Mother Courage at CSC — Page 7

yfa, I don't understand the distinction you are making. It appears from comments above that Miss Pinkins had the right to leave the show with two weeks' notice (a not-unusual clause when a union performer is playing any venue that pays less than Broadway salaries). So henrik's question stands: how is Pinkins exercising her contractual rights any more or less professional than management exercising its own contractual rights? Might one not argue that Pinkins is doing her fans a favor by not drawing them to see her in something she considers substandard?

Unless I misremember, neither of Kulik's statements say anything about Pinkins' actions being legally actionable. Perhaps that will come later.

****

Thanks for the first-hand account, Sauja! As I said above, I have suspected all along that the real conflict lay in something the respective statements weren't saying directly.

Sheer speculation on my part: it sounds like the relocation to Africa led everyone astray. Pinkins seems emotionally involved in playing the "black" Courage, when playing Courage is challenge enough regardless of one's color. Kulick seems so invested in making a statement about Africa that he appears to have forgotten Africa isn't in the play itself (except to the extent they apparently rewrote it).

The snatching-the-shirt from the soldier incident (the one that inspired the immortal "he will kill you if you do that" comment, which I hope was speaking for the character and not the actor) seems telling. There's a reason the title character is called "Courage". It's because her bravery isn't at issue. Sure, naturalistically, she might not risk snatching something from an armed combatant, but MC is not a realistic play. Yet the incident seems to suggest a concern by the director with portrayal of African conflict and victimization of women rather than Brecht's play. Turning Courage into a passive victim (if that is what happened) is not doing justice to Brecht's play.

One of the reasons MOTHER COURAGE can be so moving is precisely because Courage is strong and fearless and resilient. That she losses everything anyway is proof that her beliefs betray her, not a failure of her character (in the theatrical and non-theatrical senses of the word).

If she exercised a two week out, then she's certainly done nothing actionable, and you are completely correct. You could argue -- I'm not making the argument -- that to do so in this situation, so close to opening, wreaks havoc on a production that has been a lot of good-faith work for a lot of people, and that it's not professional in the sense of not being considerate of other people in her profession. But if she had a two week out (I was unaware of that) and she agreed to perform for the two weeks, then my argument needs to be revised. Of course, in any profession, an employer can't force an employee to come to work, but can take action against the employee if the employee starts to not show up. But I'm not aware of what the arrangements were in this case, and, as a practical matter, CSC is certainly not going to do that in this situation. 

^^^^ With respect, rattle, yours is a very naive view. Firing an actor may be just as selfish and petty as quitting a production. Resigning from a role may be done for the good of the project as a whole if the actor feels s/he cannot capably play the part as directed.

Your argument is analogous to saying a divorce is always the wife's fault.

Updated On: 1/1/16 at 05:41 PM

The ANTC contract has a 2 week notice provision in both directions. Her statement clearly states that you was willing to perform through this Sunday, 1/3, which suggests she gave notice on or about 12/20. So while the situation is not good, it was not like all of this went down at the "last minute" time it became public. My guess is that Kulick thought he could make the problem go away before the notice period ended. And of course he could have but, like her, chose not to.

Everyone everywhere is out to get her and now you are, too!

Phyllis is sadly exactly right it seems. 

I didn't dispute that 

But I love her.  I mean, to ME it's all about the work.  And it's a tough business. 

I did not mean to suggest they were jettisoning Brecht but just that Kulick at least was open to reinterpretation a la Shakespeare and that Pinkins was open to rethinking things in terms of war in Africa. 

I can't speak for the depth of anyone's engagement with Africa but (consistent with my comment in another post) it seems somewhat akin to the complaints about the previous Fiddler to the effect that it was tone deaf to Yiddishkeit (sp and perhaps not the right word at all-I'm from one of the lost tribes after all). It's not like the people saying that had themselves been subjected to pogroms. 

RippedMan said: . 

"It's been a decade since my talent has matched the material " I'm sorry, but that's where she lost me. So she sees herself on some HUGE pedestal? So all her previous work was below her? Puh-lease. Get over yourself. 

There is a line in Fiddler On The Roof where Hodel says to Perchik " The Rabbi who praises himself usually has a congregation of one." She sure is full of herself. Nothing like sabotaging your own career. Who the hell would want to hire her now?

"

This is an example of what happens when communication breaks down.

Based on his statement, Brian Kulick decided to set this production of Mother Courage and Her Children in a different time period from the one in the script.  This is common practice when directing Shakespeare.  Whether or not Kulick's choice is successful is another matter.

I smile at the comments about Brecht's intentions.  If you know the history of the play, the 1941 Swiss audience did not react the way he intended, so he rewrote the play.  I'm not sure if this helped.  Individuals are going to react to a play in their own way.

I'm assumed by the comments about Brecht's intentions.  Are directors who set a Shakespeare play in a different time period ignoring his intentions?  Or doesn't this matter because Shakespeare has been dead longer than Brecht?

While Tonya Pinkins raises some important points about the way black people are depicted in plays and, I assume, movies and television, the words she uses to make them are problematic to me.  When I read the term "white gaze," I'm reminded of graduate school.  I agree with the comment that the term usually ends the conversation.  The way black people are depicted is an important subject, do not cover it over with theory. Keep the conversation going.  It will probably be messy at times which is all to the good. When two people are having a conversation and one uses jargon and the other doesn't, the former creates an air of "I'm smarter than you."  Perhaps, the jargon users doesn't want to have a conversation in the first place.

I'm confused about the fur coat scene which happens at the end of Scene 5.  In the John Willett translation, the stage direction reads, "pulling the fur coat off his back."  In the script, the solider doesn't say anything and there is not stage direction about how he reacts.  Does he react or should he react?  To me, this is up to the director and the actors.  Based on her comment, it appears Ms Pinkins did not like the way the other actor reacted.

After reading Ms Pinkins' statement several times, I think she would be happier appearing in Ruined.  Yes, Mother Courage and Her Children influenced Lynne Nottage, but they are two different plays.  Yes, Mother Courage and Mama Nardi are similar, but they are also different. (I feel a compare and contrast college exam question coming on.)  It seems Ms Pinkins believes they are the same.

Here is a link to the Classic Stage Company's site and Mother Courage and Her Children.  There are photos. http://www.classicstage.org/season/productions/mothercourage/ 

Nothing like sabotaging your own career. Who the hell would want to hire her now?

The question might just as easily be asked: Who the hell would want to hire HIM?

PalJoey said: "  Who the hell would want to hire HIM?"

Well he has tenure. And if no one will hire him to direct, he can just devote his full time and attention to imparting his wisdom to young impressionable director wannabes.