Friday, October 02, 2015
Is Theater Too Ideologically Exclusive?
The Clyde Fitch Report: For all the conversations going on in the theater industry about diversity, social change and audience engagement, I’ve noticed recently how infrequent it is that I actually end up having a distinct, contrasting opinion to the foundational arguments of the plays I see and read. This reflection comes in part as a result of starting my own theater company, and being now faced with the inevitable question of whether or not, as artistic director, I possess a moral monopoly over the work we produce. Is it better always to produce work that, at least in some way, reflects my own values, given that I need to be able to fully stand behind all our productions? Or does this restrict the diversity of viewpoints I also want to represent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I've never really given the idea of diversity of political views any thought, but what this author is saying is completely true. Modern theatre is almost completely devoid of any conservative viewpoints. At this point I don't think that's something that's going to change purely because of the high percentage of liberals in the industry. If someone were to produce a show on Broadway with conservative values, such as an opposition to gay marriage, it would get completely torn apart by critics and theater community. It might because I'm a very liberal person, but I don't necessarily think that it's a bad thing. The theatre world has become a haven for people of all backgrounds and identities, and I feel like bringing back conservative values might diminish this. There are plenty of other types of works such as movies and books that still have these values, so introducing them to theatre isn't all that important. Diversity is essential to good theatre, but I don't think that political opinion should be considered on the same level as sexual orientation or race.
I am not a political person and I tend to avoid any talks related to liberals and conservatives but this article interested me. I think people may not agree with what he says but I think he brings up a good point that maybe we are proclaiming so much to be diverse and unique that we may be overlooking the fact that we use the same playwrights that write the same kind of shows. I don’t have knowledge on different playwrights and their beliefs but I still think it is an interesting topic to think about as we attend new plays and write new things. Can we as theatre makers write or produce something that is not centered around our beliefs? How can we fight against that to have a more balanced repertoire? I think one way is seeing the shows that you don’t want to see. There are theatres out there that are doing the unnatural and making audiences uncomfortable, maybe we need to support more of that. I may not like a show and what it stands for but I still appreciate the work they put into it and the product they get out.
Although I always knew theater was heavily skewed towards the liberal side of politics I never knew how far that extent went. To find out there are virtual no conservative playwrights writing today is crazy to me . As someone who was raised by fairly conservative parents, my politics have often fallen on the slightly more conservative end of the spectrum, although I agree with many socially liberal ideas. Perhaps I'm similar to the conservatives mentioned at the bottom of the article, ones who are able to understand liberal perspectives well, but don't necessarily embody them. While I'm definitely not as conservative as my parents, and pretty much only agree with them on fiscal issues, I've often felt that I should never get involved in politics while at work in the theater. In fact when I first started pursuing theater I remember my dad explicitly telling me to never talk politics in fear that I'd be boxed out for having a more conservative perspective. While I think that assumption was a bit extreme I can't say I always feel open about sharing my politics even here at school. I personally enjoy the ideologies present in modern theater and think they stimulate important conversations, but I do see a lack of diversity when it comes to more conservative ideas being presented, which is a shortcoming to the community as only half of a conversation is ever often being adequately represented. I personally have no problem existing in a predominantly liberal field, because the liberal focused principles of fairness, and protection from harm are crucial to creating a safe environment for new work to shape and take form, but I'd love to see a more conservative perspective enter theater as well to not only help stimulate an enriching conversation across political philosophies, but also help other more reserved conservatives in the field not feel like they have to hide part of their political agenda as they go to work everyday.
I never stopped to think what it might mean for an artistic direct to have to make decisions regarding whether or not they could stand by a play they put on. Its true when a show sends a message the artistic director need to be able to say either I believe in this message or this message needs to be heard. How can they then separate their morals from the shows so that diverse theater can be seen in their play house? Should they have to? Can a theater company be expected to put on one type of show, or does this hurt more than help their mission? On his second point, it’s true that many theater artists are likeminded people. In this case they have tendency to put on Likeminded Theater. I think we need to take a hard look at the types of shows that comprise our season year to year and ask ourselves: are we putting on theater to fit a certain set of moral guidelines or are we putting on theater o challenge the way people think?
This article is great! My political views are definitely liberal, and I loved reading this and thinking about how uncomfortable I might feel watching a play that champions ideals that I fundamentally disagree with. I vehemently believe in diversity in theater, and I'm stoked that Douglass' article totally showed me a blind spot I never knew I had. When we talk about diversity, we definitely only really speak about inviting ideas and people onstage whose values are liberal, not conservative, and I think most of us don't realize how detrimental that is unless it's called out like this. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be telling stories about under-served minorities, but simply that we shouldn't forget what else lies on the other side of the spectrum. Of course, the disconnect also lies in the fact that our industry is predominantly liberal, and can make it hard, as Henry pointed out, for conservative people to feel that they can be a welcome part of the community. I wonder if there are conservative playwrights who have been discouraged because their work never gets picked up by theaters, or if there simply are not conservative writers drawn to the world of theater. Either way, I think that this devil's argument is an integral part of the diversity discussion, and a fantastic eye-opener.
This is something I've actually noticed in the comments section of this blog. Frequently, even on supposedly "controversial" topics, that everyone is just agreeing and the hardest thing about contributing your voice is to find a way to say it that is not just parroting what everyone else has already said.
I think one of the best quotes from this article was, "When we say we want diversity in theater, do we really mean it? Or do we only want diversity in race, gender, background, etc. as long as no one is writing anything that directly opposes anyone’s beliefs?" This definitely gave me a reality check about the industry I am entering. Camille asks a good question, is this lack of conservative representation simply because we have created an environment in the world of theater that conservative people do not want to participate in, or are there playwrights whose work is rejected because it is too conservative? Either way it would be good to change. I believe that theater could be made much more interesting if it represented conflicting viewpoints rather then just agreeing with itself all the time.
While I might not be completely comfortable watching a performance that championed the pro-life movement, or disagreed with the institution of same-sex marriage, I still believe it would be beneficial to see those viewpoints rather than dismissing the idea that art could be created from them.
This is something that I’ve thought a lot about, not necessarily as a perspective practitioner of theatre, but just as someone in society. At what point are we actually open to values other than our own, not just dismissing them as the thought of another person. When do we actually watch something that we strongly disagree with and break down why we disagree with it? And what impact do we have by being creative forces in the world?
I don’t know if there are any universal answers to these questions, in fact I believe there likely aren’t any, but that doesn’t mean an attempt isn’t worth while. In fact, the pursuit of these answers is a motivating force in my life, as I believe it is in many artists’ lives. To me, just the process of trying to keep an open mind, to try and view things in a different light, that is enough to justify holding an opinion and advocating for it. I’ve found that if you actively try to prove yourself wrong, than the only two paths that can play out are that you reinforce your values, or you drop values that were flawed. Because of this, I try and surround my self with a diverse group of people, with diverse opinions, and I have conversations.
I guess all art is is an attempt at a larger conversation. Yeah, it is true that the majority of the people who attend/create theatre are likely to have some biased to liberal values, but that doesn’t mean that their contribution to the conversation is invalid. If anything, it validates their contribution through the fact that they hold beliefs that are different than others, which means that someone who disagrees with their beliefs can state why, creating a new conversation.
I think part of the problem is that we as a society have reduced the conversation about whether someone is liberal or conservative to basically whether or not they are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. That reduction pretty much necessitates a visceral reaction in people, which is therefore how they determine their political affiliations. No more higher level thinking needed.
That is a problem. People today are scared, groups that are scared tend to insulate themselves from the thing that is scary to them, so asking a group of people who are literally fearful that what they see as their way of life, health, and safety to "consider a more diverse perspective" and then focus only on the two issues that are causing such a divisive rift in the first place isn't going to do anything but reinforce to people that they're "way is right, dammit."
I'm guilty of it too. I have often said that the death knell of the GOP was when they lost me as a (potential) voter (I was under 18 when I figured a lot of this out). I'm a person with a large interest in small-scale entrepreneurship, who was spoon fed Reaganomics practically from infancy, and grew up in a pretty homogeneous community. However, my political affiliations first began to waver because, as a woman of reproductive age, I absolutely cannot afford to consider voting against my own health interests. I have many other reasons for not voting GOP now, but the initial conversion sprang from pure, unenlightened self-interest.
Yes, I absolutely believe that more politically diverse programming is important to fight against this insularity, however, I quite firmly believe that if we want to open a healthy, productive dialogue across the aisle, we as the "liberal media" need to make overtures to understanding the conservative position that go below the smokescreen of gay rights and abortion. That smokescreen is not conservatism, it's bigotry and it's endlessly frustrating to me that these differences in ideology have become the defining characteristics of someone who is liberal or conservative.
This is a really interesting issue, one that I haven't really thought about before. I mean, I knew that the theatre world skewed liberal, but I never realized the profound impact that this has on the shows we produce. For most, if not all, of the shows I have ever seen or have been a part of, the underlying message has a liberal undertone. I agree with the author in that how this should change. We should have more ideological diversity in the theatrical workplace. However, this is not as easy as just saying it is so. Most people pick their careers based on their internal values, and different career paths have different values attached to them. It would be hard to integrate multiple ideologies in any field, let alone the highly liberal theatre one.
Theater is a very liberal world, and honestly it is what I love about it. I was just yesterday have a discussion about politics with a few of my classmates and we all had the same thoughts and opinions. That is not to say that that is always a good thing, but I do think that the arts, theater in particular has always been a place where there was no opposition to free thinking and where everyone had the same ideas for the progression of the world, and I don't want that the change. I don't want to go see a show and be left feeling uncomfortable, or like the show doesn't reelect the community. So yes diversity is always a good thing but I think with social diversity comes different thoughts about everything and that will start to change the all accepting community we have created. It's a trade off I'm not willing to make.
I haven’t ever really thought about theater in a conservative vs. liberal view like this before, but now that I am, as the writer states, I can’t really think of a well- known show that outwardly shows and supports politically conservative viewpoints. However, I can’t help but think that this might just be because theater isn’t necessarily the first place people look to when they are trying to incite political change. Most of the plays I can think of don’t have some kind of end game of convincing the audience to choose one side on some kind of political issue, but rather, are trying to convey a kind of more personal, heartfelt message about how we live our lives and how we relate to one another. While there are definitely plays that are vehemently liberal in their subject matter, I feel like that’s different from promoting a liberally- minded perspective. For example, I wouldn’t say that RENT was trying to convince people of the viability of the New York City bohemian lifestyle, but rather, to appreciate the value of friendships and relationships and to appreciate one another’s differences and see others complexly, an idea which I don’t feel is explicitly on one side of the political spectrum. On the same note, I don’t think that the orgy scene in Pippin promotes promiscuity. but, rather, is used as a plot point to show Pippin’s ascent into adulthood. Also, I feel like this article could be misleading in that it makes it seem that nothing is problematic in theatrical productions. Of course, there are definitely still plays being produced and written which, for one example, don’t feature women or people of color in a good light; should this be okay if the end game of the show is considered to be liberal? And to be honest, I’m okay with theater being, for the most part, a liberally minded and accepting place, because it’s an art form that is so inherently vulnerable and personal. If extreme conservatives complain that they feel as if they don’t have their place in theater, there are plenty of other places they could go to that would be more “accepting” of their perspectives.
There is a kind of war between presenting challenging work, and being able to reliably draw - not alienate - an audience. Many of the most forward thinking, ideologically-challenging artists in theatre simply are not well-established enough to take that kind of risk - yet. And what kind of incentive do larger, already well regarded institutions have to produce challenging work? They have likely gained their reputation (and funds!) through producing work that pleases the crowd (though not necessarily performing "crowd pleasers"). Having found something that works, why challenge the system at the risk of losing a reliable and steady audience base.
Discomfort is a notion to infrequently explored in theatre today. Audiences tend to be driven by escapist notions, and do not want to be challenged idealistically or moralistically. In challenging some of the most fundamental aspects of an audience member's belief system, a performance can leave them vulnerable. And no one - to the best of my knowledge - seeks out vulnerability.
I agree totally with the notion that the "diversity" we always see in theatre is extremely left leaning. The champions of these plays are almost always relatable to democrats, and for someone who is conservative, that can be very alientanting. Especially because many plays and musicals focus heavily on social issues rather than political or economic.
If this is the reputation of theatre - which it is - why are these plays meant to make an audience uncomfortable that probably isn't there? What I mean is, someone who disagrees with gay marriage probably isn't going to go see a play about a gay couple. So who is this supposed to challenge if everyone in the audience agrees with it? I feel like a lot of theatre can have an element of pandering to its audience. The new movie starring Eddie something about a trans female excited me at first, until the director essentially said "We're doing this because being trans is trendy now." While it's good that issues like this are being explored, how many people are just jumping on the bandwagon? This kind of move trivializes the issues its attempting to represent, in my opinion.
This article was difficult for me to read, because I had to re-evaluate my own feelings and positions. Like many theatre people, I tend to lean more liberal (ok, very liberal, but I try and keep an open mind) and I also feel strongly about the diversity of the theatrical experience. Yet, if I saw a show which went against one of my core moral beliefs, I’m not sure I could be objective enough to appreciate it. Sure, right now I could tell you that inciting anger is another way of causing emotional change, and that is a valuable theatrical tool. But I’m not sure that in the moment I could condone the performance. And I don’t know for sure what I would think in that moment because I’ve not really had that experience yet. Sure, there have been a few shows where I’ve disagreed with the way things are portrayed, but I’ve never found myself in extreme moral opposition to what’s happening. I think this trend of morally complicit theatre is also very interesting, because while the majority of those who work in theatre are liberal, those who watch theatre are heavily divided. The majority of theatrical audiences are either other theatre people (typically liberal) or the Broadway stereotype of an old white couple (where there is a higher chance of non-liberal viewpoints). So then the question is, did theatre become liberal because at some point it’s audience wasn’t? Or has it been liberal all along, it’s just that the idea of liberal has changed. It’s a question I can’t answer, since I’m not well versed enough in historical social conventions, but it is an interesting point. This article has really made me evaluate my views, and I actually hope I can see a play where I’m morally offended at some point in my lifetime, if only for the personal experience.
This article really struck home with me. I am an extremely liberal person who came from a very conservative upbringing. Whenever my family, parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles, come to see my shows they're always confused and have a lot of questions after. There's also always a lot of comments such as "of course you're a little more liberal than we are...you're in theatre." And it's hard to invite them to my shows, especially the ones who are going to bring up hard topics to bring up at the dinner table over Thanksgiving because I know the show is going to make them uncomfortable. This is what really bothers me about Broadway. Nobody ever wants to go to New York and see the really and truly great work because they can just go see fun and happy Mama Mia and nobody will have to see anything that makes them uncomfortable. I think that we as artists who strive to understand all humans on this planet and give something that will mean something should aim to make ourselves as uncomfortable as possible as often as possible and if that means doing plays that oppose our own beliefs, that could be alright. I think it's also worth noting that often conservative theater-goers or theatre artists hide their conservative nature while in the theatre world because they know that their opinion will not be popular.
Post a Comment