E ARTS Monday, March 27, 1989 Page 8 The Michigan Daily Simplistic 4 musings flaw 1 the Satanic Verses By Salman Rushdie Viking/$19.95 Rushdie has followed his "history" of India (Midnight's Chil- dren) and his dissection of Pakistani "politics" (Shame) with something broader and more ambitious. The Satanic Verses is clearly his attempt to construct a fable, a moral tale the basic message of which is: good and evil are really two sides of the same The Satanic Verses follows their adventures, probes into their histo- ries, their lives and their loves, and most controversially into the dreams that send Gibreel into a state of paranoid schizophrenia. Farishta dreams that he is in the city of Jahilia in the seventh century. In Urdu a "Jahil" is an uncivilized brute; Islamic scholars will readily admit that when the Prophet first re- ceived the Message, Mecca was a Jahilia, a city of idolators, decadence p The Satanic Verses is really two books. Rushdie's "ruminations" on Islam don't gel with his commentary on Britain. This unwieldiness and lack of cohesive structure is what weakens the novel. coin - hence the cruel parody of early Islam, a religion which the au- thor claims makes too straightfor- ward a distinction between the two forces. To be accurate, this book is profane rather than blasphemous. In the beginning (as all good fa- bles start), Indian film star Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, Man of a Thousand Voices and the king of voice-overs, both fall from the sky following a bomb explosion on a Boeing 747 hijacked by Sikh ex- tremists. From 29,002 feet, Gibreel and Saladin land on the English coast. Both are unscathed, except that Saladin has sprouted horns and developed cloven hooves on the way down. His legs have suddenly be- come hairy too. Gibreel Farishta, on the other hand, has merely acquired a halo. and vile practices. So Rushdie has named his fictional Mecca quite aptly. Another of Gibreel's recurring dreams is that of Ayesha, a butterfly- shrouded visionary who who leads a village on a ridiculous pilgrimage. This dream is a little ambiguous, though it appears to be a colorful fairy-tale involving the clash of ra- tionality and faith. The offending passages in the book are found in the chapters "Mahound" and "Return to Jahilia." Most western readers will not have any idea how deeply these chapters offend Muslims, since they are largely ignorant of Islam and its history. Rushdie parodies particular incidents and individuals held in high esteem by Muslims. Irreverently, he gives the early Muslims a modern colloquial longue. The prophet re- ceives a false revelation - the sa- tanic verses - which mingle with the true revelations of Allah. Muslims know that the Prophet was an illiterate man, and believe that the Angel Gabriel (Gibreel) was the intermediary between Allah and the Messenger. Gabriel recited the verses to the Prophet, who learnt them by heart and then dictated them to scribes. That text is the Quran. In Rushdie's narrative, Salman Farsee makes alterations and falsifications to the words the Prophet dictates to him. This is anathema to Muslims, since the Quran is not just a text but The Text - the Word of Allah, the truth. As a postmodern writer, Rushdie could not be more antithetical to this position. For him a text is always a human construct, value-laden, suspect, and never the absolute truth. The narrator of the book remarks that "where there's no belief there's no blasphemy" and this seems to be where Rushdie stands. Where he particularly simplifies and unjustly criticizes Islam is in his discussion of the concept "Ooopar- Neechay" (Urdu: upstairs-downstairs, "heaven-hell") and "the notion of separation of function, light versus show a decaying, parochial nation under the heels of Margaret Thatcher's jackboots. One of the novel's many colorful characters, Hal Valance, remarks: She's radical all right. What she wants - what she actually thinks she can achieve - is literally to invent a whole goddamn new middle class in this country. Get rid of the old woolly incompetent buggers from fucking Surrey and Hampshire, and bring in the new. People without background, without history. Hungry people. Peo- ple who reallywant and who know that with her, they can bloody well get. Nobody's tried to replace a whole fucking class before.... And it's not just the businessmen... The intellectuals, too. Out with the whole faggoty crew. In with the hungry guys with the wrong education. New professors, new painters, the lot. It's a bloody revolution. Newness coming into this country that's stuffed full of fucking old corpses. It's going to be something to see. It already is. Valance's statement is the boldest literary deconstruction of what Thatcherism is all about; the impor- tant body of The Satanic Verses deals with life for immigrants in this new England. In the novel, immigration officers insult and beat up Saladin Chamcha, a Black man dies mysteriously in police custody, and there's race rioting. One reason for the deeply entrenched racism in British society is forwarded by stut- tering film producer S. S. Sisodia: "The trouble with the Engenglish is that their hiss hiss history happened overseas, so they dodo don't know what it means." Rushdie gives the incidents in THE DAILY CLASSIFIEDS ARE A GREAT WAY TO GET FAST RESULTS CALL 764-0557 Verses London an unreal, fantastic edge, and a black humor that's like Gabriel Garcia Marquez on overdrive. He creates an array of beguiling charac- ters each embodying particular atti- tudes and responses to life in modern Britain. Most of the book is quite negative, though the final note is one of rebirth and rejuvenation. Sal- adin Chamcha is reclaimed by India. He ceases to deny his heritage, his past, his Indian identity, in effect becoming Salahuddin Chamchawala again. The Satanic Verses is really two books. Rushdie's "ruminations" on Islam don't gel with his commentary dark, good versus evil" which he says are too straightforward in the religion. Contrary to Rushdie's as- sertions, Islamic thought does not deny that attributes of both Allah and Shaitan (Satan) are inherent in all men and women. Really, with his background, Rushdie should know better! Most of the book's sections on Islam leave one with the impression that, under the claim of a pretty simple (and hardly revolutionary) "philosophical" posi- tion, Rushdie launches a few very cheap and tasteless shots at the reli- gion of his forefathers. Nevertheless, what really makes The Satanic Verses an interesting and arresting novel is its document- ing of the immigrant experience. It joins the few notable works which investigate the lives of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. We hear voices that have remained un- heard in the vast body of "literature," and we see the different responses they have to the "host" nation Britain. For example, Saladin Chamcha has tried to shed his Indianness; he's enamoured of the England of hockey sticks, garden parties, gentility and fine culture. He marries Pamela Lovelace because she's upper class, has been to the right schools and talks with a plum in her mouth, even though Pamela, a Trotskyist actress, despises her class origins. Saladin Chamcha (Urdu: "Chamcha" = "spoon" but also "Uncle Tom") has anglicized his name Salahuddin Chamchawala, and worked on mak- ing his accent as pukka as possible. He is an actor with an uncanny abil- ity to mimic voices, thus succeeding in the voice-over business but never actually getting good parts. Gibreel Farishta has an opposite view of the British and of London; as Rushdie puts it: "Where Chamcha saw attractively faded grandeur, Gibreel saw a wreck, a Crusoe-city, marooned on the island of its past, and trying with the help of a man- Friday underclass to keep up appear- ances." This seems to be the au- thor's perspective on Britain, and much of these sections in the book on Britain. This unwieldiness and lack of cohesive structure is what weakens the novel. Overambition again plagues his work. If he hadn't dwelt on Islam, but rather concen- trated solely on the immigrant expe- rience, Rushdie would have written an engaging and insightful modern classic. -Nabeel Zuberi I I Antonia (Alexa Eldred, center) tries to divert attention from her stolen groceries in We Won't Pay! We Won't Pay! We Won't Pay! fails to achieve potential BY MARC MAIER 441F you don't like what you see, cover your eyes. If you don't like what you hear, cover your ears..." So exhorts the prologue of the University Players' production of Dario Fo's We Won't Pay! We Won't Pay! Thus is the audience prepared for the political farce that follows. It is not the fault of the text that we never have to take advantage of his advice, which is prudent, given the political nature of the play. More about that later. For now, suffice to say that the play satirizes many targets, in- cluding class relationships, the government (of Italy) and the conjugal rela tionship. Even for a self-consciously liberal Ann Arbor audience at pains to appear politically correct, there are a few zingers. This is all accomplished through a basic story which begins as a work- ing-class woman, Antonia (Alexa Eldred), returns home with groceries she refused to pay for. It turns out that she has been part of larger uprising of the working class, but that makes little difference to her law-and-order husband' Giovanni (Ken Weitzman), from whom she must hide her deed with the help of her neighbor, Margherita (Ella Foley). The story takes off as complica- tions ensue involving the two husbands and several look-alike police (played by Andy Robertson). The cast combines in a fine ensemble effort (Robertson, playing five characters, is an ensemble in his own right). In comedy of this sort, it is es- sential that the relationships between all the characters are clearly defined. Eldred and Foley accomplish that definition exceptionally well, presenting two clearly drawn individuals that play hilariously off each other's foibles. Weitzman and David Wilcox (Luigi) are also funny together, although their roles tend to blur. All the actors handle the demanding physical comedy wel and are entertaining. But entertaining is all the production manages to be, which is certainly no mean achievement. Nevertheless, the show leaves a sense of unfulfilled potential. The prologue warns that we may find some of the text offensive; that it will affect us, make us want to respond actively. And indeed, the text is designed to include us in the action. We are meant to be compelled to think about issues in terms of how they relate to us. Unfortunately, this production fights against the text's intention. For one thing, the "fourth wall" remains firmly in place. The audience is in the dark while the play is in the light, making us feel like invisible ob- servers apart from the action. This effect is enhanced by the box set; which, while very functional and clever, is curiously far upstage of the audience and confines the action. The cast's job is therefore made difficult as they try to break through to us with the many asides the text provides. Further preventing our active participation in the show are several "special effects" (mainly lighting) that are designed to enhance the produc- tion's verisimilitude. But most of the technical elements of the show seem aimed at making us forget that we are in a theater - the opposite of what the text is crafted to accomplish. That conflict dulls the final message of the play. At the end, the tone be comes serious as the characters narrate a gun battle. A child is even shot, they tell us. It is here that the author tries his hardest to rouse the audience through a demonstration of injustice. In the production, this section i merely jarring and does not arouse us because of the passivity and detach- ment enforced by the rest of the show. We Won't Pay! manages to be entertaining, and is well-executed despite these problems. There is simply a potential for much more than that inher ent in the text. The farce and satire cannot break through, and the audience cannot break in to participate actively in the fun. We can only passively ob serve and enjoy, exiting happy but unmoved, because the production forces us to leave the play's message in the theater. WE WON'T PAY! WE WON'T PAY! runs one more weekend, Thursday. Friday, and Saturday at 8 p.m., and Sunday at 2 p.m. March 30 and 31, and April 1 and 2. I : U J" R' I£ Jf)1 RESTAURANT "24 YEARS EXPERIENCE" CHEF JAN TOP GOLD MEDAL WINNER JUDGES SPECIAL AWARD SPONSORED BY MICHIGAN RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION MICHIGAN CHEFS DE CUISINE ASSOCIATION BLUE RIBBON WINNER BEST CHEF AWARD IN WASHINGTON D.C. 1e Spring concert UAC/Aazin' Blue present satirayA ril 1, 1989 Michiga Union Barroom 8:0pm a