Humour, pathos and overt theatricalism in Jack Davis'

By frank lamacchia, High School Student

Dramatic elements in

An essay hosted at LiteratureClassics.com

In life, it is often through unrelated or contrary opinions that meaning is discovered. It is through diametric opposition that understanding may be gained by forcing people into a reappraisal of their attitudes and values. Jack Davis utilises these binary opposites in his play No Sugar. Set during the Great Depression of 1929, this piece of realistic fiction comments on the treatment of Aboriginal people in rural Western Australia. He manipulates his audience to see past race relations, and into the lives of a close Aboriginal family, displaced from their homes and their traditional lives. By creating an ironic dialectic of humour and pathos within his unquestionably dramatic style, Davis illicits a personal sympathy and understanding from the audience.

The point on which the entire play operates is the difference in cultural understanding between white audiences and black characters. Jack Davis manipulates this wide aesthetic distance to his advantage. He differentiates between audience preconceptions of Aboriginality and its actuality. In fact, it is as a result of this distance that much of the play’s humour is formed. The audience may relate to seeing Aboriginal people: -

…laughing and hooting Nyoongah fashion…

as in Act One Scene Two, and will laugh as they would in real life. Jack Davis manipulates this by showing events be fore after, often invisible to ordinary white citizens. This explains the actions of the Aborigines. It is in this second part of the play’s construction that pathos arises, with the changing of audience expectations. The other way Jack Davis has used aesthetic distance for his own purpose is by creating stereotypical characters already familiar to audiences. Audiences see these characters and think that they know that type of person. Yet, they are soon proven wrong by the simple sincerity of Jack Davis’ character constructions. Audiences are also allowed, for a time, to think that the play is unrealistic, lulled into a false sense of security by some of the play’s overtly theatrical sequences. Yet by the play’s conclusion, the reality rings true. Jack Davis is a master of audience manipulation, through which he illicits both humour and pathos mixed with his overly dramatic style. It is within this ironic dialectic that meaning and understanding of Aboriginality is generated in the text.

A major source of humour in the play is the characters dialogue. The characters of white Australian descent tend to speak with a sanitary, even bombastic and pompous language, disguising their evil deeds behind kind phrases. The most obvious example of this is the character Auber Octavius Neville. He states, with refined and privileged language, in Act One Scene Two, that: -

…if you provide the native the basic accoutrements of civilisation, you’re halfway to civilising him.

However, on closer inspection, a Marxist criticism would reveals a belief that whites are unquestionably superior and that any previous Aboriginal civilisation was illegitimate. The humour is derived from the juxta positioning of such pompous statements against the more crude and blunt comments of Aboriginal characters. Also in Act One Scene Two, the following interplay between the Sergeant and Milly occurs: -

SERGEANT: Your trouble, Milly, is you got three healthy men bludging off you, too lazy to work.
MILLY: Where they gonna get work?

Such contrasting dialogue at first seems merely humorous to a white audience, but on later reflection, that humour turns to pathos, as one reflects on the unembellished truth of her question. The duplicity of many of the white statements made in the play, though at first ridiculing the simpler Aboriginal statements, is instead shown for the hypocrisy it really is, by drawing from audiences the dialectic of humour and pathos needed to make meaning. By the end of the play, Neville’s attempt to summarise the plot as a, “…disgraceful demonstration of ingratitude…” (Act Four Scene Five), is overshadowed by Jimmy’s blunt challenge, “…Are you game to try it?” (Act Four Scene Five). By utilising the contrasting speech patterns of black and white Australians, Jack Davis draws from his audience the mixture of humour and pathos need to see the injustices of white rule.

Contrasting dialogue is also found within the play’s Aboriginal cast. It is not uncommon for a character to begin a sentence in English, only to weave in Nyoongah words as they proceed: -

GRAN: I’m warrah, gnuny tjenna minditj, and I got no gnummarri. (Act Two Scene Two)

This provokes a humorous reaction from white audiences, while also begging the question as to why they speak in such a way. Language is used as a symbol for their culture, a culture that is split between dependence on white necessities and a desire for black self-determination. This dependence is echoed in a physical manner early on in the play, as the Sergeant jokes that Gran could make Aboriginal bush flour (Act One Scene Two). The sad and pitiful truth is that: -

Wetjala cut all the trees down…

forcing them to rely on the European flour. This is an example of the lasting effects of colonial policies within the post-colonial world. Another instance of language reflecting a character’s cultural displacement is with the character of Billy. He doesn’t use many Aboriginal terms, and instead speaks in broken English: -

…Matron make you no more sick fella. (Act Two Scene Three)

This appeals even more to the white sense of humour, yet it is symbolic of someone so traumatised by white oppression, that they can not express themselves fluently, or even exist in harmony, in either cultural context. In fact, as Billy retells the story of his tribe’s desolation, his language deteriorates severely. It is through the overlaying of humour and pitiful realities that meaning is made in the text.

It is often stated that language is the perfect nexus for power. Those who control the discourse in a text have power within it. There is no question that whites have control of the discourse in No Sugar. This control is most visible in the trial scene, Act One Scene Five. Here none of the accused are given are chance to defend their case, but instead the representatives of the white hegemony dictate what the circumstances were and how the consequences shall proceed. The stage directions specify that the Justice of the Peace is, “…interrupting…”, thereby diminishing any opposing discourse. This marginalisation within the discourse does not only apply to the Aboriginal characters, but also to the white Frank Brown for his anti-hegemonic affiliation with the Aborigines. However, Jack Davis does not only represent the oppression of his people, but also the means by which they attempt to re-empower themselves against the white authority. Humour is one of the agencies they use to reassert power. During the trial, Jimmy is accused of, “…indecent language…”, yet it was through crude dialogue that he had tried to assert power in the previous scene. The inappropriateness of some of the Aboriginal statements illicit such laughter from the audience as would also draw sympathy for them and the situation which forces them into such impropriety. Blunt Repetition is also used to achieve the same goal. Milly’s repeated request for, “…blankets…”, in Act One Scene Seven, becomes a catalogue through which she can assert a certain degree of power. This incident is also thought humorous to a white audience, yet it draws attention to the base methods then used by the Sergeant to regain power, insulting her name. Jack Davis designed the scene as a string of events giving the Aboriginal characters a chance to state their legitimacy as Australian people: -

…Proper church married…
…Not like some people, I bet.

The audience is manipulated by the humorous efforts of Aboriginal characters to undermine the dominant discourse, forcing them to see the play’s underlying pathos.

While the play does focus on the white marginalisation of Aboriginal peoples, there is an undercurrent of black discourse that remains untainted. This is the Aboriginal use of music and dance. As stated in Act Two Scene Six: -

You song man, you fella dance men. This still your country.

Songs, especially the corroboree in Act Two Scene Six, add to the play’s overtly theatrical nature, while foregrounding the new pathos that has crept into Aboriginal culture. They definitely do support the Aboriginal land ties, yet they are also employed as a means of challenging white supremacy. In Act One Scene Four the Constable comments on Jimmy’s harmonica, saying: -

Wish I knew how to play one of these.

There is a certain admiration (however concealed) for the Aboriginal affinity with music. This can also have comical overtones, such as the juxta positioning of Jimmy, the aggressively crude Aborigine, and the beautifully refined European hymn Hail, Queen of Heaven (Act One Scene Four). Within this strange sequence, the audience is left to wonder if memorising these hymns have really helped, “…civilise…”, him, or if they have just further estranged him from the songs of his own people. This frustration explodes in Act Four Scene Five as the Aborigines Parody the hymn There is a Happy Land. Here they are finally given a chance to voice their struggles through the musical medium. It serves as the play’s climax, as the untouched, Aboriginal musical discourse merges with their fight against white domination. It is through these dramatic techniques of music and choreography that sympathy is drawn from audiences, along with the unsettling humour through which meaning is built.

No Sugar is a play that works on the principle of exaggeration in order to fuel the humour needed to build meaning. For this purpose, Jack Davis has chosen not to construct realistically perfect characters, but instead characters which fit white stereotypes of Aboriginality. The character of Gran is fierce and feisty, and in many ways represents the survival of traditional Nyoongah practices. She is excessively proud of her knowledge of traditional herbs and her midwifery skills: -

Isn’t that the neatest belly button you seen?
…I brought him into the world with me own two hands. (Act Two Scene Four)

Her stubborn attitude towards the, “…Chergeant…” (Act Two Scene Two), must in some ways represent Aboriginality as a whole, which has not been destroyed despite white attempts to do so. However, at the play’s conclusion, Gran’s song of mourning almost laments the loss of pure Aboriginality, in favour of a blend of all their peoples, forced to make their way on white terms.
Just as Gran represents tribal knowledge, Jimmy represents the, “…bolder spirits…” (Act Three Scene Five), who fought the whites in a more physical way, Jimmy losing his life at the play’s climax. Jimmy is the stereotyped foul mouthed, crude and drunken Aborigine. Though Jack Davis represents this white imposed stereotype, he does not endorse it, but instead attempts to reveal the truth behind its actions. This is accomplished in Act One Scene Three, as the drunken Jimmy relates all the injustices he has suffered to his friend Frank. In doing this, Jack Davis doesn’t insult audiences by out rightly stating that their preconceptions are wrong, but instead acknowledges that there are some Aborigines like Jimmy, not forgetting the causes that bring about such cases. It is this gentle handling of the audience with regards to their understanding of Aboriginal characters, which works most of all in viewer positioning.
All the white characters in No Sugar are also stereotypes, representing a type and class of person rather than an individual. There is Mr Neal, the sadistic and brutal camp manager, who lords his white status over the Aborigines in his care. He lives by the words of J. Ernest Renan, that: -

…a little knowledge is a dangerous thing… (Act Four Scene Five)

rather than encouraging understanding and learning among the Aborigines. There are Sergeant Carrol and Constable Kerr who would probably be indifferent to Aboriginal sufferings were it not for orders and politics. There are Matron Neal and Sister Eileen who are willing to help the Aboriginal people, but on their terms and with their method. The only exception to the stereotype rule is Auber Octavius Neville, based on the actual historical figure. Neville genuinely believes that he is helping the Aborigines. He tells them that they are: -

…here to take your place in Australian society, to live as other Australians live, and to live alongside other Australians… (Act Four Scene Five)

while being blinded to all the infringements that his office of protection places on their liberty. In the above statement and in all his policies are elements of assimilation and ethnocentricity, both of which are derisive to the Aboriginal identity. Indeed, underlying all the white characters is the presumption of white superiority, that blacks are subhuman without white protection.
Jack Davis has used each of these types of characters to his advantage in No Sugar. Because of their strong stereotypical nature, their gestures, costumes and presences all add substantially to the overtly theatrical side of No Sugar. Due to the conflicting views of these characters, the binary opposition between Neville and Jimmy, the antithesis between Sister Eileen and Mr Neal, their juxta positioning also generates humour. Pathos also arises from the often negative effects that they have on each other. It is through Jack Davis’ particular use of character that the drama is enhanced, humour is created and sympathy is felt for the sad interplay of their simple lives.

Towards the play’s conclusion, the dramatic codes are employed to draw from audiences a combination of sympathy and hope. A new family unit is created with Joe, Mary and Baby Jimmy, as they go back to Northam to start a new life. The theme of family is foregrounded, as it is the break up of the Millimurra/Munday family that acts as the play’s tragic element and draws sympathy from the audience. Hope is drawn from the character’s costumes. In Act Four Scene Eight: -

Joe wears a yellow shirt and black pants…

while he gives Cissie, “…yellow and red ribbons…”, and Mary a, “…red dress…”. These gifts not only symbolise the gift of a new future unintentionally given o them by the whites, but the colours used are also a link to the Aboriginal flag of modern times. These colours foreground Aboriginal land ties, and are made particularly clear to audience members by directing their attention to the play’s backdrop and staging. There is a huge outpouring of emotion at the play’s conclusion, and though there isn’t a complete closure in term’s of plot, all the emotional strings of the play are brought together. An effective catharsis is achieved as humour is replaced with pure pathos; a development emphasised by the dramatic codes.

In No Sugar, Jack Davis has created a beautifully dramatic, humorous and sensitive account of the sufferings of Australia’s Aboriginal people. The play states that: -

…sugar catches more flies than vinegar… (Act One Scene Seven)

and though the Aborigines are tragically never treated with the sugar of respect, Davis has kept this adage in mind with his treatment of the audience. By using the sugar of humour, Davis’ catches flies of sympathy from his audience. He utilises character dialogue; develops power relations within dominant and marginalised discourses; acknowledges and challenges white imposed stereotypes; employing an overtly theatrical style, all to manipulate and position his audience. After this ironic dialectic of humour and pathos, audiences leave the theatre with a renewed understanding of the sufferings, as well as the defiant optimism, of the Aboriginal people.