Howard Zinn

 

Go Back to Page 1

 

Go to Main Review

 

My Response

 

By Howard Zinn

 

           I appreciate that Paul Lion has not treated MARX IN SOHO as a statue to be doused with a shower of pigeon-stool.  His is one of the most perceptive and thoughtful reviews I have seen, among many, from the Washington Post to the Village Voice  to the L.A. Times.  He understands what I have tried to  do, to rescue what is sound and important in Marx's ideas from Stalinist  dogma and capitalist distortion, and to do it in a way that would be  entertaining as well as instructive.

                     

           When he says that the play is important enough "to be more than it is",  I  only  wince slightly, because I believe he is right.   It is a common  problem with  writers who want to present serious ideas without putting the  audience to sleep, or if awake, to roll their eyes with "Oh, my God, another Left lecture".   It is a problem of balance. 

            

           Tom Stoppard, in his play THE REAL THING, caricatures  an imprisoned  soldier who writes an insufferably dull political play, and in him Stoppard  has an easy target for poking fun.  Too easy - because Stoppard,  who it is  fair to say is politically conservative, has made his dull writer stand for  all political playwrights, as if to write a play with "a message"  is  doomed from the start to drive an audience batty with boredom. In revenge, one might write a play in which a playwright (shall we call him Tom?)  is witty, entertaining, but has nothing important to say, and then conclude the inverse of Stoppard's point - that to be funny is inevitably to be empty of  social content.

          

            But surely it is possible to be both entertaining and serious - to have an audience leave the theater with a sense of having enjoyed the evening, and yet having learned something that  is troubling, that won't leave the mind and conscience at ease.

          

            It is possible, but difficult.  It requires a delicate balance. And Paul Lion is suggesting, as kindly as he can, that I have not quite achieved that desirable equilibrium between entertainment and instruction. He is saying, I believe, that in bringing a witty, fun-loving Marx on stage, and letting this quality dominate the production, I have, without intention, somehow diminished this powerful figure, one of the great thinkers of history, whose ideas have had a tumultuous effect on modern times.

          

            Yes, there would have to be more of a sense of "urgency",  an understanding that the ideas Marx puts forth on stage, despite the intermingling of those ideas with humor, are matters of life and death. Paul Lion suggests that part of the problem may be the youth of the actor. He acknowledges, as reviewers and audiences all over the country have made clear, that Brian Jones delivers a wonderful performance as Marx,  but he wants it to be more than "performance".   I can't be sure he is right until I see an older actor, one with greater physical solidity (Brian Jones is tall and graceful) play the role  with the required power, but also with Jones' sense of fun.

          

            Paul Lion says the play is "too successfully likeable". He wants it to leave the audience "upended and dislodged".  Yes,.  a rare outcome of going to the theater,  and I wish I could achieve that.

 

POSTSCRIPT  by Paul Lion

This is the rare occasion when an author is as humane as his  work, and takes responsibility for a problem that isn’t his. One of Howard Zinn’s most recent books is Howard Zinn on War and Other Means and Ends.  Scheduled for September publication is Three Strikes—Stories of American Labor.