THE BROTHERWISE DISPATCH vs. Nathan Alan Davis

THE BROTHERWISE DISPATCH, VOL.3, ISSUE#1, DEC/2017-FEB/2018

Nathan Alan Davis is a New York based playwright whose works include Nat Turner in Jerusalem (NYTW; Stavis Playwright Award), Dontrell Who Kissed the Sea (NNPN Rolling World Premiere; Steinberg/ATCA New Play Citation) and The Wind and the Breeze (New Harmony Project Residency; Blue Ink Playwriting Award; Lorraine Hansberry Award, premiering at Cygnet Theater 2018). Davis is currently under commission from The Public Theater, Arena Stage and Williamstown Theatre Festival. Aside from being a usual suspect at NYTW, Davis is a Lecturer in Theater at Princeton University and the Juilliard School.

Brotherwise Dispatch – From an aesthetic perspective, what do you feel distinguishes the Art of the playwright from other forms of literary endeavor?

Nathan Alan Davis - Thornton Wilder (who wrote plays such as Our Town and The Skin of Our Teeth) wrote an essay about the way time works in the theatre; he points out the fact that it is always now on stage. Regardless of theme, style or subject matter, the immediacy of a play is inescapable. One of the effects of this phenomenon is that as a playwright it's hard - and it almost always rings false - to hide behind any notion of novelty or cleverness. Either you're bringing the truth of the moment or you're not.

BD - Your play, Nat Turner in Jerusalem, received its world premiere at the New York Theatre Workshop in September of 2016, and will be showing in Washington DC at the Forum Theatre from March 14th – April 18th in 2018. Aside from drawing from the actual historical document of The Confessions of Nat Turner: The Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton, Virginia as made to Thomas R. Gray (not to be confused with the reductionist Freudian petulance of William Styron’s novel bearing a similar name), what else went into your preparation and research that you found helpful in writing that play?

NAD - Plays grow in my mind and heart long before I am aware of them or of the form they will take. In terms of Nat Turner in Jerusalem, it has to do with the way the Confessions document collided with my own worldview and upbringing. Besides being Black in America - which, naturally, gives me a connection to Nat Turner as a liberator - I am a Baha'i; The Baha'i Faith is a worldwide, ethnically diverse religion that originated in the 19th century in Persia. Knowing the origins of my own Faith, I was aware that the mid-19th century, in general, was a time of messianic expectation around the world--and a time when, in addition to the birth of the Baha'i religion, many new orientations and offshoots of established religions were sprouting up; the anticipation of the coming Day of Judgment was an essential factor in many of them. So, when I read T.R. Gray's Confessions document wherein he quotes Nat Turner as claiming to have seen prophetic visions, I simply took Turner at his word and on his own terms (as recorded by Gray, which, we must acknowledge, is suspect--although I would argue that Gray would have little to no reason to invent many of the things that he attributes to Nat and that if he mainly wanted to slander or defame Turner, he could have easily done a better job and would have faced no consequences). The document surprised me. I was more or less expecting a grotesque and villainous portrayal (which it is, in part) and for Turner's stated motive to be the desire for freedom or justice. But what Nat Turner claims, according to the document, is that he was divinely inspired; guided by God to lead righteous army against those who uphold and traffic in human slavery and then make his way to the county seat of Jerusalem, Virginia, where they would stock up on armaments. He claims to have seen letters written on the leaves of trees and various signs and intimations from the heavens that instructed him on how and when to proceed with his plans. (While initially successful, the insurrection was suppressed before Turner's army reached Jerusalem. After evading capture for almost two months, Turner eventually arrived there as a prisoner, bound for execution. It is unclear what the plan would have been if Turner's Army had reached and conquered Jerusalem, although some have speculated that their ultimate destination was the Great Dismal Swamp, which borders Virginia and North Carolina.)

The production team at New York Theatre Workshop was very tight and we did a lot of research. Throughout the rehearsal process, we had conversations about the history and our impressions of it and how it resonated in the moment. This team included director Megan Sandberg-Zakian (Megan and I began talking about the play even before I began writing it), assistant director Rebecca S'manga Frank and actors Phillip James Brannon and Rowan Vickers - among many other contributors. Over the course of the research we came across some powerful information hidden in plain sight. For example, we realized that, at the time of his death, Nat Turner was legally owned by no one. Everyone who ever had a legal claim on his body - or who would have inherited him as property - was killed in the insurrection. And T.R. Gray is a fascinating figure as well. He died not long after Turner's execution, having already lost his wife and daughter to sickness. His father also essentially wrote T.R. out of his will. It was stated that his friends has one complaint about Gray: that he often spoke out against God and religion. Yet, on his deathbed, he was said to have quoted bible passages and talked about the Judgment Day. My reading of the Confessions document, taken together with other historical reports about Gray's life is that his meetings with Nat Turner had a palpable effect on him, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.

BD - In what sense did you find that although Nat Turner in Jerusalem is clearly of historical value, it also allows you to interrogate certain moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding the human condition in Revolt against systematic enslavement which might still find some relevance with respect to many social upheavals of today?

NAD - As a play its primary value is precisely that; the extent to which it can illuminate those ethical and moral dilemmas. The play does not try to draw specific parallels between then and now. Rather it points out the ethics of Turner's argument and it's social and spiritual implications; Gray confronts those ethics and pushes back with his own. He is not defending slavery, per se; rather he is interrogating Turner's motives, reasoning and beliefs. We can be very comfortable in saying that Turner was a noble slave who rose up against oppression; or that, as Gray interprets in his Confessions, he was driven mad; or that, however understandable the desire for freedom might be, it's not acceptable to kill defenseless people - especially children and infants. Any of those stances would be considered generally acceptable and could be reasonably debated. But Nat Turner was having a different conversation, according to the Confessions document. He was talking about the need for a reckoning and clearly saw himself as an instrument of God. The implications of that are much more interesting, challenging, terrifying and potentially revolutionary than any of the above interpretations. There is always the danger that any story about slavery can be sectioned off in our minds and seen as part of a thankfully bygone era. That is a larger cultural problem that any one work of art can only partially address - but I think one thing that helps is to be as honest as we can about our history, which is stranger and more dangerous than we would like to believe.

BD - How would you describe the difficulties in portraying someone like Thomas Gray, who having already made his peace with the enslavement of human ‘being’ as part of the natural order of things, is deeply troubled by Nat Turner’s religious conviction as an opening towards Truth which lies not only beyond his own understanding but also beyond the reach of established power?

NAD - That is an excellent diagnosis of Thomas Gray's dilemma in the play. Gray - in my portrayal - doesn't necessarily adopt the view that slavery is part of the natural order. For him the established order is a result of human choice rather than Divine and/or natural law; yet he still doesn't question it in a significant way. And yes, in the play he is finding that worldview challenged by Turner. The way this dilemma is manifested dramaturgically is in Gray's basic action/intention/task: he has a job to do, which is to get Turner to give him any intelligence he has on other rebels or planned rebellions that have yet to strike; this knowledge (although - spoiler alert- it doesn't exist) would die with Turner when he is executed. Because Gray needs something that (he thinks) only Turner can give him, Nat has him as a captive audience. Turner's insistence on the religious interpretation of the insurrection disturbs Thomas deeply; my portrayal of T.R. Gray is of a man who is not truly at peace with the system of slavery, but who also isn't particularly haunted or disturbed by it - that is until his interactions with Nat Turner. I think this speaks to the way many people move through the world. We are aware of various injustices, small and large, yet we rarely take them personally until they effect us in ways we can see.

BD - In your play Nat Turner in Jerusalem, there is an instance when you have Gray advising Turner to keep his distance when in reality Turner hasn’t even physically moved. And in another Turner rises up in spite of his chains to the surprise of Gray who assumed Turner’s chains were fixed “to the wall. To the floor. To something solid.” What types of challenges are involved in conveying the full assertion of humanity by Nat Turner which introduces such disequilibrium within the normative gaze as embodied in Gray’s reactions?

NAD - It's about letting those moments be what they are. Theatre is inherently humanizing. We are seeing these humans in a room together and their humanity is an essential, palpable truth. The most difficult task in this aspect of the play, probably, belongs to the actor playing Thomas Gray. He is likely to be keenly aware of the humanity of the actor playing Nat Turner - and of the audience's awareness of that humanity - yet he needs to act as if he isn't aware of in a way that rings true. The implications of that are very disturbing and it can be tempting (not just for the actor, but for the writer, the production team, etc.) to shy away from the simple, brutal truth and dance around it - or to play it up and highlight its ridiculousness. Gray's ignorance of Turner's humanity is a key part of the play and it is never resolved.

This has been another one of our BROTHERWISE FIVE interview series, during which THE BROTHERWISE DISPATCH interrogates intellectuals, artists and activists with five probing questions to the delight of our readers.

On behalf of Nathan Alan Davis and THE BROTHERWISE DISPATCH,

Peace.

-A. Shahid Stover

(this interview of Nathan Alan Davis for THE BROTHERWISE DISPATCH was conducted by A. Shahid Stover through email correspondence from November 26th – December 19th of 2017)