I don't want to contribute to the muck; I don't want to contribute to the lies, the stories and the tales that make people unhappy with their everyday lives. I don't want to take sides.
It's instances like these when I begin to realize that yes, there are two sides to every story, but it doesn't mean that either of them are true. Both are contrived, twisted and tailored to match the needs of the story teller. This even stumps the audience: the third side.
"Fires in the Mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn and Other Identities" by Anna Deavere Smith follows the true points of views of several black and Islamic residents in Crown Heights during the riots of 1991. This play is in the form of a series of interviews set up as monologues. The story itself is cut and dry: an Hasidic man accidentally hits a young African-American child with his car. This then is the trigger for riots, outbursts and the incident is then used as a reason to justify acts of violence unto the other race.
The other night, I was able to see a live performance of the play in a black box. The only times I had ever gone to see a play was when the performers were strictly bound to a stage. Being able to have the actors directly interact with the audience was a new and interesting concept for me. While the execution of this play was nearly flawless, I did have some qualms with it. Like the two distinct sides presented in the play, I thought it would be appropriate to examine this play in two distinct sides: the positives and the negatives.
· I could feel the animosity when he threw props in my direction.
· I could see the pain she felt when she looked
directly at me.
· I could hear his compassion when he yelled
at an audience member.
· The costumes took me back 20 years.
· The dialects were well achieved by the
actors.
· I felt like a part of Crown Heights: a
member of the community.
· An intermission was needed.
· I found myself losing interest at times.
· Some of the monologues could not hold my
attention.
· There was no third-party opinion to
balance out the feuding sides.
· There was never an absolute resolution at the
end of the play, although the director toyed with a possible solution that didn’t
necessarily correlate with the dialogue.
If you were to examine each of these bulleted points individually and out of context, you might find yourself taking sides. For example, if you were to only read the negative review, you would probably avoid the play. Likewise if you only read the positive review, you'd most likely be disappointed because of how much you'd expect of the play. Both of these lists represent a one-sided argument. There is no middle ground and no balance.
Just like the blacks and the jews of Crown Heights.
It's difficult to pick a side when only given one half of the whole picture. But when you can examine and synthesize both sides — like reading both the positive and negative lists and hearing words from both races in Brooklyn — you can form a more well-rounded opinion on the matter. That's why I loved "Fires in the Mirror" so much: There was the perfect balance of both sides. This balance helped me pick a side.
The side that allows people to be happy with their everyday lives: no side at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment