Israel. Palestine. Place them next to each other and you get controversy, tension and conflict. And this is exactly what Jason Sherman wants to highlight in Reading Hebron, a story about the fight between Judaism and Islam, and where the boundaries between right and wrong get blurred.
I entered the Orange Tree with no prior knowledge about the Hebron Massacre of 25 February 1994; I knew nothing of its impact both in Israel and for people around the world. In fact, I had never even heard of it before – something that I now feel saddened by after seeing Sherman’s play, originally produced in Canada in November of 1996.
David Antrobus’s energetic, almost boisterous entrance, announced from the first step that we were not merely there to observe, but to engage in his debate and build our own, slightly less informed, opinions. Though at times a little forced, his performance as Nathan Abramowitz was real, portraying him as a truly desperate man in search of his identity and discovering a world that he had been unaware of. He shared his confusion and frustration with the audience. He ended with a cry for answers that I cannot help but feel we never really reached. But this is fundamental to the piece, and director Sam Walters did well to obscure the shifts between reality and Abramowitz’s thoughts and expectations, forcing the audience to see the issue from every angle and share his paranoia.
Ben Nathan and Peter Guinness both provided phenomenal complexity as they played more than a dozen parts, each maintaining their own identity, thoughts and intricacy. Nathan created distinctive characters that could be easily identified on their reappearances later in the play. Guinness was solid throughout, at times holding the play together with a skill that was resonant of Patrick Stewart, and providing a subtle insight into the minds of the people, including Baruch Goldstein – a man who shot 29 Muslims when he was just 13. To jump between such extreme emotions and ideologies is a hard task, and one that Nathan and Guinness handled with real proficiency.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t help but feel let down by the two actresses in Reading Hebron. Amber Agha held each character portrayal to the purpose, undoubtedly, but did not provide a full enough picture to truly distinguish between them which, in such a complicated plot, was not beneficial for audience understanding. Esther Ruth Elliott struggled with the changing accents and was somehow uncertain of her position, especially next to Antrobus. They both managed their parts and fared well, but beside actors such as Nathan, I fear they fell by the wayside and became insignificant blips in the plotline.
The innovative direction, natural use of lighting as designed by John Harris, and stunning text from Jason Sherman, make Reading Hebron a thought-provoking, sometimes heart-wrenching declaration of human nature, big questions and a search for truth. In such a unique venue, I think that little shines brighter than work designed to make its audience feel uncomfortable and consider themselves, underscored by the intimacy of an in-the-round stage and provocative rhetoric. For those looking for an intellectual debate and to be taught some valuable but hard to swallow lessons, this play is a wonderful example of theatrical originality and academic thinking.
Reading Hebron is playing at the Orange Tree Theatre until 5th March. Tickets and information on their website.
February 14th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Tiffany Stoneman obviously doesnt like or understand female actors. I felt ALL the actors gave ALL their characters depth and variety. Nathan and Guiness had speeches of great emotion and drama. The ladies did not. Simple.
A silly thing to say to try and undermine a very good show.
February 14th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I do like and understand female actors as I myself am one. But it’s all down to personal opinion – for that play, I felt slightly let down, but as a whole I thought the production was superb. I wasn’t attempting to undermine it at all.
February 15th, 2011 at 12:16 am
Well there we have it- the reviewer is an ACTRESS- who it seems all too obvious made catty comments because she would rather have been ON the stage than in the audience
I suugest having enjoyed the show and the acting that this “reviewer” get a copy of the play and have a read and then re think her below the belt comments. Perhaps next time she would like to get ON the stage and show them how it is all done. Arm chair actors- nothing worse
I applaud the actors and theur bravery and versatility. And their teflon skin for having nonsense reviews written from time to time. Go read Michael Billington- there is a REAL reviewer and not some frustrated actor/actress.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:26 am
Right. I saw the show tonight and feel compelled to say something. First of all- great show. Lots to take in. Am still reeling.
Secondly in response to this review- I am an actress myself and I find this reviewers remarks to as the comment says to be catty and uncalled for.
Amber Agha and Esther Ruth Elliot trained at RADA and Bristol respectively- has Tiffany trained? Both these women have years of professional credits- does Tiffany? In total the actors seem to play between them something like over 50 characters- I tried to count and then lost count- has Tiffany ever done anything like this? Some of the characters come on for 3 seconds and never appear again. Is Tiffany expecting that each of these short interlude characters who are there to push the story along and have no names even that we the audience know of- should be busy playing some emotional journey? That is nonsense. Amber played a young boy- with NO costume suggestion or lighting effects. Esther played a middle aged mother with no props. What exactly did Tiffany expect from these women that she feels the men delivered and the women did not. I find her comments sexist and uncalled for. Did she want to see the 10 year old boy break down? Or have Amber Agha come on in short pants and braces, would that have helped her failing imagination?
This is a nonsensical review. From someone who plainly does not understand theatre or storytelling. I would suggest she go read the play, act in a play, train as an actress or a journalist and then hone that craft as the actors on that stage were doing. The play seemed hard enough and the subject matter too without useless nasty comments from unintelligent reviewers.
Go see the show and make up your own mind!
Well done cast male and female. Nothing worse that an embittered reviewer.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Tiffany Stoneman has written a biased and sexist review betraying her own wants to be on the stage than review theatre
This review merits no further mention
February 16th, 2011 at 2:40 am
It seems that this production is causing quite a stir of opinions across the board – as a look on our review of the same show – however I do spot a similarity in tone and writing style of several of these comments! I have my suspicions.
@ Tiffany – keep up the great work Tiffany – you are an intelligent and articulate reviewer, do not let anyone tell you otherwise!
February 16th, 2011 at 11:44 am
I would like to stress something once again – I thoroughly enjoyed this show and found it insightful, emotional, and thought-provoking. However it is my job as a reviewer to give my opinion on all aspects, positive or negative.
I never base an opinion on the gender of actors, as I have worked enough with different people to know it makes no difference whatsoever (you will note in some previous reviews I have been equally critical of male actors). I felt that Agha and Elliott were good performers in their own right, but placed next to the other three were not quite of the same calibre. This may be, as some of you have stated, due to the script and the short stage-time they are given. Nevertheless, I must still give a diplomatic and thorough review of the piece and highlight things that may need to be considered.
Responding to Leila – I have indeed performed in a multi-role play and so have no doubt of the skill and complexities involved and I most definitely applaud the actors for achieving this so well. The fact that I am an actress (currently training) does not make my review any less valid – if anything it should strenghten it as I understand the world of the stage as both a performer and an observer. I started reviewing because I love theatre as a whole, and enjoy being absorbed as an audience member just as much as being on the stage myself.
One must remember that a reviewer gives an opinion, which can neither be right or wrong as it is a personal interpretation of a piece. Many people found no fault in Reading Hebron, and that is perfectly legitimate – but when I am asked to respond, I do so in an objective fashion and make note of shortcomings as well, however trivial they may be.
This was an articulate and well-produced play – I have never said anything different. I was incredibly impressed with the piece and my comments on the actors are constructive, and not meant to offend.
February 16th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Tiffany Stoneman is merely expressing an opinion, that is after all what reviews are designed for. Her insights are thought through and analytic, the fact that she draws on her own experiences as an actress only makes her opinions more credible. I believe those opposing Tiffany’s viewpoint should approch her with maturity instead of blindly accussing. Well done Tiffany this is a fantastic review.
February 16th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I feel a need to stand up for Tiffany here. She’s made her judgement on what she saw and felt, if you felt differently then that is your opinion. Theatre is viewed differently by different people If we all liked the same thing then what a boring world we’d live in. It therefore has to be empathized if you disagree with the view made why is it that you have not left a simple comment disagreeing and saying what you saw rather than this personal attack on someone’s opinion. Furthermore accusing her of making a judgement based on the assumption that she’d be bitter towards the actresses because she would rather be up there herself was inappropriate, surely she’s in this position because she enjoys theatre and watching theatre it would be a sorry world if every female actress was bitter towards those they saw on stage.
Now to move forward I would like to congratulate Tiffany, these are beautiful and intelligent reviews and your passion for theatre is clear.
February 16th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
May I suggest something here in support of Tiffany, has it occurred to to those who have commented on this review that you have been to see the show on separate nights and therefore the performance would have been different.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Please note: Comments have now been disabled on this review. This is due to a number of commenters posing as different individuals to give rude and offensive comments directed at the reviewer of this review.
AYT does not tolerate internet bullying. If you wish to discuss this please contact me directly through my email address as given on the Contacts Page.