![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The concept of performance in the concentration camps is not a new one. Rovit and Goldfarb (1999) have chronicled a range of inmate performances from the cabarets of Theresienstadt to the variety shows at Auschwitz-Birkenau, created for many diverse reasons. Yet since the liberation of the camps there has been virtually no theatrical performance in these sites of memory. The very notion is generally seen as taboo, but the reasons for this are somewhat vague and appear to centre around the widespread idea of performance as ‘frivolous’; to perform within a concentration camp would be to somehow deface Holocaust memory and mock the suffering of those imprisoned there. Such ‘profane’ performance can be located within the ‘selfie’ photographs of tourists visiting the camps. But what of the daily shows that take place in the guise of guided tours – ‘sacred’ performances? What makes these performances acceptable to the public and the camp authorities, when theatrical performances are not? Can there ever be an acceptable theatrical performance within a concentration camp?
Taking Auschwitz-Birkenau as a case study, this article seeks to address these questions through a considered discussion of ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ performances in the camp. It begins by outlining the components of the guided tour, from the learned script of the guide to the ‘promenade performance’ nature of the space, and what makes this a ‘sacred’ performance. It defines the ‘profane’ performance hypothesis through a reflection upon several examples of tourist photographs taken within Auschwitz. It questions where site-specific theatrical performance would fall within these parameters through an interrogation of aspects including its purpose, the identity of the performers, the (intended) audience, and the short- and long-term ramifications for the performance and the camp. Ultimately, this article probes whether site-specific performance at Auschwitz could ever be efficacious and anything but profane.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Samantha Mitschke is a playwright and theatre historian, specialising in British and American Holocaust theatre. She holds a PhD in Drama & Theatre Studies (2015) from the University of Birmingham (UK) as well as an MPhil (B) in Playwriting Studies (2010) and a BA (Hons) in Drama & Theatre Arts (2008), both also from Birmingham. Her current work includes a critical analysis of Jessica Durlacher and Leon de Winter’s adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary, Anne (2014); working with the Holocaust Educational Trust to develop national guidelines for teaching the Holocaust in schools through drama; and a research project examining spectator responses in the context of verbatim theatre and survivor testimonies.
Notes
1. Daniel, “The Freest Theatre,” 150–55.
2. Schumacher, Charlotte Delbo.
3. Rovit and Goldfarb, Theatrical Performance.
4. Keil, “Mansions of the Dead,” 483.
5. See, for example, Lennon and Foley, Dark Tourism; and Sharpley and Stone, The Darker Side of Travel.
6. Pearson, Site-Specific Performance, 7.
7. Pavis, Dictionary of the Theatre, 337.
8. Pearson, Site-Specific Performance, 3.
9. Ibid., 4.
10. Des Pres, “Holocaust Laughter?” 217.
11. Kaynar, “The Holocaust Experience,” 57.
12. Kershaw, The Politics of Performance, 16.
13. Keil, “Mansions of the Dead,” 484.
14. Ibid., 484.
15. Ibid., 484.
16. Ibid., 485.
17. Des Pres, “Holocaust Laughter?” 217.
18. Ibid., 217.
19. Ibid., 218.
20. Mitschke, “Empathy Effects,” 169.
21. Isser, Stages of Annihilation, 14; Mitschke, “Empathy Effects,” 169.
22. Schick, Gillian Rose, 74.
23. Ibid., 74.
24. Ibid., 74.
25. Fuchs, Plays of the Holocaust, xvi.
26. Skloot, The Darkness We Carry, 63.
27. Fuchs, Plays of the Holocaust, xvi.
28. Skloot, The Darkness We Carry, 63.
29. Lion, “Sammy's Follies,” 377–82.
30. Ibid., 407–14.
31. Ibid., 422–31.
32. Kaynar, “The Holocaust Experience,” 57; Mitschke, “Empathy Effects,” 176.
33. Kaynar, “The Holocaust Experience,” 56.
34. Ibid., 57.
35. Ibid., 57.
36. Ibid., 56.
37. Ibid., 59.
38. Mitschke, “Against the ‘Holocaust Fairytale’”; Mitschke, “Empathy Effects,” 176–7.
39. Duggan, Trauma-Tragedy, 142–4.
40. Ibid., 76.
41. Magid, “The Holocaust and Jewish Identity,” 120–21.
42. Dean, The Fragility of Empathy, as cited in Mitschke, “Empathy Effects,” 8.
43. Ibid., 8.
44. Ibid., 8.
45. Willis, Theatricality, 10.
46. Ibid., 10.
47. McConachie, “Introduction,” 188.
48. Brook, The Empty Space, 9.
49. It is interesting to note Keil's observation, following a personal interview with an Auschwitz tour guide, that the “Museum authorities” – including tour guides – “do not feel that they are involved in [ … ] providing religious or philosophical aspects of interpretation [ … ]. Their job is to present the history of the place.” Keil, “Mansions of the Dead,” 484.
50. Des Pres, “Holocaust Laughter?” 217 (italics added).
51. Ibid., 217.
52. Kershaw, The Politics of Performance, 16.
53. Des Pres, “Holocaust Laughter?” 217.
54. Greenspan, “The Power and Limits.”
55. Turkov, “Latvia and Auschwitz,” 115–16.
56. Goldfarb, “Theatrical Activities,” 120.
57. Ibid., 120.