• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

​94       Theatre and Controversy

6/17/2017

0 Comments

 
I’m going to try to avoid breaking my “no politics” rule as much as I can, but it seems that just about everything is considered politics these days, so that’s hard to do.  I think it’s even harder for those of us with an interest in theatre and drama to do because theatre (and the materials written for it) have ALWAYS dealt with social issues, which puts them on the edge of being political, even when the author/creator’s intent may not have been to be overtly political.
 
Let’s face it, theatre may be an art, but it is also a business (and pretty much always has been) so the idea of attracting “butts” to put in “seats” has been a pervasive motive behind the vast majority of theatrical productions throughout history.  Yes, there have been times (the Jacobean masque, seems relevant) when there was really only one “butt” of any real importance (usually the ruler’s), so attracting audiences can’t be said to be the only reason why theatre is done, but, nonetheless, presenting a play without getting an audience seems a little foolish, and is usually frustrating.
 
So, the Public Theatre’s “Shakespeare in the Park” series this summer has included a production of Julius Caesar, and has chosen to play Caesar as a very “Trump-like” character, complete with hair, tie and pouty wife.  Since Caesar gets assassinated in Act III, Scene 1, some have chosen to declare that this is a direct attempt to encourage the assassination of President Trump.  This, rather silly idea (more on that later), has created enough public pressure that some corporate sponsors (like Delta Air Lines) have withdrawn their funding of the production and the Public Theatre.  I think that’s too bad and rather shortsighted of Delta, especially since they apparently have no problem with supporting the Guthrie Theatre in Minnesota, in spite of their 2012 production (in conjunction with The Acting Company) of a production of the same play which featured an “Obama-like” Caesar, who was also (rather obviously) assassinated (it’s in the play, people)!
 
Now, I happen to be very fond of this play of Shakespeare’s.  (Okay, I’m MORE fond of Hamlet, but That play isn’t the subject at the moment.)  I have even gone so far as to create my own adaptation/edit of it, which I have entitled The Evil That Men Do, as I don’t wish to imply that it is anything but an adaptation of Shakespeare’s original.  In doing that, however, I spent a good deal of time reading and re-reading the original play to try to figure out how to make it work a bit better.  I have also seen more than one production and several movie versions.  I hear that one of the complaints about the Public’s production is the “bloodiness” of the assassination scene, in addition to the outrageous idea that it actually encourages political assassination!. 
 
Now when I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production in Stratford in 2009, I was with my younger (though adult) daughter, Maggi.  This production, played in somewhat “periodesque” costumes, avoided having Caesar rigged with blood bags (and having to deal with the consequent mess for the rest of the play) by the use of a lot of red light, but no “blood.”  I could buy into the convention (although I didn’t think it totally effective), but Maggi had a real problem with it.  As she (rather cleverly, I thought) put it, “stabbage leads to bleediness.”  And, you know, she’s right!  The fact is the Caesar is supposed to be stabbed and the conspirators “bathe their arms” in his blood.  That’s hard to do convincingly if there’s no blood present.  Shakespeare’s company used “blood bags” filled with actual animal blood, which I’ve not heard has been the case of ANY production in a long time.  But all of that is really beside the point.
 
If one actually READS the play (at least in my somewhat studied opinion) it’s pretty obvious that Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar isn’t really about Caesar so much as it is about Brutus and the events which led up to Caesar’s assassination and its aftermath (which ends with the downfall of the Roman Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire.  Brutus is, after all, the one of the “conspirators” we see being manipulated to join and “lead” the assassination conspiracy.  And he clearly IS manipulated, especially by Cassius.  (Read the play!)
 
Now Caesar, who only appears in a few scenes with something like 130 lines, IS portrayed as a somewhat unhealthy, partially deaf, ambitious and egocentric older man, who really would LIKE to be king, but is smart enough not to say so out loud when it looks like he can just act modest and become king anyway.  Brutus is presented as a highly idealistic man; somewhat proud of his own position in society, who wishes he could prevent the Senate’s giving Caesar a crown without having to kill his friend.  Thus, his motives are to preserve the Republic.  I would suggest that this MIGHT have been possible except for the fact that others (Caesar’s friend, Anthony, and others) move rather quickly to assume power in the vacuum left by Caesar’s demise and the upheaval of his death.  It’s worth noting that the crowd (portrayed as likely to be easily swayed by emotional appeals) IS, in fact, pretty much convinced by Brutus’ “funeral” speech that the assassination was necessary to preserve the state.  Then Anthony (Caesar’s friend) is granted permission to “speak at Caesar’s funeral.”  Bad move on Brutus’ part!
 
In what I (and a good many others better qualified than I) would say is something of a rhetorical masterpiece, Anthony, manipulates the crowd against Brutus and the conspirators and sets a mob loose in Rome to burn, pillage and destroy (including the murder of Cinna the poet, simply because one of the conspirators was also named Cinna) while he (Anthony) goes off to hole up with his buddies to plot how they are going to take over the whole place (with few qualms about murdering “troublemakers” OR “adjusting” Caesar’s will [used by Anthony to help sway the crowd] for their own benefit).  This leads to the rest of the play being something of a chronicle of the civil war between Cassius-Brutus and Anthony-Octavius, which ends with the defeat of the conspirators, their suicides and the statement by Anthony that Brutus was “the noblest Roman of them all because HE, alone, killed Caesar out of good intentions.
 
Now, anyone who actually knows anything much about this play who can figure out that it’s a play which encourages assassination is (I think) reading a play quite different from the copies I’ve read/seen.  Yes, there is an implication that assassination MIGHT be justified on occasion, but the consequences of that act are clearly shown to be fraught with difficulties.  That is to say that nothing of the idea that, if Elizabeth’s censor (the Master of the Revels), had gotten ANY suggestion of this sort of thing from the play, it would never have been performed and James I never would have allowed the play to be published. 
Since it WAS performed (we have records and its performance is referred to in a letter by a “tourist” to London during the period) AND it WAS published (not until the First Folio, but it WAS published), the Master of the Revels obviously didn’t think it encouraged regicide.  That MAY have been because Caesar was, in fact, assassinated, but the decline of order following this act would seem to suggest that no one familiar with the history (and ALL of the power figures were familiar with the history during the Elizabethan era) would have been likely to have used this play as a justification for killing a leader outside of the rule of law.
 
I should (perhaps) also point out that when the supporters of the “Essex rebellion” in 1601 (a couple of years after Julius Caesar was written) desired to arouse the mob to their support, they got the Lord Chamberlain’s Men to perform Richard II with the abdication scene* shortly before the planned uprising (which failed miserably).  This led to Augustine Phillips, one of Shakespeare’s fellows in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and a “sharer” in the Globe along with Shakespeare, being examined by the Privy Council as to why the company had performed this play at this time (They were, in fact, paid quite liberally by Essex’s supporters for putting on this “old” play).  This (among many other cases) suggests, at least to me, that playwrights and companies had to be pretty careful not to offend the crown under Elizabeth (and James).  IF Julius Caesar had been viewed as encouraging assassination, it seems quite unlikely that it would ever have seen the light of day, let alone print. 
 
There seems to be plenty of silliness to go around in the current case, but the suggestion that theatre should do everything possible to avoid controversy is beyond silly, it’s stupid.  If the purpose of theatre is “… to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature…”, then it must be allowed to do so.  If we really meant to have freedom of speech in this country (read the First Amendment), then we have to allow others to express ideas with which we don’t agree.  No, we don’t have to support those ideas, but, unless they pose an immediate danger to public safety (like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre), people do have a right to express them.  That’s to say nothing of the fact that art (all sorts of art), especially theatre has always been controversial.  Aristophanes may not seem particularly controversial today, but his humor makes the strongest late night comics seem pretty tame, if you take the time to look into what he is actually saying about the political/social leaders of his time.
 
On the other hand, in keeping with my belief that corporations are NOT people, I would suggest that Delta should have clearly established the conditions of its “support” for the Public Theatre (a theatre long known for controversial projects) prior to making a big deal about pulling its support for the theatre based on this one production.  Given Delta’s history in sponsoring other productions of this play, I would suggest that there’s at least a smell of hypocrisy about their actions, which could lead to backlash (boycott) of the airline by people who support the Constitution.  We’ll wait and see, I guess….
 
LLAP
 
*Richard II was probably written in 1595 and first appeared in print (Quarto) in 1597, which suggests that it wasn’t the most popular play Shakespeare even wrote.  In fact, there were three Quarto editions of the play published before the abdication scene was included in a published version in 1608 (five years after Elizabeth died).  It’s generally thought that the abdication scene must have been cut from “approved” stage performances, at least during Elizabeth’s lifetime.

0 Comments

​93       Covfefe, Spell “Check,” and Other Foolishness

6/7/2017

0 Comments

 
“At 12:06 a.m. Wednesday (May 31), President Trump tweeted, ‘Despite the constant negative press covfefe’ – and nothing more.”(source: http://www.npr.org/2017/06/03/531264632/the-tweet-heard-around-the-wrold)
 
Now, I am NOT going to engage in Trump bashing.  I have no idea what he actually intended in this tweet or why it is so obviously an incomplete expression of anything which could make any possible sense.  It does seem likely to me that the now infamous “covfefe” was likely to be “coverage” as the reference was to something the press does and that is usually described as “covering” the events of the day.  Of course, I don’t KNOW that this was the actual intent, and the tweet never progressed beyond this point, so there it stayed until it was eventually deleted several hours later. 
 
It did, of course, engender a great deal of comment, ridicule, confusion, etc.  Since “conspiracy” theories seem to be current in US politics, Sean Spicer, White House press secretary, told reporters who asked about covfefe, "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."(ibid)  Which certainly did nothing to either explain the intent of the tweet, to avoid looking stupid, nor to admit to a simple mistake; and, probably, led to at least three new conspiracy theories.
 
I point out the possibility of the “magic” word being a simple mistake because that would seem to be the simplest possible explanation and the principle of Occam’s Razor would appear to apply.  You've probably heard of this idea before, although you may not recognize it: The simplest explanation is usually the right one.  To me, I think it’s entirely possible that the President was simply sending out one his tweets, (I do wish he would stop as they rarely seem well thought out, but that’s another story), got distracted and hit the “Send” button by mistake. 
 
Now, as I found out when the thought behind this posting occurred to me and I sent myself an email reminder from my iPad for the next time I was at my actual computer, many of our electronic devices (and/or the software we run on them) have “Spell Check,” or “Auto Correct” “features which most of us (I suspect) haven’t turned off and to which we don’t often pay a lot of attention.  What happened?  My email program (apparently) couldn’t deal with “covfefe,” (which I had used as part of the subject line) so that what arrived in my inbox was “coffee” instead of what I had written. 
 
Now it’s perfectly plausible that I might write something about coffee since, as most people who know me are aware, I have been an avid consumer of this beverage (albeit having reduced the caffeine content of my own, personal, blend over the years) for all of my adult life, but that was NOT my intent in this email.  This story does, however, point out the perfectly plausible idea that some technological “helper” could account for the appearance of “covfefe” and all of the subsequent humor, confusion, etc.  Do I think it’s likely?  No, but it IS conceivable.
 
That’s not really the point, though.  The real point has been something of an axe I have been grinding for a long time.  Words matter!  The words we say and how we put them together should be of enough importance to us that we put at least a bit of time and care into making sure that they really communicate what we intended them to and do so clearly.  As Albus Dumbledore has said “Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.”
 
This expresses my notion better than I probably did even when I was picking on student BFA theses and other papers.  If something is worth expressing, it’s worth doing so clearly and accurately.  Unfortunately, our technology, both hardware and software, doesn’t often help us to achieve that end very well.  I do admit that I am frequently frustrated by the “autocorrect” feature on my tablet and cell phone, but I haven’t shut them off as they CAN be helpful, even if they often are not.  I do like the “spelling and grammar checking” functions in Word, which I continue to use because I’m used to it, because it does NOT make changes until I tell it to, it just shows me that it’s confused by something and gives it a red underline for questionable spelling and a green one for questionable grammar.
 
And THAT is probably the real point.  I like it because it leaves me in charge.  On the other hand, it assumes that I know what I am doing and that I will make reasonably intelligent choices as to whether I’m going to follow Word’s advice or ignore it.  (As a passing note I must confess that Word’s desire to use “that” as a universal substitute for “which,” “who” and “whom” does drive me a little nuts at times.  But, overall, I can follow the logic behind most of Word’s editorial choices, even if I disagree with them.
 
However, I find it quite sad that far too many people either don’t know, or don’t care, about using language with some sense of it’s fullness, subtlety and accuracy.  Perhaps that’s why I enjoy the works of Shakespeare so much.  His use of language (Yes, I am aware of how much he invented AND of the fact that there were few “rules” of “correct” grammar, spelling, etc. during his lifetime.) seems carefully chosen to express exactly what he wished it to do.  I could argue that this is because he was a pretty good playwright and that’s what playwrights should do with their language usage, but I won’t push that too far because too many contemporary “playwrights” don’t seem particularly concerned about their language usage, I suppose in the interests of being “real” instead of being precise (at least in my opinion). 
 
Now, I confess that I’ve never quite understood the obsession with “being real” in the modern American theatre.  After all, the theatre is, by definition, “let’s pretend.”  It’s make believe!  Of course, the imitation which IS theatre SHOULD have some relationship to reality (much of the time, at least), but it’s NOT “real,” it’s “like” reality, but it’s (usually) heightened, concentrated, focused, etc.  If you wish to be really bored sometime, just have someone make a recording of your life for a few hours when you are not doing anything special and don’t know if they are actually recording what you are doing.  Then, watch it!  My strong suspicion is that you will be reminded quite quickly that real life is often not very interesting, especially when it’s happening to others.  After all, anyone who thinks “reality” television is real isn’t aware of the fact that, in the industry, in private, it is referred to as “unscripted programming,” and it is often highly edited to try to make it more interesting than it would otherwise be.  And, the “contestants” (aren’t they always competing for something?) are quite clearly aware that they are doing a “show.”  But I digress. 
 
I suspect that much of the reason why we seem to have become a society which devalues careful language choices has to do with things like character count limits on various messaging formats, but also may well come from a movement in education of a few years ago which was so worried about “frustrating the child’s creativity” that it suggested that the only important thing was that a child “express him/herself without any idea that that expression should be accurate, precise or well thought.  And such things as “rules” of grammar, punctuation and usage were frequently viewed as abominations not worthy of consideration, due to their “anti-creative” consequences. 
 
That’s too bad, in my opinion, as it has done a lot towards creating a generation (maybe more than one) which has little appreciation of, or respect for, language.  If this has encouraged creativity, it might have been worth it, but I have seen little evidence that that is the case.  Yes, there almost certainly is more being written, but considering the ease with which the written word can be made public, it’s hard to see the situation as an improvement.  To me, the real question ought to be; Is what is being said worthwhile?  Is it clear?  Does it make some sort of sense? 
 
OR, is it just a bunch of covfefe?
 
LLAP
0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly