Ganesh vs The Third Reich, Back to Back Theatre, Malthouse Theatre, 113 Sturt St, Southbank, Until October 9.
We can’t help telling other people’s stories – an inevitable thing, central to artistic endeavour. We can never really know what it is to be anyone else, but doesn’t imagination exist precisely to access experiences precluded from us by circumstance, to know things we cannot know any other way?
Back to Back’s Ganesh vs The Third Reich is courageous, confronting, intelligent and magisterially considered theatre. It doesn’t valorise imagination, but poses it as a tormenting problem. Hitler unleashed his imagination on the Jews, after all; and the towering achievement here is to stimulate discussion around issues of cultural appropriation, the rights and responsibilities of those who imagine and speak for others.
There are no easy answers. One initial scene powerfully illustrates imagination in conflict. Ganesh (Brian Tilley) has travelled to Nazi Germany to reclaim the swastika as an ancient symbol of life and good fortune. He encounters Dr. Mengele (David Woods). Ganesh tells the story of how he came to have an elephant head, while the ‘White Angel’ can see only a prisoner of nature, to be liberated under the scalpel of science.
Through disjointed episodes of corrective myth-making, the epic narrative attains a shadowy brilliance. In one highlight, a Jew escapes a concentration camp by train. He’s confronted by a salesman who asks after his female relatives, not knowing they’ve been murdered in Auschwitz. Ganesh is present, but silent – an elephant in the room.
If this were merely a story of Ganesh obliterating evil Nazis, it would be tacky and shallow. It isn’t. The bulk of the drama is meta-theatrical. From the outset, the ensemble confronts and argues over the enormity of the material they’re presenting, and the process used to create it.
Unsettling resonances accumulate. In a long, extemporised sequence, the director (Woods) embodies everything from political correctness gone haywire (praising even an actor who’s left the stage to have a shit) to opposite tyrannies – a rehearsal dispute morphs into the ugly spectacle of a skinhead bashing a disabled youth. Before that, the audience gets accused, directly, of attending the show to watch ‘freak porn’.
Is this an accusation we can entirely dodge? I doubt it. And that sense of doubt – so important to an ethical life – pervades every moment.
This is theatre that knows the swastika will always speak of Nazis as well as ancient religions, just as theatre by disabled performers can never escape the history of fools and freakshows. Back to Back struggles to find, and succeeds in finding, the profound beauty in that double-vision.
The dramatic force of the show’s ideas is condensed in its final moments. A marginal figure, Mark Deans, is unable to find a stable role in the play. He hovers at the edges. His moment in the sun comes, at last, through an act of casual cruelty – and Mark makes it bow wordlessly to the delight of being.

Hi Cameron. Great review. I reviewed this show for Theatre People and was equally as impressed as you were by the production. I’m just having a sticky at the other reviews that have been posted, and wanted to say I appreciate yours very much. You make excellent observations about the text and the subtext, I like your turn of phrase, and you’re far more concise than I am
.
Have a great day.
Jules Sutherland
And lo! the stream of her compliments rushed headlong into the sea of his false modesty …
Er, I mean, thanks Julia.
i found this review after seeing the play which I found very enjoyable and challenging. The device which was most unsettling was the creation by each actor (or by another devisor or writer) of a characterisation of their own self which bears the same name as the actor. Would it be clearer to differentiate between David Woods the actor and then ‘David Woods’ the character in the play?
Hi Simon,
How might one distinguish between ‘David Woods’ the actor and ‘David Woods’ the character in the play? The boundaries aren’t entirely clear, except perhaps to David, and even then I suspect the membrane is permeable. Postmodernism emphasises performance as integral to human culture and behaviour, though the idea has been around for a lot longer. The most famous use of acting as metaphor for life is of course Jacques’ speech from As You Like It: “All the world’s a stage/ And all the men and women merely players …”
I read a story in Beat magazine that interviewed David Woods about Ganesh. Full story is here, but the following excerpt teases out how murky the issues are:
The play takes on a life of its own and it may even be difficult for some to decipher what is real and what is fictional.
According to David Woods, co-devisor, editor and actor, there have already been instances in rehearsals where technicians have come in mid-scene, seen Woods bullying another actor (as part of the show) and complained about him to the mananger. “When I came back to lunch he wouldn’t let me in,” says Woods laughing about the blurry line between fiction and reality. “But it’s interesting,” he notes, “because that’s what the play’s all about.”