Mother Courage at CSC- Page 7

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 3:28pm

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).

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 4:40pm

@Gaveston "Turning Courage into a passive victim." Not knowing whether that is the case or not, it seems clear from some of what Pinkins said ("neutered" etc) that she felt this is what was happening.

[yfs]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 4:53pm

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. 

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 5:14pm

 

An actor dropping out of a show, "unprofessionally" is seen that way because of what is at stake for the creative team and all involved with the production. They are throwing a wrench into an incredible amount of people's time, effort and money to bring something to fruition. It is truly selfish. An actor does not hold the cards and is agreeing when signing on to something, to be a contribution to the final product. 

When an actor is dropped from a creative project it's because the goal is everyone working for the best realization of the work. 

Updated On: 1/1/16 at 05:14 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 5:41pm

^^^^ 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

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 5:47pm

HogansHero said: "@Gaveston "Turning Courage into a passive victim." Not knowing whether that is the case or not, it seems clear from some of what Pinkins said ("neutered" etc) that she felt this is what was happening.

 

"

I agree, Hogan. There's also Pinkins' reference to being left "cartless". IIRC, the play traditionally ends with the now childless Courage taking up her cart and soldiering on. I have to admit I wonder whether Pinkins means she was left cartless only at the end or throughout the play. That cart is as much a character as Courage is.

 

Brecht's original director's book for the play still exists, if I'm not mistaken, and is full of sketches, storyboards, background notes, etc. This isn't to say (nor would Brecht say) that every production must use Brecht's staging ideas. (In fact I suspect doing so would make for a very boring production.) But not only is the text of the play itself quite clear, there is ample evidence of the playwright's intentions.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 5:50pm

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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 6:14pm

Has this thread gone on long enough that we can casually reference Tonya's propensity for drama and chaos?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 6:27pm

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

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 7:14pm

@Gaveston I don't think the issue is the playwright's intention because it seems pretty clear that neither party to this fiasco was looking to Brecht's intentions. Kulick said so explicitly.

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 7:16pm

Phyllis is sadly exactly right it seems. 

[smidge]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 7:23pm

I think Phyllis is trying to be funny considering Ms. Pinkins" history

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 7:32pm

I didn't dispute that 

[smidge]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 7:39pm

My apologies

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 7:52pm

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

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 8:02pm

HogansHero said: "@Gaveston I don't think the issue is the playwright's intention because it seems pretty clear that neither party to this fiasco was looking to Brecht's intentions. Kulick said so explicitly.

 

"

Well, I took Kulick to mean they weren't going to be slavishly literal in their interpretation of the play script, not that they intended to jettison Brecht altogether. I believe a glance at Brecht's director's book would disabuse anyone of the notion that Courage is timid or entirely self-aware. Further, I'm sure both Kulick and Pinkins have the phone numbers of Tony Kushner and Oskar Eustis in their cell phones; Kushner and Eustis ARE experts on Brecht and might have negotiated the impasse. (And for all I know, they tried.)

 

*****

 

As for whether Miss Pinkins is a drama queen, I have no opinion. I only know of her from the recording of CAROLINE. I not only have no dog in the CSC fight; I don't even think their views are contradictory as far as the character Brecht wrote is concerned.

 

But I am a bit wary of invoking the "filter of the white gaze", as Pinkins calls it. A black AMERICAN may better understand a black AFRICAN than a white AMERICAN does, but she may not. Inheriting DNA, including a tendency to produce more melanin, does not automatically make an American expert on anything African. Though I think race and point of view are genuine issues, somehow invoking white and black "gazes" seems largely a conversation stopper. How can one ever successfully negotiate with the other?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 9:33pm

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. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 9:53pm

I think we agree re MC, Hogan. The exact nature of the dispute isn't to be found in their published statements, unless it is very heavily coded. Of course, each is painting him/herself in the best light (as we all tend to do).

 

I missed the FIDDLER dispute. Sounds interesting.

[pippin423]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 9:56pm

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?

"

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 10:49pm

Hogans, I think that both of their statements strongly suggest intentions to honor their vying understanding of Brecht and his text.

Pinkins is, for instance, protective of the cart as a central set piece (shades of Sondheim's concerns for Porgy's cart?).  Pinkins own reading of the iconic heroine is that she is not delusional.  And Pinkins objected to what she called protracted edits from the original text.   On the other hand, she required a specificity of setting more in line with an adaptation rather than a typical resetting.

Kulick, at least according to Pinkins, wanted to jettison much that Pinkins wanted to protect from the original text.  On the other hand he believed that a truer and more faithful presentation of Brecht's Mother Courage was to simply allow the resetting to speak for itself - in the way Shakespeare or Verdi is typically reset - than to adapt the text specifically to a contemporary Congo.

[A Director]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 11:05pm

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/ 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 11:44pm

@pippin, I wouldn't lose sleep over Ms. Pinkin's future; people know what they get when they hire certain actors and she's one. That rabbi must not have been a great performer. As someone said above it's all about the work.

@henrik all of that is possible, but i just don't think we have a clear sense of what went down. I suspect we will eventually.

@A director Yep. To me the clear headed question does not require a lot of theory to answer, and when it does, it's a sign that something is missing from the conversation. Communication is at the heart of the making theatre, and what you look for is not a director who dictates but first and foremost one who listens, and then who finds a way of responding in a way that achieves his or her vision. As I said earlier, I think it is impossible for us to know where the blame falls although in fiascos like this it is rarely unilateral. What I do know, however, is where the responsibility falls, and that is on the director's shoulders. (I might add the producer, but here they are one and the same, and maybe that's a part of the problem too.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 11:54pm

 

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]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 11:59pm

 

Well, I took Kulick to mean they weren't going to be slavishly literal in their interpretation of the play script, not that they intended to jettison Brecht altogether.

 

Kulick "jettisoned" an entire hour from Brecht's text. 

 

That's where this whole sorry affair began.

 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/2/16 at 12:06am

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.