Jean Genet was a French novelist, playwright, poet, essayist, and political activist. In his early life he was a vagabond and petty criminal, but he later became a writer and playwright. His work, much of it considered scandalous when it first appeared, is now placed among the classics of modern literature and has been translated and performed throughout the world.
Separated from it's status as a historical document, The Blacks exists an ugly testimony of liberal racism. Premeiring in 1961, it ran for 1400 performances on broadway due to the fact that Genet one upped Richard Wright in shocking-the-white-audience category and an ensemble that would have made Friday After Next seem like King Lear ( James Earl Jones, Maya Angelou, Louis Gossett jr, Cicely Tyson, roscoe Lee Browne). Beneath the refried Pirandellian structures of pseudo conquest and the artifical self, the play's message-that the black man is an angry, revolutionary monster out to get his revenge on whitey-is racial condesension at it's absolute worst.
Those willing to give Genet credit for recognizing the simmering rage many blacks had at the time and the theatrical tropes he employed to put it on stage might want to take a look at the subtext of the play. During the action of it, which consists of two gruesome murders, a mock trial pitting "african and european" values, and a racial revolution in which the "black man" wins, black people are portrayed as barbarous rapists and murders. He cannot imagine a world where black people encounter the ugliness of racism and ...exist, survive, function under horrific circumstance. Ever the diseased provacetur, Genet cannot recognize blacks as having a humanity equal to his or in the ballpark.
And yet it exists, as a breakthough for the ensemble cast, canonical tome of radical and avant guarde theater, and haunting artistic precursor of the "brogressive" movements that have plagued liberalism in the past 50 years. from the interpersonal sexism of the Weathermen and the Panthers and the horrorcore support of Eldridge Cleaver, to the horrorcore support of Odd future and the interpersonal sexism shown against Hillary Clinton in the 08 primary, Genet's voice can still be heard. Forgive me for being tired of it's bloody roar.
The Blacks is a touch dated but appropriately grotesque and provocative. It would have been a better play if the reveal was that Epstein and Hilary were actually overlord lizard perverts.
یه نمایشنامه از یک سفیدپوست برای سیاهان! من زیاد چیزی نفهمیدم... یا ترجمه بد بود یا سطح تمرکز من خیلی پایین اما نمیتونستم بیشتر از دو دقیقه روی متن متمرکز بمونم و هی ذهنم میپرید
سیاها یا کلفت ها که این کار به هر دوی این اسامی ترجمه شده، همونجور که خود ژنه میگه کاری بر له «به نفع» سیاها نیس ، بلکه اثری ست بر علیه سفیدها ، یه جور کنایه توی این نمایش هست . در حقیقت افراد نمایش سعی می کنن از کلمات و ابزارهایی استفاده کنن که برتری سفیدا رو نشون میده اما به طرز احمقانه ای این تکنیک از سمت مخاطب به برتری سیاها ختم میشه
Žene iz sve snage fetišizira crnce na isti lirsko-brutalni način kao i svoj standardni polusvet u romanima, i jasno je što je ovo kad se pojavilo delovalo kao revolucionarno pozorište, ali u poređenju s njegovom prozom ipak je znatno slabije i prilično pregaženo vremenom.
Genets surreal and absurdist controversial and confrontational play “The Blacks” is probably not the easiest read - not only because of the subject matter (racism, stereotyping, colonialism, oppression) but also for the technique; ‘a play within a play’ meaning a constant breaking of the fourth wall, characters breaking character, and characters shifting. I liked it (and it made me think I could do with reading a bit more drama), but it wouldn’t place high on a list of recommendations on Genet’s work. I think it would work much better to see performed, but I do think I’d be hesitant to. If that makes sense.
hit some high notes and the suggestion that White women need to be killed before Black men can love Black women was interesting, but more really weird than really good.
This play & The Screens are probably my 2 favorite Genet plays. At the beginning of the play, Genet wrote:
"This play, written, I repeat, by a white man, is intended for a white audience, but if, which is unlikely, it is ever performed before a black audience, then a white person, male or female, should be invited every evening. The organizer of the show should welcome him formally, dress him in ceremonial costume and lead him to his seat, preferably in the front row of the orchestra. The actors will play for him. A spotlight should be focused upon this symbolic white throughout the performance.
"But what if no white person accepted? Then let white masks be distributed to the black spectators as they enter the theater. And if blacks refuse the masks, then let a dummy be used."
Imagine being the "symbolic white" in such a way! Imagine the stressfulness of being expected to somehow 'represent' hundreds of millions of people. Imagine the potential hostility that such a 'representation' might arouse - one wrong move & the whole of 'whiteness' might be condemned. Then imagine the 'blackness' of the play being under a similar degree of unpleasant scrutiny. Genet combines race & class in his own special symbolic way.
Είναι η δεύτερη φορά που "τα βάζω" με τον Genet και πραγματικά δεν ταιριάζουμε. Σίγουρα πολύ βαθιά νοήματα και υπαινιγμοί, αλλά δεν ξέρω τι τελικά απ' όλα αυτά μένει ακέραιο επί σκηνής.
Jean Genet's The Blacks is a difficult play to red if you have never seen a performance of it. My rating is based on the fact that there are too many characters, and I have not read anything previously about the play. As I read the dialog and directions, I tended to get lost. Still, I think I would like to see the drama performed.
نکته ی مهم اینه که سه ستاره ای که به این کتاب دادم اصلا به خود نمایشنامه ربطی نداره بلکه به متعلقاتشه ( یعنی نوشته های خود ژنه و زندگی نامه ). خود نمایشنامه برای من گنگ بود - چنانکه خواندن و نخواندنش فرقی نداشت. نیت هایی را در مصاحبه و نوشته های پیوست شده می شد دید اما نیت هر چه بوده من بعد از دو بار خواندن این نمایشنامه همچنان سردرگمم ( به قول ویل دورانت "خود زندگی به اندازه ی کافی راز دارد"، اینکه این ابهام ها هم بهش اضافه بشن دیگه نوبره ). زندگی نامه جالبه اما بدون محتوا است. یعنی تواریخ مذکورند اما رخدادها سربسته ذکر می شوند. مثلا می گوید دریدا چیزی در مورد ژنه نوشت، ژنه هم نقد کرد اما هیچ خبری از محتوای این گفتگو نیست. نوشته های خود ژنه جالب اند و خواندنی. ادعای فهم کردنشان حداقل ادعای من نیست اما حداقل حس فهم حداقلی و حس لذت را در من برانگیخت - برخلاف نمایشنامه. اصل نمایشنامه بیش از یک ستاره برای من ارزشی نداشت...
I was very lucky to see a Robert Wilson staging of Les Negres in Paris. It at last convinced me, I believe, that a piece of art that is incomprehensible is by no means less brilliant because of it.
UPDATE: I wonder if Les Negres owns anything to Aime Cesaire's Et les chiens se taisaient? I read Cesaire's play for a paper on him and understood very little of the work, but now would be curious to go back and examine it with a more competent eye. It is as surrealistic as Genet's play and treats rather the same subject matter. It would have been published only two years earlier, in 1956.
Gene insists that “The Blacks” is written by a White man for Black men. According to him, there must be at least one white person among the audiences! It’s a “play in play”, act by one group of blacks with white masques... ژنه که سعی داشته نشان دهد این نمایش نامه را "سفید"ی برای "سیاهان" نوشته، خواسته تا نمایش نامه توسط سیاهان، برای سیاهان، و با ماسک های سفید اجرا شود.
Okunması çok zor bir kitaptı. Ayrıntı yayınları bu konuda belki birşeyler yapabilirlerdi. Kitabın okunamaması için ise ya çeviriyi suçlayacağız ya da yazarı. Belki ileride tekrar denerim ama şu an bana zor bir okuma yaşattığından zorlayarak bitirdiğim kitaplar arasında yer alıyor...
Years so, there was a documentary about Dr. Maya Angelou. In it, there was mention of her acting days and this play being one in which she participated. I made note to read the play shortly after watching the documentary, but life got in the way. I finally sat still long enough to follow through on reading.
The ad approach to the play was very interesting. Given the time that it was written and performed, initially, I'm am surprised there were no news articles of societal hysterics. Then again, it was a different time. People were fully aware of tropes, stereotypes, societal generalizations, classicism, and blatant disdain exhibited towards Blacks. This play was born during the Jim Crow era and Genet did a good task of artistic cryptography without applying in-your-face theatrics.
This is not a script that could translate to a television or movie format for a modern audience. It is too cerebral. It's too layered. It's too mature. There is no way to appreciate the story while disconnecting for text messages, emails, or phone calls.
Finished this a while back. Highly controversial, comic, satirical, absurdist take on colonialism, white supremacy, the fear of uprisings, stereotypes and how black people are viewed. Read it, but perhaps read it again.
A play within a play, a troupe of actors stage a kangaroo court style trial for the murder of a white woman, which also happens off stage. Some of the actors wear whiteface, playing ruling establishment figures.
Though weird, the absurd shows a familiar face. We see a stark mirror, the reality of empire and colonialism that many try to ignore. Reflected are some truths about perceptions of the colour black and white, and of black people that sadlly continues to this day.
This is why parts of it will make very uncomfortable reading but will click. A dark reminder of how black people have not been seen as equal to white people.
Una crítica acá lo resume perfectamente: hay obras de teatro que necesitan verse en persona, no para ser realmente disfrutadas (eso creo que aplica a todas) sino para "comprenderlas".
Todo lo bueno de la obra esta en la representación y en las interpretaciones posibles. El texto es mas bien una pizarra vacía.
3.5 as it is one of those plays that cannot be properly appreciated through its text alone and needs to be viewed as a production, since the tension and the separation between the actors and the audience is a major player, per se.
I’m so confused. This play, staged correctly, could be severely powerful. On the other hand it could Tilden out to be a complete mess, and I’m not sure we need more anger in the world today…