Wednesday, October 29, 2008
a hopeful play?
So often this week, we have asked if A Raisin in the Sun is a hopeful play. I just don't know if I can answer this question yes...or no. The Youngers overcome their specific experience of institutional/systematic racism with Mr. Lindner and the Clybourne Park Improvement Association. But what is to come? The Youngers assimilate, and after all of Beneatha's talk about "assimilationist Negroes!" Or do they? How do we know the answer? I know it makes me question the hopeful aspect of this play. But what's the alternative? Are all minorities supposed to struggle through the hard times to find the light at the end of the tunnel? Does this make us a stronger breed, more prepared for the feat of living in a society laced with racism, classism, sexism, agism, and any other "ism" out there? I know, as a woman, I struggle with strength and being independent, because it would be so easy to depend on a man to support me. But I do not want that. But I still want someone to take care of me, so long as I can take care of them as well. Is is possible to have both? Can we sort-of assimilate into the standards and expectations of whatever our sociological group is? How are American minorities supposed to bend and fit into the standards of their kind, as well as get what they want? Maybe Obama has the answer, I don't know...
Sand vs Rock
One other thing that strikes me about comparing Doll House to Raisin is the specificity of each family’s living condition and how that informs and causes the ultimate outcomes.
The Helmers live in comparative luxury- multiple rooms, an upstairs big enough for a party, servants to do the “heavy lifting” in raising children. There is, also, no extended family living in their home. The Youngers’ apartment- not house- has three rooms, none of which is a bathroom (!) and, as the family grew, generations came to live in this small dwelling, providing a shared parenting.
Nora’s shelteredness from her own self as well as the world at large came about directly because of the materialistic life she had always experienced. Because of this she has to abandon everything (including her young children) to find and create her own identity. Walter Lee, on the other hand, may need to get away from the physical reminders of his confined, cramped existence and get a drink every now and then, but even as the money that would have made such a huge difference in their lives is squandered, neither he nor anyone else leaves the home or the family.
To me the difference is this: the wealthy rulers of any society must be so concerned with the trappings and accoutrement of “success” that any personal identity becomes rooted in those things and, hence, is just as transitory. Conversely, the downtrodden of a society know what is truly important (i.e. family bonds, material things’ longevity rather than aesthetic function) and that causes them to not only survive such devastations but find the strength of character to thrive.
The Helmers live in comparative luxury- multiple rooms, an upstairs big enough for a party, servants to do the “heavy lifting” in raising children. There is, also, no extended family living in their home. The Youngers’ apartment- not house- has three rooms, none of which is a bathroom (!) and, as the family grew, generations came to live in this small dwelling, providing a shared parenting.
Nora’s shelteredness from her own self as well as the world at large came about directly because of the materialistic life she had always experienced. Because of this she has to abandon everything (including her young children) to find and create her own identity. Walter Lee, on the other hand, may need to get away from the physical reminders of his confined, cramped existence and get a drink every now and then, but even as the money that would have made such a huge difference in their lives is squandered, neither he nor anyone else leaves the home or the family.
To me the difference is this: the wealthy rulers of any society must be so concerned with the trappings and accoutrement of “success” that any personal identity becomes rooted in those things and, hence, is just as transitory. Conversely, the downtrodden of a society know what is truly important (i.e. family bonds, material things’ longevity rather than aesthetic function) and that causes them to not only survive such devastations but find the strength of character to thrive.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
This ain't National Geographic!
I’m very glad we’re studying this play. As much as material or language may have been a challenge in past plays, this one will, I think, stretch our aesthetic sensibilities. It may take some “filling the blanks” with “leaps of faith” (yes, a mixed metaphor) but if we can come to understand Talthybius, the Friar, or even Nora’s need to abandon her children, the Yoruba-specific aspects of this play should feed and enrich the message(s) this play offers.
Though, obviously, Soyinka’s message here is the futility and tragedy of Western colonialization and oppression, I- because of recent life events- am most struck by the juxtaposition of views of death presented in this play.
Being conditioned by Protestant Christianity, I tend, as I believe most Americans do, to see death as a finality; the soul or spirit going to a “world” completely cut off from this plane of physical existence. It takes some effort for me to see the world which I actively perceive as existing parallel to this “spirit world”- though I very much want to believe that. Having lost my father a few years ago and, just this week, a close family friend, I wish Westerners had a cultural construct of the egungun, ancestral spirits looking out for us, still available for supplication and guidance.
Stepping over to this “spirit world” is seen as a great opportunity, as the opening scene celebrates, and giving one’s life to preserve others’ perhaps the highest honor; the exchange between Olunde and Jane illustrates this.
If I were to stage this I would, first and foremost, immerse myself in as much of the Yoruba cultural standard as practical (you can’t effectively tell any story if you don’t understand the symbolism employed). Using the opening to position the Eurocentric audience members as the outsiders surrounded by “the others,” I would have as much of the singing, dancing, drumming, and ceremony in the aisles and amongst the audience as would be coherently possible. Perhaps, also, scene 3 where Amusa and his men are being held at bay by the women. These scenes speak directly to and set up the poison of enforced cultural supremacy.
The other scenes would be, as we discussed, straightforward European realism. I believe Soyinka wanted white culturalists to see the humanity of the Nigerians. Telling this story wholly through Yoruban aesthetics would cause a European audience to look at the production as a cultural documentary, and overlook the human tragedy, a tragedy on the scale of the ancient Greeks.
Though, obviously, Soyinka’s message here is the futility and tragedy of Western colonialization and oppression, I- because of recent life events- am most struck by the juxtaposition of views of death presented in this play.
Being conditioned by Protestant Christianity, I tend, as I believe most Americans do, to see death as a finality; the soul or spirit going to a “world” completely cut off from this plane of physical existence. It takes some effort for me to see the world which I actively perceive as existing parallel to this “spirit world”- though I very much want to believe that. Having lost my father a few years ago and, just this week, a close family friend, I wish Westerners had a cultural construct of the egungun, ancestral spirits looking out for us, still available for supplication and guidance.
Stepping over to this “spirit world” is seen as a great opportunity, as the opening scene celebrates, and giving one’s life to preserve others’ perhaps the highest honor; the exchange between Olunde and Jane illustrates this.
If I were to stage this I would, first and foremost, immerse myself in as much of the Yoruba cultural standard as practical (you can’t effectively tell any story if you don’t understand the symbolism employed). Using the opening to position the Eurocentric audience members as the outsiders surrounded by “the others,” I would have as much of the singing, dancing, drumming, and ceremony in the aisles and amongst the audience as would be coherently possible. Perhaps, also, scene 3 where Amusa and his men are being held at bay by the women. These scenes speak directly to and set up the poison of enforced cultural supremacy.
The other scenes would be, as we discussed, straightforward European realism. I believe Soyinka wanted white culturalists to see the humanity of the Nigerians. Telling this story wholly through Yoruban aesthetics would cause a European audience to look at the production as a cultural documentary, and overlook the human tragedy, a tragedy on the scale of the ancient Greeks.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sacrifices
It's interesting when we experience something new or different. You question where it came from, it's reason for being, and ask what it accomplishes. Or you just sit back and enjoy it for what it is. For the missionaries in "Death and the King's Horseman, experienceing new things and embracing a new culture was very difficult.
The ritualistic giving of one's self up when the King dies is tradition. It is expected of the King's right hand man, his lead Horseman. The Yoruba look at this a s a natural part of life and a necessary part of their culture. The missionaries did not understand this a looked at the act as gruesome. For them, death is the end. For the Yoruba tribe, death is the beginning of something new and a way to keep close and remain one with the earth.
It was interesting the way the two sides viewed the ceremony. For the Yoruba, it was a time of celebration. Elesin became one with the earth and was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and die just as his king died. The missionaries thought all of this was insane and ridiculed the Yoruba for their actions.
I wonder if we, as people, would ever give our lives up for something that was dear to us. Soldiers do it everyday. For Elesin and Olunde, there was no second thought. They had a meaningful and profound relationship with nature and strong beliefs in their religion. They made the ultimate sacrifice and committed ritual suicide, knowing that if they didn't, the communities future could be in shambles. What would you do?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Gender Roles in "A Doll's House"
I know this isn't much but here's a little food for thought that I came across while working on my mid-term paper doing a character analysis of Nora Helmer.
Nora Helmer is a daughter, wife, mother and friend. She represents all of these roles placed on her by society within the confines of not only “A Doll’s House”, but solely in her own house during the play. In this character analysis I will look at the roles played by Nora and how gender relations and ideals affect her outlook on others and their view of her.
The play focuses on the way women are seen, especially in the context of marriage and motherhood. Torvald, in particular, has a very clear and narrow definition of a woman’s role. He believes that it is the sacred duty of a woman to be a good wife and mother. He also tells Nora that women are responsible for the morality of their kids. In essence, he sees women as both child-like, helpless creatures detached from reality and influential moral forces responsible for the purity of the world through their influence in the home.
The perception of manliness is also discussed, though in a much more subtle way. Nora’s description of Torvald suggests that she is partially aware of the lies inherent in the male role as much as that of the female. Torvald’s conception of manliness is based on the value of total independence. His desire of independence leads tot eh question of whether he is out of touch with reality.
Nora Helmer is a daughter, wife, mother and friend. She represents all of these roles placed on her by society within the confines of not only “A Doll’s House”, but solely in her own house during the play. In this character analysis I will look at the roles played by Nora and how gender relations and ideals affect her outlook on others and their view of her.
The play focuses on the way women are seen, especially in the context of marriage and motherhood. Torvald, in particular, has a very clear and narrow definition of a woman’s role. He believes that it is the sacred duty of a woman to be a good wife and mother. He also tells Nora that women are responsible for the morality of their kids. In essence, he sees women as both child-like, helpless creatures detached from reality and influential moral forces responsible for the purity of the world through their influence in the home.
The perception of manliness is also discussed, though in a much more subtle way. Nora’s description of Torvald suggests that she is partially aware of the lies inherent in the male role as much as that of the female. Torvald’s conception of manliness is based on the value of total independence. His desire of independence leads tot eh question of whether he is out of touch with reality.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
A Doll's House - Ibsen and Stanislavski
We all know the mantra, "acting is doing"-attributed to Stanislavski, although I'm not sure he was the first to say this, and I was considering this phrase today. Something we discussed in class on Wednesday really struck me about this approach to acting. We were talking about the specificity of the stage directions in "A Doll's House," and as I thought about "The Method" and its connection to Realism, several interesting questions popped to mind.
Stanislavski is often a bit distorted in our modern context, and many have argued that this distortion produced a generation of actors who mumbled and staggered through performances, because they became obsessed with the "Truth in Acting" aspect of Stan's work, and didn't take to heart much of the technical aspects of The Method. It is, however, not an understatement to say that he has revolutionised an actor's approach to acting worldwide. We evaluate every stage performance we see now with the test of reality, and Stan is directly responsible for that.
What I find so striking is that Stanislavski was developing his method of acting in an era in which the playwrights were very nearly prescribing every minute detail that happened onstage. We noted in class that Ibsen even told us exactly how Nora was feeling at many moments during the play. No other possible interpretations should be considered, or at least we should infer that from the dictatorial demands placed upon the actor by Ibsen. How, then, did Stanislavski develop a unique and personal acting style in the midst of this prescribed emotion?
Perhaps the rise of Realism was the only movement that could have enlisted a Stanislavskian response. Perhaps by prescribing emotion and intention as well as movement onstage, Stan felt the necessity to make these prescribed reactions seem even remotely believable in front of an audience. I am sure that a number of factors contributed to the Method's development, such as the intimacy of theatres of the time period, but I think that perhaps those absolutely specific stage directions really prompted our good friend Stan to begin his quest for onstage truth. Stanislavski saw the connections between the old-fashioned stage directions (exit SL, e.g.) and the new ("is shocked"). He realized that both of these directions required "doing," and his Method springs out of that connection.
Stanislavski is often a bit distorted in our modern context, and many have argued that this distortion produced a generation of actors who mumbled and staggered through performances, because they became obsessed with the "Truth in Acting" aspect of Stan's work, and didn't take to heart much of the technical aspects of The Method. It is, however, not an understatement to say that he has revolutionised an actor's approach to acting worldwide. We evaluate every stage performance we see now with the test of reality, and Stan is directly responsible for that.
What I find so striking is that Stanislavski was developing his method of acting in an era in which the playwrights were very nearly prescribing every minute detail that happened onstage. We noted in class that Ibsen even told us exactly how Nora was feeling at many moments during the play. No other possible interpretations should be considered, or at least we should infer that from the dictatorial demands placed upon the actor by Ibsen. How, then, did Stanislavski develop a unique and personal acting style in the midst of this prescribed emotion?
Perhaps the rise of Realism was the only movement that could have enlisted a Stanislavskian response. Perhaps by prescribing emotion and intention as well as movement onstage, Stan felt the necessity to make these prescribed reactions seem even remotely believable in front of an audience. I am sure that a number of factors contributed to the Method's development, such as the intimacy of theatres of the time period, but I think that perhaps those absolutely specific stage directions really prompted our good friend Stan to begin his quest for onstage truth. Stanislavski saw the connections between the old-fashioned stage directions (exit SL, e.g.) and the new ("is shocked"). He realized that both of these directions required "doing," and his Method springs out of that connection.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Restoration Comedy, contemporary morality, and representations of gender
Hmm, it surprised me that the story to which Jeremy was referring was about Sandra Bernhard, because I think of her as someone who is really supportive of women's rights in general. There's a link to this story on her own website, which has her refuting the claims about this performance.
What you're pointing out, though, is the difference in attitdues between Restoration England and the contemporary United States. We talked about how, in Charles II's court, the possible impending rape of Florinda in Aphra Behn's The Rover was a comic situation. Now, it would be very difficult to stage the play as a comedy because that scene is incredibly dark.
One thing that should be clear from this class is that each play offers its own interpretive challenges when thinking about staging, and how to deal with the rape scene is one of the main problems of producing this play for a contemporary audience. As we discussed in class, the conventions of "comedies of manners" rely on satirizing the behaviors and social gestures of the upper classes. Also taking into account that Aphra Behn was a woman and that women were allowed to perform these characters, it's interesting to note her take on the way men behave in that culture with regards to women. One can also look at how women circumvent the social roles to which they are relegated.
Another thing that's interesting about this play in its different attitudes toward sexual mores is its representation of prostitution as a legal and condoned activity. Note that Angellica is very public about what she does for a living and not ashamed of it, while Hellena is not content with the lifestyle of a nun because it requires her to be celibate. (And compare this with the implied attitudes about marriage and sexuality in Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story). One other thing to note is how women treat each other in this play, as compared to how the men treat them.
Getting back to the idea of self-representation vs. representation by someone who is not a member of the identity group being portrayed, I'm interested in whether you think Behn writes women characters who are more complicated than the others we've read so far. And are the men she writes more stereotypical than others? Is there a way that Blunt and Frederick's behavior in that scene is an indictment of the kind of behavior that is condoned in men? Are there ways in which she seems to be satirizing the men and empathizing with the women through her depictions of them and their interactions?
What you're pointing out, though, is the difference in attitdues between Restoration England and the contemporary United States. We talked about how, in Charles II's court, the possible impending rape of Florinda in Aphra Behn's The Rover was a comic situation. Now, it would be very difficult to stage the play as a comedy because that scene is incredibly dark.
One thing that should be clear from this class is that each play offers its own interpretive challenges when thinking about staging, and how to deal with the rape scene is one of the main problems of producing this play for a contemporary audience. As we discussed in class, the conventions of "comedies of manners" rely on satirizing the behaviors and social gestures of the upper classes. Also taking into account that Aphra Behn was a woman and that women were allowed to perform these characters, it's interesting to note her take on the way men behave in that culture with regards to women. One can also look at how women circumvent the social roles to which they are relegated.
Another thing that's interesting about this play in its different attitudes toward sexual mores is its representation of prostitution as a legal and condoned activity. Note that Angellica is very public about what she does for a living and not ashamed of it, while Hellena is not content with the lifestyle of a nun because it requires her to be celibate. (And compare this with the implied attitudes about marriage and sexuality in Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story). One other thing to note is how women treat each other in this play, as compared to how the men treat them.
Getting back to the idea of self-representation vs. representation by someone who is not a member of the identity group being portrayed, I'm interested in whether you think Behn writes women characters who are more complicated than the others we've read so far. And are the men she writes more stereotypical than others? Is there a way that Blunt and Frederick's behavior in that scene is an indictment of the kind of behavior that is condoned in men? Are there ways in which she seems to be satirizing the men and empathizing with the women through her depictions of them and their interactions?
A Doll's House
The copy of A Doll's House that I picked up from the bookstore had a bunch of markings in it from a previous owner. I couldn't help but read all her notes that she had taken while studying the play. They were mainly her reactions to some of the lines stating how Nora was "ridiculous" "ignorant" and "shallow" while Torvald was "sexist" and "demeaning" I don't disagree with these accusations but I don't think that they are completely outdated either.
While we live in a society that supports equal rights and women have the same right as men, there is still a sense of women being weaker in their fields and some still hold the idea that women should always answer to men and for a man to give in to a woman makes him look weak and effeminate.
When I was reading, A Doll's House, this time around, I started thinking about what if you produced it and made it to where there was an underlying sense that Nora was intelligent and was putting on the act the entire time to appease her husband as opposed to just keeping a secret from him. How would the play be different if she was more intelligent than Torvald and was pretending to be the weak feeble minded wife to make him feel stronger and in charge--it would also add a twist to her finally getting up and leaving in the end. Rather than her just leaving to "find herself" she set off to lead a better life without pretending.
Another twist to the ending: I actually found an alternate ending (not sure if it was written by Ibsen himself or not) where Torvald makes Nora see her children one last time and makes her feel guilty for leaving them motherless all leading up to her staying. Imagine how different the play would be if that was the way that it ended.
While we live in a society that supports equal rights and women have the same right as men, there is still a sense of women being weaker in their fields and some still hold the idea that women should always answer to men and for a man to give in to a woman makes him look weak and effeminate.
When I was reading, A Doll's House, this time around, I started thinking about what if you produced it and made it to where there was an underlying sense that Nora was intelligent and was putting on the act the entire time to appease her husband as opposed to just keeping a secret from him. How would the play be different if she was more intelligent than Torvald and was pretending to be the weak feeble minded wife to make him feel stronger and in charge--it would also add a twist to her finally getting up and leaving in the end. Rather than her just leaving to "find herself" she set off to lead a better life without pretending.
Another twist to the ending: I actually found an alternate ending (not sure if it was written by Ibsen himself or not) where Torvald makes Nora see her children one last time and makes her feel guilty for leaving them motherless all leading up to her staying. Imagine how different the play would be if that was the way that it ended.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sarah Bernhard/Palin Rape Story
Thought you all might find this interesting...I mentioned it in class.
http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20081002/ten-people-bernhard-palin-5e343d7.html
http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20081002/ten-people-bernhard-palin-5e343d7.html
The Rover and Soap Operas
So I was looking over the Rover and once i got the drift of what was going on, the only thing i could think of was that this play was like a modern day soap. I mention this in my letter to the playwright but i didn't go into as much detail as I'm doing now. You got the romance angle, Florinda and Helena falling in love and in Florinda's case with a man she's not suppose to be with. The Drama, Florinda having to marry someone one else and Helena's man cheating on her with a prostitute. Who isn't exactly faithful to him either. and Then there are the fights, caused by misunderstandings and the women and the men making assumptions. And the plot twists increases the problem. Like Florida almost managing to get married but is found out by her brother and thus dragged off. But in the end she does get married to the man she's in love with. Modern day elopement right there. Not to mention all the close calls that happen in the play like Florinda's near rape and Willmore's near Death at the hands of his angry lover Helena. The only difference between this play a typical soap is the fact that it actually has an ending, there are no loose ends and everything is basically tied up. Okay i know this was a little weird but it was the only was i could make a connection to this play once i started imagining the rover in this way it really started to click. Now if i could just figure out half of the words that they used I'll be doing good. To tell the truth I'm not sure which is worse tyring to figure out Shakespeare or trying to figure out the rover.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Soul Searching (quite long)
I’ve been struggling with my own reaction to the Sandoval-Sanchez article in class last week. I needed time to distance from my own self, I guess, and to evaluate why I had such a visceral, vehement outburst.
Partly, it was my bias against musical theatre. I appreciate and enjoy it and realize it can give voice to real experiences and even the human condition. Simply, though, I see it as neither an arbiter nor a polished mirror of society. I must, also, admit I’ve not been to a musical for a very long time.
That being said, the points concerning society and race in Sr. Sandoval-Sanchez’s article rang more than true for me. I did not want to say his points are illegitimate and this “uppity” non-whiter other should get over it and assimilate to the golden Caucasian standard. I have spent the vast majority of my adult artistic life living with and among black folks (yes, I know “African-American” is the preferred and enlightened term, but I’m a product of the 70’s and I operate out of the sociological definition) and I had enough humility to keep my mouth shut, listen with my heart and learn.
I understand, better than most white Americans, how subtly racism infests in the heart and mind and it certainly does not always manifest in classic “white supremacy” (e.g. the KKK, George Wallace, etc.). I am happily married to a beautiful, strong, proud black woman and am raising three “mixed” children in a society that has made great strides but still has much that needs to be addressed. I am more worried how to help my children straddle the false “racial divide” than whether some idiot racist thinks singing “America” to a Latino is tantamount to holding hands during a rousing chorus of “Kum By Ya.” But, I realize it’s the equivalent to someone saying to my wife “I just watched Roots. I’m so sorry for what you’ve been through and now I understand.” I would be angry, too, if I heard such dribble.
So, let me say this: we white males have to make a conscious, purposeful effort to find ways to perceive the world and our society outside of our cultural mind-set and standards. This is difficult. I’ve spent an adulthood noticing the emphasized absence of a large segment of our national history and society, yet I still become infected with the cultural supremacy this country operates on. This aesthetic applies to theatre material that is race- as well as gender-specific. Can I, as a man, truly do justice to a staging of The Trojan Women? Can I direct a truly resonant and authentic version of August Wilson? Women and “non-white others” are expected to understand the dominant culture; those of us of that cultural standard do not need to understand it, we just live it. There’s the difficulty. We have to relearn and that can be frightening and threatening.
But, we must make the effort. The world is becoming more and more “global” and the human experience is human and a byproduct of humanity- not of the false social construct of “race.”
Partly, it was my bias against musical theatre. I appreciate and enjoy it and realize it can give voice to real experiences and even the human condition. Simply, though, I see it as neither an arbiter nor a polished mirror of society. I must, also, admit I’ve not been to a musical for a very long time.
That being said, the points concerning society and race in Sr. Sandoval-Sanchez’s article rang more than true for me. I did not want to say his points are illegitimate and this “uppity” non-whiter other should get over it and assimilate to the golden Caucasian standard. I have spent the vast majority of my adult artistic life living with and among black folks (yes, I know “African-American” is the preferred and enlightened term, but I’m a product of the 70’s and I operate out of the sociological definition) and I had enough humility to keep my mouth shut, listen with my heart and learn.
I understand, better than most white Americans, how subtly racism infests in the heart and mind and it certainly does not always manifest in classic “white supremacy” (e.g. the KKK, George Wallace, etc.). I am happily married to a beautiful, strong, proud black woman and am raising three “mixed” children in a society that has made great strides but still has much that needs to be addressed. I am more worried how to help my children straddle the false “racial divide” than whether some idiot racist thinks singing “America” to a Latino is tantamount to holding hands during a rousing chorus of “Kum By Ya.” But, I realize it’s the equivalent to someone saying to my wife “I just watched Roots. I’m so sorry for what you’ve been through and now I understand.” I would be angry, too, if I heard such dribble.
So, let me say this: we white males have to make a conscious, purposeful effort to find ways to perceive the world and our society outside of our cultural mind-set and standards. This is difficult. I’ve spent an adulthood noticing the emphasized absence of a large segment of our national history and society, yet I still become infected with the cultural supremacy this country operates on. This aesthetic applies to theatre material that is race- as well as gender-specific. Can I, as a man, truly do justice to a staging of The Trojan Women? Can I direct a truly resonant and authentic version of August Wilson? Women and “non-white others” are expected to understand the dominant culture; those of us of that cultural standard do not need to understand it, we just live it. There’s the difficulty. We have to relearn and that can be frightening and threatening.
But, we must make the effort. The world is becoming more and more “global” and the human experience is human and a byproduct of humanity- not of the false social construct of “race.”
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Musicals, commercial culture and representation
Just a few thoughts from Monday's discussion:
First, it's interesting to stop and think about why people consider there to be a big difference between studying Shakespeare and looking at musical theatre. As we saw from Katie's presentation, musicals are really prevalent in the popular consciousness, probably especially since what's successful on Broadway often gets made into a movie, which reaches a very broad audience. Shakespeare is well known, of course, but we afford him different status-musicals are, potentially, "just entertainment," but many people think of older plays as something more worthy of serious study. I wonder why we make that "high art" and "popular culture" distinction? Isn't it all culture and part of history? Why is analyzing one kind of script more important than another? Alberto Sandoval Sanchez's book takes a cultural studies approach to the analysis of musicals, which is really another framework for examining a script.
I would encourage people to make room for critiques like this one in your discussions of scripts-be aware that different audiences will experience plays in various ways. But also, be aware that representation carries with it a certain degree of responsibility-how does a play represent a character or group with which the playwright isn't intimately familiar? This doesn't mean that you have to agree with everyone's analysis, nor that playwrights should stick to writing characters in their own identity groups. It's just that it's important not to shut down avenues of inquiry and critique based on identity without giving them some credence. Jose Can You See?: Latinos on and off Broadway uses the first section, entitled "Act One", as a way of critiquing commercial representations of Latino/a characters, and then goes on to examine work by Latino and Latina performers as alternatives to the reigning stereotypes. So, think also of how playwriting itself often serves as an analysis and critique of what came before.
Finally, here's just a little more contextual information with regards to West Side Story, to emphasize that what seems clear to us about how characters come across in that play wasn't always so evident. Broadway in the 1950s was part an parcel of a project that defined what "American" culture and identity were supposed to be. Film and television were big vehicles for that idea of the American dream, bringing it into people's living rooms, and were often exclusionary in their ideas about how people should look in order to participate. Consider these images:
The first is Margarita Cansino, whose father was Spanish and whose career began as a flamenco dancer on the Vaudeville circuit. The second is what happened when she became an "American" film star and sex symbol within the Hollywood system, Rita Hayworth. If one wanted to escape limitations and have a more successful career, serious changes had to be made in a person's image. If Cansino had stayed identifiably Latina, would she have been offered as many substantial "leading lady" roles and become such a legendary figure? So: people writing characters in Broadway plays were shaping the identities of actors and of audience members who emulated those actors. It is the legacy of this environment Alberto Sandoval Sanchez is resisting, some forty years later.
One final suggestion: does the excessive theatricality and "fakeness" of musicals allow us to recognize that these characters and situations are absolutely not real? That is, what about when playwrights work within a style of drama that presents characters as more realistic? Is it more difficult to recognize stereotyping? It's interesting to consider the function of theatricality in scripts in general. This will become a little more clear when we start discussing character in Brecht later in the semester.
First, it's interesting to stop and think about why people consider there to be a big difference between studying Shakespeare and looking at musical theatre. As we saw from Katie's presentation, musicals are really prevalent in the popular consciousness, probably especially since what's successful on Broadway often gets made into a movie, which reaches a very broad audience. Shakespeare is well known, of course, but we afford him different status-musicals are, potentially, "just entertainment," but many people think of older plays as something more worthy of serious study. I wonder why we make that "high art" and "popular culture" distinction? Isn't it all culture and part of history? Why is analyzing one kind of script more important than another? Alberto Sandoval Sanchez's book takes a cultural studies approach to the analysis of musicals, which is really another framework for examining a script.
I would encourage people to make room for critiques like this one in your discussions of scripts-be aware that different audiences will experience plays in various ways. But also, be aware that representation carries with it a certain degree of responsibility-how does a play represent a character or group with which the playwright isn't intimately familiar? This doesn't mean that you have to agree with everyone's analysis, nor that playwrights should stick to writing characters in their own identity groups. It's just that it's important not to shut down avenues of inquiry and critique based on identity without giving them some credence. Jose Can You See?: Latinos on and off Broadway uses the first section, entitled "Act One", as a way of critiquing commercial representations of Latino/a characters, and then goes on to examine work by Latino and Latina performers as alternatives to the reigning stereotypes. So, think also of how playwriting itself often serves as an analysis and critique of what came before.
Finally, here's just a little more contextual information with regards to West Side Story, to emphasize that what seems clear to us about how characters come across in that play wasn't always so evident. Broadway in the 1950s was part an parcel of a project that defined what "American" culture and identity were supposed to be. Film and television were big vehicles for that idea of the American dream, bringing it into people's living rooms, and were often exclusionary in their ideas about how people should look in order to participate. Consider these images:
The first is Margarita Cansino, whose father was Spanish and whose career began as a flamenco dancer on the Vaudeville circuit. The second is what happened when she became an "American" film star and sex symbol within the Hollywood system, Rita Hayworth. If one wanted to escape limitations and have a more successful career, serious changes had to be made in a person's image. If Cansino had stayed identifiably Latina, would she have been offered as many substantial "leading lady" roles and become such a legendary figure? So: people writing characters in Broadway plays were shaping the identities of actors and of audience members who emulated those actors. It is the legacy of this environment Alberto Sandoval Sanchez is resisting, some forty years later.
One final suggestion: does the excessive theatricality and "fakeness" of musicals allow us to recognize that these characters and situations are absolutely not real? That is, what about when playwrights work within a style of drama that presents characters as more realistic? Is it more difficult to recognize stereotyping? It's interesting to consider the function of theatricality in scripts in general. This will become a little more clear when we start discussing character in Brecht later in the semester.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)