I am a firm believer that great art transcends genre, race, gender, and the rest of our divides. Sure, there is tradition and culture and personal taste that will account for the disparity in personal aesthetic but as a general rule, a truly great piece of art can speak to people across all of those and keep them engaged, wanting to see more. A not great piece of art often appeals to a narrow audience for specific reasons but a great play is a great play is a great play and will be recognized as such.
And there are plenty of great plays out there that are not being done simply because the playwright’s gender or color or nationality happens to not be deemed sexy enough by whoever is in charge. That is a darn shame. And the even bigger shame is that those slots are being given over to famous names simply because such a name is believed to be able to put butts in seats (theoretically) while a no-name cannot. I am also a firm believer that this is not true. Yes, it is absolutely harder to sell a show with no names attached but word-of-mouth and reviews on a terrific play by a nobody will inevitably overpower any name attached to a shitty play. Quality will win out over clout. It’s like the writer/teacher character (Leonard) in Theresa Rebeck’s SEMINAR says to the shit-hot-young-writer: You’re a nobody, but worse yet, you’re a talented nobody. They will hate you for that. (or something like that) And it’s so true! If you come out of nowhere and haven’t gone through the system that has been established and you are actually talented as hell, they will resent you because they cannot account for it. And if you’re not from within the system, you surely do not belong on those stages, even if your work blows the other stuff out of the water. And it’s not because that’s the way it has to be but because most people don’t like breaking tradition to stand up for what’s right. And most people at the top are also protective of the system that placed them there. I just saw a play last night at a major house in NYC with major major names attached, by a playwright who has much cache, and I was very highly anticipating it because of all of those variables, and it wasn’t worth anyone’s time or effort. I mean, this script should never have made it past the workshop phase, and yet…
Which brings me to the Guthrie issue. (If you haven’t yet read about it, see this article.) The thing that absolutely boggles my mind is that this is not some small theater with a three-show season where they cannot spare a single slot. This isn’t even a respectable regional with a six-slot season, where at least one is taken up by a major old classic, and another one needs to be a modern classic, and we can argue that, okay, yes, men have had the more recognizable names for those and people will tend to come to their plays more readily so we give those to the men, and then one needs to be a musical and another needs to go to some other white male for some other reason and so we’re left with only two wee slots and we should really give those to the two best new plays we’ve got (which I agree with) and those happen to be by white males. Even there we could argue some issues but let’s say that might be forgivable. What I really cannot fathom is that in a TWELVE SLOT SEASON (count them one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine-ten-eleven-twelve, TWELVE!!!) there was not room for a single female playwright or playwright of color. No, I’m sorry, I put that the wrong way. I find it unfathomable that out of the 12 best plays that they could find for their season, not one was written by a woman or by a non-white person. That nothing by a female or non-white person was worth its salt. And, okay, even if we argue that this was indeed the case and agree that in fact all of the best plays they could find that fit into a nice coherent season were all by white males, how is it possible that out of the best 12 directors that they could find for these shows, not a single one was female or of color? I find this unbelievable. And I’m pretty sure I find it unbelievable because it simply isn’t true.
I find it funny too that the Guthrie tried to allay the situation by pointing out that their studio season has not yet been fully decided on and that there might still be room for these other people’s plays in their studio space. And people were allayed by this! As though that’s really any consolation. What does this say to audiences about female and non-white artists? And what does it say to the artists themselves? It says, you’re not good enough for our big stages, but maybe we’ll throw you some crumbs and put you in the studio. And, again I point out, this theater has twelve slots for their mainstages. I understand that white men feel they need all of those slots for themselves—there are so few slots altogether, after all—but demanding diversity is not taking white men’s rights away, it’s giving other people their fair share. If white men have had too much of the share for so long, the only way to equalize the situation is by taking some of it away and spreading it around. White males said that giving everyone else the right to vote was taking their rights away, that freeing the slaves or affirmative action was taking their rights away, when in fact all it did was level the playing field. Of course when one has all of the advantages one wants to keep them, but allowing other people nothing because you want everything for yourself does not a civilized society make.
I think part of what might have contributed to the lack of diverse directors in the season is the belief that only directors of the same background as the playwright and/or the topic of the play can properly direct a show. I cannot disagree more. Research can be done to better understand a culture or a time period—this is how modern non-Russians are able to direct Chekhov brilliantly. Of course, having a good dramaturg helps immensely. I think the more important things that a director must “get” about a play are its essence, what it’s talking about at its core, this must resonate within the director and the director’s personal experiences. And, also immensely important, is that the director’s aesthetic should fit with that of the play (we don’t want a director who cannot for the life of him understand comedy directing a farce, for example.) When it comes down to it, a play about loneliness with a cast of green characters, say, would be better directed by a purple director who understands loneliness than a green one who has never known what that means.
I—at 28—just directed a play about older people—in their 70s. It was a play about life and death, fear, loneliness, hope and hopelessness, helplessness and control. These are issues that I understand, that I have spent years thinking on, feeling on, experiencing on. The Artistic Director was hesitant to hire me for this play because he thought an older director would be more appropriate. In the end, he realized that this script was so tough and delicate and so easily ruinable that it would be better to hire the best director, regardless of age, who could understand the play and do it justice, than to hire an older director because that seemed to fit the play’s demographic. Needless to say, he made the right choice. The reviews and word-of-mouth were fanstatic. People responded. Not because I was the same as my characters (it’s not a director’s job to be) but because I knew how to communicate this story to my audience.
So, my suggestion for the Guthrie: let’s look for the most interesting, provoking, moving, pertinent stories told in the best ways—regardless of who’s telling them—and then hire the people that will truly do the best job of bringing them to life, regardless of all those traditions that say we should do otherwise. Your audiences will respond and your theater will flourish. It’s really the only way to move forward.
: D
