They are the unanswerable questions of Shakespeare scholarship: Was the Bard bisexual? Did he write his own plays? Did he really have an affair with Gwyneth Paltrow?
And, of course, given the villainy of Shylock — the loathsome moneylender from “The Merchant of Venice” — was Shakespeare anti-Semitic?
That was the question British actor Gareth Armstrong sought to address in his much-heralded one-man show “Shylock,” which had its first Bay Area run a few years ago. Armstrong brought the play back last week for a string of performances.
Written and performed entirely by Armstrong, the play examines not only the character of Shylock, but also explores the broader issue of anti-Semitism in Britain and beyond.
He does all this through the character of Tubal, a minor Jewish character with only eight lines in “Merchant,” whom Armstrong stretches into a fully realized personality.
Armstrong’s reinvented Tubal serves as narrator, commentator, educator and occasional comic relief. Along the way, he performs just about every line Shylock utters in Shakespeare’s play, as well as portraying many other characters. Through lighting, vocal tricks and sheer verve, Armstrong’s one-man show seems more like a company of players.
It was heady stuff, perhaps a bit too much for some of those gathered for the May 14 matinee at the Osher Marin Jewish Community Center’s Zelinsky Theater in San Rafael.
Comprised mostly of retirees and middle school students from neighboring Brandeis Hillel Day School, the audience seemed to appreciate Armstrong’s efforts much as the diet-conscious swallow broccoli and fish-oil capsules: They know it’s good for them, but they’d rather have a bag of Oreos.
This is not to slam Armstrong or his work. A well-trained actor-director, he is a veteran of the Royal Shakespeare Company and has toured the world with “Shylock.” In an April 2000 Bulletin review of “Shylock,” words like “brilliant” and “tour de force” were bandied about. The guy is good.
Moreover, through the magic of theater, Armstrong’s play ingeniously dramatizes the history of Jew-hatred in England — the locus of many pogroms as well as the original blood libel (the canard of accusing Jews of murdering non-Jewish children and using their blood to bake Passover matzah).
Before the final curtain call, the engaged theatergoer had learned more about Shylock’s inner life and the world of the play then ever before. The famous lines that begin “Hath not a Jew eyes?” turn out to be more heavily laden with meaning than one might suspect.
But Shakespeare’s language can often prove daunting, and that seemed to be the case for many in attendance.
At a question-and-answer session following the play, one woman said with embarrassment that she didn’t understand the ending of either “The Merchant of Venice” or Armstrong’s “Shylock.” Armstrong decorously apologized.
The Brandeis kids seemed awfully distracted during the Q&A. Many chatted with friends, read or stared into space. But why wouldn’t they? The discussion on stage ranged from highbrow theories of Shylock’s psychological motivation to the topic of transubstantiation (the Christian doctrine of wine and wafer becoming the blood and body of Christ during the Mass).
But some students were engaged enough to ask good questions. One boy wanted to know if the Dracula legend had any link to the blood libel. Another wanted to know why Christians think it’s OK to consume the blood of Christ but have a history of killing Jews whom they falsely believed drank blood.
Armstrong, the non-Jewish son of a minister, seemed pleased with the line of inquiry. He answered the student by saying, “People need someone to blame.”
To their credit, several Brandeis students were duly impressed with the production. Elena Idell noted that the play tied in nicely with her current unit on Shakespeare and the Renaissance. “Some of it was confusing, but mostly I understand,” said the 13-year-old. “The thing where they took the blood and made the matzah struck me the most.”
Her schoolmate Jessica Assaf was impressed with Armstrong’s versatility. “It’s so great how he can play all these parts.”
But kids will be kids, and as much as adult educators feel obligated to expose students to cultural touchstones like Shakespeare, the effort doesn’t always pay off at first.
As the young teens filed out of the theater, they spoke excitedly not about Shylock, the theater, anti-Semitism, or any of the provocative concepts they’d just encountered. No, it was all about who would be chosen the next “American Idol,” and the debate amongst them grew rather heated. Shakespeare was, for the time being, stuffed back into the culture closet.
Given the choice between Shylock and Ruben Studdard, apparently the big guy wins.