The People Versus Lenny Bruce

Tweet

The trials and downfall of groundbreaking 1960s counterculture comedian Lenny Bruce is a fascinating story judging from the success of Julian Barry’s play Lenny, Bob Fosse’s film version and a myriad of documentaries. Susan Charlotte has attempted to duplicate that success with The People Versus Lenny Bruce, adapted from civil rights lawyer Martin Garbus’ 1972 account of his part in the trial in the chapter of the same name in his book Ready for the Defense. Unfortunately, Charlotte has not followed the theater dictum to show not tell and too much of the play is devoted to the defending lawyer’s very flat delivery of not very interesting narration. Another major problem may be that the evidence presented in 1964 is no longer very shocking in 2026 and it now seems that it should have been an open and shut case for which Bruce was convicted.

The background to the trial is that comedian Lenny Bruce was arrested by New York police for public obscenity after his performance at the Café au Go Go on the night of April 1, 1964. To be historically accurate, Bruce’s act was considered cutting edge for that time and he was trying to push the envelope. The state’s chief witness was license investigator Herbert Ruhe formerly a CIA agent who read from his notes of the performance in question at the trial while Bruce was forbidden by the three-judge panel to perform his act for the court. Bruce was defended by famous civil rights lawyers Ephraim London and Garbus, but as the play is based on the latter’s account, only he appears in the play, acting as himself as narrator and lawyer and also impersonating the presiding judge in the trial.

While the witnesses presented in the play are colorful people, cartoonist Jules Feiffer, writer and television personality Dorothy Kilgallen, and the Reverend Forrest Johnson, their testimony is very similar. Each are asked by Richard Kuh, Assistant District Attorney for the State of New York, if they had attended Bruce’s performance at the Café Au Go Go in Greenwich Village on the night of April 1, 1964, if they approved of his language (i.e. four letter words which are now in common usage besides such phrases as “haul ass”), if they would use the same words, and if they thought his act was obscene. As a result, the play becomes very repetitious, going over the same ground over and over again.

We never get to see or hear Bruce’s act, “Pissing in the Sink,” except in the same bit which is read by Ruhe and repeatedly corrected by Bruce. Ironically, in 2026, it is no longer very explicit nor very funny. Although Bruce continually interrupts the trial to complain that the inspector is killing his act and repeatedly requests that the court allow him to present his act the way he does it in night clubs, Johnny Anthony as Bruce is given little to do. We get little of his personality which must have been a great part of his delivery. The series of dream sequences in which he gets to interrogate the witnesses add little to the play other than basically repeat what we have heard before.

Another problem with the play as directed by Antony Marsellis it that most of the actors give very flat performances so that the play is anti-theatrical even with what should be explosive material. As Martin Garbus, Stephen Schnetzer is either miscast or directed poorly as he is both lackluster and too matter-of-fact when he should drive the action. Ian Lithgow as Assistant District Attorney Kuh is totally lifeless and dull. True, his role is simply to question the witnesses but he needs more technique in order to vary his delivery.

As Dorothy Kilgallen, Roberta Wallach is precise in diction but devoid of personality which is difficult to believe of so famous a television personality. On the other hand, Timothy Doyle’s Jules Feiffer is quirky and idiosyncratic. As the chief prosecution witness, Dan Grimaldi is hilarious as the stoodge attempting to recreate Bruce’s routines but misunderstanding them. While Jonathan Spivey as the Reverend Forrest Johnson may be entirely biographical, it is very difficult to believe a man of the cloth would embrace Bruce’s comedy so completely in 1964. Anthony is fine as the swaggering, iconoclastic Bruce but we suspect that there is a great deal more he could do as the comedian if he was only allowed to by the script.

Josh Iacovelli’s courtroom set is convincing but the forward-facing furniture means that the actors have to take the same path on a stage each time they appear or leave. The costumes overseen by wardrobe consultant Olga Turka remind us how drab and formal business clothing was in the 1960s before the innovations of the hippies and other counterculture revolutionaries. Matt Berman’s lighting is suitable without any special colorful effects.

The People Versus Leanny Bruce is a reminder of social mores in a previous age. However, Susan Charlotte’s adaptation does not do the material justice. Nevertheless, it is not surprising to find out that the NY District Attorney wanted to make an example of Bruce because of the number of cutting-edge comics who were also challenging the status quo in that era. Antony Marsellis’ production could use some punching up in order to make the play more theatrical and exciting.

The People Versus Lenny Bruce (through June 28, 2026)

Cause Célèbre Productions

Theatre Row, 410 W. 42^nd Street, in Manhattan

For tickets, visit http://www.bfany.org/theatre-row/shows/the-people-versus-lenny-bruce/

Running time: one hour and 55 minutes without an intermission