Customer Reviews

Dumbocracy in America: Studies in the Theatre of Guilt, 1987-1994

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I had bever heard of Mr. Brustein nor read anything
by him before I happened across this title in some
Amazon.com searching. But the title was so provocative,
and the editorial reviews so promising, I decided to
order the book. I am glad that I did. Mr. Brustein has
some valuable things to say, and he is not
afraid to say them...no matter whose opinion
or ego gets offended or miffed.
The book cover says: "Mr. Brustein, theatre critic for
_The New Republic_ and the author of a number of
distinguished books on theatre and drama...is the
founder and artistic director of the American Repertory
Theatre at Harvard University."
The book is divided into 3 main sections: "Positions"
(7 articles on various aspects of the theatre, drama,
and cultural intrusions); "Performances"
(29 reviews written for _The New Republic_); and
"Profiles" (8 articles on various cultural luminaries).
Mr. Brustein very forthrightly lays out his
perspective in the "Introduction": "But if this
book has a single theme, it is that culture cannot
do the work of politics. ...While political thinking
could certainly benefit from a little more creative
imagination, it is my belief that creative activity
is almost invariably diminished when it conforms
to ideology. The measure of a nation in history is
not the wars it wins, or the laws it passes, or even
the programs it enacts, but rather what Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr., has called 'its character and
achievement as a civilization.' ...My absolutes,
then as now, have been the independence of the
dramatic artist and the integrity of dramatic
art, which need to be continually guarded against
any forces that might compromise or debase them."
In the title essay, "Theatre of Guilt," Brustein
gets the juices flowing and the blood pressures
rising with his candid, tell-it-like-it-is
(not as devoted disciples of various causes
might want to hear it--or believe it) observations.
"In its American manifestations, in fact, the
Theatre of Guilt has tended to be not just rhetorical
but even shrill and self-righteous. ...Some years ago
I described this genre as 'plays you're not allowed
to hate'[perhaps because the drama is bad, not because
the message is bad or wrong] of their inspirational
themes and morally elevated characters: 'In the past,
this used to be a political drama.... More recently,
it has almost exclusively featured ethnic and sexual

minority groups, thus increasing the quota of moral
extortion [a bit misguided here...no one forces anyone
to go to a play, and the salary of the critic is not
paid or subject to the intimidations of the dramatist
and his or her angered friends).
To fail to respond to plays about blacks or women
or homosexuals, for example, is to stand accused of racism,
sexism, homophobia, or getting up on the wrong side of
the bed.... Meanwhile, the theatre becomes an agency
for consciousness raising [though in a certain sense,
Mr. Brustein, it always has been--the question is:
what is the consciousness that is being raised?],
with audiences being tutored and entertained for
considerably less money than a modest contribution
to an effective rehabilitation program.'[Perhaps it is
the corrupt and corrupting society which needs to be
"rehabilitated" rather than the supposed "misfit."
Not a new or alien idea in novels or drama.]
My tone is flip, not because I find the causes
unsympathetic [hmm?] -- far from it -- but because I do not
believe the theatre to be either a suitable or effective
place for social reform and moral black mail."
[There is, of course, a significant difference
between a play which causes the audience to think
about aspects of society and life and humanity
in ways that are insightful and moving, as opposed
to shallow "cause" pandering or knee-jerk cheerleading.]
Mr. Brustein is an equal-opportunity critic of the
Right as well as of the Left, for their intrusions
of control or absurdity into the theatre, the Arts,
and the dramas of life. He shows this most pointedly
in the two articles titled "The War on the Arts, I"
and "The War on the Arts, II." "Although the ongoing
war on the arts contains important economic components
related to the recession, its thrust has been mainly
political. Anti-art forces advance by means of a three-
pronged incursion--from the right, left, and center
of the political spectrum, all claiming endorsement
from the majority. ...For just as moral correctness
provides ammunition against the arts for the militaristic
Right, so the war machine on the Left is run by political
correctness. ...The final assault on the arts comes
from the center, and is reflected in the way middle-
brow culture is currently being enshrined in the
pantheon of artistic achievement. ...those who
proselytize for the middle always need to denigrate
the high.... One way to kick sand in the face of the
guy with the glasses is to call him a snob. ...It's not
enough for middle-brow stuff [finally an appropriate
use of the word!] to top the best-seller lists or
dominate award ceremonies. It also has to be inducted
into the canon of preferred art."
[Perhaps there is too much conflict, disdain, and non-
listening between the various "brows" as it is. If
the middle thinks it deserves more air time for its
own yahooing and self-worship, maybe it is because
they have the numbers. And, for them, numbers, not
carefully examined ideas, make "truth."
Everyone "thinks" the way I do, so there are more
of us -- so we're right.
Q.E.D.]