Category: Uncategorized

1.  How do Gypo’s and Tank’s failures to uphold community and eventual separation from their social groups echo other works which end with a social or physical death?
2. Are the displays of grief, seen in the reciting of Gaelic prayers and the group of women singing worship songs after Johnny’s death, connected?  Do they suggest a subtext about religion, seen in Hurston’s writing illustrating the problems and shortcomings of religious institutions?
3. In Gypo’s drunken behavior and tendency to get into fights, does Ford intend to evoke previous stereotypes of the Irish?  If so, why would he do this as a man of Irish descent himself?
4. In Johnny’s mention of a passport and Gypo’s wish to leave for America with Katie, how do these works treat the possibility of relocating and creating a new identity in comparison with some of our previous works?
5. Gypo and Tank both scream, “I forgot something!” multiple times when they realize they have let down and outright harmed their communities.  If this choice is deliberate, which I believe it is, what does this quote say about each man’s struggle with his own failure?

1. Why is Clarence (“Daisy”) added to the African-American version of this story?
2. Is militancy in the Irish context similar to the African-American context? Do these two films present them similarly?
3. The n-word is used at times in Uptight. Is this part of creating an accurate depiction of African-American life or is it a problematic aspect of this movie?
4. Why is the main character of this plot line portrayed as both a drunk and a bit of an oaf?

One thing I found rather interesting while reading Mules and Men was how careful Zora Neale Hurston had to be when she was a newcomer in Polk County. She was extra cautious when interacting with the people of the boarding house, as it turned out for good reason. They treated her as an outsider – the same way that she described the way that they would treat a white person interested in their lies. She was especially considered different for having a car and an expensive dress. It wasn’t until she had made clear that she was just like them that they took to her and accepted her as a new part of the community. I thought it was rather interesting how quickly they accepted her, considering how differently she was treated from the beginning. And it was also interesting how eager they were to share their lies with her, even though she was still an outsider. They would have been concerned with telling her lies before they accepted her, but they were fine with sharing them with her so she could share them with many other people. I wonder what makes the distinction here? Where is the line? Why does it matter who shares the story if it’s going to be shared with everyone eventually?

1. What is the evolution of the cakewalk? How significant was it really and did it stay an imitation?
2. Does the inclusion of cakewalk into blackface diminish or advance the image of the “new negro”?

One thing I noticed when reading “Color Struck” and “John Redding Goes to Sea” was the discussion of how the women in the tales behaved. To be honest, I felt a little uncomfortable with how Matty and Stella treated John in “John Redding”, and with how Emma treated John in “Color Struck”. In both tales, the women are clearly made out to be the villains in the story with their unreasonable demands, refusal to listen to reason, their attitudes, and their jealousy. I wondered, why was the focus of these stories so clearly on these bad women? What was the point of making sure that these characters were so clearly in the wrong, to the point where readers might feel almost hatred for them?

The Lightfoot family in In Dahomey can be seen as representing very clear differences between the mindsets of black people in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Mr. Lightfoot, Mrs. Lightfoot, and Rosetta each exhibit varying degrees of a “progressive” mindset, showcased in Act two of the play. Mr. Lightfoot is the least progressive of the three. He is a well-off black man in the south, due to his former master’s death. He was left his former master’s house and wealth, and now his family lives pretty well. However, Mr. Lightfoot insists on continuing to call Mr. Goodman “Mars John”, and reminiscing about his past life with his master. There almost seems to be some form of respectability politics at play here, though not in the usual sense. Usually, respectability politics are a performance for white society; however, “Mars John” is dead, and therefore Mr. Lightfoot is only “performing” to himself, which seems to suggest it is not a performance at all. It appears that Mr. Lightfoot believes that “Mars John” is the respectful title, despite all the connotations and history that come with that term. Mrs. Lightfoot has a slightly more progressive mindset than Mr. Lightfoot. She very clearly takes issue with Mr. Lightfoot’s references to Mr. Goodman as “Mars John”, and makes sure to tell her husband so. She scolds him throughout the play for it, and doesn’t allow her own opinion to be nullified when Mr. Lightfoot continues to use the title “Mars John”. However, Mrs. Lightfoot is still less progressive than their daughter, Rosetta. Rosetta has at least two songs where she refers to a wish for black people to be treated equally to white people – one literally called “Leader of the Colored Aristocracy”, and one that discusses how a smart black girl got into a private, mostly white school because of her ability rather than money. While we don’t see Rosetta’s thoughts about calling Mr. Goodman “Mars John”, we can see that her mother seems to think that she is a little too progressive when she tells Mr. Lightfoot, “She might mean well, but she never does well.” These levels of progression in one family could quite easily be adapted to fit the progressions of the mindsets of black society at the time.

Treating In Dahomey as a breakthrough musical is both beneficial and controversial. The representation from African American performers was groundbreaking for all art forms. In Daphne Brooks’ chapter Alien/Nation: Re-Imagining the Black Body, she explains the bewilderment of audiences, but also their amazement with the production. Williams and Walkers revival of the black body brought both confusion & appreciation with white and black audiences alike. The fact that white minstrel performers recognized these black performers as “professional competition” shifts the standard of minstrelsy as a racially demeaning form of art. With the introduction of blackface, there was intent to mock the black skin. Especially post-civil war, whites would not recognize blacks as “equals”. However, the ability for In Dahomey to perform well globally forces whites to recognize the legitimacy of black entertainers, and see them as people who are capable. Not only is this a big step for black entertainers, but a big step for the black people in general. This challenges the notion of “white vs. black”. 

With that being said, In Dahomey as a breakthrough is partially controversial because it was not the first musical to do world tours and be a global sensation. Furthermore, part of their use of blackface was to help audiences identify with the presentation of the black person. Although the play was revolutionary for future black entertainers, viewing the play as a breakthrough sort of fuels the idea of In Dahomey as spectacle (which is a whole other discussion). Contrary to what I mentioned earlier, this all-black cast that made use of racial stereotypes to identify with its audience also added to the relevance of minstrelsy & blackface. I wonder if without the civil rights movement, would this play have reinforced blackface as a parody. If that is the case, it only shifted the attention from blacks to another lesser group. Something similar to what Irishmen did with Boucicault’s Octoroon. They used theater as a means to integrate within American culture, and shifted the attention away from them. Not to say that this was the intention behind Williams’ and Walkers’ purpose for writing the play, but I wonder if they made things harder for other black people outside of entertainment.

Nevertheless, I think In Dahomey was a game changer for breaking racial-barriers. There is a level of respect, for not only the art but for the artist, when you can recognize a “lesser people” as talented and true craftsmen. To give credit to those performers and also see them as inferior would be contradicting. But then again, most of our history is contradicting. 

One issue Brooks touches on is the issue of authenticity in “In Dahomey” and how it relates to the mixed audience of the play. While Walker claims that the play served as a space for the “natural” black performer, the play was also created for a racially mixed audience that had different notions of what was “naturally” black. White attendees wished to see an “authentic” portrayal of African Americans, i.e. performers in blackface singing and dancing in ridiculous fashion; this audience was fascinated by the “spectacle” of seeing a production created by a company consisting of only African Americans. But the black audience was watching for a performance that portrayed a more realistic interpretation of the African American condition. “In Dahomey,” however, fails to be authentic in the white and black sense due to its nature as a transitional work.

Because “In Dahomey’ functions as a transitional piece, it cannot be fully “authentic” in either the black or white sense of the word. The play caters to a white audience by building the story around an absurd plot: the hunt of two detectives for a silver casket containing a cat’s eye. But it also caters to the black audience in the ways that it mocks the whiteness of “high society” in many of its musical numbers. The effect that this play has on its target audience is confusing because its target audience is the entirety of American society. Williams blacking up can be viewed as either satire of white playgoers or adoption of white performing traditions. The songs can either be seen as expressing satire of white America’s necessity to be the highest members of society or expressing genuine hopes that blacks will one day become members of that high society. The racist treatment of Me Sing can be interpreted as blacks pointing out their ability to be on equal footing as whites or as genuine racist treatment of the Asian American community. Depending which audience one is a part of, this play can either have great meaning or meaninglessness, which is why all the critics hated the play. It is a genuinely confusing production being that it is a transitional piece catering to an extremely wide audience. One cannot search for true authenticity in this play (whatever that may mean) because it is an experiment in theater that aims not for “true authenticity” but to bring black performers to the forefront of theatrical production, which the play ultimately succeeds in.