You are currently browsing posts tagged with Theatre
Posted on Tuesday, 21 March, 2006 By yours truly | TOOLS: Talk or Share
RACHEL’S WORDS
MARCH 22nd, NEW YORK CITY
Riverside Church
490 Riverside Drive (at 120th Street)
8:00 pm
$20 Suggested donation
(No one turned away for lack of funds • Doors open at 7:30)
Co-hosts: Amy Goodman and James Zogby
Participating: Anthony Arnove, Huwaida Arraf, Brian Avery, Nirit Ben-Ari, Leila Buck, Kia Corthron, Suheir Hammad, Leonard Hubbard from The Roots with A. Marcy Francis, Brian Jones, Liz Magnes, Malachy McCourt, Betty Shamieh, Jonathan Tasini, Zafer Tawil, Tom Wallace, Ora Wise, and Maysoon Zayid.
Rachel’s parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, will also be speaking.
Appearing via video/statements: Maya Angelou, Kathleen Chalfant, Eve Ensler, Mariam Said, Patti Smith and Howard Zinn.
“My Name is Rachel Corrie” is a powerful one-woman show based entirely on the diaries and emails of Rachel Corrie. Rachel was a human rights activist and gifted writer. She was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist from demolition in Rafah, Gaza Strip, on March 16th, 2003. Rachel was 23.
The play was scheduled to open at the New York Theatre Workshop on March 22nd. It has been postponed indefinitely, sparking an escalating controversy. Rachel’s words will still be heard on that day. Rachel wrote about issues that concern us all. Come hear an array of academics, activists, performers and playwrights read selected writings of Rachel Corrie, honor her through poems and songs, and discuss the context in which her words were written and the pervasive climate of fear in which they have been suppressed.
For updated information or to buy advance tickets: www.RachelsWords.org
Participant Biographies
Maya Angelou: acclaimed poet, historian, author, and civil rights activist.
Anthony Arnove: editor, with Howard Zinn, of Voices of a People’s History of the United States.city of Jenin.
Nirit Ben-Ari: an Israeli citizen, and was a soldier in the Israeli military radio station. She worked for the United Nations Department of Public Information, Africa section.
Leila Buck: founding member of Mixed Company, a bi-cultural theater collective.
Kathleen Chalfant: Tony nominated actress.
Kia Corthron: is an award-winning playwright.
Eve Ensler: performer, activist and award-winning author of The Vagina Monologues
Amy Goodman: host of Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! program.
Suheir Hammad: poet, who has appeared in award winning anthologies, and in zines stapled together by queer youth collectives.
Leonard “Hub” Hubbard: band member of grammy award winning “The Roots”
Brian Jones: has toured across the country as Marx in Howard Zinn’s one-man play Marx in Soho since 1999.
Liz Magnes: celebrated Israeli jazz pianist
Malachy McCourt: actor, author and writer. He has performed on Broadway and off-Broadway.
Mariam Said: the widow of the late Edward Said.
Najla Said: a founding member and the current artistic director of Nibras, the Arab-American theatre collective,
Betty Shamieh: Palestinian-American writer and actor. Her play “Roar” was the first play about Palestinians to appear off-Broadway, and was selected as a New York Times Critic’s Pick for four consecutive weeks.
Patti Smith: American musician, singer, and poet.
Jonathan Tasini: New York Democratic candidate for the United States Senate
Zafer Tawil: New York based oud player born in Jerusalem
Tom Wallace: American peace activist and media coordinator for the International Solidarity Movement at a crucial time following the killing of Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall.
Ora Wise: is an Israeli-American peace activist. (reader)
Maysoon Zayid: is an actress and professional stand-up comedian.
Howard Zinn: historian, playwright, and social activist.
Dr. James J. Zogby: founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI)
Posted on Wednesday, 8 March, 2006 By yours truly | TOOLS: Talk or Share
By me.
Originally published in the Palestine Chronicle
How quickly we backslide:
In June of 1937 the federal government slapped chains and a padlock onto the doors of Maxine Elliot Theatre in New York. It was an attempt to halt a performance of “The Cradle Will Rock,” a Marc Blizstein musical the feds found far too full of dangerous ideas for public consumption. The show’s director, Orson Welles, rushed back from Washington, D.C., on opening day after a failed attempt to convince the government to lift its ban. He found about 600 people waiting to see the performance idling in front of the theater, along with his cast.
Welles got on the phone that day and eventually led the throngs of theater goers and his cast through the city’s streets to the Venice Theatre where, due to fear of reprisals and potential loss of work, the performers belted out their songs and spoke their lines while staying scattered amongst the audience under dimmed lights. Blizstein was the only one to take the stage that night to provide piano accompaniment.
Times change: it’s 2006. I scrutinize airline prices between Priceline, Expedia and JetBlue. I use online pull-down menus to dither between low-calorie, vegetarian and kosher in-flight meal options. Things stay the same: I head to New York in support of a play that — due to the weight of its content, not the merit of its art — suddenly lacks a home.
“My Name is Rachel Corrie” is that play. Rachel left her childhood home of Olympia, WA, to work as a human rights observer and peace activist in the Gaza town of Rafah, on the Egyptian border, with the International Solidarity Movement. She was killed there on March 16, 2003, by a giant bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier. The play consists of her words, beginning as a young girl. Her private journals and e-mails to family were edited into a narrative monologue by Guardian newspaper reporter Katherine Viner and actor Alan Rickman, who also directs the play. Bringing Rachel’s words to the stage is actress Megan Dodds.
I saw the play last October as it began its second sellout run at the Royal Court Theatre in London. “Surreal” fails to adequately describe what it was like to sit in that theater packed with British patrons watching a Californian actress vocalize the writings of this Oly Girl as comfortably as if they were her own. I live in Olympia, my adopted home for almost a decade. I had arrived in London that fall after spending the summer working as the media coordinator for ISM in the West Bank. Sitting next to me were Rochelle Gause and Serena Becker, women from Olympia who would be in Rafah a few weeks later working on behalf of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, an ambitious though not yet officially sanctioned group.
I went to the performance with a little trepidation. Rachel’s parents, Cindy and Craig, are friends. What if I hated it? I’m not usually a big fan of theatre featuring beat-you-over-the-head, overt political messages. I like some nuance and a trace of ambiguity. I knew the play had met with the Corries’ energetic approval. In the bar before curtain call I thought about how I’d respond to questions from folks back in Oly if I decided it tanked.
Ultimately, happily, I didn’t see it as a one-trick political piece. It was — and I realize I’m not the most objective reviewer out there — a stunning, simple piece of work with humor and sadness mingled throughout. There certainly is politics; It does address why a person might step outside the cozy environs of a rainy Northwest town to see what’s happening in the world, specifically relating to the business end of U.S. foreign policy. But these things are incorporated into a module of an entire person who refused to blindly accept party lines or to see other people as anything less than human and worthy of equal treatment. The script also sketches her relationships with an ex-boyfriend, her family, job, experiences at college and walking around downtown in “slutty boots.”
The descriptions of places in this play work like Star Trek transporter technology. Without a set change, you’re just instantly there. Half the play takes place in Olympia; the other happens in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I had not seen Palestine in weeks or Olympia in months, yet Dodd’s performance left me conflicted about which place I missed the most. It wasn’t just me. After the play a number of people asked me about Olympia and said they felt like they’d paid it a visit. Others said it made them want to visit.
The play ends somber, but not in despair. This isn’t anything that could be described as a cautionary tale. By introducing the audience to this young woman through her words, they get to see the rest of a person who since 2003 has been immortalized, but often as one-dimensional, distant and small, in an orange vest in front of an armor-plated Caterpillar bulldozer the size of two tanks stacked on top of one another.
After the play, we talked with Rickman and Dodds about plans to bring the play to the United States. He was cautiously optimistic about it getting here, but said it would be rough going to find the play a home in New York. I hoped it would come to Olympia first, or at least the Northwest. But New York was set as the launching point for the play’s journey in the New World. Still, I regarded Rickman’s skepticism skeptically. I didn’t see anything remarkably controversial that would keep it out of New York. There are tons of offerings in the New York theatre scene for anyone specifically looking to be offended by something. Consider “Red Light Winter” with all it’s naked actors simulating awkward sex at the Barrow Street Theatre. In light of that, a young woman standing on a stage in jeans and a vest talking about playing with Palestinian kids, her dad’s neoliberal capitalist job and breaking up with her boyfriend just didn’t seem to me all that controversial.
So I was dismayed to learn that the play, which was set to open at the Making Theatre in New York on March 22, was “postponed indefinitely” by the New York Theatre Workshop, which brought the world the musical “Rent.” After all, this is the year a Palestinian film about suicide bombers wins a Golden Globe and gets nominated for an Academy Award. It’s the year Steven Spielberg also gets an Oscar nomination for a film that portrays Israel as caught in — and culpable for — an endless cycle of violence and revenge. On March 16, the first museum-quality U.S. showing of contemporary Palestinian art opens at The Bridge Gallery in New York, and two Arab hip-hop groups, the Philistines and The N.O.M.A.D.S, are being hosted that same night by the Coda Lounge in a benefit to raise funds for “Slingshot Hip-Hop,” a documentary about Palestinian rappers in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel.
With all this going on, what’s the big threat posed by a one-act, one-person, one-set play?
In the New York Times, James Nicola, artistic director of the New York Theatre Workshop, said: “We were more worried that those who had never encountered her writing, never encountered the piece, would be using this as an opportunity to position their arguments.”
One can seldom control how people “position their arguments.” I don’t really think people should attempt to. For an art director, I don’t even think it’s in the job description. In fact, the best thing to do is give folks more access to information to allow them to better “position their arguments.” Nicola had the ability to let more people encounter Rachel’s writing and see what her life was about. He and the NYTW chose against offering people that chance.
In The Guardian, Nicola said this: “In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon’s illness and the election of Hamas, we had a very edgy situation. … We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn’t want to take.”
Consider this: The conflict over the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not one of religion or of politics. It’s one of human rights. That’s a stand. I just took it right now in this paragraph. We all take them, even in our decisions to remain silent. Nicola and the NYTW, whether they admit it or not, took a stand when they chose to cancel this play. Unfortunately, it’s a stand against NYTWs own audience, and against open artistic expression on potentially touchy subjects. Even on such weak knees, it remains a stand.
And let’s not inflate the situation. Whether Sharon lives or dies or Hamas maintains its slim amount of control of the Palestinian Authority, this one-woman performance about an American peace activist — whether it’s in a British or a New York playhouse — isn’t likely to have much of a ripple amongst those living this conflict every day. Its message isn’t aimed at them. They already know about the issue, at some great cost. This show is geared toward the sort of audience that might end up at the Making Theatre during a month, such as March, when its protagonist was being discussed more in the U.S. media. These are the people who stand to be affected. That’s as edgy as it gets.
None of what Nicola said in the press made much sense. I liked “Rent” so I hastily pecked an e-mail to Nicola encouraging him to reconsider his decision. I didn’t expect a reply minutes later.
“From the first moment I read the text … I was under the spell of this extraordinary person (Rachel),” Nicola wrote. “I still am.” He added that he’d “very much like to see her represented here on our stage.”
He continued: “As you well know, there are many sinister and perhaps not-so-sinister forces out there that want to use Rachel’s life and writing to further their own ends.”
Who are these sinister forces he refers to? Mossad or Hamas or Homeland Security? The Sith? How is it that the likes of the Coda Lounge, The Bridge Gallery and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are somehow immune to these mysterious forces while the New York Theatre Workshop isn’t? Does Nicola need help with them? Folks working against illegal military occupations have a good amount of experience in dealing with such forces. He could ask some of them for advice. I asked him for more detials about these forces, but received no response.
He also told me the play “was offered to us at the eleventh hour, and it meant trying to get it on the stage in an INSANELY short period of time. Making theatre is very old-fashioned–it’s inefficient, labor-intensive and time consuming.”
This didn’t jibe with what I knew about the play. It comes with the one set that consists of a chair, a table with a computer on it, a mattress and a wall. It’s all put together to be used by one actress with a single wardrobe change that happens mid-monologue. Everyone involved in it was given enough of a go-ahead from NYTW that they booked flights to New York. At one point, it must have seemed immanently doable.
“We asked our collaborators for some more time,” Nicola wrote me. “Somehow they turned that simple request into cries of ‘censorship.’ This has puzzled and bewildered us.”
I was bewildered by much of what Nicola wrote to me. But perhaps I can help clear up his puzzlement over the “censorship” allegation: This is censorship. NYTW invited people to bring this play to the United States for a March 22 performance, around a time when many other Palestinian-oriented events were to place in New York. After the fact, Nicola took the political temperature among a narrow segment of the population, and based on the results, called off the performance. NYTW stopped a play based not on the merit of the content, but rather on what certain people in the group thought the political and possibly economic response would be.
I was pleased to read in Nicola’s e-mail that he was so enchanted by Rachel’s writing. He’s going to get the opportunity to hear a lot of it. In response to the NYTW’s decision, people will be doing public readings of Rachel’s journals and e-mails. On March 16, the International Day of Action against the occupation, Rachel’s words will be heard around the world, from New York to Olympia, from Rafah to Tel Aviv.
Times change: It’s 2006. The U.S. government didn’t shut a play down this time. Rather, it was the work of overzealous fear-mongering. Things stay the same: like the folks performing “The Cradle Will Rock” proved in 1937, just because a theater kicks a play out, that doesn’t mean the show doesn’t go on.
I no longer think the play needs to come to the Northwest first. Here it will find an easy audience and a theater space that will readily act as host in short order. Since the weird political drama surrounding this stage drama started, it’s become evident that it’s back east that the play offers the most challenges. It should linger there for a while before coming home.
Still, as I prepare for a week in New York, I wonder what makes “My Name is Rachel Corrie” such a risky endeavor. A number of people in London a few months ago said the play made them want to see Olympia. And some, just a few, mentioned it made them want to see Palestine for themselves. Maybe that’s the threat.
Kids in Rafah protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
Photo courtesy of PunchDownDotOrg.
Posted on Tuesday, 7 March, 2006 By yours truly | TOOLS: Talk or Share
We have been surprised to read recent assertions made by James Nicola, Artistic Director of the New York Theatre Workshop, surrounding the run of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE which had been scheduled to play there in March, April and May 2006. There are many factual inaccuracies which we would like to address.
Plans for the production of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE were definite. Representatives of the Royal Court Theatre met with NYTW in New York to finalise arrangements seven days before learning that Mr. Nicola wished to postpone the run indefinitely. The production schedule had already been laid out by the NYTW on January 31st,with the first preview scheduled for March 22nd and closing night for May 14th; a budget had been set; a press release had been mutually agreed; flights had been booked and paid for, all with the knowledge of the New York Theatre Workshop. Furthermore, ticket information was already listed on the site of the U.S. ticketing agency Telecharge on February 23rd, 2006 with the correct information about dates, times, original creative team and casting.
Asking for a postponement at this stage in the planning can hardly be described as “a rather routine question, so we thought, of our colleagues” as Mr. Nicola says in his statement on the NYTW website.
In the same statement, and in a letter to the L.A. Times of March 5, 2006, Mr. Nicola claims that “With a schedule largely driven by Alan Rickman’s pre-existing film commitments, we had less than two months to consider mounting the production.” In fact, Alan Rickman first visited the New York Theatre Workshop to discuss the possibility of staging MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE in November 2005. The dates of the production were determined by availability at the theatre, and Mr. Rickman’s film schedule was to be ordered around this. He held back from making any film commitments until after the dates were offered and confirmed by NYTW.
In the New York Times on February 28th, 2006, in an article titled, ‘Play about Demonstrator’s Death is Delayed’, it is reported that Mr. Nicola decided to postpone the work “after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feeling about the work.” This much he had explained to Diane Borger, General Manager of the Royal Court, during a phone conversation on February 17th, in which he asked to “postpone indefinitely” the production. In a later conversation, he said he would be willing to reassess the political climate in a year’s time and decide then if he could produce the piece with a companion work that would offer an alternative perspective. As explained to Mr. Nicola, this was not acceptable to the Royal Court, as he gave no commitment at this time to revised dates for the production at NYTW. The Royal Court and the Corrie family have always believed that the play speaks for itself. In the words of Rachel’s father, Craig Corrie, “No one should have to take a poll to do
this play; it is a work of art.”.
A postponement at any time, but especially at this late stage, is not the action of an organisation committed to producing MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE. The Royal Court cannot be confident that the political climate will have changed in a year’s time and we are deeply saddened that the New York Theatre Workshop feels unable to let the play be seen now. However, the Royal Court Theatre remains committed to bringing MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE to a U.S. audience at the earliest opportunity.
Posted on Tuesday, 7 March, 2006 By yours truly | TOOLS: Talk or Share
Action Alert: The New York Times Distorts Key Facts About Cancellation of Play on Activist Rachel Corrie
Please READ and WRITE!!
In his March 6, 2005 New York Times article “
Too Hot to Handle, Too Hot Not to Handle,” New York Times cultural critic Edward Rothstein comments on the New York Theatre Workshop’s “postponement” of the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie”, about American activist Rachel Corrie who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer while attempting to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Suggestions when writing to them:
- You appreciate that The New York Times is following the important story of the postponement of the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” in New York City. However, the New York Times needs to get central facts right.
- Contrary to Edward Rothstein’s innuendo, Rachel Corrie was killed while defending the home of a Palestinian family that had no relationship to arms smuggling or terrorism.
- Despite Rothstein’s attempt to defend the Israeli government’s policy of large-scale home demolition in Rafah, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Israeli organization B’Tselem have all documented that Israel’s large-scale home demolition in Rafah violated international law and could not be justified as a defense against arms smuggling.
- Rothstein attempts to discredit Rachel Corrie as “naïve” and “radical.” Rachel was killed while using nonviolence to stand against a clear injustice and widely recognized violation of international law. If using nonviolence to support international law made Rachel “radical “ and “naïve”, then the world needs more naïve, radical people.
- Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in 2006 should not be twisted to serve as a rationale for “postponing” a play about an American activist killed in Rafah in 2003.
By the folks doing Pal Media Watch…
THE ARTICLE: TOO HOT TO HANDLE, TOO HOT NOT TOO HANDLE
Edward Rothstein hints that the New York Theater Workshop was naïve in not understanding that the play was politically charged, an obvious, but valid point.
Oddly, however, Rothstein then seems to turn around and blame the playwrites Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner, suggesting that they disguised the political content of the play. Rothstein suggests that the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” is “disingenuous” and that the playwrites “elided phrases” “to camouflage Corrie’s radicalism and broaden the play’s appeal”.
But here Rothstein himself is guilty of camouflaging the truth, or at least of naiveté. The primary example Rothstein cites of the play’s supposed “disingenuousness” is Rothstein’s assertion that in the play “there is no hint about why such demolitions” of Palestinian homes in Rafah were taking place. Rothstein then explains that “dozens of tunnels leading from Egypt under the border into homes in Gaza were being used to smuggle guns, rocket launchers and explosives to wield against Israel.”
Thus, Rothstein leaves open the possibility that Rachel Corrie herself may have been killed while preventing the demolition of a home hiding an arms smuggling tunnel, and that the Israeli military’s wholesale demolition of thousands of homes in Rafah was aimed only at destroying arms smuggling tunnels and preventing terrorism.
Rothstein is wrong on both these crucial points. Rachel Corrie died defending the home of a Palestinian family who she knew well – Palestinian pharmacist, Khaled, Nasrallah, his wife and children. There was no tunnel in the Nasrallah home, and the Israeli army never asserted that there was a tunnel in the Nasrallah home. Nonetheless, the Nasrallah home, like thousands of others, was eventually demolished by the Israeli army. The international organizations Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and the respected Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem have all documented that homes in Rafah were bulldozed as part of an Israeli government policy of systematically demolishing entire Palestinian neighborhoods, irregardless of any relationship to arms smuggling, in clear violation of international law.
In their October 2004 report Razing Rafah: Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch noted that:
Sixteen thousand people — more than ten percent of Rafah’s population — have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time…
The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most of the cases Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity…
Under international law, the IDF has the right to close smuggling tunnels, to respond to attacks on its forces, and to take preventive measures to avoid further attacks. But such measures are strictly regulated by the provisions of international humanitarian law, which balance the interests of the Occupying Power against those of the civilian population. In the case of Rafah, it is difficult to reconcile the IDF’s stated rationales with the widespread destruction that has taken place. On the contrary, the manner and pattern of destruction appears to be consistent with the plan to clear Palestinians from the border area, irrespective of specific threats….
The IDF has failed to explain why non-destructive means for detecting and neutralizing tunnels employed in places like the Mexico-United States border and the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) cannot be used along the Rafah border. Moreover, it has at times dealt with tunnels in a puzzlingly ineffective manner that is inconsistent with the supposed gravity of this longstanding threat…”
Rothstein attempts to discredit Rachel and the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” by mentioning her “radicalism”, Rachel’s “more contentious view”, and her views that seem “naïve”. He further confuses the issue by directly comparing the conflict over staging the play in New York City to the conflicts over “Andres Serrano’s photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine to the Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad.” Thus Rachel and the play, already “disingenuous” and “radical” are made sacrilegious and even obscene to some readers. Despite all Rothstein’s efforts at distraction, the simple truth is that Rachel was an idealistic woman who used nonviolence to support international law.
Finally, Rothstein implies that Hamas’ recent victory in the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council somehow should have some bearing on whether or not the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” should be staged in New York City (“and when the election of Hamas provided proof that all was not simple, perhaps that was when the play became more clearly understood”). It is a significant stretch to understand how the election victory of Hamas in 2006 should influence the cancellation of a play in the US about an American woman who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer almost three years earlier.
Indeed, if anything the random, brutal deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, and a few foreigners like Rachel Corrie, at the hands of the Israeli military from 2000 – 2006, help to explain the dissatisfaction and anger that contributed to Hamas’ election victory in 2006.
Posted on Tuesday, 7 March, 2006 By yours truly | TOOLS: Talk or Share
In Counterpunch…
By VANESSA REDGRAVE
I am urging the Royal Court Theatre to sue the New York Theatre Workshop for the cancellation of the production of “My Name Is Rachel Corrie”. Not because I donated money for this production, which the Royal Court have been fundraising for–a target of 50,000 pounds, underwritten by Alan Rickman.
This is censorship of the worst kind. More awful even than that.It is black-listing a dead girl and her diaries. A very brave and exceptional girl who all citizens, whatever their faith or nationality, should be proud and grateful for her existence. They couldn’t silence her voice while she lived, so she was killed. Her voice began to speak again as Alan Rickman read her diaries, and Megan Dodds became Rachel Corrie.Now the New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that dear voice.
I shall never forget the glimpse, at the close of Alan Rickman’s production, of Rachel when 10 years old, shot on a little family movie camera, making her speech about world poverty and the urgent need to end the misery. The New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that little girl, as well as the girl who confronted the Israeli army Caterpillar bulldozer.
There has to be a court case on the sheer fact of the cancellation of this production. I suppose lawyers were consulted about the word “postponed”. We in the theatre know however what cancelling a production means, whatever words are used. Megan Dodds, and a crew lose their jobs. The Royal Court Theatre lose a production that was a few weeks from opening in New York City.
For the Royal Court Theatre were producing “Rachel Corrie”, with the New York Theatre Workshop, and putting up a lot of money–$100,000 dollars.
I hope that all theatre artists, writers, designers, actors, directors, independent producers and artists’ representatives will make their protests known publicly as well as directly to the New York Theatre Workshop management. I hope that American Actors Equity will be asked to take up and support the Royal Court Theatre producer, Elyse Dodgson, the director, Alan Rickman, and the actress Megan Dodds.
If this cancellation is not transformed into a new production, somewhere in New York, immediately, we would be complicit, all of us, in a catastrophe that must not be allowed to take place. This play is not about taking sides. It is about protecting human beings.
In this case, Palestinian human beings who have no protection, for their families, their homes or their streets.
Rachel Corrie gave her life to protect a family. She didn’t have or use a gun or bomb.
She had her huge humanity, and she gave that to save lives.
Posted on Tuesday, 7 March, 2006 By yours truly | TOOLS: Talk or Share
By Ann Petter and Jen Marlowe
The Electronic Intifada
Rachel Corrie was 23 years old when she was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer on March 16, 2003. She was working with others trying to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist from demolition in Rafah, Gaza Strip, Palestine. “My Name is Rachel Corrie” is a powerful one-woman show based entirely on the writings that Rachel left behind, telling her story from the time she was a small child, leading up to the days before her death. The play, edited by Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner from Rachel’s diaries and emails, was produced by the Royal Court Theatre in London. Starring Megan Dodds, it played to sold out audiences and wide acclaim.
“My Name is Rachel Corrie” was scheduled to open at the New York Theatre Workshop on March 22nd. It has been postponed indefinitely, sparking much debate. Director Alan Rickman said, “Rachel Corrie lived in nobody’s pocket but her own. Whether one is sympathetic with her or not, her voice is like a clarion in the fog and should be heard.” Rachel’s mother Cindy wonders, “Why are people so afraid of Rachel’s words?” We ask the same question and are determined to give people the opportunity to hear those words. — Read the rest at Electronic Intifada.
Photo by Stephen Cummiskey: Actress Megan Dodds as Rachel in
the Royal Court Theatre production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie.
« Older Entries
If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people.
