Tanya Batson-Savage, Freelance Writer 
Fae Ellington was a picture of radiance at the Courts Jamaica Oaks Raceday at Caymanas Park on Saturday, April 23, 2005. She argues that we do not maximise the potential of comedy to deal with serious issues. - Ricardo Makyn/Staff Photographer
THEATRE'S JOB, depending on who you ask, is to reflect the world. To hold up a mirror to the society, whether to send back a pimple-besmirched visage or a smooth-faced belle. In a sense, theatre, like all the other arts, can act as the society's conscience as much as a mirror.
But it seems that local theatre has in many ways played it safe and spoken too softly about the things that matter. Like a politician's conscience, theatre has soft teeth, or is at least holding its tongue and speaking softly.
Theatre practitioners are not busily pointing fingers at each other, however, as several players note that the issue is a complex one. It is indeed complexly simple, because time and again as with many things the issue comes back to money, and that is simply where it gets complex.
The image of the starving artiste is more than a metaphor, and many believe that if one does not cater to the wishes of the audience then one will lose ones proverbial shirt, even if one stays true to one's art.
So, as the industry attempts to balance entertainment and commerce against the social prescriptive of art, to show the world for what it is in all her tattered splendour, commercialist entertainment, largely in the form of comedy, seems to be winning out. Of course, one also has to ask: is Jamaican society interested in looking at itself in the mirror?
CASUAL GLANCE
According to many theatre practitioners, the average Jamaican audience wants nothing deeper than a casual glance that can make them laugh. It has been argued that the society's disinterest in anything other than laughter, and the professional theatre practitioner's need to make money, combine to create a soft-spoken theatre.
"For me it sort of tries to give the impression to the public that it's skating close to the edge because it's dealing with sex, but it's not really dealing with the issues in the society," says director Brian Heap, agreeing that Jamaican theatre does keep its social commentary conservative.
"One of the things that we tend to really avoid is our history," says Heap. He notes that interesting stories can come even from personal histories. He explains that in the fear that the almighty dollar will be elusive, theatre practitioners are refusing to cut deep. He explains that an example of this is that despite Rasta's significant contributions to Jamaica's art and culture, the depiction in local theatre is constantly reduced to stereotypical humour. He argues that no one has truly explored the impact of someone's conversion to Rastafari.
"People might say if you do something authentic then it's not going to be entertaining," said Heap. He, however, pointed out that the balance between what he described as "mashing corns" and "making people laugh" had been achieved, noting that the balance was exactly what Trevor Rhone achieved with works like Old Story Time.
"I don't think it's the job of theatre to make people feel comfortable all the time," Heap said.
Michael Daley, who has produced works staged by the Jamaica Musical Theatre Company (JMTC), returns the issue to the question of thought. "We just don't think that our audiences want to think too much," he said.
And therein lies the crux of the matter.
DRIVING FORCE
According to playwright and producer Basil Dawkins, the audience's disinterest in deep thinking is indeed the driving force behind theatre's conservatism. Dawkins remarks that though he would not call theatre in general conservative, most people are not tackling the "real thorny issues" affecting the society.
Actress Karen Harriott firmly agrees. She points out that as with all depressed societies audiences are only interested in laughter, not in material that will make them think, and that the desire for laughter cuts across social boundaries. "It's sad for us as playwrights and sadder for me as an actress," she said.
Harriott explained that she has a desire for deeper roles, but as writers keep it light to sate their audience's desire for fluff, parts become as devoid of substance as a supermodel's waistline. "I'm not going to quarrel with the playwrights," she said, explaining that it is simply a function of the society.
"We're not really producing a iterary work for the stage anymore," said playwright Aston Cooke. "We're producing plays that sell."
Of course, there is not only easy laughter being served up, but the most commercially successful pieces are comedies. "I may not be threatening in my style, but I deal with the issues," says Dawkins. He illustrates, however, that the decision to deal with such issues does affect production's bottom line. He explains that patrons have pointed out to him that they have far too much drama, too much heaviness in their own lives and they view theatre as an escape route.
Dawkins explains that his 1986 Champagne and Sky Juice and 1994's Power Play were found "chillingly accurate". He also remarks that some audience members were disturbed by his more recent No Dirty Money, especially with Donald Anderson's depiction of a gangster. "If I am to be true to myself I could be much harder hitting," admits Dawkins, "but I have to be mindful in a society where everybody is hitting hard."
Brian Heap explains that while he has not received much censure for dealing with the thorny side, he has earned "disinterest". He cites the example of people walking out in the middle of The Domestic Science of Sunday Dinner, where he experimented with form by offering a dramatic take on poetry.
Fae Ellington argues that though there are limits to what the Jamaican society is willing to accept one can push the borders in how one handles sensitive material, not so much to shock and scandalise as to show the honesty within. She also notes that the quality of the writing may also affect the audience's willingness to accept harsher material.
Indeed, the Jamaican public in general is not averse to the portrayal of life's harsh realities. These are sung about every day in dancehall, often with pointed, chilling inferences. Yet Dawkins argues that the audience for dancehall and that for the theatre are two different species, or that theatre is seen more of an escape where people do not want to think.
It must be questioned then, in the quest for the dollar, have the theatre practitioners encouraged the no-thought desire by catering to it too well? Dawkins admits that some of his heavier and older plays have done better than some of the more current ones. He notes, however, that plays had generally done better in the past.
Of course, as Heap pointed out, the audience's desire for comedy does not automatically mean that the play cannot be either cutting or insightful. Comedy, especially satire, can be quite useful in allowing people to think without their realising it. Daley points to the 'King Fish' sketch in Aston Cooke's Jamaica to Rhatid as one of the pieces which manage to do that. Amina Blackwood-Meeks' Matters Arising also managed to combine comedy with social insight.
Yet some argue that writers are simply not exploring the full potential of comedy. "We don't use comedy as effective as we can to deal with hard issues," says Ellington. Harriott agrees. "I don't see where any of the current writers show that they understand that concept (or using comedy for penetrating social commentary) or that they have mastered it," she said.
Cooke reveals that he gets artistic salve from his work with the Jamaica Youth Theatre where he can unearth scripts which are not normally staged, as he does not have to worry about their financial viability.
Indeed, it seems that it is largely in non-commercial theatre that one gets any searching productions. So, not surprisingly, the answer proposed by Daley is the creation of an endowment fund for theatre by the private sector and manned by those who are passionate about seeing the genre grow. Cooke agrees with the value of having such a fund.
He notes that it would encourage writers and producers to be bolder with their choices and it would also allow theatre to cater to that segment of the audience which desires deeper productions and theatre can get a chance to once again really sink its teeth in.
