Why do poor people stink so much? Why are the homeless always there where they cause problems? Why does everything always change? “Dinner” at the Deutsches Theater shows how a hypocritical environment fails because of its lies.
As far as the appetizer is concerned, the world still seems to be in order, but as far as the digestive is concerned it is already in chaos. The Deutsches Theater in Berlin invites you to the table with “The Dinner” – based on the novel “Anrichten” by Herman Koch. With each course, the illustrious diner sheds a little more of his layers – the moral ones – until finally he appears as a naked group of interests. It’s not a pretty sight. However, András Dömötör’s production, in which tabloid comedy and social criticism meet a stellar cast, is impressive.
It is said that the theater is increasingly just a self-referential bubble. “Dinner” On the other hand it doesn’t protect its audience, it includes them. Ulrich Matthes and Maren Eggert sit in the front row before taking to Ann-Christine Müller’s chic stage. Almut Eppinger’s costumes - jacket and evening dress - do not differ noticeably from the premiere audience. Paul and Claire, as the characters are called, are a completely normal couple with a completely normal son Michel.
At least that’s what you think. But the teenager played by Carlo Krammling has a less normal hobby that he cultivates with his cousin: they torture homeless people and film themselves doing it. A woman dies. And a video of the night of the crime appears online. The identities of the young men are not publicly known, but their parents know. In the restaurant they meet Paul’s brother and his wife, Serge and Babette, to clarify the matter. “It’s not going to be a relaxing evening tonight,” Claire says.
And Claire is right, it won’t be relaxing. Furthermore, Serge, played by Bernd Moss, is a well-known politician, whose wife, played by Wiebke Mollenhauer, has the features of a modern Lady Macbeth. The career of the promising social democrat would be destroyed. Who will then save democracy from the “shift to the right” in the next elections? The more the two couples talk, the clearer it becomes that these model liberals are not interested in enlightenment, but in shielding themselves from blame.
Defense from guilt turns into aggression
Surrounded by a cartoonishly over-the-top waiter (Andri Schenardi) and the no less ridiculous restaurant manager (Jens Koch), the defense of guilt turns to aggression: Why do homeless people have to lie around? Why do poor people stink so much? The impoverished rabble here is nothing more than an obstacle to the progress of the liberal middle class and its descendants. Change something about the situation? No matter how you talk, you secretly don’t want it anymore.
Until the furious finale, which is not revealed here, “The Dinner” is a thrilling chamber opera with bitter conflicts in which no one is spared because of their gender or other characteristics. Ultimately it’s about your position. The evening also shows why the liberal left no longer wants to talk about class: because when you get to dessert you realize that class is the ultimate reason for their actions. Except now you can fight outside the fancy restaurant and downstairs.
Interview between the Time.news Editor and Theater Expert, Dr. Lena Schwartz
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Schwartz! It’s a pleasure to have you here to discuss the thought-provoking production of “Dinner” at the Deutsches Theater. This play seems to dive deep into uncomfortable social truths. What do you think the core message of the play is?
Dr. Schwartz: Thank you for having me! “Dinner” is a powerful exploration of moral decay and the façades we maintain in society. It highlights how people with privilege often ignore the suffering of marginalized groups, in this case, the homeless. The play poses critical questions about empathy, responsibility, and the consequences of inaction.
Editor: Absolutely, the premise itself is chilling—young characters torturing homeless people for entertainment. How does this shocking storyline reflect reality?
Dr. Schwartz: It’s a grotesque but revealing mirror to our society. While not everyone engages in such extreme behaviors, the normalization of cruelty towards the vulnerable is something we see in various forms, from social media sensationalism to the desensitization towards homelessness. It challenges us to confront our complicity in these issues and prompts a discussion about moral responsibility.
Editor: The production’s use of humor alongside such serious themes is fascinating. How do you think this juxtaposition affects the audience’s perception?
Dr. Schwartz: That’s one of the most clever aspects of the play. By integrating dark comedy, the creators provoke laughter but simultaneously discomfort, compelling the audience to grapple with their reactions. It functions almost as a safety valve that allows people to confront painful subjects while still being entertained, yet they leave the theater pondering heavy moral dilemmas.
Editor: You mentioned the idea of not being a “self-referential bubble.” In what way does the audience become part of the narrative?
Dr. Schwartz: The audience is deliberately included in the setting, as the characters appear to share the same space and social status. This proximity blurs the lines between spectator and participant, creating an uncomfortable intimacy that invites self-reflection. It forces viewers to question their own values and actions in the face of societal issues, making it a collective experience of scrutiny and confrontation.
Editor: And how do the performances of actors like Ulrich Matthes and Maren Eggert enhance this intense atmosphere?
Dr. Schwartz: They are phenomenal. Their talent lies not just in their performances but in how they embody the moral complexities of their characters. Matthes, with his portrayal of Paul, grapples with paternal instincts conflicting with moral accountability, while Eggert’s Claire highlights the struggles of maintaining appearances in a world rife with hypocrisy. Their chemistry adds depth to the tension during that fateful dinner, making the audience feel every uncomfortable moment.
Editor: this play seems to leave viewers with more questions than answers. What do you hope audiences take away from this experience?
Dr. Schwartz: I hope they leave with a heightened awareness of the realities surrounding social injustice and a reflective mindset regarding their own roles in these narratives. “Dinner” is a call to action, not just to identify problems but also to think about solutions and empathy. The conversation doesn’t end when the curtain falls; that’s where it truly begins.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Schwartz! It’s enlightening to hear your insights on such a compelling and relevant production. I’m sure “Dinner” will inspire many crucial discussions among viewers!
Dr. Schwartz: Thank you for having me! It’s always a pleasure to discuss the important intersection of art and society.