Color-blind Casting

One example of color-blind casting that did not work well was the National Theater's production of Frankenstein. Victor's father, Alphonse was played by an African actor with a strong accent. For me, it was very difficult to believe in the relationship. Now, this may have had more to do with the acting and the strong accent then race. 

The RSC's production of Romeo and Juliet from 2010 is an example of color-blind casting that at least in my mind, worked very well. I don't have anything specific to say about this production, other than the fact that the actors all seemed to be existing in the same world. 

This idea of knowing the "world of the play," is in my mind very important. I didn't believe in the relationship between Victor and Alphonse because the two actors seemed to be in different worlds. Again, this may have been due to the strong African accent of Alphonse. The African actor who played Romeo for the RSC, however, was totally in the world of that play. As was the African actor who played Tybalt. 

Empathy

According to Hamlet, theatre holds a mirror up to nature. What is nature? For most of Western civilization, it was assumed that the structure of human society was "natural." In other words, societal norms were thought to be reflective of a natural law which was itself reflective of a supernatural law. Viewed through the lens of this paradigm, theatre reflects a human nature and a human society that is unchangeable.

Augusto Boal however, believed that theatre should be a mirror in which one can reach in to change reality. The societal norms which we take for granted as "natural," are often in fact systems of oppression. According to Boal, most of Western theatre has been used as a tool for those in power. Echoing Brecht, he criticizes the Aristotelian tragi-drama in that it perpetuates the continued political dominance of a privileged few. Boal's experiments in theatre (Image Theatre, Invisible Theatre, and Forum Theatre) were geared towards evoking change. As Maggie says, in Boal's approach "the lines between oppressor and oppressed were a bit muddy." With his "cop in the head" technique, he makes the average person ask, "Why didn't I do anything?"

For true change to occur in society, a growth in human empathy is essential. Maggie asks, "what is the next step theatre must take in order to create new dialogue, initiate change, and hopefully combat age-old issues of oppressors vs. oppressed." I don't have any specific ideas about the particular forms that theatre might utilize. I do however, think that the overall aim of theatre should be to create empathy. The great acting teacher Michael Chekov once said, "Compassion may be called the fundamental of all good art because it alone can tell you what other beings feel and experience." If humanity has any hope of evolving beyond what Maggie classifies as the "age-old issues of oppressors vs. oppressed," it will be because of empathy. It is only when I cease to see other human beings as "Other," that true human community becomes possibly.

Maggie also asks if there ever becomes a time when theatre stops being the answer. I don't that theatre is ever "the answer." I think that theatre is one tool among many. Some forms of theatre will be more effective than others depending upon the particular issue.

Activism is something that has always troubled me. From my experience, most protests (both from the right and the left) never get beyond the surface level of certain policies or issues. Instead of protesting various symptoms by haphazardly making signs and chants, perhaps it is better to first ask: “What is the true foundational disjointedness of our society?”

If I were forced to pinpoint this disjointedness, one area that I would want to examine is consumerism. As Baudrillard says, consumption is the axis of our culture. Consumption has laid hold of every aspect of human life leading to the commodification of our culture. Americans, who never cease to pride themselves on being “the land of the free,” are in truth enslaved to a tyrannical system whereby human meaning is codified by the level of ones consumption.

How then would I protest this current state of affairs? One of my concerns with most protest is that they are often nothing more than reactions against aspects of the culture while still remaining within its overall system of self-understanding. People have been protesting things for centuries, only to have their causes reabsorbed into the collective. For instance, a group of people cry out for food that is not poised by pesticides and preservatives. A few years later you get Whole Foods. Yes, it is good to be eating healthier but now this has become subsumed under the aegis of capitalism. A larger example can be seen with the hippies. The hippies claimed to be "counter-cultural." They sought to bring about a new way of living onto the earth. Hippie ideology however, which sought to create a lifestyle whereby one could fully "express" themselves, quickly accommodated itself to consumerism. I now express myself by buying certain items. Today, most ex-hippies own suburban homes with two car garages and drink grande mochas from Starbucks five times a week. Quite the revolution!

I admit I’m pessimistic about our society and of the possibility of changing it. Nevertheless, if I were to attempt this it would require nothing short of a radical re-organization of my lifestyle. How would it be possible to protest consumerism while still being a slave to its ideology? The horizon within which I understand the world is rooted in the dominating ideology of capitalism. Our current economic system is so insidious and we have no way of knowing how much of our lives are controlled by the ceaseless craving for “more.” “Homo economicus” is the dominating myth of our day and to break out of one’s current myth, is nearly impossible. To step outside of our self-understanding may be as difficult as it would have been for a 12^th century peasant living in England to abandon Christianity.

To honestly protest a way of life which the collective experiences as “normal,” one must choose to be “abnormal.” In other words, one's abnormal way of life would itself become a protest. What would this life/protest look like? Perhaps this would take the form of living a life of austerity or simplicity shared with others of a similar mindset. Perhaps it would manifest itself in a radically different relationship to nature. Perhaps it would it would mean weaning oneself away from dependency upon institutions. To fully carry this out would require intelligence, discipline and true self knowledge.