March 21, 2011: uOttawa theatre production fails as an exposé of antisemitism

By Michael Regenstreif

The Jew of Malta, a play written circa 1590, by Christopher Marlowe, is an ugly depiction of Jewish stereotypes that reflects the ingrained antisemitism of English society in the late-16th century, a time when there had been no Jews living openly in England for three centuries following the expulsion edict issued by King Edward I in 1290.

The title character, Barabas the Jew (named, no doubt, for the thief Barabbas, whose crucifixion sentence was commuted at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in the Christian New Testament), is a despicable caricature. Obsessed with money, he thinks nothing of committing both serial and mass murders. Barabas’ own daughter is among his many murder victims.

Playwright Marlowe was a contemporary of William Shakespeare and Barabas, apparently, inspired Shakespeare’s character Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Shylock, believe it or not, is actually a more sympathetic portrayal of a Jewish character.

I went to see the production of The Jew of Malta presented earlier this month by the University of Ottawa Department of Theatre Drama Guild. The uOttawa production was subtitled The Ugly Face of Antisemitism and, presumably, the play was chosen to expose how ugly, irrational and senseless antisemitism is. Ironically, and most probably coincidentally, the performance dates coincided with Israeli Apartheid Week, a campus event that many feel perpetuates antisemitism as a by-product of its campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel.

The intentions of the uOttawa theatre students were certainly honourable and worthy of applause.

A slide show in the theatre lobby before the performance and during intermission called attention to historic and contemporary examples of antisemitism and to some of the people like composer Richard Wagner and automobile manufacturer (and newspaper owner) Henry Ford who were responsible for it.

Sadly, though, the production failed – both as compelling theatre and as a lesson in the evils of antisemitism.

The first problem, undoubtedly, was with the text. Marlowe did not write his play, 420 or so years ago, as an exposé of antisemitism. He wrote the play to promote his own – and his society’s – antisemitism. There is nothing in Marlowe’s words that is at all critical of antisemitism.

I suppose there are ways The Jew of Malta could be approached that could be used to expose the senselessness of antisemitism (or any kind of prejudice for that matter). One way to do it might be with a dark production that would horrify an enlightened, contemporary audience.

But that was not the approach of director Tibor Egervari, professor emeritus in the uOttawa Department of Theatre and a Hungarian Jew who lost many members of his family in the Holocaust, and his students.

They chose to present The Jew of Malta as some kind of comedy. And just as there’s nothing in Marlowe’s text that is critical of antisemitism, there’s also nothing in the text that is remotely funny. The comedy had to be found in the staging.

So, they staged it for laughs. Many of the male roles, including the lead role of Barabas, were played by women. While makeup was used to transform actress Kiersten Hanly almost effectively from the young woman she is into the old man she was playing, the high-heeled woman’s boots she wore throughout the performance broke any male spell she might have created. Most of the other actresses playing male roles made no attempts to transform their femininity.

Most of the actual men in the cast played their characters as if they were gay stereotypes who stepped right out of La Cage aux Folles despite there being no references, at all, to homosexuality. Even the male character romancing the female prostitute acts like a gay stereotype.

The cast performed throughout the play as if they were in a Marx Brothers comedy. The difference, though, is that Marx Brothers comedies were written to be funny. There’s nothing funny in the The Jew of Malta. The whole idea of the production’s approach was obvious in the opening minutes; unfortunately, the play ran two-and-a-half hours.

The end result is that the play’s extreme antisemitism was so trivialized it became completely benign. Ultimately, the production was all about sight gags for yuks. The loftier, noble ambition of exposing “the ugly face of antisemitism” was lost.

March 7, 2011: It’s that time of year again on campuses

By Michael Regenstreif

I wrote in this space last issue about the protests in Egypt that ended the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. International news in 2011 has been dominated by the human rights and pro-democracy protests and revolutions that have been sweeping through the tyrannical, repressive regimes that dominate most of the Middle East.

As I write – on February 25 – the whole world is watching for the imminent fall of Moammar Gadhafi, the dictator of Libya and self-declared “King of Kings,” who seized power 42 years ago.

Unlike Mubarak, who finally realized the jig was up, Gadhafi, in a bizarre speech, February 22, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel characterized as a declaration of war on his own people, vowed to fight to the death. It may well come to that (if it hasn’t already by the time you read this).

Libya is currently in a state of chaos, if not civil war. Gadhafi’s forces – and, reportedly, foreign mercenaries – have killed thousands of protesters. Meanwhile, protesters have gained control of parts of the country and Libyan officials, including much of its diplomatic corps, are deserting Gadhafi like rats from a sinking ship.

With the world’s attention lately focused on the grassroots demands for democracy and freedom sweeping through Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Iran and other Middle Eastern and North African countries this year, campus true-believers in numerous cities around the world – including Ottawa – have been gearing up for their annual assault on what they regard as the real root of all evil in the Middle East.

Yes, it’s time again for Israel Apartheid Week (IAW).

Carleton University may have had a preview of IAW, February 17, when the CUSA (Carleton University Students Association) Council dealt with a motion in support of the international BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement attempting to delegitimize Israel. Specifically, the motion was a demand that the university divest from four companies involved in the Israeli economy.

According to various reports, Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) at Carleton mobilized a group of about 100 supporters to demonstrate outside the meeting room, while the Israel Awareness Committee (IAC) sent a smaller group of about 40 students.

To make a long story short, the CUSA Council rejected the specifically anti-Israel motion in favour of another calling for the university to invest its funds ethically. When SAIA proposed an amendment calling for the divestment from firms doing business with Israel, it was ruled out of order.

That turn of events did not sit well with the SAIA demonstrators.

In a detailed account of the evening’s events posted on Facebook, IAC member Emile Scheffel wrote: “SAIA’s supporters began knocking with their fists on the doors and the walls, chanting ‘Shame’ and other indistinct slogans.

“The activists inside the room began berating CUSA executive and councillors, while those of us opposed to the SAIA motion remained relatively calm and collected … SAIA’s supporters in the hallway raised their volume and further escalated the situation.

“For a tense period of time, those who were there to oppose the SAIA motion did not feel safe leaving the room to face a screaming mob of anti-Israel activists.”

IAW is an obnoxious, wrong-headed event and is counter-productive to the efforts all people – on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian divide – who strive and work for a peaceful, two-state solution. It’s important to counter IAW propaganda with rational arguments and truth.

We should also bear in mind that, although SAIA and other IAW groups are loud, their supporters form a tiny minority on campus.

The SAIA website, for example, proclaimed last year’s IAW in Ottawa “a huge success with more than 80 people in attendance at each of our events.” Given the number of IAW events last year, those attendance figures account for just a fraction of one per cent of the students at uOttawa and Carleton. Well over 99 per cent of this city’s university students completely ignored IAW.

In a Huffington Post blog – tinyurl.com/dershowitz-IAW – last year at IAW time, Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz debunks the myths of Israeli apartheid and suggests a Middle East Apartheid Week on university campuses that would focus on the truly apartheid-like regimes that exist in places like Saudi Arabia, Gaza, and virtually every other Arab and Muslim country in the region.