Though Quentin Letts may claim in his Daily Mail review today of last night’s opening of a revival of Martin Sherman’s Bent that the play no longer has the “shocking novelty value” that it might have had when it originally premiered in 1979, his review proves that the play is as necessary as it ever was, since it’s the ignorant and ugly prejudice of that review, not the play, that now shocks me to the core.
Protesting, perhaps a little too strongly, that his avowedly “heterosexual heart” was not “entirely stirred by Bent’s love theme”, he goes on to suggest that his sympathy was held in check by “the suspicion that the suppression of homosexuality — even when it was this brutal, was not quite as bad as the agony suffered by Jewish people in Hitler’s concentration camps”.
The relative moral merits of different victims of the Nazi atrocity is nailed, in his view, by being measured against the suffering of children: “Max and Horst are lone adults with the option of choice. Jewish parents had to see their children sent to their death.”
With such blatant prejudice still being paraded in 2006, we could easily be back in Nazi Germany, and the play – and its potent rallying cry for the dignity of love amongst all humans, rather than classing one rank above any other – is still as important as ever.
Last night’s opening, meanwhile, was given an added poignancy by the curtain call revelation of playwright Martin Sherman that Tom Bell – who created the lead role of Horst in the Royal Court’s original 1979 production – had died the night before; and an extra frisson from the appearance in the audience of one Monica Lewinsky. She made history, of course, for notorious reasons of her own; but this play’s heartbreaking reclamation of a particular and disturbing era of gay history is far too important to be trivialised by the likes of Letts.
While I can fully understand and empathise with Mr Shenton's fury and offence at Mr Letts' potentially tasteless review, there is a more implicit pattern of intent at work here which calls to mind some of my own client work over the years. It is often the case that when a client uses a narrative in which they play no part, in order to banner-wave their own sexuality as the polar opposite, then something decidedly fishy is often a foot. Leaving aside the fact that Quentin finds it quite acceptable to score human suffering on a scale (this isn't The X Factor, Mr Letts), I was myself tuning into something else, something eerie, as I read the review in question. What could that be I wonder? Oddly, it called to mind many who, in their public role denounce, decry or de-value those who identify as gay while screeching 'I'm a hetero by the way' all the way home. However, let us not forget how so many of those tales ultimately turned out. Take heed, Ms Letts, for the eyes, ears and other sundry organs of many are now turned towards you and never, ever forget, those Freudian ego defences are never too far away!!
More shocking than Mr. Lett's passing moral judgement on who suffers more is the fact that his editors allowed it to be part of a review of a theatrical production. If it were part of a diary entry or a blog then it would be a reflection of his peculiar view of life and allowable. But in a first night review of a major west end opening? I wonder what his reception will be like at the next critics circle meeting? Shame on him.
The play is pointless. While people like to find simularities with both Nazi Germanys treatment of Jews and George Bush's American treatment of Muslims I find this both spineless and utterly pointless. Whats the point of putting on the same old boring old predictable play when someone somewhere can stick their neck out, put their money where their mouth is and actually have the guts and integrity to write a contempory play about America's treatment of Muslims.... or even Muslim societies treatment of Christians or secular Agnostic citizens for that matter. The Jewish holocaust and the slaughter of Jews, Poles, Gypsies and homosexuals during World war two is old hat, reasonably relevent (for historical purposes) but old hat. There is another holocaust going on in the world at the moment, it is the indiscriminate murder of Muslims by American neo Conservatives and the indiscriminate murder of Christians, Jews and western Agnostics by Islamist fascist findamentalists.
Lincoln - it's one thing to say that you don't like Sherman's play - and entirely another to damn it because it's not got a different subject matter being explored. Perhaps you mean - that the revival of this play is pointless? I think Bent is a really fine play - though I haven't yet seen this revival. As for Quentin Letts everyone knows that his reviews try to play to the perceived bottom of the barrel prejudices of the Daily Mail's readers. I actually think its quite good when reviewers are partial and personal and specific about their taste and don't try to pass off their views as representing 'the general truth' about a show. But Letts is doing something altogether different in my view and there's nothing more vomit-inducing than an over-blown toff vainly attempting to portray himself as the voice of the people by playing to the worst instincts of conservative England. Any one remember Portillo's SAS speech to the tory party conference? Letts should stick to Parliament or Horse & Hounds. Is it true Mark that he declined to be a member of the Critics Circle? What a pratt...
David I have no problem with the subject matter of BENT, I just don't see the point of staging it now, especially now. But then despite what is going on in the world at the moment such as Irans discrimination of homosexuals, Jews, Christians and secular Agnostics and Americas ignorant prejudice against Muslims, HIndus and Mexicans it just annoys the hell out out of me that every so called self respecting writer in Britain today is sitting on his hands, bunkering down and waiting for such things as Iraq to finally play out and reach its conclusion before they dare to put pen to paper. Theatrical re runs of old contempory plays and the same old pretentious compulsive presentation of classical works by the same old dead playwrite really do not inject new blood into theatreland or stir the juices.
As for the conservative party, well, let them continue to dig their own grave and release silly tree logos while attempting to steal New Labour's policies. As for Portillo's speech years ago, huh, what did you expect and anyway there's no point in getting your knickers in a twist about a group of silly old Englanders who now belong to nothing more than a fringe political party.
One more thing, when it comes to reading news articles, editorials or theatre reviews for Heaven sake don't ever soil your fingers by picking up the Daily Mail.
Aside from that, Mr Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
What do you care? What can I say, I much prefered it when it was originally produced. But to be honest stories about how nasty the Nazi's were to everyone bore me these days. Sorry to be unPC but it's so old hat, we all know that the Nazi's didn't like anyone except themselves. The play is what it is, bland, boring and predictable. I much prefer THE NAKED CIVIL SERVANT because it's set in this country and deals with British ignorance and homophobia. Putting the nazi's on the stage gets us all off the hook, it's a lot like certain peoples cultural racism against Americans by targeting Republican neo conservatives. BENT will always appeal to a minority of people (just like most British theatre these days) . And no BENT is not a 'GAY PLAY!' It's a play about people and how they were victimised for who they were. It's not a bad subject matter, its an excellent concept, it's just a boring and predictable play. So in my books it is a bad play. I hope that answers your queston.