Commentary on The Fever Chart:
Behind each enemy a…
 |
Angry, disappointed, defensive and unreceptive were some of the views I heard about The Fever Chart, the controversial play written by Naomi Wallace, directed by Frank Bradley and performed recently at AUC. These reactions have made me wonder: if the play was written, directed and performed in a way that gives Arabs full or fake triumph, would that make people happier or make the bitter reality any better?
For those who haven’t heard of the play, it was divided into three acts representing three different visions of the Middle East. The controversy arises from the first and the last acts, which focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Ending both acts in a way that gives victory or defeat to neither the Arab nor the Israeli was a sufficient reason for some people to become upset and frustrated with the play.
I understand that the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a sensitive one, but what severely adds to its sensitivity is letting only the news coverage, politicians and angry demonstrators comment on it. The portrayal of demonic Israelis and victimized Arabs, or the other way around in the case of pro-Israeli media coverage, has embedded the image of the never-resolved conflict in people’s minds, the image that has been living with people for years and passed on from one generation to the other. So, of course, discussing the issue from a view that doesn’t demonize anyone and shows the conflict as something imposed on and not chosen by either party will shock some people for a while.
But let us assume the play was presented in favor of the Arabs, wouldn’t that give people an incomplete or temporary happiness that will immediately disappear when they encounter the seemingly hopeless reality of the situation in the news coverage? Since there are always two sides of the story, wouldn’t the bias against one side or the other in the play affect its credibility and influence on either party?
Opening the play with Plato’s quote, “he whom love touches not walks in darkness,” where love resembles tolerance and understanding, or at least the willingness to, and darkness resembles anger, can fit reality to a great extent. For years, generation after generation has been brought up in fear, hatred and anger. The hatred hasn’t solved the problem, but rather made people more frustrated in a world that appears to them to be unjust.
I don’t think the play aims to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, equate both sides or wipe out what history has been recording for decades.
What makes the message of the play significant is showing people that letting anger and hate take over their hearts and minds will only make life more miserable. Humanizing rather than demonizing both sides in the play is only a way to make people less angry and fearful. Plato also said, “He is a fool who cannot be angry; but he is a wise man who will not.”
I entirely respect all the other views on the play, but what I don’t appreciate is the attempt to stop or object to the presence of such forms of art. I know people’s instinctive sense of patriotism might lead them to feel guilty if they sympathized with or tolerated the enemy. However, if patriotism is defined as loving, respecting and supporting your country, then how does being open to the possibility of understanding and tolerating the other for the sake of stopping your own country’s misery contradict patriotism?
In case you are wondering, I do acknowledge that we’re not on the Oprah show and love and tolerance do not fundamentally solve any problem. But if they help us guarantee that maybe in the long run our children will be brought up in a world that is less miserable than the one we’re living in, then, by all means let the show go on and salute it.
I think this form of art brings people together, so why don’t we allow and encourage it? Even if it is not fully accepted by us today, it might help future generations live in a world that is less fearful, less hateful and more tolerable than ours. Maybe showing that behind each enemy is a human being can help us find means to communicate as human beings and not animals in the jungle.