By Rick A. Elina
“White shall become black and black shall become white,” says Sterling North, the central character from Permanent Collection, a play by Philadelphia playwright Thomas Gibbons and produced by the University of Texas at Dallas, School of Arts and Humanities. The transformation told by Mr. North takes place soon after the lights dim. A monologue follows detailing the black experience during a traffic stop by a white cop. The device sets up the underlying theme and the overall plot of the play.
The late Dr. Alfred Morris, the rather autocratic founder of the Morris Foundation, an art repository of works that include Renoir, Picasso and Matisse among many others, left a mandate in his will that neither the foundation nor the works contained within it, are to ever be moved. Ever. His last testament also left control of his foundation to Haywood College, a historically black school. Dr. Morris was white, by the way.
The aforementioned Mr. North, a black character capably played by white actor, Jonathon Horne, has been named head of the Morris Foundation. From the first moment that Mr. North enters, he does so with strides so purposeful, there is little doubt that the new guard has now taken over the watch. Mr. North’s first official act is to replace longtime assistant, Ella Franklin (Chinweolu Greer). Change is definitely in the air. Now enter Paul Barrow, a white character played by black actor Bill Hass. Mr. Barrow is the longtime Director of Education for the Morris Foundation and has been passed over by Mr. North as executive director. Mr. Hass convincingly portrays his character as a loyal protector of the past. The stage is now set for a clash between the old guard and the new. The object of their ensuing battle will be the display of African art by the foundation, in violation of its founder’s vision and last will. The race card is now dealt, with new layers being added to the struggle.
The cast is nicely complemented with Meg Simons, playing reporter Gillian Crane and Jameshia Bankston as Mr. North’s assistant Kanika Weaver. Ms. Simons portrays her character with measured stoicism that contrasts nicely with today’s pervasive sensationalism. By comparison, Ms. Bankston carries some of the more emotional scenes in the play. Both actresses prove to be talented performers. In addition, Ms. Weaver provides several musical interludes, singing a cappella. Her voice and delivery alone are worth the price of admission.
The set and multimedia designs were near flawless and presented in such a way, that not only was the audience viewing art but also viewing the viewers of the art. The film presentations of the late Dr. Morris, played by Dr. Richard Brettell, were a clever way of having the deceased character further his own storyline. After all, some things need to come from the man, himself.
Permanent Collection runs through Feb. 26 at the University Theatre on the UTD Campus. Call 972-883-2552 or go online at www.ah.utdallas.edu for tickets and information.
Rick A. Elina is a playwright and the theatre critic for The North Dallas Gazette.
Thank you Mr. Elina for taking the time to review this extraordinary production. I notice you did not mention the direction, the name of the director, or acknowledged that the role reversal of the two male leads was not how the play was written. Is it because you think the playwright wrote the play specifying the opposite race play opposite roles or it was of little importance to to you. Or perhaps you ran out of space. Please clarify. I am a bit befuddled how you can write a review of a play and completely leave out the director, or the direction of the play, which has much to to with the power, clarity, and effectiveness of the production. I look forward to your response.
My thanks.
Dr. Reese
Please forgive me if my words land as harsh. They are not intended to do so. I a
genuinely unclear if you think the playwright meant for the roles to be played by opposite races or do you realize that staging was a risk on behalf of the director. The singing interludes are also a function of the direction. Just about everything you mentioned, including video taping Dr. Morris was a manifestation of the director’s vision. And considering that you are a playwright, I am befuddled why the direction of the play is completely absent from your review. Again, please forgive me if my words land critical. And please forgive the typos. I am responding on my iPhone after midnight in a moment of passion. I thank you taking the time to review the production and give such possitive to the artists. I know your review will encourage the and empower them to keep moving forward.
Sincerely,
Dr. Reese
Ignore my comments and delete them. The review is glowing. I think I just felt left out. I apologize. Thank you for acknowledging the artists. I know this review made their hearts sing. Forgive me for my pettiness.
Sincerely,
Dr. Reese
I appreciate the positive review as well, but I disagree some about the nature of the conflict in this play. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize Paul Barrow as “a loyal protector of the past” when he says at the end that he thinks some cultures are superior to others….It’s true that the battle is over “the display of African art by the foundation, in violation of its founder’s vision and will.” But that’s only one side of the story. The problem is that while Dr. Morris was “progressive” for his time, he really didn’t understand African cultures (they mentioned in the play that they hadn’t been studied much when he was collecting) and he seemed to be collecting African art out of a sentimentalized association with the primitive or soulful (he mentions that he’s “addicted to the Negro.”) So, yes, change is in the air, and it’s not what Dr. Morris would have wanted. The problem is, how do you respect Dr. Morris’s legacy while giving space in the world to African-Americans? And more significantly, how do you respect our nation’s cultural legacy while giving space in the world to African-Americans?
That’s why I think the phrase “the race card is now dealt” is problematic. The point of North’s opening monologue was in part to show that for him, the race card isn’t something he feels like he’s playing or wants to play; it’s something he reacts angrily to because he feels like he has to face it every day. North doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring race. Barrow has some valid points about the will, but in choosing to ignore race when North is trying to point out its importance, he’s making mistakes too. Barrow shouldn’t have gone to the reporter or sued, and North shouldn’t have fired Kanika or gotten the museum into legal trouble that only hurt it in the end. So both of them are culpable. But what about Gillian? Isn’t she culpable too?