Nuremberg trials only tried organisers and not everyday people, therefore akin to the initial trials and not the expanded ones we witness in the play, his opinion is treated as equally valid to Noah’s. Either way, this initial justification whilst dubious, would allow for insightful debate on individual vs collective responsibility.
Get Katie Jones’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Unfortunately this is muddied by the second in-text justification: overpopulation. Whilst not the focus, subtle reference is made throughout to the world facing problems over overpopulation and diminishing resources. This is a prominent eco-fascist talking point and is a myth. In actuality populations around the world are seeing falling birth rates, not accelerating ones. It is a myth that has been used by numerous mass-shooters to justify their actions, and underpins many arguments in favour of eugenics and genocides. It is troubling to see King set her play in a world where these arguments are deemed true. Defendant One is reprimanded as “selfish” by the jury for having three children in an anti-natalist argument that echoes Great Replacement rhetoric about immigrant communities having ‘too many children’. Although none of these talking points are used against marginalised communities specifically, they are still framed as legitimate arguments to make. Every character agrees overpopulation is an issue (although not all agree that the trials are the way to solve this). The play is set in the near future of our world. This means the take-away moral is, ‘in order to prevent this overpopulation scenario, you must not have children’. That’s a pretty bleak, pessimistic message.
The play is not blind to the political realities of the world in which we currently live. Defendant Two talks of being trapped within a capitalist system that removes her agency and therefore moral culpability. She, as well as the jurors, refer to capitalism (and our current political systems) in the past tense. As an audience we then presume that in the decade or so between now and then, climate breakdown has triggered a societal restructuring, and the world of the play is a post-capitalist world — and better for it. Phrases such as “it wasn’t like it is now” strongly suggest that despite climate breakdown, the world is a fairer and more just place. The youngest juror Zoe describes living in a commune (implied to be some kind of Leftist utopia) and yet also lives under an authoritarian government strong enough to implement the trials. This is a circle I just can’t square.
Ultimately the play is disappointingly pessimistic. As a playwright Defendant Two could be read as something of a self-insert for the author. She’s informed on the issues and wants to do her bit by writing plays on the climate crisis to raise awareness. And like her mirror in the play, King in this instance lacks the imagination to see a better future; to see solutions to the climate crisis and not just the seductive pull of doomerism. I do not believe this is at all intentional. It is hard to set a play in a future wrecked by the climate crisis without stumbling into these pitfalls. The play initially appears neutral on the moral questions raised by the existence of the trials, but ends up taking the position of the juror Thomasz — apathy caused by hopelessness. We need the radical creativity Defendant Two promised she would provide if found not guilty. I hope in the future we will have more plays that aim to grapple with the climate crisis, but please, let them have more hope.
A short aside.
Here is a brief review of the play beyond the politics of the text. Performances from the jurors were mixed — some really good (William Gao, Meréana Thomlinson, Honor Kneafsey) and some less so. It was an impressive stage debut for Heartstopper’s Joe Locke. Unfortunately many of the characters had limited development, and as a short ensemble piece there was little time for in-depth exploration. The production was simple but effective — the projection work being the stand-out from the creative side. The twist ending impacted me less than other audience members but was well executed. Overall 3 stars.
