Permanent Collection, and Kristine Thatcher

Although BoarsHead is moving on to "All Childish Things," I was able to catch up with Kristine Thatcher and ask her a few questions about "Permanent Collection."

I'd like to start by mentioning that Tom Ferris directed "To Kill a Mockingbird," and it was intensely moving. While I was watching the scene in which the prosecutor called Tom Robinson "Boy" repeatedly, I could visibly see the audience shift nervously in their seats from the acrid tension acted out on stage.

It was very uncomfortable to watch, but it was also amazing to be a part of the audience and feel this collective anger towards the prosecution's table for Tom, the unfairly arrested black man. The show brought people together as a group, and close to outrage at times. Part of the genius of Harper Lee's play is that it shows people as flawed - and that not everyone has the capacity for compassion for all people, regardless of skin color. But it also gave the audience hope, in the form of Scout most specifically, that the rising generations would be able to understand each other without having to impose one's sense of righteousness based on race over another.

"Permanent Collection" is a bit more complicated, but the audience reaction was similar. In this case, both lead men, Sterling North and Paul Barrows, played by Alan Bomar Jones and Michael Joseph Mitchell respectively, aren't bad people - but they do have serious flaws and are both racist (from my perspective). Again, the audience as a collective group felt the tension on stage and reacted to it. Although I felt Mr. Jones was more aggressive in his acting style, both men betrayed their feelings of fear and dominance in myriad ways. They were both sexist, in part, elitist, afraid of change, and unwilling to compromise. Mr. Jones played the part as more of a racist, in my opinion, while Mr. Mitchell played the part of a racist who didn't realize he was one - a bit more subtly, but just as damaging - ignorance can be brutal. Both actors got their points across very well - their characters were so much alike but couldn't or wouldn't be willing to compromise. Through their own stubbornness they brought about their own demise. The voices of reason in this show came in the form of the women. They were tolerant and sensitive, and ultimately were able to put their egos aside to do the right thing for the art museum.

I would think staging a show with race at the heart of the material could be potentially volatile - and so I asked Kristine Thatcher, director of "Permanent Collection," why she chose this play and what impact she hoped it had on the patrons who saw it.

KRISTINE THATCHER

1. What appeals to you about this show?
I love this show because it never takes the easy way out. It is also written with sharp clarity and presents both Sterling’s point of view and Paul’s with equanimity. For a long time I did not want to know whether Thomas Gibbons, the playwright was black or white, because he presented both side so specifically.

2. Do you believe that the lead characters in the show are racist?
I know the actors playing the parts have suggested the characters are both racist in their own ways. I guess I’d like to leave it up to audience, to the people who come to see the show to make that call.

3. Why is this show relevant to Lansing Theatre?
I think the show is relevant everywhere in the United States. When you take a look at current national politics there is a direct parallel.

4. How much are these two characters, Sterling and Paul, alike?
I think they are very much alike, which is why they can’t hear each other. Whether we like to think so or not, there is a streak of racism in everyone.

5. What is the point the author is trying to make in Permanent Collection?
I think Thomas Gibbons is trying open up the dialogue regarding race in this country. We can’t get past our racial tensions until we’ve been absolutely honest with ourselves and each other.

6. Do either of the lead characters change at the end?
They don’t change as much as the character of Kanika who strikes out on her own at the end of the play. She goes back to what she is meant to do: teach.

7. The play seems quite unresolved – what is it that you hope the audience will take from the show as they leave the theatre?
It goes back to what I think Thomas Gibbons is trying to do with the play. Get people talking about the issues, about race in this country. Gibbons says it’s encoded. It’s a question of trying to read the intentions on a civilized face. I would ask your readers to go to youtube to see AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka’s speech on race in the current Obama-McCain campaign. That’s a good place to start our discussion.

Thank you, Kristine, for your time and for bringing to Lansing a show that definitely left the audience thinking about a very important issue - particularly in this election year.

If you have any thoughts about using theatre as a medium to raise the topic of race in a show as a tool to be honest with each other about our prejudices and fears, please feel free to leave your comments...