Law, Philosophy, Theology, and Art(s)/Entertainment, Culture Reviews

Link source

Be honest: what comes to mind when you hear the words “Russian literature”? Is it snowy peaks, grand churches, gulags? What used to come to mind for me were long, dour door-stoppers without a hint of whimsy or hope or comfort in sight. The word “funny” certainly didn’t come to mind. Well, have no fear, The Master and Margarita is here. This book brings surprising depth and warmth as well as a diverse cast of kooky characters.

The (relatively short) novel by Mikhail Bulgakov was first published in an uncensored form in 1973 as a scathing satire of Soviet life under Stalin. It concerns the exploits of Satan (Woland) and his entourage, including but not limited to a giant talking cat, some vampires, a Master of Ceremonies without a head, and witches. Throughout the book, they manage to infiltrate the Soviet literary scene, cleverly dispatching anyone who gets in their way, while teaching darkly funny, twisted lessons that comment upon the evils of vanity and greed present within society. This narrative is interspersed with flashbacks to the trial of a Jesus figure, Yeshua, his disciple Matthew Levi, and Pontius Pilate. Weaving through this narrative is the subplot of the Master (a character based loosely on Bugakov himself), a writer, and his true love and muse, Margarita. These threads create a tapestry of a meta-narrative depicting themes of creativity, madness, faith, and the state.

One of the aspects that makes this book so deeply enjoyable to read, as I have alluded to, is the fact that it manages to balance dry wit and goofy slapstick in equal measure. This is a book of and about paradoxes: Of creativity in a totalitarian state, questions of the soul and salvation, and the necessity of the existence of evil in order for good to exist. For example, in Margaritas’ first conversation with the aforementioned giant talking cat, they banter about the quality of alcohol 

‘Is that vodka?’ Margarita asked weakly.

The cat jumped up on his chair in resentment.

‘Good heavens, Queen,’ he croaked, ‘would I allow myself to pour vodka for a lady? It’s pure alcohol!’

And then as the novel draws to a close, we get this wonderfully ridiculous exchange between two demons and a woefully underprepared and ordinary citizeness:

‘You’re not Dostoyevsky,’ said the citizeness, who was getting muddled by Koroviev.

‘Well, who knows, who knows,’ he replied.

‘Dostoyevsky’s dead,’ said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

‘I protest!’ Behemoth exclaimed hotly. ‘Dostoyevsky is immortal!’

The tone tends toward the literary, absurd, and ironic throughout, but with a warmth and affection for almost all involvedI read the acclaimed Pevear and Volokhonsky translation, which is very good, and appears to capture the spirit of the novel quite well. The end notes are also excellent. The novel is given extra potency in that it was secretly written during Stalin’s reign (From 1928 to 1940). The chronically ill Bulgakov dictated the novel to his wife, though he went through many manuscripts; He even left a note for himself on one:“Finish it before you die.” It is astounding to me that, despite his personal miseries and tortures, Bulgakov managed to write one of Russia’s most popular novels that is also considered by many to be one of the greatest, most joyful and hilarious novels of all time.This makes it even more of a shame that it does not receive much attention outside of Russia, especially in the US. However, it is a favorite of people like Daniel Radcliffe and Pedro Pascal.

As our time together comes to a close, I will leave you with this, dear reader: If every copy of The Master and Margarita were to be gathered up and apparently destroyed, I would tell you to not be alarmed. I would be of the utmost confidence that you would still be able to read it,  because, as Woland  puts it: “Manuscripts don’t burn.”After all, It didn’t work for the Master, and it didn’t work for Bulgakov,who also tried to burn a copy of his manuscript, and we are still reading it  Around 80 years later. If you’re interested in Russian literature or history or communism or religion or oppression or gender roles or true love or romantic fairy tales or questions of censorship, then I highly recommend this book.

Link source

Image source

Sister Aloysius does analyze Donald’s relationship with Father Flynn, and its context, to some degree, but whether she is caring for him at all or simply uses him as an excuse to further her own ends is debatable, as previously mentioned. Even if one were to affirm that she is attempting to do what is best for Donald she does not necessarily feel an inclination, which is just as important as a sense of duty in care ethics.  

Additionally, if Father Flynn is not predatory then she is doing Donald tremendous harm, by cutting him off from one of his only meaningful relationships. In this way, one can argue that Father Flynn is doing a better job being the one-caring than Sister Aloysius, assuming the nature of their relationship is innocent, because rather than punishing Donald for drinking the altar wine, embarrassing, or humiliating him, he pays special attention to him and affirms his sense of self-worth. The one caring relationship for Donald around which there is no ambiguity or extenuating circumstances is his relationship with his Sister James, but unfortunately, she has extraordinarily little power to protect him or effect meaningful change.

During their conversation, Donald’s mother says that Sister Aloysius does not know enough about the world and presumably caring for Donald specifically because of her emotional disposition and isolated lifestyle. Essentially, in context to care ethics there are four possible versions playing out, with the added variables of whether she intended to carry out the blackmail  in any situation, and if she made it her mission to carry Donald through school:1.  a version where Father Flynn was a predator, and Sister Aloysius possessed both inclination and duty, 2. a version where Father Flynn was a predator, but Sister Aloysius did not possess both of those things, 3. a version where Father Flynn was not a predator, but Sister Aloysius did possess both inclination and duty, and 4. a version in which   Sister Aloysius was not correcting her certainty and did not possess both inclination and duty.

In three out of four of those scenarios, she would have been either lacking rightness of judgment or possessing care ethics, and the two most essential components for ethical care. Even in the most positive of those scenarios in which she possessed both traits, and Father Flynn was predatory, stretching even more and assuming her motivations were pure, and she got Donald through school and would not have gone through with the blackmail, Donald would still have been significantly emotionally scarred. It also seems pertinent here that Donald is not only Black, but is potentially implied to be gay, and in a situation in which Father Flynn was not predatory, he lost his only role model in all respects, but in that one in particular as well.If Donald had to go back to public school, or his father found out, the consequences could be deadly for him and his mother. I am going to step out of the semi formal conventions of this essay to offer a brief personal reflection to close:

One of the very first lines spoken in the film is when Father Flynn says: “What do you do when you’re not sure?”  When faced with ethical decisions, many humans have asked this question. I think the best we can hope for, amid our doubt, is a hand of comfort and care and / or duty from a loved one, telling us that [when we are lost, we are not alone.] 

Link source

Image source

“Virginity according to the Gospel means renouncing marriage and thus physical motherhood. Nevertheless, the renunciation of this kind of motherhood, a renunciation that can involve great sacrifice for a woman, makes possible a different kind of motherhood: motherhood “according to the Spirit” (cf. Rom 8:4). For virginity does not deprive a woman of her prerogatives. Spiritual motherhood takes on many different forms. In the life of consecrated women, for example, who live according to the charism and the rules of the various apostolic Institutes, it can express itself as concern for people, especially the most needy: the sick, the handicapped, the abandoned, orphans, the elderly, children, young people, the imprisoned and, in general, people on the edges of society. In this way a consecrated woman finds her Spouse, different and the same in each and every person, according to his very words: “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Spousal love always involves a special readiness to be poured out for the sake of those who come within one’s range of activity. In marriage this readiness, even though open to all, consists mainly in the love that parents give to their children. In virginity this readiness is open to all people, who are embraced by the love of Christ the Spouse.”- (“Mulieris Dignitatem (August 15, 1988), John Paul II

To pick up from where we left off last week, in evaluating this case, one must also consider that Sister Aloysius is not the only person claiming to care for Donald.  Additionally worthy of consideration is the way in which her actions conflict with the actions of those others, as well as the net outcome for Donald, and whether she can even be considered to be a one-caring despite her obligation, based on her motivation. Once again, the lack of clarity about Father Flynn’s true intentions as well as hers creates problems. For example, we do not know what happens to Donald after Father Flynn leaves, and if he graduates.

Would Sister Aloysius have followed through on the threat of her blackmail had Flynn refused to resign? As with deontology, because of this lack of clarity, it is difficult to assess what a reasonable care ethicist would or should have done in this situation, given that care ethics is even more open-ended than deontology. To establish her obligation, let us look at the factors which care ethics considers relevant, his level of vulnerability or dependency.  

Catholic nuns are to be care to all people they encounter, but one can infer that this applies to a particular degree due to the fact that Sister Aloysius is principal of Donald’s school, and not only has she taken vows to serve the church and Jesus, and one could argue that she is undermining the formal structures of the church, but keeping it safe from the influence of evil, as she would argue even outside of Donald’s case, but in her conflicts with Flynn in general, as well as what he represents. 

Returning to the concept of spiritual motherhood, most Catholic nuns cut themselves off from being the mother to just one specific child, but in exchange symbolically and in practice embrace a kind of holy and universal spiritual motherhood, with their row of chastity serving as a reflection of Jesus as their perfect spouse spiritually.

See you next week!

Image source

At their next confrontation, Flynn tells Aloysius she has nothing more than unfounded suspicions, telling her that certainty is not truth, and she tells him that she has investigated his past and that she talked to a nun about his departure from his previous parishes. Flynn insists on his innocence but is angry and says Aloysius broke the chain of command. He threatens to remove her from the parish and confronts her about meeting with Donald’s mother. Aloysius demands Flynn ask for a transfer and take a leave of absence and that no more harm will come to Donald, clearly blackmailing him. That Sunday, Flynn delivers his farewell sermon, Donald Miller sheds a tear.  

A few weeks later, Flynn is gone, Aloysius says she is sure she did the right thing, while Sr. James is deeply troubled. Aloysius was disciplined for breaking the chain of command, and Father Flynn was promoted to a larger and more prestigious church. Aloysius admits to James she lied and that she never called a nun, but the lie would not have worked if Flynn had been innocent, and that his resignation from this church amounted to a confession, but Sister James says that she cannot believe she lied, and Aloysius repeats that “In the pursuit of wrongdoing, one steps away from God. Of course, there is a price.” Suddenly, Aloysius breaks down and cries. She admits that she has doubts, “such doubts” 

 

Image source

Many of the questions surrounding Sister Aloysius’ alignment or lack thereof with Kantian ethics revolve around her motivation, despite her apparent emphasis on moral duty, (although it more closely resembles divine command theory). Is she using Donald’s case as a way to remove Father Flynn, who she dislikes and is a threat to her power, on many levels, not least of which being he is well liked and respected by all, in contrast to her reputation?

If so, is she doing so consciously or unconsciously? If she is not, and her sense of duty is genuine, in many ways, other than her several lies, blackmailing and threats she aligns very well with many of Kantian ethics general values and principles, including a sense of duty and the idea that certain actions are universally wrong, at least in theory, yet does not apply it to herself, which may be a point in favor of formulation one. Her execution is muddied and mediocre at best. Like most of the details around this case, it is difficult to make a concrete determination about the nature of her response, and how well it aligns, or deviates with from the viewpoint of Kantian ethics, and what this says about her response because although she spends much of the film defending her viewpoints, it is difficult to know how honest she is being about her motivations, which remain opaque. 

To properly evaluate Sister Aloysius under care ethics, because of the distinct nature of care ethics as a system, one must consider that none of Sister Aloysius’ actions in and of themselves count as deviations, but her relationship to Donald primarily. We will talk more about this next week.

Link source

Link source

The two sisters meet with Father Flynn under false pretenses and ask him what happened in the rectory. Aloysius says Sr. James smelled alcohol on Donald’s breath. He eventually relents and admits that Donald was caught drinking sacramental wine, and that if others knew, Donald could no longer be an altar boy. The next Sunday, Flynn delivers a sermon on gossip. Sister James tells him about the undershirt, and that she saw him putting it in the locker, which he says he did so as not to embarrass Donald any further. Donald approaches Father Flynn, who avoids him. Immediately, Donald is bullied by a fellow student, because of Father Flynn’s avoidance. The toy breaks. Flynn sees this, and comforts Donald, hugging him.  

Aloysius meets with Mrs. Miller, Donald’s mother, on Mrs. Miller’s way to work. She is surprised to learn that Sister Aloysius was once married, but her husband is dead.  She is concerned about Donald’s graduation from Catholic school so he can attend a good high school where he will not be bullied. She tells Aloysius that Donald’s father beats him because of “his nature”,  and that if his father knew, he would kill him.  For that the reason he came to the school in the first place as she also feared for his life in public school. She says that Flynn was the only man that was ever good to Donald. She asks her to do what she will, but to leave her son out of it. 

What is inconsistent about Sister Aloysius’ approach with deontology is that she believes, in this situation, that the ends justify the means, and even if they do not, she is so confident in her rightness, she is willing to be forced out of the church, and for her soul to be damned if it is necessary for the greater good, arguably because to question her judgment would mean questioning her entire identity/reality/rightness. Because of deontology’s presumptions of knowledge of this situation, determining what course of action is most consistent within its framework is difficult. One could say that a deontologist would gather more information, and then act based on the categorical imperative, but given Sister Aloysius’ isolation and specific place in society and the Church, that is arguably practically impossible, which is part of what drives her determination, in that she is powerless to affect change within the system, and is driven by desperation to act outside of it, as she then only herself will do the right thing.

Sister James will assist her, and only up to a point, which in and of itself is driven by her position over Sister James. The way in which Sister Aloysius treats Sister James, Mrs. Miller, and Donald is as a mere means manipulating them to serve her own ends, while denying their agency. This applies less to Donald, as a child who needs protecting, but by her manipulation which is arguably not out of pure duty, but simply a justification of her dislike of Father Flynn,given that she has been convinced of her knowledge of his wrongdoing, since he held another boy’s hand.

Link source

Link source 

 Can normative ethical theories have any universalizability in contexts where women do not have the ability to make such decisions? As with  the situation presented in the film, this raises questions about the epistemological presumptions of ethical systems like deontology which do not consider context and relationships, in contrast to care ethics, which takes relationships into account. What follows is a partial summary of the film for context, but reading the first post is also necessary. 

On a packed Sunday, at Saint Nicholas’ Church in the Bronx, the parish priest, Father Flynn speaks about President Kennedy’s assassination the year before, saying that it caused many to doubt, and have crises of faith, but that it also unified people over a shared sense of loss. A young nun, Sister James, listens intently, riveted. Sister Aloysius, the principal of the school, terrifies a misbehaving boy. Father Flynn finishes his sermon by saying that when we doubt, as everyone does at one time or another, we are not alone.  

 After Mass, Donald Miller, that Sunday’s altar boy and the school’s first Black student, tells Flynn when he grows up, he wants to be a priest too. Flynn says that he would make a good one, and shows him a toy, a dancing ballerina, and gives it to him. 

 That night, Aloysius asks the nuns what they thought of Flynn’s sermon. She argues that because Flynn was talking about having doubts, he must be having doubts because of something that he has done. She tells all the nuns to watch him. Sister Aloysius sees Father Flynn holding William, one of Sister James’ students’ hand, and sees him pull away. Because of what she has seen, Aloysius reiterates to Sister James that there is a chain of command that must be followed, and if she sees anything out of the ordinary, she needs to tell Aloysius, who will take it up the chain. 

 Later, Flynn calls Donald down to the rectory to see him. after Sr. James notices Flynn putting a shirt into a locker during the class. Donald has not rejoined the class yet. Sr. James tells Aloysius that Donald seemed frightened after coming back from seeing Flynn. Sr. James says she thinks she smelled alcohol on Donald’s breath when he got back from the rectory. Sister James says that her suspicions shake her faith. Sister Aloysius responds that “When one pursues wrongdoing, one steps away from God, but in His service.” Because Sister Aloysius knows that all the priests will take Father Flynn’s side, she says that they will have to handle it themselves.  

Deontology would process this moral matter in distinct ways depending on whether the accusations against Father Flynn were true. Either way, Sister Aloysius’ duty toward Donald is a perfect one. One could provide a justification for working within the system by going up the chain of command,  but neither  is not to imply that working outside established structures is necessarily in violation of the categorical imperative. 

However, some of the actions of Sister Aloysius are definitively in violation of the categorical imperative from after this point. We will explore this idea and its ultimate implications about how the rightness and wrongness of her actions would be judged within the framework of Kantian deontology in the next post.

Link source

Image source

Doubt is a 2008 film starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis. It is directed by John Patrick Shanley, who wrote the film and the Tony award-winning play, Doubt: A Parable, on which it is based. Parts of the film are based on the playwrights’ experiences growing up. It won Best Play during the year that it was eligible, and is one of America’s best modern plays, in my opinion.

 The movie is even more excellent and is complemented by wonderful cinematography from Roger Deakins to aid the powerhouse performances. The movie is a thematically weighty drama, and though I would highly recommend watching it, I would warn you to make sure that you are in an ideal state of mind before watching it because it asks some tough moral questions, and its ambiguity is not for the faint hearted. Personally, it has haunted me for years, and given me much to think about. My viewpoint on the situation within flips every time I watch it, and it just gets better and better. It’s available to rent and stream, and you can get it from the library. 

The film is set in 1964 near winter at a Catholic school and parish within the Bronx, at a time of upheaval and change for the Church. It explores issues of race, gender, class, masculinity, morality and responsibility, and of course, doubt and faith. This is the first part in a series, which I will continue even after our Passion Blogs end. The next post in the series will contain full spoilers for the film. I wanted to give you a chance to read my recommendation, and at least part of the post, show that maybe you are inspired to watch the film, so you can have full context for the rest of the discussion, or simply watch a great movie after talking so much about film, television, comics and even theater, I wanted to use pop culture as a gateway to philosophy, theology, and ethics.  This seemed like a good opportunity to do that, and I do hope that you find it interesting or engaging in some way. 

 In the 2008 film Doubt, Sister Aloysius is the main driver of the events that take place. This  highlights various strengths and weaknesses of Kantian deontology and care ethics, respectively. The ambiguous nature of this case illustrates normative ethics’ epistemological presumptions, and brings into question what one is to do when they are challenged.  

 To  effectively explore  the moral matter faced by Sister Aloysius, as well as what was at stake, who would be impacted, her response and actions, and justifications for those actions, why it concerned her in the first place, and the myriad of moral implications of her ultimate decision.

Deontological ethics posits that actions are right or wrong based on whether the action follows certain moral rules, and that certain actions are always wrong. In the case of Kantian ethics that moral rule or rules are categorical imperatives, as Kantian ethics are heavily based around moral duty, and duties are things that one must do because of the categorical imperative.

Categorical imperatives are rules or commands that one must follow, regardless of one’s desires, and are based in logic and reason alone. For Kant, actions are only truly moral if they are performed because of duty alone, which is the only course of action aligning with reason.

The first formulation says that when you perform an action, you should act as if by performing that action you are universalizing it, which means you are saying that an action is permissible for everyone to do, all the time. The second formulation says that you should treat others, including yourself, as an end in and of themselves, rather than a mere means, meaning they exist for themselves. We can use others as a means, but never as a mere means. This means to recognize shared humanity in others, and that they have individual needs and goals. As Kant says: “The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as objectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end.”

In Kantian ethics, there are four types of duty: perfect duty towards oneself, perfect duty towards others, imperfect duty towards oneself and imperfect duty towards others. The distinction between perfect and imperfect duty is that perfect duties are things that one must always do, and imperfect duties are things that one must do in some way, and not ignore, but there are multiple ways of fulfilling the duty.

In contrast to Kantian deontology, Nel Noddings ethics of care sees relationships as an important determiner of morality, arguing that caring is the root of ethics, and of humanity itself. She grounds this understanding in the relationship between a mother and child. Care ethics, although a feminist theory, is not exclusively applicable to female people, it simply does not center a “masculine perspective.” 

According to Noddings, our relationships determine who we are. In Noddings case, although actions are not absolutely good or bad in and of themselves, the impulse to care is universal., caring relationships are inherent to the human condition.

Noddings creates a distinction between the one-caring, and cared for. This relationship can be one of reciprocity, and can switch positions, and can include multiple people. Caring is done when the one caring notices a need, empathizing with them, and trying to help them, regardless of whether success is likely. The one-caring analyzes the cared-for’s needs, in context to relationship and situation.

Like Kantian ethics, there is an imperative, which is in this case one to care. Noddings makes a distinction between natural caring and ethical caring. Ethical caring is the feeling of love those in proximity experience when the cared-for needs care, which drives them to act, because of what that person means to them, and their leaning or proclivity towards caring for that person. Ethical caring goes a step further, and on top of the one caring’s inclination, they also do it because they must, morally speaking.  Like Kantian ethics, duty is an important value.

However, in care ethics the importance of the relationship is affirmed, and forms an important justification for caring in the first place. In Nodding’s view, we care because we were cared for first, and a draw on those memories both of being cared for and caring for others: “This memory of our own best moments of caring and being cared for sweeps over us as a feeling – as an “I must” – in response to the plight of the other and our conflicting desire to serve our own interests. There is a transfer of feeling analogous to transfer of learning. In the intellectual domain when I read a certain kind of mathematical puzzle,”

Although ethical caring cannot be performed without the feeling of “I must,” it is just as important to want to care in the first place. Additionally, deontological ethics relies on the knowledge of the categorical imperative, regardless of what one needs or wants, disregarding one’s own feelings if they are not in alignment, whereas in care ethics the initial feeling or inclination is the springboard to knowing you must care. Both are equally important parts of the whole. 

One cannot always care for all people, and one does not have the capacity or the obligation. An obligation comes into play when a relationship could or does exist, and the possibility of the relationship being one of mutual caring exists. In terms of the concept of concentric circles of care, one has the most obligation to care for those within one’s closest circle, such as family members or close friends. This then expands out to acquaintances or relationships which only exist in one context, such as co-workers or acquaintances, and then the final and largest circle is strangers.

The closest takes priority, but one may at some point be called upon to care for a stranger in proximity. How dependent someone is on you, and how close you are to them in proximity determines your actions. Those who are to be affected by your decisions in terms of proximity and vulnerability receive consideration when one makes decisions.

There are three types of caring, caring for oneself at the expense of others, caring for others at the expense of oneself, and mutual caring, meaning you attend to your needs, as well as the needs of others. 

  Care ethics brings into question the universality of theories like deontology because they often speak in terms of access (economic, sexual etc.) , social capital that women did not have any more rigidly patriarchal societies in which they were constructed, and therefore were not considered to be meaningful moral actors, because they did not always possess the power to be.

I am eager to continue hearing your thoughts, and to keep exploring this amazing film in a more spoiler filled capacity soon in the new year and semester. 

 

Link source

Photo mine.

On July 18th, 2020, I sent a characteristically overwrought email to some of my dearest friends. This email would change my life. Of course, because of the pandemic, all of my theater related activities were put on hold or in the case of my spring musical, permanently cancelled. Oddly enough, one of my most significant projects sprung out of this aforementioned void,  caused by a sudden and very lonely influx in free time. 

 

I had recently discovered a play adaptation of one of my most rewatched comfort films, the endlessly quotable Clue. It had pulled me in from a young age with its surprisingly stacked cast, witty irreverence, and bouncy slapstick charm. It was a perfect melding of all my sensibilities, past and present, and when I first saw it, it only deepened my already intense love for murder mysteries. I was delighted by the simple elegance of its premise:

“Based on the… 1985 Paramount movie which was inspired by the classic Hasbro board game…The tale begins at a remote mansion, where six mysterious guests assemble for an unusual dinner party where murder and blackmail are on the menu. When their host turns up dead, they all become suspects. Led by Wadsworth – the butler, Miss Scarlett, Professor Plum, Mrs. White, Mr. Green, Mrs. Peacock and Colonel Mustard race to find the killer as the body count stacks up. Clue is the comedy whodunit that will leave both cult-fans and newcomers in stitches as they try to figure out…WHO did it, WHERE, and with WHAT!”

 

I was able to develop my dream cast in less than five minutes and was then fortunate enough to get them to agree. Given that I can’t resist a good cheesy pun and some light assonance and alliteration, I colloquially dubbed them The Clue Crew. Looking back on it in retrospect, I am keenly aware that I was spiritless during this time, and was seeking a way to interact with my buddies. I was subconsciously aware that major changes were happening in the lives of my companions and how hard it is to maintain friendships in times of transition. The performance, which I originally thought would be seen only by myself and my cast, was not only one of my most joyful experiences ever, it gave me a sense of purpose. 

 

I could not have imagined the scale of what would happen next. The virtual licensing rights were made available just a week after we finished shooting over Zoom, and what followed were hours of painstaking editing, publicizing, legal complications, and funding issues. However, our bonds were stronger, and against all odds, the curtain on my directorial debut rose on January 2nd, 2021. 

 

After months of false starts. It meant everything and more, my small pandemic-formed production company is now a legal entity and will hopefully be seeing many more curtain rises in the future, hoping to spread community joy, engagement, and continue to strengthen the ties of the family that we find and make along the way. 

 

Photo source

I would never say the words ”I hate theatre.”, even facetiously, though I relate to a character who speaks them perhaps more than any other, and the parallels between us are more than a little on-the-nose. The speaker is the narrator of the 2006 Broadway meta-musical The Drowsy Chaperone. The reason for this is quite simple and very sentimental. Theatre means too much to me.

I have been participating in theatre since I was 5 years old, and as a person who has been living with cerebral palsy since birth, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and also struggles with anxiety and mental health, the impact of theatre on my life cannot be overstated. Despite being anything but asocial and far from agoraphobic, I am sometimes, as Man in Chair puts it: “A little anxious for no particular reason, a little sad that I should feel anxious at this age, you know, a little self-conscious anxiety resulting in non-specific sadness: a state that I call “blue”. Like the Man in Chair, I also cope by listening to music, particularly cast recordings of beloved Broadway shows.

Theatre has given me opportunities that I would never have had without it. It has contributed to my social, intellectual, and emotional development, helped me to be more empathetic, enabled me to take on leadership roles, and develop skills that will be useful for the rest of my life. The bonds I have made in theatre are extremely important to me. It has been a refuge in good times and bad, and has allowed me to truly and fully embrace being my most authentic self, though it will never be easy. 

What I’m able to contribute in theatre doesn’t take away from my limitations and daily challenges. Theatre has inspired me to face these challenges head on, because it is where my contributions are at their most meaningful.

Theatre has more often than not been a warm, welcoming and inclusive space, but I have faced many challenges from outright refusal, casting discrimination, and helping individuals to understand the full impact of my disability, as well as how to find solutions. This can often feel lonely, overwhelming and exhausting.

Whenever I am feeling “blue”, or isolated like Man in Chair, I often think of The Drowsy Chaperone, and that by putting on the record of his favorite show, he is able to “go back” to 1928, and, therefore, the show comes to life before our very eyes. He puts it this way: “It does what a musical is supposed to do: it takes you to another world. And it gives you a little tune to carry within your head, you know? A little something to help you escape from the dreary horrors of the real world. A little something for when you’re feeling blue. You know?”

In every production of the Drowsy Chaperone I’ve ever seen, a moment that I would argue forms part of the emotional core of the show, always produces a thoughtful hush. During this scene, the Chaperone has a piece of dialogue which is obscured by the noise of one of the actors dropping a cane, making it unclear whether she is saying to “love” or “live” “while you can”. This huants Man in Chair, and has haunted me as well, but I think I’ve come to a conclusion. Based on the ultimately sincere tone of the show, I think she’s saying “love” but the Man’s cynicism prevents him from being sure. Either way, to truly love you must live and to truly live you must love, no matter the pain it may cause. 

However, the final moments have stuck with me the most. The flow of the record, and thus, the show has been ruined by a blackout, one note before it was supposed to end. Despite the power being on again, the Man is determined not to start it over, or pick up from where he left off. Instead, in desperation, he sings one of the show’s most important musical numbers, As We Stumble Along, which starts the show as a self aware gag about the absurdity of a Broadway diva singing an arousing anthem concerning alcoholism. It’s completely recontextualized, however, within Man in Chair’s situation and manage to become profound. The number perfectly captures the show’s themes of determinedly moving through life with joy and hope, regardless of your circumstances, and the cast acknowledges him and joins in singing the show’s final number. This moment means a lot, because it encapsulates exactly what theatre has been for me, in harmony, for moments of ephemeral beauty, moving an audience with some of the best friends and colleagues that I have ever known. Is there anything better to be found on this material plane? If there is, I have yet to discover it.

 

Representation matters.  Not only that, but the quality of the representation as well. “Today, people with disabilities are 34% more likely than the general population to feel there isn’t enough inclusion of their identity group in media, and more than half say the portrayals they see inaccurately represent their individual identity groups. For perspective, 26% of the U.S. population is living with disabilities.” I know that for me, such a percentage sometimes feels meaningless even if it is trying to add perspective. Put another way, a little more than one of every four people you know are living with some kind of disability. It is also worth noting that this study is recent, coming out in July 2022.

 

This issue is particularly salient as it applies to children’s media, because more than any other group, media influences the way in which children perceive the world, and people in it, especially minorities.  As a young child, although there were some notable exceptions, I do not remember many characters with a disability, where it was not their defining or perhaps only trait.  They would appear for an occasional “very special episode” or the occasional guest appearance, and then disappear as quickly as they had come, leaving me alone as my life continued.  

 

Naturally, therefore, I was thrilled when a family friend reached out to me, asking if I would like to be a consultant for a show called, “Alma’s Way.”  A co-production between Fred Rogers Productions and PBS Kids. The show follows a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx, and is based on the life experiences of Sonia Manzano, known for playing Maria on Sesame Street.  The show follows six year old Alma, as she thinks her way through interpersonal conflicts, learning to be more empathetic, “while making mistakes and finding solutions along the way. “  Getting to provide input for a revolutionary character like Eddie, Alma’s older “primo-amigo,” was a joy.  

Image source

Eddie has cerebral palsy, like me, although he uses crutches and braces for mobility, instead of a wheelchair.  I was able to watch clips, and provide input on what I felt was realistic based on experiences in my community.  The quality about Eddie that stuck out to me most, other than the representation of his disability and Afro-Latino heritage, is that Eddie was given a three-dimensional personality, with likes, dislikes and is a passionate musician, as well as somebody that Alma aspires to emulate.  He is given emotional conflicts with other characters and agency in his actions. 

 

Image source

 Eddie felt more like me and other people I have known, than any other character in a children’s show ever had before.  Even if it is not in context to representation of a specific part of your identity, I’m sure we’ve all had a moment where we’ve connected with a fictional character on a deeper level than we’ve expected. Though his disability is explained and discussed frankly as important, it is never the sole focus or defining characteristic, and he is one of the main recurring characters.  I feel beyond grateful to have been a small part of this amazing project and to have had this opportunity. 

 Here is to even more characters like Eddie, who can represent the depth and breadth of their communities, while also being their own unique individuals, and may every child be able to see each and every part of their experiences represented in the shows that they love.