Djanet Sears's Appropriations of Shakespeare in Harlem Duet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Dramaturgy of Appropriation: How Canadian Playwrights Use and Abuse Shakespeare and Chekhov by James Stuart McKinnon A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Centre for the Study of Drama University of Toronto © Copyright by James McKinnon 2010 The Dramaturgy of Appropriation: How Canadian Playwrights Use and Abuse Shakespeare and Chekhov James Stuart McKinnon Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Centre for the Study of Drama University of Toronto 2010 Abstract Both theatre and drama were imported to Canada from European colonizing nations, and as such the canonical master-texts of European drama, particularly the works of Shakespeare, have always occupied a prominent place in Canadian theatre. This presents a challenge for living Canadian playwrights, whose most revered role model is also their most dangerous competition, and whose desire to represent the spectrum of contemporary Canadian experience on stage is often at odds with the preferences of many producers and spectators for the ―classics.‖ Since the 1990s, a number of Canadian playwrights have attempted to challenge the role of canonical plays and the values they represent by appropriating and critiquing them in plays of their own, creating a body of work which disturbs conventional distinctions between ―adaptations‖ and ―originals.‖ This study describes and analyzes the adaptive dramaturgies used by recent Canadian playwrights to appropriate canonical plays, question the privileged place they occupy in Canadian culture, expose the exclusionary hierarchies they legitimate, and claim centre stage for Canadian perspectives which have hitherto been waiting in the wings. It examines how playwrights challenge, usurp, or exploit the cultural capital of the canon by ―re-citing‖ old plays ii in new works, how they or their producers attempt to frame the reception of their plays in order to address cultural biases against adaptation, and how audiences respond. This study draws from and builds upon contemporary theories of adaptation and particularly (Canadian) Shakespeare adaptation, seeking an understanding of adaptation based on the motives, tactics, and efficacy of adaptation. Simultaneously, it challenges the dominance of ―Shakespeare,‖ in critical as well as theatrical practice, by comparing appropriations of Shakespeare to appropriations of Chekhov which exhibit similar tactics and motives. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation is dedicated to my parents and grandparents, who, to their credit, never deliberately steered me in this direction but certainly paved the way; to my cousin, Bruce, who has been an inspiration more or less since the year of our birth; and to my brothers Patrick and Julian, who repeatedly teach me the virtue of humility in one way or another (someone has to). My supervisor, Dr Nancy Copeland, has been a consistent and reliable source of advice and insight. She has worked diligently on my behalf, sometimes under difficult circumstances, and her supportive, frank, and meticulous feedback bolstered my confidence: I never doubted that my writing would pass muster once it had passed Nancy. I am also grateful for my other committee members, Dr Stephen Johnson and Dr Jill Levenson. I figured out very early that assembling a crack team of excellent, dutiful – and above all, genuinely interested – scholars would be critical to the success of this project, and my All-Star committee served faithfully and flawlessly. Dr Daniel Fischlin, the external examiner, also made valuable contributions, and I am grateful for his supportive and generous feedback. The University of Toronto Graduate Centre for the Study of Drama, and all its staff and faculty, have been helpful and supportive in countless ways during the conception, planning, and writing of this dissertation. I am particularly thankful for the assistance and goodwill of Rob Moses and Luella Massey, and the material and moral support of Dr Stephen Johnson, who helped me with assistantships and advocacy, and by serving as the sounding board for a thousand half-baked ideas and a dozen angry rants. I am also most grateful for the support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities, and the University of Toronto, each of which contributed significantly to this project by contributing large sums of money (and with it, the implicit confirmation that I was doing something valuable iv with my time). For the rest of my income, and my sense of professional accomplishment, I am indebted to Jan Selman, who, as Chair of the University of Alberta Department of Drama, showed great confidence and faith in my abilities by repeatedly hiring me to teach there. This study is primarily about how artists make art, and it could not have succeeded without the support and participation of the playwrights whose work is investigated here. I am indebted to Michael O‘Brien, whose play sparked the interest that led me here, back in 1995; Djanet Sears, who let me in to her workspace and even fought with the Stratford Festival brass on my behalf; Jason Sherman, whose devastating frankness painted a clearer picture of the one production I did not see with my own eyes; and Kristine Nutting, a dear and valued friend who granted me an all-access, backstage pass to her life‘s work. Most of all, perhaps, I am indebted to the friends and loved ones who opened their doors (often literally) and hearts (mostly figuratively) to me during the years I was researching and writing this dissertation. Shelter was provided, often free of charge, and frequently along with animal companions, by Helen Skinner, Dr George Fitzsimmons, Ryland Alexander Lukiwski and Amy Zarzecny, the Fitzsimmons-Frey family, Tom Reardon and Barbara Hughey in Seoul, the Veerachai clan and other denizens of the old soi in Chiang Mai, Kristine Nutting, Tamar Tembec, Alexis Butler and Sam Stedman, and especially Keri Ekberg and Adam Mitchell, whose staggering generosity was almost as critical to this project, and to my general well-being, as their (almost puzzlingly) unconditional love. Many beloved friends have contributed to this project, and I have repaid some of them very poorly; I hope I will be able to make amends hereafter. Erika Norrie provided apartments, cats, and boundless faith. Sarah Neville gave me passionate support and ferocious criticism to which I should have paid closer attention. Alexandra Prichard‘s editorial acumen has been much appreciated, but not nearly much as her unfathomable loyalty and innumerable personal v contributions. Kelsie Acton‘s partnership and collaboration were deeply appreciated, and are dearly missed. All of these people sacrificed a great deal for my sake and all of them deserved better thanks than I gave them, or can hope to give them here. Dr Robin Whittaker‘s support and friendly rivalry dates back over a decade, and it is an honour to have been his colleague and classmate through two graduate programs: his constant presence in the adjacent lane has often made a marathon seem like a sprint when it might otherwise have become a death march. He and the other Gentlemen of the Pink House, Ryland Alexander and Eric Nyland, have been a constant source of support, camaraderie and some much-needed carnivalesque clowning. vi Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ VII INTRODUCTION: AIMING THE CANON AT CANADA .................................................................................... 1 Canada and the Canon: The Two Canadian Playwrights ................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1: DEFINING THE DRAMATURGY OF APPROPRIATION ....................................................... 17 Adaptation and Fidelity Criticism ...................................................................................................................... 18 Adaptations and “Originals”: Fidelity Discourse and the Canon .................................................................... 23 Beyond Fidelity Discourse: What Is Not an Adaptation? .................................................................................. 30 “The Problem of Naming”: Distinguishing Different Kinds of Adaptation ....................................................... 33 Adapting an Appropriate Vocabulary ................................................................................................................ 43 Canonical Counter-Discourse ........................................................................................................................... 46 A Local Habitation: Aiming the Canon at “Canada” ....................................................................................... 50 Performance Efficacy and Reception: Reading Appropriation in Context ........................................................ 55 SECTION 1: APPROPRIATION AND APPROXIMATION ............................................................................... 69 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER TWO: AFTER THE ORCHARD .......................................................................................................