• HOME
• SIGHTS
• LIVE
• SOUNDS
• COMMUNITY
• PHOTOS
• ABOUT

In an era when art is criticized for being too political, and politics is criticized for being too theatrical, Israeli playwright Motti Lerner is sitting in the eye of the hurricane. He’s been there for three decades, while writing politically charged plays, television shows, and films in his hometown of Tel Aviv. And he seems to be comfortable in that position in Baltimore, while he waits for another talkback during a staged reading of his work-in-progress “Benedictus” at Baltimore’s Center Stage.

Lerner  has covered topics including the assassination of Rabin [“Death of Isaac,” which was produced at Center Stage in 2006], Jewish Settlements [“Pangs of the Messiah, 1987”], the arrest and imprisonment by the U.S. of Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard [“Pollard,” 1995]. Now with “Benedictus” he has written a nail-biter set on the eve of the bombing of Iran by Americans. It involves a frenzied, last minute attempt at opening a behind-the-scenes diplomatic dialogue to forestall the airstrike.

The polite talkback on Sunday at Center Stage after the staged reading of “Benedictus”  may be one reason why Lerner frequents Baltimore for readings. The play, which emerged out of a cultural exchange between Iranian, Israeli, and American artists, has had productions in Australia, the U.S., and Europe. It has yet to premier in the thriving theater community of Tel Aviv.  Neither has “Death of Isaac.”

Lerner acknowledges that for the moment, at least, those two plays are in a state of exile.  The fact that he can’t get two of his most important works performed on stage in his own country is, on any level, a sign of changing times. Lerner received the Prime Minister of Israel Award for Writers, but that was in 1994, when Rabin was prime minister. It’s unlikely that he would receive the same award under Netanyahu. So “Benedictus” has yet to be performed, or even read publicly,  in the original Hebrew.

I asked him in a wide-ranging interview to talk about his methods, his politics, and the role of politics in theater.

When was “Benedictus” originally written?

The collaboration took place over a year. It was 2007, we met several times over the year. We talked about Iran, and the relationship between the United States and Israel. We mostly focused on the Iranian Revolution and focusing on the consequences of this revolution. And the state of affairs in Iran today….And then finally after that year I went home and wrote a play. And after a year after I wrote it we had one production at Sienna College in upstate New York…They paid for workshops and development. So they did the first production. But then we had other productions in San Francisco and Los Angeles. And in DC at Theatre J. And another production in Chicago in January.

Your play is about negotiation. Did that have anything to do with the  process of writing the play, where you had four different artists from three different nations contributing?

Well there were two phases. First there was the workshop phase. But then we had to make a decision about who was going to write the play. Since I was the only writer, it was my job to write it…Then we workshopped it. But afterwards we agreed that the collaboration was over, and since I wrote it, then the play is mine. Then I kept developing it. The first significant development phase was Australia. But it hasn’t gotten a production in Israel. I think that’s very unfortunate. It should play there sometime.

Why wasn’t it shown in Israel?

The consensus in Israel at the moment is that Iran is too big a threat. And they don’t see the option of negotiation, which I offer in my play as a possibility. Of course the negotiation in “Benedictus” failed.” “But in Israel it’s very different now. We’re entrenched in our positions in Israel, and it’s very difficult to get people to see a play that offers an alternative. It’s not the first time this has happened to me. “Murder of Isaac” was never done in Israel.

That seems a little strange. Wouldn’t there be a lot of people who would want to see it?

Yes.

Your play about settlements [“Pangs of the Messiah”]? Was that shown in Israel?

Yes, it was done in Israel, but then the majority of the Israelis opposed the settlements. I’m not saying it was preaching to the converted, but it was easy for Israelis to accept criticism of the settler movement. There’s still a strong sentiment against settlers.

So Obama is not taking such a risky position when he opposes settlements?

No, I don’t think so. I think if you ask me, I belong to a big majority of people who oppose the idea that a government has been forced to change its position on this issue by a small right wing minority.

I remembered watching the buildup to the Iraq War. There was a point at which people began to speak as if the bombs had already fallen. People are already talking about the bombing of Iran as though it’s already occurred, as though all that remains is the planning phase.

I hope that this doesn’t happen. I believe in negotiations. I really hope that we get to the point where people can say, lets drop off the weight that we carry on our shoulders, and let’s go to negotiations. And start a comprehensive dialogue. Cultural dialogue. Major dialogue. I don’t think we can ignore the fact that Iran wants to have progress with many other countries and that it’s a legitimate right for them to have a nuclear program.

So our discussion turns to politics when you’ve written a play. That happens with a lot of your plays. What is the relationship for you between politics and the theatre?

Politics is the reality of world around us. Theatre is the instrument for bringing ideas into this political reality…to create discourse that may actually change that reality. In Israel many people go to the theatre. We have the largest number of theatregoers per capita. And if you present a political idea in the theater, it vibrates. People talk about it. So plays like this one can really create a new discourse.

How would you compare an American theatre audiences to an Israeli one?

This theatre, Center Stage, has developed an audience which is more open to political material. There are other theaters as well — Theatre J (in Washington, DC) and the theatre in Chicago. But hopefully this will develop. Theaters play a role in America, we must encourage writers to write more engaged political material.

If you were an American, what would you write a play about?

That’s a big question. I would write about how the internal politics goes around. About how America is changing. Because America is changing.

Do you see parallels between the way America has been changing and the way Israel is changing?

The changes in Israel since 1967 — over the last four decades — have not been good. It has been a change for the worse. Politically and socially. Society has changed. It’s not only about the occupation of the Palestinians, but it’s about the damage that has been created because of the occupation to Israeli society. Unfortunately, we don’t have the leadership in Israel to create a change. I hope in America you have the ability to choose the right leaders.

How did you come out with the character of the American ambassador to Rome?  He reminds me a little of what Clint Eastwood would be like if he became an ambassador.

It’s a coincidence that the actor looks like Clint Eastwood. Interestingly enough, I think that, now that we’re talking about the American, my own knowledge of American politics is limited. One of the things I’m so happy about, with this reading process in this theatre, is that I learn more about the American characters. I think I’m going to do revisions in the play. I think that [when the play gets performed] in Chicago the character is going to be a little different.

It seems like in that particular play, the Israeli and the Iranian look at Americans as people who don’t necessarily have an emotional response, but they want to figure out how things are going to happen, and how to make them happen in a particular way.

Americans have been a superpower since World War I. And the American way of ruling the world has been interpreted by others as aggressive, as very aggressive. And it was. We talk about the coup in Iran in 1954, that the CIA was responsible for — the putting down of Mossadegh, the Iranian prime minister — I think Americans have learned, after Iraq and Afghanistan, that the way to rule the world is not by regional wars. At least I hope you will see that Americans are less and less involved with regional wars. Hopefully, not in Iran, but not in other places too.

The American ambassador tells the Iranian politician that if he doesn’t like the way America rules the world, that they should try the Russians or the Chinese.

He says that ironically, of course. And it’s true. I think that America as a leader in world politics is far better than any other. But it still needs to find new ways to influence people. Regional wars do not help American politics. They’re not good for American politics.

And how did you create the Israeli character – an arms dealer who was born in Iran before the overthrow of the Shah. Was he based on somebody?

Yes, but it was someone I knew a while ago, but he wouldn’t recognize himself here. I needed the character to take the play in a certain direction. And the character and the plot develop simultaneously.

And the Catholic monk, who gives the characters a place to negotiate in a Benedictine monastery?

The monk is the less developed character in the play, and I regret it. I thought of the monk as a kind of a joke. I thought of him as comic relief. I’m still uncertain about it at the moment. I’m thinking of turning him into a more serious character. Religion is the most important power in the Eastern and Islamic civilization. It is by far the most powerful element. In the West, religion has stopped being an important power, it doesn’t play a role in international politics. I certainly don’t want religion to be part of world politics. But I’m worried that it will happen. I’m afraid that there is a danger that religion in the West — I’m talking about religious fundamentalism — will play a stronger role in world politics. I would like to warn against it, to say something about it through the character.

I think that he is a comic character who represents a church which is an easy target right now.

Yes, it’s easy, and that’s why I don’t want to use it. I need to think about it in different terms right now.

And the Iranian politician? Who is he based on?

The Iranian politician Kermani is based mostly on Khatami, and mostly on the basis of Rowani’s famous 2003 speech at the U.N. General Assembly, which is the inspiration for the character. I don’t think I said anything that Rowani didn’t say in 2003. If Americans had accepted his proposal in 2003, world politics would be different today.

The only other play I’ve seen of yours was “The Death of Isaac,” written after the assassination of Rabin. I thought that this one was a little more restrained.

“Death of Isaac” was really a wild play. It was the wildest play I’ve ever written. It was written with a lot of anger, maybe too much anger. “Benedictus” was written as a very rational observation of political reality. But that’s why it’s much more reserved. It’s a very small play in terms of the number of characters, but the writing of it was very difficult because of the political manipulations that the characters are going through in the play. And I’m hoping I can encourage Americans to write more plays where politics is in the front. Because in America plays are political — you know, All My Sons is political, but the politics is not in front. But here the politics is in the front. It’s very difficult to write a play with significant characters, with depth, when politics is in the front.

Are there American playwrights who have done that?

My favorite playwright is Arthur Miller. He’s been very influential for me as a playwright.

You think we need another Arthur Miller?

Well, I’m not talking about his social realism, but, yes, we need writers who are committed to political changes. This generation of writers who are committed to change through the theater is not that influential.

I see them committed to changes in the way we look at sexuality.

I think that we need to think bigger. Sexual culture is important, for some people it is the most important thing, and I’m not saying that’s wrong, I accept it. But there are other things also that need the attention of the theater.

American politics is becoming very theatrical. Why go to the theatre if you can watch CNN’s Situation Room?

I think that it’s important to deal with politics in the arts. I think the arts can decipher politics in ways that even politicians can’t. Art is a deep instrument. Especially the theater. It can go a lot deeper. And it’s immoral not to use its instruments to understand the reality we face.

What helps bring politics on to the stage?

The difficult challenge is not sacrificing the classical dramatic elements…otherwise you write a play that presents ideas, but that’s not enough. You need to preserve the dramatic values of the play. And that’s a challenge. I know that when characters are presenting political ideas, there must be infrastructure — dramatic infrastructure — that will allow them to present the idea. Otherwise it will not work.

The drama here is about people not trusting one another?

Here the drama is a trap. It’s about three people who had idealistic visions for Iran. In thirty years, they’ve become different. They’ve become cynics, they’ve become manipulators, they’ve become politicians. They’ve become corrupted. And the moment they are put to test, they fail.

It’s a discouraging ending. The negotiations fall apart.

Yeah, but the ending of Romeo and Juliet is discouraging too. But you as an audience don’t leave the theater saying I will never fall in love again. No, you decide that you will become a participant. That’s the purpose of the play. To show you that unless you become an active participant, world politics will not succeed. I’m trying to show you this reality on stage, to show you that you need to take responsibility.

About Contact

© 2009 Radar REDUX