This past weekend, Webster’s Conservatory put on a beautiful show with Rodgers and Hammerstein’s classic musical “Carousel.” The show featured some of the best choreography The Journal has seen from students and standout performances by several actors and actresses, the two romantic leads in particular.
But “Carousel” isn’t all about carnival fun. The show, set in coastal Maine near the turn of the 20th century, hits on heavy subjects such as alcohol and class warfare. The Journal recognizes that often times, Webster’s theatre department has a reputation for living in a fantasy world of song and dance — we found the choice of “Carousel” to have many themes relevant to modern-day situations.
And yet, “Carousel” did mention certain topics that strike a nerve with The Journal and Webster students alike. The male lead, Billy Bigelow, is known as a womanizer and abusive man, who strikes out physically several times onstage towards his wife and daughter. The daughter, Louise, asks her mother Julie if a hard slap can feel like a kiss, and Julie replies that sometimes a hit doesn’t hurt at all.
Obviously, The Journal realizes that Webster students did not write “Carousel”, and we don’t fault the Conservatory for choosing an established show with hit music. But certain themes seemed unsettling.
Webster is a school that prides itself on human rights and equality, which includes women’s rights. Each year, Webster focuses on a new international human rights topic, sparking conversation with speakers and films. So what message do we send when we perform a show that attempts to justify or rationalize domestic violence under the premise that love conquers all? “He didn’t mean it.” Tell that to the woman in the audience fleeing an abusive husband, the child who grew up hiding from violence in his or her home.
The Conservatory should have been more aware of the Webster audience. Including a disclaimer with a hotline number in the program could have easily addressed concerns.
We feel that there is no right or wrong answer in this situation. The Journal is not seeking to take away from the talent and hard work students and faculty alike put into making “Carousel” a reality. But we do think issues like domestic violence deserve conversation and education, and this show in particular brought these questions to light. We hope that students and faculty who attended “Carousel” will be brave enough to discuss abuse, direct those in need to support groups and end the cycle of abusive relationships for women and children.
Share this post
The issues raised in Carousel are, as you mentioned, still relevant, just as are the issues in many, and indeed most, classic plays and musicals. That’s what makes them classics.
If the subject matter of Carousel seemed unsettling to you, GOOD. The late authors of the play would be thrilled. Today, Rodgers and Hammerstein may not seem like “edgy” theatre, but with a few exceptions, their shows have dark undertones and deal with societal taboos.
With all that in mind, I don’t understand how a person could view and comprehend Carousel and think that it “justif[ies] and rationalize[s] domestic violence under the premise that love conquers all.” You are equivocating the depiction of domestic violence with the support of domestic violence. Suggesting that because Julie Jordan still loves her abusive husband, Rodgers and Hammerstein are indicating that all women who are abused should stand by their men is as mistaken as suggesting that because Othello kills his wife, Shakespeare was in favor of uxoricide. They are events and actions performed by characters in a fictional story. The responsibility of a good play, or indeed any good work of art, is to present a story or idea and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions, not to present a story or idea and then beat the audience over the head with a ham-fisted message, regardless of the importance of the message.
As far as conversation and education is concerned, the writers, performers, producers, and technicians involved in Carousel have done their part already. The onus is on you, the audience member, to draw a conclusion and continue the discussion.
Conor E.K. Dagenfield ’11
I would have to agree with Conor. Theatre is meant to raise questions – otherwise whole genres of theatre would not exist, like Theatre of the Absurd.
Also, I think you may have missed the mark with Carousel. I would suggest for The Journal, and any other student interested or frustrated with the content of the play, to research before presenting any opinions concerning whether or not the play is condoning abuse.
From my perspective, Billy is a frustrated young man who doesn’t know how to deal with his emotions. He’s reprimanded for his actions (though I do not wish to reveal how when others have not seen the play). He tries to change his circumstances, realizing that his circumstances don’t need to change, but that he does.
I hope this helps with your interpretation of the play.
Seanna Tucker
Comments are closed.