Omri Nitzan, Director: Staging Murder

OMRI NITZAN, DIRECTOR: STAGING MURDER Interview and transcription by Dan Urian Translation from the Hebrew by Rachel Feldhay Brenner Murder is a satire by the mature Hanoch Levin BACKGROUND Our contacts with Hanoch Levin started in September 1977 with the breakout ofviolence in lemsalem when Israeli military forces clashed with the Palestinians who protested the opening of the tunnel under the Temple Mount, or the Haram. Many faxes circulated in the artistic community-all of them just passing and meaningless gestures. I called Levin and told him, "Let's do a satire." We missed the satires he used to write. He said, "Call me in three days." Three days passed and when I came to see him, he handed me a 32 page "short" manuscript. I believe he had been writing n~' (Murder) for years. He hinted that he had started to write the play at the time of the first Intifada, at the end ofthe 1980s. It was then that the play was conceived. I have the feeling that in those three days he reread the play and adjusted it to the evolving situation. When I read the play I was both moved and bewildered; it seemed a puz­ zle. Since Levin was at that time staging "i11~~ nmn (The Whore/rom Ohio), he suggested that I stage n~'. I said that the staging of the play looked very complicated and needed a lot of preparation. I said that I did not know how to do it. He replied, "But it is urgent, very urgent. .." I told him that I needed at least nine months. He thought a while and said, "You know, as a matter of fact, it will be as meaningful in nine months as it is now." THEPLAY The play shaped the performance. It was a text meant to be directed. I felt that Murder was structured like a medieval play; it is "triangular," three chapters long. There are contiguities between the chapters, but each of them stands on its own. The third act was the most difficult to decode. As far as the staging of the first two acts, it was a process of riddle solving. Levin writes with laconic condensation. If a play is "the tip ofthe iceberg," in Levin's case it is very difficult to divine the rest of it. I can give a few examples to show how difficult the staging was. For example, the scene between the bride and Hebrew Studies 43 (2002) 122 Urian: Omri Nitzan Interview the groom in the second act, before the Arab father arrives, the two escape the bruhaha of the wedding party. They are eager to touch each other and suddenly there is a power struggle between them. Which of the two will be on top and which will be on the bottom? Who will suck whom? We needed to maintain the struggle between those who humiliate and those who are hu­ miliated which is so prevalent in Levin's plays, but at the same time we needed to preserve the vitality of the young people. It was crucial to empha­ size the virginity of the couple, first, for the sake of authenticity and, second, for the meeting with the avenging Arab father. It was also important to create a certain sensual hedonistic atmosphere. Yet, Levin was not inclined to come up with a sentimental episode. The aspect of the power struggle emerged even in the erotic moment. Despite all this, the sense of virginity had to be preserved because the pungent meeting between the Arab father and the bride, who confronts him with "Why? Why?" requires that she be young, almost girlish. The third act was the most difficult because of the number of exclama­ tions. It is full of "there," "here," "murderer"... As a rule the playwright gives the director some signposts. There were very few such signs in this play. Even a personal meeting with Levin would not clarify things. He used to leave the decoding to the director. As a poet who could see the reality suc­ cinctly and from a distant perspective, he was able to remain unengaged. He was able to discard the heaps of words, quotations, explanations...