Fires In The Mirror

Smith speaks to the nonfiction nature of Fires in the Mirror, specifically referencing how it is part of a larger project to interrogate the nature of the American character. This project, started in the 1980s, was inspired by Smith’s classical training as an actress in a conservatory despite the fact that it is meant as a reflection of contemporary life. Smith remembers a quote from a Native American poetry book reminiscent of her grandfather, who spoke about the importance of words in shaping identity: “‘If you say a word often enough, it becomes you’” (xxiv). Smith remembers memorizing a Shakespearean soliloquy for class once, repeating the words over and over until their rhythm and imagery became evocative of the character herself. This makes Smith believe that if she pays closer attention to people’s words, she can better portray them as an actress.

Smith reflects on the physical sensations actors tie to memories, and how if she says a word enough, it would become her, and the movements would follow. This went against the way she was trained—psychological realism—in which “characters live inside of you and that you create a character through a process of realizing your own similarity to the character” (xxvi). Instead, as an acting teacher, Smith wanted to put her students in other people’s shoes, instead of putting the character in the actor’s shoes, as it were. Smith believes that the search for character is dynamic, constantly in fluctuation between the self and other, instead of a linear movement from the self to the other. She thinks that words are the key to this alternative kind of acting, especially in terms of creating vocabularies that interrogate identity.

She is curious about how inhibitions affect the ability to act like another person, and to what extent this prevents people from empathizing with one another:“If only a man can speak for a man, a woman for a woman, a Black person for all Black people, then we, once again, inhibit the spirit of theater, which lives in the bridge that makes unlikely aspects seem connected” (xxix).

Smith reflects upon the explosion in popularity of interviews, especially with celebrities. In order for her students to become other, she had them recreate interviews, which led to her own project. She reflects on the expertise of public figures, such as Reverend Al Sharpton, to create rich linguistic material, although she also acknowledges the importance of pauses and bad grammar to reflect the linguistic journey of communication. She views her project to understand the dynamism associated with language and identity as representative of the dynamism of American identity, which is constantly being negotiated, as evidenced in the black-and-white dichotomy of Crown Heights: “Everybody seemed to know who they were and how they were seen” (xxxiii). This dichotomy created tension reflective of American racial tensions at large.

Smith reflects on the death of Gavin Cato, the relationship of the police to the community, and the privileges afforded to the Lubavitchers. She also reflects on the vulnerability felt by the Lubavitchers, who saw their struggle against crime in Crown Heights to be resonant with the lack of justice felt in the black community. Smith examines the differences apparent within these two communities. Smith identifies various criticisms concerning her performances, including that they reiterated stereotypes and/or privileged the concerns of one group over another. She believes these criticisms reflect the uneasiness and tension American society has concerning race and difference. She speaks to the gap between a perception of a place and individuals, a tension which reiterates the differentiation between the marginalized and the privileged. She seeks to intervene by building bridges and listening.

For her project, Smith asked a linguist for help, and the linguist gave her a set of questions to ask: “1) Have you ever come close to death?; 2) Have you ever been accused of something that you did not do?; 3) Do you remember the circumstances of your birth?” (xxxix). At first, Smith used these questions to listen but ultimately discarded them, even though she found that interviewees, like Carmel Cato, usually answered them anyway without being asked. Smith believes that she is still in the process of learning and in interrogating the importance of words regarding the nature of American character.