Showing posts with label Athol Fugard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Athol Fugard. Show all posts

17 March 2025

Two Passings: Peter Elbow and Athol Fugard

 

[Two men who had profound effects on me passed away during the past 30 days: Peter Elbow (1935-2025) was a teacher of English teachers and a professor of English composition, and Athol Fugard (1932-2025) was an internationally renowned dramatist who wrote some of the most meaningful, and I think significant plays of the second half of the 20th century.]

PETER ELBOW, 89, DIES;
DEVISED A NEW WAY TO TEACH WRITING CLASS
by Michael S. Rosenwald

[I posted a tribute to writing teacher Peter Elbow on Rick On Theater on 12 March.  I didn’t post the obituary that ran in Section A (news) of the New York Times on 3 March 2025, so I’ll post it now, with another death notice of someone who affected me greatly in his life, the playwright Athol Fugard.  (Elbow’s obit was published online on 27 February 2025 as “Peter Elbow, Professor Who Transformed Freshman Comp, Dies at 89.

[After the notice of Elbow’s passing, I will have something to say that refers to some comments I appended to my memorial post last week, “Peter Elbow and Freewriting.”  I wanted to make the reference to the source of those remarks, regarding my writing students in New York University’s Expository Writing Program, but I didn’t decide to do so until after I’d posted the memorial.  If any readers find the comments below worthy, I invite you to revisit last week’s post and reread the afterword.]

His struggles with writer’s block led him to create a process that favored an expressive, personal approach over rigid academic conventions that often stifled students.

Peter Elbow, an English professor whose struggles with writer’s block led him to create a new way of teaching freshman composition that emphasized free-writing exercises, personal reflection and peer feedback over rigid academic conventions that often stifled students, died on Feb. 6 in Seattle. He was 89.

His wife, Cami Pelz Elbow, said the cause of his death, at a hospital, was a perforated intestine.

Professor Elbow, who taught for many years at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, emerged as a towering, if somewhat divisive, figure in college English departments with the publication of his book Writing Without Teachers in 1973.

Poking his finger in the eye of hidebound pedagogues, Professor Elbow contended that indoctrinating freshmen to think and write in an inflexible, formulaic style — with the teacher as the only audience member — inhibited creativity and confidence at a key moment in their intellectual development.

Instead, he proposed a more reflective and touchy-feely process, in which students engaged in free-writing exercises without worrying about grammar or anything else. The goal was to generate ideas and then solicit feedback from peers before shaping those ingredients — Professor Elbow was fond of cooking metaphors — into a wholesome meal.

“Writing is a process that is two-sided,” he told The New York Times in 1983. “On the one hand, a writer has to be creative and loose and generate a lot of words. On the other hand, he has to be hard-nosed and make sure that what he says makes sense. It helps to separate these two requirements.”

Professor Elbow came to his conclusions out of necessity.

“What got me interested in writing,” he often said, “was being unable to write.”

While he originally intended to become a professor of literature, he suffered a debilitating case of writer’s block almost as soon as he arrived at Harvard in 1959 to study [Geoffrey] Chaucer [English poet and author; ca. 1343-1400; best known for The Canterbury Tales (written 1387-1400)] in pursuit of a doctorate. Late nights at his typewriter turned into blurry mornings, with little to show on paper.

“I had a terrible time getting my first-semester papers written at all, and they were graded unsatisfactory,” he wrote in Everyone Can Write (2000). “I could have stayed if I’d done well the next semester, but after only a few weeks I could see things were getting worse rather than better. I quit before being kicked out.”

After landing odd jobs as a census taker and a timer for students practicing for their college board exams, he taught literature and interdisciplinary studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Cambridge] and then at Franconia College, an experimental liberal arts school in [Franconia,] New Hampshire that folded in 1978.

The jobs were low-paying, at the instructor level. But he was intellectually inspired by connecting students to literature and decided to resume his doctoral studies, enrolling at Brandeis University [Waltham, Massachusetts]. This time, he approached writing as a distinct process that emphasized creativity, reflection and revision.

“I made myself a rule: Every time a paper was due, I had to have a draft of the same length as the paper done a week before,” he said in a 1992 interview with the academic journal Writing on the Edge [University of California, Davis]. “So then I knew I had a week to play with it.”

As he was writing (or not writing), he jotted notes to himself.

“If something happened that struck me, I would write a note — sometimes just on a little scrap of paper — and would slip these pieces of paper into a folder,” he said in the interview. “Especially if I got stuck, I would take another piece of paper and say, ‘You’re stuck on this damn paper, so write about why you got stuck.’”

The idea was just to get his thoughts down.

“The free-writing principle is the principle of juice, of letting go, of garbage, of finding diamonds among the garbage: all the metaphors you can make about free writing,” he told Writing on the Edge.

Professor Elbow finished his dissertation on Chaucer and took up a series of teaching positions. But he didn’t focus on writing full time until around 1981, the year he published “Writing With Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process,” which codified his ideas into textbook form.

As he spoke at conferences and published academic papers about his ideas, he found a sympathetic audience — the scores of college instructors struggling to teach freshman composition and get their students excited about writing. His book sales soared, and today his methods are used in colleges across the country.

“It would be very hard to overstate Peter’s influence on the field,” Joseph Harris, the author of A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966,” said in an interview. “He was instrumental in shifting the attention of teachers to helping students generate new prose ideas — to go from nothing to something on the page.”

Peter Henry Elbow was born on April 14, 1935, in Manhattan, and grew up in Fairlawn, N.J., and on Martha’s Vineyard, in Massachusetts. His father, C. William Elbow Jr., owned a men’s clothing store. His mother, Helen Hillyer Platt, was an artist.

He attended Proctor Academy, a boarding school in [Andover,] New Hampshire, where he formed a close relationship with a teacher named Bob Fisher.

“We’d read [Fyodor] Dostoyevsky [Russian novelist, short story writer, essayist, and journalist; 1821-81],” Professor Elbow recalled in the Writing on the Edge interview. “He would ask us to write about deep things. I also remember writing a fairy tale. He loved ideas and he took us seriously, inviting us to love ideas and to take deep dives into profundity.”

Peter went to Williams College [Williamstown, Massachusetts] because Mr. Fisher did.

His instructors there weren’t impressed with his writing. One told him, “Mr. Elbow, you continue your steady but far from headlong rise upward.” But he wasn’t dissuaded.

“I was eager to do well and I worked hard at it — and by the end of my first year had begun to do so,” he wrote in “Everyone Can Write.” “Indeed, I gradually found myself wanting to enter their world and be like them — a college professor, not just a teacher. I wanted to be a learned, ironic, tweedy, pipe-smoking professor of literature.”

He graduated in 1957 with a bachelor’s degree in English literature and then earned a master’s at Oxford.

Professor Elbow taught at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., Wesleyan University [Middletown, Connecticut] and Stony Brook University [State University of New York at Stony Brook on Long Island] before joining the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1987. He retired in 2000, but continued writing about writing.

His first marriage ended in divorce. He married Cami Campbell Pelz in 1972, and they moved to the Seattle area in 2014.

In addition to his wife, Professor Elbow is survived by their children, Abigail Lockwood Elbow and Benjamin Child Elbow, and two granddaughters.

Professor Elbow wore turtleneck sweaters and sport coats, just like the professors he once idolized. At first, his students were a little confused by what he asked them to do.

“The first time I was given a free-writing exercise, I didn’t know what to do with it,” one of his students told The Times in 1983. “There was a feeling that this can’t go on too long. But after the first few times, the exercise began to make sense and writing became a little bit easier.”

[At the end of my afterword to last week’s tribute to Peter Elbow on this blog, I got into the intellectual development of the students in my Writing Workshop classes at NYU.  I was touching tangentially on another book from the Practicum on teaching writing I was taking at the time, educational psychologist William Perry's Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years.  The book is the write-up of a long study Perry conducted at Harvard, and it made an immense impression on me. 

[I was thinking of Intellectual and Ethical Development as I was writing the Elbow afterword, and I found some journal entries I made regarding Perry's findings as they related to the classes I was teaching.  (We had to keep a journal of the classes we were teaching while taking the Practicum.)  Observations I made in the journal were prompted by Perry's study.

[William G. Perry, Jr. (1913-98), a student counselor and educational psychologist at Harvard, conducted a longitudinal study of the mental development of college students over a 15-year period during the 1950s and 1960s.  He published his findings, which were influential in the field of student development, in Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme in 1970.

[Perry’s “Scheme,” as it’s usually labeled, outlines how adolescents progress intellectually and ethically, moving from a dualistic view of knowledge to a more relativistic and committed perspective.  He identified nine developmental “positions,” most of which occur in the college years.  (The positions are sequential, but Perry emphasized that development isn’t linear, and individuals may move back and forth between positions and some take longer than others to move from one to the next.)

[With respect to what I said about the responsiveness of my writing students, I pegged most of them in Positions 1 (“Basic Dualism”: holding the Assumption that all problems have one correct answer [e.g.: absolutes]; Authorities [e.g.: teachers] know these answers and are responsible for passing them on; Assumptions and Authorities aren’t questioned), Position 2 (“Multiplicity Pre-legitimate”: seeing deviations from absolutes; students may perceive deviations not as failures of the Authority to know the answer, but as a test for students to find the correct answer), and Position 3 (“Multiplicity Subordinate”: accepting that deviations from absolutes exist, but only in areas where the Authority hasn’t found the correct answer yet; trust in Authority is not yet broken) in Perry’s Scheme.

[Positions 1 through 4 (“Multiplicity Correlate or Relativism Subordinate”: Students recognize the legitimacy of the uncertainty and fallibility of Authorities; or students learn to apply a qualitative justification to match their reasoning to the Authority’s requirements.), according to the Scheme, are in the category of Dualism, the view by students of truth in absolute terms of Right and Wrong, and that they obtain that truth from Authorities, such as teachers, clergy, political leaders, parents, or other figures. 

[In Multiplicity, a sort of bridge category, students recognize that there are multiple perspectives and that authorities are fallible.  The goal, if you will, of the progression, is Relativism, the category of Positions 5 through 9, in which students recognize multiple, conflicting versions of truth representing valid alternatives.  (Because the required Writing Workshop was for incoming undergrads, the vast majority of my students were freshmen, 18-19 years old and fresh out of high school.  I didn’t see many students who’d progressed beyond Position 3, but I also didn’t have very many who remained at Position 1 for, as Perry observed, they wouldn’t be likely to last the first year.

[Not only did I see the validity of Perry’s conclusions from his study in the responses of my students, but I also became more conscious of how my responses to the students’ questions and observations might strike them.  I wrote in my journal:

I’m much more aware of the relativism inherent in my answers to questions and in my assignments, etc.  I see how troublesome this lack of easy answers is for the class.  What are they thinking when I tell them there is no one answer to a question, or that I won’t tell them what to do about a specific [writing] problem?  All of a sudden I’m conscious of the confusion they must be experiencing.

[Michael S. Rosenwald is a reporter and obituary writer at the New York Times.  He’s previously written about history, the social sciences, and culture for the Washington Post and the Boston Globe.]

*  *  *  *
ATHOL FUGARD, 92, PLAYWRIGHT
WHO SUBVERTED APARTHEID, DIES
by Bruce Weber

[The obituary of Athol Fugard, the esteemed South African playwright, was published in the New York Times on 11 March 2025 in Section A (news).  It was also published online on 9 March 2025 as “Athol Fugard, 92, Playwright Who Exposed Torments of Apartheid, Dies.”  Alex Traub, who works on the Obituaries desk at the Times, contributed reporting.]

In works like “Blood Knot,” “Master Harold” and “The Island,” he laid bare the realities of racial separatism [apartheid] in his homeland, South Africa.

Athol Fugard, the South African playwright whose portrayals of intimate relationships burdened by oppressive racial separatism exposed the cruel psychological torment of apartheid to an international audience, died on Saturday night [8 March 2025] at his home in Stellenbosch, a town near Cape Town. He was 92.

His wife, Paula Fourie, said he died after a cardiac event.

Over a long and productive career, Mr. Fugard (pronounced FEW-guard) was both repelled and fueled by the bond he felt with his homeland. [My report on the 2012 Signature Theatre revival of Blood Knot, 28 February 2012, includes a brief history of apartheid.]

For decades he was considered subversive by the government; at times productions of his work, with their integrated casts, were considered illegal, and his co-workers in the theater were jailed. In 1967, after his early play “The Blood Knot” appeared on British television [British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); 12 June 1967], his passport was revoked, so that for several years he could not leave the country.

He eventually spent many years abroad, including in the United States — he worked on productions of his plays at Yale and taught at the University of California, San Diego — yet he could never let himself leave South Africa for good. Even before apartheid was officially revoked in 1994, he maintained a home near Port Elizabeth, the city where he grew up, on the country’s southeastern coast.

“I think I actually need the sustaining provocation of being in South Africa when I’m telling a South Africa story,” Mr. Fugard said in an interview with The New Yorker in 1982 [Mel Gussow, “Profiles: Witness,” 12 December 1982].

Viscerally powerful for audiences, their roles written with the muscle and idiosyncrasy that are candy to actors, Mr. Fugard’s more than 30 plays were presented widely in the United States and around the world. Six have appeared on Broadway [Sizwe Banzi Is Dead and The Island (1974), A Lesson From Aloes (1980), MASTER HAROLD” . . . and the boys (1982; revived 2003), Blood Knot (1985), The Road to Mecca (2012)], and in 2011, he received a Tony Award for lifetime achievement. [The link is to my report on the 2016 revival of “Master Harold” by the Signature Theatre Company.]

He was often thought of as a political playwright, but politics only occasionally figured overtly in his work, and if his plays sometimes functioned as agitprop, it was true as well that the intense personal dramas he created resonated into the wider world.

“The situation in South Africa is so highly politicized that the notion of South African stories without political consequence or resonance is a contradiction in terms,” he said in a 1990 interview with American Theatre magazine.

[The quoted article above isn’t an interview with Fugard, but an autobiographical essay: Athol Fugard, “Scenes from a Censored Life,” American Theatre 7.8 (Nov. 1990): 30-35, 68-69; republished in Staff of American Theatre magazine, eds., The American Theatre Reader: Essays and Conversations from American Theatre Magazine (Theatre Communications Group, 2009), 111-17.]

In his first important play, “The Blood Knot” (1961), now known simply as “Blood Knot” — in which two Black brothers, one of whom can pass for white, reflect the disparate possibilities of life irrevocably determined by skin color — Mr. Fugard established his penchant for creating a dramatic crucible onstage: characters circling one another, fencing, generating tension and pressure in circumstances of privation, often in an enclosed space.

He followed “Blood Knot” with, among other works, “Boesman and Lena” (1968), in which a mixed race couple, homeless and adrift, are reduced to expressions of primal need [the link is to the 2019 report on the Signature Theatre revival]. Then came two plays created with the Black South African actors John Kani [b. 1942] and Winston Ntshona [1941-2018]: “Sizwe Banzi Is Dead” (1972), about a worker who takes on the identity of a dead man to qualify for a work permit, and “The Island” (1973), about cellmates rehearsing to perform [Sophocles’] “Antigone” in front of other prisoners on Robben Island, the notorious penal institution that held Nelson Mandela [1918-2013].

Mr. Kani and Mr. Ntshona won Tonys for their performances when the two plays were performed in repertory on Broadway in 1974. They reprised their roles for New York audiences at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 2003 (“The Island”) and 2008 (“Sizwe”).

In “A Lesson From Aloes” (1978), Mr. Fugard wrote about three former dissidents, two white and one Black, and the costs of their activism. And in the painfully autobiographical “‘Master Harold’ . . . and the Boys,” he examined the relationship between a teenage white boy and the two Black men who work for his mother in a tea shop.

In none of these plays, however, is apartheid the addressed subject. Rather, it is the saturating reality of the plays, the societally sanctioned philosophy — like American capitalism in Arthur Miller’s [1915-2005] “Death of a Salesman” [1949] — that informs the lives of the characters.

For them, Mr. Fugard created an insular, circumscribed world, just as William Faulkner [1897-1962] did for his characters with the fictional Yoknapatawpha County in Mississippi.

Mr. Fugard considered Faulkner an influence.

“I was absolutely fascinated by the fact that here was an American writer who w unashamedly regional,” he said. “It was reading and responding to Faulkner that gave me my first push toward the regional identity that I’ve stayed with ever since.”

Broadway-Bound

In 1982 [9-27 March], “Master Harold” opened at the Yale Repertory Theater in New Haven [Connecticut], the first of Mr. Fugard’s plays to have its premiere outside South Africa. With Mr. Fugard directing Danny Glover [b. 1946], Zakes Mokae [1934-2009] and Lonny Price [b. 1959], the play moved to Broadway for a run of nearly a year [4 May 1982-26 February 1983 (344 regular performances)].

“Master Harold” included one of theater history’s most memorable shocks. At the play’s climax, in a fit of angry confusion, Hally [Price], the young white stand-in for the playwright, spits in the face of Sam (played by Mr. Mokae), who has been Hally’s fond friend and at times even a surrogate father. Gasp-inducing on the stage, it was an episode drawn from real life, Mr. Fugard confessed [see following article].

In the play, Sam’s rebuke to young Hally is quiet and agonizingly restrained, and his forgiveness is shortly forthcoming. (Mr. Mokae won a Tony in the role.) Like some other Black roles written by Mr. Fugard, those of the tea shop workers drew criticism: As a white man, the argument went, he did not have sufficient standing to imagine the world from the point of view of oppressed Black characters, and his work was thus inauthentic and a mere salve for the guilt of liberal whites.

But the play had a powerful effect on audiences wherever it played, including in South Africa, and mainstream critics were largely in Mr. Fugard’s corner.

“There may be two or three living playwrights in the world who can write as well as Athol Fugard,” Frank Rich wrote in The New York Times [“Stage: ‘Master Harold,’ Fugard’s Drama on Origin of Hate,” 5 May 1982], “but I’m not sure any of them has written a recent play that can match ‘Master Harold . . . and the Boys.’”

Harold Athol Lannigan Fugard was born on June 11, 1932, in Middleburg, in a semiarid region of South Africa known as the Karoo. His family moved to Port Elizabeth when he was 3. His father, Harold, who had lost a leg in a childhood accident, was a pianist who played in jazz bands. He eventually descended into alcoholism, but he also influenced Athol intellectually.

“From early on there were two things that filled my life — music and storytelling, both of them provoked by my father,” Mr. Fugard said in a 1985 interview [Lloyd Richards, “Athol Fugard, The Art of Theater No. 8” Paris Review Iss. 111 (Summer 1989)].

Young Athol was closer, however, to his mother, Elizabeth Potgieter, who ran a boardinghouse and later a tearoom and became the family’s primary breadwinner. The more liberal of his parents, it was she who influenced him morally. He was 16 when apartheid was declared the law of the land in 1948.

“Growing up in South Africa was a complicated experience for me, for one very simple reason,” Mr. Fugard told Interview magazine in 1990 [Jamaica Kincaid, “Athol Fugard,” Interview 20.8 (Aug. 1990): 62]. “I think at a fairly early age I became suspicious of what the system was trying to do to me. I knew the way it was trying to pull me. I became conscious of what attitudes it was trying to implant in me and what prejudices it was trying to pass on to me.”

Athol and his sister Glenda won ballroom dancing prizes together. (In “Master Harold,” it is the Black characters who are the dancers.) He studied automobile mechanics in high school and then philosophy at the University of Cape Town, where he preferred boxing to theater as an extracurricular activity. He dropped out during his final year [1953] to hitchhike through Africa.

Out of money in Port Sudan [Republic of the Sudan] on the Red Sea, Mr. Fugard took a job on a merchant ship and found himself, as the only white crewman, living closely with men of a different race for the first time. He wrote an ultimately failed novel on board the ship. But he returned to Port Elizabeth determined to be a writer and found work in newspapers and radio.

He later moved to Cape Town, and at a party one night in 1956 he met Sheila Meiring [born 1932 in England; now also a writer of short stories and plays], an aspiring actress who would become his wife and spur his interest in writing for the theater. They divorced in 2015.

Survivors include his second wife, Ms. Fourie [m. 2015]; his daughter from his first marriage, Lisa Fugard [actor and writer; b. 1961; resides in California]; two children from his second marriage, Halle and Lanigan; and a grandson.

An ‘Ugly’ Experience

The Fugards moved to Johannesburg in the late 1950s, and for three months Mr. Fugard took a job as a clerk in a court that tried Black people for violations involving their required identity cards, known as passbooks. The experience, which he recalled as “just so awful and ugly,” found its way onto the stage in “Sizwe Banzi Is Dead.”

Two of his earliest plays, “No-Good Friday” [1958] and “Nongogo” [1959], were inspired by Mr. Mokae, the actor, and others he met in Sophiatown, a Black township outside Johannesburg, but they attracted little attention, and the family decided to move to London. There, Mr. Fugard had several plays rejected and ended up cleaning houses to make money. Then, in 1960, when white police officers in the South African city of Sharpeville opened fire on Black protesters engaged in a peaceful demonstration against the passbook laws, killing some 70 people, the Fugards were moved to return home.

[During apartheid in South Africa, a township was a historically under-developed, racially segregated urban area reserved for non-white residents.]

Mr. Fugard wrote a novel, “Tsotsi,” about the moral reclamation of a delinquent, that would be published almost 20 years later [1980] and made into a 2005 movie, which won an Oscar for best foreign language film. And he wrote “The Blood Knot,” a seven-scene series of conversations between brothers — the dark-skinned Zachariah, a laborer who has lived in a severely circumscribed universe, and the light-skinned Morris, who has traveled about South Africa and elocutes with a far more elevated perspective.

The crisis in the play arises when Zach, encouraged by Morris, begins a correspondence with a female pen pal who turns out to be white. It precipitates a bitter — and finally a physical — confrontation in which the brothers are forced to accept the reality that their bond dooms them to misery.

The play, in its original four-hour version, was performed just once [3 September 1961], in an abandoned factory in Johannesburg for an interracial, nonpaying audience of about 120, including friends, journalists and critics. Directed by Mr. Fugard, he also acted in it (as Morris) alongside Mr. Mokae, and it changed Mr. Fugard’s life. (Mr. Mokae’s, too.)

Critics who wrote about “The Blood Knot” recognized in its indigenous story the birth of a new kind of South African theater. The play was soon substantially cut, and the two actors presented it in towns across South Africa, sharing time onstage but often unable to travel in the same train cars. When the tour was over, the government passed legislation making it illegal for integrated casts to perform in front of integrated audiences.

A British producer brought “The Blood Knot” to London (where Mr. Fugard was replaced as both actor and director) and the powerful critic Kenneth Tynan [1927-80] dismissed it. It was first presented in the United States Off Broadway [Cricket Theatre on 2nd Avenue in Manhattan’s East Village] in 1964, with J. D. Cannon [1922-2005] as Morris and James Earl Jones [1931-2024; see “In Memoriam: James Earl Jones (1931-2024)” (22, 25, and 28 September 2024)] as Zach. Mr. Fugard and Mr. Mokae played their original roles in the Broadway premiere in 1986. Today, it has a confirmed place in the contemporary dramatic canon.

[The United Kingdom première of The Blood Knot, produced by Michael White (1936-2016) was on 20 February 1963 at the New Arts Theatre, Hempstead. Zakes Mokae, having come to England to studying at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, reprised his role of Zachariah while Fugard was replaced on stage as Morris by Ian Bannen (Scottish; 1928-99); the London director was a blacklisted American film director, John Berry (1917-99), who had moved, with his family, to France.

[The review by Kenneth Tynan to which Bruce Weber refers above was published in the Weekend Observer on 24 February 1963.  The review-writer, who wasn’t alone in his unfavorable appraisal, wrote in part: 

At regular intervals throughout Athol Fugard’s The blood knot [sic] an alarm clock rings, summonsing the actors to food or bed. Its jangle may also be welcome to members of the audience who may find themselves, as I intermittently did, sunk in embarrassed sleep . . . . To some extent, I suppose, the piece reflects the guilt that a white South African feels about the Bantu; but to people who would not be horrified if their daughter married a Negro, it seems drably unadventurous, and at times – in the attitude of bemused benevolence towards the childish coloureds – unconsciously illiberal (quoted in Rory Riordan, “Athol Fugard and the Serpent Players: The Port Elizabeth years,” LitNet [website] 6 Nov. 2024).

(In South Africa during the apartheid era, ‘Bantu’ was a common, and at times official way of referring to black South Africans, now considered a dated and offensive ethnic slur. The present South African government has replaced ‘Bantu’ with Black due to the word’s former derogatory connotations.)

[The play was revived in London in 1966 by the Ijinle Theatre Company, a short-lived theater troupe co-founded by Fugard to produce African plays. (The Blood Knot was staged with The Trials of Brother Jero by Wole Soyinka, Nigerian playwright and poet and winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Literature born in 1934.) This is the production that was filmed for broadcast by the BBC the next year. Another revival came in 1971 from Frank Cousins’s (Jamaican; b. 1940) Dark and Light Theatre, the U.K.’s first black-led theater company. The Blood Knot was the theater’s inaugural production.]

“It’s a great work,” The New Yorker critic Hilton Als wrote in 2012 [“Blood Brothers,” 19 February 2012], “so powerful that it’s almost clumsy at times, reminiscent of Dostoyevsky’s ‘The Double’ [1846] in its intellectually crowded, poetic examination of the doppelgänger.”

The notoriety of “The Blood Knot” in South Africa inspired a group of Black men from the township within Port Elizabeth to approach Mr. Fugard about helping them to create theater.

Together they formed the Serpent Players, a productive and politically defiant company that performed classics by [Niccolò] Machiavelli [1469-1527; Florentine diplomat, author, dramatist, philosopher, and historian], [Bertolt] Brecht [1898-1956; German theater director, playwright, and poet] and others. During a production of “Antigone,” two of the company’s actors were arrested and sent to Robben Island, where one of the actors put on his own version of the play; it was a series of circumstances that Mr. Fugard used in creating “The Island,” with Mr. Kani and Mr. Ntshona.

Going Underground

In 1967, with international performances of “The Blood Knot” enhancing Mr. Fugard’s profile, and the growing reputation within South Africa of the subversive productions of the Serpent Players, the government seized Mr. Fugard’s passport, essentially giving him a choice: stay in the country or leave and never come back. He stayed, entering into a period of collaborative work that included “Sizwe Banzi,” a play, first produced in 1972, that, as Mr. Fugard recalled in 1989, “was far too dangerous for us to go public with it.”

“So we launched the play by underground performances to which people had to have a specific invitation — a legal loophole in the censorship structure in South Africa, and one we continued to exploit for many years,” he said. “During our underground period, we had a lot of police interference. They rolled up once or twice and threatened to close us down, arrest us — the usual bully tactics of security police anywhere in the world. We just persisted, carried on, and survived it.”

Mr. Fugard’s later plays included “The Road to Mecca” (1984), about an artist ostracized in her South African town because of her iconoclastic sculptures — “a metaphorical kind of apartheid, one that treats creativity and individualism as something eccentric, if not abhorrent,” the critic Mel Gussow wrote in The Times [“‘To Mecca’ at Spoleto Festival,” 26 May 1987].

In “Playland” (1993), a drama about the nature of repentance, he wrote in almost allegorical terms about apartheid as it was being dismantled. The play depicts a confrontation between a Black night watchman at an amusement park who is burdened by a tragic memory, and a white park patron who draws the past into the open. And in “The Train Driver” (2010) [the link is to the 2012 report on the Signature Theatre revival], Mr. Fugard represented apartheid’s lingering torment in the story of a white train engineer driven to sleepless misery by the memory of the Black woman and child he had accidentally run down and killed.

Guilt, both his own and other people’s, provided a powerful and painful strain in Mr. Fugard’s work. In 1984, he published “Notebooks 1960-1977,” a collection of journal entries, none more revealing than the recollection of a childhood encounter with the Black man who was his friend and mentor that became the most famous scene in his best known play:

“Can’t remember what precipitated it, but one day there was a rare quarrel between Sam and myself,” he wrote. “In a truculent silence we closed the cafe, Sam set off home to New Brighton [a township and suburb of Port Elizabeth] on foot and I followed a few minutes later on my bike. I saw him walking ahead of me and, coming out of a spasm of acute loneliness, as I rode up behind him I called his name, he turned in mid-stride to look back and, as I cycled past, I spat in his face.

“Don’t suppose I will ever deal with the shame that overwhelmed me the second after I had done that.”

[I’ve seen, I think, seven of Athol Fugard’s plays: The Island (2003), Blood Knot (2012), My Children! My Africa! (2012), The Train Driver (2012), The Painted Rocks at Revolver Creek (2015), “Master Harold” . . . and the boys (2016), and Boesman and Lena (2019).  (The links are to my reports on this blog.  The production of The Island predates Rick On Theater, so there’s no report, unfortunately; the other three plays were mentioned above and have embedded links there.)

[I’ve dubbed Fugard “one of the most interesting playwrights of the second half of the 20th century.”  He may have had one principal subject—apartheid—but each of his plays has something significant to say and he’s said it in different ways and in different styles throughout his life.  (When I said this to my frequent theater companion, she asked me what American playwright I’d say was Fugard’s counterpart.  I couldn’t think of one.)

[More than just “interesting,” Fugard’s plays were important, even vital in my opinion.  I put him at the forefront of a small group of dramatists in the late 20th century whose works were eye-opening and world-changing: Fugard, Mbongeni Ngema (South African; 1955 2023), Vaclav Havel (Czech; 1936-2011), and Janusz Glowacki (Polish; 1938-2017).  The world learned more about conditions in apartheid South Africa or communist Eastern Europe from the plays of Fugard, Ngema, Havel, and Glowacki than all the essays, news reports, and lectures combined, I believe—at least we learned it more pointedly and more earnestly.

[Bruce Weber retired in 2016 after 27 years at the New York Times.  During the last eight he was an obituary writer. Weber was also an articles editor for the Sunday magazine, a metro reporter, a national arts correspondent, and a theater reviewer.  Prior to his work at the Times, he was a fiction editor at Esquire magazine.  

[Weber is the editor of the collection, Look Who's Talking: An Anthology of Voices in the Modern American Short Story (1989), and the author of three books: Savion! My Life in Tap (2000), with the dancer Savion Glover; As They See 'Em: A Fan’s Travels in the Land of Umpires (2009), and Life Is a Wheel: Love, Death, Etc., and a Bike Ride Across America (2015).  He’s at work on a biography of the novelist E. L. Doctorow.]

*  *  *  *
HE SAW VALUE IN EVERY HUMAN LIFE
by Roslyn Sulcas 

[This article on the South African dramatist’s work ran in the New York Times on 12 March 2025 in Section C (“Arts”).  On 11 March, it was posted in the paper’s website under the headline “Athol Fugard’s Plays Illustrated the Value of Every Human Life.”]

“Sizwe Banzi Is Dead” and other works bear witness to forgotten lives and to the moral blindness and blinkered vision of the realities of apartheid South Africa.

In early 2010, I was sitting at a communal table in a coffee shop in Cape Town, when I spotted a grizzled, bearded fellow who looked strangely familiar. It was Athol Fugard, South Africa’s foremost playwright and the great chronicler of his country’s apartheid past. There he was, sipping a cup of coffee like any ordinary person.

I plucked up courage and approached him, murmuring something inarticulate about my admiration for his writing. “Hall-O,” Fugard said enthusiastically. “Join us. Have a coffee. Or a glass of wine.”

One of the great things about Fugard, who died on Saturday [see his obituary above], was that he was an ordinary person as well as an extraordinary one. He was wonderfully enthusiastic about people and their potential, ready to see the good in every situation, but also unafraid to confront the bad, both in others and himself. The famous scene in “‘Master Harold’ . . . and the Boys,” in which the young white protagonist spits in the face of his Black mentor, was, he freely confessed, drawn from his own life [both recounted above].

As the theater critic Frank Rich noted in a 1982 New York Times review of the play [link above], Fugard’s technique was to uncover moral imperatives “by burrowing deeply into the small, intimately observed details” of the fallible lives of his characters.

My first encounter with Fugard’s work was in the early 1980s, when I saw a production of his 1972 play “Sizwe Banzi Is Dead” [Charles Isherwood, “In South Africa, This Dead Man Does Tell Tales,” New York Times 11 Apr. 2008, Sec. E (“Weekend Arts”): 3] written with Winston Ntshona and John Kani. It’s a bleakly comic tale of a man who assumes another identity and assigns his own to a corpse, in order to gain the coveted pass book [sic] that the South African authorities required as permission to work.

It was a visceral, painful jolt to the soul. I grew up in apartheid South Africa. I knew about passbooks, about the police hammering on the door at night, about the dehumanizing, demeaning way Black people were treated. But the humanity and warmth of Fugard’s writing, the complex reality of his characters, made the cruelty of South Africa’s racist regime an excruciating truth.

In 2010, Fugard was living in San Diego, but had returned to Cape Town to rehearse a new play, “The Train Driver” [Charles Isherwood, “In Tortured Empathy, a Ghost Hovers,” New York Times 10 Sept. 2012, Sec. C (“The Arts”): 1], before its premiere at the newly built Fugard Theater, which the producer and philanthropist Eric Abraham had named after the playwright.

The Fugard, which was to become a vibrant beacon on the South African arts scene, was located in District Six, a formerly mixed-race area that was declared a “whites only” neighborhood by the apartheid government in 1966. (The theater, where numerous works by Fugard were seen over a decade, closed in 2020, a victim of the coronavirus pandemic shutdowns.)

[The Fugard Theatre, also known as The Fugard, opened in February 2010. It closed in March 2021 (according to its website [link above] and Wikipedia) and was handed over to the District Six Museum by its founder Eric Abraham. The theater reopened in 2022 as the District Six Homecoming Centre, while the Fugard's archive moved online.]

“You will be sitting in the laps of the ghosts of the people who couldn’t be here,” Fugard said on opening night.

Fugard’s plays are in great part about those ghosts, an attempt to bear witness to forgotten and unknown lives and to the moral blindness and blinkered vision of the reality engendered and perpetuated by apartheid. His best-known works — “Blood Knot,” Boesman and Lena,” The Island,” “The Road to Mecca,” “Sizwe Banzi,” “Master Harold” — are mercilessly unsparing about the insidious way that race determines relationships in apartheid South Africa. But they are also deeply humane.

“Moral clarity — in such short supply in South Africa and indeed the world — was what he delivered,” Abraham wrote after the playwright’s death last weekend. “He pointed us to the boxes containing our past and urged us to rifle through them in order to learn more about ourselves.” Fugard understood, Abraham continued, “that divisions can only be overcome by a realization of a shared humanity, a palpable sense that we must look after one another if we are to make it through an often cruel and unforgiving world.”

Fugard moved back to South Africa soon after the Fugard Theater opened, first living in New Bethesda, where “The Road to Mecca,” about the outsider artist Helen Martins, was set; later he and his wife, Paula Fourie, moved to the university town of Stellenbosch. I met and interviewed him several times over the years; he was sometimes intense, but always jovial, unpretentious, humble.

Once he told me that he considered himself an outsider artist, without formal training or a degree, starting to write at a time when no one thought it worthwhile to put a South African story onstage.

But by being determinedly local, Fugard transcended the specifics of one country. As Abraham noted, his plays demonstrate the value of every human life. “Come over for a glass of wine,” Fugard would inevitably say at the end of an interview. I wish I had.

[Roslyn Sulcas is a dance critic and culture writer for the New York Times.  She was raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and studied English literature at university, receiving post-graduate degrees from the University of Cape Town and Paris Diderot University (now part of Paris Cité University).  While finishing her thesis, she lived in Paris, where she began writing for the British quarterly Dance Theatre Journal and became the Paris correspondent for Dance & DancersDance Magazine, and Dance International as well as writing frequently for other publications.  In 1996, she moved to New York and worked as an editor at SaveurTop ModelHouse & Garden, and House Beautiful while continuing to write about dance.  She began to review dance for the New York Times in 2005.  In 2011, she moved to London.  She writes about film, theater, and culture news as well as about dance for the Times.]


11 March 2019

'Boesman and Lena'


I’ve nominated Athol Fugard as one of the most interesting playwrights of the second half of the 20th century.  I don’t think there is any such list, but there should be and Fugard should be high on it.  He may have only one subject—apartheid—but each of his plays has something significant to say and he’s said it in different ways throughout his career, different styles.  (When I said this to Diana, my frequent theater companion, she asked me what American playwright I’d say was Fugard’s counterpart.  I couldn’t think of one.  August Wilson might come close, but his dramaturgy doesn’t vary much play to play; Suzan-Lori Parks competes in the dramaturgy area, but I’d say she’s more a 21st-century writer, and Lynn Nottage is definitely a 21st-century dramatist.)

Exhibit One in support of my nomination: Boesman and Lena, Fugard’s 1969 Godotesque play, the last of his Port Elizabeth trilogy (with Blood Knot, 1961; Hello and Goodbye, 1965).  Read, or better yet, see it and then compare it with almost any other of the South African playwright’s plays, say, The Island (1972) or “Master Harold” . . . and the Boys (1982).  All powerful, moving, and meaningful plays—and all completely different.  Fugard’s written about 34 plays and I’ve now seen 10 of them—and none of them are really alike.  (And let’s not even go into the roles he creates for actors!  I seldom feel jealous at the theater anymore, but his characters make me yearn.)

On Saturday night, 2 March, I got to see Boesman and Lena at the Signature Theatre Company.  Fugard’s play is part of this season’s Legacy Program (along with Sam Shepard’s Curse of the Starving Class, scheduled for this spring, and Thom Pain (based on nothing) by Will Eno, staged last fall; see my report on Rick On Theater on 26 November 2018).  Before now, I’d only seen the 2000 film adaptation with Danny Glover and Angela Bassett as the title characters.  I’ll give a more detailed assessment shortly, but I’ll just say for now that I was just stunned—by the play and the performances.  I couldn’t have asked for a better, fuller theater experience.

It’s been a while since I stated my personal criteria for good theater, so I’ll say it again now:  A good play must do more than just tell a story and it must do it theatrically.  The first part’s probably self-explanatory, but all I mean there is that the play has to have a point of some kind, say something, profound or trivial.  Storytelling’s a noble art of its own, but in itself, it’s not theater—unless you want to accomplish something by telling me the story.  Good, basic theater is storytelling first.  But why are you telling the story?  To teach me something?  To persuade me about something?  To reveal something about life, the world, my town, my neighbors? 

As for theatricality, what I mean is the play must use the attributes of the live stage to accomplish its task.  I don’t want a play to try to replicate a movie, a TV show, or a concert, though it can use the techniques of those arts; I want a play to be a play, live and, when necessary, overcoming that limitation by imaginative means.  Playwright Annie Baker explains: “So many plays are trying to be like film, like the needy kid who keeps saying ‘Like me, like me!’ and falling flat on his face.”  What Baker wants is for plays “to marshal the ancient resources of the stage toward experiences only it can provide.”  Fugard’s play and Yaël Farber’s staging meet both of my criteria in spades.  I hope you’ll see why I feel this way.

Boesman and Lena is a three-character, two-act play that Fugard started working on with a journal entry dated August 1965.  He describes an encounter with an “old woman on the road” to whom he gave a ride just outside the town of Cradock, about 160 miles northeast of Port Elizabeth, the playwright’s hometown.  She’d been evicted from her home on a local Afrikaner farm when her husband died about three days before.  (In a July 1968 journal note, Fugard recalled that “the genesis of” Boesman and Lena was possibly “an image from over ten years ago . . . a coloured man and woman, burdened with their possessions, whom I passed somewhere on the road near Laingsberg.  It was sunset and they were miles from the nearest town.”)

The old woman Fugard picked up was walking to another farm where a friend worked and was carrying all her possessions, a collection of discarded trash and rubbish in a huge bundle on her head.  The writer’s note said: “. . . in that cruel walk under the blazing sun, walking from all her life that she didn’t have on her head . . ., in this walk there was no defeat—there was pain, and great suffering, but no defeat.”  Then he asked: “How many put all of their life that they haven’t got in their hearts onto their heads and make that walk? . . .”

(Interviewed by Gitta Honegger, then a professor of dramaturgy and dramatic criticism at the Yale School of  Drama in New Haven, Connecticut, Fugard described his experience while writing Boesman and Lena.  He developed, he said, “an incredible sensitivity to rubbish,” looking for every discarded piece of junk that could be used, much as Boesman, whose livelihood was collecting empty bottles to sell, did.  In notes to a published edition of the play, the author also states of South Africans like Boesman and Lena: “At one level, their predicament is an indictment of this society which makes people rubbish.”)

The woman became Lena and The Walk became the story of her life and the backstory of the play.

Fugard apparently worked on the play for a couple of years, inventing the characters of Boesman (whose name is the Afrikaans word for ‘Bushman’ and is a derogatory term for a “coloured” man) and Outa, then put the script aside until 1968.  While fishing in the Swartkops River, the dramatist saw the setting for his play and, after struggling through several versions of the first act, completed the first draft of Boesman and Lena in August 1968.

The play was completed and premièred on 10 July 1969 at the Rhodes University Little Theatre in Grahamstown, South Africa.  The cast included Fugard as Boesman, Yvonne Bryceland as Lena, and Glynn Day as Outa—all white actors; the production was directed by the author.  On opening night, the white actors appeared in what Fugard described as “light” blackface, which I take to mean that they didn’t blacken their faces completely (like, say, Laurence Olivier in the 1964 National Theatre production of William Shakespeare’s Othello) but used a pale indication of blackness to make clear what was going on.  Whatever he meant by this phrase, the cast quickly decided it was unnecessary and went on to perform without the additional make-up.  At that time in South Africa, it was customary for white actors in blackface to play black and “coloured” characters.

The reason for the blackface, I figure, has to do with the same apartheid laws that forced the old woman from Cradock to wander the country, homeless and rootless.  The Population Registration Act (1950) decreed that every South African must be classified by race: white, Bantu (later called black; ‘Bantu’ is considered a derogatory and dismissive term not unlike ‘nigger’ in the U.S.), “coloured” (mixed race), Asian (principally Indian).  The Group Areas Act (also 1950) established the complete segregation by race of all residential areas of the country and designated specific areas for each race to live in.  The territories designated for blacks to reside were called Bantustans, both an official and a derogatory term. Performances by black actors before white audiences were forbidden; performances of any kind before integrated audiences were also forbidden and so were performances by integrated casts or musical ensembles.  Black and “coloured” South Africans weren’t even allowed to be in territories designated for whites only (and vice versa), so a cast of black actors would have been arrested if it had tried to perform Fugard’s play at Rhodes University. 

Bryceland had a different explanation:

The black actors in South Africa at that stage were mostly making musicals or doing what amounted to concerts in the townships.  And even the actors that were working with Athol were far behind in, what can I say, in the craft, because they had never had the opportunities.  So we went into the play without even considering, “Why are we playing them?”  We just did them because they had to be done.

After the South African début, the U.S. première of Boesman and Lena was presented Off-Broadway in New York City, from 22 June 1970 to 24 January 1971, running for 205 performances.  Produced by Paul Libin and Theodore Mann in association with John Berry at the Circle in the Square Downtown in Greenwich Village, the cast included James Earl Jones as Boesman, Ruby Dee as Lena, and Zakes Mokae as the Old African (Outa), under the direction of Berry.  (Mokae, who would perform many of Fugard’s characters in New York—and around the world—in the coming years, was one of the black South African actors with whom the playwright was working to build a multi-racial acting troupe.)  The production won 1971 OBIE Awards for Best Foreign Play, Best Performance by an Actress (Dee), and Distinguished Direction (Berry). 

It’s a revealing side story that the author was unable to attend the performance of the New York première of his latest play because the South African government had confiscated his passport in 1967, holding it for five years so that Fugard couldn’t travel outside South Africa. This curtailed his ability to direct his own plays abroad or to appear in them on foreign stages.  That didn’t stop his plays from being performed, however, a fact that only angered the government in Pretoria and Cape Town more.  The writer had never broken any law or taken or called for any violent act against the apartheid regime; his offense was solely in his plays.  He was, however, a well-known and popular writer by this time; by 1971, for instance, Boesman and Lena has been seen by 70,000 theatergoers in his own country alone.

Revivals and regional premières ensued, such as the New Back Alley Theater in Washington, D.C., in 1974; Skokie, Illinois’s Northlight Theatre in 1986, directed by Woody King, Jr., with Trazana Beverley as Lena; another 1986 staging at the Los Angeles Theatre Center, directed by Bill Bushnell with Madge Sinclair as Lena and Moses Gunn as Boesman; Huntington Theatre Company’s 1989 Boston production, directed by Tazewell Thompson; and in 1992 at the American Showcase Theatre in Alexandria, Virginia, among many others in the U.S. and abroad.  (The combination of the challenging acting requirements, a powerful script, small cast, a single and simple set has made Boesman and Lena a magnet for theaters, especially small ones.)  1992 also saw another revival in New York City, presented by the Manhattan Theatre Club at the New York City Center.  Directed again by Fugard, the production starred Keith David as Boesman, Lynne Thigpen as Lena, and Tsepo Mokone as Outa; it ran for 80 performances and won the 1992 Lucille Lortel Award for Outstanding Revival and the 1992 Obie Award for Performance for Thigpen; it was nominated for the 1992 Outer Critics Circle Award for Outstanding Revival of a Play.

Two film adaptations of Boesman and Lena were released: in 1973, directed by Ross Devenish with the original South African actors as Boesman and Lena and Sandy Tube as Outa; and in 2000, directed by John Berry (director of the New York stage première who died in 1999 while editing Boesman and Lena), with Glover as Boesman, Bassett as Lena, and Willie Jonah as the Old Man.  The playtext has been published a number of times; currently it’s available from Samuel French in an acting edition (1971) and in Blood Knot and Other Plays from the Theatre Communications Group (with Blood Knot and Hello and Goodbye, 1991).

The current Signature revival, which Farber mounted here as a two-hour one-act, began previews on 5 February 2019 and opened on 25 February.  The Saturday evening performance Diana and I attended in the Alice Griffin Jewel Box Theatre, a small proscenium house that seats 191 spectators, commenced at 8 p.m.  The STC revival of Boesman and Lena is scheduled to close on 24 March (after being extended from 17 March). 

Boesman and Lena depicts the common plight of homeless South Africans, displaced because of the Group Areas Act.  It was also common practice during the apartheid years in South Africa for farmers to evict a worker’s family when the worker dies, and this contributed to the wandering population of displaced black and “coloured” South Africans initiated by the Population Registration and the Group Areas Acts.

The two wanderers represent the non-white people of the country, not only without homes, but increasingly without a native culture or language.  The desolation of the setting is more than just a depiction of the non-white South Africans’ displacement; it’s also a representation of the hopelessness of the their very lives.  Outa, of course, is even more deracinated, as represented by the fact that he speaks neither English nor Afrikaans; he speaks and understands only Xhosa, his tribal tongue—which neither Boesman nor Lena can speak or comprehend.  The South African native peoples are being segregated not just from the privileged whites, but from one another. 

Upon entering the Griffin Theatre and taking our seats in the balcony, Diana and I looked down at a partially obscured stage.  The Boesman and Lena set is hidden behind a proscenium-wide expanse of white plastic, billowing slightly in the theater’s atmosphere.  This immediately raised our curiosities, wondering what director Forbes didn’t want us to see.  The theater is filled with an eerie sound of a droning chord, a cross between a baritone wind instrument of some kind and a continuously bowed string.  (The compelling sound design is by Matt Hubbs.)  Shortly, a man and a woman make their way from the back of the auditorium below us, meandering through the aisles to the front of the stage.  The man, Boesman (Sahr Ngaujah), is carrying all of his meager possessions on his back and the woman, Lena (Zainab Jah), carries her burden on her head.

Boesman gathers up the plastic sheeting, saving it for potential use, and the two sojourners cross the to the  left side of the house and exit through a door, reappearing at the back of the set.  The play begins, like Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, on an empty landscape.  (To reinforce the similarity to Beckett’s masterpiece, director Yaël Farber, who’s a native of South Africa herself, has placed a barren tree, no more than a large twig, really, up stage left.  The set was designed by Susan Hilferty—who also did the costumes—and lit by Amith Chandrashaker.)  It’s a cold afternoon—the time of the play isn’t specified—and Boesman trudges down the stage, depicting the mudflats along the River Swartkops (about seven miles north of Port Elizabeth).  Shortly after his entrance, Lena enters.  The two “coloured” people, who’ve been walking all day since the white man’s bulldozers razed their shantytown home, could be any age, but the implication is that they are not young, probably middle-aged. 

The bleak mudflats are just one of many similar sites—they list a litany of their past dwellings places—which Boesman and Lena have tried to make into a home, but this latest place will be just another temporary shelter until the white man comes with his bulldozer and forces them to move on again.  Lena begins to set up their camp and starts the cooking fire in a large cauldron while Boesman scavenges for more discards to use to build their pondok, the  lean-to that will be their cover for the night.  The plastic sheeting will serve as a waterproof roof.  To confirm the playwright’s point that black and “coloured” South Africans are trash, throw-aways, Boesman says: “We’re whiteman’s rubbish.”  They are the kind of refuse that can’t be discarded permanently and Boesman explains to his companion why the white man is so “beneukt [fed up] with us.  He can’t get rid of his rubbish.”  

The rest of the play takes place on the desolate spot where the two stop for the night.  Again like Godot, there’s little action.  Over the course of the evening and through the night, the wanderer’s relationship is revealed by their talk as each one remembers earlier events, happy and tragic, and what they do to one another.  Boesman beats Lena, as he has done throughout their relationship, and she berates him.  Until now, however, they’ve never separated.  Over Boesman’s objections, Lena takes into their camp an elderly Xhosa tribesman (Thomas Silcott), whom she calls Outa.  (‘Outa’ is a term for an older “coloured” or black man, often used by children as a mark of respect.)  While Lena is kind to the old man Boesman is cruel to him.  He repeatedly calls the Old African kaffer, another derogatory Afrikaans word for a black man, lower in the South African hierarchy even than the “coloureds” like Lena and Boesman.  Outa’s an intruder in the only part of the world that Boesman can control, where he can rule.  When Boesman retires to the pondok, Lena sits all night with Outa on a crate by the cooking fire.  In the morning, she finds that the Old African has died in his sleep and Boesman, fearing he will be blamed for the death, begins packing up the camp in a panic.  For the first time, Lena seems to defy Boesman and refuses to flee with him. 

Though Lena has slowly been discovering her own independence, in the end, she goes with him, continuing The Walk, as Fugard called it, just as her non-white countrymen and -women have always done despite differences, and even cruelties, among the different factions.  After all, what else can they do?

The performances under Forbes’s direction were astounding.  Despite the play’s title, it’s Lena’s stage to command—she’s there for almost the entire two hours and talks through most of it.  Zainab Jah is amazing; I still recall her chameleonic performance as the Venus Hotentot in Suzan-Lori Parks’s Venus, also at the Signature Theatre Company, in May 2017 (see my report on Rick On Theater on 7 June 2017), and though the roles are very different, the same command of both the character and the stage is in evidence.  In both plays, there’s an undercurrent of tragedy that Jah conveys in her very demeanor and speech (she has a lot of monologues)—but as a subtext, not the salient character note.  (She accomplishes what one of my acting teachers explained as the desirable outcome of one technique he taught: it makes the audience sense that the actor is “up to something” without the spectator ever determining exactly what that is.) 

I last saw Sahr Ngaujah (again at Signature) as Willie in Fugard’s “Master Harold” . . . and the Boys in November 2016 and before that in María Irene Fornés’s Drowning and Funnyhouse of a Negro by Adrienne Kennedy, parts of the Signature Plays the previous May 2016 (see my reports on 21 November 2016 and 3 June  2016).  (Ngaujah appeared in Fugard’s The Painted Rocks at Revolver Creek at STC in 2015, but he left the show due to injury before I saw it in June.)  His Boesman is emotionally mercurial and flashes of brutality.  When he takes his anger at being powerless out on Lena, Ngaujah doesn’t even take time to change gears.  It’s the societal counterpart of the abused becoming the abuser: Ngaujah’s Boesman beats Lena the same way his white masters beat him—and white society abuses South Africa’s non-white citizens.  While Jah’s Lena continues to feel a need for human connections, as she demonstrates with Outa, Ngaujah’s Boesman as totally antisocial and has pretty much adopted the same worldview as the white perpetrators of apartheid.  Ngaujah’s roles in “Master Harold” and Painted Rocks were sympathetic, even tender, but his Boesman is violent, self-centered, angry, and dismissive—hardly an admirable person.  The actor doesn’t shirk his dramatic responsibility, making his character as reprehensible as he is understandable.

Thomas Silcott’s role is the hardest to read as Outa speaks very little and when he does, it’s in Xhosa.  It’s also perhaps the hardest role to play because his chief purpose is to be an enigma.  Have you ever tried to play an enigma?  It’s to acting what proving a negative is to logic.  Yet Silcott embodies Outa so that he’s a looming presence—a focus for sympathy and concern—and his silent death has the impact of a small bombshell (even if you guess it’s going to happen—not that Fugard telegraphs it).

I must make a note of praise here for Barbara Rubin, the dialect coach—who I assume also taught Silcott the Xhosa language for his lines—for what sounded to me like an authentic South African dialect.  As “coloureds,” Lena and Boesman speak English infused with Afrikaans expressions and speech patterns.  The roles in Boesman and Lena are hard enough for actors to manage credibly, but to do it with the dialect requirements Fugard gives them, is a major accomplishment which this cast handled with agility—and I say that’s thanks in large part to Rubin.

It’s also thanks to Forbes, whose direction of Signature’s Boesman and Lena was spot-on.  I’m not sure how wise it was to combine the two acts into one two-hour sitting—but it turned out not to be as onerous as I feared.  I imagine she didn’t want the power of the play to be dissipated by allowing the audience to take a 15-minute break halfway through, interrupting the build Forbes and the cast had been creating.  I guess she was right in the end, since both Diana and I came out with a very high opinion of the production.  Forbes kept the pressure on, inching upwards toward Outa’s death and Boesman’s panic, the emotional high point of the play.  The actors, especially Jah, build with it.  It’s an extremely tight performance.

It’s also bleak and Forbes follows through on the set’s desolation—an ugly, brown expanse of mud that stretched seemingly forever—we don’t see an actual river—with an equally bleak performance.  The characters display no humor, no lightness, no glimmer of pleasure once, now, or to come.  Despite this, they are mesmerizing and enthralling.  (Even in the curtain call, the actors don’t drop their characters, still carrying their belongings that they’d begun to gather up for the continuation of their journey.  Outa doesn’t rise from his death pose.)

(A personal note: when I book seats for a play, I always prefer to go after the official opening.  This is a clear example of why: I want to see the show the creators want the audience to see, the finished product.  Previews are dress rehearsals with an audience.  The company’s still at work.  I want to go when they’re done.  QED.)

The press coverage for Signature’s Boesman and Lena was skimpy in my opinion.  As of 10 March, Show-Score scored only 17 notices for an average of 77 with 94% of the reviews being positive, 6% mixed, and none negative.  The highest score was a single 93 (Front Row Center) followed by one 90 (Off Script with Dan Dwyer); the lowest score was 60 for New York Theater, backed by three 70’s, including Theatre’s Leiter Side.  My survey will cover 12 reviews.

The only daily paper—in fact, the only newspaper—that ran a review was the New York Times.  In a Times “Critic's Pick,” Jesse Green characterized Boesman and Lena as “a classic of world drama, evolving over time to incorporate new shades of meaning in response to new realities” in a “fine revival.”  (All the more reason for better press coverage of this revival—ahem, ahem.)  The STC mounting, asserted Green, “may even mark the play’s emergence as a different work entirely, one that leaves its specifics behind.”  When the play débuted in 1969, said Green, “it was clearly a document of apartheid”; when the Timesman first encountered it in college, he felt “it read almost as reportage or agitprop, with an implied call to action.”  Now the passage of time and history has rendered Boesman and Lena part of “the tradition of existential rather than political drama.”  

The STC revival is also “a beautiful production, especially as lit by Amith Chandrashaker,” felt Green.  The actors provide “admirable, uncompromising performances” in Farber’s “unrelentingly bleak staging.”  Said Green, “[T]ime disappears.”  The characters, the Times reviewer found, have morphed into “solo archetypes of the broader human condition, regardless of race or poverty; not South Africa’s peculiar (and remediable) problem but the world’s eternal one.”

In Time Out New York (the only other print review I found), Raven Snook labeled STC’s Boesman and Lena revival “unrelenting” in a “powerful” production.  Director Farber “emphasizes its timelessness,” reported the TONY reviewer.  Nonetheless, asserted Snook, “it can be emotionally numbing.”  She found that the “repetitiveness of their overwhelming hopelessness . . . triggers a self-protective detachment in the audience.  Only when Boesman and Lena’s routine is disrupted do they start to tear at your soul.”    Her final analysis was: “Boesman and Lena may leave you impressed at the resilience of the spirit or depressed by the revolting way people continue to treat each other.  Either way, it is a challenge to endure.”

In the second-highest-scoring review on Show-Score (90), Dan Dwyer of Off Script with Dan Dwyer called Boesman and Lena a “timeless existential statement” and Signature’s staging a “profound, searing revival . . . under the incisive direction of Yael Farber.”  Dwyer reported that Farber’s “production is punctuated with primitive texture and sound—dried mud crunches underfoot, a ratty blanket shaken out erupts in a cloud of dirt, pitiful household pots and pans that Lena carries strapped to her waist clank in the barren silence.”

On Front Row Center, which was rated 93 on Show-Score, Donna Herman (who also posted on New York Theatre Guide) labeled Boesman and Lena “a brilliant play” and an “unflinching look at the results of [apartheid’s] racist policies.”  Despite the play’s apartheid-era setting, Herman noted, the play has inherited a “far-reaching and wider resonance” over time.  The FRC reviewer found that in this time of #MeToo, the play “that was written 50 years ago but feels so contemporary it could have been written yesterday, . . . is startling.”  Herman thought that “Yaël Farber has created a stunning production” and added, “The talent that conspires to bring this world into being is prodigious.”  She declared that “Jah and Ngaujah give tour-de-force performances, holding back nothing.” 

Calling the play a “masterpiece” on TheaterMania, Pete Hempstead reported, “There's a sense of dread in the air when you enter the Griffin Theatre for a performance of Boesman and Lena.”  Hempstead’s referring to the plastic sheet that obscures the set.  “It’s one of director Yaël Farber’s haunting theatrical images in this angry, mournful examination of institutionalized racism.”  The TM review-writer observed, “It’s a tough play to watch, and at times, Farber takes things a bit too far.”  He added, however, “But with its three virtuosic performances and brilliant staging, this two-hour journey is unquestionably worth taking.”  Hempstead concluded by noting, “The play is now 50 years old and takes place in a country that officially abolished its racist system of government in the early ‘90s.  Now, in America, it is all the more startling how familiar these characters seem.”

Melissa Rose Bernardo informed us that “a formidable sense of doom hovers over Yaël Farber’s demanding production of Boesman and Lena” on New York Stage Review.  She praised Ngaujah for his “frighteningly good performance” and pronounced Jah as “every inch his match and more.”  On Broadway World, Michael Dale dubbed Farber’s rendition of Boesman and Lena as an “exquisitely somber production” in which the title roles are “played with stark sensitivity” by Jah and Ngaujah and for which the designers “do a superb job of creating a bleak, lifeless landscape.” 

Boesman and Lena is now “recognized as one of the classics” of Fugard’s works, Simon Saltzman reminded us on CurtainUp; however, he added, “That doesn’t make its emotional demands upon its actors or even the physical demands upon its audience any less of a challenge.”  Nonetheless, Saltzman praised the production as “impressively directed” and reported that Jah and Ngaujah “have done their work superbly.”  Still, “Boesman and Lena tested my endurance,” revealed Saltzman, but allowed that that “is not necessarily a complaint as the drama itself is purposefully calculated to do just that.”  The CU reviewer, however, did complain, “Fugard’s characters in general are known for lengthy speeches that tend toward the extraordinarily lyrical and colorful. Some of this becomes wearying even as we marvel at their stamina.”

On Talkin’ Broadway, James Wilson dubbed the production of STC’s Boesman and Lena “a lacerating revival” of a “[b]leak, angry, and violent” play.  It’s “a difficult play to watch, and director Yaël Farber does not make it any easier in her production choices.”  Wilson complained about the intermissionless performance which makes the play “an emotionally draining two hours.”  The TB review-writer proclaimed, “Jah is utterly and scarily convincing” and that Ngaujah “is a seething, dangerous presence”; Silcott’s “Old African is a tragic, pathetic figure.” 

In the review that got the second-lowest score (70), Samuel L. Leiter wrote on his blog, Theatre’s Leiter Side, labeled the play “powerful” and the STC production as “a fine” revival.  Leiter, however, did complain about the opening “sequence that goes on too long” because Farber “has her actors enter at a snail’s pace.”  Altogether, asserted Leiter, “Boesman and Lena is a heavy dose of bleak, nearly humorless drama requiring considerable patience.”  The blogger acknowledged, the play’s “language, spoken in the heavy accents of poor South Africans, is abundantly rich and provocative, and the performances of all three actors are excellent,” but nonetheless found that “the material is relentlessly depressing.”  Leiter had other objections as well:

There are verbose monologues, especially by Lena, and lots of angry shouting by the volatile Boesman.  Much of the play moves slowly, repetitiousness is evident, and dramatic developments are rare.  Its two uninterrupted hours, regardless of how well done, can wear out even the most sympathetic listener.

Jonathan Mandell of New York Theater, in the lowest-rated review on Show-Score (60), called the play “relentlessly bleak” and lamented that it now “comes off largely as allegorical,” as it’s “largely removed from its political context”—the apartheid world of 1969 South Africa.  Mandell acknowledged, “It’s a stunning production visually” in the revival at STC, and “[t]he first-rate actors deliver committed performances.”  He found, however, “At two hours long without an intermission, this abstracted and depressing ‘Boesman and Lena’ is easier to respect than to sit through.”  The play’s original productions were “clearly rooted” in the world of apartheid, contended Mandell, but in the current production, “This feels less understood.” 

On Theater Pizzazz, Carol Rocamora called the STC’s Boesman and Lena a “stunning revival,” observing that “its themes and deep meanings seem to have expanded with time to encompass human suffering everywhere in the world today.”  Rocamora declared that Jah “is magnificent in the role of Lena,” Ngaujah is “powerful,” and Silcott plays Outa “exquisitely”; Farber “directs with authority and a profound understanding of Fugard’s themes.”