On the second day of the international conference on Sam
Shepard held in Brussels May 28-30, one critic made an
extremely authoritative reference to "Shepard's cultural
moment, 1979-86," which prompted another to wonder aloud,
"Are we dancing around the grave?" It was a measure
of the insecurity, if not downright foolishness, felt by the
fifteen Americans who joined another thirtysomething European
critics, professors, students, and theater practitioners for a
weekend of academic discourse about Sam Shepard. In Brussels,
of all places! At a time when Shepard's media star is in
retrograde -- his latest play, States of Shock, got
dismissive reviews when it opened in New York, and his latest
film, Silent Tongue, is still begging for a distributor
after a lukewarm reception at Sundance -- the idea of a
Shepard symposium sponsored by a Belgian university sounded a
little ridiculous. Some of us joked in advance about Shepard
as the new version of Jerry Lewis or Mickey Rourke, marginal
American pop figures elevated to cult status by European
cineastes. Making the whole enterprise more comically pathetic
was the fact that a hotel conference room the size of an
average university classroom could house the entire
"Shepard industry," as one participant dubbed the
convergence of writers and scholars who'd staked some portion
of their careers on their personal, professional, and/or
published connections to Shepard. To me, it felt less like an
industry than a coven, passionate initiates gathered in some
esoteric location "between the worlds" to exchange
magic words.
But as Johan Callens, the
bright-eyed young president of the Belgian Luxembourg American
Studies Association, which sponsored the conference, said in
his introductory paper, "The critic who thinks it is
ironical that the first major conference on such an eminently
American playwright should be organized in Brussels, displays
a proprietary reflex." Callens made the case that
"most of the participants are after all academics, whose
ways of communicating through e-mail, books and specialized
journals distributed all over the world render geography
irrelevant." And he proposed the title of the conference
-- "Between the Margin and the Center" -- as a kind
of challenge-cum-manifesto. "As Shepard shuttles between
his early and late dramaturgy, between theatre and film, the
private and public consciousness, so the critics should keep
shifting positions to preserve their critical edge. And
instead of promoting a single critical orthodoxy, the
conference should juxtapose different practices for all to
judge by their individual merit."
Not surprisingly, Callens
assembled a roster of speakers who wouldn't necessarily hew to
any party line. They ranged from Ruby Cohn, Beckett scholar
and longtime doyenne of West Coast critics, to big-haired
Stonybook prof Carol Rosen (whose claim to fame rests on her
still-unpublished, ten-years-in-the-making Sam Shepard's
Poetic Rodeo), from Barry Daniels, who edited the volume
of Shepard's correspondence with Joseph Chaikin, to David
Savran, the Brown University professor who made his name with
a book-long study of the Wooster Group. Of the six sessions,
four were moderated by Leonard Wilcox, editor of the recent
anthology Rereading Shepard, and three contributors to
that book (Canadian Sheila Rabillard, Gerry McCarthy from
University of Birmingham in England, and Yale's David DeRose).
The array of approaches to Shepard ran the gamut of
contemporary critical strategies. In the course of two days,
Shepard was attacked and/or defended for being political,
feminist, misogynist, essentialist, aesthetically
conservative, radical, traditional, original, dried up, and
fertile, not to mention being "outed" as both a
closet transcendentalist and a secret sadomasochist.
Given that the energy for
this Shepard confab came from Europe, it was disappointing
that more critics from the continent weren't invited to speak,
especially since the one European presentation in Brussels
was, for my money, the high point of the weekend. Discussing
their production of States of Shock at Stadttheater
Konstanz last March, the young director-dramaturg team of
Hartmut Wickert and Alfred Nordmann not only forced those
assembled (well, me, anyway) to reconsider their lowly
opinions of the play but provided a valuable demonstration of
German dramaturgical practices.
First laying out Shepard's
own account (in an interview with Carol Rosen published in the
Voice) of the play's genesis as a response to the
Persian Gulf War, Wickert and Nordmann told how they had
dismissed this interpretation as uninteresting to a European
audience. Then they briefly summarized three other approaches
they had considered that might give the play resonance for
German theatergoers. "America is everywhere," for
example. "Most European productions of Shepard's plays
are implicitly premised on this postulate," Wickert and
Nordmann explained, "certainly all those which in outward
appearance differ very little from American stagings and which
straightforwardly reproduce the American setting and idiom.
Whether it is explicitly elaborated or not, the postulate
expresses the recognition that...simply by eating hamburgers
and watching Hollywood movies we are Americans already."
Other statements around which a production could be built,
they suggested, were "States of Shock invokes all
wars at all times" and, most intriguing, "If
violence is the means of proving to ourselves that we are
healthy, that we are someone, that we can act again, then we
should beware of the healthy."
Ultimately, Wickert and
Nordmann gave themselves the challenge of incorporating these
various interpretations not by expressing them directly but by
rigorously exploring Shepard's concrete-theater aesthetics.
That is, "by adhering to a kind of theater which does not
make claims to anything that goes beyond the processes
actually involved in the staging of the play and physically
unfolding in the time and space shared by the actors and
audience in the course of the performance." Taking
inspiration from Jack Gelber's essay on Shepard called
"The Playwright as Shaman," they 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."
Wickert and Nordmann's
brilliant conception reflected a profound inquiry into
shamanism. Acknowledging that shamanism is often appropriated
from indigenous cultures and liberally applied to describe LSD
trips or rock stars' charisma, they made it clear that they
understood shamanism (based on a 1988 study by German
anthropologist Alfred Stolz) as "traffic with
supernatural powers for the purposes of 'preserving societal
norms and values and of treating their violation on an
emotional level." The Colonel (Shepard's central
character played by John Malkovich in the New York production)
"thus becomes a shaman who takes upon himself all that is
vilified by society, violence and unruliness or disorder...and
he uses all this evil matter to cast the fragmented elements
of society into a closed form and to reconstitute society as a
real community." Wickert and Nordmann showed on videotape
the first scene from their production, which combined Bruce
Naumann's video sculpture "EAT/DEATH," Edward
Kienholz's Portable War Memorial, lots of music, and
stylized lighting that suggested a Robert Wilson production of
The Tooth of Crime.
By comparison, the American
papers reflected a rather narrow frame of reference, though by
academic standards many of them were pretty feisty. Susan
Harris Smith, a playwright and feminist critic from the
University of Pittsburgh, opened with a contentious essay
titled "Trying to Like Sam Shepard, or The Emperor's New
Dungarees" in homage to Eric Bentley's famous tirade
against Eugene O'Neill. Smith cited the hilarious history of
hand-wringing about American theater's moribundity -- almost
continuous since William Dean Howells' 1886 pronouncement,
"Drama is dead and should stay that way" -- and
suggested that critics, "dizzy with relief," crowned
first O'Neill and then Shepard as "a new American
hero," for reasons having less to do with their work than
with American theater's desperate need for saviors to cure its
cultural inferiority complex. Surveying the Christian imagery
in Shepard's work from Cowboy Mouth to The War in
Heaven, Philadelphia-based critic Toby Silverman Zinman
coined a phrase -- "sit-trag" -- to describe the
longing for transcendence frustrated by the limits of
contemporary masculine identity located not just in Buried
Child but also in plays like Hurlyburly and Speed-the-Plow.
David Savran provocatively linked Shepard to Robert Bly and
scolded both for representing the reflexive sadomasochism of
an insecure masculine culture. Although it exhibited a curious
sex-negativity and oppressive political correctness (in which
the epithet "essentialist" is wielded with the moral
opprobrium of "baby-killer"), Savran's essay
ambitiously sought to bring Shepard out of the theater and
into the contemporary Freudian/feminist/ deconstructionist
conversation about sexuality and gender.
If any themes emerged from
the conference, sexuality and the body was certainly one of
them. "The Lacanian phallus" came up in both
Savran's essay and Bill Kleb's discussion of Curse of the
Starving Class as a postmodern performance text. What
Stanton Garner, discussing Shepard's use of animal and
vegetable props, delicately referred to as "the
excremental exigencies" of Curse reappeared more
overtly in Carol Rosen's observation that American auditions
are full of Shepard monologues: "Actors used to want to
play Hamlet. Now they want to piss onstage." I did my
part for the body by turning a decidedly gay-male gaze on
Shepard's appearance in movies over the last decade and, in
honor of Shepard's obsession with horses, by ending my talk
with a burst of ecstatic dancing to a song from Patti Smith's
first album. In Shepard's body of work, the plays that came up
for discussion most frequently and intriguingly were the
mystery plays from the '70s, especially Suicide in B-Flat
and Angel City. Perhaps the increasing scholarly
attention will induce American theaters to reexamine these
plays, perhaps even with the creative intensity Wickert and
Nordmann brought to States of Shock.
Of course, Shepard's body,
both physical and literary, was best represented in Brussels
by Joseph Chaikin, who performed The War in Heaven, the
monologue he created with Shepard in 1984, on opening night.
(Shepard and Chaikin will begin work on a new collaborative
project in New York this fall.) Chaikin hung around for the
rest of the conference, his angelic presence lending a kind of
benediction and undeniable prestige to the proceedings. One
day he pulled a handful of papers out of his shoulder bag,
handed them to me, and slipped away. Among them was a very
simple, two-page reminiscence of his relationship with
Shepard, beginning with their first meeting over dinner with
director John Stix. "It was a lovely dinner. Then Sam and
I walked back to the East Village. 80 blocks. We walked and
talked. I think it was nearly 30 years ago, in 1964, one year
after the beginning of the Open Theater. We both felt right
away that we would be friends and colleagues."
At the end of this brief
memoir, Chaikin wrote, "Sam is an artist. His mind has
extraordinary imagination. Sam is never sure what he will do
next. But I know he will write another play, and another and
another."
Village Voice, July 1993
|