Rating: 
Summary: Great Play, Brilliant Philosophy
Review: Ayn Rand's philosophy is brilliant; anyone who fails to understand her deep love for the individual is a brute, no better than Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler. Ayn Rand herself said there is no greater minority than the individual. Anyone who opposes indiviudal rights cannot call himself a "humanitarian." Rand's play is a representation of such keen realism, or "Objectivism" as she termed it. When the play opened on Broadway 60 years ago it was a hit. The fast-paced court room drama captivated audiences. The play pits the individual against society, a new theme in literature that emerged with the onslaught of the 20th century in the United States. Rand runs with it. "Night of January 16th" is a short drama, a mere 60 minutes long, with dynamic, effusive characters, ranging from downtrodden individualists to arrogant collectivists. The play is a favorite for beginner actors for it gives them a range of emotions to exhibit. I highy recommend this play for high school or even community theater. Unfortunately, the topic of Objectivism may not be considered "politically correct" by many school districts throughout the United States these days. Individualism has become a "four letter word" in the mind's of the socialist elite which, sadly, make up a large part of America's academic infrastructure. It's just not "warm and fuzzy" enough for them. And there's a gun used in the play! Banish the thought! Oprah may not put Rand's "Night" on her book list, but that in itself if good enough reason to give it a try.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting play, though failing in its aim
Review: Ayn Rand's play "Night of January 16th" is a courtroom drama. A young woman, secretary and mistress of a famous, wealthy businessman, is accused of the murder of her employer, whilst trying to make it look like suicide. Although the question wether or not she is guilty is what is to be decided by the trial, the focus of the play is on the souls of the main characters: the businessman, his mistress, his wife, the wife's father and a few others. The conclusion of the play is the verdict by the jury. The main gimmick of the play is that the members of the jury are drawn from the audience, and so the play can end in either a guilty or a not guilty verdict. Like all of Ayn Rand's works, the play opposes individualists and originators against second-handers. As the preface states, the idea was that the jury should not decide on the grounds of the evidence, since that could go either way, but wether they would feel more drawn towards the character of the mistress (the individualist) than of the wife (the second-hander), or vice versa. As it stands, I don't think Rand succeeded. If this would happen in a real court, the story presented in defense of the mistress would be considered preposterous, and she should be either pronounced guilty on the basis of the facts, or not guilty because there is not enough evidence. Wether or not her character appeals to the jury shouldn't matter for the verdict, and I don't think it matters in the play. The conclusion of one of Ayn Rand's masterpieces, "The Fountainhead", is also a courtroom scene. In this scene, the jury is effectively asked to choose in favor of or against the soul of the protagonist, since the nature of his soul and the way society treats such a soul is his only defense. Something like that is what Ayn Rand probably meant but failed to do with "The Night of January 16th". However, it is certainly a captivating story with a few surprises, and I would very much like to see it performed. Of Ayn Rand's works it is probably the least interesting.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting play, though failing in its aim
Review: Ayn Rand's play "Night of January 16th" is a courtroom drama. A young woman, secretary and mistress of a famous, wealthy businessman, is accused of the murder of her employer, whilst trying to make it look like suicide. Although the question wether or not she is guilty is what is to be decided by the trial, the focus of the play is on the souls of the main characters: the businessman, his mistress, his wife, the wife's father and a few others. The conclusion of the play is the verdict by the jury. The main gimmick of the play is that the members of the jury are drawn from the audience, and so the play can end in either a guilty or a not guilty verdict. Like all of Ayn Rand's works, the play opposes individualists and originators against second-handers. As the preface states, the idea was that the jury should not decide on the grounds of the evidence, since that could go either way, but wether they would feel more drawn towards the character of the mistress (the individualist) than of the wife (the second-hander), or vice versa. As it stands, I don't think Rand succeeded. If this would happen in a real court, the story presented in defense of the mistress would be considered preposterous, and she should be either pronounced guilty on the basis of the facts, or not guilty because there is not enough evidence. Wether or not her character appeals to the jury shouldn't matter for the verdict, and I don't think it matters in the play. The conclusion of one of Ayn Rand's masterpieces, "The Fountainhead", is also a courtroom scene. In this scene, the jury is effectively asked to choose in favor of or against the soul of the protagonist, since the nature of his soul and the way society treats such a soul is his only defense. Something like that is what Ayn Rand probably meant but failed to do with "The Night of January 16th". However, it is certainly a captivating story with a few surprises, and I would very much like to see it performed. Of Ayn Rand's works it is probably the least interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Play
Review: Excellent Play. Great for use in High School or Community Theatre
Rating:
Summary: Night of January 16- performing
Review: First off I would like to state that I have not read the original Night of January 16. You see, my highschool (UG Wisconsin) performed this play just a few nights ago. I LOVED it! I played the part of Mr. Whitfield, the powerful father-in-law of the late Bjorn Faulkner. I felt that the way the jury is drawn from the audience, and the whole play is done within a courtroom brings excitement to the stage. The witnesses all add a piece to the puzzle, and in the end it is up to those viewing (or reading) to decide the outcome of the trial. It was one of the best experiences of my life, and I don't think I will ever forget it. I STRONGLY advise this script for performance, AND though I haven't read the original I DEFINATELY intend to.
Rating:
Summary: Diector's nightmare January 16th
Review: I am currently directing this play - opening on May 26th, 2000 at the Mayfair Theatre, Goodwood, South Australia. My first hassle is that I cannot locate the performing rights. Can anyone help? The remaining hassles are the clumsy language and bizzare interpretation of court room behaviour that Rand includes in her script. Granted that this was her first creative writing effort but really! Having done my homework and gathered as much material as possible about the writer I really can't like or admire this woman. Obviously Bjorn Faulkner, Karen Andre and their ilk are her heroes! Needless to say, this play is the company's choice - not mine. I intend, however, to ensure that our audiences enjoy the "theatre" of the piece by designing and setting the play adhering to the 1930's film genre for which it appears to be witten. A character(albeit deceased) called "Lefty" O'Toole indeed!
Rating:
Summary: I REALLY liked it, which is rare
Review: I saw this play performed rather than reading it. I found it quite entertaining but also provoking. The performance I saw was by a high school drama class of which I knew every actor. First a bit about the plot. I found the case presented very comedic on the parts of the prosecutor's witnesses and sympathetic by the defense. However, that could have had a lot to do with the direction of this particular performance. I thought for two reasons that the verdict should be not guilty and they are the following 1 - the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty. The evidence did not PROVE her guilty. 2 - As I saw it performed Andre and Regan held the audience in their hands, while the others were...entertaining. So for the sake of better acting and therefore, more convincing stories I thought they should let her off. It seems that was what they were judging in the minds of the cast and crew. Besides, a number of people had a motive and the playwright leaves that really open. The neat thing, and the more important thing, is that the physical evidence really doesn't matter. The play asks a few good questions, which makes it really fun. I like the philosophy that we never know enough information and can't trust people's testimonies to find the truth. We often judge the world on sympathies, which is not justice at all. It's a very good point and Rand makes it well. I definitely recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: I REALLY liked it, which is rare
Review: I saw this play performed rather than reading it. I found it quite entertaining but also provoking. The performance I saw was by a high school drama class of which I knew every actor. First a bit about the plot. I found the case presented very comedic on the parts of the prosecutor's witnesses and sympathetic by the defense. However, that could have had a lot to do with the direction of this particular performance. I thought for two reasons that the verdict should be not guilty and they are the following 1 - the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty. The evidence did not PROVE her guilty. 2 - As I saw it performed Andre and Regan held the audience in their hands, while the others were...entertaining. So for the sake of better acting and therefore, more convincing stories I thought they should let her off. It seems that was what they were judging in the minds of the cast and crew. Besides, a number of people had a motive and the playwright leaves that really open. The neat thing, and the more important thing, is that the physical evidence really doesn't matter. The play asks a few good questions, which makes it really fun. I like the philosophy that we never know enough information and can't trust people's testimonies to find the truth. We often judge the world on sympathies, which is not justice at all. It's a very good point and Rand makes it well. I definitely recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: For completists only
Review: I would like to preface this by pointing out that I am a great fan of Ayn Rand's writing and Objectivism. I'm even an ARI member. However, even with that level of fandom, I must admit that I was sorely disappointed with "NoJ16". If this work had been the first one I came across by Ms. Rand, I am not sure that I would have ever read any of her other books. While it does feature a struggle between individualist and collectivist characters, the struggle is not as well presented as in "Anthem", "The Fountainhead", etc. Furthermore, the story is cluttered with odd bits that detract from the main subject. For example, what relevance did the platinum mesh dress have? I don't see how it showed Bjorn and Karen possessed a superior sense of life. As a law student, I can testify (pun intended) to the inaccuracies in court procedures, but on the other hand this is intended as a fast-moving play. I don't think it would be fair to hold a 60-minute play whose primary purpose is a philosophical discussion to the same standards as a multi-hundred page novel which is intended to examine the working of a courtroom. And I thought the jury "gimmick", was quite clever; early interactive entertainment. Overall, I would recommend this play only to people who are already interested in Objectivism and even then only to "completists" such as myself. (I.e. those who are interested in assembling a library of all of Ms. Rand's published works.) This is a non-essential work for anyone else.
Rating: 
Summary: What an awful script
Review: I've played the prosecuting attorney in "Night," so I am all too intimately familiar with this pretentious, ham-fisted piece of dreck. The "philosophy" is insipid, the dialogue is stilted and purple to the point of self-parody, and the courtroom procedures are so wildly inaccurate that I doubt Rand even knew any lawyers. Even in the oeuvre of a writer as bad as Ayn Rand, this script stands out as a low point.
|
