The Broken

Posted: Saturday, April 21, 2012 by Morgan in
9

I saw a play tonight. Spoiler alert. If you haven't seen it and would like to, be warned that I'm going to give everything away in the following post.

The setting was Papua New Guinea, where a Bible translation institute and an oil company had come from America and were performing their intended functions. There was tension between the Papua New Guineans and the Americans who had come to their land. The characters include an older American couple in charge of the mission, a young American husband who acts as the pilot for the mission and his wife, a Papua New Guinean mother and her son who work with the mission, and a representative from the oil company. The husband of the native woman had died in surgery in a western hospital, there had been riots about unfair treatment by the oil company. In the end, the young husband crashes the plane and kills the native mother and wounds the oil company representative. The set was a jagged split-level wooden structure with 4 raised levels around behind the main stage. Underneath the raised levels was tons of trash, including used paint buckets, empty bottles and cans, crumpled and shredded paper, large pieces of discarded plastic, and glass Coca-Cola bottles. Interspersed within the scenes that moved the storyline along, there were three "ancestor clowns," actors covered in tribal markings and emo-meets-Jason Voorhees'-hockey-mask facepaint that represented the characters' ancestors, who murdered each other because of fighting over western objects such as teddy bears, toy boats, a scarf, Coca-Cola, and Monopoly money. The play ended with the native son of the mother who died in the plane crash attacking the pilot with a machete (which was a recurring dream for the pilot throughout the play). In the very last scene, the two characters clashed swords above their heads, each grasping the other's wrist, and stared into each others eyes. Curtains.

The production was incredibly well-done and it was evident that enormous amounts of time and effort went into its content, design, and execution. But the entire time I was watching it, the following thought was going through my mind: "There are three possibilities here. Either the point of this play is incredibly elementary, it is far too complex for my mind to grasp, or the writer had absolutely no idea what he was trying to say." If the first case was true, why write an entire play about it? The issue is pretty clear and you could just hold a forum about it or something. If the second case was true, they've completely missed the point of art, which I believe is a medium for enrichment and teaching as well as entertainment. The mood of this play was not light. It was not meant simply to entertain, but if the point was too complex for the audience to grasp, the play has missed the mark entirely. If the third is true, we simply need to hire new faculty.

I didn't make my decision about which of these three were true until after the play when they had a talkback session with some of the cast and creative team, along with the faculty advisor/director of the production. As soon as they opened it up for questions, I directed the following question toward the faculty member: "In very explicit terms, what were you trying to say with this play? What was the point?" After asking me to clarify the question, he turned the question back on me and asked what I thought the play was trying to say. "What I think you meant doesn't matter," I said. "It's obvious that a lot of time and effort went into this play. It's obvious that you were trying to say something. Now I can make assumptions about what I think that something is, but I don't want to do that. I want to know just exactly what you meant." Again, faculty member turned it back to the audience to answer my question. Someone piped up and said that the point was to ask a question. "What was the question?" I asked.

Faculty member said, "I guess the question is how can we as Christians help people without hurting them."

At that point I knew that out of my three possibilities both the first and third were true. If you're going to go to such lengths to make a production filled with controversial themes and topics and you have the opportunity to make a point and are given the chance to explain and defend that point,


WHY


REFUSE


THAT


OPPORTUNITY!?


I have a hard enough time with art because I can't see what other people are trying to show me. I often dismiss pieces of art because I don't understand them. But here I was given an opportunity to understand, to see what the artist was seeking to show, and he refused to tell me. Either that or he didn't have a point.

There were MANY digs at Western culture in the way the set was constructed (Western trash in a country where that was foreign), in the way the ancestor clowns interacted (killing each other over Western money and possessions), in the way the story moved forward (Western doctors killing the native father, Western plane killing the native mother, oil company exploiting the natives), that it seems highly unlikely that Western culture was not being criticized. But even when given the opportunity to explain that, the director was silent.

Now to be fair, he did (sort of) give me a question that the play was trying to ask. Which is fine. Unless the person asking the question or pointing out the problem doesn't even provide a hint of a solution. Which is exactly what happened in the talkback session. Real life examples. In parenting, you can't simply tell a child what they're doing wrong without giving them something with which to replace that bad behavior. That causes behavioral problems. In peer-to-peer relationships, when someone continually bring up flaws (either yours, those of your friends', those of society, etc.) without supplying some way to turn them into virtues, nobody wants to spend time with them because they are incessantly whining. I don't see how it's any different in this context. If I see a play like this I want to struggle through the question with the cast and come out with an answer in the end. If you are going to be  beat around the bush when asked a sincere, straight, and honest question or give me "What does it mean to you?" nonsense, don't waste my time.

9 comments:

  1. JDE says:
    April 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM
    This comment has been removed by the author.
  1. JDE says:
    April 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

    Morgan,

    Thanks for writing! In a sense, you are the perfect audience member because you have continued the conversation beyond the performance, and even beyond the talkback. That is exactly what we hope for in the theatre department. We value your thoughts because whatever we say about our own art, the most important critic is ultimately the audience.

    But moving forward I'll speak only for myself--not for Rhett, the cast, or the department. I'm a theatre student. I've taken classes with Rhett and acted under his directorship. I am a member of the tech crew for The Broken, and I've been involved in every production at the university for the past two years. Also, we've met--in the sauna last fall. I liked you then, and I like you now.

    I'd like to explain how my perspective might differ from yours. I want to point out some problematic presumptions in your reasoning. I'll move sequentially through your post.

    (1) "If the third is true, we simply need to hire new faculty."
    I think it's interesting that you feel you are in a position to say who should or shouldn't be teaching in our department. You are an engineering student--you know what you want from your professors, and you have a right to demand that, or find another school where your needs are met. I have no idea what is important in a good engineering professor. If I may be so bold, let me suggest that you don't have any idea what's important in a good theatre professor. Beyond that, the degree of contact you've had with Rhett is insufficient to make any sort of judgment. Regardless of his professional work on this production, he is an extremely competent and effective educator and director. He is highly respected within our department, and beyond in the national college theatre community. We theatre students are the ones whose careers will be influenced by our professors; we will choose who to listen to. I understand that you didn't have a great experience with him, and he hasn't proven himself to you, but don't make a judgment about his overall competence based on that one interaction. That is very unfair and pretentious.

  1. JDE says:
    April 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

    (2) "In very explicit terms, what were you trying to say with this play? What was the point?… It's obvious that you were trying to say something."
    First of all, I think you're wrong to assume that the best way to teach a point is to say it "explicitly." I think there is an important place for implication and personal discovery.
    Secondly, I wouldn't say that the play had a "point," per se. You seem to think that no point=bad art. I disagree. From the beginning, Rhett has stated that this show is "more about asking questions than answering them." I think this bothers you because it's so vague and abstract, but that's a difference between your mind and mine, Mr. Engineer. Let me explain why I think a play with no explicit point (or answer) is important.
    To state a point is to claim decisive knowledge on a given issue. Decisive knowledge is important and achievable in engineering--without it, your bridges would collapse. But in this play, we deal with more ambiguous issues. We do not know how to reconcile issues between cultures on the mission field. If we did, we probably wouldn't write a play about it--we'd hold a forum, like you suggest. To make a point would be foolish, because we don't know the answer, and we'd probably be wrong.
    So if we're not the experts, why are we talking about it, you might ask. Well, actually, we are the experts, in a sense. Rhett has lived in the world of the play--and so have I. It's real. And from this position of expertise, let me say: no one knows the answer. No one knows how to reconcile these conflicts, no one knows how to "help people without hurting them." You might argue that Scripture gives us the knowledge, and the Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom. Yes, to a degree. Don't claim to have an answer until you've stood in Bruce's or Jack's shoes. Rhett and his father have stood there; I, my father, and my father's father have stood in those shoes; we have not found the answer. Neither have you.
    The play is important to me because I have faith that there is an answer. Maybe an ambiguous play like this will get the right people thinking, and maybe someday an answer will be found. Did the play leave you thinking? Then it achieved it's purpose.

  1. JDE says:
    April 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    (3) "There were MANY digs at Western culture… But even when given the opportunity to explain that, the director was silent."
    Maybe there was an imbalance in our writing of the play. It happens, we're imperfect. Have you ever tried to write fiction with a purpose? It's hard to keep your perspective balanced.
    Rhett didn't explain that the play is a criticism of Western culture because it's not. It certainly questions the effect of Western influence on another culture, but it also questions the indigenous culture. Did you find the idea of "compensation" (eye for an eye) problematic? You should have. I know that Rhett made intentional effort to avoid a statement like "New Guinea culture good, Western culture bad." That would be a gross over-simplification. Neither is good or bad--they are what they are. But they need to be reconciled for the gospel to advance, so we return to the question--how? We still don't know the answer. That's why Rhett asked "What does it mean to you?" He'd like your help in finding the answer.

    I'm sorry that you felt the play and the talkback were a waste of time. I'm sure you could have better spent that time inventing a clean water system for developing nations. But before you do that, you might want to spend some time thinking about how your ideas might negatively affect the people you're trying to help. Then our play might mean something.

    Now you might ask, "Why didn't Rhett explain it that way last night?" I don't know. Maybe because he was tired or distracted. Or maybe because he thought that giving his "answer" would suppress further discussion of the topic. And these are my thoughts anyway, not his. I'm pleased that you at least thought about it long enough to write this post.

    Finally, thank you for addressing this respectfully. It was nice of you to say the production was well-done. We like that kind of feedback because regardless of our content, it says that we're learning our craft.

    I hope we have not lost you as a future audience member. You're great.

    Thanks for sharing,
    Jay Eyestone

  1. Anonymous says:
    April 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    First, I just want to say I love this kind of interaction and I thoroughly respect you for continuing a conversation I thought would simply end with me. Thank you for being bold and providing an answer.

    Second, I admit that I don't exactly have a right to say who should teach in the theater department. You are right on that account. I did a little research on Rhett and found that he is a decorated veteran of the performing arts. And as I said I think the production aspect of the play was very well done.

    Next, I think the foundation of our differing perspectives is how we view the purpose of art. Let me explain.

    I think simply asking questions without providing even a direction towards an answer is insufficient. Like I said before, I believe the point of art is enrichment and teaching. I've read Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante, Milton, Solzhenitsyn, and they all have a point. Fundamentally, they all expose some truth about humanity, God, or the relationship between the two. They do ask questions and they do give answers. Whether or not their *answers* are right is up to the audience to decide based on history, science, or the bible (the three sources of truth).

    "To make a point would be foolish, because we don't know the answer, and we'd probably be wrong."

    Maybe my biggest problem with this play is that it WAS making a point, but that Rhett wasn't prepared to defend it. You don't have to be an expert to say something. I think it's wiser to be an expert if you're going to do so, but not being an expert doesn't disqualify you from taking responsibility for what you say. If you can't or don't want to defend a position, it seems very sneaky to say it anyway and then pass responsibility for it off onto the audience. A prime example in this play is that Western culture is bad and native cultures are good. If Rhett was trying to avoid that black and white distinction, I do not believe he achieved that goal. There were too many blatant criticisms of Western culture and too little blatant criticisms of PNG culture for there to be balance in that aspect.

    I think there IS an answer. I think there may be many answers to this question. I think that the answer probably varies based on the culture and those who are inserting themselves into it. But I think there is an answer. I don't know what it is, and it is my hope that those who have been in that context could at least point me in the right direction if not provide a definitive answer. But as it is, I feel set adrift in a sea of unnecessary ambiguity. I can provide a few possible answers to the question that I think would help explain what I'm trying to say:

    1. Keep Western culture out of native cultures. As missionaries, completely immerse yourselves in the culture to whom you are reaching out. Become one of them so you can spread the good news.

    2. Western culture is good. Bring it to other countries because it is materially beneficial. Use the gifts God has given you to help others.

    If one of those two points had been made, I could have happily agreed or happily disagreed with them and gone about my merry way. But as it is, I didn't have the chance to weigh the answer against the sources of truth because no answer was provided.

    What I'm trying to say in the end is this: Be bold. Say something. And take responsibility for what you say if you've already said it.

  1. JDE says:
    April 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

    Wow, those are great comments. I think you point out some valid flaws in the show. It's constructive criticism, for sure. The show has received so much positive feedback, I'm glad that someone is expressing an opinion that actually gives us something to improve. We certainly don't know how to do our art perfectly, and we're trying to get better at it. I find your thoughts very compelling--I'm curious what others involved in the show think. Anyone?

    I agree that we probably view the purpose of art differently--or maybe it's not the purpose that we disagree on, but the way that purpose is achieved. I think there is some merit in less direct, even ambiguous communication (you're free to disagree, and maybe you're right). Anyway, art is created for a variety of reasons, like teaching, enriching, entertainment, personal catharsis, searching for meaning in seeming chaos, holding a mirror to the world, and propaganda. It's up to the individual artist to choose his purpose, and many purposes are valid. Rhett and everyone involved had a purpose in creating The Broken, but maybe it was not perfectly executed.

    Fortunately, I think the show was effective in a variety of ways despite its imperfection. At the least, some people were entertained. Personally, I think it exposes many truths about humanity and God (referring to your comments about Shakespeare, Dante, etc.) For example, it informs people back home about complexities of the mission field that they might not have been aware of; it reveals that all cultures are flawed; it confesses that all people--even those who wish only to serve Jesus--are flawed; perhaps most importantly, it elevates the hope and faith that God will do wonderful things through us, despite our flaws, through our "Brokenness." Were these things unclear to you? Yes, they could have been more dominant in the story, but as I said before, I think there is power in indirect, implicit communication. I think others saw them.

  1. crousseau says:
    April 23, 2012 at 2:05 PM

    As another "viewer" of the play, I can say this much: I feel that the ambiguity of the play was necessary and without it the power of the question would not be the same. I feel like the play did a few things well, ambiguity being one of them. You state that the three truths we have in this world are: history, science, and the bible. Each has its place for good old-fashioned ambiguity. History is full of ambiguity. How many times have we seen decisions made that at the time seemed the best we could do but later looked bad, we cant discredit the people of the times for having made decisions that we didn't like, but no more can we endorse the decisions for their lack of being a good decision. Science, how many times have scientists taken a plunge in the dark and came out the other end with more questions? The entire point of science is to grapple with answerless questions. The bible is by far the most ambiguous of all. Just looking at all the theological debate of predestination, women in ministry, and even instruments in church, how can you assert that the book of truth is not ambiguous?
    I think that the play uses the elements of truth in each of those. Ambiguity is the crutch they lean on, and maybe less could have worked, but perhaps the real beauty of the play is that when we leave we can feel a sense of connection with the confused and frustrated situation that people on the mission field feel everyday. I would say that art is used for all sorts of expressions and for that matter all sorts of means for expressing, different messages of questions. When you look at the Mona Lisa, do you have an answer to a set question? Or do you get to have an experience where you can look inside yourself and try to find connection with what an artist might have been saying? I would argue that the point of art is to, by asking questions, connect people through empathy. After seeing the play my heart aches for those who have to deal with compensation, and for the PNG natives that have to adjust for western culture that is flooding over their culture. I would argue that immersing yourself into another culture, though important, is not the end all. God made us different for a reason, shedding your own culture to be more effective though biblical (Paul says he becomes like those he wished to win for the Lord) is not all Paul did. He was still, at the end of the day, Paul. If we cant fully shed our own culture then that means that God intended a balance. Love is the key to finding this balance, but the questions the play presented are outside just Christian love for one another, the questions is more of a three prong question, how do we as Christians reconcile, our own godless culture, with our own Christian culture, with PNG culture.
    To find a single catchall answer that would be sufficient would be nearly impossible, and to expect anyone to just lay it in our laps would be at best incredibly selfish. Instead we should look at the art as a way of trying to connect with and look through the eyes of, the artist.
    I guess for the viewer’s side, maybe we need to learn that the artists who devised this play like us might not have the answers, but they have the questions much like us. We as viewers need to be able to immerse ourselves in the question so that we can be better lovers of people. When we look to people like Rhett who give us more questions than answers, we need to be able to connect with his outlook, and think that maybe having been in the position of mission work in PNG that he might be grappling the questions also.
    I think that the ambiguity serves to let us each insert ourselves into the world that the play was trying to create, so that we might be able to empathetically feel and connect with those who are across the pond trying to love God's children and are finding resistance.

    Thanks for talking-
    Cody Rousseau

  1. Hannah says:
    April 23, 2012 at 5:10 PM

    Morgan,

    Thank you for not letting your frustration with a lack of answers from the talk back end this conversation for you. Our hope in presenting this play to an audience was to spark dialogue.

    I'm the stage manager, dramaturg, and lead writer for The Broken. I think Jay and Cody both did wonderful jobs of addressing your post, so I am going to address your initial questions.

    First of all, a clarification, just in case this wasn't clear: The Broken is a devised play, which means that a group of theatre artists, including actors, designers, writers, and a director, came together to create a story relevant to their community, write a script, design a world, and then give all of that over to an audience.

    The creative team of The Broken consisted of 9 students under Rhett's guidance. This group, myself included, met weekly, beginning in the end of October, to create the story that we would then give to an audience in April. The image we started with was: A New Guinea man breaks into the home of a Western missionary in PNG and the men end up fighting each other with machetes. Our starting questions: Why did this happen? What could possibly cause a missionary in the country he is trying to work in to fight a native man with a machete?

    This image was based in a recent factual event in PNG. That first meeting, we heard from Rhett’s parents, retired missionaries in PNG. They told us about PNG – the country, the history, the people, the culture, the mission work. Throughout November, we heard more stories from Rhett, we shared research, we asked hundreds of questions and answered very few, we brainstormed images and words and music. By December, we had a storyline, a narrative structure, and, most importantly, our dramatic question: How do missionaries spread the gospel without imposing their own culture on the people they are serving? Or, more simply, how do Christians love others without hurting them?

    December, January, and February, we wrote. Throughout the writing process, we encountered even more questions, some of which we didn’t attempt to answer, others of which found their ways into the play. One of those related questions was What is the effect on mission work of bringing Western culture along with, and often coupled to, the gospel?

    Different people wrote different scenes, meaning that certain characters and through-lines were primarily developed by one or two students. Rhett and I wrote scenes, consulted with everyone about other scenes being written, and edited. We cast the rest of the show in February and started rehearsals in March. We rewrote the script as we went, trying to clarify what we thought was most important. We used lights, sound, set, costumes, and props to help communicate to the audience.

    (cont'd)

  1. Hannah says:
    April 23, 2012 at 5:11 PM

    (cont'd)

    As the artists, we didn’t answer the dramatic questions we started with. Each of us individually may have our own ideas, our own answers, or starting points, but those thoughts come out of each individual life, each experience, and the group that created The Broken was made up of wildly different individuals who came together over a love of theatre, of story, of people, and of God.

    We did, however, put forth an answer to why a missionary would fight a native man with a machete. This is, though, just an idea, one of an infinite number of possibilities. And so with the question how do we love others without hurting them, it’s a question for each individual to answer on a moment-to-moment basis, as the characters in the play did, struggling through that divine charge without always feeling like they had found it.

    We did not set out to answer that question, but to explore it, to struggle through what it means to love others, to examine how it is that when our goal is to love, we so often end up hurting. Jesus’ answer is to love your neighbor as yourself, but in that phrase, right there, is all of the subjectivity and bias that comes from how each individual loves him or herself. This is not a question to be answered explicitly or definitively, but rather a question to ask in every interaction with others, a question that will be answered in one moment and destroyed in the next as we, in our broken humanity, strive to love as God would have us love.

    It was known early on that we would host talkbacks after each performance. Because this was a brand new play created by a group of first-time playwrights, and many first-time devisers, we new it would be important to hear from our audiences. We wanted to know what we accomplished, for good or for ill.

    The point of the talkbacks, then, was not to explain or defend what we did. We took responsibility for it when we opened Wood-Mar’s doors on April 12. The point was to find out what we did. To find out what the audience thought of our story, what they thought our story was saying, why they thought we chose to tell this story.

    It is few and far between than any audience member has the chance to dialogue with the artist about a piece of art. I personally think this is for the best. An artist creates because he or she needs to. Whether as a form of self-expression, or an attempt to communicate, or in response to something, or as a journey to self-discovery, or simply the need to create, art starts as being for the artist’s sake. When an artist chooses to present his or her work to an audience, then the purpose may change. The purpose may then be to instruct, or enlighten, or to create an emotional response, or to challenge beliefs, or to share beliefs, or to flaunt skill. But most artists, while trying to communicate a specific thing through their art, are happy to hear the variety of interpretations from their audiences.

    I think that all good art instructs and enlightens, but it may be that the artist most benefits, or that said instruction or enlightenment is nowhere near didactic in nature. I think that art raises questions, it challenges viewers, or listeners, to be introspective, and I think that in itself is entirely instructive and enlightening. This may mean that an audience completely misses the artist’s point, but I see nothing wrong with that, in neither the audience’s ability to interpret nor the artist’s skill in his or her craft.

    Thank you, again, for dialoguing with us about what you saw. I hope some of your need for answers has been satisfied, and also that you have more understanding of our position, as The Broken artists, in what, how, and why, we did what we did.

    God bless,
    Hannah Irish