Theatrical production workshops are always an interesting experience in that they feature a work-in-progress show and the full participation of the audience. Last Saturday I was able to offer my own critiques and improvements at a theatrical production workshop for a play entitled "Under The Shadow." Written by a Palestinian-Israeli playwright named Aida Nasrallah, who is also a poet and art critic who works in Israel helping young Arab women who wish to become involved with the arts, the play deals with the intense topic of a romantic relationship between an Israeli man and a Palestinian woman. Performed at the Merrick Theatre in Spingold Theater Center, the workshop was presented by Brandeis Freeplay in conjunction with Hybrid Theatre Works. Directed by J.J. Elfar, the play ran only 30 minutes long and is still in very rough shape-while the intercultural dynamics between the two characters (aptly named "She" and "He") were well crafted and made excellent use of metaphorical structure, the play never really seemed to figure out what it wanted to be, constantly struggling to find a balance between the realistic and the metaphorical. Although there were never any direct references to the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or to the war in the Middle East, the show seemed to hammer away its initially clever metaphors to the point where they were no longer subtle.

The show begins when He and She (played by Gily Gitz and Lola Hamdan, respectively) enter the stage immersed in an argument about "that thing" (meaning sex) and the fact that she can't have it because of her religion. The lack of sexual relations between He and She becomes the springboard for the argument of cultural differences that will crop up between the two.

The remainder of the play is devoted to delving into the thoughts of each of the two characters, told through monologues directed toward the audience. A particular point of contention between the two characters was the mention of "freckles" on his skin. The freckles were mentioned several times before their importance was explained, an importance which was supposed to represent his time in the "Desert." From the monologues that follow, we come to understand that He developed these freckles because of his extended exposure to the sun. He also apparently needs to hide these freckles, because he doesn't want her to see them. As we learn from her in another monologue, She is suspicious of his freckles, because it would indicate that he did, indeed, spend time in the desert. She then comes to the conclusion that if he was in the desert, she should break up with him. Confused yet?

From what I gather, "desert" is meant to imply that He fought in the Israeli army and spent time in the desert mounting offensives against the Palestinians. She, I presume, is upset by this, because it would mean that he killed many of her people. This premise is all fine on its own, but the problem is that the dialogue is so immersed in metaphors that it becomes difficult to follow. As I mentioned before, the writer doubtlessly intended for the references to the war to be vague, so that the centralized focus could be kept on He and She, but there are two problems with that. One, it's very difficult to keep such matters as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict out of the forefront when it has so clearly influenced the central characters' attitudes. Two, if the intention is to keep the references vague, then throwing in metaphor after metaphor is counterintuitive to that intention. These characters are clearly part of a reality, yet they are essentially kept inside a box with no direct references to the outside world, even though they are entrenched with endless metaphors about that same world.

The resolution of the play is also quite odd, with He revealing that his son became lost in the "desert" and was never found-meaning essentially that his son was recruited to the Israeli army and died in the war. This revelation brings She to accept He, and the two appear to resolve their differences and strive to stay together. This is a nice ending, but the problem is that it, as with the rest of the play, is so tied up in metaphors that it's difficult to fully understand their reasons for ultimately staying with each other.

The discussion after the show proved very helpful, with 12 to 15 audience members contributing to the development of the script. I introduced several of the ideas that I mentioned in this review, and there were many constructive suggestions given by others as well. Someone mentioned that the romance between the two characters didn't have a strong foundation and should really be more fleshed out (I too agreed with this assessment). Though Nasrallah is currently in Israel, I hope she will receive these notes and take them into consideration.

It should be noted that the show's idea in and of itself is very good, and with a lot of tweaking and more focusing on characters' arcs, the show could be great. The performances were also quite good. Gitz, a graduate of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, and Hamdan, an intern at The Actor's Studio in New York City, played off of each other very well and portrayed their respective struggles convincingly. I just wish the characters had spent more time interacting onstage and less time spouting monologues.

I think this play has a lot going for it, and the best option for the playwright is to rewrite the show in a much more realistic setting, so that the characters are fully understandable and relatable. Keeping the sense of cultural connectivity is a must of course, but Nasrallah should let those connections stand for themselves and not allow the show to be bogged down in constant metaphors. If this can be done, then I believe a great show could be in the works.