Shakespeare's people: spectators and protesters
A Palestinian king in London: On Ashtar’s ‘Richard II’
This week, Israel’s national theatre, Habima, will bring its production of “The Merchant of Venice” to London, as part of the Globe Theatre’s multi-linguial Shakespeare festival. The following is a review of the Palestinian contribution to the same festival: Ashtar Theatre’s Richard II. It originally appeared in Hebrew in the Tel Aviv culture magazine Achbar Ha’ir.
Yuval Ben-Ami, +972
27.05.12
Once upon a time, in a distant land, I had a good friend named Inge. She was Danish and lived in Denmark, but looked like a Native American princess and loved to rebel against Danish values. I had the honor of joining her for the wedding of her sister, in a small village in northern Jutland. Inge disliked formality and protocol. She let her son attend the church service wearing the t-shirt of some metal band and a baseball hat. She did not ask him to remove his hat when entering the church.
Following the service, we got into her car and waited for her son, who popped over to the restrooms. Inge looked impatiently at the pastel dresses and neckties entering other cars and said, “Something is rotten in the state of…” She then hesitated and asked, “In which state?”
This question surprised me. “Denmark,” I said.
“Really? Denmark?”
“Yeah.”
“Ah, I thought we only say ‘Denmark’ because we’re Danish, and that you guys, for example, would say ‘Something is rotten in the state of Israel.’”
I’m thinking back to this story in another European land – England chilled by a gray May. It says something about Shakespeare’s place in world culture. Almost every culture has adopted the Bard’s creations, making them its own, really its own. The line “To be or not to be,” taken from the same play in which Denmark produces a stench, is a key phrase in the literature of many languages, including Hebrew. Something really is rotten in the State of Israel, and this is exactly what Shakespeare meant for us to see. He is a perfect poet, because his Hamlet deals with our reality, with that of contemporary Denmark, with that of medieval Denmark and with that of the author’s own homeland all at the same time.
This month in London, we could see how poignantly he treated Palestinian reality. Ramallah’s Ashtar theatre brought its production of Richard II to the Globe Theatre, as part of a multilingual Shakespeare festival that will also feature the Israeli National Theatre’s poduction of “The Merchant of Venice.” Famously, figures in British theatre spheres called for the Globe to boycott Habima due to the theatre’s contribution to the settlement endeavor. (As an op-ed in Haaretz noted, many theatre groups that participate in the festival come from countries where human rights are violated, but only Habima actually takes part in those violations by performing in settlements and thuse legitimizing them in the eyes of Israelis.) The Palestinian production was received calmly, but both productions emerge from the same corner of the earth and both are politically charged.
In the Ashtar production, this charge is released both onstage and in the viewers’ hearts. Richard II is a rather overlooked historical play, hiding in the shadow of bloody, dark Richard III. This too is a bloody tale: the performance begins with the slaughter of the Duke of Gloucester by two masked men, but the poetry of politics is slightly more complex, and the distinction between “good guys” and “bad guys” not nearly as clear. The Ashtar production, directed by Conall Morrison of Ireland, centers on this precise dimension and derives substance from it.
Something is rotten in the state of England. King Richard appears to be a paranoid sort on one hand, and a bit of an irresponsible fellow on the other. He exiles his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, for six years, following Bolingbroke’s participation in a duel with another noble. Bolingbroke’s father dies in his absence, and the king takes over the exile’s inheritance in order to fund an Irish campaign. While the king is away, fighting in Ireland, Bolingbroke returns to Britain, gains the support of the nobles and recruits a guerrilla army.
The king returns to a new reality. The land is in a state of anarchy and Boligbroke’s militia wins huge support from influential figures. Bolingbroke himself claims that he is not interested in the throne, and only asks for the inheritance to be returned to him. Should Richard believe him?
It would have been too easy, even cheesy, to present Richard II as a parable of modern Palestinian history, downplaying its complexities. Bolingbroke’s return could easily be equated with the return of the refugees and his quest for stolen property and power could be presented as the fulfillment of the Palestinian national aspiration. This dimension is present of course in a Palestinian production, but Morrison and Ashtar prefer complexity and a far clearer reference is made to internal Palestinian politics.
While the king and his entourage appear in festive civilian attire, Bolingbroke and his men wear dark, olive colored military uniforms. We find liking the king rather difficult, despite his abundance of personal charm (wonderfully conveyed by Sami Metwasi), because we know him to be a criminal and likely even a murderer responsible for Gloucester’s assassination. Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is nearly equally unattractive. He may present an alternative to the flawed establishment, but he is also leading before our eyes a potentially destructive military coup.
Little by little, under the grim London sky hanging over the Globe, and by courtesy of very lazy, partial captions that provide a summary of the scenes rather than a translation (why slack, Globe? The play was written in English), we learn of the dilemmas plaguing the entire Arab world since Tahrir. New anti-democratic forces are now threatening to take the place of old anti-democratic forces, while the people, weary of revolting, regard them as if watching a play.
Meanwhile, the specific Palestinian dilemma appears as well. Torn between secular corruption and religious totalitarianism, they know well that something is rotten in the undeclared state of Palestine. Theatre provides them with a means of raising these questions and this must be part of why Palestinian theatre tends to be so good. I still haven’t recovered from Jerusalem Al Hakwati group’s ingenious production “Abu Ubu” and from other gems of the past few years. Palestine is a theatre powerhouse.
At one moment in Richard II, the anarchy is depicted onstage. Actors rush about with flags in their hands: a black flag, a red flag, a green flag and a white flag. The Palestinian flag fell apart. National identity has shattered. Over its smithreens, on Juliette’s balcony, stands an actor waving a golden flag stained with blood. Only this flag remains when the stage is vacated. This is a brief, stunning moment that will prove difficult to forget. Other great moments are brought about by the cast, especially Matwasi and Hussein Nakhla in the role of John of Gaunt, Bolingbroke’s father.
Richard II was previously performed outdoors in Jericho’s Hisham Palace. So long as Israelis are banned from entering Area A, Israeli spectators will be forced to seek this artfulness abroad, but here is a reminder that such encounters are possible and that foreign travel can be used as an opportunity for getting in touch with Palestinian art and with Arab art in general, even if it is art that was born in another place altogether: the rotten state of England.
Globe Theatre: Israeli play goes on despite protests
Pro-Palestinian activists have disrupted the UK debut of Israel’s Habima theatre company in London.
BBC news
29.05.12
Around 15 people were carried or led out of Shakespeare’s Globe theatre after unfurling banners or Palestinian flags. One man was arrested.
Before the performance of The Merchant of Venice, Globe artistic director Dominic Dromgoole asked the audience to stay calm in the event of disturbances.
The actual performance carried on despite the disruptions.
The protests came after a group of stage figures including Mark Rylance, Mike Leigh and Emma Thompson called for the Globe to boycott the company over its performances in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
In a letter to The Guardian, they said Habima had “a shameful record of involvement with illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
Shakespeare’s Globe said its current international festival was “a celebration of languages and not… a celebration of nations and states”.
It added that “people meeting and talking and exchanging views is preferable to isolation and silence”.
Security was stepped up ahead of Monday’s show, with airport-style metal detectors in the foyer and audience members’ bags searched.
There were small-scale demonstrations outside the Globe by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups.
As the performance was about to begin on the open-air stage, Dromgoole addressed the audience and joked about the unusual security arrangements.
“If there are disturbances, let’s be perfectly calm,” he went on. “Don’t get angry.
“You’re not watching politicians or policy-makers. You are watching artists who are here to tell a story.”
*Hath a Palestinian not eyes?”
About 10 minutes into the play, a banner reading “Israel Apartheid leave the stage” was unfurled from the first-floor balcony accompanied by several Palestinian flags.
Other protesters showed peace signs or stood up with tape over their mouths.
More banners and flags were unfurled on two more occasions before the interval.
As the protesters were removed, some shouted “Free Palestine!”
After the interval, a man standing in front of the stage was ejected after shouting: “Hath a Palestinian not eyes?” in a twist on Shylock’s famous speech.
One protester, Zoe Mars, said: “We tried non-violently to convey the message that culture may not be used to give a civilised gloss to a state that perpetrates human rights abuses.”
A Metropolitan police spokesman said a man was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a security guard outside the theatre.
Another performance of the Hebrew-language production is due to take place on Tuesday. The play is part of the Globe to Globe festival, which sees all of Shakespeare’s plays performed in 37 different languages over six weeks.
Ilan Ronen, Habima’s artistic director, told the BBC: “I think it is important for Israeli theatre in general to be part of international activities.
“We are very much involved in the last three years in a lot of collaborations with the leading theatres in Berlin, Moscow and other places. This is the reason we were so happy to be invited to this festival.
“I think politically it’s an important festival. This is a way for artists to meet each other and have a better dialogue and be helpful, maybe, to our politicians, to make the world better.”
Founded in Moscow in 1913, Habima settled in Tel Aviv in the late 1920s. Since 1958 it has been recognised as the National Theatre of Israel.
About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
The Merchant of Venice (Habima) @ Shakespeare’s Globe
Part 1: Outer Frame
Peter Kirwan, Bardathon
29.05.12
Reviewing an event such as this evening’s performance at the Globe of The Merchant of Venice by Habima (Israel’s national theatre) poses serious ethical questions. If the review focuses on the entire experience – the preliminaries, the tensions, the various kinds of performance taking place both outside and within the auditorium – then the production itself, Habima’s work, risks being sidelined. If, however, the review ignores the “outer frame” (as Susan Bennett might term it) and concentrates on the “main event”, what was intended to be seen, then it is compromised in two ways. Firstly, the experience of every audience member was shaped and formed by the extraordinary framing of the production, that was inseparable both in terms of the mindset with which we entered the Globe, and in terms of how interwoven the subsequent acts were with the main performance. Secondly, in ignoring the elements that were not legitimised or planned for, I would be colluding in the silencing of a protest that, whatever you might think about it, had important things to say and deserves to be reported.
This review, then, will be of unusual length. It is subjective, as all reviews are, but it is unashamedly so. It is also political, if only insofar as I support the right to protest and the right to express views peacefully. I did not participate in any of the protests this evening, either in the pro-Israel camp or among the Free Palestine lobby; it’s a situation which I choose not to actively campaign in. Nor, however, did I participate (as did many of my fellow audience members, with that self-righteous, zealous passive aggression that only late trains, queue jumpers and people who talk at the “wrong time” draw out of the British) in the active silencing and removal of the protesters. The heavy-handedness of the policing of tonight’s performance was at least as disruptive as the mostly silent protests themselves, and I have never been in a theatrical situation where I have felt more intimidated, watched and surrounded by hate. And for the most part, that wasn’t coming from the protesters. This part will deal with the framing, and I’ll focus on the performance itself in a follow-up tomorrow.
I spent the day on the South Bank, where a heavy police and private security presence began to make itself felt from 4pm. At 4.30pm I found myself locked inside the Globe building during an apparent incident, which meant no-one was allowed in or out for some fifteen minutes. Shortly after, the Globe was cleared of all members of the public for a full security sweep (my thanks to an amusing and welcoming duty manager, who was a relief to deal with after the frankly extremely rude security team). Outside, crowd control barriers were being set up and the South Bank rearranged, heavily policed, to contain the anticipated protests.
Security barriers set up on Bankside
Heavy disruption had been expected around Habima’s performances since they were announced. The company, I understand, has performed in occupied areas of Gaza, and is seen by many as a tool of the Israeli regime. I defer to those more knowledgeable than me to debate the rights and wrongs of the company’s actions; fundamentally, though, I had no desire to see the production boycotted. Does the Globe’s invitation legitimise an institution that assists in an illegal occupation? Very possibly; but its presence on the South Bank both gave a voice to Hebrew-language theatre and, more importantly, legitimised a peaceful protest. As the two lobbies gathered in cordoned-off areas on the South Bank, I collected a wide range of literature arguing for and against the right of these artists to perform to a London audience. In the context of a Festival such as Globe to Globe, there appears to me to be a solid argument for the value of debate; a debate which the production’s presence allowed to happen. Or, at least, should have.
The protests on both sides were deeply felt and heated, perhaps unsurprisingly for a particularly hot May afternoon, but largely peaceful. Tempers frayed, however, during the bag checks, which began an hour and a half ahead of performance time. Information had been sent out to all ticketholders in advance to let us know that we would have to check all bags bigger than a handbag, and that none of our own food, drinks or anything that could be used to disrupt a performance would be allowed in. Full security gates were in place including metal detectors and pat-downs, and several of my fellow theatregoers argued strongly with the beleaguered security folk about their right to take in their own sandwiches. The fact that, inside, the Globe was charging £2 for a can of Coke and £1.50 for a bottle of water stung a little.
Relieved of bags, the Globe audience then had to cope being cooped up in rather too small a space for an hour until the doors opened. We were entertained during this time by the impressive human beatbox duo Sweet Combination, who sang and played at a volume significant enough to drown out any distant protest noise – although one group did manage to get a loudspeaker onto the Bankside pier to cause a little disruption. The heavy security presence remained somewhat intimidating, particularly in such close quarters, so it was a relief for doors to open and the crowd to spread out inside the theatre.
The last key element of framing came once the house was full and doors closed. Dominic Dromgoole emerged to welcome the audience. The very fact, of course, of the Artistic Director of the Globe coming out to address the crowd in person spoke to the unusual nature of this event, and for the most part he dealt with it appropriately and in good humour, hoping that we approved of the new front of house arrangements and welcoming us to the performance. However, I found myself troubled by some of the ways in which he framed the expectations for the evening. The Globe is used to dealing with disturbances, he said – pigeons, fainting, planes – and he asked the audience not to take it into its own hands to deal with any disturbances during this performance, as Security would do so. The security presence inside the theatre was exceptional, surrounding the stage itself, spread through the pit, and standing in almost every gangway in the galleries. To reduce the disruption of protesters pre-emptively to the accidental/occasional disruption of a pigeon was a rhetorical strategy I found unnecessarily demeaning.
The new front of house arrangements (metal detectors and bag checks)
Dromgoole rightly pointed out that the actors onstage were neither politicians nor policy makers, to the approval of most of the crowd, and pointed out that anyone who disrupted the performance – or whose phone went off, an announcement delivered with emphatic glee – would be immediately evicted; but he asked the audience not to engage in any vigilantism. It’s a safety caution that was important to make, and I was extremely pleased he asked the audience to ignore rather than confront protests; implicitly leaving interpretation to the individual spectator. These were artists telling a story, Dromgoole informed us, aiming to understand and to criticise, and to help make the world a better place. Now, however, while I can’t take issue with these sentiments, I found the appeal to a “better place” difficult to stomach coming from a man standing on a stage with the backing of a good fifty huge security attendants ready to evict anyone who disagreed or dared to disrupt. Whether or not the theatre is the appropriate place for this kind of protest became irrelevant for a moment; the heavy-handedness of the policing, and the gentle mockery which served to bind together an audience in derision of the Palestinian protesters, came across to me as a gesture of control and display of power that quashed any hope I had of a “better world”.
I’ll go on to the performance itself in a separate post, but I’ll deal with the protests here. About five minutes into the performance, banners and flags were unfurled in the galleries, and security acted quickly to remove the women displaying them. This was followed by a silent protest – a group stood to attention in the first gallery for the entire first half, masking tape over their mouths, presumably protesting at the silencing of the Palestinian voice. I was surprised to see this group left alone – they were non-disruptive, but so were the earlier flags; and actually, one woman in particular appeared to be obstructing the view of the person behind her, which on any other day would be cause for a steward’s intervention. Towards the end of the first half, following Bassanio’s success in the casket challenge, a younger group began unfurling banners in the pit and protested noisily when evicted. By this point, however, the rest of the audience seemed to be losing patience, and civilians began taking a turn at pointing out protesters to security and ordering them to shut up. This policing of the pit I found one of the most upsetting aspects of the evening; the audience turning in on itself over a question of etiquette, but with displays of aggression from the non-protesters that I found disheartening; security were quick to respond, but audience members felt the need to actively participate in shutting down the (silent) voices of the Palestinian protesters and, apparently, take satisfaction in being seen to do so.
The second half was much less disrupted, but more vocally when it was. During the trial scene, a gentleman standing next to me with an extraordinarily clear voice called out “Hath not a Palestinian eyes?”, and was followed by another. They left with very little trouble as soon as Security identified them and touched their arms, although I had the impression there was a little resistance. Obviously, the consciously disruptive nature of this form of protest made it more of an issue (within the conventions of British theatre etiquette) than the silent protests of the first half. However, the aggression of the audience towards this more deliberately disruptive incident was, again, perhaps even more unsettling. An angry cry of “Piss off!” was met by laughter – laughter – from around the theatre, as audience members joined in the jeering of the protesters as they were evicted. More encouragingly, one man shouted out to the flustered actors “We’re with you, keep going”. The support of the audience for the actors was encouraging; the bile displayed towards the protesters less so. As I was standing next to the men who shouted out, I felt the eyes of the audience on me, found myself at the business end of a dozen pointed fingers, and experienced something of the hostility directed at those who believe in something strongly enough that they feel the need to say it out loud.
When the performance ended, and we finally got through an initially badly organised bag reclaim procedure, the South Bank was still full of police. One group (silent when I saw them) was surrounded by police in a miniature kettle; while another woman screamed out about apartheid to the departing theatregoers.
I don’t like theatre to be disrupted. I dislike whispering, phones going off, antisocial reactions; it goes against the conventions I’ve been brought up in as a theatregoer – though to expect these in the Globe at any time is to fight a losing battle. But I’m an advocate of free speech and peaceful protest; and apart from the shouts during the trial scene, the protests outside and within the Globe space were largely silent and visual until removals began. I have never felt quite so intimidated, tense and uncomfortable at the behaviour of people around me as I did tonight at the Globe, and it was the aggressive interventions of the non-protesters rather than the protests themselves that prompted most of these feelings. The presence of such a system for controlling the reception for the production was such that, whether or not a protest had actually taken place, the presence of that which was being silenced was assumed. I am pleased for the sake of Habima that the disruption was minimal; I am glad that I had a chance to see this production. I just wish that the openness, freedom and generosity that have characterised so much of this particular set of cultural exchanges could have been more evident tonight on both sides.
Part 2 The Production
It’s impossible to divorce context from production. Immediately after Dromgoole left the stage, still being applauded for his pre-emptive shutting down of protests, the actors of Habima emerged onto the Globe stage and called for a welcome, whipping the audience immediately into further applause, foot-stamping and cheering. After taking a bow, the actors, dressed as Renaissance-era Italians, donned bright red carnival masks and began singing, dancing and creating a festive atmosphere. This revelry continued as Jacob Cohen’s Shylock entered the stage and, in high spirits, the Christian carnival-makers surrounded him, pushed him to the ground and kicked him mercilessly in the stomach. Only at the point of violence did the crowd fall silent; but how easily the same jubilant ribaldry that had been targeted at Friends of Palestine was co-opted into the abuse of a Jew. Habima usefully pointed up the ease with which we are told what to think and can become implicated in abuse and suppression.
How many, I wonder, noticed the audacity of audience members who could shush a Palestinian protester and laugh at him as he was escorted out of the theatre to calls of “Piss off”; and then turn and nod sagely as a Jewish protester (in the trial scene) was silenced and mocked by Gratiano as he was escorted out? What has been learned from a production so concerned with suppression, if suppression is taking place within the auditorium?
Habima’s fine production of Merchant pulled no punches in its depiction of anti-Semitism, with both Shylock and Tubal manhandled and abused as a matter of course by a group of selfish and wasteful Christians. Alon Ophir’s Antonio, in particular, was sickening. This tyrannical figure refused to sit in Shylock’s chair, decorated with a Star of David, and grabbed the frail, elderly usurer by the throat as he vowed he would abuse him again. Even while trussed up in the trial scene, he leered down at Shylock, a smile of satisfaction playing on his lips as Shylock’s plans were thwarted.
The “bonds” of this production were made literal on two levels. Ropes and pulleys hung all around the set, used initially to demonstrate Portia’s (Hila Feldman) entrapment. Standing on a chair centre-stage, her six suitors gathered around the edges of the stage and held the ends of ropes attached to her corset, positioning her at the centre of a tangled web of controlling attachments. For the trial scene, Antonio was placed on the same chair, but stripped to his waist and clipped to ropes that snaked up the pillars and across the yard, literally strung up by bonds that linked the entire building. Into these same bonds Shylock was later forced, hanging limply amidst the jeering Christians.
The other bonds were physicalised as reams of computer printouts, contracts to be signed by Antonio in the first instance, but also by Bassanio, who was presented with a disturbingly realistic head representing Portia and an enormous wad of contracts, which he began scrutinising instead of kissing her, to her dismay. The focus of the men on letters and contracts was a running theme, revisited at the end as Nir Zelichowski’s Lorenzo failed to look once at Liraz Chamami’s Jessica once he had received news of his (his) good fortune. The massive contracts also became Shylock’s punishment, Gratiano draping them over Shylock and leaving him to stumble, slowly and blindly, offstage following the trial.
The prejudice running throughout the production was not always held up to adequate critique, however. While Portia and Nerissa’s dismissive attitude towards Jessica extended to even forgetting her name, Jessica’s disappearance at the production’s close left unresolved a growing problematisation that remained unclear. The biggest change to the text was the creation of a conflict between Jessica and Lorenzo that saw her threaten to leave him, and was alluded to throughout the ring incident as she screamed at her husband, but I was unclear as to exactly what she was objecting to, and the sadness she showed on hearing of her father’s misfortune was kept upstage and unremarked. Far more problematic was the treatment of the suitors. The establishment of these scenes was entirely amusing, as a team of sycophantic make-up artists and tailors dressed actors up in stereotypical national costume. However, Danny Leshman blacked up as Morocco, covering himself in black make-up which even rubbed off on Portia, to her disgust. The laughter at this was disturbing, and the production didn’t seem to have a point to make here about racism, leaving this problematic device uncriticised and, apparently, amusing to much of the audience. A similar, though less loaded, approach informed Yoav Donat’s appearance as Arragon, moustachioed and screaming “Ole!”
The casket scenes were otherwise amusing. Human actors played the caskets; for Morocco, an actor wore the gold casket on his head and carried the others; while Arragon and Bassanio were both presented with three independent caskets. Morocco removed the gold box from his man’s head to reveal the actor wearing a skull that snapped at his fingers. Arragon unveiled a fool carrying the poem in his mouth; and this fool subsequently sprang up and began mimicking the distraught suitor. The collective mockery of the foreign suitors by the assembled court and the Death/Fool heads fed into the critique of the Christians’ prejudice more broadly, but the cartoon caricatures of Morocco and Arragon stood in problematic contrast to the dignified Shylock.
Cohen, diminutive and quietly spoken, was a victim through and through, only taking command of the stage during the “Hath not a Jew eyes?” speech where he roared defiance at Salarino and Salerio (Leshman and Donat again, interestingly bringing the bodies of the three racially abused victims together) who backed up in shock at the effect of their ribbing. Elsewhere, the performance aimed for pathos. We were privy to his moans on discovering Jessica’s flight, and the production closed with Antonio casting a satisfied look over the abandoned stage and leaving, followed by Cohen emerging and taking a long, slow walk around the edges of the stage in utter silence. Similar pathos was aimed for in Jessica’s performance, as following her flight she was seen repeatedly in tears, ignored or scorned by the Christians.
Despite all of the above, this was for the most part a highly amusing production. The high energy of the Christians was combined with a physical inventiveness, particularly in the representation of gondolas by actors standing in a line and side-stepping in sync while one pretended to row. Tomer Sharon’s Launcelot was extremely entertaining throughout, debating freely with the audience in his first appearance, snogging the disembodied false head of Portia’s counterfeit, and interposing himself inconveniently between Jessica and Lorenzo. Yet he was also the only character who paid Jessica attention; immediately before the interval, he sat downstage with her and they watched together as Antonio pleaded with Shylock for succour.
A group next to me were aghast during the trial scene, crying out as Shylock went to take Antonio’s flesh, which rather spoke to the vulnerability of the strung-up bodies presented. The scene struggled to recover following the interventions from the pit of “Hath not a Palestinian eyes?” and the subsequent jeering of the crowd as more protesters were evicted; and perhaps because of this, the role of Portia and Nerissa, who were kept to one side of the stage, seemed relatively unimportant. I was drawn throughout the scene instead to Aviv Alush’s Gratiano, who moved freely about the stage and mocked Shylock mercilessly, as well as appealing to the Duke and Advocates who stood in the audience galleries. Alush’s overt prejudice throughout the scene, and Shylock’s slow collapse under his assault and the smug glares of Antonio, seemed to be far more important.
Rinat Matatov’s childlike Nerissa (strikingly reminiscent of Shirley Henderson) was a sometimes sullen, sometimes sparkling counterpart to Feldman’s upright Portia throughout. The servant took pleasure in bringing a knee to Gratiano’s groin following his loss of the ring, and in teasing her mistress about Bassanio in earlier scenes. Yet women were sidelined throughout this performance, left rather to punish their fickle men either directly by slapping or indirectly by walking out. Happy endings were denied as the banter and laddish mockery of women and foreigners found no place in Belmont, which demanded maturity. Yet as the men all fell to their rings and letters, devouring material possessions to the exclusion of their wives, it was clear that the selfish nature of these men would resist education.
Have I silenced the protests? Certainly the bulk of the protests were themselves silent, and for much of the first half I and those around me divided our attention between the action on stage and the silent stance of the group in the middle gallery with masking tape over their mouths, who did not reappear for the second half (perhaps removed). The performance of the protest in the pit and galleries drew the attention of all, and the actors themselves were clearly aware of it. Interestingly, however, the content of the protests during the performance was not directed at Habima themselves as far as I could see, concentrating on the broader “Free Palestine” message than challenging Habima’s own complicity in performing to Israeli-only groups in the settlements. By remaining silent and using few words, the protests instead aimed to draw attention to their act of resistance, attention they maintained (even when rendered inactive) for the entire performance. The final applause of the company lasted a long while, a mutual celebration between audience and actors of the successful completion of the performance. Yet anyone watching carefully, who had listened to a production that spoke eloquently of the silencing of dissenting voices, should have had serious questions about the anger with which the performance’s own dissenters were greeted.