Bugs and the Holocaust

One of the most terrifying and engaging experiences I ever had was seeing NYC’s Off Broadway production of Bug by Tracy Letts.  I don’t think I have seen a production or movie this terrifying, yet real, since.  This play later became a much different take on film, for me at least, starring Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon.  I believe the film brought a little too much reality, or filled in the gaps, whereas the play’s abstract moments left much open for the audience to imagine.  Bug is about a woman, Agnes, who meets an ex-soldier, Peter, in a motel room, but eventually gets swept up in his paranoia about the government conducting experiments on Gulf War soldiers by injecting bugs into their bodies.  Agnes hides out in a dive motel room from her abusive ex-husband who is supposed to be released from prison at any moment, as well as from the pain of her child being abducted several years earlier.  Her son is a very real presence for Agnes throughout the play since she believes he is still alive somewhere.  Letts includes “dark matter” moments throughout the play to add to the fear and confusion. 

The play begins with a series of prank phone calls that Agnes tries to ignore after blaming her abusive ex-husband as the culprit.  This outside fear of Jerry looms until he arrives at the motel unexpectedly later in the play.  Peter gets bitten by a bug and jumps out of bed, naked, the next morning trying to find where it came from.  In the film, you see Agnes and Peter eventually get bite marks all over their body…or maybe it’s the scab marks they scratch away thinking they are bug bites.  In the NYC production, the audience never sees the effect of the “bugs”; so the audience wonders whether it is truly the characters’ paranoia or an actual occurrence. Are there really bugs implanted in Peter that are infesting his body and spreading to Agnes? The characters feel them and see them since “…such invisible presences matter very much indeed, even if spectators, characters, and performers cannot put their hands on them” (Sofer 3).  With the movie, it forces you to assume something is happening.  Another character, Dr. Sweet, stops by the motel room looking for Peter.  His ambiguous involvement makes the audience question if he is there to help Peter’s PTSD, or if he’s an actual agent of the government coming to take their experiment away.  He eventually gets killed by Peter, who has a meltdown, and convinces Agnes that the doctor is not a real man, but a robot from the government.  Another “dark matter” moment is when the audience wonders whether or not the actual army is outside of the hotel room waiting to pounce on Peter when a helicopter is heard flying above the motel.  The world, outside of the motel room, is never seen since the characters barricade themselves in the room with fear and anxiety.  “It is dark matter that produces the difference between horror and terror…Horror is what we see; terror is what we know is there though it remains unseen”(Sofer 5).  Letts uses a fair amount of ambiguity in his play that intensify the presence of certain “dark matter” moments.  These moments are really effective in producing in the audience a similar experience to the characters involved.  Watch this clip from the movie where Peter believes he is bugged with an egg sack under his molar filling and violently pulls his tooth out in front of Agnes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOGj14T0M4

I couldn’t help but remember my experience of visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum when I traveled with my church group to Israel in 2011.  Our tour guide told the group that it is a requirement of the schools in Israel for students to visit the Holocaust Museum every year so the horror is never forgotten--never allowed to happen again in human history.  Most of the museum is underground and constructed as a huge prism.  Spectators walk through the concrete walls as if they are in hiding from the danger of the outside Nazi threat…or perhaps imprisoned in the gas chambers unable to get out.  Artifacts from victims are displayed on pedestals and hanging casings, videos of interviews from survivors, history of the time period, and artwork that carries a certain emotional weight are seen throughout the museum.  What was really compelling to me and my friends, was the simple yet touching Children’s Exhibit Memorial.  We walked into a pitch black, cavernous room outside of the museum (one of the last stops before leaving) where a single candle was lit that reflected off a thousand or so tiny mirrors.  The flame resembled to that of millions of stars throughout the room as names of children, and the camps from where they died, were read over the sound system.

The Museum also hosts readings of literature and small plays, at times, as exhibits. However, I did not witness such an event when I visited.  If the displays and exhibitions had such an impact on me, I can only guess that these other exhibits might create some of the same responses.  And the way that the different displays were arranged created a touching, yet emotional experience.  There were very realistic images and displays for the spectator, but also abstract artwork and moments interwoven throughout the museum. 

I don’t believe there is any redeeming factor concerning the Holocaust because the event looms in the background at all times.  What is moving, and at times inspirational, are the struggles, or stories, of the victims involved.  The artistic composition in the Museum didn’t create “…a power to elicit enjoyment” as Adorno writes in his article.  But it was an experience of respect and remembrance.  Visit the website to find out more! 

http://www.yadvashem.org/YV/en/museum/index.asp