HowlRound: When Caridad Svich proposed a Gun Control Theatre Action in January, I was skeptical. At the time, I was preoccupied as a research volunteer to the March on Washington for Gun Control. For me, the massacre at Sandy Hook was the moment when art and theater were rendered useless. No play could be written that would do justice to the outrage of schoolchildren gunned down in the name of what? Second amendment freedoms? A crazy guy’s right to own an AK-47? - See more at: http://www.howlround.com/changing-the-narrative-on-gun-control-is-theater-up-to-the-task#sthash.DVcbXA9E.dpuf
8 comments:
This was a really good article. Gun control is one of those topics that I am kind of iffy on. There were times when I would be walking around and would wish I had a gun to protect me or use to scare the creeps that roam the streets in Manhattan (they are actually terrifying). But sometimes I think so self-defense lessons would do the trick as well. Anyway, guns have only caused problems. We can't stop the production of guns because people find a way around everything. Gun control is really hard. It's an interesting concept to make a play about gun control and I would have liked to see the play about September 11. He said he was trying to get into the terrorist's head, what they were thinking. Those are things I wonder about all the time. How could anyone wish so much pain on others. Others who have never done anything wrong to affect that person. I just don't get it. I want to know what the person behind the trigger is thinking. Gang shootings make no sense to me either. What has anyone ever done to anyone. Back in high school, I knew someone whose brother was shot and killed in a drive by on his way home from school. He wasn't involved in gang activity, he never did anything wrong. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But why did the guy in the car have a gun? Why was he even shooting the gun? For fun? Go to a shooting range. What is so fun about shooting innocent people? The power you have to control whether someone gets to live or not? It's sick. It's always about power. Guns are the equivalent to power, but it's the fast, cheap way to get it. So if someone can help me understand what the man behind the trigger is thinking, please, help me understand because I honestly have no idea.
Another topic is the idea of crazy. In the article, the author says the man Sandy hook was crazy. Why was he crazy? What is crazy? I don't understand why he did what he did, I think it's awful what happened, but we throw the word 'crazy' around so much I don't even know what it is. And if he is truly crazy, what made him that way? Was he just born that way? We really need to watch what we say, we need to understand situations before we judge and label everything. I think it's awful what happened and I would never wish that upon anyone but, again, I want to know why it happened. Someone, please explain.
I am tired of how most political debates are carried out currently- with two people plugging their ears and shouting their opinions at each other. As is mentioned in this article, one of the great gifts of theatre is that it can create conversations around very difficult topics and show people that there are two sides to every argument.
The author of the article asks "why bother?" I feel that it is actually theatre's purpose to talk about things that are happening right now that are hard to talk about in any other context. It reminds me of how in Conservatory Hour the design team for Crucible were talking about how the play was written as a response to the terrible time of McCarthyism. When there was censorship and suspicion everywhere, one of the best (and only) ways to address it was through art. Almost all of the classic plays we still put on today were written as responses to problems that were very relevant at the time, and very difficult to talk about. Because of this, I feel that when we are creating new theatre we should not shy away from difficult topics, but make it our goal to address them.
It often seems as thought the debate of gun control will never end - how could it, when I'm sure there are thousands of people out there who, just like me, can see clearly both sides of the situation? There are times when I would love to be carrying a gun, when I'm walking home by myself at 3 in the morning, and by far the fastest route is along a dimly lit street. It would be a security blanket, something that I wouldn't want to use but would feel better for having. Or would it change me? I can't imagine ever shooting a gun at someone, no matter how horrible they are or what awful crime they are committing. But would carrying a gun make me more comfortable with that idea? Would a new firearm familiarity make me feel that it's okay to shoot people when I feel the need? Who decides whether that "need" is truly justified? There's a very fine line there that might turn out to be way too easy to cross. And what about other people? Would I feel more comfortable walking home along that dark, lonely street carrying a gun if I knew there were other people around who had them too? Or would it make me more jumpy and end up causing a more violent world? There are always people who abuse their privileges, and that is when horrific, unnecessary tragedies such as the elementary school massacre happen.
Like most people, I can go either way on gun control. Before this summer, I would have been completely against it. If you look at almost every situation in which a gun was discharged, there is a story behind the person carrying the gun. Perhaps there are mental issues, drugs, alcohol, etc. I wrote a paper on school shootings in high school, and my point was that in every situation, there were various factors at play. Art, music, video games, movies, drugs, bullying, etc were all involved in almost every occasion. In the Sandy Hook massacre, the perpetrator was noted to have personality disorders and rarely interacted with other students. There were most likely warning signs, such as his obsession with violent video games (Call of Duty) or his 500-name hit list. But no one pays attention to warning signs until after something happens. Instead, everyone focuses on the obvious. Guns can kill people; however, that is still false. The people behind the guns kill people. There is always a motive, and there are always warning signs. This summer, I learned of a family friend who killed two people. I started to question my beliefs on guns, but looking back on it, there were the same warning signs: suicide letters, alcohol, mental instability. Everyone just turned a blind eye. As for producing shows about gun control, I find it very ironic. The same industry that glorifies killings (action, shoot-em-up movies) is now trying to support gun control? I just don't understand. Even if there were plays about gun control, I doubt anyone will listen. As artists, we tend to believe that we create for the good of the world. We understand what is wrong, and we try to make it right through art. That doesn't mean audiences will want to listen. Some audiences might listen, but will they act? I have seen several people shield their eyes or leave rooms because an image on a computer or the television screen showed graphic images of rapes in the Congo, or of the Rwandan genocide, or of the Invisible Children in Sudan. Even if we show these things to people, I don't believe they will have the courage to stand up against these issues because they do not directly relate to our lives. I guess gun control can relate to many people in the United States, but again, we forget that man can do as much damage with a knife, his fists, and his feet. Personally, I don't think violence will ever stop. I think humans actually secretly enjoy it. If there was no violence, there would be nothing to protest/nothing to rally behind. There would be no one to deem wrong or right. No matter what we say, we live off of conflicts and violence. Peace is for the dreamers.
Ok, no. Im sure there are people who will be annoyed with me for saying this, or even say I'm just a stereotypical Texan, but I really think we just need to drop the attempts at gun control. Even if they were some how magically successful does anyone really think that would stop any of the horrendous shootings? I think there are plenty of examples to the contrary. Take prohibition. Making alcohol illegal did nothing to stop people from drinking it, if anything it made it more dangerous for those who did because there were no alcohol safety laws in place any longer. Same thing with drugs, they are illegal yet america still has some serious drug problems. It wont be any different with guns. Personally, I don't drink, or do drugs, nor do I ever want to shoot a gun, especially at a person. But I would be much more afraid for my safety if gun control happened because those people that want to go shooting up places will find a gun anyways, and once again there will not be as many laws about gun safety as there are now if the rule is to just not have one. Its basic human nature for people to want what they can't have, and taking away peoples right to bare arms will just make them want to bare bigger and badder arms. No thank you.
It is interesting to see such an interesting take on the current discussion of gun control and how a theatrical format and narrative may provide a better way to continue this important debate. I feel that there are valid arguments to be made for both sides of the gun control debate. Perhaps more importantly, it is not even a black and white issue with two sides. It is very much a gray area with many differing opinions and courses of action.
However, I am certain that most would agree that the current dialogue is frustrating in both its lack of progress and heated partisan bickering. Perhaps Svich's idea to add conversation to this topic through theater will help put this important national conversation back on the right track.
Last year when Mac Welman came to visit I asked him if he thought that theater had to have a purpose. His response was no so I asked him if he just does theater for theaters sake and he said yes. I have struggled a lot to answer the question "why bother". It is hard to get theater to actually make social change and when it is a piece that can actually implement change then it is hard to get it to the correct people.
So if theater is not making change what exactly is it doing? Are we doing it to entertain people, to give them something to do on weekend night or do we do theater just because we can? I have no answer for this and I think it varies so much by show, artist and theater. I do think that this is one reason our industry is always "dying" because our purpose is undefined.
Also a note, the best theater that I have ever seen that started to actually bring about social change is a group that used theater of the oppressed. This group would act out a scene in which someone was oppressed and then would freeze the scene at pivotal moments and have audience members come up and act out solutions to the injustice. This gave people a workshop environment to figure out how to deal with real problems in the on stage before they did in the world.
Seeing this article, it occurred to me that the gun control debate has quieted down a lot recently. I was glad to see it because I'm worried that the more time that has passed since Sandy Hook, the less likely anything will be to change. The wounds are not fresh anymore. This is definitely a tricky debate, but what the article presented is that we need to work on this debate with new techniques and new perspective. I don't know exactly what should be done, and it sounds like the people in the article aren't sure either. But I do think that the conversation on gun control cannot be over. Whether theatre or theatrical techniques or something entirely different will be the solution, it is important that people continue to try to determine what will make a difference.
Post a Comment