Lay Judges and Lay Actors: Emancipating the Spectator in Rimini Protokoll’s Zeugen! and Ferdinand von Schirach’s Terror Daniele Vecchiato Università degli Studi di Padova Abstract: Are viewing and acting separate things? In his essay The Emancipated Spectator (2008), Jacques Rancière argues that the state of passivity inscribed in the traditional role of the spectator must be revoked by theater itself, whose primary aim should be to liberate “a form of consciousness, an intensity of feeling, an energy for action” that can empower the spectators, make them aware of the social reality they live in, and potentially foster their desire to transform some of its structures� This paper looks at two examples of contemporary attempts at “staging justice” that expressly require an emancipated spectatorship, though in different ways: Terror. Ein Theaterstück (2016) by Ferdinand von Schirach, a courtroom drama in which the spectators are requested to judge on a fictional legal case, and Zeugen! Ein Strafkammerspiel (2004) by theater collective Rimini Protokoll, in which experts of justice from the Berlin-Moabit criminal court share their knowledge and experience with the audience� By examining the aesthetic strategies through which both texts portray the world of justice on stage, the paper outlines their political relevance as well as the different ways in which they thematise the theatricality of legal processes and the relationship between make-believe and reality� Keywords: Rimini Protokoll, Ferdinand von Schirach, Jacques Rancière, spectatorship, law and literature, justice on stage In his essay The Emancipated Spectator (2008), arguably one of the most cited pieces in theater and performance studies over the last few years, Jacques Rancière places the spectator at the heart of the debate over the relationship between art and politics� He speaks in particular of the “paradox of the spectator” who, in their position as a passive observer of stage dynamics, is traditionally 110 Daniele Vecchiato “separated from the capacity to know and the power to act” (Rancière 2) and yet is expected to be moved to action by theater, which is regarded as the most political of all art forms� Rancière cites Bertolt Brecht’s epic theater and Antonin Artaud’s theater of cruelty as historically relevant examples of dramaturgies that promote the political emancipation of the audience� Both Brecht and Artaud, in their own ways and employing their own peculiar techniques, strove to activate spectators and to challenge the idea that an audience merely constitutes a mass of passive voyeurs� According to Rancière, theater should challenge the notion that viewing and acting are separate things: given that spectators not only observe what is produced on stage but also select, compare, and interpret what they see, theater should cultivate spectators’ potential for action through performances capable of liberating “a form of consciousness, an intensity of feeling, an energy for action” (Rancière 14)� This approach to dramaturgy can empower an audience, make its members aware of the social reality in which they live, and foster their desire to change its nonfunctioning structures for the better� Intellectual and political emancipation begins when spectators realize that viewing also means actively transforming and interpreting what they see, feel, and understand from a performance - which, of course, is not necessarily what the playwright or performer thinks spectators should understand, but rather what responses they develop via their own elaboration of the content of the performance� The centrality of the spectator has been accentuated not only in scholarly debates but also, and perhaps even more so, in theater practice during recent years (see Frieze; Malzacher 65—91). In particular, postdramatic aesthetics, as first described by Hans-Thies Lehmann, have contributed to a radical rethinking of the place of the spectator within the play, often requiring theater practitioners to break the fourth wall and invite the audience to collaborate in the performance� Some critics have even come to argue that “the nineteenth century was a century of actors. The twentieth century was a century of directors. The twenty-first century is a century of spectators” (Burzyńska 9). This may sound a bit too pat, since all three of these forces have played equally important parts throughout the history of theater� 1 It is apparent, however, that especially during the last few decades spectatorship has risen to remarkable prominence in the theater world: there seems to be a genuine desire among theater makers and performers to initiate a dialogue with their audiences and, increasingly, to involve them in the dynamics of plays, sometimes to the point of transforming spectators into co-writers� 2 In Joined Forces: Audience Participation in Theatre (2016), Anna Burzyńska explains this contemporary trend toward participatory spectatorship by pinpointing two decisive factors in its inception� First, the advancement of new media has substantially changed the ways in which information and entertainment are received, introducing more direct, selective, and interactive forms of Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 111 consumption� Second, at a time when democracy, activism, and civic-mindedness have become endangered values, theater has engaged more and more with contemporary political and social issues, thus becoming “a kind of ‘rehearsal space’ for democracy, a place where one is encouraged not only to observe, but to be critical, active, and responsible for what is happening” (Burzyńska 9). Asking the audience to shape a performance by participating in it therefore means making spectators aware not only of the transformative potential of (political) theater but also of their own ability to have an impact on real life by ceasing to be passive bystanders and becoming responsible citizens� This essay examines two examples of contemporary attempts at “staging justice” that expressly require an emancipated spectatorship, though in distinct ways: the courtroom drama Terror by Ferdinand von Schirach and the Strafkammerspiel (literally, a “penal chamber play”) Zeugen! by performance collective Rimini Protokoll� The present analysis dissects the aesthetic and discursive strategies through which both texts portray the world of justice on stage and outlines their political relevance by describing the specific ways in which they each thematize the theatricality of legal processes and the relationship between fiction and reality, simulation and veracity. Ferdinand von Schirach’s Terror premiered simultaneously on 3 October 2015, German Unity Day, at the Deutsches Theater in Berlin under the direction of Hasko Weber and at the Schauspiel Frankfurt under the direction of Oliver Reese� It was arguably the most successful play of the season in Germany and went on to enjoy remarkable international success: Terror has been staged over 2,500 times across the globe and was adapted as a film for television by Tatort director Lars Kraume in 2016� 3 The following discussion is based primarily on the script that was published in 2016 and rapidly translated into several languages� 4 Rimini Protokoll’s Zeugen! was first staged on 10 January 2004 at HAU 2, a smaller venue of the Hebbel am Ufer theater in Berlin, under the direction of all three members of the performance collective: Helgard Haug, Stephan Kaegi, and Daniel Wetzel� Unfortunately, there is no complete footage of this production� The materials available for examination - thanks to the help of Rimini Protokoll themselves - include an advance script of the play (dated 28 December 2003 and presenting several gaps as well as spaces for improvisation), a few video clips of the premiere, and video interviews with the protagonists, who are not professional actors but, as is explained below, amateur performers the collective refers to as “experts�” 5 Terror is the first theatrical endeavor of criminal defense lawyer and best-selling novelist Ferdinand von Schirach� 6 To some extent, Schirach represents a modern incarnation of the traditional figure of the Dichterjurist (see Bauer), a 112 Daniele Vecchiato legally trained author whose fiction often originates from juridical cases or is inspired more broadly by questions of justice and, as in this case, moral philosophy� The play is a paradigmatically constructed courtroom drama focused on the fictional case of a German fighter pilot, Lars Koch, who decided to shoot down a hijacked aircraft against the orders of his superiors to prevent it from crashing into a football stadium� This act killed all 164 passengers on the plane but probably saved the lives of many of the 70,000 people who had gathered in the stadium to watch a Germany vs� England match� Koch opted for the lesser of two evils and does not regret his decision; at the same time, he is tried in a court of law because he acknowledges having committed multiple murders� During the trial, the moral question of whether it is permissible to kill innocent people in order to save other innocent people arises, as does whether the rightness or wrongness of the act is a question of numbers: “Lassen sich Leben […] gegeneinander rechnen, wenn für den Tod eines Menschen 400 andere gerettet werden können? ” (Schirach, Terror 115)� 7 How this question is answered and whether the pilot is indicted for committing a crime through his conduct or not is for the audience to decide� Schirach in fact wrote two alternative endings to be performed based on the decision made by the majority of the spectators at each performance� Depending on the production, spectators are either issued electronic devices to register their vote or are asked to exit the theater from one of two doors to decide upon the acquittal or conviction of the pilot� At the end of the play, the judge reads out the corresponding verdict by this jury-audience, and the results of each vote are gathered in the statistics on a website that is updated constantly� 8 Terror is clearly not a piece of documentary theater but is rather a fictional text concerning an invented trial� 9 However, there are two real-world legal texts to which the play constantly refers that anchor the core dilemma of the fiction in the real threat of terrorism during the post-9/ 11 era. The first of these texts is a judgment that was handed down by the German constitutional court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) in 2006, which declared the 2005 Aviation Security Act ( Luftsicherheitsgesetz ) to be unconstitutional (see Stenzel 209)� The act had originally been written in a manner that granted the Bundeswehr permission to use weapons against commercial airliners, should a plane be turned into a weapon over the course of a hijacking; the act was later invalidated by the constitutional court and revoked� The second text is the Grundgesetz , the German Constitution, whose Article 1 famously protects the inviolability of human dignity: “Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar�” 10 In the words of the Federal Constitutional Court, this article dictates that a human being may never be turned into a mere object of action by the state: “Ein Mensch dürfe niemals zum bloßen Objekt staatlichen Handelns gemacht werden” (Schirach, Terror 120)� If, Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 113 as in the case of Koch and his difficult choice, decisions are made about any person over which they can have no influence, then they become an object. Since every individual possesses the right to be a subject, not an object, neither the state nor anyone else may ever value one life over another, nor even a hundred lives over a single life, as human life cannot be measured in numbers: “Leben kann nicht in Zahlen gemessen werden” (Schirach, Terror 121)� Even if pragmatic moral accounting could justify the killing of a smaller number of people to save considerably more, according to the law a mathematical or utilitarian justification for the taking of innocent lives is never permissible. This intricate discussion - on the legal implications of the principle of human dignity, substantiated by references to Immanuel Kant and to contemporary philosophers Hans Wenzel and Judith Thomson - constitutes the legal core of the play, which unfolds as an actual trial, reproducing on stage the exact language of legal bureaucracy and the dramaturgy of justice. From the identification of the defendant to the reading of the accusation; from the interrogation of two witnesses to the closing statements of the state prosecutor and the defense counsel; from the final words of the defendant to the pronouncement of the verdict: the whole ritual of the legal process is acted out so as to make the audience feel that they are part of the trial - and to enable them to decide, conscientiously, its outcome� For the duration of the play, the spectator becomes a juror, the performance space a courtroom� At the beginning of the drama, before the actual start of the trial, the presiding judge appeals to the responsibilities of the spectators, addressing them directly: Nur Sie sind dazu berufen, hier zu urteilen, Sie sind die Schöffen, die Laienrichter, die heute über den Angeklagten Lars Koch zu Gericht sitzen� Das Gesetz stattet Sie mit der Macht aus, über das Schicksal eines Menschen zu entscheiden� Bitte nehmen Sie diese Verantwortung ernst� Sie werden ausschließlich über das urteilen, was Sie hier in der Verhandlung hören� […] Am Ende des Prozesses werden Sie Ihre Stimme abgeben müssen, und ich werde das Urteil verkünden, das Sie finden werden. […] Urteilen Sie also ruhig und gelassen� (Schirach, Terror 7—9) Abstention is not an option: the spectators may not refrain from expressing their opinion on the case� By immediately putting the audience in the position of a real jury, whose members must articulate a verdict, Schirach makes them feel the gravity and seriousness of their task� Of course, in the context of this play, the spectators’ verdicts do not affect anyone’s destiny - it is a fictional trial. But the simulation alone is an effective way to evoke the power of law. Another important passage in the judge’s speech refers to the theatricality of the trial, which he explains is meant to reenact the event in order to assess 114 Daniele Vecchiato it legally� The judge thus draws a neat boundary between courtroom and stage, denying the fictionality of the procedure at which audience members are to assist with a slightly ironic effect: “In einem Gerichtsverfahren spielen wir die Wirklichkeit nach, das Gericht ist eine Bühne� Natürlich führen wir kein Theaterstück auf, wir sind ja schließlich keine Schauspieler: Wir spielen die Tat durch Sprache nach, das ist unsere Art, sie zu erfassen” (Schirach, Terror 8)� This idea of a trial as a form of reenacting, through language, the purported crime and the contexts in which it occurred 11 is borrowed from Cornelia Vismann’s Medien der Rechtsprechung (2011), a work Schirach knows well enough to mention in one of his essays� 12 Exploring the institutional affinity between theater and courtroom, Vismann notes that: sämtliche Gerichte machen dasselbe, wenn sie Gericht halten� Sie konvertieren das strittige Ding in eine aussprechbare Sache� Diese Konversion von Ding in Sache ist der performative Kern allen Gerichthaltens� Dinge, die zur Sache geworden sind, sind im Recht angekommen� Über sie kann man reden, man kann darüber entscheiden oder andere Rechtsfolgen daran knüpfen� (Vismann, Medien 20) In her analysis, Vismann names this performative dimension of legal proceedings the “theatrical dispositif ” ( theatrales Dispositiv ) of justice, as it focuses not on the judgment but rather on the Verhandlung as a linguistic elaboration of the events and conflicts around which the trial revolves, aimed at conferring an order and a symbolic value upon them� By contrast, Vismann speaks of an “agonistic dispositif ” ( agonales Dispositiv ) to indicate the final verdict of the trial, which requires a clear-cut decision between two opposing options� 13 While the theatrical component of justice is characterized by a dialectical interaction of the parties, the agonistic is based on a logic of binary decision making in which spectators play a pivotal role (Vismann speaks of the “konstitutive Funktion der Zuschauer für die Entscheidungsfindung,” Medien 81)� As a paradigmatic courtroom drama, Terror contains both elements: the two acts of the play are concerned with the conversion of events into language; the final judgment from the audience concludes the performance with an irreversible sentence� Schirach, however, is resolute in stressing that the play is not just about the pronouncement of a verdict on the legal issue posed by the case of Lars Koch� As he explains in an interview with Alexander Kluge, Die Abstimmung im Stück dient der Anregung […]� Ich habe erlebt, wie Zuschauer nach der Aufführung nicht zum Essen gingen, sondern im Foyer blieben und weiter diskutierten� Jeder wusste natürlich, dass er nicht wirklich über [die] Schuld eines Menschen entschieden hatte� Aber alle redeten über den Staat, über unsere Gesellschaft und unsere Zukunft, die Verfassung wurde plötzlich lebendig� (Schirach and Kluge 110) Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 115 The ultimate aim of this successful - and much debated - experiment in audience participation is therefore to create a forum for discussion, to foster a reflection on the part of audience members not only on how to live (and judge) in times of terror but also on how justice and democracy work, who makes legal and moral decisions, and on what basis� Schirach aims at transforming the space of the theater into a republican forum, in which “die ‘res publica,’ die öffentliche Sache, wird verhandelt” (Schirach and Kluge 110)� The intent of his drama is to contribute to shaping an informed polis , to emancipate spectators, and to activate their critical capacities by making them responsible for the course of the action onstage while further inviting them to continue their reflections and discussions after the show - and thus in the real world� At the same time, the play more subtly seeks to make audience members aware of the contradictions and conflicts that are inherent in the legal system: the fact that Schirach offers two plausible outcomes of the trial - accompanied by equally convincing arguments - demonstrates the aporias and fallibilities of judicial knowledge in the face of complex moral dilemmas� Rimini Protokoll’s Zeugen! offers a different perspective on justice and its practitioners� Like other projects by the theater collective, the play is conceived as a laboratory - a research performance that brings specialists in a certain topic on stage so as to have them share their knowledge and experience with the audience� Rimini Protokoll refuses to call these lay actors “amateurs”: even though they are not professional performers, they have special expertise in the areas of knowledge around which the play revolves� Instead of amateurs, they are considered “experts of the everyday” ( Experten des Alltags ) who “embody a certain part of society, a certain profession, or a certain competence, which has molded them, which informs their thinking and even the way they look” (Boenisch 110—11)� 14 In Zeugen! the protagonists include experts on justice from the criminal court in Berlin-Moabit: a barrister, a juror, two former defendants, a courtroom drafter, and a volunteer court companion who helps victims of domestic violence endure difficult trials. More eccentric characters are also present, for instance an elderly man who spends his days as a spectator at trials and even writes protest letters to the judges when he does not agree with their verdicts; and a carpenter who builds part of the stage set during the performance and gives accurate descriptions of the seating order in a courtroom as well as of the types of wood used in the different rooms of a tribunal according to each wood’s symbolic importance. Thus different kinds of expertise are represented on stage. The play is conceived as a sort of theatrical ready-made in which “real” people who are alien to theater productions come to “play” themselves and contribute their own textual materials� Rimini Protokoll, whose members essentially 116 Daniele Vecchiato treat these “experts” as co-writers, try to ensure they are as “authentic” and unpolished as possible: ideally, they should have no interest and no experience in performance, and they do not receive any vocal or acting training during rehearsals� They are cast in order to bring their testimony to the stage, to stand in for who they actually are and for what they do in real life, and to confront the audience with firsthand information and anecdotes. 15 In a way, this is a radical form of documentary theater consisting not in the verbatim staging of authentic sources but rather in the assembling of human material in a performance space so as to voice their life, experience, and knowledge� The “experts” reconstruct reality and its rules by transferring that reality onto the stage; they restage aspects of legal dramaturgy with the same interest of witnesses reconstructing the act of the crime (see Müller-Frank)� It is as though the experts are the direct witnesses of justice, such that each spectator become a witness ‘twice over’: the imperative in the title of the play, Zeugen! with its exclamation mark, suggests that the audience is being invited to bear testimony to what it sees on stage� Unlike Terror , Zeugen! presents not the unfolding of a specific legal case but rather a collage of texts that, in the spirit of postdramatic theater, are disconnected from one another though all revolve around the same topic, namely the rituals of justice and the quest for truth� The framework Rimini Protokoll uses to communicate these materials to the audience is offered by the typical pattern of criminal trials: the structure of the performance retraces the traditional dramaturgy of a trial from the opening to the accusation; from the testimonies to the prosecutor’s closing argument; from the defendant’s last words to the final verdict� Each of these sections, however, is replete with heterogeneous texts that range from autobiographical anecdotes to historical curiosities and vertiginous lists of legal terms� At the same time, the play strongly emphasizes the spectacle-like quality of trials� It opens with a monologue by the compulsive court visitor, who explains his fascination for trials as a mixture of voyeurism and the need for entertainment� The description of his everyday courtroom experience is familiar to any theatergoer: Im Foyer steht ein gutes Dutzend Menschen� Wenn drinnen noch nicht alles bereit ist, schlüpft der Kartenabreisser mehrmals hinaus, um uns zu vertrösten� Schliesslich werden die Zuhörer über einen Lautsprecher eingerufen� Die Karten werden vom uniformierten Einlasser nicht gerissen, sondern eingezogen� Drinnen ist freie Platzwahl� Bühne und Zuschauerraum sind hell, getrennt nur durch einen Zaun auf Hüfthöhe� (Rimini Protokoll, Zeugen! 1) Further allusions to the theatricality of trials are made throughout the play, including reference to the judges’ gowns as stage costumes (see Rimini Protokoll, Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 117 Zeugen! 4) and the last words of the defendants, described as the cathartic pinnacle of the play (see Rimini Protokoll, Zeugen! 19)� The strategy of highlighting the affinity of theater and trial by putting the processes of justice on stage has a rich tradition in German cultural space, as the contributions to this special issue evidence� The unique take of Rimini Protokoll is its members’ disruption of spectators’ expectations through the inclusion of these same “experts on justice” in the performance� The very act of calling amateur performers “experts” subverts the hierarchy of art and life as it is commonly established on stage: Rimini Protokoll’s interest lies primarily in reality, not in artistic fiction. However, in this production, the collective plays with the idea of what constitutes expertise to require spectators to reflect on (and reconsider) the boundaries between fiction and authenticity both in theater and in justice. At the end of the performance, two of the protagonists - Franziska Henschel, the courtroom drafter, and Fabian Gerhardt, one of the defendants - take off their wigs and reveal themselves as professional actors who were only posing in the role of experts� 16 The spectator is therefore left to wonder retrospectively who was and who was not “real” in the play, to question the authenticity of the stories recounted onstage, and to try to discern where legal expertise gave way to imaginatively composed theater� This unexpected plot twist subverts the dramaturgy of the experts that has become a signature of Rimini Protokoll’s theater, engendering a feeling of disorientation� What audience members conventionally consider acceptable - an actor playing a fictional character on stage - appears to be an outright lie or at least an act of deceit when included in a performance that is supposed to consist of real-life testimonies� 17 As Vismann points out in a review of the play, the audience’s discovery of the fake experts (i�e�, of the professional actors) provokes a switch from the “ludic code” of drama to the “verifying code” of justice, and the role of the judge - which eloquently remains unoccupied in the play - becomes implicitly assigned to the spectator, who must distinguish theatrical simulation from the spontaneity of the experts (see Vismann, “Neulich im Theater”)� In this oscillation between truth and mise-en-scène , the testimonies rendered on stage suddenly appear to be simultaneously real and suspicious� As Milo Rau observes in another review: “Nicht eine vorgegebene Dramaturgie sichert die Unterscheidung von Kunst und Wirklichkeit, sondern der Beobachter selber wird zum Spezialisten, der den Kriterien für Authentizität und Inszenierung auf die Spur kommen muss” (Rau)� Once again, spectators are placed at the center of the production and are directly confronted with the mechanisms of justice� This happens in a less explicit way than in Terror , as the audience is not asked to pronounce a final verdict but is rather encouraged to observe and then judge the materials presented by the so-called experts� As in Schirach’s 118 Daniele Vecchiato project, the boundaries here between actor and spectator are blurred, and the engagement and responsibility of all participants are required to make sense of the performance� The expectation of engagement and responsibility determines the political nature of both Schirach’s and Rimini Protokoll’s dramatic endeavors� Indeed, the plays differ considerably in structure, aesthetic purpose, and dramaturgy: Terror is a conventionally constructed courtroom drama (“ein in sich geschlossener Spielvorgang, der vor den Zuschauern - wie in einem Guckkasten - abläuft”; Brauneck 56), whereas Zeugen! presents traits typical of postdramatic theater, including a radical “irruption of the real” that causes a “suspension of the clear line between reality […] and ‘spectatorial event’” (Lehmann, Postdramatic Theatre 103). And yet, even though they can be ascribed different aesthetics, both dramas bring about productive forms of audience involvement, promoting the concept of theatrical experience as a social praxis that connects all the participants - actors and spectators alike� As Hans-Thies Lehmann remarks in his essay “Unterbrechung� Wie politisch ist postdramatisches Theater? ” (2002), contemporary theater - as opposed to forms of political theater from the first half of the twentieth century - does not try to propagate political messages in an agit-prop fashion, thematizing politically provocative subject matters on stage, but rather seeks moments of interruption ( Unterbrechung ) that (ideally) enable sociopolitical discourses to filter down into the plays in an indirect way, “modo obliquo,” developing strategies that can help spectators form their own critical opinions (Lehmann, “Unterbrechung” 16)� 18 The metareflective staging of a trial or of everyday juridical life can certainly be considered a moment of Unterbrechung 19 aiming at fostering a reflection not only on fiction vs. reality but also on how justice is administered, on what processes are involved in the investigation of truth, and on what higher issues are at stake when a legal (or moral) judgment is made. Though with different dramaturgical tools and with almost antithetical aesthetic programs, therefore, both Terror and Zeugen! attain this Unterbrechung through the implementation of comparable forms of nonprofessionalism (the lay judges in Terror and the lay actors in Zeugen! ) that trigger different sorts of audience participation: on the one hand, a vote that determines the end of the play (and the verdict of a fictional trial), and on the other, a mental process that questions the reliability of individual parts of the performance, as if each were a witness deposition� Terror can be considered a participatory play in which the spectator is “offered an exemplary dilemma, similar to those facing human beings engaged in decisions about how to act” - a dilemma that can help each audience member “hone his own sense of the evaluation of reasons, of their discussion and of Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 119 the choice that arrives at a decision” (Rancière 4)� Zeugen! , by contrast, is an investigative play in which the spectator is “shown a strange, unusual spectacle, a mystery whose meaning he must seek out” (Rancière 4)� Both modes encourage spectators to stop being passive viewers and to become “agents of a collective practice” (Rancière 8)� What counts in this process of activation and emancipation of the spectator is not the answer each member of the audience finds for themselves at the end of the investigation, or when making a decision, but rather the troublesome perception of how uncertain each individual’s own judgment can be - the feeling of disorientation each person experiences when faced with the complexity of the real� Notes 1 Recent scholarship has demonstrated that spectatorship as a cultural and social practice was extremely influential in the development of innovative dramaturgies even in early modern Europe (see Gvozdeva et al�; Korneeva)� 2 See in particular Hochholdinger-Reiterer et al� for fresh perspectives on the aesthetics of interactive, immersive, and participatory performances in contemporary German theater� 3 The film was titled TERROR - Ihr Urteil and starred popular actors such as Florian David Fitz, Martina Gedeck, Burghart Klaußner, and Lars Eidinger; spectators could vote from home to determine the end of the trial� 4 The English version is by David Tushingham� 5 The present analysis is principally based on these materials; there also exists a radio drama called Zeugen! Ein Verhör that aired for the first time on Deutschlandradio Berlin in December 2004� Even though this audio rendition of the play provides further insights into the project and its aims, it in fact constitutes a separate text with a different structure and specific medial prerogatives, akin to the screen adaptation of Terror � The audio play is available online for download at https: / / www�hoerspielpark�de/ website/ titel/ zeugen� 6 Terror is the first part of a not yet completed dramatic trilogy in which the audience has a say in each outcome� The second play, Gott , was published in 2020 and presents a controversial case of euthanasia� 7 For a philosophical reading, see Hübl 49—59� 8 See https: / / terror�theater/ � By 1 October 2021 nearly 550,000 spectators from all five continents have seen the play. Apart from in Japan, where spectators voted for the pilot’s conviction in the majority of performances, the verdict was almost always 60: 40 for acquittal. When the film was screened on Das Erste , spectators could vote too, via telephone and the internet: the result 120 Daniele Vecchiato was 86�9% for acquittal in Germany, with similar numbers in Austria and Switzerland. A political talk show was screened at the end of the film and the conversation continued on social media under the hashtag #TerrorIhrUrteil , creating an online community that seemed to emerge as a surrogate for the exchange that normally unfolds after an in-theater show� 9 Any effort to look at the play from a strictly legal perspective - as criminal lawyer Wolfgang Schild, for example, attempted (see Schild 7—47) - thus remains unsatisfactory� 10 The debate on human dignity in times of terror is something Ferdinand von Schirach has dealt with in other writings, for example in the essay “Die Würde der Menschen ist anstastbar” (Schirach, Würde 5—17) and in the speech “Machen Sie unbedingt weiter,” which he gave when presenting the M100 Sanssouci Media Award to Charlie Hebdo and which is printed as a paratext to Terror in the German edition of the play (Schirach, Terror 149—64)� On the concept of Menschenwürde in Terror , see Graff 10—13. 11 Schirach returns to this in an interview on Terror when asked about the appropriateness of drama as the form for the content of his play: “Ein Gerichtsverfahren eignet sich für die Bühne, weil im Grunde jedes Strafverfahren einem Bühnenstück ähnlich ist� Es folgt einer Dramaturgie, Theater und Gericht haben nicht zufällig die gleichen Ursprünge� Auch heute ‘spielen’ die Beteiligten in einem Gericht die Tat nach - natürlich nicht durch Handlung, aber durch Sprache” (Schirach and Baur 28)� 12 The reference can be found in Schirach’s essay on Leo Rosenthal, “Die Bühne der Weimarer Republik” (Schirach, Würde 52—53)� See Stenzel 214� 13 Cf� Vismann, Medien 17—96� For a broader discussion of Vismann’s categories in relation to Schirach’s drama, see Canaris 293—95 and Stenzel 214—17� 14 The “experts of the everyday” have become a defining element in Rimini Protokoll’s theater (see Dreyesse and Malzacher; Rimini Protokoll and Marié)� For an overview of the collective’s dramaturgy, see the edited volumes by Fournier et al� and Birgfeld et al� 15 One of the few video clips of the performance available, which shows a timid courtroom drafter introducing herself to the audience, provides a good example of how these “experts” take the stage: “Ich bin Constanze Schargan� Ich habe bis vor zwei Jahren Graphik studiert und arbeite seitdem als Gerichtszeichnerin und illustriere auch Kinderbücher� Was mich im Zeichnen besonders interessiert, ist die Abbildung von Wirklichkeit, d�h� meine eigene persönliche künstlerische Freiheit stelle ich gerne in den Dienst der Wahrheit� […] Vor Gericht genau zu zeichnen und realistisch, ist natürlich besonders wichtig, weil ich das Bild herstelle, was die Menschen Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 121 hinterher von einem anderen haben werden� Dies hier zum Beispiel war ein Bahnunglück� Das ist der Angeklagte […]� Hier steht ungefähr die Pressebank, dann geht der Raum insofern weiter, als dass dort die Richterbank steht; und hier ist die Seite der Staatsanwaltschaft, bzw� die Gutachterseite� Von hier hat man einen nicht besonders guten Blick auf den Angeklagten, man sieht ihn nur seitlich oder sogar von hinten, und deshalb versuche ich, so oft wie möglich in die Gutachterposition zu kommen, dann sitze ich dem Angeklagten direkt gegenüber und habe auch besseres Licht […]� Im Gericht zu zeichnen ist insofern einfacher als an anderen Orten, weil die Angeklagten sehr oft an einer ganz bestimmten Position verharren und man sie dort ganz gut zeichnen kann�” File schargan-erklaert-bilder.mov provided by Rimini Protokoll, Min� 00�00—00�27; 00�43—01�50� 16 See Kohse� Other reviews of the play highlight the element of rupture and surprise in the drama; see for example Barth, Mansmann, and Kickau� 17 In a follow-up interview to the project, actress Franziska Henschel, who played the courtroom drafter in the performance (see note 15), observed that “Lügen vor Gericht ist ja eine Straftat, wie ein Lügen im Theater eine Verabredung ist� Wenn ich mich auf die Bühne stelle und sage, ‘Guten Tag, ich bin die Jungfrau von Orleans und ich komme gerade aus der Schlacht,’ dann ist das erstmal eine Verabredung, die niemand in Frage stellt� Da meldet sich niemand aus dem Publikum und sagt, das stimmt doch gar nicht […]� Während, wenn ich mich ins Gericht stelle und sage, ‘Ich bin die Jungfrau von Orleans,’ dann ist das einfach eine Lüge� Und das fand ich sozusagen spannend�” Unpublished interview of 16 January 2004, provided by Rimini Protokoll� 18 This seems to be a key element for Rimini Protokoll� As collective member Daniel Wenzel stated in an interview, “the political element in these projects is a kind of disorientation� We agree when working together that there’ll be no statement, no message, no stance with respect to the topic in hand” (Boenisch 112)� 19 See Canaris for a discussion of the category of Unterbrechung as it relates to Terror � Works Cited Barth, Siegfried� “Das Gericht ist ein Theater� Das große Justiztheater: Die Gruppe Rimini-Protokoll bringt ‘Zeugen! ’ nach Hannover - eine Ko-Produktion mit dem Hebbel-Theater Berlin�” rimini-protokoll.de � Rimini Protokoll, 30 Jan� 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� 122 Daniele Vecchiato Bauer, Manuel� “Der geschundene Mensch� Ferdinand von Schirach oder Der Anwalt als Erzähler�” Dichterjuristen. Studien zur Poesie des Rechts vom 16. bis 21. Jahrhundert � Ed� Yvonne Nilges� Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2014� 281—96� Birgfeld, Johannes, Ulrike Garde, and Meg Mumford, eds� Rimini Protokoll Close-Up. Lektüren � Hannover: Wehrhahn, 2015� Boenisch, Peter� “Other People Live� Rimini Protokoll and their Theatre of Experts�” Contemporary Theatre Review 18�1 (2008): 107—13� Brauneck, Manfred� “Ein Spiel, nicht mehr und nicht weniger� Dramaturgische Anmerkungen�” Terror. Das Recht braucht eine Bühne. Essays, Hintergründe, Analysen � Ed� Bernd Schmidt� München: Btb, 2020� 49—66� Burzyńska, Anna R., ed. Joined Forces. Audience Participation in Theatre � Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2016� Canaris, Johanna� “Mit der Politik ins Gericht gehen� Die politische Dimension des Gerichtsdramas am Beispiel von Ferdinand von Schirachs Terror (2015) und Elfriede Jelinkes Das schweigende Mädchen (2014)�” Das Politische in der Literatur der Gegenwart � Ed� Stefan Neuhaus and Immanuel Nover� Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter, 2019� 291—308� Dreysse, Miriam, and Florian Malzacher, eds� Experten des Alltags. Das Theater von Rimini Protokoll � Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2007� Frieze, James, ed� Reframing Immersive Theatre. The Politics and Pragmatics of Participatory Performance � London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016� Fournier, Anne, Paola Gilardi, Andreas Härter, and Claudia Maeder, eds� Rimini Protokoll � Bern: Peter Lang, 2015� Graff, Max. Literarische Dimensionen der Menschenwürde. Exemplarische Analysen zur Bedeutung des Menschenwürdebegriffs in der deutschsprachigen Literatur seit der Frühaufklärung � Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2017� Gvozdeva, Tanja, Tatiana Korneeva, and Kirill Ospovat, eds� Dramatic Experience. The Poetics of Drama and the Early Modern Public Sphere(s) � Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2016� Hochholdinger-Reiterer, Beate, Géraldine Boesch, and Marcel Behn, eds� Publikum im Gegenwartstheater � Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2018� Hübl, Philipp� Die aufgeregte Gesellschaft. Wie Emotionen unsere Moral prägen und die Polarisierung verstärken � Sonderausgabe� Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2020� Kickau, Ulrike� “Wahrheit oder Täuschung? Rimini Protokoll im Frankfurter Mousonturm�” rimini-protokoll.de � Rimini Protokoll, 15 Oct� 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� Kohse, Petra� “Die Rollenspiele am Landgericht Moabit� Am Berliner Theater am Ufer werden Gerichtsrituale erforscht: ‘Zeugen! ’ heißt das neueste Stück der Realitätstheatergruppe Rimini Protokoll�” rimini-protokoll.de � Rimini Protokoll, 13 Jan� 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� Korneeva, Tatiana� The Dramaturgy of the Spectator. Italian Theatre and the Public Sphere (1600 - 1800) � Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2019� Lehmann, Hans-Thies� “Unterbrechung� Wie politisch ist postdramatisches Theater? ” Das Politische Schreiben � Berlin: Theater der Zeit, 2002� 11—21� Lay Judges and Lay Actors� Emancipating the Spectator 123 ---� Postdramatic Theatre [ Postdramatisches Theater , 1999]� Transl� Karen Jürs-Munby� London/ New York: Routledge, 2006� Malzacher, Florian� Gesellschaftsspiele. Politisches Theater heute � Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2020� Mansmann, Nora� “Zeugen! Ein Strafkammerspiel�” rimini-protokoll.de � Rimini Protokoll, 12 Jan� 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� Müller-Frank, Stefanie� “Zeugen des Alltags� Sie heißen Rimini-Protokoll und wollen mehr Wirklichkeit im Theater� Morgen startet ihr ‘Strafkammerspiel’�” rimini-protokoll.de � Rimini Protokoll, 9 Jan� 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� Rancière, Jacques� The Emancipated Spectator [ Le spectateur emancipé , 2008]� Transl� Gregory Elliott� London: Verso, 2011� Rau, Milo� “Wir sind alle Spezialisten� Rimini Protokoll und die Rekonstruktion der Wirklichkeit�” rimini-protokoll.de. Rimini Protokoll, 17 Feb� 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� Rimini Protokoll� Zeugen! Ein Strafkammerspiel. 28� Dezember 2003 . TS� Personal collection of Rimini Protokoll� ---� Zeugen! Ein Verhör. Deutschlandradio, Berlin, Dec� 2004� Radio� Rimini Protokoll, and Caroline Marié� “Professioneller Dilettantismus�” rimini-protokoll. de � Rimini Protokoll, 7 Sept� 2010� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� Schild, Wolfgang� Verwirrende Rechtsbelehrung. Zu Ferdinand von Schirachs “Terror.” Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2016� Schirach, Ferdinand von� Terror. Ein Theaterstück und eine Rede � München: Btb Verlag, 2016� ---� Die Würde ist antastbar. Essays � München: Btb, 2017� ---� Gott. Ein Theaterstück � München: Luchterhand, 2020� Schirach, Ferdinand von, and Alexander Kluge� “Terror oder die Klugheit des Rechts�” Die Herzlichkeit der Vernunft � München: Luchterhand, 2017� 105—33� Schirach, Ferdinand von, and Detlev Baur� “‘Als Helden bleiben nur das Recht und die Moral�’ Über das Theater, die Kritik und die Gesellschaft�” Terror. Das Recht braucht eine Bühne. Essays, Hintergründe, Analysen � Ed� Bernd Schmidt� München: Btb, 2020� 27—36� Schmidt, Bernd, ed� Terror. Das Recht braucht eine Bühne. Essays, Hintergründe, Analysen � München: Btb, 2020� Stenzel, Julia� “Die Polis im Netz� Verhandlungen von Ferdinand von Schirachs Theatertext TERROR �” Inszenierung von Recht. Funktionen - Modi - Interaktionen. Ed� Laura Münkler and Julia Stenzel� Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, 2019� 208—32� TERROR - Ihr Urteil � Dir� Lars Kraume� Perf� Burghart Klaussner, Martina Gedeck, Florian David Fitz, Lars Eidinger, Jördis Triebel, and Rainer Bock� Constantin Film, 2016� DVD� Vismann, Cornelia� “Neulich im Theater� Warum muß Hamlet sich vor keinem Gericht verantworten, für seinen zweifachen Mord, an Polonius und an Claudius? ” rimini-protokoll.de � Rimini Protokoll, 2004� Web� 6 Oct� 2021� ---� Medien der Rechtsprechung � Ed� Alexandra Kemmerer and Markus Krajewski� Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2011�