How does one represent the Holocaust? Moreover, how does one represent it in the theater? The Nazis' carefully crafted plan to destroy Jews, the disabled, gypsies, homosexuals and other "deviant" members of society is no easy subject to stomach or stage.
C.P. Taylor makes an extremely skilled attempt at delicately dramatizing this dark period in history while asking pertinent moral questions: What defines a "good" person? Can a person who does "bad" things still be considered "good"?
Taylor's deftly written, fragmented memory play seeks to answer these questions in its depiction of John Halder, a German academic whose work forms the basis of the Nazi final solution and euthanasia programs. Unfortunately, Boston Center for American Performance's (BCAP) production fails to use the interesting palette Taylor provides to fully realize the horrifying portrait.
"Good" relies on Halder's memories to recount his evolution from a simple German professor and author to the designer of Auschwitz and instrument of the Third Reich. The play is also a moral and ethical meditation on the definition of a "good" person, with Halder's reasons for joining the Nazi machine providing the initial backdrop. Halder's justifications for his participation stretch not much further than his desire to better his social and professional standing and to ensure that neither he nor his family will be adversely affected as the Nazis gain power.
His political actions notwithstanding, the audience also encounters Halder's questionable relationships with his delusional mother, deranged wife and much-too-young student with whom he has an extramarital affair. The audience soon comes to realize that "goodness" is relative and beyond the understanding of most humans, including that of characters themselves.
In direct contrast to Halder is his best friend Maurice, a self-hating Jew who more readily identifies as German than as one of the Chosen People.
The production manages to ignore the ample opportunities in the script to provide nuance, missing the mark entirely. On its opening night, the play still struggled with an identity crisis: To be or not to be a realistic drama.
The script carries Taylor's own unique stylistic voice and is written as a distorted view of the past that follows the protagonist's stream of consciousness. Instead of attempting to realize that which is unimaginable, the play provides the audience with an easily accessible point of entry — that of human psychology. We become privy to all of Halder's memories, which take turns shifting in and out of focus throughout the play.
Though on paper it is a fragmented-memory play, Jim Petosa's direction forces the play's actors to perform a desired reality of the moment instead of embracing the alternative narrative style that, in the end, is much more appealing than realistic drama itself. This production has yet to decide what it is.
For example, much of the play centers on Halder's life's soundtrack that constantly repeats in his head. Unfortunately, the music we hear is clumsily introduced at the beginning of the play and is not presented consistently. Further complicating the presentation, the actors sing at various points throughout the show and do so in an awkward a cappella style, especially considering the piano that sits upstage center and remains unplayed. The music would normally serve to enhance the production, but the misguided, realistic direction ignores such possibilities.
Other elements, such as a tendency toward cinematic sensibilities or Brechtian elements, are not embraced at all to the detriment of the production. The actors stumble across the otherwise wonderfully designed stage, their awkward movements forming no cohesive style and leaving audience members like myself with furrowed brows. For example, poor direction leads actors to spin in circles on the floor or stand on a table to depict "crazy."
BCAP's production of "Good" leaves much to be desired and regrettably leaves the audience questioning the directorial and performance choices as opposed to contemplating the greater moral implications that the play itself addresses. Despite the strong foundation that the text provides, this production unfortunately makes "bad" product out of otherwise "good" ingredients.
