talking sex
by Douglas Messerli
Martin Sherman Bent / Los Angeles, Mark Taper Forum / the performance I saw with
Howard Fox was the August 23, 2015 matinee
A slightly “monogamish” couple, Max (Patrick Heusinger) and Rudy (Will Taylor in the production I saw) awaken past noon after a long wild night, Rudy somewhat peeved by his partner’s behavior of the night before while pretending nonchalance. Max can remember nothing, until a well-endowed, naked male (Tom Berklund) appears from a back bedroom (how Max has missed his obvious bedmate is unexplained), as Rudy gradually explains how Max, completely drunk, first invited all the waiters of the gay club run by the drag-queen, Greta to come home with him, before falling to the floor upon a black leathered young man, Wolf, whom we soon discover is one of Ernst Rohm’s Sturmabeilung troop members. But it is only gradually that we discover this fact, and, at first, we might well as be in a Manhattan apartment, with the two occupants arguing about their messy lives. If Max is a wild drunken cocaine uses, Rudy is a naïve dancer at the local cabaret, no more responsible, and even less able to find money to pay the rent, than his would-be lover.
Wolf, for his part, is eager to join the two young men at the home in
the country which the drunken and drugged Max (describing himself as the Baron)
has promised him a drive in his shiny new car. Max, in short, is clever
con-man, capable, as he admits, of convincing people of things that lie outside
reality.
In short, the whole first scene plays like a light-hearted, slightly
camp presentation of just what Marcus describes, and Sherman’s drama,
accordingly, reads as a light-hearted comedy. And surely, when the play first
premiered, when few (according to the program notes of this play*) seemed to
know about the Nazi incarceration of homosexuals, the play must have read even
more normative.
Today, at least, when most of know more about that era—the moment we
recognize that this scene is played out in Berlin in 1934—we perceive that the
play is soon to shift in a very different direction—although the folks sitting
behind Howard and I seemed to have no idea as they guffawed straight through
the next few moments, when Nazi soldiers break down the door and slit the
throat of Wolf in continuation of the Night of the Long Knives (which I
describe in the essay above), part of Hitler’s purge of Rohm and his
Brownshirts, a political act which his government obscured as a crackdown of
gay perversion. In terror Max (dressed only in his bathrobe) and Rudy skitter
off to the club.
As if realizing the play has again come again to a standstill, Sherman
offers up his clueless heroes who have gone into hiding as they attempt to find
shelter from the mean-spirited Greta, who has actually sent the Nazi’s
searching out Wolf to their apartment. Although he (as Greta makes clear, he is
safe, since offstage he is a married man) gives them a bit a cash, he is not
convinced that they will be able to escape the new Nazi purge.
Max, apparently, is the son of a wealthy Amsterdam button manufacturing family, who is upbraided by his gay uncle for embarrassing his family by his extravagant behavior. And Max, skewered throughout most of the play as a spoiled, selfish being, is even willing to marry the window of another button manufacturer if Uncle Freddie (Ray Baker) will only get him two sets and new papers and tickets to Amsterdam instead of the one he offers. Yet it is hard to believe that Max in either of Dutch birth or might possibly be so unselfish as to put himself in such endangerment for Rudy’s sake. If he is willing to “ditch” Rudy once they reach Amsterdam, why, we have to ask, is he so protective of him now?
This soon becomes an even more profound question which the author is
never able to answer, as both Max and Rudy are captured, and, in transport to
Dachau, Rudy is tortured before the Nazi commando demands that Max, to prove he
is not Rudy’s friend, beat him. In order to save his life, Max not only
complies but almost seems to get a strange sadistic pleasure in the act; and,
soon after, when asked to prove that he is not gay (worthy only of the lowest
of the emblems sown upon the prisoners’ uniforms, the pink triangle) demands he
have sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, recently murdered, as the
other Nazi’s voyeuristically stand in watch. In reward of his sexual virility,
Max is awarded, ironically, the Jewish yellow star, which, oddly enough puts
him at the top of the Dachau totem post, garnering him a better chance of
surviving the ordeal.
In other words, Sherman has chosen a nearly impossible monster as his
hero, whose redemption—in this case by a scrawny pink-triangulated Horst
(Charlie Hofheimer), whose major sin is that he signed a petition in support of
the sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld—appears nearly impossible for the play’s
start.
Mysteriously—and this is a continual problem with Sherman’s seemingly
naturalistic tropes—Max gets Horst transferred to from the brutal tasks of
breaking down rocks with a pick-axe, to the nearly existential task of moving a
pile of stones from one place to another before returning them back to the
other, again and again, ad infinitum—a job which, Max.suggests, is intended to
make him mad. Although, I would like to know whether or not Sherman had any
evidence that such a task was really given to prisoners at Dachau, it seems a
kind of perfect metaphor for the madness of the camps themselves.
Yet Sherman is not a writer of someone like Beckett’s stature, and in
the first of what are far too many scenes in which the actors are forced to
heft stones back and forth across the stage, returns us to the kind of catty
gay couple arguments of the “comedy” that Bent
begin as. And later, as his character’s conversations increasingly become
infused with talk of sex, the author does not share Beckett’s abilities to
transform the inane into a poetically rich language.
There is something almost thrilling, particularly the first time
through, when this odd couple attempts to make love while standing next to but
apart from one another through the art of speech. It reminded me, a little, of
those early network chatrooms wherein participants talk about sex in order to
actually experience it. But in front of a primarily heterosexual audience,
which I assure you the elderly Taper patrons mostly consist of, the scene
seemed at once more prurient and tamed-down than any actual sexual act
performed on stage might have been perceived. Later, when the freezing and
sickly Horst lamely refuses to go through the same verbally sexual encounter,
Sherman reaches to the bottom of his often jokey quips—“I have a headache”—in
response, turning what might have been a someone creative dramatic
trope—particularly for a basically voyeuristic audience—into a sit-com
situation.
Again, some of the audience members, chirruping at this and other cheap
quips, laughed half-way into the final scene where the Nazi guard commanded
Horst (whose cough proves that the medicine Max had obtained from him through
the present of a blow-job to the Nazi guard was actually intended for his
co-worker) to throw his hat at the nearby high-voltage electric fence. We have
already been told that such a command doomed whomever it was directed, for if
the individual chose not to retrieve the hat, which would surely cause his
death by electrocution, he would be shot. We are not surprised when the events
are inevitably played out.
We must conjecture that he will no longer to be able to live with
himself, so that, accordingly when after moving a few rocks, he returns to the
ditch to remove Horst’s shirt with the pink triangle, and, removing his own
yellow starred garment, puts it on—although it is a truly moving moment, an
acceptance not only of his sexuality but of his recognition of love—there is
something empty in the act. A small group of the audience members could not
resist this symbolic transformation of character and applauded the event.
But for the others of us in the audience, I believe, that symbolic
expression comes simply too late. No matter how Max has been transformed, his
recognition—in part because of the author’s literary devices—has simply come
too late. And even his rush into the wall of electrified death at play’s end,
seems to be a melodramatic aftermath. Perhaps if he had really dared death
earlier on, had actually reached out to touch the other instead of simply
imagining him, we might have truly been able to celebrate what Sherman’s play
certainly intended to convey: W. H. Auden’s contention that “We must love one
another or die.”
*Although I may be mistaken, I am
almost certain that I had long before 1979 known that homosexuals were
imprisoned and killed in the Nazi camps. Surely, I and others, might have known
the details, but I can’t believe that Sherman’s play was the first to actually
brooch this subject. Perhaps in the popular theater, yes, but not if one read
one’s history.
Los
Angeles, August 25, 2015
Reprinted from American Theater, Opera, and Performance (August 2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment