Author Archives: melissahillman

Feb 06 2017
4 Comments
Culture

Hairdemort Drinking Game

donald-trump-neutral-1456770893

(Source: Getty Images)

Hairdemort* Drinking Game
 
1. “Fake news”– one shot
2. “Loser” or “Winner”– one shot
3. Discredits a federal judge– half a beer
4. Discredits a federal judge appointed by a Republican– whole beer
5. “Weak”– one shot
6. “Sad!” — one sip
7. “Bad!” — one sip
8. “Tremendous,” “Terrific,” or “YUGE”– one sip
9. Denies saying something he said on camera– one sip
10. Forces Kellyanne to deny it– half a beer
11. Forces Kellyanne AND Sean Spicer to deny it– whole beer
12. “Make America Great Again” or “MAGA”– sip
13. Insults leader of staunch American ally nation– whole beer
14. Brags about himself in a speech that was supposed to be serious– one shot
15. Whines about “the media” in a speech that was supposed to be serious– one shot
16. “Failing” — one sip
17. “Paid protesters” — half a beer
18. Lies about his popularity and/or claims negative polls are “fake”– whole beer
19. Violates the constitution– one shot
20. Violates the constitution without reading what he’s signed– two shots
21. Cancels 2020 elections and declares martial law because “terrorists”– entire bottle of bourbon while hunched behind a boxcar in the cramped, dark hold of a ship bound for anywhere else while tearing up your passport and weeping
 
* “Hairdemort” courtesy of the ever-brilliant Mollena Williams-Haas. 
Tagged ,
Feb 03 2017
9 Comments
Culture

Stop Using the Word “Distraction”

connie-lim

Connie Lim, composer of the song that became the unofficial anthem of the Women’s March, “I Can’t Keep Quiet,” photographed by Rachael Lee Stroud.

I see a lot of confusion from white people about why “white liberal” and “white feminism” are derogatory terms and then I see a truckload of white people calling the Muslim ban a “distraction.”

“I don’t mean to imply it’s OK to ban Muslims, just that it’s a distraction from other things we should be paying attention to.” — every white person who has written an article about the “distraction” of the Muslim ban

A. I’m not understanding why these writers don’t understand the belittling implications of the word “distraction,” as if they were just hatched and flash-trained last week and are still working the kinks out in language acquisition, and B through Z. Calling the Muslim ban a “distraction” is racist. The Muslim ban is the problem itself. Whatever else Trumplethinskin and Bannon Wormtongue did during the Muslim ban chaos (and they did plenty), it was to make it easier to do more horrific things like the Muslim ban.

jfk-protest-immigrants-e1e9e7fb-3fc6-48de-85cf-b55bb57f1817

The protest at JFK against the Muslim ban, photographed by Stephanie Keith/Getty

Every action this administration or its leaders take cannot possibly be a “distraction” from every other action. It’s also nonsense to call any resistance action a “distraction” or, appallingly, “playing the shock event game”– as if fighting for Muslim lives is a “game” we’ve been baited into playing as a waste of time.

It’s ridiculous to label any resistance action as “playing into their hands,” and it’s even more ridiculous to state that a “shock event” like the Muslim ban was designed to “distract” us from the appointment of Steve Bannon to the NSC– an event that was on the front page of nearly every major English-language news outlet on the globe within seconds, an event that generated a trending hashtag on twitter, an event that launched thousands of thinkpieces. I googled “steve bannon nsc” to grab a link as an example, and I got 852,000 results.

It’s not escaping notice that massive protests to protect brown people were quickly characterized as a “distraction” that “plays into their hands” by white writers stating Steve Bannon’s appointment to the NSC is “far more consequential.” What is he doing on the NSC but furthering his very public anti-Islam agenda? How can anyone possibly conclude that a firm demonstration of our unwillingness to tolerate that agenda be a “distraction” from actions designed to implement that agenda?

fayetteville_banner

RESISTANCE WORKS. Black causes, now more than ever, need support. Trump has already vowed to target “urban areas” for voter purges using “illegal voters” as his excuse. Unarmed Black people are still being killed by police. Black people are unfairly treated by every aspect of the criminal justice system. There is much to do, and resistance actions WORK. (Photo source: Arkansas Times)

You know what’s an actual “distraction”? Thinkpieces from white people that claim– without evidence– that resistance actions are useless and “playing into the hands of Trump and Bannon.” The resistance is having an enormous impact. Two GOP senators have now vowed to vote against Betsy DeVos due to public pressure from their constituents. Nordstrom announced it will stop carrying Ivanka Trump merchandise after they were targeted by a resistance boycott. The CEO of Uber resigned from Trump’s advisory committee after almost a quarter of a million people deleted the Uber app in protest of Uber’s actions during the JFK protest against the Muslim ban. Lyft has pulled advertising from the white nationalist site Breitbart, formerly headed by Steve Bannon, bringing the total number of companies to pull ads from the “alt right” sight due to public pressure up to 820. And that’s just in the past few days.

queerdancepence

LGBTQ activists threw a dance party in front of Mike Pence’s house to protest his anti-LGBTQ stances on January 19, the most public resistance action on behalf of LGBTQ rights, but far from the only one. On January 31, Trump announced he would continue Obama’s protections for LGBTQ government workers. (Photo source: metro.co.uk)

This administration is losing support, and quickly, from both the left and the right.

Do not let anyone make you believe your resistance is “wrong,” “a distraction,” or “playing into their hands.” YOUR RESISTANCE IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE. Your work is important. PERSIST. RESIST. 

 

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 18 2017
9 Comments
Culture, Theatre

Theatre Resistance Plan, 2017 – 2020

thismachine

Pete Seeger’s banjo

There is no more powerful tool for changing ideas, shifting cultural zeitgeist, and resisting authoritarianism than art. While theatre is not the biggest bat artists wield, our impact on the culture is not nil, especially if you include community theatre and school plays, and we must. Resistance to the Trump regime is the most crucial political battle of our lifetimes because this regime– and the zeitgesit behind it– stands to undo progress in every area of our society. Trump, Pence, McConnell, Ryan et al are actively seeking to impoverish you to enrich themselves, roll back every civil rights and workers’ rights gain of the past 100 years,  eliminate every consumer protection, eliminate the social safety net, and pretend you begged them to do it. It’s telling that the very first appointee of the incoming administration was an amoral white nationalist, and the very first act of the new Congress was an attempt to eliminate their own ethical oversight.

One of the most dangerous aspects of this regime for us as artists is its leader’s relentless attacks on free speech. He has always attacked the freedom of expression to the fullest extent of his ability as a private citizen, and has publicly stated his desire to use the power of the office of POTUS to continue to do so.

Trump takes power in just a few days, and we must be ready. The theatre community must form a resistance to this regime and to the cultural zeitgeist that supports it. We have a very specific, very powerful tool, and we must use it effectively.

1. All artificial divisions between theatres need to be dropped. A commercial Broadway offering is no more important to this fight than a community theatre production. Every show, every company, every artist is important. Denigrating shows for being “commercial” or “community theatre” serves no one in the resistance. Brushing off a show because it’s a “college production” or a “kids’ show” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what we’re trying to do here. We’re prepping for a long game. This is not just a resistance to one regime; it’s a resistance to the ideas that put that regime in place. From now on, when we say “theatre,” we are consciously including everything from the smallest storefront indie show to Hamilton, from street theatre to Ashland, from the elementary school play to Roundabout. Everywhere our art is practiced is an opportunity for effective resistance.

2. Define for yourself what the goals of your resistance will be. You will not be able to resist everything all the time, and you will burn out quickly if you try. Define for yourself the specific resistance goals you wish to focus on, and understand that those goals can shift from show to show, decision to decision. Here’s a partial list: fighting racism and white nationalism, fighting sexism and misogyny, fighting bigotry against religious minorities (such as antisemitism and Islamophobia), fighting homophobia and transphobia, fighting ableism, protecting and expanding health care, protecting free speech and freedom of the press, protecting consumer protections, protecting public education, protecting workers’ rights, fighting against “post-truth” and misinformation, fighting for action to slow climate change, fighting for voters’ rights and election integrity. Are you a 501c3? You already exist to act in the public interest. Nothing about your mission needs to change in order to incorporate these goals, and “acting in the public interest” over the next four years can only mean doing whatever is in our power to resist this regime and its dangerous goals.

3. All theatre is political theatre and all art is activist art, whether you consciously know what message you’re sending or not. We must consciously consider what messages we’re sending with our art and make decisions that specifically work to further resistance goals. That doesn’t necessarily mean staging overtly political shows. It means you have a critical obligation to assess what you’re saying with the content of your work. It means, “Oh, it’s just a fun comedy” doesn’t cut it any longer, especially considering comedy is one of the most powerful tools any resistance ever has. Examine the content of the work you’re considering. What is it saying? Does it speak honestly to your audience (and to your staff) about our nation? Who we are, who we want to be, who we fear becoming? Does it work to further our goals in any way? Can it be staged to do so? Remember that some of the most effective art is subversive art. The resistance goals you’re meeting with your show need not be overtly political. Creating empathy for transgender people, immigrants, or Muslims in a small, personal show with no overtly political content would be powerful support for resistance goals, for example. You know best how to speak to your audience. Just be conscious of what you’re saying to them.

Artistic directors, the best tool at your disposal is your diverse staff. When they read the plays under consideration for your season, ask them to look at messaging and/or political and social content in addition to the usual things you ask them to look at. If you are white, believe people of color on your staff when they tell you a script is racially problematic. If you are male, believe the women on your staff when they tell you a script is misogynistic. If you are able-bodied, straight, or cis, believe the disabled, queer, or transgender people on your staff when they tell you a script is ableist, homophobic, or transphobic. Actively seek out the opinions of others and believe them. What’s at stake is too important to allow for fragile egos. When a script you love by a playwright you love is, for example, considered misogynistic by the women on your staff, set it aside. You can love the script at home. We have far more excellent scripts than we have slots within which to produce them. Believe your staff.

4. Ensure that your process supports resistance goals. This means hiring a diverse staff and treating them as well as you possibly can. We are long past the point when we can continue to discuss gender parity and diversity and still hire white men for each and every position of power. White men are 31% of the US population. Do they hold 31% of the leadership positions in your organization? They sure as hell make up more than 31% of the AD positions and director positions in the US. How many transgender or genderqueer people do you have on staff? How many disabled people? When you’re hiring, consider diversity a specific desirable characteristic. Living as, for example, a Black woman or a disabled transwoman in the US creates a certain skillset in a person that will enrich your organization in multiple ways, not the least of which is identifying and understanding politically and socially problematic content in plays you’re considering that you will otherwise miss if you do not have that same lived experience. Treat your people as well as you possibly can. I realize that your cash-strapped organization cannot always pay people what you would like to pay them. I realize funding is a massive, industry-wide problem. All I ask is that you ask yourself at every juncture, in every decision, if you are acting in accordance with your goals to the best of your ability.

5. We must set aside making compromises for financial gain. Yes, we must keep our doors open, but we do not need to pull back from our values to do that. More often than not, decisions that are presented as compromises for financial gain do not actually work to increase income; they’re decisions made out of fear of risk where no real risk exists. It’s not financially risky to do a play by a woman or cast people of color. We have a mountain of stats to prove this. There is always a way to act in accordance with your goals. Do not allow the fears of others to push you into poor decisions. Push back. We must prioritize resistance goals over financial ones, which leads me to:

6. We must re-evaluate our funding system top to bottom. Funders, you must work closer to the 501c3 ideal we all say we support. This means going back to the creation of the 501c3 as a way to fund theatres that releases them from needing to rely on ticket sales. The ultimate goal is radical hospitality– free tickets for all who need them– but of course implementing that industry-wide is a long way off. For now, we must step away from consolidating funding at the very top and work to distribute funds in a way that furthers resistance goals. We must keep our flagship theatres open, but we do not need to continue shutting out smaller theatres. Nowhere is this more vital than in initiatives to reach audiences of color. We fund large white theatres when they do an “ethnic” show to reach “under-served” audiences, while we routinely starve theatres– especially smaller theatres– run by people of color that have been serving those supposedly “under-served” communities for decades.

What does this mean in practice? It means living up to our liberal values and initiating a small redistribution of wealth by peeling a small amount of the funding currently going to the top 1% of theatres and using it to fund smaller companies who are able to reach audiences larger companies cannot. It won’t take much. A $20K grant is chump change to a $20 million dollar a year theatre, but it’s lifesaving to a small theatre. We must also re-evaluate the bizarre funding culture that funds projects instead of companies. When we do fund projects, we must look to fund more joint projects between smaller theatres and larger theatres. When you want to fund flagship theatres’ initiatives to do outreach to an “under-served” audience, make that a grant for joint projects between flagship theatres and smaller companies already reaching that target audience. Funders, you are the life-blood of our resistance. You must make your funding more effective for the health of the community as a whole. There are things smaller theatres can do that larger theatres cannot, and vice versa. Every tool at our disposal needs to be supported.

7. Think about what you can do in addition to– or in tandem with– the actual shows that furthers your resistance goals. We’re all strapped for time, money, and energy, but many of the things you can do are fairly low maintenance, and some of them you’re likely already doing. Can you hold a Q&A for audiences after the show that focuses on issues raised within the show? Can you host a panel discussion with local theatremakers about diversity in casting, about an issue discussed in your show, about gender representation? Can you allocate a certain number of tickets for radical hospitality– free tickets for teachers, for members of the local community, for students? Many companies are already doing free student matinees, a radical act that changes lives. Can you provide free workshops for actors, playwrights, designers, admins? Or, if you have a space, can you provide free space to a local theatremaker already giving workshops, enabling that workshop to offer a certain number of scholarship spaces? Can you create a staged reading series for local playwrights of color, LGBTQ playwrights, women playwrights, disabled playwrights, giving them opportunities to develop their voices? These are just a few ideas– there are limitless things you can do.

Remember, though, that self-care is crucial. Don’t take on more than you can handle. There’s no way you can do everything. Delegate– which also provides opportunities for others. We all must get our shows up, and the work we do is grueling. Do what additional things you can, and don’t waste time beating yourself up for not doing more. This is a long game. Protect yourself from burnout. Sometimes you won’t be able to do anything extra, and that’s fine– and that concept should be supported by funders as well. The work on our stages is paramount. We make theatre. That must come first. The art creates the empathy. The extras around the art are excellent and useful, but not critical. Do what you can, but prioritize the art.

8.  A lot of these action items are directed at theatre companies, but individual theatremakers are just as important. Use whatever power you have, and never stop using it. When I cast, I call in a diverse group of actors for every role unless the role calls for an actor of a specific race or ethnicity. When I work with actors on audition monologues, I make sure the monologue choices I give them are by a diverse group of writers. When I teach, I make sure my reading lists are diverse. As theatre makers, we are one of the primary audiences for theatre. See shows that are working to further resistance goals. Donate to companies that are working to further resistance goals. Even signal boosting a show on social media is a concrete action you can take that genuinely helps– buzz sells more tickets than anything else. Actors, did your show just lose an actor? Suggest an actor who is a female, of color, transgender, genderqueer, disabled. Directors, are you giving acting workshops? Can you create one scholarship spot for an actor of color, disabled actor, transgender actor, or genderqueer actor? Playwrights, when you have readings, be sure to invite people whose lived experience and intersectional identities differ from yours. Ask for their perspective and listen to them. This is just a tiny taste of what’s possible. You know far better than I do how you can use your power.

9. Listen. Listen. Listen. The artistic director of Theater MadCap here in the Bay Area, Eric Reid, often uses this hashtag: #thelisteningmovement. He’s created a facebook group (linked above) that’s “a place to speak/share/post your personal truths.” He also uses #thelisteningmovement on articles he posts as well as statuses he writes or shares. It’s something that makes me pause every time I see it– I pause and pay closer attention. Partially because I know Eric and know him to be brilliant, so the things he posts are worth my attention, and partially because of the very power of the idea: The Listening Movement. We must commit to listening– truly listening– to each other.

One of the most crucial aspects of resistance for those of us with privilege– and we all have some aspects of privilege in our intersectional identities– is listening. Listening and believing. Listening without challenge, without defensiveness, without fear. Just listening, believing, and learning. It’s not easy to do, to be honest. It takes mindful effort. But it is crucial.

It’s easy to think you understand a situation because you thoroughly understand those aspects of it that you recognize. Privilege, however, blinds you to other experiences. Privilege often means that you aren’t even aware of how much you don’t know. The only cure for this is listening. Listen to your staff. Listen to your friends. Listen to people when they share their lived experience. Listen and believe.

Theatre creates empathy. We know this. Yet we still have trouble listening empathetically to others. This is hard. But it is worth doing. It’s what we ask our audiences to do every day.

10. Your resistance as an individual citizen is also important. This piece is specifically about how we can resist as a community, but your work as an individual is powerful as well.

Read Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda. It’s free to read online.

Do what you can, and don’t let anyone make you feel bad for your efforts. Foolish people will condemn social media posts as “meaningless,” but they are deeply incorrect. If a post on social media is meaningless, so is a news article, so is a blog post, so is any form of human communication. Just ensure that the articles you post are accurate to the best of your ability. The list of fake news sites compiled by Professor Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College remains the best resource available to check the accuracy of your source. Contact your Senators and Representative to encourage them to vote in favor of your goals, or to praise them for having done so. The phone numbers for their local offices are easily found online. Call the offices in your area– not the one in Washington DC– for maximum effectiveness. Save the numbers in your phone so you can call quickly and easily. (Find your Representative here. Find your Senators here.) Donate to theatres and to other causes that further resistance goals. After the election, my family looked for an LGBTQ center in a deeply red state and began donating to them in addition to the causes we have in our regular rotation. We don’t have much money, but we do what we can. Every little bit helps.

These ten points are just the beginning. You know your audience, you know your company, you know your heart. There are surely many things I have left out, and I encourage you to comment with your ideas.

The most important takeaway is that you are not powerless. On the contrary: as artists we have immense power. And with great power, comes great responsibility. (You knew a nerd like me would not be able to resist that one.)

We’re at the beginning of a long, difficult struggle, but, as artists, our voices are critical. Art shapes culture. Art creates empathy. Art has the power to create the kinds of massive cultural shifts that change societies. We can do this. All we need to do is approach our art consciously.

Welcome to the resistance.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 01 2017
26 Comments
Culture, Personal Nonsense

2017: Closer to the Heart

unnamed-2

My husband, clowning around in the pre-stolen Rush hoodie

My husband is a huge Rush fan, and has been since middle school, 35 years ago. For those of you who aren’t Rush fans, or aren’t intimately acquainted with one, it’s hard to describe the passionate devotion these fans have. As I learned more and more about this band, it became clear to me that this devotion doesn’t spring from the music alone. Although their music is exceptionally well-crafted (it’s tough to find a rock musician who doesn’t acknowledge Rush’s truly exceptional talent and skill), there are innumerable excellent musicians out there. What makes Rush stand out is their heart– the way this trio of hardworking men treat each other, the way they treat their fans, the way they treat their families, protecting them from public scrutiny. Their humility, sincerity, self-effacing humor, and quiet generosity stand out in an industry that often rewards arrogance, selfishness, and self-aggrandizement.

960

Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson of Rush. Source: avclub.com

I’ve written before about “geniuses” behaving badly because we enable that kind of childish behavior, and Rush stands as a constant reminder that genius and assholicity don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Most drummers consider Neil Peart to be the greatest rock drummer of all time. For you fellow classical nerds out there, he’s like the Liszt of rock drumming– he’s written things only he can play, things other drummers have to find ways around. Yet he leads with humility and graciousness, not braggadocio, arrogance, and self-aggrandizement. All three are like this (the other two are Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson)– brilliantly skilled and startlingly humble, far more apt to make a self-effacing joke than brag about their accomplishments or gifts.

It is impressive.

So as my husband introduced me to Rush, I began to understand what he adored about them, why they were, after all these years, still so close to his heart, so close to the hearts of millions.

In 2012, my husband took our teenage son to his first Rush concert. It was the Clockwork Angels tour. It was huge for my husband, as you can imagine. At the tour he bought a hoodie that quickly became his favorite. He treasured it.

Then, in 2016, the Year of Everything Awful, my husband, on the way home from work, stopped to duck into a pub to say hello to a few fellow middle school teachers for just a moment. He couldn’t stay, but he thought he should at least make a quick appearance at the gathering. He was gone for less than ten minutes. In those ten minutes, in broad daylight on a busy suburban street at 4:30 in the afternoon, someone smashed his car window and grabbed his school bag (containing nothing but student paperwork) and his beloved Rush hoodie.

unnamed-1

The smashed window.

We have insurance, and the school bag had nothing in it that couldn’t be easily replaced. I sighed and went online immediately to the Rush website to replace the hoodie. It was nowhere to be found. I then checked every website and did every google search I could think of. I checked eBay. I was willing to pay double by this point. All I wanted was to replace this hoodie my husband loved so much. I had no luck.

My husband is a very humble man who hates to cause trouble, so I knew my next step would have to be behind his back. Believing that someone within the Rush organization must have some of these hoodies in a box in a warehouse somewhere and would be willing to sell one to me, I tracked down several people within the Rush organization I believed might be connected to merchandising, and told them our story, asking them if there was any way I could still purchase this hoodie. One of the people I contacted was a man named Brandon Schott.

Within a few days I had received an email from a woman named Pegi Cecconi. I did not know who she was and did not think to google her. Brandon Schott had forwarded the email to her, commenting that I seemed “sincere.” Pegi Cecconi, as it turns out, is the Vice President of SRO Management. Her .sig does not give her title, and I was too much of a Rush neophyte to understand how far up the chain she was until I told my husband, who promptly freaked out.

Pegi had forwarded our email to Showtech, the merchandisers, and personally asked them to help us.

Soon, a man named Alex Mahood contacted me. They didn’t have the Clockwork Angels hoodie, but they had one like it, and they would send it right over, free of charge. Soon, we received a box with this hoodie in it.

unnamed

The man in the new hoodie.

I had offered to purchase the hoodie in every email I sent them, yet they sent this to us as a gift.

They could have easily ignored my emails. They could have easily just said, “Sorry, sold out.” They could have turned to more important things– they all have far, far more important things to do. Yet they chose kindness and generosity.

It is impressive.

Rush has a song called “Closer to the Heart” that says we can create a better future for each other by approaching our work, whatever that work is, closer to the heart.

2017 is an uncertain year for people all over the world. People are feeling anxious, frightened, and helpless. They see open hatred increasing all around them. They fear for the future. There is only one way to respond to this: Everything we do from this point forward needs to be closer to the heart.

We must take care of each other more now than ever, and this experience gives me hope. I understand replacing a stolen hoodie isn’t equivalent to saving a life or fighting for justice, but the impulse comes from the same place. It’s the impulse to lead with love and to take care of those around us, and we must, now more than ever, take care of those around us.

Not every important action will be earth-shattering and felt by thousands. Sometimes working for a better world is one tiny, unseen act. Listening and believing instead of dismissing and arguing. Hearing the truth of someone’s lived experience with an open heart and mind instead of acting defensively and angrily. Holding space for grief and pain instead of policing the way that grief and pain is expressed. Taking a moment to understand that our experiences and beliefs are not “right” or universal. Taking a moment to understand that difference can be celebrated rather than feared. Taking a moment to see the humanity in each other.

Sometimes we take care of each other by standing against racism and homophobia, robber barons and oligarchs, zealotry and hatred. Injustice. Hunger. Greed. Selfishness. And sometimes we take care of each other in small, personal ways. They are all important.

Yes, 2017 is here, and many are frightened, but we are not helpless. Every day, you can lead with love and act closer to the heart. Every day you can work for justice. Every day you can recognize the humanity in others. Every day you can reach out your hand to help someone, in large ways and in small ways.

Maybe it’s silly for a single hoodie to give me hope. Maybe, maybe not. But I have hope in others. I have hope in you. Live 2017 closer to the heart.

Happy New Year.

(And thank you, thank you, thank you Brandon Schott, Pegi Cecconi, and Alex Mahood. <3)

Tagged ,
Dec 19 2016
4 Comments
Culture

“Slacktivism” and Other Nonsense

speak-out

SPEAK OUT.                                                                                                                                                    (If anyone has the original source for this please let me know.)

I don’t understand “that’s just slacktivism,” “there are bigger issues to discuss” and “you shouldn’t be discussing issues on social media; you should be doing something.” So much to unpack about the level of pure nonsense involved in this line of thinking.

1. Discussion of ideas is incredibly important. There are few things more important in the world, especially in the world of activism, than discussing ideas, educating others, spreading the word, (aka “raising awareness” or “creating public value”), and, one hopes, creating the support that enables action. Discussion *is* activism. The free and open exchange of ideas is one of our most cherished values. People who denigrate this, or pretend that any venue for this exchange of ideas has the power to devalue the exchange, are full of nonsense. The most important aspect of this is that these people know they’re full of nonsense. They engage in the discussion of ideas, big and small, both in person and online, all the time.

2. People who say things like, “Get off the computer and have face-to-face discussions in the real world” are laughably blind to the reality most of us live. Most of us can’t just leave our responsibilities behind, jump in a car or on public transportation, and head down to The Coffeehouse of Ideas every single time we feel like discussing an issue. We have kids, jobs, and/or mobility disabilities. We have workplace environments wherein these types of discussions are unwelcome or even impossible.

Most importantly, no one actually believes that online discussions are worthless. Everyone has seen the power of social media for spreading ideas, for good and for ill. While it’s a valid argument that in-person conversations are more effective in some ways, it’s a wagonload of nonsense to say that online conversations are worthless. People who make accusations like “social media posts are just slactivism” and “talking about an issue does nothing” are well aware that what they’re saying is not true.

3. What’s genuinely amusing about the people who make comments on social media like “posting on social media is worthless” is that they’re complaining about the worthlessness of posting on social media by posting on social media. They’re choosing an issue they care about– the supposed worthlessness of social media commentary– and using social media commentary as their tool of choice to publicly discuss it. Slow clap, people.

4. Creating false dichotomies like “There are more important issues we should be discussing”  serves no one. If we size queen every discussion we have, we’d never be able to discuss anything but the worst possible atrocities. “I got a parking ticket! I really can’t afford this ri–” “BUT WHAT ABOUT GENOCIDE?” I’ve seen people complaining about discussions of diversity in film by saying “We have a neo-Nazi about to become president! Why are we discussing movies?!” as if those two things are not related, as if we didn’t have a mountain of evidence showing that art creates empathy, as if we didn’t have a mountain of evidence demonstrating the importance of representation. Again, almost everyone who pulls this kind of nonsense knows what they’re saying isn’t strictly true. They understand the interconnectedness of issues, and they know that your single post about an issue doesn’t mean that that issue is the only thing you care about. Yet they still will say “Why are you discussing this when there are more important things to discuss; this is a distraction.”

5. “Why are you just discussing this? Why aren’t you TAKING ACTION?” I think we all know these people believe the world revolves around them, but evidently they also believe that we all go into cryostasis when they’re not directly observing us. Of course they know that discussing issues online does not preclude action about those issues or any other, and they also know that those who discuss issues are far more likely to also take action about them. They know all of this, but they will still tell you to stop discussing an issue.

And again, it’s genuinely amusing that people will engage in an online discussion to scold someone for engaging in an online discussion. If they’re so disdainful of people who discuss issues online, why are they discussing issues online? Again, they know what they’re saying is not valid. The validity of the argument is not the point.

unknown-2

Refuse to be silenced.                            Source: curvemag.com

 

The point they’re trying to make is that you should be silenced. They are trying to silence you. The issue you’re discussing makes them uncomfortable, hits too close to home, or frightens them in some way. They are trying to assert control over what is deemed “important,” taking that authority for themselves, centering their worldview, and squelching different viewpoints.

Do not let them silence you. Now more than ever, we need to be openly discussing what’s happening in our culture. We need to be discussing issues both large and small and connecting the dots between them. We all need to be paying attention, but none of us can pay attention to everything all the time. We will all focus on different areas and catch different things. Our job is to understand how all these issues interconnect, not create false competitions between issues, or set ourselves up as gatekeepers of “importance.”

Our activism, our resistance, has never been more important. Pay attention. Never trust anyone who tells you to look away from anything. Connect the dots. Refuse to be silenced.

Tagged , , ,
Dec 02 2016
Culture

Everything You Needed to Know About the “Alt Right” You Could Have Learned From Gamergate

Remember when Gamergate was happening? All those online attacks, threats, and harassment by the “alt right” pretending to be about “ethics in games journalism” but really just attacking, threatening, and harassing women and people of color for discussing the portrayal of women and people of color in video games? And everyone was like, “Oh; it’s just a minority of people doing that– just a fringe group” and “Well, some of them really do care about games journalism,” and “It’s just online harassment. Just ignore trolls!”?

Now people connected with the “alt right” are going to be in charge of the government. The man who was one of the unofficial heads of Gamergate, Milo Yiannopoulos, writes for Steve Bannon, at Breitbart “News.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s White House Chief Strategist, supported Yiannopoulos throughout the entire Gamergate debacle, and (just before his leave of absence to work for Trump) through the massive sexist and racist attack campaign Yiannopoulos led against Leslie Jones, the final straw that got Yiannopoulos kicked off Twitter because he finally attacked someone with enough fame and power to get people to pay attention.

Even those within Gamergate who insisted throughout that it was about “ethics in games journalism” still defined those ethics as keeping cultural criticism out of gaming. As video games became more and more complex, creating scripts and animation to rival major studio films, games criticism began to include the kinds of artistic considerations we within the arts are well used to. Critics began to consider the social context of games in addition to their basic functionality, sometimes critiquing games for their sexist portrayal of women, or for their lack of diversity. Even if it were about “ethics in games journalism,” Gamergate was defining “ethics” largely as “never talking about sexism or racism in games.” This is an important point, as there really are ethical considerations in games journalism, all of which Gamergate completely ignored in favor of sending death threats to a woman who creates videos about sexist tropes in games and an independent female developer who wrote a free game about her struggle with depression, among others. The “alt right” movement Gamergate considered personal attacks, harassment, and threats an appropriate response to arts criticism— led in part by Milo Yiannopoulos while he was supported and employed by Steve Bannon, soon to be one of the most powerful men in the world. 

One of the most important things to note about Gamergate is how often they threw around the term “free speech” to defend attacks, threats, and harassment meant to silence discussion around sexism and racism in the video game industry. One popular talking point at the time was the fact that Anita Sarkeesian had turned off comments on her video series critiquing the portrayal of women in video games, Tropes vs. Women, both on YouTube and on her website, Feminist Frequency, when the attacks, threats, and harassment began, which was characterized as an attack on their “free speech.” This is important to note– they felt so entitled to attack, threaten, and harass this woman that they claimed it was a violation of their free speech when she refused to personally create a space on her website for them to do so.

One of the most important things we can do as citizens is connect the dots between events. Steve Bannon paid Milo Yiannopoulos while he led attacks, threats, and harassment against people advocating for feminism and diversity AND claimed it was a violation of free speech when special space was not created for these attacks to occur. When Yiannopoulos was booted from Twitter for violating their ToS in leading the sexist and racist attacks on Leslie Jones, the movement howled that Yiannopoulos’ “free speech” was being violated. Bannon paid Breitbart writer Jack Hadfield to write an article for Breitbart claiming Yiannopoulos was a “free speech martyr.”

 

While women and people of color are the canaries in the coal mine of shitty American trends– if bad things are coming down the pike, they’re going to hit us first– it’s also important to note that Gamergate was, at its core, a fight over arts criticism. While people are quick to dismiss art as “just a game” or “just a movie,” art is where we, as a culture, decide who we are, who we want to be, what we fear, what we value. Art is where culture is made. So it’s no surprise to me that this “alt-right” movement in part coalesced and gained popularity around two movements angry about the inclusion of women and people of color in art and arts journalism– Gamergate for video games, and Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies for SciFi/Fantasy.

Yet the response to these attacks and their alarming ideology at the time was a collective shrug of the shoulders. The most popular response was “just ignore the trolls.” This piece of advice could not have been more dangerously wrong.

We should have listened to women and people of color when they first began reporting these attacks. We should have responded robustly and clearly: No, this is wrong. Instead we shrugged our shoulders and told them, “Just ignore the trolls.”

We could have learned everything we needed to know about the “alt right” from Gamergate, and instead here we are, once again, telling each other to “ignore the trolls,” telling each other to discount Trump’s outrageous attacks on free speech when they’re on Twitter, as if they weren’t part of a larger world view that seeks to limit free speech (here, here, here, here, here), as if they weren’t coming from a man we’re about to put into the most powerful position in the world with Steve Bannon at his ear.

When Steve Bannon paid Milo Yiannopoulos to write articles that aided Gamergate and its horrific personal attacks against people who dared to openly discuss sexism and racism in the games industry, that should have been enough right there to make everyone terrified of handing Bannon any sort of political power. Now he’s about to have more political power– unaccountable political power, since he’s in an appointed, not elected, position– than nearly anyone else in the world, aiding a presumptive president elect who attacks free speech relentlessly. The “alt right” has openly fought against free speech for years. The question is, Have we learned anything from it? Or are we just going to keep saying “ignore the trolls”?

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Nov 21 2016
1 Comment
Culture, Theatre

Yes, Theatre Is Supposed To Be A Safe Space

. . . just not in the way Donald Trump thinks. Theatre needs to be safe from encroachment on our freedom of speech.

hamilton-mike-pence

Brandon Victor Dixon addresses Pence from the stage of Hamilton. Source.

Vice President Elect Mike Pence attended a production of Hamilton on Friday and was booed by the audience. At the end of  the show, the actor playing Aaron Burr, Brandon Victor Dixon, gave a very polite speech from the stage urging the audience to stop booing and telling Pence that they were grateful for his presence and that the diverse cast and crew were understandably anxious about whether they would be protected under a Trump/Pence administration, urging Pence to support “all Americans.”

For being asked to support all Americans in accordance with the campaign’s own promises, Trump has referred to this exercise of free speech as “harassment” and demanded an apology from the cast in several of his trademark childishly-worded tweets, some of which have been deleted by the time of this writing. (Pence, on the other hand, responded yesterday with something that basically might have been, “Of course I wasn’t offended. I’m an adult. So I’m going to do the adult thing and lie. The concerns of the Hamilton cast were heard, and we in the Trump administration will protect all Americans, not just straight white men.”)

Anyone could have predicted what it would be like for Pence to show up at Hamilton, a show that openly celebrates diversity (and is sold out until the end of time, which also means Pence, who sits at the head of a dangerously bigoted administration, used his celebrity to score some rare VIP house seats to watch a show created by the very people he and his administration openly seek to harm).

Trump’s response is alarming because theatre should be a safe space– safe from Mike Pence, Donald Trump, and their administration’s potential assault on American free speech.

As the President-Elect, Trump should not be demanding apologies from Americans speaking to their incoming government about their concerns. It’s a terrifying act when taken as a whole with Trump’s other actions.

Trump has vowed to “open up” libel laws as president in order to make it easier for him to sue news organizations and journalists for criticizing him. The fact that he has no idea what he’s talking about and can’t act on this vow means nothing, because there are plenty of ways his administration can use its power to curtail free speech. Trump already routinely sues people who criticize him, to the degree that First Amendment expert Susan Seager, writing in the newsletter of the American Bar Association, labeled him a “libel bully,” a charge proven by the fact that the ABA initially balked at publishing it for fear that Trump would sue them while President-Elect.

When Trump was a private citizen, his propensity to sue over every little thing was silly and laughable, but as President of the United States, it becomes a danger to our democracy. It’s one thing to be sued for criticizing a reality TV buffoon; it’s entirely another to be sued for criticizing our President.

Trump routinely threatens anyone who criticizes him, and this is a remarkable, particular danger for cherished American freedoms.

Trump blamed terrorist bombings on “freedom of the press.”

He threatened to sue Ted Cruz for running negative ads against him during the primaries.

He threatened to sue The Daily Beast for reporting on Ivana Trump’s deposition in their divorce case.

He threatened to sue the National Hispanic Media Coalition for calling his statement that Mexican immigrants are “rapists” “racist.”

He personally phoned writer David Cay Johnston, author of The Making of Donald Trump, and told him he would sue if he didn’t “like” what Johnston wrote.

He threatened to sue the New York Times for reporting about his taxes.

He threatened to sue Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter who wrote Trump’s 1987 memoir The Art of the Deal, for discussing his personal opinion of the candidate.

He threatened to sue the Washington Post for running a story detailing the failure and bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino.

He threatened Amazon with antitrust and tax investigations over his coverage in the Washington Post because Jeff Bezos founded Amazon and now owns the Post. Amazon stock dropped 6% when Trump was elected, as investors wonder whether the President-Elect will sink a business over news stories he deems unflattering, in direct violation of our constitutional protections. 

The above list is so short and incomplete it barely deserves to be called a “partial list.” Trump has repeatedly, relentlessly attacked “the media” in general and many journalists in particular for daring to write criticisms of him– even mild criticisms, even just, as was the case with Megyn Kelly, reading out his own words. His vicious attacks on journalists at his campaign rallies caused many of his supporters to menace, threaten, and verbally abuse journalists there to cover the event. It became so acute the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement calling Trump a “threat to press freedom.” MSNBC reporter Katy Tur, a favorite target for Trump, had to be given Secret Service protection at one of his rallies, as his vitriol from the stage against her personally for her journalism– he literally pointed at her from the stage, called her a “liar,” and demanded an apology– resulted in the crowd of thousands turning on her “like a large animal, angry and unchained.”

trump-supporter

A Trump fan calls for the lynching of journalists at a rally in Minnesota. Source.

When Trump famously mocked a disabled reporter (Serge Kovaleski) from the stage, it was over his journalism— specifically, his factual statement that during his coverage of 9/11, he did not recall anything that supported Trump’s outrageously false claims that “thousands” of Muslims were “celebrating in the streets.” Trump supporters have deluged Jewish journalists with antisemitic death threats.

During the campaign, Trump denied access to media outlets he deemed “unfair” because they did not violate journalistic ethics to portray him solely in a favorable light, only lifting the ban two months before the election. He has already begun denying access during this transition period.

Trump’s multiple threats to both freedom of speech and freedom of the press are gravely concerning. This is a direct attack on American free speech when it comes from the incoming government. Squelching free speech is always the first step in establishing a dictatorship, and his lawsuit antics are already having a chilling effect on coverage.

Trump’s demand for an apology from the Hamilton cast is a small thing, but it’s just one tiny sliver of his ongoing attacks against our First Amendment protections.

 

Tagged , , , , ,
Nov 10 2016
5 Comments
Culture

We Didn’t “Fail.” Democracy Failed Us.

 

29clintontranscriptsub1-master768

Source: Damon Winter/The New York Times

In a shocking upset over predicted winner Hillary Clinton, an open racist, sexist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, journalist-hating confessed sexual predator about to go on trial for racketeering has been elected president of these United States. There have been approximately infinity think pieces and news stories and nuggets of punditry discussing “what the Democrats did wrong” to lose this election. But here’s the thing: HILLARY CLINTON WON THE ELECTION. Democrats did nothing wrong. Clinton got more votes than anyone else running, which, in any other contest on the globe would mean she won. She lost the presidency on a bizarre and outdated technicality.

screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-7-57-35-am

Journalists, pundits, and my fellow bloggers, the story isn’t “What did the Democrats fail to do?” it’s “Why do we continue to allow this antiquated ritual to deny the American people its democratically-elected choice for President?”

A majority of Americans wanted Clinton as their president, and due to a bizarre, outdated ritual, democracy failed them.

THAT’S THE STORY: DEMOCRACY FAILED.

What are we going to do about the fact that an antiquated ritual has (once again) robbed the American people of its democratically elected choice?

For all of you geniuses who thought Hillary was corrupt, you better hope you were right so she can move those levers of power, contact her rich Jewish banker friends, murder some people, or whatever your favorite Clinton fairy tale is, and get the electoral college eliminated before January 20. Since it would require a constitutional amendment (or at the very least the adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in nearly all 50 states), she had better get cracking.

Obviously, it can’t happen before we all have to watch the candidate endorsed by the KKK sworn in to the highest office in the land. But we should get our act together and push for the elimination of the electoral college before it can do any more damage– and this isn’t even all the damage it can do. It won’t happen before Trump and Pence start dismantling everything that makes America great (or even livable), but it can certainly happen before 2020.

Tagged ,
Nov 05 2016
4 Comments
Culture

Sex, Lies, and Hillary Clinton

In the mid-60s, Jan Kott wrote a truly horrible book called Shakespeare, Our Contemporary, in which he analyzes Shakespeare’s plays according to his specific point of view as a white European male who hasn’t quite grasped the humanity of the women and people of color around him, although, at the time, we just called that “Shakespeare criticism.”

When discussing the character Desdemona, a character whose complete faithfulness to her husband is the primary narrative linchpin of the play, Kott says, “Desdemona is faithful, but must have something of a slut in her.” He says that she must be a slut “in potentia” if not “in actua” because so many men desire her– because she inspired erotic imaginings in the men around her. SO SHE IS THE SLUT.

And while this kind of “my white male imagination tells me so” Shakespeare “analysis” we’re used to getting from the likes of mid-century scholars like Kott (and Harold Bloom, and so many others whose “analysis” of Shakespeare’s female characters is 100% flights of fancy) it stood out to me, even as a teenager when I first encountered this nonsensical “analysis.” It stood out to me that THIS IS AN ADMIRED BOOK OF SHAKESPEARE CRITICISM. This was the first moment I realized that the world of academia was going to be an uphill battle for me as a woman.

This moment– seeing a respected book of lit crit describe male desire for a woman who never sought nor wished for that desire as HER OWN FAULT for somehow being a “slut” “in potentia”– has come to mind again and again this election cycle.

Millions of our tax dollars have been poured out in a desperate attempt to pin something, ANYTHING, on Hillary Clinton. Nothing illegal has ever been found. Every investigation has exonerated her, and the Clinton Foundation is one of the highest-rated on every nonpartisan site that monitors charities. Obviously false scandals have been created by alt-right (and regular right) propagandists, and they’re shared around the internet as if they make sense. Scandal after scandal have been manufactured and debunked. Hillary haters are the hydra of American politics– chop off one false scandal and two grow back. There’s a never-ending supply of false scandals, and the factual evidence debunking them is dismissed as “irrelevant” or “bought and paid for.” As if the Clintons have an unlimited supply of money– oh, wait, according to the Hillary haters, THEY DO, thanks to Jewish bankers and the Evil Jewish Scrotillionaire Necromancer Lich Demon George Soros.

Hillary haters are forced, in the face of all the evidence exonerating her, to claim that the lack of evidence is the evidence. What is she hiding? It must be something! LOOK AT ALL THESE SCANDALS. Anyone who points to the facts is “bought and paid for” with all Clinton’s Jewish banker money, something I’ve been accused of myself multiple times. (I only wish someone was paying me to blog.)

And so we come back to Desdemona. SHE MUST BE SOME KIND OF SLUT. LOOK AT ALL THESE MEN LUSTING AFTER HER, reasons Jan Kott. EVEN IF SHE’S FAITHFUL TO HER HUSBAND, he continues, SHE’S STILL A SLUT, OTHERWISE WHY WOULD OTHELLO BELIEVE IAGO? Why indeed.

Kott blames Desdemona for the scandalous thoughts men have about her, and we blame Clinton for the scandalous thoughts we have about her.

“She’s too heaped in scandal,” “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” “There must be SOMETHING there,” “She’s clearly corrupt,” “One of the most corrupt politicians ever.” We dressed her in this outfit against her will, then condemned her for it.

Kott goes on:

Othello does not have to kill Desdemona. The play would be more cruel, if, in that final and decisive moment, he just left her. . . . Othello kills Desdemona in order to save the moral order, to restore love and faith. He kills Desdemona to be able to forgive her; so that the accounts be settled and the world returned to its equilibrium. Othello does not mumble any more. He desperately wants to save the meaning of life, of his life, perhaps even the meaning of the world. (123)

Kott– a respected Shakespearean critic– writes that killing a woman falsely heaped with scandal is the only way to “restore love and faith” and “the meaning of the world.” That men must use women as scapegoats for their own dark desires and imaginings and then kill them to restore order. Only dead can women be forgiven for “making” men have dark desires. This, again and again, returns to my mind as I see so many respected people– elected officials– calling for the murder of this woman who has borne the brunt of their imagined scandals, the congealed crust of hate and fear of powerful, independent, outspoken women.

And now I type the requisite sentences, the ones demanded of everyone who writes about Hillary Clinton and no other politician, ever: Do I agree with her every decision? No.

But we cannot productively discuss what kind of president she will be (and she will be president) in reality while we continue to make her the scapegoated center of 1000 false scandals. We cannot have productive discussions about foreign policy or ed policy– two areas we really need to be discussing right now– while the country is embroiled in a non-scandal about emails, or an alt-right created one about sex (take your pick).

Jan Kott is still taught. And respected newspapers are still running stories about Hillary’s emails, and the entire GOP is participating in a false story about voter fraud and a “rigged” election. The question is: Are we going to continue the Kott-like misogynistic scapegoating  of this woman, or are we going to get to work on the actual issues?

 

 

Tagged , , , ,
Oct 21 2016
4 Comments
Culture, Film, Theatre

“Artistic Freedom”: The Lie We Use To Defend The Indefensible

tumblr_mco5wskizz1rpri2zo1_500

“Leap into the Void,” Yves Klein (photographed by Harry Shunk), 1960

When I write about diversity in representational media (theatre, film, TV, video games), often the white anger (and there is always white anger) uses “artistic freedom” as its battle cry. “Artists should create whatever they want, without restrictions,” or “Total artistic freedom is sacred. Telling artists they must include diversity is wrong.”

The secret is: Every professional knows there’s no such thing as “total artistic freedom.” We always must work within certain parameters. At least half of the artistic process is finding artistic solutions to technical problems. 

The space you’re working in has physical constraints. The budget has limits. The contracts you’ve signed with the company, the playwright, the actors, the techs, all limit what you can add (or subtract) from the text, how long you can rehearse, even what can and cannot be done on stage. Props don’t work the way you imagined. An actor can’t perform the blocking you’ve set in the costume you approved. You discover three weeks before opening that the set you approved is over budget and needs trimming. The incredibly important piece of specially-designed tech hardware is stuck on a truck with a broken axle four states away and the earliest it will be in house is now Sunday afternoon. Maybe. When it shows up Monday at 10pm, it doesn’t work. Your lead actor’s visa wasn’t approved and she’s still in London. The suits show up to a late rehearsal or a shoot and demand a change. The studio has paid for product placement, and now you must work SmartWater into three scenes.

tumblr_n89o56gwp81tzf0two1_1280

Subtle. 

This? This is the tip of the iceberg. It’s a magical day when everything goes according to plan and no changes need to be made.

The idea behind “artistic freedom” is one of the best ideas ever: Artists should be able to engage with the world around them without constraints such as censorship. Artists with artistic freedom create better, usually more impactful and important, art under those conditions. But those conditions always exist within a given framework. Some constraints are practical (time, space, and budget), some are legal (the law, your contracts), some are ethical (best practices), some are artistic (imposed on the artists by the director or producer, or just by the basic parameters of the project), and some are social (updating outdated topical humor, avoiding lines, characters, or narrative tropes that would be considered racist, etc). Although not every artist recognizes or follows every constraint every time– sexual harassment is a huge problem in all these industries– artists as a whole work within these constraints without questioning them.

The social constraints we work within are never questioned, and usually framed in terms of audience response– a joke your audience won’t find funny, public controversy that could impact sales, or a scene that evokes a hostile audience response, which is entirely dependent on your social context. I’ve staged plays in Berkeley without an iota of controversy that later were picketed elsewhere in the country. Conversely, I’ve been sent plays whose entire plots centered around the Horrible! Revelation! that Someone! Had a Same Sex Affair! In College! My Berkeley audience would laugh out loud at the idea that anyone cared about your same sex college fling; such a play is unstageable here no matter how well-written because the premise is nonsense within our particular social context.

unknown

Land that I love. (Source: berkeley.edu)

So when we talk about the need for increased diversity (or the need to examine how various types of people are portrayed) in the theatre, film, and games we make, why is that seen as a massive, impossible imposition on an artist?  We’re already working within a number of constraints and considerations, and, frankly, removing race as a primary consideration, instead using just type, talent, and skill set, doesn’t seem much of a constraint at all to me. All it takes is stating in calls (or instructing your casting people) that you’re open to actors of all races and ethnicities, and suddenly your hiring pool is expanded, not constrained.

That said, if you believe your work demands an all-white cast, no one is restricting– or can restrict– your right to use an all-white cast. No one can stop you from casting every lead with a white actor for the entirety of your career. So what, exactly, upsets people so much about calls for more diversity? Why is there so much angry backlash to discussing diversity in art? What people are upset about is that now consumers and critics are complaining about it. They don’t just want the freedom to use all-white casts, crew, and/or writing staff–they already have that. They want the freedom to do so without criticism.

This, by the way, is what they mean by “taking America back”– back to the days when shutting out people of color was completely uncontroversial.

Due to this desire to create all-white art without criticism, there has been an immense backlash, especially from the alt-right, about the very concept of using social criteria like diversity or the portrayal of women to evaluate art. They claim that this is a new development brought on by “political correctness” run amok, and that in the golden past, before feminism or Black people with twitter accounts, art was solely evaluated as art, and critical discussions of its social messaging were nowhere to be found.

This is, of course, bunk.

For centuries, art has been evaluated, formally and informally, using social messaging as part of the critique. In 472 BCE, Aeschylus was publicly criticized by Aristotle, who claimed Aeschylus’ play The Persians, about the Persian defeat at the hands of the Greeks at the Battle of Salamis in 480 BCE, was too sympathetic to the Persians. Playwrights in Renaissance England went to great lengths to hide their critiques of the  church or the government in metaphors that would get past the censors. When Paul Robeson played Othello in 1930, reviewers criticized the choice to cast a Black man instead of a white actor in blackface. One wrote: “There is no more reason to choose a negro to play Othello than to requisition a fat man for Falstaff.” There are literally thousands of similar examples from the past.

othello

Peggy Ashcroft as Desdemona and Paul Robeson as Othello in the 1930 Savoy Theatre production. 

There are, of course, nearly as many examples from the present as well. While the right (alt and otherwise) bitterly condemns using diversity and other social justice-based criteria in evaluations of art, they themselves do this all the time. The right’s response to Beyoncé’s 2016 Super Bowl performance is an excellent example. Her performance came under fire solely for its pro-Black social messaging, which many on the right took to be “anti-white” and, somehow, “anti-police.” Ads for Old Navy and Cheerios featuring interracial families came under fire from right-wing racists for their social messaging alone. Evidently “interracial families eat breakfast and enjoy Old Navy 30% off sales” was a bridge too far for them. In 2012, the wildly popular, highly rated video game Mass Effect 3 included same sex relationship options (as they had throughout the series), but really came under fire for including a bedroom scene that many homophobic players complained bitterly about. (Of course, those of us who played through the game knew you had to click through many conversations with that gay character, continually taking the obviously marked “romance” option, to trigger that scene, or go out of your way to seek it out on youtube. But that’s none of my business.)

mass_effect_3_steve_cortez_by_stanisn7-d60338t

Steve Cortez from Mass Effect 3, who lost his husband to a Collector attack.

While some people do not wish to be told that people would like to see more diversity, they clearly have no problem telling us that diversity is, in essence, wrong.

There’s only one conclusion to draw here, and it’s not about “artistic freedom.”

For those of us who work in representational media, and must work within constraints both out of our control, like physics and budget, and well within our control, like personal artistic goals and vision, “artistic freedom” can be a touchy subject. We want as much artistic freedom as we can get, in part because we know that in reality, our freedom is constrained in multiple ways. Those of us calling for increased diversity (and equity) in film, theatre, TV, and games are simply asking our fellow content creators to consider diversity an important artistic criteria that exists alongside  all the other self-imposed artistic criteria we all have.

Making a commitment to diversity is actually reducing your constraints, because it widens your hiring pool. Once you make the decision that a role can be cast with an actor of any race, or a show can be directed by a person of any race or gender, suddenly your hiring pool becomes much wider. Making a personal commitment to diversity increases your artistic freedom because it gives you far more to work with.

There is no true “artistic freedom,” including the many constraints artists put on themselves as they strive to meet (or exceed) their artistic goals. Encouraging others to make personal commitments to diversity– and holding them accountable when they do not– increases the artistic freedom both of the individual artists who would be widening their hiring pool considerably, and the artistic freedom of the industries as a whole, that would have a wider variety of artists working within it, which we all know is a massive strength.

So don’t believe anyone who tells you that calls for increased diversity or using diversity as a criteria for evaluation is limiting “artistic freedom.” We know better.

 

Tagged , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →