The Hudson Review, Inc

Shavian Dark Comedy Author(s): Richard Hornby Source: The Hudson Review, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer, 2008), pp. 344-350 Published by: The Hudson Review, Inc Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20464872 . Accessed: 28/04/2013 08:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Hudson Review, Inc is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hudson Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RICHARD HORNBY

Shavian Dark Comedy

THE CONVENTIONAL VIEW OF SHAWis that his playsaremerelydidactic
tracts promoting his ideas on socialism, anti-Darwinism, linguistic reform, heroism, feminism, and maybe vegetarianism, while his charac ters are merely his mouthpieces. Shaw is a "playwright of ideas," with the famous Shavian wit only a sugarcoating for an instructional pill. Now that most of the ideas themselves have become stale, the pill is bitter is the monopoly of indeed; socialism is in decline, anti-evolutionism Christian fundamentalist morons (and Shaw opposed only the Darwin istmechanism, not the idea of evolution itself), the reform of English was in spelling is a dead issue, and vegetarianism is about as popular as it Shaw's time,which is to say,not very. Feminism remains topical (though greatly changed), but hero worship, which Shaw dabbled with in his final decades, now seems done with. Shaw admired both Mussolini and an advertisement for Shaw as a thinker or for the Stalin-hardly itself seems outdated legendary Shavian heroes in his plays. Heroism today. In his lifetime, Shaw experienced Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Churchill, FDR, and Mao, giant figures for good or ill.Who are the equivalent "heroes" today? George W. Bush? Gordon Brown? Vladimir Putin? The bureaucrats who run China? People do not want heroes anymore, onstage or in real life. But if Shaw is pass6, why are the plays themselves still so popular in the theatre? The answer is that the conventional view-actively promoted by Shaw himself in his prefaces and other non-dramatic writing-is wrong. Although Shaw was a talented platform orator, his plays are not mere oratory decked out with a few playwriting tricks. They do not promote socialism or any other doctrine; they raise ques tions rather than answer them, doing so not just through rhetoric but through the traditional dramaturgical elements of plot and character. The long didactic speeches, for example, are never directly addressed to the audience, but always to other characters. As for the Shavian or Stalin came to heroes, most were created long before Mussolini power, and unlike those political leaders they are not usually active in public affairs but are only spirited kibitzers. And as for socialism, the subject rarely comes up in the plays, while the characters are mostly middle class; when a working-class representative appears it is usually as a comic stereotype, like Doolittle in Pygmalion. (Eliza in the same play is an exception, but she is no revolutionary, aspiring only tomiddle-class

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RICHARD HORNBY

345

respectability.) First and foremost, Shaw was a creative artist, a play no less-political than Euripides, Shakespeare, or wright no more-and

Ibsen.

No play challenges the traditional view of Shaw more than his Major Barbara, written in 1905. No capitalists were more despised in those days than weapons manufacturers, "merchants of death"; Shaw makes one of

them the hero, Andrew Undershaft. Socialists generally dismissed religionand charitiesas inadequate fordealing with theunderlying

the title character (Undershaft's problems of the poor; Shaw makes daughter) a major in the Salvation Army. Furthermore, Undershaft's chief antagonist in the play isnot some charismatic socialist agitator, but Barbara's his own description fiance, a professor of Greek-by "the most artificial and self-suppressed of human creatures." He not only fails to convert Undershaft to a pacifist viewpoint, he ends up becoming

Undershaft's partnerand heir.

The plot of Major Barbara

snooty wifeLadyBritomart, long separated,have threegrownchildren.

Two are drearily conventional, taking after theirmother, but the third, Barbara, has joined the Salvation Army, spending her days working with the poor in one of its bleak shelters in London's East End. Her fiance Cusins (based on Shaw's friend Gilbert Murray, the noted Adolphus Greek scholar and translator) helps out. With her children having reached their majority, and two of them engaged to be married, Lady Britomart summons her husband to her home to discuss finances. He has so neglected his family that he does not even recognize his children, but he soon becomes fascinated with Barbara, and she with him. They set up a bargain to visit each other's first the Salvation Army shelter and then Undershaft's workplaces,

is deceptively

simple: Undershaft

and his

munitions factory.

The firstvisit starts out well enough. The shelter is busy, Barbara and her co-workers are genuinely caring and hard working, and people are clear even to Barbara getting help. Nevertheless, it soon becomes herself that theArmy is of little importance. Paupers (hilarious cockney stereotypes yet again) mouth pieties they do not really believe simply to is dependent on donations from get fed, while the whole operation plutocrats like Undershaft, who contributes five thousand pounds on is appalled the spot. Barbara that the Army would accept such a gift, considering itsultimate source, but what is the alternative? The next visit, to Undershaft's works, ismore promising but also more surprising. Barbara had always thought of it as "a sort of pit where lost creatures with blackened faces stirred up smoky fires and were driven and tormented by my father," but it is in fact a model business located in a beautiful company town filled with well-paid, contented workers. The contrast with the Salvation Army shelter is poignant; the to doing good but produced shelter was devoted only hypocrisy, ugliness, and scarcity,while the munitions factory, devoted to destruc least for its workers. tion, produces honesty, beauty, and abundance-at

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

346

THE HUDSON REVIEW

The munitions are killing people all over theworld, including Manchu ria, from which Undershaft cheerfully receives a report of the huge slaughter caused by one of his "aerial battleships," presumably in the Russo-Japanese War. Lady Brit, her children, and Cusins are so taken by that their view of him turns around; he now Undershaft's operations seems wise and philanthropic. Barbara and Cusins do have misgivings, but Undershaft convinces the latter to come into the business, which he "true faith will eventually inherit. Cusins, however, rejects Undershaft's arms to all comers-insisting that he will make of an armorer"-selling

ethicalchoices.

The play comes to an end without depicting whether the professor will be able to do so. The munitions works, which can be seen as a meta industrial system, has a momentum that no phor for thewhole modern insists that he is single person can control. Undershaft repeatedly merely a passive participant in something much larger than himself. The play was written on the eve ofWorld War I,when an arms race had already begun. The Liberal government in Parliament had just succeed ed in starting construction of a new class of huge, expensive Dread nought battleships, which of course Germany viewed as provocative. All a kinds of new weaponry were being invented and manufactured, to this day. Putting professors like Cusins in process that continues like Undershaft instead of entrepreneurs charge of production probably would not have changed much. Major Barbara is thus not an attack on capitalism so much as it is a in modern on fundamental life. Does rumination contradictions contain the seeds of its own destruction? modern technology Civilization has lasted more than a century since Shaw wrote the play, but at the cost of two ghastly world wars and thousands of smaller ones, like all made more horrible than ever because of modern weaponry Undershaft's. His leadership is beneficent, and his beautiful company town is thewelfare state inminiature, butWorld War I is on the horizon, but all too close to where the slaughter will not be far off inManchuria home. The play thus challenges not only capitalism but Shaw's own socialism and all other points of view.When Major Barbara was revived in in the title role, the production in 1929 with Sybil Thorndike London was hailed as "triumphantly topical," as it is today and will be forever or for as long as we can last. Major Barbara had a superb production last spring in the large Olivier in London, Theatre of the National Theatre starring the matchless Simon Russell Beale as Undershaft. Short, pudgy, and rather funny has been successfully playing leads for two looking, he nonetheless decades at theNational, including Oswald in Ghosts and the title role in Hamlet, because of his excellent voice, intense eyes, and penetrating intelligence. He is unknown in the United States because he does little TV or filmwork; the only movie role I have ever seen him inwas the tiny one of the second gravedigger in the Kenneth Branagh Hamlet. Never theless he is a great actor in themodern British tradition of playing the

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RICHARD HORNBY

347

characterratherthandisplaying his personality, disappearing into the rolebut nonetheless making ituniquelyhis.Afterseeinghim inGhosts, which,with his lively eyesandwicked grin, made him distinctly devilish,
a "tempter" as Cusins calls him. Gliding about the stage, peering at everything and everyone around him, he was particularly good in silent moments, as in his firstentrance where he and Lady Brit briefly stared I decided that all Oswalds should be short, pudgy, and funny looking. As Undershaft, Beale wore a gray Van Dyke beard and moustache,

intensely at each other, creating a transient sexual frisson thatsuggested

to produce three what they once had together and how theymanaged children. He spoke with an upper-class English accent with a trace of an actor for whom every detail, every moment, is a carefully crafted

cockneyunderneath,suggesting Undershaft'shumble origins. Beale is

cast, most notably Clare Higgins as as her son Stephen; the two had to

brush stroke.

He was supported by an excellent Lady Britomart andJohn Heffernan

with Shaw's long,potentially startthe show boring scene of exposition,

but managed tomake it compelling. Paul Ready was a suitably professo rial Cusins, while Hayley Atwell had looks and charm as Barbara but lacked strength. Part of this is due to thewriting; Barbara fades after she quits theArmy in the second act, so that the remainder becomes Under

shaft's play. (Shaw'soriginal title was Andrew Profession.) Undershaft's

Nicholas Hytner directed, with sets by Tom Pye. The twomade

a beautifully odd choices.LadyBritomart'slibrary suggested furnished,

elegant Edwardian home, and the Salvation Army shelter was appropri ately big, bleak, and bare, but Undershaft's works looked like a scene from Fritz Lang's Metropolis, although the stage directions and dialog lyricize on its beautiful setting. Hytner made deep cuts in the text, which is inevitable with Shaw at his windiest (the show still ran two to lop off some of the best lines. hours and forty minutes), but managed When silly-ass Charles Lomax, Lady Brit's other future son-in-law, remarks that "the more destructive war becomes, the sooner itwill be abolished, eh?" Hytner cut Undershaft's ominous reply, "Not at all. The the more fascinating we find it."After more destructive war becomes 103 years, that foreboding statement unfortunately sounds truer than

some

ever.

David Edgar is a playwright in the Shavian tradition, writing about social problems inways that raise questions rather than preach answers. His new play, Testing theEcho, touring all over Great Britain lastwinter and spring, deals with the issue of immigration, which is as controversial in the U.K. as it is in the U.S.A. Emma is a dedicated teacher of what used to be called ESL (English as a Second Language) but is now termed ESOL (English for Speakers the fact that foreigners studying of Other Languages), recognizing English may already know more than one. This petty distinction is but one of many constant issues of political correctness she faces. The

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

348

THE HUDSON REVIEW

inciting event for the play is the new test for citizenship the British government has devised, more pluralistic and simpler than the previous version but also readier to criticize England. We get quotes, read out by the actors, of the first and second editions of the actual government issued Life in theUK handbook: Where the older version said thought fully, "To understand a country well and the character of its inhabitants, some history is needed. We are influenced more than we imagine by images of the past, true or false, historical or legendary," the new one minimizes a country it is important to know timidly, "To understand the older version announced something about its history."Where flatly, "In 1707 came the Act of Union with Scotland," the new one admits apologetically, "The English put pressure on the Scots to join England in an Act of Union." Of course, such erratic, politically induced changes do notmake things easier for foreigners studying to become citizens. Emma's students come from a wide range of countries, not all of which are former British colonies-the Congo, Somalia, Serbia, India, our world has Kosovo, Egypt. It is a reminder of how cosmopolitan become. There are many short scenes involving her pupils, in class and on their own; they include Tetyana, an Orthodox Christian woman from to a Ukrainian; Pakistan in a marriage of convenience Jasminka, a Kosovan prostitute who wants to become a citizen so that she can get a decent job; and Nasim, an Egyptian woman and devout Muslim who finds even the discussion of pork sausages (the class has been studying British eating habits) an abomination. It ismade clear again and again that the reasons these people have come to Britain and are now trying to become citizens have little to do with love of its freedom and openness. They come for economic or family reasons, or to escape persecution, but are ill prepared for free choice and human rights, Western concepts their that are outside experience. Emma is a classic European liberal, compassionate, open and helpful, but she runs up against a culture clash with a minded, student like Nasim. One of Emma's teaching methods involves a debate in which students must argue pro and con about whether a Muslim schoolgirl in Britain should be allowed to wear a jilbab (full-length gown) in her class. Nasim refuses to argue the negative position, finding the debate format an insult to her religion. For her there is no complex issue with two sides, but a simple one of right and wrong. "If you wear a miniskirt this isOK and brilliant," she notes acidly, but religious clothes are forbidden! She files a complaint against Emma, which Emma's mealy-mouthed supervisor Martin, a former student activist now trying to please everyone, takes all too seriously. Emma resigns in disgust. Like our hapless occupation of Iraq, Emma's are a experiences reminder that freedom and democracy are not natural, ready to spring out of the ground once artificial obstacles are removed, but instead are Western cultural constructs. This does not mean they are therefore on the contrary, they are concepts to cherish and fight for. meaningless; But we cannot expect other people automatically to embrace them, any

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RICHARD HORNBY

349

more than our ancestors did asWestern democratic principles evolved. We must steer between the gutless moral relativism of Martin, and the sometimes naive moral certitude of Emma. Of course there are two sides to the jilbab issue, but it is unwise to expect a devout, newly arrived Muslim to argue against being allowed towear it, even as an intellectual exercise. And how far is free speech supposed to go? Nasim tells Emma is favorably that she supports the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, in demon disposed toward the suicide bombers in Israel, and marched be allowed to argue these positions in class? Emma finds it hard respond to these challenges, just as Nasim found it hard to respond

strations againstthe Danish cartoonsdepicting Mohammed. Should she

to to

I caught up with the traveling production of Testing theEcho at the in north London, one of the better off-West-End Tricycle Theatre venues. Despite its long list of characters, the play iswritten for only eight actors, who must perform up to four roles apiece. The cast at the Tricycle was mostly satisfactory-at least I always knew who was to be who-but foreign accents so supposed spoke the numerous (This was not heavily that I often found them hard to understand. because I am an American; theywere not English accents.) Adding to the problem, one of the characters isTetyana's child, played here by an adult actress who used both a strained child's voice and a Pakistani to that, director Matthew Dunster at times had the accent! Adding realism too far. Speech effects, like any other character device, should never be forced; in the verywhirlwind of your accents you must acquire and beget a temperance.

pork sausagesand banned jilbabs.

All this is carrying characters speaking simultaneously. overwrought

Stephen Adly Guirgis is an American playwright known for gritty, urban naturalistic plays with Christian overtones, as the very titles A Train, Our Lady of 121st Street. His recent The testify-Jesus Hopped the Last Days of Judas Iscariot turns the pattern around with an overtly Biblical play whose characters are off the streets of New York. Sigmund Freud and Mother Teresa also put in appearances. The inspiration for the play dates from when the playwright was in the third grade, horrified to hear the story of Judas. How could a loving God consign him to hell? Guirgis was not the firstperson to ponder that question the second-century Gnostic Gospel ofJudas, for example, depicts him as the special friend of Jesus, not betraying him but helping him to fulfill his destiny. Judas' guilt or innocence is an old conundrum. The play is set in a courtroom "in downtown Purgatory," where Judas is on trial.He is actually in a catatonic daze over what has happened, but his supporters hope to save him from damnation. Various individuals testify for and against him: devout Henrietta Iscariot, Judas' mother street-smart Pontius Pilate (for, of course); hipster Satan (against); (against); pompous (for). The dialog can be both Sigmund Freud hilarious and lyrical.Asked his opinion ofJudea, Pilate replies, "Armpit

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

350

THE HUDSON

REVIEW

of the Empire, ifyou ask me. No atmosphere, nuthin'. Hot. Dirty. Dusty. I'd a Flies everywhere. Complete lack of culture and amusements. rather spent ten years up inside the crack a my ass. But Augustus ordered me to keep the peace there, so I obeyed my Emperor, and did right." my duty.... The Pax Romana, baby, the prime directive-dass speaks with a Hispanic accent; Mother Teresa, despite being Albanian, St. Matthew says he was "scumbag" before Jesus changed him; the prosecutor calls Freud "Dr. Fried" after revealing the psychoanalyst's cocaine habit. ("Forgive me," the prosecutor goes on, "I made a 'you' slip, didn't I?") In short, The Last Days ofJudas Iscariot sprawls all over the place, like so many American plays these days. Also, Judas himself, when he comes to, turns out to be a strident, humorless bore, while Jesus, despite T-shirt the play and jeans, is little more than the usual clich6. Nevertheless, comes together movingly at the end, when the foreman of the jury, after for convicting Judas, tells him a simple story of modern apologizing affair that betrayal; the foreman committed adultery in a meaningless ended up costing him his marriage and children. "You cashed in silver, Mister Iscariot, but me? Me, I threw away gold." For all its flippancy, Iscariot is the most genuinely religious American play since Tony Kushner's Angels in America, harkening back to the medieval miracle that peopled Bible stories with contem plays (written by churchmen) to Christian theology, the Passion of Jesus was porary folk. According not a one-time event: "Inasmuch as ye have done itunto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Guirgis' play, written with theological advice from Jesuit priest James Martin, shows the Gospels being reenacted on the streets of New York, and in the hearts of of Iscariot at the LAByrinth I missed the New York production Theater (where all of Guirgis' plays have premiered), but as a regular I need not have worried. Theatre leaders over there visitor to London, theatre and usually pick up on some keep a close eye on theAmerican thing good, even off-Broadway. The Almeida Theatre came through with a strong production last spring; although only one member of the cast was an American, all were perfect in their accents and edgy, New Theatre York attitudes. Rupert Goold, Artistic Director of Headlong staged the piece with skill and panache. (which co-produced),

everyone.

This content downloaded from 14.139.86.166 on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions