Canadian
theatre 
An Interview with Tibor Egervari
 |
| Tibor Egervari |
Link to
Online Anthology
Link
to Database
Could you describe how you came to write The Merchant of Venice in Auschwitz? To what extent is your personal history part of the context for the play?
This is the foreword to the play: "This play is a product of my imagination. There were no theatrical activities in Auschwitz such as the orchestral organizations in Theresienstadt or elsewhere. In any other situation this clarification would suffice, however, Auschwitz is different. The sole mention of the name "Auschwitz" horrifies any reasonable human being, all the more so if one was, as I, born a Jew in Hungary just before the war. The name is the symbol of pure evil, and we never pronounced it without lowering our voices. To adopt such a context for theatrical work could therefore appear sacrilegious.
I am Jewish and I am a man of the theatre. Shakespeare is the very essence of all the theatre that I love, including The Merchant of Venice. It is a great play whose title, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to Shylock, the Jew, but to Antonio, the merchant. However, over the centuries, the former became the focus of the play, both because of the depth of his character and the anti-Semitism he conveys. Other major themes in the play, such as women's role in society, or the meaning of money in a changing civilization, have been discarded in favor of innumerable attempts to "justify" Shylock. However, the man of theatre that I am craved to see the play showing a Shylock as a Richard III: a "truly evil" Shylock. To accomplish this, I had to adopt the point of view of a true anti-Semite. However, once I had chosen this fictitious character and his context, the logic of my dramatic construction on the one hand, and the Jew in me on the other, took over.
Consequently, Shakespeare's work became secondary when I was faced with the Shoah which, for the first time in my life, I felt I could talk about openly. As I worked, not a day went by without my wondering whether my voice was not sacrilegious. I cannot be sure, but deep within myself I do not believe it is.
May those who never returned from their voyage into Hell forgive me for speaking about them in the only language that I know, which is the language of the theatre."
Could you tell us about the production history of the play and its reception?
I started it in the mid 70s with a student production. We produced it professionally in 1993 in both French and English with the same cast in Ottawa (University of Ottawa Academic Hall) and in Montreal (Théâtre Gesu). It opened in Montreal the same day (in October) as the “straight” production of the play at the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde. This created quite a storm in the media (you can search it quite easily on the net). Nonetheless, we received little critical attention. The Gazette’s article was rather devastating if I recall correctly. The other newspapers did not bother to come. The following spring there was an interesting article in Jeu. I think that the Jewish News (?) published an article too. I reworked the play in 1998 and we did a staged reading of it.
The Merchant of Venice in Auschwitz addresses anti-Semitism in the context of the unthinkable horrors of Auschwitz. Would you care to comment on how the play might be related to the contemporary historical moment of the so called "new millennium"?
If the old millennium is of any indication, anti-Semitism has a robust future in the new one.
Could you reflect on the extent to which Shakespearean influences figure in your work as a playwright generally?
I am not a playwright. I wrote this play because I was unable to direct properly the original play which is a chef-d’oeuvre in every sense of the term. In fact this is not much of a play, rather a mise en scène written down. When I wrote the first version of it, I was the artistic director of France’s oldest popular theatre––le Théâtre du Peuple founded in 1895 in les Vosges––where I mounted several Shakespeare plays in a row. I was thinking of doing The Merchant when I discovered the roadblock outlined in the Foreword.
To what extent is theatrical culture in Canada (in your reading of it) a function of Shakespearean theatre?
Very much so, like in any English-speaking country.
Is adaptation a way of overwriting Shakespearean source texts?
This is one way.
Adaptation of Shakespeare in Canada is a flourishing genre. The CASP rersearch team has found close to 500 plays that are clear adaptations dating back to pre-Confederation. To what extent does this tradition of adapting define specifically Canadian theatrical practices (if one can even speak of such practices with any validity)?
I observed this phenomena in other countries too.
Does adaptation necessarily place the playwright in a compromised position (in terms of reinforcing theatrical tradition) or does it afford opportunities to remake that tradition? Are there examples in your own work you would point to as part of your response?
I don’t think is does. However, my opinion is not of particular interest. (See above)
What theatrical techniques do you see as most useful in the adaptation of Shakespeare genre?
I don’t think that there are useful theatrical techniques in adapting Shakespeare. Most of the time the best way is letting him do the trick.
What ideological / political implications do you see to adapting Shakespeare in a Canadian context?
Putting on a show before an audience is always an ideological/political gesture. Adaptations of any kind are no exception. The important thing is the context. Let’s imagine a Shakespeare in a Canadian-accented production in Shakespeare, Ontario that happens to be the very same play that the Stratford Festival is featuring on the Main Stage. The same show has a totally different significance in the East End of Montreal. To turn to the text proper, today’s common wisdom is that theatre, like art in general, is progressive, i.e. on the left of the political spectrum. However, many classical playwrights were rather “reactionary” in their plays. From Aristophanes’ The Clouds to Molière’s Les Femmes savantes to Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, the list is quite long. Directors, most of them from the left of course; bend over backwards in “adapting” these “outdated” views.
The problem is that the original playwrights were quite strong, and most of the time the adaptation is quite weak. I tried the opposite way and failed miserably too. The Merchant has adapted itself ––if I may say so––over the centuries by making Shylock the central character. Both the acting pleasure of leading players and the general anti-Semitic atmosphere helped this transformation (Gross, 1992). Yet, one of the most interesting aspects of The Merchant is the way Antonio and Shylock understand currency. For the former, money is but a means of exchange, un signifiant, while for the latter it is value on its own, a signifié too. Old Shylock’s view is evidently that of modernity and Antonio represents the past. However, Shakespeare’s heart goes to Antonio (pun not intended). But that entire theatrical jewel is lost to the rather trivial directorial question: should we present Shylock as an aggressor or a victim?
It has been said that adaptation is a way of talking across cultures and across time--a way of relating to other authors and contexts intertextually--would you agree with this sense of adaptation in relation to your own work?
It is an interesting thesis, but I don’t know if it applies to my work.
How far would you be prepared to go in defining what an adaptation is? To what extent must some form of Shakespeare be present in an adaptation for it to be called Shakespearean?
This is a very delicate balance that I could not define.
Could you reflect on your own cultural background in relation to your writing and in relation to being "Canadian"?
All I did in this respect is in the writing. In so many cases being Canadian becomes a way of talking about elsewhere spaces that get mapped onto Canada.
What role do you think theatre plays in that mapping of local and international identities that seems to be so crucial to discussions of Canadian identity?
Good plays and good shows are good plays and good shows. To assign them some nation building roles reminds me of Jdanov (the Soviet politician who divided the world into two blocs––imperialist and anti-democratic and anti-imperialist and democratic––and the person behind Soviet policies related to the cold War) and this is not a good reference.
Link to
Online Anthology
Link
to Database
