In early July, the musical production, SLĀV, playing at the Montreal Jazz Festival, was cancelled. Several weeks later, the production in development, KANATA, to be performed in Paris, was also cancelled. SLĀV is described as “a theatrical odyssey based on slave songs” of African American slaves, while KANATA aimed to tell “the story of Canada through the prism of relations between whites and Indigenous people”. Both productions were the work of iconic playwright and director, Robert Lepage. Both fell charge to the criticism that they excluded performers of the very people whose stories they sought to portray (little representation of African Americans in SLĀV and no representation of Indigenous performers in Kanata). And while each production was cancelled under slightly different circumstances, both were ultimately reactions to the charge of cultural appropriation.
There was much consternation in Quebec when these productions were cancelled. The debate focused on two issues: freedom of (artistic) expression and cultural appropriation. Lepage and his supporters cried “censorship”: freedom of artistic expression, they said, cannot be limited by the sensitivities of those who take offence to any aspect of that expression. To be constrained by these sensitivities, they argued, is to take a dangerous step down a slippery slope.
By contrast, people of color, Indigenous people (and their allies) argued that it was deeply offensive to portray stories of their oppression without their participation. And more, they questioned how stories about their suffering – stories that belonged to them – could be authentic without their involvement in the telling. For some, exclusion from their own narrative was simply another act of oppression.
The cancellation of first, SLĀV and then, KANATA raise many issues – about freedom of expression and its limits (human rights, while cherished, are not absolute in our legal system) and about cultural appropriation and its limits. While treating these issues with the depth and respect they deserve would cause me to exceed my self-imposed word count for this blog, I do have some thoughts to offer.
Instead of viewing these issues in binary terms – an artist’s freedom of expression versus a community’s right to protect its culture – we can reframe the debate by distinguishing between having a legal right and the way in which it is exercised. Lepage has the legal right – freedom of expression – to mount the production of his choice, and we should always be wary of censoring art, which strengthens society by challenging received wisdom, pushing boundaries, even making us uncomfortable. But the legal right comes with a moral responsibility to exercise it with respect for history and for the perspectives of those communities the production seeks to represent. Lepage’s reaction to the criticism (of which he was forewarned) by saying, in effect, my way or the highway, was utterly tone deaf to African American and Indigenous sensibilities and voices. I think he and his supporters lost the moral high ground on this one.
Finally, I can’t help feeling that this was a lost opportunity, particularly in the case of KANATA. The Indigenous artists who met with Lepage did not seek the cancellation of the production. They sought a dialogue, and the opportunity to be included in a production still under development. With Reconciliation of Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Canadians front and center, I was disheartened that the outstretched hand was not grasped in friendship and respect. Let’s hope that cooler heads will prevail, and that this is just the start of an important conversation.
If you have grappled with this issue, too, here are some thoughtful articles to read further about it.
http://mi.lapresse.ca/screens/7b74242e-bd57-4d21-925e-9becd5843a43__7C___0.html
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-white-artists-tell-indigenous-stories-it-depends/
