Date: February 2^nd-4^th

Topic: Pop Culture, Communication History, and the Loss of Technology

Anne Washburn captures the endurance of pop culture through the characters in Mr. Burns. In the first act the characters recall lines and scenes of The Simpsons episode Cape Feare. Overall, they recount the episode fairly accurate and just leave out some minor details. The second act occurs 7 years later and we start to see more details being left out from the original episode as the characters turn the show into a theatrical performance. Lines from various episodes that people remembered are bought and sold for use in plays. In the intro of Revolutions in Communications, Bill Kovarik states, “If there are no final answers, there is at least a need to be conscious of the issues; to attempt to steer one’s own best course past the Scylla and Charybdis of historiographic calamity; to write the truth to one’s best ability; and to serve the muse of history.” (Kovarik, p. 5). The characters in Mr. Burns must recreate the episodes from the Simpsons with their memory as their only tool due to the ‘calamity’ from the disaster. 75 years later during the third act the entire plotline is altered as an explosion at the nuclear plant forces the Simpson family to flee and Mr. Burns, not sideshow Bob, is the killer. With no technologies to help communicate the verbatim and scenes of the original episode it becomes history. However, the fact the episode was still being portrayed 75 years later is a testament to the importance of pop culture.

Kovarik examines how technology has such a vast impact on civilization; “Technological progress was the primary factor driving civilization, accordging to some early anthropologists, while others have seen the use of energy or the accumulation of information as central to cultural development.” (Kovarik, p. 7). In the case of Mr. Burns, there was a technological digression, which impedes the accumulation of information. As a result, 75 years later the play has little resemblance to the original episode and is versed. The play is a much darker version than the original episode because Mr. Burns kills everyone but Bart, which helps communicate the sentiments of a world where many people lost all of their loved ones.

The characters in the play served as historians investigating what happened in the original episode and coming up with their versions as a play. They were able to capture what Kovarik calls the “Two fundamental motivations for historians” which are “to remember and honor history’s heroes; and, to learn the lessons of history.” (Kovarik, p. 2). Bart is ‘history’s hero’ as he perseveres and survives. The play also serves as a lesson of history because there is an explosion at the power plant, which is similar to what happened in real life. It shows that these situations must be avoided and planned for or else people will be hurt.

How does the play 75 years later reflect the disaster that happened in real life?

What is the importance of theater in a society that loses technology?

What does the play say about the importance of history?

As I began reading Anne Washburn’s play Mr. Burns I found myself to be very confused. I could not figure out who these characters were, why they were sitting around a fire, and more importantly why they were trying to recall the lines from an old Simpsons episode named Cape Fear? Why is this specific Simpsons episode important enough to be the centerpiece for an entire production? As I continued reading into the second and third acts of the play, I found my answer. I concluded that there actually was nothing extremely special about this particular Simpsons episode. The episode was only used by the playwright to portray a much larger message: The evolution of theatre. This evolution was shown in steps each displayed by the three different acts in the play. The first act featured theatre as a type of storytelling (or ritual) and a very basic social gathering. In post-apocalyptic times the characters of the play recalled the Simpsons episode only as a memory. In the second act of the play (seven years later) the group of amateur storytellers was now a complete acting troupe traveling and rehearsing for shows they put on for audiences. Finally, the third scene (75 years later) displays a rendition of Cape Fear, but the play is now being performed by a professional group who sings and makes the play into a major production. Washburn shows her take on the evolution of theatre by portraying the same story originally told by a camp fire and finally being told in the form of a major production.

In the introduction and chapter 1 of Phillip Zarrilli’s Theatre Histories: An Introduction, Zarrilli attempts to uncover how “humans developed the unique ability for symbolic communication” (Zarrilli 4). He states that the earliest forms of communication were strictly non verbal, for example, hunting, dancing, and music. Over the years as oral language developed, cultural rituals began to “interact with the new forms of dramatic performance” (Zarrilli 31). Zarrilli’s explanation of the evolution of human communication and rituals mirrors Washburn’s portrayal of the evolution of theatre. For example, since the final production in Mr. Burns evolved from camp fire activities, it supports the notion that “theatre was born out of ritual” Zarrilli 31).

After reading Mr. Burns and the chapter’s in Zarrilli’s book I have a few major questions. First, is theatre an art form that naturally evolved over time (by the means of human evolution) or is it a conscious creation of human beings? Also, since we know how theatre has evolved in the past, how do we think theatre will evolve in the future?