Back from the Dead with Edward Said...

Welcome once again to Post-Colonial Pondering with Gareth K Vile. Today's re-animated corpse could be called the founder of post-colonial theory: his 1978 book Orientalism staked out the ground for an re-evaluation of the way that western scholarship approaches the east. Welcome, Edward Said.

Thank you, Gareth. I guess you've called me back to chat about the two productions at the Tron?

Indeed: the start of this year's Mayfesto - Our Country's Good  and The Tempest. Both starring students from the Conservatoire, giving us a range of interesting accents (Prospero from Australia, perhaps?), but we are not here to talk about the performances...

Quite. My scholarship is concerned with the implied content of texts, not their expression. I guess I come out of the Marxist traditions that would examine the context of a work, and also poke around for political meanings.

But you are not a Marxist, though. You said that it didn't work as an ontology...

As a revenant, my ontology is a bit shaky now. Anyway, let's get to work. 

Both plays are good choices for a festival 'about' colonialism. The Tempest  has become a bit of a Ur text for rereading - Caliban is more of a victim and hero - and has been rewritten by Cesare to give it some proper anti-imperialist clout.

It is probably more correct - more respectful of the script - to recognise that Caliban is a racist caricature. Sure, he gets a few fancy speeches - that cheeky line about learning Prospero's language so he can curse - but he is presented as a potential rapist, he moans all the time and refuses to accept his place. There is an overwhelming trivia to his battles with Prospero, because ultimately Prospero doesn't give a shit about him. He's too busy with the 'serious' business of getting on in European aristocratic society. 

So, you are saying Shakespeare was a racist?

More properly, an orientalist. He creates a dualism between European and 'other' to the benefit of the European. Now - here's my problem with the updating of the source script - not a rewrite like Cesare's, since he is free to cut out the worst bits. No, sticking with Shakespeare's text retains these orientalist elements. And even to expose them, say, by exaggerating the conflict or making it explicitly white male versus black female (as in Andy Arnold's version here) might perpetuate the racist stereotyping.

Can't we follow the Brechtian idea that cooly demonstrating allows the audience to recognise the content. To make them realise that the play is orientalist in essence?

Do you think an audience goes to see Shakespeare to be told he is a racist? Doesn't it work the other way, to justify certain ideals of 'civilisation' and 'savagery' through their beautiful articulation?