The Trial of God (Wiesel, 1986)

 Eli Wiesel. The Trial of God (1986) Following a pogrom in 1649, a trial was held in Shamgorod. God was accused of permitting or even encouraging evil. That's the setup. Wiesel, survivor of Auschwitz, wrote this play based on an actual trial of God held in the concentration camp. Three rabbis indicted God for permitting His children to be massacred.

In the play, three itinerant actors arrive at an inn and offer to play a Purimschpiel. The innkeeper proposes a Trial of God instead. The innkeeper will be Prosecutor, his daughter will be chief witness, and a Stranger will defend. I don’t know how much the play echoes the trial Wiesel witnessed in the concentration camp. Most of the action is actually working up to state the indictment. Outside the Inn, the villagers are working themselves up to finish the job. The village priest tries to persuade the Jews to flee, but they are intent on their trial. At the end, the Stranger pulls out a mask and puts it on: It’s the mask of Satan.

So, is God capricious? Does God not only permit but encourage evil? Are the Christians mere instruments of God, or do they bear the primary guilt? These and other questions are put or implied, but never answered. They add up to the question that we all want answered: Why is there evil in the world?

A difficult play, in part because the action is the decision to act, to indict God, to act out the trial, to judge His failure to act. But also because the context is a pogrom, unfinished, and threatening the actors. While reading it, I tried to imagine staging it. It would not be easy. I’ll have to read it again. ***

Alan Ayckbourn. Bedroom Farce (1975)

     Alan Ayckbourn. Bedroom Farce (1975) Just what it says: three couples shown in their bedrooms, one getting ready for an anniversary, one using it as a cloakroom, and one as a sick room. A fourth couple, whose marriage is breaking up, descend on all three couples in turn, and mess things up. In the end, nothing is resolved. Along the way, there’s some farce, but this is the England of 1975, when the hangover from the swinging 60s was beginning to set in, and there was a generally sour and disillusioned mood. This mood infects the play, which keeps slipping into darker themes than farce can well support. Ayckbourn himself noted that it was a comedy “with farcical elements.”
According to his website, Ayckbourn has had a good career as playwright and director. Odd that I’ve never heard of him. This copy of the script was lent to us by Doreen, who played Suzanne (the wife in the weak marriage) in a Toronto amateur production. It reads like a playable script, but the language is merely adequate to its purposes. This means that the direction and acting would make or break a production. Ayckbourn directed most of his own plays, and many became hits, which suggests that his real forte was directing. ** (2008)