Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2004 - 10

the

Subtext

Beeb Salzer

Polonius Redux
When I was about to leave for my freshman year at college, my
father did a Polonius. He was not long-winded. He had only one
admonition. I had a talent, he said, and even if to be popular, others wanted me to use that talent for immoral purposes, I should
not. That was it. I never asked, but I have always thought that his
concern stemmed from my parents finding a painting of a nude I
had done. Today, that would be no big deal but fifty years ago
in the Victorian Midwest, my moral character was in danger.
Although some would say that morality and art are never
dance partners, there are times, albeit rarely, when we are
confronted with moral dilemmas. Occasionally, students decline to take part in school productions because something in
the play goes contrary to their religious beliefs. Nudity, positive
depictions of the gay life style, or arguments against the existence of God are reasons for bowing out. For me, those who
call these students prudes or religious nuts are off base, while
students who make such moral choices deserve respect.

Every year around the country, there are
reports of college administrators or even state
legislatures jumping in to censor a show.
It is one thing for individuals to opt out of taking part or
even attending a production. It is another thing when groups
or administrations attempt to prevent everyone from experiencing a play. Every year around the country, there are reports
of college administrators or even state legislatures jumping in to
censor a show. Politicians use the argument of improper use of
public money. College presidents cite the damage caused to the
reputation of the institution. In both cases, there is the presumption that that those in charge have a responsibility to protect society because the public is easily led down a sinful path. What
this means is that those in power are assuming a parental role
and the public is infantilized-hardly a healthy relationship in
a democracy where opinions and ideas should be debated.
What those who would quash debate do not understand
is that narrative art is almost always based on questions of how
we treat one another. Therefore, theatre has been and continues to be a means to examine moral behavior. But problems
arise when plays question a community's moral beliefs. Of
course, this is exactly what such plays are supposed to do and
given the monolithic content of our current mass media, theatre may be one of the few places to hear contrary opinions.
Over the years, what society has considered unfit for
presenting on stage has changed. Not too long ago any representation of sex was taboo. At the same time, racial, religious, and ethnic jokes were just fine. Black-faced comedians
and Irish, and Jewish, stereotypes were acceptable. A complete reversal has occurred. Now, nudity, sexually charged dia-

log, and simulated sex acts are not uncommon while derogatory words referring to minorities are forbidden.
Those of us working on the physical production of plays
face different moral questions. There is always the choice to
take part or not in a play we consider to be immoral. But beyond that there is the way we may design costumes or a set that
employs visual stereotypes that if put into words would be offensive. Stereotypes are our stock-in-trade. But there is a delicate balancing act between, on the one hand, needing, in a
short time, to communicate the identity of a character and her
surroundings and on the other hand, to avoid being obvious.
Sometimes we may purposefully give false clues but most often
we play on the audiences visual prejudices.
Because visual communication is more ambiguous than
words, designers hardly ever are attacked by the audience for
immorality the way writers or directors may be. Even when a costume or lack of one draws critical fire, the director or playwright
is usually blamed. Where designers sin is in the production process where standards are set by the theatrical community.
Those standards are based on how we treat others. The
lazy designer who provides insufficient drawings to the shop
expects others to do his work. He is cursed by the crew. The
reverse is true when a technician doesn't follow the drawings
provided. Anyone who is late, designers submitting plans or
sketches or crews getting behind schedule, creates difficulties
for everyone all the way up to the cast and the director. But are
these lapses moral or ethical?
The theatre world is a forgiving society in terms of morals
and unforgiving of ethical lapses, just the reverse of the wider
world. We gossip about sexual peccadilloes, the use of controlled substances, and alcohol dependence. But unless these
result in ethical problems we do not ostracize the sinner. However, if an otherwise moral person is late, abusive of others, or
lazy, we deny them future work. This generalization holds true
except in those exceptional cases where spectacular talent is
forgiven almost anything.
Two productions I saw recently could not be forgiven.
One had a set that was so ugly and so user unfriendly that it
hurt the whole show. The other was a comedy that made fun of
people with Down's syndrome. The jokes were cheap shots. In
the first instance incompetence was at work. Is that immoral
or unethical? In the second, making fun of unfortunates was
for me immoral. A question: Would you participate in a production that made fun of unfortunates?
So here is the test question. Imagine a present day Laertes
about to become a theatre professional. You are his father,
Polonius. What are your instructions? ❖
[Please send your "Polonius" letters to the editor, david_rodger@
usitt.org. They will be published here as space permits.]
TD & T

S P R I N G

2 0 0 4

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2004