If I were not a theatre artist, I would most definitely work in the political realm, as something along the lines of a diplomat or ambassador. In fact, for most of my life, I’ve been trying to figure out how I could do both. Unsurprisingly, the theatre news and literature I’m most drawn to exists at the intersection of these two fields.
A story that I’ve been following closely over the tail-end of the summer, is that of Robert Sturua, a Georgian director, who is perhaps best known for directing Alan Rickman in an acclaimed production of Hamlet at Riverside Studio in London in 1986, and is the former Artistic Director of The Shota Rustaveli Theater (since 1980), a state subsidized theater in Tblisi, Georgia. Sturua, long an agitator of dissent against the government, was fired from this position by the Georgian Minister of Culture, Nika Rurua, for making xenophobic comments, specifically about the President of Georgia. “I don’t want the President of Georgia to be a representative of another nationality. I would like to see a Georgian heading the country, and not an Armenian, which Mikheil Saakashvili is,” he said. Less reported, but perhaps even more unsettling, was his retort to the criticism of his initial statement, which included a racist diatribe stating that he was “under no obligation to love blacks, claiming they were culturally inferior to him.” The salient details can be found here and here.
This is a very thorny issue, combining the ideas of freedom of speech and artistic expression with the role of a state-funded theatre and the duties and responsibilities of its employees to the government and to the citizens of the country. While I am a fervent supporter of civil liberties and freedom of expression, there is most certainly a line of what is tolerable. And these statements most certainly cross it. But it brings up many questions. Should the line be in a different place for artists and cultural agitators than public officials? Should the fact that a portion of an Artistic Director’s salary is paid by the government/public censor the artistic expression of that person? Because an individual harbors xenophobic sentiments, does that mean they are present in the person’s art? Is their art “bad” simply by virtue of these expressed or unexpressed subtextual sentiments? There’s a lot of interesting stuff to unpack here, and while I instinctually come down very much on the side opposing the director and his abhorrent comments, what is the long-range effect of such a definitive stance? Sometimes politically incorrect and politically incendiary statements are necessary and useful in the public discourse, as opposed to the hateful destructiveness of Sturua’s comments. Where is that line?
The general response to these events of the past month has been intriguing and at times shocking. Among the numerous protests and petitions circulating Russia and Georgia, was an open letter to Nika Rurua from several high profile, respected British actors who have worked with Rurua (including Alan Rickman, Vanessa Redgrave, and Thelma Holts) protesting his dismissal (here). What does this say about them? Are they just supporting his artistic output and freedom of expression, or does their letter implicitly condone his statements? Regardless of the ultimate judgement passed on Sturua, it has already become clear that his directing career is not over, as he has just recently accepted a job working at the Et Cetera Theatre in Moscow, Russia (here).
Is this a victory for personal liberties and artistic expression, or a loss for the perpetuation of human decency in the arts?
