Zeitgeist Cancellation Fallout

Our decision to indefinitely postpone the production of Zeitgeist 2030 has gotten a mixed reaction from New York City theatre bloggers. We made the announcement on Thursday (see "The Wrong Show at the Wrong Time"), explaining:

"We love the songs we've written. The problem is that Zeitgeist 2030 takes place twenty-two years from now, and presents a very cynical view of America's future -- a dystopia wherein the president has been in office for thirteen years. It's just not where we want our heads to be during this election year. Our hope for the NERO FIDDLED political shows is that they might inspire our audience to become more politically involved. The bleak vision of Zeitgeist 2030 seems more likely to have the opposite effect. It seems to be saying that the outcome of the 2008 election is irrelevant, because look how bad things are, either way, in 2030. It's the opposite of agitprop: political theatre which inspires complacency and defeat.

"That's not to say we won't ever return to this show. We're happy with what we've written so far, and we believe in the message, which is that the world's greatest democracy is never far from the brink of totalitarianism. It's just not a message that plays well this year. We'd prefer to write about 2008 and 2009."

On his blog, under the headline "Doing the Right Thing," nytheatre.com founder and editor Martin Denton wrote:

"I applaud Diamond and Sisk for doing the right thing here. Let’s greet the election with the optimism and promise that it’s supposed to signify: let’s embrace the idea that we can select the right people to run our country, people who will move it forward positively and justly. In 2000, a lot of people said they couldn’t tell the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Those people were letting a disaffected postmodernist ennui rule their thinking. We can’t afford that…not in the arts.

"The act of making theatre — so difficult to accomplish! — is inherently political. When David Mamet chooses to put something as lacking in substance as November on the stage, he’s saying that it’s not important to address the issues facing the country right now.

"The point is not what your politics are — the point is to have some…to have convictions and to stick to them. Bravo to Noah and Amanda for setting a great example."

We also received a number of e-mails from friends and colleagues, similarly congratulating us on the integrity of our decision. Sisk and I were saying, it's funny, we're almost getting acclaim for not doing a show. Then, at last, dissent struck, under the byline of theatre blogger and critic George Hunka. Today, on his blog "Superfluities Redux," Hunka writes:

"We've been down the path of the self-suppression of political speech before, with the My Name is Rachel Corrie/NYTW controversy in 2006, and though this instance is unlikely to generate the general wailing and gnashing of teeth of that particular instance, many of the threads seem similar. Here is a work of art, generated from the sincere intent to express a broad political issue and investigate it fully, pulled from a season for reasons unrelated to the quality of a work, but for a reason directly related to its content. And, like the Rachel Corrie 'postponement,' it's related to the timing of the production...

"No play, or other work of art, is either ahead of or behind its time; it is always precisely of its time; art is not created in time machines. If Diamond and Sisk found it a work they wanted to create now, then now is the time for it (and they must have felt it somehow necessary to do so as artists, or it would not have been conceived in the first place). And, to my mind, the description of the show -- 'that the outcome of the 2008 election is irrelevant, because look how bad things are, either way, in 2030' -- is a perfectly valid if unpopular position to take, and one more implicitly radical in a political sense than its opposite (not to mention an entirely justifiable, and urgent, message precisely in an election year).

"...But it's not my intention here to call the wrath of God down upon any playwright or critic. What concerns me is what concerned me about the Rachel Corrie controversy: that it brings to light certain unspoken and/or unexamined assumptions in the New York theatre community about the kinds of expression that are or are not welcome on stages here; the extent to which an artist or production organisation will suppress his, her or its own speech in the interest of some higher ideological "good" (in this case, political progressivism); the perceived need to undermine even some of the darkest, most sublime artwork of our time with a call to a false 'hope'; and the question as to whether or not this may be a concern that has relevance to the broader decision-making process as to which plays are granted that vague label of 'producible' at a particular place and time. Perhaps the sentiments of Diamond, Sisk and Denton are held by only a minority of New York theatre artists, producers and critics. But perhaps they're only the tip of the iceberg.

"Diamond and Sisk's decision says just as much about the tendency of democracy towards totalitarianism as their play could, perhaps; what need do we have of government, corporate or institutional suppression of political speech when we so readily suppress it within ourselves, a sad (if inevitable, according to Adorno) internalisation of the totalitarian urge? And not only that, but to be congratulated for it; Denton's 'Bravo to Noah and Amanda for setting a great example' is, to say the least, a problematic statement from a critic who claims to support the broad efforts of what he calls the 'indie theatre' movement. ('Bravo' for a decision to hide a play -- any play -- from the light of day?) For any New York City dramatist who finds himself drawn to the possibility of theatre for the unique expression of difficult truths about human experience as he sees them, this is a very discouraging morning."

I believe George Hunka is expressing a view not uncommon on the downtown New York theatre scene, which is that artistic impulse is infallible, and must never be corrupted by other considerations -- commercial, political, or otherwise. Sisk (Hunka calls her "Fisk" in his first paragraph) and I don't feel that way. For us, theatre -- especially the kind of political satire NERO FIDDLED produces -- is first about the audience. We consider what we're saying, who we're saying it to, and what effect it might have on the world beyond the proscenium. We are preaching to the choir, because we want the choir to sing, and to vote, and to help bring about political change. And, of course, to laugh. Laughter is a powerful solvent for apathy.

I don't know if Hunka has ever seen a NERO FIDDLED show, but I hope that if he knew our work, his article would have read differently. I doubt very much that anyone familiar with what we've done so far would accuse us of "self-suppression of political speech." The NERO shows have consistently argued exactly what Zeitgeist 2030 argues: That we're a few steps away from fascism.

When Hunka writes that "if Diamond and Sisk found [Zeitgeist 2030] a work they wanted to create now, then now is the time for it," he is alligning himself with the dangerous insularity of the downtown arts world. We agree that art is not created by time machines, but we also believe that art is not created in a vacuum. We have no illusion that our plays will have a major impact on the electoral map, but we know there are people who have seen our plays and become more politically informed and active as a result. There is no more positive review than that. Whatever their flaws, City Under Siege and Burning Bush and Moral Value Meal said to their audiences: Our democracy is in peril; do something about it. Zeitgeist 2030, largely because it's set in the future, would be saying: Our democracy is in peril; there's nothing you can do about it. We don't believe the second part of that statement. So, after months of trying to make the existing material express our actual point of view, we decided it just wasn't the right time for this one.

We have no compunction about doing (or not doing) a particular show based on what's happening in the world at the time. We have no compunction about taking responsibility for what we say. And it's not as though we've cancelled Zeitgeist so as to concentrate on a production of Annie; as our announcement explained, the decision was motivated partly by a desire to focus our efforts on the next show, Life After Bush, which I believe will satisfy Mr. Hunka's thirst for "the unique expression of difficult truths."

To Hunka, our decision raises questions about "the extent to which an artist or production organisation will suppress his, her or its own speech in the interest of some higher ideological 'good.'" We're not suppressing our speech; we're choosing to say something more relevant to our times, and more representative of our views, than the project we'd been developing. In our opinion, the overthrow of the Bush regime, and the emergence next year of a Democratic president who might move America off the disastrous course of the Bush era, is a much higher "good" than the whim of any artist's muse. What happens on the national and global stage is more important than what happens on the stages of downtown New York theatres. Good political theatre isn't just about expression; it's also about acknowledging that the things we say and do have consequences for other people.

The activities of NERO FIDDLED will continue to reflect this.

Noah

4:54 PM

12 comments

Comments

Noah,
Well stated. I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.
Martin

# posted by Martin-nytheatre.com : 1/27/2008 11:01 PM

Can we just have one disagreement where someone doesn't throw in the "Rachel Corrie Card"

# posted by ts : 1/28/2008 4:03 AM

Thank you for your thoughtful response, and my apologies for misspelling Sisk's name in my post.

I find myself in the ironic position of having recently defended the health of contemporary political theatre in the United States here, and now having to defend the artistic impulse here. I don't see how the artistic impulse is any more or less fallible than the political impulse; nor did I say that we create art in a vacuum. Of course we don't. And the decisions about what kind of political theatre we decide to produce don't take place in a vacuum either. (Given that the artistic impulse springs up in a world, and from a person, inevitably entangled with the community in the first place makes no artistic impulse pure.)

There's a certain kind of dangerous insularity and solipsism in this kind of political theatre too, the political theatre that "preaches to the converted." It seemed to me, anyway, based on the description of Zeitgeist 2030, that your play was relevant to our times; that you no longer think so is to be regretted, perhaps, but you have the right to your opinion and to scheduling your season as you see fit.

Your last paragraph here remains just as chilling as Martin's claim that there's no time or place for some kinds of art at this time -- that the health of the community politically should trump artistic considerations. In a democracy, of course, the people get to decide. You're right, Noah: "Good political theatre isn't just about expression; it's also about acknowledging that the things we say and do have consequences for other people." And, as in any democracy, it's those people who should decide what those consequences are. As it should have been the audience who decided about the relevance of the content of Zeitgeist 2030. If we say we believe in democracy, we should have some. We don't postpone elections until the time is better for them. Nor should we revise our work -- and our consciences -- to fit the fashion of the day.

If it's true that "We don't believe the second part of [the] statement" that "democracy is in peril; there's nothing you can do about it," of course, then you shouldn't do the play. But if you still believe, too, that "the world's greatest democracy is never far from the brink of totalitarianism," there's never a bad time to be reminded of that. As I said, especially during an election year.

# posted by George Hunka : 1/28/2008 8:36 AM

Please note that I am misquoted in the above comment. I did not say "there's no time or place for some kinds of art at this time" nor would I ever say something like that. As Noah's original post shows, what I said was that we can't afford to have people in the arts (and elsewhere in the world) ruled by "disaffected postmodernist ennui."

- Martin Denton

# posted by Martin-nytheatre.com : 1/28/2008 1:18 PM

"Those people were letting a disaffected postmodernist ennui rule their thinking. We can’t afford that ... not in the arts."

Why not, then? Even assuming that your characterisation of "those people" (whoever they are) -- and their thinking -- is correct, to suggest that a play, any play, is better not produced at this time, because there's a certain kind of thinking that we can't "afford," especially in the arts, is a step towards judgment and suppression.

# posted by George Hunka : 1/28/2008 1:27 PM

Diamond and Sisk's impulses are beholden to no one.

The operative word is "rule." I don't think anyone is saying that they feel there is no place for "disaffected postmodernist ennui." But there is applause here for its shaking off at this time. One could easily make the case that we're at a dangerous time in this nation's history and apathy has been far more destructive than has engagement.

I don't understand, honestly, why Superfluities has taken such a disapproving tone about the freedom of artists to be transparent about their decisions and their giving of deep thought to the effect that their work has on the world around them. If they come to a different conclusion from the one that theatre minima might reach, for example, that's not suppression. That's disagreement.

Not all judgment is a form of suppression. It's sophomoric to think of The Artist (note the capital A) as a series of whims and free impulses that should never be tempered by sober reflection or an eye on a larger context. Political theater, by its nature, traffics in content, not just form. Diamond and Sisk are under no obligation to make statements that they feel run counter to their own goals or their assessments.

It is, in fact, chilling to suggest that ambiguous "artistic considerations" from an outside, disaffected party should be paramount or even factored in to those making politically motivated theater.

It's the height of optimism and faith in art to believe that one's work CAN affect social change and therefore its content SHOULD be considered when it is put on the stage. It's a beautiful belief that the audience IS listening and can be affected by what's on the stage, and taking seriously what one might say is, in my mind, a wonderful impulse. Diamond and Sisk, by saying "We do not want to promote apathy" are, simply by doing so, making an important statement.

Diamond and Sisk are simply acting as citizens. They are taking that responsibility seriously. Would that more artists bothered. We'd wind up with a few less toothless political satires and lazy complaint in the form of song.

We each can, finally, only look to our own hearts to decide what we will say and how we will say it. If any writer is asked to account to an outside source for their personal decision, there's a sort of suppression in that as well. There's a tyranny in any impulse that would remove the artists right to speak, or be silent, with impunity.

# posted by Freeman : 1/28/2008 3:33 PM

Touching words. Of course their impulses are beholden to no one, certainly not to me, nor to anybody else. Nobody is asking them to "factor in" considerations. They're answerable to nobody but, ultimately, themselves -- and I understand that this played a factor in their decision to postpone the show at this time. As I said in an earlier comment, "You have the right to your opinion and to scheduling your season as you see fit." For whatever reason. But in disseminating their reasons in various public forums, Diamond and Sisk rendered them open for discussion -- even critical discussion. I hope we all believe in that, as the mark of a healthy dialogue and democracy.

But it's far from "tyrannical" to discuss the issues raised by their public statements, or to air disagreements prompted by public discussions. And this was a public statement, as was Denton's, that has various political, cultural and aesthetic implications -- implications about political theatre, about its efficacy or inefficacy, about the role of the audience and what we expect from them, ultimately about the values they wish their theatre (or their reviews) to be based upon. To label certain kinds of speech or disagreements "tyrannical" or to similarly characterise statements or points-of-view as offensive is a means of closing off conversation by demonizing those who hold them. It's a tactic quite familiar, I believe, from the behavior of Republicans.

There's no calling to account here, and it's not a question of impunity nor immunity. The underlying sentiment of Freeman's last paragraph, though, seems to suggest that it should be, that these now-public issues (however personal they may have been to begin with) should not be open to free and critical discussion because those who express them are immune to disagreement by reason of their status as ... wait a minute ... "artists"?

# posted by George Hunka : 1/29/2008 2:54 PM

This whole exchange is fascinating. I think the bottom line is that Noah and Amanda are preaching to the converted often (though to say that as an absolute is silly: was there some sort of political affiliation after-show exit poll that I missed?) but just because someone has liberal views does NOT mean that they VOTE.

Time and again I've argued with friends who are young, smart and concerned about the world-but who have such astonishing voter apathy it blows my mind. THAT is the key, here. Young people apathy. They care, but they don't trust voting or elected officials.

So yes, deciding to shelve a show that represents this apathy is a smart play (oh god, pun!)-encouraging optimism in young theater-goers is an important goal. As a friend of Noah, Amanda and their politics I want the audience to walk out of the show and into the voting booth, not into a bar to drown their sorrows.

# posted by Edie : 1/29/2008 2:55 PM

That's fine, Edie -- so long as we can agree that those are not the only two options; our lives are larger than either-or decisions.

# posted by George Hunka : 1/29/2008 3:10 PM

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has expressed their views here (as well as on Martin's blog, George's blog, and the Available Light blog), whether positive or negative, supportive or critical. I'm flattered and inspired by the vigorous, intelligent debate which has ensued, and I hope we'll all keep reading and talking to each other about the things that matter to us. The show goes on, even when it doesn't. Best regards to everyone.

# posted by Noah Diamond : 1/29/2008 4:37 PM

I'm not promoting a shutting off of discussion... I'm simply vehemently disagreeing. The tyranny of the majority, one might say, is more to the point. That the artist or political speaker should be compelled to speak for any reason (even the supposed benefit of the audience or democracy) is no different than feeling compelled to keep silent. It's the sense of compulsion I'm responding to, not the disagreement. Disagreeing with the decision is fair game. Placing it a context of being somehow anti-democratic is, well, ironic.

If someone disagrees with the decision made here to not perform this play, they have the freedom to write one of their own.

# posted by Freeman : 1/29/2008 5:00 PM

Patronize if you like, Mr. Hunka, but you're missing the entire point.

Someone should buy you a straw man for your Birthday. You know, to add to your collection.

# posted by Edie : 2/04/2008 3:59 PM

Post a Comment

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Zeitgeist Cancellation Fallout