Is the issue that we should have appropriated more cultures? (We did try to do this, as the actor singles out gender, sexuality and race). Or is it that you think we should not have approached this issue in this way at all. What is the part about the video that is most upsetting?

Why do we live in a world where “Wooden Indians” and “Cleveland Indians” can exist? What do you think has to happen for that to change?

Thanks.

We live in a world where there are the Cleveland Indians, Wooden Indians in front of stores where you can buy an “instant Indian kit.” These things much like this video are painful to see as a Native person. They make me feel invisible and dead, like I don’t exist to the outside world.

Racism has almost become a fashionable thing these days. An attitude of, “I can make this joke because I am SO not racist” seems to exist. People think because they have been to a Pow Wow or have a Native friend that they are not racist but racism doesn’t work like that. This is why these jokes cannot be made. This is why videos like this cannot be made.

Your post asked a lot of good, challenging questions. I’ve been thinking about this all week.

I was nervous when we made the video. We were aware that it would open up a dialogue—one that I think is important. I can see why it was interpreted as you have. The intention of the video, however, was different. Please allow me to clarify.

We made the video as an attempt to speak towards cultural appropriation.

When we sat down with Alon and Margo, the conversation was that we wanted to create a video where a white man appropriated different cultures in an attempt to get a grant. We asked him to say and do whatever he could to get the grant, and that’s what the improv was. We thought this was a funny idea, because it was a ridiculous way to get a grant, and also, because it is rooted in a belief that exists that this is, in fact, the way to get a grant. It was agreed by all that it was something that resonated as funny and good satire because it was something that they see all the time at the Arts Council, and it is a subject that that is often hotly contested.

We were never ever trying to say that there is no merit in diverse work. It was actually trying to mock those who would. We are making fun of the white actor in the video. We are making fun of ourselves. We tried to make it clear that the arts councilor is horrified by his behaviour, and that the empathy lies with her having to deal with this fool.

That said. I can understand how the edit of the video may not make that clear, and may not make the original intention clear.

The response to the video has been personally very illuminating—mainly in that what I perceived the video to be saying was clear to some and unclear to others. Upsetting to some, and not to others. I did want to have a dialogue about ignorance, particularly around diversity, and yes, the video does seem to focus in on Aboriginal art. That choice was made because it resonated as a key funding issue in this country, and so, when speaking about funding, it felt like the most recognizable issue. I would never begin to contest the reasons why, nor say that it should be contested. I do think it should be understood. I think your argument is incredibly compelling and important and one that needs to be heard more. I am really appreciative for your response, and in fact, I am just trying to incite the conversation. This was the intent. I think this issue is important and actually key to the future of art in the country. I think that we are afraid of the dialogue because there is a general feeling that diverse programming and funding is something we should be doing, but not talking about—as if talking about it would somehow be inappropriate or give less value to the art. It is, however, an issue, and one that is too often spoken about in hushed tones, mainly because we do not know the difference between how we can and/or cannot talk about it. I believe this is creating a culture of fear when speaking about diversity. The conversation does not happen as often as it should and generalities are formed that are often ignorant. The video is trying to speak to that. It is trying to say “Here. This is what we are afraid of. Being this ignorant.” I think that is clear to some, and unclear to others. It is an attempt at satire.

We take many different angles when promoting SummerWorks, and we’ve tried to model the marketing so that it parallels the experience of seeing work at the festival. Some of it will be very slick and cool, some of it will be playful, some of it will be poignant and some of it will be provocative. This experience mirrors that of spending time watching work at SummerWorks. It is not just one thing, it is many different things.

Also, we were never trying to mock Agokwe. I recognize why it seems that way. I have never once called Agokwe a piece of mediocre theatre. In an earlier debate, I responded to a question about how mediocre work can get Dora attention. Kelly from the Globe had reference Agokwe, but that was never what I was speaking towards. I was only trying to explain the points system at the Doras and that I think they are flawed.

It is unfortunate that the video seems to be mocking Agokwe. That was never our intent. This was an oversight on our part, and if anybody is hurt by that, then I do apologize. This was pointed out to me during the festival by a friend who had this explained to him. He then explained it to me. Upon watching the video now, yes, of course I can see how that parallel has happened. Again, that was not our intent, and I regret that this seems to be the intent. It never was.

Thank-you. It’s been incredibly challenging, and also scary, and I appreciate you asking me to explain.

Respectfully,

Michael Rubenfeld.

Until this debate I basically hadn’t registered that the fact that it’s a native show and a queer show would have anything to do with the Dora’s. I still don’t really think it is, but the fact that it didn’t even occur to me, well, that seems like something I should examine a bit more closely.

So, basically, this is a comment to say thank you for this discourse, I like it when things happen that make me question things.

Also, I really miss writing about this kind of stuff, how long before babies can take care of themselves? 😛

Thanks for commenting, I hope you will continue to enter the fray.

Hey ho, don’t put words in my mouth though. I wrote very specifically that the following sentences has racist undertones:

“Eat your bagel be happy we don’t road block your community theatre.”

Do you disagree? I think the willingness to use this type of language goes a good way to devaluing a critique that seeks to empower diverse voices in theatre.

As the dude who thought of and published these questions, I believe there is an inherent comment on the content of the video and its relationship with tokenism etc. But since you challenged me, I will say this about my own opinions on funding and diversity:

As a healthy white guy who grew up in The Beaches area of Toronto before getting a fancy education that cemented my upper-middle class socio-economic status, I recognize that I am and should not be the PRIMARY focus of public funding. This identity has given me a number of formal and informal networks and resources to rely on. However, some amount of public funding is required by any successful, sustainable, professional, non-commercial, form of theatre.

This is a major dilemna of the art form. Even selling avery ticket to every show will not pay for a show. You have to receive support from the private and public sector just to exist. I think the graph above Lindsay’s Soul Circle article illustrates this very well. Because we all need some kind of varied access to these public funds, there is bound to be conflict over who should get how much of what.