"If I Forget" Must be Forgotten

I would ordinarily never write a review or a critique of another writer's work for this blog/website as it is not the purpose of the site. However, I recently saw a production that needs to be addressed.

While the “Arts” sections of the metropolitan papers are rife with praise for Broadway’s Dear Evan Hansen and playwright Steven Levenson, they have so far failed to acknowledge Levenson’s current off-Broadway Roundabout Theatre Company Production of If I Forget. Though the playwright’s inspiration for the latter work seemingly stems from the question “what does it mean to be an American Jew at the beginning of the twenty-first century”, Levenson’s answer is infuriatingly simple. Or rather, it manages to be both simple and infuriating.

That said the production is not without merit. Derek McLane, set designer, has created what is essentially the cutout of an early 2000’s typical Jewish-American house. The hominess and older-world décor accurately mask the guilt hidden in every corner and behind every tchotchke- all this on a revolving stage that rotates in between scenes, showing three different rooms of the house. From the dust-covered windows of the somewhat recently deceased matriarch, (originally her son’s room), to the patriarch’s recliner, the home’s owners are splendidly depicted throughout the house.

Levinson attempts to break away from the clichéd dysfunctional family by making the family in question Jewish and, much more to his point, making the protagonist a self-hating Jewish professor who is publishing a book about forgetting the Holocaust. To clarify, the book is about the benefits of forgetting the Holocaust. While still failing miserably in distancing himself from the trite family issues, (loss of faith, pregnancy, infidelity, child-rearing), Levinson manages to turn an entire theatre of seemingly educated people into nodding, Israel-bashing Anti-Semites.

The undoubted lead, Michael Fischer, a Jewish studies professor, argues in favor of a Palestinian-controlled Israel, while blaming the Israeli government for being too rigid in its demands and refusing to meet the Palestinian government halfway. This should be more than enough to make any knowledgeable viewer question whether he or she has wandered into a theater of the absurd, but Levinson doesn’t stop there. This seems to be one of the play’s central motifs. Michael argues with every member of his equally secular family as to all of Israel’s faults, without acknowledging opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for Levinson’s goals, his family is either even less informed than he, or lacks the ability to retaliate. Perhaps this is based, rather simplistically, on Michael’s position as the lead character. He is the most educated, as the play makes very clear, and is also the first to voice his views while his family instead decides to consistently change the subject. As such we are only favored with Michael’s arguments, and one has to assume, by extension, Levinson’s ideologies. While the play has the potential to voice a pro-Israel sentimentality, or at the very least equality in voice, the playwright intentionally leaves out all opposing arguments from the work. This leaves the outspoken Michael center stage, spewing his beliefs and philosophies without fearing any contradictions or counterarguments.

Sitting in the audience, surrounded by a seemingly well-informed, older crowd, (as young people are not as interested in live theatre as they once were- a problem for another time), it was astounding to see such ostensible people of intellect nodding in agreement to everything Michael said. Women who had previously been discussing the beautiful set were suddenly parroting how “unfair” the Israeli government has been. Men who had been excited to get out of the house and see a show were quietly discussing how easily Israel could have, and should have, capitulated. There was no fodder from the play to counter these thoughts. Even in the second act, where what could have been a lively discussion- Michael’s family countering his claims with factual and historical allusions as to how Israel has tried, since even before it officially became a state in 1948, for a lasting peace with its neighbors in the Middle East- there were just yet further attempts to change the topic rather than risk rile Michael up.

Mixed in with the incessant hackneyed jokes like “on second thought I will have some wine,” the poorly researched mental disorders, and the tangential stories which are unrelated to both the plot and the central themes, is the premise of Michael’s soon-to-be-published (and by the second act, recently published) book. The book is about forgetting the Holocaust. This isn’t “forgetting the Holocaust” as a science fiction warning of what the world would be like. Rather, as described by Michael, it is an academic exercise. He tells us that we have been remembering the Holocaust the wrong way; that we are using it as a crutch and as the only link to our shared heritage in this century. Further, he claims that we have already failed in our mantra of “remember the Holocaust”, as it has already repeated itself in other countries. Yet again the other characters have nothing to say. There is no bright response from his family. Instead they merely shake their heads and silently judge him, perfectly exhibiting the stereotype of Jewish guilt before returning to the Cherry Orchard inspired plot device of selling their father’s store. This in turn disappointingly exemplifies yet another prevalent stereotype: the frugal Jew.