Friday, November 03, 2017
Play canceled following student and alumni dissent
brandeishoot.com: “Buyer Beware,” a controversial play set on the Brandeis campus, will not be performed at Brandeis following a “mutual decision” between the Theater Department and the playwright, Michael Weller ’65, according to a statement from the Theater Department.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It’s funny, I was actually just talking to a friend in the Brandies theatre department about this exact thing. She says that it wasn’t really a controversial move in the Theatre Dept. to cancel this work. It was just a couple of key members who wanted it produced, and at the first sign of protest they shut it down. But this article brings up a larger issue in the theatre community of: should we produce racist works under the guise of challenging people’s opinions? And the answer is, in my opinion, that the public has a right to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable. If enough people protest and a show gets shut down, it’s probably for a good reason. And if a show is protested but perseveres anyway, then enough people thought it was worthwhile. Hopefully. And maybe in the end, people will be able to find a way of challenging people’s opinions without being racist. Whether it’s morally right to challenge people’s belief that everyone deserves respect and equality is a different question.
I find this whole situation to be very odd. Especially considering the circumstances of this play and how it was added to the school's season. "Originally planned to take place this semester, “Buyer Beware” bypassed the “play selection committee,” the normal process for adding plays to the line-up. It was later rescheduled to the spring semester, then it was reconstructed as a Spring course, before its cancellation earlier this week." This seems like a fair amount of effort taken to have this show be a part of the school's season. I wonder why it was allowed to bypass? Who is on the play selection committee to begin with? I also find it odder still that this playwright, though the author of this contentious and questionable piece, "will still be honored this spring with the Creative Arts Award to “celebrate his significant body of work, which includes over 40 works for the theater,” according to the statement." That to me seems very odd, and at the worst that this school can make up its mind or take a stand.
Last year in Graduate Colloquium we discussed the ideas of having to work on help create plays that have controversial or dangerous material and how they could be better addressed. Often, we discussed what could be done in particular if there was a piece being produced on campus that was particularly harmful. I appreciate that the membership of the campus was willing to stand up against something that they felt would not be beneficial to the community as a whole. This can be a tough position to be in. Now I don't think that this means that we should never do controversial pieces. But I do think that we need to be more conscious of who we choose to approach said pieces and thoroughly think through the impact that we may have by not only presenting those pieces but by the choices we make in addressing those problems. It seems that maybe this show didn’t have enough though process or tactful approach put into it.
Snowflakes unite. Feelings have been hurt. We must shut it down. Sound familiar? It should. It’s been the mantra recently of people who are easily offended. It’s nice to see that someone who never actually read the script, had a conversation with the department about the reading of the script or having an open dialogue with the many involved decided that this play must not be performed based on what she heard from others. *insert eye roll here*. If we only produced plays that were not seen as controversial, we would never produce plays. Care about the plight of chimney sweeps? Don’t see Mary Poppins. I never agree that a play should be shut down because it is controversial, no, it should be performed or given a staged reading and incorporated with talk backs and dialogue. Society has become too easily offended. Instead of seeing how racism, classism, or sexism develops in the human mind, we rush to censor and shut down plays or books or movies because they offend us. Everything is offensive to someone. Instead of shutting it down, maybe try reading the script and having a conversation. Allow a work to be performed in context and then host a discussion after. It’s time to stop the censorship, time to put away the pitchforks, time to talk and witness and understand that which you may not have before. Censorship doesn’t promote dialogue.
I find the whole situation disconcerting in that the play reportedly was originally scheduled as a course and then somehow “bypassed” the play selection committee and turned into an actual production. Then an alumna who had never read the script led a campaign to protest against putting this play onstage and eventually had it shut down and it would return as a course discussing what happened around this play in the school. The main tick-off point for the students was the content of the play, which is troubling and controversial especially given that it was written by a white male and the protagonist in the play was also a white male. It’s quite hard to wrap one’s brain around this issue without knowing all the details and it’s really odd to think about why the play would bypass the committee and who were the ones that decided to put it onstage. I googled this and found that according to another report, the playwright “dismissed criticism of the work, saying in a WBUR interview that students who objected “just don’t know how to read a play.”
This situation seems a bit complicated and it seems like a bit of the details are missing. It seems as though the school was fine with the show occurring until someone made a stink about it. It's interesting that the show was written to exist in a world where the main character who is allegedly racist goes to school at Brandeis, as it seems that this would make the show more focused on causing a hubbub rather than actually exploring a concept of value. However, I do find it interesting that they attempted to back up why the show shouldn't be allowed by quoting someone who claimed that "white men" shouldn't be allowed to stir the pot, which seems somewhat counterproductive. At the end of the day, it is everyone's responsibility to support positive work, and protest or educate others on how not to support work that could be potentially harmful.
find this interesting on two levels: the elements included in the play itself, as well as the student and alumni influence over the production of this play. The fact that the play is set on the Brandeis campus itself adds both higher stakes to the outcome of this controversy, as well as providing an interesting commentary on the school, its students, and its administration. So too, the racial and racism element is interesting. While it is important to discuss these themes, and contemplate them in art, I do feel that the framing and construction of the play is entirely wrong, unlike my peer above. There is a difference between something being "controversial", and something reinforcing harmful and damaging notions within society.
I am impressed that the student response was legitimized, and that action was taken in the response to the outcry. It is good to see that Brandeis students can actually affect positive change.
My initial thought tends to be that art is meant to provoke conversation, but why cause harm over something there isn't much to learn from? I agree that it seems unfair that one of the people who helped make the decision to shut down the play did not actually read it, but the messages were clear and obviously not going to "promote dialogue" but simply reinforce the straight, white, cis-gender, able-bodied male superiority we all already experience every single day (see: comment above). I do not agree that every play needs to be performed simply because it was written. You can write a play, publish it, tell people to read it, whatever- but actually having it produced is a privilege. If the University decided that the messages were not going to be received well, it is ultimately their decision whether the play goes up or not. I do not see how a talkback is going to right the wrong of presenting BLM as the violent, over-reacting antagonist. We hear this nonsense every day- shouldn't we be pushing opposing dialogue? Could it be that those whose stories are no longer being given priority, AKA the white men of this country still trying to push racist agendas, are the "snowflakes"?
Post a Comment