Politics and Government

Subterms

    Latest story

    88 Shares75 Views

    Why Does Every Play Seem Political Now?

    by

    Theater about current events — both literally and abstractly — is changing the conversation between playwrights, directors and their audiences.IT’S ALWAYS BEEN a good argument starter to contend that all theater is political, even if the claim sometimes depends on stretching the definition of “political” to its vaguest outer limits. For one thing, unlike movies or television or books, theater requires you to leave your home and participate in the creation of an ad hoc collective, albeit frequently with the irritation that proximity to strangers can engender. And during periods when the people in charge belong to a party that, for instance, evinces loathing for the funding of art and artists, choosing to go to the theater can feel like a political act in itself. That’s all the truer if the experience challenges you to assess where you stand (or sit) in relation not only to whatever is being said or done onstage but to all of the reactions bursting forth around you.The people who create theater sometimes describe it, with what can seem like sanctimony or sentimentality, as a church. But more often, when it’s good, it’s like a community board hearing, not worshipful but prickly and pugnacious. That applies whether you’re in a 60-seat black box watching an Off Off Broadway play or in orchestra seats at … well, here’s where it easily can turn into a parlor game. “Hamilton”? Yes, obviously “Hamilton” is political. OK, what about “Death Becomes Her”? Of course — politics are inherent in a production about gender double standards regarding attractiveness and aging. “The Outsiders”? Class war with songs. The “Great Gatsby” musical? An indictment of kleptocracy, plus some dancing. And so on.Right now, though, the idea that all theater is political is less a rhetorical exercise than an irrefutable reality. It’s no surprise that the current New York season has foregrounded work like the blistering comedy “Eureka Day,” in which a series of steering committee meetings at a crunchy, liberal private school in Berkeley, Calif., turn into gladiatorial bouts pitting pro-vaccine parents against anti-vaxxers; Jonathan Spector’s play was topical when it was first produced on the West Coast in 2018 and is even more so now. Or that Sanaz Toossi’s 2023 Pulitzer Prize winner “English,” a poignant comedy-drama about four people in Iran studying English in an adult-education class, feels as if it were written in response to President Donald Trump’s first week of executive orders this past January rather than, as is actually the case, in response to the travel ban he imposed eight years ago. These plays may be even more resonant than their authors imagined they would be when they started to write them but, from the outset, their impetus was to find the frustrating, the bewildering, the nuanced and the human in our contemporary political landscape.What’s jolting at this moment, though, is how little those works seem like outliers. In the past year, we’ve had revivals that felt explicitly framed to reflect current concerns, like Amy Herzog’s reconception of Henrik Ibsen’s 1882 “An Enemy of the People” as a battle between principled health activism and rapacious capitalism, and the recent deconstruction “Show/Boat: A River,” which reshaped the 1927 musical into a kind of staged essay on the subject of its own racism. We’ve had revivals that read as political because of umbrage taken at their casting: What does it mean to have Audra McDonald play a Black Madam Rose in “Gypsy,” originally staged in 1959, and what does it mean if you insist that that choice, of all choices, violates the supposed principle of realism in musicals? And we’ve had new plays in which politics are baked into their very authorship: What does it mean to have the nonbinary artist Cole Escola create a star turn for themselves as Mary Todd Lincoln in “Oh, Mary!”? (Only good things.) A revival of a show that was never not political, the eve-of-the-Nazis musical “Cabaret” (1966) feels intensified in its implications in 2025, in part because Rebecca Frecknall’s immersive staging, more than past revivals, casts us, the audience, in the role of shamefully oblivious revelers, drinking and making merry in a Berlin nightclub as a world of darkness looms outside and onstage. Even “Wicked,” 22 years into a Broadway run that will apparently outlast us all, has, in the wake of its hit movie adaptation, been rebranded as an anti-authoritarian cri de coeur.The counterargument to all this is essentially that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and that plenty of options remain for theatergoers who just want to have a good time (a notion that is always invoked as if work that engages with the world must be the opposite of that). So sure, if that’s your thing, go ahead: Enjoy the stripped-down version of the 1993 musical “Sunset Boulevard” — no, wait, damn it, there’s that impossible-standards-of-beauty-and-aging thing again — or the upcoming musical “Real Women Have Curves,” which … nope, that won’t work either. It’s hard not to conclude either that there are an awful lot of nails out there right now or that, this season, we’ve all become hammers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares75 Views

      in Theater

      What Do We Want From Political Theater?

      by

      Playwrights and directors wrestle with how a piece of art can galvanize its audience.In an era of vanishing cultural authority and ever-abbreviated attention spans, being called relevant is one of the best compliments a work of art can get. We’ve always celebrated art that seems to speak to our political and cultural moments, but these days — when the news relentlessly inundates us — art can feel like a surrogate, a response we’re unable to summon ourselves. Relevancy is less a compliment now than an expectation.And of all the creative genres — music, film, television, literature — the form that we most expect to answer the confusion of the time is, arguably, theater. This, says Mark Harris in his story about the politicization of American theater, is partly because of theater’s inherent intimacy. Unlike a movie, it can only be watched by a certain number of people over a limited amount of time; and moreover, those people have to be able to 1) afford to see a play, and 2) get themselves to the theater itself. Mass entertainment it’s not.On the CoversSwap wears a Louis Vuitton tank top and pants, price on request, louisvuitton.com; stylist’s own belt; and model’s own jewelry. His sons Heavn (left) and Jru’Angelo wear their own clothing.Photograph by Luis Alberto Rodriguez. Styled by Carlos NazarioGabriel Medina (left) at State Management and Santino Guzman at Vision Los Angeles. From left: Celine by Hedi Slimane jacket, price on request, and pants, $1,200, celine.com; Celine by Hedi Slimane shirt, about $1,100, and tie, about $250, similar styles at celine.com. Celine by Hedi Slimane jacket, price on request, shirt, about $1,100, pants, $1,500, and tie, about $250.Photograph by Luis Alberto Rodriguez. Styled by Carlos NazarioYet despite its relative exclusivity, theater’s cultural reach is much broader than one might imagine, its reverberations more profound and longer lasting. And in 2025, Harris writes, “the idea that all theater is political is less a rhetorical exercise than an irrefutable reality.” The proof is in the current season of both dramas and musicals, with new offerings and revivals about, variously, immigration, race, vaccines and bodily autonomy. We want theater to articulate what we can’t; we want it to provide catharsis; we want it to speak to our anger and give us hope. But increasingly, Harris says, the question isn’t so much what can theater do for us as what we can do for theater. “What,” he asks, “does political theater want to do to its audience? Affirm us in our beliefs? Galvanize us into action? Shake us up? Persuade us? Provoke us? Rebuke us?” Any one of those things; all of them. What we may want most, though, is to feel something at all. More

    • 125 Shares103 Views

      in Music

      Jerry Butler, Singer Known as the Iceman, Dies at 85

      by

      Jerry Butler, the graceful singer and songwriter who served as the first leader of the Impressions before launching a long, hit-heavy solo career, died on Thursday at his home in Chicago. He was 85.His death was confirmed by his assistant, who said that Mr. Butler had Parkinson’s disease.Mr. Butler’s resounding baritone voice, though gritty in timbre, was animated by gentility and charm; he approached a lyric with an almost courtly level of sensitivity. His poise explained, in part, how he came to be known as the Iceman.Mr. Butler scored his first hit in 1958 with “For Your Precious Love,” a song he recorded with the Impressions and wrote with two other members of the group. It reached No. 11 on Billboard’s pop chart. Its lyrics stressed perseverance and loyalty, themes Mr. Butler would revisit throughout his career.Immediately after leaving the group in 1960, he reached the Billboard Top 10 with “He Will Break Your Heart,” which he wrote with his bandmate Curtis Mayfield and Calvin Carter. The song proved durable: A reworked version by Tony Orlando and Dawn, “He Don’t Love You (Like I Love You),” would become a No. 1 hit more than a decade later.Mr. Butler’s version of “Moon River,” the Henry Mancini-Johnny Mercer song from the movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” climbed to No. 11 on the pop chart in 1961. The next year, his interpretation of Burt Bacharach and Hal David’s “Make It Easy on Yourself” reached No. 20.Two years later, he reached the Top 10 again with “Let It Be Me,” a duet with Betty Everett. It performed even better than the Everly Brothers’ version, widely considered a classic: The Butler-Everett version reached No. 5, two points higher than the Everlys had reached in 1960.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      Mohammad Rasoulof Had to Escape Iran to Finish His Most Daring Film Yet

      by

      In the early months of 2024, a few weeks into the shooting of his new film, “The Seed of the Sacred Fig,” Mohammad Rasoulof learned that his lawyers received a letter. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court had processed his case, composed of several charges against his previous movies and activism, and sentenced him to eight years in prison. Rasoulof asked his lawyers how much time he had before the authorities took him in. The process of filing an appeal, they told him, could take up to two months. He still had some time.Rasoulof and his team worked around the clock on shooting and postproduction. Another call came in. The court had rejected the appeal, and his eight-year sentence was to start immediately. To make an example of him, his lawyers warned, government agents would probably storm his house in the middle of the night, handcuff him and take him to jail.Rasoulof had to make the most difficult decision of his life. He was always determined to live and work in Iran, which had been a wellspring of inspiration throughout his filmmaking career. He had already been arrested in 2010 for shooting a movie about the Green Movement, a period of mass unrest in the wake of the 2009 presidential election, which he never finished. He was sent to jail for seven months in 2022 after signing a petition that was critical of the government. So he didn’t fear being in prison, and he felt no urge to flee from regime interrogators and torturers. If anything, those encounters had provided fodder for his work. Yet this time was different. Already confronted with the likelihood that he would have to serve at least five years of his eight-year sentence, Rasoulof expected that the court would probably open a new case once it learned about “Sacred Fig,” which he was shooting in secret, without the appropriate approvals. Serving five years, plus whatever the latest charges would yield, would surely end his career. So Rasoulof decided to leave Iran.He had learned, from another inmate during one of his prison stints, about a network of people who specialized in helping persecuted citizens escape Iran. When Rasoulof contacted them, they advised him to leave everything behind, including his electronic devices and IDs, throw some clothes in a backpack and meet them in a town near Tehran.Rasoulof was taken to a hiding place and, from there, driven on a side road to another city. After a few days of traveling along abandoned roads, he reached a small village on the border. He stayed in a small room for a few days, preparing for the final leg of his journey, which involved a hike over the mountains into a neighboring country. The villagers, who had met many people in his circumstances, suspected he was important because the network regularly checked in about his well-being. For the villagers, harboring such an escapee entailed more risk, which meant more pay. When it was time for Rasoulof to depart, they refused to release him.Astonished by this turn of events, members of the network negotiated a deal with the villagers. At midnight, he was delivered to a spot in the middle of nowhere. It was so dark he couldn’t see anything. Money changed hands, and he was returned to the people he hired to smuggle him out of the country. They then took him to another border village, from which the passage to the neighboring country was longer and more treacherous.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Theater

      Antonio Skármeta, Who Wrote of Chile’s Tears and Turmoil, Dies at 83

      by

      His literary career traced the arc of his country’s modern political journey in stories about ordinary citizens facing repression and arbitrary government.Antonio Skármeta, a Chilean novelist, screenplay writer, playwright and television presenter who captured his country’s affections with warmhearted tales of its suffering and redemption through dictatorship and democracy, died on Oct. 15 at his home in Santiago. He was 83.His death, after a long struggle with cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, was announced by President Gabriel Boric Font of Chile on his X account.Mr. Boric paid tribute to the leading role Mr. Skármeta played in his country’s cultural life. He praised Mr. Skármeta “for the life you lived,” adding: “For the stories, the novels and the theater. For the political commitment. For the book show that expanded the boundaries of literature.”Mr. Skármeta’s literary career traced the arc of Chile’s modern political journey in lightly ironic stories that depicted the strategies of ordinary citizens faced with repression and arbitrary government.He lived that journey himself — as an activist supporting the leftist government of Salvador Allende in 1970; as a political exile in Argentina and in Germany after the 1973 coup d’état that inaugurated Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s brutal 15-year military dictatorship; as host of a popular television program about literature (the “book show” Mr. Boric mentioned) in the 1990s, after democracy returned to Chile; and as his country’s ambassador in Berlin from 2000 to 2003.His best-known work, the 1985 novel “Ardiente Pacienca” (“Burning Patience”) — the story of a postal worker who befriends Chile’s national poet Pablo Neruda and used the friendship to woo a young local woman — illustrated a method Skármeta typically used: weaving real-life figures and disasters with fictional characters who must cope with them, often with bumbling but very human ineptitude.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Theater

      Political Theater: 7 Shows That Wrestle With Cultural Issues

      by

      These productions are grappling with climate change, reproductive rights, the Arab Spring and accusations of sexual assault.The stage has always been a political setting, whether explicitly or implicitly. The lights go down, and confrontation and conflict ensues. With the U.S. presidential election around the corner, and the political fractures of society on full display, recent theater productions have grappled with these difficulties head-on. Here are a few of the current and upcoming productions tackling loaded and thorny issues.‘The Ford/Hill Project’Oct. 16-20 at the Public TheaterThat this verbatim play was staged at Woolly Mammoth Theater Company in Washington on Oct. 7, the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, should make its political mission clear enough. As for the play itself? The actors onstage were re-enacting the accusations of sexual assault and harassment leveled at two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Bret Kavanaugh.“The Ford/Hill Project,” which begins performances on Wednesday at the Public Theater in Manhattan, interweaves real excerpts from the Senate hearings in which Anita Hill recounted her sexual harassment allegations against Thomas and, 30 years later, Christine Blasey Ford recounted hers against Kavanaugh. The replication of verbatim quotes allows the audience to attend these seismic political events themselves, draws attention to the very public nature of these proceedings and the theatricality of politics, and highlights the connection between our past and present.In a recent video call, Lee Sunday Evans, the play’s director and co-creator, discussed how the performance breaks from being pure re-enactment. Hill and Ford “were extraordinarily alone when they gave their testimony,” she explained, but in the piece, “they’re able to stand side by side.” She added that she hopes the play helps people see their stories as more related and “creates a space where they don’t have to be alone.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Music

      An Oasis in England’s Troubled, Polarized Opera Landscape

      by

      The sun shone brightly over the downs of East Sussex on a summer afternoon while people trickled onto the grounds of Glyndebourne to hear an opera by Handel. Most of the men wore black tie, and many women were in floral gowns, as they picnicked among gardens and sculptures, and under the shadow of the property’s grand, Jacobethan manor house.As they made their way into Glyndebourne’s opera house, old Oxbridge friends recognized one another and swapped life updates; introductions were made, photos were taken, and, when the time came for the show to start, the party was put on a respectful pause for the opening act of “Giulio Cesare.”It all had the appearance of opera in paradise, which isn’t so much of an exaggeration. Glyndebourne, a country house festival that over 90 years has grown into an enormous, year-round operation, has a reputation for elitism in its unofficial dress code and high prices. But there is also elitism, the good kind, in its level of music making.The Conrad Shawcross sculpture garden on the Glyndebourne grounds.Alice Zoo for The New York TimesIn the organ room at Glyndebourne.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Television

      Calling ‘Survivor’ Contestants From Tim Walz’s Motorcade

      by

      Covering an election year can be stressful. But instead of binge-watching “Survivor” to decompress, two reporters wrote about the politics — or, lack thereof — on the show instead.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.When I first heard that Jon Lovett, the prominent political podcast host and former speechwriter for Barack Obama, would be a contestant on the new season of “Survivor,” I pleaded with my editor to write about it.(To answer your question, yes, “that show” is still on.)Covering politics during a tense election year in a closely divided country is often deadly serious, and rife with animosity. This seemed like an opportunity to write something lighter.To my surprise, my editor was game.I have vague memories of watching “Survivor” as a kid with my parents in the early 2000s, somewhere around the tail end of the show’s initial run of popularity. I rediscovered it when I started high school in 2012 — season 25 was airing — and was hooked. I began watching religiously, first on my own, and now with a group of friends on Wednesday nights, when the episodes air on CBS.It’s a remarkable run for a series with a relatively simple premise: A group of strangers are marooned on a remote tropical island and must work together to build shelter, forage for food and endure the elements, all while forming alliances and voting someone off the show each week. Though “Survivor” has, on occasion, injected new twists to keep seasons feeling fresh, something about the original format has stuck with viewers like me.For all the various real-life societal issues that have played out on the “Survivor” beach — racial tensions, discussions over gender and sexuality, generational divides — the announcement about Mr. Lovett, one of the hosts of the liberal podcast “Pod Save America,” made me realize that partisan politics had never been prominently featured on the show.I knew my colleague on the Politics desk, Alexandra Berzon, was also a “Survivor” fan, and would be eager to collaborate. At a Wisconsin bar one night in July, after a long day covering the Republican National Convention, Ali and I huddled in a corner, geeking out over “Survivor” factoids while our colleagues swapped political gossip.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Television

      Netflix Adds Disclaimer to Indian Show After Anger Over Hijacker Names

      by

      The series, based on a 1999 plane hijacking, prompted backlash on social media. Critics claimed it wrongly portrayed the Islamist hijackers as Hindus.Netflix expanded a disclaimer for Indian audiences with a fictional series inspired by the 1999 hijacking of a plane by Islamist militants, after social media users and a high-ranking member of India’s ruling party accused it of portraying the hijackers as Hindus.“IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack,” released last week, became the latest production by a Western streaming giant to find itself in the cross hairs of India’s Hindu nationalist movement, which has been accused of building up an increasingly intolerant atmosphere in the country.The series shows five Islamist militants hijacking an Indian Airlines flight from Nepal to India, and their interactions with the plane’s crew and passengers. In the show, the hijackers refer to themselves by code names, including “Shankar,” a common name for Hindu men.That prompted anger among many social media users, with some accusing the producers of playing down the Muslim identity of the hijackers. A national official of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Amit Malviya, said the series’ use of the hijackers’ aliases “legitimized their criminal intent.”“Decades later, people will think Hindus hijacked IC-814,” Mr. Malviya, who oversees information technology and social media for the B.J.P., wrote on X on Monday.India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting summoned a Netflix executive to discuss the government’s grievances about the show, according to local media reports.“For the benefit of audiences unfamiliar with the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814, the opening disclaimer in India has been updated to include the real and code names of the hijackers,” Netflix said in a statement on Tuesday.During the actual hijacking of the flight, over eight days, the militants forced the pilots to fly the plane to a number of locations, including Dubai, and then Kandahar, Afghanistan, which was ruled by the Taliban at the time. The plane’s passengers were freed after India released three Pakistanis who had been held under terrorism charges.The Indian government said at the time that the five hijackers were from Pakistan and used code names, including “Shankar,” in front of the passengers and crew to conceal their identities.Before the show’s release on Aug. 29, its director, Anubhav Sinha, told Scroll, an Indian news site, that his goal was to present the event “exactly in the manner in which it happened.”The updated disclaimer on Netflix now says the series “does not make any claims of authenticity or historical correctness” of the events featured in it. It also lists the hijackers’ real names: Ibrahim Athar, Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim and Shakir.This is not the first time major streaming platforms have faced pressure from Hindu nationalists in India.Netflix in January removed a film after Hindu nationalists said it mocked Hinduism. The makers of a 2021 Amazon series cut some scenes after critics accused them of disrespecting Hindu gods. More