Edgar Miguel Sanchez and Mouzam Makkar/Photo: Saverio Truglia
This isn’t just a smart production—it’s a brilliant postmodern adaptation of the “Arabian Nights,” where Scheherazade’s famous interlocking stories, with the cliffhanger endings that kept King Shahriyar so enraptured in ancient Persia, are interwoven with a contemporary story of an Arab-Jewish interracial relationship against a backdrop of a post-apocalyptic Manhattan saturated with anti-Arab paranoia. It’s almost impossible to overstate the wit, fluidity and complexity with which writer Jason Grote and director Seth Bockley send the commanding, hyper-articulate cast through a labyrinth of character quick-changes, transitions from slapstick comedy to sincere political messages, and appearances from Osama bin Laden performing “Thriller” to Flaubert describing Egyptian courtesans. It’s also an incredibly hip production, with deconstructive metatheater, a strong Hitchcock influence, and striking stage pictures (including a Beckett-esque genie in a shopping cart and the most creative use of a strobe light I’ve seen in theater). But—and this is a big but—it’s hard to find any emotional or even real intellectual payoff from the show’s hard work. It’s often unclear how seriously the production takes itself—occasionally the stylized comedy borders on farce, and actions move far too quickly through moments that could have strong emotional resonance. Ultimately, the connections of various mythos feel like cerebral showmanship, without creating any messages that are truly original, thought-provoking or moving, and when an actor describes “Arabian Nights” as possibly being a “joke mistaken for history,” it’s hard not to see this same trap in “1001.” Finally, for a play as obsessed with cultural stereotypes as this one, there are some uncomfortable racialized signals, from a strong anti-Israeli message to the casting of the one dark-skinned actor to play the most common perpetrator of violence. (Monica Westin)
Collaboraction at Chopin Theatre, 1543 West Division, (312)226-9633. Through October 9.
3 Responses to “Review: 1001/Collaboraction”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 22nd, 2010 at 4:30 pm
While we certainly appreciate New City’s support of Collaboraction’s production of 1001, Monica Westin’s review contains an assertion we feel should be addressed. She takes exception “to the casting of the one dark-skinned actor to play the most common perpetrator of violence.” We feel this statement is both inaccurate and incorrectly implies racism in our casting process.
Grote’s play is written to be performed by four male actors, with each actor playing a “track” of multiple characters. The track in question, Track F, played by Edgar Sanchez, includes, in addition to the violent Orthodox Jewish Student character (a relatively minor role), some of the most sympathetic and non-violent characters in the show, including the love-stricken Prince Yahya, the fey Orientalist Gustave Flaubert, and the sophisticated Arab businessman and love interest Asser. The other male tracks, by comparison, contain far more violent characters, including one track that features a king who beheads thousands of women (played in our production by a Caucasian man), and another that includes an evil father who kills his own daughter (played in our production by a Caucasian man).
Of course, in casting the track, we simply chose the actor we felt was best suited to play these various roles. Also, we have two actors of color in the production, Edgar Sanchez and Mouzam Makkar.
Thank you for your coverage and time.
Anthony Moseley
Executive and Artistic Director
Collaboraction
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:15 am
I saw this play and had similar feelings to the reviewer’s. Also, I think the response is very telling. The black actor plays a guy who ruins the main relationship, the guy who is racially violent twice, the guy who bangs out his sister due to uncontrollable black lust, a eunuch, and all of the imagery about blackness. I think that the play covered just about every white fantasy covering black males and their sexual nature (expect for the rape of a white woman, but his sister was a white woman so maybe even that), even keeping the arm at the end was really reminiscent of a lynching. “Of course, in casting the track, we simply chose the actor we felt was best suited to play these various roles.” I’ll bet. The white king was sympathized with and the guy who killed his daughter (most people will sympathize with an incest killing), while violent spent the rest of his time being funny or concerned about his other daughter. Also, having two ethnic people does not disprove that a work is framed within a racist rhetoric(I didn’t even know people still pulled the “black friend” thing anymore). Wow guys, good job on not having any black face and giving jobs to some needy ethnics.
I normally don’t give a damn, but that shit was uncomfortable. But what can one expect from a play where the main character is named “Jew-Allan.” I was really disappointed after hearing so many positive things about the play. I’m also surprised that the response this reviewer got from Anthony because the review was actually too kind in my opinion.
Also, for the record. I’m a white guy so if that bothered me, I can’t imagine how a black person would have felt. Not that I saw any in the audience.
September 27th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
The Count’s comment attempts, anonymously and troll-ishly, to stir up anger where none exists. He seems to have seen “1001,” and to have read the review and comment above his. But he shows no interest in responding to the bulk of play’s writing, design, performance, or direction, or to any part of Westin’s review save the last sentence. That’s telling because ethnic stereotyping of Arab, Persian, and other Middle Eastern populations by Americans (especially white ones) is a continuous focus of the production, as Westin’s piece makes clear.
Instead, The Count focuses on a single, racial aspect of the casting. He claims to find offensive the casting of a black male in a gender-blind role. The role – which, like most roles in the play is designated “diversity STRONGLY encouraged” (emphasis by the playwright) – requires the actor to play exactly five characters: a Persian eunuch, an Arab prince, a Kuwaiti businessman, Gustave Flaubert, and an Orthodox Jewish student at Columbia U. None of these characters is black.
If The Count saw racial stereotypes being reinforced by the performance of this role, he must have seen those stereotypes only because of the skin color of the actor playing the part. If his comment is sincere – and I’m sure it isn’t – he experienced a powerful reaction to the sight of one actor’s brown skin, a reaction which trumped, for him, every other aspect of the production, including its eloquent statement about ethnic stereotyping of Arabs and other Middle Easterners. I’m offended by that reaction.
I’m also offended by The Counts’ insinuation that Anthony Moseley is lying when he states that Edgar Miguel Sanchez – the actor in question – was cast because he was “best suited” for the part. Is The Count aware of a more talented white actor who was passed over for the part so that Collaboraction could make a negative racial statement about African-Americans? Or does The Count assume that black actors are inherently less talented than whites and are therefore only cast for their brown-ness?
The most generous interpretation I can make of The Count’s comment is that he means none of this sincerely, just wants to get a rise out of somebody and draw attention to his on-line self. I’d ignore him if he wasn’t doing this at Sanchez’s expense, but Edgar Sanchez is a terrific actor creating a powerful (and hilarious) performance nightly in a difficult role and is sold short by this kind of childish distraction from his work.
H.B. Ward
Cast member of Collaboraction’s “1001″