Yes, yes Maggie...I think so too and am echoing the theater vs. museum  
issue. As I was writing my thoughts about the actor vs. re-enactor  post 
earlier...the very question as to why a history organization would have to  do this in 
the first place was a haunting refrain. And indeed, the County does  need to be 
aware of the separate goals of these organizations and should strive  (and be 
responsible) to preserve the character of each.
 
As for Mark Twain...I would think any 'popular' portrayal of him would be  
entertaining above all else. And for sure, these productions for  entertainment 
purposes have increased public interest in Mark Twain and his work  and 
therefore the organizations which serve to preserve and  promote his legacy. And the 
topic of the entertainment industry and museums  has been an interesting 
discussion on the list. It even crossed my mind that it  would be fun to do a real 
'night at the museum' at the CCC Museum. But it  wouldn't be any fun for 
attendees who are afraid of mice.
 
And so far from the posts, I like the use of  'character  interpreter'  to 
describe portraying a role for the goal of  education. I believe that would best 
describe my most recent  endeavor. 
 
For the CCC educational program ('Fireside Chat') that I did at the  Vernon 
Historical Society Museum a couple of weeks ago...I did a short skit as  part 
of a presentation. The VHSM has a stage that was decorating in a Victorian  
Christmas -had a fireplace and furnishings along with the X-Mas decorations. 
 
Anyway, I was dressed in a CCC uniform (with a cap, covering up my  hair) and 
had my back to the audience so that they wouldn't see that I'm a  female. My 
son was on stage, sitting opposite me and facing the audience. Before  the 
curtain opened, we started playing a CD (hidden of course) with a recording  of 
one of FDR's Fireside Chats. We had an authentic 30's radio on the table and  
did everything we could to make it seem as though the recording was actually  
coming from the radio.
 
The skit was short, and to have everything in place for even  
this....required much time and effort on the details and this required some  artistic flair 
too of course.  I worked out our blocking on the stage  and we rehearsed this 
and our timing too.
 
To conclude the skit, I stood up (back to the audience) and my son  (while as 
a undefined character)...shook my hand and recited this line,  "it's so 
wonderful that you've had the opportunity to enroll in the CCC,  especially since 
you're a girl, and the only girl who has been allowed to  enroll. I'm glad to 
know you, Mildred Blanche." Then I turned towards the  audience, removed the 
CCC cap, letting my hair fall. I immediately left the  character as quickly as 
she was introduced, and told the audience what little I  knew of Mildred and I 
began my presentation.
 
The skit I wrote, though based on some fact -was not an actual depiction of  
an actual event ...it was a characterization. 
 
The little theatrical production was meant to be entertaining and to  set the 
stage for my presentation. And the skit went much better than the  
presentation..it's been quite a long time since I spoke in front of so many  people...so 
the skit also served to help me ease into the presentation. I really  didn't 
want to do a straight lecture.
 
ooops sorry about the rambling thoughts. And my point in doing so  
is....um...we can use the arts as a venue towards our mission to educate,  but we should 
not compromise that mission (or be required to) in order to  comply with an 
organization that has a different mission. I'm referring to the  'Countys' 
commission, of course. Just by their questioning/considering any  difference(s) 
there may be between that of an actor, re-enactor or historical  interpreter 
means they are, as you well state Maggie, blurring the lines. They  should, 
instead be aware of and consider the value and goal of  an artistic endeavor used 
by a history organization in it's own right. 
 
Pam
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/29/2007 8:23:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

I believe that the real and true difference is the GOAL of  the production.  
MARK TWAIN was an entertainment, meant to earn money and  provide a living for 
the actors, producers, writers, etc, while entertaining  the public - a neat 
idea.  The GOAL was NOT to teach anyone about Mark  Twain...but to amuse.  But 
immediately one gets in to the area of GREEK  CARTHARSIS...wherein theater 
was originally designed to provide the civic body  a community cartharsis - if 
there was a tragedy, it was made into a play, and  the audience was able to cry 
and sob, but at the same time come to understand  more about the event...
If there was a great victory, it was made into a  play, and the audience was 
able to celebrate and be joyful and come together  to understand what the 
victory meant for the body civic.

But in the  end...museums are trying to teach, to be repositories of true 
history, to  allow people to understand what really happened.

Theater is, in the  end, about entertainment ....sometimes 
enlightenment...but mostly it is to  enrich, delight, shock, amuse, sadden, etc etc...but to 
provide an alternative  to your real life...not to tell you about real life facts 
and details, i.e.  history, although historical facts and details can be 
included in the  mix.


THE GOAL differentiates the two things. -Are you entertaining  or are you 
teaching?  

The problem is "entertainment" has been  broadened to even include the news 
on television.  As Paddy Chayevsky  warned in "NETWORK,"  it will soon all 
become entertainment and then the  real news will disappear and no longer have mea
ning.  We are absolutely  caught in that now...we have NY Times reporters who 
"make up"  interviews;  we have TV reporters who "Pretend" to cry and be 
touched and  moved by news;  We have movies that purport to show what happened in  
Dallas...but which are, in fact, to a great extent imagined and  invented.

The real danger is the line between what is "real" and what  is "imaginary" 
or "artistic" has been very blurred.  This funding  issue...where a museum has 
to pretend to be a theater to get funding...is part  of the blurring...and 
THAT is the real issue here, not whether reenactors are  actors.  The real crisis 
is how do we have an educated population when  they can't tell the difference 
between a museum and a  theater?
Maggie  ========================================================= Important  





=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).