I was trying to think of sorts of theatre groups, shows, or trends to talk about when my mind wandered to a conversation I had with my friend Matt. Now, it should be noted that Matt was not a regular theatre goer and I'm not sure he's ever seen a production outside of high school-- HOWEVER! We were discussing how one of our mutual friends lived above a sex dungeon and he said, "Yeah, I went to check it out a while ago. It's all a lot more Ren Faire then you'd imagine."
A) I knew exactly what he meant by that.
B) Clearly, he'd been to a Renaissance Faire.
C) Hahahahahaha!
Anyway, it got me thinking: how common is it for non-theatre goers to attend a renaissance faire? And is it unreasonable to think that the live performances might get a handful of them interested in seeing full scale productions outside a field in Lancaster County? Especially since, apart from being immersive, often times there are plays performed on stages on grounds.
Lower Income Groups and Statistics and Stuff
I found some interesting statistics on who attends the Ren Faire that might not be able to shell out the money for a Broadway show. Dedde Barber's master's thesis for Texas Tech states:
"Lower income respondents were more involved with the
Renaissance Festival/Faire atmosphere and culture than those at middle and high incomes... low-income respondents attached more importance to dress in
Renaissance/other attire than the other two income groups. In addition, low income respondents
gave higher importance rating to the motivation to laugh and feel better about oneself than the
other two income groups."
The evidence Barber collected suggests that this step around self-segregation works well not only in terms of enthusiasm but also in terms of it being a "family tradition" in some cases (great in terms of the business model aspect Austin referred to). That is to say, people have a tendency to interact and come back for more. This table from yet another master's thesis (this one from Justin A. Gross) surprised me with how into the Ren Faire the people surveyed seemed to get.
There is, however, a bit of a race barrier that is unaddressed here. Heather Dumas of Ohio University's master's thesis had a sample size of 800 and only 10 were people of color. There is also a sub-culture element that goes into the Renaissance Faire which should be acknowledged; some people flock not so much for the spectacle but more to let their freak flag fly... so to speak.
Doesn't This Point to What We Already Kinda Know?
People get pumped about immersive opportunities! I think the personalization of the experience here or, say, in Sleep No More (for example) is an excellent hook for people who might otherwise not be inclined toward the theatrical. Immersive theatre is a gateway drug... so to speak.
Always theatre responsibly.
I guess the question is how do we make that shift from immersive theatre to more traditional forms happen more frequently/smoothly? Or is traditional theatre a dinosaur that needs to be retired? I have zero answers for you, m8.
So Have Fun Out There and Don't Let Wizards Steal Your Girl!
What happens when humans are no longer the most advanced?
We've discussed the dangers of the singularity when it comes to AI: the idea that humanity would be eradicated by an advanced enough artificial intelligence. But what about aliens? How often do we see extraterrestrial contact and cooperation in science fiction? If they reach us first... would they be benevolent? After all, a type III civilization "would be godlike to us" for much of the foreseeable future (human civilization isn't even expected to fully crack type I for another few hundred years).
While many works of science fiction feature a rosy outlook of such encounters, I struggle to imagine contact with beings from another world going well. As the late Stephen Hawking once said: "If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans."
Awkward Moments with Aliens
One of the works that portrays this colonization/destruction well is Rick and Morty. Unlike films like Independence Day, where the reasoning behind the alien invasion isn't abundantly clear but has something to do with exploitation of resources, Rick and Morty features extraterrestrials verbalizing a superiority to humans to justify the various injustices they perform.
The best example I can think of is Morty's encounter with an alien that calls itself "Fart." Fart is a highly advanced interdimensional gaseous being that Morty rescues from assassination. In the clip below, we learn that Fart's intentions toward mankind are a bit... xenocidal. "After I return to the others with this location, we will be back for your cleansing... Carbon-based life is a threat to all higher life. To us, you are what you would call a disease. Wherever we discover you, we cure it. You said yourself that life must be protected even through sacrifice."
Even when they don't go in for the kill, we observe the more advanced species oppressing their less capable counterpart. Sometimes this is uncomfortable trivial and exploitative-- like when the Cromulons force planets to compete for their lives in a song competition.
Other times, we hear familiar colonizer rhetoric from the hive-mind Unity about how its complete control over its host planet is a vast improvement and for the greater good of the (completely controlled) people (episode here). There are even some mundane interactions on Rick and Morty that highlight how the future of humanity could well be that of a marginalized class. Ex: "Anything with less than 8 limbs is considered disabled here," "the e-arth relationships are simpler. It's a primitive planet"
"You guys are talking about my species! We understand genocide! We do it sometimes!"
It's nice to have a comedic take on something like this-- especially since it could well be our future to a certain extent. I'd love to think that extraterrestrials are above the way we treat one another, but how likely is that? Maybe the best we can hope for is an alien that sounds like Werner Herzog making fun of our species.
See what I did there? Okay, I'll jump right in by saying Hir had themes with which I believe most people in this day and age can identify: adapting to change, defining one's identity, etc. The two most striking elements for me both stemmed from the removal of the patriarch from his seat of power. Firstly, Paige's various decisions to reject essentially every single thing down to the usage of cupboards in order to decimate remnants of the old order really hit home. There were certainly points in my childhood that felt that extreme when I was I was going back and forth between parents who in many ways can be polar opposites (in this house I dress like a boy vs. in this house I dress like a girl, here all the politics are democratic vs. here all the politics are independent with a strong republican leaning, etc etc). That said, moving out of the personal anecdotal example/literal to the bigger picture: how much of the old system of power needs to be destroyed? When we say "down with the patriarchy," how far down are we talking? Can equality exist with any bit of our existing societal structure? There's no easy answer. Or if there is, I'm not smart enough to arrive there on my own. The second part that I found particularly resonant was all the ambivalence surrounding what should be done with Arnold. It reminded me a bit of the moments you see in films where someone has gained power over their former oppressor and a dialogue occurs between the new people in charge about whether to kill them or show mercy "because otherwise we are no different than they are." However, the confusion that comes with Arnold even from the very beginning of the play brought up memories of reading articles about male uncertainty regarding their role in our society with its troublesome, working, educated, not-staying-home ladies--- or, as my mother would occasionally sigh in jest, "What are men for, exactly?" While I wouldn't go so far as to say the play is universal (a bit more on that in a moment), I would say it is powerful and I believe most people would be moved by it.
SPOILER ALERT: "The future of men is women." (Yes, that's a bit binary but he makes some decent points.)
Universality
I'm a big believer in relativism, so it was hard for me to think of any story that people could all kinda get behind. My mind floated to things that most (if not all) cultures have in common. Dragons? Pyramids?
OR GHOSTS??!!?!
The closest I could get would be hero narratives (I love bringing up some Jospeh Campbell) but even then you run into a handful of difficulties-- the most relevant to this discussion would be that hero stories are generally masculine. The plot structure rings true in stories focused on women in a handful of examples, but there have been feminist scholars who put forward the heroine's journey as its own standalone structure-- separate from that Gilgamesh-Star-Wars-kinda-jim-jam. So far I've only had the chance to check out Frankel's From Girl to Goddess: The Heroine’s Journey through Myth and Legend but I gotta say it's persuasive and great craic. From the about section on the book's site:
"Campbell believed that while the hero represented the logical, assertive side of the personality, encountering the feminine blessed him with creativity, empathy, and intuition. However, neither side of this equation represents the heroine on her archetypal quest, descending into death and revitalizing as Mother Goddess. This active heroine dominates holy books from the Mahabharata to the Nihongi, as well as fairytales like the ubiquitous Cinderella. Even the great epics offer us Antigone, Medea, Pele and Hi’iaka, the Devi-māhātmyam, Hymn to Demeter and The Descent of Ishtar."
Campbell's response (below) to these critiques acknowledges the importance of the origin of the narrative (and there's what I find to be an amusing crack within the framework of old gender roles). That is, who is telling the story? Are we getting the perspective of Diana's power or her posterior?
"All of the great mythologies and much of the mythic story-telling of the world are from the male point of view. When I was writing The Hero with a Thousand Faces and wanted to bring female heroes in, I had to go to the fairy tales. These were told by women to children, you know, and you get a different perspective. It was the men who got involved in spinning most of the great myths. The women were too busy; they had too damn much to do to sit around thinking about stories. [...] (Emily's note: I'm sure they thought about plenty of stories, they just didn't have their voices heard. But, I mean, what do I know. Admittedly, I do kind of find it to be a cute old man joke, if frightfully antiquated in perspective.) In the Odyssey, you'll see three journeys. One is that of Telemachus [...] The second is that of the father, Odysseus, becoming reconciled and related to the female principle in the sense of male-female relationship, rather than the male mastery of the female that was at the center of the Iliad. And the third is of Penelope herself, whose journey is [...] endurance. Out in Nantucket, you see all those cottages with the widow's walk up on the roof: when my husband comes back from the sea. Two journeys through space and one through time."
..... so... yeah... all this to say, I don't think any play or film could be universal when even gender alone is so sticky (then you add in sexuality, race, culture, etc and it gets even more difficult). That said, it is possible to get damn close and one should strive toward that ultimate goal of universality even if it might not be possible yet! I say this because I believe that universality could eventually be achieved but we need to a little further along with regard to cultural understanding that gender is merely a societal construct. We aren't there yet; there's still a bit too much Arnold in the cabinets for us. But we are getting closer and I won't knock that in the least! In the meantime, I'm encouraged by any and all moves toward equality. A big part of that is representation in theatre and film!
What sorts of work encourages you?
Obviously, Wonder Woman! Or anything that flips the script! I'm gonna kinda give you a spectrum in three examples because I love talking about movies. So this is a tangent on some female-centered works I've seen lately (and what is refreshing or a move forward).
The one that happens heavily within the patriarchal structure: Atomic Blonde. I was excited about seeing a movie where the main character was this woman being a badass spy in many of the ways we are used to from, say, 007 movies. Lorraine is clever, powerful, interesting, and she even has her own Bond-Girl-type romantic interest. It reminded me of the article we read about Wicked taking tropes from the genre and queering them. Just instead of a musical, it's the spy flick. And only a touch. Granted, it would have been so much better with more female involvement behind the camera; it is still deeply entrenched in design for the male gaze. Is it intended to make people think? No. Is it nuanced, unproblematically feminist, or the best example of a queer relationship in cinema? Not in the slightest. But! BUT! I'm encouraged that this is something that was designed for mass consumption-- the studio thought an action film with a queer female lead would do well! Baby steps, y'all! I mean, let's aim higher. But you know, silver linings.
Encouragement rating: low but existent, the feeling you get after eating a fast food hamburger because you're running late and that's what was readily available, your sexist cousin might be open to more female action heroes... but your feminist friends will be pretty cross that it falls so short of its hype It kept me amused enough to overcome my feminist frustrations and Evil Bisexual pet peeve.
BUT WE CAN HAVE A FEMINIST SPY FLICK FOR REAL!
The unexpected one: I make no secret of my love for the 2015 movie Spy. Women run the show in this movie and it's cool to see. Not only because it signals opportunity and representation, but also because it never felt forced. I never saw a neon sign blinking THIS IS A SPY FILM FOR LADIES or any other metaphor for contrived, shallow rigamarole you like. Allison Janney is in charge of the CIA, Rose Byrne is the villain for a good part of the movie (it's not black and white), Morena Baccarin is a rival spy, and Melissa McCarthy as a woman who comes into her own and saves the day despite (predominantly) men's attempts to keep her down. Admittedly, the way Susan (McCarthy) gains confidence, a sense of self, and a sense of context was inspiring to me on a personal level. That's a neon sign blinking GOOD STORYTELLING.
The slick, sexy images we see in Atomic Blonde or other spy movies are queered into moments like when McCarthy's character is given gadgets designed to look like various proctological medications, for example. The catering toward the male gaze is eschewed, and the storytelling is far more character driven. Plus, the movie is really funny. To quote Bitch Flicks:
"In a world where “satire” is used as a descriptor for works like Entourage, the word might not have much meaning, but Spy, in the tradition of the best satire, makes fun of conventions we might not have realized we were sick of–like the cat-lady typecasting. Also, while male action heroes like 007 and Jason Bourne never make a wrong move, no matter how extreme the situations they find themselves in and shoot and kill others with all the sensitivity of a giant swatting at flies, two of the women in Spy who kill react more like the rest of us might: neither plays it cool [...] I kept on waiting for the film to go wrong, for someone to humiliate Susan for her size, which miraculously never happens. Others doubt her skill and the villainess Rayna (Rose Byrne, having a ball as a spoiled, rich Daddy’s girl with a British accent) rips apart her fashion sense, even after Susan changes into flattering, chic evening wear, but no one ever comes close to making a fat “joke” or comment, which has to be some kind of milestone."
The writer and director, Paul Feig, is known for a commitment toward a push for greater representation of women in the industry (behind the camera as well as in front of it).
Encouragement rating: the feeling you get from drinking hot cocoa, plenty of jokes to keep your sexist cousin happy in between bouts of asking where Jude Law went while your feminist friends are generally pleasantly surprised with how women are represented
BUT CAN WE GET A FILM THAT IS BOTH FEMINIST AND FROM A WOMAN?
The one that set out to be feminist and thought provoking: I only recently saw The Love Witch, but I already was aware from reviews that it was something special. Auteur Anna Biller's 60s style examination of passion and gender roles has been a darling of feminist critics since its 2016 release. And yooooooooo! A few quotes from articles about the film:
Indiewire: "Biller said people initially approached her film as representing the past. “Like, ‘Gender roles in the past that are obsolete’ and, ‘This stuff doesn’t happen anymore’ and, ‘We don’t need feminism anymore because we’re post-feminist,’ to suddenly everybody realizing, ‘Holy shit, this is very real, it’s very current, and it’s happening right now.'"
Vice: "For men, they get this incredibly stunning woman to look at, but on the other hand there's nothing emotionally gratifying for them. It just makes them surly," she laughs. Many of these moments are discussions about love and female selfhood, with Trish, Elaine's new friend, doubling as her foil. When Elaine discloses her thoughts on how to get a man to fall in love with her, Trish tells her that she sounds as though she's been brainwashed by the patriarchy."
LA Weekly: the title alone of "The Love Witch Is a Feminist Sexploitation Jewel" is gold
Glenn Kenny for RogerEbert.com: "Biller is not like Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani, the directors of such retro-homaging genre fare as “Amer.” Those directors are formalists. Biller is a little closer to Peter Strickland, the filmmaker behind “The Duke of Burgundy,” which shares some of the themes of this film, but I think Biller’s a more astute and provocative thinker. The redolence of schlockiness she attaches to “The Love Witch” seems like an organic factor in her actual way of seeing. The movie is relentless in the way it poses questions about our culture’s way of dealing with the power of female sexuality (and it wouldn’t work without Robinson, whose appearance and performance is impeccable for the job) and acknowledges that there’s not only unease in these questions and their answers but also mordant hilarity."
I'm a fan of kitsch and camp so I was sucked in super quickly. I'm glad because otherwise I might have missed out! Rather than story you too much on plot points or how much I adore the aesthetic, I'll just let two of the scenes speak for themselves. "They teach us that a normative human being is a hyper-rationalist, stoic male." "Brainwashed by the patriarchy"
Encouragement rating: Pretty dang feminist. Pretty dang inspiring creatively and with regard to future potential for non-male identifying film makers. This is a visually stunning, intellectually stimulating, and carefully crafted production by women, for women, about women. While there is a clear line with regard to the binary on this one, it is done thought provokingly and with intention.
This was a long one! I got excited! Thanks for sticking with me!
"Seth, you're white. You have a safe space. It's called America."
When Osi posed the question about culturally specific initiatives and companies, the first thing I thought of was Amber Ruffin's safe space. In class we had discussed how our narratives in theatre (also the United States in general culturally) fall under the gaze of white (and heterosexual and cisgender) men. Most films and plays exist under that umbrella. It is demanding enough to produce any work of theatrical art on its own, but the additional challenge of fighting against the many facets of this hegemony is exhausting. Institutions like Ma-Yi, National Black Theatre, and the Hispanic American Arts Center are necessary as a space where there is more artistic freedom (vs. staying in those "lanes"), safety, inspiration, and camaraderie among groups of people who are marginalized in American society. As Amber puts it: "Safe spaces give you the energy you need to deal with the world's bullshit. I look around at my heroes and the loves of my life and I know that I am not alone. And if they can do it, so can I."
I wanna know where she got those Chris Pine coasters. She's right: he is cute.
The Lanes
I found myself thinking about everything that we don't commonly see. I remember watching these buzzfeed videos and really having my eyes opened to how incredibly monochromatic casting often is (plus how actors of color are pigeonholed into narrow, specific categories-- like performing in "ethnic family dramas"). In the first of the three, the casting calls they are reading are just so profoundly troubling.
"If I hear one more time Latinas referred to as spicy, I'm gonna freak out! And then people will tell me I'm being hot blooded and spicy." "Whenever race is called out, it's to play out a stereotype." "Again with, like, skin darknessdetermining your worth."
"... Recreating movie posters where we are the heroes for once instead of the sidekick."
"Minorities make up nearly 40% of the U.S. population yet only represent 16.7% of roles in Hollywood... 81% of movies seen by black people do not feature a black cast..."
Everyone. It's everyone's responsibility. This is a mentality around what kind of stories we tell and how we tell them, and a change in mentality requires more than just, say, directors to be on board. It is important for allies to be conscious of their choices (for example, casting shouldn't follow a similar pattern to casting Emma Stone as an Asian American woman in "Aloha"-- there are fabulous actors who are actually of whichever background is needed for a character who are talented and available so cast them) but more important to give the microphone to people of color and listen. It is a vital part of this change to include a greater number of people of color as playwrights, directors, educators, etc. Even leaving the actors aside for a moment to talk about production-- if our entertainment is meant to reflect who we are, it is ridiculous that-- in a society in which about 40% of the population are people of color-- film directors of color are outnumbered 3 to 1 (12.6%) and screenwriters of color clock in at around 5 to 1 (8.1% for film, 7.1% for broadcast television) according to the UCLA Hollywood Diversity Report 2018 (PDF here). That is not how we disrupt and ultimately change the hegemony of the mayonnaisegaze! Alex Chester has brilliant points to make on this topic (stereotyping, underrepresentation, getting "behind the table" too) and I can't encourage you enough to check out her blog post, The White-List Cabaret is About to Flip the Script. Similarly, if you were as inspired by the Lew reading we had in class as I was, you might also enjoy How to Cast Actors of Color.
But seriously, guys. Let's work together to move the industry away from being all... well...
