Framing Anti-War Theatre: Public Perceptions of Embedded
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2008 Framing Anti-War Theatre: Public Perceptions of Embedded Jeremy Gordon Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Journalism Studies Commons Recommended Citation Gordon, Jeremy, "Framing Anti-War Theatre: Public Perceptions of Embedded" (2008). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 191. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/191 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright © Jeremy Gordon 2008 All Rights Reserved FRAMING ANTI-WAR THEATRE: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF EMBEDDED by Jeremy Gordon A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Communication Approved: Dr. Brenda Cooper Dr. Edward C. Pease Major Professor Committee Member Assistant Professor Shawn Fisher Byron R. Burnham Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, UT 2008 iii ABSTRACT Framing Anti-war Theatre: Public Perceptions of Embedded by Jeremy Gordon, Master of Science Utah State University, 2008 Major Professor: Dr. Brenda Cooper Department: Journalism and Communication Extending research of framing anti-war protest is framed in the public sphere, this study examines theatre critics’ reviews and viewers’ responses to Tim Robbins’ anti-war play Embedded. My research examines how two groups of publics interpreted Embedded: (1) professional theatre reviewers and (2) a sample of Utah State University students. It is important to note that the majority of the students who participated in this study are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), a consistently social and political conservative religious sect. Thus, how this specific group of viewers deciphered Embedded is of special interest. Critical analyses of both reviews and responses revealed the prominence of two seemingly irreconcilable partisan master frames in critics’ and spectators’ interpretations of the play’s protest narratives. Although these frames seem to be incompatible, adherents to both “whining for peace” and “anti-war protest” consider protection of American democracy the primary goal. However, members of both groups define the role of anti-war protest in, and defense of, democracy differently. Examination of discourse suggests that marginalization of anti-war protest continues to be the privileged discourse. Overwhelming dismissal of Embedded’s anti-war narratives by the majority of critics and Latter-day Saint (LDS) viewers indicates that dissent was framed according to cultural and societal values, which perpetuated conceptions of anti-war protest as deviant. Thus, in both public discussion and personal interpretation of Embedded’s outward expression of protest, anti-war activism is perceived to be illegitimate when the United States is at war. Results suggest that most theatre iv critics and LDS viewers relied on values framing in their perception of the play, which negated complex and nuanced discussion regarding military action in Iraq. By broadening discussion of how anti-war dissent is framed by including theatre critics and individual viewers, this research provides insight into how dissenting action is perceived within a larger cultural context. As findings reveal, it is reasonable to conclude that marginalization of anti-war dissent is not limited to mass media. Rather, I argue that dismissal of protest may be perpetuated on a wider societal scale, a problematic trend, especially as protest is widely considered to be a valuable tenet of democratic practice. (139 pages) v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the process of developing this research many individuals contributed directly or indirectly to a successful “finish.” Inevitably some will remain anonymous, but those who have been fully vested in this project deserve my sincerest gratitude. First and foremost, Professor Brenda Cooper, my mentor who inspired me to find my voice and my path. Professor Cooper’s devotion to this work and my academic career cannot be measured. Professor Edward C. Pease, whose militancy and un-filtered criticism was both cursed and valued. I hope I can do justice to the examples they have set. Professor Shawn Fisher, my partner in protest, dedicated artist, and friend who was willing to share a stage. For her willingness to discuss teaching and research and her open door policy, I thank Professor Cathy Bullock. The hospitality and overarching encouragement she and Mike expressed cannot be emphasized enough. I wish to thank Professor Mike Sweeney and the Department of Journalism and Communication at Utah State University for unwavering support and opportunity to flourish. For flexibility and understanding, not to mention avenues for exploring art and democracy, I am gracious to Colin Johnson, LuAnn Baker, and the faculty and staff in the Department of Theatre Arts at Utah State University. Thank you to Melissa Bowles-Terry, who introduced me to the wondrous world of education, not to mention fellow friends in academe Chris, Liz, and Heather. Melissa was the person who started it all. To Juliane Mora, who came along relatively late in the process, but who contributed much needed discussion, listening, and editing to the final product. Her unselfishness, compassion, and companionship were unequaled. Most importantly, to my parents, Gail and Merri, who have expected much, but have constantly shower me with love, praise, and pride. Though we don’t always agree, the core values required to complete this process are from them. Finally, to all the friends and family who have been willing to listen, engage, and offer support that isn’t found in these pages, thank you. Your influence has been invaluable. vi CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO FRAMING ANTI‐WAR THEATRE............................................................... 1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................................................................................................................... 5 The Iraq War on Stage............................................................................................................ 5 The Desert on Stage ................................................................................................................ 7 The Actors’ Gang and Embedded .....................................................................................11 Reporting Iraq: EMbedding ..............................................................................................15 FraMes and FraMing.............................................................................................................17 FraMing Social Protest.........................................................................................................19 FraMing Iraq War Protests ................................................................................................22 FilM Critics and FraMing.....................................................................................................25 Utah, MorMons, War, and Anti‐War Protest: Then ................................................32 Utah, MorMons, War, and Anti‐War Protest: Now .................................................35 MorMons as an AUdience....................................................................................................41 III. CRITICAL METHOD AND ANALYSIS................................................................................................50 Research QUestions and StUdy Description................................................................50 Analysis of Reviews: Description of Process.............................................................50 Response Analysis: Description of Process ...............................................................54 Feasibility StUdy: Process and Findings......................................................................56 Analysis of Feasibility StUdy..............................................................................................58 IV. FRAMING ANTI‐WAR THEATRE: CRITICS AND EMBEDDED ..............................................62 Shooting the Messenger: TiM Robbins as an Anti‐war Spokesperson ..............................................62 Shooting the Message: Embedded as Propaganda ..................................................66 Shots Fired: FraMing Analysis IMplications..............................................................70 V. ANTI‐WAR THEATRE NARRATIVES SPECTATORSHIP RESPONSE ANALYSIS........................................................................................77 Interpreting Anti‐War Narratives...................................................................................77 Behind the Masks: GovernMent AUthority in Embedded.....................................84 Embedded: Fact VersUs Fiction........................................................................................94