Interview with Michael Gould who plays the defendant, Simon Davis

12 March 2017

Have you ever done anything like this before?
No. I’ve done a couple of drama documentaries but they’re more formally organised: acting jobs, with scripted scenes inserted into an informative documentary. It was when I realised I’d have to improvise through a two-week trial that I decided I was well up for it!

 

What did you see as your most important jobs as an actor here?

That the jury got enough to talk about. If they looked at me and thought “guilty” from day one, they’d spend half an hour in the jury room saying, he’s obviously guilty, look at his eyes!

 

How did you build Simon’s character up during rehearsal?

I worked on Simon’s past over two weeks, his history with his first wife, a timeline of his life and the day of the murder. Then we locked all that into evidence. The consistencies and inconsistencies were programmed into it. The result wasn’t a coherent or well-shaped document, because life’s not like that. Time is very elastic.

How would you describe Simon?
Obsessive. Quick to anger. Methodical. Cerebral. Kind. A good father. A caring person… He’s a good teacher who cares about young people in trouble and will go the extra mile for them.

How much direction did you receive on your performance during the trial?

I met with Kath [Mattock, director] for an hour at the end of every day’s filming to have a sort of debrief, which was invaluable. I’d talk to her about the case and say, “I want this to be given to John [Ryder] and Lucy [Organ].” Kath would say, “well, you give it to them as part of the story!” The thing had its own momentum – which was exciting.

When you’re that tired and worried about slipping up, character and actor must bleed into each other at times.

Staying focussed is a well-trained muscle because of all my theatre work. The worry about slipping up was there, but the formality of a court case gives you the structure to hang onto. Each episode of the trial gives you something to concentrate on. The preparation we did was sound, and I can’t remember being completely wrongfooted or silenced at any point.

How confident is Simon of an acquittal at the start?
Organically, intuitively, mathematically, he’s confident that he’s prepared, he’s got a good team and the evidence can only be circumstantial, so he will be acquitted. Although after the prosecution’s opening statement, I was very depressed until John reassured me that it was like reading half a novel. The legal process is narrative and counter-narrative. It’s fascinating.

How were John and Lucy to work with?
From the moment we met, I was Simon and they were my advocates and mentors. It was so nice to be wholly believed. Any anxiety I felt as Simon was, if not neutralised, then certainly diminished by their ability to comfort and reassure me. I always felt I was in good hands.

And how formidable were Max [Hill] and Michelle [Nelson]?

Totally terrifying. We never melted that. They were a complete mystery. And Max and Michelle have a particular demeanour, incredibly precise, incredibly rigorous, that added to that mystery. I thought, God, they’re locking down so much stuff that’ll do for Simon. That was incredibly intimidating.

How does Simon feel he is treated, having come through the process?
Was Simon given every opportunity to put his case? I think so, by and large. It’s a very pressured environment, so I could do without the gowns, the wigs, the class, and the glass box. By the end of the trial, Simon felt, if the verdict is in his favour, there can be no doubt he’s innocent. The more rigorous the prosecution case, the more innocent he becomes, if you like.

What did you get up to while the jury deliberated?
I wandered around, because Simon had to be available to go back in the courtroom. The jury were very diligent and came back with two or three questions, one of which was: what does reasonable doubt mean? Which was a really good question. Kath and I shot some stuff of Michael getting ready to play Simon, swapping wedding rings and so on. That was a useful distraction. John and Lucy had briefed me about the possibility of a third verdict, which was a hung jury. That had never even occurred to me! I was so isolated from the decision that by the time I got into the dock, I had no idea which way it would go.

 

How genuine was your response to the jury’s verdict?

I had nothing to prepare and I was genuinely exhausted. I thought: don’t smile if it’s innocent or cry if it’s guilty, just be natural. David Mamet says, just go into acting with an open heart and respond, and that’s what I did.

Having experienced the criminal justice system for two weeks, does it feel like a system in good working order?
Our jury were very diligent and took it seriously. If you have that level of diligence in a jury, the system works. If you don’t, I’ve got some big questions about it.

What do you hope The Trial will achieve?
I hope people ask themselves what a good jury is, what being on a jury means, what contribution could they make to a jury and how diligent could they be in that process? I’d hate to do jury service and think I hadn’t done my civic duty.