John Lithgow as Dahl © Manuel Harlan
43
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
So which sort of giant are we talking about in Mark Rosenblatt’s new play? The Big Friendly type or something altogether more unpleasant? Very much that latter, as it turns out. This astonishingly good writing debut by the longtime director focuses on the fallout from a 1983 book review penned by Roald Dahl, the children’s author — played here, sensationally well, by John Lithgow.
The book, God Cried, was an account of the Israeli army’s siege of West Beirut in 1982; Dahl’s review was riddled with antisemitism, conflating the actions of the state of Israel with the will of the Jewish people. The play opens as Dahl is visited by his publishers (both of whom happen to be Jewish) for a tense lunch and pressed to retract or apologise. Eventually, after appearing — highly reluctantly — to concede some ground, Dahl doubles down by giving an interview to the New Statesman that is even more offensive.
The lunch is imagined; the interview comments, however, are verbatim. And Rosenblatt, in this terrific staging by Nicholas Hytner, carves his way nimbly through a thorny thicket of arguments about the interplay between prejudice and political viewpoint, between the artist and the art. Given the current conflict in the Middle East, the drama could not feel more timely.  
Rosenblatt is not unsympathetic towards Dahl, making plain his despair over the suffering of Palestinian children and touching on his personal tragedy (Dahl’s son was brain damaged in a car accident). But he also gives an unflinching account of the author’s blatant antisemitism and capacity for vicious behaviour. It’s a nuanced portrait, intent on unpicking the cognitive dissonance and blurred lines that can allow racism to flourish.
To begin with, Dahl comes over simply as irascible, grumbling about his painful back, the placements of Quentin Blake’s illustrations for his forthcoming book, The Witches, and the noise of the house renovations his fiancée, Felicity Crosland, has introduced. She and Dahl’s UK publisher Tom Maschler — Rachael Stirling and Elliot Levey, both brilliantly subtle — tiptoe around him, trying to impress on him the impact his views could have on his sales. But Dahl’s little digs at Maschler, a Holocaust survivor, suggest something nastier than backache. And when the representative of the American publishers arrives — Jessie Stone, a fictitious character — things become really ugly.
Romola Garai is great as Stone, still and clenched as Dahl pushes and needles her, until she suddenly lets rip in a blazing speech. In contrast, Levey’s Maschler remains emollient, reluctant to be drawn into the argument, but finally snapping at Dahl’s awful description of him as a “house Jew”.
And at the heart is Lithgow, quite superb as Dahl, rolling from avuncular charm to petulance to cruel sarcasm. Around him, Bob Crowley’s design sets a dining room table adrift in a sea of ladders and plastic sheeting: a room, like the grim issues raised in the play, unfinished.
★★★★☆
To November 16, royalcourttheatre.com

Promoted Content

Comments

Commenting is only available to readers with an FT subscription

Please login or subscribe to join the conversation.

Comment guidelines

Please keep comments respectful. Use plain English for our global readership and avoid using phrasing that could be misinterpreted as offensive. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.
(Edited)
There are basically only two types of people in the world - those that create, and those that destroy. Dahl was the former, and everyone who has created this nasty attempt at character assassination are the latter. Tearing Dahl down from his pedestal because they have no hope of creating something that is as perfect and uplifting as his stories have been for generations of children is a deeply shameful act. This is the act of someone who believes that 'deconstruction' and 'critical thinking' are a superior form of intellectual activity to the act of creation, which is objectively untrue, and unjust. Christians believe that we are all imperfect, and forgiveness and mercy are virtues necessary to enable us to live together in peace. Sure, Dahl was an anti-semite, but everyone has their imperfections. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and these nasty, bitter ideologies of ethnocentric vengeance and 'deconstruction' have that aim in mind.

*EDIT* I just ordered a copy of 'God Cried'. Should be interesting, given how controversial it is.
"Dahl’s review was riddled with antisemitism, conflating the actions of the state of Israel with the will of the Jewish people."

I'm not saying Antisemitism isn't real and I'm certainly not condoning Antisemitism but there is under-appreciated nuance here.

I highly recommend reading "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas Friedman. Personally, an eye-opener for me as an outsider on the complexity of the situation. Go straight to part 2 (Jerusalem) for one of the best socio-political observations of Israel and Israelis that I have ever read.
Perfect depiction of the systematic character assassination that accompanies anyone who dares express anti-Zionist opinions. I find it surprising that such unironic propaganda can pass off as art in this day and age. Negative 2 stars.
(Edited)
He speaks with cliffhanger feel at the end of a sentence, he is a bit loose with his feet, one of the best actors on this third rock from the sun.
Like 'Married with Children', this is one of the few sitcoms that has aged well
Is anyone thinking of writing a play on antipalestinism? for a change...
(Edited)
So, why don't you? Maybe if Putin is pretending to be Best Friend to Iran and its Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthi Terrorists this week (while also being Best Friend to raving "antipalestinists" the AfD, Trump, Orban, and other bigots), you can get a grant to write it from RT!
OK, I admit to doing a bit of research before I wrote this longer version.

I have met Mr Lithgow twice, and hearing he was from princeton introduced myself. I don't recall the 2nd time, but the 1st was at a broadway show. He was polite and a gentleman both times.

I thought he was a PDS guy, Not PHS!!

Go tigers.

Some of my very early memories were attending McCarter theater. There's a reasonable chance our families knew each other.

It's is/or was a very good regional theater.

Thank you for being polite, It would have been fun to talk about P-town, but to you I was an unknown.

Are you too old to have been a hogie haven guy?

Best of luck
It is worth remembering when discussing Dahl that he himself was also brain damaged when he crashed his Gloster Gladiator in the desert. He actually put his ability to write down to this incident which also put an end to his service as a fighter pilot; the five kills that made him an "ace" consisted of three Germans and two Vichy French the latter over Syria. What he would have been like as a person if he had not had his brain re-arranged is anybody's guess; probably dead given the attrition rate of combat pilots in WW2.
(Edited)
In his book, Going Solo, he writes about compatriots who were indeed killed at terribly high rates (though as he describes it, his commander was more fiercely protective of the all-too-scarce machines he was piloting than of Dahl himself).

Sorry to go into tangents (though his book is so full of fascinating tangents that it's impossible not to), but a fun one concerns his return to London as the war was ending. He said that rules were broken for him by willing, happy desk-sitters ("NO USE OF TELEPHONE EXCEPT BY EMPLOYEES," e.g.), because the RAF had done so much to save London.

Walking the street at night, he was set upon by 3 or 4 soldiers, who said, Clockwork-Orange-style, "it's an officer!" "Let's 'ave him!" But just as 1940s-version Dim and the rest of the droogs were coming at him, fists out, one yelled: "'ey, stop! 'ee's RAF! 'ee's got wings on him!" Then they all stopped, walking on by with a grunt and a nod to him.
This review goes a long way towards redeeming FT as a newspaper. However, much more needs to be said about Dahl and the U.K.'s role in destabilizing the world through blatant political manipulation of the U.S. public (as documented in Jennet Conant's The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington) and neo-colonialism in the Middle East.
Who knew the U.K. had Dahl infiltrating the Roosevelt family and planted the idea of forming the CIA?
(Edited)
Do you have a source for this? I want to read this story
Interesting question where the actions of the state - whatever state - differ from the will of the people: are Russians guilty/responsible for what is happening in Ukraine? How about Germans? All of thay state's people,? Perhaps in varying degrees? How about descendents of some group?
Most genocides are perpetrated by an elite that attempts to coopt parts of the population and intimidate the rest either into silence or passive rather than active complicity. Rwanda, Cambodia, the Armenians, Stalin's terror fit this pattern. The Holocaust is unique as it did involve a fairly large degree of mass complicity, knowledge and the mobilisation of ordinary people against the Jews, and not just in Germany.

I think Israel and its supporters will find they are dangerously close to setting an ominous new precedent for genocide of open and even enthusiastic mass complicity as the daily violence in West Bank and the increasingly inflammatory language of TV and ordinary Israelis demonstrate. They can claim no alibi of ignorance about what is being done in their name and there are many voices calling for even more extreme measures who have suffered no censure or consequences as a result. This might go down as the first mass-participatory genocide in history.

The whole world is watching.
Interesting POV - my background is German and I feel that Germany has been held to account for arguably too long for WW2. Will Israel be held to the same standard?
(Edited)
How long would you prefer? A month? A year? Eventually you will realise that the burden of responsibility for WW2 will never go away.
Did the Jews in Germany attack Germans or pose any threat? Did they cross borders to slaughter and rape non combatants?
Hamas , widely supported in Gaza and supported by Iran, Hizbollah and the Houthis, poses an existential threat to Israel (and to some degree to diaspora Jews) and therefore they have a right to self defense. They haven’t built factories to gas and eradicate an entire population. The Germans, aided by many willing non Germans, executed 33,000 unarmed Jews over a couple of days at Babi Yar - those Jews weren’t hiding an arsenal of rockets under their children’s’ bedrooms.
Drawing Parallels between Israel and Nazis is an ahistorical nonsense.

People like you only use the word genocide to describe this particular war because you can only tolerate or sympathise with Jews as helpless victims. When Jews fight back, you describe them as Nazis.
(Edited)
Actually, the Germans had good reasons to be angry at the Israeli movement and without that movement, it is a serious question whether the genocide on Jews would have happened.
Or when it would have happened, whether it would be in a latter stage so that the end of the war would have saved them.

Know history and take some time to study old Nazi material wonder why the Nazis were angry at at Jews.

In other words: normal ethnic Jews have very legitimate reasons to question
Quite fashionable words these days, but could you be more specific about the good reasons and the history which you have in mind ?
England promised the Israeli movement Palestine as a colony (Balfour, 1917 I believe), in return for their support in the first world war.
Nazi material is full of references to this.

The nazis wasted considerable resources on this genocide (compared to the larger genocide on slavic people) during the war.
Numbers alone do not determine whether such an event can be called genocide or not. It's the intent, the language and the methods. That the Nazis killed more was only because they had the opportunity to do so. Israel would have killed many more if they had the opportunity as its government ministers openly admit. Just because they haven't killed or displaced as many as they wanted does not mean they are not committing genocide.

Israel would not exist without the Holocaust and needs to measure its conduct against that event and not use it as a pretext and cover for its own genocide. Omar Bertov an IDF veteran and Holocaust historian has made the link to Gaza explicit as have other Holocaust survivors. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov

It is genocide.
Wow, quite an essay.
Israel is getting away with ethnic cleansing and the world is silent. The next generation will examine history and correctly accuse us of complicity,
Putin is committing genocide in Ukraine, and you are silent.

The next generation will examine history and correctly accuse you of complicity.
Well, the millions of Russians who willingly and knowingly serve Putin's mass-murder campaign are guilty and responsible.

Those like the murdered Anna Politkovskaya, the murdered Boris Nemtsov, and the tens of thousands of anti-war protesters who Putin's thug police broke the bones of, tortured, beat, and/or arrested just for speaking up against Putin's warmongering, are NOT guilty or responsible, in my book. (There's controversy among the 700,000 to one million who fled Russia in 2022, to avoid fighting Putin's war for him; some, I believe, did so out of conscience, and others probably did out of self-interest, but I wouldn't dare to make a blanket pronouncement about all of them, without looking at their individual cases. But I do recommend fleeing Russia, if asked to serve Putin's warmongering.)

In between them, of course, are many millions of Russians who have either hurt or murdered others, or failed to do so; or helped others, or failed to do so; who are so varied in their responses that it's impossible to judge them all individually, except if they end up in war-crimes courts for murdering Putin's victims or the like, or if the people they save FROM Putin's criminal regime speak up after Putin dies soon.

It's similar to Nazi Germany--many are rightly judged guilty of their war crimes and atrocities; many others are rightly celebrated for preventing atrocities; and millions, in the middle, who spend the rest of their lives thinking over what they did and didn't do. The best among them will probably be the most likely to feel guilty, while the most criminal among them will brush off any feelings of guilt at all.
Zionism is a secular project, Judaism is a religious one. They contradict each other. Judaism teaches that theft and killing are wrong.
(Edited)
It's getting ever harder to have any kind of rational or sensible dialogue about antisemitism. And it will get harder as the Israel lobbyists weaponise it by blurring the line and conflating anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a deliberate McCarthyite tactic to shutdown open debate and discussion that goes beyond narrow limits.

The same people who use dogwhistle and often blatant Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, which enjoys no luxury of a semi-official definition, like the impossibly broad and deliberately vague IHRA definition, which is wide open to abuse and deliberately so. A definition it should be added which has never gone through any transparent process or scrutiny and has been pushed through by pro-Israel lobby groups and applied in over Israel-friendly 42 countries with no agreement on its origins and obvious limitations.

It's a dangerous game which risks delegitimising and devaluing it as a random term of abuse for anyone who criticises Israel's illegal occupation and war crimes. The absurdity of the IHRA definition becomes apparent when an article by the IDF veteran and Holocaust historian Omer Bartov in which he explicitly draws parallels and analogies between the Nazis and Wehrmacht in WWII to the IDF in Gaza: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov Had he not been Jewish and a respected academic, he would have been called an antisemite.

The scene is set for a battle of wills and whether the Jewish community can resolve its internal conflicts and contradictions symbolised by the UK chief rabbi, whose son serves in the IDF. Are they willing to engage in a constructive multifaith dialogue that gets away from a reductivist one-dimensional preoccupation with antisemitism to look at the wider conflict that also addresses Islamophobia and the growing role of the far-right in using racism and Islamophobia to defend Israel and demonise Muslims.
This play review has nothing to do with Zionism or Israel, and yet your comment focuses on those topics quite a bit. Perhaps it is not only the "Israel lobbyists" who are conflating "legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism".
Have you read the article? It concerns a book reviewed by Dahl about Israel's brutal 1982 invasion of Lebanon which became a template not only for the indiscriminate violence and targeting of civilians we are witnessing again, but also the use of the blanket smear of antisemitism to deflect scrutiny of Israel's war crimes and violation of international law. A stock tactic that is wheeled out by Israel and its supporters alike.

You are either dangerously ignorant or just disingenuously dishonest if you don't understand and recognise that connection.
"A stock tactic that is wheeled out by Israel and its supporters alike."
This tactic is used over and over and over, despite how ludicrous the conflation is.
Equally appalling is the successful ouster of Ivy League university presidents by pressure from wealthy Jewish alumni. Any public official who is not sufficiently draconian in dealing with student protests which point out the facts of Israeli governmental genocide of Palestinians is quickly removed from the official's position. Appalling.
In Germany it's even more extreme. Free speech has been curtailed, people's appearances publicly cancelled. Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister was refused entry to attend a Palestinian conference, this by a country that took years to ban neonazi agitators like Martin Sellner. A recent Banksy exhibition in Berlin removed all his works referencing the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the words "From the river to the sea" can legally be labelled "antisemitic." Curiously, the left is almost as extreme, claiming Palestinian resistance is driven by "hatred of Jews" and western criticism of Israel's response "antisemitic hypocrisy."

They have tried to do the same in the UK, but the safeguards of freedom of speech and judicial independence are too strong. Ilan Pappe has just published a new study of the Israel lobbies in the US and UK. https://www.waterstones.com/book/lobbying-for-zionism-on-both-sides-of-the-atlantic/ilan-pappe/9780861544028

Pappe was recently stopped and interrogated by the FBI on a visit to the US. They are getting desperate. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/22/surveillance-pro-palestine-protest
And it will get harder as the Israel lobbyists weaponise it by blurring the line and conflating anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism
What about the very bona fide antisemites blurring the line and conflating their own cause with anti-Zionism? Introspection is a two-way street.
Whatabout indeed! Most "bona fide" antisemites have aligned themselves with Israel and Zionism since it offers a mutually agreed solution to what both termed the "Jewish problem." There are very few if any "bona fide" antisemites who identify with anti-zionism.
Spot on.
So interesting.
Real pity that the tickets were sold out before the review was released!
Surprised it's only 4/5 stars given the review!
I don’t know maybe perhaps I’ll go to this , I tend to watch things about anti semitism as I’m Jewish and I suppose there is a ghoulish fascination with the subject. On the other hand the obsession with it in the Jewish community kind of tires me out . There’s been lots of racists over the years , there are people who don’t like Jews , don’t like Arabs , don’t like black people , don’t like Christians , don’t like Muslims and so it goes , they are broadly all the same , tedious and dangerous occasionally. Doesn’t stop them writing good children’s stories though , though I could live without the long operas.
Wise choice.
It is highly unlikely that our brains are susceptible to target a specific group called Jews - in other words: anti-semitism is a really flawed concept.
It is anti-Jew in any case. Arabs are semites: "a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
Origin from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem’, son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these peoples were traditionally supposed to be descendents"