Continuing our discussion of
Directors Gone Wild …
So, you may recall that I
was reminded of this whole thing by a question from the “Farnsworth” audience about
whether we could have just written a prologue or an epilogue contextualizing
Sorkin’s play. And while I suppose we could have, it would have been pushing
the boundaries of our contractual obligation.
"Now that our curtain call is over, may we tell you the true history?"
Not that that sort of thing
stops other directors – and we’ll open that particular can of worms once I give
this context. (I’m apparently all about “context” right now.)
Earlier on the Sunday on
which the question above was asked, I’d read a story online about the Alchemist
theatre in the Milwaukee are getting a cease-and-desist order that shut down their
production of David Mamet’s “Oleanna.”
I'd have shut them down just for having lousy publicity photos.
“Oleanna” is a play that had
a relevance for about five minutes in the late 90s. The plot concerns a male
college professor who’s accused of sexually harassing – if not downright
abusing – a female student. I acted in the play back in the late 90s, so I know
it pretty well. My experience with the play was not a happy one; the director was
the kind of guy who would give notes like “I didn’t want you to stand there; I
wanted you to stand here,” while pointing at a spot about a quarter-inch away.
Plus, his daughter was playing the woman. (She was good, but still …). My understanding
of the play – and I hate to ascribe motives, but Mamet is famously
closed-mouthed about the meaning of his work (to the point where he even refuses
to reveal what the play’s title means) – is that he thinks he’s written a Shavian
dialogue that examines power relationships, with both sides getting fair
treatment. In reality, the professor is pedantic and clueless (my
long-suffering wife was of the opinion that it was a role that was tailor-made
for me. I offer no comment on that opinion ...)
and the woman is written as something of a simpleton who’s acting at the
behest of her “group” (a sinister cabal of feminists).
The Alchemist Theatre
decided to cast to cast two men in the play, not only muddying the issues and
the gender politics, but incurring the wrath of Mamet. In Mamet’s early days,
he wrote some brilliant plays, but in recent years, he’s become something of a
crank. Politics aside, he hasn’t written a very good play for a couple of
decades. (Let me say here that I mind his turn to conservatism. I’ve often said
that I wish conservatives had more of a presence in the theatre, if only to
force me to defend my own positions.)
He’s stated his conviction that there are
no characters in plays; there are only words on a page, and it behooves actors
in his plays to merely recent the words; not to give meaning to them. Anyone
who’s suffered through the films he’s directed will know exactly how that comes
across. The “performances” given by (in particular) his wives have been wooden
enough to restore the Brazilian rainforest to their full splendor. Regardless, he’s notorious for watching over
who does his plays and in demanding that his plays be done only in the way he
intended. (I recall about a decade ago, someone I was working with wanted to do
something of his, and they were turned down flat, for no apparent reason.) In
short, if you screw around with Mamet’s plays, you’re just asking for trouble.
Given his litigiousness, I'd never dare say that
Mr. Mamet looks like a self-important tool here.
The good people at Alchemist
must have known this, in that (according to reports) they kept the all-male
casting a secret until the show began previews. From the local
reports, it sounds like they knew they were going to get into trouble, but
decided it was better to ask forgiveness than to seek permission.
In a statement issued Friday
evening, Erica Case and Aaron Kopec, owners of Alchemist Theatre, said:
"We excitedly brought this story to the stage because even though it was
written years ago, the unfortunate story that it tells is still relevant today.
We auditioned for this show looking for the best talent, not looking for a
gender. When Ben Parman auditioned we saw the reality that this relationship,
which is more about power, is not gender-specific but gender-neutral.
This
strikes me as disingenuous at best. As a director, if I know I’m casting a play that is
written for one man and one woman, I’m not going to go into auditions seeking
to do gender-blind casting – and I can’t believe that, in the greater Milwaukee
area, there weren’t actresses who were capable of performing the role.
"We
stayed true to each of David Mamet's powerful words and did not change the
character of Carol but allowed the reality of gender and relationship fluidity
to add to the impact of the story. We are so very proud of the result, of both
Ben and David Sapiro's talent, and Erin Eggers' direction."
Again, I’m calling "bullshit" on this. The
dynamics and relationships between a man and a woman – which is what the show
is about, one way or another – are vastly different from those between two men or two women, and
altering that relationship alters the writer’s intentions.
Dramatists
Play Service, which represents Mamet and which gave Alchemist the rights to
produce the play, didn't see it that way. The firm sent the cease-and-desist
letter Friday, the day that reviews of the show appeared online and revealed
the company's casting decision – a decision that the company went to unusual
lengths to keep hidden before opening curtain.
And that, for me, is the
final nail in the coffin. They knew they were doing something they felt they
needed to hide from the licensors, the writer – and the public. I know if I were involved
with a production that had the potential to radically alter the audience’s
perceptions of a play they thought they knew, I’d be shouting it from the
rooftops.
I’d go on, but once again
have reached what I assume are the limits of your patience, so another theatre’s
attempt to make the late Arthur Miller turn over in his grave will have to wait
until our next thrilling chapter.
"You can't kill me again, no matter how hard you try."
How do you think this incident compares to the Beckett's objection and legal action against Akalaitis's production of Endgame?
ReplyDelete