Customer Reviews

Night of January 16th

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

*As Amazon's scoring system won't allow for nuanced ratings, I'm going to bump the official rating up to 4 stars. But I really can only give this 3.5. Bear this in mind.)

This is one of Rand's earlier published works, and it shows. Her characters are bubbling with life and she doesn't feel the need to preach constantly. It is a success in many ways. Rand, firstly, is a good writer: I felt myself glued to the page, finding myself unable to put the book down. That only happens very rarely. I can only imagine how engaging it would be on stage with a competent production and decent actors. Rand, secondly, is a decent dramatist. The second act, in particular, ends with a real bang. Thirdly, Rand largely succeeds in developing engaging and distinct personalities.

Now to the faults! Firstly, the courtroom procedural is all wrong. I tend to get irritated when a writer does not do her research and depicts a courtroom setting like an amateur. Secondly, her 'heroes' seem like extremely unpleasant people. This seems to be during the stage when Rand was more enamored with Nietzsche than Aristotle (or Kant, however much she might want to deny it). As with many of her other characters, the people here are so stuck up that they make life harder for themselves than it really needs to be. Thirdly, the drama can quickly become melodrama. It alternates between being captivating and droll.

Is it Rand's best work? No. It has its faults. But if you're new to Ayn Rand, this is a great introduction (because one usually either loves Ayn Rand or one hates Ayn Rand; there aren't too many people who fall in-between. Why dive into one of her 700-1100 page novels when you don't really know what you're getting into?). And if you're already a Rand fan, I don't need to tell you to read this. Good read. Recommended.

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.

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.

Written in 1933, "Night of January 16th" is one of Ayn Rand's earliest works and in this work her writing style and philosophical ideas are not as well developed as in the works that made her famous, that is "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". "Night of January 16th" is a court-room thriller with a twist. Rand wrote two endings to this play, one where the defendant is found guilty, and one where the defendant is found not guilty, and a jury made up of audience members decides which is used.

The court case itself centers around Karen Andre, a woman who may have murdered her married lover or who may have merely been trying to stop him from committing suicide, when she was seen fighting with him on a 50th storey balcony. According to the play's introduction, written by Rand, the evidence for and against Andre is meant to be balanced, so that the verdict of the jurors is based on the juror's values rather than any solid evidence. After reading the play, I can't see how anyone could possibly have found Andre guilty and this has nothing to do with my values at all. Andre is clearly meant to embody Rand's philosophy and in my opinion, all of the evidence is stacked in her favour. However, according to Rand, when this play was performed only about 60% of juries voted for Andre's acquittal. Go figure.

This is not Rand's greatest work. If you are new to Ayn Rand, I recommend starting with either "The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged". However, if you have already read all of Rand's other fiction, this play is worth reading, even if only for the fact that it is a pretty interesting story and the gimmick of the undecided ending is cool.

Note that this play is also available in the omnibus edition: Three Plays, along with Rand's other two plays. People interested in this play may find the omnibus edition to be better value.

A trial with two different rulings in the murder by the mistress plays out Ayn Rand's philosophy of individual will and celebration of the person over "group think". While Anthem was more a manifesto and in-depth than this play, the night of January 16th is worth reading. Written as a play it moves from evidence to perception to judgments. Ultimately it is about what truth you buy ... one person's or the collective.

This would make an interesting play to be seen on stage. Night of January 16th is an interesting play with some controversial topics or situations. There is an alternative ending which would make it ideal for a high school or college discussion on the processes of morality and justice in law. I found this to be a very clever play. Well worth your time!!

We are performing this play at our High School(Davis High-Utah). We open on March 4, this coming Thursday. I play Magda Svenson, I love this character and I am so excited for this play. I am also excited to really actually ACT and show our school what we are made of. Every time we reahearse this play I love it even more. I ecspecially love Ayn Rands view of objectiveism, it is so cool. Thank you for this play and allowing me and my class to portray it to the best of our ability. Again Thank you and good-bye! From Hali Fifield

The author is a genius, and the logic is excellent. Each character's actions follow their conscious convictions. It is difficult to execute such logic unless the author is ruthless in depicting the actions based on the deep convictions of the characters.
The pedantic nature of the law courts has been subverted for the plot. I doubt whether a lawyer
could write such a compelling drama. Grisham is a pretentious amateur in comparison. The plot is the best feature, based on the logical consequences of the convictions held by the characters. This is definitely a book for anyone interested in Miss Rand's work.