Friday, May 20, 2011
Cheating On My Blog, Or Checkout My post on MTI
Usually my MTI blogposts are about why you should license "THE APPLE TREE" and do it in your community theater because it's based on classic literature, or some other sort of thing that encourages people to take a look at the MTI catalogue and do a new show before just doing OKLAHOMA! again. Not that I don't love OKLAHOMA!, because I do. However, there's not much reason to crosspost those posts here...however, check out this piece I wrote about an all female version of 1776 - wherein I try to talk about feminism and patriotism in a public forum.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Shameless Plug: Support Playwrights Horizons and New Work!
I know I haven't posted in awhile, and this entry is sort of a shameless plug, but consider the following.
Playwrights Horizons is a non-profit, Off-Broadway Theater, and it's one of the most prominent organizations supporting new work by American writers in the country. PH has a pretty good track record of supporting daring, new musicals in particular - its not afraid of the kind of shows that deal with social issues, but rather seeks those shows out for production. This is rare and important, and sort of the whole point of this blog. SO!
Support Playwrights Horizons through May 18th, by checking out the online auction and bidding on some cool musical theater items in the process! http://www.biddingforgood.com/auction/AuctionHome.action?auctionId=124629863
Of note for MT Lovers:
- 2 Tickets to CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and a backstage visit with Aaron Tevit
- Tickets to the first preview of RENT and a chance to meet Michael Greif
- Have Michael Friedman write a song about you
OR support PH and ME and bid on essay tutoring help from Essays That Sing!
Playwrights Horizons is a non-profit, Off-Broadway Theater, and it's one of the most prominent organizations supporting new work by American writers in the country. PH has a pretty good track record of supporting daring, new musicals in particular - its not afraid of the kind of shows that deal with social issues, but rather seeks those shows out for production. This is rare and important, and sort of the whole point of this blog. SO!
Support Playwrights Horizons through May 18th, by checking out the online auction and bidding on some cool musical theater items in the process! http://www.biddingforgood.com/auction/AuctionHome.action?auctionId=124629863
Of note for MT Lovers:
- 2 Tickets to CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and a backstage visit with Aaron Tevit
- Tickets to the first preview of RENT and a chance to meet Michael Greif
- Have Michael Friedman write a song about you
OR support PH and ME and bid on essay tutoring help from Essays That Sing!
Sunday, December 12, 2010
THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS Question
I’ve been thinking a lot about THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS, a new Kander and Ebb (composer and lyricist of CABARET, KISS OF THE SPIDERWOMAN and CHICAGO, among others) musical that is closing on Broadway today. The Internet is rife with articles about the questions surrounding the show. (Google “Scottsboro Boys Musical Racist” for more.) In addition to the question of whether or not the show is racist, there’s also the question of whether or not the show is even a good musical, here are the reviews (not to say that I believe reviews always indicate quality…)
I missed the show off-Broadway at the Vineyard last Spring, but I’d heard good things about it from people I trust, so I was really excited to have the opportunity to see it a few weeks ago on Broadway. I strongly support attempts by musicals to tackle America’s racist legacy, and I am very interested in how White authors can write about these issues in a way that isn’t racist, but rather deals with the way racism impacts (and I would argue hurts, although obviously to varying degrees) all members of society, whether or not the privileged parties recognize it.
I found THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS to be quite successful actually. I thought that the minstrel form was deconstructed, rather than mimicked. I thought connection between the legacy of minstrelsy and the history of this type of injustice in the judicial system was a smart linking, and that it brings up the fact that popular culture does impact social behavior. I thought the actors and other creative talent behind the show effectively made it clear that the show calls minstrelsy into question, rather than uses that form for entertainment.
However, I also understand the argument that given the continued presence of racism in our society any presentation of problematic images is… problematic, even if the point of the presentation is criticism. Especially when the authors are trying to say one thing, but the audience response indicates the message isn’t exactly coming through. This article on New America Media remarks that the reporter from the Amsterdam News was troubled by some of the things the audience laughed at. I also experienced this when I saw the show. There were things that I didn’t think were supposed to be funny that got big laughs, and it was very disturbing the way John Cullum was applauded on his entrance given the context (he is the only White actor and he enters clearly as the leader of the minstrel show.)
There’s also the argument that minstrelsy is a fundamental part of the history of American musical theater, as disturbing as that is. And, so, in order to overcome the past we must remember and interrogate it, and part of that interrogation may be staging a “minstrel” show like THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS in order to understand why it was such a popular art form and why it was such a dangerous one. I do think we ought to consider that THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS does put forward a lot of very disturbing images, and it does use blackface, BUT it does not put White people in blackface on stage. And, the only use of blackface in the show is very, very pointed as a moment of deconstruction and rebellion. The actors in the minstrel show turn against the accepted narrative and wipe the blackface off and leave, they have blackface on SO that they may wipe it off in defiance.
The question of authorship also comes into play here. John Kander, Fred Ebb, David Thompson and Susan Stroman are all White. When Spike Lee uses blackface in the movie Bamboozled, it’s clear that that’s an act of critique. I understand why the power dynamics make that less of a given with THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS, but I think Kander and Ebb deserve the trust of their audiences in dealing with sensitive issues. It’s very clear to me, as a student of musical theater, how THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS is a direct descendent of shows like CABARET and CHICAGO which use a hyper-performative format to explore serious social issues. The concept behind using minstrelsy for this show in a Kander and Ebb context makes sense to me, and I think they do it well. But, I’m also White.
And this is what leads to my desire for discussion on the matter, because I as a White writer who wants to write musicals that deconstruct American racism and Whiteness had a lot of respect for this show. But, there were a lot of people of color actively protesting the show. The Freedom Party had demonstrations outside of the show, and aimed to have it closed. Which it has, though it seems likely that that has to do with Broadway economics more than anything else. And, it’s easy for me to dismiss the protestors, because many of them haven’t seen the show and I agree with what Colman Domingo says in the previously mentioned New America article. But, I also, in general, feel like I need to check my position if I find myself disagreeing with a large group of people of color on an issue of racism.
So, in regards to THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS I pose the following question for discussion:
Is it ever okay to do a minstrel show, even when the goal is critique like in the case of THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS?
And, as a bonus question, why was The Freedom Party picketing THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS while no one was picketing BLOODY, BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON (which is also closing, without the aid of protestors), which I felt had a lot of racist Native American imagery? I would argue this is a testament to the continued invisibility of and racism towards Native American people, which is part of what I find so difficult about the “jokes” made with a knowing smile in BLOODY, BLOODY – but more on that later.
*If you're wondering what a minstrel show is, don't worry. There's plenty to be found on Google. But, in brief, they are one of the predecessors to modern musical theater in the U.S. A very prevalent form of popular culture from the 1840s through the beginning of the 20th Century, that didn't really die out until the 1950s or 60s. A LOT of common cultural stereotypes about and offensive representations of Black people in the U.S. come from minstrel shows, which many people don't even realize. For example, the characters of "Jim Crow", "Sambo" and "Aunt Jemima". In mind, the most important thing about them is the way they helped institutionalize racist ideas through popular culture - only proving my deepest held belief (albeit towards the opposite end that I would desire): musical theater impacts the way people think about the world around them.
I missed the show off-Broadway at the Vineyard last Spring, but I’d heard good things about it from people I trust, so I was really excited to have the opportunity to see it a few weeks ago on Broadway. I strongly support attempts by musicals to tackle America’s racist legacy, and I am very interested in how White authors can write about these issues in a way that isn’t racist, but rather deals with the way racism impacts (and I would argue hurts, although obviously to varying degrees) all members of society, whether or not the privileged parties recognize it.
I found THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS to be quite successful actually. I thought that the minstrel form was deconstructed, rather than mimicked. I thought connection between the legacy of minstrelsy and the history of this type of injustice in the judicial system was a smart linking, and that it brings up the fact that popular culture does impact social behavior. I thought the actors and other creative talent behind the show effectively made it clear that the show calls minstrelsy into question, rather than uses that form for entertainment.
However, I also understand the argument that given the continued presence of racism in our society any presentation of problematic images is… problematic, even if the point of the presentation is criticism. Especially when the authors are trying to say one thing, but the audience response indicates the message isn’t exactly coming through. This article on New America Media remarks that the reporter from the Amsterdam News was troubled by some of the things the audience laughed at. I also experienced this when I saw the show. There were things that I didn’t think were supposed to be funny that got big laughs, and it was very disturbing the way John Cullum was applauded on his entrance given the context (he is the only White actor and he enters clearly as the leader of the minstrel show.)
There’s also the argument that minstrelsy is a fundamental part of the history of American musical theater, as disturbing as that is. And, so, in order to overcome the past we must remember and interrogate it, and part of that interrogation may be staging a “minstrel” show like THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS in order to understand why it was such a popular art form and why it was such a dangerous one. I do think we ought to consider that THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS does put forward a lot of very disturbing images, and it does use blackface, BUT it does not put White people in blackface on stage. And, the only use of blackface in the show is very, very pointed as a moment of deconstruction and rebellion. The actors in the minstrel show turn against the accepted narrative and wipe the blackface off and leave, they have blackface on SO that they may wipe it off in defiance.
The question of authorship also comes into play here. John Kander, Fred Ebb, David Thompson and Susan Stroman are all White. When Spike Lee uses blackface in the movie Bamboozled, it’s clear that that’s an act of critique. I understand why the power dynamics make that less of a given with THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS, but I think Kander and Ebb deserve the trust of their audiences in dealing with sensitive issues. It’s very clear to me, as a student of musical theater, how THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS is a direct descendent of shows like CABARET and CHICAGO which use a hyper-performative format to explore serious social issues. The concept behind using minstrelsy for this show in a Kander and Ebb context makes sense to me, and I think they do it well. But, I’m also White.
And this is what leads to my desire for discussion on the matter, because I as a White writer who wants to write musicals that deconstruct American racism and Whiteness had a lot of respect for this show. But, there were a lot of people of color actively protesting the show. The Freedom Party had demonstrations outside of the show, and aimed to have it closed. Which it has, though it seems likely that that has to do with Broadway economics more than anything else. And, it’s easy for me to dismiss the protestors, because many of them haven’t seen the show and I agree with what Colman Domingo says in the previously mentioned New America article. But, I also, in general, feel like I need to check my position if I find myself disagreeing with a large group of people of color on an issue of racism.
So, in regards to THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS I pose the following question for discussion:
Is it ever okay to do a minstrel show, even when the goal is critique like in the case of THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS?
And, as a bonus question, why was The Freedom Party picketing THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS while no one was picketing BLOODY, BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON (which is also closing, without the aid of protestors), which I felt had a lot of racist Native American imagery? I would argue this is a testament to the continued invisibility of and racism towards Native American people, which is part of what I find so difficult about the “jokes” made with a knowing smile in BLOODY, BLOODY – but more on that later.
*If you're wondering what a minstrel show is, don't worry. There's plenty to be found on Google. But, in brief, they are one of the predecessors to modern musical theater in the U.S. A very prevalent form of popular culture from the 1840s through the beginning of the 20th Century, that didn't really die out until the 1950s or 60s. A LOT of common cultural stereotypes about and offensive representations of Black people in the U.S. come from minstrel shows, which many people don't even realize. For example, the characters of "Jim Crow", "Sambo" and "Aunt Jemima". In mind, the most important thing about them is the way they helped institutionalize racist ideas through popular culture - only proving my deepest held belief (albeit towards the opposite end that I would desire): musical theater impacts the way people think about the world around them.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Who Will Save The Gulf Coast?: A Look at How The Toxic Avenger Can Help Us Deal With The BP Oil Spill
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
A Queer Proposition
Given the exciting news from California (well, I think it's exciting, but, I also take this to heart and think there are a lot of valid, non-mainstream, points being made in this argument) and the impossibility (well, unless you have an incredibly doting grandmother, as it turns out, I do) of getting tickets to the Angels in America revival (which indicates a mainstream-ization - I might coin that phrase for this blog, unless it's already been coined - of what used to be a fairly taboo subject, even if it's a mainstream-ization among people who are now just more allowed to be considered mainstream, i.e. gay men in the theatre community, which may or may not be the case), it seems appropriate to write about queerness (and I mean that in the most radical usage of the word) in this post.
I could pick a specific musical to riff on right now, but, to steal a friend of mine's response to my one time assertion that I was playing "gay softball", when it comes to "gay musical theatre" - is there any other kind? There's so much to talk about in connecting gay culture and identity to musical theatre that one could write a book or teach a class (my friend took that class at University of Michigan once), but that's not really what interests me. Because, in all of these instances, when I'm saying gay, I'm refering predominantly to gay MEN. The connection between gay MEN and musical theatre is lost on very few (perhaps only on some in the Mormon community, where I hear musical theatre is very, very popular, but I'm pretty sure gayness is not). The connection between gay women, or lesbianism, or whatever word is most comfortable to you, and musical theatre seems much less present in the cultural forefront.
In writing this post, I tried to think of some prominent queer ciswomen (I was confused the first time I read "cisgender" on a blog, no worries, click here) who are stars of the musical theatre stage, or who are featured prominently in musicals as characters...or featured at all...where is Alvin in La Cage Aux Folle's* feminist counterpart? And, what does the absence of these images say about the role of queer womyn in America as a whole?
Obviously, I'm not the first person to think about this, and in searching for more examples than I could think of off the top of my head I found this article, which lists all of the shows that came to my mind and then some (including RENT, The Color Purple, and Legally Blonde - which actually, I don't take credit for remembering Enid's character, but am highlighting it because I find myself completely agreeing with Ben Brantley's comment about the jokes made at Enid's expense, referenced in the article, and that's not something that happens every day).
And, then there's the issue mentioned in the article about women kissing for exhibitionist thrill. I saw this tactic most recently in Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson (which I know a lot of people loved, and probably will be the subject of its own post at some point given my strong feelings about it). The conceit of Bloody, Bloody is (I think) going so far past the line of acceptable as to make it clear that one can be doing nothing BUT commenting on (and in no way perpetuating through representation) things that are heinous. But, I wonder, in a medium where a legitimate, non-spectacle, loving kiss between two women is as scarce as justice for the Native Americans, if having a moment where a chauvinist character commands to "hot" women to kiss for his enjoyment can really be considered that far-fetched.
Anyway, my point, as a queer woman devotee of musical theatre, I frequently feel left out of the LGBTQ lovefest that musical theatre is purported to be. And, I'm wondering what other people think and feel. Where are the queer women in musical theatre? Am I the only one who sometimes feels like it's a boys club? Am I missing really cool examples of queer women in musical theatre? And, what do we as a community of creators and fans do to make musical theatre (and all theatre) as queer friendly as one would believe it to be standing in the box office line at the Signature Theatre this past Tuesday?
*I know, Wikipedia's not actually a legitimate source, but in these instances it gets the job done.
I could pick a specific musical to riff on right now, but, to steal a friend of mine's response to my one time assertion that I was playing "gay softball", when it comes to "gay musical theatre" - is there any other kind? There's so much to talk about in connecting gay culture and identity to musical theatre that one could write a book or teach a class (my friend took that class at University of Michigan once), but that's not really what interests me. Because, in all of these instances, when I'm saying gay, I'm refering predominantly to gay MEN. The connection between gay MEN and musical theatre is lost on very few (perhaps only on some in the Mormon community, where I hear musical theatre is very, very popular, but I'm pretty sure gayness is not). The connection between gay women, or lesbianism, or whatever word is most comfortable to you, and musical theatre seems much less present in the cultural forefront.
In writing this post, I tried to think of some prominent queer ciswomen (I was confused the first time I read "cisgender" on a blog, no worries, click here) who are stars of the musical theatre stage, or who are featured prominently in musicals as characters...or featured at all...where is Alvin in La Cage Aux Folle's* feminist counterpart? And, what does the absence of these images say about the role of queer womyn in America as a whole?
Obviously, I'm not the first person to think about this, and in searching for more examples than I could think of off the top of my head I found this article, which lists all of the shows that came to my mind and then some (including RENT, The Color Purple, and Legally Blonde - which actually, I don't take credit for remembering Enid's character, but am highlighting it because I find myself completely agreeing with Ben Brantley's comment about the jokes made at Enid's expense, referenced in the article, and that's not something that happens every day).
And, then there's the issue mentioned in the article about women kissing for exhibitionist thrill. I saw this tactic most recently in Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson (which I know a lot of people loved, and probably will be the subject of its own post at some point given my strong feelings about it). The conceit of Bloody, Bloody is (I think) going so far past the line of acceptable as to make it clear that one can be doing nothing BUT commenting on (and in no way perpetuating through representation) things that are heinous. But, I wonder, in a medium where a legitimate, non-spectacle, loving kiss between two women is as scarce as justice for the Native Americans, if having a moment where a chauvinist character commands to "hot" women to kiss for his enjoyment can really be considered that far-fetched.
Anyway, my point, as a queer woman devotee of musical theatre, I frequently feel left out of the LGBTQ lovefest that musical theatre is purported to be. And, I'm wondering what other people think and feel. Where are the queer women in musical theatre? Am I the only one who sometimes feels like it's a boys club? Am I missing really cool examples of queer women in musical theatre? And, what do we as a community of creators and fans do to make musical theatre (and all theatre) as queer friendly as one would believe it to be standing in the box office line at the Signature Theatre this past Tuesday?
*I know, Wikipedia's not actually a legitimate source, but in these instances it gets the job done.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
How To Succeed In (Show) Business With Revivals - that are very much "of their time"?
I recently read this:
http://www.playbill.com/events/event_detail/19805-How-to-Succeed-in-Business-Without-Really-Trying-at-Al-Hirschfeld-Theatre
and I was reminded of one of my constant questions about modern day musical theatre - particularly Broadway. The question of revivals. I'm not asking about whether revivals are legitimate, or whether there are too many, or anything like that, although I know there is much room for discussion. My concern with revivals has to do with how old imagery holds up in a modern context, and whether it's possible to stage something that has inherently problematic representations without those representations furthering social injustice.
How To Succeed... is a show that a lot of people really like, or at least that must be what the producers of the revival are counting on, but it's also a show that is very much "of it's time". I certainly find it fun and charming, with songs that get stuck in my head. But, it takes place in an office in the 1960s, where it's taken for granted that the men are the execs and the women are the secretaries (check out the song "A Secretary Is Not a Toy") . No matter how much "modern sensibility" one infuses into the production - the words are still the words, the concept is still the concept, and the basic underlying sexist assumptions are still underlying. Or, in the case of lyrics like "when you put her to use", rather overlying.
So, my question is, and this is one I wrestle with ALL THE TIME: How does one do How To Succeed...and not be sexist?
And, let's not just limit it to sexism and this show, there are PLENTY of other examples. I saw Promises, Promises a few months ago, and that's a show where the material certainly lends itself to this kind of grappling about the portrayal of women and gender roles. Show Boat is a classic example of something that was actually considered progressive in it's time that now can be hard to stomach. On the one hand, it showed an interracial couple who get wrongfully broken up, and we're supposed to think the one drop rule is abhorrent, that wasn't something to take for granted in the 1920s. On the other hand, it has characters and songs that are direct descendants of (if not just straight up) minstrelsy. (I was going to link to a defnition of minstrelsy, but I couldn't find anything on the internet that gave an historic account that I was comfortable with...basically, minstrel shows started in the mid 19th Century in the U.S., are considered by many to be one of the first forms of truly %100 "American" musical theatre, and consisted of White people, mostly men, dressing up in "Black face" and representing horribly offensive and stereotypical character "types" of Black people, including but not limited to mammies, Jim Crow, and Little Black Sambo. They did a lot to introduce racial stereotypes and perpetuate them in a pretty horrible way) There was a production in 1994, directed by Harold Prince, that explicitly tried to address these problems of the script in a modern production. (The Black actors moved set pieces, rather than stage hands, for example, in an effort to highlight the racial divisions of the time).
I feel like the standard argument (and please correct me with more nuanced responses!) in defense of producing dated material in a modern context is that we're now so much wiser as to be "past" these issues. We "know better", so we can enjoy the show for what it is and not worry about buying into the "-isms" because we would never suggest a secretary is a toy to begin with, right?
My concern with this argument is that our society is not nearly as wise and "past it" as we tend to think we are. Just look at the statistics on pay equity or the reality of living in a rape culture or the fact that women have to put up with a lot of shit on a daily basis that most men don't think about (some of my favorite feminist links: Feministing, Hollaback, What it means to be that guy). It's pretty plain to see that we have a long way to go before putting out representations of sexism (and inequality in the workplace) is a museum-style view of antiquated notions rather than part of a living, breathing culture. I'm not saying the revival of How To Succeed...is going to kill the movement for pay equity or convince some young woman she shouldn't try to break through the glass ceiling when before she watched the musical she was all set to do so. But, if we believe musicals have an impact on the culture that's strong enough to push it in the positive direction (which I do), then we have to accept that they have an impact that's strong enough to push it in the negative direction. And reinforcement of stereotypes, no matter how subconscious, is the wrong direction.
But, revivals happen for a lot of reasons, and the culture is always changing (and I hope in a direction that's more progressive - think one of my favorite MLK Jr. quotations "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."), and as someone who writes musicals I certainly hope that they can have a life that fits in with that changing cultural landscape. I don't advocate he tossing aside of shows that are great for many reasons that have nothing to do with "representation" (beautiful songs, insightful thoughts about humanity, great jokes) because they are problematic. There's also the component that if we try to erase the shameful moments of our history by not hanging on to them, we're doomed to repeat them. But, it's really complicated in theatre, because hanging on to a show with racist or sexist imagery so we know it happend is really different from staging something with racist or sexist or classist or ageist imagery which may subtely permit that sort of thinking to go on. I go back and forth, because even if you're really really really conscious of the problems of the show when you stage it, unless you rewrite it, those images still exist.
Anyway, I'm interested in other opinions on this matter, because I think about it all of the time and I wonder if others do, and what insight you all have. And, I'm not specifically targeting How to Succeed... or saying that I won't go see it (I will, I've only ever seen the movie/read/listened to it), it's just what got me thinking to blog about this particular issue.
http://www.playbill.com/events/event_detail/19805-How-to-Succeed-in-Business-Without-Really-Trying-at-Al-Hirschfeld-Theatre
and I was reminded of one of my constant questions about modern day musical theatre - particularly Broadway. The question of revivals. I'm not asking about whether revivals are legitimate, or whether there are too many, or anything like that, although I know there is much room for discussion. My concern with revivals has to do with how old imagery holds up in a modern context, and whether it's possible to stage something that has inherently problematic representations without those representations furthering social injustice.
How To Succeed... is a show that a lot of people really like, or at least that must be what the producers of the revival are counting on, but it's also a show that is very much "of it's time". I certainly find it fun and charming, with songs that get stuck in my head. But, it takes place in an office in the 1960s, where it's taken for granted that the men are the execs and the women are the secretaries (check out the song "A Secretary Is Not a Toy") . No matter how much "modern sensibility" one infuses into the production - the words are still the words, the concept is still the concept, and the basic underlying sexist assumptions are still underlying. Or, in the case of lyrics like "when you put her to use", rather overlying.
So, my question is, and this is one I wrestle with ALL THE TIME: How does one do How To Succeed...and not be sexist?
And, let's not just limit it to sexism and this show, there are PLENTY of other examples. I saw Promises, Promises a few months ago, and that's a show where the material certainly lends itself to this kind of grappling about the portrayal of women and gender roles. Show Boat is a classic example of something that was actually considered progressive in it's time that now can be hard to stomach. On the one hand, it showed an interracial couple who get wrongfully broken up, and we're supposed to think the one drop rule is abhorrent, that wasn't something to take for granted in the 1920s. On the other hand, it has characters and songs that are direct descendants of (if not just straight up) minstrelsy. (I was going to link to a defnition of minstrelsy, but I couldn't find anything on the internet that gave an historic account that I was comfortable with...basically, minstrel shows started in the mid 19th Century in the U.S., are considered by many to be one of the first forms of truly %100 "American" musical theatre, and consisted of White people, mostly men, dressing up in "Black face" and representing horribly offensive and stereotypical character "types" of Black people, including but not limited to mammies, Jim Crow, and Little Black Sambo. They did a lot to introduce racial stereotypes and perpetuate them in a pretty horrible way) There was a production in 1994, directed by Harold Prince, that explicitly tried to address these problems of the script in a modern production. (The Black actors moved set pieces, rather than stage hands, for example, in an effort to highlight the racial divisions of the time).
I feel like the standard argument (and please correct me with more nuanced responses!) in defense of producing dated material in a modern context is that we're now so much wiser as to be "past" these issues. We "know better", so we can enjoy the show for what it is and not worry about buying into the "-isms" because we would never suggest a secretary is a toy to begin with, right?
My concern with this argument is that our society is not nearly as wise and "past it" as we tend to think we are. Just look at the statistics on pay equity or the reality of living in a rape culture or the fact that women have to put up with a lot of shit on a daily basis that most men don't think about (some of my favorite feminist links: Feministing, Hollaback, What it means to be that guy). It's pretty plain to see that we have a long way to go before putting out representations of sexism (and inequality in the workplace) is a museum-style view of antiquated notions rather than part of a living, breathing culture. I'm not saying the revival of How To Succeed...is going to kill the movement for pay equity or convince some young woman she shouldn't try to break through the glass ceiling when before she watched the musical she was all set to do so. But, if we believe musicals have an impact on the culture that's strong enough to push it in the positive direction (which I do), then we have to accept that they have an impact that's strong enough to push it in the negative direction. And reinforcement of stereotypes, no matter how subconscious, is the wrong direction.
But, revivals happen for a lot of reasons, and the culture is always changing (and I hope in a direction that's more progressive - think one of my favorite MLK Jr. quotations "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."), and as someone who writes musicals I certainly hope that they can have a life that fits in with that changing cultural landscape. I don't advocate he tossing aside of shows that are great for many reasons that have nothing to do with "representation" (beautiful songs, insightful thoughts about humanity, great jokes) because they are problematic. There's also the component that if we try to erase the shameful moments of our history by not hanging on to them, we're doomed to repeat them. But, it's really complicated in theatre, because hanging on to a show with racist or sexist imagery so we know it happend is really different from staging something with racist or sexist or classist or ageist imagery which may subtely permit that sort of thinking to go on. I go back and forth, because even if you're really really really conscious of the problems of the show when you stage it, unless you rewrite it, those images still exist.
Anyway, I'm interested in other opinions on this matter, because I think about it all of the time and I wonder if others do, and what insight you all have. And, I'm not specifically targeting How to Succeed... or saying that I won't go see it (I will, I've only ever seen the movie/read/listened to it), it's just what got me thinking to blog about this particular issue.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Of whom, for whom, and by whom?
This is an article from the New York Times from about 2 weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/theater/28diverse.html?_r=1&hp
I think it's really important and really interesting. For starters, it acknowledges that what people of color spend their money on matters. That's not always taken for granted (in fact, the status quo seems to be assuming it doesn't matter).
Then, there's the issue that it seems the main reason these shows are being marketed to a "Black audience" (which implies that all Black people who see shows are interested in the same kinds of shows as each other, and that those are probably different from the shows that appeal to the "White audience", which is usually just called "The audience") is because they feature Black people. Or, are about subject matter that has to do with "race", rather than subject matter that has to do with anything else. And, yet, there are people in the article (which doesn't mean that all Black theatregoers agree, but I certainly feel as a White reader that I'm supposed to think it does) who are quoted as saying they WOULD rather see Memphis if it's about an interracial couple than if it's about Elvis...but then, so would I (and I have seen Memphis, but not Million Dollar Quartet which actually IS - partially - about Elvis).
So, this is where it gets really complicated. Because on the one hand, the idea that people (Black, White or otherwise) only want to see shows about people who "look"* like them is clearly problematic and, I hope, false. One of the reasons I think musical theatre can be an effective tool for social change is that it can show us people who are different from ourselves. But, on the other hand, when it comes to representation, there are so many normalized images of White people, and so few images of not-White people, it makes a lot of sense that people will jump at the opportunity to see people on stage who look like them (because, when seeing the stories of people who have things in common with you - whether it's because they're Black or because they're from small town Indiana - is a rarity, it's exiciting to see that representation on stage - like, wow, I'm important enough to have a story like mine told). There's a logical fallacy, however, in assuming that therefore people of color will see anything featuring other people of color, regardless of what the show is. And, that that same section of the audience isn't worth marketing to for other shows.
So my first question is, why aren't ALL shows more aggressively marketed to different kinds of audiences, rather than just the assumed "White" audience? The article says that the Memphis producers were proud that Michelle, Sasha, and Malia Obama went to see the show - how did The Addams Family producers feel? Is that also a "race" show, because they saw it? Should the marketers start trying to get the "Black audience" into see that show more aggressively? Okay, okay. I "get" the difference. The obvious answer as to why one of these things is not like the other. But - I also think normalized race difference runs so deep in our society that we don't even notice how the "logic" behind the obvious answer perpetuates problematic assumptions (like, the "audience" is White, like, people of color only want to see shows about people of color, etc. et.c).
My second question is does it matter that some of these shows (I've seen a few of the ones listed) do not necessarily address issues of race and racism in a progressive way? (obviously, that's up for debate, too, and I don't expect a mainstream Broadway show to cause people to think radically about race - but, what if it's doing the opposite of that? what if it's reinforcing stereotypes or furthering the above mentioned problematic assumptions through its content?) Is it enough that producers and writers are responding to the presence of (aka acknowledging there is) a non-White audience, or is it worse to do that by puting forth shows that don't do anything to work against the structures that created the situation in which the non-White audience was previously (and in many cases, is still largely) ignored? Is it enough to talk about race, when what you're saying isn't working against institutions of racism? But, how do you do that in a way that is still commercially viable? This is about Broadway, after all. And, the whole point of this article, is that most of the people who go to Broadway shows are White (for any number of reasons from marketing to an assumed White audience to the reality that White people have more money to spend on things like Broadway shows), so you want them to relate to the show also. People don't learn things from a show if they're not having fun. And, I know, that probably a lot of people would disagree with my basic assumption that one ought to learn something at the theatre.
Anyway, there's a lot more to discuss about this - who goes to see shows is a major concern for everyone who is creating them. So, what are your thoughts on the article? On the issue of target marketing based on race? On what happens when the show "about race" is not necessarily about "ending racism"?
*EDIT: I originally said look, but really that's not true at all, to say that people of one race "look" more like each other than they do people of other races isn't really true - race construction in the US has very little to do with phenotype. What I meant by "look" really is being able to see yourself in someone else in some capacity because of an imagined (or real) shared identity.
Also, check out this line of thinking about pieces that portray issues of "race" : http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/06/rescue-dark-kids-who-would-never-have.html
And, while I'm linking you to other blogs I like, that are related to these kinds of things, check out: http://www.racialicious.com
I think it's really important and really interesting. For starters, it acknowledges that what people of color spend their money on matters. That's not always taken for granted (in fact, the status quo seems to be assuming it doesn't matter).
Then, there's the issue that it seems the main reason these shows are being marketed to a "Black audience" (which implies that all Black people who see shows are interested in the same kinds of shows as each other, and that those are probably different from the shows that appeal to the "White audience", which is usually just called "The audience") is because they feature Black people. Or, are about subject matter that has to do with "race", rather than subject matter that has to do with anything else. And, yet, there are people in the article (which doesn't mean that all Black theatregoers agree, but I certainly feel as a White reader that I'm supposed to think it does) who are quoted as saying they WOULD rather see Memphis if it's about an interracial couple than if it's about Elvis...but then, so would I (and I have seen Memphis, but not Million Dollar Quartet which actually IS - partially - about Elvis).
So, this is where it gets really complicated. Because on the one hand, the idea that people (Black, White or otherwise) only want to see shows about people who "look"* like them is clearly problematic and, I hope, false. One of the reasons I think musical theatre can be an effective tool for social change is that it can show us people who are different from ourselves. But, on the other hand, when it comes to representation, there are so many normalized images of White people, and so few images of not-White people, it makes a lot of sense that people will jump at the opportunity to see people on stage who look like them (because, when seeing the stories of people who have things in common with you - whether it's because they're Black or because they're from small town Indiana - is a rarity, it's exiciting to see that representation on stage - like, wow, I'm important enough to have a story like mine told). There's a logical fallacy, however, in assuming that therefore people of color will see anything featuring other people of color, regardless of what the show is. And, that that same section of the audience isn't worth marketing to for other shows.
So my first question is, why aren't ALL shows more aggressively marketed to different kinds of audiences, rather than just the assumed "White" audience? The article says that the Memphis producers were proud that Michelle, Sasha, and Malia Obama went to see the show - how did The Addams Family producers feel? Is that also a "race" show, because they saw it? Should the marketers start trying to get the "Black audience" into see that show more aggressively? Okay, okay. I "get" the difference. The obvious answer as to why one of these things is not like the other. But - I also think normalized race difference runs so deep in our society that we don't even notice how the "logic" behind the obvious answer perpetuates problematic assumptions (like, the "audience" is White, like, people of color only want to see shows about people of color, etc. et.c).
My second question is does it matter that some of these shows (I've seen a few of the ones listed) do not necessarily address issues of race and racism in a progressive way? (obviously, that's up for debate, too, and I don't expect a mainstream Broadway show to cause people to think radically about race - but, what if it's doing the opposite of that? what if it's reinforcing stereotypes or furthering the above mentioned problematic assumptions through its content?) Is it enough that producers and writers are responding to the presence of (aka acknowledging there is) a non-White audience, or is it worse to do that by puting forth shows that don't do anything to work against the structures that created the situation in which the non-White audience was previously (and in many cases, is still largely) ignored? Is it enough to talk about race, when what you're saying isn't working against institutions of racism? But, how do you do that in a way that is still commercially viable? This is about Broadway, after all. And, the whole point of this article, is that most of the people who go to Broadway shows are White (for any number of reasons from marketing to an assumed White audience to the reality that White people have more money to spend on things like Broadway shows), so you want them to relate to the show also. People don't learn things from a show if they're not having fun. And, I know, that probably a lot of people would disagree with my basic assumption that one ought to learn something at the theatre.
Anyway, there's a lot more to discuss about this - who goes to see shows is a major concern for everyone who is creating them. So, what are your thoughts on the article? On the issue of target marketing based on race? On what happens when the show "about race" is not necessarily about "ending racism"?
*EDIT: I originally said look, but really that's not true at all, to say that people of one race "look" more like each other than they do people of other races isn't really true - race construction in the US has very little to do with phenotype. What I meant by "look" really is being able to see yourself in someone else in some capacity because of an imagined (or real) shared identity.
Also, check out this line of thinking about pieces that portray issues of "race" : http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/06/rescue-dark-kids-who-would-never-have.html
And, while I'm linking you to other blogs I like, that are related to these kinds of things, check out: http://www.racialicious.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)