Passion Play in Gest Production Revives Ancient Religious Prejudice

The expected intervention of the New York District Attorney, on the basis of Section 2074 of the New York Penal Law, prohibiting the personification of the Deity of any religion, to prevent the presentation of the Freiburg Passion Play at the Hippodrome, did not materialize and the production, sponsored by Morris Gest and David Belasco, is proceeding since the opening on Monday night.

The first night audience and the critics of the metropolitan dailies, to whom Morris Gest left the judgment as to whether or not it is offensive to Jews and likely to arouse religious and racial prejudice, ignoring Louis Masall’s protest, received the presentation with anything but enthusiasm. The opinions expressed by the theatrical critics on the artistic aspect of the presentation ranges from “disappointing” to “showing need of good acting.” Emphasis is laid on the lavishness of the production, but not infrequently too much stageerait, employed by Belasco in the presentation, is described as minimizing the religious character of the play. All are unanimous that the play did not inspire religious fervor in devout Christians witnessing it, in contrast to the influence of the Passion Play when enacted in its natural settings in Freiburg or at Oberammagau.

None of the reviewers, however, dwelt on the social side of the question aroused by the Passion Play production at the Hippodrome. No reference was made to the fear expressed that it may revive the ancient religious prejudices which have proven to be so fatal in the history of the Jewish people and in the Christian-Jewish relations for the past nineteen hundred years.

The Passion Play as presented by the Freiburg players at the Hippodrome is distinctly a heightened version of the ancient charges which gave rise to the cry of “Christ killers.” It is distinctly anti-Jewish. without any redeeming feature. It follows closely the Gospel according to St. John, the least historically correct and the one Gospel which is self-evidently directed toward accusing the Jews of that time and toward white-washing the Romans. Two of the features of the Hippodrome Passion Play are most striking. The trial, which is the crux of the entire story, is forced upon the public four times in four different scenes, in a manner contrary to all historic knowledge. The founder of the Christian religion is made to appear once before the Synhedrin, twice before Pontias Pilate and once before Herod, a point added on the basis of an uncorroborated source to show the unwillingness of the Roman authorities to sanction the crucifixion and the insistence of the Jewish leaders of that time to accomplish their ends. The High Priest is made to appear at the crucifixion scene, jeering and mocking The priests connive to bring about the Nazarene’s death as the “enemy of the synagogue.” The founder of Christianity and the apostles are portrayed as blond in contrast to the priests and the people who are thoroughly brunette. Judas, of course, is the blackest of the black. Some of the characters, particularly Dathan, the conniving priest, is made up in a manner resembling the caricatures employed in anti-Semitic journals in reference to Oriental and East European Jews. The priests, not the Roman soldiers, compel Jesus to carry the cross, driving him on. Pilate, in washing his hands, lays responsibility on “you and your children,” addressing himself to the Jews.

The crucifixion scene is prolonged to an unbearable extent. Every detail has been elaborated upon with a stark reality that cannot claim the excuse of art. The hammering of the nails resounds through the huge hall on the ears of a 6,000 strong audience.

While the Jewish press of New York city unanimously condemns the presentation and sharply criticizes Messrs. Gest and Belasco, the metropolitan press pay no attention to these protests. The Yiddish press, including the Socialist Labor daily, “Forward,” is out-spoken in its criticism after the first night, although before some voices were heard in the “Forward” and the “Day,” doubting the advisibility of interfering with the freedom of the stage.

The “Day” quoted a statement by Mr. Marshall given in an interview with a representative of that paper that “it would be sad if Jews alone would protest against this production. I expect to hear what our Christian friends have to say. I am sure they will not remain silent. The protest must be a general American one because it is an offense not only against Jews but against America. Naturally we Jews feel it most, since the Gests are, to our pain and shame, ours.”