Noah East, Eric Schwan, Misha Canoy, Megan O’Reilly, and Cindy Gonzalez
In the Tony and Pulitzer Award winning play, The Goat, or Who is Sylvia? (2002), playwright Edward Albee explores the importance of societal and familial acceptance of one’s sexuality. In a recent production by Theatre Royal Haymarket in London’s West End, director Ian Rickson expands on the scope of the play’s discourse to include race. Rickson does this by implementing a “color blind” casting strategy: casting Martin’s wife, Stevie, and son, Billy, as people of color. In this way, the revival complicates the shifting power dynamics of the nuclear family by representing how the multiple influences of interlocking power—both racial and heteronormative—affect all of the play’s family members. This presentation seeks to provide an intersectional analysis of the Gray family and examine how Rickson’s casting decisions expand the horizons of the drama from its typical interpretation.
While The Goat has received plenty of critical attention on its treatment of taboo sexuality, Rickson’s revival of the play calls for further analysis of the parallels between the expression of heteronormative power and white power. On the page, the play mocks the slippery slope fallacy that is often regurgitated by those with conservative views on marriage: “If we allow men to marry men, and women to marry women, what’s next? Men marrying goats?” Albee accomplishes this by creating a patriarch (Martin) who is bitterly homophobic towards his own son, but is blind to the hypocrisy of his own tabooed romantic desires for a goat, named Sylvia—this irony serves as the main source of humor for the play. Martin’s hypocrisy is made much more profound because of Rickson’s “color blind” casting of the Gray family—as it exposes his privilege as a straight, white male that has likely never experienced discrimination. These new conflicts open interesting questions into how casting a piece might radically alter the pool of appropriate lines of critical inquiry.
The play opens on Stevie—in this production, a woman of color, Sophie Okonedo—sprucing up the home with some flowers in preparation for an interview Martin (Damian Lewis) will have with his family friend and publicist Ross (Jason Hughes). Our patriarch appears to be the epitome of structure at the onset of the play: a happily married architect in the prime of his life and career—having just received “the Pritzker Prize, architecture's version of the Nobel.” The audience also learns that it is Martin’s fiftieth birthday, and that he and Stevie have one “handsome and worrisome” seventeen-year-old son named Billy (another person of color, Archie Madekwe). The word “worrisome” is one of the first hints dropped for the conflict regarding Billy’s sexuality. Ross then expresses sympathy towards Martin, saying that “it’s just a phase” and that Billy will turn out OK—the implication being, that any expression of sexuality that is not heteronormative is the opposite of OK. When the interview finally begins, Martin is clearly distracted with his mind wandering away from the questions Ross poses. When Ross inquires about Martin’s apparent disinterest, Martin asks for his secrecy before revealing that he has been having an affair with Sylvia—a goat.
Scene two rejoins the Gray family a day later in the midst of the revelation of Martin’s infidelity, exposed through a letter Ross has sent to Stevie. This letter acts as a catalyst for the gradual dissolution of the family detailed in the remainder of the play, both a physical and emotional destruction of the Gray household. With each new discovery of the particulars of Martin’s infidelity Stevie breaks another household item. Billy is pushed away into his room by both parents, on top of Martin equating his own bestiality to Billy’s homosexuality. Martin refuses to perceive any of his actions as immoral, instead claiming that he is a misunderstood lover and that the special bond he shares with Sylvia is sincere and profound. Martin tells Stevie that he is seeking help from a support group of others who have dealt with bestiality, but that he is unable to comprehend why his love for Sylvia is perceived by the world as depraved. Martin and Stevie reflect on their marriage, a union which had been unimaginably idyllic and pure up to this point, but which Stevie now recognizes as irreparably broken. The scene ends with Stevie declaring, “You have brought me down, and, Christ! I’ll bring you down with me!”
The final scene begins with Billy entering the living room and finding Martin alone. The two characters have a heated conversation with Billy dominating the dialogue, questioning Martin on the whereabouts of Stevie. The conversation eventually diverges to Billy speaking of how he had considered his home life to be one of the best in comparison to his classmates, up until this point. Billy’s emotions run rampant and he eventually instigates an incestuous kiss with his father. Martin pulls away from the kiss but still attempts to comfort his son by hugging him. Martin’s friend, Ross, has entered the house and has witnessed this entire exchange. This ignites an argument between Martin and Ross, which jumps from one topic to another, with Martin questioning the foundation of what society understands as taboo. Stevie returns and heralds the end of the play, clutching a dead Sylvia in her hands. Martin is in shock, questioning Stevie as to why she would do such a thing. Stevie simply responds, “She loved you… you say. As much as I do”.
From interviews before the production, director Ian Rickson detailed two goals for a successful revival, “there’s two things you should try and achieve. One is to enshrine as a classic and… I think this play is a real classic… And secondly, to take it further.”1 To Rickson, taking it further meant expanding the lines of inquiry set out in the play to include race, creating a basis for intersectional analysis on the production. This was achieved through the “color blind” strategy of casting individuals of color in roles that were normally given to white actors. This has substantial ramifications for the content of the play, as it heightens the hypocrisy of the conformative pressure Martin exerts on his son Billy.
With that in mind, it is important to examine the nuanced way in which Albee explores the relationship between parents and child. Martin and Billy appear more distant from one another than an average father and son, with an immense amount of tension between the two being demonstrated during their fight in Scene Two. Billy and Martin hurl insults at one another, each using the other as a verbal punching bag to dispel emotion. Both individuals want to be accepted by their family for the societally taboo love they hold for others, but Billy is rightfully unable to recognize the love between his father and an animal, a being who is unable to consent, as valid. Their dynamic shifts once more through the events of Scene Three, eventually culminating in a tabooed act of incest directed from son towards father. Although this is still framed as an illicit act by Ross, the voice of reason for the third scene, it manages to build a foundation of understanding for Martin from which he and Billy can develop a relationship. Martin eventually becomes the parent he should have been throughout the whole play, a doting father. Contrastingly, we can see significant differences in the relationship Stevie and Billy share. Both mother and son seem to operate from a base point of respect and love for one another. Stevie fully accepts her son’s sexuality and Billy is grateful of this, reciprocating her affection and admiration. During the family argument in Scene Two Billy gallantly tries to protect his mother and ensure that Martin will have no part in hurting her, “If I come back and find that you’ve hurt her, I’ll… I’ll…” (Scene 2). This sort of connection is where the audience is capable of understanding the difference between the relationships that the son holds in regards to father and mother.
The inclusion of Billy within the narrative has even more of a significant meaning behind it other than that of the exploration of family dynamics, it also comments on the discourse surrounding gay marriage. In fact, Billy’s homosexuality is discussed almost as much as Martin’s beastiality. There have been instances in where these two sexual preferences have been compared to one another. Two public figures have been seen to make this exact comparison; presidential candidate Rick Santorum happened to mention the relationship that beastiality and homosexuality have during his 2003 interview with Associated Press and Dr. Ben Carson who claimed that the two of them, “change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society” (Fox Nation, 2013). The comparison between homosexuality and beastiality is heinous, which Albee plays up to great effect by creating a story where beastiality is introduced to an “average” family and capturing the dire drama that would ensue. The outrageousness of this specific subject shows the audience how there is no way in which the two of these sexualities should be compared. This comparison casts Billy as “scapegoat” for his father, who uses Billy’s sexuality to defend his own perversion.
The pressure for Billy to conform takes on many forms throughout the play, but most prominently manifests through Martin’s anger and frustration. Following the revelation of his infidelity Martin becomes defensive, making several attempts to equate his beastial affair to Billy’s queer love life and eventually calling Billy a “fucking faggot.” With Martin’s hidden bigotry revealed he attempts to apologize, but when the apology proves ineffective he once again becomes frustrated, “(To get rid of the whole subject.) You’re gay, and that’s fine, and I don’t give a shit what you put where”(ii). Martin’s privilege can again be noted in his desire for coddling regarding his own troubles and indifference to the effects his actions may have on his son. He is quick to seek assurance from Billy when he thinks it may be offered: “BILLY: (Really sad) Oh, Dad! MARTIN: Poor Dad?”(ii) but disregards all of Billy’s preliminary attempts to express his feelings after this tumultuous revelation. Billy is sent to his room to expel his emotions and is not allowed to partake in the explicatory conversation between Martin and Stevie that follows, a conversation which will decide the fate of his family and his immediate future. Not only does this deprive Billy of agency over the direction of his life, being forced into his room serves to symbolize the repression of his sexuality by his parents, his youthfulness, as well as his singular and isolated experience of this event. Billy’s tribulations as a queer teen whose gayness will be invalidated with the public exposure of his father’s beastiality is made even more tragic with the casting of Madewke as Billy and Lewis as Martin. Underlying implications of Billy becoming an intersectional character through the tool of color blind casting becomes clearest within his third act monologue:
BILLY: I came home yesterday and everything had been great—absolutely normal, therefore great. Great parents, great house, great trees, great cars—you know: the old ‘great’... Ya see, while great old Mom and great old Dad have been doing the great old parent thing, one of them has been underneath the house, down in the cellar, digging a pit so deep!, so wide!, so… HUGE! … we’ll all fall in and (Crying now) and never… be… able… to… climb… out… again—no matter how much we want to, how hard we try. (iii)
When viewed through the lens of Rickson’s casting this monologue becomes a commentary on dynamics of privilege and power in a mixed-race family. Billy demonstrates a profound understanding of the broader effects this event will have on the Grays and the colossal societal barrier, or pit, it will become for him. The “glass ceiling” that Billy will inherently have to grapple with as a mixed-race, queer teenager has been situated even farther away from him due to the hole of immorality his father has forced him into. The public platform that Martin has attained as a renowned architect will damage both his son and wife, reflecting his own stigmatized nature onto them. Racist critics of Martin will likely consider Stevie and Billy as an extension of Martin’s taboo, with Billy’s homsexuality being attributed to Martin’s inability to be an appropriate sexual role model.
The usage of space within the play is vital in signifying the family’s dilemma and developing characterization. The Goat or Who Is Sylvia takes place within the confines of the living room, a communal space where the family unit is established and all dialogue takes place. At the beginning of the play the living room serves as a place of unity where Martin establishes his relationship with Stevie and Billy as loving and close knit. However, as the play progresses and the truth of Martin’s affairs comes to light, the communal space becomes a hostile environment littered with debris and eventually Sylvia’s dead body. The living room is contrasted with Billy’s room, mentioned throughout the play but never seen on stage. Billy is frequently commanded back into by his parents, a symbol of alienation, confinement, and repression of Billy’s identity.
Throughout the play Billy is referred to as a child although it is established that Billy is seventeen years old, however, Martin and Stevie continue to view Billy as a young child. During conversations between Martin and Stevie about Sylvia, Billy is seen inserting his opinion over the matter but this is interrupted by either parent telling Billy to go to his room or play outside: “What am I -- eight, or something? Go to my room?” On a larger scale, the play touches on the idea that by alienating Billy from conversations it essentially the older generations trying to censor the youth from entering into controversial topics of conversations. Also, Martin’s and Stevie’s inability to see Billy as a young adult can be seen as their (Martin’s and Stevie’s) inability to see Billy’s homosexuality as more than a phase.
Martin constantly forces Billy from the communal space (living room) because of Billy’s age and sexuality, to cover up Martin’s on inability to come to terms with his sexuality. Martin prides himself of being a liberal, someone who is open-minded with the changes happening in the present day, however, Martin constantly forces Billy back into his room which can be interpreted as Martin forcing Billy back into the closet. Billy’s sexuality to Martin can be seen as a sort of sexual perversion in which Martin makes the assumption Billy will grow out of as time goes on. Throughout the play, Martin refers to Billy as a “faggot” as a way to distinguish Billy’s homosexuality as a deviant and unacceptable act. It is absurd and ironic that Martin is willing to accept bestially as a norm for an affair but finds it “wrong” for two males to participate in consensual sexual activities. However, at the very end Martin is “open” to the idea of homosexuality after Martin’s and Billy’s homoerotic incestual moment (Scene 3) because he defends the action to Ross after being caught. Martin defending the moment to Ross, can be looked at as a way of Martin accepting the idea that he is bisexual or at least bicurious.
Despite this, Billy follows the recognition of his situation by declaring “I love the man who’s been down there digging -- when he’s not giving it to a goat! I love this man! (iii)” The two tearfully embrace and Billy, caught up in the moment, instigates an incestuous kiss with his father. Martin initially pulls away, but after Billy shows how distraught he is Martin hugs and comforts him. This interaction seems to allow Martin to overcome his bigotry, for when the two are broken up by Ross a moment later Martin responds with: MARTIN: “This boy is hurt! I’ve hurt him and he still loves me!... and if it… clicks over and becomes ... -- sexual for...just a moment...so what?!... He’s hurt and lonely and mind your own fucking business (iii).” While incest is not to be condoned, Billy taking the high-road of forgiveness and insisting on discussing his feelings instigates a positive change into a situation which would be otherwise desolate. Albee’s initial text combined with Rickson’s casting presents a version of Martin who is capable of interracial and interspecies romance, but still initially finds homosexuality unnatural. However, through Albee’s satirization of stigmatized love he is able to move past his prejudice and father and son are able to see each other for all of their complications and emotions, sharing solidarity in the face of oncoming adversity.
Although Billy absorbs the brunt of Martin’s prejudice in the play, Rickson’s casting decisions also have a significant effect on the position Martin’s wife, Stevie. Casting Stevie as a woman of color gives the play a new focus: the evolution of marriage norms over time. Assuming that Albee’s play takes place when it was first written (2000), all of these events with the Gray family take place amid a national debate about gay marriage. Again, this connection is made clear in the old conservative adage: “if men can marry men, and women can marry women, what will be next, men marrying goats?” Interestingly enough, this is not the first time within Martin’s lifetime that significant arguments were made about who should and should not be married. Martin and Stevie’s marriage—which becomes interracial marriage due to Rickson’s casting decisions—would have been outlawed under certain jurisdictions until 1967, before the Supreme Court’s ruling on Loving v. Virginia. Because Albee so clearly marks Martin’s age (50 years old) in the interview, we can infer that Martin was of conscious and thinking age during these national debates surrounding interracial marriage.
Martin constantly forces Billy from the communal space (living room) because of Billy’s age and sexuality, to cover up Martin’s on inability to come to terms with his sexuality. Martin prides himself of being a liberal, someone who is open-minded with the changes happening in the present day. However, Martin constantly forces Billy back into his room which can be interpreted as Martin forcing Billy back into the closet. Billy’s sexuality to Martin can be seen as a sort of sexual perversion in which Martin makes the assumption Billy will grow out of as time goes on.
Throughout the play, Stevie and Martin refer to Billy as a child, often disregarding the fact that Billy is 17 years old and is almost of consenting age. Everytime the topic of Sylvia is being discussed, Stevie and Martin tell Billy to leave the room because the topic of discussion is not appropriate for Billy. When Martin and Stevie force Billy from the communal space, they tell him to go do childish activities: “Do what your Mother says. ‘Go out and play.’ Make mudpies; climb a tree…” Billy being referred to go play outside degrades him to be nothing more than a child that needs to be constantly what to do or where to be but it also subjects Billy’s sexuality to be nothing more than a phase in life. Homosexuality in this play is not seen as a lifelong ‘choice’ but rather as something that is in the moment. Billy being forced out of the living room when the topic of sexuality (bestaility) comes up is due to the fact that Stevie and Martin cannot seem to see Billy’s own sexuailty as permant rather they see it as childish game.
Rickson’s “color blind” casting decisions have significant consequences for all the members of the Gray family. Firstly, it further establishes the patriarch, Martin, as the protected class of the superstructure. He has lived a privileged life as a white, educated, rich, and straight male. Because of this, he has little experience with being discriminated against compared to his wife and son—who are individuals of color in Rickson’s production.Although non-traditional casting usually occurs when race is irrelevant in a role, Theatre Royal Haymarket’s 2017 revival of The Goat shows how these diversifying casting choices can allow issues of race to surface within the play. By no means is this paper attempting to argue against diversifying the body of theatre actors and actresses; in fact, our true intention is just the opposite. These casting decisions breathe new life into the play— allowing for widening the available perspectives in which these plays can be read and interpreted. As far as Rickson accomplishing his own goals for reviving this play—which were to first, enshrine it as a classic, and second, to take it further—by casting Sophie Okonedo and Archie Madekwe into their roles as Stevie and Billy respectively, Rickson accomplishes both of these goals.
References
Albee, Edward. The Goat or, Who is Sylvia? (Notes Toward a Definition of Tragedy). Dramatist Play Service Inc., 2004.
“Hannity Hosts Heated Debate Over Dr. Ben Carson’s Comments.” Fox Nation. 1 April 2013, Fox Entertainment Group. URL: https://nation.foxnews.com/dr-ben-carson/2013/04/01/watch-hannity-hosts-heated-debate-over-dr-ben-carsons-comments
Biography
Noah East, Misha Canoy, Eric Schwan, Megan O’Reilly, and Cindy Gonzalez are undergraduate students pursuing various English degrees at California State University, Fullerton. The group met in Dr. Seymour’s Analysis of Literary Forms class where they were introduced to The Goat, or Who is Sylvia? (2002). Each of the students are grateful for this opportunity to submit their project to the Acacia Group and appreciative that the university provides a space for critical discussion.
Comments