Critique on Primo Levi Monodrama

A man appears in a pale, dreadful room. He is as pale as the room, as he reflects on his memory in the Auschwitz. Although there is nothing else than a chair beside him, he seems to be able to see everything he has been through for a year. I should say that the first impression of this work, to me, was not satisfactory at all. I expected a more interactive and energetic way of presenting the reminiscence of an Italian Jewish, of all the pains and tortures carved on his backbone. Empty rooms and sporadic changes in lighting failed to please me visually and actually made me seriously consider the possibility that this one man play was produced under lack of resources.
However, I found soon that my expectations should have been on a movie that is intended solely to impress people like me, rather than on a monologue. Besides, empty rooms and lighting actually helped me imagine what I was supposed to see in them. It was probably the director’s intention to let us “put ourselves in his shoes.” If he were to give all the details visually, it will color our perception and limit its capacity to imagine. Lighting and sound effects hinted to us what kind of atmosphere we were to feel and that was just enough information given to the audience.
Just like lighting and sound effects, there are several devices that were used to convey the mood of Auschwitz. Still, lighting was the most powerful device that influenced our perception of the drama. When there were mood shifts or change in Primo’s (or Anthony Sher’s location, there were changes in lighting, either in color or in brightness. For example, Auschwitz as a whole is depicted by pale blue or grey color in order to emphasize coldness and aloofness. All the colors used in lighting generally evoke dark and gloomy mood. This symbolic image of colors also reminded me of various colors used in “The Great Gatsby,” where colors play a significant role. In both works, colors like purple, grey and blue give a sense of apprehension, while white and yellow lights represent hope. Use of colors in symbolical way like this conveys meanings in a very efficient way. In a book, all the meanings are conveyed through words, a language that is never perfect enough to prevent its loss of meanings. In fact, language, once articulated, has an effect of limiting the meaning as well as defining it. Symbolic languages like colors, although in the most basic form, is actually more accurate in conveying meanings. It also spares some space for the audience to imagine and appreciate the complete meaning. In this sense, use of colors as another tool of communication was very effective.
Another important device was the spatial background. It is interesting how they used the space, again, as a secondary language. One noticeable feature was that there was only one chair used throughout the whole movie, and that except for the place where the chair and Anthony Sher were, all the space was vacant, where all the grey walls surround them. This vacant space gives us an idea of emptiness as well as aloofness that Primo Levi feels as he is stuck in the Auschwitz. It is interesting that the way they arrange the space affects how we perceive the movie as a whole; it changes the whole atmosphere of Anthony Sher’s narration, as it comes to our eyes before it does to our ears.
Although these devices were pretty effective and helpful in creating the background for Sher’s presentation, however, the ability of the actor himself was the most noticeable feature of the movie. It was his voice, gestures and facial expressions that enabled him to perfectly communicate with the audience. His accents matched with Primo Levi – although I do not know how he speaks, I can see that it imitated Italian accents. His facial expressions were more powerful than what he was saying, as they reflected his emotions so clearly. His uniqueness in narrating the story seemed to come from his ability to empathize with Primo Levi and therefore talking as though he himself was the one who experienced it. Anthony Sher was not only able to understand the emotions, but also able to make us understand them.
This monodrama, “If This is a man,” was based on “Survival in Auschwitz,” by Primo Levi. However, no one would ever doubt if we tell them that it is a story of Anthony Sher himself and that the story is from the top of his head, not from a book. All the surrounding effects, including lighting, sound effects and spatial arrangement helped Sher produce a successful monodrama, and through them, it overcame the limitation that there is only one person throughout the whole movie and that he/she is the only person who gives the audience a speech.

How does faith relate to the world in which we live?

When you hear a word "faith," what is the first thing that you think of? A majority of people would say religion, unless they really have a strong opinion about other type of faith. Faith that I will discuss, however, is not necessarily confined to the religious one. It could be faith in certain statement, faith in rituals practiced by a culture, or faith in the morality of a person.
I am not a Christian and I don't believe in any religions. Does that make me a person without any faith? Not necessarily. I believe that eating other human beings is unethical. I believe that betraying other people for the sake of their own tribe is not right. To me, faith is more like a belief that someone holds on a certain statement. Because faith of a person gives me an idea about what that he/she is like, faith seems to be a good measurement of a person.
For this reason, I often judge people by their faith - not only what they believe in but how strong their beliefs are. (although we shouldn't be, we always tend to make some kind of prejudice on a person) The way people believe in something definitely tells us how they think of the society and what kind of person they are in the community. Therefore, people with the same faith or belief sometimes create a community of themselves, which may have positive effect and negative effect on the society as a whole. And what group a person is in often tells us who he/she is.
For instance, say one of my friends is an atheist, the one that does not believe in the presence of God. Just knowing that he does not believe in God tells me his personality: dubious, insubordinate, and indifferent.
In this sense, faith gives people something to rely on and an opportunity to be involved in the community with others. Faith does not just end up believing, but rewards people for their strong beliefs.

How did Christianity change the Sawi culture?

Don Richardson changed this barbaric, primitive culture that was prevalent in the Sawi tribe. What stroke me the most was "how come does this primitive culture accept the idea of Christianity so easily?" And I found that the answer was so not too complicated; since they were primitive, they could not find how to gain peace and love within their community. God, who represents love Himself, was the ultimate answer of their struggle, and that was how they accepted it so readily.
However, the extent to which Christianity changed the Sawi culture was not very noticeable. Although spiritual tranformation is a big part of their lives, not everything became perfect after Don Richardson visitied the Sawi. For instance, if Sawi people, who used to eat human flesh and assualt on other tribe for fun, are suddenly kept from doing those, how would they survive? Their perception of their lives is probably much more optimistic than it used to be, but what about the reality? Christianity cannot feed them and protect them physically from other tribes.
For this reason, although Christianity gave Sawi people a meaning of their lives and opened their eyes to God, it failed to change the whole culture, as it fails to change their lifestyle all of a sudden.

What concepts in the Sawi culture intrigued / reviled / saddened / angered / surprised me?

The most astonishing idea in the novel was probably the practice of cannibalism. Though I knew that the Sawi were primitive and barbaric people, I never thought that they would actually consume human flesh.
To be honest, I never believed that there were people who eat human flesh. Human being, I thought, was instinctively repulsive to eat human flesh. After I read this book, however, I found myself too narrow-minded. If people believe in ideas of river spirits and resurrection (except Jesus Christ) that have practically no reliability, why wouldn't some people believe in the seemingly least reasonable thing in the world?
Don Richardson describes cannibalism on page 33:

"Meanwhile Maum began excavating the brains from inside the skull by way of the
opening he had forced. His friends brought leaves and wooden platters of various
kinds to collect their share of the brains, to be eaten with the flesh when it
was cooked. Maum himself would not eat of the brains."

This showed how cruel and organized the Sawi people are, just like we are about some traditions like marriage. The point is that they strongly believe in their traditions that they merely take it granted. Although we are the same human beings, it's astounding to see how different we are from other cultures, with distinct rituals and beliefs.

What reflections and connections can I make with this novel?

As I read this novel and saw how Don Richardson had to deal with an extreme cultural difference, I sort of felt an empathy with him. Like he did, I also experienced change from one culture to another, even though the degree of difference was not as huge as the one presented on the novel.
When I came to TCIS at first, I found myself struggling because of sudden changes in my environment. Since a majority of TCIS students consist of Korean students, language wasn't the most difficult issue there (yes I violated language policy very often). But subtle differences in perception of certain behaviors embarrassed me more than obvious ones.
For instance, when I have to talk with grownups, (this does not often take place in Korea by the way, because the only time I get to talk with them is when I'm in a trouble) I am not supposed to look directly at their eyes; it's considered rude. However, in American culture, it is rather a sign of insubordination or guilty not to look at people's eyes when I talk to them. Although I know that I should look at their eyes when I am talking to them, I'm so used to looking down that I almost unconsciously avoid that.
This probably does not even look like a problem, but it sometimes frustrates me, because when I try to become like people who can communicate without any problem, it keeps me from becoming like them. I'm sure Don Richardson would have felt the same thing. He tries be like a Sawi, not for his whole life but just during his visit, to communicate with them more perfectly as a missionary. It is hard to become a native person, because there is certain "subtlety" that one can't just acquire. It is something that grows with the person living in the community. This connection between Don Richardson and me helped me with understading this novel better and feel what the author had to deal with.

What Should We Do When We're Confronted With Other Cultures?

Culture is a unique characteristic that a particular people has. Many are sensitive when it comes to cultural differences, because they tend to be proud of their own culture, even though it is not necessarily right.

For this reason, dealing with cultural differences is sometimes difficult. However, there are several ways to minimize the conflicts and to lead to harmonious intermingling of cultures. First, before trying to judge its morality or propriety, we should "put outselves in their shoes." Every culture has its origin and purpose, and it requires some efforts to understand it. By looking at the culture in view of others, we can find out what virtues their culture has that ours do not.

Also, we should not assume that our culture is always right. The Sawi, for instance, once believed in things that do not really make sense to us. Before they were taught about Christianity and how Christians lived, their faith in superstitions, like natural spirits or existence of souls, was so strong that, to them, their belief was absolute. We, too, cannot be sure whether what we believe and practice is always right, because culture has its own meaning and purpose to the people who live in that culture. To force other cultures to take what we believe without considering their views can aggrevate them, whether or not they express being offended.

Understanding is the key. It is natural that there are cultures different from ours. When we do get to face with the differences, we have to treat them just like the way we want to be treated by others.

What should society do for uncivilized cultures like the Sawi?

First of all, Sawi people is one of many tribes that we call "uncivilized cultures."; there are so many other tribes that are have not developed that just a group of people cannot visit every single tribe to help them with civilization. That is why we need societies to find ways to help uncivilized people like the Sawi.

There are many ways that societies can help those people, like sending missionaries or physicians to first make their lives more comfortable. Uncivilized people usually believe in superstitions rather than treatment, and what they need immediately is proper foods, clothes and home for people. They tend to move from place to place, without definite source of foods or comfortable clothes. This kind of assistance, although it should not be forced on them, can help them live better lives. After providing them with the basest necessities, we also can "enlighten" them. Missionaries can go to these tribes and teach them not only about their religions, but basic things, too, such as why it is better to eat cooked foods instead of human brains, or how they can build firm houses with wood. Societies, however, should not dismiss uncivilized cultures as wrong. They might think that their cultures are better and refuse to accept our norms. We have no right to invade their cultures, then; what we should do is to introduce them what kind of cultures we have.

How Different Is Your Modern Culture From The Sawi Tenants?

Even though it seems that many countries, or societies, have almost the same phase of developments today, there are still many countries far behind in terms of civilization. A wide gap is between modern culture and "uncivilized" culture, as the growth of a society we live in - whether it is of economy or technology - is becoming increasingly rapid. Sawi people, who believes in cannibalism, treachery and spirits in nature, is one of the examples of people that has significant difference us. Don Richardson describes his own experience in Peace Child, where he narrates his adventures in a primitive, barbarian village. He struggles with extreme cultural differences including languages, traditions and especially beliefs. While Christianity is what most modern, civilized people believe in, Sawi people, instead of worshipping God, praise treachery and consider it as an "elixir of the Sawi legend." I found it very unique and interesting at the same time, because the difference between our society and their society is so huge that there seems to be nothing in common except that we are all human. While in one part of the world we worship God and try to live according to what He said, Sawi people have their own culture as complex as our culture is. Waness, for example, portrays how systematized the Sawi people are about some traditions. The idea that someone asks for a favor by risking humiliation and that there is certain thing that one must exactly do for this procedure called waness is pretty unique; I doubt if there is any other people who has any rituals that are similar to that.

Another noticeable difference is the practice of treachery. To me, it seemed contradictory for people in the same community to praise treachery, because deception leads directly to distrust among the people. If one does not even believe his relatives, how can he be sure that his own family is not trying to plot treachery? It is probably scary to live in Sawi culture, where everyone is a potential enemy. Sawi culture is different from our culture not only in that it is uncivilized, but that it also takes much more risks to live in.

A representative passage from this novel that holds particular significence to me.

Don Richardson writes on page 186:

"For moons without umber your ancestors gave their children to establish peace - not knowing Mayo Kodon (God) has already provided one perfect Peace Child for all men - His own Son! And because your children were not strong, peace could never last. The children died, and you lapsed back into war again. That is the reason Mayo Kodon sent me - to tell you about the Peace Child who is strong - the once-for-all Tarop (peace child), Yesus! From now on, let Sawi mothers keep their own babies close to their breasts - God has given His Son for you! Lay your hands upon Him in faith and His Spirit will dwell in your hearts to keep you in the way of peace!"

I paused to renew my dependence upon the Holy Spirit before exclaiming, "If your tarop children, who were weak, could bring you peace, think how much greater will be the peace God's perfect Tarop will bring!" When the Sawi people exchanged their child as a representation of peace, I was shocked by the similarities made by Don Richardson between Jesus Christ and the peace child. How do the Sawi people, whom we consider primitive and barbarian, have such a complex and efficient procedure of making a peace agreement? And how come is the concept of peace child so similar to the meaning of Jesus Christ on this world?
In my opinion, "peace child" was not an idea of an individual who coincidentally came up with giving up a child to attain peace. All the Sawi people probably had debated on how they would maintain peace in a world where treachery is prevalent and had finally come up with trading their child, which is more valuable to them than any other wealth, as the subject of compromise.
What surprised me the most, however, was the connections between peace child and Jesus Christ. As Don Richardson says, they both epitomize peace and are meant to be sacred to us. In Sawi tribe, if one of peace children dies while the peace agreement is valid, the two tribes go war again, and the other peace child might be dead already. In other words, man-made pace child is not perfect, but can be another creation of conflicts. In this view, the difference between Jesus and peace child is that: Jesus is perfect. We now live because of Jesus, who sacrificed himself for the sins of His own people. In this view, I found that this passage reminds us of Jesus, the ultimate peace child.

Peace child

Peace Child
by Don Richardson