The Cavalier daily :: Friday, December 12, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

NEW YORK Arthur Kopit's
"Indians" is a play which, because
of its intricate and highly theatrical
nature, demands great respect no
matter what constructive criticisms
may be in order. The author has
spent so much time working on and
trying to perfect this drama that no
reviewer worthy of his position
would dare to dismiss it in a
paragraph or two.

Mr. Kopit got the idea for
"Indians" in March of 1966. After
his producer advanced him money
so he could research the historical
material, he started work on the
project. Two years later "Indians"
was presented in London by the
Royal Shakespeare Company. He
re-wrote the play (while living on a
grant from the Rockefeller
Foundation) and brought it to
America, where it was successfully
performed at Washington's Arena
Stage last May. Then came more
re-writing before it reached
Broadway's Brooks Atkinson
Theatre in mid-October.

The play deals with the fate of
the American Indian. It focuses on
Buffalo Bill, supposed friend of the
redskin. Through a Senate
Grievance Committee hearing at
Chief Sitting Bull's reservation and
related events, it soon becomes
apparent that Buffalo Bill,
ironically, helped to destroy the
Indian. He, like other white men,
was guilty of genocide.

This is Mr. Kopit's purpose. He
is indicting us, the audience, for
murdering a race. We are on trial
and he is passing judgment. We
had no right to steal land from the
Indian; we had no right to reduce
him to where his most important
function in life is making trinkets
and beads. We are supposed to feel
ashamed when we leave the theatre.
It's too bad that whatever such
feelings of guilt we have are
minimal.

To begin with, we must ask if
Mr. Kopit's premise is valid. Were
all Indians good? Were all white
men sons-of-bitches? They are in
this play. Are we to believe that
there was absolutely no
provocation on the part of the
redskin?

Perhaps this doubt is the reason
why we don't feel guilt. Even so,
the play deserves to be judged on
its effectiveness as a drama (which
is a quite different thing) regardless
of its historical accuracy. Each of
its characters must be accepted as
dramatic figures.

Visual Writing

On this basis, "Indians"
succeeds more as a total theatrical
experience than it does as a play. I
seriously question if it could have
been realized in any other artistic
medium. One of the assets of the
play is that Mr. Kopet has written
for the eye as well as for the ear.
This is a concept of theatre that too
many playwrights have forgotten.

Nevertheless, "Indians" is far
from being a perfectly structured
play. It is episodic, choppy, and its
focus is not always sharp. In an
earlier version, the framework of
the Wild West Show was more
distinct and I think had Mr. Kopit
not re-written quite as much, it
would have been a better
constructed play.

Low Comedy

But Mr. Kopit's serious mistake
is in stooping to low comedy early
in the proceedings to help make his
point. One scene with a Russian
Grand Duke and another in which
an "of time President" and his wife
sit through a disastrous
performance of a show in which
Buffalo Bill and Wild Bill Hickock
star seem totally incongruous to the
rest of the play. Moreover, they are
ridiculously dull and far below the
high caliber of writing of which Mr.
Kopit later proves he is capable.

The scenes in which the Indians
express their grievances are
extremely well presented. Sitting
Bull has a lengthy speech about the
affluence of the white man as
compared to the redskin which is
memorable to the extent of perhaps
being one of the great moments in
the history of modern drama.

"Understanding" is the key
word here. The white man makes
no attempt to understand the
Indian and his way of life.
Likewise, the Indian makes no
attempt to understand the white
man and his social values. They are
two worlds apart, eternally
separated by nature, time, and
temperance. Near the end of the
play when Sitting Bull, sadly
observing the bodies of his
slaughtered tribesmen that cover
the stage, asks Buffalo Bill why the
white man "took by force that
which he could have obtained by
love," we are immediately affected.
We reflect, we associate, we
wonder.

In staging "Indians," Gene
Frankel has had to overcome a
variety of problems, starting with
the fact that the play is not suited
to the Brooks Atkinson Theatre - or
any proscenium stage. It almost
demands to be played on a thrust
or in the round. Yet (I think by
removing the first three rows of
seats) designer Oliver Smith has
added a thrust to the stage to
accommodate his multi-level,
undefined, sprawling, and
thoroughly devastating set.

Directorial Masterpiece

Mr. Frankel's staging can only
be termed a directorial masterpiece.
With the assistance of lighting
designer Thomas Skelton (whose
use of the strobe is particularly
noteworthy) and choreographer
Julie Arenal, he splendidly utilizes
the visual effects the script has to
offer, thereby heightening the
theatrically of the event.

As Buffalo Bill, Stacy Keach
gives an outstanding performance.
It is a complex part, but Mr. Keach
conveys the inner realization that
makes his character dramatically
important. We are shown a man,
the ambiguity of whose career
ultimately destroys not only the
Indian, but himself as well. Mr.
Keach brings this across and, in so
doing, captures the helplessness,
shame, and irony that are intrinsic
facets of Buffalo Bill's character. It
is a performance of grand stature.

Manu Tupou makes the most of
Sitting Bull's aforementioned
monologue and is superb
throughout. Worthy of mention
also are Sam Waterson as an
unsatisfied young Indian, Richard
McKenzie as Bill's producer-agent,
Barton Heyman as Wild Bill
Hickock, and Peter MacLean as the
President.

I cannot say that I liked
"Indians" nor can I say I disliked it.
It's both disappointing and
exciting. Still, it's a theatrical
experience that is far too unique
and significant not to be seen and
appreciated by those who are
genuinely interested in the plight of
American drama.