Lena Waithe and Branden Jacobs-Jenkins on How Pulitzer Winner ‘Purpose' is in Dialogue With ‘A Raisin in the Sun'
LENA WAITHE: The night of the Met Gala, I was home and watching the carpet and feeling such positivity, and I did something that I do every year: I revisited 'A Raisin in the Sun' — the film, but I also have the text of the play as well. The film really moves me in a lot of different ways. I had the honor of being at the opening night of 'Purpose,' and it was such a phenomenal evening. I couldn't help but feel the conversation that was happening between 'A Raisin in the Sun' and 'Purpose.'
More from Variety
Original 'Hamilton' Cast to Reunite for Tony Awards Performance
Why Pulitzer Winner 'Purpose' Had Its Tony-Nominated Cast 'Sh-ing Bricks'
Michelle Williams on Returning to Broadway With 'Death Becomes Her,' Her Tony Snub and Beyoncé's Backstage Visit
As a person who has studied Miss Hansberry, who has obsessed over Miss Hansberry, I think that oftentimes we, as younger-generation artists, are descendants of these writers. What was really fascinating to me was the fact that both these plays, 'Purpose' and 'A Raisin in the Sun,' take place in a home. We never leave the house. It's also a Black family inside of a house.
BRANDEN JACOBS-JENKINS: And they're both Chicago families.
LW: Exactly! What I also love about 'Purpose' is the conversations that are happening between these different generations that are having a difficult time understanding each other. And there's an idea, with Black families in particular, about how we're being perceived. What will our family name say about us?
Watching 'A Raisin in the Sun' again, I learned something new. I realized that the play is not just about a Black family being brave enough to move into a neighborhood and to integrate into white America. But rather, it's about Walter Lee becoming a man, and realizing that you can't put a price on dignity. You can't put a price on your family's worth. And in your play that's happening as well. The adult sons in this family are trying to understand who they're supposed to be.
I say all this to ask: What does it mean to you, Brandon, to be a man?
BJJ: That's just a daily question. It's one of the questions that's at stake in every generation. What are you choosing to inherit or not inherit? No one teaches you how to be anything but the people in your life.
My father passed away at the beginning of this year, right before we started rehearsals. He was actually the same age as the patriarch in my play, Solomon Jasper. That was not something that was intentional, but I could feel that I was, in a quiet way, trying to talk through things with him, through the play and with the play.
My father also had other kids. I have all these half-siblings in the world. When I talked to him about it, he said to me, 'You know, everybody I knew had an outside family or outside kids, and part of it was that none of us thought we were going to live past the age of 55.' He was witnessing these evolutions and social progress over the course of his life, and suddenly having to renegotiate his relationship to what he thought his future would look like. When you live like that you are making it up as you go. You don't have an idea of how to be an older man. I think about how blessed I am to have these models who've lived that long, who've survived a lot of political and social violence.
I don't even know how to answer that question of what being man means to me, because I feel like I'm still receiving new models in real time. There's just so much at stake and its feels like it's particularly tricky. Black masculine life is tricky.
LW: One of the things I was thinking about when I left 'Purpose' was the patriarch, and asking myself who taught him what it meant to be a man.
BJJ: This is the generation where Walter Sr., the patriarch in 'Raisin' who has passed on, could have lived, right? The implication is that in that time period, when 'Raisin' was written, that man worked himself to death. Worked himself to death to become this bag of money. And Solomon is the generation after that. He was given access to a different sort of agency and political movement. He could make a living for himself in a way that Walter couldn't.
Thinking about 'Raisin,' another thing I love about that play is the women and how those three female characters are a triangulation of three kinds of femininity in that era. In some ways I've also repeated that with 'Purpose.'
LW: In your play, Kara Young's character, Aziza, is very close to the daughter, Beneatha, in 'Raisin.' Yes, Aziza is queer… but Beneatha is definitely exploring some shit!
BJJ: There's a radicality to her. I hate when people do this to writers, but I think Lorraine sees herself in Beneatha, and in some ways Kara's character, her biography most closely hews to mine.
No one is shaped more by history than women, honestly, and at least if you look at every decade of the 20th century, there's a different kind of lady for each decade, and 'Raisin' is just so incredible at capturing this pivotal moment in the culture.
LW: One thing that really stood out to me when I was thinking about the three women in 'Purpose' is that Claudine, the matriarch, is very much in dialogue with 'A Raisin in the Sun' and with the matriarch in that play, Lena Younger. They are both there to uphold the husband — for Lena it's upholding her late husband's memory and inheritance. They are each responsible for their husband's legacy.
I'm thinking specifically of Black women here, but it could be said of women in general: It is a woman's job to uphold the male while he becomes himself, to help him become himself. And there is no one there to do the same for women. Something I think that's really stunning and beautiful about 'Purpose' is Aziza, a queer woman, is brought into the frame in a way that it's not in 'A Raisin in the Sun,' even though we know now that Lorraine Hansberry was a queer women. Her queerness was not able to be brought into the frame, not at that time.
BJJ: If you look at Lorraine's notebooks, she really struggled with that identity. She didn't have the tools to be free in that way.
LW: That's why I think 'Purpose' is bringing us into a new generation, bringing us into the future. When Kara's character walks into the door, it's almost you giving Lorraine's ghost, that part of her, permission to come onto the stage. Aziza, and I say this about myself too, we do not live under the male gaze. There's a freedom.
BJJ: What doesn't go directly questioned in 'Raisin' is Mama Younger's devotion. Her whole perception of herself, as an extension of loving this man, is to take care of this family. That was her whole purpose in life.
That's real. That's a real person in the world, and they have a whole philosophy that backs that up. And I was interested in putting that on stage. For me, the three women in 'Purpose,' they're all different iterations of, or riffs on, or responses to that idea of: Stand by your man.
There's Claudine, and then there's also Morgan, who is married to Claudine's son and going to jail for something he did. Morgan's whole thing is: Why did I stand by this man? Because now I'm literally going to jail and nobody's throwing me a party.
And then Aziza, who's going to have a baby on her own, she's like: I'm gonna do this by myself.
LW: I love that Aziza and Nazareth, the family's younger son, ride off together. They end up getting the same car to exit this house, which, in my opinion, is also a metaphor for a different time in our history and our culture.
I was also thinking about how it takes more than just men to uphold the patriarchy. Women often have a hand in it as well. One thing I picked up on is that you don't really see the grandchildren in 'Purpose.' In 'A Raisin in the Sun' we see Walter Lee's son and we know that he is the future of this family, and we see how Lena treats him and how she wants to take care of him and help raise him.
But in 'Purpose,' with the grandchildren, you're aware of them, but they're invisible. Morgan is keeping these kids away from the family. Even though we don't see them in this play, I am thinking about those sons.
BJJ: They're like little princes locked in a tower.
I'm always interested in gesturing towards the ways that families wind up shaping themselves inadvertently. Where do these branches start to break off? What creates the moments of renegotiating the lines of the family? A lot of the energy of this play is about these two mothers, Claudine and Morgan, who are very different, but who I also think of, honestly, as the same person who just happen to be born in the exact wrong times to be able to see each other.
But they're who makes the story of the family. They're deciding: Well, this can't be part of my kids' life. To me, that's the reality of how families are negotiated, now especially.
LW: I want to ask about secrets within the family. I think what resonated with me about your work is the fact that oftentimes Black families are really good at keeping secrets, and I'm curious about what that means to you, and how that clearly erodes everything in the home.
BJJ: I've said that this play is attached to my play 'Appropriate,' which was on Broadway last year. 'Appropriate' and 'Purpose' are both family secret plays.
For me, ultimately, it's about how shame is toxic. If there's one thing I want people to take back into their lives, it is this idea that shame is the worst thing you can encourage and introduce into your family. Because what really motivates that secret-keeping is individual shame. The best thing you could do for the generations rising up in your family is to be transparent, and think of family as the place where you can be your fullest self.
Black families and Black folks in general, our emotional range and our affect is so policed — in pop culture, privately, socially. And so you do have these families that are deep in fear of somehow being in reality with each other, because they think that's going to make them lesser-than, rather than celebrating the fact that everyone's present together, that love can happen in spite of these things.
That's the moral, guys. Shame should have no place in the family. Every psychologist will tell you that. Never shame your children. That's how you build monsters.
LW: One thing I've thought about since seeing the play, and it's haunted me a little bit, is about male sexuality, and particularly Black male sexuality. You've depicted that with the youngest son, Nazareth.
BJJ: There's so much more to conversations about sexuality and desire. We all live with desire, and it's so complicated, and yet our representation is always on a binary. I wish there was more nuanced wrestling with it. That's why I love Tennessee Williams. All that work was about: We don't even know what we're talking about when we talk about desire, yet it is the thing we all live with and wrestle with.
LW: My last question is about family and the idea of it. I've come to find that I'm not a believer in blood. The people that I'm closest to are not my blood relatives, and the people I feel the most distance from are actually related to me. You write so beautifully about different kinds of families, and how those family dynamics operate. And you are one of the patriarchs of your own family. So I wanted to ask you: What is your definition of family?
BJJ: For me, family is about relationships and people. It's about love and a commitment to love, in spite of everything. And I think it's about respect. Ultimately the reason families fall apart is that people lose that respect for each other. They stop seeing the humanity and they project their own traumas and psycho-battles onto each other.
Life is hard enough, and family gives you the unit to get through it. It's supposed to be a place of sanity. Ideally. Often it's not.
I'm gonna make a huge sweeping statement: I teach a lot, and I see kids showing up where I'm like: Oh, you don't have to find your family. There's culture-changing stuff where there are parents on TV now talking about how much they love their kids. That was not what I had growing up at all.
LW: Me, either. I mean, you saw the Thanksgiving episode.
BJJ: Families and found families are necessary, especially to get through social moments that are antagonistic to your being. Family is the people who show up and who keep showing up.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Best of Variety
What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
Emmy Predictions: Sci-Fi Surges, FYC Crunch Pressure, and Comedy Category Shakeups Across 94 Races
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘They're going to run away': NYC Councilwoman says Mamdani victory ‘unacceptable for Jewish community
Fox News Digital spoke to NYC Councilwoman Inna Vernikov about how Zohran Mamdani's anti-Israel rhetoric has stoked fear in the Jewish community.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the recent IRS filing challenges the boundaries between faith and politics
The 1992 ad began with a warning in bold, all-caps: 'Christian Beware.' The text of the ad went on: 'Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments. Did you know that Gov. Bill Clinton …' The ad, which appeared in the USA Today and the Washington Times, listed Clinton's stances on 'abortion on demand' and 'the homosexual lifestyle' and accused a then-presidential candidate of promoting policies 'in rebellion to God's laws.' The ad posed an urgent question : 'How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?' At the end, the ad solicited tax-deductible contributions. The ad was put out by The Church at Pierce Creek, a non-denominational church in Conklin, New York. It also became one of the rare cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the U.S. tax code that bars tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. In 1995, the IRS retroactively revoked the church's tax-exempt status, arguing the ad crossed the line into prohibited political activity. In response, the church, operating under the name Branch Ministries, sued. But in the 1999 case Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, the D.C. Circuit upheld the IRS's decision, ruling that the church was still free to speak politically, it just couldn't do so while claiming the benefits of tax-exempt status. For decades, that interpretation stood largely unchallenged — until now. A surprising reversal In a surprising turn, the IRS recently signaled it would stop enforcing the Johnson Amendment in certain cases. In a proposed settlement filed in a federal court in Texas on July 7, the IRS agreed not to penalize two Texas churches for endorsing political candidates during regular church communications. The IRS agreement emerged as part of a proposed settlement in a 2024 lawsuit filed by a coalition of conservative religious organizations, including National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America and two Texas churches — Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church of Waskom. Both argued that the Johnson Amendment violated the First Amendment rights of faith-based institutions, particularly when endorsements were made during worship services. The IRS's decision not to treat such sermons as campaign intervention marked a significant shift from past interpretations of the law. 'Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the IRS filing. Since the news about the IRS filing, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, urging the court to reject the proposed settlement and defend the endorsement limitation for churches. Although the judge hasn't ruled on either of the proposals yet, the filing has reignited long-running debates about whether the Johnson Amendment protects the integrity of religious institutions or improperly limits their speech. Supporters of the change, including Speaker Mike Johnson and some evangelical leaders, see it as a win for religious freedom and free speech. 'The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around,' Johnson wrote on X. President Donald Trump said he loved 'the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate.' Critics, however, warn of the dangers of entangling churches with partisan politics. Because churches are exempt from the financial disclosure rules that apply to other nonprofits, they could become vehicles for untraceable campaign spending if allowed to endorse candidates, experts say. 'Our faith should inform our vote,' said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. 'Our votes shouldn't drive our faith.' Whether the IRS's proposed shift becomes policy or not, it has brought renewed attention to a broader question: What are the appropriate boundaries between faith and politics in a house of worship? And can rules like the Johnson Amendment help preserve both religious integrity and democratic fairness? An 'unorthodox way' While the proposal does not formally change the law, it opens the doors for churches, who choose to do so, to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, experts say. 'It does serve as a signal to churches that, at least under the current IRS, some amount of candidate endorsement is tolerated,' said Sam Brunson, professor at Loyola University Chicago, who specializes in tax law. 'It gives kind of a legal reasoning for that, even if it's not a binding legal reasoning.' The filing 'is NOT a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. It does not change the law, nor does it protect all churches from potential enforcement,' Tyler emphasized in a statement. But the way the policy was introduced was significant on its own, Tyler said. 'It was a very unorthodox way to go about tax policy,' she said. Rather than issuing formal guidance, she said, the IRS appears to be attempting to change enforcement by bypassing the normal regulatory process without the act of Congress. Brunson called the filing a ' troubling, but at the very least interesting attempt' to get around procedures for issuing tax regulations. Brian Galle, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who teaches on taxation and nonprofits, said the filing, at least now, does not carry much legal weight: 'I think the promise right now that our charities can participate in politics isn't worth that much — at least for careful lawyers.' If the judge signs the proposed order, the IRS under the current administration would be prohibited from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two churches. The Trump administration could attempt to formalize a policy change through regulation, but Galle believes that's unlikely. 'The reason the IRS probably won't issue a regulation is because it would be illegal,' he said, pointing to the Supreme Court's 'major questions doctrine,' which bars federal agencies from making significant policy shifts without clear authorization from Congress. The current filing isn't 'legally binding,' he said, which means that the IRS under a future administration could change its mind on the issue. But for now, it marks an important, and controversial, shift in how the IRS interprets the boundary between religious speech and political activity. Churches endorsing candidates Although the cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment are rare, church leaders have often endorsed political candidates. One early example dates back to 1800, when the Rev. William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister, publicly opposed Thomas Jefferson's presidential candidacy. Linn published a pamphlet titled 'Serious Considerations on the Election of a President,' in which he questioned Jefferson's religiosity: 'Does Jefferson ever go to church? How does he spend the Lord's Day? Is he known to worship with any denomination of Christians? ... Will you then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence ... vote for Mr. Jefferson?' Linn faced no legal consequences for his advocacy, according to a 1997 Regent University Law Review article, which argued that The Church at Pierce Creek had the right to run the Clinton ad in 1992 and shouldn't be punished. Other historical examples include a 1960 sermon broadcast by a religious leader warning against voting for John F. Kennedy and a 1980 letter from a Catholic archbishop in Massachusetts urging Catholics not to vote for pro-choice congressional candidates. The article concluded: 'The restriction upon religious political speech adversely impacts a central conviction of religion's purpose: the ability to address issues germane to its moral code with the objective of influencing others.' More recently, a number of evangelical pastors have endorsed Donald Trump from the pulpit. For instance, pastor Mark Burns is known as 'Donald Trump's Top Pastor,' and publicly supported the current president at RNC events and rallies. Repealing the Johnson Amendment became one of Donald Trump's top priorities when he ran for presidential office in 2016. Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017, he said he would 'totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' Although efforts to repeal the amendment through legislation ultimately failed, the administration announced a shift in enforcement through the latest filing. 'The administration is trying to signal that if other religious organizations also want to participate in politics, then the administration wouldn't go after their tax-exempt status,' Galle said. Risk of 'dark money' Regardless of whether the filing becomes law, tax policy and religious experts warn about potentially alarming implications of partisan politics entering the house of worship. 'If this is applied to all churches, it would be toxic for both churches and our politics,' Galle said. 'It would make essentially every church a dark money organization.' Unlike other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, churches are not required to file annual tax returns (Form 990) that disclose their donors or spending. Engaging in partisan political activity, Galle explained, could open a channel for wealthy individuals, including those with no religious affiliation, to funnel money into campaigns through churches, benefiting from tax-deductible donations and total financial opacity. 'That would give churches a major, unfair advantage in political messaging,' he said. 'And that's bad for our politics and bad for the integrity of churches themselves.' Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, expressed similar concerns. 'This action is not about religion or free speech,' she said in a statement, 'but about radically altering campaign finance laws.' For religious communities, endorsements from the pulpit, whether local or national, risk dividing congregations and distracting houses of worship from their spiritual missions, Tyler said. Even further, it could fundamentally alter the church's purpose, she said. 'If they get engaged in partisan elections for candidates, we really could see that motivation is driving their mission, instead of their mission, their values and their beliefs really driving civic engagement in society,' Tyler said. Public sentiment remains largely opposed to pulpit endorsements. In 2023, a survey found that 75% of Americans opposed churches endorsing candidates, while only 20% supported it. Is the Johnson Amendment constitutional? When the IRS revoked Pierce Creek's tax exempt status over the Clinton ad, the church challenged the decision and sought an injunction against the IRS. In 1999, the district judge ruled that the IRS did not violate constitutional rights and religious freedoms of the church and dismissed the church's claims. But the question whether the Johnson Amendment is constitutional continues to percolate in the public debate. House Speaker Mike Johnson reiterated his view that this tax rule is unconstitutional and argued that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but rather originates from a 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association. While Brunson thinks churches should not be endorsing candidates, he believes that the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment is 'shaky at best.' The Supreme Court has identified 'core political speech' — speech that directly addresses government, candidates and elections — as the most strongly protected type of speech, he said. 'That's the speech that the government faces the strictest limits on prohibiting,' Brunson said. 'So it seems like this blanket prohibition is probably at best deeply questionable.' Brunson said ads placed in national or local newspapers aren't the kind of endorsements the IRS appears to be concerned about in the recent filing, which would be more like endorsements made during a sermon or within a church newsletter. Brunson argues the Johnson Amendment is sound and could be considered constitutional with some adjustments. Tyler, however, remains firm that the law does not silence pastors. 'There is nothing that is stopping a pastor's speech,' she said. If the pastor feels they want to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, 'they can give up their 501 (c) (3) tax exemption.' 'Moral judgement' or 'partisan politicking'? Still, politics often finds its way into church life, even without explicit endorsements. Defenders of the Pierce Creek church argued that the Clinton ad highlighted the moral issues at stake of the election, and they viewed it as the church's duty to speak out on the moral qualifications of political candidates. 'The unfortunate result of the I.R.C. (Internal Revenue Code) restrictions is that no meaningful distinctions have been made between moral judgment and partisan politicking,' the 1997 Regent University Law Review article said. Issues versus people — that's how Brunson articulated the appropriate line in addressing the questions of the day that may touch on politics. 'There's a difference between advocating on issues that align with your mission and endorsing a person,' he said. Faith communities also have a stake in local policy debates that directly affect their ability to operate, he said. 'Churches need to be able to protect themselves.' Tax law generally permits churches to advocate on issues like zoning laws, housing policy or poverty, he said, as long as they don't cross the line into endorsing specific candidates. Tyler also distinguishes between being political and being partisan as a church. 'I personally think that Jesus was political the way that he cared about the people and that he lived with and how he was working to change societies and structures,' she said. Historically, churches have played an important but nonpartisan role in civic life: educating voters, helping people get to the polls, hosting forums and even serving as polling places, Tyler noted. 'The law really forbids partisanship,' Tyler emphasized. 'It doesn't forbid political engagement. There's so many ways to be politically engaged without being attached at the hip to a candidate or a particular party.'
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Kevin O'Leary: Epstein focus is ‘poop on a stick'
"Shark Tank" investor Kevin O'Leary says the focus on Jeffrey Epstein is not what Americans care about. He says families are focused on the economy and jobs, and whether or not they feel things have improved under President Donald Trump's second term.
