The Stage: Ubu Bake Off gives voice to theatre’s anti-Trump insurgents

February 23rd, 2018 § 0 comments § permalink

At The Playwrights Center Ubu Bake-Off, Paula Vogel and Jeremy B. Cohen (Photo by Whitney Rowland)

Four days ago, the US theatre community fostered the birth of more than 100 new short plays, on our federal holiday of Presidents’ Day. These were not, however, created in a spontaneous outpouring of national pride, but rather a coordinated – if entirely voluntary – effort that specifically sought to conflate the current presidency with Alfred Jarry’s absurdist and profane play Ubu Roi.

Held at nearly two dozen theatres and theatre-related organisations, the Ubu Bake Off was the brainchild of award-winning playwright Paula Vogel, who, please pardon the expression, cooked up the idea while musing on Facebook just five weeks ago. The interest from her Facebook friends and acolytes was immediate.

The Ubu Bake Off followed guidelines Vogel has previously used in her teaching career. It was an exercise designed to prompt people to quick, instinctive creativity, helped along by a 48-hour writing time limit, coupled with a five-page limit. Vogel also provides a set of ingredients, so that the resultant playlets are all variations on a theme.

For Monday, the ingredients included Pa Ubu 45 (supposedly 6ft 3ins, a trim 239 lbs, in “excellent health”, and, yes, the hair is his and real), angry ambassadors from every country that Pa Ubu has insulted, a strange use of the English language that sounds like it is supposed to be English (ie, words for ‘shit’ are prolonged like ‘pshitte’), covfefe, and a double-triple-quadruple-octahedral cheeseburger with special sauce.

Among the companies that participated were the Vineyard Theatre (a creative home for Vogel) and the New Ohio Theatre in New York; the Playwrights’ Center in Minneapolis (which Vogel attended), Victory Gardens Theatre in Chicago and Crowded Fire Theatre Company and Antaeus Theatre in California. I even got into the act, hosting a small group under the auspices of my day job at the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society.

This decentralised, far-flung realisation of Vogel’s idea means that no one person saw, or even read, all of the one-act plays that emerged. Almost like carefully organised insurgent cells, each location, each playwright, was part of a larger whole, carrying out their own missions, not knowing what else might be happening for the benefit of the cause elsewhere. Yet, at the same time, we were secure in the knowledge that other partisans were fighting the good fight in the same manner at the same time.

In my little troupe, we read nine plays over two hours, with playwrights and actors joining to give voice to the texts brought into the room, none adjudicated in any way. The Playwrights’ Center deployed eight actors to read all of the plays – in this instance, an astounding 41 plays by 44 playwrights in an event that lasted more than five hours. No doubt the solutions were as varied as the locales.

Based on the circle at my office, and the plays read, the Bake Off inspired instant camaraderie (I had previously met only one of the participants). It was great fun, in the name of expressing frustrations with our present leadership, while concurrently paying homage to a literary classic. The low-pressure, everyone-is-welcome spirit also stripped away any sense of theatrical hierarchy or critical judgement. It even freed me to try my hand at playwriting for the first time in about 40 years.

But perhaps most importantly, Vogel’s inspiration and recipe yielded a great deal of work in a very short time, demonstrating that her educational tool offers a significant opportunity for involving many voices on the same subject.

Without the demands of rehearsal, staging, ticket sales and fundraising, Vogel’s Ubu Bake Off stripped theatre to its most rudimentary essentials, yielding experiences that were, if my own metaphorical kitchen was at all representative, unifying and cathartic. It certainly provides a model for rapid-response theatre applicable to almost any topic. I suspect we have more national Bake Offs in our future.

The Stage: How should theatre combat discriminatory laws?

April 8th, 2016 § 0 comments § permalink

Priscilla Lopez in Pippin (Photo by Joan Marcus)

The recent laws passed by the states of North Carolina and Mississippi, which condone discrimination against LGBTQ citizens under the guise of religious freedom are, so far as I’m concerned, a national shame. That other states have attempted or will soon attempt to pass similar legislation is frightening. I can only hope that these decisions will be swiftly challenged, taken to the supreme court, and repealed as unconstitutional.

Composer and lyricist Stephen Schwartz, known internationally for his work on, to name but three, Godspell, Wicked and Pippin, shares this opinion. He has used his platform as one of musical theatre’s most successful living artists to express his dismay: in the wake of the North Carolina decision, which came first, Schwartz announced that he would not permit the licensing or production of any of his works in that state so long as this law remains in place. Decrying the passage of HB2, as it is known, he compared his action to the boycotts undertaken against South Africa over apartheid.

While I saw numerous artists praising Schwartz online through social media, I also saw the response from theatres in North Carolina, who were concerned that a cultural boycott of their state might have minimal effect on their elected leaders, while denying works to a community that is predisposed to oppose the law. Angie Hays, the head of the North Carolina Theatre Conference, issued a statement in which she said her organisation has been in contact with “artists and producers from across the country who are asking how they can most effectively play a part in lifting up the NC theatre community so that we may continue to produce work that will open hearts and change minds.” In a letter to The Hollywood Reporter, Schwartz, in his second statement, said that his decision wasn’t singular, citing “a collective action by a great many theatre artists.”

As I write, based on news reports and my own conversations with the heads of several theatrical licensing houses, only one author (Tom Frye) beyond Schwartz’s own collaborators has joined him in placing a moratorium on his work in North Carolina. Ralph Sevush, executive director for business affairs at the Dramatists Guild, which represents the majority of playwrights and composers in the US, said in a statement that the guild itself “cannot call for or support boycotts, as a matter of law. However, even though the guild represents writers with divergent views, the guild is unified in supporting Stephen’s right to exercise control over the licensing of his work in whatever manner he deems appropriate.”

There is, I have no doubt, a great deal of conversation about how to respond to these loathsome laws at theatres, at dance companies, at orchestras and so on, and a prevailing unanimity in despising these decisions. But as is so often the case in the early days of a crisis, there is no consensus about how to combat it, either within North Carolina and Mississippi, or nationwide. If more and more works are denied, will theatres in North Carolina, and presumably in Mississippi, reach a point at which their creative decisions are truly constrained? Does stage work in these states rise to a level that will become meaningful to legislators, or will it stand in the shadow of major commercial interests, who have the scale and the economic power to sway policy?

Like Sevush from the Dramatists Guild, I absolutely support Schwartz’s right to make decisions regarding his own works. At the same time, I worry about the health of theatres in these states under these new regulations, at a time when they can be centres of opposition to HB2, by doing what theatre does so well, which is to teach empathy. In addition, even if they won’t be doing so on stages in these battleground states, I like to think that Charlemagne’s son, who renounced war and sin, that the Jesus who once wore Superman’s logo on his chest, and that the misunderstood green girl from Oz are on the ground there nonetheless, fighting the essential fight against bias and hate. Because we need every voice, real and fictional, to speak out and sing out as well.

 

Slate: ‘Homosexual Themes’ Get Pennsylvania School Production of ‘Spamalot’ Canned

August 26th, 2014 § 0 comments § permalink

“Just think,” says Sir Lancelot, of his nuptials to a young man named Herbert in Monty Python’s Spamalot, “In a thousand years time, this will still be controversial.” The administration of the South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Junior/Senior High School seems determined to prove the gallant knight prescient, as it has canceled a planned 2015 production of the musical due to its “homosexual themes.”

When the cancellation was first reported in early July, the reporting was based primarily on charges by the school’s drama director, Dawn Burch, who spoke of an email she said she had received from the school’s principal, Jesse Smith, requiring a change of show. On advice of counsel, Burch did not provide the email to the press.

At the time, reports focused heavily on a statement attributed to Smith, about homosexuality not existing in South Williamsport—a statement that was quickly disavowed by all concerned and rescinded by its original source, a news report from television station WNEP. School board president John Engel and superintendent Dr. Mark Stamm appeared at a July 3 community event organized by Equality Central PA to debunk the statement, though they did not speak to the larger issue of whether gay content was the cause of the cancellation. In the press, Stamm also asserted thatSpamalot had never been approved for production according to school procedure. “School: ‘No way’ on play—but not due to gays,” read a headline in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette on July 3, in advance of the forum.

Last week, as a result of a release of emails requested through Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know law, it became clear that the musical’s gay content was, in fact, singularly and explicitly the reason for its cancellation. In a June 27 e-mail from Smith to Burch, he wrote:

I am not comfortable with Spamalot and its homosexual themes for two main reasons:

1. Drama productions are supposed to be community events. They are supposed to be performances that families can attend. To me, this kind of material makes it very hard for this to take place. I don’t want families to be afraid of bringing small kids because of the content. I don’t want members of the community staying home because they feel the material is too risqué or controversial.

2. I think that choosing productions with this type of material or productions that may be deemed controversial put students in a tough spot. I don’t want students to have to choose between their own personal beliefs and whether or not to take part in a production.

When Burch appealed to the superintendent on June 30, he replied, in the only readable portions of a heavily redacted email:

[School Principal] Jesse [Smith] has given the drama program considerable time and attention this year. He has thoroughly explained his reasons regarding show selections to you and discussed them with me as well. His decision is sound.

As for Stamm’s assertion that the musical was never approved for production, the released documents include a $1,935 check from May 12, 2014, payable to Theatrical Rights Worldwide, the licensor of Spamalot, signed by Smith, as well as a check request and contract dated a week earlier, signed by Burch, for the rights to the play. While the check doesn’t specify that it is for Spamalot, it is unlikely that Smith would have assumed the check was payment in arrears for the school’s spring musical presented in March, as standard show licensing practice is for advance payment.

Following the release of the internal communications by the school in mailings dated Aug. 18, the contents were disclosed by the two parties that had filed a request for them: progressive advocacy organization Keystone Progress (via press release, including links to the complete document set) and me (via blog post) on Aug. 21. This yielded a half-dozen national news stories, but to date, no local or regional press outlet in central Pennsylvania has reported on the new disclosures, leaving the administration’s obfuscations intact. [Update, Aug. 26: The Williamsport Sun-Gazette informs me it is working on a story on the topic.] Stamm and Smith have not responded to my requests for comment, and Burch, when reached, declined to comment further.

Prior to the release of the materials, the school administration announced at an Aug. 4 board of education meeting that a “public performance policy” had been put in place. It says, in part:

Material that is generally considered offensive, suggestive, or demeaning based on race, religion, age, gender, or sexual orientation is not appropriate for school performances.

What the policy did not say is that material supporting inclusive representations of race, religion, age, gender, or sexual orientation would be encouraged. Currently in Pennsylvania, marriage equality is the law, however there is no equal rights protection for sexual orientation.

Students return to school in South Williamsport today with the false impression that their drama director provoked an unfounded controversy. What they don’t know is that their principal and superintendent assert that LGBTQ life is unsuitable for families to see, that their parents might be “afraid” of “small kids” seeing gay relationships even in a broadly comic setting, and that there are concerns about attendance at such a show because the material is “risqué.” The students also don’t know that their principal believes that LGBTQ representation might force some of them to make decisions about their personal beliefs, which is presumably part of education and maturation. There are important lessons still to be taught in South Williamsport, but only if the school administration and the community learn them first.

To see this article as it appeared on Slate, click here

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the advocacy category at Howard Sherman.