Blending satire, physical theatre and cabaret, The Banality of Evil draws on archival research and testimony to reveal forgotten histories of women caught between exile, imprisonment and survival. At its centre is a pivotal moment in the life of 33 year-old Hannah Arendt that would later inform her writing on power and human rights. A world premiere from writer and director Julia Pascal (Blueprint Medea; Crossing Jerusalem).
https://www.arcolatheatre.com/event/the-banality-of-evil/
1. What are your thoughts on Arendt’s concept of the banality of evil? What relevance does it hold for us today?
Arendt’s phrase was specifically about Adolf Eichmann and his role as architect of the annihilation of the Jews, ‘gypsies’, homosexuals and others seen as threats to Hitler’s white-supremicst worldview. I believe that she was pointing to the casual and ordinary way the annihilation of a whole people was planned and implemented by Eichmann and the Nazis. She hated those who uncritically absorbed Nazi-thinking. Today, this banality is certainly in our society. It is lazy thinking and often exists in the individual who seeks the approval of a particular crowd. Banal = ordinary/the lack of any critical thinking.
2. Apart from Arendt, the play centres on two other characters: Charlotte, the artist, and Eva, the communist. What do they have in common, and how do their relationships with one another shape the dynamic of the play and our understanding of Arendt as a person?
They come from an intellectual and artistic, educated German, Jewish background; all have ambitions. As archetypes. Hannah is The Leader, Charlotte is The Artist, Eva is the (political) Idealist. They struggle with each other’s world view which dramatises their complexity. This
tension is heightened at the moment they might escape from their internment camp. Arendt develops in the script from an isolated thinker, who has previously existed in a dynamic sphere of other anti-Nazi exiles, to a person forced to live only with imprisoned women. She becomes the natural leader and the moral arbiter which shapes her future life.
3. Across her work, Arendt develops the idea of solitude and distinguishes it from loneliness. For her, solitude is vital for the mind to think and to talk to ourselves. Is this reflected in your portrayal of Arendt in the play? If so, what does solitude mean in this context?
Arendt reflects the importance of the life of the mind. I doubt that she ever felt lonely and guess that solitude was welcome in order to process her own thoughts. In my play she interrogates herself as well as German and French society. I looked at Berlin Weimar Republic cabaret as source material as research. Consequently within the script there are monologues, straight- to -audience, where her self-interrogation is revealed. These are expressed variously as dream, song, jazz -riff or cabaret style patter. In this way the theatre audience can experience the workings of her mind.
4. Arendt was both a victim of the Nazi regime and held sophisticated reflections on Zionism. How do you navigate these tensions and complexities within her selfness and in your portrayal of her?
Arendt, in my view, is a complicated thinker who can hold different, and sometimes contradictory, views at the same time. When she escaped Nazi Germany, she worked in Paris to get Jewish children out of the Third Reich to save their lives: they were sent to British-Mandated Palestine. She embraces Realpolitik: direct action to save lives. Between 1933 and 1940, she worked with Zionists to do this: later in her life, she was critical of Zionism. Therefore, within the text, I have explored and questioned her beliefs through her interaction with the Communist, anti-Zionist, character Eva Daube.
5. At a time when theatre and live performance seem so desperate to strive, what inspiration might Arendt give us?
Arendt was certainly not a feminist, although her friendship with Mary McCarthy might suggest otherwise. She inspires as a woman using her intellect and chutzpah to fearlessly speak and write. I admire her courage to go it alone and not care about ‘being cancelled’ for her provocations. Today, theatre is being pushed to be anodyne; not to offend. This may not be explicitly expressed but it is in the zeitgeist. Arendt, like Martha Gellhorn and Andrea Dworkin, did not care who she offended. These women can influence theatre-makers to create outspoken theatre and to influence younger generations to be brave.
6. If Arendt were alive today, what do you imagine she might say to us about the world we are living in?
On the local level, I think she would ask civic leaders to analyse the dangers of following a people-pleasing path where prospective election results over-ride moral decisions. On the international stage, she would condemn countries discriminating against women, homosexuals and refugees. As for AI, I imagine she would interrogate leaders about rushing into a future, governed by capitalistic forces, which threaten to wipe out life on earth. I doubt that she would have welcomed the immense power of AI to control our lives. Arendt optimistically believed inthehumanability to research, learn, read, become educated, enjoy culture and interact.