{"title":"凯特-多塞特所著的《新政中的激进黑人戏剧》(评论)","authors":"Elizabeth A. Osborne","doi":"10.1353/tj.2024.a929535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal</em> by Kate Dossett <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Elizabeth A. Osborne </li> </ul> <em>RADICAL BLACK THEATRE IN THE NEW DEAL</em>. By Kate Dossett. The John Hope Franklin Series in African American History and Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020; pp. 338. <p>Kate Dossett’s <em>Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal</em> joins the work of scholars like Rena Fraden, Glenda Gill, and Adrienne Macki Braconi that delves into the Federal Theatre Project’s (FTP) Negro Units. Widely celebrated by scholars as socially progressive, examinations of the Negro Units frequently appear in articles and book chapters rather than in complete monographs. As such, extant research tends to focus on single units, people, or productions—often Harlem’s behemoth, popularly known as Unit 891, and famous productions like Orson Welles’s “voodoo <em>Macbeth</em>.” In contrast, Dossett’s extensive study offers a scrupulously researched examination of the archival remnants of the 1930s using a multifaceted historiographic approach. Rather than focusing only on staged productions, she traces the lengthy and often fraught process of creation, including work that has never reached the stage. To do so, Dossett centers on what she calls “black performance communities”—a concept based on Richard Barr’s “temporary social organization” of performance, which incorporates the creative team, performers, audience, and the surrounding community as a temporary and fluid group. This approach allows her to consider the many invisibilized influences on a performance text. As Dossett argues, the FTP’s manuscript collection serves as “an archive of black agency, for they not only record how and when white mastery was contested within and beyond the theatre, they also document the scope and ambition of black creativity” (6–7).</p> <p>Dossett organizes <em>Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal</em> into two primary sections, both of which include multiple chapters. The first two chapters focus on how Black performance communities operated outside of predominantly white theatre institutions. They functioned in ways that enabled these institutions to represent Black life on US stages, whether they were adapting white-authored plays for Negro Unit performances, writing manuscripts that were ultimately left unstaged, or engaging in debates within Black journals or newspapers. The first chapter examines the popular and well-known white-authored play <em>Stevedore</em> (George Sklar and Paul Peters). The second chapter delves into two living newspapers written by Black authors for staging in the Negro Units: <em>Liberty Deferred</em> (Abram Hill and John Silvera) and <em>Stars and Bars</em> (Ward Courtney and the Connecticut Negro Unit). Each chapter uses multiple script iterations to trace the negotiations each play endured within and beyond the theatre, and each shows the different ways in which Black agency and resistance circulated through the texts. I particularly appreciate Dossett’s work on <em>Liberty Deferred</em> and <em>Stars and Bars</em>. As plays that never saw production, these pieces are often omitted from the FTP narrative. Yet, as examples of how Black writers resisted the erasure of Black history and reckoned with the power of white institutions, Dossett’s meticulous analysis of the works and use of cultural and political contexts provide a compelling case for their prominent inclusion. Moreover, these early <strong>[End Page 129]</strong> chapters extend beyond the Harlem Negro Unit to companies in Seattle (<em>Stevedore</em>) and Hartford (<em>Stars and Bars</em>). Dossett attends to each with care, demonstrating the political, racial, and administrative differences and providing a multiplicity of under-represented perspectives outside New York City.</p> <p>The second half of the book focuses on the different options available to Black creatives when their plays were produced, and it provides excellent examples of another facet of Dossett’s historiographical approach—“reading forward.” As she argues, many researchers use final published manuscripts to look <em>back</em> on Black theatre history, interpreting events through the lens of the past one hundred years. Reading forward centers Black communities in the cultural moment of creation, and she uses the FTP archives to illuminate community debates around how theatre could be used to mobilize radicalism. In three packed chapters, Dossett explores <em>Natural Man</em> and <em>Go Down Moses</em> (Theodore Browne), <em>Big White Fog</em> (Theodore Ward), and <em>Haiti</em> (William DuBois), with attention to Negro Units in Seattle, Chicago, and New York. Chapter 4 offers an excellent example...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":46247,"journal":{"name":"THEATRE JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal by Kate Dossett (review)\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth A. Osborne\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/tj.2024.a929535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal</em> by Kate Dossett <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Elizabeth A. Osborne </li> </ul> <em>RADICAL BLACK THEATRE IN THE NEW DEAL</em>. By Kate Dossett. The John Hope Franklin Series in African American History and Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020; pp. 338. <p>Kate Dossett’s <em>Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal</em> joins the work of scholars like Rena Fraden, Glenda Gill, and Adrienne Macki Braconi that delves into the Federal Theatre Project’s (FTP) Negro Units. Widely celebrated by scholars as socially progressive, examinations of the Negro Units frequently appear in articles and book chapters rather than in complete monographs. As such, extant research tends to focus on single units, people, or productions—often Harlem’s behemoth, popularly known as Unit 891, and famous productions like Orson Welles’s “voodoo <em>Macbeth</em>.” In contrast, Dossett’s extensive study offers a scrupulously researched examination of the archival remnants of the 1930s using a multifaceted historiographic approach. Rather than focusing only on staged productions, she traces the lengthy and often fraught process of creation, including work that has never reached the stage. To do so, Dossett centers on what she calls “black performance communities”—a concept based on Richard Barr’s “temporary social organization” of performance, which incorporates the creative team, performers, audience, and the surrounding community as a temporary and fluid group. This approach allows her to consider the many invisibilized influences on a performance text. As Dossett argues, the FTP’s manuscript collection serves as “an archive of black agency, for they not only record how and when white mastery was contested within and beyond the theatre, they also document the scope and ambition of black creativity” (6–7).</p> <p>Dossett organizes <em>Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal</em> into two primary sections, both of which include multiple chapters. The first two chapters focus on how Black performance communities operated outside of predominantly white theatre institutions. They functioned in ways that enabled these institutions to represent Black life on US stages, whether they were adapting white-authored plays for Negro Unit performances, writing manuscripts that were ultimately left unstaged, or engaging in debates within Black journals or newspapers. The first chapter examines the popular and well-known white-authored play <em>Stevedore</em> (George Sklar and Paul Peters). The second chapter delves into two living newspapers written by Black authors for staging in the Negro Units: <em>Liberty Deferred</em> (Abram Hill and John Silvera) and <em>Stars and Bars</em> (Ward Courtney and the Connecticut Negro Unit). Each chapter uses multiple script iterations to trace the negotiations each play endured within and beyond the theatre, and each shows the different ways in which Black agency and resistance circulated through the texts. I particularly appreciate Dossett’s work on <em>Liberty Deferred</em> and <em>Stars and Bars</em>. As plays that never saw production, these pieces are often omitted from the FTP narrative. Yet, as examples of how Black writers resisted the erasure of Black history and reckoned with the power of white institutions, Dossett’s meticulous analysis of the works and use of cultural and political contexts provide a compelling case for their prominent inclusion. Moreover, these early <strong>[End Page 129]</strong> chapters extend beyond the Harlem Negro Unit to companies in Seattle (<em>Stevedore</em>) and Hartford (<em>Stars and Bars</em>). Dossett attends to each with care, demonstrating the political, racial, and administrative differences and providing a multiplicity of under-represented perspectives outside New York City.</p> <p>The second half of the book focuses on the different options available to Black creatives when their plays were produced, and it provides excellent examples of another facet of Dossett’s historiographical approach—“reading forward.” As she argues, many researchers use final published manuscripts to look <em>back</em> on Black theatre history, interpreting events through the lens of the past one hundred years. Reading forward centers Black communities in the cultural moment of creation, and she uses the FTP archives to illuminate community debates around how theatre could be used to mobilize radicalism. In three packed chapters, Dossett explores <em>Natural Man</em> and <em>Go Down Moses</em> (Theodore Browne), <em>Big White Fog</em> (Theodore Ward), and <em>Haiti</em> (William DuBois), with attention to Negro Units in Seattle, Chicago, and New York. Chapter 4 offers an excellent example...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEATRE JOURNAL\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEATRE JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/tj.2024.a929535\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"THEATER\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEATRE JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tj.2024.a929535","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者 新政中的激进黑人戏剧》,凯特-多塞特著,伊丽莎白-A-奥斯本(Elizabeth A. Osborne)译 新政中的激进黑人戏剧》,凯特-多塞特著,伊丽莎白-A-奥斯本(Elizabeth A. Osborne)译。作者:凯特-多塞特。约翰-霍普-富兰克林非裔美国人历史与文化丛书》。教堂山:北卡罗来纳大学出版社,2020 年;第 338 页。凯特-多塞特的《新政中的激进黑人戏剧》与瑞娜-弗拉登、格伦达-吉尔和阿德里安娜-马基-布拉科尼等学者的著作一道,深入研究了联邦戏剧项目(FTP)的黑人单元。黑人剧团被学者们广泛誉为社会进步剧团,但对黑人剧团的研究往往只出现在文章和书籍章节中,而不是完整的专著中。因此,现存的研究往往集中在单个单位、人物或作品上--通常是哈莱姆的庞然大物(俗称 891 单位),以及奥森-威尔斯的 "巫毒麦克白 "等著名作品。与此形成鲜明对比的是,多塞特的广泛研究采用多方面的历史学方法,对 20 世纪 30 年代的残存档案进行了严谨的研究。她没有只关注舞台剧,而是追溯了漫长且往往充满矛盾的创作过程,包括从未登上舞台的作品。为此,多塞特以她所称的 "黑人表演社区 "为中心--这一概念基于理查德-巴尔的表演 "临时社会组织",它将创作团队、表演者、观众和周围社区整合为一个临时和流动的群体。这种方法使她能够考虑到对表演文本的许多隐形影响。正如多塞特所言,FTP 的手稿集是 "黑人机构的档案,因为它们不仅记录了白人统治如何以及何时在剧院内外受到质疑,还记录了黑人创造力的范围和雄心"(6-7)。多塞特将《新政中的激进黑人戏剧》分为两个主要部分,均包括多个章节。前两章重点介绍黑人表演团体如何在白人占主导地位的戏剧机构之外运作。他们的运作方式使这些机构能够在美国舞台上表现黑人的生活,无论是改编白人创作的剧本供黑人团体演出,还是撰写最终没有上演的手稿,抑或是在黑人期刊或报纸上参与辩论。第一章探讨了广受欢迎的著名白人剧本《Stevedore》(乔治-斯克拉尔和保罗-彼得斯)。第二章深入探讨了两份由黑人作者撰写、在黑人单位上演的活报剧:Liberty Deferred》(Abram Hill 和 John Silvera)和《Stars and Bars》(Ward Courtney 和康涅狄格黑人小组)。每一章都使用多个剧本迭代来追溯每个剧本在剧场内外所经历的谈判,每一章都展示了黑人代理权和反抗在文本中传播的不同方式。我尤其欣赏多塞特对《自由的推迟》和《星条旗》的研究。作为从未上演过的剧目,这些作品往往在《友谊之路》的叙述中被忽略。然而,作为黑人作家如何抵制对黑人历史的抹杀、如何与白人机构的权力抗衡的例子,多塞特对这些作品的细致分析以及对文化和政治背景的利用,为将它们突出纳入其中提供了令人信服的理由。此外,这些早期 [第129页完] 章节还延伸到西雅图(《Stevedore》)和哈特福德(《Stars and Bars》)的黑人剧团。多塞特对每一家公司都进行了细致的研究,展示了政治、种族和行政管理方面的差异,并提供了纽约市以外的多种代表性不足的观点。该书的后半部分侧重于黑人创作者在制作剧本时的不同选择,为多塞特史学方法的另一个方面--"向前阅读"--提供了极好的例子。正如她所言,许多研究人员使用最终出版的手稿来回顾黑人戏剧史,通过过去一百年的视角来解读事件。而 "向前阅读 "则将黑人社区作为创作文化时刻的中心,她利用《FTP》档案揭示了社区围绕如何利用戏剧动员激进主义的争论。多塞特用三个紧凑的章节探讨了《自然人与下山的摩西》(西奥多-布朗)、《大白雾》(西奥多-沃德)和《海地》(威廉-杜波依斯),并关注了西雅图、芝加哥和纽约的黑人单位。第 4 章提供了一个极好的例子...
Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal by Kate Dossett (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Reviewed by:
Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal by Kate Dossett
Elizabeth A. Osborne
RADICAL BLACK THEATRE IN THE NEW DEAL. By Kate Dossett. The John Hope Franklin Series in African American History and Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020; pp. 338.
Kate Dossett’s Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal joins the work of scholars like Rena Fraden, Glenda Gill, and Adrienne Macki Braconi that delves into the Federal Theatre Project’s (FTP) Negro Units. Widely celebrated by scholars as socially progressive, examinations of the Negro Units frequently appear in articles and book chapters rather than in complete monographs. As such, extant research tends to focus on single units, people, or productions—often Harlem’s behemoth, popularly known as Unit 891, and famous productions like Orson Welles’s “voodoo Macbeth.” In contrast, Dossett’s extensive study offers a scrupulously researched examination of the archival remnants of the 1930s using a multifaceted historiographic approach. Rather than focusing only on staged productions, she traces the lengthy and often fraught process of creation, including work that has never reached the stage. To do so, Dossett centers on what she calls “black performance communities”—a concept based on Richard Barr’s “temporary social organization” of performance, which incorporates the creative team, performers, audience, and the surrounding community as a temporary and fluid group. This approach allows her to consider the many invisibilized influences on a performance text. As Dossett argues, the FTP’s manuscript collection serves as “an archive of black agency, for they not only record how and when white mastery was contested within and beyond the theatre, they also document the scope and ambition of black creativity” (6–7).
Dossett organizes Radical Black Theatre in the New Deal into two primary sections, both of which include multiple chapters. The first two chapters focus on how Black performance communities operated outside of predominantly white theatre institutions. They functioned in ways that enabled these institutions to represent Black life on US stages, whether they were adapting white-authored plays for Negro Unit performances, writing manuscripts that were ultimately left unstaged, or engaging in debates within Black journals or newspapers. The first chapter examines the popular and well-known white-authored play Stevedore (George Sklar and Paul Peters). The second chapter delves into two living newspapers written by Black authors for staging in the Negro Units: Liberty Deferred (Abram Hill and John Silvera) and Stars and Bars (Ward Courtney and the Connecticut Negro Unit). Each chapter uses multiple script iterations to trace the negotiations each play endured within and beyond the theatre, and each shows the different ways in which Black agency and resistance circulated through the texts. I particularly appreciate Dossett’s work on Liberty Deferred and Stars and Bars. As plays that never saw production, these pieces are often omitted from the FTP narrative. Yet, as examples of how Black writers resisted the erasure of Black history and reckoned with the power of white institutions, Dossett’s meticulous analysis of the works and use of cultural and political contexts provide a compelling case for their prominent inclusion. Moreover, these early [End Page 129] chapters extend beyond the Harlem Negro Unit to companies in Seattle (Stevedore) and Hartford (Stars and Bars). Dossett attends to each with care, demonstrating the political, racial, and administrative differences and providing a multiplicity of under-represented perspectives outside New York City.
The second half of the book focuses on the different options available to Black creatives when their plays were produced, and it provides excellent examples of another facet of Dossett’s historiographical approach—“reading forward.” As she argues, many researchers use final published manuscripts to look back on Black theatre history, interpreting events through the lens of the past one hundred years. Reading forward centers Black communities in the cultural moment of creation, and she uses the FTP archives to illuminate community debates around how theatre could be used to mobilize radicalism. In three packed chapters, Dossett explores Natural Man and Go Down Moses (Theodore Browne), Big White Fog (Theodore Ward), and Haiti (William DuBois), with attention to Negro Units in Seattle, Chicago, and New York. Chapter 4 offers an excellent example...
期刊介绍:
For over five decades, Theatre Journal"s broad array of scholarly articles and reviews has earned it an international reputation as one of the most authoritative and useful publications of theatre studies available today. Drawing contributions from noted practitioners and scholars, Theatre Journal features social and historical studies, production reviews, and theoretical inquiries that analyze dramatic texts and production.