On the Noam Chomsky Lectures (a play)

When I first saw "the Noam Chomsky lectures: a play" I was intrigued. What could this possibly be about?

I was subsequently disappointed. I went in assuming some interesting themes to come about concerning how the media operates expressed in how the play was written. All there was some of this it was not enough to leave me satisfied. I'm deep discontent with what I read.

First of all the authors play themselves in the play. It is two characters who are modeled after the writer/actors who created them. Maybe this was an attempt to make some sort of point to how characters are represented in literature versus the news media: if so I completely missed that. The characters are really just mouth-pieces for a fairly long history of Canadian involvement in American atrocities in the American proxy wars and oppressive policies during the twentieth century. Other than that there was narrative, personality or genius to either of the two characters.

Secondly there is no structural critique of the media. I was expecting that that way the play was written and set up what be critical about the way the media operates. Although on occasion the play experimented with this (one particular scene involved the characters asking the audience for bribes regarding what should be discussed in the later half of the play) over all it was generally disappointing. I would have been more entertained with the play had an element of Chomsky's criticism of the media's propaganda model within the play itself. Perhaps having the characters mirror the different steps.

Again, I saw a little bit of this. A brief reference to the CIBC ownership of the theatre and sponsoring of the company, some references to Flak and anti-ideology but overall the play had a creative poverty in relation to this. It seemed to have potential in the very idea about making a play based on Chomsky's activism but if fell short; horrifically so.

Finally I would like to point out a few positive aspects of the play as well as some of it's challenges to how we perceive literature and theatre as a whole.

First, reading the play was geuinely educational. I found most productive how the play focused on the naive and hypocritical idea that Canada is a nation of peacemakers. It points to the Canadian involvement in the Vietnam war, making nearly three billion in weapons manufacturing and manipulating data at an international level to make it seem that the war was not illegal by Geneva standards.

The play also gave a fascinating history into the US involvment in South America, Asia and Africa and questioned the policies of the various presidential administrations in relation to their liasons with big business. It is genuinely frightening but nevertheless interesting list of the terrible offences our souther neighbour has been involved with; along with a record of our sheepish complacency with their foreign policies.

Also it gave some interesting insights for me about how literature is produced and received.

First of all I wonder how much literature is political in someway or another. This play was obviously political but how many of the plays and novels and poetry we read has some sort of ideological current flowing underneath the textual surfaces? What have you read for this class that is somehow political? Whether antiracist, feminist,marxist or what have you.

Secondly, and this is related, how does the literature we receive and work through simply add to the maufacturing of consent? Although Chomsky's target is the mass media how do the plays and novels we read fit into the larger landscape? I think about the 'deep' novels we can read with 'meaning' haunting every page: how much of those really just distract us from real issues? Or on the other hand how do 'political' works of fiction make us believe we are actually doing something, contributing to the causes of human rights when really all we are doing is sitting back, drinking a cup of tea and reading a book printed by a publisher connected to big media?

I think the last two questions are the most important?

How much of we read is 'political'?

And, then, how much of what we read 'manufactures consent'?