Letter to the Editor - Does "Scoundrels" Offend?

Posted by Bruce Miller
In this morning's Times-Dispatch, under the headline "Mocking the disabled isn't funny," a gentleman named Miles F. Johnson wrote a thoughtful letter, excerpted below:
"I saw Dirty Rotten Scoundrels now playing at Barksdale's Empire Theater and wonder if I saw the same show the reviewer, Julinda Lewis, did. She wrote in the Times-Dispatch, 'I laughed so hard and so often during this musical comedy that my face hurt.'

Personally, I found the scene regarding brother Rubrecht to be offensive. Scott Wichmann portrays a man who is mentally and physically challenged. The word 'chromosome' is used in the dialogue, suggesting that Ruprecht's problems are congenital. Anyone with such challenges is not funny and certainly not a subject for laughter. The authors, by including this scene, exhibited total insensitivity regarding these challenged folks and their families.

I know this is a musical comedy, but expecting the audience to laugh at Ruprecht is, well, inappropriate. Am I a stick-in-the-mud? A wet blanket? Does grouchy, old curmudgeon come to mind? Perhaps, but when you see the show, ask yourself: 'Is the character, Ruprecht, really funny?' Think about it.

Miles F. Johnson
Richmond"

This letter struck a chord with me. My first "career" was in special education. For four summers in high school and college, it was my privilege to work at Camp Baker for developmentally disabled children and young adults. I began as a junior counselor, then a senior counselor, then creative arts director, then assistant camp director. During each of those summers, I lived for ten weeks with some of the most loving, creative, inspiring individuals I'll ever know. It's not an exaggeration to say that those summers changed my life.

Later, I worked for a year as a teacher at the Developmental Training Center. The reason I left Special Ed as a career was that I was unable to distance myself appropriately from the children and young adults in my care. I took all of their challenges home with me. I wanted to solve problems I couldn't solve; offer cures and corrections when none were available. The pressure wasn't healthy for me.

When I read Mr Johnson's letter, I thought it was appropriate and represented a thoughtful and reasonable point of view. I didn't think he was a "grouchy old curmudgeon"--the phrase he uses. I thought he was a loving, thoughtful advocate. Clearly we hurt his feelings with our production, and I deeply regret that. I take his criticism to heart and thank him for it. He makes an excellent point, and I'm sure he is not alone in feeling the way he does. God bless all loving, thoughtful advocates. I hope I'm one of them.

Having said that, I think there is another point of view that is equally valid. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is about two con men, one skilled and one ridiculous, who do any and everything in the course of 2 1/2 hours to achieve their dastardly, silly ends. It is clearly a comedy without a serious bone in its body. The musical does not ask nor expect the audience to laugh at a disabled person. In fact, Scott Wichmann does NOT portray "a man who is mentally and physically challenged." Scotty portrays a dirty, rotten con man who pretends to be "a man who is mentally and physically challenged."


I'm not trying to split hairs. I'm trying to explain why I and, I believe, most people feel comfortable with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels--why we don't feel like we're laughing at people with disabilities.The musical asks the audience to laugh at the two central flim flam men, both of whom are occasionally tasteless, crude, insulting and inept as they go about their business of conning women out of money. It doesn't give away anything substantive to say that at various points, one of the two antiheroes pretends to be a wheelchair-bound veteran, an Irish priest, a royal prince, a sadistic Austrian psychiatrist, a Spanish real estate tycoon, a mute, a psychologically damaged contestant in a nationally televised dance contest, and, yes, a wacky, misfit brother.

The brother, Ruprecht, is not referred to as "disabled." He is described in song as follows:

Every royal family, by its nature,
Has a sort of price that it must pay.
Every noble lineage has
One loose gene-
Small as a molecule,
Flitting 'round the family pool.

It's the sort of thing
One sees in Appalachia
Or in the odd inbred bichon frise.
It really can be such a
Nasty stain on the escutcheon
When a wisp of DNA
Begins to fray, then goes astray.

Caligula had the tempre,
The Hapburgs had the chin.
George the Third went cuckoo-bird
And Nero had that violin.
Richard, you'll remember,
Had the hump and the withered limb.
The Bushes of Tex
Were nervous wrecks
Because their son was dim.
But look what happened to him.

Alas, our family also carries a bit of a curse.
But darling, it could be a great deal worse.

Ruprecht is a character that the other characters make up. He exists only as part of a scam. The characters in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels offend everyone in sight. That's part of what makes them dirty and rotten. It's their outrageousness that is funny, NOT the people they offend.

One could argue persuasively that the current style of comedy trends purposefully toward the irreverent (think Jon Stewart, South Park, The Book of Mormon, Spamalot, Avenue Q, etc). Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is clearly in sync with that trend.

When our production offends kind, thoughtful men like Miles Johnson, I'm very sorry. But it is not our intent to offend. We're offering a light summer comedy, crude and tasteless as some of the characters may be. Most audiences are laughing their hindquarters off, as mentioned in our five rave reviews.

Last year we produced The Sound of Music; this coming Christmas we'll be doing My Fair Lady. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is not one of these classic American musicals. It adds a welcome variety to what we do. It's contemporary and silly. It is also, arguably, fresh and funny.

We hope all audience members will enjoy the show in the spirit that it is written and presented.

--Bruce Miller

L is for Language

Posted by Bruce Miller
I love our audience. I think you folks are smart, adventurous and appreciative. I admire your receptive imaginations and expansive hearts.

I know many of you are sensitive to language. I’m thankful for that. Language is a key ingredient in theatre—perhaps the key ingredient. Sensitivity to it is a very good thing.

Boleros for the Disenchanted has some of the most beautiful, evocative and distinctive language you’ll hear from a contemporary playwright. Like Sarah Ruhl, the playwright who gave us The Clean House, Jose Rivera can turn a phrase in a way that sends your spirit soaring.

Talk about sensitivity to language. Jose Rivera is SENSITIVE to language. I like to think I am as well.

I also know that sensitive people are the easiest to offend. This is because our feelings are readily accessible. We wouldn’t have it any other way even if we could. In many ways, that too is a very good thing.

A great playwright—and I believe Rivera is a great playwright—paints with language chosen to evoke strong feelings from the hearer. Particular words and phrases are chosen to stimulate a comic or dramatic effect. Characters speak from their authentic places; they live in real worlds. When they speak, they use real words.

They sometimes use real words that we ourselves may not use. They are not us.

As we all know, real worlds and real words can delight, injure, inspire and offend us in equal measure.

On occasion, I hear from audience members who are offended by the language they hear on our stage. "Why didn’t you warn us?", they ask. This is a reasonable question. I’ll try to provide a reasonable response.

I believe that 85% to 95% of the people who attend our plays are not offended by the language they hear on our stage. Or they are appropriately offended, I should say.

When they hear vulgar, coarse or profane language, they sometimes gasp. They may even be stunned. Nonetheless, they appreciate the way in which the playwright's carefully chosen words and phrases illuminate the character or the situation and draw them into the play. They enjoy experiencing a world that is not their own. They want to ride the emotional roller coaster with the characters, and language helps them do so.

For maybe 10% of you, offensive language jars you out of the world of the play. You hear a word or phrase that you don’t want to hear, a word or phrase that you would never use yourself, a word or phrase that you were always taught should not be spoken in polite society, and the moment you hear it, you are so shaken that you’re no longer taking a journey with the actors. You find yourself sitting self-consciously in a theatre, feeling embarrassed and even a little angry, concerned solely with what just happened in your world, not the world of the play.

I know this; I respect this. I don't like it. I apologize for it.

The theatre artists involved in each production share the job of drawing the audience into the characters’ world. When we suddenly send you reeling into a personal reaction happening in real time, we fail to transport you. We fail at our job.

When faced with this failure—not a failure of intent, but a failure of effect—I struggle deciding what to do.

Here’s what I’ve decided. We will continue to produce plays with strong language—who wants to produce plays with weak language? When a play contains language that approximately 10% of our audience may find personally offensive, I’ll ask our marketing department to place an L in the lower left hand corner of our promotional materials for that play.

L is for language. S is for sexual activity that is seen, not just discussed. N is for nudity. V is for violence.

These letters are not “ratings.” Every play I select to present to you is rated W for Wonderful. If I don’t think the play is Wonderful, then we’re not going to produce it.

These letters are not “warnings.” I would never select any play that I felt required me to warn audience members not to come.

These letters are “advisories.” Understated advisories to be sure. Understated because I don’t want to misrepresent the content of the play and advise anyone that the content is improper or ill conceived. I believe in and stand in support of every play we produce.

These understated advisories are there to prepare the 10% or so of you who find that offensive language takes you out of the play. If you see such an advisory, you can call our box office or check our website and we will provide you with a very detailed description of the content that is being referenced. If you choose not to attend a play after seeing such an "advisory," we will, of course, be happy to refund your ticket price.

This may not all be in place immediately. It will all be in place soon.

Regarding Boleros, the L will soon be appearing in our ads. Boleros is a beautiful, spirit-lifting, heart-warming play. It is filled with wonderful characters and magnificent language. The script includes a few words and phrases that may take some of you out of the play. I encourage each of you to see it.

As always, I welcome and ask for your thoughts. Thanks for your support of Barksdale Theatre.

--Bruce Miller

Final Thoughts on the Word "Ass"

Posted by Bruce Miller
As I and others have mentioned previously on this blog, the word "ass" and its appearance in Peter Pan seem to be causing increasing consternation these days. On Monday of this week I received what I hope will be my last letter from a disappointed patron. I responded (it is my practice to respond to every communication) with this iteration of the letter I wrote to address the controversy.

It's about the 50th response, so I might as well share it with the world.

"Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your support of Theatre IV, for purchasing tickets to Peter Pan, and for writing to express your concern. I appreciate your bringing your grandson to our shows. We work very hard on behalf of the children, families and schools of Central Virginia. I hope you and your grandson have enjoyed our work and will continue to attend. We want and need you both in the Theatre IV family.

I value and respect your concern, and appreciate your sharing it with me. In your letter, you state that you are “very disappointed” in Theatre IV and in me because the word “ass” was spoken during Peter Pan. It was not my intention to disappoint or offend you and your family. I apologize for having done so. I offer the following to explain my thinking. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m offering another point of view.

You are correct in noting that the word “ass” occurred in our production of Peter Pan two times. I didn’t cut the word for three reasons.

1. The word “ass” is not inherently vulgar. I do not deny that some people, perhaps many people, hear it and use it in a vulgar way. But children, throughout their lifetimes, will hear it also in its correct usage. I believe I would be betraying the trust of countless parents and educators if I were to treat a generally acceptable word as vulgar only because it is sometimes used in a vulgar manner.

2. It’s inappropriate and ill advised for me to rewrite the words of great writers. Again, I believe I would be betraying the trust of parents and educators if I were to presume to do so. Perceptions of some words do change over time. I believe this makes it all the more important to preserve the words of the great writers, so that students of all ages can know and understand the true meanings of words that are going through periods of transition.

3. It is illegal for me to rewrite or omit this word, or any other word, from the play. Had I done so, the good people at Music Theatre International who represent the estate of J. M. Barrie would be legally entitled to shut down our production of Peter Pan, and sue Theatre IV for breach of contract.

In support of the above three points, I offer the following.

I don’t mean to overstate the obvious, but it’s good to remember that the word “ass” is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “any of several hardy gregarious African or Asian perissodactyl mammals (genus Equus) smaller than the horse and having long ears; especially an African mammal (East asinus) that is the ancestor of the donkey.” That is the first and only proper definition of the word. All subsequent definitions are preceded by the phrase “sometimes vulgar.”

Being a man of great character and conscience, J. M. Barrie was not writing a vulgarity in 1904 when he created Peter Pan. When Peter translates Tinkerbell to Wendy, after Tinkerbell has called Wendy “a silly ass,” both Peter and Tinkerbell were referring to the donkey-like animal.

The same can be said for the authors of the Bible. The word “ass” appears in the King James translation of the Bible as follows:

GENESIS 22:3, GENESIS 22:5, GENESIS 42:27, GENESIS 44:13, GENESIS 49:11, GENESIS 49:14, EXODUS 4:20, EXODUS 13:13, EXODUS 20:17, EXODUS 21:33, EXODUS 22:4, EXODUS 22:9, EXODUS 22:10, EXODUS 23:4, EXODUS 23:5, EXODUS 23:12, EXODUS 34:20, NUMBERS 16:15, NUMBERS 22:21, NUMBERS 22:22, NUMBERS 22:23, NUMBERS 22:23, NUMBERS 22:23, NUMBERS 22:25, NUMBERS 22:27, NUMBERS 22:27, NUMBERS 22:28, NUMBERS 22:29, NUMBERS 22:30, NUMBERS 22:30, NUMBERS 22:32, DEUTERONOMY 5:21, DEUTERONOMY 22:3, DEUTERONOMY 22:4, DEUTERONOMY 22:10, DEUTERONOMY 28:31, JOSHUA 6:21, JOSHUA 15:18, JUDGES 1:14, JUDGES 6:4, JUDGES 10:4, JUDGES 12:14, JUDGES 15:15, JUDGES 15:16, JUDGES 15:16, JUDGES 19:28, 1 SAMUEL 12:3, 1 SAMUEL 15:3, 1 SAMUEL 16:20, 1 SAMUEL 25:20, 1 SAMUEL 25:23, 1 SAMUEL 25:42, 2 SAMUEL 17:23, 2 SAMUEL 19:26, 1 KINGS 2:40, 1 KINGS 13:13, 1 KINGS 13:13, 1 KINGS 13:23, 1 KINGS 13:24, 1 KINGS 13:27, 1 KINGS 13:28, 1 KINGS 13:28, 1 KINGS 13:29, 2 KINGS 4:24, JOB 6:5, JOB 24:3, JOB 39:5, JOB 39:5, PROVERBS 26:3, ISAIAH 1:3, ISAIAH 32:20, JEREMIAH 2:24, JEREMIAH 22:19, HOSEA 8:9, ZECHARIAH 9:9, ZECHARIAH 9:9, ZECHARIAH 14:15, MATTHEW 21:2, MATTHEW 21:5, MATTHEW 21:5, MATTHEW 21:7, LUKE 13:15, LUKE 14:5, JOHN 12:14, JOHN 12:15, and 2 PETER 2:16.

None of these Biblical references are meant to be vulgar. As children encounter the word “ass” in the Bible, in classic literature, or in timeless Christmas carols like The Little Drummer Boy and Good Christian Men, Rejoice, I believe it is important for them to know that the word has a proper usage as well as a vulgar one.

Regarding legal issues, I offer this explanation. U. S. Copyright Law and all international copyright laws require theatres to produce plays exactly as written. We (and every other theatre and publisher) have no legal right to rewrite the great (as in the case of Peter Pan) or the not-so-great works of stage literature. When I signed our contract to produce the musical Peter Pan, I signed a legally binding document and promised that Theatre IV would “not alter any line of dialogue or omit any words or phrases” from the script as written by the author.

Copyright laws are written in this way to ensure that producers will respect the language that was purposefully selected by the author. It is illegal for producers to amend the language as they see fit. Every professional production of Peter Pan, including the Mary Martin productions broadcast nationally on television in the 1950s, used the lines as written.

When we first produced Peter Pan in the 1990s, we received only one or two comments about the word “ass.” When we produced it again just after the turn of this century, we received maybe ten comments. Today, in 2008, we probably received 50 or more complaints.

The “zero tolerance” language police are in full force today, and I respect their (and your) motivations. None of us like for children to be exposed to vulgar language. The tricky part with the word “ass” is that it is not a vulgar word. Are we therefore well advised to join with those who would like to turn it into one? Or should we continue to respect the word as it has been properly used in classic literature, in beloved Christmas carols, and throughout the Bible?

When I took my children to Peter Pan in the ‘90s, it presented a wonderful teachable moment. My wife and I had the chance to talk with our son and daughter about the word “ass,” about what it meant when we heard it spoken from the pulpit or the stage or sung by Julie Andrews on our Christmas albums. We also had the chance to talk about how some words can mean one thing to people who use them correctly, and something else entirely to people who use the words incorrectly. Unless that is explained to them, how are children to understand?

Again, I thank you for writing. I honestly mean it when I say that I value and respect your opinion. I take my responsibilities seriously, and try hard to contribute positively to the cultural life of our community. It’s not always easy.

Thanks for your consideration of my thoughts, and for your support of Theatre IV.

Sincerely,

Bruce Miller
Artistic Director"

Respecting Those Who Leave "Little Dog" NOT Laughing

Posted by Bruce Miller
We're two weeks into our six week run of The Little Dog Laughed. About 150 patrons thus far have decided to opt out prior to seeing Little Dog due to their concerns over content. Another 110 or so have left the theatre upset after seeing part or all of Act I.

Each of these patrons matters to me, and not just from a business point of view. I respect and value their concerns. It's vital that I remain true to my own heart, and that they remain true to theirs. But hearts can open; minds can change. Both mine and theirs.

I know not everyone in the world will ever see eye to eye. That's a good thing. I hope I will always want to hear and respect the opinions of those who disagree with me. I hope that many of those who hold opinions different from mine will nonetheless be willing to hear what I have to say.

I've written down the following thoughts and we will begin distributing them during Wednesday's performances to all those who express concerns or choose to leave the show early. I offer my thoughts here to get the word out to others who may have left Little Dog angry during the first two weeks, and may be unaware of our efforts to address their disappointment. Please spread the word.

Dear Barksdale Audience Member,

I’m writing this for those of you who are choosing to leave The Little Dog Laughed early, and/or have shared your objections with our staff during intermission. I’m honestly sorry if you’ve been offended by the play. I understand and respect your opinions. I take them to heart.

I hope you'll allow me to respond to your concerns with five bullet points. I have no expectation of changing your mind. I simply want to offer my perspective.

The first bullet point describes my spiritual motivations for selecting this play. The second outlines where I believe The Little Dog Laughed fits into theatre history. In the third, I talk about the many ways in which we have tried to advise all audience members about the content of Little Dog before they came to see the show. In the fourth I offer you several remedies to address your disappointment. The fifth details what you can expect from Barksdale Theatre in the future, as long as I remain artistic director.

1 - As I have noted for many years, I consider my job to be a calling. I honestly feel compelled to act on my faith through my work at Barksdale Theatre. Without intending to trivialize or rationalize anything, may I say that I sometimes think that Little Dog is my "woman at the well" play.

One of my favorite Bible passages is John 4: 1-42, in which Jesus encounters an outcast Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well. He knows she has been branded an “adulteress”; he knows she’s been living with a “fifth husband” to whom she’s not really married. He knows she’s become alienated from her own community to the point where her neighbors allow her to visit the well only at high noon after all the other women have returned home.

To the shock of his disciples, Jesus doesn't turn his back on this woman. He engages her in conversation (not allowed by Jewish law at the time), asks her to share a drink of water with him (an act considered so intimate that it too was forbidden by Jewish law), and then offers her not judgment, but salvation.

As I state in the Director’s Notes that are printed in the playbill, when 57% of the Virginia population voted in favor of the most stringent marriage law in the United States, outlawing even marriage-like legal contracts between unmarried couples, they turned their backs on gay men and women just as the Samaritans chose to ostracize the woman at the well. I don’t believe Virginia voters did the right thing. Following Act II, most theatregoers walk away from Little Dog questioning whether the “happy ending” that has been engineered is really happy or moral after all. When we as a community judge and exclude others because they are different, are we acting in a Christ-like manner, or are we failing each other and ourselves?

The Little Dog Laughed speaks meaningfully to me and to many others about love, compassion and inclusion, three important tenets of the religious left. I think the moral stance of the religious left is just as worthy of consideration as is the moral stance of the religious right, and vice versa. Unfortunately, those of us in the religious left tend to be shy about claiming the moral high ground. To be honest, I'm feeling fairly self conscious right now.

Nonetheless, I think The Little Dog Laughed says some important things about our world today, and says them with a sense of humor. I’m sorry if the play didn’t speak to your spirit; it speaks to mine.

2 – The Little Dog Laughed is a traditional comedy of manners—offering a satirical and purposefully shocking take on today’s language, mores and culture. It is highly regarded nationally and internationally, and was nominated for the 2007 Tony Award for Broadway’s Best Play of the Year. It is very much in keeping with plays like Moliere’s great comedy Tartuffe, which is now universally considered to be a world masterpiece. During Moliere’s lifetime, however, Tartuffe was banned by the church, decried by conservatives, and Moliere himself was roundly pilloried for having written such “filth.” Tartuffe was loved and highly praised by many of the young moderns of Paris, just as Little Dog is enjoyed and praised by many of the young professionals (and lots of non-elites and seniors too) of NYC and Richmond. By “young,” I mean adults in their 30s and 40s, an audience Barksdale (and every professional theatre) needs to cultivate in order to survive.

3 – In every mention we have made about The Little Dog Laughed since Day One, we have noted that the play told the story of two gay men, one of whom was a male prostitute. We have said that the play included nudity and ribald language. In all illustrations, we have shown two naked men in bed together. During the last three months, we have sent a content advisory to all subscribers, ticket buyers, and others on our mailing list, noting that the play included strong language and adult content. We have encouraged all newspaper coverage to indicate that this was the edgiest play in Barksdale’s recent history (Barksdale’s extended history includes many such plays), and to again make clear that the language, nudity, gay themes and adult content were vital components of the show. On our website, we’ve posted discussions of what offends an audience most, and outlined the themes and content of this play. On the Little Dog section of our website, we’ve posted a waist up photo of the two naked actors embracing each other.

In every other major city where Little Dog has played or is playing, there has been a much smaller effort to advise audience members. In most cities, nothing is done. We know this is Richmond, so we did everything we could short of going door-to-door to let our audience members know what to expect. Even so, we apparently did too little. If you were surprised by the play’s subject matter and tone, you are not alone.

4 – Before the fact and after, we have offered those who may be offended by the show’s content several remedies. Before coming to the show, over 150 subscribers read our advisories and took us up on our offer to trade in their Little Dog tickets for free tickets to Greater Tuna, our current hit comedy at Hanover Tavern, or for tickets to our upcoming productions of the great Broadway musicals Peter Pan and/or Guys and Dolls at the Empire. To the 110 or so people who missed our advisories and thus far have come to see Little Dog only to be offended and/or disappointed, we again make a similar offer in an effort to address respectfully your concerns.

a. If you were disappointed in Little Dog, you may have free tickets to Greater Tuna, pending availability. Tuna closes at Hanover Tavern on June 15. Or ...

b. You may have free tickets to the hit Broadway musical Peter Pan, produced by Theatre IV, pending availability. Peter Pan runs at the Empire Theatre from April 25 until May 18. Or ...

c. You may have free tickets to the hit Broadway musical Guys and Dolls, pending availability, to share with your friends. Guys runs at the Empire Theatre from June 13 through August 17.

To obtain your choice of free tickets, simply call Joy Ross at the Barksdale Box Office – 282-2620.

5 – I’ve served as artistic director of Barksdale Theatre since July 2001. During the last seven seasons, I’ve selected and produced 44 plays and musicals, one of which was The Little Dog Laughed. I’m proud of each selection, for different reasons. This roster of 44 productions is indicative of what you can expect from Barksdale in the future.

Will Barksdale produce another play in the next seven years that is as edgy as The Little Dog Laughed? Yes, I expect we will. For every person who has had the integrity to communicate with me regarding their objections to Little Dog, there have been at least two others who have communicated to thank me and let me know how much they loved the production.

Will we do 43 other plays in the next seven years that offer a broad perspective of world theatre, including shows like Doubt, Mame, The Member of the Wedding, The Full Monty, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crowns, Moonlight and Magnolias, The 1940s Radio Hour, Cyrano de Bergerac, The Lark, The Brooklyn Boy, Annie Get Your Gun, Drawer Boy, Intimate Apparel, Anything Goes, The Crucible, James Joyce's The Dead, The Laramie Project, The Little Foxes, Proof (insert your favorite Barksdale show here)? Yes, we will. Our goal always has been and always will be to offer an eclectic roster of plays and musicals, not a steady diet of only one type of show. I believe most patrons support our broad-based mission to bring you “the great comedies, dramas and musicals, past, present and future.”

I sincerely appreciate and respect your sharing your objections with us. If you would like to communicate with me directly, I encourage you to do so. I can be reached via email, by phone at (804) 783-1688 ext 13 (this will take you to my assistant, Janine Serresseque), or by land mail at Bruce Miller, Barksdale Theatre, 114 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23220.

I always look forward to hearing from you. I also always appreciate your support of Barksdale Theatre, Richmond’s leading professional stage company.

Sincerely,
Bruce Miller
Artistic Director, Barksdale Theatre

Theatre IV Added to Boycott Lists

Posted by Bruce Miller
Since we're discussing things that offend audience members, I thought I'd share one of today's letters. I've left out the name to protect the privacy of the sender.

"Dear Sir:

I am writing to inform you that I am participating in Life Decision International's boycott of Theatre IV because it funds Planned Parenthood, an immoral organization which has murdered a staggering number of unborn children. Planned Parenthood seeks to promote sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility while attempting to turn children away from their parents. It gains support mainly through deception of the public. It claims to save society from the "costs" of "overpopulation" when in fact there is plenty of evidence proving that abortion and birth control programs, in addition to being severely unethical, actually undermine the economy. For example, the ever-increasing costs of Social Security place larger burdens on each individual laborer in the working population due to the low birth rate of the United States.

Those who respect all human life cannot in good conscience do business with Theatre IV as long as it remains on LDI's boycott list. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact LDI.

Please do the right thing and make Planned Parenthood ineligible for funding from your company."

Here is my response, which went out it today's mail.

"Dear xxxxx:

Thank you for your letter of Jan 29, 2008. We regret that you have made the decision to boycott Theatre IV. We respect all those who follow their conscience and take a stand in the pro-choice / pro-life debate. We do not believe it is appropriate for Theatre IV to support one side of that debate over the other.

Your letter was addressed to a Board President from several years ago. We are aware of the website that posts the outdated contact information that you have used. Despite their claims to have updated their lists recently, most of the information included on those lists is at least six years old. I am Theatre IV's Artistic Director. I hope you'll allow me to reply.

In my experience, I have not found Planned Parenthood to be an organization that “seeks to promote sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility while attempting to turn children away from their parents.” In fact, my limited experience with Planned Parenthood has convinced me that they work to reduce sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and encourage healthy communication between children and parents.

I also must disagree with your assertion that Theatre IV “funds Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood is one of 635 community-based nonprofit organizations that requested and received a voucher for two free tickets to Theatre IV in the last two years. Several nonprofits that promote pro-life agendas were also among the 635. It is quite possible that any of these nonprofits auctioned off their vouchers at a fundraising event.

Our association with Planned Parenthood is correctly described as follows. Several years ago, Theatre IV produced an adolescent pregnancy prevention program entitled Dancing in the Dark and toured it extensively to Virginia's middle schools. Dancing in the Dark was co-produced by Theatre IV and the Department of Pediatric Medicine at what was then the Medical College of Virginia.

While creating Dancing in the Dark, we worked with a broad cross-section of nonprofit organizations associated with efforts to reduce adolescent pregnancies, including pro-choice organizations such as Planned Parenthood and pro-life organizations such as Central Virginia’s Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the Catholic Church, etc. Our purpose in assembling this broad-based group of advisors was to represent the issue of adolescent pregnancy prevention in its entirety, rather than from a single point of view.

Our advising organizations found common ground in recommending that we create a pro-abstinence program for middle school students. We followed their recommendation and Dancing in the Dark received national recognition when we performed the play as the keynote presentation at the national conference of NOAPP (the National Organization for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention).

Conservative political committees such as Life Decisions International placed us on their boycott lists because we invited Planned Parenthood to sit at the table as we developed our pro-abstinence program. We also welcomed the Crisis Pregnancy Centers and other pro-life groups to that same table. We are well aware that there are those who insist that we limit our research to only one point of view. We choose to have a broader perspective.

As a matter of policy, we do not make decisions based on boycotts or threats. Like you, we make decisions based on our conscience. Our conscience is clear. We respect your decision not to attend our productions.

Sincerely,

Bruce Miller
Artistic Director"

Race - Part II: Loving vs Virginia

Posted by Bruce Miller
As previously mentioned, most of the complaints I receive from offended audience members are about language. The second biggest grievance is sex, closely followed by the third major offender, race. Among the racial objections I receive, most document a strong distaste for any onstage depiction of interracial romance. Call it the Guess Who's Coming to Dinner objection.

To an extent, this issue used to split on the “religious right” / “religious left” divide as well as the fault line that separates political conservatives from liberals. But now that Barack Obama and Tiger Woods stand as the two most recognizable children of interracial marriage … now that a conservative icon like Clarence Thomas walks proudly arm in arm with his Caucasian wife … now, I daresay, objections to interracial romance are more generational than anything else.

Before discussing the particulars of present day grievances, let’s look at the history that forged the attitudes of most of the grumblers. As many of you may know, our home state of Virginia played an infamous role in that history.

Virginia is for Lovers. That’s the way the slogan goes. But in 1958, for Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter (pictured to the left), it must not have felt that way. Richard was white, and Mildred was of “mixed blood” (white, African American and Native American). After seven years of friendship and courtship, they married in Washington D. C. and then returned home to live in peace in Central Point, about an hour northeast of Richmond, halfway between Bowling Green and Tappahannock.

Less than a month after their wedding, the local sheriff’s department raided their home at 2 a.m., roused them from their sleep, and hauled them away to face the law. The anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia and 15 other states (mostly Southern) prohibited the marriage of whites and “non-whites.” Richard and Mildred were arrested and charged with a felony for “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.” They were tried in the county courthouse in Bowling Green. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to a year behind bars—Virginia law requiring a prison term of one to five years.

The judge agreed to set the punishment aside, however, if they promised to leave Virginia immediately and not return together for 25 years. He justified his verdict as follows: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." (From the end of WWI until the sixties, the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel [pictured above and to the right in a Bruegel painting], found in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, was used by numerous religious faiths as proof that God intended the races to remain separate. It was also used as a Biblical foundation for racism and Jim Crow laws.)

For the next several years, the Lovings lived in a Washington D. C. ghetto, while keeping and occasionally visiting their modest Virginia home. They always drove in separate cars, and met covertly while in Virginia to avoid incarceration. In 1963, after one of her three children was hit by a car in their D. C. neighborhood, Mildred Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union, which agreed to represent the Loving couple in an appeal of their conviction.

During four years of subsequent litigation, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s verdict. Finally, in 1967, in the aptly named Loving vs. Virginia, the U. S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren (pictured to the right), voted unanimously to overturn the conviction on the grounds that the Virginia law that forbad interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Only then did the American South finally become one of the last places in the world to do away with anti-miscegenation laws. Other holdouts included Nazi Germany which overturned its laws in 1945, and South Africa under Apartheid which abandoned its laws in 1985.

Coincidentally, 1967 was also the year that Guess Who's Coming to Dinner made it into the nation's movie theatres.

To view the amazing, actual ABC News report that was broadcast in 1967 (including footage of Mildred and Richard Loving and their three children), go to http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3277875&page=2.

On a personal note, the Virginia law defined “non-white” as someone who had “one eighth blood” of a minority population. My wife’s (Terrie’s) great grandmother was full-blooded Oklahoma Cherokee. Her grandfather was one half Cherokee, her mother is one quarter Cherokee, and Terrie herself is one eighth Cherokee. Terrie and I were married only 19 years after Loving vs. Virginia. Had the Virginia law not been overturned, Terrie’s and my marriage would not be legally recognized. Moreover, Terrie’s mom and dad, married in Norfolk, VA 13 years before Loving vs. Virginia, were married illegally under the law of the day. Had they been turned in to the police, as the Lovings were, it’s possible that they too could have been convicted of a felony and sentenced to one to five years in prison.

Coming soon – How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution contributed to anti-miscegenation sentiments.
--Bruce Miller

A Second Way to Offend Audiences - Intro

Posted by Bruce Miller

In case you happen upon this post without having read previous articles, I’m writing a series about those onstage activities that reliably prompt negative reactions from certain audience members. Following language, which I’ve commented on previously, sex is the issue that prompts the most concern and/or outrage. Ninety-five percent of the complaints I receive about sexuality center on objections to homosexuality.

I’m going to withhold my thoughts on sex for the time being—I have my reasons—and discuss the issue that comes in third on the list of “most complaints received.” Race.

I respectfully consider and respond to every communication I receive from audience members who are offended by the plays we choose to produce. I encourage and appreciate such communication. I hear from 50 to 75 angry people a year. (These figures include only those who are offended by content, not those who object to the comfort of their seat or the HVAC.) Almost all of the 50 to 75 allege that they’re contacting me on behalf of a large group of like-minded individuals who are equally offended but less inclined to tell me so.

We sell 42,000 tickets a year. Even believing the multiplier claims, which I do, I think 50 to 75 out of 42,000 is pretty good.

To be candid, I sometimes find objectors to be closed-minded and their comments to contain a certain amount of ill will. On occasion, the complaints offend me just as much as the language or action offends the audience member. This is often the case when people complain that I try too hard to be “politically correct.”

In my experience, the term “politically correct” is used mostly by conservatives when they’re mad at moderates and liberals. Make no mistake, conservatives apply considerable political pressure on organizations like Barksdale Theatre to act in accordance with their tastes and wishes. When we select a play that matches their conservative standards, they have no sense that we are catering to their tastes. They think we simply are exercising common sense.

But when we select a play that is more in sync with the standards of our more liberal audience members, the conservatives often complain that we’re caving in to some sort of pressure in an attempt to be “politically correct.”

Let me say this as clearly as possible, the pressure we receive from the right is no different from the pressure we receive from the left, and vice versa. I NEVER try to be “politically correct.” I ALWAYS attempt to find a balance among shows that have conservative appeal and shows that satisfy our more liberal brethren. It’s as simple as that.

My main criteria have nothing to do with politics at all. I choose plays that:
· I personally enjoy, think my parents would have enjoyed, or think my children will enjoy;
· are artistically sound;
· will have a positive impact on the community;
· represent a broad cross section of the world theatre repertoire;
· are likely to sell well, both as individual productions and/or as part of a season; and
· will help us retain our existing, mostly mature audience while adding to it with new, younger audience members.

When it comes to race, I receive complaints from those who object to:
1 racially mixed couples on stage,
2 racial stereotyping,
3 racial slurs, and
4 under-representation of ethnic minorities.

And now, in an effort not to write blogs that are too long, I will pause. Coming soon – a discussion of racially mixed couples on stage.

--Bruce Miller

Language - Part I: From Potter to Shakespeare to Jesus and Beyond

Posted by Bruce Miller
Writing about “offensive language” has the potential to be both dangerous and constructive. I vote for the latter. Some of you are more liberal than I, and may find this post to be prissy and/or quaint. Some of you are more conservative, and may be upset by what you’re likely to view as rationalization or misrepresentation. To one and all, I say this: I’ve written this carefully, intending all due respect to others who hold opinions different from mine. Every word was selected thoughtfully and is meant to be sincere. I’m not trying to rationalize, criticize, or look down upon anyone else’s beliefs. I hope not to have the last word, and welcome your comments.

Following that preamble, I will now begin to ramble.

To many if not most theatre artists, the subject of “offensive language” is simple. We don’t believe there is such a thing. No word, we believe, can be inherently offensive. Language is our medium. Find me the painter who is offended by a particular color. We celebrate and revere language, in all its variety, beauty, coarseness and power.

We are like Harry Potter. Let the rest of the wizarding community cower in the Dark Lord’s shadow, referring to him euphemistically as “you know who” or “he who must not be named.” We refuse to give darkness that power. We shout the name “Voldemort” out loud. And just like Harry, we sometimes get in trouble for it.

We may not believe that language is inherently offensive, but, unless we are fools, we are well aware that there are audience members who are offended by certain language. If we are pure artists—I am not one but I ask God to bless those who are—we relish this knowledge. Offend is a very useful instrument in our tool box, laying right there alongside amuse, titillate, anger, sadden, inspire, thrill, scare, energize and delight. Our job is to connect with audience members using every tool at our disposal. Why on earth would we be afraid to pick up offend? When an awl is called for, a carpenter reaches for his awl.

In Act III, Scene 2, Shakespeare famously has Hamlet deliver this advice to the players: “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.”

In other words, the life we create on stage should accurately reflect the life we find in our world. The language featured in an on-stage scene reflecting the life of a ladies luncheon should sound one way; the language found in a theatrical portrayal of a fight in a soldier’s barracks should sound another. Were we to apply a filter that made the language in the barracks sound just the same as the language in the church parlor, we would be holding the mirror up not to nature, but to priggishness.

But let’s step back into that church parlor for a while. I love the peace, comfort and fellowship I find in my church’s parlor. I am a Christian—a quiet, introspective, “religious left” Presbyterian—a Christian nonetheless. I’m slightly ashamed to say that I’m not confident enough in my faith—my pride would prefer me to say not arrogant enough regarding my confidence—to proselytize. So I’m speaking personally, for whatever that’s worth.

Here’s what my Bible tells me about language:

from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, chapters 4 and 5 – “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. … Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving;”

from Paul and Timothy’s letter to the Colossians, chapter 3 – “But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips;”

from James’ letter to the twelve tribes, chapter 3 – “Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be;” and

from the second letter of Simon Peter, chapter 2 – “For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.”

Also, of course, there’s the Ten Commandments, but most Biblical scholars agree that “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” refers more to false oaths than to profanity.

I accept all of these Biblical lessons and value their guidance as it relates to the way in which I personally speak to those around me. When I speak to others, I try mightily (not always successfully) to speak graciously and not to offend. But I do not believe these lessons relate directly to my calling as a theatre artist or as artistic director of Barksdale Theatre. My responsibilities in that realm, I believe, are to create theatrical productions that impact our community positively. And often the best way to have a positive impact is to honestly examine human behavior.

Consider the great variety of human behavior, and language, detailed in the Bible itself. As only one of scores of examples, no lesser light than the Apostle Paul uses scatalogical profanity when he’s trying to make a point. In Philippians 3: 7 through 9, Paul recounts and disavows his former prosperous life as a Pharisee (more about them momentarily).

“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”

Please note in the above quote that itilicized word, rubbish. The word Paul actually wrote is skubala, which in Greek was the lowest, most coarse word for animal excrement, a word that appears frequently in the ancient graffiti found in archeological digs, a word more accurately translated as shit. All the profit and respect I gained as a righteous Pharisee, Paul states, doesn’t mean shit compared to the peace and strength I find in my Christian faith.

One of my favorite readings in the New Testament is found in Mark 7: 1-20. I recommend it to you. It is a complex passage which is near and dear to my heart. I will now, humbly, summarize it, inadequately I’m sure.

Jesus and his disciples (pictured in the Ottonian vellum panel to the right) were carrying out their mission of healing the sick and ministering to the poor. The Pharisees (one of the most influential, zealous and traditional religious parties operating during and after Jesus’s lifetime—see the reference to Paul above) saw the disciples eating with unwashed hands, in noncompliance with Jewish tradition. “So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, ‘Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with unclean hands?’”

Jesus replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

Jesus then gives specific examples of how religious fundamentalists can, by demanding strict compliance with established religious laws and traditions, inadvertently “nullify the word of God.” He adds, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ … For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

A contemporary corollary comes from a Baptist preacher whom I admire, although I don’t always agree with him. Tony Campolo (pictured to the left) began his famous sermon entitled The Positive Prophet with this: “I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

Whatever language is said from our stage, I'm confident that the purpose that comes from our hearts is free of “evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and ...” All right, I confess to “folly.” The language on stage will not always be in compliance with religious law and tradition, because I believe that such compliance would cause us to “let go of the commands of God.” Here’s what I believe: whatever “uncleanliness” is perceived comes from the heart of the hearer, not from the heartfelt intentions of our humble, respectful company of fools.

Coming soon, Language – Part II (maybe even III), in which we shall discuss copyright law, the history of censorship, specific complaints we’ve received at Barksdale and Theatre IV, and other funny theatre stories.

--Bruce Miller

Thoughts on Offending the Audience - Intro

Posted by Bruce Miller

I don’t enjoy offending people. Honestly I don’t. The graphic to the right, I've been told, is borrowed from boy's lacrosse. It's a signal that relates to "offensive screening." It was mailed to me by an audience member who wanted to remind me that what I do is potentially offensive.

I value this signal. I also increasingly buy into that old saw that says if you’re not making somebody mad, you must not be doing it right.

Offending someone is, of course, not the same thing as boring someone. Two of my favorite productions at Barksdale (The Crucible by Arthur Miller and The Lark by Jean Anouilh, adapted by Lillian Hellman) bored some members of our audience. I directed both productions.

Both plays relate to history (the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy era in the case of The Crucible, the Joan of Arc story and the McCarthy era in the case of The Lark). Both plays are politicized (we’re talking Arthur Miller and Lillian Hellman after all). Both plays are narrative and language-heavy, written by playwrights who thrive on polemics, unapologetically requiring audience members to care about the issues the playwrights care about. Both plays are long by 21st century standards—The Coast of Utopia notwithstanding.

I love(d) both plays and both productions. And I know lots of other people who do (did) too. But on different nights during the runs of both shows I found myself sitting next to John Q Public audience members who fell asleep about ten minutes into Act I, clearly bored out of their minds.

Offending someone is, of course, not the same thing as confusing someone. The Lark confused some people in addition to boring them—two, two, two mints in one. Two other personal favorites at Barksdale (James Joyce’s The Dead, written by Richard Nelson with music by Shaun Davey, and The Member of the Wedding by Carson McCullers) confused some members of our audience as well. The remarkably talented Steve Perigard and Scott Wichmann (does Richmond know how lucky it is to have these guys?), respectively, directed those two productions. They directed them beautifully.

The Lark is character and theme-driven; The Dead and The Member are both character and language-driven. Unlike most dramatic literature, these three plays are not particularly plot-driven. Take away a strong linear plot, and some people feel lost. “What the hell was that all about?” was a question I heard more than once after each of these three shows.

To me, these plays were “about” a hundred things, and I felt emotionally richer for having seen them. Again, I know lots of other people who also loved these productions.

Offending someone can be the same thing as challenging someone. Personally, I like my beliefs, feelings and thoughts to be challenged. More to the point, I need my deeply held convictions to be challenged. Unless and until they are tested, how do I know what I really value and hold dear?

But many people have different brain chemistry, I know. The minute you challenge one of their beliefs, they perceive you are heaping contempt on their innermost selves. This is never our intention. Nonetheless, they are offended.

There are scores of ways to offend audience members, but over the years it seems to me that we’ve offended people in three main arenas: language, race and sex. What different people find to be offensive interests me. And since this season seems to be offending its fair share, and, come Little Dog Laughed, promises to offend lots more, I figure now’s a good time to discuss these issues.

Part of the value of this discussion will be to organize and clarify my own thoughts. An equally important part will be to ask for and welcome your opinions.

So plug in your offendometers (I pronounce it with the emphasis on the third syllable) and get ready to rumble. Coming soon – language!

--Bruce Miller