Debate: Baldwin vs Buckley at Wilton’s Music Hall

A dramatisation of the 1965 Cambridge Union debate, Debate, unlike comparable reenactments of historical discourses, doesn’t frame the central discussion in a wider framing narrative, but instead simply presents its audience with a staged version of the original 60-minute televised dispute. In doing this, the arguments become the central focus of the play; no context is given, nothing upfront about the speakers – just their talking points.

The motion of the evening is “The American Dream Is at the Expense of the American Negro”. After some opening remarks by undergraduates Haycock (Christopher Wareham) and Burford (Tom Kiteley), Baldwin (Arnell Powell) and Buckley (Eric Miller) have roughly 30 minutes each to present their arguments. What the audience receives is a clash of titans, which highlights the possibility of civilised debate. Both Powell and Miller are excellent in their portrayal of their characters, speaking fluidly, persuasively, and with a great deal of charm.

In Baldwin’s now-famous speech, he emphasises the reality of systemic racism, pointing to the history of slavery and the successive oppression that occurred until the 1960s, drawing on many accounts, both personal and objective. He suggests that the responsibility ultimately lies with the American people as a whole, calling for mutual respect on both sides and a need for deep introspection.

Buckley’s response centres around the idea of gradual improvement as a result of the American Dream, criticises Baldwin’s emotional position, and condemns the opposition as wanting to tear down the foundations of society due to present-day horrors. He suggests that while there is racism enacted by individuals, it is up to the African American community to improve their situation – ie a call to inaction.

The moderation of the debate is represented by several video clips from the original NET recording. We’re thereby reminded that this is not, in fact, a live debate, but a piece of history; however, despite all that, the play still feels eerily modern. While the format itself seems to have resulted in more civilised discourse in the day, the arguments are still very much contemporary – as is the fact that, ultimately, both debaters do find common ground in their appreciation for the American way of life. The reality of the little progress that has been made since 1965 perhaps signals that while the debate rages on, we’re still falling short of actually listening to one another.