Playing for God in Solomon's Judgement by Ilay den Boer

On Good Friday, I, working for the Immigration and Naturalisation Service IND, attended the 100th performance of Solomon's judgment. Wijbrand Schaap visited the confrontational theatre production in July 2021 and wrote back then On the vicissitudes of an asylum procedure at the IND. Where does the show stand now?

Just in a nutshell: in Solomon's judgment three actors report on an asylum application to the IND. The audience seated around them is presented with the dilemma of how they would decide.

Antenna in society

If you cannot accuse theatre-maker Ilay Den Boer of anything, it is laziness. Prior to his confrontational performance, he worked in a kind of 'method directing' at the COA, the IND and a court. This helped him gain insight into the procedure of an asylum application that is unfathomable to an outsider. After a period of living-room and theatre performances, the production is still travelling around, 250 letters have been received, forming the basis for a book and a podcast, and was Solomon's judgment included in the training programme for new hearing and decision staff at the IND. One can easily say that Ilay den Boer's intensive work has social impact, exactly as he intended.

Glad to hear

Because just imagine if the Inland Revenue collaborates on a show about the benefits affair and sends an experienced employee to act, while a duped family also participates. It is in fact what Solomon's judgment does: the entire cast consists of hearing and decision officer Peter from the IND, Ilay as questioning ex-COA and ex-IND officer, and Palestinian Hassan who saw his asylum application initially rejected.

In agreeing to this production, the IND ran the risk of being bashed for an evening but instead saw a chance to highlight how it operates. It is impressive and tricky. The refugee Hassan whose proceedings in Solomon's judgment going through again is a plaything between the order of the IND and the chaos of the well-meaning Ilay; between the rationale of the IND and the emotion of the despairing Ilay; and between the mistrust in public opinion towards aliens and a distrust towards the IND's actions. Solomon's judgment is primarily a weighing of the IND's own 'hearing' performance, more than an enquiry into Hassan's fate.

Make war in your head

Powerful is the IND officer's answer to Hassan's question about how he takes his social responsibility. The calm official explains how an upbringing from deeply religious parents, helping your neighbour, with examples from the last war in the Netherlands, shaped him. The menacing undertone of the hearings that take place live in the performance also impresses. It paints a poignant picture of Hassan convincingly retelling his escape story ('make war in your head'). After all, human lives are at stake here. Playing for God, the judgement of the IND is therefore called suspiciously. However, the underlying question Ilay den Boer asks is: What kind of society do we want together? After all, citizens collectively in a democracy determine the functioning of an instrument like the IND.

Lourdes

You get the feeling from Peter that you can use procedures and legislation to regulate and safeguard a society for the long term. As a counterpoint, Ilay deliberately offers no answers to what a society should look like. Yet this performance was less of an issue if only a handful of refugees came this way, or would perhaps take on a different character if an employee of Refugee Council or an asylum lawyer armed to the teeth participated.

However, the interactive way of engaging audiences on this important topic is fascinating. Those who, at the end of the three-hour in your face-theatre looks up, noticing the switch in lighting from the human issues in the hall below to the light in the ridge of Lourdes Church. A little grace never hurts.

Good to know