HowlRound: Jaclyn Backhaus' Men On Boats delves into the dynamics of ten explorers on the first expedition (of white men) down the Colorado River to a “big” canyon. Raised in Arizona, Backhaus had heard about the journey during her childhood and wanted to adapt it for the stage. In the process she realized that she was interested in the story in part because she felt that she would never play the part of a nineteenth-century explorer—and that writing it was her way of vicariously living their adventure.
7 comments:
I have mixed feelings about a production like this. On one hand, I think that the statement being made about women’s role in history and society (and society today) is an incredibly important statement to be making. It’s supremely stupid for culture to disenfranchise entire groups of people based on gender, or race, or sexual identity or preference. And that’s not because we’re all the same, we’re not all the same and that’s the point. Different perspectives on issues is an awesome thing because it gives us a more whole understanding of the issues we want to tackle. So I applaud the direction that this production steers the conversation about the role of various types of people in society and how traditional views on X might not be fair to Y and the result is that everyone loses (except white men). But at the same time, as a person (and yeah, I’m a white man) who believes in contributing to that conversation so that the entirety of humanity can benefit, I probably wouldn’t want to go see this show. I haven’t seen it, so I can’t say that it isn’t good, or even that I don’t think I’d enjoy it, it’s just that I prefer a more nuanced way of injecting the argument that is so clear in this production into a show. I feel like this production has the potential to alienate all the people who would say “but what about the history?! It didn’t happen that way and we should be true to the history!”. And yeah, while this production entirely about the history and makes that clear, I don’t think you’re going to sell that idea on most people who would respond negatively based on historical merit. And it’s just those people who we need to get on board the “let’s treat everyone as if they’re a person, because they are” train of thought. But that’s just me, and I certainly don’t see harm in putting this production out there.
I saw this production of Men on Boats this past summer at Playwright’s Horizons and absolutely loved it! I agree with the writer in that even though I was very much aware of the all-female cast, it didn’t distract me from the plot points at all; if anything, it enhanced them and allowed me to see the expedition’s struggles from a newfound perspective. The casting choice also allowed the audience insight into the inherent comedy of this band of characters going on an exploration they are entirely unprepared for. Also, in general, it is very refreshing and heartwarming to see a stage filled with women, and women only. I can see how some people would be worried that “a show like this” would only garner an audience that would normally want to see “a show like this” (people who are already invested in women’s rights/ feminism). However, my friend who worked front of house for this production told me that a man said to her before entering the theater, “I can’t wait to see a show like this, about when men were men! You don’t see enough of that anymore!”, unaware of the comedically unorthodox casting. Not saying that we should “trick” people into seeing shows they wouldn’t normally agree with, but I think there is something to be said about the importance of flipping people’s expectations.
As the saying goes, “The winners write the history books.” And for so much of history the winners have been cis-gender, white men. So much of our history is from the perspective of a very small, privileged group of our population, whether we realize it or not. This reinforces the idea for those men that the way they see the world is simply how the world is. That’s why I think that plays like this one and Hamilton, that allow minorities to reclaim history for themselves and for children that look and think like them are so powerful. Especially in a time of political and social unrest like that which is happening in our country right now, the importance of looking back to history and learning from the mistakes of the past cannot be stressed enough. But it is hard to want to learn from a history that doesn’t represent you in any way. But theatre can reach out to people and give them a way into the past that is inclusive and does acknowledge them.
Hello, it's me, Cassidy, here to talk about women in comedy, my favorite and most frustrating topic of all.
This play sounds very cool, I don't know if this or Hamilton came first but this new """trend""" of white men being played by literally anyone besides a white man is cool, because guess what, sometimes historical accuracy just doesn't have a place in theatre. But I find something very empowering in a feminist play with no female characters. For hundreds of years, women were played by men because women were not allowed to act in theatrical productions. How messed up is that!! I have been on a huge "how dare anyone ever ever ever tell me what I can and cannot do" libertarian bender, so the idea that some asshole could prance his way into history and say "hey ladies, you're not allowed to dress up in stupid costumes and recite other people's words, sorry!" is incredible to me. Turning that on its head is awesome in that respect.
Something else I found interesting about this play was that it is almost implied in the interview that this play is still funny DESPITE the fact that no men are present. Guess what, I know an ass-load of guys who think they are funny, and SCREAM their jokes over the funnier jokes being told by the women around them. To imply a show cannot be funny if a man is not on stage should be a capital crime. Men have always been given an edge in the comedic game because almost all comedy and comedic genres are defined by men - women and men both are programmed to understand the cultural cues and jokes of the male brain. All humor is told through the lens of a man, whether we like it or not. Thats why people think men are funnier. To see that being broken is awesome. Women are funny as hell.
I wish I could have seen this--it both sounds like a fantastic concept for a play but also as a production, with the racially and gender-bent cast. I have never seen (or even heard of) a play based upon the history of American explorers, and I think theatre is a fantastic place to discuss that era in history, especially since the role of explorers in American history is incredibly controversial and isn't talked about as much as it should be. I also really like the shift in gender bent or racially bent casts for controversial topics--Hamilton did it, the Public in New York did an all female version of The Taming of the Shrew, and many, many others. I think its a great way for the show to really make a mark and leave a message to the audience on the impact of this historical event, or in the case of Shrew, the context and the issues with the show itself, and Shakespeare himself.
I love this quote: “theatre tells a story, it doesn’t re-enact it.” I think this is an incredible quote which needs to be considered by theatre producers, designers, directors, actors, audience members, etc because this is how were are going to reach some of the diversity standards which the general public have begun to pressure the larger scale theatre to have. I honestly have no idea what I would think of this play because I will personally have trouble at times not seeing race or not seeing gender on stage. Now, I wonder how this perspective might change if it is the intention of the book for the actors to be as far opposite from the characters in the script as possible. I can see how this production could work, but it is one of those which I would have to see the production to really secure in my mind that it could/does work.
I think this author starts off with a great point: that theatre tells stories, rather than re-enacting them. I think this is crucial in understanding how theater functions. Whenever recounting something from the past, a storyteller has some form of an agenda which affects the focus of the story. Sometimes it’s to make a certain point, or it’s merely to make the story more interesting (e.g. “the fish was THIS BIG!”). This involves the means just as much as it does the story itself, and casting can definitely impact how a story is received. The non-traditional approach of this play could likely make it more interesting, just to start, and also offers a sort of woven-in commentary on history and how history is re-told. As playwright Backhaus’ points out, intentionally-diverse casting of plays such as ‘Men on Boats’ and ‘Hamilton’ can only go as far as the white-history stories they are telling, and it would be interesting to see if the success of these productions might lead to a widening in scope of the historic stories we are telling. I think there is an influence of people being interesting in seeing stories they barely remember from high school History being retold in evocative and interesting ways. That said, people are drawn towards new stories, and so if we can produce work that tells important but little-known histories, I think we’d be making progress in diversifying the mainstream historical knowledge.
Post a Comment