Steinbeck, in the Grapes of Wrath, places the most modern of questions in the mouth of a farmer. It is, "Who do we shoot?" The response, not only from the man he is threatening, but from a world of corporations, profits, heirarchies of authority and plausible deniability, is "I just don't know."
Recently, David Cote's Rabbit Hole review got a few of us in a bit of a tizzy. Then, in Superfluities ever entertaining comments section, Abe Goldfarb seemed pleased as bunch that George didn't exclude the "off-off-off-off [ad infinitum]" scene from the list of his disapprovals.
What strikes me as a unifying theme here is... everyone is looking for the right group to shoot, it seems. Here's a list of those recently complained about in the blogosphere:
Low Brow, Middle Brow, Popular Culture, the leftist press the Complacent Middle Class
High Brow
A culture that doesn't strive towards beauty
Bourgeois subscriber theaters that seem to prop up the ennui of white rich suburbanites
Right Wingers
Undergraduate Education
Of course, you can try to fix Undergraduate Education, but then you'll have differing views on what is being taken out and what is being added. Those who say "Theater should not be taught in school," might suggest it is a trade or craft. If so, schools will come into being that are not in the colleges, if a moratorium were placed on Theater Training in Universities.
We can expose the idiocy of the right wing, but until the culture as a whole feels personally affected by what is happening, they will not be moved. Perhaps we should reinstitute the draft. If we did, I promise you, the Iraq War would be over in two months.
We can speak down to the Low-Brow or Middle-Brow (a term I'm not entirely sure of) and they can write off the High Brow just as easily.
We can create impressively witty terms like Biltmore Syndrome and have fun with subscriber theater. But doing so seems to ignore the economics and realities of who is coming to see these shows and why the decision makers are so insular.
So what I think is this... none of these steps are healthy. I'm as guilty as the next guy for railing against Broadway, cursing about the abortions like Mamma Mia that plague our stages, but in the end, it's just chatter. It's funny, but there's only one way for us to solve our problems.
That is, dare I say, go positive. A supportive community is a healthy community. I expressly do not mean supportive of existing genius (I like Albee, I like the Greeks) but supportive of small theater as a whole, from the smallest vanity showcase to the most acrobatic new verse script that comes down the pike.
We're in a spiral of self-hatred here, crew. We say we love theatre, but I'd love to see more love.
The point of Steinbeck's passage is about a sense of impotence. I shoot this guy, and they'll send another guy. I shoot the guy who sends those guys, and the office in the city replaces him. I go to that office and shoot it up, they have another one elsewhere.
It's the whole thing that needs shaking up, and the little issues will never go away. There will always be a mainstream, and there will always be the outside of that mainstream. There will always be someone saying "Live and make art" and someone else saying "Study your art." There will always be upper class fuckwads who think we're supposed to care about their problems, and there will always be brilliant high brow genius that couldn't have come from someone who just walked out of working in the mines.
So let's stop trying to knock down a big brick wall with mosquito bites. If there is a problem that can be solved, I think we should talk about how to solve it. If not, I'd like to suggest that we talk a bit more about what it is about theatre, theatre that is happening right now, that we love so much.
A good model for this...is here.
About Me
- Freeman
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.
11 comments:
Matt, advocating something means not advocating something else. I totally agree that not all commentary should be negative; but I certainly don't agree it ought to all be positive. Critique ought to be, well, critique. It's our job as critics (as Peter Brook pointed out) to be dissatisfied.
you wrote:
We can expose the idiocy of the right wing, but until the culture as a whole feels personally affected by what is happening, they will not be moved. Perhaps we should reinstitute the draft. If we did, I promise you, the Iraq War would be over in two months.
and i laughed.
because yeah, once you flood the military with folks who *aren't* fighting for what they believe in (as the ones currently in there *are*) then you put everyone at risk and we'd have to pull out. Brilliant set of conclusions there.
(And yes, i know, you've got a full-blown post deep inside you that could explain the whole thing in such words that even we idiot right-wingers might buy into it, but as it stands... meh.)
As for the rest of the post....
Today, at work, we listened to a presentation from a famous Manhattan designer. One of the things that struck me was when someone asked what to do about clients who just beat up on you. The designer explained that well, you have to look at it from their view and say, "What can I do to make you look good?" because really, that's what we're all in it for, is to look good.
So instead of commentary that's overly critical, perhaps it's time for the thearter community to ask, "What can we do to make our audience look (or in this case feel) good?"
just thoughts :)
Anne,
I certainly do have a better explanation for the draft comment. I'm sure it gave some people pause. I don't believe it's about sending people over there that don't believe in it...because frankly a lot of people over there are there because they want college money or a sense of direction.
What I believe is that the average American who votes for Bush doesn't feel, personally, any effect of the war in Iraq. They watch it passively, as a TV show, that doesn't really involve them. If there was a draft, everyone in the country would instantly feel that they would need this action justified in a way that this war simply never was.
Alison... I don't deny that critique is critique. But not everyone who writes about theater is a critic. Perhaps advocacy is not less noble than criticism. Or there is a place for both.
Kirabug, the morale among the US military is icnredibly low precisely because many of the soldiers do not feel that they are "fighting for something they believe in". And because when they return maimed or mentally shot because of what they've seen and done there, they find a system which will do almost anything to help as little as they can. Check out some stories by Iraq veterans. You're building up a huge social problem for yourselves at present. But that's another question.
Matt, my point is that criticism and advocacy are, ideally, the same thing. I'm speaking of good, thoughtful criticism, obviously; I don't hold any brief for those shitkicking critics who just get in there and boot something because they fail to understand it. I don't believe that David Cote was doing that; I believe he was arguing for something while he was arguing against something else.
Gandhi's line about "We must become the change we want to see" is true in every realm of human endeavor. Complaints are fine, but action is needed.
If we are out there making powerful engaging theatre then, surprise, there is more engaging powerful theatre out in the world.
fiat lux -- I agree that being "out there" is a good thing. I also think being "in here" is a good thing, too. I think we sometimes think to much of the streets, and too little of our soul.
Matt -- I have taken your call for a more positive approach to heart. I know I have been responsible for a large chunk of the negativity flying around the web. Frankly, it has exhausted me. I am very seriously considering taking a a sabbatical from blogging for a while. It is difficult enough to have to come up with new ideas every day, but then to have to defend those ideas as well is getting me tired, and emotionally raw.
Before I shut down, I will try a more positive approach first. Thanks for the nudge.
Matt wrote:
What I believe is that the average American who votes for Bush doesn't feel, personally, any effect of the war in Iraq.
I'd like to hear your justification for this one, considering that:
a) A higher percentage of the military is Republican and support Bush.
b) A higher percentage of those dying in Iraq are from the red states
c) People who don't support Bush and the war aren't likely to enlist, but enlistment and re-enlistment rates are up.
So, uh, explain to me how these people and their families and their neighbors and those who believe in what they're doing aren't feeling the effects of the war, again? You know, with evidence this time?
Matt also wrote:
If there was a draft, everyone in the country would instantly feel that they would need this action justified in a way that this war simply never was.
It's always been justified to me. You just disagree with the justifications. Drafting people who also disagree isn't going to change the minds of the rest of us.
Alison, if you read those articles about morale rates, you'll find they're mostly Guardsmen and Reservists, and don't reflect the actual military. And hell, who can blame them? But putting their lives further at risk by sending folks over there in an unneeded draft is still a bad idea.
Not that the idea will even have a chance to occur, since troop withdrawals are currently being planned and carried out.
Thanks for the laughs, anyway.
Whoa Hold on Kirabug
Just to look at a couple of your points.
1. To quote from the article you link about Republicans in the military:
"57 percent of the active-duty military identified themselves with that party – with two-thirds of officers, compared to 49 percent of enlisted personnel, checking the Republican box."
That is harldy an overwhelming majority. In fact, in the enlisted ranks it is NOT a majority.
2. As to red staters versus blue staters on the death toll, I think it is a ridiculous argument, akin to the fact that Red States have a 50% increase in suicide rate, and that Red States have the highest divorce and abortion rates. These breakdowns of red state versus blue state casualties are all methodologically complex. Per capita versus actual count, etc.
3. As far as the enlistment and re-enlistment rates, you are being completely deceptive. Did you not think that people would actually read the article you linked to?
"By contrast, the Army through June was about 15% behind its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. The Army has said it faces the roughest recruiting climate since the start of the all-volunteer military in 1973. The bright re-enlistment picture won't fully compensate for the recruiting problems, Head said, because the Army needs new troops to fill its lower ranks and has limits on how many senior soldiers it can keep."
By the way that article was from last July, (so before you start linking to recent headlines trumpeting enlistment gains,) please remember that the Army lowered all of its targets in August, so the new goals they are barely hitting are actually lower than what the goals should actually be.
I served my time and I still have friends and former colleauges on the front lines of this war. The military is stretched to its breaking point.
Anonymous - my info's not perfect, but it's more than anyone else in this thread has provided.
But going back to the original point of this conversation - would *you* have wanted draftees who didn't support this war watching *your* back?
Oh, and thank you for serving. I Seriously. I don't know if you enlisted for the reasons Matt implies - that were poor, looking for college money, or looking for direction - or if you did it because you felt it was right for you or for some other reason I haven't listed, but thank you regardless.
You're welcome to share them.
I personally think that anyone who actively supports this war must have a pretty bizarre reason, because I find it deeply morally objectionable.
Matt wrote:
You're welcome to share them.
I personally think that anyone who actively supports this war must have a pretty bizarre reason, because I find it deeply morally objectionable.
If this was directed to me, I need to ask you to wait a few days for a reply. That job thing is rudely cutting into the time I have available to surf the web.
In the meantime, though, I'll let you tell me - when is war NOT deeply morally objectionable? It's people killing people! That's always wrong! But sometimes the right things occur for the wrong reasons....
Post a Comment