October 4, 2003 – Discussion with Robert Beltran

The Big Knife

This link will take you to the discussion held by Robert Beltran, with Harley Schlanger and students from Robert’s drama workshops, regarding the play The Big Knife.  Scroll down to October 4, 2003 and look for Harley Schlanger and Robert Beltran: Tragedy and Trumanism.  It is in .mp3 format, and runs for two hours and 16 minutes, so is extremely long on dialup to download.  What follows is my own reflection on the discussion.

Some time ago Robert mentioned that he wanted to do Othello.  I was in the audience (probably not the only one he made the comment to) when he said that.  I remember several subsequent posts at the ORB wondering when we would see the production.  Since then his focus changed and he decided to do The Big Knife, a play written by Clifford Odets that premiered in 1949.  It is a play that resonates with him, as we hear in the discussion.  His production of the play opens on November 1, 2003 in Los Angeles for 30 performances.

In the time since Voyager ended Robert has not followed the path of his peers in pursuing commercial acting success.  While they are out directing, writing, and acting in many venues, Robert has performed in an independent film, Broken Sky, which will be screened on PBS just before the play opens.  He also had a very brief role on CSI:Miami in the spring of 2003.  Clearly, Robert is his own man (and professional), something he spoke to at The Living Room in April 2003:

”Acting has always been a deep and abiding passion in my life. I do it because I love it and also because I am able to make a living as an actor. However, I could be just as fulfilled with other passionate interests of mine. I don't NEED to have an acting career to get fulfillment and enrichment in my life.”

 

Part of the conversation that initiated the post by Robert revolved around the question as to the role of fans in an actor’s career, Robert’s specifically.  He had this to say:

“I have always been ready and willing to end my acting career and move on to other things in my life without regret. I can be very happy without recognition. So why would I need those of you who think I need you, to sustain a career, which, in fact, I DO NOT NEED?”

When the post first appeared I said at the time that I believed Robert posted it.  I heard from several individuals who insisted Robert did not write it, or did not know what had been posted in his name.  Based on what I heard today I am more convinced than ever that Robert did indeed author, or at least approve, the commentary that has his name attached to it.  Why?

In the discussion Robert describes his relationship to the LaRouche movement, and specifically to the drama workshops he runs.  He does so in a way that makes clear his commitment to a process of expanding the minds of his students and their understanding of art (drama specifically) as a vehicle of communication.  Robert’s discussion of the play and its author offers insights about him and his passion.  He sees The Big Knife as a description of the commoditization of a person (Charlie Castle) at the micro level and society at the macro level.  At another level, I think the play also reflects Robert’s view of his own career and Hollywood.  He offers biting comments about Hollywood, TPTB, and their impact on Odets, who died of cancer.  These are not the comments of a man working within the confines of the Hollywood system.

In the play, Charlie Castle, though financially comfortable, is 'owned' by the studio that controls his life via blackmail and thus marginalizes him as a human being.  He is a resource, a commodity, whose value is determined by the revenue the studio makes off his performances.  It is a Faustian bargain that he no longer wishes to honor.  Robert's comments from April make it clear he will not agree to become a Charlie Castle and this probably reflects a core value for Robert.  As a consequence, the fans indeed are not needed.

Robert’s willingness to lay aside the potential of a lucrative career (in monetary terms) to pursue what he sees as a higher calling is further demonstrated through the production itself.  The play is being performed on an “Equity waiver,” which means that no one is being paid anything more than “gas money” as Robert tells us.  He is probably footing the financial bill, unless he has some angels in the theater wings signing the checks.  The play is important to him on a very deep level and is not simply an opportunity to showcase his talent.

Any actor who focuses on projects that have meaning to him as an artist is not going to concern himself with the viewpoint of the fans.  Any role the fans may play is peripheral, and we matter only to the extent we get it during the performance.  At that point the artist/performer and the audience are fully engaged with each other.  That is the outcome being sought.  Fans attending in search of autographs and photo opportunities will be left behind.

Robert sees the play as a commentary that has meaning today, and its performance is an opportunity to share that commentary with the audience, and hopefully get their attention.  The LaRouche youth groups, especially the participants in the drama workshops, are an important part of the audience since they represent LaRouche’s hope for the future.  These young people above all need to understand the message.  For the rest of us, it is an opportunity to revisit and rethink how we see ourselves within the framework of current events and history.  Do we wish to remain mere commodities to be used by others, or are we human beings who will rise above such limitations?

Side Note:

One can quibble with Robert's timing to be socially, politically, and morally correct, coming as it did at the end of a long run on a TV series, which allegedly left him financially secure.  Wesley Clark is facing similar inquiries over his sudden conversion to the Democratic party.  Francis of Assisi is emblematic of the man who disavows the world that he knows to answer a calling to a life that is far more enriching.  Robert is not Francis, but surely knows that stepping away from the Hollywood behemoth is a decision that does carry risks.  I applaud his commitment to his craft and the courage to live his own life.

As visitors to The Living Room know, I have no love for LaRouche or for Harley Schlanger.  Listening to Schlanger’s comments during this discussion had the same effect on me as listening to the hyperbole issuing from the Bush White House.  I do wish Robert would find another political mentor since he occasionally echoes that hyperbole and thus dilutes his message.  Personally I think Robert's views are in some ways consistent with those of Thomas Berry, who has no political aspirations at all.  However, he has made his choice.  To the extent that his choices and mine converge we will be in agreement.  To the extent that we diverge then we will disagree.  Either way, I will continue to speak up when I feel the need to.  As will Robert.