Reach

“WHY should I care about a white woman?” asks Solomon Xaba (Mbulelo Grootboom), a young black man. He answers his own question later in the play: “She runs through me”. The “she” he’s referring to is Marion Banning (Aletta Bezuidenhout), an older, white woman.
Marion is still in grief for her son. He was hijacked and killed. The details in the reporting are upsettingly familiar. We gather that a media circus followed; she had a nervous breakdown, underwent shock therapy, and seven years later has not regained her will to live. It has ended her marriage, and her remaining family have emigrated. The murderers have never been brought to justice due to police incompetence and an intimidated local community.
The mystery which slowly unfolds is why Solomon has come, and why has he watched her secretly for months. When he finally enters her home, she says she hopes he has come to kill her and save her the trouble. She is suspicious. Her house is earmarked for land distribution and the community want her removed. We know from what he has said that someone has sent him.
The dilemma of their relationship is summed up in a brief interchange around the word “boy”. Solomon receives it as racist paternalism. She says it as a “caring word”, a word she’d use for her son, “my boy”. He concedes his late grandmother used it as an affectionate term for him.
Bezuidenhout slowly brings the despondent Marion to life, plotting the trajectory along which her character is reanimated with precision and nuance. From the outset, we know there is life and humour within her, playwright Lara Foot Newton giving Marion delightfully eccentric opinions.
Grootboom has in the last few years blossomed as an actor and his performance of Solomon is confident and natural.
Birrie le Roux’s set is exquisite. The scrim walls are at once constructed and organic. Fronds grow up the faded mauve walls and rose petals strew the floor. Marion’s roots are inextricably bound to this land; her son is buried in its soil.
This is an unpretentious, affirming work and a story beautifully told. It will work well on radio, probably better. It is more of a duologue than a straight play. Solomon has several soliloquies and Marion speaks to us through a family letter she composes. The characters spend more time directly addressing the audience than one another.
Foot Newton skilfully charts the subtle negotiation between these two individuals as they reach towards each another. As Linda Biehl said of the two perpetrators who killed her daughter Amy in an act of political violence in 1993: “I’ve grown fond of these boys. I enjoy them. They’re like my own kids. It may sound strange, but I tend to think there’s a little bit of Amy’s spirit in them.”

stoutgatpassie
The title Dario Fo gave his Nobel lecture was Contra Jogulatores Obloquentes – a law from 1221 ‘against jesters who defame and insult’. Promulgated by Emperor Frederick II it granted legal immunity to any outraged citizen who assaulted or killed a jester. Fortunately, we have a constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech to artists, for Stoutgatpassie is a daring work. Moreover, Oscar Petersen and David Isaacs – stand to offend, confuse and disappoint their hard won audience. That they are prepared to run this risk is a great testament to their calibre as individuals and committed artists.

On the evening I saw the play, I witnessed Isaacs and Petersen get a grilling from angry patrons who had come for barbershop humour. Laughing inappropriately throughout the show, I overheard them repeatedly describing the play as “kak” as they waited in the foyer for the actors to emerge. When Isaacs and Petersen did come out, they toned down. A shaven headed patron in a leather jacket with a kind, round face, but an aggressive manner, said that when he saw three crosses on the stage he started to wonder: “Waar kom Washiela nou hier in?” – referring to the popular character in the Joe Barber series. A fruitful discussion followed, ending with the reconciled patrons agreeing they needed to come back and see the show again.

On closer examination it is not surprising the team have chosen Fo’s 1969 Mistero Buffo (‘Comic Mystery’). The Joe Barber series is after all our own Cape commedia dell’arte, and like the giullari – the guitar carrying Italian troubadours of the Middle Ages – Petersen and Isaacs bravely entertain with folk theatre and the cleverest of buffoonery.

Stoutgatpassie is an updated Cape vernacular reworking of Herman Pretorius’s slightly starchier translation of Buffo – Die Asjaspassie. It retells stories from the gospel metachronally. Thus, Jesus – bleeding and carrying his cross to Golgotha – confronts a repulsed Pope Bonifacius VIII; recognisable Cape folk characters watch Jesus wash feet at the last supper, and sell tickets to the raising of Lazarus.

The witnesses and characters who retell the bible stories are all-too-human – flawed, selfish, even mean and ignorant, but deeply touching and able to reveal with revolutionary clarity many uncomfortable truths. In a scene, also exploited by Monty Python in The Life of Brian, a cripple and a blind man complain that they lose their begging income when Jesus heals them. It’s a spiritual re-evaluation from a humanist, even communist perspective, similar to the work of Nikos Kazantzakis and fellow Italian Pier Paolo Pasolini.

Today’s burning issues – including land claims, suffering children, rape, societal hypocrisy, and killing in God’s name – are examined with a combination of mordant humour and righteous anger. That it uses parable and story allows for moral clarity not muddied by specifics.

Bronwyn van Graan and Mbulelo Grootboom, who is here more at ease on the stage than ever, perform well in supporting roles. Director Sandra Temmingh has kept the work uncluttered, as the author intended.

Every time I go to the Intimate Theatre, I become fonder of the place. On entering to see John Hunt’s latest play, Maybe Sunshine Up Ahead, I had an uncanny sense of déjà vu that I was back in the People’s Space, famous for its politically charged works criticising apartheid, and which I frequented as a school boy. Perhaps it was the set – a baby-pink car wreck centre stage. Director Adam Neil and designer Marcel Meyer have dressed the play up well, patches of blue sky hang like sheets of torn metal, the car seems to leak red blood on to a resin floor in flesh-coloured tones. Clearly, we are entering a metaphorical space.

Adam Neill Productions must certainly be complimented on their innovative use of sponsorship and their sophisticated marketing. They plan to travel with the show – stated rather vaguely in the programme notes – to “Kyelitsha (sic) and then on to Stellenbosch or Paarl” – as a kind of touring political debate. And that is pretty much the sum of what the show amounts to in conception.

The programme notes tell us further that the play’s themes are “being debated on a continuous and daily basis on the radio, in print media and, notably in…local and national government…at social gatherings, amongst work-peers and within families….The play brings focus to these debates by presenting some of the human experiences that spawn them”. It’s that last bit – an admission of what we expect from drama – that points to a problem with the conception of Maybe Sunshine.

Essentially, the play operates as a metaphorical commentary, but falls short on a dramatic level. The car wreck with its green, red and yellow tyres strewn about it acts as an obvious metaphor for the imperfect vehicle in which we must travel as we journey towards the new South Africa. But it isn’t as compelling a device as for example the ‘Son of the Soil’, a similarly metaphorical vehicle used by Andrew Whaley in his recent (similarly) political discourse of a play Rolling Heads (also directed by Neill). Both plays suffer the same problem, though I think Heads was a stronger piece overall, for two reasons – character and narrative.

In Maybe Sunshine there are three characters. Daniel Ndlovo (played by Zingi Mtuzula) is the honest, hard-working black proletarian with missionary school values, who describes himself as “a well behaved” black in old South Africa. Mtuzula acts well, though on the night I attended he didn’t quite reach into his emotional centre in a climactic scene in which he recalls the deaths of his children. His family has made the ultimate sacrifice in the struggle; after liberation, his other child was also senselessly killed by a ricocheting bullet. Now he is expectantly awaiting the benefits promised by the new South Africa.

Then there’s George Delport (Pierre Malherbe) retrenched by affirmative action and now in security management. His car has been stolen and he suspects the third and pivotal character Vusi, convincingly played by Mbulelo Grootboom (who Cape Town audiences most likely last saw in The Suitcase) of stealing it.

Vusi is a slick member of the nouveau noir, playing the system for all it’s worth and exhibiting the type of ostentation which is the subject of today’s column by Steven Friedman in Business Day (July 12 Business Day). “Your type has always stolen” is the observation made about him.

Much of the dialogue is the rhetorical sparring between these viewpoints (always with the author’s shadow in the background), but mostly between Vusi and the other characters. In Hunt’s allegory character tends to give way to rhetoric, realism to metaphor (Delport’s Ford turns out to be stolen anyway, symbolising the white’s ill-gotten gains).

Hunt’s play is part of a current trend. Journalist Hans Pienaar’s Three Dozen Roses which won the Jury Award for Best Script in the PANSA Festival of Contemporary Theatre Readings last year, is an example of the tedium this style can produce, if not handled correctly. Mike van Graan’s Green Man Flashing is perhaps the most successful, achieving both narrative interest and a roundness of character, though he has been less successful with the first version I saw of Some Mothers’ Sons and Hostile Takeover. Van Graan’s plays however manage to advance beyond the normal commentary we find in public debate; they state the things people think, but don’t say; and crucially they force the audience to face almost impossible moral choices. Regrettably, Hunt doesn’t get there.

In this genre of political plays, often journalistic in expression, characters tend to have things happen to them in order to produce layered or ironical situations, which the polemicist and political commentator can then exploit. There is no rule that says a play has to have a narrative structure obeying E.M. Forster’s famous law of “and then what happened?”, but it helps move the play along. Nor does a play have to have ‘rounded’ characters with some agency in their story, but I think pairing these down to the levels that Hunt has done is problematic for an audience. I miss individuated psychological motivation and human accountability in all these works.

Bluntly put, Maybe Sunshine is basically three viewpoints in search of characters and an author in search of a story.

Most people find political debate extraordinarily boring and I think it is perfectly well served in the opinion and commentary pages of our daily newspapers, a vibrant non-fiction book press, and various public channels. A play must go much further, and the tools that allow it to be more profound than a letter to the editor is its use of character and story. Dressing opinions up as drama turns theatre and the play into a kind of industrial debate. Open sessions with the audience and discussions after Maybe Sunshine with the playwright or director would be a great idea, and for many will constitute a positive and entertaining experience. I must stress here that Maybe Sunshine is by no means a write-off and a far better play than Three Dozen Roses for instance.

But I prefer the Ellenbogen school, which uses a good story and three-dimensional characters to make us face up to those hard questions we are confronted with when our private lives intersect with the broader political debate. When it is simply characters arguing political points, I am not stirred beyond accepting, rejecting, agreeing or reflecting on what they said. Without a compelling drama, I have no stake in the opinions of the characters. I am not in any way challenged as a participant in my society. Instead, Maybe Sunshine, is an obviously intelligent writer wanting to add his view to the debate.

Whereas Ndlovo and Delport have a vague realism, Vusi is the least convincing as a character. Who is Vusi? Tellingly he does not have a surname. He is essentially a white man’s construction (however left leaning). He’s a voice invented as a foil, a phantasm to express views against which a white voice feels it has to defend itself and find acknowledgment. There are no Vusis out there in the world, ‘character’ is here an intersection of reflected fears and opinions in limbo (some of them rather narrow).

Overall, Maybe Sunshine is well written, and there are many great lines. For instance one passage describes the sacrifices made during the days of apartheid in the form of church tithes as “paying money we didn’t have to someone we could not see for a job he wasn’t doing”. There are several startling images that leap at one, like the reference to a sacrificial goat pulling on its tether. Good use is also made of religious parody, which works well, while many gay and camp references are far less successful and seem unlikely – if not arbitrary – in the mouths of the characters.

The play starts to labour towards the end, finding it hard to find a resolution. It settles for optimism, the three characters all drive off together, in this case hopefully into the sunrise.