Controversial: The Chemnitz Staging of „The Eternal Road“ (III)

A mode­st con­tra to the assess­ment of the Chemnitz sta­ging of Weill’s and Werfel’s „The Eternal Road“ by Jonathan C. Friedman

By Thomas Ziegner

For a medium-sized regio­nal news­pa­per, the „Südwestpresse“, which appears in Ulm, I wro­te about the Chemnitz per­for­mance near­ly twen­ty years ago. A lon­ger preli­mi­na­ry report was rejec­ted by a Freiburg Sunday news­pa­per, as too long and too her­me­tic. I refu­sed to cut or to sim­pli­fy. Parts of this preli­mi­na­ry report have then appeared on Europe’s lar­gest Jewish web­site, www.hagalil.com. I knew its foun­der, David Gall (1956–2014). He visi­ted me in Rottenburg, and we had heated-friendly dis­cus­sions about the edi­to­ri­al work … The text is almost unch­an­ged on www.brouillon.art now. Even in the haGalil ver­si­on of 1999, I would have lik­ed to have pre­cise foot­no­tes (David had a foot­no­te aller­gy), indi­ca­ting the sources. The notes have been lost to me, but at least the most important refe­rence lite­ra­tu­re is now called.

Not yet published was a book by Jonathan C. Friedman:„The Literary, Cultural and Historical Significance of the 1937 Biblical Stage Play The Eternal Road. NY, 2004 (The Edwin Mellen Press). Instead of a review: The book by Prof. Friedman is useful for anyo­ne who deals with the work and also shows high­ly rele­vant inter­faces to other social and cul­tu­ral sci­en­ti­fic topics. It reads with plea­su­re and lear­ning effects alike.

All the more dis­ap­poin­ting are Mr. Friedman’s short pas­sa­ges about the 1999 Chemnitz pro­duc­tion and its recep­ti­on. He dis­lik­ed the cos­tu­mes (did he see them, or at least pic­tures of them?) The sce­n­ery was too simp­le for him, bizar­re the pro­ject, becau­se it had too well reflec­ted the com­plex gene­sis of the work. (p.123)

A dra­ma­tur­gy that refrai­ned from reflec­ting on the gene­sis and the histo­ry of the time would have been com­ple­te­ly wrong for the German social-cultural cli­ma­te. The German press com­men­ta­ries quo­ted by Mr. Friedman from an essay by Tamara Levitz comes from some of the most mise­ra­ble papers of the time, bou­le­vard (tabloid) the one (Berliner Morgenpost), bad­ly reac­tion­a­ry the other (Die Welt, mean­while has chan­ged for the better).

Even rele­vant for atheists

The fact that some aut­hors wro­te that Reinhardt, Weill and Werfel had only remem­be­red their Jewish life after the rise of Hitler seems to Levitz and Friedman to accu­se the­se aut­hors as if their cla­im was wrong. But it is rather cor­rect, and you do not have to look for evi­dence for it. Not only the Eternal Road trio, but thin­kers and artists of Adorno, Theodor W. to Zuckmayer, Carl, were forced to rethink their des­cent and its impli­ca­ti­ons. And some goy­im are said to be secret­ly embar­ras­sed, if in their des­cent not a sin­gle Jewish part was to be found.
Friedman fails to reco­gni­ze the grim iro­ny of the only serious German cri­tic he cites, Hans Klaus Jungheinrich. He wro­te that Hitler had been an „invol­un­t­a­ry Zionist,“ and that wit­hout the nazi-terror, neither Weill nor Schoenberg would have given up their German or Austrian iden­ti­ty. With the lat­ter Jungheinrich is most likely right.

Meyer W. Weisgal, idea giver and pro­du­cer, con­cei­ved the work in respon­se to the German-Nazi sta­te ter­ror. Jewish self-esteem should be arti­cu­la­ted. That suc­cee­ded. And yet, the work can not be redu­ced to that. How impres­si­ve are the pro­phe­tic figu­res of the Old Testament, men, repre­sen­ting the divi­ne law. This also inte­rests gojim; even athe­ists. Ernst Bloch thought about „Atheism in Christianity, Christianity in Atheism“. Would the world lite­ra­tu­re of the last cen­tu­ries be ade­qua­te­ly unders­tood wit­hout at least frag­men­ta­ry know­ledge of the Bible, inclu­ding the Old Testament? At any rate, the pre­do­mi­nant­ly non-Jewish audi­ence in Chemnitz was over­whel­med by their eyes and ears. The sta­ging was bet­ter than its reputation.