AMERICAN THEATRE: During a disastrous dinner party near the end of Ayad Akhtar’s Disgraced, a Pakistani-American lawyer who was raised Muslim learns that a younger protégé, who is African American, is being promoted over him. More bad news follows: Partners in his law firm believe he is anti-Semitic; he is no longer being assigned important cases; and his wife, who is white, has slept with the Whitney Museum curator, who is Jewish, whom they have just entertained. This disturbing confluence marks neither his nadir nor the play’s emotional climax. That occurs seconds later when, as Akhtar’s stage direction reads: “Amir hits Emily in the face. A vicious blow. The first blow unleashes a torrent of rage, overtaking him. He hits her twice more. Maybe a third.”
5 comments:
Structural violence or cultural violence is what all other violence seems to stem from. I think many plays use structural violence as their main focus mostly because it is so rampant in society across all times and cultures and can be found pretty much anywhere. I think the distinction between structural violence and actual physical violence was interesting and especially important for theatrical purposes, because structural violence can explain and greatly define the physical violence necessary for the play's themes to be conveyed, as in the example given ("Disgraced"). Structural violence is in some ways more insidious, because it is the root of so much physical violence but can take a while to trace back, as subtle bigotry and discrimination can inundate any culture. From an audience perspective, I personally think structural violence is more interesting to watch played out on stage because it can make us look on our own actions and the world around us to see if we sometimes participate in the same corrupt system without realizing it.
Violence on the stage is a topic that is strange to consider, given the context of what theatre asks people to do. Theatre commonly is a give and take between the actors and the audience, and in the cases in which actors commit violent acts against another character, the audience is forced to react, typically with gasps. In Disgraced, one can only imagine the horror they would feel when watching a character they followed and rooted for beat another character in a fit of rage. The reaction must have been a visceral one, as the article states that the play is slated to be one of the most-produced in the country in the upcoming year. Other plays cited, such as Danny and the Deep Blue Sea, also handle violence in such a way that the audience is simultaneously meant to feel sympathetic that characters are pushed to that point and mortified that someone would do such a thing to a fellow human. Characters are hard to play, but the hardest part is facing the parts of characters that are true to ourselves.
I find violence in plays so interesting because it draws to the forefront that which we typically wish to ignore or look away from, but sitting in an audience seat, you cannot look away from the violence in front of you. You are forced to face violence that some people face in everyday life. I think though, that this article points to an interesting misuse of the term domestic violence, which the author dubs as “masked, indirect, and systemic” and often caused by those who do not mean to harm. That is not how I traditionally think of domestic violence. I think more of domestic violence as what the author refers to as “cultural violence”, which is the legitimization of violence because of social inequalities or beliefs.
I do think that when using violence in the context of a show, it is important to determine what type of violence you are using to solidify the tactic that the actors should be using and to pinpoint exactly what message the piece is trying to get across. There should be no violence for the sake of violence, but rather violence to make a point.
I read “Disgraced” this past spring and the climatic moment of violence is an extremely important part of the play. It is also very important that this action takes place on stage in real time, rather than off, as the article mentions. Because you are in that moment with the characters, you experience both the immediate reaction—the shock—and the following contemplation, how your views of the characters have changed and what this means for their relationship with each other and their coworkers/friends. It is to experience both of these “moments” that I think conveys what Akhtar is aiming to accomplish. He is making the audience do some work, in a sense. This is also true for “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” The high tension moments between George and Martha and the comedic breaks mixed throughout force you into an almost pendulum motion, keeping you on your feet and guessing, for much of the play not sure how, or if, and even who you should be sympathizing with onstage. The article’s analysis of structural, cultural, and systemic violence as portrayed in theatre is also very interesting. Theatre deals with conflict, but conflict comes in many forms.
Violence, is and has always been the way opressed groups, fight back, sans recent civil disobedience. It is a knee jerk reaction, that people, rightfully angry about their status and their opression fight the majority, or those imposing their will on them. And it is interesting to me, the way this article highlighted how violence in an immediate way is caused by a greater violence and injustice as a whole. In these plays, it is a way to way to narratively show the hurt and anger within the groups, and the opression impeded upon them.
However, when the article talks about the use of domestic violence as a joke, no, it is no longer funny. ANd I'm glad we've come to that agreement in our society where, Punch and Judy represent the past, and we no longer laugh at Alice being threatened to go over the moon. I find that comforting that domestic violence has come from common place, if not encouraged, to despicable.
Post a Comment