”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 colonial audience, but on later reflection, that humour turns to misery, as one reflects on the factual truth of her question. The deception of many of the colonial statements made in the play, though at first mocking the simpler Aboriginal statements, is instead shown for the insincerity it really is, by drawing from audiences the dialect of humour and suffering 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 Aboriginal and European Australians, Jack Davis draws from his audience the mixture of humour and suffering need to see the inequality of colonial 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 colonial audiences, while also pleading 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 colonial necessities and a desire for black self-determination. This dependence is reiterated 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 unfortunate 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 colonial sense of humour, yet it is symbolic of someone so distressed by colonial oppression, that they cannot express themselves easily, or even exist in harmony, in either cultural context. In fact, as Billy retells the story of his tribe’s misery, his language deteriorates severely. It is through the transfer of humour and disgraceful realism that meaning is made in the text.
It is often stated that language is the perfect utensil for power. Those who control the dialogue in a text have power within it. There is no question that Europeans have control of the speech and communication 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 colonial supremacy 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 speech. This marginalisation within the dialogue does not only apply to the Aboriginal characters, but also to the white Frank Brown for his anti-dominating relationship 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-authorize themselves against the colonial authority.
Humour is one of the agencies they use to declare power again. During the trial, Jimmy is accused of, “…indecent language…”, yet it was through offensive dialogue that he had tried to state power in the previous scene. The inappropriateness of some of the Aboriginal statements enforces such laughter from the audience, as would also draw sympathy for them and the situation, which forces them into such rudeness. Blunt 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 claim a certain degree of power. This incident is also thought humorous to a colonial 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 communication, forcing them to see the play’s underlying misery.
While the play does focus on the white marginalisation of Aboriginal peoples, there is a flow of black dialogue that remains wholesome. 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 misery 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 resemblance with music. This can also have amusing implications, such as the juxtapositioning of Jimmy, the violently offensive 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 has 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 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 , as the untouched, Aboriginal musical dialogue merges with their fight against colonial 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 colonial 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 midwife or mothering 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 mourning 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 Europeans in a more physical way, Jimmy losing his life at the play’s climax. Jimmy is the stereotyped as a foul mouthed, aggressive and drunken Aborigine. Though Jack Davis represents this European imposed stereotype, he does not support 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 colonial characters in No Sugar are also stereotypes, representing a type and class of person rather than an individual. There is Mr Neal, the brutal and brutal camp manager, who lords his white status over the Aborigines in his care. He lives by the understanding 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 if it were 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 freedom. In the above statement and in all his policies are elements of integration and evaluating of his rase compared to his superior one, both of which are mocking to the Aboriginal identity. Indeed, underlying all the colonial characters is the assumption of colonial superiority, that Aborigines are inferior or even sub-human even without colonial 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 significantly to the openly theatrical side of No Sugar. Due to the conflicting views of these characters, the dual opposition between Neville and Jimmy, the direct opposite between Sister Eileen and Mr Neal, their juxtapositioning also generates humour. Suffering and misery also arises from the often negative effects that they have on each other. It is through Jack Davis’ particular use of character that the is enhanced, humour is created and sympathy is felt for the sad interaction 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 mistakenly given to them by the Europeans, 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 terms of the plot, all the emotional strings of the play are brought together. An effective release of emotion is achieved as humour is replaced with pure suffering and misery; 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 saying 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 dialogue; acknowledges and challenges colonially imposed stereotypes; employing an overtly theatrical style, all to manipulate and position his audience. After this ironic dialect of humour and suffering, audiences leave the theatre with a changed understanding of the sufferings, as well as the defiant optimism, of the Aboriginal people.