Why theater is essential to democracy Oskar Eustis

Theater matters because democracy matters.

Theater is the essential
art form of democracy,

and we know this because
they were born in the same city.

In the late 6th century BC,

the idea of Western democracy was born.

It was, of course,

a very partial and flawed democracy,

but the idea that power should stem
from the consent of the governed,

that power should flow
from below to above,

not the other way around,

was born in that decade.

And in that same decade, somebody –
legend has it, somebody named Thespis –

invented the idea of dialogue.

What does that mean, to invent dialogue?

Well, we know that
the Festival of Dionysus gathered

the entire citizenry of Athens

on the side of the Acropolis,

and they would listen to music,
they would watch dancing,

and they would have stories told
as part of the Festival of Dionysus.

And storytelling is much like
what’s happening right now:

I’m standing up here,

the unitary authority,

and I am talking to you.

And you are sitting back,
and you are receiving what I have to say.

And you may disagree with it,
you may think I’m an insufferable fool,

you may be bored to death,

but that dialogue is mostly
taking place inside your own head.

But what happens if,
instead of me talking to you –

and Thespis thought of this –

I just shift 90 degrees to the left,

and I talk to another person
onstage with me?

Everything changes,

because at that moment,
I’m not the possessor of truth;

I’m a guy with an opinion.

And I’m talking to somebody else.

And you know what?

That other person has an opinion too,

and it’s drama, remember,
conflict – they disagree with me.

There’s a conflict between
two points of view.

And the thesis of that
is that the truth can only emerge

in the conflict
of different points of view.

It’s not the possession of any one person.

And if you believe in democracy,
you have to believe that.

If you don’t believe that,
you’re an autocrat

who is putting up with democracy.

But that’s the basic thesis of democracy,

that the conflict of different
points of views leads to the truth.

What’s the other thing that’s happening?

I’m not asking you to sit back
and listen to me.

I’m asking you to lean forward

and imagine my point of view –

what this looks like and feels like
to me as a character.

And then I’m asking you
to switch your mind

and imagine what it feels like
to the other person talking.

I’m asking you to exercise empathy.

And the idea that truth comes
from the collision of different ideas

and the emotional muscle of empathy

are the necessary tools
for democratic citizenship.

What else happens?

The third thing really is you,

is the community itself, is the audience.

And you know from personal experience
that when you go to the movies,

you walk into a movie theater,
and if it’s empty, you’re delighted,

because nothing’s going to be
between you and the movie.

You can spread out, put your legs
over the top of the stadium seats,

eat your popcorn and just enjoy it.

But if you walk into a live theater

and you see that the theater is half full,

your heart sinks.

You’re disappointed immediately,

because whether you knew it or not,

you were coming to that theater

to be part of an audience.

You were coming to have
the collective experience

of laughing together, crying together,
holding your breath together

to see what’s going to happen next.

You may have walked into that theater
as an individual consumer,

but if the theater does its job,

you’ve walked out with a sense
of yourself as part of a whole,

as part of a community.

That’s built into the DNA of my art form.

Twenty-five hundred years later,
Joe Papp decided

that the culture should belong to
everybody in the United States of America,

and that it was his job
to try to deliver on that promise.

He created Free Shakespeare in the Park.

And Free Shakespeare in the Park
is based on a very simple idea,

the idea that the best theater,
the best art that we can produce,

should go to everybody
and belong to everybody,

and to this day,

every summer night in Central Park,

2,000 people are lining up

to see the best theater
we can provide for free.

It’s not a commercial transaction.

In 1967, 13 years
after he figured that out,

he figured out something else,

which is that the democratic
circle was not complete

by just giving the people the classics.

We had to actually let the people
create their own classics

and take the stage.

And so in 1967,

Joe opened the Public Theater
downtown on Astor Place,

and the first show he ever produced
was the world premiere of “Hair.”

That’s the first thing he ever did
that wasn’t Shakespeare.

Clive Barnes in The Times said
that it was as if Mr. Papp took a broom

and swept up all the refuse
from the East Village streets

onto the stage at the Public.

(Laughter)

He didn’t mean it complimentarily,

but Joe put it up in the lobby,
he was so proud of it.

(Laughter) (Applause)

And what the Public Theater did over
the next years with amazing shows like

“For Colored Girls Who Have Considered
Suicide / When the Rainbow Is Enuf,”

“A Chorus Line,”

and – here’s the most extraordinary
example I can think of:

Larry Kramer’s savage cry of rage
about the AIDS crisis,

“The Normal Heart.”

Because when Joe produced
that play in 1985,

there was more information about AIDS

in Frank Rich’s review
in the New York Times

than the New York Times had published
in the previous four years.

Larry was actually changing
the dialogue about AIDS

through writing this play,

and Joe was by producing it.

I was blessed to commission and work
on Tony Kushner’s “Angels in America,”

and when doing that play
and along with “Normal Heart,”

we could see that the culture
was actually shifting,

and it wasn’t caused by the theater,

but the theater was doing its part

to change what it meant to be gay
in the United States.

And I’m incredibly proud of that.

(Applause)

When I took over Joe’s old job
at the Public in 2005,

I realized one of the problems we had
was a victim of our own success,

which is: Shakespeare in the Park
had been founded as a program for access,

and it was now the hardest ticket
to get in New York City.

People slept out for two nights
to get those tickets.

What was that doing?

That was eliminating
98 percent of the population

from even considering going to it.

So we refounded the mobile unit

and took Shakespeare to prisons,
to homeless shelters,

to community centers in all five boroughs

and even in New Jersey
and Westchester County.

And that program proved something to us
that we knew intuitively:

people’s need for theater
is as powerful as their desire for food

or for drink.

It’s been an extraordinary success,
and we’ve continued it.

And then there was yet another barrier
that we realized we weren’t crossing,

which is a barrier of participation.

And the idea, we said, is:

How can we turn theater
from being a commodity, an object,

back into what it really is –

a set of relationships among people?

And under the guidance
of the amazing Lear deBessonet,

we started the Public Works program,

which now every summer produces

these immense Shakespearean
musical pageants,

where Tony Award-winning
actors and musicians

are side by side with nannies
and domestic workers

and military veterans
and recently incarcerated prisoners,

amateurs and professionals,

performing together on the same stage.

And it’s not just a great social program,

it’s the best art that we do.

And the thesis of it is
that artistry is not something

that is the possession of a few.

Artistry is inherent
in being a human being.

Some of us just get to spend
a lot more of our lives practicing it.

And then occasionally –

(Applause)

you get a miracle like “Hamilton,”

Lin-Manuel’s extraordinary retelling
of the foundational story of this country

through the eyes of the only Founding
Father who was a bastard immigrant orphan

from the West Indies.

And what Lin was doing

is exactly what Shakespeare was doing.

He was taking the voice of the people,
the language of the people,

elevating it into verse,

and by doing so,

ennobling the language

and ennobling the people
who spoke the language.

And by casting that show entirely
with a cast of black and brown people,

what Lin was saying to us,

he was reviving in us

our greatest aspirations
for the United States,

our better angels of America,

our sense of what this country could be,

the inclusion that was at the heart
of the American Dream.

And it unleashed
a wave of patriotism in me

and in our audience,

the appetite for which
is proving to be insatiable.

But there was another side to that,
and it’s where I want to end,

and it’s the last story
I want to talk about.

Some of you may have heard
that Vice President-elect Pence

came to see “Hamilton” in New York.

And when he came in,
some of my fellow New Yorkers booed him.

And beautifully, he said,

“That’s what freedom sounds like.”

And at the end of the show,

we read what I feel was a very
respectful statement from the stage,

and Vice President-elect Pence
listened to it,

but it sparked a certain amount
of outrage, a tweetstorm,

and also an internet boycott of “Hamilton”

from outraged people who had felt
we had treated him with disrespect.

I looked at that boycott and I said,
we’re getting something wrong here.

All of these people who have signed
this boycott petition,

they were never going to see
“Hamilton” anyway.

It was never going to come
to a city near them.

If it could come,
they couldn’t afford a ticket,

and if they could afford a ticket,
they didn’t have the connections

to get that ticket.

They weren’t boycotting us;

we had boycotted them.

And if you look at the red and blue
electoral map of the United States,

and if I were to tell you,

“Oh, the blue is what designates

all of the major nonprofit
cultural institutions,”

I’d be telling you the truth.

You’d believe me.

We in the culture have done
exactly what the economy,

what the educational system,
what technology has done,

which is turn our back
on a large part of the country.

So this idea of inclusion,
it has to keep going.

Next fall, we are sending out on tour

a production of Lynn Nottage’s brilliant,
Pulitzer Prize-winning play “Sweat.”

Years of research in Redding, Pennsylvania
led her to write this play

about the deindustrialization
of Pennsylvania:

what happened when steel left,

the rage that was unleashed,

the tensions that were unleashed,

the racism that was unleashed

by the loss of jobs.

We’re taking that play
and we’re touring it

to rural counties in Pennsylvania,

Ohio, Michigan,

Minnesota and Wisconsin.

We’re partnering with community
organizations there to try and make sure

not only that we reach the people
that we’re trying to reach,

but that we find ways
to listen to them back

and say, “The culture
is here for you, too.”

Because –

(Applause)

we in the culture industry,

we in the theater,

have no right to say
that we don’t know what our job is.

It’s in the DNA of our art form.

Our job “… is to hold up,
as ‘twere, a mirror to nature;

to show scorn her image,

to show virtue her appearance,

and the very age its form and pressure.”

Our job is to try to hold up
a vision to America

that shows not only
who all of us are individually,

but that welds us back into
the commonality that we need to be,

the sense of unity,

the sense of whole,

the sense of who we are as a country.

That’s what the theater is supposed to do,

and that’s what we need to try to do
as well as we can.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

剧院很重要,因为民主很重要。

戏剧是民主的基本
艺术形式

,我们知道这一点,因为
他们出生在同一个城市。

公元前6世纪后期

,西方民主思想诞生。

当然,这是

一个非常片面和有缺陷的民主,

但是权力应该
源于被统治者的

同意,权力应该
从下到上流动而

不是相反的

想法诞生于那个十年。

在同一个十年里,有人——
传说中的,一个名叫 Thespis 的人——

发明了对话的概念。

发明对话是什么意思?

好吧,我们
知道狄俄尼索斯节

将整个雅典市民聚集

在卫城一侧

,他们会听音乐,
他们会看舞蹈

,他们会讲故事
作为狄俄尼索斯节的一部分。

讲故事很像
现在正在发生的事情:

我站在这里

,统一的权威

,我正在和你说话。

你坐在后面
,你正在接受我要说的话。

你可能不同意,
你可能认为我是一个难以忍受的傻瓜,

你可能会无聊到死,

但这种对话主要
发生在你自己的脑海中。

但是,如果
不是我和你说话

——Thespis 想到了这一点——

我只是向左移动 90 度,

然后和
舞台上的另一个人说话,会发生什么?

一切都变了,

因为那一刻,
我不是真理的拥有者;

我是一个有意见的人。

我正在和其他人交谈。

你知道吗?

那个人也有意见

,这是戏剧性的,记住,
冲突——他们不同意我的观点。 两种观点

之间存在冲突

其论点
是,真理只能


不同观点的冲突中出现。

它不是任何人的财产。

如果你相信民主,
你就必须相信这一点。

如果你不相信这一点,
你就是一个

忍受民主的独裁者。

但这是民主的基本论点,

不同观点的冲突
导致真理。

发生的另一件事是什么?

我不是要你坐下
来听我说。

我要求你向前倾

,想象一下我的观点——

作为一个角色,这对我来说是什么样子和感觉如何。

然后我要求
你改变主意

,想象一下
对方说话的感觉。

我要求你锻炼同理心。

而真理
来自不同思想的碰撞

和同理心的情感肌肉的想法

是民主公民的必要工具

还会发生什么?

第三件事真的是你,

是社区本身,是观众。

而且你从个人经验
中知道,当你去看电影时,

你走进了电影院
,如果它是空的,你会很高兴,

因为
你和电影之间不会有任何障碍。

你可以伸展开,把你的腿
放在体育场座位的顶部,

吃你的爆米花,然后尽情享受。

但是如果你走进一个现场剧院

,你看到剧院是半满的,

你的心就会下沉。

你马上就失望了,

因为不管你是否知道,

你来到那个剧院是

为了成为观众的一部分。

你们

一起欢笑,一起哭泣,一起屏住呼吸

,看看接下来会发生什么。

您可能作为个人消费者走进了那个剧院

但如果剧院完成了它的工作,

那么您走出时就会
感觉到自己是整体

的一部分,是社区的一部分。

这是我艺术形式的基因。

2500 年后,
乔·帕普

决定文化应该属于
美利坚合众国的每个人,

而努力兑现这一承诺是他的工作

他在公园里创作了免费的莎士比亚。

公园里的免费莎士比亚
基于一个非常简单的想法,

即最好的剧院,
我们能制作的最好的艺术,

应该属于每个人
,属于每个人

,直到今天,

中央公园的每个夏夜,

2,000 人正在

排队观看
我们可以免费提供的最佳剧院。

这不是商业交易。

1967年,
在他想通了13年后,

他想通了另外一个问题,

那就是仅仅给老百姓经典的民主
圈子是不完整

的。

我们实际上必须让人们
创造自己的经典

并登上舞台。

所以在 1967 年,

乔在
市中心的阿斯特广场开设了公共剧院,

他制作的第一场演出
是“头发”的全球首演。

那是他做过的第一件事
不是莎士比亚。

《泰晤士报》的克莱夫·巴恩斯说
,就好像帕普先生拿着一把扫帚

把东村街道

上的所有垃圾扫到了公众的舞台上。

(笑声)

他不是恭维的意思,

但是乔把它放在大厅里,
他为此感到非常自豪。

(笑声)(掌声

)以及公共剧院
在接下来的几年里所做的令人惊叹的节目,比如

“为考虑过
自杀的有色人种女孩/当彩虹结束时”、

“合唱队”

以及——这是最特别的
例子 我能想到:

拉里·克莱默(Larry Kramer)对艾滋病危机的野蛮愤怒的呐喊

“正常的心脏”。

因为当乔
在 1985 年制作该剧时,

弗兰克·里奇
在《纽约时报》的评论中关于艾滋病的信息

比《纽约时报
》前四年发表的还要多。

拉里实际上是

通过写这个剧本来改变关于艾滋病的对话,

而乔正在制作它。

我很幸运能够委托
托尼·库什纳(Tony Kushner)的《美国天使》(Angels in America)进行创作,

而在与《正常的心》(Normal Heart)合作时,

我们可以看到
文化实际上正在发生变化

,这不是由剧院引起的,

而是 剧院正在

尽其所能改变在美国成为同性恋的意义

我为此感到无比自豪。

(掌声)

当我
在 2005 年接手 Joe 在 Public 的旧工作时,

我意识到我们遇到的问题之一
是我们自己成功的牺牲品,

那就是:Shakespeare in the
Park 是作为一个访问程序而成立的,

它 现在是
纽约市最难买到的门票。

人们在外面睡了两晚
才拿到这些票。

那是做什么的?

这使得
98% 的

人口甚至都不会考虑去那里。

因此,我们重建了机动部队

,并将莎士比亚带到了监狱
、无家可归者收容所、

所有五个行政区的社区中心

,甚至在新泽西州
和威彻斯特县。

那个节目向我们证明了
我们直观地知道的事情:

人们对戏剧的需求
与他们对食物或饮料的渴望一样强烈

这是一个非凡的成功
,我们一直在继续。

然后还有另一个
我们意识到我们没有跨越

的障碍,那就是参与的障碍。

我们说,这个想法是:

我们如何才能将戏剧
从一种商品、一个

物体变成它的本来面目——

一组人与人之间的关系?

在了不起的李尔·德贝索内 (Lear deBessonet) 的指导下,

我们启动了公共工程计划

,现在每年夏天都会举办

这些盛大的莎士比亚
音乐盛会

,托尼奖获奖
演员和

音乐家与保姆
、家政工人

和退伍军人并肩作战
,最近 被监禁的囚犯、

业余爱好者和专业人士,

在同一个舞台上一起表演。

这不仅仅是一个很棒的社交项目,

它还是我们所做的最好的艺术。

它的论点是
,艺术不是

少数人拥有的东西。

艺术
是人类与生俱来的。

我们中的一些人只会
花更多的时间来练习它。

然后偶尔——

(掌声)

你会看到像“汉密尔顿”这样的奇迹,

林-曼纽尔通过唯一一位来自西印度群岛的混蛋移民孤儿的眼光,
对这个国家的基础故事进行了非凡的复述

而林所做

的正是莎士比亚所做的。

他把人民的声音,
人民的语言,

提升为诗歌,

这样做,

使

语言高贵,使
说这种语言的人高贵。

通过完全
由黑人和棕色人种的演员演出

,林对我们说的话,

他在我们心中重振了我们

对美国的最大愿望,

我们更好的美国天使,

我们对这个国家可能是什么的感觉,

包容
是美国梦的核心。


在我和我们的观众中掀起了一股爱国主义浪潮,事实证明

这种爱国主义的胃口
是无法满足的。

但还有另一面
,这是我想结束的地方,

也是我想谈的最后一个故事

有些人可能听说
过副总统 - 选民

在纽约看到“汉密尔顿”。

当他进来时,
我的一些纽约同胞嘘他。

他说得很漂亮,

“这就是自由听起来的样子。”

在展会结束时,

我们阅读了我的觉得这是一个非常
尊重的阶段声明,

并副总统 - 选择推荐推荐

但它引发了一定数量
的愤怒,Tweetstorm,

以及互联网抵制 “汉密尔顿”

来自那些认为
我们不尊重他的愤怒的人。

我看着那个抵制,我说,
我们这里出了点问题。

所有这些签署
了抵制请愿书的人,反正

他们永远不会去看
《汉密尔顿》。

它永远不会
来到他们附近的城市。

如果它可以来,
他们买不起票

,如果他们买得起票,
他们就没有

获得那张票的联系。

他们没有抵制我们;

我们抵制了他们。

如果你看看美国的红色和蓝色
选举地图,

如果我告诉你,

“哦,蓝色是

所有主要非营利性
文化机构的标志,”

我会告诉你真相。

你会相信我的。

我们在文化中所做的
正是经济

、教育系统、
技术所做的,

这让我们背弃
了这个国家的大部分地区。

所以这个包容的想法,
它必须继续下去。

明年秋天,我们将

巡回演出 Lynn Nottage 的精彩作品,
普利策奖获奖作品“Sweat”。

在宾夕法尼亚州雷丁市多年的研究
使她写了这部

关于
宾夕法尼亚州去工业化的剧本:

钢铁离开时发生了什么

,被释放的愤怒

,被释放的紧张局势,因失业

而引发的种族主义

我们正在上演这出戏,

在宾夕法尼亚州、

俄亥俄州、密歇根州、

明尼苏达州和威斯康星州的乡村县巡回演出。

我们正在与
那里的社区组织合作,努力确保

我们不仅能接触
到我们想要接触的人,而且我们会

想办法
听取他们的意见

并说:“文化
也适合你 。”

因为——

(掌声)

我们在文化行业,

我们在剧院,

没有权利
说我们不知道我们的工作是什么。

它存在于我们艺术形式的 DNA 中。

我们的工作“……是
为自然举起一面镜子;

以轻视她的形象,

以美德为她的容貌

,为时代展示它的形式和压力。”

我们的工作是努力
为美国树立一个愿景,

它不仅
向我们展示我们所有人的个性,

而且将我们重新融入
我们需要成为的共同点,

团结感,

整体感, 作为一个国家,我们是谁。

这就是剧院应该做的,

也是我们需要尽
我们所能去做的。

非常感谢你。

(掌声)