Ilay den Boer pushes boundary between theatre and journalism with 'Solomon's Judgement'

Je Maintiendrai. Holland's motto of arms ('Ik zal handhaven') adorns the beautiful hall of Utrecht's old Post Office, now Library. The motto also watched over the premiere of the performance 'Solomon's Judgement' with which Ilay den Boer now returns to the public. After all, he was not here for a while. He worked for just under a year at the IND, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which determines who can or cannot call themselves Dutch.

Den Boer conducted research, participatory and openly, as theatre makers rarely do, and journalists sometimes do. Jeroen van Bergeijk is one of those, for instance, getting revealing stories about abuses in warehouses of online shops or the bizarre working conditions of Uber drivers. Theatre-maker Ilay den Boer was not out to expose abuses per se, because the fact that the Netherlands' official border security is in question is a fairly common fact. Just as it is a truism that ordinary Dutch people never have to deal with it, and therefore there is no social control over it.

Talent for life

We got a nice insight into this thanks to Rodaan al Galidi, whose book 'How I got talent for life' gave an equally hilarious and painful insight into the purgatory between flight and residence permit. That book, incidentally, was adapted for stage in a very impressive performance, which disappeared into oblivion shortly after its premiere last year due to the pandemic.

Ilay den Boer shows the other side. He joined the IND by invitation. His embedded project began at a training course to become a 'decision official', having previously served an internship at an AZC in Utrecht. Finally, months later, he dishes us a picture richer in nuance than you might expect.

Really

The experiences Den Boer incorporates into the performance are also shaped into persons. Not characters, because his co-stars, the IND official Peter and asylum seeker Hasan, are themselves in this manifestation, which therefore we cannot really call a stage performance either. Everything described is real, the people are real, and our feelings as spectators are real. This is quite tricky, because there are also documentary theatre makers, who bend reality a bit to their will. Those, like me, who are also admirers of the puzzle theatre of Greg Notrott, is kind of waiting for the surprise that you suddenly turn out to be on the wrong track.

The wrong leg Ilay den Boer puts you on, if it is a wrong leg at all, is more about what you think of Dutch immigration policy in what bubble and how you place the IND's role in it. Personally - I will say it out loud - I am convinced that free movement of people should be as logical as that of goods. This makes me part of that bizarrely small minority that thinks that if people enter somewhere easily, they will easily go elsewhere, migratory species as we are.

PVVs

Ilay den Boer does not take a direct stand in Solomon's Judgement, and that is to his credit. It makes the performance suitable for the far-right among us, as well as moderates, or people like me. That's quite an achievement. 'Solomon's Judgement' has matured as a living room performance, visiting people from as many walks of life as possible, and thus including PVV people.

Solomon's judgment is about how the IND determines who does or does not qualify for residence status. In doing so, the IND assumes the benefit of the doubt, which is quite remarkable in a country where government departments and successive cabinets take distrust as their starting point, as evidenced by the scandal of the benefits affair.

Objectivity

Den Boer ultimately focuses on the objectivity that the IND says it maintains in judging people who apply for residence permits. That means no personal ties are allowed to develop and the various stages of assessment are done by different officials. The established protocols are sacrosanct, and thorough.

And there Ilay den Boer gets to the sensitive point, and the point that is the point of this whole exercise: are these protocols really that value-free, and how much leeway, for better or worse, is there for the decision officer? Ultimately, it is people who make the judgments.

Stumpers

Although, not just 'eventually'. After all, in the beginning there is parliament, and therefore the electorate, i.e. all of us, who determine how objective and humane the civil servant can be. No matter how beautifully they turn out to be able to sing, and no matter how dubious the client's story may sound.

We are all wretches, but some wretches do hold the key to Paradise. Nice that a theatre performance, thanks to journalistic research, can make this vulnerability of our actions clear. It makes you look differently at the text that accompanies that royal motto of arms.

Good to know

More info: https://www.tgilay-salomonsoordeel.nl/