Laughing Wild (loopy satire)
Musings on The Role of Theatre
in the Political Discourse
by Elizabeth Craven
Those familiar with theatre history know that in the Golden Age of Greece it was a citizen's duty to attend the theatre. Each year the entire population of Athens would assemble for the annual festival. Playwrights competed for a coveted national prize by submitting a trilogy (three tragedies) and a satyr play (comedy). Three of the chosen playwrights' works were performed without a break in a packed outdoor arena. Most of the time the plays were highly political in nature using ancient mythology to raise questions about philosophy, humanity, and ethics.
Times have changed and theatre has devolved from its glorious position as arbiter of the national consciousness as it was during 5th century BC in Greece but it still plays a role in the political discourse. As we have seen, the progressive members of our national debate are turning more and more to the performing arts for a political voice. This is most evident to us in mass media documentary films such as those of Michael Moore and in the comedy venues of television such as John Stewart's 'Daily Show' and Bill Maher's 'Real Time'. People argue that such biting satire preaches to the choir - rallying the already converted and alienating those who disagree - but the influence and popularity of these productions is undeniable. Furthermore, Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911' may turn out to be one the deciding factors in a hotly contested presidential race as he uses film showings as a gathering spot for mass voter registration and political discourse.
Live theatre will not reach the mass audience that film and television can but it plays its own role in the political discourse. For playwrights like Christopher Durang live theatre is one of the few places left where ideas can be expressed freely without too much fear of retribution. We literally operate below the radar. In the case of small cast, low tech plays, like Laughing Wild, theatre artists can create a performance for very little money. Unlike film and television which require thousands, even million of dollars to produce, small-scale live theatre does not rely on big budgets or censorious patronage for its existence. If needs be, a play can still be performed with the minimum requirements: some actors and an audience. This is a scary thought for those who would control what we say and hear. It may very well be one of the reasons that during more conservative national governance public NEA funding has all but disappeared.
Theatre is by its very nature subversive and political. Even when it strives to be mainstream it inadvertently expresses a political point of view. It either supports or rejects the current state of affairs. A prime example was to be found last month when the Republican convention was held in New York City. The convention published a list of Broadway plays that the conventioneers were encouraged to see and another list of productions that were deemed unfit. Musicals like Disney Corporation's The Lion King and Andrew Lloyd Weber's Phantom of the Opera were openly endorsed by the GOP, whereas Tony Kushner's musical Carolina or Change and the Tony Award winning small musical Avenue Q were on the unfit list. No one would not readily label The Lion King political but by the very fact that it did not challenge the status quo it conveyed a political message to the censors. The other two musical plays I mention are equally entertaining and even a bit sentimental yet, as if by instinct, they obviously threatened to disturb the status quo and were banned. Good playwrights, actors and directors are aware of the political nature of their work and capitalize on it. If they are very smart, they slip their politics into a good story, with some humor and likable characters. As Mary Poppins sings, 'A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.'
 |
 |
 |
