[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Hemust subconsciously hate him and all Jews or heviews Bayard’s outlook as a negation of selfhoodwould not have allowed this to happen so easily,that is little better than being killed.However,which makes Von Berg reconsider his responsibil-Bayard at least shows some evidence of facing the023-354_Miller-p2.indd 2065/3/07 12:52:36 PMIncident at Vichy 207reality of what the Nazis are doing and of fight-into which he has been coerced.As the Waitering back when he steals the pot handle to use asgreets him, even defending him as a good man,a tool to facilitate an escape from the inevitableand Marchand tries to get his ear, he passes themrailcar.His political beliefs have also steeled himon to the Chief of Police and exits as swiftly asagainst the capitalistic seduction that appearshe can, not wanting to have to face his involve-to have drawn Marchand into working with thement.He later runs out for a stiff drink to avoidenemy.Marchand helps the ministry of supplyinterrogating further prisoners, but he is forced byand so is supporting the German war.It is unsur-Hoffman to return and do his duty to the Reich.prising that he feels uncomfortable talking to hisHowever, as Leduc will suggest, he could refuse,fellow detainees.even if that might mean his death, and it wouldVon Berg accepts the Waiter’s declarationhave been a nobler path.It is one path that theabout the Nazi agenda because it seems to himMajor is too scared to take, hiding behind his dutytypical of the way they operate—doing the incon-to a German hierarchy rather than face his duty toceivable to paralyze opposition.He imagines thehis fellow human.Von Berg, in contrast, does theNazis truly believing that burning Jews was a noblecomplete opposite.He rises to Leduc’s challenge toendeavor and asserts this as another instance ofbe responsible rather than guilty, which leads himhis belief that vulgarity is taking over the world.to sacrifice his own safety by giving up his pass andBut he criticizes from the sidelines, and his sym-allowing Leduc to escape.pathy is useless.He loves his cousin, a notoriousNazi who is responsible for the dismissal of all theFIRST PERFORMANCEJewish doctors from medical school, and he neverStaged for the Repertory Theatre of Lincoln Center,tried to stop his cousin.He promised to protect theIncident at Vichy opened at the ANTA-WashingtonJews in his orchestra but watched as the Nazis tookSquare Theatre in New York City on December 3,away his oboe player.1964, with the following cast:When Von Berg asks Leduc if they can partLebeau: Michael Strongfriends, Leduc sees such an agreement as point-Bayard: Stanley Beckless as he has given up on humankind.RespondingMarchand: Paul Mannangrily, Von Berg insists that ideals still matter,Police Guard: C.Thomas Blackwelleven when little can be done.Leduc counters thatMonceau: David J.Stewartbeneath it all, Von Berg is simply relieved that he isGypsy: Harold Scottnot him and would not seriously lift a finger to help,Waiter: Jack Waltzerthus making him complicit with the crime.“EachBoy: Ira Lewisman has his Jew,” he declares, and it seems hard-Major: Hal Holbrookwired into human nature to hate the Other—evenFirst Detective: Alek PrimoseJews do this—and so Von Berg’s friendship cannotOld Jew: Will Leematter while he allows such things to happen.HeSecond Detective: James Dukaspoints out that the cousin whom Von Berg hadLeduc: Joseph Wisemanmentioned with affection was a notorious Nazi, andPolice Captain: James Greeneuntil he can see what that means through Leduc’sVon Berg: David Wayneeyes, he cannot see that his complacency makesProfessor Hoffman: Clinton Kimbroughhim complicit and just as monstrous.He asks notFebrand: Graham Jarvisfor guilt but for responsibility, and Von Berg beginsPrisoners: Pierre Epstein, Stephen Peters, Tony to see the difference.Lo Bianco, John VariFrom his first entrance, the German Major is illat ease.Miller tells us that there is “something illDirected by Harold Clurmanabout him,” and it is not just his physical ailment;Set designed by BORIS ARONSONhe is sick at heart from the abominable routineIt ran for 99 performances.023-354_Miller-p2.indd 2075/3/07 12:52:36 PM208 Incident at VichyINITIAL REVIEWSEpstein accuses Miller of moral nihilism, objectingAlthough some critics praised the play, with How-to Leduc’s claim, “Each man has his Jew; it is theard Taubman describing it as “a moving play, aother,” Rahv feels Miller was not specific enoughsearching play, one of the most important plays ofin his extension of guilt and suggests that the playour time” and Norman Nadel calling it a “pungentunnecessarily overcomplicates the relatively simpledrama,” a display of great “craftsmanship as a play-issue of German expansionism.wright,” and an “outstanding cast,” the reviewsIn more contemporary scholarship, Brenda Mur-were predominantly negative.While some feltphy suggests a universal relevance in the way thatthat the historical situation had been accuratelyMiller uses “Nazism as a touchstone for all dehu-reflected, others were outraged at what they feltmanizing governmental oppression in the 20th cen-were liberties taken with actual events.Miller’stury,” while Janet Balakian highlights the “ ‘choral,’refusal to assign blame for the Holocaust to themetaphoric, and non-realistic fabric” of the play,Nazis alone discomfited many, as did his insis-and Stephen Marino connects it to Miller’s latertence that anyone who had not actively helpedThe Archbishop’s Ceiling, pointing out how both use to prevent the Holocaust was as complicit in theimages of food and drink as “metaphors for politi-evil as those who gave the orders to exterminatecal survival.” Terry Otten offers an insightful read-Jews [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]