Philip Weiss revisits NYTW

I've been meaning for a while to call attention to Philip Weiss's moving post back in June about attending an event at New York Theatre Workshop honoring the Palestinian youth organization, the Jenin Freedom Theatre.

Weiss wrote the definitive Rachel Corrie article back in '06 when that storm was brewing around NYTW. But now he has kind words for them.

The directors of the NYTW had invited the Jenin Freedom Theatre to reach out to the New York theater community for help—for drama teachers, singing teachers, speech coaches, writers, anything, to keep that theater in the refugee camp going...

I am writing with explosive feeling. That is because of where this appeal took place. In the New York Theatre Workshop, which censored the Rachel Corrie play two years ago. NYTW was ripped apart by that event. At that time I had no sympathy for the theater company. It was obvious that some one or other on the board had found the play objectionable and had overruled the artistic director, Jim Nicola, and so the case was seized upon, in the New York Times, in the Nation (where I wrote about it), and on playgoer. [Oy! -ed.] It was a shock: a live demonstration in New York of censorship that has since become a common occurrence inside the Jewish community.

Well the other night at the NYTW, hosting this Arab theater group they have met and worked with many times, there were two of the enemies. Jim Nicola wearing a green Ocracoke café tshirt, a big sweet warm man. And Linda Chapman, a skinny vigorous woman who buzzed from one guest to another welcoming them. I understood that this outreach is not some sudden or forced motion of their hearts. The New York Theatre Workshop has been active on the Arab-Israeli problem for years now, and it fulfills them to give a platform to Mervat Aiash, to talk about cultural revolution in Palestine....

The world has come a long way since Rachel Corrie was censored (though it happened again and again, in other cities). NYTW has instead of backing down in a climate of fear and censorship, doubled down. Its staff has brought in Nibras, the Arab-American theater company, and staged several Palestinian voices....

This is difficult terrain, Linda Chapman told me. She felt caught up in a media drama two years ago. As a journalist I know how easy it is to paint people as enemies. This doesn’t help.

I may take issue with whether the New York theatre world at large has indeed "come a long way" since '06 in dealing openly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I certainly would not begrudge NYTW's efforts since then to make amends and/or rectify the impression they gave back then. I know I didn't make any friends there either during those days, nor do I expect to now. But, basically...yeah, what Phil said.

"Balance" Optional?

I have no wish to harp on this Boston preem of "Rachel Corrie," but I just realized this whole plan of the New Rep theatre to balance it with a more Israel-friendly one-woman show (Pieces) actually doesn't work!

The plays perform only in rep and tickets are sold separately to both.

Not even a discount for the pair!

So how does this achieve the sought-for "balance"? Nothing is compelling the audience to see both plays. Why not just see the one you "agree" with? ("Let's not and say we did," I bet is a tempting response regarding the other one.) I mean, it is an extra $25. If you're going to make me pay for my pro-Likud "equal time" after Corrie, I might as well just stop by Barnes & Noble on the way home, buy a remaindered copy of Bibi Netanhayu's latest screed and spend the extra cash on the stiff drink I'll need to help wash it down.

Be Careful What You Wish For--II

Now the Boston Globe concurs with the Herald that pairing My Name is Rachel Corrie with another play (or at least the one chosen) doesn't soften its impact, but rather only drowns out the "other side."

i'll quote critic Louise Kennedy at length since she makes the point quite eloquently, I think:

In some ways, the pairing makes sense: The works feel similar in scale and style, and they fit neatly onto a shared set (cleanly designed by David R. Gammons, who also directs "Rachel Corrie") with only slight alterations. They're also politically "balanced" enough, apparently, to have muted the kind of outrage that has accompanied "Rachel Corrie" stagings elsewhere.

Nevertheless, it's a pity that New Rep found it necessary to create this kind of balance. It's a pity because, although the theater has emphasized that it's not trying to reduce a complex situation to just two perspectives, it's hard not to read a double bill that way: "Here's one side and here's the other." Even with the admirable slate of staged readings, panel discussions, and films that the company is presenting in support of these works, putting the two plays together forces us to view them through a reductively binary lens.

It's also unfortunate because no two plays in the world can exactly balance each other. They're individual works of art, not position papers, and they must each be judged on their own merits - not just on how they connect to the real political issues they engage, but also on how they succeed as works of art. Here, "Pieces" and "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" are simply not balanced at all.

Neither is a perfect play, but "Rachel Corrie" is more expertly crafted, more movingly written, and, at least in these productions, more essentially theatrical than "Pieces." Let me emphasize that that's an aesthetic judgment, not a political one. But let me also say that it can be hard to disentangle the two, and that's why I'd rather see each play presented on its own.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Reviewing the Boston New Rep "rep" of what I like to call "Rachel Corrie-Plus," the Herald points out an unintended flaw of the "balanced" program...

The problem with presenting these plays side-by-side is that “Corrie” is far more compelling. Though it has its moments, “Pieces” [written & performed by Zohar Tirosh] too often has the amateur feel of a college production, with lines like, “The walls are peeling; my soul is peeling.” It doesn’t help that Fischer [Stacy Fischer, who plays Corrie] is a virtuoso, Tirosh just so-so.

Pro-Israel, anti-Israel...in the end most audiences are probably just pro-good-theatre.

"Rachel Corrie" Buffered in Beantown

Yes, sorry, "Rachel Corrie" again.


But, hey, it's not me putting it in the papers. The play has finally come to Boston. (Recent prominent stagings include smaller companies in Denver and Montreal--where, perhaps to counter the blond, blue-eyed American image of Rachel, she was played by an Asian-Canadian actress.)


No controversy, actually. But the Boston Globe's preview reports that the New Repertory Theatre (of suburban Newton) has indeed gone ahead with its plans to pair--nay, trio or quadruple--the play with other "balancing" events.

[New Rep] had originally planned to pair "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" with the one-act "To Pay the Price," about the late Israeli Army hero Jonathan "Yoni" Netanyahu. But after the Netanyahu family heard of the plans, it asked that "To Pay the Price" be pulled from the lineup, deeming the two plays incompatible.

Forging ahead, New Rep replaced "Price" with the solo show "Pieces," written and performed by an Israeli-American, Zohar Tirosh, about her experience serving in the Israeli military in the mid-1990s, when peace seemed like a real possibility. The company is also surrounding the two works - staged in its 90-seat black-box space - with related panel discussions, talkbacks, readings, and films, including the Oscar-nominated documentary "Promises."

The New Rep's producing artistic director, Rick Lombardo, says that this mini-festival on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not part of an effort to deflect criticism of "Rachel Corrie," but is instead the result of nine months of planning and dialogue that he and his staff engaged in with various communities, from the Arab Anti-Defamation League to the American Civil Liberties Union to the Jewish Community Relations Council.

"Everybody wants to fixate on one play. But for us, it's never been about one play," he says. "Our goal was to have Rachel's voice be one of two. But the more we've explored the topic, the more our festival has grown to include a diversity of voices. We want to explore how a historical and cultural event like the Israeli-Palestinian situation spurs artists to create and spurs community dialogue."

Not to rehash old arguments here, but...


Isn't it funny that this approach has not been advocated for plays on any other issue?


Lombardo's rationale could be deployed to justify buffering any number of controversial--or once-controversial--plays. To take him at his word, you'd assume his theatre would also stage, say, Inherit the Wind in conjunction with a pro-Creationist play. Might some communities still into "traditional" male-female relationships be right in asking that even A Doll House to share a bill with, I don't know, some Victorian family melodrama like East Lynne?


Okay, strawmen, I know. But think of some of the most praised current or very recent productions seen in New York recently that take a side in similarly controversial issues. St. Ann's Warehouse felt no compunction to present the Scottish National Theatre's Blackwatch with any rebuttal statement from John McCain on "Why the Surge is Working." Last summer's vicious Hillary Agonistes did not compel the NY Fringe Fest to offer anti-Obama fare.


To say nothing of the difference of opinion some theatre artists still find in local communities when they dare to put on Angels in America or Laramie Project. Forget about the violent homophobes. How are we to appease the fine upstanding peaceful citizens who simply object on relgious grounds to all tolerance (i.e. depiction without explicit condemnation) of homosexuality.


And think of other artforms. Like film. The hard-hitting Romanian Oscar contender 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is about as controversial subject as there is in American culture: abortion. And it's unapologetic about why it must be legal. Are arthouse cinemas and distributors pressured to offer "double features" with some more pro-life film like...uh, Juno?


In short, "context" is fine. But context should never be cover.


Besides--thinking about this again reminds me of what pretty much the only exciting thing was about watching My Name is Rachel Corrie Off-Broadway a year and a half ago: the experience of being in an audience that has to deal with controversial, unpopular statements spoken from the stage, unopposed.


There's a long history of subversive sentiments and statements sneaking themselves into drama. But they only survive intact when the "evildoers" are punished or reformed, or when some raisonneur is there to rebut them right on the spot. Kate spends much of Taming of the Shrew venting the frustrations of women everywhere, before Shakespeare makes the play palatable by forcing her to recant at the end. (Ditto Shylock.) This is also why villains can be so much fun--they're often right! They're just saying the things no one else is allowed to say.


So I get the feeling the only "acceptable" kind of play about the Middle East now would be one where, sure, someone gave some speech in defense of the Palestinians--only to be answered and/or shot down by some more "reasonable" character. (Hence Mike Leighs' Two Thousand Years, while addressing these subjects, has met with no such controversy.)


So by running for cover behind as many "diverse views" as possible, we deprive the theatre of that special frisson that can only come from confronting the unpleasant. Even if it is "wrong." Think of that ending from Wallace Shawn's Aunt Dan and Lemon, for instance, where the heroine leaves us with an atrocious monologue justifying Kissingerian ethics on warcrimes, assassination, and such. Now imagine someone coming out after the show having to explain to you, "Now boys and girls, that was just a play. We don't really think that."


But look: we don't see this approach taken with plays of any other subject, do we? (Or so far, of any other plays!) So obviously we don't need to worry about this becoming a trend, right? Or do we...

A New Business Model for Political Theatre?

"Generally, by the time somebody buys a ticket nowadays to a political piece, they're the wrong audience....They haven't been there to be challenged or to be converted. They're already immersed in the issue."

-Brian Freeland, co-director of a new political theatre company in Denver, Countdown to Zero.

The name isn't prophetic, by the way. It's just their mission to produce ten plays (counting down from #10) and then fold.

Also, it's running as a commercial enterprise. Why?

"I'm trying to avoid having to immerse in the nonprofit or the board or this long-term organizational structure."

Their opening play is My Name is Rachel Corrie.

Rocky Mountain News' Lisa Bornstein has the story.

Israel on Stage: Still no Peace

Two interesting articles on Israel-themed plays from small Jewish-American papers.

• Frin the Jewish Review: "Rachel Corrie" the play in trouble again, this time at a local Ashland, OR theatre (not the Shakes Fest).

• From The Jewish Week: An overview of reception to two current NYC titles: the Israeli play Masked and Betty Shamieh's The Black Eyed at...New York Theatre Workshop. That both shows are doing relatively well despite mixed to poor reviews is credited to: "A mix of carefully crafted marketing strategies, and, perhaps more importantly, scripts that avoid simplistic political judgments." Or is that, no political judgment?

Barnard "Corrie" Panel Transcripts

Barnard College, April 7, 2006. From l. to r: Barnard's Shawn-Marie Garrett (moderator), Christopher Shinn, Kellt Stuart, Alisa Solomon, Prof. Marvin Carlson, Gregory Mosher, John Heilpern.

Under "better late the never"...

The Yale Drama journal, Theatre, has finally published the transcript of the April, 2006 Barnard College panel discussion of the New York Theatre Workshop "Rachel Corrie" controversy. (Yes, when we were right in the thick of it.) For a more raw account see my original post. These are basically the opening statements, edited and presumably revised by all the participants--except, unfortunately, Gregory Mosher who had a lot of sharp things to say and riled up the crowd, but opted not to let his remarks be reprinted here. A shame.

In any case, not to rehash, but if interested, try accessing the online version via Duke Journals.

And while we're rehashing I will go ahead and make available here my own essay on the "Corrie" mess that I wrote for the recently published New York Theatre Review, which very much complements the Barnard statements. Since there's no online link to the NYTR contents, I'll just cut & paste it into a hidden blog post, here, for your reading leisure. (Still, do buy the book, please!)

From the Barnard panel, let me just quote for now a few lines that stand out as especially timeless and not just rooted to that particular argument. They're from Paula Vogel, as relayed at the panel by her friend, Professor Marvin Carlson:

“It is simply not true that American writers are not writing political plays; we simply know that they will not be produced in New York at not-for-profits with visibility and budgets. We hear in the Times how only the British writers (such as [David] Hare, [Martin] McDonagh, etc.) write politically. They write politically, yes, but they write inside a system that still subsidizes theater and new work and so their work is visible. And we import our political work, which lets the producers and board members feel virtuous. And now, with the Corrie incident, I fear we have to import political outrage, too, from Britain.”

As true now as it was then.

" 'Corrie' Fears Unrealized"

Interesting headline, that, from the Washington Post, reporting on the fallout or lack thereof from the staging of "Rachel Corrie" at the Contemporary American Theatre Festival in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Says it all.

Catch this:

[E]arly this year [AD Ed Herendeen] estimated that in a worst-case scenario the festival might lose as much as $50,000 by doing the provocative play. However, ticket sales for the July 6-8 opening weekend were up 3 percent over last summer's opening, Herendeen said, and donations so far are up $21,000 over 2006.

The sky is not falling.

Remember, too, that CATF is also playing blogger Jason Grote's mideast themed 1001, to some acclaim.

Arabs & Israelis back on the NY Stage

A two-decade old Israeli play "Masked" is receiving a belated New York premiere next week. It deals directly and not unsympathetically with the intifada, albeit not explicitly the present-day one. And, like "Rachel Corrie," it too is being presented by a commercial producer.

Penned in 1990 by a Jewish Israeli, Ilan Hatsor, then a student-playwright, "Masked" is a traditional Greek tragedy, transpiring over several hours in a West Bank butcher shop. Like the controversial New York production of "My Name is Rachel Corrie," it unfolds amid a violent intifada, and its sympathies lie with the Palestinian Arabs it depicts. Yet Mr. Hatsor's play has not sparked the kind of heated debate that preceded the local premiere of "My Name is Rachel Corrie."...

The run-up to "Masked" has been much quieter. After organizing a series of staged readings last fall, director Ami Dayan secured an open-ended [read: commercial] "Masked" run at DR2, an off-Broadway performance space of veteran theater producer Daryl Roth.

Read all about it in today's Sun--itself no friend of Israeli-unfriendly thought.

I like the logic of director Dyan's (and yes, he's related to that Dyan) argument for doing the play at this particular moment:

Mr. Dayan, an Israeli-American, said he was motivated to import "Masked" stateside by Hamas's surprise victory against its rival Fatah in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections [s]eeing the play as emblematic of that factional struggle weakening bonds in families and among peoples.

Those January 2006 Hamas elections? Exactly the same event cited by New York Theatre Workshop as a reason not to do "Rachel Corrie." Me, I'm on the side of theatre being relevant.

Speaking of NYTW, their long awaited foray into Arab American drama on the mainstage starts tonight with Betty Shamieh's The Black Eyed.

CATF Fallout

The Baltimore Sun goes behind the scenes of the infighting over the programming of "Rachel Corrie" at West Virginia's Contemporary American Theatre Festival. "Initially, the 27-member board was so split on the wisdom of mounting such a divisive show," reports Mary Carole McCauley, "that the festival hired a mediator."

The biggest protest was from H. Alan Young, a former director of the festival himself who resigned and took his $100,000 donation with him. Young's certainly entitled to his opinion and free to bail on his own festival if he wants. And a couple of his rationalizations--I mean, reasons, hold some water.

Young, who resigned from the festival's board of directors, finds Rachel Corrie's interpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be prejudicial and deeply inaccurate.

He also objects to the inclusion of a play that he believes violates the festival's mission to stage new works by American playwrights. (In his opinion, Viner and Rickman, both Britons, and not Corrie, are the play's authors.)

"Unless Rachel Corrie had supernatural powers," Young says, "she could not have written the account of her death with which the play ends. The account of her demise was written by another Englishman who was a colleague of Corrie's, so that account is suspect."

Okay, he seems to be saying all Limeys are somehow "suspect," but put that aside. I would agree "Corrie" is a play out of the British theatre, and so technically any theatre or contest with a strict "US Playwright" stricture could rule it out.

But on the other hand, surely a lot of theatres committed to an exclusively "American" repertory would consider foreigner-penned adaptations of American authors, no? The words of the play indisputably are Corrie's, regardless of the last 5 minutes. (And since when can a mere epilogue quoted from another source throw the whole authorship into question?)

Young goes on to cite other reasons, though, which are even more "suspect" themselves, or at least stretch the credulity of the censorial cover-up:

He also weighed other factors before making his decision: He believed the board was breaching its fiduciary duties to safeguard the festival's financial well-being...."The board should absolutely have superseded the producing director if they knew that putting on a particular play could have a detrimental impact on the festival's financial outcome," he says.

And probably a good reason Boards should have no say in artistic programming at a nonprofit (emphasis on the non) institution.

As the facts have shown, of course, "Corrie" has had quite the opposite of a "detrimental impact" on ticket sales. What a great corrective to the panicked cry of controversy as automatic box office poison.

And check out reason #4. (As Mamet wrote in a recent Unit episode: "When your kid has more than one excuse, you know neither of them are true.")

In addition, he says the play can't be considered "contemporary" because the situation on which it is based no longer exists. Israeli civilians and military forces have since left the Gaza Strip.

Ah, I see. So "contemporary" means right....now. D'oh! That was 10 seconds in the past. Okay , how about right....now?

Yes, so the Israeli pull out from Gaza marked the end of the Arab Israeli conflict. You heard it here. Ancient history.

Young says he welcomes controversial and thought-provoking plays, "no matter what the subject matter. But I object when the plays are so offensive as to cause loss of significant funds. I also would expect them to present more than one point of view."

So yay to free speech as long as it doesn't lose money and doesn't offend the "other" point of view. Pretty qualifying remarks.

Young would really be better of simply maintaining he hated the play because he loves Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu so much. That I can respect. But his other theories on what constitutes acceptable drama will simply be proven wrong by the already favorable reception to the play at his former theatre.

Kudos again to his successor Ed Herendeen for weathering the storm.

"Corrie" @ CATF

According to WaPo, West VA's Contemporary American Theatre Fest's staging of "Rachel Corrie" is helping foster a good helping of holy land plays in and around our nation's capital this summer--including our fellow blogger Jason Grote's 1001 (also at CATF) and David Zellnick's Theodore Herzl play at DC's Theatre J.

Once again, good things can come of controversy. Despite the usual grumbling.

One CATF board member and donor resigned and some regular subscribers canceled after Artistic Director Ed Herendeen chose the play, objecting to its critical portrayal of Israel. CATF Associate Producing Director Peggy McKowen wrote in an e-mail to Backstage [WaPo's theatre column] that subscriptions are "holding steady" compared with the previous two years.

Yes, holding your ground can pay off.

Playgoer @ Drama Book Shop, Today!

Oops. I can't believe I haven't plugged this yet.

I'm actually appearing at Drama Book Shop today(!) at 5pm along with other contributors to the 2007 New York Theatre Review, for which editor Brook Stowe was nice enough to solicit from me an essay on the "Corrie" controversy appears.

But forget about me. Since the volume includes some hot new downtown plays this is also a chance to hear excerpts from such talked about works as the Pulitzer-nominated "Elliot, A Soldier's Fugue," the modern-day "Three Sisters" riff "Food for Fish," and Anne Washburn's "I Have Loved Strangers." Fellow "essayists" George Hunka and Alan Lockwood will also appear.

Complete details here, where you can also buy the book! It's also for sale over the counter there today or any time.

So if you're free at 5:00 or you work midtown, come on down! Drama Book Shop is at 250 W. 40th St. Since the basement "performance" space is teeny tiny, reservations are recommended. Call the store at (212)944.0595, ext. 417 or email them info_at_dramabookshop[dot]com.

And if you haven't been yet to the new expanded store (already five years old, I guess), it is indeed a great, great resource for the theatrelover, being the only bookstore in NYC left of its kind! Now that Applause shut down the brick & mortar.

"Corrie" ALMOST Banned in Boston

Two cheers for Rick Lombardo, A.D. of Boston's New Repertory Theatre. (Actually in suburban Watertown.) I say two, because he did give into the "fair and balanced" approach in programming "Rachel Corrie" (for a March 2008 opening) by pairing it with a pro-Likud play, a tribute to the Natanyahu family at that! But it bit him in the ass when Bibi refused to let his brother's military story share a bill with Corrie's story and withdrew all permissions for this authorized stage bio. So what do we learn about trying to enforce some kind of equal time doctrine in the theatre?

Still, rather than cancel "Corrie," (which I'm sure there was pressure to do) Lombardo found another "pro-Israeli" substitute. So while I still wish theatres didn't have to give into "equal time" pressure in the first place, I can at least applaud Lombardo for at least standing up for the more controversial half of his bill.

Boston Globe's Geoff Edgers (now, post-Daisey, the official correspondent for Beantown theatre controversies?) is on the case.

About the replacement show:

To replace "To Pay the Price" for the March 2008 run, New Rep worked quickly to obtain the rights to "Pieces," a play written by Zohar Tirosh about her experience serving in the Israeli military during the 1990s....

"Pieces" will be performed by its writer, Tirosh, who was 18 when she entered the Israeli army in 1994. During her two years of military service, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's efforts led to the Oslo Accord, and his assassination.

Tirosh has protested past cancellations of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie." She said she's pleased to be presenting her work at New Rep.

Praticing What We Preach

A while ago I mused over the prospect of revolutionizing theatre "development" (i.e. fundraising) along the lines of the Dean/Obama model in politics. In other words, is it time for some brave small theatre companies to shake off the burden of catering to especially wealthy patrons (and subjecting themselves to disproportionate influence) by going the other way and building a campaign around multiple online "small donor" contributions.

Well Mr. Excitement took me up on the challenge and raised me. He brings to our attention an excellent possible test case. The Contemporary American Theatre Festival is a well-established, though little known, West Virginia company devoted to new (not necessarily premieres) plays. Turns out they too are going ahead with a production of "My Name is Rachel Corrie" despite the withdrawal of a major donor and board member. (In other words, rather than buck under the pressure, they called the bluff, as it were--that it turned out not to be a bluff makes the theatre even more admirable in retrospect.)

So Mark suggests, why not show CATF some of us salute their standing by the controversial work they want to produce. Sending them a little donation may not offset the reported $100,000 the donor yanked. But it's a gesture to show that the pro-free speech side matters, too. And that just because one side threatens to cause trouble (such as your board), remember that some other folks may have your back.

You can donate to CATF here. ($10 minimum)

I myself sent a small, small amount so don't be bashful about just the $10. If the company gets a lot of such small-order shout-outs, maybe it can be the first step in a whole new financial model, where one millionaire donor can't end up with all the say.

Palestinian Plays at NYTW

I would be remiss if I didn't note that, since the "My Name is Rachel Corrie" fracas last year, New York Theatre Workshop has tried to repair its relations with Arab-American theatre artists in the city. They have already programmed Betty Shamieh's "The Black Eyed" for this summer. And this weekend they are presenting a mini-festival of readings, "Aswat: Voices of Palestine."

Too bad they have to do it at NYU, and not in their own space. But the mainstage is already taken up by this, which strikes me as much less interesting than any one of these readings. Then again, it's a one-man show.

The line-up for this weekend includes:

Last Train to Jerusalem by Fuad Abboud
It Happened in a Place Called Palestine by Razanne Carmey
Sharon and My Mother-in-Law by Suad Amiry, adapted by Afaf Shawwa
Deir Yassin: The Stonecutters by Nathalie Handal
Between This Breath and You by Naomi Wallace
The Monologist Suffers Her Monologue by Yussef El Guindi
Food and Fadwa or Eklitl Hob by Lameece Issaq and Jacob Kader
Souvenir by Sami Metwasi/Al-Harah Theater

Full schedule here. Each reading followed by discussion.

(Yes, I guess in the case of at least Naomi Wallace, it's the plays that are Palestinian in theme and subject, not necessarily the authors.)

The festival is a collaboration between NYTW and Nibras, an Arab-American theatre collective. On their website Nibras tells an interesting story of how this partnership with NYTW was formed out of the conflict of the "Corrie" controversy:

In the spring of 2006, Nibras began a series of dialogues with Jim Nicola and Linda Chapman of New York Theatre Workshop, concerning the complex issues surrounding artistic output from and about Palestine. In the course of these conversations, we learned that we share much common ground and a passion for using theatre to pose challenging questions and expose points of view that have been obscured or silenced by polarizing social and political forces. We thus found a shared call to action to provide opportunities for hidden voices from Palestine to be heard by a wider audience.

After a highly successful collaboration to produce two nights of readings for the Public Theater's "New Work Now!" Arab-Israeli Festival, NYTW named Nibras a company-in-residence and invited Najla Saïd, Leila Buck, and Nathalie Handal to join its extended community of affiliate artists, the Usual Suspects.

Anything that increases the diversity of new work on our stages--especially new work of an international and political perspective--is welcome. So good for NYTW for making something good come out of this. But I also hope Nibras will be able to actually stage some of these pieces, with or without NYTW's help. More readings and seminars are not necessarily the solution to the problem.

And speaking of the "Corrie" controversy, my final word on the subject is now published in the form of a brief essay in the new issue New York Theatre Review, a handsome book covering the year in New York alternative theatre. (My thanks to editor Brook Stowe for soliciting the piece.) You can buy a copy through the Amazon link in the right margin here. The biggest selling point of the volume are the published plays by Adam Szymkowicz, Anne Washburn, and Quiara Alegria Hudes (the Pulitzer-nominated "Elliot, A Soldier's Fugue").

(There'll be an event coming up on June 15 at Drama Book Shop where you can hear some readings of the short plays included, meet the contributors, and I suppose argue with us. More to come on that.)

"Corrie" trouble in Florida

Jews in Florida, you say?

I'll let Mark take the lead on this story, which he's been following all weekend.

While the AD in this case seems like a nice and principled guy, trying to do the right thing, the fact they even he caved to pressure (from the American Heritage folks, among others) is saddening.

And just baffling! I mean, by now you would assume that anyone seriously considering the play for production has heard it's a tad controversial by now. How could one not be prepared? Well, it seems he thought he was prepared in this case. But naively underestimated the vociferousness and tenacity of the opposition.

In this context, David Esbjornson's digging in of heels over at Seattle Rep is even more admirable. They braved for a storm, got only a small one, and survived. Despite some angry letters.

And angry letters are just fine. Anger cannot be contained. The Rep, I'm sure, made some enemies and things got unpleasant. But that's what happens when you stir debate. And that's, to quote Stuart Smalley...ok.

(C'mon Richard Jay Simon of Mosaic Theatre, just look in the mirror and repeat: My theatre is good enough, it's smart enough, and gosh darn it, people might hate it!)

Seattle Rep "Corrie" a hit?

Critically, at least. For a round-up, check out here, here, and here.

Interesting reactions, especially for the references to what remains of the controversy. But definitely a more hospitable response out west. Seattle is a serious theatre city. But, no doubt, without as vocal a Jewish presence (or as large a population) as New York. Still, the protests clearly got voiced, it seems.

Most notable might be Rep AD David Esbjornson's special program note, cited more than once, referencing the ad space they sold to anti-Corrie groups.

"[B]uying ads in our theatre publication to denounce the work on our stage is unprecedented. ... I acknowledge the right of these groups to their free expression. Similarly, presenting 'My Name Is Rachel Corrie' is a form of free expression that we should embrace and protect."

Amen.

PS. Thanks to Joanna of Seattle Rep for leaving a comment, and I wholeheartedly recommend the Seattle Rep blog she points us to, featuring her own thoughts as well as "Corrie" actress Marya Sea Kaminski's own e-journal of her experiences rehearsing & performing the play.

"Corrie" in Seattle

"To provide the venue or time for anyone who has a differing point of view to what a particular playwright puts forth in their work would be ... an overwhelming and impossible task."

-Seattle Rep, getting it right on their production of "My Name is Rachel Corrie."

As Misha Berson's Seattle Times article shows, there's been some of the usual objections raised, but in a quieter fashion than in NY. The ads taken out in the program by anti-Palestinian groups strike me as a totally appropriate venue for "the other side."

Rep AD David Esbjornson--a high-profile director with a reputation to protect--also stands by the choice in clear and utterly sensible terms.

This is about a native daughter of our area....I wanted to do it because it has really wonderful observations, and some really beautiful language, and real heart. But the bigger motive is for us as a culture to engage in a dialogue. We have to open this subject up for discussion.

Sometimes handling controversy can be civilized.

Latest from NYTW

Let it be known that New York Theatre Workshop has finally made true on their post-"Rachel Corrie" promise to program an Arab-American play. Their 2007-2008 season, Betty Shamieh's "The Black Eyed," opening this summer. The play "depicts four Arab women from across the ages who meet in the afterlife. As these women — who include the Biblical Delilah and a secular modern Arab-American — struggle to come to terms with their lives and their choices, this shockingly funny play skewers traditional views on sex, family, and terrorism."

Seriously, good for them. And I look forward to checking out Shamieh's work.

In other news, if Samuel Beckett balked at Joanne Akalaitis's infamous Endgame twenty years ago, good thing he's not alive to see what she'll get up to with Mikhail Baryshnikov and Philip Glass in the evening of one-acts they're planning for the fall. (Act Without Words, Eh Joe and Rough For Theatre I and II)

And, lastly--see photo.

What's up with this??? An anonymous one-million dollar donation, $2.5 mil in NYC capital funds, and a fancy architect are making this happen. A second space, you say, for even more of that emerging and challenging NYTW work?

Try a new scene and costume shop.

I mean, yeah, shop and storage space are crucial. And expensive. I'm sure they had appallingly little in their current digs. And it's a good use for the building acquisition. But is fixing it up like this really necessary?

I recall the beleaguered words of Eduardo Machado a while ago:

I decided that to raise 8 million dollars to build a theater had nothing to do with survival. A theater with a million dollar budget does not need a 500 thousand dollar flexible floor and it most definitely does not need to be in the basement of a Luxury Condominium.

With so little money for the arts going around, let's just hope it's going to the most urgent uses.