VOGUE copyright Conde Nast
© 2020 h2omeloncholy@blogspot.com
© 2020 KM Fikes
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from KM Fikes is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to KM Fikes & h2omeloncholy@blogspot.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. No excerpt or link may be used for monetary compensation.
serial radio broadcast, originally aired July 13 - July 16
"Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be..."
Richard II, Act IV, Scene 1
Offer. Gentlesoulfolk, that is what NY's Public Theatre does every summer, free of charge to the rarified few who manage tickets under the stars. And in a BLM-COVID-conflated moment, the late Joe Papp's vision for Shakespeare in the Park was not failed. One 'checks' oneself to avoid the trap: that of defaulting an 'inclusive' Shakespearean endeavor as worthy due to repazentation e'er ravenous. Oblivious casting dangerously sacrifices intentionality, resulting in an unwitting bypassing of the violence of absence for oppressive presence. Minus expansive interrogation, harms merely replicate themselves - inadvertently as insidiously. Here, howe'er, one found oneself less inclined to mediate that incessant muck. To an unrestricted nod. Earned. Richard II took to the socially-distanced radio waves, unmasking the work with no less than Professor Ayanna Thompson as a treat of a guide. Pointing out the irony of the Act IV line, Thompson spoke of Richard's "unraveling".
One wonders...and wondering being one's digression of choice...if one might have arrived on the porch of the following musing absent director, Saheem Ali's intentional casting of this Richard: André Holland in the titular role to Miriam A. Hyman's Bolingbroke.
Richard II is supposed to be another (arguably one o' da betta) Bard takes on 'power'. Finely tuned here yet no novel concept in Shakespeare's canon. Still, this particular tour de force - as sho' 'twas - allowed one to gleam sum'in new as welcome. This production brought one less to the alter...or back porch...of 'power' than its oft ulterior motive: 'privilege'. Given the customary casting of the work, one hath not found herself thus compelled. And so? 'Twas here - upon this issue of 'privilege' that one teetered to n' (A)fro. Power, when beheld and bequeathed responsibly as critically, with at least some
Yet 'privilege'? As hath been sentenced since the social construction of whiteness? Privilege is sum'in else. Far from any conviction - remote or contrived. A cultural quirk, disguised beyond the bounds of duplicitous, as some convenience. Happens to rule the world. And that allusion to white priv is sumi'in which the skilled Holland n' Hyman can conjure creatively. All too well. Alas, not to inhabit offstage. That very incongruity, tho' - of performative 'reach' versus societal regressive positionality - proved fruitful, daresay, at the peek of summer 'produce'. Holland's effective method in film projects is naturalistic. On stage, and in particular, Shakespeare, his take - be it personal tenor and/or chosen technique - can be experienced as a subtlest 'withholding'. There is a fine line 'twixt appreciatively thoughtful and appropriately studied. That suggestive line becomes even finer - perhaps even risking 'snapping' - for thespians of color. Whether his organic style, intention here, or both, Holland's approach works beyond well against and with a Bolingbroke full-bodied. Hyman takes ownership of her role, seizing it no less than Bolingbroke within the text. With score to settle, her offering thru 'him' is informed. Both agent-artists rose to this rare occasion of cultural-collision-in-duel-plagues: that of some alleged 'reckoning' of our salient ism and that of literal physiological immunity. Right at this time. This Richard.
On point. Together, their voices embodied that unique tension when Shakespeare's quill tip is too damp to call dry while its squid piss spells out more pathological ink blot than iambic pentameter. Darkest cloud expelled as oceanic 'smoke screen' - upon perceived threat. Ain't white priv thus - all but falsest of crowns? E'en Renaissance-ed north as England/south as Italy, white priv be but a Venice Merchant's 'masque', if ye will, cockblocking bucolic plague whilst projecting the debauchery of Carnival: "All that glitters" far from "gold". Once dethroned, what is left?
Wiki Commons
I know no I
White Priv and its royal cousin, White Fragility - utilized by diversity consultant Robin DiAngelo - are void of 'self'. By design. And how. The insular identity is built upon the grains of the sandcastle of supremacy. The 'self' is a citizen and that brand of citizenship or American 'right' is validated by the privilege of NOT being Ethnic Other-ed. Sociologists and journalists and bloggers, that would be either, remain confounded as to why certain citizens "vote against their own interest". One is most confounded by their confusion as to why. How can one 'vote against their own interest' when their very comprehension of their existence 'centers' the futile protection of the fallacy of priv? One need ne'er "know" the/a 'self' when priv is convinced that its 'I' is actual - sustained by generational inheritance to practice priving freely. Priv fakes its pleasure even in masturbatory exercises of prescribed 'liberty'. Life sans priv requires self-definition. A core. Whenst, alas, there may be none to be found. Not once the "unraveling" lays such institutional illusion bare. Not because 'fragile' self is not in there somewhere - shivering in a cultural curated corner. But because priv is the seductive imposter. Self never bothered to introduce itself to the conscience riding its velvet coattails. At court.
Yet in prison? Holland can speak directly thru his Richard's self-reflection in Act V, Scene 5:
"I have been studying how I may compare
This prison where I live unto the world:
And for because the world is populous
And here is not a creature but myself,
I cannot do it; yet I'll hammer it out."
Holland - Richard-retreated, priv-peeled - elaborates. Picking up said "hammer":
"...Sometimes just walking down the street, I would just say it, you know,
to myself. And it's not until the end of the play, that he finds the time to
be alone, to really sit with himSELF, and reflect. And in doing so, he
comes to understand that he is a human being. And before your very
eyes, you see a person become a person."
to myself. And it's not until the end of the play, that he finds the time to
be alone, to really sit with himSELF, and reflect. And in doing so, he
comes to understand that he is a human being. And before your very
eyes, you see a person become a person."
Here, Jimmy can have his say; Prince Jimmy's pen was nuttin' but scepter. And Hammer. One applauds Holland n' Hyman for their Willy Shhh...ache...shakes n' spearing to prod free the knot of priv from power. Their theatrical deliveries, left entangling the specificity of their respective identities, sifted Bard sediment, evoking Baldwin. Such insight of luminaries - four-hundred years cozy - constitutes hem hymn more than haw within Crenshaw's intersection. At the height of their individual prowess, then, where relevance ain't some rarity, should not Baldwin n' Bard be engaged in tandem? Pray, Baldwin, alongside 'Will', take thy bow:
"What white people have to do, is try and find out in their own hearts...
["ay"/ I]...whyit was necessary to have a nigger in the first place. Because I'm
not a nigger; I'm a man. But if you think I'm a nigger, it means you need
it. And the question you’ve got to ask yourself - the white population of
this country - North and South...If I'm not the nigger here and if you, the
white people, invented him, then you've got to find out...
["ay"/ I]...why.
And the future of the country...[Richard's imperialist England
long ere 'New World' Indigenous-exterminating-n'-African-enslaving-
And the future of the country...[Richard's imperialist England
long ere 'New World' Indigenous-exterminating-n'-African-enslaving-
colonist 'upstarts']...depends on that: Whether it's able to ask...
["to be or not"]
...that question."
Baldwin in Kenneth Clark interview, 1963
Richard II - "ay/I" (IV. 1), 1595
Hamlet - "to be/not" soliloquy (III. 1), 1603
a clever as compassionate critique
on the implausibility
of POSTness
Til our next 'post', feast upon produce in season...
© 2020 KM Fikes
© 2020 h2omeloncholy@blogspot.com
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from KM Fikes is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to KM Fikes & h2omeloncholy@blogspot.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. No excerpt or link may be used for monetary compensation.
