-
Dan Spielman wrote a new post 5 years, 1 month ago
‘We should be thinking, not about how these processes inhibit our expression, but how they might liberate it’: actor Dan Spielman explores the implications of #MeToo in the performing artsÂ
Â
The possible r […] -
Dan Spielman changed their profile picture 5 years, 1 month ago
Good acting (in my opinion) also requires responsiveness to the others on stage, that you are paying attention, that you are tuned into their experience, and that you respond to it. No matter how selfish, predatory, or extreme a character may be, the actor has to operate at a level where their attunement to what is happening at multiple levels is key. An actor whose ego means they cannot see the impact they have is NOT, in fact, at the top of their game. They have become a parody of themselves. And they are not serving their craft.
This is, by a long way, the most reasoned and reasonable commentary I have yet seen on this terribly loaded topic. As an industry, we cannot risk letting it lie here; we must continue Dan & Catherine’s discussion until we arrive at the answers, plural. We must:
1. Protect the vulnerable. This must mean teaching people to think about their actions, not just by printing more zero-tolerance policy papers.
2. Constrain the invulnerable. Wound them if we must.
3. Most important ( and most difficukt): create safe, certain, impartial and potent avenues for complaint. Telling the Director (whether or not it’s Armfield) won’t cut it. It needs to get to the person who signs the contracts and pays the bills, and they must be authorised to discipline an actor, even one whose name is above the title of the show.
4. We must invent a way of punishing offenders that has more degrees than just, “NEVER WORK AGAIN”
5. When someone (anyone) crosses the line between harassment and indecent assault, CALL THE POLICE.
Dan Speilman is a wonderful actor and I have enjoyed everything that I have seen him do. Excellent article that is considered, thoughtful and sensitive to the demands of acting. I don’t think there is an easy answer to this issue. Each incident needs to be assessed on its own rather than rely on a kind of Orwellian label such as ‘All humans are bad’. Whilst I acknowledge and appreciate the example that Dan has provided and that it is very serious, nonetheless, it is only one side of this particular matter. I think, however, that his main point about the inability of management to deal with the matter is very clear and pertinent. I don’t always weigh in with an opini0n on ‘sexual harassment and bullying’ in the workplace. I did once but found the responses were overwhelming condemning. I am one of the relatively small group of men who was rather severely bullied in the workplace – by women. Was it homophobia? Maybe. Was it professional jealousy? Maybe. I will never know. The black hole of not knowing opened up the hydra of depression. This was quite a while ago now and the years of therapy, including excellent sessions with women for men who have been bullied, have allowed for me to re-emerge again with new confidence. Dan is completely correct about the issue of ‘trust’. As Oscar Wilde observed once trust is broken then invariably it cannot be repaired. But this is specific and not general. My main point, however, is that as an outsider we never really know the full story, and can only watch in bewilderment and suffer the pangs of doubt. In this article, Dan compliments a couple of people. In regard to one of these people, unfortunately, I don’t share his admiration. In a relatively recent altercation on Facebook which this person, whom I have actually never met, became abusive with accusations and negative labeling and swearing. I did not descend to that level, and ‘requested’ that this person refrains from swearing at me. The response was – ‘You don’t have the right to request anything’. And the name-calling, negative labeling and swearing continued. I was told that this was ‘discourse’. This wasn’t ‘discourse’ – it was abuse. this person didn’t see it as such so I just apologized and back away. I was deeply upset by this but was not in any ‘privileged’ position of power like this person to do much about it. I bring this up not to launch into any ‘discourse’ about ‘I said’ /’You said’ – that would be pointless. What I felt was of little concern. I bring it up to emphasize my point that each incident has a deeper complexity and that we are all vulnerable to errors of judgment and irrational anger. Plato made the astute comment that anger can sometimes be ‘the most pleasurable of human emotions’. Aristotle stated that ‘Anybody can be angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everyone’s powers and is not easy’. What I loved about Dan’s excellent article is despite his relevant and pertinent concerns the tone was not ‘angry’. I’m not sure, however, if we are all at the point in which our own levels of irrational anger and indignation are under control. Maybe they never will be – and for justifiable reasons. However, anger can be pleasurable and addictive, and anger can breed more anger and hinders real progress.
I’d say in this case it’s about protecting the confidentiality of the complainant rather than any lack of courage or some kind of protective self interest on the part of Dan. Also, as Dan points out, it’s not enough to hang a few scapegoats, because these problems are endemic and occur throughout the industry.