“Something’s been coming to me lately about this whole
question of being lost,” Shepard wrote to Joseph Chaikin in
1983 from Iowa, where he was shooting the film Country
with Jessica Lange. “It only makes sense to me in relation
to an idea of one’s identity being shattered under severe
personal circumstances -- in a state of crisis where
everything that I’ve previously identified with in myself
suddenly falls away. A shock state, I guess you might call it.
I don’t think it makes much difference what the shock itself
is -- whether it’s a trauma to do with a loved one or a
physical accident or whatever -- the resulting emptiness or
aloneness is what interests me. Particularly to do with
questions like home? family? the identification of others over
time? people I’ve known who are now lost to me even though
still alive?”
At the time, Shepard was
simply staking out the territory he and Chaikin would explore
in their third collaboration, The War In Heaven. Yet
that one letter alone contains seeds -- especially the
brooding about identity -- that would eventually bear fruit in
his subsequent plays A Lie of the Mind, States of Shock,
Simpatico, the overhauled Tooth of Crime (subtitled
“Second Dance”), and When the World Was Green (A
Chef’s Fable), a collaboration with Chaikin commissioned
for the Olympic Arts Festival in Atlanta in 1996.
The two characters in Green
are an old man on death row for murder and a young woman who
comes to interview him for a newspaper story. “How did all
this begin?” she asks. “There was an insult 200 years
ago,” he says. Because of this insult seven generations
back, the Old Man’s father pointed out to him when he was
five years old the cousin it was his duty to kill. The Old Man
tracked his cousin Carl for many yeas, became head chef of his
favorite restaurant in New Orleans and finally posioned his
potatoes. According to the Interviewer, however, it was a case
of mistaken identity: instead of his cousin, the Old Man
killed someone who may or may not have been the
Interviewer’s long-lost father.
Much abuot the play is left
purposely mysterious and open-ended. Where does this story
take place? Some references are clearly American and some are
not. The word “Bosnia” is never spoken, but a viewer in
1996 couldn’t help thinking about the genocidal “ethnic
cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia when watching a play
about a generations-old conflict whose roots can only be
described as mythological. The Beckett-like setting (a simple
prison cell, a gray slate wall, a single high window) and the
interrogatory format are recognizable trademarks from
Chaikin’s theatre background. Meanwhile, the themes and
imagery -- that ancient curse, the male-female standoff, the
search for the father, the echo of old folk ballads -- seem
like pure Shepard.
When the World Was Green
is the first of the Shepard-Chaikin collaborations that
Chaikin did not perform himself, which was too bad. Alvin
Epstein, a veteran actor whose credits include the American
premieres of Waiting for Godot and Endgame, gave
an overemphatic, disconnected performance that made this brief
play seem tedious and overlong. I couldn’t help pining for
the light touch and poetic reverie Chaikin might have
summoned, before a series of strokes made performing all but
impossible for him.....
The Tooth of Crime
has always been the most dazzling and well-regarded of
Shepard’s pre-family plays. A lethal showdown between two
killer rock stars, it is an unconventional hybrid of play and
musical, and its dense patches of invented pop-culture
neo-lingo (part computerspeak, part hipster jive, part sci-fi
comic book) make it both challenging and fun to undertake.
Producers had been after Shepard for years to get permission
to revive The Tooth of Crime. The playwright resisted
because he felt it needed a new musical score and he
couldn’t decide who should do it. Suddenly in 1995, he
settled on T-Bone Burnett, a former member of Bob Dylan’s
band, as his composer of choice.
Shepard’s new version of The
Tooth of Crime differed so drastically from the original
that he gave it a new name Tooth of Crime (Second Dance).
For one thing, he ruthlessly cut anything that made the play
seem dated, including almost all references to sports cars and
rock music idols (Dylan, Jagger, Townshend) as well as two of
the most memorable set-pieces from the original play, Hoss’s
reminiscence of a high-school rumble as class warfare and
Becky’s rape-scene soliloquy. He’d stripped the text of
most curse words and renamed several of the characters.
Hoss’s sidekick Cheyenne had become Chaser, the jive DJ
Galactic Jack was called Ruido Ran, and Star-Man was now Meera
(a reference, perhaps, to the Indian-born spiritual teacher
Mother Meera). In a hundred large and small ways, he’d made
the play leaner and meaner. As producer Carole Rothman
explained, “The focus of the play has shifted. There was
always a fine line between whether it was really about
rock-and-roll or really about killing. Now it’s gone over
the line toward killing.”
Ultimately, the new Tooth
of Crime became more about dying than killing. The play
originally wielded its peculiar babel of pop-culture jargons
as an atttack on the contemporary fixation on style and media
image. Shepard’s rewrite pushed farther into the
metaphysical realm. It became about the death of the Self,
about transcending identity altogether. The climax of the play
is still the second-act showdown between Hoss, the reigning
star “Marker” (whatever mixture of rocker and killer
Shepard means that to be), and Crow, his upstart challenger.
But in this version, the referee bails after the first round,
unable to make sense of the strange moves he’s witnessing.
After the referee’s exit, the duel suddenly shifts into
almost mystical territory. It conjures up all the alter-ego
conflicts that inhabit Shepard’s plays (Austin and Lee
circling each other at the end of True West, for
instance). Crow hypnotizes Hoss into a kind of shamanic
trance. Instead of viewing Crow as the enemy to be
slaughtered, Hoss suddenly sees him as a mirror. He recognizes
in Crow a younger version of himself, consumed with jockeying
for status, blazing new fashion trails, and trashing the past
-- overgrown adolescent antics that seem empty now to Hoss. He
realizes that smashing the mirror won’t kill the image. If
he wants to get rid of the thing he hates, he has to turn the
knife on him (his self?).
In the original version,
Hoss’s suicide was a defiant act, even noble, but undeniably
an admission of defeat. His former colleagues rallied around
Crow as the new champion and prepared to play the game all
over again. In Tooth of Crime (Second Dance), Hoss dies
from his own knife rather than a gunshot. And like the Samurai
warrior’s hara-kiri, it comes across as a spiritual triumph.
It’s a relief to leave behind the exhausting game of images.
Hoss is liberated in the way that Buddhist philosophy defines
liberation: recognition that nothing is permanent, that human
experience leads to suffering and there there is no individual
self. Escaping from the cycle of death and rebirth, ignorance
and illusion -- what the Buddhists call samsara --
leads to nirvana. Hoss collapses on the floor in the same
outline that shows up on the floor in Shepard’s 1976 play Suicide
in B-Flat, where it represents the last earthly trace of
Niles, who wanders through that play unseen, like a soul after
death.
These elements may have
lurked somewhere under the surface of the original Tooth of
Crime. In his 1996 revision, Shepard succeeded in drawing
out these philosophical concerns with identity and
self-transcendence that place the play on a continuum with his
other work rather than off in its own rock-musical corner.
However, the new version acquired some literary depth at the
expense of its theatricality. Without the topical references
to hook the audience and make the world of the play seem fun
or at least dazzling to encounter, Tooth of Crime
became heavier, more somber, certainly less of a
crowd-pleaser. The production in New York bombed with critics
and audiences. Many nights, more than half the audience
streamed out of the theatre at intermission, never to return.
The best thing about the
production was T-Bone Burnett’s score, a vast improvement
over Shepard’s original music. Burentt’s witty,
spring-loaded lyrics meshed well with Shepard’s made-up
argot. “Somebody’s got to monitor all this darkness
darkness darkness,” Hoss sings. “Somebody’s got to
locate the bomb -- dot com.” And two lyrical numbers in the
first act eerily captured the clock-stopping quality of a
drug-induced reverie, especially “Kill Zone” (co-written
with Roy Orbison). During early previews, the show knocked the
audience back in their seats with a blast of grunge-rock that
seemed to link Hoss to Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain,
charismatic icons of ‘90s rock. By opening night, the
opening number had been transformed into a cool blues
delivered like beatnik poetry -- theatrically more inviting
though oddly anachronistic....
Only after seeing the show
twice and reading the text, with its veiled references to The
Tibetan Book of the Dead, did I begin to understand what
was at stake in the showdown between Hoss and Crow. Perhaps
the set was not just the throne room of a raock star’s
castle but some version of a bardo, one of the stages between
death and rebirth in Tibetan teachings. Of course, I may be
reading into the play a more specifically Buddhist
interpretation than Shepard meant for it to have. Nonetheless,
it seems clear to me that the play addresses identity-shift as
a profoundly spiritual crisis in a way that the New York
production failed even to suggest.
As a longtime student and fan
of Shepard’s work, I’ve always been intrigued by the hints
of mysticism in his plays. Beneath their surface reality,
Shepard often uses the elements of theatre to explore (if
obliquely) the life of the soul that escapes intellectual
perception or material presentation. And I’m repeatedly
frustrated at the slack, flat slavishly naturalistic
productions his plays get, even when Shepard himself is
directing. Admittedly, it’s difficult to communicate a
spiritual perspective in the theatre without getting too pious
or pretentious. But the greatest theatremakers of our time
achieve nothing less in their best work -- whether it’s
Peter Brook or Elizabeth LeCompte or JoAnne Akalaitis or
Robert Lepage. With the exception of Joe Chaikin, none of
them, and no directors like them, seem to take any interest in
Shepard.
At least in his home country.
European directors seem less invested in handcuffing Shepard
to naturalistic theatre. Imaginative design choices are always
a simple way of churning up submerged, less-than-obvious
resonances in a strong text. At a 1993 conference on Shepard
in Brussels, the German director-dramaturg team of Hartmut
Wickert and Alfred Nordmann gave a fascinating paper about
their production of States of Shock at Stadttheater
Konstanz. Intrigued by Shepard’s account in the Village
Voice of the play’s genesis as a response to the Persian
Gulf War, they decided that this interpretation was too narrow
to interest a European audience. Taking inspiration from
Jack’s Gelbert’s 1976 essay on Shepard called “The
Playwright a sShaman,” Wikcert and Nordmann conceived States
of Shock -- ostensibly an absurdist one-act about a
retired military man and a wheelchair-bound Vietnam vet
terrorizing an elderly couple and an inept waitress in a
roadside diner -- as a shamanic session in which urgently
needed healing energy arrives not as the gentle, beneficent
“white light” of New Age visualizations but in the raging,
disruptive form of a “monster-fascist.”
Judging from the scene they
showed on videotape, their production was extraordinary to
look at. The director had gotten permission to incorporate
into the set replicas of sculptures by two prominent
contemporary American artists -- Edward Kienholz’s The
Portable War Memorial and Bruce Naumann’s take-off on
roadside diner signage, a neon sign that latnerately flashes
“EAT” and “DEATH.” The show also included lots of
music in addition to two live drummers, stylized choreography
and meticulous lighting a la Robert Wilson. It seemed like the
most exciting directorial approach to staging Shepard that
I’d ever seen. When I raved about it to Nordmann (who
teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina), he
cautioned me to remember that the long European rehearsal
periods militate against the thing that’s best about
American productions of Shepard: fresh, spontaneous acting.
It’s true that Shepard’s plays are ideal opportunities for
the kind of woolly, uninhibited acting Americans are known
for. Still, I want it all. I long for productions that feature
not just sizzling performances but also a bolder theatricality
that taps into the poetic soul of the plays.
When Shepard created the
original Tooth of Crime, he was experiencing the second
big identity shift of his life. The first happened when he
left his family home in California as Steve Rogers and arrived
in New York calling himself Sam Shepard. Then after eight
years of intense creative discovery, fame, glory, social
entree and consumption of pharmaceuticals, he pulled up stakes
and moved to London, to begin a new life as a husband and
father. The Tooth of Crime is in some ways a “look
back in horror” at the excesses of his life in New York. You
could say it’s about realizing that the things you wanted so
desperately when you were 22 seem unimportant, if not tacky,
by the time you turn 30. In a larger sense, the play
penetrates an essential truth about the increasingly
celebrity-fixated media-culture that America has foisted on
the world. Hoss thinks he got to the top through sheer talent;
his encounter with Crow reveals the sickening reality that a
“Star” is just another consumer commodity, a role American
culture always wants someone to play, and it scarcely matters
who.
Twenty-some years and a few
identity shifts later, Shepard’s rewrite of Tooth of
Crime rings some new variations on this theme whose
implications are both more personal and more universal. He’s
less interested in love-hating the notion of media stardom and
more curious about identity shift as psychic suicide. In fact,
you could say he’s obsessed with this theme. His 1993 play Simpatico
seems rather dull and cryptic on the most literal level. It
re-enacts the kind of identity exchange between a successful
guy and his lowlife alter-ego that occurs in True West,
only this time in the milieu of horse racing rather than
moviemaking. But there is something mysterious going on
underneath the surface. In a New York Times interview,
Shepard hinted as much when he said, “Identity is a question
for everybody in the play. Some of them are more firmly
aligned with who they are, or who they think they are. To me,
a strong sense of self isn’t believing in a lot.” At the
end of the play, the slippery character Vinnie seems to thrive
specifically because he doesn’t cling to a set identity, and
despite his Rolex and cel phone, Carter seems to be dying
because he does.
In Tooth of Crime (Second
Dance), Shepard comes closer to saying that out loud. As
Hoss approaches his moment of transcendence and starts to see
things no one else onstage can, he says,
When Hoss kills himself, is
he shuffling off one identity for another, or is he abandoning
altogether the notion of identity as a solid state? Is “the
idea of one’s identity being shattered” a tragedy or a
cause for celebration, or both? I guess this is the essential
mystery of the play, and like all mysteries meant to be
witnessed rather than explained.
It’s not surprising that
Shepard should dwell on the dance of identity in his plays.
His life history pushes those buttons: He’s both Steve
Rogers and Sham Shepard, he’s achieved fame and fortune as
both a playwright and movie actor, he’s fathered children by
two different women. How do these complex realities intertwine
for him, or any of us? These are typical burning questions of
midlife as well. Shepard’s recent plays seem to leap off
from the famous opening lines of Dante’s Divine Comedy:
“In the middle of the road of my life I awoke in a dark wood
where the true way was wholly lost.” And questions of
identity inevitably inspire meditations on mortality. “Who
am I after I die?” is no more or less mysterious than “Who
am I before I die?”
American Theatre, July/August
1997
|