Token Theatre Friends: “Why have we only been producing dead white men?” That was the question that Mary Candler asked herself one day. Candler runs Hedgepig Ensemble Theatre, a Brooklyn-based company that specializes in classic plays and hiring women and non-binary individuals to star in and direct them. But there was a slight snag in their mission statement: the classical canon is white, male dominated.
3 comments:
This question in the title of this article links to what is talked about in the Howlround article that was posted on here the first week of school about how the perpetuation of Shakespeare as the monolith of theatre is white supremacist. We learn primarily about men, white men, because white men wrote the narrative, are in power, and the deeply rooted white supremacist world we live prioritizes their work, stories, and voices. That prioritization in our education, and the rest of our lives really, translates over into what gets presented on stages. What this topic, and a lot of what comes across my screen from the BLM revolution and the reactions from that movement and political action, has got me thinking about is how we, as individuals and in larger societal or community groups, perhaps need to stop idolizing people – like anyone, but especially the white, cismale individuals that take the majority of center stage. Everyone has their pitfalls, and even if there does exist someone who is the ideal and perfect everything, idolizing and raising that person above everyone else erases other voices that could be mixed into the larger narrative.
Anyway, a part from that train of thought, I think the LRC should look at this initiative Hedgepig has put together, and perhaps CMU should sign on to support this movement.
This is an amazing idea. I love when companies take classic theatre pieces and turn them on their head to create a completely new point of view. It is so important that we recognize how white supremacy has effected every standard in America, including what is considered a "classic" and "high art". I took a class last summer on art history and analysis and we had a long discussion on what gets to be considered "high art". The critics ultimately are, whether they be actual artists or not. They have also historically been white men, which creates a cycle of only art that appeals to them being put in museums by other white men, given high praise again and and again until it is canonized, and leaves no room for non-male, non-white artists to be seen. This is what the Guerrilla Girls actively fought against, and I believe we need a new Guerrilla Girls for theatre as well.
This is such great work being done to expand the historical canon of work that is accessible for people. I think that they’re approaching it in a way that is realistic and accessible for people to use, as well as acknowledging that replacing dead white men with only dead white women is not a viable or satisfying solution to the problems at hand, I think that the discussion of defining what is a reasonable canon for historically examining p-lays of the past too often relies on the idea of “tradition” or “popularity” of a piece as a major defining component and frankly I Think it is doing a disservice to both the audience as well as the future theatre professionals. Diversifying the historical canon of shows will only lead to more compelling work that is accessible to more people instead of being a temple of worship for dead white men. Of course my bias in the situation comes in part from my second major in undergrad being history and my areas of interest were history of those who are not represented a “mainstream” history. I’m in full support of striving for better and more compelling stories to be shared more regularly in the theatre community and agree that we don’t need to limit ourselves to strictly modern work to do so. I also love that a long term goal of the company is to be able to commission translations of plays, that sounds great!
Post a Comment