Motti Lerner’s Pangs of the Messiah at Theater J
July 19th, 2007 by Menachem Wecker
My review of Motti Lerner’s play “Pangs of the Messiah” at Theater J appears in this week’s Jewish Press, titled “Forcing The Messiah Any Day That He Might Come.”
From left to right: Joel Ruben Ganz (Benny), John Johnston (Avner), Michael Tolaydo (Shmuel). Courtesy of Theater J.
Here’s the entire interview:
MW: You ended the Murder of Isaac with a violent death, and you did the same in Pangs of the Messiah. Is that something you do often–lead up to such a dramatic conclusion? Is it fair to say both plays are pessimistic?
ML: I think that a dramatic conlusion is necessary in any play. In both The Murder of Isaac and Pangs of the Messiah the issues at stake are matters of life and death and the internal actions of the characters are so total that there’s almost no other conclusion. But I don’t think the plays are pessimistic. Writing a tragic end is very optimistic - the tragic end paradoxically strengthen the spectator and encourages him to choose life.
MW: The set design has the Hebrew biblical verses of God promising Israel to Abraham on the floor. The characters literally trample God’s promise throughout the play. Is that intentional?
ML: It is a wonderful choice by the designer who probably read what Shmuel says at the end: Only the salvation of the Land of Israel exists in the world? Only the purification of the Temple Mount? There are people who have to live in this country…
MW: To what extent is the father-rabbi figure also a Christ figure in the play?
ML: It never crossed my mind. Shmuel represents a faithful religious Zionist whose own ideas were distorted by his disciples because he has lost the basic human value of justice and forgot the principle - don’t do to you neighbor what you hate being done to yourself.
MW: There seem to be a lot of Shakespearean elements in the play, which really reminds me of Lear stuck in the storm with the Fool, as all the other characters are static in their craziness. The same sort of thing occurs in Murder of Isaac. What use is there in such a world view of a paralyzed, public mob, with only one enlightened character?
ML: The dramatic structure of The Murder of Isaac focuses on one protagonist who tries the best he can with all his power to prevent a catastrophe - but because of a basic tragic mistake he did in the past - in Shmuel’s past he allowed the moral deterioration in his own camp - he fails. But everybody else in the play is also aware of the approaching catastrophe and tries to prevent it in his own way - Amalia - by running away, Benny - by creating a bigger catastrophe, so is Avner - Only Tirzah sees another option, and that’s why she’s the only one who calls the police at the end.
MW: When Avner arrives in Israel he reverts to his old, pre-peaceful self. Is there something about place (specifically the settlements) that changes people in your mind?
ML: I think part of it is the “group pressures” - you can’t be a leader there, unless you are an extremist. Part of it is his rebel against his father, who not only doesn’t respect him, but also respect Benny much more.
MW: Chabon recently wrote about a plot to blow up the Dome of the Rock in his new book on the Yiddish policemen’s union. Is there some smell of the messiah and apocalypse in the artistic air?
ML: I’m not aware of that. Don’t forget that the original play was written 22 years ago. I think that messianic ideas were always part of Zionism - even the social revolution in the Kibbutz movement was messianic.