Eichmann in Jerusalem, Or normal men do not know that anything is possible

Text by Lauren Houda Hussein

Staging by Ido Shaked From The Adolf Eichmann Tr ial , Jerusalem 1961

Théâtre Majâz – Théâtre Gérard Philipe – Centre Dramatique National de Saint-Denis

P e r f o r m a n c e s f r o m t h e 9 t h o f M a r c h u n t i l t h e 1 s t o f A p r i l 2 0 1 6 Théâtre Gérard Philipe, Centre Dramatique National de Saint-Denis

A v a i l a b l e t o t o u r i n 2 0 1 6 / 2 0 1 7

P r o d u c t i o n a n d T o u r i n g C o n t a c t s Gwénola Bastide / g.bastide@theatregerardphilipe.com / Tel. +33(0)1 48 13 70 17 – (0) 6 45 74 94 58

Claire Van Zande / administration@theatre-majaz.com  / Tel. +33(0) 6 59 42 66 93

© Serge BLOCH

 

                                                                 

The Théâtre Gérard Philipe, Centre Dramatique National de Saint-Denis

is a place of theatrical creation, co-production and distribution. It has been managed by the stage director Jean Bellorini since January 2014, accompanied by his group of artists. His interests pertain to creation, transmission

and education. He aims to be poetic, joyful, and deeply established in his territory. The TGP (The ́a ̂tre Ge ́rard Philipe) exists as a place for thought and reflection, invention, where past and future can be questioned. It is a

space for the expression of our uncertainties, of our difficulties to speak out and to listen, and it must remain open, a home for each and everyone.

Eichmann in Jerusalem, Or normal men do not know that anything is possible Text – Lauren Houda Hussein Staging – Ido Shaked Dramaturgy – Yaël Perlmann Lighting – Victor Arancio Sound – Thibaut Champagne Costumes – Sara Bartesaghi Gal lo With Lauren Houda Hussein, Shei la Maeda, Carol ine Panzera, Mexianu Medenou, Raouf Rais, Arthur Viadieu, Charles Zevaco A new play by the Théâtre Majâz A coproduction with the Théâtre Gérard Philipe, Centre dramatique national de Saint-Denis, ARCADI, Île-de France. With the support of the Ministry of culture, DRAC Ile-de-France and of the General Council of Seine-Saint-Denis in the framework of the plan in situ and the participation of the National Archives of Pierrefitte and of the Théâtre-Studio d’Alfortville.

Adolf Eichmann was judged in 1961 in Jerusalem, Israel and more specifically in a theatre, the House of the People, transformed for this sole occasion, into a courthouse. Today, the Théâtre Majâz makes the stage a place for examining the construction of history as well as its transmission. Far from reconstructing the life or trial of a high-ranking Nazi, it questions the representation of the executioner and the duality between “man” and “monster” – originating way before the 20th century, and widely beyond Hitlerian Germany. Diving into the transcription of the very long/dense interrogation of Eichmann, Lauren Houda Hussein and Ido Shaked were struck not only by the “banality of evil” pointed out by Hannah Arendt and other philosophers, but also by the interchangeability of the accused’s remarks with those of other perpetrators of genocide throughout the world and the ages. While the name Eichmann alone evokes fear and shock, the glass cage in which the accused stands seems ultimately to be empty. Eichmann, because he is replaceable, is no one in particular. If he is a monster, we cannot judge him. If he is a man, what does this say about humanity? To make the questions asked in the trial resonate, the actors, equipped with archives, proceed with an investigation, between reality and fiction. The objective is to examine a phenomenon – which still exists, and even tends to be increasing – the distancing between killers and victims, the dissociation between assassination and crime, and the gathering of scattered clockwork men under the flags of purification, cleansing and ideological expansion.

The Troupe – the Théâtre Majâz    T h e T h é â t r e M a j â z was created in 2009 by Ido Shaked and Lauren Houda Hussein. “We strive to re-appropriate our collective memory and to transform it into an imaginary reality within a theatrical space, to ultimately enlighten our present day audience. We use the archives to reveal alternate pasts, while questioning the place of artists facing the world. From Israel to Palestine, to France, to Lebanon, to Spain, to Iran or to Morocco, each actor from this troupe brings with him/her their identity, language, culture and history, all to serve a same artistic demand.” It is not about a “humanitarian” theatre, nor a “social” one, but rather a political theatre, committed, through the use of pertinent artistic language. For its first creation, Croisades (Crusades) by Michel Azama, played in Arabic and Hebrew and subtitled in French, the Théâtre Majâz was invited to the Acre festival in Israel/Palestine where the play was put on numerous times from June to September 2009 then put on in October 2009. The play then toured in Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem in November 2009. Thereafter, Ariane Mnouchkine invited the troupe to pursue their work at the Théâtre du Soleil. She reworked Croisades during the month of May 2011 and put on thirty-three performances during the month of June. In 2012, the Théâtre du Soleil reiterated its commitment by inviting the troupe to create and interpret its new project, Les Optimistes (The Optimists). This text was originally created in the summer of 2010, at Acre during an in-residence writing program that lasted two months. The play was put on during the months of June and September 2012 at Jaffa in Israel/Palestine, then in October 2012 at the Théâtre du Soleil. The show Les Optimistes has been performed thirty times between November/December of the same year. The play was reshown at the Centre Dramatique National de Saint-Denis in September 2013 within the framework of Une semaine en compagnie (One week with new theatre companies), from the 20th to the 31st of May 2015, totaling ten performances. In 2014-2015, 2016, for its new project “Eichmann in Jerusalem, or, normal men do not know that anything is possible” the troupe will be residing in situ at Seine-Saint-Denis in partnership with the Théâtre Gérard Philipe.  Artistic direction: Lauren Houda Hussein – tel. 06 99 83 11 40 and Ido Shaked – tel. 06 73 71 7 4 52 majaz.theatre@gmail.com -­‐  www.theatre-majaz.com  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ©National  archives  –  Israel    

On the writing of Eichmann in Jerusalem Writing confronted with History. This is perhaps how one could define the challenge of such a subject. And beyond it, it is “THE” subject of the 20th century, which we have learned so much about. It is a subject to tread on with caution, and for fully justifiable reasons. The sources of information, memorials or accessible sensitivities our generation has on Nazism and the holocaust are numerous and multiple. Their accumulation and abundance has something dizzying and tetanizing for someone who wishes, today, to initiate a thought and write on the subject. Why is it still so difficult to approach this subject? Why does this period of human history (so referenced and taught) seem not to belong to us, or concern us directly, despite the direct consequences the events related to the subject have had on the lives of our ancestors? Why does the fear of saying something or making a mistake seem to prevent all possible formulation or critical analysis? Has History that has been transmitted to us been definitely calibrated and the truth been made unchangeable and indisputable? We did, “attack” quite well with Les Optimistes, our previous show, which was on the sensitive subject of the first Israeli-Arab war in 1948…so from where does this imaginary paralysis, when faced with Eichmann and Nazism, come from? Must one be Jewish to be considered legitimate when speaking of the Holocaust? Amidst the numerous charges in the Eichmann trial, two accusations follow each other; first, crime against the Jewish populace, followed by crime against humanity. This is, without a doubt where our unease resides. This juxtaposition questions our legitimacy and prevents History from becoming a collective memory. It puts us at a distance. Does a right of speech exist when it comes to the Shoah? And, if so, how can the subjectivity of the artist, his/her right, or maybe even his/her duty to imagine, express itself? Is a criticism of the trial-show that David Ben Gourion orchestrated in 1961 possible, in a world that quickly associates any form of criticsm to a denial of the Nazi horrors? Going deeper, can we, today, criticize the relationship Israel holds to its memories and oppose ourselves to its apartheid policy without being accused of anti-semitism? The slackening of the cause and effect link in our modern societies was the one fondamental condition for a genocide of such unprecedented mass scale to happen. The system that permitted administrative crime was based on the removal of the sense of responsibility of human beings in regards to their individual actions, the annihilation of all analytical capability when faced with one’s acts and thus, when faced with absolute obedience. Hilberg, in his book, The Destruction of European Jews wrote, “We must remember that most participants (of the genocide) never actually shot Jewish children nor did they pour gas into the gas chambers…Most of these bureaucrats wrote circulars, conceived projects, had discussions on their phones and participated in conferences. They could annihilate a whole population, while sitting at their desks.” Our societies are the products of this “modern” system. Zigmunt Bauman in his sociological study, Modernity and Holocaust wrote: “Anxiety remains a fully standing fact when faced with the knowledge that none of the social conditions that made Auschwitz possible have, really disappeared and that not a single efficient means has been put in place to prevent such possibilities as well as such catastrophies in the same scale as what happened in Auschwitz”; as recently formulated by Leo Kuper, “The sovereign territorial state demands, as an integral part of its sovereignty, the right to commit a genocide or to perpetrate crimes against humanity or genocide against populations subject to their authority; and the UN, de facto, defends this right.” This is what the Eichmann trial was about for us. Beyond the trial itself, it was our relationship to the memory of the Second World War – and its undeniable links with our present-day, with us, with the frightful level at which we are capable of obeying and denying – that was made clear to us. This point of view began defining itself starting with us, the actors, the stage director, the authors. Of course, it is quite clear here that the process itself is one that continues unfolding and transforming. As for Les Optimistes, we first go through a research phase on the trial itself: 360 hours of video archives, reports written by Eichmann’s inquirers for the nine months that preceded his trial, the protocols of the trial, books like A report on the banality of evil by Hannah Arendt or the sociological essay, Modernity and Holocaust by Zigmunt Bauman, amongst others. Thanks to this research phase before rehearsals, we can develop investigation fields which we then explore with the actors. It is the relationship each member of the artistic team has to the trial and to the vaster subject of ‘evil’ that we have chosen

to explore. It is not about ignoring this fear, but rather, using it as theatrical material. Thanks to this body of documents and texts (certain scenes with existing dialogue will be proposed), we begin by deciphering with the actors, then go back to the writing table and finalize the text, in order to start the second session of rehearsals. Based on this work we finalize the text, before starting the second session of rehearsals. During this second session, the writing based itself mainly on the minute-by-minute editing of the trial. Each word is true, but the assembled text itself does not reflect the trial. It reveals frightening and bleak speech. In between these “real words”, parallel word spaces open up interior doors. Drawing on our intimate paths. This process which we have already experienced with Les Optimistes has been deliberately spread out, and cut up. In order for the show to grow and develop, the material needs to travel through us, or rather within us, to finally be delivered to an audience. And it is a long process. Accepting history’s complexity is not an easy thing, but we think it is necessary, vital, particularly today, when hateful speeches are so deafening that our voices find themselves muffled. We feel equal concern for the memory of the Holocaust and the lessons that we have to learn from it, as for the tragedy lived by the Palestinian people for more than 60 years. Simply because we are human beings, and thus are also responsible for making sure that such horrors do not reproduce themselves. Simply because prevailing discussions scare us, and when faced with fear, the theatre seems to us to be the best of answers. Simply because whether or not one is by origin French, we do not tolerate the need to ceaselessly justify our identity. The theatre is, more than ever, our grounds for resistance, and we know there is still so much to resist against.

December 2014, Saint-Denis, Lauren Houda Hussein

©National  archives  -­‐  Israel  

1st excerpt PROLOGUE VOICE OF THE STAGE DIRECTOR, expressing fear: I do not think we can begin this show like any other show. From the moment you have gone through the door of our theatre there is anxiety in the air. With time, I start to get the impression that this anxiety is the true subject of our work, which you will see later. Incidentally I won’t tell you about “what I have found” but rather, about “what I cannot find”. This is a show destined to fail. I do not want to talk about the Holocaust or about how a normal man becomes a monster. Historians have adressed this issue, perplexed, sociologists have come forth with theories, film makers have made movies about this. Me, I do not want to tell anything…I don’t know anything…Maybe I am trying to tell you here, right now, that I am scared. (An actor stands up. He speaks facing the audience.) THE ACTOR playing Eichmann: Very well. Seeing as you have asked me, Mr President, to give here a clear answer, I wish to say that I consider this murder, the extermination of Jews, as one of the major crimes in the history of mankind. I would like to conclude by declaring, that already, at the time, personally, I reckoned that this violent solution was not justified… I considered it as a monstrous act. My principle in life, the one with which I have been brought up from a young age, was to desire…and to fight for ethical values. From a precise moment onwards, I was, however, prevented by the State to live according to this principle. And I would like to ask, right now, for forgiveness on a personal level to the Jewish people, I admit that I am overwhelmed with shame when I think about the evil I have committed against the Jews and about the acts I have perpetrated against them. But in the light of the argument of the Judge, this will probably only be interpreted as hypocrisy. I was tied down by my oath of obedience and I had to look after my sector, the transportation one. And I was not free from my oath. I do not, therefore feel responsible deep down in my heart. I felt as if I was cleared of all guilt. I was relieved that I had nothing to do with physical extermination…That I had nothing to do. I was busy enough with the work they had ordered me to do. I was suited for this office work in the section. I fulfilled my duty, according to orders. And no one ever reproached me with having failed my duty.... Today, again, I must say it. It is for this reason that I am here. I am completely convinced that I must suffer here in the place of others. I must accept the fate imposed on me. I am not the monster they made me out to be.

   

                 ©National  archives  -­‐  Israel  

Note on staging  THE MAN IN THE GLASS CAGE We enter the rehearsal room with some raw material: the images of the trial, the recordings, in Hebrew, in German and in French, and the testimonies translated simultaneously. An auditory space, a tower of Babel, a biblical account of modern times. On the tables, some textes: Arendt, Bauman, Levi, Hilberg, Eichmann’s interview in Life Magazine and the protocols of the interrogation in office 06 after his arrival in Israel. Letters, poems, novels and historical documents. And finally, there are the actors, and myself. Our origins and our languages; our stories and our taboos. Our show will be the testimony of this crossing. In our theatre Eichmann doesn’t exist, he is taken apart, deconstructed and multiplied, he invades the actors’ bodies like a Dibbouk, he hovers over our space but is never incarnated. He only comes to life through an actor’s eyes, through our volontary action to give meaning to this horrific vision of humanity. The trial minutes are related with precision, but the radical theatrical form and space brings out the deep absurdity of these dry, cutting words; a trial searching for justice where no justice is possible. Thus an empty space, a bare stage, the sole body and voice of the actor, our element of research. The stage direction, in the end becomes the dry earth of the minutes, precise language, documents, lists of names and positions and telegrams. We perform inside the archives of our show. I do not want to narrate the Holocaust, or comment on how a common man becomes a monster. Others have done it before me. Historians have adressed the issue, sociologists have come up with theories, film makers have made movies about this. Myself, I do not want to tell anything. In this space I want to bring to light the impossibility and the absurdity of the story in this space which is the theatre. The narrow understanding of the nazi phenomenon and the hypocrisy of our current discourse. In the end this is not a piece on the holocaust. Eichmann reveals to us simply that which inside ourselves frightens us the most. This capacity to obey and the submission which enables us still, to this day, to perpetuate masacres and occupations; state apartheid and ordinary discriminations. The monster ultimately reassures us a lot more than this normal man, the man we ourselves could have been. When we open the cage, we will see that inside there is no one, that all we had seen was our own reflection in the glass.

Ido Shaked, May 2015, Paris

2nd excerpt ATTORNEY GENERAL: Do you know the accused? WITNESS LESS: Yes ATTORNEY GENERAL: When did you meet him for the first time? WITNESS LESS: It was the 29th of May 1960, an afternoon in the interrogation room of the lyar camp when the accused was brought over (The witness Less walks towards downstage and finds Eichmann at the interrogation table. Just before he sits down) The 29th of May, I saw Adolf Eichmann for the first time. Meanwhile, between the 25thand the 29th of May there were four crazy days where my colleagues and I, we tried day and night to take in a maximum amount of specific information on the Holocaust. We read, read and read... None of us slept more than three or four hours in a row. We were tired, nervous and sometimes even irritable. It was very stressful and tiring, but exciting and marvelous at the same time. But let us come back to the first time I met the accused. (He sits in front of Eichmann.) At first sight, I was disappointed. Somewhere in my imagination, I was waiting for the sort of Nazi one sees in Hollywood films. Tall, blond, with harsh features, with a piercing and arrogant look. But I found myself in front of a man with a completely normal appearance, almost bald, rather thin, not much taller than me, not very different from you or me. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This person that you call the accused, is he in this room? WITNESS LESS: Yes, he is in front of me. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Please, point at him. WITNESS LESS: When I saw Eichmann sitting here, (he moves between the two spaces) right there, in these conditions, I suddenly had the feeling that I was holding a small bird in my hand, a creature feeling completely at my mercy.  

                    Repetitions  –  Saint-­‐Denis  –  September  2015  

3rd excerpt SCENE 8: THE MISSION OF THE SECTION IV/B4, CHAOS IN TRANSPORTATION HAUSNER: Are you aware that those being deported ended up suffering terribly? EICHMANN: I know that…until the moment when I took over the direction of the section, incidentally, I have said it and the reports say it as well, there…there was a lot of…confusion and…and extreme disorder. According to the report, people often stayed eight days locked in the train cars. And…it is the reason for which this department was created in Berlin. As far as I know, this did not happen again thereafter. It could be that looopholes on the local level caused, at times, some…unpleasantness. But we were doing our best to avoid these things. Once the provisions were made for the deportation, and the destination confirmed, we needed to send a telex to determine the available capacity. And then we would determine the number of deportees. The time and the durations were established accordingly by the section IV/B4. Incidentally, this appears in the documents. HAUSNER: The relative instructions on the transportation contingencies stipulate that the transportation itself was by train, and, although a train could only hold 700 people, there was a need to squeeze in 1000 Jews. Isn’t this a useless increase in difficulty for which you are responsible? EICHMANN: It was an affair the Central security office, or more specifically, the IV/B4, could not in any case make decisions for. But the number 700 was, if I remember well, a normal number for the time, seeing the number of cars, not specified here, if not the calculation would be easy to do. THE PRESIDENT: Silence! I prohibit all... demonstration of your feelings. HAUSNER: The number of deportees appeared on a chart hung on the wall in your office… EICHMANN: Yes, that is correct. HAUSNER: Your services knew exactly how many people were deported, and which location they were deported to… EICHMANN: Yes, they knew. I had to write monthly reports on this matter.

On the banality of evil Those contemptuous to philosophy would have wanted to describe Eichmann as a monster, and especially, a monster of anti-semitism. It is this double singularity of criminals and victims that the official Israeli discourse, more than just Jewish, wanted to imprint in collective memory. We must say that the context made any other point of view inaudible. During the trial, it had been sixteen years since the end of the war, and the Zionist movement was writing history as they wanted to, a lot more interested in the building of ideological bases in Israel than delivering the truth. Recklessly and without being excessively cautious, Arendt took the opposing view. She, on the contrary, underlined the banality of a character who had given up all sense of morality, and who was living like a cog in a chain of bureaucratic commands. A pathetic nobody rather than a monster. A man who, quite literally, did not think. Arendt showed that it is the system that enables the individual, with its loose consent, to abolish within him/herself any notion of Good or Evil. The “system”, this might be perhaps the key word. The Nazi system was, without doubt the worst of all. But there are so many others, with endings that are fortunately less tragic, that however ensnare us in an invisible logic, which seems to have been invented to spare us from thinking. It is in this way that one must understand the word “banality”, often victim of misinterpretation. Many thought that this reduced the guilt of Eichmann. It was evidently not the case. It brings up the question of individual responsibility in a totalitarian system, but also in any chain of authoritarian decision. The great merit of Hannah Arendt is that she universalized the lessons stemming from genocide, despite being faced with an official discourse that wanted to exclusively bestow it with an exceptional nature. It is in the name of this logic that she lamented the fact that Eichmann had not been accused of crimes against humanity, but rather against the “Jewish people. Continuing the same demonstration, this philosophy went so far as to denounce the role of the Judenräte, the Jewish councils created by the Nazis to use as an intermediary to the population in the ghettos. They also were taken in by an infernal logic of management and execution of orders, which evidently they condemned. We can understand, however, that this last accusation could shock. But, once again, Hannah Arendt did not give herself over to comparing levels of responsibility, she questioned the notion of responsibility itself. For the most despicable crimes to the smallest cowardice, our cowardices. This is the strength of her message. If Eichmann is not a monster, then we are all free, respectively, to extend our reflection to other situations which often present themselves in our lives.

POLITIS, Denis Sieffert – 16th of May 2013

                     ©Archive  nationale  -­‐  Israël  

SCENE 13: LETTERS 132 AND 133, ARENDT AND SCHOLEM Scholem the 23rd of June 1963 and Arendt the 20th of July 1963 SCHOLEM: There is in the Jewish language something we absolutely cannot define, but which is perfectly concrete, something the Jews call Ahabath Israel, love for the Jews. And this, we cannot perceive in you. ARENDT: You are absolutely correct in that I do not have any “love” of this sort; and this is the case for two reasons: firstly, I have in all my life never “loved” a people or any collective entity, whether it be German, French, American or even for example, the working class or anything that is similar. I only love my friends, and am totally ill-fitted to any other love. But secondly, this love for the Jews to me is dubious despite being Jewish myself. I do not love even myself, not more than I love what substances my body is constituted with, one way or another. I can only tell you one thing regarding this whole issue, the fact that the injustices committed by my own people exasperate me even more than those committed by other peoples.

SCHOLEM: What our people went through can be affected by the fact that there were certain people who deserved to be shot or would have deserved it – how could it be otherwise in a tragedy of this scale? In your manner of describing the attitudes of Jews that were submitted to extreme circumstances, that neither of us experienced, in this I do not see a balanced judgment. Who amongst us could say today which decisions were the ones the elderly Jews took or whatever the name we give them, in the circumstances of the time? I do not know. There were the Judenrat, some were crooks, others, saints. There were also many ordinary people, like all of us, who had to make decisions in conditions where one would not know how to reiterate or rebuild. I do not know if these decisions were good or bad. I do not allow myself to be judgmental. I was not there. Your thesis, according to which the notorious manoeuvers of the Nazis gave rise to the reducing and wiping away the distinction between persecutors and victims, a thesis which you use at the expense of the accusation against Eichmann, seems to me entirely faulty and tendentious. In the camps, they were depriving people of their dignity and, as you were saying yourself, they were pushing people to collaborate with their own disappearance, to watch the execution of their fellow inmates, etc. And it is for this reason that the frontier between victims and persecutors would have been removed? What perversity!

The Team and Crew I d o S h a k e d – Stage director Ido Shaked was born and grew up in Israel. He followed a course at the Art School in Tel-Aviv and came to Paris to complete his education at the École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq in 2006. After receiving his degree, he settled down in Paris, having met people sharing the same vision as his on theatre. He persued various acting programs with, amongst others, Yoshi Oida and Ariane Mnouchkine. His first show, Roméo et Juliette (Romeo and Juliet) by Shakespeare at the Tmuna Theatre in Tel-Aviv ran for more than two years (09/2007-10/2009) and won twice the prize of Independent Theatre in Israel. He, afterwards, put on Gram from Anton Tchekhov with the students of Max Reinhardt Seminar in Vienna at the Theatre Salon 5 (08/2008). He co-founded the Théâtre Majâz with Lauren Houda Hussein in Paris in 2009. For the Théâtre Majâz, he directs Croisades by Michel Azama (International Festival of Acre, Théâtre du Soleil), Les Optimistes by Lauren Houda Hussein (Théâtre du Soleil, Théâtre Gérard Philipe CDN de Saint-Denis then on tour in France). He performs with students – actors of the ENACR as well as at the université Paris 3. L a u r e n H o u d a H u s s e i n – Actress, author Lauren Houda Hussein was educated at the École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq in  Paris, as well as through diverse acting programs notably with Ariane Mnouchkine, Nikolaus in contemporary clowning, with Thierry Morel in the theatre of movement, with Stéphane Rottenberg in using puppets and Stéphanie Aubin in contemporary dance. At the same time, she is an actress and participates in the writing and staging of different shows; Vie de grenier (Attic life) and À corps de rue (At the body of roads) with the troupe Sisyphe, the reading of L'inattendue (The unexpected) by Fabrice Melquiot at the Théâtre de la Manufacture in Nancy. In cinema, she has been in various short-films such as L'année de l'Algérie (The year of Algeria) by May Bouhada and J'ai interviewé Ricardo Borgese (I interviewed Ricardo Borgese) by Félix Albert. In 2009, she co-founded the Théâtre Majâz with Ido Shaked and organized the project Croisades by Michel Azama which she adapted and in which she also acts. The show was put on in Acre, Beersheba, Jaffa, Jerusalem and in Paris at the Théâtre du Soleil. In 2010, she co-wrote with Ido Shaked a new show for the troupe, Les Optimistes in Hebrew, Arabic and French which was on at the Théâtre du Soleil from November-December 2012, at the Théâtre Gérard Philipe CDN de Saint-Denis September 2013, and was put on again May 2015 at the Théâtre Gérard Philipe as well. In 2013, she acted as the main character, Leila in Le rêve de Rasha (Rasha’s dream) by Alessandro Guidotti and Lina Joukhadar. In 2014/2015, she developed a theatrical work around Romain Gary with the students of collège De Geyter in Saint-Denis, within the framework of the residence in situ in partnership with the Conseil Général of the 93 department. At the heart of Théâtre Majâz, she is co-director, author and actress.      Sheila Maeda – Actress A graduate of the Escuela Superior de Artes y Espectáculos in Murcia (Spain) in 2006, and of the École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq in Paris in 2008, Sheila interned under the direction of Mario Biagini, Joshi Oida and Isabel Úbeda and learned some aikido as well. During her education, she toured with Cie Théâtre Classique ESAD in Spain, in Mexico and in the United-States. Her first roles were in Médéa of la Cie La Habitación Amarilla and in Cinco (Five by la Cie Enclavados (Enclosed). She went on a national tour and acted in Romeo y Julieta (Romeo and Juliet) and El diario de Ana Frank (The diary of Anne Frank) with la Cie Sol de Nit from 2010 to 2012. She has also been in various art films, notably Russian Red by Santiago Zannou. Having been a part of Théâtre Majâz since her debut in 2009, she has been welcomed by the Théâtre du Soleil for Croisades and Les Optimistes. In 2014, she joined the street theater company La Baraque Liberté.

C a r o l i n e P a n z e r a – Actress Educated at the École Claude Mathieu from 2002 to 2006 and in 2011 for one year, she followed classes at the École Internationale Jacques Lecoq, to persue a more in-depth work on “the poetic body” of the actor. Since 2009, she has been one of the artistic collaborators for the international companionship projects of the Théâtre du Soleil. She learned alongside Ariane Mnouckine of the Théâtre du Soleil, during her trips to Afghanistan and to Cambodia, to work on and write collectively a show based on improvisation, preceded by careful research and preparatio. In 2012, she staged Notre Commune, histoire méconnue racontée sur un char (Our Town, an unknown story told from a chariot) for the troupe, La Compagnie des Lorialets. As an actress, she acts in theatres and has been in different shows since 2002. In 2006 she acted, amongst other roles, in America, a professional audition by the École Claude Mathieu, stage directing by Jean Bellorini. In 2013, she was in La Ronde de nuit (The night watch) proposed by Ariane Mnouchkine, a collective creation by the Théâtre Aftaab on tour (at the Théâtre du Soleil, at the Théâtre du Nord in Lille, at the Channel in Calais, at the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, and at the Lliure Theatre in Barcelona). In 2014, she joined the Théâtre Majâz.

C h a r l e s Z é v a c o – Actor Born in France, he lives in Paris. He obtained an undergraduate degree in History between 2004 and 2007. From 2008 to 2011, he took a course on Acting at the École Supérieure d’Art Dramatique of the Théâtre National in Strasbourg. As an actor, he has worked with Amélie Énon, Jean-Pierre Vincent, Yves-Noël Genod, Guillaume Dujardin, Raphaël Patout, Benoît Giros, Grégoire Strecker, Sébastien Derrey and Maxime Kurvers. He has recently joined the Théâtre Majâz team for Eichmann in Jerusalem. He co-founded the theatre community, Notre cairn, established in Alsace. He has staged Sur la grand-route (On the main road), by Anton Tchekhov, and Never never never, by Dorothée Zumstein. In 2014, integrated the “Laboratoire – Pépinière d'artistes pluridisciplinaires” of the city of Strasbourg. Arthur Viadieu – Actor After a Master degree in molecular biology, Arthur Viadieu learned theatrical improvisation with Thomas Lierville then entered a class for theatrical art at the conservatoire in the 11th arrondissement of Paris, directed by Philippe Perrussel. He has been in various improvisation cabarets and comedies in Paris. He directed Caligula by Albert Camus in 2013. Recently, he has been in Mon ami (My friend) a play by Gilles Granouillet, stage direction by Philippe Perrussel. He has also acted in J'aime le monde tel qu’il est (I like the world as it is) by Jean Rock Gaudreault and stage direction by Charlotte Baglan at the heart of the troupe, compagnie des Lucioles. At the same time, he has been taking evening classes at the École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques lecoq and is involved in action analysis with Marion Delplancke. He also has been getting work experience on masks and clowns. He has also acted in various short-films such as La route du Deal (The road of Deal) by Daniel Tonachella and Conclusions by Alejandro Fridman. Mexianu Medenou – Actor He attended the Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris III in Censier to study theater, while also attending the conservatoire Jacques Ibert of the 19th arrondissement of Paris. He then persued his education at the Ecole départementale de théâtre (EDT91) of Corbeil-Essonnes directed by Christian Jéhanin. In 2008, he got into the TNS school class of ‘39’, under the direction of Julie Brochen. On his departure, she cast him in the leading role, Dom Juan (Don Juan) by Molière in March/April 2011, a play she directed. With the troupe la compagnie des Irréguliers, he played Karl in Et la nuit sera calme (And the night will be calm) by Kevin Keiss, at the Théâtre de la Bastille with stage direction by Amélie Enon. Thereafter, he met the film maker Sotiris Dounoukos who gave him the lead-role in the short-film Un seul corps (A single body) which was in July 2013. A month later, he was Richard in the first full-length feature film by Thomas Ngijol Fastlife, which was out July 2014. In November 2013, he was at the Grand Parquet with Oroonoko, le prince esclave d’Aphra Behn (Oroonoko, the slave prince of Aphra Behn), adapted and directed by Aline César. R a o u f R a ï s – Actor After studying Literature in Toulon, Raouf Raïs joined the Conservatoire de Paris with Stéphane Auvray-Nauroy from 2002 to 2005. He then did interships with Jean-Michel Rabeux, Sabine Quiriconi or Fabio Pacchioni. He has been in Phaedra’s love staged by Patrice Riera at the L.M.P, En attendant Godot (Waiting for Godot) by Benoît Fogel, La pluie d’été (Summer rain) by Duras, staged by Lucas Bonnifait at the théâtre de l'Aquarium. In 2013, he continued his education with the staging at the Conservatoire National. In residence at La Loge with the Collectif Hubris, he created and was in Happy together, Nova, Fusion and Gaspard. In 2014, at the théâtre de Vanves, he created Les cowboys et les indiens (The cowboys and the Indians) and was in Affabulazione by Pasolini, staged by Lucas Bonnifait, Anatomie Titus (Titus Anatomy) by Müller staged by Julien Varin and at La Loge Encore une danse (One more dance) by Thomas Matalou, EPOC by Frédéric Jessua.

Eichmann in Jerusalem, Or normal men do not know that anything is possible P e r f o r m a n c e s f r o m t h e 9 t h o f M a r c h u n t i l t h e 1 s t o f A p r i l 2 0 1 6 Mondays to Saturdays at 8 pm – Sundays at 3:30 pm – Off on Tuesdays and on Monday the 28th of March Théâtre Gérard Philipe, Centre Dramatique National de Saint-Denis 59 bd Jules Guesde 93200 Saint-Denis Informations and booking: +33 (0)1 48 13 70 00 – www.theatregerardphilipe.com Avai lable on tour in 2016 / 2017 / 2018 Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes 12 people on tour (7 actors, 1 stage director, 1 auditory manager, 1 general/lighting manager, 1 floor manager, 1 tour administrator). Decor transported from the Parisian region: 30 m3 Minimum required floor dimensions: L 10 m x D 8 m x H 5 m Production and Touring contacts Gwénola Bastide / g.bastide@theatregerardphilipe.com / Tel. +33(0)1 48 13 70 17 – 06 45 74 94 58 Claire Van Zande / administration@theatre-majaz.com / Tel. +33(0)06 59 42 66 93