Saturday, April 14, 2007
Suzan-Lori Parks' The America Play and Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s The Chitlin Circuit
What is "Black" and "American" about Suzan- Lori Parks' The America Play? What contradictions do you see in Parks' work when placed into the larger context of African American Theater? Does she write a play "by, about , for and near" Black people? Does her play reflect some of the issues in African American theater practices that Gates presents in his article that suggest a "legitimate" and illegitimate" Black Theater? If we are striving towards racial equality in the American Theater, does Parks contribute to this goal? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
One of the most powerful things I believe that Suzan-Lori Parks did in creating "The America Play" is creating a piece about racialized character without ever distinctly mentioning race. Ultimately her play is not necessarily about or near black people. However, the act of placing black actors or (recognizing these characters as being black) adds an entirely new layer and dynamic to the existence of blacks within the American context. This is something I must say was skillfully done by Parks. Unfortunately, because of this lack of overt racialization this play would be seemingly inaccessible to the audience of what Gates' considers illegitimate theater. To truly recognize the extremely subversive manner in which Parks created a play about black people without necessarily making them black, most would have to be clued into this beforehand, or given a text for them to read. Otherwise, the act of witnessing this performance with a colorblind cast would lead audiences to the perception that the race of the character is most likely the race that the role was written for.
I think I'm biased against this play because I tend to hate this kind of theater in general. It wins lots of praise from the theatre elite, but I think in some sense that's because people are afraid to call Bullshit for fear of being turned upon. Racial issues are clearly center stage in the American Play, but I don't think Parks is particularly concerned with reaching the average African American viewer (or even the average viewer, period). It's too bad that there has to be such a trade-off between the legitimate theater, which can be so alienating, and the illegitimate, which gets trashed so soundly by critics (read some reviews of Diary). Are we still waiting on an African American theater which can touch the masses while wowing critics? I'm not sure because I think a lot of stuff (august wilson's work, for example) would be huge in any Chitlin circuit theater, if it could just make it there with proper promotion. But it seems like even playwrights outwardly concerned with "the folk" are too often reluctant to really market to the masses. I guess the taste of critical acceptance is just too sweet. Hopefully in the future we will see a Black theater that is equally concerned with creating great art and with affecting the average Black viewer. For now there's Tyler Perry at least, though I must say I think he shows some room for improvement (as does our boy Shemar, ahem.)
I think that Parks's play fits into "legitimate" theater by Gates's definition because its abstract and therefore more artistic. I feel that the more artistic a piece is in quality is what legitimizes it. I didn't always get the point of the play but I would say anything is Black if its written by a Black person. It may not always be appealing to a large Black audience but its still Black. I actually don't know where Parks would be placed she has to be somewhere near Adrienne Kennedy.
I think Parks takes a very interesting stance when it comes to blacks on the stage and the stories that we tell and I dont think she necessarily strays from the FNBA theory, she just explores it in an unconventional way. I agree that for the average person, regardless of race, watching her plays would be a challenge of one's intellect and hisotrical mind. I think she would be considered part of the good theatre group according to Gates because she has had great success on the great white way and has created a powerful voice for herself in the theatre world. what i find interesting about her plays is that she does deal with the the common issues of blacks in america but, she, as she states in the front of the book, changes the equation which results in a type of theatre that has the ingredients of a black drama but presented in an unconventional way forces one to think that our stories arent old and repetitive but in fact we need this stories in history, in a myriad of ways because they relate to different types of black people.
parks play fits in to Gates' definition of legitimate theatre quite simple because it is performed to white audiences in the elite regional theatres. her play is not necessarily by and for black people, because her play are intended for the legitimate theatre. i suppose tyler perry's plays are on stage so they are the legitimate theatre as well. but at the same tiem, they do not reach the same audeinces. Park's work is performed at the Guthrie, the Yale Rep, the Taper or Arena Stage. They are not in municipal auditoriums. Subscribers and theatre students see her plays. This is not saying her work is bad or irrelevant. i personally find the metaphor she uses in this piece to be genius. But according to Gates, her work is legitimate. i suppose what this post is getting at is my issue with Gates' definition of good and bad, legitimate and illegitimate theatre. i feel his definitions are arbidtrary, and if we were to apply the DuBois theory to his definitions, Gates' legitimate theatre would be the type that does NOT meet DuBois; definitions, whereas the illegitimate certainly does.
Post a Comment