|
Essay by Sarah Rooney |
Apparently the objective of the evening has been lost somewhere in translation. As I understand it, the undertaking of Fem Fest West was to create a "safe space" for anyone who had something to say, sing or move about. I use the term "safe space" with some trepidation for reasons which I hope to make abundantly clear. By using such a phrase I am adopting the very liberal vocabulary that lays at the heart of what makes me nervous in such a close critique of the evening's happenings. As a slant of the old adage goes I `fear for fear itself.' For who will feel safe to speak if the vocabulary of theater isn't used to address a theatrical event?
And yes, it was a theatrical event, regardless of the autobiographical nature of the Mrs Armitage's performance. I feel I would be doing an injustice to her if I was merely to excuse its content as unpolished. So many of the evenings pieces took place with script in hand that it is hard to believe that the general atmosphere was not more relaxed. But, getting back to the point, her monologue employed many devices to draw attention to its place in a performative tradition which should serve to put a little distance between person and event.
The controversial segments of Mrs. Armitage's piece were in her generalizations and certain stereotypes which she upheld about an American views of Asian culture. Certain statements jumped out at the audience as potentially loaded, "We will never understand the Asian mind." as just one example. However, if I take a step back from the world of Oberlin College or from knowing Jane Armitage personally, I would approach her work in a different way. For one, a primary position of the piece could be seen as a personal struggle for a voice from an older generation. The beginning stages were clips of conversations with imaginary individuals who reject Jane's plea for an audience. As the narrator discovers that we are indeed a captive audience she begins to loosen up and free not only her speech but her movements as well. Slowly (perhaps too slowly) the monologue develops into a stream of consciousness that acts as a foil against what could be misconstrued as the prejudices of an individual rather than a glimpse of vulnerability which is quite moving when done with tact.
I would argue that there was quite enough tact as well. At one point Jane Armitage began to paste large stickers of her tourist group all over her body producing a ridiculous image. One could chose to interpret this movement as a self-conscious acknowledgement of just how ridiculous she could appear, and perhaps did appear, to the audience as well as the Chinese.
There were a number of visual cues that lead the audience to a self-conscious feeling from Professor Armitage's monologue, most of which I won't take the time and space to go into. What bothers me is when these theater conventions are overlooked and the person behind the mask of theater is faulted for their racism than what is actually being seen and heard. The tone of the monologue was overwhelmingly naive and awestruck, as perhaps Jane the person was by China. How appropriate that she grapples with the problems of communication as theater has always been the hot-bed of communicative manipulation throughout its existence and in all its forms.
I don't wish to ingratiate myself to Jane Armitage, but I can understand how some people will chose to take that position. What I do hope is that people will take a second look at what is "offensive" especially when viewed in a theatrical context. I don't expect that we will be seeing a performance from Jane Armitage anytime in the near future. I find it sad that the application of the politically correct over the politically aware has made every event on this campus a target for censorship of a liberal nature. I hope that not everyone will feel the need to be correct next time the public is watching.
Related Stories:
