Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, September 13, 2019
We Have Suffered Enough
HowlRound Theatre Commons: Since the beginning of my career in the American regional theatre, I have been embodying roles from what the West considers “classical” plays. Beloved female characters have, through my body, been verbally, mentally, and sexually abused; mutilated, murdered, and exiled. I can count on one hand the times my characters weren’t harmed.
You never really stop to think about how women (and in this article, specifically women of color) are represented in theatre- people tend to focus on if women/WOC are present at all. This article brought to light the psychological impacts of living out trauma night after night, repetition until the end of the run, and that audiences, playwrights, and directors seem passive about and, often, intent on, putting the suffering of WOC on stage. Is it the playwright’s responsibility to include less dark representation of women, the director’s responsibility to facilitate the conversations surrounding a traumatic moment, interaction, or the power balance present in the play being put on? Or is the problem with the audiences and reviewers, who don’t seem to accept any other position for women of color besides being traumatized and ostracized? I am hesitant to put my opinion out into the world, because I have no experience with the everyday bias and racism that women of color have to engage with, but this article has certainly sparked the conversation in this subject for me.
This article made me really go back and think about how weird acting really is. I don't mean weird as in the fact that sometimes you have to make weird sounds or perform abnormal movements. I mean that, from our body's perspective, it is weird. Melisa's final paragraph beautifully detaches her characters' experiences from her own, even though she had to pull from her own personal pain in order to portray them. Her closing point about how our bodies do not know we are acting made me think of a moment from a rehearsal I had. I was working one-on-one with my acting teacher on "I Dreamed a Dream". That moment in Fantine's life follows the biggest trauma she has ever experienced, and in order for me to express that pain, my teacher was helping me find my own trauma. She was very respectful in helping me navigate my own painful experiences, and the exercises we did certainly allowed me to be emotionally vulnerable, but I can't help but think about what my body must have been thinking (if that makes sense). Usually, if I'm trying to cope with something, those around me do whatever they can to help ease my pain in healthy ways. Yet, in the nature of theatre, my teacher was basically doing the opposite. She was helping me bring that trauma to the forefront of my presence. And, to my body, that is weird. I could talk so much on the other points that Melisa made throughout this article. I am a white female, so there are points in this article that I cannot directly relate to. However, my ratio of characters I've played who have been harmed to those who have not is not that different from hers. What makes that presence of trauma so unsettling is the placement of that trauma in their identity; for many female characters, trauma is placed at the root. That said, a shift in the way women are portrayed in theatre is well overdue.
This article is an honest piece and it resonated with me as an immigrant and black woman in today's society. I felt this so deeply my entire body had a reaction while reading it, I wasn't aware of this reaction until I finished reading. This article is focused on solely based on the experiences of a woman of color acting in the theater world but this goes beyond just theater, it extends to film and TV. I once heard a friend of mine say that she was tired of seeing slave movies and why are those the only ones that black people get Oscar nominations for and to be honest I had no good argument for it back then and even now I still don't. "Why do women of color gain space in someone’s consciousness only when we show them the depth of our suffering?" We get a pat on the back for a job well done or in our world an award nomination. The representation of women of color in a non-violent way on stage, movies and TV show needs to be worked on and improved. Like the author said in her last paragraph of this article women of color are more than their trauma.
In theatre and film, there is a fine line between accurately depicting the pain of women (especially women of color) and grotesquely portraying violence that doesn't add to the story. Recently, I've been thinking about why the public enjoys seeing trauma. This may sound far fetched, but it's true. As Melissa points out, shows get poor reviews when there's no suffering on the part of women, and I've never seen this happen with male characters. Men and (often) white women are not forced to show their trauma on the stage pr screen like women of color are. For whatever reason, the public enjoys what many call "trauma porn." But not just by anyone. White (especially male) audiences want to see women (of color) suffer. Characters like Medea are popular in theatre, not because of the depth of her story and definitely not because women relate to them. No, characters like Medea, Fantine, Celie, and so many more are attractive to audiences for their trauma. And majority white audiences may pat themselves on the back for enjoying these stories, thinking these are "strong female characters," but we really need to look at why we truly like to watch people suffer. This is not to say these stories are never meaningful or important, I think they are. But, we, as an industry, need to reflect on why we cannot enjoy shows unless we see people in pain.
This article brings up a lot of good points that I have never really considered. When I have seen depictions of trauma like this on stage, I have generally thought “I am glad those stories are being told on stage.” It always seemed like a beneficial transition in American theater. But I guess it is more nuanced than that. It is more than just the representation onstage that that represents. It is about the way in which people are being represented that is so important to get right. Now granted, I think it would be a shame for stories like this to be completely abandoned onstage, but it is essential that they are not the only way in which women of color and other minorities are shown in plays. I am not sure where the root of this problem lies (except of course the systemic problems that our society has cultivated for so long). I suppose it is on the theaters and artistic directors of our world that are choosing the shows that get put up on our stages. Representation is important, but equitable representation is more important.
The entire time I was reading this article, I could not look away from the story Melisa Pereyra was telling. I rarely see the stories of triumph women, particularly women of color, achieve in their lives on stage. I do think it's important to educate people on the hardships all people of color have gone through throughout history as well as are still going through in their daily lives, but at the same time, I think that it is equally as important to tell the stories of the joyful moments people of color experience. As a woman of color myself, I truly appreciate that the stories of the hardships my family has gone through are being told, but the fact that many critics believe a play is not "as good as it 'could' be" because it shows the good lives of women as opposed to the verbal, physical, and mental abuse we go through simply rubs me the wrong way. The struggles my mother's family went to leave Mexico and move to America to make better lives for themselves is not something I feel should not be used simply for entertainment. The hardships my father's family went through for being African Americans facing racism in America every day should not be used simply for entertainment. I believe that while seeing a well-performed production of the lives of women, as well as all people of color, can and definitely should be an enjoyable experience, but it should also be used to spread light on the struggles people go through daily. With that in mind, saying that a play about a love story in Syria misrepresented Syria by leaving out things like honor killings and other hardships Syrians struggle with truly upsets me. I truly appreciate any production that is able to capture the joyful moments in the lives of women of color instead of just focusing on the negatives.
I am always both happy and sad to see that these types of conversations are happening in the theatre world. One one hand, it means we have gotten past the "are women present at all" conversation, which often lacks any deeper form of understanding or attention to what the women are actually doing rather than just adding them as some form of quota. On the other hand, it reminds me that the theatre industry still has a long way to go in terms of how women are both present and portrayed. It, to me, seems like adding women to a design team but still having that team dominated and run by the male voices in the room, essentially making it as if the women are not included at all. I think one of the later points, about audiences expecting and even wanting to see the female struggle depicted onstage is a very interesting one, and I hope that the industry find a way, as a whole, to continue to make amazing theatre without this kind of exploitation.
Before reading Melisa's story I can honestly say I had never considered the depth to which having to portray traumatic female roles could change you. Had I noticed the pattern of women overcoming male violence? Of course. Any reader of theatre recognizes this theme is so many of the "great works" of our time. Women were oppressed for much of history and thus are represented by suffering characters. The physical repercussions of playing such roles for actors like Quiara Alegría Hudes and Melisa Pereyra shocked me even though it really shouldn't have. I can't say that I can define acting but the definition I had in my mind was not of an art form that could hurt the bodies and souls of its participants. The depth to which living a character's reality can shake and torment these women really brings up the question of when the theatre industry will follow the stories of non-violent resilience that Melisa is advocating for. Personally, I feel that this issue is not talked about it enough from the sheer fact that it's an issue I had never considered. The emotional and physical toll that playing these roles has on female actors, specifically of color, should not continue. Displaying someone's suffering should not become your suffering.
I think this is really interesting, and not attempting to undermine the WOC discussion I must say I don’t think its necessarily related to skin color, but just the fact that it’s a woman. I have worked theatre in Puerto Rico where every woman is a woman of color, some lighter/darker than others, but all are women of color. Yet the same thing happened, the most glorified performances or stories were the ones in which women were abused, harassed, and traumatized. I think there is a certain level of sadism in theatre spectators, that allows for writers to keep writing the same type of stories and for the stories to keep selling. Additionally, as woman, I must say I am tired of female characters being respected because of all they’ve been through, instead of being respected just because they’re part of the story. Contrary to Male characters, women have to prove they’re strong enough, resilient enough.
I am so happy that these conversations are taking place but am simultaneously disheartened that they must. For women - and women of colour especially - we are more than our trauma. I think many pieces of “traditional” work (i.e., Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, many works of Shakespeare’s, etc.) often feature women as easy vehicles for trauma; characters who serve no other purpose than to propel the storyline with trauma bequeathed unto them - either within the story or on its periphery - or as an object to be ostracised. Part of the problem is assuredly the script. After all, how far can a creative team really stray from the original story before one piece becomes entirely different? Especially given the fact that most women of colour endure everyday racism and other traumas, I think it is both the job of the director to be cognisant of this but also the job of the audience to begin thinking in other terms. As an audience is predisposed to a certain kind of thinking in various contexts, we must also be aware of our thoughts and their impact.
10 comments:
You never really stop to think about how women (and in this article, specifically women of color) are represented in theatre- people tend to focus on if women/WOC are present at all. This article brought to light the psychological impacts of living out trauma night after night, repetition until the end of the run, and that audiences, playwrights, and directors seem passive about and, often, intent on, putting the suffering of WOC on stage. Is it the playwright’s responsibility to include less dark representation of women, the director’s responsibility to facilitate the conversations surrounding a traumatic moment, interaction, or the power balance present in the play being put on? Or is the problem with the audiences and reviewers, who don’t seem to accept any other position for women of color besides being traumatized and ostracized? I am hesitant to put my opinion out into the world, because I have no experience with the everyday bias and racism that women of color have to engage with, but this article has certainly sparked the conversation in this subject for me.
This article made me really go back and think about how weird acting really is. I don't mean weird as in the fact that sometimes you have to make weird sounds or perform abnormal movements. I mean that, from our body's perspective, it is weird. Melisa's final paragraph beautifully detaches her characters' experiences from her own, even though she had to pull from her own personal pain in order to portray them. Her closing point about how our bodies do not know we are acting made me think of a moment from a rehearsal I had. I was working one-on-one with my acting teacher on "I Dreamed a Dream". That moment in Fantine's life follows the biggest trauma she has ever experienced, and in order for me to express that pain, my teacher was helping me find my own trauma. She was very respectful in helping me navigate my own painful experiences, and the exercises we did certainly allowed me to be emotionally vulnerable, but I can't help but think about what my body must have been thinking (if that makes sense). Usually, if I'm trying to cope with something, those around me do whatever they can to help ease my pain in healthy ways. Yet, in the nature of theatre, my teacher was basically doing the opposite. She was helping me bring that trauma to the forefront of my presence. And, to my body, that is weird.
I could talk so much on the other points that Melisa made throughout this article. I am a white female, so there are points in this article that I cannot directly relate to. However, my ratio of characters I've played who have been harmed to those who have not is not that different from hers. What makes that presence of trauma so unsettling is the placement of that trauma in their identity; for many female characters, trauma is placed at the root. That said, a shift in the way women are portrayed in theatre is well overdue.
This article is an honest piece and it resonated with me as an immigrant and black woman in today's society. I felt this so deeply my entire body had a reaction while reading it, I wasn't aware of this reaction until I finished reading. This article is focused on solely based on the experiences of a woman of color acting in the theater world but this goes beyond just theater, it extends to film and TV. I once heard a friend of mine say that she was tired of seeing slave movies and why are those the only ones that black people get Oscar nominations for and to be honest I had no good argument for it back then and even now I still don't. "Why do women of color gain space in someone’s consciousness only when we show them the depth of our suffering?" We get a pat on the back for a job well done or in our world an award nomination. The representation of women of color in a non-violent way on stage, movies and TV show needs to be worked on and improved. Like the author said in her last paragraph of this article women of color are more than their trauma.
In theatre and film, there is a fine line between accurately depicting the pain of women (especially women of color) and grotesquely portraying violence that doesn't add to the story. Recently, I've been thinking about why the public enjoys seeing trauma. This may sound far fetched, but it's true. As Melissa points out, shows get poor reviews when there's no suffering on the part of women, and I've never seen this happen with male characters. Men and (often) white women are not forced to show their trauma on the stage pr screen like women of color are. For whatever reason, the public enjoys what many call "trauma porn." But not just by anyone. White (especially male) audiences want to see women (of color) suffer. Characters like Medea are popular in theatre, not because of the depth of her story and definitely not because women relate to them. No, characters like Medea, Fantine, Celie, and so many more are attractive to audiences for their trauma. And majority white audiences may pat themselves on the back for enjoying these stories, thinking these are "strong female characters," but we really need to look at why we truly like to watch people suffer. This is not to say these stories are never meaningful or important, I think they are. But, we, as an industry, need to reflect on why we cannot enjoy shows unless we see people in pain.
This article brings up a lot of good points that I have never really considered. When I have seen depictions of trauma like this on stage, I have generally thought “I am glad those stories are being told on stage.” It always seemed like a beneficial transition in American theater. But I guess it is more nuanced than that. It is more than just the representation onstage that that represents. It is about the way in which people are being represented that is so important to get right. Now granted, I think it would be a shame for stories like this to be completely abandoned onstage, but it is essential that they are not the only way in which women of color and other minorities are shown in plays. I am not sure where the root of this problem lies (except of course the systemic problems that our society has cultivated for so long). I suppose it is on the theaters and artistic directors of our world that are choosing the shows that get put up on our stages. Representation is important, but equitable representation is more important.
The entire time I was reading this article, I could not look away from the story Melisa Pereyra was telling. I rarely see the stories of triumph women, particularly women of color, achieve in their lives on stage. I do think it's important to educate people on the hardships all people of color have gone through throughout history as well as are still going through in their daily lives, but at the same time, I think that it is equally as important to tell the stories of the joyful moments people of color experience. As a woman of color myself, I truly appreciate that the stories of the hardships my family has gone through are being told, but the fact that many critics believe a play is not "as good as it 'could' be" because it shows the good lives of women as opposed to the verbal, physical, and mental abuse we go through simply rubs me the wrong way. The struggles my mother's family went to leave Mexico and move to America to make better lives for themselves is not something I feel should not be used simply for entertainment. The hardships my father's family went through for being African Americans facing racism in America every day should not be used simply for entertainment. I believe that while seeing a well-performed production of the lives of women, as well as all people of color, can and definitely should be an enjoyable experience, but it should also be used to spread light on the struggles people go through daily. With that in mind, saying that a play about a love story in Syria misrepresented Syria by leaving out things like honor killings and other hardships Syrians struggle with truly upsets me. I truly appreciate any production that is able to capture the joyful moments in the lives of women of color instead of just focusing on the negatives.
I am always both happy and sad to see that these types of conversations are happening in the theatre world. One one hand, it means we have gotten past the "are women present at all" conversation, which often lacks any deeper form of understanding or attention to what the women are actually doing rather than just adding them as some form of quota. On the other hand, it reminds me that the theatre industry still has a long way to go in terms of how women are both present and portrayed. It, to me, seems like adding women to a design team but still having that team dominated and run by the male voices in the room, essentially making it as if the women are not included at all. I think one of the later points, about audiences expecting and even wanting to see the female struggle depicted onstage is a very interesting one, and I hope that the industry find a way, as a whole, to continue to make amazing theatre without this kind of exploitation.
Before reading Melisa's story I can honestly say I had never considered the depth to which having to portray traumatic female roles could change you. Had I noticed the pattern of women overcoming male violence? Of course. Any reader of theatre recognizes this theme is so many of the "great works" of our time. Women were oppressed for much of history and thus are represented by suffering characters. The physical repercussions of playing such roles for actors like Quiara Alegría Hudes and Melisa Pereyra shocked me even though it really shouldn't have. I can't say that I can define acting but the definition I had in my mind was not of an art form that could hurt the bodies and souls of its participants. The depth to which living a character's reality can shake and torment these women really brings up the question of when the theatre industry will follow the stories of non-violent resilience that Melisa is advocating for. Personally, I feel that this issue is not talked about it enough from the sheer fact that it's an issue I had never considered. The emotional and physical toll that playing these roles has on female actors, specifically of color, should not continue. Displaying someone's suffering should not become your suffering.
I think this is really interesting, and not attempting to undermine the WOC discussion I must say I don’t think its necessarily related to skin color, but just the fact that it’s a woman. I have worked theatre in Puerto Rico where every woman is a woman of color, some lighter/darker than others, but all are women of color. Yet the same thing happened, the most glorified performances or stories were the ones in which women were abused, harassed, and traumatized. I think there is a certain level of sadism in theatre spectators, that allows for writers to keep writing the same type of stories and for the stories to keep selling. Additionally, as woman, I must say I am tired of female characters being respected because of all they’ve been through, instead of being respected just because they’re part of the story. Contrary to Male characters, women have to prove they’re strong enough, resilient enough.
I am so happy that these conversations are taking place but am simultaneously disheartened that they must. For women - and women of colour especially - we are more than our trauma. I think many pieces of “traditional” work (i.e., Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, many works of Shakespeare’s, etc.) often feature women as easy vehicles for trauma; characters who serve no other purpose than to propel the storyline with trauma bequeathed unto them - either within the story or on its periphery - or as an object to be ostracised. Part of the problem is assuredly the script. After all, how far can a creative team really stray from the original story before one piece becomes entirely different? Especially given the fact that most women of colour endure everyday racism and other traumas, I think it is both the job of the director to be cognisant of this but also the job of the audience to begin thinking in other terms. As an audience is predisposed to a certain kind of thinking in various contexts, we must also be aware of our thoughts and their impact.
Post a Comment