Guantanamo - Good Theatre or Propaganda?

First, a disclosure. I am a TimeLine board member and therefore have more than a passing interest in and involvement with TimeLine and this production.

Now, my thoughts about Guantanamo.

Theatre can have many objectives and affects, but ones I particularly relate to, especially when talking about TimeLine, were well expressed by Jennifer Shook (TimeLine’s very talented dramaturg) in her comments in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune Arts & Entertainment article, “What the heck’s a dramaturg”? Some of her comments: theatre is not “to teach you the right answer”; “Theatre feels like a communal adventure” that provides “expansion”, that says “here are some potential paths that can take you to an even bigger place than the play”; “the point of theatre is to make you think”; “the more I learn, the less I’m sure of what I thought was a really easy opinion”.

Good quality, or completeness, or professionalism, do not require that one play, or one book, or one film, present all sides of an issue. It is the obligation of consumers of ideas to obtain balance and completeness by looking to multiple sources.

On the other hand, a play, or a book, or film that is little more than one sided propaganda is not likely to find an audience among those who are looking for new information and thought provoking perspectives. Propaganda appeals to those who want to hear confirmation of, and gain ammunition to support, their own ideas, and, it is strongly rejected without consideration by those who disagree. We all enjoy propaganda at times. It is entertaining, but it does not contribute much of value - it inflames.

By these various measures, I think Guantanamo is good theatre. It meets Jennifer’s tests. It is intelligent, thoughtful and stimulating. Yes, it tells only one side. But that is OK. It is worthy testimony on a very important issue. It is not the answer - it is more the question.

Guantanamo fits wonderfully within TimeLine’s mission – “to present stories inspired by history that connect with today’s social and political issues”. We sometimes expand that mission statement with words like “provocative”, “challenging”, and “creates dialogue”. Clearly, Guantanamo fits.

For me, Guantanamo is at its best, most stimulating, and most challenging when it presents the words and feelings of the detainees and their families. It is less stimulating and challenging when it uses advocates and politicians – lobbyists so to speak - to explain the issues to us.

I know some people will choose not to see Guantanamo, or will dislike it, primarily because it presents ideas that are in disagreement with their own and with our government’s policies. I know other people will choose to see Guantanamo, and some will love it, primarily because it presents ideas that are in agreement with their own and in disagreement with our government’s policies. These positions say more about the individuals than about the play. Both perspectives are equally disappointing. They treat the play as propaganda. I don’t think it is.

As for the production itself – fantastic. It is hard to imagine a better, more sensitive, more nuanced presentation of the play. Congratulations to Nick, the cast, and all involved. Well done.