An Interview with Warren Graves

Warren Graves

This interview was conducted by CASP in January 2004.

Link to Online Anthology
Link to Database

You've made comments on how community based theatres need to be sensitive to audience demands, especially in terms of what is entertaining. Could you reflect on this in relation to Chief Shaking Spear?

Chief Shaking Spear (1974) was written specifically for Walterdale Playhouse, Edmonton (Community Theatre) to accommodate its summer Klondike Days presentation at the Citadel Theatre. This annual summer production had, over the years, developed its own genre (booing and hissing, heart breaking Victorian songs) and was a consistent sell out in a 500 seat theatre for thirteen performances. The reason for this was because Edmontonians (local residents) bought the tickets and brought their summer visitors to the show. This financed Walterdale's regular season of five major plays, a One-Act Festival, and An Evening of Words and Music. A most remarkable Community Theatre. To hit a theme here that I shall return to constantly––the theatre financed the production from its own resources, appealed to a large audience, and enjoyed huge success at the box office - which also reflect William Shakespeare's circumstances and ambitions at the Globe. The name of the game was public entertainment and box office success. In Canada the name of the game is to obtain funding from the Canada Council.

What was your sense of the critical reception that Chief Shaking Spear received and how much of that took note of the Shakespearean connection?

Basically––Ho hum, Walterdale has produced yet another successful summer Melodrama. It is quite possible that large numbers in the audience had never heard of William Shakespeare.

Some criticism of the play attends to how it plays to outmoded stereotypes of aboriginals, French-Canadians, Ukrainians and so forth. To what extent do you see the play catering to Western Canadian attitudes? and do you see this criticism as legitimate?

One the day that 'stereotypes' disappear the world will have become such an uninteresting place that there will be nothing left to write about. That may be purely a stereotypical "Western Canadian Attitude" of course.

Could you reflect on the extent to which Shakespearean influences figure in your work as a playwright generally?

Tell a thumping good story that appeals to the common man (generic), make sure it has a beginning, middle and an end , and get the bums on the seats. Respect language as "gold and not copper coin to be tossed on the counter."

To what extent is theatrical culture in Canada (in your reading of it) a function of Shakespearean theatre?

No connection whatsoever. Shakespearean theatre was an emotional, spiritual and global experience (no pun intended) in which backers expected to make money and Shakespeare make a living. He was not required to set his plays in England or contribute to the English "identity." The fact that he did make such a contribution is purely an historical spin off arrived at in hindsight. Canadian theatre, on the other hand, arose by the creation of government funding agencies and the political agenda, either overt or by osmosis, that this imposes. Consequently it became an intellectual and economic exercise that largely determined the choice of subject matter regardless of popular appeal.

Is adaptation a way of overwriting Shakespearean source texts?

I would hope not. To feel that one could improve on the original would be very presumptuous.

What are the problems facing a playwright who undertakes a Shakespearean adaptation?

The casts are too big, playwright minds are too small, and the use of poetic language would be seen as laughably archaic.

Adaptation of Shakespeare in Canada is a flourishing genre. The CASP rersearch team has found close to 500 plays that are clear adaptations dating back to pre-Confederation. To what extent does this tradition of adapting define specifically Canadian theatrical practices (if one can even speak of such practices with any validity)?

Shakespearean themes are of "of the world" and, if Canada is part of the world, one would expect to find these themes in the Canadian experience.

What are the uses of Shakespearean adaptation? In your work specifically?

My stereotypical aboriginal is a writer and knows a good line when he hears one. Also, in the play, a play written by "an aboriginal"––and presented by the theatre company––might 'legislatively' qualify it for 'preservation' enough to save it from being razed to the ground to make way for the CPR railway line. (Walterdale Theatre was about to be razed to the ground to make way for a shopping center. It finally converted an old Fire Hall and found 'legislative' refuge under the Historic Sites Act––with considerable help from the Alberta Government! ) When the play is finally presented, his major monologue is a mish mash of many of Shakespeare's most stirring lines. So matching the aboriginal with Shakespeare provided a public entertainment while making a political point about the state of Canadian theatre in general and ours in particular. Had the aboriginal been French speaking and the play a translation, no doubt the Federal Government would have also have been most anxious to provide assistance. Purely another stereotypical Western Canadian Attitude of course.

Does adaptation necessarily place the playwright in a compromised position (in terms of reinforcing theatrical tradition) or does it afford opportunities to remake that tradition? Are there examples in your own work you would point to as part of your response?

In retrospect, it seems that my most durable works have been adaptations––Scrooge, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, Prisoner of Zenda. It may also be significant that these were all commissioned works, premiered at major Canadian Theaters, and were "Christmas productions" ––a phenomenon that allows theaters to try to please its audiences rather than demonstrate its "social awareness" or seek critical acclaim. Also, after writing Beauty and the Beast, I was visiting a Senior High School English class in a major city and discovered that only four students out of thirty-six knew the story. (This was before Disney made it a tale about chipped tea cups and singing candlesticks.) As it is both a story and a major explanation of the psychological archetypes present in the human character, I was pleased that my version was somehow also an attempt to keep the tale in the public repertoire.

What theatrical techniques do you see as most useful in the adaptation of Shakespeare genre?

Making the original works more user friendly to contemporary audiences. This mostly requires the use of extraordinarily good actors and actresses who can handle the language understandably and, in my limited experience, seems to have been most successfully accomplished through the works of Kenneth Branagh in the medium of film. The Al Pacino video In Search of Richard is worth a look.

What ideological / political implications do you see to adapting Shakespeare in a Canadian context?

Absolutely essential.   After years of it being more beneficial to appeal to the funding structures of the Canada Council and the esoteric world of 'critical acclaim' than public acceptance, ideological and political implications would be the only reason for adapting Shakespeare in a Canadian context. I had great hopes for my new version of King Lear that combines Ralph Klein, Lethbridge City Council and the Taber Corn Fest, but I seem to have lost interest in it.

It has been said that adaptation is a way of talking across cultures and across time--a way of relating to other authors and contexts intertextually--would you agree with this sense of adaptation in relation to your own work?

Yes. People are people everywhere. This in turn raises the interesting question of whether "cultural identity' is in itself a form of inculcated 'stereotypical' behaviour imposed upon them.

How far would you be prepared to go in defining what an adaptation is?

I personally do not see Chief Shaking Spear as an adaptation of a Shakespearean work. All I have done is to borrow and distort some of his best lines. In my other adaptations, my job has been to make theatrically possible a story that exists in a different medium. I suppose my position about adapting a theatrical work that already exists as a theatrical work would be ––"Why bother?" Why not take the theme and storyline and use them to write an original work? I recall the story of a distinguished Hollywood writer producing an excellent script about a cattle drive for John Wayne and gurgling with delight because nobody recognized that it was an 'adaptation' of Mutiny on the Bounty.

To what extent must some form of Shakespeare be present in an adaptation for it to be called Shakespearean?

Either it must be recognizable as fundamentally one of Shakespeares plays, or it must adopt the Shakespearean "style" of nobility, emotional passion, and the poetic aspects of the English language.

Could you reflect on your own cultural background in relation to your writing and in relation to being "Canadian"?

I think this is an Era question rather than a geographical location question. Born in London in 1933, as a teenager I was a constant presence in "the Gods" of major London theaters (i.e. the cheap seats way up in the highest balcony) and I watched the beautiful people do beautiful things beautifully. As a Cockney urchin, I aspired to that. Then Look Back in Anger arrived, and with it the concept of "kitchen sink" drama in which ugly people did ugly things in an ugly way. This trend has seldom relinquished its grip ever since. In Canada we went through a phase in which it was almost mandatory for somebody to scream ."Motherfucker!" reasonably early in the first act. Respect for "audience" had so completely disappeared that, a couple of years ago, every play presented at ATP's new play festival required the warning in the lobby that audiences might be "offended" by the content and/or language used in the work. Every play!! A newspaper reporter, interviewing the Artistic Director, asked if this is what he saw the function of contemporary theatre to be ––i.e. offend the audience ––and I must confess to gurgling with delight when said A.D. was at a loss in answering what seemed to me to be a very relevant question.

In so many cases being Canadian becomes a way of talking about elsewhere spaces that get mapped onto Canada. What role do you think theatre plays in that mapping of local and international identities that seems to be so crucial to discussions of Canadian identity?

I was English and so was my wife. My twin girls were born in England and my son was born in Calgary. We now live in a small community that consists of Mormons, Catholics and Buddhists. Our neighbours on each side are Japanese and Scandinavian. When we first arrived in Canada, our best friends were French (as in from France), Ukrainian, and German. My daughters are married to Dutchmen. My joy in being a Canadian is that I could raise the maple leaf anywhere in the world, shout "Rally to the flag!" and the most extraordinary bunch of people of all kinds and colours would show up, some waving their Tim Horton mugs. Forget "Canadian Identity." We have seen the Earth from the Moon and there is no such place as Canada. Like all other 'countries', it is a creation of the political imagination left over from the old days and a stumbling block for the Global Village in which we now live.

This may be yet another 'Western Canadian Attitude' of course.

Following the launch of the CASP web site, Warren Graves responded to the critical introduction to his play in the following way with additional comments regarding issues of Canadian national identity and the historical context in which Chief Shaking Spear Rides Again, or The Taming of the Sioux was written:

If a group of talented fun loving people get together to put on a very successful melodrama for Edmonton’s Klondike Days, and then, twenty-nine years later, it is suggested that they indulged in "a colonial exercise...... using painful puns....a series of politically incorrect jokes ...putting white racist dialogue into aboriginal mouths....demonstrated white settler culture indulging in stereotypical belittlement.... and reminding white audiences of its material dominance" - then you can hardly expect them to be overjoyed. This is certainly not the attitudinal environment in which they were operating at the time, and - in my opinion - it is more an indicator of changes that have occurred in Canadian ‘civil rights’ sensitivities over the last quarter century. The political correctness of today is a new phenomenon, and – I will suggest – that when applied in retrospect to the historical and traditional attitudes of yesteryear, it can be not only embarrassing but potentially a source of considerable social disturbance.

It is very difficult to discuss this topic in today’s attitudinal climate without appearing racist, but I will try to do so, and ask that you believe I am sincerely trying to argue rationally and not racially. I will limit myself to one specific example with which I am sure you are familiar.

First let me propose that one of the most easily recognizable icons of Canadian identity accepted throughout the world is that of the ‘Canadian Mountie.’ Over a hundred years of proud history and tradition have evolved this almost mythological figure as an unmistakable symbol that uniquely represents Canada. I feel sure that, by now, you have an image in your mind.

Now examine that image a little more closely, and you will see that it is a tall, handsome, male, clean-shaven, and white. Would it be fair of me to suggest that this is now a “white settler racist dominant male” image that completely ignores the fact that there are many first class female officers in the force, and that -- following a high profile civil rights case of some years back -- some equally excellent officers have beards, wear turbans, and are brown?

In case you feel that this is an issue of no consequence, I suggest you examine a political trend that is beginning to emerge in Europe. The image of “immigrants” is changing as “minorities” increase in number sufficiently to become influential as consumers, voters, and political representatives. It is being taken very seriously. Otherwise why would a democratic nation - with an acute awareness of civil rights issues – pass a law forbidding girls to wear headscarves to school? Do the girls in that country normally wear head scarves to school? I think not.

The melting pot is starting to bubble.

A writer I was reading recently suggested that World War III is already well underway, and it is between the forces of Globalism (New World Order) and Tribalism (National Identity). The validity of this suggestion has kept me awake at night ever since. Mostly because I don’t know whose side I am supposed to be on. Should I support the Canadian Mountie image of yesterday? Or organize a protest demanding that it be changed to something reflecting today?

Warren Graves

Link to Online Anthology
Link to Database