A verbatim staging of the 1965 James Baldwin vs William F. Buckley Jr. debate, “Is The American Dream At The Expense Of The American Negro?”, returns to the London stage following UK and US tours. One of the most influential debates in race relations in America, their exchange laid bare the deep divisions at the heart of American democracy that continue to shape present day. We sat down with Arnell Powell and Eric T. Miller to discuss their upcoming performance.
Both: This debate took place sixty years ago, yet it feels startlingly current. When you first stepped into the rehearsal room, what struck you most about how alive these words still are?
Arnell: Many years ago, American elites convinced poor “European Americans” (aka “white Americans”) that, despite their difficult lives, their “whiteness” granted them a sense of superiority over others. This “doctrine of white supremacy” was intended to prevent the underclass and oppressed groups from uniting and revolting, and it continues to pit economically disadvantaged European Americans against Black people and immigrants. They believe their enemies are Black people or immigrants while in reality, their true adversaries (the elite) are stripping them of things like healthcare, workplaces that are regulated to ensure their safety and fair pay, and redirecting funding for essential social programs to policies that benefit the elite. This, while convincing disadvantaged “whites” that they share a sense of solidarity with elites because “at least they are not black”.
Eric: It was depressing how resonant the words are now compared to sixty years ago. If not more resonant for me, so that was a bit depressing that we’re still talking about this and even need to more now. Also the civility of the debate compared to our debates today. As strong as these arguments are and as heated as this debate, inflammatory as this discussion can be there’s still a level of civility that we don’t have today and that was surprising and like I said, depressing.
Eric Miller: This is a verbatim staging of a real historical event. Did you ever feel constrained by the exact language, or did the precision actually free you as a performer?
Eric: The latter, it freed me a lot. Obviously when learning the monologue, the monotony of just getting the words in your body and in your mouth could feel a bit constraining but now the precision of knowing exactly where I’m going and the inability to improv or add anything to it actually helps me stayed focus and on task and helps me drive the speech more than I probably would have had it not been so precise.
Arnell Powell: James Baldwin’s language is electrifying – lyrical, precise, and emotionally charged. How do you embody that rhythm?
Arnell: What is both wonderful and unfortunate about this speech is how relatable the language is. It’s wonderful because it makes the speech easier to personalize and understand. However, it’s unfortunate because part of its relatability stems from how closely the ideas expressed align with my own personal experiences. It’s heartbreaking to articulate these truths, knowing they are also true for me. Describing Baldwin’s words as “electrifying” and “emotional” can sound like a review of a blockbuster movie or some other form of captivating entertainment. In reality, his words emerged from a place of sorrow and frustration. I am certain he would have preferred not to have had the reason to speak them at all, rather than being praised for doing so. The impression of his words as “electrifying” and “emotional” arises from the urgency, vulnerability, and even desperation behind them, highlighting the stark ugliness of the world surrounding him. Regarding the rhythm of his speech, it is also familiar to me. This rhythm reflects a collective experience that is shared between Baldwin and me, making it unnecessary for me to consciously “embody” it.
Both: The audience already knows the outcome of the debate. How do you keep tension alive night after night?
Eric: For me, I often enjoy it when the audience does know the debate and knows what I’m going to say because I think through Buckley’s strange cadence and the monotony of his voice and the rhythm we can lose a lot of what he’s saying and I think that’s the tactic by him to sugar coat or kind of circumvent what he’s trying to say. So I always try to make it as plain and as simple as possible and to really really focus on the points that he’s making and I often find and I’m grateful to hear from people who do know the debates that they hadn’t heard what he was saying until they saw the show and I take that as a great badge of honour because I want to lay out exactly what this man is saying so you can see it for the vitriol.
Arnell: I believe there were at least three agendas at play in that original debate. For Baldwin, it seems his mission was not to engage in a formal debate. Instead, I believe he sought to give voice to the voiceless, articulating what had long been “unspoken by the subjugated”, while at the same time, holding a mirror up to “white” Americans. If I can stay true to that objective when speaking this speech, the tension will take care of itself because speaking truth to power is incredibly empowering and infinitely activating.
Both: What do you hope audiences carry with them when they leave Wilton’s Music Hall — not about history, but about now?
Arnell: I hope audiences understand that being honest about our shared history is not meant to disparage any group, but to help us, as a race (the human one), heal and do better moving forward. I also hope that they take Baldwin’s words to heart: unless European Americans and those in America’s subjugated (and each society touched by colonialism has their own version of each) can establish a dialogue, we will continue to face significant problems. A genuine dialogue means not engaging in it as an act of charity or goodwill. Baldwin details the ways in which we are all deeply implicated in and bear scars from our shared past and present circumstances. I hope audiences recognize this fact because only by accepting it can there be the possibility of [the] genuine dialogue [for which Baldwin so fiercely advocated.]
Eric: It’s very important to me that people realise that William F. Buckley shaped American financial policy under Regan, he was in our living rooms for 40 years. A man who can say the things that he said at Cambridge Union and believe those things, for him to say what he said and shape American power and policy is terrifying to me. Yes he was charming, yes he was an intellectual, but what he says here is horrendous and I want people to really think about when we talk about systemic racism, it starts with men like this being put into power. I really want people to question that moving forward.
Debate: Baldwin vs. Buckley plays 3-7th February. Tickets are available here.