Lecture 4 - Theatre, Film, Television and Public Affairs

This is the 101 introduction to theatre and drama arts. The subject today is theatre, film, television, and public affairs. Today, most of us usually think of and regard the theatre, film, and certainly television mainly in the category of entertainment. Oh yes, we do indeed turn to television and use television very much when we want breaking news. But fictive television is entertainment, and we think in terms of film and theatre much in that same category. There have been periods, however, in the long history of the theatre where theatre has been at the center of life. When it spoke to the values by which people live, challenged their views, and sought them to question the value and meaning of their lives. The great Greek plays of the 5th century BC did such. By the beginning of Christianity, however, the theatre had been debased to the lowest level of debauchery and both theists and the emerging new religion denounced theatre as evil and sinful. In the Western world, in the long period of the medieval age, the formal theatre did not exist. It consisted of itinerant minstrels, mimes, and jugglers wandering from region to region. And from these wandering players came eventually folk plays and farce comedy. But on the whole, these were minor and inconsequential. By the 10th century, however, we find that the church, which is the dominant power within the period, that the church has begun to incorporate drama into certain services. Here in the church, theatre is reborn for the Western world. Priests discovered that by acting out the stories from the Bible, they could carry more meaningful messages, messages to the people. The language of the service was in Latin, but the language in which the drama was played was the vernacular of the particular region. And so, by acting out these stories, by performing these biblical stories, the priests could indeed reach the people more easily and in such a way that it would be meaningful to them and their lives. But this was an uneasy alliance, and by 1200 AD, the dramas had been removed from the church proper to the square outside. And it is during this period then that we find some of the great medieval dramas of the period being written and being created. Dramas with religious subjects flourished and dominated for the next 200 years. As long as the church controlled the drama, it was welcomed. But with the growth of secular subjects, the enmity between the church and the theatre was resumed. In fact, by the time the Puritan government came to power in England in 1641, one of the early actions that this government was to take was to close all theatres, make theatre performances illegal, and to order the destruction of all theatre buildings in London and throughout England. Theatre activities were only to resume when the royalty returned from exile. Down to the present day, an uneasy and often abrasive relationship has existed between church and theatre, and by extension, in the 20th century, film and commercial television. Public arguments, outright demonstrations, and attempts to censor have frequently taken place between church and theatre. The church, however, is certainly not the only organization to take stands opposed to certain productions. Theatre productions with social and political opinions have frequently provoked heated discussions and demonstrations. Indeed, the theatre can be a catalyst for public awareness and discussion. In the 1920s, the German dramatist and director Bertolt Brecht took the ideas of certain German practitioners, mainly Erwin Piscator, and proclaimed epic theatre, which is what Brecht called borrowing the term from Piscator. Proclaimed epic theatre to be the wave of the future. Epic theatre was to make the public aware of moral obligations and social problems. Discussion would ensue and public action would then be taken to correct the particular evil that had been dramatized. Brecht promulgated a series of theatre devices to detach the theater audience from a sentimental attitude and assume an educated outlook. Brecht regarded what he called Aristotelian theatre as being a theater which enamored people but did not encourage them to think or debate the issues which they had seen. With epic theater, however, and with the detachment devices or the devices of objectifying, an audience would be more readily available to take action as needed. In the 1960s, in this country, many Brechtian ideas were utilized as the theater became an instrument of social and political protest. During this period of civil rights demonstrations and the Vietnam War controversy, the theater was frequently used as a means of propaganda by which the message could be gotten out and could be used to unify the people who believed in those particular ideas. Whenever one ideology believes that it has been attacked or that its beliefs are in jeopardy, protest naturally and frequently follows. In the 1980s and 90s, many conservative political and religious forces wanted to suppress the arts, especially visual and theatrical arts. They felt that these arts denigrated the ideas of religion, family values, and patriotism. However, and we should immediately say, the far right is not by itself in attempts of censorship. John Bertrand, the director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, points out that the left complains about art that is critical of feminist, civil rights advocates, and gay activists. The right usually objects to artwork that includes nudity, has sexual or anti-religious themes, or denigrates patriotism or the American flag. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the bill that created the National Endowment for the Arts. This was to be, as indicated, a national federally supported organization. Johnson said at the signing of the bill, "Art is a nation's most precious heritage, for it is in our works of art that we reveal to ourselves and to others the inner vision which guides us as a nation, and where there is no vision, the people perish." Within the bill itself, it was stated, "While no government can call a great artist or scholar into existence, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry, but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent." The NEA then took as its basic mission to foster the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the Arts in the United States and to broaden public access to the arts. This was one of the first attempts on the part of the federal government to support the arts. There had been attempts made during the 1930s in the midst of the depression, and eventually, very quickly, those attempts ran into many different oppositions and that attempt was abandoned. However, with the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States federal government was now once again entering and taking the position of using tax money to support the arts and the artists. It is perhaps that word "diversity" that has created the greatest difficulty the NEA, in fact, has indeed become a lightning rod. The National Endowment for the Arts has usually taken that word diversity to include all groups and to embrace many controversial ideas, and to support arts and support artists and the works which frequently have ideas that are not embraced by the whole. In the 1980s, for its support of certain works that regarded as obscene, the NEA became the whipping post for the concern of the right and continues down to the present day. Federal funding for the NEA has been cut many times by Congress, and each time the renewal of those funds arises again, then again the right attempts either to suppress the funding or to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. The question over the use of federal tax money to support an artist who presented a work that was objectionable becomes then one of the major reasons many opponents believe that artists were trying to introduce a progressive agenda into society that promoted multiculturalism, gay and lesbian rights, feminism, and sexual liberation. In fact, one of the very attributes of the theater itself becomes one of the questionable points and the points of fear, and that is that the theater creates a community. The theater, when an individual enters into it and takes part in that viewing, then the individual loses their individuality and becomes a member of the group, and the group becomes a community. It is indeed that fear that an individual becoming a member of the community will also embrace and approve the ideas that the particular production may be making. Springfield had its own battle in 1989 when the Southwest Missouri State University Department of Theatre and Dance produced "The Normal Heart" by Larry Kramer. Local opponents believed that the play promoted a homosexual agenda and that such a play should not be produced in the university. The department had taken the stance that the play was being produced to become a catalyst for raising public awareness about AIDS in the late 1980s. While a great deal of information had begun to be disseminated within the United States, but especially on the west coast and in the East Coast, much of the middle part of the country was being ignored or was not given the awareness that needed to be given at that time. The department was aware that little was being done to acquaint and educate University students of the late 1980s about the dangers of multiple sexual activities and how to take steps to prevent the spread of AIDS. These two opponents then led to a major confrontation between the University and the conservative elements in the community. For six weeks in the fall of 1989, the battle waged in the press and in the pulpit. Eventually, the production was presented, but only after the campus actually went into lockdown before each of the performances. Craig Hall Theater in Craig Hall, where the production was to be presented, became the major focus and a major effort. The entire building was locked down at five o'clock in the afternoon before each of the performances, and bomb-sniffing dogs went from the top floor all the way to the basement. Once that had occurred, then only the lobby doors from the campus side were unlocked, and every person who came into the building then had to pass through metal detectors and have backpacks and cases thoroughly searched. During the performances themselves, policemen were in the lobby, and plainclothesmen were in the audience to ensure that no disturbances occurred and that the performance would continue. A candlelight vigil was held on the east lawn outside of Craig Hall. A student group had been formed on campus to support the production. This group was made up of many students across campus, not necessarily theater majors, and not in most cases, people who were actually associated with the production itself. The candlelight vigil began at 6:30 in the evening, shortly before the production was to begin. Word came to the police officer in the lobby that a fire had broken out in a house several blocks from campus. This particular house was identified as belonging to the student leader of this particular group, who was outside on the lawn taking part in the candlelight vigil. When the student was notified, he immediately went home and watched his house in flames. Once the flames had died down, the next morning when he was able to go into the house, he discovered that the arsonist had been so intent on the destruction of his house that they had even locked his pet cats into the bathroom so that they could not escape the flames and smoke. The leaders of the Citizens Demanding Standards, which was the opposing conservative group, denounced the action, denounced the arson, and declared that they were in no way responsible. Once the controversy had ended and the production concluded its run, the department, in many ways, felt that they had indeed been successful. All performances were packed, and the audience had been deeply affected by the actors and by the events that they saw acted out. The discussions which framed the performances, the discussions which took place after the performances, led by medical professionals and by individuals themselves who were living with AIDS, were also packed. The audience members eagerly listened for information. All the literature that had been brought to the production to be given out to the audience members, all the literature on AIDS and its prevention, was completely taken, as well as all the literature that existed in the SU Health Clinic and the Greene County Health Service office. SMS students and the Springfield public had been educated and had been made aware. It was indeed quite a sacrifice, but it had also raised discussion. It had indeed become a public affair. Another product from this particular production was that during the time of the controversy, there was a great deal of discussion and actual public debate and panels on campus as to the meaning and obligations of academic freedom. What were artistic rights, and what were the uses of university funds? And what was the freedom of the theater to express various and diverse views? In doing the program on diversity and censorship, I discovered later that I had skipped over some material which I felt to be quite important. So I want to get this in, and so we are inserting it into the lecture. In the midst of the controversy that SMS had over The Normal Heart, one of the things that the Springfield News-Leader did was to seek out Lanford Wilson. Wilson is one of the most prominent playwrights that we have today, and he now lives in New York and has had a very long and distinguished career as a playwright. He has received almost every prize that one can receive for recognition in the theater, including a Pulitzer Prize for his play Talley's Folly. But the News-Leader sought him out because of his connection to the Ozarks. He was born in Lebanon, Missouri, he went to school in Ozark, Missouri, and grew up there, and even eventually, for one short term came to SMS, and he left then. Went to California, and then after that, he began his career as a playwright. So, he wrote a good news leader asked him if he were to write an essay on the theater and the expectations that people might have. So, they would understand a little better, perhaps, the controversy which had arisen over "The Normal Heart". In the article that Wilson wrote, he starts out by connecting himself to the region. "I have always been thankful for my Ozarks heritage. I grew up around people who spoke clear, simple, concise, direct language. That was to the point, it was also colorful. A writer can't ask for better training than that." He then goes on in the article and talks about what one finds. That certainly in these days, one is not going to find any kind of statement of social significance and diversity within the film area. That while television does some attempt to deal in some dramatic way with those programs, it's usually, as Wilson calls them, "weepy drama". But finally, he comes to the theater and what one should expect from the theater. "Let it be known to all those who have, for some reason, not known it previously. That the theater is rated X. You are not safe there. The theater is for those people who are willing to be challenged, who expect to be challenged. You have an obligation to protest if you are not challenged there. Don't go to the theater to be titillated. Go to be shocked, good and healthily, to be moved intelligently and honestly and with integrity. Expect us to be straight with you. It's the last place where we can be. Come to the theater to be assaulted. Don't even think about protesting the theater for carrying out its job. Don't come to the theater expecting us to conform to the community standards of morality; that's not our job. We would rather die first. If you can't stand up under the Mandate of Art, turn on the television set, go to a movie, stay home. Perhaps no way else will one ever understand the place that the theater can take and should take. And that, in fact, the place that we hope that SMS did take in the controversy over "The Normal Heart". In the last 40 years, the hallmark of American theater has indeed been the emergence of a diversity of multicultural, multi-ethnic, and gender theaters. And the absorption of these groups into mainstream theater across the United States. This outgrowth, this emergence of these theaters into mainstream is, in many ways, a parallel to the changes in American society. And the growing awareness that has occurred in this country in the last 40 years in the rights of minority groups. One of the strongest and most prevalent groups that has emerged is the African-American. Now, we know that African-American performers existed in the 19th century. But frequently and usually, these performers were usually faced with the choice of if they were a part of most American theaters. Then, they had to accept the roles as stupid servants or leave this country and go to Europe. Where they found their talents much more welcomed. And they had a much greater chance to take on the classic roles of the theater of the day. By the end of the 19th century, African-American entertainers were making inroads into musical theater. We've already looked at and discussed those changes that occurred with the development of the minstrel show. First, by white entertainers. And then, following the Civil War, by the black entertainers themselves. By the early 20th century, Broadway actually had a few musical productions. Actually written, composed, produced, and starring blacks who did not appear in the customary. Burnt cork makeup was used by performers in the first half of the 20th century to portray African American characters without resorting to stereotypical dialects. These performers aimed to show that they wore clothes and were in tune with the high fashion of the time. Many black theater companies were formed during this period and produced shows in black communities in major urban areas throughout the country. However, it was in the post-World War II era that a major occurrence took place. In 1959, the play "A Raisin in the Sun" by Lorraine Hansberry was produced, with direction by Lloyd Richards. Richards became the first black director for a Broadway production. The original cast included Claudia McNeil, Ruby Dee, and Sidney Poitier. From the 1960s onwards, there has been a significant rise in African American theater, with many plays reflecting the battle for civil rights and exploring the black experience in America. "A Raisin in the Sun" opened the door to mainstream theater for black writers, allowing them to write beyond the boundaries of the black community. One of the most honored African American dramatists today is August Wilson, who has written a series of plays reflecting the black experience in each decade of the 20th century. His plays, including "Fences," "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom," "Joe Turner's Come and Gone," and "The Piano Lesson," have been widely produced across the country. In 2002, Suzan-Lori Parks became the first African American woman dramatist to win the Pulitzer Prize for Drama with her play "Topdog/Underdog." Sidney Poitier, who was part of the original cast of "A Raisin in the Sun," broke barriers for black actors not only in theater but also in Hollywood films. In 2002, Poitier received a lifetime achievement award at the Hollywood Academy Awards. That same year, actors Denzel Washington and Halle Berry became the first African Americans to win the leading actor awards at the ceremony, marking the first time two African Americans won simultaneously. In the New York theater scene, George C. Wolfe is currently the influential and highly creative figure. He serves as the artistic director of the New York Shakespeare Festival, overseeing the organization that includes the Public Theater. Wolfe is also a respected Broadway director and the creator and writer of plays and musicals such as "The Colored Museum," "Jelly's Last Jam," and "Bring in the Noise/Bring in da Funk." Each of these productions is a unique reflection of the black experience. "The Colored Museum" is a play that explores different stereotypes of African Americans through a series of skits, resembling exhibits in a museum. "Jelly's Last Jam" is a musical that delves into the life of legendary jazz musician Jelly Roll Morton, who claimed to be the father and creator of jazz. Both of these productions, as well as "Bring in the Noise/Bring in da Funk," hold significant meaning in representing the black experience. One of the practices that has certainly helped many of these young performers to emerge is what is called colorblind casting. Colorblind casting is when one is cast for ability and talent, rather than on the basis of race or ethnic origin. In many theaters across the country these days, this has become the standard practice in casting roles that are not specifically ethnic-oriented. That means the actor can be cast in any role regardless of the color of their skin. It is not unusual these days to see different races portrayed and playing leading roles in productions. For example, in a recent Broadway production of Cole Porter's musical "Kiss Me Kate," the African-American Brian Stokes Mitchell played the leading male role opposite a white Marin Mazzie in the female role. In another example, the Asian actor BD Wong was cast to play the role of Peter Pan. The most contentious theater of diversity to emerge in the last forty years has been the considerable growth in gay and lesbian theater. No longer are these works aimed mainly at gay audiences. Now, plays by gay authors about the gay experience are brought to the general public. While plays had been in existence for long periods of time prior to this and there had been many subtle references incorporated into many plays prior to the 1960s, the breakthrough came in the 1968 work "The Boys in the Band" by Mark Crowley. While this work has often been accused of fostering gay stereotypes, it did open the way for complex gay characters and for the gay experience to be presented unapologetically. This acceptance into mainstream theater is better shown through examples such as "Torch Song Trilogy" by Harvey Fierstein. "Torch Song Trilogy" is largely autobiographical and tells the story of a crossdresser, a queen who is looking for acceptance and a partner. It consists of three plays that take approximately five hours to perform. There are other notable works such as "Angels in America" by Tony Kushner. This very long play is written in two parts and takes two evenings to present. It is a dramatization of the homosexual experience in the Reagan 1980s. Another example is "Love! Valour! Compassion!" by Terrence McNally, which tells the story of a group of gay men and follows them and their experiences as they come together over three separate holidays. The evolution and diversification of theater have allowed for a wider range of voices and experiences to be showcased on stage, and these plays have helped to challenge and reshape societal perspectives. Period of time, and we watch their relationships play out. Here the musical, "Lockage Oh Fo," with music by Jerry Herman and the book by Harvey Fierstein. This musical, which was based on a French movie (a French farce movie, I should say), became indeed a hit musical. In fact, all of these particular plays that I just named all received Broadway Tony's for Best Play, Musical, or for Best Musical in their respective years. The acceptance, perhaps, into general American life is seen greatest these days by the popularity that has been achieved by the television sitcom "Will & Grace." Will and Grace tell the story of a couple who live together, but Will is gay and Grace is straight. And so, the two of them know that while they indeed have great love for each other, there is no way that there is going to be a sexual union between the two. This particular comedy then, that follows this dysfunctional couple in many ways, is beamed into American homes every week and has remained for a period of time that it has been on the air among the top 20 most popular programs of commercial television. Thus, we see then that theater, film, television, reflecting the changing American attitude, making social statements and engendering discussion, is indeed art as a public affair.