Dawn Foster | Global | The Guardian: At the Almeida Theatre in Islington, north London, last week, I had the rare opportunity to see a play that focused on a society that is rarely portrayed in high culture and is, in fact, more likely to be a subject of ridicule in lowbrow, sneering, reality TV shows. Boy, a new play by Leo Butler, follows Liam, a 17-year-old Neet (not in education, employment or training) for 24 hours as he wanders the capital, trying to find friends, connect with a family who have given up on him and with community services that communicate so differently from the way Liam does, it seems like they are speaking another language.
4 comments:
Something that I believe in fairly adamantly is that art is an essential part of moderating and dealing with suffering, pain, and heartbreak. Art, at it’s core, is meant to stimulate an emotional response in someone, and when people are in more dire situations there tend to be either more emotions or ones rooted in more substantial issues. Some very good examples of this can be seen in music with the evolution of blues, jazz and rap, or with television and film where some deeper drama is often rooted in poverty, disease, or war. The problem with that is that in order to create a work of art that is resourced enough to make a significant statement (at least in a traditional way), you almost have to be living in a world where many of these factors are not applicable to your life.
I feel as if this country is trying to sweep under the rug the fact that certain groups of people are extremely advantaged over others because of the legacy of the sins of our past. But that legacy not only feeds into the issues of equality we face as a nation, it is one of the primary root causes, and because of that I don’t think its right to look at the issues we are facing today (some of which are identical to the issues we faced during the civil rights movement) without considering how they came about, namely what I referred to the sins of the past, slavery, segregation, lack of equal rights, etc. (some of those issues aren’t in the past at all I might add).
But getting to the point, those issues are not only important to discuss, but are incredibly moving and powerful as stories. They’re also something that simply can’t be portrayed by a middle class white family. If for no other reason, even removing the politics out of the equation, wouldn’t it be more interesting if we had a more diverse base for artwork than what we have now? Why do we still need to try so hard to give a voice to those who have something interesting and relevant to say?
I think representation in the media is important for two main reasons. The first is that it is important for people to be able to see themselves portrayed in their culture, as this article discusses. However, I think there is a second important result of representation that is often ignored. It is important for people who are not part of a minority group, and potentially might have never met/ gotten to know people in that minority group to see a variety of representations of people in that group, represented in a complex and realistic way. Otherwise all people have to go off of in terms of their perception of groups they have little exposure to is stereotypes and generalizations. Boy is an important play not only because it allows people with similar stories to Liam to see themselves represented, but it also allows people who have very different lives to gain a better understanding of a world and perspective they otherwise wouldn’t consider.
I think the most chilling part of this article is the last few sentences:
"Politicians and playwrights voice concern that theatre-goers are almost exclusively middle-class and middle-aged, hence the introduction of cheaper tickets for younger people and of outreach programmes: but if the only lives depicted mirror those of the more affluent, the cycle will persist. Cuts to the arts of £236m since 2010 diminish access to creative jobs for people from under-represented backgrounds, and low pay forces out young people who do not have independent wealth."
This is why the current trend of introducing more diverse plays is almost moot - the vast majority of people who go to see Hamilton are white and old. Because they are the only people who can afford to see the show! We always talk about how television and movies are destroying theater and my question is: why are you surprised? Television and movies, while not considered as "high brow" as live theater, are infinitely more accessible to those who need more access to the arts. What teenager can afford to spend 1,000 dollars on a ticket to see a show in New York City, the most expensive place ever??
Again, back to my theme of classism and elitism in theater. People always talk about how open and inviting and diverse theater is, yet the only people who consistently consume it are the richest people who can afford it. As theater becomes more commercial and we become obsessed with theater being a spectacle, prices rise. More white old subscribers get to see shows and don't understand it. Less of the people the shows are meant for get access. The cycle continues. Eventually, theater dies.
Art means nothing if there is no one to see it. Art aimed at making minorities and young people feel more included and hopeful mean absolutely nothing if they cannot afford to see it. The future of art means nothing if we can't teach the next generation these things!
I think theater is an important gathering place to spark discussions and ideas within a community, therefore this notion that theater is exclusively for the culturally elite (a.k.a. the wealthy) is a huge problem for me. I think part of the reason why a lot of theater audiences are white, upper and middle class people is that they are the ones whose stories are being told onstage. It is important for minority groups to be represented on our stages just as much as it is for they to be portrayed on our TV screens. Not only to reach new audiences, but if all our theater audiences ever seen are their own issues being reflected back at them, that will give them an inflated sense of the importance of these issues in the larger scope of things. I agree with this author that theater has a responsibility to comment of our society and bring to the table difficult issues for discussion.
Post a Comment