TOPIC+Queer+Theatre

=Queer Theatre=

STARTING POINTS:

Here is a really helpful link to an online database of GLBTQ literature and writers: [] ~Allison

The following are lists of plays that deal with GLBT issues we could look into:

//The Blackmailers// by John Gray and Marc-Andre Raffalovich 1894 //At Saint Judas's// by Henry Blake Fuller 1896 //Saul// by Andre Gide 1896 //"Mistakes"// by Herbert Hirschberg 1906 //The Dangerous Precaution// by Mikhail Kuzmin 1907 //The Gentleman of the Chrysanthemums// by Armory (Carle Dauriac) 1908 God of Vengeance //by Sholem Asch 1910// Baal //by Bertolt Brecht 1918// Edward II //by Bertolt Brecht 1923 Ania and Esther// by Klaus Mann 1925 //The Prisoners of War// by J. R. Ackerley 1925 //The Captive// by Edouard Bourdet 1926 //The Drag// by Mae West 1927 //The Audience (//also known as //The Public////)// by Federico Garcia Lorca 1930-1936- unfinished //The Green Bay Tree// by Mordaunt Shairp 1933 //Design for Living// by Noel Coward 1933 //The Children's Hour// by Lillian Hellman 1934 //Oscar Wilde// by Leslie and Sewell Stokes 1938 //This is the Army// by Irving Berlin 1942 //I Am a Camera// by John van Druten 1951 //Tea and Sympathy// by Robert Anderson 1953 //Sud (South)// by Julian Green 1953 //The Immoralist// by Ruth and Augustus Goetz 1954 //Cat on a Hot Tin Roof// by Tennessee Williams 1955 //Suddenly, Last Summer// by Tennessee Williams 1958 //The Sign in Sidney Brustein's Window// 1964 //The Madness of Lady Bright// by Lanford Wilson 1964 //The Haunted Host// by Robert Patrick 1964 //The Killing of Sister George// by Frank Marcus 1965 //Cabaret// by Kander and Ebbs 1966 //Boys in the Band// by Mart Crowley 1968 //Bad Habits// by Terrence McNally 1971 //Confessions of a Female Disorder// by Susan Miller 1973 //Camille// by Charles Ludlam 1973 //A Late Snow// by Jane Chambers 1974 //The Ritz// by Terrence McNally 1974 //A Chorus Line// by Kirkwood, Dante, Hamlisch, and Kleban 1975 //Bent// by Martin Sherman 1978 //5th of July// by Lanford Wilson 1978 //Split Britches: A True Story// by Split Britches 1980 //Street Theatre// by Doric Wilson 1981 //Torch Song Trilogy// by Harvey Fierstein 1981 //The Well of Horniness// by Holly Hughes 1983 //As Is// by William Hoffman 1985 //The Normal Heart// by Larry Kramer 1985 //The Lisbon Traviata// by Terrence McNally 1985 //Jerker// by Robert Chesley 1985 //Frankie and Johnnie in the Claire de Lune// by Terrence McNally 1987 //Safe Sex// by Harvey Fierstein 1987 //Mean Tears// by Peter Gill 1987 //Twice Over// by Jane Kirby 1988 //M. Butterfly// by David Henry Hwang 1988 //Burn This// by Lanford Wilson 1988 //The Unidentified Nature and True Remains of Love// by Michel Tremblay 1989 //Six Degrees of Separation// by John Guare 1990 //Belle Reprieve// by Split Britches 1991 //Lips Together, Teeth Apart// by Terrence McNally 1991 //Angels in America: Millennium Approaches// by Tony Kushner 1991 //Angels in America: Perestroika// by Tony Kushner 1992 //Destiny of Me// by Larry Kramer 1992 //Jeffrey// by Paul Rudnick 1992 //Love! Valour! Compassion!// by Terrence McNally 1994 //Rent// by Jonathan Larson 1994 //The Baltimore Waltz// by Paula Vogel 1995 //Gross Indecency// by Moises Kauffman 1997 //The Dying Gaul// by Craig Lucas 1997 //Hedwig and the Angry Inch// by John Cameron Mitchell 1998 //Boston Marriage// by David Mamet 1999 //The Laramie Project// by Moises Kauffman 2000 //The Hungry Woman// by Cherrie Moraga 2001 //The Goat, or Who is Sylvia// by Edward Albee 2002 //A Beautiful View// by Daniel Maclvor 2006 //The Intelligent Homosexual's Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures// by Tony Kushner 2009

Posted by Allison Witham

Plays that can be read "through a queer lens" where the male is seen as a sexual object of desire:

//Salome// by Oscar Wilde 1895 //Streetcar Named Desire// by Tennessee Williams 1947 //Billy Budd// by Coxe and Chapman 1949 //The Sandbox// by Edward Albee 1958 //Zoo Story// by Edward Albee 1959 //The American Dream// by Edward Albee 1963 //Tiny Alice// by Edward Albee 1963

Posted by Allison Witham

Performance Artists/ Companies that create original GLBTQ work:

Tim Miller- __Body Blows: 6 Performances__//, __1001 Beds__ Split Britches (Lois Weaver and Peggy Shaw) Sky Gilbert Theatre Rhinoceros in San Francisco The Glines in New York City OutProud in Atlanta Actor Express in Atlanta Manbites Dog Theatre in Durham // Most of Joe Orton, Ronald Tavel, and Charles Ludlam's plays would be applicable to our research

Posted by Allison Witham

Performance spaces such as: Caffe Cino in Greenwich Village (1960s) The Black Cat in San Francisco (1933-1964) PS 122 in New York Highways Performance Space in CA WOW theater in New York

Posted by Allison Witham

Movies to Watch:

Before Stonewall After Stonewall The Celluloid Closet Fabulous! The Story of Queer Cinema John Waters: This Filthy World Indie Sex

=Some Useful Terms=



** __DRAG PERFORMANCE__ ** Female Impersonation has existed in many forms within and without the realm of “queer theatre” and prior to one of the most major shifts in theatrical production (the introduction of women on stage) existed entirely separate from the “queer identity”. During the Elizabethan Era, where much of our classical traditions are rooted, female parts were played by boys and young men who could embody “feminine qualities”. The art of portraying a woman effectively gained many men of this trade as much fame as Richard Burbage (perhaps the most famous actor of his day). Nathaniel Field, accredited with being the first Ophelia, amassed a high degree of popularity in his day as did Robert Gough; the first Juliet and Cleopatra. This form of impersonation is nothing like the female impersonation we know today. While a man in a dress today is seen as grotesque comedy, it was the only option for playwrights like Shakespeare and Marlowe to have their stunning, sexual, and damsel characters depicted by boys with unbroken voices, or a slender smooth young man with a treble quality to his voice. A marked shirt came in the 17th century, while Edward Kynaston was regarded as the “greatest female impersonator of the English stage” while Davenant and Killigrew were feuding for a monopoly of the Elizabethan theatre, the prospect of women on the stage presented one of the clearest divisions between the two companies. While Davenant attempted to keep the tradition of having male female impersonators perform as women, Killigrew was the first major advocate for real women on the stage. Once this concept was introduced and playwrights had the option of having their heroines actually depicted by soft, beautiful, and sexual women- female impersonators began to seem less capable or more illusionary, breaking the standard that had been their before of an actor playing a part to a man in a dress. Female impersonation as a legitimate art form all but died with the introduction of women like Margaret Hughes to the stage.

A clip from //Stage Beauty//; a romanticized-biographical representation of this major transition in theatrical practices. There’s no way of knowing if the actor’s (Billy Crudup) interpretation of female impersonation styles are accurate but it is a good modern representation of stylized “real disguise” [|Stage Beauty Trailer] Fast forward about 200 years and bypass a whole history of female impersonation on the Restoration stage (such characters as Ms. Prism, Lady Bracknell, Polly Peacham and Mrs. Malliprop, quite frequently depicted by older men in grotesquely exaggerated feminine attire for comedic effect) to an era where the fashion of men moves beyond the frilly, extravagant and (by our standards) effeminate styles to a more recognizably masculine appearance. It would be silly to assume that along with this transition in the 19th century, that the prospect of a man in women’s clothes became something other than a fashion faux pas. Within these years of evolution of female impersonation their stands a marked distinction in the kinds of impersonation that occur. “Real Disguise” and False Disguise”, real disguise stemming from the older tradition of a man in a woman’s role, in which the impersonation is dependent on the audience not knowing, or not dwelling on the fact that the actor has male genetalia. False Disguise being closer to our more modern standard of an impersonation that relies entirely on the audiences realization and acknowledgement the performer is a man. This clear distinction among the genders, characterized by clothing, made a man in a dress (for better or for worse) a deviant of the social norm. Hyperlink this shift to an outstanding moment in queer history when Dr. Charles Gilbert Chaddock translated Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s //Psychopathia Sexualis// study on sexual practices. Same-sex practices and cross-dressing entered a space together of being a marginalized group, deviant from socio-sexual norms. These simultaneous occurrences united these two groups into the vast ocean of what we describe as “queer theatre”. While there is an unending variety of types of Drag performers all over the world, I’ve chosen to focus on the work of one particular drag performer, Charles Busch and in what ways he uses drag performances and the effects it has on modern audiences. Busch attended Northwestern University as a drama major in the 70’s, but because of his svelte appearances and effeminate demeanor, he found it difficult to be cast in any substantial roles. When he returned to New York he began writing plays for himself to perform in. His first surprise success was with __Vampire Lesbians in Sodom__ which was the first of Busch’s trademark style; film genre parodies in which he impersonates outrageous golden era-esque actresses. The success of this show led to many successful parodies of the same vein; __Psycho Beach Party__, __Die, Mommy Die__ (both of which were made into films starring Busch in drag) __Lady in Question__-a spoof on anti-Nazi films- and __Red Scare on the Sunset-__ a parody of McCarthy Era Hollywood. A clip from the film //Die, Mommy Die// [|Die Mommy Die] You should be able to figure out who Busch is… The reason why I have chosen Busch as the focus of my discussion is that in the criticism he receives, many contemporary concerns about Drag performance are echoed in his plays and stagings. Laurence Senelick, a drama professor at Tufts University has asserted that female impersonation has lost its’ effect on a desensitized generation, but scholars such as Richard Niles₃ have argued that the tool of female impersonation can be used to highlight specific issues of sex and gender, echoing many sentiments of the argument for women’s equality ideals in the sexuality and gender questions permeating the socio-political sphere of our culture. Famed queer scholar Judith Bulter also states, “Drag undermines the production of legitimate gender (which is a series of repeated actions) in the eyes of the spectators. A perfect example of this was Busch’s staged readings of Ibsen’s //A Doll’s House// and //Hedda Gabler// in 2000 in which Busch himself played Nora and Hedda. Almost all critical response said that it subverted the hetero-normative world presented in both of Ibsen’s plays, and the struggle to escape their place as a marginalized member of society was even more defeating when one realizes that these women were actually a man who could not reveal his true identity. This interconnection of women and queer-folk as marginalized members of society gives Drag a dual ability to make the queer community embrace marginalization as empowering, but also creates a performed gender identity as much as hetero-normative identity is performed; actively resisting assimilation is in and of itself a series of repeated actions. While some could argue Drag deserves a category outside of queer theater because queerness does not necessarily describe the drag performer- if one accepts Drag as the best example of subverting gender on the stage and we have already seen so many parallels sex and gender in the realm of queer theater, I argue that Drag has a place as one of the defining characteristics of queer theatre. 1. Baker, Roger. __Drag; A History of Female Impersonation on the Stage__ London. The Garden City Press Ltd. 1968 2. Niles, Richard __Wigs, Laughter and Subversion__ Journal of Homosexuality. 46: 3, 35-53. 2004 3. King, Dave __The Transvestite and the Transexual__ Newcastle upon Tyne. Anthenaeum Press Ltd. 1993 // 4. //J. Leslie Hotson __George Jolly, Actor-Manager: New Light on the Restoration Stage__ Studies in Philology, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1923), pp. 422

= Adaptation: =

 Within the representation of gay characters and themes, the politics of adaptation have proven to be both problematic and revealing. Adaptation is a process, rather than a part of a body of work. Our understanding of a text's relevance and coding changes with our social, political and cultural understandings. This change is not necessarily an indication of progress- as the term "progress" and what it implies is also problematic- but, rather an alteration in our ability to process and contextualize information. One string of adaptations I'd like to focus on is the adaptation of Christopher Isherwood's Goodbye to Berlin, John van Druten's I Am a Camera, and Masteroff, Kander, and Ebb's Cabaret. By creating a coded rendition of his personal diary, Isherwood crafted a character of himself and a series of snapshots of pre-Nazi, Weimar Berlin that lent themselves, and him, to be adapted.

 After the Wilde Trials, homosexuality was an offence associated with particular character traits throughout London. The once socially revered “dandy” was now considered degenerate and in the wake of World War I, the “love that dare not speak its name” was both illegal and rampant amongst troops in trenches far away from home and loved ones. Legally, homosexual acts were still criminalized. The Labouchere Amendment, also known as the “Blackmailer’s Charter” (Miller 47), the same law that sent Wilde to prison for two years hard labor, was still in effect and enforced during Isherwood’s young adulthood- as it would be in England until the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was passed decriminalizing homosexuality. Despite the sexually and socially liberal reputation Berlin possessed, there were still restrictions mandated against homosexuality in Germany, just as in England, from virtually the moment the young country came into being: “Under the influence of the French Revolution, the state of Bavaria had abolished laws in 1813 criminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults. Hannover had done in 1840. But with unification, the law of Prussia, outlawing ‘unnatural sexual acts between men and men, and men and beasts,’ became the basis for the law of the unified Germany” (Miller 112). A provision of the German Criminal Code entitled “Paragraph 175” was enacted on May 15th, 1871 just after the unification. The statute stipulated, “a male who indulges in criminally indecent activities with another male or who allows himself to participate in such activities will be punished with jail” (Miller 112). The statute mentioned no such restrictions for women, however, the Reichstag would discuss restrictions including lesbian behavior in 1911. In face of the criminalization of homosexual behavior, Europe’s first gay rights movement championed by physician and sex researcher Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld begins to fight against Paragraph 175. For one brief moment in 1929, it seemed that the budding gay rights movement had, after much protest, overturned the anti-homosexual statute: “supported by the Communists and the Social Democrats, a Reichstag committee reproved repeal by a narrow 15-13 vote. Passage by the entire parliamentary appeared likely” (Miller 126). After the vote, Hitler’s official newspaper wrote: We congratulate you, Mr. Hirschfeld, on the victory in committee. But don’t think that we Germans will allow these laws to stand for a single day after we have come to power. . . .Among the many evil instincts that characterize the Jewish race, one that is especially pernicious has to do with sexual relationships. The Jews are forever trying to propagandize sexual relations between siblings, men and animals, and men and men. We National Socialists will soon unmask and condemn them by law. these efforts are nothing but vulgar, perverted crimes and we will punish them by banishment or hanging. Plant 49

The newspaper’s open letter to Hirschfeld draws absurd connections between Judaism and sexuality- Hirschfeld was both openly gay and Jewish- and makes Judaism, bestiality and homosexuality equivalent offences. Masteroff, Ebb, and Kander picked up on this comparison in the writing one of the MC’s numbers in //Cabaret //. In one of the most disturbing and haunting scenes in the play, the Emcee sings a ballad to a gorilla the audience discovers to be a metaphor for a Jew: “ //The //EMCEE // enters, walking hand-in-hand with a gorilla. The gorilla is really rather attractive—as gorillas go. She wears a chic little skirt and carries a handbag //” (Masteroff, Kander, Ebb 92). The Emcee then sings a song about his relationship with the gorilla and how they are “sneered” at when out in public together (Masteroff, Kander, Ebb 93). The end of the song serves as the punch line where it is revealed that the couple is jeered at not because she is a gorilla, but a Jew. Interestingly, Masteroff and Kander present two endings to the song. One implies that the gorilla is Jewish by using the Yiddish word, “Meeskite,” meaning ugly or funny looking: “But if you could see her through my eyes, she isn’t a meeskite at all!” (Masteroff, Kander, Ebb 93). The other version names the gorilla as a Jew: “But if you could see her through my eyes, she isn’t Jewish at all” (Masteroff, Kander, Ebb 93). There is no mention of Judaism in the rest of the song, so depending on the director’s choice, the song can either be coded as anti-Semitic, or blatant. In a preceding scene, Frl. Schneider and Herr Schultz first celebrate their engagement with a party where Schultz sings a song about meeskites and how if a person acts with kindness, their outer beauty does not matter. The song causes Ernst, a Nazi and former friend of Schultz’s to leave. In the following scene, Frl. Schneider attempts to break off the engagement for fear of losing her renting license and physical harm. Although no verbal comment is ever made about it, another subversive couple is at the engagement party: “Beautiful dancing! Beautiful! ( //He // [Schultz] //suddenly notes two boys dancing together //) All right! Enough dancing! Enough! No more dancing” (Masteroff, Kander, Ebb 78). The moment is small and totally reliant on the actor play Schultz to emphasize the visual joke the line references, but the silent recognition given to the homosexuals in the room acts as a way of acknowledging the six foot gorilla in the room: homosexuals being persecuted by the Nazis along with Jews. Unlike the Schultz, the message sent to Hirschfeld was far from subtle. The Nazi comparison dehumanizes homosexual male relationships- the Reich did not recognize lesbian relationships as relationships and, therefore did not concern themselves with them. Naming themselves as “Germans,” the publishers also create a binary of “us,” the Volk and “the other,” the infiltrators. After Hitler’s rise to power, steps would be taken to rid the “Germans” of all individuals identified as “other.” The desire to “unmask” or name individuals as heterosexual or homosexual eliminates the ability to be anything other than those two things. A binary is created where one can only be heterosexual or homosexual. So, should a person identify as heterosexual, but suddenly become attracted to a member of the same sex for one, brief moment, they are now homosexual. The danger of the binary division is that once a person is marked as homosexual, there is no resuming their former heterosexual identity. Aside from the paper’s vicious promise of attack, the 1929 stock market crash and International Depression that followed snuffed the flicker of hope for Paragraph 175’s repeal. The waves of the economic crisis pounded Europe from New York and the Reichstag dropped the matter entirely in order to aid the flailing German economy. 175 was edited and punishment for homosexual behavior worsened: “On June 28, 1935 […] the language of Paragraph 175 was extended to include virtually any physical contact between men. As a result, according to Gestapo statistics, convictions for violating Paragraph 175 increased dramatically, up from 853 in 1933 to 2,106 in 1935 to 8,562 in 1938” (Miller 220). Offenders could be, and more often than not, were shipped off to concentration camps and forced to wear the pink triangle. Within the camps, prisoners wearing the pink triangle lived in 175 barracks, separated from other prisoners, and were looked upon and treated as the lowest of the low even amongst the other prisoners. After the emancipation of the camps, some prisoners originally arrested for violating Paragraph 175 were re-incarcerated and still had to serve prison sentences for being convicted homosexuals. The statute remained on the books until 1967 (Miller 228). The criminalization of homosexuality created an environment where, not only blackmail, but public defamation of political and social figures could flourish. Using homosexuality as an accusation to dethrone public figures, or simply extorting money from middle to upper class homosexuals became a common practice during Isherwood’s time. In both Great Britain and Germany, accusations against a person’s sexuality, especially if sex had occurred between the accuser and the accused, could destroy not only the individual, but also the family name. During the Wilde trials, the Marquess of Queensbury’s lawyers called in rent boys, or male prostitutes, to testify against Wilde. The testimonies were enough to seal Wilde’s sentence for two years hard labor in an English prison. After the trial, blackmailing homosexuals and those who could be made to seem homosexual become a lucrative form of extorting money from upper class men. A 1905 cartoon entitled, “The Blackmailers,” illustrates the extent to which blackmailing homosexuals became a business. Six well dressed men cram around a pub table discussing the possibility of Paragraph 175 being repealed. The caption reads, “Now I ask yez! They wanna drop Paragiraffe 175 from da penal code. Den how’s da middle classes s’posed to make a livin’?” (qtd. Senelick 80). For a young, upper class homosexual like Christopher Isherwood, pursuing homosexual relationships in England became an incredibly risky venture. But, despite the risk of being blackmailed and prosecution for his sexuality, Isherwood was open with and supported by his family. In her research concerning masculinity and homophobia, Sedgwick describes the need to find “a name for a ‘structural residue of terroist potential, of //blackmailability //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, of western maleness through the leverage of homophobia” and finds that the “homosexual panic” described by the straight or “normal” world governing both masculinity and sexuality is a equally apt term for a Western homosexual male experiencing homophobia (Sedgwick 20). The identification, or transition from private to public, of the individual as homosexual by another instigates a panic to deny or perceive the naming as an accusation with malicious intent to destroy the image of the individual. Should the individual be identified by a fellow homosexual, an understanding of the common characteristic and need to keep the “secret” private is exchanged and a sort of brotherly bond can be formed. Isherwood found such a brotherly figure in his Uncle Henry. Christopher’s travels and sexual endeavors abroad were made possible by his uncle’s financial backing: “Henry was the only member of the family who could be described as wealthy; he had inherited the Isherwood estates and money when his father died in 1924. Soon after this event, Christopher had decided to become Uncle Henry’s favorite nephew” (Isherwood 36). Isherwood achieved his uncle’s favoritism by making it clear that he, like his uncle, was also “musical” or “so” as his uncle called it (Isherwood 36). Because Isherwood named himself a homosexual, like his uncle, he creates a bond, or understanding between the two men. The bond bankrolled Isherwood’s stay in Berlin by way of a tri-monthly allowance: “Christopher was expected to reciprocate by writing to him regularly and dining with him when they were both in London […] Henry demanded to be told every detail of Christopher’s sex life; Christopher obliged, exaggerating wildly” (Isherwood 37). This financial transaction between Isherwood and his uncle works as a kind of reverse blackmail. Instead of paying to contain information and conceal an inherent, socially “subversive” behavior, Isherwood was receiving money to divulge the details of his conquests abroad. Rather than coding or undercutting the relationships as mere friendships or swapping pronouns to transform the relationship into a heterosexual one, Isherwood is allowed to embellish the truth regarding his sexual preference. Isherwood’s mother, unlike his uncle, was not amused by his sexual efforts in Germany. Christopher’s relationship with his mother as a young man was a rocky one riddled with fights and Christopher’s overly dramatic revelations of his sexual preference: “Christopher told her coldly and aggressively about his life in Berlin. He made his acts of homosexual love sound like acts of defiance, directed against Kathleen. I don’t think Kathleen was shocked. What he described was totally unreal to her. How could there be sex without women?” (Isherwood 39). I believe a large portion of Christopher’s “bravery” in revealing his sexual orientation to his mother can be credited to the financial security promised him by his uncle. Once again, Isherwood’s flair for the dramatic reveals itself in his unprompted outing of himself. By framing his homosexual relationships as “acts of sexual defiance,” Isherwood displays his aptitude as a storyteller for manipulating his story to achieve a particular reaction from his audience. This ability to frame and exaggerate, cultivated from sharing his life with his uncle and mother, reappear as subtle alterations in place, character, and time and coded fabrications to protect the author’s “heter” work as an artist. Despite his fictional prowess, when Isherwood was sitting down to write his autobiography, __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Christopher and His Kind __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, he found that his mother was his most consistent source after destroying his original diary and sifting through dateless letters from his friends of the time: “My most reliable source of information proves, ironically, to be the diaries of Kathleen, whom Christopher was trying to exclude from his Berlin life altogether. Kathleen picked up scraps of news from friends who had visited him there and from his occasional grudging letters. I bless her for recording them” (Isherwood 41). Although Isherwood enjoyed thrilling his uncle and torturing his mother with his stories from Berlin, blackmail was an ever present threat hanging above his, and every other homosexual’s head like the sword of Damocles. Although blackmail could bring about financial ruin and mental anguish, a criminal charge of sodomy or gross indecency could not only jail the individual, but it could also lead to irreparable health ailments or even death as with Wilde and Eulenberg. Prior to Isherwood’s arrival, blackmail, and libel had caused one of the largest sexual scandals in Europe. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">But, despite his openness with his family and friends and more or less working class status, Isherwood also greatly feared blackmail and jail time for being arrested and labeled a homosexual: “After those two books [ //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Mr. Norris //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> and //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">], Christopher burned the diary. His private reason for doing this was that it might somehow fall into the hands of the police or other enemies” (Isherwood 41). The silent recognition of the “open secret” allows Isherwood to remain closeted in his writings while still coding his observations. An examination of the entomology of cabaret, camera, and closet reveals that all three words derive from Latin and French meanings for small rooms, or chambers. This incredible coincidence denotes the interconnectedness of Isherwood’s portrayal as a homosexual, voyeur, and detached author.

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">In //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Christopher and His Kind //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, Christopher Isherwood reflects on the opening image of the first three pages of his novel, __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin __ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">: “’Isherwood’ sits looking out of the window. According to the time scheme of the novel, he has only just arrived in Germany. He is the detached foreign observer, getting his first impressions. ‘I am a camera,’ he says to himself, […]” (Isherwood C&K 58). When writing his autobiography, Isherwood describes the Christopher of the novel as “foreign” marking his body as out of place in the world of Weimar Germany. The nightclubs, cabarets, and liberal social and political scenes are all alien to him and his upper-class British manners. The “detached observer” description implies that, whatever happens in the novel, Isherwood was merely an observer. He never acts. But, naturally, the reader knows Isherwood takes action in the novel, otherwise he would never have left his room. A fear of blackmail and a desire for publication lie beneath this iconic metaphor acting as a preemptive defense of Isherwood’s time and lifestyle in Berlin. His self censorship-the deletion of his homosexual relationship with Otto, addition of bawdy character qualities in Sally, and misrepresentation of time to validate his moving in with Otto’s family- all allow him to fictionalize his past making it both marketable and a fascinating collage of the past. When sifting through the many layers that make up the life and stories of Christopher Isherwood, marking fact from fiction often becomes a tedious and difficult task. In the autobiography, __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Christopher and His Kind __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, Isherwood aids his readers in this undertaking by using certain signifying markers for the various representations he has created for himself throughout the years. First, he purposefully inserts quotation marks around his name when describing the fictional narrator, “Christopher Isherwood,” of //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">. He makes the distinction that “Isherwood” is not Isherwood. He marks the author as a separate entity from the narrator. So, why then does Isherwood find the need to name his narrator after himself if his intention is to create a division of self and character? Likewise, in __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The Last of Mr. Norris __ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> Isherwood gives the narrating character modeled off himself his two middle names, William Bradshaw. To emphasize the separation between the //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin’ //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">s narrator and the author, Isherwood also notes a distinction between the Isherwood of the 1930s and the Isherwood writing __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Christopher and His Kind __ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> by using the first person pronoun “I” when speaking about current personal views. When discussing himself in the past, Isherwood speaks in the third person using “Christopher,” or “he” instead of “I.” This confusing establishment of different selves- the “fictional” and “factual,” the past and present- combined with the additional secondary adaptations of Christopher Isherwood as a character in the stage and film versions of both //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">I am a Camera //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> and //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> creates a collage rather than a photograph. They also imply that the Isherwood writing his memoirs has become an entirely different, or foreign, body from himself much like the camera capturing images in __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin __ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">. This is particularly evident in the need to separate his past self from himself in the present. The change from first person to third person singular marks through grammatical person the foreign concept of past self. Luckily for Isherwood, a writer with a flair to embellish, the “foreign” quality of his past allows him to make it more exotic, or attractive because of the unfamiliarity, for his readers just as both Berlin and the boys of Berlin were exotic to Isherwood when he first encountered them. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Despite the book’s label as a work of fiction, Isherwood’s audience and critics, for the most part, took the “Christopher Isherwood” of //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> as the same man writing the novel: “From that time on, whenever he [Isherwood] published a book, there would always be some critic who would quote it, praising Mr. Isherwood for his sharp camera eye but blaming him for not daring to get out of his focal depth and become humanly involved with his sitters” (Isherwood C&K 58). Becoming the camera from //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> means that he has also become the “Christopher” from the novel. As he notes earlier, the marked detachment of the novel’s “Isherwood” sometimes reads as cold, or unfeeling; the earmark of a man incapable of forming meaningful relationships. This reading of Isherwood’s style fails to recognize the subtle coding of relationships or sentimental descriptions of male “characters” “Isherwood” encounters such as Christopher’s relationship with Otto Nowak, which will be discussed in the next section. Anne Bogart uses a quotes a lovely phrase in __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">A Director Prepares __ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> that summarizes the author’s use of coding: “’If you cannot say it’ wrote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, ‘point to it.’” (Bogart 48). Bits of description serve as indicators to the reader that something else is being conveyed. Sedgwick calls the unspeakable description a form of being closeted: “’Closeted-ness’ itself is a performance initiated as such by the speech act of a silence—not a particular silence, but a silence that accrues particularity by fits and starts, in the relation to the discourse that surrounds and differentially constitutes it” (Sedgwick 3). By altering the course of events in the book, and never breaking his silence about being a gay man, Isherwood performs his “closeted-ness” by creating “Christopher Isherwood,” the character. One way of remaining silent, or closeted, while still indicating to audiences looking for such prompts, is to write and speak in code. The coding that contributes to Isherwood’s sometimes stuffy tone, reads to a privileged audience, as restrained, stripped of passion, and sometimes outright coy: “And Camp is esoteric – something of a private code, a badge of identity even, among small urban cliques” (Sontag 53). Without a doubt, Isherwood’s writings are esoteric: there are inside jokes, at times the separation of fact and fiction is difficult to understand, and there are secrets intended for only an initiated few to pick up on. Additionally, Sontag notes that “Camp sees everything in quotation marks. It’s not a lamp, but a ‘lamp;’ not a woman, but a ‘woman;. To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand Being-as-Playing-a-Role. It is the farthest extension, in sensibility, of the metaphor of life as theatre” (Sontag 56). Indeed, one of the great difficulties I encountered in researching and writing about Isherwood has been marking when he is Christopher Isherwood and when he is “Christopher Isherwood.” Distinguishing between the various versions of Isherwood coincides with Sontags stipulation about seeing everything in quotation marks. Nothing is ever simply defined. How to “properly” read Isherwood’s 1935 novel, based on his diary, then becomes a riddle within itself. For a select audience, homosexuals used to scanning between the lines of texts, //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">’s descriptions, structure, and silences identify Isherwood as a “badge”-carrying homosexual. Although several of Sontag’s guidelines work quite well for Isherwood’s writing, there is a reluctance on my part to label //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> as a piece of camp literature. Once the character of Christopher is put on stage, he instantly becomes part of the picture, especially when the action is set, as the original production was, on a proscenium stage framing the action like a photograph. So, now the audience must not only interpret Isherwood’s narrative, which is still quite cautious with description of “Christopher’s” personal life, they must now process this information after it has been filtered through Van Druten’s adaptation, the director’s vision, the designers inventions of space, mood, and time, and the actor’s interpretation. These filters present what would seem to an audience member, as a definitive account of what “really” happened because van Druten’s adaptation is a piece of realism. Of course, the very act of setting something on stage, regardless of how realistic the piece may be, marks the piece as a representation, or performance, of reality; not reality itself. The writing style of //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">I am a Camera //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> lends itself to realism. Unlike //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">’s episodic structure, the play has a linear progression and only two real interruptions by “Christopher” as a narrator that function as introduction and ending to the play. In the style of realism, everything takes place in Isherwood’s little room and all major action points take place off stage. By eliminating all the cabaret scenes, van Druten makes that element of the story a far-off, foreign space that Isherwood never occupies. The only time he does venture outside in the text, he returns with bloody knuckles from fighting Nazi “toughs” on behalf of his English student, Natalia: “Well after Natalia started I couldn’t really keep out of it” (van Druten 74). By giving “Christopher” some offstage action, he becomes a more dynamic character to watch; he becomes a man of action instead of just a passive observer. Despite this bit of action, the “Christopher” in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">I am a Camera //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> is still quite dull. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Isherwood himself reflects on the watered down version of “Christopher Isherwood” in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">I am a Camera //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> based around the camera metaphor: “Taken out of its context, it was used to label Christopher himself as one of those eternal outsiders who watch the passing parade of life lukewarm-bloodedly, with wistful impotence” (Isherwood 58). True, van Druten’s play does read as rather dry, but Isherwood is only written and played the way he tries to describe himself—passive, detached, foreign—and because of his character’s humdrum qualities, Sally steals the show. Isherwood’s wry commentary on the adaptation of his character also reveals that, once taken out of context of the novel, the “Isherwood” of //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> “becomes” Isherwood the author in the minds of the audience. The audience makes the leap from character to person regardless of the framing of the fictionalized world of the play. Regardless of Isherwood’s feelings about his representation, van Druten’s adaptation also make him the owner of this version of “Christopher Isherwood”: “Anyone receiving permission to produce I AM A CAMERA is required to give credit to the Author as sole and exclusive Author of the Play on the title page of all programs distributed in connection with performances of the Play […]” (van Druten 2). The “Author” in this case is van Druten. So, along with adaptation comes the surrendering of a portion of the self. Isherwood’s name and a version of his past now belong to van Druten. The representational practices of authorship, how the facts are arranged and changed to formulate the story, used in staging alter the self Isherwood presents in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">. The most notable alteration of the representational practices between Isherwood’s novel and Van Druten’s adaptation is the circumstance by which Sally and Christopher come to live together. By allowing Sally to move in almost instantly at the start of the play, Van Druten considerably speeds up the time scale of the story. The relationship, which begins from Fritz’s introduction of the two in his apartment in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, takes more time to develop and would probably cause the play to drag had it been included. Although in the “Sally Bowles” section of //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> Sally and Christopher’s many conversations reveal the platonic nature of their relationship, it is also spelled out for the audience in the play: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">SALLY: I trust you, Chris. I’m terribly fond of you. CHRISTOPHER: I’m fond of you too, Sally. SALLY: And you’re not in love with me, are you? CHRISTOPHER: No, I’m not in love with you. SALLY: I’m awfully glad. I wanted you to like me from the first minute we met. But I’m glad you’re not in love with me. Somehow or other, I couldn’t possibly be in love with you… So, if you had been, everything would have been ruined. Hold my hand, Chris, and let’s swear eternal friendship. Van Druten 42 <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The friendly relationship between Christopher and Sally is crucial in understanding the sexuality of Christopher in the various versions of the story. Isherwood’s original text paints them as a modern audience would understand girlfriends, really. The two gossip together, slum cabarets together, and discuss men together. Sally always brings her thoughts regarding men to Christopher for discussion, although Isherwood’s comments are kept relatively vague in both the novel and the play. Van Druten would have the audience understand the relationship as more familial: “Oh, Chris. I do like you. You’re a marvelous brother” (Van Druten 61). Naming Christopher as a bother figure not only explains the intimacy between the two, but also frames the rules of the relationship. It cannot be sexual because of the level of familiarity. It conjures the idea that should they go to bed together, it would be incest, or sexual depravity. Van Druten clearly understood this relationship and wanted to be sure the two roles were played in the correct manner. He stipulates exactly how the actors and director should understand the relationship in his “Note to the Producers:” [Christopher] watches Sally as an amused and no longer hungry cat would watch an impertinent mouse. He is deeply fond of her, but he is never physically attracted to her, nor does he find her romantic. It is essential to establish this in the first scene. His line of ‘I think you’re wonderful, Sally’ must be read as if it were spoken by a youngish man to a bright and impudent boy of twelve. Van Druten 7

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Van Druten’s example of a young man speaking to a boy of twelve indicates the innocence of the relationship and the immaturity Isherwood sees in Sally. It is also quite telling that van Druten assumes that the relationship between older and younger males could not be sexual despite the ancient Greek model of male companionship, which often included a physical relationship. Despite her many stories of sexual conquest, Sally is quite young physically and emotionally. Isherwood immediately recognizes this feature of her personality and finds it endearing. This is far cry from Masteroff, Kander and Ebb’s depiction of the two characters. In //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, “Isherwood” plays an even smaller role in his own observations and becomes immersed in the world of the cabaret and Berlin. The representational practices of the authors blow apart Isherwood’s experience in Berlin is and reassembled to, once again, create a collage of Isherwood’s actual story and elements of Kander and Ebb’s own devising. Once again, the most glaring difference between the two stories is the relationship between Sally and Christopher, now Cliff. At the time of //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret’s //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> development, world understandings of sexuality and sex had changed drastically from the 1930’s. Although it was still heavily stigmatized, an individual could identify, or name, their desires as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or any variation of those Kinsey scale notches. Cliff, in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, is a bisexual man. The choice of Cliff’s name begs the question of whether or not the name choice was selected as metaphor- standing on the precipice of destruction, Germany, or self, homo or heterosexual, or, perhaps, the writer was trying to respect Isherwood’s privacy as a gay man by not outing him. Although the author identifies as homosexual, Masteroff still feels the need to “fix” the problem of Cliff’s homosexuality by making him a bisexual capable of falling in love with Sally. In //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, the two are lovers and Sally becomes pregnant with Cliff’s child: “You are the world’s craziest girl. It’s no easy matter, you know, being in love with the world’s craziest girl. ( //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">They kiss) //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> Who says I’d be a terrible father?” (Kander, Ebb 60). Although Christopher’s character in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> morphs from the gentle, observant Christopher to the butch, American, Cliff, the audience familiar with Isherwood and Van Druten’s text will see this huge discrepancy. It completely alters the story. Instead of coming to Christopher to ask for accompaniment to the abortion clinic to be rid of her ex-lover’s child, Sally aborts the baby in secret to end their relationship and leave Cliff for Berlin instead of returning to America with him. After the two discover the pregnancy, they even plan on marrying whereas in both //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">I am a Camera //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> and __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Goodbye to Berlin __ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, Christopher offers to marry Sally to save her honor, as a friend. Cliff berates her for her open sexual nature and comes off as a ranting moralist: “And the only way you’ll get a job in New York or Paris or London is by sleeping with someone else! But you’re sleeping with //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">me //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> these days!” (Kander, Ebb 103). By assuming that Sally sleeps specifically with him, Cliff assumes a type of ownership over Sally, which does not exist in the other pieces. Christopher finds Sally’s promiscuity humorous in the other pieces just as Sally finds his sexuality curious and amusing. Also, Christopher, in both texts, skirts around the issue of his sex-life despite the frequent snooping of Fraulein Schneider and Fritz. Ironically, in the two stage and film adaptations of his __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Berlin Stories __<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">, the role of the camera is reversed, and the lens focuses squarely on the protagonist, Christopher in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">I am a Camera //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> and Clifford in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cabaret //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> and the photos of Isherwood that are developed are not fixed, but open to interpretation. Even with visual cues of how to “read” the story, the audience still has the capacity and freedom to name the different aspects of the film and play for themselves. It would seem that after the several stage and screen adaptations, or developments, of “Goodbye to Berlin,” that Isherwood sought to “fix” his own story by concretely commenting on his past in his memoir, and defining fiction from fact. But, Isherwood’s famous line about the nature of the camera problematizes whether or not his reader can assume the accounts in //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Christopher and His Kind //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> are what “really” happened. Additionally, Isherwood shares the view of the camera lens with the reader by allowing the reader to peek over his shoulder while he experiences Weimar Berlin’s slide into complete Nazi control. But, as noted, with the adaptations come crucial additions and subtractions of the narrative that alter the representation of both the narrator and “Christopher Isherwood.”

Other noteworthy/ interesting adaptations with GLBTA themes: The Immoralist book by Andre Gide to <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: normal;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The Immoralist // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> by Augustus and Ruth Goetz <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: normal;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The Children's Hour // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">- play by Lillian Hellman to <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">These Three // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">- film to <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The Children's Hour // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">- film directed by William Wyler <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: normal;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Tea and Sympathy // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> the play to <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: normal;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Tea and Sympathy // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> the film directed by Vincente Minnelli <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: normal;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cat on a Hot Tin Roof // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> -play by Tennessee Williams to <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Cat on a Hot Tin Roof- // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">film directed by Richard Brooks <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Hedwig and the Angry Inch- // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">play by John Cameron Mitchell to <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">Hedwig and the Angry Inch // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">- film directed by John Cameron Mitchell <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The Laramie Project // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> as a script adapted from many interviews and transcripts <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;">The Execution of Justice // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-weight: normal;"> as a script adapted from court transcripts

Works Cited: Isherwood, Christopher. __The Berlin Stories__. New Directions Publishing Corp. New York, NY: 1935 Isherwood, Christopher. __Christopher and His Kind__. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN: 2001 Kander, John and Fred Ebb. //Cabaret//. Random House. New York, NY: 1973 Miller, Neil. __Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present__. Vintage. New York, NY: 1995 Mizejewski, Linda. “Camp Among the Swastikas: Isherwood, Sallly Bowles and ‘Good Heter Stuff.’” __Camp: Queer Aesthetics and the Performing Subject: A Reader__. Ed. Fabio Cleto. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor MI: 2001 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. __Epistemology of the Closet__. University of California Press. Berkley, CA: 2008 Senelick, Aurence. __Lovesick: Modernist Plays of Same-Sex Love, 1894-1925__. Routledge. New York, NY: 1999 Van Druten, John. //I am a Camera//. Dramatists Play Service. New York, NY: 1951

=The Changing Gay Character: An Exploration= There have been many characters in the history of theatre that scholars believe to be homosexual. I have chosen to examine two plays with suspicious characters in them to better understand the evolution of the homosexual character in American theater. The two best choices for this examination are //The Immoralist//, a play with a hidden gay character and sexual questioning as the conflict, and //Angels in America// , a well known play focusing two couples, one gay and one straight. These two plays will serve as foils to examine the shift between gay characters being the “problem” and gay characters becoming just characters in the play, serving other roles than their sexuality as the conflict. //The// //Immoralist//, adapted by Ruth Goetz and Augustus Goetz from the novel by Andre Gide, was first staged on Broadway in 1954. This was just one year after Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450, which mandated “sexual perverts” be terminated from federal jobs. (See the CENSORSHIP page for more information on this time.) The atmosphere for homosexuals at the beginning of the 1950’s was rooted in fear, hiding from the government and employers, forcing the community into hiding. This was the backdrop for the opening of //The Immoralist//, revealing why the main character, Michel, is portrayed in such a negative light. Gide says of the original Michel in 1869, “If I had intended to set my hero up as an exemplary figure, I admit that I would have failed. Those few people who bothered to take an interest in Michel’s story did so only to revile him with the full force of their rectitude. Giving Marceline so many virtues was not a waste of time: Michel was not forgiven for putting himself before her.” From the conception of the story to the adaptation to stage, Michel is dealing with his confusion towards his sexuality as well as his failings as a husband and a man. Michel begins as a well-educated and responsible, albeit quite ill, man, leading a proper life with his young wife, Marceline, who in the first scene recognizes, “Michel is not other young men.” He is focused on feeding his mind and lives his life cerebrally, never allowing himself to grow as a sexual person. As he recovers from his illness abroad he begins to realize that his intellectual life no longer fulfills him and he begins to become focused on his health and his body. The first hint that the audience gets of his sexuality is the two months it takes Michel to make love to Marceline after their marriage. As his recovery progresses he starts to take long walks and begins to take interest in a group of young boys. From this point on it is clear that Michel is choosing to explore his curiosities and begins to ignore his wife and his work. As Michel grows in his curiosity and excitement, traveling all over Europe and Africa exploring and meeting new people, Marceline wastes away. When they are back in the city where Michel first took interest in young boys, Michel is virtually punished for sleeping with a prostitute with Marceline’s death. In the closing sequence the prostitute jokes with Michel that he stayed in this city for her little brother, one of the young boys. Michel closes the play with the line, “Maybe she is not altogether wrong…” Michel ends alone and Marceline dead, his confusion and his lack of love for Marceline leads to the tragic end for these characters. Tony Kushner, born just two years after //The Immoralist// was first staged, wrote //Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes,// published in 1993, a well known play that directly addresses not only gay characters but closeted gay characters, AIDS, and families dealing with gay members. This play serves as a second point for exploring the evolution of the gay character because it can, and frankly does, address all these topics without fear. There is no hiding one of the main couples, Louis and Prior, are a gay couple, one with the AIDS virus and one still hiding his sexuality from his family. The second couple is Harper and Joe, Mormons who moved out of Salt Lake City. Harper is a woman with an addiction to painkillers and Joe secretly and shamefully indulging in homosexual acts. These two couples interact and cross mingle with each other through sex, friendships and dreams. Through these meetings the couples begin to reveal themselves for who they really are. Harper and Joe’s secrets come out and they accept each other for them, although it ends their marriage. Louis, who cannot deal with Prior’s illness, leaves Prior, breaking both of their hearts in a display of realistic and moving love. They eventually confront each other and their own fears of commitment and death. media type="youtube" key="jTDcbJcCGTE" height="385" width="480" The play does not discriminate who is gay and who is straight when it comes to making mistakes and hurting loved ones. Joe puts Harper through hell with his hiding and refusing to make love to her. Louis cannot be in the same room as the man he loves and ends up sleeping with Joe for most of the play. The only character that is truly portrayed as evil is Roy Cohn, a staunch conservative, pro-McCarthy lawyer who is secretly dying of AIDS from unprotected gay sex. Roy’s interactions with Belize, an ex-drag queen, who preaches forgiveness, though not forgetfulness, demonstrates Kushner’s refusal to allow needless hate for any character into the play. At the same time an Angel visits Prior and she tells him that he can change the world and he learns that, “there is a little part (of him) that is not sick.” This meeting sparks Prior to begin searching for the good in the world and to hold onto his life, because it has meaning. The characters in this play are not tormenting by their sexuality, they are tormented by the fear that permeates the lives of all people, all adults who have to make decisions. Tony Kushner, an openly gay man, was not forced to write these people secretly struggling, their struggle is clear and holds no apology. The gay character no longer struggles with his gayness as the main conflict, he is now free to explore other facets of adult life and the joys and pains that come with it. They “Gay Characters” are now just characters, no longer labeled the “Gay Man” or “The Secret Lesbian” but just a man or a woman who is not out. These parts of the characters lives do not have to be negative or hidden anymore. From 1954 to 1993 the gay character has evolved and, hopefully, with the growing acceptance of pop-culture gay characters, like //Will and Grace// or //Queer as Folk//, America will see more freedom to create whatever character writers wish, gay, straight or anything in between.

Works Cited and Sources Used
Bernstein, Robin. //Cast Out: Queer Lives in Theater//. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2006. Print. Goetz, Ruth G., and Augustus Goetz. //The Immoralist//. New York: Samuel French, 1954. Print. Kushner, Tony. //Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia on National Themes//. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1993. Print. Savran, David. //A Queer Sort of Materialism: Recontextualizing American Theater//. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2003. Print.

= Censorship =


 * Censorship** has played an extremely important role in the development of Queer Theatre. Since the beginning of time people of authority have attempted to regulate what people think, believe, read, depict, write and see. Sexuality has been a prime subject of regulation and censorship. Realizing the danger of open homosexual expression, many gay and lesbian artists censored their artistic imaginations, and have made decisions to avoid homosexual subject matter completely in their art. Pre-Stonewall art (prior to 1969) dealing with homosexual subject matter is typically covert and indirect. Artists were forced to adopt strategies of concealment and censoring themselves to avoid controversy or possibly even imprisonment.


 * One well known case of censorship** is The Hays Code also known as the Motion Picture Production Code of the 1930’s. This Code had a huge impact on the censorship of homosexuality in films. It’s impact on the film industry largely effected all other forms of entertainment, theater included. The Production code spelled out specific restrictions on language and behavior, focusing on sex and crime. It disallowed nudity, suggestive dancing and the mockery of religion. Scenes of adultery and sex before marriage could never been displayed in a positive light. This Code stressed that the sanctity of marriage and the home had to be held to a certain standard. The Hays Code restricted positive depictions of homosexuality by Hollywood from 1930 to the 1960s’.

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin. 2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment shall be presented. 3. Law, natural or human shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation. 4. The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.
 * General Principles of The Hays Code:** (Artsreformation.com)

“Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre- Code Hollywood,” is a documentary released in 2008 by Turner Classic Movies, dealing with Hollywood in the 1930’s. It focuses on The Hays code and specifically where The Hays Code states, “Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.” Perversion is a concept describing types of behavior that are a serious divergence from what is considered orthodox or normal. This restricted any positive depictions of homosexuality in all films. That is not to say that gay characters were not playing any role in films at the time, gay men in particular were used as comedic relief. Lesbianism was also even more prominently featured in 1930’s films than gay men. Tony Maietta, a film historian featured in “Thou Shalt Not: Sex Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood” talks about Gretta Garbo’s role of Queen Christina, a bisexual character. He states that, “Will Hays cautioned that no hint of lesbianism would be allowed.” Despite the warning, the film makers had different ideas, they wanted to honor history and Queen Christina’s bisexuality. They included lesbianism in the film, “Queen Christina is very clearly having a more than cordial relationship with her lady in waiting” (Maietta). Queen Christina marked a subtle turning point in censorship history. Joseph Breen monitored the film for Will Hays, he was the new appointed head of the studio relations committee, a devout Catholic. He believed that the people working on Queen Christina were sinful and corrupting America. He wanted to advance his moral rules, and enforce the sexual limitations of the Catholic Church in all of Hollywood. When Breen demanded cuts in Queen Christina, MGM fought Breen on this and won approval for no changes in the film and continued production. The Code was a result of nation wide backlash. By 1959, the man that charged with enforcing the rules conceded that if a “moral conflict” provided “the proper frame of reference,” a Code- approved film could deal with pretty much any topic but homosexuality. The motion picture industry officially abandoned the Code in 1968. Mae West’s struggles with censorship on the stage has a direct relationship with The Hays Code in place at the time. Steve Starr wrote a piece about the lovely Mae West in Entertainment Magazine, the article maps out her struggles on the stage. West’s first play on Broadway was produced in 1926, titled //Sex// it was about a prostitute. In the 41st week of the play’s run West was arrested for writing and producing a “profane” drama and giving a “suggestive” performance. She was in the Welfare Island jail for ten days and was released two days early for good behavior. //The Drag//, West’s second play, opened in New Jersey. The story was about homosexuals, a topic rarely discussed publicly at the time, and West ended up not taking the show to New York because of the possible controversy and imprisonment.

John Jordan Otte, a college student from Tarleton State University in Texas, took on //Corpus Christi// in his directing class. This was all too much for some of the residents of Stephenville, Texas who, according to Joseph Abrams of Foxnews.com, “say there’s far too much passion in this Passion play.” The people of Stephenville pressured the University to call off the performance. “It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the Son of God,” said David Harris, pastor of the towns Hillcrest Church of Christ told Fox News. “I’m angry about it and every Christian should be.” Despite the controversial nature of the project and mounting pressure from the community, Tarleton State stood by Otte’s right to free speech. media type="youtube" key="VUN0mFJw_j8" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="5HH4yKiTBwk" height="385" width="480" Censorship is by no means a thing of the past, the majority of censorship has alleviated since the 1960s. In the U.S. and Western democracies, efforts of censorship have become more subtle often focusing on questions of public support for art and on the protection of the innocence of children rather than involving outright bans against creation or distribution of Queer art. Censorship is a paradox in itself, often in efforts to censor and regulate what people see, more focus on the thing that is being censored is actually brought to the public eye. In Mae West’s case, by censoring her plays and being sent to jail, she became highlighted in the media, becoming America’s jailbird. In the case of //Corpus Christi,// Otte’s production which was just a simple class project ended in The New York Times. Censorship often contradicts its intentions. Works Cited Abrams, Joseph. “FOXNews.com-Texas Town Cross Over Play’s ‘Gay’ Christ.” //Breaking News | Latest News | Current News- FOXNews.com.// 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 07 May 2010. []. “Glbtq Arts> Subject Index: A through B.” //Glbtq: the World’s Largest Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Culture.// Web. 07 May 2010. [|http://GLBTQ.com/arts]. //Reformation of the Arts and Music- Essays, Resources, Commentary.// Web. 06 May 2010. [|http://artsreformation.com]. Starr, Steve. “Starrlight: Mae West.” //Entertainment Weekly.// Print. //Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood//. By Steven Smith. Warner Bros Entertainment, 2008.
 * A Lesser Known Case** of censorship is the //Corpus Christi// play. //Corpus Christi// is a passion play written by Terrence McNally. It is a dramatized story of Jesus and the Apostles. The story depicts Jesus and the Apostles as gay men living in modern-day Texas. It utilizes modern devices like television with anachronisms like Roman occupation. In McNally’s version of the story Judas betrays Jesus because of sexual jealousy. The play also showed Jesus supporting and administering the marriage between two gay apostles. As director Leigh Rowney took on the project, he accepted that it would generate discussion and controversy.

AIDS and American Theatre In 1981 the first reported cases of AIDS occurred in the United States. The first found cases, all being found in homosexuals, led to naming the disease GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency). An initial article about the disease printed in the New York Times referred to the disease as “a rare cancer seen in homosexuals, mainly in New York and California”. Over the next couple years as more became known about the disease, although still relatively mysterious in some ways to the medical community, scientists and medical professionals stopped pegging it as strictly affecting homosexuals, but those most affected still included homosexuals (specifically gay men) among its ranks (along with women of color, IV drug users, Latinos and African Americans). The major impacts of AIDS on the theatre community were and continue to be two-fold. The first major impact was the loss of large numbers of creative talent who have been affected by the disease. Through the late 1980’s and early 1990’s many established, upcoming, and undiscovered actors, writers, designers, creators were lost to the American theatre community, forever changing directions American theatre might have taken. Will we ever know? Probably not. The second major impact on the theatre community was an influx of plays written about (or containing) characters dealing with the effects and consequences of the disease. First performances were staged in the form of processions, riots, vigils for those we had lost, etc, and mainly only in the US’s big metropolitan areas like New York City and San Francisco where the disease was being recognized and acknowledged. And then when plays dealing with the disease began to be produced, they were often produced as benefits or fundraisers. By 1985, two major AIDS plays came out: //As Is// by William M. Hoffman, which dealt with the diseases affect on the personal level, and //The Normal Heart// by Larry Kramer which took a more political stance. However these two plays served a common mission of informing people of the physical, emotional and social effects of the disease, but many of these early AIDS plays were considered bitter and preachy, wallowing in self-pity. //The Normal Heart// was a semi-autobiographical play focusing on the rise of the crisis of the disease, specifically in New York City between 1981 and 1984, seen through the eyes of a writer/activist Ned Weeks. Weeks was the gay and Jewish founder of a prominent HIV advocacy group. One review of the play by Frank Rich in the New York Times stated “the playwright starts off angry, soon gets furious, and then skyrockets into sheer rage….there can be little doubt that //The Normal Heart// is the most outspoken play around…the author speaks with an unflagging sense of urgency”. The play did not shy away from the hard statistics and facts (as they were known at the time), numbers and statistics about those affected and infected were painted all over the set, and updated as the numbers changed. This play was not shy, and delved into a palpable exploration of the life-death paradigm. As our knowledge and understanding of AIDS developed, by the 1990’s plays began to find a better balance in the way they dealt with the disease. This is especially relevant in Jonathan Larson’s musical //Rent// (1996). By 1996 when //Rent// was first being produced there was much more of an air of hope surrounding the HIV/AIDS crisis. At the 11th International AIDS conference held that year in Vancouver 21 million people have contracted HIV, over 4 and a half million are living with AIDS and over four million have died. Although, in light of new drug and treatment discoveries, optimism began to seep in, it was still undeniable that so many were left without the means to afford the correct or best treatment. In his book //Acts of Intervention,// Ramon argues that what we must focus on in these later AIDS plays “is the shifting relationship between three associated social processes: theatre, AIDS and hope (271)”. So when //Rent// premiered at the Nederlander theatre in 1996, its message of hope stood in sharp contrast to the early AIDS plays messages of danger and despair. //Rent// follows the story of a group of impoverished artists and musicians struggling to survive and create in Greenwich Village under the shadow of HIV/AIDS. The show contains more characters with HIV than any other earlier plays that were //perceived// as AIDS plays, and reflects the demographics hit hardest by HIV: gay men, women of color, IV drug users, Latinos and African Americans, even the play’s two heterosexual lovers have the disease. It was also revolutionary, along with Tony Kushner’s //Angels in America,// in that AIDS does not drive the plot, but helps inform and shape it. The show normalizes the disease in some ways, in the wake of a defiant and exuberant celebration of difference that lies at the heart of many of the play’s scenes. We see __community__, as opposed to individuals standing alone. //Rent//, for much of America’s queer theatre community and theatre community at large, served as a cultural event to memorialize the dead, mobilize the living and sustain hope and survival. As Ramon puts it, “AIDS theatre and performance create new ways of imagining community in the face of crisis. If we now resist the banalization of Aids and if we are to continue to cultural work necessary so that we do not abandon hope, we will need to draw upon the historical legacy of AIDS performance and activism. When we do so, we both recover a record of our past and seek to secure the future of our communities. These efforts are the acts of intervention that we must continue to produce in the ongoing struggle against AIDS”. AIDS is a history we must continue to work with and through as it effects and informs our creation of theatre. media type="youtube" key="HKnwMT_kvuM" height="385" width="480"media type="youtube" key="-MS4OZUqH9A" height="385" width="480"

__Works Cited__ Kistenberg, Cindy. //AIDS, Social Change, and Theatre: Performance as Protest.// New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. Roman, David. //Acts of Intervention: Performance, Gay Culture and AIDS.// Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press, 1998. Schulmnan, Sarah. //Stage Struck: Theatre, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay American.// Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

=Twin Cities Queer Performance=

The Minneapolis/St. Paul theatre scene has included, to some degree, queer content for years. Plays with queer themes have been produced, plays by queer playwrights have been performed, and queer artists have undoubtedly been involved with local theatre since there was local theatre. However, a taste of the Twin Cities’ queer theatre scene, both historically and now, can be achieved through exploring the companies that have focused on queer themes and the spaces that have been an outlet for GLBT performance. The Twin Cities, especially Minneapolis, have had theatres that focus on the GLBT experience since the 1970’s, when two theatre companys dealing with queer themes were founded. The At the Foot of the Mountain Theatre Company was formed in Minneapolis in 1974. The company was founded to provide a space for women to grow artistically and women’s themes to be explored. The theatre group welcomed queer themes from the beginning of their days, and queer plays were included in the company’s repertoire for years, until the organization fell apart in 1991. Founded in 1977, the Out-and-About Theatre Company was formed to produce work that dealt with the queer experience in a positive way. The company was founded by Richard Rehse after he had directed “The Faggot” at the Theatre in the Round in 1976. The performance was Theatre in the Round’s biggest hit to date, giving Rehse an indication that there was an opportunity to produce queer content in the Twin Cities. During its run, Out-and-About produced over forty-five plays and musicals, and was well received in the community. Unfortunately, the theatre had began to accumulate debt and had filed for bankruptcy by early 1984. Patrick’s Cabaret was founded in 1986 as a venue for queer and avante-garde performances ranging from dance to music, theatre to performance art. The company’s mission is to serve the needs of local performing artists, especially artists of color, GLBT/queer artists and those with disabilities. The Twin Cities have a history of drag performances, noted as far back as during the 1920’s, when the Nicollet Hotel was the employer of many young people, including GLBT men and women. Known for its drag shows, the most famous gay bar in the Twin Cities, the Gay 90’s, has been serving the gay community since 1957, though it was not always a gay bar. It was during the 1970’s, after renovations turned the bar into a disco, that younger gay men turned into the regular crowd. After that, the building began to center more into a role as primarily a gay bar, rather than a disco frequented by gay men. The venue is also known for its drag shows, hosting drag events multiple nights a week. **The Gay 90s when it was before the 1970's. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.**
 * Drag King act at the Nicollet Hotel, circa 1925. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society. **

Margarita Bella, a recently closed Minneapolis bar, was known for its drag shows as well. Though not exclusive in its purpose, the bar could be considered the first queer Hispanic bar in the Twin Cities. Though At the Foot of the Mountain and Out-and-About had both ceased to exist by the early 90’s, that would not spell the end of such companies that dealt primarily with queer and feminist issues. The Outward Spiral Theatre Company has been producing theatre for GLBT artists and themes for over 13 years. The company has recently changed focused more on community events and less on producing a typical theatrical season. Calling Minneapolis home since 2006, the 20% Theatre Company is focused on providing a venue for queer artists. According to the website, the company “aims to produce work by female, transgender, and gender-queer artists, while also supporting the same gender minorities artistically behind-the-scenes.” The 20% Theatre Company has no permanent space, putting shows up at local theaters including the Minneapolis Theatre Garage and the Bedlam Theatre. Like At the Foot of the Mountain, the 20% Theatre Company focuses women and women’s themes in addition to being focused on queer themes. Production of GLBT-themed work is not limited to those spaces and companies, however, as the Twin Cities are home to many theatres, a number of which occasionally produce work about the gay and lesbian experience or queer themes. The contribution of queer artists, including playwrights, performers, directors, and producers is undoubtedly taking place at most, if not all, of these theatres.