Shortly before the end of the current season, the Ferdinand von Schirach hype reached Munich. Max Färberböck, creator of deeply human film narratives, stages “God” at the Residenztheater; the audience is enthusiastic, the author is present. The premiere was originally planned for November, but then came the second lockdown – and the interested viewers only had the option of filming the material on television, a grandiose wooden, rigid experience.
Such an experience, however, is inherent in the Schirach system, the man wants to be taught and discussed, he succeeds in both, and in the latter lies the (only) strength of his pieces. Almost six years ago his first, “Terror”, came out at the same time in Frankfurt and Berlin, more than a hundred theaters replayed it worldwide, it was also on television and since the audience was supposed to vote at the end, you could see how on the Internet the world ran out of coordination.
“Terror” was about the question of whether a Bundeswehr soldier acted correctly when he shot down a passenger plane that terrorists kidnapped and wanted to steer into the fully occupied Allianz Arena in Munich. “God” is about euthanasia, but the parameters are exactly the same. In September of last year there was a double performance in Düsseldorf and Berlin, it went on television and would probably have been one of the most played pieces of the season that is coming to an end, had it not been for the lockdown. And, oh, there is also a vote.
Schirach’s play was finished before the Constitutional Court passed its verdict
In February 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court overturned Section 217 of the Criminal Code, which since 2015 has banned the “commercial promotion” of suicide. This allowed medical assistance to suicide, which means that a doctor can obtain a poison, but can also refuse to do so, in any case the person who wants to die must ingest it himself. Active euthanasia remains prohibited. But Health Minister Jens Spahn has so far refused to initiate the necessary legal regulation.
Schirach’s play was finished before the Constitutional Court passed its verdict. He then laboriously fumbled into it, but his structure of ethical discussion was legally shaky. Schirach’s construct: Mr. Gärtner, 78 years old, mentally and physically perfectly healthy, wants to die at his own discretion, because after the death of his wife he no longer has any joy in life. He doesn’t want to throw himself in front of a train, he wants to resign with dignity, but nobody in Germany gives him sodium pentobarbital. The public vote, succinctly with colored cards, is about the question of whether Mr. Gärtner may receive the remedy, a question that the Constitutional Court decided long ago. Thus one votes for or against a judgment of the highest German court.
On the front stage in the Residenztheater, Volker Thiele has placed a gray box that one can imagine to be overwhelmed by reality and that acoustically supports the performers in the best possible way. You are at a meeting of the so-called ethics council, the audience is to be thought of as part of it. Above, experts and Mr. Gärtner, who is Mrs. Gärtner here, as at the premiere in Berlin, played by the bewitchingly clear Charlotte Schwab. A lawyer, Juliane Köhler, explains the situation, a doctor, Robert Dölle, has serious concerns, and a bishop, Michael Goldberg, even more.
But: Unlike in “Terror”, Schirach acts in a tendentious manner. Färberböck, together with the dramaturge Michael Billemkamp, skillfully shortened the text and gave it a little more theatrical life. He attaches great importance to positions that are presented extremely seriously, that is good and is played well. But Schirach practically wrote himself into it, as Ms. Gärtner’s lawyer, brilliant of course, even at home in canon law and played flamboyantly by Michael Wächter. He dismantles the bishop, who, derived from original sin, sees the meaning of life in suffering, a life that ultimately belongs to God and not to who he lives. With the truth of human experience, Frau Gärtner brushes aside the doctor who dreams of the wonders of palliative medicine.
One question remains: Would a dam break if self-determined dying were possible with dignity, the old could gently cede and subsequently, implicitly thought in this way, could be urged to do so as useless ballast? Well, in countries like Switzerland, where euthanasia is practiced, nothing is known of a rapid increase in inheritance cases. It is also hardly possible in Switzerland as a lovesick youngster to seek salvation from “Exit”.