Escaping the Tar-and-Feather Future of African American Theatre

Abstract

These brief remarks question which ropes might be used to hang African American theatre and how these ropes might be slipped. There is little doubt that a hanging dangles in the future of African American theatre. Hanging ropes have shaped the consciousness that is the theatre's past and present, which were once the future. Therefore, we can look forward to further neck-stretching--unless, of course, we find ways to snap at least four ropes. First, control must be gained over the criticism of the theatre. History drums that we were, are, and will be Mr. William Brown doing Richard III in 1821 in his African Grove Theatre--only to have the critic Mordecai Manuel Noah ravage the production for political purposes. In his review, Noah called us peculiar people and Black beauties who are incapable of exercising that privilege of voting with any sort of discretion, prudence, or independence. During 1821-23, Noah used such reviews to whip up support for the defeat of the liberal voting rights plank at the New York State constitutional convention. Consequently, free African American men could vote only if they had lived in the state three years prior to the election and owned property valued at $250 above all debts. The power of the black vote, which had previously changed the face of New York City politics, was strangled--thanks in part to the outwitted Mr. Brown and his African Company. Today, black actors and producers fear that they, too, are being fashioned into co-conspirators to snap the neck of black politics and theatre. Too many good productions are being closed prematurely because some white--and black--critics apply standards and questions that evidence a complete misunderstanding of the author's intentions and black theatre traditions. Therefore, from throughout the country come cries for some informed critic to visit and publish a review that gives another perspective. These producers ask not to be raved about but simply understood. Such enlightenment might result only from the schooling--or re-tooling--of a cadre of critics through a series of workshops patterned somewhat along the lines of the National Critics Institute at the O'Neill Center in Waterford, Connecticut. However, this proposed institute, which might be called The Mr. Brown Institute for African American Theatre Criticism, would aim to satisfy the following general goals: 1. to develop a working understanding of the history and criticism of the schools, periods, and classes of African American drama and theatre; 2. to cultivate script-analysis and production skills that are informed by the principles of theatre by African peoples; 3. to improve the skills needed to research the performance and critical histories of a play, along with the political, socioeconomic, and historical issues addressed; and 4. to develop an understanding of the rules governing theatre criticism. The Mr. Brown Institute could be convened for four weeks during the summer. It could be hosted by the theatre department at a centrally located historically black college or university. The funding could be raised from participants' fees, subscriptions sold to all newspapers and mass media, and grants from black colleges and universities. The universities might simply pay the salaries and expenses of those of its theatre professors chosen to lead sessions. Funds should not be sought from theatre companies because of the possible conflict of interest. Unlike in the sixties and seventies, critics of black theatre should not be drum majors to help theatre organizations build audiences. Critics owe their allegiance to the audience, which, as the critic Clayton Riley pointed out, needs honest criticism to help it better appreciate the complexities of theatre. Therefore, if a black production is ill-conceived and under-rehearsed, it should be clobbered. …