Political Productions Pave the Way: A New Genre is Inspired by Current Events

With the state of Illinois taking center stage in a significant portion of the political news recently, I chose this week to explore the state’s influence on the theatrical community, both within the state as well as around the world. Chicago is said to be the “most vibrant dramatic capital after New York.” Nevertheless it has seen its fair share of off stage political drama and scandals as well, and the current champions of the spotlight are related to each other in more ways than one. Not only is President Obama linked to former Governor Rod Blagojevich (see left) through the on-going scandal involving the vacant Senate seat, but the two political figures now share a new genre of theatre: the biographical political musical. While other presidents, like Nixon, have already made their way to the Broadway stage, and famous figures are working toward getting their life story in marquee lights, there has yet to be a musical based on political triumph or scandal. However, the two pieces of theatre differ as significantly as the men they are written about. Whether the performance is about the beloved new president bringing change to the people of the United States, or the power hungry ex-governor bringing shame to his state, each story continues to emphasize the views already presented by the media about their situations.

According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, the musically comedic musings of the former governor of Illinois titled Rod Blagojevich Superstar! has found itself one of the most well-received, last minute productions to date. Written in less than a month, the main goal is that the play “is connecting with Illinoisans [who are] amused yet appalled” at the governor’s actions. Having completely sold out all of the performances since the grand opening February 10th, Second City is looking to expand the original six-week production to a theatre available for weekend shows elsewhere in the city. The cast, however, believes that some of the success of the play is “people[s] need to laugh at this thing.” Because of the nature of the current event-based show, the improv-trained actors are willing to be extremely flexible with the script. Not only have they added to the play as the Blagojevich saga changes, but many of the characters have also taken cues from former staffers who, despite being parodied in the performance, have still attended and been more than willing to comment on the realistic mannerisms of Blagojevich, portrayed by Joey Bland. In spite of the accurate depiction, the production simply highlights and reinforces the negative views surrounding the scandal of the vacant Senate seat left by Obama in a comical way. While this is innovative for the performing arts, in that the cast is constantly changing and updating the script, the fact that Illinoisan audiences are letting the character get away with so much may attribute to the length of the Blagojevich scandal. Many reviews on the production suggest that this performance was the perfect way to spoof the outrageous musings of the former governor, bringing light to a somewhat somber and pathetic situation. However, I truly believe that, though innovative in its construction, the potential of the production was lost in the comedy. As the cast had the ability to shed new light on the situation, they instead chose to rely on Saturday Night Live! antics to spoof the state politics, as well as classic show tune songs.

On the other end of the spectrum, two musicals have found their way into existence due to the popularity of the new President of the United States, Barack Obama (see right). The first of these was created in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, where Obama is considered a national hero, and premiered just days before the elections in November. In an article from BBC news about the performance, simply titled Obama, The Musical, the sympathies of the people involved in the production are very much out in the open. Even the actor playing the “chief villain” Senator John McCain was quoted saying “Obama is more fun to portray… I hope he will win [the election].” While this play used the life and rise to political fame of the famous figure as an example for people learn about “the virtues or hard work, selflessness, democracy and public service,” it was also widely viewed as an important message to the feuding country. Having dealt with post-election violence sparked by opposing views of various communities on Kenyan leadership, it is clearly one sided in its views, casting major Republican figures as enemies whose sole purpose is to stand in Obama’s way. The use of such classic "vice and virtue" stock characters originated during the medieval cycle plays, and often inspired many Shakespearean plots. Though these types of characters and plots worked for creating many timeless classics we know today, I believe that the empahsis on the ever-changing political sphere will limit reproductions in the future. The second musical in the works, Obama on my Mind, set to being its preview performances today at Islington’s Hen and Chickens theatre in London, uses a variety of types of music to take “a look at the weird and wonderful world behind the scenes of a small Obama campaign office, and the larger than life characters who make the wheels turn” according to press materials on the musical. However, based on the vague and limited press coverage, I agree with Lyn Gardner's review from the Guardian that this production has perhaps "by jumping on the Obama bandwagon, has guaranteed itself more attention than it deserves or is good for it."

Though all three of these productions work toward opening yet another genre of theatre to the public, I cannot help but question the motives behind each of the playwrights. While many beloved stories have inherently evil villains that the audience loves to hate, perhaps dehumanizing certain popular figures to create an antagonist is not the most creative decision for a playwright. Despite the fact that many people believe entertaining story lines cannot exists without opposition to the protagonist, placing all the blame on a few sources seems like an outdated and simplistic method of creating one’s characters. Instead, I believe that these plays may have done an even better job creating realistic characters had they taken a cue from Partick Marber's Closer (While I understand Wikipedia is not a reputable source, this is the best summary available.) Regardless of the lack of "happy ending," the play is full of real characters, who are all flawed in their own ways, but each have a redeaming quality as well. Even as I look into the potential that plays like the ones I have mentioned have created in the theatrical world, I can only hope that the future of the genre does not depend on the divisions created when the fictional world becomes black and white. Sometimes, the stories with a majority of grey area are the most interesting.

One Giant Leap for the Arts: Congress Includes Financing for the NEA in the Recovery Bill

As President Obama signs into effect the $787 billion economic stimulus package today at the Museum of Nature & Science in Denver, Colorado, many American artists are ecstatic with the resulting effects of the bill on the creative community. Since the start of negotiations on the recovery package began in mid-January, many performance advocacy groups, such as Americans for the Arts, have been lobbying Congress to keep the arts in mind as they attempt to help boost the failing economy. Though the national stimulus bill saw much opposition and change as it made its way through the negotiations process, it was passed on Friday including the $50 million package for the National Endowment for the Arts (see image left). With 246 to 183 votes in the House and 60 to 38 votes in the Senate, the bill was finally adopted after a historically peculiar five-hour and 17-minute voting process, due to a Senator’s mother’s funeral. Regardless of the hostility toward the arts inclusion in the bill, much of the American workforce has ties to the creative community.

According to a government study from spring 2008, cited in Scott Lilly's article “Arts Bashing,” around five million Americans jobs are related to the arts in one way or another. However, only two million are actual artists, and only 37 percent of those work full time. This makes almost 700,000 people employed by the arts. These performers make up about half a percent of the American workforce, with the average salary for an actor falling at about $24 thousand a year. Like the rest of the country, the already suffering arts have been affected by the poor economy. Not only have many groups lost support from outside sources such as corporations and foundations, but they have also made cuts of their own. Right here in Los Angeles the Opera had to lay off 17 of their 100 full time employees, while the remainder had to endure a six percent salary decrease. In an article by the International Herald Tribune from January, Robert Lynch, current president of Americans for the Arts, said that the arts community “contribute[s] $167 billion to the economy annually.” According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, this is comparable to the Gross Domestic Product of the Agriculture industry in 2007, which was around $167.9 billion dollars. Regardless, the arts have to make their cuts as well. As president and chief executive of Opera America Marc Scorca points out in the International Herald Tribune article, “these [artists] are taxpayers and rent payers and mortgage payers, just like every other employee.”

Despite pleas for help and recognition, the artists' community is often overlooked as a group that would require financial help at such a high political level. As the stimulus package worked its way through legislative branch, many people questioned the $50 million included for the National Endowment for the Arts. The organization, which has seen a drastic decrease in funding from $176 million in 1992 to $145 million today, is an independent public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the field while offering access to all Americans, and providing leadership in art education. In spite of all of this, many Representatives, such as Mike Pence (R-IN), were quoted in Lilly's article calling the money “wasteful government spending that has nothing to do with creating jobs,” ignoring the fact that the package is also intended to help preserve existing jobs. Others who opposed the money, such as Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) boldly stated that America has “real people out of work right now and putting $50 million in the NEA and pretending that's going to save jobs... is disingenuous.” Kingston seems to believe that artists out of work, however, do not affect the economy in the same manner in which a “real person” would have once they lost their job. As the bill was on the floor of Congress Friday (see image right), Representative David R. Obey (D- WI) was quoted by the New York Times' ArtsBeat blog negatively emphasizing the fantasy of being able to ignore the “five million people who work in the arts industry.” He continued his statement by saying the industry has “12.5 percent unemployment” and accusing “that somehow if you work in that field, it isn’t real when you lose your job, your mortgage or your health insurance?” Finally he drives home the point of the inclusion of the money for the NEA by explaining “We’re trying to treat people who work in the arts the same way as anybody else.” The arts stimulus package was not the only one under scrutiny, as Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) pointed out during negotiations. A majority of all of the packages under objection before the passing of the bill were those which included small programs, making up less than one percent of the entire $767 billion.

While the bill passed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, January 28th, the original Senate version did not include money for the arts, according to ArtsBeat. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives had to cut their monetary estimates by almost $100 billion. According to an article in the New York Times, the final stimulus bill will include about $507 billion for spending programs. This includes about $150 billion for public works, $87 billion toward Medicaid, $6.5 billion toward medical research and $50 million package for the National Endowment for the Arts. The remainder of the $787 billion will go towards tax related expenses, with about 74 percent of the budget being spent in the next 18 months. Even as much as the amount has been cut from the beginning negotiations, this recovery bill will be the largest financial recovery measure by the U.S. Government during a recession since World War II.

In conclusion, this stimulus package and the approval of the $50 million supporting the National Endowment for the Arts emphasizes the hopes that much of the theatrical community had in the new administration. By recognizing that the arts industry is a critical part of American culture, it is finally time for it to be financially supported by the U.S. Government. Having at last found a president who is willing to partner with the creative community, who knows what may happen next. Perhaps Quincy Jones' plea for a Secretary of Arts, similar to that of many European countries, will finally be answered.