Recently, as I scroll through my Facebook and Twitter feeds, I’ve been reading a lot about the New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players cancelling a production of “The Mikado” amidst a considerable amount of protest from the Asian-American theatrical community (and the Asian-American community in general, for that matter). The protest suggested that the comic opera - which first opened in 1885 and has delighted audiences for decades - is a relic from a time long since gone, in which racial insensitivities could be overlooked for an evening’s entertainment. This is the second time in two years - and second major city - in which a large scale production of this play has been cancelled due to public outcry. I’ve always been one to appreciate the ability of theater to promote a level of introspection and challenge regarding the current “norms” in any community, and I often wonder about the challenges that could be addressed in our community.
This recent production of “The Mikado,” which was reportedly given heavy scrutiny by a special subcommittee of the company’s board of directors, claimed that the all-caucasian cast would be respectfully paying homage to the culture by not allowing the actors to perform in yellow-tinged makeup. The protesters describe this practice with the derogatory term “Yellowface.” Frankly, this was the match to the kindling of the argument, but the question remained: by removing the “yellowface,” does that make the play any less irrelevant or insensitive in our time? The bloggers and op-ed columnists in New York are having a field day with this; they haven’t come up with a definitive answer, by the way. As a result, the New York Gilbert & Sullivan Players have canceled the upcoming production, and replaced it with another from the Victorian duo’s repertoire.
Needless to say, when placed in the context of the Sheridan community, we would probably be faced with similar problems. The easy answer to a problem such as this is simply to pick another play to begin with; one that wouldn’t raise as much furor. But, if our theater isn’t challenging the community - even slightly - is it really doing its job in the community?
Certainly, I’m not suggesting that all theater needs to be provocative in order to be effective or “good” theater. But, a play challenging an audience doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unworthy of being performed. I’ve talked with a lot of theater artists in town, and the general feel is a hope for something new. Many are looking at plays that have been performed within the past few years, and while they surely have been crowd-pleasing and well-done, they have been noticing that there is a vast library of plays that could be crowd-pleasing, and could also present an audience with the healthy challenge of being momentarily uncomfortable.
It’s always been an opinion of mine that routine often breeds complacency. Even at my most complacent, I’ve always wondered if something could be missing. Without the frequent questioning of whether or not the best is what we’ve got, we might be settling for what’s not as great. Call me a skeptic if you must, but this may be a question of wants vs. needs: are we getting what we want out of theater, or are we getting what we need?
To be honest with you, I don’t know the answer to that question, and I would hate to sound too pretentious by hazarding an endorsement. What I do know is that you, the Sheridan audience, have always been open to new experiences on the stage, and I hope you’re up for more. Again, it’s good to be challenged, as this can often lead to healthy discussions about the community and the art. And, as theatre artists, it’s upon us to consistently consider: if we’re going to give our audience a challenge, what exactly are we challenging?
I’ll see you at intermission!
No comments:
Post a Comment