Month: August 2017

First, lets address the basic ignorance and amnesia the bulk of America have concerning the issue of slavery and the life of anyone in the U.S. who isn’t white.
I went to a public school for the bulk of my education. I learned who Fredrick Douglas and Harriet Tubman were, however, I had to read much later on my own about the Harlem Renaissance and discover writers like Zora Neale Hurston, James Baldwin, and Langston Hughes. I certainly wasn’t taught that people of color were not allowed to buy property in certain neighborhoods through the 50s and 60s. Nor was I ever taught about one of the largest blights of our nation, the history of lynching. Nor did we dwell on the real movement of The Black Panthers and our government’s role in their demise.

I am a white queer middle class cis man. No one I know ever had the “talk” with their children of color so they make it home alive should the police stop them.

I have been spit on for being queer and I responded with violence. I didn’t get arrested or even stopped.

I am not here to play make-believe about what our nation is. I am here to look at it in ugly florescent light and see all the imperfections that include two sets of justice: one for whites and one for everyone else.

Our privatized prisons are full of people of color. If your name sounds ethnic on your CV you will be overlooked. You can be fired for wearing dreads or braids. If you are brown and the victim of police violence it is guaranteed that the media will profile you as a criminal.

All of this brings me to the recent impossible announcement from HBO and the team from the Game of Thrones. To be clear, I am not a Game of Thrones fan, not even close. The show based on J.R.R. Martin’s series of books provided a strong base for a series that has taken off and employed many artists and technicians. The drivers of this work, Dan Weiss and David Benioff, are riding a wave of popularity and are the wonder boys of the moment. They can pretty much make whatever they want next. Of all the choices they could have made the last thing I was expecting was Confederate.

Many have compared this choice to other works that have been produced, namely Man in the High Castle written by Phillip K. Dick, one of the best Science Fiction writers of his generation. The problem here is that with High Castle they have an amazingly strong work to start from and even though I was not as happy with the outcome, it was still well put together. Although we don’t teach many aspects of this point in our global history WW2 was a war that was fought and finished. Recently we have had the release of a major film on a defining battle of WW2, Dunkirk. Here again we see the war through a white lens, one that tends to rewrite history. A great response to this film can be found here in the Guardian.

Why the lack of Indian and African faces in Dunkirk matters | Sunny …
https://www.theguardian.com › Opinion › Dunkirk

“A vast, all-white production such as Nolan’s Dunkirk is not an accident. Such a big budget film is a product of many hundreds of small and large decisions in casting, production, directing and editing. Perhaps Nolan chose to follow the example of the original allies in the Second World War who staged a white-only liberation of Paris even though 65% of the Free French Army troops were from West Africa. Perhaps such a circumscribed, fact-free imagination is a product of rewriting British history over the past decades, not in the least by deliberate policies including Operation Legacy? Knowingly or not, Nolan walks in the footsteps of both film directors and politicians who have chosen to whitewash the past.”

With an incredibly clear view on this subject and the subject of racism you can find no better voice than this

Akala on Britain’s inherent xenophobia – Frankie Boyle’s Election …

▶ 8:35

With Confederate there is no outstanding novel for them to use as a base, even if there was it’s still problematic. Weiss and Benioff are going to write it. HBO has released a statement concerning the outcry.

“We have great respect for the dialogue and concern being expressed around Confederate. We have faith that Nichelle [Trampbell Spellman], Dan [Weiss], David [Benioff], and Malcolm [Spellman] will approach the subject with care and sensitivity. The project is currently in its infancy so we hope that people will reserve judgment until there is something to see.”

I don’t have such faith; in fact I am sure that these two are exactly the wrong two to drive any work on such a topic. They have been unable or unwilling to address the lack of diversity in Game of Thrones and as far as I can tell the only roles for brown people in this series are slaves and barbarians.

Networks across the boards are unable to cast with diversity; the roles for black actors are as follows: slave, servant, drug addict, or child of drug addict, pusher, pimp, and gangster. Film and Television are still casting on stereotypes so outdated its almost embarrassing if it weren’t so sadly predictable. If we are to go off what they have produced so far all of our worst fears will be realized.

My point is that we are still fighting the civil war on almost every front, a fact that has been known to people of color since the beginning. With the introduction of the Internet the white community has more visual access to what the African-American community experiences everyday.

Here is a quote from April Reign, one of the women who has launched the #NOCONFEDERATE campaign.

″The commodification of black pain for the enjoyment of others must stop,” Reign said. “Earlier this month, there were protests about taking down Confederate monuments. The prison industrial complex is bursting with black and brown people, disproportionate to the crimes committed. So, for some, ‘Confederate’ is not ‘alternate history,’ but a painful and recent reminder of how much further we still need to go toward equality in this country.”

Lilly Workneh Black Voices Senior Editor, HuffPost

What then is our responsibility as theatre makers, and how do we make our voices heard when it comes to something we feel we cannot control, such as casting and projects by major networks? Again an important point from Sunny Singh from the Guardian as to what our role is,

“All storytellers – and novelists, poets, journalists, and filmmakers are, ultimately, just that – know the power we hold. Stories can dehumanise, demonise and erase. Such stories are essential to pave the way for physical and material violence against those we learn to hate. But stories are also the only means of humanising those deemed inhuman; to create pity, compassion, sympathy, even love for those who are strange and strangers. Stories decide the difference between life and death. And that is why Dunkirk – and indeed any story – is never just a story.”
Why the lack of Indian and African faces in Dunkirk matters | Sunny …
https://www.theguardian.com › Opinion › Dunkirk

Lets take the example of Hamilton that has become a phenomenon; the musical has been called the 1776 of a new generation. How many people who are rushing to buy tickets get the fact that the cast, entirely ethnic except for the actor playing the king, is performing a point in history where they were not even considered people?

Here is a great quote from James McMasters on the entire experience

“The exorbitantly high ticket prices coupled with the perpetually sold-out status of the production prohibit most working class people of color from attending the show. Given that the production’s audience, then, is overwhelmingly white and upper-middle-class, one wonders about the reception of the show’s racial performance. How many one-percenters walk away from Hamilton thinking that they are on the right side of history simply because they exchanged hundreds of dollars for the opportunity to sit through a racialized song and dance? My guess: too many.”
Watching A Brown ‘Hamilton’ With A White Audience: Code Switch …
www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/03/08/…/a-brown-hamilton-a-white-audience
Mar 8, 2016 –

What I will say about Hamilton is that Lin-Manuel Miranda has shared the profits with the cast that helped build it. Miranda recognizes their contribution and the fact that the work wouldn’t be what it is without their artistry. As anyone working in live theatre will tell you, that is a refreshing sea change. Think about how the cast of A Chorus Line could have done had they been given a small percentage of what is basically a play about them.

Bottom line we are not vocal enough. We do not speak out when we should and we allow things to continue. I am not saying that everyone needs to carry a sign, or get in the face of casting directors. You do have power: your voice and your money. Write, tweet, email to the big guns in charge, and then write to their sponsors. Start voting with your dollar and stop buying entertainment that lacks integrity. Far too often I hear the excuse “ If I boycotted everything that upset me I wouldn’t be able to buy anything.” So you choose to do nothing and of course that’s how they win. As artists we need to build work that reflects the world we live in. Our work is about our dreams, desires, and our fears. Why do we think they are somehow only limited to a white experience? I am not asking you to take on the burden of responsibility for the entire system. I am asking you to change it by how you act now.

So I have responded to two blogs on this subject and felt like I needed to hash things out on my own turf. The subject has come up regarding several different productions and plays that I have either seen or directed myself.

First I want to address two Shakespeare works that Jeremy Cole addressed in his blog. I like Jeremy we have worked together before and I have seen several of his directorial works. He speaks of two works Shrew and Merchant. He states that both need to be shelved.

As to Shrew I have only seen it twice live and once in film. The first was back in the golden age of American Conservatory Theatre ACT in San Francisco, this was back when they had a in house repertory company and the work reflected it. They did the work in the Commedia dellàrte style, everything was exaggerated and physical, at the time I thought it was very entertaining I was much younger then. I saw the film with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton; this was really more about their own volatile relationship then anything else. Then an all women’s cast which felt electrifying and subversive.

While at the helm of my own company Butterfield 8 Theatre, now B8 Theatre, we never produced this work, although several company members continued to push for it to be done. By this time in my life I could look at the work through very different eyes, here I agree with Jeremy I cannot find a way into the work and I cannot get past the perceived message of the work. I see it as misogynistic, no matter what spin I was approached with it still left a bad taste in my mouth.

I understand the argument of historical placement, cultural and so on, what does it say to an audience in 2017? I have yet to be convinced on any level that what we leave with isn’t what I want to put forward with my work.

As to the Merchant of Venice my view is quite different. I can only relate to how we as a company approached it. The work has so many different opportunities to frame the questions asked. What is the real cost of love, what are you willing to sacrifice?

I have always seen Shylock as the victim in the work; a man trapped in a world that on one level reviles him and the other uses his services. He is trying to keep his family and faith intact under a constant onslaught of violence and prejudice.

What is the true relationship between Bassanio and Antonio? Bassanio has always struck me as a player, but becomes a different person when he is faced with the fact a man he has used and most likely slept with will die because of the debt he caused him to take on. We had them kiss in the street scene after the courtroom and verdict release Antonio. Not as brothers but as what they had been, lovers.

Portia is an educated woman trapped in her own way to the verdict of her fathers decree. She is smitten with Bassonio but in the end does she realize that she may have picked the wrong casket? Her humorous rant about the ring in the last act has a sting of truth to it. The scene is playful but perhaps now she sees Bassanio as he truly is. In the script she exits alone, not on Bassanio’s arm, or even with him. Where as Nerissa and Gratiano leave together a more down to earth, no nonsense couple with less at stake.

This leaves Lorenzo and Jessica the two who have sacrificed the most to be together. Jessica has given up the most, her culture, family, friends, religion to be with this man. Lorenzo has gone against his culture, standing, and although not mentioned most likely the will of his family. They will never be truly accepted nor will their children. They have only each other.

The only thing we changed was Portia’s line about Shylock when she hands the pair the document giving them all Shylock’s wordily goods at his death. We changed it so that Shylock is in fact dead. I cannot see a point where Shylock chooses to live as a Christian.

This was, and still is my interpretation of the work. However the one point of view I cannot see it through are the eyes of some one who is in fact Jewish. Many feel that it is a stereotype and an overdrawn version of what it is to be Jewish.

My pale comparison is that of my own reaction to the series Will and Grace. Many straight friends, allies, and many queer folk love this show, think it is great and feel it changed perceptions. I find it to be the queer equivalent of Step and Fetch it. Broad stereotypes are paraded throughout the work and celebrated. If at the time of the work we had equal rights and representation across all media then perhaps there would be room for this form of humor. We didn’t and still don’t. This show was in no way ground braking.

So on some level I get it.

Next we come to Melissa Hillman a woman I hold in the highest regard for her writing and work in theatre. She recently posted on the upcoming production of The Glass Menagerie at Cal Shakes. First off it is an all black cast, the work is about family relationships and memory no race or culture holds a monopoly on these themes.

Secondly they have cast an actor who is physically handicapped as Laura; here is where I have a problem.

This echo’s the current production playing in New York; bellow is the New York Times review.

Review: Dismantling ‘The Glass Menagerie’ – The New York Times

For me this is the will of the director imposing his or her vision onto a work that cannot hold it. “My way no matter what cost” has never been a go to for me in directing. Will the text support your idea? If not find another text or devise your own.

Williams is considered to be one of America’s finest playwrights, his work is subtle nuanced and poetical. With all the talk about respect for the playwright where is the respect to his work, where do we draw the line when it comes to interpretation?

What is the play about? It is considered to be autobiographical on many levels and is called a memory play. William’s own sister was mentally fragile and in life is destroyed by a botched lobotomy he dedicated much of his profits to make sure she had a comfortable life outside an institution. Laura,  the theatrical representation of his sister in the play, we are told suffers from a limp brought on by a childhood illness that has also left her mentally fragile.

Its beyond a leap of faith to go from a limp to being confined to a wheelchair or suffering from acute MS. It simply isn’t supported in the text anywhere. The play then becomes all about her physical impairments and not about the journey that Tom (Tennessee Williams) is on and what it reveals about him and his relationships.

This feels more like sensationalism then a well thought out approach

When a role calls for someone in a wheelchair go out and find an actor confined to a wheelchair, or deaf, one that is deaf, or blind. There are things that non-impaired actors simply cannot convey, as hard as they try. This holds true for trans characters as well. Its not about ability its about visibility and opportunity as well as having a visceral understanding to what is being asked.

So in the end my interpretation of this play does not see Laura so physically impaired that she cannot walk unassisted, no wheelchair, no walker, it pulls me out of the trajectory of the work, it is so jarring that I have lost what it is the work itself is trying to convey.

This also challenges me as an artist, what are the limits I put on interpretation and can I see past my own prejudice to view a work in a different way?