Re : Nigerian Republican

I never thought a Nigerian Republican could exist either! But I think that speaks to the disconnect between Africans and African Americans. What we conceive as our struggles may not necessarily be theirs. After all they dont have the legacy of slavery in this country. His thoughts about Obama being the hope to bring about change and unity are really interesting as well. Funny thing, I just turned my TV over to CNN and there's Barack and Hillary debating about the war! As we study these other cultures to see how they shape performance, I'm curious to see how our own culture will shape performance during this historically political time. How will, if it happens, the first black or first woman president shape our culture and performance?

Class 1/31

I thought we had an interesting discussion about what we can learn as performers from Yoruba rituals. Both Soyinka and Drewel talked about the power of improvisation as a part of ritual, and as artist, we need to be able to incorporate improvisation into our acting process. Yoruba rituals are all about connecting and celebrating the seen and unseen, the known and unknown together as a part of life. In a sense that is what improvisation can do for the performer, thus making every performance fresh and full of energy. I used improvisation with some the students in my class in their interview scenes, and doing so brought their scenes to another level. 

The question about why and how we should learn about other cultures and their performance, and do we have the right to will always come up as we learn about other cultures. It would be interesting if we could find performers from the cultures we are studying to see if they think it's a good idea for outsiders to study other cultures for the purpose of performance. 

A Republican Nigerian

I got to interview my person for the project today and I have to say that by the time it ended I was sad. I was a little nervous at first just cause I was thinking that the questions that I had were...well stupid. However, after the first question I only had to refer to the questions I had once. He had ssssoooo many wonderful things to say, but as the last democratic primaries are about to begin...I can't help but think about something he said. I began to ask him his feelings about the disconnect between Africans and African-Americans (I'm not going to go into full detail about his answer, cause I'm gonna save that for Tues. but we began talking about Obama.) I asked him if he felt that this disconnect that we have within our community start to repair itself if Obama was president and his answer was pretty much yes. He then began to explain the fact that he was a republican (and I have to admit I thought I would never met a Nigerian Republican), he was once a democrat but felt that he agreed more with republican ideas. But he feels that Obama is that fresh change that we need, not only America but black people as well. He said that by having a black person in charge of the country can only help heal alot of the racist overtones. He then followed by talking about Morracco and Japan. Morracco's king married a black woman and it forced the racisim to leave. You no longer hear about race struggles because the king was not going to allow it. And same goes for the Japanese, they banded together and disbanded the prejuice they endured. As he was talking I couldn't help but notice this child-like air about him as he talked about the hope of future and how it can change with Obama.

Class 1/24

It was interesting to see the mini interviews of our classmates performed today, but the interesting comments most of us seemed to have about seeing ourselves performed was insightful as well. You can find out a lot about yourself when you see your habits on another body. I guess for me, because I know and trust Eric, I didn't worry about him making a caricature of me. This assignment was helpful because we all know how it feels to be portray by other people in a sense, so that should keep us mindful when we have to interview people that we not only dont know, but is from a culture we dont know a lot about. I think the idea of showing A.D.S.'s work to our interviewees is a good to foster trust. 

Representing others...

I was interested on Tuesday (Jan 22nd) in the way that two different people can watch someone else and “perform” that person in a different way and yet still hit on truths of that person.

At the end of class Amy was talking about a student who had, in a previous class, gotten frustrated at the task of performing someone else and the overwhelming sense of never being able to do it “right.” I can certainly empathize with this sense of wanting to get something right and feeling a sense of impossibility in the venture.

In acting in general I can have a sense of a character in mind but no one else will know if I fall short of that ideal I’ve set for myself. (Unless you are attempting to play a familiar character – such as Hamlet. Then you are often compared to the numerous others who have attempted the role as well.) However, when we have the person we are trying to represent there – alive and available for comment - it becomes clear when we are unable to create them. And a sense of failure can easily set in!

As I was thinking about these things after class I was reminded of a friend of mine who had died several years ago. After he died I realized that a part of me had died as well – in the sense that the part of Sarah that came out around Michael and was unique to my relationship had died. Because there was a specific part of me that was a part of my life while I was with him. Just as there are different parts of me that come out with each person I meet or know. There are overlaps of who I am and certainly people may experience similarities, but there are unique qualities that we experience with each person that are only seen in that relationship.

Thus – yes – there is a frustration in representing someone else – but also a joy in bringing to others a unique and specific vision of that person that only you as the specific performer can create.

So if I approach representing people in this way than it isn’t a failure – because I am representing as closely as possible my sense of who they are – and that is exciting and an awesome privilege to present that to others. I suppose I need to look at it in this way so that I can see a hope in the process – and that the small changes and big efforts in this task are worth the frustration. That as we seek to present the truth of who someone is – that we are sharing the essence of them through the unique qualities of who we are and how we experience them.

Hornswaggled

So I sit down to read this article about Peter Brook and think, 'ah, some nice Shakespeare to compliment this play I am in".

The Mahabharata turns out to be the oldest and longest story that exists addressing the human experience. The Mahabharata is initially lost to me in the first article on line. The specific story description and stage direction are boring and lost on me as I am not in that time and space and cannot experience the author's experience.
The second article though gave insight to what the playwright Carriere was thinking. His view that the Mahabharata is actually the 'great story of humanity' and that the message is 'we live in a time of destruction, but can this destruction be prevented' is clear. When I read this it touched me and drew out an interest to rent the film mentioned in the articles.
The process of creating the script seemed very Utopian to me. The author wrote that the collaborative effort allowed for actors to argue for their characters within the story and that often the story was altered because either the writing or acting didn't work. Their was no insinuation of fault from either party hinted in the reading.

Importance of facts in perspective

I just read this wonderful article on headline news about the MLK facts we have chosen to forget. I'd like to share it with everyone because it made me realize the dangers of being selective (or too selective anyway) when dealing with historical events, narratives and perspectives on those events and narratives. I certainly never knew that Dr. King wasn't the most popular loved man in the world before he was killed. And, the article is right, until about a year ago when I actually studied his speech for a project I was doing, I really couldn't tell you what all was in there other than "I have a dream." Considering how influential his views on equality have been on our society, that's really sad! The article is pasted in below.

Historians Fear MLK's Legacy Being Lost Jan 21, 09:23 AM ESTBy
DEEPTI HAJELA - Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Nearly 40 years after the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., some say his legacy is being frozen in a moment in time that ignores the full complexity of the man and his message.
"Everyone knows - even the smallest kid knows about Martin Luther King - can say his most famous moment was that 'I have a dream' speech," said Henry Louis Taylor Jr., professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo. "No one can go further than one sentence. All we know is that this guy had a dream. We don't know what that dream was."
King was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues at the time of his death. He had spoken out against the Vietnam War and was in Memphis when he was killed in April 1968 in support of striking sanitation workers.
King had come a long way from the crowds who cheered him at the 1963 March on Washington, when he was introduced as "the moral leader of our nation" - and when he pronounced "I have a dream" on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
By taking on issues outside segregation, he had lost the support of many newspapers and magazines, and his relationship with the White House had suffered, said Harvard Sitkoff, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire who has written a recently published book on King.
"He was considered by many to be a pariah," Sitkoff said.
But he took on issues of poverty and militarism because he considered them vital "to make equality something real and not just racial brotherhood but equality in fact," Sitkoff said.
Scholarly study of King hasn't translated into the popular perception of him and the civil rights movement, said Richard Greenwald, professor of history at Drew University.
"We're living increasingly in a culture of top 10 lists, of celebrity biopics which simplify the past as entertainment or mythology," he said. "We lose a view on what real leadership is by compressing him down to one window."
That does a disservice to both King and society, said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University.
By freezing him at that point, by putting him on a pedestal of perfection that doesn't acknowledge his complex views, "it makes it impossible both for us to find new leaders and for us to aspire to leadership," Harris-Lacewell said.
She believes it's important for Americans in 2008 to remember how disliked King was before his death in April 1968.
"If we forget that, then it seems like the only people we can get behind must be popular," Harris-Lacewell said. "Following King meant following the unpopular road, not the popular one."
In becoming an icon, King's legacy has been used by people all over the political spectrum, said Glenn McNair, associate professor of history at Kenyon College.
He's been part of the 2008 presidential race, in which Barack Obama could be the country's first black president. Obama has invoked King, and Sen. John Kerry endorsed Obama by saying "Martin Luther King said that the time is always right to do what is right."
Not all the references have been received well. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came under fire when she was quoted as saying King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
King has "slipped into the realm of symbol that people use and manipulate for their own purposes," McNair said.
Harris-Lacewell said that is something people need to push back against.
"It's not OK to slip into flat memory of who Dr. King was, it does no justice to us and makes him to easy to appropriate," she said. "Every time he gets appropriated, we have to come out and say that's not OK. We do have the ability to speak back."

The need for balance

Is communication worth it? In some senses this questions seems to be at the root of looking at cross-cultural communication and connection.

After class today I was considering how fear so often plays into our hesitation to communicate with those who are seen as different than ourselves. There is a fear of sounding stupid or offending – and the risk of “failure” can often stop us from trying. And perhaps this fear comes from seeing the violence that has happened in various forced sharings of culture. In hearing, experiencing, or learning about the forcing of culture upon an unwilling person – we can easily go to the extreme of then hiding from any sort of communication.

But is this better? Is it better to hide from one another than suffer from the failure of making mistakes and in the worse place destroying someone else’s culture?

I was recalling a conversation I had with my dad a few years ago about our family. (Having a multi-racial family as well as two siblings from another culture - this questions often arises.) Is it worth it? Is the struggle to have a large family filled with people who look and sound different worth it?

In our conversation I said that it was worth it. That I wouldn’t be able to experience the depth of beauty and growth I have experienced and enjoyed without the pain that I had also felt in our family. I suppose anything worth truly having and appreciating comes with a cost.

So perhaps as in all of life there is a need for balance. A need to take the risk to communicate with those who are different from ourselves – leaving the fear of failure or mistakes aside – but with a sense of humility and openness to change.

For in any good communication there needs to be a willingness on both parties to listen and learn and be willing to grow.

And growth is painful – hard – but beautiful.

Connection to other works: Especially in regards to the questions of colonialism I was reminded of the following two novels that consider the difficulties and often problems that can come through cultures intersecting. The books are based on the intersection of our earth and an imagined planet containing another species. They are called The Sparrow and Children of God by Mary Doria Russell

More questions ...

I've come up with a few more questions that I forgot to add the other day, but there is one really significant question that came up as I was reading Amy C.'s post and Anna Deavere Smith's introduction to Fires in the Mirror.

It occurs to me that as Deavere Smith has spent decades of her life in pursuit of "American character" -- which is something she sees as multiple and changing and always in process -- in this class we are looking both for what "American character" might be and how that relates to "World character." Amy brings up the point, which we discussed in class, that each person's perspective is his or her own and in many ways impossible to access, but that we as actors are attempting, as Anna Deavere Smith calls it, to cross the bridge between our own and others' perspectives. The big question this class poses is how we can use a combination of people's personal experience, research on history and culture, and plays and performance from different cultures to "cross the bridge" between ourselves and others in a larger sense -- how does the very problem of studying other countries' theatre from an "American" perspective point out the tensions inherent in the idea of "global" identity or "human" identity? How can we as actors find a way to use that tension productively?

But also, we have to remember that the very idea of us as "Americans" is misleading! So here's the big question I came up with: as we interview people, read plays and look at performance over the course of the semester, one thing to consider is the idea Anna Deavere Smith brings up of "margin vs. center." Our individual experiences of this nation vary widely, but in other countries and cultures people may refer to us generally as "Americans." Do we consider ourselves at the margins of "American" culture, or its center? Do we use our identity as Americans strategically, or do we generally even recognize it at all? (I, for example, sometimes would like to deny my identity as an American because there is so much about the country's current status in the world that frustrates and angers me.) When we look at people or theatre from other countries, it may be productive to ask what their relationship is to the country we are expecting them to represent. Do they consider themselves patriotic? Ex-patriate? What's the difference between being an ex-patriot and part of a "diasporic" population?

In the same vein: what is the relationship of the people or performance practices to tradition? The question of tradition and innovation seems central to what we are trying to study here, since a lot of times people define their identities according to allegiance or resistance to a certain kind of tradition. How do people change or adapt old ways of doing things? Do they reject tradition entirely? Do they revise it? (***For any of you interested in these questions: Raymond Williams theorizes these ideas using the terms dominant, residual and emergent in Marxism and Literature.)

Also, consider the relationship to history and time -- this is related to Sarah's point in class the other day. How long does it take for "tradition" to take hold? Over the course of history, what has changed that affects whether something is at the margins of a culture or at its center? How long has it been since those changes -- wars, revolutions, intellectual or scientific discoveries, introduction of new technology, systems of government or economics, etc. -- began or took place? (And, equally as important -- how are time and history represented in the content and form of performance and theatre?)

Finally, Anna Deavere Smith points out the importance of recognizing the multiplicity of voices in America, but the idea of human "unity" also seems very significant. How do these plays or performances deal with the idea of borders and either crossing them or living within them? How does hybridity or multiplicity figure into the work we are studying? Or is there a tension between two forces -- a binary opposition -- that creates the conflict in a play or performance?

I'm sure there will be more questions and thoughts to address after tomorrow's class, so more soon ...

Participant Observation

It occurred to me just now, while reading the blog regarding last week's class, that we can only experience our own experience. And, sometimes those experiences leave us at a loss for words. Last week, Mary relayed the story of being identified (in China) as simply an "American." Doug described the look on her face as one of "joy." But, Mary really didn't agree with that. Now, I did not get the impression at all that she is ashamed or offended by being called an American. However, I did understand, after watching and listening her struggle to articulate how she felt, that she just couldn't quite find the right words to convey her meaning. The bottom line is that she is an American by birth, but she is African-American by heritage. These two factors (at the very least) are the basis of her cultural experience. And, since I am white, southern baptist, rurally raised and a parent, I have a different perspective of the world.

The readings for this week (Jones and Deveare-Smith) really tie in well with the discussion we had last week. Perhaps this is why we all had such a difficult time articulating and agreeing. We're all working from a different perspective because we're all from different cultural backgrounds. Granted some are similar and some more similar than others, but none are exactly the same. Jones essay, in particular, says it best, I think. The performance piece, the total experience she describes from this performance project is one that allows us to experience a small sampling of another culture. I do not think, nor would I ever profess, to fully understand Yoruba culture. I can only be a participant observer. I can experience a small part of the lifestyle but to put meaning to it, I have to connect it with my own experiences, which in a religious or spiritual capacity, are Christian. Hmmm. That seems like a bit of stretch to begin with. But, I would certainly be open to the experience and I would anticipate some type of enrichment from that experience.

My 19 year old Nephew is visiting us right now. He was born and raised in South Florida and, quite frankly, I think the boy is in complete culture shock. He is amazed at how different it is here. He is far less tense, he laughs far more than I have ever seen him do so in his native environment and he's starting to put many aspects of his life in perspective. The point is that this "new" experience with the Kentucky branch of his family is revealing a whole new world of experience to him. But, it's only working because he was OPEN to the experience. It's not that he wants to forget his life before coming here. He was just ready to incorporate something new.

Much like Mary, it's not that she wants to forget that she has the rich heritage of African-American. But, she was open to being identified "American" because she was open to something new. She experienced a small sampling of Chinese culture and performance because she was open to something new. I doubt that Mary would ever think that she could so immerse herself in Chinese culture that people would begin identifiying her as a native of China, but certainly the experience of participant observer on the China trip has broadened her perspective of herself and those around her.

And, no, I don't necessarily think we all have to travel to another country to glean such experiences. My nephew is a prime example of cultural differences and experience opportunities just a few states away. Actually, if you think about it, we're all participant observers. We make daily observations, interact and learn from each other. We're actors, afterall. I think we may just take our status as participant observers for granted until we make a huge geographical change.

Why is it so hard for us to articulate our experiences sometimes? Last week in voice class, Dennis told us the story of how he learned to mask his voice and, consequently, his identity, in order to get what he wanted. As a result, we begin to conform to the cultural codes surrounding us that are deemed acceptable. We lose some of our ability to communicate because we mask ourselves. We hide who we are. So, is it any wonder that we are frustrated, afraid or at a complete loss for words when trying to communicate with someone from a culture that is slightly (or vastly) different than our own? I think that oftentimes, our experience is so personal that words fail to describe it. And, as actors, that's when we do what Anna Deveare-Smith does. We observe, imitate, copy. That's the closest we can come to the other person's experience and, as human beings, perhaps that's all that's really required. Just the basics of human experience.

Post-Colonialism, The Other and Representation: Some Questions

We had a lively discussion yesterday based on some general readings about Post-Colonial theory (the body of thought that studies cultures, races and nations that have lived under imperialist domination, and the relations of power and influence between nations that continue to be affected by the presence or history of colonial powers); the concept of the Other (very generally, the idea of using an entity outside of onesself to define one's own identity); and issues of representation (questions of how and why people represent themselves, their surroundings, and others, and what factors influence people's perceptions of those representations). In between piping in with my (often overly wordy!) opinions and trying to moderate the conversation, I wrote down some questions we came up with to apply to the material we will be studying over the course of the semester.

This list is ongoing, so feel free to comment and add new questions or revise these.

• Do we study theatre from other countries or cultures out of an impulse to control or have power over its people? Or do we do so out of a desire for peace, harmony and love? And how do those issues -- power vs. love -- appear in the forms of performance we are studying?
• A related question: who defines "peace," and who does that idea of peace serve? Is conflict between cultures productive and important? How does drama, performance and theatre deal with conflict in productive ways in different cultures?
• How do we discover "sameness" in different cultures without disrespecting their right to difference? Is it possible to look for similarity and understanding without imposing our own perspectives on cultural expressions from other countries? If so, what do we have to do to step outside of our own preconceptions and biases?
• What was the stated intention of the ritual, performance or play initially? How did its meaning or people's perception of it change when the form moved into a different historical or cultural or economic context?
  
• Who is the audience for the performance, and how might that change its meaning?
  
• What is the role of violence in this culture's history? How does violence appear in its cultural expressions? Has violence influenced its ability to create art, theatre or performance freely and publicly, or played a part in the transport of the culture's beliefs and ideas elsewhere in the world?
• What about spirituality/religion? In its original context, is the form spiritual in nature? When and how did that meaning get lost? What happens to a culture's beliefs when they are studied outside of a certain community? Can people who don't share a culture's religious beliefs understand the meaning of ritual or creative expressions that arise from those beliefs?
• A related question: in plays, is spiritual content contained in a different form of performance? Or is secular content explored using a technique or form that was originally associated with religion?
  
• And what about commerce and economics? How has money affected the meaning and understanding of a cultural expression? How has it affected the ability of a community to create art or performance? Who profits from the creation or circulation of a work of art or form of expression? Conversely, are certain forms threatening to someone's economic gain, and who profits from the suppression of those artists or ways of working? (Or: are there certain elements of a form that are retained to make something profitable in commercial contexts, and others that are hidden or suppressed?)
  
• Does the form and content of the performance adopt a certain attitude toward assimilation? Does it resist being understandable by people outside of the community that produced it, or does it invite other people in?
  
• Since we are studying from the perspective of people brought up in The United States, what is "American" culture? And what is the history of people in diaspora and their presence in the United States? As Americans, what is our relationship to the cultures we are studying?
• In what language or languages was the performance originally written/performed? How and why does language seem important in the form?
  
• What do you relate to in other forms of cultural expression? And what seems impossible to understand? How do people deal with complicated, ambivalent responses to other cultures? Is it possible to learn and change one's response -- that is, can we develop empathy or understanding for the things we initially find confusing, disorienting or unappealing? Is there value in attempting to do that?
  
• How do people from other cultures perceive "outsiders"? How do we, as spectators, represent ourselves and our motives to people whose work we are viewing?
• How are our skills/techniques/goals as actors and theatre artists enhanced or challenged by contact with artists from other cultures, and vice versa?

There are lots more to be added, I know. But we could probably spend a whole semester on just one of these!

Hello and Welcome

This is a blog run by a group of MFA acting students at the University of Louisville, KY, as part of a class called Tools for a World Theatre.

As a general introduction to what the class is about, I'm pasting in the description of the course from the syllabus:

As a vital cultural practice, theatre and performance expresses and comments on the beliefs and practices of particular people, places and times. But also, especially in the modern international and contemporary global environments, cultural conflicts and changes within nations have affected how theatre artists approach their work. In this class, we will look at theatre from three non-European nations and discuss how it reflects historical issues of national identity, colonization and international exchange, and the gradual transition to global culture. In this context, we will examine the roles of tradition and innovation within and between different cultures, especially in relation to the increased cross-cultural influence that has accompanied technological and philosophical developments around the world: how do traditional theatrical practices develop and shift as they travel across time and between locations?

The ultimate goal of the course is to learn ways of approaching and understanding theatre from other countries and regions and the populations who have moved from those regions into different areas around the world. As actors, understanding the cultural context of different performance practices across the globe can help us to understand the implications of our own work and how we fit into a larger historical and cultural picture. But it can also broaden our horizons and allow us to imagine new perspectives and possibilities for creating theatre and performance. To that end, over the course of the semester we will

• examine how different historical and cultural backgrounds influence performance practices and the dramaturgy of plays;

• reach for an understanding of how theatre and performance in these cultures is different from what we are familiar with, but also to find similarities between them and our own interests, experiences and goals as performers;

• practice community-based interviewing techniques as a means of understanding culture from an experiential perspective and

• practice ways of having public conversations about the issues raised in global cultural exchange.

In general, we've started out by asking ourselves what, exactly, "global" theatre might be, in terms of respecting and understanding difference vs. assimilation and unity. And over the course of the semester we will probably continue to examine the question of why we are interested in studying theatre from a variety of cultures, and how our own work fits into the current global environment artistically, culturally and socially.

The purpose of the blog is an attempt to open our class discussions up for comment by a larger community. I hope people will read our thoughts and help us to think through these issues by commenting on what we have to say.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the discussions on here can become another tool for examining not only world theatre, but the idea of culture in a global community more generally.