family devotions

Pic of the Week: August 31, 2001

Family Devotions 046 Photo by Tom McGrath 

Family Devotions closes this Sunday.

Pic of the Week: August 19, 2001

Family Devotions 141 Photo by Tom McGrath

Gordon Chow as Robert in Family Devotions
It's the second time Gordon worked on a character based on the same man this summer.  Robert is based on David Henry Hwang's father Henry Y. Hwang. Gordon also understudied the role of HYH in Silk Road's production of Yellow Face this summer.

Interview with David Henry Hwang


David Henry Hwang is one of America’s greatest living playwrights. Over his thirty-plus year career he has been a three-time Pulitzer finalist and won a Tony Award for M. Butterfly, the first Asian-American to do so. His work has been produced in over four dozen countries across the globe. In addition to his work as a playwright, he has written musicals, libretti for operas (he is America’s most-produced living opera librettist) and works in film and television. 
 
This summer three of his plays are being produced in Chicago, Chinglish premiered at the Goodman before heading to Broadway this fall. Yellow Face was seen at Silk Road Theatre Project, and Halcyon is producing his early play Family Devotions. David recently came back to town for three days, and spent time with each of his shows, watching Chinglish and Yellow Face over the weekend, and then watching a rehearsal run-through of Family Devotions last Monday. Armed with a flip cam, he and I sat down in the lobby of the Greenhouse Theater Center--where Family Devotions will perform beginning August 11--for a conversation while the cast was warming up.
 
Note: There was some unanticipated arrivals to the theatre while we were talking, hence the background noise, so the full interview is transcribed below. Hope you enjoy.
 
-Tony

Update: this will be on the 2amt podcast as well. Also made a couple corrections to the transcript.
 

Interview with David Henry Hwang from Halcyon Theatre on Vimeo.

 
Tony Adams: I guess to start out, what’s the one question you always wished somebody would ask you?
 
David Henry Hwang: Is the porn scene in Yellow Face true?
 
TA: (laughs) Is the porn scene in Yellow Face true?
 
DHH:  Yeah, actually. That is true.
 
TA: Is it?
 
DHH: Yeah.
 
TA: Is there a correlation between that and Asian Pride Porn?
 
DHH: No, not really. There’s a total coincidence that there’s that much porn in my life and history.
 
TA: Do you consider yourself a playwright? Or now that you work in film, and opera, tv and everything else, do you consider yourself a writer who still writes plays?
 
DHH: I think I consider myself a playwright, because that’s still kinda my base form. And really, even though I work in a number of different forms, they’re all scripts. And I think they all derive from being a playwright. And, for me, when I do a play, that’s still the most personal and those are the things that are most me. I think I self-identify as a playwright.
 
TA: There’s a big conversation in the field about to MFA or not to MFA, and I was looking back over your bio. I was struck by... the fact that you got an MFA from Yale in ‘83...
 
DHH: No, I dropped out.
 
TA: Oh, you dropped out?
 
DHH: Yeah. 
 
TA: ‘Cause the thing I read said you got an MFA in ‘83
 
DHH: Yeah, sometimes they say that. Had I graduated, I would have gotten an MFA in ‘83. But I was there for a year, from ‘80-’81, and honestly--
 
TA: You were doing pretty well by that point.
 
DHH: Yeah, it’s not that dramatic a story. It’s just, ‘cause I wasn’t there very much, and it didn’t make much sense for me to stick around New Haven. I just wasn’t around New Haven, so it didn’t make much sense for me to stay in the program.
 
TA: Ah, cool.  When your first couple plays debuted at the Public-- I was talking on a boat at the TCG conference last year with Morgan Jenness, and she was saying that the first year she was there, I think she said they premiered 23 plays?
 
DHH: That sounds right, I’m sure she would know.
 
TA: How do you think the landscape has changed for playwrights since then?
 
DHH: I think it’s harder, you know? When I think about the fact that between the time--I wrote FOB to be done in my dorm. So between the time it was done in my dorm at Stanford, and the time it premiered at the Public theatre in New York, it was fifteen months. And it’s just really hard to imagine anything like that happening today. And in some sense... 
 
Why? Well that was a period when funds for arts in general--and for theatres...therefore was in a growth mode. So there were theatres that were being founded, a lot of the field was starting up. 
 
And also, I feel like the field has become more professionalized, which has its advantages and disadvantages. It reflects to a large extent the generation that founded the not for profit movement, which were basically baby boomers, and then as baby boomers grew up, and these theatres became institutionalized--then, the good part was when you go to another city to do a show, you don’t have to sleep on somebody’s couch. 
 
The bad part is they need to make more money, they became more of a feeder for Broadway. Broadway pulls the cart to a larger extent, a much larger extent, than when the not for profit  movement was started--which was supposed to be an alternative to Broadway. So the field’s just different.
 
TA: Now, to kinda compare, what was the gestation period for Chinglish?
 
DHH:  Well, Chinglish actually happened pretty quickly. Unusually so. With Chinglish, the reading we did of the first act was December of 2009.
 
TA: And that was at the Lark?
 
DHH: That was at the Lark. And the I finished, the second act, and we did the whole thing in January of 2009. No, I’m sorry January of 2010. And we opened it here, in June. So it’s somewhat similar. But it’s not similar, in the sense that I’m not an unknown playwright any more and the idea of just some kid who wrote a play, who was a senior in college, and a year later it was done at the Public, it’s just hard to imagine that happening anymore.
 
TA: Is the story true about when you first gave FOB, Joe Papp told you to rewrite it and you just stuck it in your drawer, did nothing, and gave it back to him?
 
DHH:  That is sorta true. (laughs)
 
TA: (laughs)
 
DHH: I don’t quite know how I knew to do that. But it was really about Joe-- 
 
What it tells you is that, particularly in those days, I mean now you have more professionalized dramaturgy departments, but people generally shoot from the hip when they give notes. And they don’t necessarily remember what they said. 
 
And, I think it was really, from Joe’s point of view about establishing a power relationship, just to sort of make it clear that if he wanted me to think about changing something that I was open to that.
 
TA: You’re the kid, I’m Joe Papp. 
 
DHH: Right. And in fact, I mean with that particular set of notes I wasn’t, but in general I am. (laughs)
 
TA: How do you navigate the burden that writers of color have placed on them, that some people expect them to be a representative for their entire community? 
 
DHH: Yeah.
 
TA: Even in something like the Asian-American community where there are no real ties other than geography. How have you navigated that over your career? 
 
DHH: I’ve gone back and forth in it a lot. You know when FOB was done at the Public, I was twenty-three.  I remember there being a review in an Asian-American paper that said it set Asian-America back twenty years. FOB. And I was twenty-three.
 
TA: (laughs)
 
DHH: (laughs) And that kind of hurt my feelings. But I started to realize that this was part of this was about. And you know, really, now I feel like--look, two things. 
 
Number one, it’s impossible for any artist to represent an entire community. And so what we have to do try to do is foster a community of artists and that can represent a community.
 
And number two, of course Asians are the ones that are going to care the most and have the strongest opinions about Asian work. If you do a piece about morticians, it’s the morticians that are gonna go “well, you know it’s not really like that.” (laughs). So I just think that’s part of the job description.
 
TA: Do you think that’s changed as you’ve looked at more global issues as opposed to more American? 
 
DHH: I don’t know. I’m not sure because M. Butterfly is not really an Asian-American play in terms of content. Only because it’s written by an Asian-American. And you know, there’s a big section of the Asian-American community that feels like it perpetuates the emasculation of Asian  men. And so, simply going to an international subject doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not going to get criticized.  And, you know, criticism--although it’s not pleasant--is ultimately a healthy thing.
 
TA: If you could change one thing about theatre now and today, what would it be?
 
DHH: I think it really has to do with the whole culture, but theatre has succumbed to this shift in the culture which argues that anything that can’t make money is not worthwhile.  
 
I work on Broadway, I believe in the commercial theatre. But I also believe that commercial theatre has to be part of a larger ecology. And that means accepting the value of things that are never going to make money, and that are not about that, and aren’t trying to do that.
 
And I feel that if I had to change one thing about the field that we work in, it would be to restore respect for work which has no desire to be commercial.
 
TA: Is that kinda like, I think it was August Wilson, always said “if you want to help a playwright, produce his first three plays.” Kinda along the same lines?
 
DHH: Yeah. I think that’s... I didn’t know that quote, but that’s a really good quote.
 
TA: I could be mis-attributing, but I think--
 
DHH: That very well may be. Yeah, and another thing, and I think people are trying to change this, is to move from the reading culture into a production culture. And I think the field in general is aware that this is a problem. I don’t know that we’ve necessarily figured out how to solve it. But there are different people that are trying to take different stabs at it.
 
TA:  Now how has the reading culture evolved over the course of your career? ‘Cause it’s kinda came now, and my sense is that when your first three plays were done, readings weren’t as big of a--
 
DHH: No, you sorta did one reading, so that the artistic director could decide if he was going to produce the show. But, I don’t really think there was this sort of notion of developmental readings and professional dramaturgy field and literary departments--I mean there were literary departments, but they were more about picking plays, than trying to develop plays.
 
And I’m very involved with the Lark play development center, so it’s not like I don’t believe in development. And I certainly develop my own work, but you know, when development started to become about believing there was some sort of a formula, there was a right way to do a play, that’s when I think it really went off the tracks.
 
I feel that now there’s more of an effort to and a recognition to bring it back to the notion that it’s the authors idiosyncratic vision, and if the dramaturg can help an author achieve what he or she, what his or her play is meant to be then that’s great. But when you start to try to mess with it and impose your own aesthetic, that’s a problem.
 
TA: Now do you think that--with the Lark, it’s sort of an interesting example that there aren’t a whole lot of corollaries across the country. Playwrights Center in Minneapolis of course, but they’re very clear, “we’re never going to produce your play. We don’t produce plays.” That’s not what they do. How do you think that effects development there as opposed to somewhere like South Coast Rep or something?
 
DHH: The advantage with the Lark saying they’re never going to produce your play is it also don’t have an aesthetic agenda really. I mean everyone has an agenda, in that they have their own taste. But institutionally it’s not like they are paying a mortgage on a big new theatre that cost, whatever, ten, twelve million dollars. So they can be more about helping the writer figure out what his or her play was about. As opposed to thinking “our audience is going to like it better if the play is more like this.”
 
TA: Something I’ve always been fascinated about is revisiting work. So, if you look at Irene Fornes’ body of work, one thing that stuck out to me as I was reading through--because we did a festival of her work last year. 
 
DHH: Oh cool.
 
TA: Morgan and her assistant Micah sent me pretty much all of her unpublished scripts. They scanned them and emailed them to me. And I was astonished to see how she would, continually,  she would have an idea. And it wasn’t very good. And then she’d revisit the idea and it was a little bit better. And then she’d revisit the idea and then Mud comes out. And the first half of What of the Night,  there was a couple of times she wrote Nadine, and a progression and then knocked it out of the park.  
 
DHH: That’s very interesting. 
 
TA: And I was thinking about that when I was watching Yellow Face, in some ways it was you revisiting Face Value
 
DHH: Yeah.
 
TA: Are there other works that you’d like to go back and revisit? Or do you think when they’re done they’re done. 
 
DHH: In general I feel like when you’re done, you’re done. Only because, otherwise it’s just really easy for you to just work on one play for the rest of your life. You can rewrite until the cows come home.
 
TA: Is that like Pirandello wrote one play in a hundred acts? 
 
DHH: (laughs) Yeah, well you certainly could argue that.  But you know I feel like, Yellow Face is a revisiting of the themes in Face Value and it refers to it, so it’s self-referential in that way. In some sense I wouldn’t say it’s a rewrite of Face Value. Because a rewrite of Face Value would be about trying to go back to that premise. So I feel like there are certain projects that-- I mean, to some extent Chinglish revisits some of the M. Butterfly themes. I feel like Golden Child revisits some of the Family Devotions themes. So, I don’t necessarily go back and rewrite a play per se, but I’m still interested in advancing a certain argument or a certain exploration.
 
TA: When you were writing Family Devotions, it’s probably been a while, but do you think--did you have in your head consciously that that was going to be a trio of plays, or did it just happen like that?
 
DHH: No, it just happened like that. I’m assuming you mean Family Devotions, Dance of the Railroad and FOB?
 
TA: And FOB yeah. Thirty years later, there’s a very strong thematic link.
 
DHH: Yeah, it feels like that now.  Because after Family Devotions then there’s a gap, and then there’s the Japanese plays, House of Beauty and Sound of the Voice. And then there’s the somewhat unsuccessful experiment of Rich Relations and then M. Butterfly, so therefore you end up with these first three plays being kind of isolated in a certain period. But no, there was no plan to do that. It just kinda happened. (laughs)
 
TA: (laughs) Is there anything you could tweak about it, if you had to rewrite it?
 
DHH: Family Devotions?
 
TA: Yeah.
 
DHH: You know, I’m really curious to see how the ending works. Because for me, the thing that was always tricky about M. Butterfly and then I revisited this also in Rich Relations, and tried to make it work in Rich Relations, and then  I revisited this technique, if not the theme in Yellow Face. Which is, to try to create a farce which then becomes something of a tragedy. So I would say, I feel like Rich Relations is really not successful at it. Family Devotions, I think, is pretty successful at it? But I’m curious to see how that shift in tone works. 
 
TA: (laughs) Me too. 
 
Oh I forgot to say, this is David Henry Hwang, and I’m Tony Adams
 
DHH: Hi.
 
 
________________
 
 
 
 
David Henry Hwang is the author of M. Butterfly (1988 Tony, Drama Desk, Outer Critics Awards, Pulitzer finalist), Golden Child (1998 Tony nomination, 1997 OBIE Award), FOB (1981 OBIE Award), The Dance and the Railroad (Drama Desk nomination), Family Devotions (Drama Desk Nomination), Sound and Beauty, and Bondage. His play, Yellow Face, which premiered at Los Angeles' Mark Taper Forum and New York's Public Theatre, won a 2008 OBIE Award and was a Finalist for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize. He wrote the scripts for the Broadway musicals Elton John & Tim Rice's Aida (co-author), Rodgers & Hammerstein's Flower Drum Song (2002 revival, 2003 Tony nomination), and Disney's Tarzan. His opera libretti include three works for composer Philip Glass, 1000 Airplanes on the Roof, The Voyage (Metropolitan Opera), and The Sound of a Voice; as well as Bright Sheng's The Silver River, Osvaldo Golijov's Ainadamar (two 2007 Grammy Awards) and Unsuk Chin's Alice In Wonderland (Opernwelt's 2007 "World Premiere of the Year"). Hwang penned the feature films M. Butterfly, Golden Gate, and Possession (co-writer), and also co-wrote the song "Solo" with Prince. A native of Los Angeles, Hwang serves on the Council of the Dramatists Guild. He attended Stanford University and Yale Drama School, and was appointed by President Clinton to the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. His plays Chinglish (World Premiere at the Goodman Theatre) and Yellow Face (Chicago Premiere at Silk Road Theatre Project) are also playing in Chicago in the Summer of 2011.
 
Tony Adams is a Chicago based theatre artist, husband and father, and artistic director of Halcyon Theatre. He has hundreds of credits as a director, designer, actor, writer and producer.Before moving to the Chicago, Tony was in Paris where he worked as an actor, director, writer and designer. As co-founder and Artistic Director of Halcyon, he has worked on each of Halcyon’s productions to date. He also staged managed twice. He is a horrible stage manager.

One of these things is not like the other...

Getting to play the character of Wilbur in Family Devotions has been extremely gratifying for several reasons.  There is of course the obvious, which is simply getting a role (any role), period.  Then there’s the fact it is a David Henry Hwang play being performed during this unprecedented summer of the playwright’s works in Chicago (and I cannot say enough good things about Yellow Face at Silk Road Theatre Project or Chinglish at the Goodman).

Then there is the last reason, which is that out of all the characters in Family Devotions, Wilbur is definitely the one nearest and dearest to me, even before I was cast.

If you have never seen or read the play, Wilbur is the lone Japanese American member (by marriage) of an extended Chinese American family.  We don’t learn a lot of his backstory, other than he’s professionally and financially successful, has pets and likes sports (specifically tennis).

However, as I read the play for the first time, barring certain specifics, Wilbur constantly and inevitably reminded me of single key person in my life: my father.

Like Wilbur, my father is Japanese American.  Specifically, he is sansei (third generation) and was born and raised on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.  Also like Wilbur, he married outside of his community, though my mother is Korean, an émigré who came to the U.S. from Seoul in the late 60s.

Like Wilbur, my father found himself part of a family that to non-Asians probably looked pretty uniform, but trust me, it was anything but.  First off was language.  My father’s first and only language is English.  He was literally born four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, so my grandparents spent his childhood working hard to be good Americans, which meant not speaking or teaching Japanese.  Luckily, my mother’s English is very fluent.  However, at her family gatherings everyone inevitably bantered in their native tongue.  This has changed over the years with out-marriage to non-Koreans and more American-born kids being present, but I can remember hours of my father sitting off to the side, looking ever so bored while my mother, aunts and uncles laughed and chatted the night away.

Next up is food.  Now, both my parents enjoy Japanese dishes such as sushi or soba noodles, and my father would happily devour kalbi or bulgogi (that’s Korean barbecue to you) when prepared by my mother.   However, kimchee (Korean spicy pickled vegetables) and the like were definitely off the list where he was concerned.   Now, a lot of people these days may be aware that the Japanese palate is milder to that of Koreans, and, barring wasabi, is not accented by truly hot spices.  That alone does not fully explain my father’s attitude, for truth be told, he is a Big Mac man through and through.  Not to mention pizza, cheese, Starbuck’s Coffee and stuff that comes out of cans.

But the most striking difference between my father and my mother’s family would definitely be one of attitude, a difference which I can feel emanating in every scene of Family Devotions.   There’s some similarities: they both value family, education, hard work and respecting authority.  Where they differ would be the intensity of emotion attached to each of the above, plus where exactly the bar for “success” would be raised.

Though never stated outright, I get the impression that success for Wilbur is measured in terms of being comfortable, that very American idea that maybe life should be enjoyed.  In the script, he’s certainly prosperous and does not like it when others downplay his achievements, but he lacks one in-law’s obsession with status or his own wife’s need to boast.

In my own family, it was always my mother’s side, the Korean one, where one always seemed to be hearing incessant discussion about how kids were doing in school, what awards folks were winning and where everyone was going for college.  My father, on the other hand, was much more laid back.  I knew he wanted me and my brother to do well, but his wasn’t the mouth that seemed to always be saying names like MIT, Yale, Princeton and Harvard.

This has led to many interesting moments within our family – some funny, others uncomfortable.  My mother has outright stated that Japanese Americans are too relaxed, with mixed-up priorities like waiting in line for Cubs tickets instead of starting a new business.  On the flipside, my father has apparently decided that when it comes to Koreans, he just doesn’t ‘get’ them, if not finding them to be outright crazy (something I try to incorporate into Wilbur’s dealings with his in-laws).

I could go on and on, like peeling away the layers of an onion.  My father is Buddhist, my mother is Christian.  My father is a country boy, my mother grew up in a city.  My father’s family were plantation workers, my mother’s relatives were urban professionals.  Etcetera, etcetera, as the King of Siam might say.  I guess the main point is that I hope non-Asians realize that our differences and variety go far beyond nationality or language.  Class, religion, when your family arrived in the U.S. and where all create a hodgepodge of elements that more often than not but heads with one another.

One of the great things about discovering Family Devotions was seeing a family with echoes of my own.  Sure, it’s far more extreme than my real life ever was or probably will be, but that’s the great part about art, using exaggeration to get at the truth.  Plus, it’s damn funny, and I’m certainly looking forward to my next family gathering more than ever.

"Not A Chinaman's Chance"

 

From Wikipedia

The expression a Chinaman's chance means someone has no chance at all of accomplishing or successfully doing an action.

The original phrase, from the California gold rush, was that one had only a Chinaman's Chance in Hell, but it morphed through usage into its current state.



1. History

The historical context of the phrase comes from the old railroad and Goldrush days of pre-California, where many Chinese came to work as laborers for the First Transcontinental Railroad, especially the Central Pacific Railroad. In this employ, they were sought out for the demanding and dangerous jobs involving explosives, often for half the pay of the Mexican workers. Yet the Chinese faced higher taxes, denials of citizenship and could not testify in court for violence against them.



2. Clouded origins

The Chinaman's chance originated from the early 19th century potentially from several events. One explanation is that at that time, Chinese migrant workers in the U.S. were sent into mines and construction sites to ignite dynamite, potentially with disastrous consequences. They were also lowered over cliffs by rope and boatswain's chairs to set dynamite to clear mountain and other obstructions to make way for the railroad construction. In this work, if they were not lifted back up before the blast, serious injury or death would result. Therefore the phrase a "A Chinaman's Chance" may have been coined in this context.



Another explanation for the phrase is the California Gold Rush 1849. The travel time for news of the gold rush to reach China was quite long, and by the time Chinese from China arrived to prospect, many of the rich mines were already taken. These Chinese immigrants who missed out time-wise had to work with only those lands which had already been exploited or which were rejected by others, meaning these "Chinamen" had a slim chance of success. The historical record, however, indicates that many Chinese combined efforts with each other and did very well in the goldfields, introducing mining techniques then unknown to non-Chinese.



According to Nothing Like It in the World by Stephen Ambrose, his book on building the railroad, the phrase was cemented by murders of Chinese that were condoned by state law. "In 1854, in a case heard in Nevada County, George W. Hall was convicted of murdering a Chinese man. On appeal to the State Supreme Court the decision was overturned because all of the evidence against him was from Chinese individuals."

 

Pic of the Week: July 28, 2011

2011-07-25 21.20.31

Playwright David Henry Hwang talks with the cast after watching a runthrough of Family Devotions.

Hogging the Tony Winner

 

"You hogged him all night," observed Fernando.  Yes, I did.  After Monday's rehearsal, I unabashedly pelted David Henry Hwang (DHH) with question after question.  Although it seemed so natural and easy at the time, the light of day brought forth my familiar self-consciousness.  My Korean father always reminds me that I talk too much, and his voice arose again.  Oh dear, I thought after hearing Fernando.  Maybe I did it again.  Maybe I just talked too much.



But a curious soul lives in the Question and perpetually delights in the Answer.  And so, here were some of the reasons I kept asking, commenting, postulating, offering ... that is, talking ... to DHH over tater tots and Stella Artois.



I can't even remember my first question.  The chronology is obscured by adrenaline and the sheer volume of material.  So in this entry, I'll begin with the first page of the script -- the dedication page which names Sam Shepard.  How did that come about?



The news-clip version is that DHH was in a play-writing workshop of Shepard's when the idea of "Family Devotions" (FD) came to him.  The juicy morsel, however, is this.  DHH, like Chester in FD, was a violinist.  One day during the workshop, he was practicing in the woods when Shepard heard him.  Shepard then asked DHH to provide music for one of his plays which was being "produced" at this workshop.  Since DHH was able to improvise on the violin, he agreed and went on to underscore Shepard's piece.



I observed that most Asians do not improvise on instruments.  We are largely classically trained, and in the music world, we are known as "readers."  He agreed and stated that his sister, who played cello, fell into the category of readers.  He, however, discovered that he was better at improvising than at executing music.  How interesting, I thought, that he was willing to display his improvised musical voice.  We, of the second-generation, are programmed to obey, not think independently.  Improvisation takes a willingness to "make something up," to be unique, to produce an unfettered sound.  He agreed with my general idea and then embarked on one of the most moving moments of the evening.  It makes sense, he stated, that he became a playwright -- someone who develops their own personal voice.  Wow -- even celebrities can see the seeds of themselves.



On the other hand, since I, at my ripe age, am only now starting to own my voice ... perhaps it makes sense that I live under the canopy of another's words.  But I digress from DHH.  That is another story for a different day.  Back to Monday night at O'Malley's.



What else?  Ah, the hour is late, and my memories are melting together.  I do remember pondering the differences between a playwright's voice in the theater, on TV and in a musical.  We honored the beauty of "Love, Look Away" in "Flower Drum Song."  I asked about his mother.  I offered my own theory as to why his grandmother dies in so many of his plays.  Only snippets are coming to me now:  China and Broadway, pets in FD and his own house,  the shelter that a wife can take in her husband, the ferocity of the voice of 20-something Asian-Americans, Korean-American playwrights, the effects of geography on Far East Asian psychology, and the poignancy of the desire to assimilate as reflected in "Chinglish."



Perhaps I did hog the playwright.  If so, please see this blog as my apology.  Use this entry as a means to elbow your way into the conversation.  I promise now to sit back now, and listen.





 

Flashback: 1982

 

In the world of Family DevotionsCuisinarts are a new technological and culinary marvel, the miniseries Shogun is a major achievement in televised drama (especially when it comes to portraying Asians onscreen) and Marlon Brando is still one of the world's biggest movie stars. What else was happening in popular culture in 1982, the year Family Devotions is set? Let's take a look at that year's greatest hits in movies, TV and music, after the jump.

Movies: Top Grossing

Rank Movie Title Studio Total Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Open
1 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Universal $359,197,037 / 1,778 $11,835,389 / 1,103 6/11
2 Tootsie Columbia $177,200,000 / 1,222 $5,540,470 / 943 12/17
3 An Officer and a Gentleman Paramount $129,795,554 / 1,050 $3,304,679 346 7/30
4 Rocky III United Artists $124,146,897 / 1,317 $12,431,486 / 939 5/28
5 Porky's Fox $105,492,483 / 1,605 $7,623,988 / 1,148 3/19

(Source: Box Office Mojo)

Television: Primetime Top 20 Programs

      Household
Rank Program Network Rating Share
1 Dallas CBS 28.4 45
2 Dallas\10:00 CBS 28.3 47
3 60 Minutes CBS 27.4 43
4 Three’s Company ABC 23.7 35
4 CBS NFL Football Post 2 CBS 23.7 40
6 The Jeffersons CBS 23.4 35
7 Joannie Loves Chachi ABC 23.3 35
8 Dukes of Hazzard\9:00 CBS 22.8 37
9 Alice CBS 22.7 34
9 Dukes of Hazzard CBS 22.7 37
11 ABC Monday Night Movie ABC 22.6 34
11 Too Close for Comfort ABC 22.6 34
13 M*A*S*H CBS 22.2 32
14 One Day at A Time CBS 22.0 33
15 NFL Monday Night Football ABC 21.8 36
16 Falcon Crest CBS 21.4 37
17 Archie Bunker's Place CBS 21.3 32
17 Love Boat ABC 21.3 36
19 Hart to Hart ABC 21.2 35
20 Trapper John, MD CBS 21.1 35

(Source: TV by the Numbers)

Music: Biggest Hits

  1. "Harden My Heart" — Quarterflash
  2. "Rosanna" — Toto
  3. "Eye in the Sky" — The Alan Parsons Project
  4. "Gloria" — Laura Branigan
  5. "Who Can It Be Now?" — Men At Work
  6. "Open Arms" — Journey
  7. "Don't Talk to Strangers" — Rick Springfield
  8. "Maneater" — Hall & Oates
  9. "Up Where We Belong" — Joe Cocker and Jennifer Warnes
  10. "Centerfold" — J. Geils Band

(Source: Billboard Top Hits: 1982)

 

Pic of the Week: July 12, 2011

2011-07-18 19.45.13

Some of the Chinglish cast swings by a Family Devotions rehearsal.

Faces

 

I've had the honor to serve as the dramaturg on two of the three productions comprising the "Summer of David Henry Hwang," the other being Silk Road Theatre Project's production of Yellow Face. As a high school and college student, my discovery of Hwang's plays led to another, more personal discovery of my own ethnic background. Being half-Filipino, I had never considered myself to have had what some may call a "typical" Asian American upbringing, and the playwright's description of having undergone an "isolationist/nationalist" phase, in which you reclaim your cultural heritage and identity, fueled my own.



Needless to say, Hwang's work has been pretty important to me.



Having gone through the process of working on Yellow Face, re-reading Family Devotions was an odd experience for me. The newer play is an excoriation of identity politics and the multicultural movement. It undermines the notion of an inborn, essential cultural or ethnic identity. Marcus, the white fraud masquerading as an Asian, says to DHH, "David, are you familiar with the Chinese concept of 'face?' Basically, it says that the face we choose to show the world--reveals who we really are." This concept contrasts with the previously held assertion that Asian Americans needed to rally around an agreed-upon racial identity in order to stake a place in America. Marcus's notion actually aligns well with a Japanese saying (which I admit to have gotten from watching Mad Men): "A man is whatever room he's in."



How strange it was, then, to revisit the now thirty year-old Family Devotions, in which Di-gou, the uncle from the PRC, says to young Chinese American Chester,

"There are faces back further than you can see. Faces long before the white missionaries arrived in China. Here. [He holds CHESTER's violin so that its back is facing CHESTER, and uses it as a mirror.] Look here. At your face. Study your face and you will see--the shape of your face is the shape of faces back many generations--across an ocean, in another soil. You must become one with your family before you can hope to live away from it. [...] The stories written on your face are the ones you must believe."

Here is a much younger David Henry Hwang, telling me--reminding me--to take heed of what has come before me, that where I come from matters, even if I have to do some work figuring out where I came from. That those things define who I am. This is the very idea that modern day Hwang now dismisses. But is it any less valid? I don't think so. Family Devotions may be the product of the bygone multicultural era, but that doesn't means its insights are moot. Can I be who- and whatever I want to be? Sure. But can where I come from and the color of my skin also inform that? Also sure. This is America, dammit.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - family devotions