Elect better actors

Now that the Last Action Hero has given the valedictory, now that the delegates have made their way to the Wednesday matinees of "Mama Mia" and "The Lion King," ("Republican-safe"), it seemed an appropriate time to consider the theater of the convention, or to be more precise the lack of real theater -- as opposed to simple artifice -- in politics.

To do that we turn to old friend (I knew him before he became famous), Ian Maxwell MacKinnon, an actor, playwrite, and occasional contender for Cambridge city council.

Ian's manifesto, Elect Better Actors (PDF) won the top prize in the Guthrie Theater's National Call for Theater Manifestso for Creation of New Work, --"A manifesto for actorvists, facilitainers, perfpols, democraholics, poeticians, partisan artisans, articipants, and the great shamancipators to come." --so who better to discuss the convergence of theater and politics?

TVC: You write in your manifesto, "The first theater was a coronation pageant for a guy on a platform high above a crowd. The king played god, a god-man, or the person god had chosen. At the same time, the first cities, built on mud platforms, were theaters themselves. Not just for defense or flood protection; cities put themselves up onstage to impress any audience that approached from across the wasteland."

I have never heard a better description of the inauguration ceremony or of Washington DC itself. But the stuff about playing god, did you have the current resident of the White House in mind?

IMM: No. I find the phenomenon to be international and contemporary w/ all times. In Africa, presidents will often appear out of the clouds when state TV channels go on and off the air.


TVC: This idea of "electing better actors," isn't that a recipe for further voter cynicism? After all, they already think it's all "an act" anyway.

IMM: The idea is to head off the cynics by making them smile, and then maybe they'll want to know what I really mean. Of course, "actors" can be taken at least 2 ways, and one of my first clarifications is that the politicians don't have to be actors, or directors, or producers--they just have to recognize theater as a powerful method that is being underutilized, and then put together a company of folks who they can advise and occasionally write for.


TVC : Aren't the national conventions the closest thing we have to national theater in this country? After all, the media covers it more like an opening night play than a political event.? How was the box office (i.e., TV ratings, poll "bounce")? Did they follow the script and stay on message? Etc.

Would you do anything to alter the conventions -- either their format, their purpose, or the way the media covers them -- to make them "better theater?"

IMM: Yes, but my vision would shave off a good top of that mountain and redistribute the money, decentralize it. Policy plays should be done at the parties and break-out sessions around the convention week. Actually putting a 5-minute play up there might make it wilt. It would have to be one that was given a good run of previews in other venues. A measure of how stale our political theater is comes with the pop stars who are never allowed to sing anything new. They must sing the songs that were hits 20-40 years ago. A new song would not have a track-record and could fail. These are expensive, grand, far-reaching stages that are forced to hold their fire to speakers, singers, and balloons.


TVC: You mention the NEA and the difficulty it has had getting funding. When I've criticized the NEA in the past for subsidizing mediocrity, I'm always reminded that the best era for art in history -- the Rennaissance -- was completely subsidized by the political families of the day. But, I would argue that it wasn't the State subsidizing the artists, it was families like the Medicis competeting for fame, prestige, and power. Wouldn't it be better if instead of an NEA, the parties -- I'd even include the Greens -- subsidized art Even better, what if people like Soros on the left and Scaife on the right were fighting for the best artists in the land?

IMM: Yes, all the time, energy, and money spent on the tv ads and stages and scriptwriters and lights could be diverted a bit to hire and train new kinds of theater people. The parties and the 527s continue to base everything on 30 second slots, when in fact "The West Wing" and "Judge Judy" show that people may have have longer attention spans for political and judicial fare. Anyway, most of the half million political offices that are up for grabs every year in the USA don't use TV ads and must take humbler routes, and theater is one of those paths. It doesn't cost much: actors are known to work for peanuts as long as they get experience, exposure, and new contacts.


TVC: I heartily agree with your points about Citizenship and the need for "better artifice;" to "present plays instead of having members go to the microphone to voice variations on the same position. That struck me as brilliant and way more effective than what we generally have now, hence the success of Michael Moore.

Now, because of ignorance, hopefull thinking, FOXNews, and whatever is coming out of the side of Dick Cheney's mouth, nearly half the country still thinks Iraq has WMD. Can you think of a scenario that could be played out that would convince these voters that Iraq has no WMD and that the administration knew that going in?

IMM: It would have to be a play that could be run in several versions, to show the Bush side and the sides of his critics.

The plays would not only need space for instant rebuttal and critique, but also time the following day or week for more thoughtful response, which could come again in the form of a playlet. Instead of the usual talking heads on Sunday mornings, how about Face the Actors, or Meet the Actors. The fact is that you can't respond to a movie--it's 2-D. Live actors and their directors and writers would need more nerve because their audiences would be given the right to criticize instantly, while the audience is still in the theater, or committee hearing room.


TVC: In your section on "The News," you almost describe The Daily Show on Comedy Central. Have you seen the show and what do you make of the fact that many, many 18-34 year-olds use the show as their primary source of news?

IMM: I'd lump Stewart in with Leno, even though I like the Daily Show more. They're using the news to make us laugh and maybe slip some commentary in. I'm saying let's do and use the news with actors as something more than just an occasion for laughter. People want to be informed and entertained.


TVC: You quote F.R. Andersmith in saying that the State is "the institutionalization of our readiness to look at ourselves from the top down." And you say, "If so, we are having trouble seeing ourselves." Quite right. Are we in fact, watching the process of institutionalizing the decision to NOT look at ourselves from the top down?


IMM: Yes, using theater in new ways will invite more looking, though it is no guarantee of the truth being in any presentation. Not that the plays I am suggesting will be hits, necessarily, they could just be a form of C-SPAN. People must be given more than what C-SPAN doles out now--the age of the speaker-behind-a-lectern will never pass, but we can add to the offerings.


TVC: And in that same vein, GW Bush won't read newspapers. What makes you think he'd watch a play?

IMM: It's up to him. When I say elect better actors, I have a long view that includes the possibility that the better actors don't exist yet. Politicians are still somewhat ashamed by the fact of theater having much to do with politics, but on the other hand, they're allowed to bask in the fruits of what theater there is: applause, standing up above everyone on a stage, and having actors like Ben Affleck or Tom Selleck join you on that stage.

One thing's for sure, tonight there will be no oratories, no acting whatsoever. Tonight, I believe the theme of the convention is, "GET OUT THE A-1, 'CAUSE TONIGHT WE'RE SERVING RED MEAT!" Or, "GO CHENEY YOURSELF."