Funny. I thought it was tomorrow night I was seeing R & J. It is. But I saw it tonight, as well.
Checkpoint Zero isn't all about two star-crossed lovers who take themselves that little bit too seriously. It's also about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yawn! It's all very well to write about such things from this more-than-safe distance. It's just that it has so little impact. Of course, it's a good thing if it provokes thought, questions and debate. It did. I can vouch for it. But, in the end, despite the substantial historical banquet that the subject is, I was left feeling unsatiated. Here were a bunch of near-caricatures and stereotypes, playing-out cliches.
Still, it was an interesting situation. There was I, a Jewishly-identifying agnostic bleeding-heart socialist, sitting next to my (questioning) Christian Syrian friend. A few seats down was another Jewish reviewer. In front, VIPs from the Arabic community, sitting on their reserved seats; among them the seemingly reasonable Keyser Trad and quite mad, if colourful, Sheik Al-Hilaly. All this and I barely squirmed.
Admittedly, as soon as I saw the prison-like facade, front of stage, I figured I was in for some confronting, contentious material. Turned out I was dead wrong; more's the pity. For while it assumed a tough posture and the pretence of brave theatre, at heart it had nonesuch. Indeed, it was a remarkably soulless piece, given the potential. It's hard to imagine how one can so consummately turn the high drama evident in reality into, relatively speaking, consumable confectionery.
Am I being too hard on it? Possibly.
So, what was good? All-in-all the performances, set and lighting, which deserves to be 'specially acknowledged. Music, too, has been, on the whole, integrated reasonably well; some being quite beautiful.
In short, Don Mamouni has done a laudable job in energising and cultivating his cast and rather less well in co-conceiving (with Assad Abdi) a confusing, uneven, bumpy narrative; a veritable bowl of chopped liver.
The dumbass Israeli checkpoint Charlie seemed to draw more on the verifiable canon fodder more readily associated with US Forces. His commander was better, a classic macho hardarse, bending the rules to intimidate his own and the other. Both were played well. War might be hell and only an ostrich could argue the enemy is beaten by any means other than killing the men and raping the women, but the week-long abuse of a 13-year-old Palestinian stowaway was, to paraphrase my friend Eyad, taking the scenario implausibly far. It could happen. It probably has, to a lesser, or greater, extent. But is it typical and therefore redolent of the situation? And if it isn't intended to be (a defensive clause that would surely be the last refuge of a dramatist scoundrel), why portray it thus? It just didn't have that Colgate ring.
Similarly, the fatal attraction between sexy Sivan, another Israeli soldier, and 'Pally-boy' electronic engineer, Hani, while possible, seemed improbable, if not impossible, even insofar as it went. Again, I found myself reaching for the Colgate, but was strangled by what I found. Speaking of strangled, amusing as the scene in the bureaucrat's office was, why the noose on the Palestinian woman? Was this an oh-so-subtle (not) way of pointing to the 'can't win' status of this side of the equation? Perhaps. But it just seemed bizarre and distracting.
Perhaps the problem with this play, or part of it, lies in massive over-promise, it being promulgated thus: 'Checkpoint Zero is a story of the effects of conflict on current generations and the dilemmas involved in inheriting wounds from the past. This play shatters the perceptions of one of the world’s longest lasting conflicts.' It does nothing of the sort. It has none of the pathos implied; rather, bathos. By rights, it should've shocked, but it schlocked.
The play's mates also ask: 'Have you ever been involved in something that takes you over, against your own good judgement? Even though you know it’s dangerous, you keep going as if that something has got its own self-destructive momentum and you’re powerless to stop it. That’s how it was with her: Sivan. We were at Checkpoint Zero, acting like we were somewhere else entirely'. It's from the play, but it could be about the play. It's not quite a nakba, but it's too close for comfort. It's, mercifully, not a polemic; doing some justice and showing some degree of empathy for Israelis & Jews. It acknowledges the pain and subjugation I think most Jews and all fairminded ones would and do acknowledge as being imposed on Palestinians, the courage of the last, but not the anything-but-heroic, homicidal elements that ruin the prospect and are the outright enemy of peace.
If there's one thing Israelis and Palestinians can agree on, it's the inadequacy of this play. So, maybe it's more important than I think. Perhaps it's the roadmap to peace. But it doesn't make me want to meet the makers. I'd like to come out fighting for this play. But, I fear, I again find myself a refusnik.
All of that said, I reserve unreserved (if you'll allow it) praise, with some reservation, for Dritan Arbana, Silvia Entcheva, Eddie Khalil, Olivia Stambouliah, Cassandra Swaby & Charles Billeh, in, approximately, that order. Arbana, for mine, as the Israeli corporal, was the most complete characterisation. Khalil played a weakminded private very smartly indeed. Entcheva and Stambouliah were especially notable for their vocal & physical versatility, as well as dexterity: it's no mean feat changing accents and mannerisms, scene-to-scene, and keeping it convincing. Swaby seemed a little self-conscious, at times. Billeh's uni student played so earnestly and humourlessly my suspended disbelief came crashing down, without going anywhere near knocking off my socks.
A note for the dynamic duo of writers: comparing Israeli policy and action, let alone specifically Jewish initiatives, to Hitler's, is unoriginal, hackneyed, cheap and highly questionable, in every sense. Not to mention deeply, deeply offensive. Worst of all, dramatically, it utterly fails to be provocative. Oops! Pardon me! Is that my bias showing? (I'll be disappointed if someone doesn't observe so and deliriously happy if reps from all sides do.) I don't think so. Just my humanity.
Eyad & I talked about it all the way home. For that, but not so very much more, I am thankful.
Sidetrack Performance Group Checkpoint Zero
Venue: Sidetrack Shed Theatre, 142 Addison Rd, Marrickville Season: 28th July - 24th August Times: Wed-Sat 8pm, Sun 5pm, 11am matinee 28th July - 5th August Tickets: $24 Full/$15 Conc. Bookings: (02) 9560 1255 or email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Wow, your review reeks of bias to the point where you even slip up and admit it in the end. This is a play that is clearly supposed to ruffle the feathers of both the Jewish and Muslim old school values and you are probably the first casualty.
You say these characters are "near-caricatures". I felt that these characters were purposefully and wonderfully played with a sprinkle of melodrama, just so they can naturally present how importantly pathetic this conflict is between the two nations. To say this story was a cliche, only proves you kept your guard up to avoid the reality before you, which your mind refuses to accept anyway.
It seems like you must have walked into the theater with your rusty old gun loaded before you even sat down. Such is the obvious with your diary type entries referring to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict topic with a 'yawn'. Yeah, we probably have heard of this conflict before this play appeared but there aren't many plays confronting these conflicts issues.
Checkpoint Zero is obviously doing this well and is off to a good start if golden and blind reviews like yours keep coming out.
for a long time, I witheld on responding to comments on my reviews. I deigned to break that silence a little while ago, still unsure as to the dignity, propriety and wisdom, in doing so. still and all, I figure, anything that stimulates further thought has got to be good!
no 'slip-up', for the record, dalibor: some of us are big & introspective enough to realise it's almost inevitable we harbour and express biases, in various shapes and forms, albeit unwittingly, and are, therefore, prepared to speculate we might exhibit it.
I wish the had ruffled my feathers, let alone 'old school' ones! the central problem was, and is, it lacks real provocativeness.
the conflict, as with all such conflicts is, indeed, pathetic; 'though such judgments hardly help resolve anything. I don't believe I said the story was a cliche, as such, but i won't be so pedantic as to dispute this point any further.
you make numerous (ironic and false, which will be starkly apparent to those who know me, my values and views) assumptions about me, personally, which I find deeply offensive. I didn't have my guard up. I was looking forward to some powerful commentary or enquiry, which didn't materialise; in my eyes, at least. my mind was, and is, open. moreover, I'd much, much rather praise, than criticise, or condemn. this seems to be something fundamentally misunderstood about the critic: who wouldn't prefer to be affirmative, as well as constructive?
I walked into the theatre with high hopes, which were substantially dashed. I don't own a gun and the only things I'm ever interested in shotting down are bigotry and stupidity, which tend to cohabit.
the topic doesn't have to a yawn. stc's citizens certainly wasn't! but it can so easily be. it oughtn't!
you're right: there aren't many plays that confront this conflict. unfortunately, neither was this play one of them.
my review wasn't blind: it's what I saw. but I applaud your engagement in debate. and I'm glad my review has succeeded in provoking even a little. that's healthy. that's the point. but the slinging-off at me, an unknown quantity to you, is ugly and as pathetic as in the conflict we both rail against.
lastly, your description of me as a casualty, as though I've fallen victim to some imagined alignment of opinion is the last straw. I do my own thinking & am not beholden to anyone. my only loyalty is to my own integrity and sense of decency.
there's no loaded or smoking gun in my hand; rather, I've felt a few bullets coming the other way. salaam! shalom!
take a chill pill, brother.
oh, and charles, what is it you agree with, exactly?
I saw the play just recently and I would have to agree with Dalibor. It was a wonderful play and this review is just nonsense and full of personal bias. It looks like you need to take the chill pill Brad.
I can only assume that the responses questioning the review are coming from interested parties or those attached to the production. The review actually goes easy on a very mediocre piece of work. This show was the most unsubtle, undergraduate, overpromising and underdelivering piece I have seen in a long time.
It approaches such an important topic and does a complete disservice for the causes that it wishes to serve. The one dimensional characterisations, and shallow cliche-ridden script are an instant turn-off.
The banality of the evil that exists in this conflict - which remains one of its most horrifying aspects - is diminished by the easy characterisations the writers choose, such as the fact that the opening scene has soldiers laughing and joking about a week long gang rape of a minor, among other absurdities all throughout the piece. I agree with the reviewer - I am sure these things have happened, and do happen. But when characters are so inhuman at every single turn as to become unreal, not only is the audience turned off, but the very important message that the work wishes to convey is lost. How much more affecting would such a work have been if the IDF had been portrayed as an army of conscripted kids on the other side of the fence, rather than faceless monsters?
There are brief moments - like at the Palestinian permit office - when the skill of the actors comes across, and they are like an oasis in this otherwise lifeless piece. The piece does not shock, and it does not engage.
Two other brief mentions (really for the production members ready to respond) - the scene with the demonic rabbi voice telling the soldier that 'the purity of arms' doctrine means killing women and children in war is like something out of 'The Exorcist', and the cliche of 'you were in Auchwitz, now you are doing that to me' almost in so many words is such an easy cliche. My intelligence was insulted by these weak sledgehammer moments.
The work does nothing to advance either understanding of, or engagement in the wider Palestinian cause. Such a shame to see a forum like this so utterly wasted.
The sort of safe moronic drivel that plays sections of an inner-city audience who will claim that it is 'interesting' because of the political topic, instead of facing the fact: the writing is terrible. I expect better from highschool productions.
I also agree with the above comment. This sort of crass portrayal hinders where it wishes to help.
I saw the show recently and I completely agree with the previous comment. The writing was terrible indeed to the point that I almost started feeling insulted. However though, I hope I will get to see those actors perform again in the future, because I thought they were brilliant(most of them at least), especially those two guys who played the Israeli soldiers and the girl with the beautiful voice.
Otello | Opera Australia
Shakespeare’s Othello – the classic tragedy of deceit, revenge, love, and jealousy... in essence, all the makings for the spectacle and drama that is opera.
Read more
Funny. I thought it was tomorrow night I was seeing R & J. It is. But I saw it tonight, as well. 
