Is that DeAldon??? Posting on the blog???

Well, I know you guys thought that it would never come, but here it is, two blog posts in a row from yours truly!

This blog is centered around how the issue of representation was in effect in our own backyard this semester. And since this is a CLOSED BLOG...I can bring up the issue of The Adventures of a Black Girl in Search of God. During the rehearsal process, as I'm sure all of you know by now, there were major alterations made to the script. In fact, it was altered to the point that all of the participants in the show got new scripts about 2-3 weeks before opening. In altering the script, how can one be sure that the story that the playwright intended was represented accurately by the production? It brought to mind Peter Brooks and The Mahabarata, and Tadashi Suzuki's productions of Shakespeare and Chekov. They too made changes to their texts and generally made the texts into what they wanted it to be. What was so baffling was the fact that I'm only just now drawing the parallels between the person in charge of the play and the controversial names we've discussed this semester.

It seems that ultimately, as long as the person or persons being represented don't negatively comment against the representer that the message is what the representer says it is. In fact, even if there are negative comments from the person being represented, once the production has been seen by the public, the representation is there for the world to see, whether it is an accurate representation or not.

Therefore, the truth may lie in that which one chooses to represent, and how dedicated one is to fully representing that idea, intention, culture, mindset, etc. Conversely though, there is always more than one way to get to the same place, so the real issue may be discovering what is at the heart of what one chooses to represent, and deciding if that same message can be delivered through a different channel.

6,000 Flags: A Lingering Effect

The presentation of Eric, Janelle and Mary, 6,000 Flags, was to me the most brilliant way to handle such combustible subject matter. I found myself telling the details of their presentation to my family, my lady, and all of my friends. It sticks with me because I've been so well acquainted with racism throughout my life. I know the blazing inferno of blatant hate as well as the glacial chill of those who would rather ignore than listen. Their group embraced the negative stereotypes, turned them on their head, and allowed us to step out of ourselves and into a world that is very real, and very powerful.

It was also interesting to see the entire class react to the nametags that each person was given. It seemed that everyone in the class knew of a persona that was not only appropriate for the name, but moreover for the greater nature of the activity. The class transformed from acting students at a final, to mainly wealthy, greedy, bigots, eager to see their business succeed at any cost (although I guess with acting students I shouldn't be so surprised!). It was an overexaggerated, but clearly pointed satire directed at the very foundations of our society. It was also very brave, because the trouble with satire is, there are always people who are too ignorant to understand the punchline. I was happy to see my classmates play along, because it was clear that they understood what was going on.

The entire activity allowed me to rethink the bigotry within myself and brought about a new determination to erase that negativity from within me. I found myself becoming uncomfortable when the term "wetback" was used for the log ride. Then, I thought about all the names that black people had been called while we were being sold, and the truth of the situation rang all too close to home. This country was built on ridicule, forced labor, and deragatory names. Every new group that has integrated to this country has been labeled negatively by the majority.

I applaud the group for the bravery to put up such a risky show. It was well worth the effort, and it is a presentation that I will personally remember for years to come.

A Random Revelation

Being changed by the questions raised and posed by this course, I am driven to share my thoughts on a particular piece of literature. I recently read an excerpt from a book of poetry called The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, a compilation of works from the great author, poet, and playwright. The poem that I read is called “Theme for English B.” It is a piece about Hughes’s reflection, through an experience, of who he is within American society. I chose to write a blog about this piece because it raises the question of racial and societal identity for minorities in America. It is a significant piece to me because it touches on issues that still affect minorities today, and helps to create a sense of awareness about how we define ourselves through our relationships with others, particularly within American culture.

This piece helped me to learn a great deal about the social identity of minorities in America. After reading this piece, I have realized that we all are the products of our environment. The bulk of who we are, or claim to be, is shaped by the very social interaction that we experience with others. America is synonymous with social integration; it is a melting pot of cultures, resulting in a macramé of American standards. What is American? If we are products of our social interactions, how do we define ourselves? Our culture? In my opinion, the individual is shaped not only by social interaction and environment, but life experience and internal morality. Although our society has the power to assimilate, I believe that it is not the society that defines the individual, but the individual who defines the society.

What is the Effect of Blending Cultures?: A Breakdown of Our Final Presentation

“What is the effect of blending cultures?” This was the question we came up with for our final presentation. At first I thought this question to be a bit broad and generalized, however when I started to build specifics around it in our performance presentation, it seemed to be a wonderful beginning and ending point for both our final and this course. I believe it works because we did not only focus on the aspects of world theatre in this course, but our world culture as a whole. The responsibility of the theatre artist is greatly and directly affected by blending of cultures, and much of our work is dependent upon representation of others. With this conclusion, the question was both appropriate and complex.
We wanted to add something from all three cultures as well as incorporate the blog entries, interviews, and play and cultural presentations. It proved to be a big job, however we tried to take a simple, abstract approach to help keep things clear, succinct, and organized. We also wanted to show how misrepresentation of cultural form and performance happens. I believe that the ethnic stereotypes that are satirized in No Saco are a prime example of what happens when cultures are blended together. I believe that it is important to try to exemplify some of the possible answers to the question that we posed, as well as pose new questions that help to break down the different issues that come along with blending cultures. I chose to do the piece of my interview from Marilyn Akindele because the questions that I asked her and her responses were directly related to the question that we posed about blending cultures, and also it contrasted to the scene from Valdez’s play; I thought it would be a good way to show that all people who are in America from other cultures do not have the same experience, and that unlike the children in the play, does not succumb to the pressures of American society to fit in or be accepted.
One of my goals for making the presentation booklet was to complement the imagery from Sarah's powerpoint, but also show the three cultures that we have studied side by side, emphasizing differences and simultaneously revealing similarities. Also, we worked very hard and very closely together as a group, and I wanted to find a way to unify our vision, and turn something in that could be seen and interpreted as a manifestation and further representation of our group concept and direction. I hope our vision was clear to all who got a chance to see it, and I truly feel as if it helped me to see representation of other cultures as a new responsibility.

Reflections

There are so many different concepts of theatre around the world it is impossible to define the art with one solid description. My perception of what theatre is has been shaped, dictated and manipulated by my social and cultural experience here in America, and has directly affected my choices as an artist. Now, having been exposed to different cultures, I am able to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between my theatre experience and background, and other cultures, traditions, and theatrical practices. Being in this class and learning so much about other cultures has really opened my eyes and changed my feelings about American culture, my own personal background, and how they are directly interconnected. I have had a huge revelation about how much more theatre there is out there in the world, and how much more there is to learn. I also think one of the biggest lessons that I have grasped is that I really don’t know myself as well as I thought I did. Just reviewing my background and experiences, it seems like such a sheltered and selfish experience, it’s a wonder how I ever got this far. I have definitely learned to make my own standards, and not to pass judgment on others’ cultural standards, norms, or traditions. Theatre is a standard in itself; and with all its possibilities, it is an ever-changing, always evolving craft. "Whether it is the Follies on Broadway, the rigidity of Noh Theatre, or the sacredness of Yoruba tradition, I believe that as long as we are taking the steps to understand one another’s culture, theatre can be the chain that keeps us linked together in stride."

Closing thoughts

As I write this final blog I think back on the impact that this class has had on me as I grow in this craft of performance. It has opened a new sense of cultural awareness for me. Before i just concentrated on getting my message out the way I saw things no matter how other people felt. But now I realize that it's not just about me but its about us. Us as theatre artist, us as a nation, us as the human race. We all have the same stories, but we just take different paths. Perhaps one day our paths will finally come together and get pass the trivial that some only see. Perhaps one day we can say I things this way and you do things that way but if we put them together like this then maybe we can have that. Perhaps that was the point that the second group tried to present to us in their final. As I close I want to challenge not only my classmates, but everyone who reads this to make the effort to try and connect paths with someone that is unfamilar to them. If it just starts with one person here then one person there then we as theatre artist can help fuel a movement to reconciliate each culture throughout the world because of that we (to quote my favorite politican) can have change we believe in.

Wright or wrong

"Different, not deficant"

I watched Rev. Wright's message last night and then again this morning, and his main point was that just because a culture is different doesn't mean that it is deficant (and I'm probably not spelling this word right so please forgive me). He then began giving insight into black liberation theology and how the black church has been a fuel and refuge for the black community. However, now we have people who are not familar with the black church critizing what is said because they only hear a 3-min soundbite instead of the entire message. Which got me thinking about how religion fuels these cultures that we have talked about. I know that we touched on the religious practices of the indiviual cultures, but I don't think we really hit on just how these religions plays a role within the community and in turn how it affects theatre. True we did cover this a bit with Nigeria because you almost can't talk about Nigerian theatre without it's connections to Yoruba. During the time of the internment camps did the Japanese turn to their religion in a way that the black community does whenever there is a major crisis. Even doing And the Soul Shall Dance I did not find any links to a religious thought. It seems that each character was either trying to connect themselves with either Japan or America.
After talking about our differences Rev. Wright then went on to say that we need to reconciliate each religion, each race. When he said that I wanted to respond to him and say that is what we are trying to do in the theatre. I think that theatre is a way for us to reconciliate our differences and truly learn from one another. Look at Suzuki and Bantu who invite other cultures to come and learn with and from them. Or even here at home with this workshop or that workshop. I think as theatre artist, and I'm gulity of this, don't realize the power we have in this country and throughout the world to get people together. But sometimes I think we realize it. One way to get people talking is by having talk backs, but I prepose that instead of giving people the option of leaving right after the show, you take out the curtain call and go right into an open discussion. True some people won't like, but we should still make the effort to reach out to them shouldn't we?

Janelle's Directing Class

Did we ever raise the question about non-traditional casting in this class? I know we talked about Cat on a Hot Tin Roof being performed by an all black cast on Broadway. But I think it's worth exploring the issue more closer to home. This department is unique in the fact that we have an African American Theatre program that all students are involved with in some form or another. And it is departmental policy to cast non-traditionally when deemed necessary. I know when I think of non-traditional casting, I think more about minority actors being cast in roles that were written to be white characters. But there was one incident where a white actor was cast in an AATP show as a black character. I was a undergrad at the time and I knew before hand about the casting. But I don't know about what others who did not know before hand thought about the show. Did they know she was a white actor playing a black character? Or did the director chose to make the character white because a white actor was playing it? My biggest problem with this was that there was no clear answer either way. The play was clearly about racism in the 1930's, so color played a big part in the play. Also there was one line that that particular character had to say about not messing with colored people because they don't know when to quit playing. This line can mean completely different things based on the race of the person who is saying it. I agree with Janelle about the intentions of non-traditional casting. There has to be a reason behind it more than just not being able to find no one else to play a role. And if that is the reason, then it's the director's responsibility to fit the casting choice within the intentions of the playwright. Non-traditional casting can be tricky, but it could also open dialogue about race, class, gender, and religion issues in our society. But the question is raised, can this be done with every play? What happens when Othello is white and Iago is black? Or Romeo and Juliet are both women? Does it change the intentions of the play? Should it still be performed that way if it does? More Questions!

More Questions Raised

Anytime you try to answer questions, you end up raising more questions. This class has me thinking about my own personal role in the world of theatre and how the works I do effect others. We can have the best intentions when we deal with cultures different from our own, but is that enough? I will be working as a full time drama teacher for the Ursiline School of Performing Arts, and the director of the school wants to add more culturally diverse productions to the upcoming theatre season. About 98% percent of the students who attend the school are from affluent white families. And one of the shows that is scheduled for next season is called An African Story, about a stripe-less zebra who has to earns his stripes. What responsibility do we have as adults to these kids in representing a culture that is foreign to them and probably to the adults who will be teaching them. I am concern because: 1. It's a really bad script that's too similar to the last show the students did this past February. 2. It has the whole continent of Africa being represented by animals instead of people. I feel like I have a responsibility to the students who will be performing representations of a another culture and to the culture that's being represented. I know the director has good intentions in wanting to add cultural diversity, but doesn't know how to go about doing so in a way that empowers the students while fairly representing the different cultures. If anyone is still keeping up with this blog. (Or is it just me who's writing late blog entries!) I would love feedback into how to work with children in accurately representing cultures in performance. It reminds me of what Sarah says about the responsibility we have to children as well in representing others different from us.

Questions raised over the whole semester

This class raised a lot of questions for me over the course of the semester. One of them is: When the goal of an artist is to provide an audience with insight on a foreign culture, would performing a piece representing the whole culture or an individual from that culture be more accurate? It seems to me that performing an individual might run less risk of being insulting because an artist could gain intimate knowledge of that individual, but then this runs the risk of misinterpreting the culture by presenting a single version of it which could be biased. From this thought, another question is raised: How familiar must an artist become with a culture before they start performing their interpretation of it? I think that an artist doesn't need to be incredibly versed as long as their degree of knowledge v.s. imaginatitive interpretation is made clear to the audience. I think the real danger comes when it is unclear to the audience whether what they're watching is fact or fabrication.
A perfect example is The Couple In The Cage. Some people understood the concept of the performance; some thought it was "real". Either view might lead lead an onlooker to consider similar themes (i.e.-racism, human rights, diversity, industrialization, etc.) and change their way of thinking for the better. However, if someone didn't understand that they were performers, not actual indiginous people displayed by educated anthropologists, it might have the opposite effect of the (presumable) intention of the artists. In example, some of the children that saw The Couple In the Cage might be influenced to view foreign people as sub-human. Theater can be an incredibly powerful tool and I feel it should be wielded with utmost discretion. I feel that it is up to artists to examine thoroughly the implications their performances might have. I think that The Couple In The Cage artists probably considered this, so I would be interested to hear their thoughts on the reaction of children to their performance.

A couple with flags

Thinking back on our final presentation, I wonder what the people who did "Couple in a Cage" ever dealt with their own personal issues while doing this? Did they ever feel guilty for exploiting people? If you really think about it, if people never realized that this was fake then what was the point? I guess I myself felt somewhat guilty for exploiting stereotypes. Maybe not guilty, but more uneasy and I think that is why when the opportunity to present truth about a culture appeared I took it. Perhaps I felt that by doing that it would somehow valitdate what we were trying to do by focusing on what could happen when we aren't responisble theatre artist. Doing this project made me question my own hang-ups about race and made me realize that as theatre artist we have a lot of work to do.

Against the Wind

I've been taking the Directing the Black Experience class this semster and a few people presented their final scenes. I knew at the beginning of the class that some people would have to use white actors in place of black actors, and I had no problem with it. I'm all for non-traditional casting IF it can be supported by the script. For example, one person did a scene from the play "Simply Heavenly" with two white actors. The play itself is set in Harlem during the 1920's, however, by changing it to two white people I felt that it didn't enhance nor take away from what these actors and play were trying to say. Then there was a scene from the play, "Against the Wind" which is based loosely on Tupac, and in fact he is one of the characters. The scene was set in an interagation room and the cop that is questioning him is suppose to be a black person who takes issue with black people like Tupac who he feels tarnish the imagine of black which makes it hard for people like him to get ahead. And there are several lines that the character Tupac throws at the cop which question his "black". However, the director made the cop white and for me it didn't work because of the words.
So, it got me thinking about this topic of "ownership" and "representation". I know that we have been tossing this up in the air for the semester and this scene has me almost re-thinking my original stance. I wonder if this really could work because I think of the Anthony Hopkins movie, The Human Stain, which is about a black man who is light enough to pass for white and he lives his life as a white man because he knew he could get further in life. I think my issue with this scene was not the fact that the director used a white man to play a black man, but more of the fact that I felt there was no purpose behind the decision. I felt that it was well I can't find another black actor so I'll just do this and try to make a statement. I guess that's why I'm rethinking this representation thing because I feel that any person or culture can take someone else's culture story and apply to their own, but there has to be a reason. Not only does there have to be a reason, but that reason must resonate through.

Response to Six Thousand Flags

To respond to Doug's anger about our presentation, all I can say is we could not ask for a better response. We should be upset about stereotypes because they make all of us look bad. We took a humorous approach to a very serious issue, and I think this approach helped bring the message across. As theatre artist we have a tremendous responsibility in representing cultures that are different from us because if we do not, we stand the chance of misrepresenting them. Our presentation was based on what could happen when misrepresenting cultures goes terribly wrong. Sometime we are so appalled because we do realize that we share in the beliefs in the stereotypes. I know I do! It can be harsh when the mirror is in front of your own face. What was really interesting to me is the question Amy Stieger posed to us. What if there where actual members of the culture we were stereotyping in our class? Would we have still went through with this kind of presentation. I can honestly say that it would have been more difficult for me to do so because I do want to be respectful toward people who are different from me. I probably would have had a conversation beforehand so they would know our true intentions. But we can't always do that with an audience so we do take the risk of offending others, whether that was our intentions or not. I think as theatre artist we need to be mindful that we could offend people with our work and be ready to face the music when it happens. This reminds me of something that happened in this department a few years ago. A group of students did a comedy skit show for Studio and one of the skits depicted a girl from urban surroundings - one might say ghetto - hosting a show about blunts. The two actors who were in it were white and some in our department were so offended that they took it to the chair of the department. It caused quite a controversy. I personally thought it was funny but I understood why some would be offended and felt they had the right to voice their outrage. But what bothered me the most about the incident was that there was no type of dialogue afterwards. The people who complained were too angry and the ones who did the skit could not see why people were so angry. Some contended that if people are going to be offended then they shouldn't be a part of the theatre world. This attitude goes nowhere. I'm all about ruffling feathers if the ends do justify the means, but I also have to take accountability for the work I produce. Offending can be a powerful tool, but it too deserves respect.

Interesting places for inspiration

I was watching a doc on the History Channel about psychedelic drugs and the film maker was studying a Native American tribe that uses peyote in some of their rituals. The film maker was influenced by a mentor of his, an anthropologist who did the same thing in the 1930's. The film maker interview people from the tribe and then participated in the ritual which consisted of him getting into a sweat tent, then take peyote. Because the rituals were so sacred, they did not allow cameras to film them. The film maker was very respectful with everyone and I did not get the impression that he was exploiting anyone. He respected their wishes about what can be filmed and not filmed. I was watching this with my sister and I comment that this is the kind of issues we studied in our Tools for World Theatre class, and explained to her that in the class we examined how we approach people and cultures different from us. She couldn't understand at first why I was interested in a culture that advocates using psychedelic drugs as part of their religion. I explained that I am interested as a theatre artist in a accurate portrayal of another culture and how I could use it as a theatrical piece since the rituals were indeed a piece of theatre. 

Final Performances

Today was a really interesting day. I felt like all the groups did a recap of the entire semester. Each group did their performance to touch on issues that we all dealt with from the beginning up until a couple of weeks ago. What stood out to me with Doug, Amy, and Gerry's group was cultural issues that were addressed throughout the semester, but they also incorporated performance with the Butoh and African dances. The sense of cultural idenity was a big issue in their group. I really enjoyed the fact of them all being in white faced masks, and representing each cultural. It was also a great thing to see them use not only blog posts from our class, but from other websites and cultures that do blog posts as well.

Me, Tiffany G, Tiffany L, Sarah and Dealdon centered our entire performance around the original question of what are the effects of blending cultures. That is a question I think has several answers and I think we only touched on a few options. The most memorable moment for me throughout that performance was the classroom scene of No Saco De La Escuela. I think we often times forget how foreigners are treated within our country when it comes to learning in a westernized culture. I don't think it's as rough as this particular scene, but people always have a certain stereotype of what they think other culture's educational levels are, not to forget the racial slurs.

The last group with Erik, Janelle, and Mary was just a fun time. I learned of the stereotypes of the cultures as well, but it was a performance that allowed me to engage myself in the process. I thought is was a great recreation of the Couple and the Cage. It was definately more dynamic, but I almost found myself getting into this role of being a tourist in a theme park, and at times picking on these exihibits, but feeling sympathy for them as well at times.

I thought all of the performances was a great wrap up of the semester and I really enjoyed being in this class with all of the grad students as well as Amy Steiger as my instructor.

Six Thousand Flags

Wow! This class has almost been more about self awareness than cultural analysis. I found myself revolted by the idea that the third group would stereotype so freely. I was so angry I couldn't control myself from "shhh"ing other people and pinching arms to get them to stop talking. Now in retrospective I find the power of the stereotype. I find how change can happen when you can be revolted by a stereotype until a bit of truth you believe comes through. Then you begin to realize that you also have stereotypes you never even thought about.

I wonder how often we play into our own cultural stereotype. I am southern with a southern accent but I do not chew tobacco, drive a tractor, nor marry my cousin. I'm a big fag for God's sake. However, I do play into the southern hospitality and never hitting a woman rule. Those are just manners. Or are they stereotypes? Hmmm.....

I present the question to the class of what is your cultural stereotype? How would that be staged? How would you want it staged? Do you fall into it? Have you ever thought of how to use that as an advantage on stage to voice an opinion you have about a certain issue? Is there a stereotype to which you believe is more often true than false? Are you terrible for considering stereotypes to be truthful? Who is someone that fits a stereotype and do you find them less/more believable when they speak about issues?

Six Thousand Flags

Some questions raised by the final project

Working on the final project stirred some questions up for me. One is: How much responsibility is there, or should there be on an artist (or actor) to represent something or someone with accuracy when they act with good intent? That is to say: If I claim to impersonate someone acurately, and was trying to do so out of respect and a desire for understanding and acceptance, but I couldn't, should I still perform? Even of my characterization of a voice doesn't read as insulting but it is still inaccurate, should I not perform it? I think it gets particularly sticky when the subject of the mimicry might be defined as "Other". Creation of a character is a different matter, as is an attempt at portraying a group of people. I feel that artists like Anna Deveare Smith have an obligation to portray their subjects fairly accurately when they're claiming to be impersonating a real human. In example, she chose to portray a young "cowboy". I trust her to make her voice as deep as his and to not make his accent thicker than it is. Does that trust translate into obligations? I feel that if her portrayal is off, even inadvertantly, she must not give the impression that she is accurate. I wonder if these rules change if the production, performance or art etc. might lead to knowledge, peace, inspiration or the like...

Representation as culture

I'm not sure that last post makes sense to me.  This may be due in part to the fallibility of language but most likely I think it's because we are encouraged to think certain ways in this country.

"As a culture we are represented through politics and media."  This statement is very limiting and unfair, and considering that I'm about to get an MFA in acting, I hope those aren't the only two places where a culture is expressed.  Culture is not defined by media, tv, or even clothing and film.  Culture is defined by ACTION, ie - Cameron Diaz WORE a pink shirt so now all the girls in this country wear pink shirts.  Star studies from last semester indicate that our society has chosen stars because they represent the best traits of a cultural maxim - or identity.  I think Doug, you may be confusing cultural identity with personal identity.  There is a big difference between the two - my own subculture represents a part of the larger American culture...I think what I would like to study next is the environmental effects on culture because these are the things that really define collective action - like people in the south.  It's culturally acceptable to wear less clothes - because of the temperature.  I think those things really explain the human condition more than understanding why a No actor turns his hand to the left instead of the right.

"There's no such thing as a collective we" -Yes, yes there is - we Americans, we humans, we women, we men.  On a simple level, the word 'we' is a pronoun - so yes, it's meant to identify and therefore separate.  And in America we live under a (false) democracy that says that our course of ACTION should be the one that's best for the most amount of people.  Since it works that way, everyone of this country is given the chance to voice his or her opinion.  It seems in America more than anywhere else, we're taught to value our vote more than anything, but very quickly we point culpability towards those in charge.  We voted for Bush - saw how foolish he was - and then voted for him again.  WE - the Americans, even if it was indirect.  

"Can you as a student try to represent an entire culture?" (1)  First and foremost I am a human - always will be.  The notion of 'student' carries with it negative connotations and I think by asking about students we are limiting the scope and power of this class.  I thought in the last class we discussed the nature of geographical culture shifts - so I think for the most part I'm aiming to experience this culture.  That's the only truth - experiencing the culture, so, for instance as a very crude example - if the Japanese eat raw tuna, I would eat raw tuna.  I'm not going to become Japanese but I'm going to experience something that a Japanese person experiences, thus connecting us on a very basic human level.  That to me is the point of studying another culture.(2) Do or do not, there is not TRY.  You can't try to represent anything.  You represent it or you don't.  Trying is what students do because they won't lose their job.  We're actors - our job concerns action - I perform actions from other cultures all the time.  My entire thesis was built upon the entire culture of Jewish comedy - I performed a different culture than my own and was therefore connected to the other cultures that shaped the alien culture.  That contrast defines  my personal identity and strengthens my cultural identity.  The two work together - but are definitely not the same.

Group Presentation

We are finding more questions than answers when we were working on our group presentation. With so much information that we have covered this year, it is really difficult to provide a full analysis of the three cultures. Even as we begin to limit our perspective to one subject, we find more questions than answers. I have found in this class that the amount of material covered that we haven't fully been able to solidify elements of a culture because elements are different between individuals. We may have a cultural identity but, as a culture, we are represented through politics and media. Therefore, coming from a location that is not that culture I am only aware of what that country presents as its cultural identity. Which raises an interesting question: Is there such a thing as a "Cultural Identity?"

Do all African-Americans appreciate Jazz music? Do all gay people wear pink and love Cher? Are all Southerners lazy and unintelligent?

"ALL" is a limiting word. One would think it was inclusive, but in retrospect it is limiting on the choices/facets of a culture. George Bush saying the country was welcome to the Pope's ideas. Bullshit. There is no such thing as a collective "we."

So.... as we perform our group presentations I find that we can only accurately portray a skewed version of reality. The plays we read--- one person's opinion. The videos we watched-- that producers view. Can you study a culture without immersing yourself into it? Can you, as a student, try to represent an entire culture? No. No. No.

Cultural Identity/Space/Contracts

     Amy (Steiger) asked questions about truth and the ideas of a European based ‘performance contract.’  Who knows.  I think both Doug and Amy C. identified that theatre around the world has always had some sort of contractual agreements, but I really do think that it is the European need to list or identify and categorize that led to the publication of notions of a performance contract.  Regardless of the word contract is the actual action that has happened in thousands of years past – the Greeks wore masks, both ancient Japanese and Greek performances had ritualistic spaces in which to perform – even all of Shkespeare’s original plays would have been presented on an Elizabethan model (like a greek ampitheatre and modern thrust combined.)  In considering Afirican and Mexican theatre and what we know of it, there seems to be not as much importance on the space of ritual as the action of ritual.  In thinking about Japan we can see a clear emphasis on the importance and consistency of space on the Noh stage.

            I wondered if this might have something to do with the historical context of colonization.  Japan as we know it has never been colonized or annexed.  Although the San Fransisco treaty gave much control of Japan to the US, Japan has still maintained its cultural identity.  I wonder then if the aftermath of the more recent colonization in countries like Mexico and Nigeria caused a loss of those fundamental theatrical identities.  We can also think of those places as less developed at the time of colonization (than the conquering empires) – so perhaps the development of cultural aesthetics was not as far progressed.  With this in mind it might be quite easy for an invading force to influence aesthetic ideals and principles – especially when ritual and performance would be one of the most powerful means of social interaction.  When places like Nigeria and Mexico were conquered there was no TV or easy access to it, so communal performance is a huge part of cultural life.

            I know some of these ideas are out there, but I was just wondering what anyone else thinks about the subject.  I think the ‘performance contract’ is just a term that appeared as the profession of the actor was shaped.  As society as progressed and come to think more of acting as a career, so appeared the necessity to establish boundaries between performer and audience – hence performance contract, fourth wall, a raised proscenium stage.  I don’t think these words are important, but the soccial actions such as clapping after a scene or staying quiet during a performance are the actions that really describe the identity of a culture’s theatre.

Couple and Art

Is it really ‘art’?

            Gerry first spoke in his presentation about the ideas of cultural identity and what happens when two cultures collide.  I don’t know if that’s what really happened in ‘Couple in the Cage.’  I think the underlying action of the performance, or question that emulates, is ‘what happens when two cultures collide, especially when one of them is in a cage?’  Did the cultures really collide?  Or did someone come up with a clever way of pointing out American ignorance and arrogance?

            I think the inherent problem in ‘displaying’ something like ‘the couple’ is that the performance isn’t doing anything – it’s not going through a cultural collision, like No Saca Nada de la escuela, Othello, or Death and the King’s Horseman.  The creators of ‘Couple’ have cleverly identified the Anglo-European habit of boxing things and selling them.

            The word ‘art’ suggests artificial, and ‘Couple in the Cage’ is exactly that, but for some reason, I just don’t consider it art.  I suppose the last three years of my training suggest that art requires a very specific technical knowledge and it seems to me that this performance did not/would not require a very specific type of technical knowledge.  I do think that this performance required a very large knowledge of cultural understanding on the part of the performers.  In that sense I think I suppose that this performance is more of an anthropological experiment.  The goal of the performance was not to tell a story – like that of most contemporary theatre.  ‘Couple in the Cage’ simply showed the results of a very controlled cross-cultural interaction.

    So, is it art?  Not in my book.  We discussed the point briefly in class on Tuesday about the difference between an actor and a performer…which many in the class were very passionate in discussing.  I’m not sure who voiced the opinion, but I agree that an actor is a performer, but a performer is not necessarily an actor.  I suppose my own devotion to the study of acting for the theatre has taught me that what I do is much  different from a comedian, juggler, guitar player, etc…While “Couple” is a very clever performance – it is in my opinion, not theatre.

Japanese beauty and culture

When I think about the Japanese view of beauty, uniquely Japanese images appear in my head. A porcelain face with painted lips, sweeping loops and coils of pressed and coifed black hair, silk embroidered kimono. However, as displayed by Butoh and ritual suicide, there is also a balance of severity and serenity that comprises the Japanese aesthetic. There is beauty in death, including the finality of it, its stillness, the pain and sorrow of it. It makes me consider America’s aesthetic values and I find it difficult to visualize something completely “American”. All of the images besides Native American aren’t truly or originally American. Does the exoticism of uniqueness pique a colonizing countries’ urge to capture a country and its culture? Though there have been vast and varied social changes in Japan since WWII, I still marvel at Japan’s success at retaining some of its ancient culture. Perhaps it is partly due to the occupation which seemed briefly to wash the county in a deluge of Western culture. A country on the verge of losing its identity might latch on to the past for stability (as well as for obvious reasons of tradition). Now that some time has passed, it seems that in Japan, younger generations seem much less interested in holding on to traditional culture. I wonder how this may affect the way Japanese culture is carried on or changed in Japan, and also how Japanese culture is disseminated across the globe.

Performance Areas

Does venue change the message? I know all want to think that Broadway is better theatre and you are willing to pay a bigger ticket price because it is Broadway, but does it change the message of the piece?? I always thought this answer would be no, because your message is your message. I never realized how affected the piece would be in different settings.

Of course, I have thought about the idea of a piece being done in a Thrust Theatre instead of Proscenium, but never about Ford Theatre verses our Playhouse. In all honesty, I do not think it makes a big difference what theatre it is in. However, theatre that goes beyond the realm of the ticket-buying, sit in a cushy seat, watch the curtain go up theatre requires analysis of the venue.

When watching Couple in a Cage I realized how different it would be at the Smithsonian. The ticket buyers all go to that venue expecting to see historically accurate pieces in order to learn about culture. We never believe that we are going to see a fake version of the Hope Diamond or Judy Garland's slippers from the Wizard of Oz. So, put a fake piece of culture in there and we are stooping the audience and already putting a fake stamp of approval on the validity of the claim. I totally disagree with showing Couple in a Cage at such a historically-oriented place.

The piece on the lawn of a building or in the street or at a party, there is always the option that it may not be true. It is up to the interpretation of the viewer to believe it is true. There is no presupposed agreement that it is, like at the Smithsonian. When theatre cannot be interpretted any other way but truthful, is this wrong? Yes.

Media Interpretation/Theatrical Interpretation

Gerry said a very interesting thing in the last class. He said for us to be careful not to incorporate the multimedia messages on the video because they tend to sway the viewer's idea of the piece. What struck me was this whole idea of eliminating parts to analyze rather than the whole. People have been talking alot about of a "universal truth" and whether or not it is our jobs as theatre artists to provide it, search for it, represent it, or not bother. When Gerry told us to disregard the media, I thought, "Why watch this video then? If we disregard these two people's interpretation (which are the people who made the video) then we are analyzing the wrong thing."

We are theatre artists. We do not put on a show and then tell people to disregard the third scene in the second act. We represent a whole entity. We ask people to judge this entire entity. The media in the film was deliberately put in there to elicit some type of response from the viewer. Therefore, we, as actors, make choices on a stage and then people interpret them. We must be self-limiting in our choices. So, when we talk about truth and whether to put it on a stage, we need to remember that theatre is a stage. Whether it be in a museum parking lot or in the Ford Theatre, it is still a stage where a performance is being held. Immorality has nothing to do with theatrical interpretation. It is a representation allowed to be interpretted.

It struck me as odd that we had to limit our viewing in order to see their true meaning on the film. Doesn't the media section add to their true meaning?? Was every choice that Peter Brook did analyzed? Yes. So therefore, I think that when watching/performing in a piece, whether it be "Couple in a Cage" it is important for actors to not judge the delivery, but simply tell this story. Interpretation is on the spectator not the actor.

The Questions

I reviewed the questions we raised at the beginning of class that Amy posted on the blog very early in the semester. After considering all of the questions, I think the hardest one to think about was:
"How are our skills/techniques/goals as actors and theatre artists enhanced or challenged by contact with artists from other cultures and vice versa?"
This question is very hard to answer, and I think we could spend an entire semester doing so. However, here are the most pertinent things I came up with.
As Americans, I don't think we think of our own country as a very culturally diverse place. Japan is about 146,000 square miles, Mexico is about 762,000 square miles, the US takes up almost 4 million square miles. On a very elementary level I don't think we consider how very culturally different our own country is region to region....and that's not considering Alaska or Hawaii.
So to engage the idea of 'contact with other artists from other cultures,' I considered my daily life. ow many different walks of life do you see on a University campus? at the store?...I think I do every day. It's apparent to me that Americans in general are able to select many different methods of training from many different cultures - a privilege that is not afforded in other cultures. I think we constantly discuss the idea in class that America as a nation is still trying to define its own cultural image. Perhaps America represents the first of a cultural anomaly in anthropological history.
Despite the inability to distinguish my country's own cultural identity, I think it is the personal connections that define my own process, and its value. I think my interactions with other artists also challenges my own process by illustrating the differences in process and results...sort of like a deconstructive way of looking at my own process.
I also think that we should consider the field of theatre which we represent - there is also commercial theatre, not for profit, community, regional. I think if one's ultimate goal is to work than one would eventually allow the trends of that work environment to influence them (like wearing a suit and tie in an office). Regardless of the genre, I sometimes think trying to itemize my own techniques is dangerous. The world is constantly moving and changing, so committing an idea to paper prevents it from growing and changing. In terms of cultural experience, I don't think we have to look much further than our own front yard.

Apocalypto: A Catharsis?

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."W. Durant

I watched Apocalypto last night for the first time. I'm really glad I waited until after I had done all that research on Mexican Religion, Ritual and Myth because I connected with some interesting stuff that I had found during my research.

One of the things that stood out to me the most was the idea of Teotl (in Aztec). But, it's the balance in the universe. It is akin to the Yin and Yang in Buddism. Basically, the belief is that you stay in the middle of the path during life. You never venture to extremes because that's when you falter and fail.

Fear, especially, pushes us to the extreme and that's what Apocalypto is about. Jaguar Paw is afraid and his fear paralyzes him and puts him and has family and friends in danger. Most of them die, but Jaguar Paw finally, upon escaping the Mayan captors and returning to his forest, stops running and faces them. One by one he uses the tricks and knowledge he has obtained from his father to outwit and outmaneuver his pursuers. He's driven by the need to rescue his pregnant wife and son from the pit he hid them in before it fills with water from the rains.

In ancient Mexican cultures, fear was abhorred because it threw off the balance of the individual, the community and, ultimately, the binding force of the universe, Teotl. It paved the way for destruction from within. And, you can find a similar reference in Aristole's Poetics. He says, in regards to Catharsis, that Catharsis is the removal of fear (in a nutshell). So, how do we remove fear? We face it, then we're no longer afraid and we can move freely and logically through life. That's Teotl and that's what Jaguar Paw finally realized. And, that too is the turning point in the movie. Removing the fear empowered him to save his family. He finally found his true identity.

I wonder if Sabina Berman looks at it this way? She places these scripts in front of us and presents all kinds of fears. Is this a Catharsis? In "Yankee" Bill is afraid of his identity so he fabricates numerous ones. But, in the end, while he is gently slapping Alberto's limp body, he seems to be gentle, at peace. He no longer seems afraid. Is it because he has faced his fears and accepted who he is? Is Berman suggesting that he has finally found his identity?

Japan Interview

     I interviewed Yuriko Saitou, a twenty-year old student at Bellarmine University. We met a Starbuck's for the interview, and over a couple of Frappuccinos we talked about the difference between living in the United States and Japan. I asked her about her homeland. Yuriko is from Yokohama, which she describes as a "really cool, fun place." Yuriko and her friends enjoy shopping and hanging out, just like American youth. I asked her why she wanted to go to college in America. She said she always wanted to go to school in the United States, " A girl from my school came here to study and she said it was great fun, I applied and got it, I was real happy." Yuriko is a business major and looks forward to finding a job when she is finish with school, " I want to work to make money to do the fun things I want." When I told her I was doing a presentation on Japan religions and Japanese geisha, she responded with girlish giggles and said that although her family is not very religious, she and her friends like to visits Christian churches to celebrate Christmas:

    

 Me and many friends had dinner together at restaurant to celebrate the Christmas Eve. We had a very good time. I went to the church on Christmas Eve. It's the first time I have ever been there. I saw a lot of people, but many of them are not Christianity, they went there for curiosity just like me. People sing songs and a little dance. It's really different, but I don't think it's the one I have expected. I hope to see how western people do in the church.

I invited her to attend church with me and she responded again with her girlish giggles. She said that she and her friends are more modern and that she is not really interested in the Geisha culture, "My [American] friends are more interested in that." I asked her if she saw Memoirs of a Geisha, and she giggled and said she likes Japanese and American horror movies, like The Ring and The Grudge. We closed the interview with both of us feeling the caffeinated effects of our Frappuccinos. Yuriko seems to seems to me like any other American twenty-year old, and I think she wants it that way.

Cantinflas in Aguila o Sol

I was going to show this clip of an early film of Mario Moreno's in class today, but, of course, we ran out of time. The paragraph below is a translation (done mostly by Google and then doctored by me) of the description posted on YouTube.




For many reasons, this film is a gem of national filmmaking. Eagle or Sun is the third Cantinflas movie and takes place two years before that character's jump to fame with "That is the Detail." Eagle or Sun reproduces the atmosphere of the carpas, which were the most important entertainment in Mexico during the first part of the twentieth century. That's where the character was forged by Cantinflas and this is an emulation of that glorious era. The comic routines between Cantinflas and Medel are really typical of the Mexican tent. And if that were not enough, Eagle or Sun is also a film of the Russian Boytler Arcady, a great filmmaker who was nothing less than a ward of the legend of world cinema Sergei Eisenstein, who, incidentally, also shot in Mexico. The character who is smiling is owner of the tent, and is embodied by none other than the incredible actor Luis. G. Barreiro, who began his career in silent movies and made dozens of movies in Mexico and the United States, in addition to having been in at least four movies with Cantinflas: This is my Earth (1937), Eagle or Sun (1938), The Gendarme Unknown (1941) and Grand Hotel (1944).

Japanese Film

I also watched a Japanese film over the weekend...the name of it was "Kiki's Delivery Service."  It's by Hayao Miyazaki, who is famous for his other films like Howl's Moving Castle and Princess Mononoke.  (Kiki's delivery service was ok, but  I enjoyed Miyazaki's previous films more, because they weren't based in the time period in which I live.)  After our in-depth study of Japan I was really curious about Miyazaki.  I only knew that he had his own company, that was kind of like the PIXAR of Japan.

After reading a little about him on the internet I discovered that his career has a rich history in Japanese culture.  Miyazaki was born in 1941 so he is a post-war child of Japan.  The themes of his work often reflect that: good vs. evil, anti-technology, environmentalism.  His father also directed construction in an airplane factory which influenced Miyazaki at a young age.  His films often contain images of flying, especially humans.  Miyazaki himself said that flying was a way to forget about the harsh reality of gravity.

In college Miyazaki earned degrees in political science and animation - his studies had nothing to do with art, film, or animation.  I read that one of his literary influences was Lewis Carroll, which makes sense considering Miyazaki's outlandish stories.

I looked for pictures online that would represent some of Miyazaki's work.  If you are not familiar with it, I would highly recommend it.  It gives insight into the post-war generation of entertainment in Japan.