Controversial play

An email informs me that a staged reading of the controversial and "banned" play "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" is being planned in Eugene. Most recently, the play was cancelled in Toronto, for artistic reasons say the producers, for political reasons say defenders of the play.

Toronto's Canadian Stage Company has decided not to stage My Name is Rachel Corrie, the controversial play about an American peace activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer.

It was a decision based on the play's merits, rather than the political controversy that dogs it, CanStage artistic producer Martin Bragg said in an interview with CBC.ca.

"It was an artistic decision," said Bragg, who saw the play in New York. "It just didn't work on stage."

Based on the diaries of U.S. activist Rachel Corrie, who died trying to stop the Israeli army from destroying a Palestinian house, the play chronicles her life as an adolescent and young woman.

The play has been divisive since it was first produced in London earlier this year, with supporters admiring its depiction of young woman developing strong political convictions and others saying Corrie was naive and misguided.

A New York theatre decided against staging the play this spring, after Jewish groups said it expresses anti-Israeli sentiments.


Read complete story.

I'm not familiar with the play but in my experience political content naturally moves toward propaganda rather than drama. I've written political drama myself and the genre is not meant to be "fair," it's meant to be inspiring. It's preaching to the choir. Of course, some issues are clearer than others, but anything dealing with the Middle East is going to be controversial by nature. I also believe most political plays are "bad" plays, including my own, if we hold to them the same criteria we bring to plays with less message. "Got a message, send a telegram." Plays are best, in my view, when they address human complexity, not the simplistic sloganeering of most plays with political agendas.

But none of this justifies banning a play. I find it perfectly reasonable that a theater rejects a play because it's bad theater -- except why did they book it in the first place? Apparently they were greedily depending on its controversial reputation to sell tickets. In this case, it doesn't matter if the play is good or bad. They entered the arena for bucks. So to change their minds does, in fact, suggest pressure and political issues, not aesthetic ones. So the Toronto theater, it seems to me, is trying to save its ass and reputation here. If they book a play without deciding if it's good enough to do, well, what motives can they have other than greed? And something then happened to make them chicken out.

Bad plays with controversial subject matter get too much attention and too often the controversy surrounding them shields the lack of craft in the work itself. So much energy expended over so little. The theaters themselves are at fault, for prematurely and greedily trying to take advantage of work getting a lot of press. Shakespeare has written much more interesting political theater than most of the things being written today.

Article in The Nation.

TheaterMania review:

Still, while the play focuses attention on an aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, it is unlikely to sway many people's opinions. Supporters of Corrie's activism are likely to continue to deem her a martyr, while those who believe that Corrie was aiding Palestinian terrorists will either fail to attend the show or dismiss it as propaganda. Those occupying a middle position may be moved by the words of this young, idealistic woman, but they won't get all the information they need from this play in order to make an informed decision.