Are writers ever normal? No, otherwise they'd be productive members of society. 'When Writers Go Weird' is when we remember writers acting strange, odd, off, or--yeah--just plain weird. Also known as Tuesday to them.
Today: That time Samuel Beckett wanted to sue over some water, Phillip Glass, and black people.
Samuel Beckett always had the resting grouch face of a moody human being. But unlike some innocent people with such an issue, Beckett actually followed through with such petulant behavior.
Everyone loves a good ego stroke. Hollywood, Wall Street, and Washington wouldn't exist if ego stroking wasn't a critical part to the process. But before the tender sensibilities of a real Donald Trump or a fake Gordon Gecko, there was the infallibility of pride in the form of Nobel Prize winners such as Samuel Beckett.
 |
| That's the face of unabashed enthusiasm right there. |
Lawsuits (or the threat of one) from Beckett almost became a midweek pastime, a hobby with the frequency and randomness he doled them out. Not for some egregious action, like plagiarism, profit, or libel regarding him or his work--but threats simply because Beckett didn't like the way something in a play of his was going to be interpreted.
Most notable of all cases occurred in 1984, when Boston's American Repertory Theatre (ART) decided to put on a version of Beckett's 'Endgame.' The play, directed by award winning JoAnne Akalaitis, kept the play's dialogue verbatim, but simply tweaked other areas, like the set and music. Beckett's original play had a plain room with two windows as the setting--nothing else. Akalaitis moved the play into a derelict, abandoned subway tunnel. She added some water (Why? It's a Beckett play--everything's a why?), and had an orchestral movement by famed composer Philip Glass included before the play started.
And Beckett was not happy.
____________________________________________________________________________
"Beckett believes the version..."totally distorts" his play by...casting black actors."
____________________________________________________________________________
"He doesn't like it. He's disgusted by it," said Beckett's attorney, Martin Garbus, at the time. "But he doesn't have funds to take on [...] all the other people at the American Repertory Theatre. He feels he doesn't have any choice."
The Associated Press added, "Beckett believes the version by the highly acclaimed theater company "totally distorts" his play by changing the locale, adding music and casting black actors in key roles, Garbus said."
That's right. The scourge of skin pigment. Samuel Beckett lost perspective enough to think that a play where characters sit in trash cans (seriously--if you haven't read/watched his work--two characters channel their inner Oscar the Grouch and live entirely in a trash can) couldn't have someone other than a white actor participate.
"I have never heard him so angry," said another acquaintance of Beckett's to the AP.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Anybody who cares for the work couldn't fail to be disgusted by this."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Beckett initially attempted legal action against ART, yet stopped at some point. Whether it was common sense that he'd lose in a court of law or ART's desire to sweep the matter under the rug, one wonders. Both sides agreed to a disclaimer being added to the play's program, and both agreed to allow Beckett a direct response to the attendee:
"Any production of Endgame which ignores my stage directions is completely unacceptable to me. My play requires an empty room and two small windows. The American Repertory Theater production which dismisses my directions is a complete parody of the play as conceived by me. Anybody who cares for the work couldn't fail to be disgusted by this."
Perspective in life requires a sort of intellectual nuance, something Beckett clearly struggled to gather. Once you've lost your two windows, you might have lost your two cents. Beckett never mentioned the water or black actors matter again, for reasons unknown. The brouhaha over Beckett versus the ART in Boston was such a sensation at the time it led The New York Times theater critic Mel Gussow to review the play in 1984. Aside from the aforementioned music and scenery, Gussow said "the alterations are minimal."
"The director has not only respected the meaning of the dialogue," wrote Gussow, but "she has been attentive to the author's pauses, silences and intonations." Moreover, he said, "[T]his is a valid representation of the spirit of the original work."
Was it really a matter of two windows? The mellifluous music of Philip Glass? Black actors being used? In the end, no one quite understood Beckett's fuss, but it was quite clear no one had a reason to be disgusted. That is, perhaps, except Beckett in himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment