Friday, April 24, 2009

Want this book

With thanks to my dramaturgy classmate, John D., who sent me the excerpt.


From our discussion.

Re-dressing the Canon

By Alisa Solomon


Book Review

Re-Dressing the Canon: Essays on Theater and Gender


Re-Dressing the Canon: Essays on Theater and Gender. Alisa Solomon. London: Routledge, 1997; pp. 208. $65.00 cloth, $19.95 paper.

Re-Dressing the Canon, Alisa Solomon's important new collection of essays on theatre and gender, confidently spans the history of Western theatre. Solomon, a veteran feminist critic whose writings on theatre and politics regularly appear in the Village Voice, addresses the continuing debates concerning the politics of producing and staging the classics and invigorates a critical discussion that for many has reached a standstill. Her book sets out to demonstrate the historical relationship between theatre and gender--along with the shifting cultural ramifications of this dynamic relationship--from antiquity to the contemporary scene. She is interested in producing "a feminist criticism that investigates the way in which particular plays, presented in particular theatrical styles, encourages us to think about--and think against--social conventions of gender" (10). From Aristophanes to Split Britches, Solomon argues, theatre and gender have commented upon each other's artificiality, providing spectators ways of seeing and restructuring the distinct cultural investments that are upheld in each.

Solomon's introduction unravels the links between gender and theatre and, in the process, provides a concise history of feminist theatre criticism. She rejects feminist criticism's often unchecked enthusiasm for Lacan and psychoanalysis and prefers a methodology that combines a Brechtian-based political engagement with a more comprehensive attention to actual theatre practice. In the five chapters that follow, she offers detailed close readings of specific historical case studies: Shakespeare, Ibsen, Brecht, Yiddish theatre, and three contemporary American off-Broadway "canonical crossings." Solomon's lively discussions of these playwrights and periods include critical engagements with historical and archival materials and focused readings of select performances; she demonstrates a welcome concern with making both of these relevant to a contemporary audience.

Consider her discussion of Shakespeare's As You Like It. Solomon begins her account of the play's multiple cross-dressings and multiple marriages by examining Declan Donnellan's celebrated 1994 all-male production of the play with London's Cheek by Jowl Company at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. The chapter begins with a snapshot review of the production, which includes a discussion of the production's staging, design, and acting; Donnellan's interpretation of the play's central motifs, ideas, and scenes; and an overview of the politics of staging Shakespeare in the 1990s. This provides the foundation for Solomon's larger speculations on the effects of Renaissance stage conventions and their relation to gender and sexuality. Solomon's ability to maintain her focus on a central thesis allows her to maneuver though the voluminous Shakespeare bibliography without getting lost in the metacommentary that often obscures contemporary Shakespeare scholarship. Such attention to the topic at hand--gender and theatre--pays off in her analysis of As You Like It's famous epilogue:

Not only does the epilogue suggest that because men love women, the play should please both of them, in addition, the actor offers the play both as a mediator between men and women, and as an event that separates them from each other. It may even suggest that there is some territory, neither male nor female, between men and women, some non- or anti-gendered space that the boy-actress both occupies and signifies. Thus in the last forty lines, the play's pretty endings come unglued, heterosexual closure is rendered suspect, and erotic options become diffuse again, even extending to the audience.

[25-26]

Subsequent chapters follow this model of historical scholarship combined with close attention to theatrical production.

Throughout Re-Dressing the Canon, I was struck by two things. First, I began to appreciate Solomon's unwavering commitment to theatre. Her chapters are animated, enhanced by provocative readings of actual theatre events, many of which are contemporary revisionist adaptations of canonical works. In a brilliant chapter on Yiddish theatre, she discusses historical productions and performances such as Jacob Adler's 1892 Jewish King Lear, various productions of Scholem Asch's 1906 play God of Vengeanceincluding its scandalous 1923 Broadway [End Page 549] run, the controversial performances of Sarah Bernhardt as Salome and Hamlet, and neo-Yiddish performances of the 1990s. Solomon devotes much of her attention here to the elements of theatrical production, vividly describing each event under question; her writing successfully negotiates the difficult challenge of combining plot description with critical thinking.

Second, I was impressed by how helpful Re-Dressing the Canon would be in the classroom. This is a book that will be equally effective in introductory undergraduate theatre and drama courses and in advanced graduate seminars. It is generous in its survey of critical issues and historical facts, rehearsing the points necessary for an understanding of the specific era under discussion. For example, Solomon's discussion of Ibsen and the "New Woman" first presents an introduction to Ibsen scholarship and fin-de-siècle Europe, then details how Ibsen's explosive dramaturgy necessitated new representational strategies especially concerning women. Ibsen's innovative dramaturgy, she argues persuasively, "reveals the artificiality of the well-made play, and, as a consequence, the artificiality of the era's well-made woman. It questions the reliability of the artistic order and, as a result, the reliability of the social, even epistemological, order" (53). Solomon includes beautifully rendered readings of A Doll House and Hedda Gabler. These multiple critical maneuvers--literary criticism, performance-based review, new historicism, materialist feminist theory, queer theory--introduce students to the various ways we can begin to think and write about theatre, drama, and performance.

Re-dressing the Canon confirms what I have long suspected: Alisa Solomon is one of our most important cultural critics, whose writings on the theatre consistently display an ever-expanding base of knowledge. Who else can write so extensively and with such pleasure on such a wide range of topics including Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae, England's James I, Ibsen's female actor-managers and his male to female cross-dressed interpreters, Zelig Mogulesko, Brecht's Lehrstucke, the Mabou Mines (and if that wasn't enough, George Bernard Shaw, Fiona Shaw, and Peggy Shaw)? All of these appear in this remarkable book. Re-Dressing the Canon will make our teaching and scholarship a little easier and a lot more enjoyable.

David Román
University of Southern California

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Oh, what a busy girl...

I see a lot of theater. Fancy that. In fact, I even hiked to NoHo today to a rehearsal hall that I would've mistaken for a funeral home if I hadn't been told differently, to see what I thought was supposed to be a workshop of a new musical. No dice, but that's a whole story unto itself.

Anyway, scorecard, the last two weeks:

Friday, April 10: 'Forgotten World' by Deborah Asiimwe, directed by Laurie Carlos, at CalArts

Monday, April 13: 'Much Ado About Nothing' directed by Mirjana Jokovic, at CalArts

Wednesday, April 15: Opening Night of 'Lydia' by Octavio Solis, directed by Juliette Carrillo, at the Mark Taper Forum

Friday, April 17: I participated in the MFA2 Critical Studies readings, as the voice of a rabbit, at Skylight Books

Friday Late Night: Irate phone call re: 'Lydia' at the Taper which necessitated the consumption of alcohol

Saturday, April 18: Trip down to the New Playwrights Festival at UCSD. Saw 'Clementine and the Cyber Ducks' by Krista Knight, and 'Obscura' by my pal Jen Barclay.

Sunday, April 19: 'Land of the Tigers' by Matt Almos and the Burglars of Hamm, at Sacred Fools

And, at intermission of "Tigers" I actually tore a page out of my program to write this list. I was afraid I was going to forget something.

This Friday coming I am going to the Opening of 'The Internationalists' at Poor Dog Group, which I am actually looking forward to. It sounds cool, and ambitious. I admire those Poor Dog Boys, and it was sweet of them to invite me personally. Their plan is to tour it to Eastern Europe this summer. I do want to open up a dialogue. If I can make my grand NY plan work, they'd be a great group to collaborate with.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Dramaturgy Notes 4/14 ... an alchemical 6th grade puppet/diorama on Greek religious themes

Theater: it's somewhere between storytelling and ritual, religious practice, invocation. Descended from harvest festival god supplications, the ancient Greek "theatron". To represent it physically I would need people, or representations of people. Some would be "spectators" watching, and the rest would comprise the "spectacle", that being watched. I mean, I personally have made the argument that you can have theatre without 1.) story, 2.) spectators, or 3.) actors; but in this semiotic reduction I hesitate to get that complicated. The space or container in which the "theater" was to happen would have to have a feeling of otherness, as if the space was only intended to be used for that purpose, or the act of having theater inside it set it apart as special, if only for the period of time that the theater was happening there.

I don't know why writing this reminds me of sixth grade and having to do a project on Greek mythology, and building a proscenium theater (with black curtain, no less) out of a shoe box and creating puppet cut-outs of god/characters to make my presentation. Showing was easier than explaining, and I remember the end result as a cross between a diorama and a puppet show. And that is a memory I didn't even know I had, by the way.

I struggle to define concisely what theater is without drawing a distinction with what it is not. I return to my interest in the relationship between theater (or substitute "live performance") and time. Once it is recorded it becomes something else; if written, literature, if filmed, film/video. The essence of theater is that it is a mutually experienced intangible, and how do you make a model of an intangible? I feel like I can measure and define some of its component parts, but not its whole.

I guess if I created a model there would be these two groups of people looking at each other in an empty space. The people's individual thought bubbles would be visible and would also feed into group thought bubbles. One group would move in a choreographed way, and there thought bubbles would remain relatively constant, at least at first. The other group would not move at first, but might move as individuals in response/reflection of what they were observing. Eventually through shifting individual thought bubbles the group thought bubbles would seem to form a kind of feedback loop, feeding off each other. Somehow it's this feedback, incredibly difficult to diagram or define because it is constantly in flux, that is really the theater part. The rest is just the preparation for making it happen, like an alchemical reaction.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Dramaturgy Notes 3/18/09

Since last week’s class I have been reflecting on Norman Frisch’s conversation with our class. One phrase that has stuck out to me is “going into a room together”. I think he said that, or something like that, several times. There is something so time and location based in that idea that encapsulates theater, and all live performance, for me. I was reminded of that when I went to see Frost/Nixon earlier this week. What I found so poignant about the performance was watching it, and these actors giving incredibly committed performances, in front of me in real time. I frequently do not enjoy watching theater at the Ahmanson. It‘s a cavern. I was drawn in to the performance anyway, and I can only imagine the impact of such a production in a space as comparatively intimate as the Donmar Warehouse (which I love). Film has many good qualities, but there is something about having the awareness when one views live performance and knowing instinctually that we the audience are in the same space and sharing the same oxygen with the action unfolding on the stage that has the potential to be arresting and transformative. Time can move at a different pace for all participants, and I can think of few other media in which that is possible.

I ran into Norman again Wednesday night on my way to work at the Kirk Douglas Theater. He was on his way to watch his friend, Mike Daisey, perform his monologue “How Theatre Failed America”. I confessed that Peter Sellars has been an inspiration to me, that seeing what he was able to do with the Mozart/Da Ponte trilogy was part of what motivated me to want to be a Producer, despite the fact that I have never had the opportunity to see any of Sellars’ work live (something I regret). Norman commented on how his work is much more supported and produced in Europe (something I also regret, I happen to think that American audiences might be into it if they had more of the chance to see it) . I think that Daisey’s piece would be more appropriately titled “How *Regional* Theatre (or the regional theatre movement) Failed America”, and I agree with him. My career working in the theater demonstrated to me that the system was defunct and that the institutionalization of art has created a self-perpetuating cycle that inhibits progress for artists and arts communities around the country. That Daisey at 35 looks to artists younger than he is to effect some kind of change depresses me a little bit, since I am already 33, and I think that is somewhat defeatist. We all want to find some way to sustain ourselves as artists and create viable arts communities, and yes that means with adequate wages and healthcare for ourselves and for our families (by adequate I do not mean “above minimum wage”, I mean income from artistic production affords a middle class American lifestyle with the potential for home ownership, the expense of raising children, and an annual vacation). Yes, being both an artist and a parent in this country becomes a revolutionary act; we need these basic supports, how do we go about demanding them? How do we communicate to our supporters that infrastructure is more than buildings and administrative staff? And now, in a period of intense potential economic and social change do we champion new possibilities or cling to the scraps of support we can find?

Maybe this isn’t the purview of a class on Dramaturgy. But if the point of the exercise of recording our thoughts on a weekly basis, this is what I have been thinking about. For me these are not new revelations, they are why I felt stifled as a stage manager, going from contract to contract trying to keep the rent and the insurance paid, without being able to contribute to the bigger picture of reshaping the artistic climate of this country. I see the structures, I see the cracks in their foundations, I feel this compulsion to produce in order to challenge the system, to come up with a new way. Now I find myself being offered opportunities in a commercial arena, which I never expected to have. Perhaps putting 25‘ tall dinosaurs into arenas or light rock musicals on the Broadway stage is not the highest expression of artistic excellence, but it employs artists, and if successful may allow me the financial means and backing to take greater artistic risks. Is this some type of Machiavellian cop-out of means justifying ends? I don’t know. This is what I wrestle with, I want to fulfill my artistic potential which seems to be tied to supporting the artistic potential of others, not unlike the rising river lifting all boats. I don’t know if it’s narcissism to think that I could make enough of an impact with a little commercial success.