Mother Courage at CSC — Page 6

Ms. Pinkins raises some very interesting points in her statement. It's any wonder she agreed to do this production at all, with Kulick directing. I'm also a little bit shocked she would unnecessarily (IMO) insult every single project that she has worked on in the last 10 years (since no other project has "matched her talent" since Caroline, Or Change). Her statement may end up being a personal triumph but a professional mis-step, I'm afraid. I guess we'll see!

"Tonya asks~why must a Black Mother Courage be delusional?
it may be because All previous portrayals are similar. The term may be sensitive, but the essence is the Character as meant to be portrayed."

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but aren't most previous portrayals of her the complete opposite of delusional - not merely a realist, but an abject cynic? Perhaps I'm overstating her archetype. Brazen pragmatist?

Updated On: 12/31/15 at 07:26 PM

henrikegerman said: ""Tonya asks~why must a Black Mother Courage be delusional?
it may be because All previous portrayals are similar. The term may be sensitive, but the essence is the Character as meant to be portrayed."

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but aren't most previous portrayals of her the complete opposite of delusional - not merely a realist, but an abject cynic? Perhaps I'm overstating her archetype. Brazen pragmatist?

"

I'm sure there are many ways to approach Courage, just as there are many ways to approach Blanche DuBois. But Courage will always be delusional because she persists in beliefs that achieve the exact opposite of what she intends (to save her children). (Whether that was a helpful thing to say to an actress is another matter, of course.)

Yes, she considers herself a pragmatist. Brecht is saying that belief is her delusion. In fact, she romanticizes Commerce and Neutrality, convinced that she can remain untouched while War consumes all around her. She never learns, but neither do we, even as we slowly but surely bankrupt ourselves with endless militarism.

Thanks, Gaveston. I just started reading it.

O.K. I'm going to run the risk of being considered an imbecile or culturally insensitive (or worse), but I grew up in a lily-white part of the Midwest and literally had almost no exposure to diversity until I left home for college, and I need some help with some aspects of Ms. Pinkins' statement:

I and many other artists of color have benefitted from having honorary white status bestowed upon us for our work. This status allows us to work alongside the best in the business and to be treated as equals. It is a daily struggle to partake of this status while straining to maintain integrity and authenticity to our own culture. Yet this status is often stripped when we are asked to portray our own people.

What does she mean by having "honorary white status bestowed for our work"? The closest thing I can think of is that conversation in "Do the Right Thing" where Spike Lee asks John Turturro why his favorite athletics and actors are black but that respect doesn't carry over to the black people he meets in his day to day (that conversation was obviously more interesting than I've made it).

Updated On: 12/31/15 at 11:12 PM

The thread thoughts are the most inciteful and astute comments that I have read on this site.

Updated On: 1/1/16 at 10:14 AM

@Goblinking-

You ask a penetrating question. Race is such a complicated thing in America (just look at this thread) that it is difficult if not impossible to process anything through that prism. So let me suggest that you consider starting the inquiry by choosing a different minority. And let me further suggest illuminating your question about "bestowed" status by contemplating the meaning of the frequently-heard statement "some of my best friends are...[and here instead of black, choose gay, jewish etc]" What does that mean? I think many would say that the white/straight/gentile person embraces the minority person not on his or her own terms but within the majority paradigm-that is, a person who represents the acceptable/perhaps idealized majority view of that minority rather than one who embodies the minority. (For me I think the least charged of these minorities to process this through would be jewish people-we think of secular jews as having the equivalent of "white status" but we don't really when we are confronted with hasidic jews. And you could make the same comparison with muslims obviously.)

Your question is not stupid at all, and there are other thoughtful questions and responses in this thread (mixed as is almost always the case with pretty imbecilic ones)...

I think she is very unprofessional for leaving the show in the manner she did at the time she did. I think it's also unprofessional to go against your attorney's advice, and issue a diva statement all about her. That said, I think she's extremely gifted and I love watching her on stage. But sometimes gifted people are so hard to work with that they get in their own way. It makes me think of Betty Buckley, or Debra Winger-- these women are amazing performers but no one wants to work with them, so they haven't enjoyed the success they should have. After reading all this, I wouldn't want to work with her. Not that it's on the table, of course, but that's my impression.

As much as I love and adore her (I'm typing this while two signed posters of her hang on the wall behind me) I don't understand why someone would sign onto a production of a show that's supposedly built around them, and not understand what the concept is. And along those same lines if it is so important to her to tell a story about the "black experience", why would you pick an early 20th century German play to do that? I understand how, like Shakespeare, they wanted to play around with the setting of the show but you still have the text to deal with and it just doesn't make sense to me how this was even allowed to get as far as it did.

How is that hilarious?

It's hilarious because it's the same drama that any high school or community theatre has amongst their lowest common denominators; if you haven't experienced it, then perhaps you don't know what I mean. My favorite is how they had the emergency meeting at a Sizzler. Anyway, that by itself is hilarious because it brings one back to their own trashy experiences in the small world; but she escalated it to a lawsuit. That's serious diva sh*t right there. Love it.

Ripped, I don't think she's saying that you have to be a black woman to tell a black woman's story as much as that you need to listen to black women's perspectives to do so. She cites Caroline, or Change which was written by a white man and a white woman and directed by a black man. And with regard to Mother Courage itself, she cites Kushner's translation as being something of a gold standard.

I saw this production before this all happened, and that is making me particularly sympathetic to Pinkins. The decision to set it in the Congo is tacked on at best, and the version of the script being used is really terribly chopped up. Mother Courage is an extraordinary play, but you would never know that from what Kulick has put on stage. The setting could have been almost anywhere except for the fact that the posters and program repeatedly told us that this was the Congo. So it felt like an afterthought at best, cultural tourism at worst.

CSC's Caucasian Chalk Circle was, to me, also a terrible production that a strong cast couldn't come close to saving. Kulick hasn't demonstrated a decent sense of how to approach Brecht. Add in the numerous issues with race and gender here, and to me it is understandable that an actor could reach a breaking point.

Could this his have been handled better? Absolutely. But I appreciate Pinkins' passion and her commitment to doing worthy work.

I also took her comments about her talent not matching the material since Caroline less as an indictment of the other plays she has done than a comment on the roles--Caroline and Courage are both extraordinary parts that would call on an actress to deliver on numerous levels and pull from their deepest reserves of talent. So to me, I don't think she was saying that she is "better than" Radio Golf, the example used above, as much as the part she played not asking as much from her.

@henrik-- bullseye question. bravo.

@jordan (and others)--I don't know enough to form any solid conclusions on this mess (none of us do) but I suspect that the answer to what's puzzling you is best understood by recognizing the likelihood that Kulick, while pitching the project to her, told her what she wanted to hear. (What we do know is that the script he gave her was Kushner's-someone we know she admires greatly-and that what followed was in the nature of a bait and switch.) There are some people in our business who are not good at expectations management-they assume that the wrinkles will flatten out during rehearsal because, frankly, the stakes are not high enough for most actors to push back all that hard most of the time. This is why we get bad productions and bad performances-the kind of thing that makes audiences wonder how some mess ended up on stage with a bunch of talented people in the mix. If you are still having trouble wrapping your head around why this situation was allowed to reach this point, consider this analogy. Think of it as a marriage. Someone is seduced, that person is excited about something, everyone celebrates the union, but something doesn't play out as dreamed about and it comes off the rails. The two lovers ban't even talk to each other anymore. They separate. They divorce. They try to explain to everyone who once celebrated with them. That explanation fails.

It is true that some of the greatest performers are the most difficult. It is also true that some do not get as much work as they should because they are a pain to deal with. But it is equally true that some of the PITAs work more than most others because great art is not always easy; some would say the big secret is it never is.