What’s the point of creating musicals set in a time that’s different than ours? The past is riddled with issues that we hopefully have started to get past in the present, so why go back? A lot of creators talk about how the themes present in these shows are still present in today’s culture, and they’re absolutely right! However, how am I supposed to relate the characters’ stories to my own when every aspect of a production is trying to effectively transport me into a time that is unlike mine and the actors are trying so hard to transform into a person with whom I can’t relate? I agree with those creatives, though! I think it’s incredibly important to look into the past and see how those issues are mirrored in today’s culture, but how can we create one time period while showing that the piece is also timeless? Terrence J. Nolen and the company of Ragtime at the Arden Theater Company seem to be taking some important steps in the right direction.
Ragtime takes place right at the turn of the century: 1906. When I think of Ragtime, I think of elaborate costumes, expensive-looking wigs, grandiose sets that prescribe a specific setting in time. Nolen’s production seemed to have a different intention. The costumes definitely implied the early 20th century, but they didn’t look unbelievably structured in a way that would drastically change how all of the actors normally walked. The costumes didn’t seem so far out of my understanding of clothing that I was transported into a time that was foreign. Perhaps the most obvious example of the anachronistic phenomenon was the voice of hair. There was not a wig in sight. Furthermore, a number of the actresses had hairstyles that directly played against the time period. The actresses of color–Terran Scott (Sarah) and Jessica Johnson (Sarah’s Friend)– seemed to keep their natural hair…which is normally the first to go in a period piece. Rachel Camp (Evelyn Nesbitt) had a shaved undercut and Kim Carson (Mother) had a really cute pixie. Nolen also implemented some estranging effects in the staging that helped. There were visible Foley sound effects being made for doors opening and closing and machinery and other kinds of sounds that made the audience aware of the fact that a story is being told. Ensemble member Jamison Foreman also seemed to be conducting the orchestra and ensemble from an onstage piano which also made the audience very aware that all of these onstage bodies were committed to the act of telling this story together. These choices created a distance from the 20th century that allowed me as an audience member to look at the problems of the story with a closer and pragmatic eye. While the estranging staging practices gave me an escape from getting too swept into the story, the contemporary touches with the hairstyles drew a bridge from the story of the past to my present. With this bridge, I was able to look at the themes of the show through my contemporary lens: it resulted in a kind of double consciousness that made for a very interesting and inspiring viewing experience.
Nolen’s scaled-back production had several other positive effects. The production was devoid of the big spectacles that are normally connected with Ahrens and Flaherty’s masterpiece. Without the big sets and big resounding sounds of a gigantic ensemble singing at the top of their lungs, the audience is forced to really listen to the words. We’re invited to really analyze the arguments that are being presented and relate them to ourselves. It’s the words and the intelligence behind them that really sets Ragtime apart for me, and this production really highlighted it. As I said, Ragtime is usually associated with a giant ensemble. There are normally enough bodies so that there doesn’t have to be any commingling between the races when there needs to be ensemble people of a certain kind in scenes. This wasn’t the case at the Arden’s production. People of all colors and creeds had to fill certain scenes. You had white bodies portraying refugees and black bodies portraying racist baseball fans. I could see how this could be perceived as an erasure of agency of a race to tell their own story, but in my opinion, it helped erase one of the problems that I’ve found being apart of shows about race like Memphis or Hairspray. These shows–when produced how they normally are– sometimes end up creating an environment that perpetuates the problems that show is trying to address: segregation. Through Nolen’s ensemble, he creates a very integrated project about segregation. It proved to be a testament to contemporary allyship. It is all of our responsibilities–black, white, green, yellow, purple–to tell these stories of oppression and strife together!
Comments