What comes to mind when you hear the word “problematic?” Offensive? Non-PC? Upholding white supremacist/patriarchal value systems rather than interrogating or dismantling them? That’s certainly a common definition, and definitely something I’ve used a lot in the past.
However, when looking at the official definition, “problematic” means something a little different. It is defined as “difficult to solve or decide,” “not definite or settled,” and “open to question or debate.” This last definition is the one I find most compelling. I would wager that a lot of artistic directors and producers aim to produce work that is open to question or debate. Wouldn’t they then welcome “problematic” plays?
If we continue using this definition, we find that problematic art is subjective. It contains specific content presented in an ambiguous way. For example, perhaps a play features a character who espouses misogynistic rhetoric, and their ideas are neither endorsed or condemned by the playwright, leaving audiences to debate the play’s purpose, merits, and thesis: It’s a brilliant play! It’s an offensive play!
People who operate as gatekeepers (producers, literary managers, foundation officers) can make or break a problematic play’s fate. Rose Oser, the associate artistic director at Z Space and the co–artistic director of Fault Line Theater, both located in San Francisco, is a gatekeeper. Oser is a champion of provocative theatre—most recently of #bros, a new play by Jake Jeppson, which was denied foundational support due to “problematic” elements. Through conversations with Jeppson about the tension that exists in the American theatre around “problematic” work and how we individually define the term, Oser created Z Space’s inaugural Problematic Play Festival, which was held on 12-14 October 2018.
The festival aimed to investigate why certain plays caused gatekeepers to turn away from them in favor of other material. I was one of many readers for the scripts submitted to the festival; as a gatekeeper myself—I am the literary manager for the Bay Area Playwrights Festival—reading for this festival made me more aware of my personal biases against certain plays, like comedies whose light tone could be read as dismissive of the topics they engage in.
In the submissions, the playwrights were required to articulate what made their work “problematic to themselves or to others,” Oser said, and it was just as important for those who would be involved to be “open to having a transparent and generous dialogue with the audience.” While the submissions for the festival I work for do require cover letters that include developmental goals, what Z Space was asking for gave me access to the playwrights’ full intentions and allowed me to assess whether it succeeded.
With all that in mind, I was much more receptive to plays that might have made me hesitant or offended me in different circumstances. Of the 175 submissions, three were carefully chosen to be presented in staged readings: Phosphorescence by Cory Hinkle, Ripped by Rachel Bublitz, and Refuge by Rachel Lynett.
The three playwrights agreed that submitting their respective plays was a no-brainer. “It was one of those moments where I could say, ‘I have the perfect play,’” Hinkle said of Phosphorescence, which depicts the soldiers and torturers at Abu Ghraib. It was written ten years ago and has never been produced. Bublitz said she typically submits her work to as many places as possible, but sending Ripped, which is about gray areas in consent and sexual assault, to the Problematic Play Festival “felt like fate.” And while Lynett knew her play Refuge fit the festival’s criteria, she had some submission reservations related to the Bay Area audience: it would be a queerer one than she was used to, and the play addresses transphobia and polyphobia in the queer community. “I’m an emerging playwright,” she said, “and I didn’t necessarily want this play to be people’s first exposure to me.”
I would wager that a lot of artistic directors and producers aim to produce work that is open to question or debate. Wouldn’t they then welcome "problematic" plays?
Prior to the festival, I had asked Oser and Radhika Rao, a member of the steering committee who co-facilitated each post-show discussion, what audiences could expect of the entire experience. I heard things from both of them about trigger warning paddles and tomato throwing stations. I had no idea how they were going to work or feel.
Comments
The article is just the start of the conversation—we want to know what you think about this subject, too! HowlRound is a space for knowledge-sharing, and we welcome spirited, thoughtful, and on-topic dialogue. Find our full comments policy here
Fantastic piece, Maddie! Thanks for sharing those ideas.
(P.S. I'm struggling to think of anything that doesn't need a tomato wall.)
Great ideas. Thanks so much for sharing your experience.
Thanks Holly! If you have any questions about the process, there's a lot more that I couldn't include in the essay.
The other problem with post-show talkbacks is that most audiences are fairly homogenous in terms of political views and/or cultural make-up. I find most post-show discussions just end up being manufactured disagreements between a bunch of fellow progressives who basically agree.
I'm more interested in what non-typical theatre goers would think of a show...or what people who have no connection to the industry would think. And lots of times those people don't stay for talkbacks.
This I also agree with, with the addendum that I think the example from the Problematic Play Festival that I highlighted creates a space where dissenting opinions can be shared in a safe and productive way. If your audience is homogeneous to begin with, then there is still a baseline problem, but I think that there can be genuine disagreements between "likeminded progressives" and that if one voice is loudest and dominates the conversation, then people don't feel so free to speak out. With the style of talkback at this festival, the guiding principles of "step up/step back" were used so that the space was filled with different ideas from several people rather than a few ideas from the same three people who want to get called on.
I'm curious about how we can market a post-play experience to get non-typical theatregoers to stay!
The problem with most post-show discussions is that many plays make a clear unambiguous point. There is little reason to discuss at the end unless you're just looking to manufacture some disagreement.
As a theatre artist, I rarely feel the urge to participate in a post-show discussion when I attend theatre. Most of the time, I leave thinking "Yep. I get it. I know what this playwright is trying to say. There's not really much for me to unpack here."
It takes a lot for a play to really prompt me to want to talk about it in public.
I definitely agree that not all plays need a talkback, or at least need a talkback for the same reason. If it's a talkback where the director or the actors come out on stage and the audience can ask production-related questions, that's different than a talkback geared around discussing the meaning of the play, per se. I also rarely stay for talkbacks for productions or companies I'm not involved with, since I can pass on my feedback one on one to the director or playwright or producer if I know them.