The Globe and Mail: On the stage of the Young Centre in Toronto these days, an actor with Down syndrome is confronting audience members with their own prejudice, demanding, “You think I’m retarded? Look at yourself!”
Toronto playwright and director Judith Thompson is the hand behind this harrowing moment: She is the director and co-creator of Rare, a show in which nine Down syndrome adults talk about their lives, their pain and their hope. The show, which opened this week, almost defies criticism – Globe and Mail theatre critic J. Kelly Nestruck has declined to assign it a star rating while Toronto Star reviewer Robert Crew has given it four stars – but not contextualization.
9 comments:
This article really spoke to me. I acted as "Arnold" in the Boys Next Door and as part of the work we went to in a sense an adult daycare. They performed for us and then we performed for them. They came to a show we did specifically for them. It was one of the most meaningful experiences of my life. I think the inclusion of actors in shows like Glee with characters like Becky is extremely important. I also think that it is great that people with disabilities are given a chance to support themselves as well as inspire others with disabilities.
This article REALLY made me think about how we as a theatre community view and critique theatre. I have worked with several special needs children in Youth Theatre back at home and we would always end up shocked by how unbelievably great they end up. I strongly believe that it is unfair to not critique a show normally because it has a mentally challenged cast, but I feel like the critic should definitely take into consideration the amount of work that they must put in to get the outcome the did. I think that if this is in the professional world, these people choose to do this because this is what they love. You should not destroy their hopes and dreams by critiquing them too harshly, but you should also not put too much of a damper on your opinion. Although this profession is much more judgmental, it is just like any other profession. You need to take things into consideration. It depends.
Wow, talk about deep. Im so conflicted with my thoughts on this. On the one hand I feel that they deserve a fair critique just like every other actor out there, but at the same time this is not acting, this is real truth conveying. There is a difference between critiquing someone on how well they fooled an audience into thinking they have a certain disability, and critiquing someone on a stage that has that disability in actuality. It would be like critiquing them as a person not as an actor.
I have actually worked on plays where all of the actors had special needs and each was helped along by someone without a disability, but it was nothing as serious as this. We just reenacted children's books together and were never critiqued or anything. I got really close to all of the kids and Im not really sure how I would feel if they were put in this position.
Hmm. This is something I have never thought about before. On one hand, I think that it is only fair to critique everyone in the same way. I actually just made a comment on another article about how I didn't believe a reviewer was being honest. I always want an honest review; never the "rose colored" glasses stuff you end up with a lot of the time for any number of reasons.
On the other hand, I find that people these days think as a collective whole that is is important to be extra-sensitive to people with mental disabilities. So an honest review might cause a lot of upset.
But, in the end, I just think a reviewer should say what they think and feel and not worry about what other people think. It's hard (not to mention a waster of time) to try and never offend anyone.
I think that there should be a review; an unconventional show about real people and true issues should be spoken about. That being said, I don't think this show or any like it can be reviewed like any other show. Conventional ratings do not apply, and the elements that are being critiqued differ from the usual ones. This topic is so relevant in a time when theater and the arts in general are expanding to many new areas and being revisited in very extensive ways.
I was a little conflicted in my thoughts as I was reading this article. I found it very inspiring and I admire Thompson for making such bold choices on what she chooses to display in her plays. In terms of critique, however, while I do believe the show deserves to be reviewed and rated, I'm not sure if it can be measured against the same things that other plays with real actors would be measured by. It also makes it difficult because it is not like the actors can be critiqued on their performance or how well they played a role, because these are the REAL people themselves, telling their true stories, not portraying a different person. This also makes me think about what constitutes as acting. Of course this is still considered "theater" because it is a theatrical presentation and experience, and after all what is the purpose of theater than to portray what is real in the world and spark thinking, debate and discussion about important issues? In this sense, this is simply taking that to a new level by actually having the real people tell their real stories, and may be able to reach audiences on a different level. But on the other hand, it is not exactly acting; it is, as April mentioned in an earlier comment, "truth conveying," and so that is where the difficulty in how exactly to critique the show comes in. But it shouldn't be that just because the people are mentally handicapped they cannot be subjected to reviews of the work they chose to perform.
Honestly, the opinion to critique at a normal level depends on the role they disabled actors are playing. If, as in the case of the play in the article, the script and performance were developed for and with those specific actors, by all means review it as if it were a normal show. This is their show, they deserve an honest review. On the other hand, if it is a previously written show that disabled actors are playing parts in, it probably is not fair to compare it to previous productions of that show. It's an interesting predicament for the reviewer.
After reading the green page for a few years, we have seen a number of articles debating the hire of disabled or mentally challenged actors for disabled or mentally challenged characters. It seems ridiculous to me that the critics of the community refuse to comment on the play.
It seems to me that the critics are afraid of being offensive, but wouldn't they have to be wary of being offensive when reviewing a show that had controversial topics as well? By hesitating to review the play they've been offensive already.
There is a difference between critiquing actors who are telling the story of others (acting) and critiquing performers who are telling their story (performing). You have to critique the performance on a different scale and under different criterion. Describe what the artists were trying to do; say how well they did it; analyze whether they should have done anything differently and the audience's response to the performance. Simple! Well at least that is my opinion!
Post a Comment