Are We There Yet? Gay Representation in Contemporary Canadian Drama

Are We There Yet? Gay Representation in Contemporary Canadian Drama by T. Berto A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theatre Studies Guelph, Ontario, Canada © T. Berto, August, 2013 ABSTRACT ARE WE THERE YET? REPRESENTATIONS OF GAY MEN IN CONTEMPORARY CANADIAN THEATRE Tony Berto Advisor: University of Guelph, 2013 Professor Ann Wilson This study acknowledges that historical antipathies towards gay men have marginalised their theatrical representation in the past. However, over the last century a change has occurred in the social location of gay men in Canada (from being marginalised to being included). Given these changes, questions arise as to whether staged representations of gay men are still marginalised today. Given antipathies towards homosexuality and homophobia may contribute to the how theatres determine the riskiness of productions, my investigation sought a correlation between financial risk in theatrical production and the marginalisation of gay representations on stage. Furthermore, given that gay sex itself, and its representation on stage, have been theorised as loci of antipathies to gayness, I investigate the relationship between the visibility and overtness of gay sex in a given play and the production of that play’s proximity to the mainstream. The study located four plays from across the spectrum of production conditions (from high to low financial risk) in BC. Analysis of these four plays shows general trends, not only in the plays’ constructions but also in the material conditions of their productions that indicate that gay representations become more overt, visible and sexually explicit when less financial risk was at stake. Various factors are identified – including the development of the script, the producing theatre, venue, and promotion of the production – that shape gay representation. The analysis reveals that historical theatrical practices, that have had the effect of marginalizing the representations of gays in the past, are still in place. These practices appear more prevalent the higher the financial risk of the production. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to sincerely thank Ann Wilson, Ric Knowles, Matthew Hayday, Alan Shepard, Sky Gilbert, Daniel MacIvor, Michael Lewis MacLennan, Conrad Alexandrowicz, Chris Grignard and Edward Roy. v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Contexts of Contemporary Canadian Gay Plays 1 2. Historically Gay, Currently Theatrical 50 3. 'Alternative' Theatre, Alternative Sexualities 104 4. Gays, Class, and Camp 153 5. A Battle of Values on the Streets 200 6. Conclusions, Implications and New Directions 241 Notes 265 Works Cited 267 1 Chapter One: Contexts of Contemporary Canadian Gay Plays Representations of homosexual men have appeared in English-language theatre for more than a century. At times, they have been presented as characters whose sexuality is an overt and integral part of their identity. Yet they have also appeared as characters where their sexuality is less visible and must be inferred through a variety of codes. Various scholars consider these variations in gay representation to be related to the shifts in the social location of gay men that have occurred over time (Sinfield, Out 2; Clum, Acting xv). As the social location of gay men in Canada has changed, this thesis asks if the contemporary representation of homosexuality on our stages reflects those changes. Until the mid-twentieth century homosexual men in Canada were pathologised in medicine, criminalised in law, and marginalised in social standing. However, after a variety of social changes here, homosexual men mainly are regarded as equal citizens to heterosexual men; this equality is now mostly enshrined in various legislations and cultural practices. However, social change often occurs asymmetrically. Social policies often need to be created to reflect new understandings as they come to light. Yet these policies do not immediately translate into cultural practices, nor are they equally embraced by the various demographics of Canadians. Thus some areas of Canadian society, including the arts, may still maintain practices which reflect the formerly marginalised social location of gay men. In contemporary Canadian theatre, representations of gay men appear across a wide span of conditions of production. This visible presence can be considered a reflection of the changes that have progressively occurred over time in regards to gay men’s inclusion and equality in Canadian society. However, the theatre industry, through a variety of practices, has a long history of marginalising or obscuring overtly gay representations on its stages. 2 These seemingly contrary positions prompt a number of questions. Have the changes in our social policies (those affecting gay men in Canada) been translated uniformly into the ways in which gay men are represented on our stages? Or, given that social change often occurs asymmetrically, and that theatre practices may be both conservative and progressive, do these opposing practices make for a set of contrasting representations of gay men on our stages? I propose that contemporary theatre creates a broad set of staged expressions of gay men to accommodate both the progressive and conservative traditions of theatre. I contend that representations of gay men vary, according to the conditions of their theatrical production and reception, across a continuum where the sexual aspects of gay male characters are more overt and explicit on the fringes of theatrical production. Gay men have been historically marginalised on English-language stages. Alan Sinfield writes that prior to the 1970s, gay theatrical representations were often only able to be “gleaned in the margins of mainstream plays” (Sinfield, Out 313). Such presences were marginalised; they were disguised, distorted or otherwise coded in their construction in order to reduce their visibility, and thereby not challenge dominant ideologies that criminalised and pathologised homosexuality. With the arrival of the 1960s, overt, undisguised, un-coded, gay representations began to challenge dominant understandings of homosexuality, but these “were situated in the margins, or fringes of theatre institutions” (Sinfield, Out 313). Vito Russo records a similar movement gay men’s representation in American film at the time (163). In English-language Canadian theatre today, gay representations can be found in almost all kinds of performance, from non-professional, self-funded fringe productions to mainstream, high-budget, commercial productions. Given this presence of gay characters in contemporary theatre, and the nature of theatre practice 3 can be both progressive and conservative, questions arise as to how gay expressions are now shown on these stages. Do some gay expressions, when seen in mainstream productions, predominantly appear in particular ways, as was the case in the earlier half of the last century? Are social values concerning homosexuality challenged in some modes of production more than others, as occurred in the sixties? How gay men are represented in popular media, including theatre, can be considered an important aspect of the progression towards gay inclusion in contemporary life, as audiences viewing gay representations may gain awareness and understandings of gay life, and thus may shift or reaffirm their views concerning homosexuality (Sinfield, Out 1). Theatre thus has the potential to affect public perceptions of gay men. As sexuality is an inherent, and perhaps defining characteristic of many gay men’s identities, the staged expression of their sexuality may be important in terms of whether fully-drawn gay characters are seen on our contemporary stages. Staging gay sex and gay desire is a means of gaining visibility for gay men. One of the ways that expressions of gay men were historically marginalised in theatre was by making expressions of desire between men less visible, or invisible to certain sectors of an audience. Gay men can be represented through a variety of means. Cultural cues, declarations of identity, or dramatic narrative are but a few ways an audience may learn a character is gay. However, if a character is not shown to be actively engaged sexually, does this mean that part of their character is being rendered invisible? I propose this question because the visibility of gay sexuality has long been a concern of those promoting gay equality. Joan Scott writes about its importance when discussing visible indications of gay 4 desire: “it is the possibility that they [sites where gay sex occurs] can be seen that threatens order and ultimately overcomes repression” (778). Furthermore, expressions of sexuality create meanings on stage. John Clum focuses specifically on how expressions of gay desire affect audiences. He asserts that . [while] sexual desire is not the only dimension to homosexual experience . [i]t is sexual desire and acting upon that desire that puts the homosexual into conflict with dominant power structures . Everyone knows that sex between men happens, but the sight of two men kissing is often seen as a transgression of the gender order, taken by many to be “natural” . A kiss, to paraphrase the old song, isn’t just a kiss. Hence its theatrical power. (Clum, Acting 11) Additionally, gay sexuality itself contributes to what has been labeled the “ick factor” (Erbentraut 1). Martha Nussbaum finds certain persons hold antipathies towards homosexuality and they “maintain their beliefs largely

Load more