“To uproot a conquered people has always been and always must be the first policy of conquerors.”
But aren’t these two more men who we don’t have anything to with?
Tonight’s performance won’t answer political theatre, but might also give us more to think about in the long run.
This is comparable to Cheney’s speech in W. It’s a villain speech, but what makes it political is that, while you’re enjoying the rhetoric and enjoying the fact that he’s a bastard, is the fact that Cheney was still in power.
Levine: but if you get caught up in the rhetoric, doesn’t that make you complicit?
But the bluntness of the rhetoric is alien to what we actually hear in support of, say, the invasion of Iraq – it feels wrong.
Levine: but the details go deeper in the scene, about destroying a culture – e.g. the sacking of Baghdad or the Taliban destroying Buddha statues. Does this raise the issue of updating things?
Is it better to be a historical metaphor that gives you room top think, or to be timely in such a way that you’re confronted by your own involvement (or complicity) in the world?
This scene may not be as gripping, but it is very prescient in terms of European political theory.
Levine: Jaffier as the ideal spectator of political theatre … he can foresee the suffering, based on what he hears, and he saves the city …
But doesn’t Venice totally control and contain that response?
Just like theatre! A good place to stop …