Sorry y’all: I’ve been trying to keep up at least a weekly presence on this here blog but I missed yesterday due to a Mac-to-PC conversion fail and my thoughts on Maggie Walker’s “Sweeney Todd,” Theatre IV’s “Stinky Cheese Man,” and Triangle Players’ “Next Fall” are now being reconstructed by a diligent but slow-moving team of squirrels working in the bowels of my laptop. I’ll get them posted tomorrow.
In the meantime, I’ve been following the dust-up over the Mike Daisey monologue show with much interest and was finally able to listen to the “This American Life” retraction last night.
I don’t know if anyone else out there in Richmond theater land is as interested but there are intriguing definitional issues being discussed here, all with the backdrop of our tortured relationship with China as the context. I’m a long-time fan of This American Life and I heard the original broadcast of Daisey’s monologue. It is a very powerful story and taps into some of the main reasons I have been so interested in China for the past 6-7 years.
When questions were raised about the truthfulness of Daisey’s account, it took the whole subject to another level for me. The irony is that, while Daisey’s monologue explores the way an American company exploits Chinese workers, the resulting fabrications show that Daisey himself was exploiting the situation in China for his own gain, that is, to develop a powerful – and lucrative – performance piece. So while we could be spending time looking at this messed up economic and cultural relationship we have with China, instead the focus turns to more esoteric questions about what is truth and what responsibility an artist has to label what he or she does.
These are certainly interesting questions. But, in the end, I think Daisey blew his credibility by not coming clean when asked directly about whether something was truthful or not. Sure, an artist has license and, in the context of a stage show, may wander freely from the strict bounds of journalistic integrity. But still, I think when someone is fact-checking your piece and you outright lie, it no longer becomes about the freedom of expression of an artist. It comes down to a person simply not having integrity.
Those are my thoughts on the Daisey question. If anyone cares to hear my thoughts on broader questions about China, buy me a beer sometime and we can talk (don’t everyone rush to get in line at once!) And whether anyone buys me a beer or not, I’m posting some thoughts on the shows I’ve seen lately tomorrow. Because, instead of having to choose between journalism and theater, I’m still playing at being a theater journalist. I'm hoping that'll work out for me in the long run.
12 comments:
"I just want basic labor protections for people...It's a really basic thing. It's a basic thing that we fought for in this country. It took 100 years of labor struggles to get to a place where that happened for most workers. Then we exported those jobs overseas, and we didn't send the protections with them. And it's not right."
That's what he said he wants and he's doing what he can to make that happen.
OK...full disclosure. I hadn't heard the follow-up interview.
Eek.
(It's playing now.)
That's hard.
Saw the show at Woolly Mammoth last year and loved it, was very moved by it. Heard the broadcast and recommended it to others. Heard the retraction and feel sad and dismayed--sorry I recommended it, but cannot deny its power, but now know it includes many fabrications. He's a great storyteller; as with James Frey, I just wish he would have been honest and called it fiction.
BC: I support Daisey's aim but I think what he's done has effectively undercut his goals.
Susie: I feel much the same. Was moved by the initial story as it brought to life many things I had read about for years. Now feel annoyed because he had a perfectly fine story to tell but his embellishments muddle the issues rather than clarify them. The TAL retraction presents the issues and the grey areas perfectly well; why couldn't Daisey do that?
I'm also squeamish about the whole thing because I'm imagining that Daisey may turn the whole furor into another theater piece, at which point I will lose the few straggling strands of respect that I have for him.
Dave, you've got that right: "To my audiences: It’s you that I owe the most to. I want you all to know that I will not go silent—I will be making a full accounting of this work, shining a light through this monologue and telling the story of its origins, construction, and details."
The reaction from one of the theater administrators involved in the development of the piece:
"Boycott Mike’s gorgeous, amazing piece of theatre that is based on a true story. Boycott it until you get the apology that you deserve and do not ever, ever re-mount it or produce a work of his again until you know for sure what is true and what is not so your audiences are never ever mislead again."
http://www.artsjournal.com/newbeans/2012/03/this-is-a-work-of-non-fiction.html
It's available for performance. I wonder how it would do in RVA...
An even more vehement response to the Daisey lies:
http://gawker.com/5894216/how-i-was-duped-by-mike-daiseys-lies
I've had the opportunity to spend some time with him and I gotta say it couldn't happen to a better guy...
Someone should do Steve Jobs and follow it up with Tracy Scott Wilson's play THE STORY...
Rick St. Peter
The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs by Mike Daisey at the Firehouse Theatre Project, May 9, 7:30PM.
With an EPIC talkback to follow!
I'm only going if no proceeds of any kind go to Daisey for the event.
No proceeds go to Daisey. He is charging no royalties. It is just putting the piece out there.
And there will be a HUGE note in the playbill regarding the fiction of parts of the piece.
We think it'll be interesting to actually present the piece (in a Readers' Theatre format) and talk about all of those crazy things surrounding it.
Note: It will NOT be performed by Mike Daisey.
Post a Comment