Nice bit of cogitation. I have two minor observations, germane but not terribly brilliant.
As a playwright, I have long suspected that audiences are moved to attend simple good vs evil plays for several reasons: 1) in their own lives they want to be reminded that good can and should triumph (when so often it does not appear it does in their real lives) and 2) they get comfort in watching the protagonist go through a cathartic experience that makes them (the character) a better person. And even that, I suspect defers to wanting to see the goodness of people be discovered in a fictional world different from reality.
Yes, the evil can sometimes be a matter of perspective, no doubt real people are just as complex and may have noble ambitions that are mixed up in complex immoral or unethical practices. And that complexity, as you mention, can make the unfolding story so much more interesting.
As for the modern show content being found derisive (or evil for some, I guess), I suspect this is not being very well articulated or understood. I read some of the commentary opinion written by former OSF ticket holders and long time members who found some programming offensive. And I think their frustration is genuine. (Well, for some. I cannot and would not speak on behalf of the truly racist commentators. But, then again, I am unaware that any were found or that they exist beyond a handful of area residents that probably never were avid attendees.)
I am aware that the former Artistic Director and their PR firm mentioned that racist comments and threats had been received. I assume it's true despite any proof of it's existence or provenance. That information was used by the company to suggest that audiences resenting the programming were these (or like these) haters - in that their motivation to complain and cease attendance was based upon some unproven racial intolerance. I also have to assume that the publicizing of this racist communication was meant to curry sympathy and support - suggesting that the AD and company were under some kind of racist siege. If one really sits back to think about it, what possible advantage would there be to mention these things publicly unless sympathy and rally of community support wasn't the goal? Well, one excellent reason, which I have mentioned several times, was merely subterfuge, to draw attention away from the enormous financial failings of the officers and board members. It certainly is better to blame a few haters than take responsibility for company failure themselves.
But, specific to those who wrote public comments, their frustration was not strictly about content, but about the underlying theme within which suggests those who do nothing to stop racism or support equal opportunity must be themselves racist and acting against tolerance. I cannot say that this theme was intended or even implied, writers rarely have a clue how their work impacts the audience, wrapped up in their ego, they don't want to know. But the audience did voice that they felt unnecessarily taken to task, blamed and made to feel guilty for past actions made by others (of similar racial profile) or for simply not acting to stop the evil intent of those racists that caused the minority protagonists harm.
It follows that if the work was found derisive, that it makes the audience not just uncomfortable, but questioning whether the event was satisfying entertainment, then the author did this intentionally or was completely clueless.
What would be the authors goal to antagonize a portion of the audience, to belittle, point blame and cause them to question their attendance? I could only guess, I have no insight in the motivation of such writers. But, the audience concludes that the intent to anger them and cause them guilt was intentional - the author wanted the audience to feel more than sympathy for the characters harmed by racism and intolerance, they wanted the audience to be upset and to carry the show message home for discussion and social reaction. In essence, the audience concluded that the author (and in some ways the intent of the producer) wanted to chastise them for the failings of society to provide equal justice. And the audience tires of being reprimanded, tired of being told (suggested, inferred) that they are guilty of allowing intolerance to ruin minority lives.
I've talked to a lot of audiences post show. It is hard for most and certainly the average audience member, to put their thoughts and feelings into words immediately after seeing a show. They often have merely vague feelings and have not yet had these filter down into knowable and articulated reactions about what they've seen. I know this to be true. Most don't bother to examine this further, often they accept the published critical opinion of the work as the popular and acceptable viewpoint regardless of what reaction they had which might be contrary with it. They don't care enough, post event, to think about it further. And besides, were they honest and say they hated the experience, wouldn't they have to accept the fact they were fooled by critical review or bias word of mouth to spend money on something they later found to have little entertainment value? Of course. No one wants to look like they've been fooled.
I suspect the audience reaction to this programming was slow to evolve, it took repetition and time to realize they did not appreciate the way they were treated, the message laid blame or guilt on them and they eventually realized this and grew tired of it. Naturally, this is not the only reason why OSF has problems, it was just one of a half dozen issues. Instead, the company leaders used it to solicit social support, making it an issue about local area racism and not about poor season programming.
Perhaps this is why the miracles were added? Ah, shiny things! Quick, time for an eighth element that can move up to two or three with enough likes!
I was referring to the miracles being added to the gospels and our tendency to be drawn to spectacle.
Nice bit of cogitation. I have two minor observations, germane but not terribly brilliant.
As a playwright, I have long suspected that audiences are moved to attend simple good vs evil plays for several reasons: 1) in their own lives they want to be reminded that good can and should triumph (when so often it does not appear it does in their real lives) and 2) they get comfort in watching the protagonist go through a cathartic experience that makes them (the character) a better person. And even that, I suspect defers to wanting to see the goodness of people be discovered in a fictional world different from reality.
Yes, the evil can sometimes be a matter of perspective, no doubt real people are just as complex and may have noble ambitions that are mixed up in complex immoral or unethical practices. And that complexity, as you mention, can make the unfolding story so much more interesting.
As for the modern show content being found derisive (or evil for some, I guess), I suspect this is not being very well articulated or understood. I read some of the commentary opinion written by former OSF ticket holders and long time members who found some programming offensive. And I think their frustration is genuine. (Well, for some. I cannot and would not speak on behalf of the truly racist commentators. But, then again, I am unaware that any were found or that they exist beyond a handful of area residents that probably never were avid attendees.)
I am aware that the former Artistic Director and their PR firm mentioned that racist comments and threats had been received. I assume it's true despite any proof of it's existence or provenance. That information was used by the company to suggest that audiences resenting the programming were these (or like these) haters - in that their motivation to complain and cease attendance was based upon some unproven racial intolerance. I also have to assume that the publicizing of this racist communication was meant to curry sympathy and support - suggesting that the AD and company were under some kind of racist siege. If one really sits back to think about it, what possible advantage would there be to mention these things publicly unless sympathy and rally of community support wasn't the goal? Well, one excellent reason, which I have mentioned several times, was merely subterfuge, to draw attention away from the enormous financial failings of the officers and board members. It certainly is better to blame a few haters than take responsibility for company failure themselves.
But, specific to those who wrote public comments, their frustration was not strictly about content, but about the underlying theme within which suggests those who do nothing to stop racism or support equal opportunity must be themselves racist and acting against tolerance. I cannot say that this theme was intended or even implied, writers rarely have a clue how their work impacts the audience, wrapped up in their ego, they don't want to know. But the audience did voice that they felt unnecessarily taken to task, blamed and made to feel guilty for past actions made by others (of similar racial profile) or for simply not acting to stop the evil intent of those racists that caused the minority protagonists harm.
It follows that if the work was found derisive, that it makes the audience not just uncomfortable, but questioning whether the event was satisfying entertainment, then the author did this intentionally or was completely clueless.
What would be the authors goal to antagonize a portion of the audience, to belittle, point blame and cause them to question their attendance? I could only guess, I have no insight in the motivation of such writers. But, the audience concludes that the intent to anger them and cause them guilt was intentional - the author wanted the audience to feel more than sympathy for the characters harmed by racism and intolerance, they wanted the audience to be upset and to carry the show message home for discussion and social reaction. In essence, the audience concluded that the author (and in some ways the intent of the producer) wanted to chastise them for the failings of society to provide equal justice. And the audience tires of being reprimanded, tired of being told (suggested, inferred) that they are guilty of allowing intolerance to ruin minority lives.
I've talked to a lot of audiences post show. It is hard for most and certainly the average audience member, to put their thoughts and feelings into words immediately after seeing a show. They often have merely vague feelings and have not yet had these filter down into knowable and articulated reactions about what they've seen. I know this to be true. Most don't bother to examine this further, often they accept the published critical opinion of the work as the popular and acceptable viewpoint regardless of what reaction they had which might be contrary with it. They don't care enough, post event, to think about it further. And besides, were they honest and say they hated the experience, wouldn't they have to accept the fact they were fooled by critical review or bias word of mouth to spend money on something they later found to have little entertainment value? Of course. No one wants to look like they've been fooled.
I suspect the audience reaction to this programming was slow to evolve, it took repetition and time to realize they did not appreciate the way they were treated, the message laid blame or guilt on them and they eventually realized this and grew tired of it. Naturally, this is not the only reason why OSF has problems, it was just one of a half dozen issues. Instead, the company leaders used it to solicit social support, making it an issue about local area racism and not about poor season programming.