Reviewing Self in an Era of Diversity

Southern California is beginning to enjoy being the center of American multiculturalism, but, for all of us, including theater critics, each encounter with cultural diversity may require more self-examination than we at first expected.

That challenge may explain why an intelligent, well-intentioned theater reviewer can end up sounding like a frustrated movie critic. In his review of “The Wash” at the Mark Taper Forum (Jan. 19), Don Shirley refers to the film version seven times, including four comments beginning “in the movie.” He even complains about added lines in a Nobu Matsumoto speech that were not present “in the movie.”

“The Wash” was performed as a play years before its adaptation as a movie. Since this production was well-reviewed in New York and has been well received by audiences at the Taper, Shirley’s preoccupation with the film is extremely puzzling.

We think the answer lies in Shirley’s central criticism, that the story is “so ‘universal’ that it never becomes . . . distinctive.” What does he mean by “distinctive?” Shirley never makes an explicit comparison, but he seems to have been impressed by the cinema version’s bright, visual signals--a wedding in a Buddhist church or Japanese businessmen in a karaoke bar. These are easy-to-follow markers of Japanese-American culture.

Unlike the movie, the play does not contain exotic and foreign-looking visual cues. Did Shirley conclude, then, that there was nothing Japanese American in the play? His review reflects a dismissal of anything that doesn’t fit into his apparent conception of Japanese Americans. Throughout the play, the very fabric of Nobu and Masi’s lives is Japanese American, woven from the complex of common American experiences and our distinctive ethnic heritage.

By dismissing Nobu as “cranky,” Shirley’s doesn’t see that Nobu is trapped within his self-defeating efforts to maintain dignity. He also fails to see that the inhabitants of Kiyoko’s restaurant support him, yet prevent him from confronting his changing world until it is too late.

Shirley does, however, catch references to the most obvious Japanese-American experience--the relocation camps--which he dismisses as “too little, too late.”

In the tradition of the restaurant critic who visits a sushi bar and is confident of his understanding of Japanese culture, Shirley seems to feel he understands the camps. His review suggests that if a Japanese-American author mentions the relocation camps, that reference is to be understood as a straight-line explanation for everything Japanese American. In contrast, “The Wash” includes the camps as part of a complex heritage within which Nobu is trapped and from which Masi seeks to escape.

Shirley’s failure to find a quick and easy dose of visual “foreign culture” at the Taper suggests a perspective dismissive of elements outside his own experience. One hopes that he and other critics and theatergoers who may be part of the dominant culture would look beyond it to re-examine the complexity of the American experience.

In contrast, a multicultural perspective can never be dismissive. Authors who pursue the task of interpreting America’s multicultural diversity are open to criticism or praise. But there is an obligation not to presume that one already understands. We should seek to see art and life not only through our own eyes but also from the perspective of the “other.”

Keep in mind that when we criticize a perspective of mainstream cultural dominance, we are not making a broad racial accusation. We are instead describing what seems like a lack of will to develop sensitivity and understanding.

When playwright and theater have joined together to present a viewpoint outside the dominant or traditional, then the critic, as well as the audience, faces new challenges. “The Wash” is not the first such effort in Los Angeles. There will be many more in the future.

As playwrights of color collaborate with theaters like the Taper in developing a new and renewed American theater, we hope that critics also will see themselves under an obligation to work toward understanding difference and diversity.