Twain, Shakespeare, and political correctness in the theater
Comments on recent theater reviews have brought up questions about political correctness and how to balance that with respect for writers such as Mark Twain and William Shakespeare whose works reflect the mores of earlier times.
A local theatrical group put on a performance of the musical “Tom Sawyer: An American Legend.” In my review, I said the “makeup and costuming of Injun Joe, paired with (the actor’s) mincing scowl” were “overdone to the point of being insulting to Native Americans.” I went on to say that I although I understand that’s the way Mark Twain wrote the character back in 1876 when few people objected to ridiculing Indians, it should be done with more sensitivity in 2006.
The actor who played Injun Joe wrote:
Two weeks ago, your community theater columnist, Alec Clayton, posted a review of Encore Theatre’s version of “Tom Sawyer: An American Legend”. This was an outdoor show, and Alec Clayton did a pretty good job of talking about the show and the actors and actresses who performed. There was one disturbing piece of the show which he commented on. It was that of the character of Injun Joe. He commented that this character was overdone to the point of being insulting to American Indians and should have been done with more sensitivity in 2006.
He also admitted that he understood that this is the way that Twain wrote the character back in 1876, when few people objected to ridiculing Indians.
I think that ridiculing Indians or any other group of people is absolutely wrong and believe that the majority of the population stands with me on this, but come on, Alec Clayton, don’t we perform shows the way that the playwright writes the show?
As actors, we are coached to perform the show with dialogue and characters that match that of the writer’s intent so as not to end up being sued for violating copyright laws. Injun Joe just happened to be an Indian who was a murderer and thief. Muff Potter was the town drunk in this show and was played by a white guy. There was no objection to that as far as I could tell.
I think that American classics such as this should be performed as written.
Another letter writer wrote to explain to me that “the Injun Joe character was a ‘villain’ (a necessary character to provide conflict and plot thickening)” -- as if I didn’t already know that.
They bring up interesting points. Mark Twain is one of the world’s greatest writers, and I agree in principle that neither his words nor his intent, in so far as we are able to interpret them, should be tampered with. If the actor had not worn heavy “redskin” makeup, and if he had not played the part in such an overly broad comic manner -- like a cigar store Indian -- he could have depicted Injun Joe as evil without denigrating a whole race of people, and without rewriting Mark Twain.
Some people claim that Mark Twain was racist. They point to racial slurs aimed at African Americans in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as a prime example. But the racial slurs in that book were used to expose the racism of Southern whites, and the runaway slave, Jim, was treated with dignity (see Peter Salwen’s essay, “Is Huck Finn Racist?”).
In the case of Injun Joe, however, charges of racism are not so easy to defend. Popular beliefs at the time supported the idea that Indians were savages who sought violent revenge for the slightest offense, and contextual evidence indicates that Twain believed that. I have not researched the subject exhaustively, but what I have found supports that notion that he had a great dislike for Indians and bought into popular stereotypes of the day (see Twain’s Indians).
To reinforce racial stereotypes, especially in a performance intended for family audiences, is harmful. What kind of lesson is that for our children? As much as I respect Mark Twain (but not necessarily the playwright who adapted his story), if I had to choose between sticking to the way the book was written and setting such a horrid example for children in the audience, I’d have to choose the children.
The term Political correctness sarcastically refers to being overly careful about what we say about Native Americans, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, gays and lesbians, or other entire races, nations or classes. Political correctness is trying to do the right thing. Making fun of political correctness seems to be in vogue these days. It is easy to point out political correctness taken to absurd extremes, but I would rather take it to the extreme than condone racial slights or slander. Lack of what some call political correctness leads to and justifies discrimination and hate. How can you tell your children it is wrong to dislike Native Americans after taking them to see a musical comedy that tells us that Indians are evil?
In the week following my review of “Tom Sawyer,” I reviewed a modern classic, “The King and I,” which is also, to a large extent, based on racial stereotyping. I wrote about the controversial history of the play, saying:
Both the play and movie were popular in America, but the people of Thailand found them insulting. The movie starring Yul Brynner was banned in Thailand on grounds of historical and cultural inaccuracy. In it, King Mongkut was depicted as a despot and a chauvinist (albeit a charming one) who was ignorant of Western ways. In fact, he was educated in Western sciences, spoke fluent English, and was known in Thailand as the “Father of Thai Scientists.”
The assumptions made in “King and I” that the people of Thailand were ignorant savages are as racist as the stereotyping of Indians in “Tom Sawyer,” and yet I was not as critical of this show as I was of the other -- probably because Joseph Connors, the actor who played the King of Siam, was charming, and the actor who played Injun Joe was not. That is an explanation, not an excuse.
For the third week in a row, I reviewed a play that included racial stereotyping. This time is was Shakespeare with his hateful Jew, Shylock, and a cast of Jew-hating Christians in “The Merchant of Venice.” After pointing out that the character, Shylock, was “an embodiment of the most vicious of Jewish stereotypes,” I wrote:
I experienced a moment of revulsion when Antonio, the kindest character in the play, demanded that Shylock convert to Christianity, as if, for just a moment, this kindest of men had become the Grand Inquisitor. But Shylock and Antonio are complex characters, and Shakespeare makes Shylock seem more human by showing that his hatred for Christians comes from mistreatment at their hands. As hateful as he is, audiences cannot help sympathizing with him when he utters the famous lines: “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed?”
Much of the play was done as broad comedy. Dennis Worrell as Gratiano and Christopher Cantrell as Lancelot Gabbo, played the comedy to the hilt. If Russ Holm had played Shylock in the same comic style, it would have been disastrous. But he played him with seriousness and sympathy, thereby making "The Merchant of Venice" not a play that capitalizes on racial stereotypes, but a play that comments on racial stereotypes. There's quite a difference. There is disagreement over Shakespeare's intent, but I personally like the way this theater company interpreted it.
Injun Joe tells us that stereotyping is OK; Shylock shows us the horrible consequences of stereotyping.
© 2006 by Alec Clayton