Finally There's An All White Version Of HAIRSPRAY!- Page 2

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 5:04am

I'm gonna try not to step into the color-blind casting quagmire I often find myself on the board and just note that roles that are traditionally seen as "white" roles are more often that not just seen that way because of tradition. I think when a show's entire plot hinges on race, though, color-blind casting makes no sense.

Flipping the situation, if this were a predominantly black troupe and Tracy, Edna and Velma were black actors, what would the response be? Hypothetically, we may say it would be the same, but would it be quite so severe?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but assuming I have the gist, I can't see a reason to cast Tracy, Edna and Velma with black actors unless you're going for some kind of total reversal where all the white characters are played by black actors and vice versa. Even then, I'd consider it insanity.

If we were talking about a show that wasn't specifically about race, it wouldn't (or at least, shouldn't) matter.

If a company doing Hairspray (or really any show that needs non-white actors) doesn't think they are going to have any non-white people show up to audition, then I think they need to rethink their show choice.

I always thought (and thought I read on this board?) that the contract specifically states that Edna must be played by a male actor? Is that the case? Even though I understand why that would be and think it's a reasonable requirement, it seems odd to me that it's more important that Edna be played by a man than that the black characters are played by black actors. If Edna isn't required to be played by a man, I still don't agree that the black characters should be played by white actors.

I just think that letter they request be printed if white people are playing the black characters is very oddly written.

Updated On: 1/31/12 at 05:04 AM

[ajh]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 5:20am

The "Tracy" photo is of Leanne Jones from the Original London Cast

[NovaNurse7]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 8:58am

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it does seem incredibly strange to put on a show that is primarily about race and racial issues and then not have the actors to meet those racial requirements. The message of Hairspray probably lacks the same impact when the show is populated with all white actors.

On the other hand, my almost all-white high school with an all-white drama program put on a production of The Wiz. Granted, that show is not as obviously about race, and we did keep Dorothy in Kansas rather than New York City, but it was still weird to me that we chose that show when we lacked diversity in our actors. And while others did share my confusion, there was no fuss made about our choice of show, and it ended up being a really fun, well-done show. It made my school and town interested in theater, and if this town and its children are deriving a similar enjoyment from doing Hairspray, which is mostly a fun and upbeat show, then I find it difficult to condemn them for it.

[Patash]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 11:21am

Just playing devil's advocate here:

When a school does a show and of course has no old gray haired people to play the mature adult roles, no one gets the least bit upset when they put white shoe polish in their hair to impersonate old people.

When a school has no blonde strong enough to play Elle, no one gets upset when they plop a wig on a brunette.

When a school has no Puerto Rican kids, no one seems to get upset when West Side Story is filled with kids faking accents.

So why is that if a school has no black kids, everyone gets their panties in a twist when kids impersonate black kids (not making fun of them, simply impersonating them)?

Please don't say they just shouldn't be doing a show that requires people they don't have, since that would eliminate nearly any show anyone can think of!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 11:38am

When a school has no Puerto Rican kids, no one seems to get upset when West Side Story is filled with kids faking accents.

That's when I tuned out.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 11:57am

Actually Lizzie, I see the point there and I think it's an interesting one. What's the difference between white kids pretending to be latino or pretending to be black? The fact that it's easier to "pass" for latino doesn't make it any better or worse than playing a black role. It's still playing a different race other than your own.

Posted: 1/31/12 at 12:29pm

The King and I.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 12:40pm

Lizzie made it further than me. I was out when blonde wigs were used as an example equivalent to blackface.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 1:21pm

Oh, this kind of thing happens all the time!

It always works out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di_Jp_xvMbk

[Patash]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 1:28pm

"I was out when blonde wigs were used as an example equivalent to blackface."

Are you too old to take a course in reading comprehension? Where did you come up with the idea that the two were "equivalent"? But they are worth considering in comparison. Meanwhile, do you know the meaning of the term "devil's advocate"?

Clearly many people don't seem to mind impersonations of vocal characteristics, sex, age, nationality, or even race -- so long as it isn't black/white. Yet some are no more offended by a person changing skin color to play a role as they are by changing hair color. Perhaps that's a good thing -- that skin color shouldn't be any bigger issue than hair color or age.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 1:32pm

But they are worth considering in comparison

No, they really aren't.

[Patash]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 2:00pm

No not if you are more sensitive about skin color than you are about hair color -- and most people are. My point (as a devil's advocate since I know it can't really happen -- at least now) is that wouldn't it be a nice world if skin color were no more an issue than hair color? Wouldn't it be nice if we just saw skin color as a very minor difference in looks? Do you at least understand that point?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 2:09pm

Yes, it would be nice. I would love it if the world were that way. Alas, it is not.

[ChenoKahn]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 2:10pm

Phyllis, he makes a good point at the end comparing pretending to be black and latino though.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 2:20pm

Except it's not. Why? Because once upon a time in this country, it was legal to own black people. The entire Southern economy depended on the enslavement of black men, women and children. It's inescapable when dealing with issues of race in the theatre. In fact, most every play dealing with the black experience in America is in some way a struggle to deal with the fact that the United States of America, a country founded upon the ideas of liberty and self-determination, was born with institutionalized slavery.

Yes...in some sort of perfect America that does not and cannot exist, skin color should be regarded with no more interest than hair color. But that world...that America will never (I repeat, NEVER) exist. It is impossible.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 2:24pm

It's at least more comparable than hair color is as an analogy, yes. For the record, I'm not really that keen on seeing white folks play Latinos, either. Perhaps we've just not shifted enough as a culture to where that's seen as not acceptable. Perhaps because Latino is a much a culture as it is a race, the waters get muddied. There are white Latinos, as far as I understand. There are no white black people. But if we're going to have that discussion, we should have that discussion and not try and act as though it's the same thing as white actors playing the black characters in Hairspray.

Indeed, race is a tricky, uncomfortable issue, but part of the problem is that people think what-if examples somehow equalize everything, when they don't. It's similar to almost every other color-blind casting thread in which inevitably someone at some point will crow, "Well, how come we can't have a white Joe in Show Boat? Or a white Effie?" (doodle's link notwithstanding)




Updated On: 1/31/12 at 02:24 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 4:10pm

Even after black people could no longer be legally "owned" by whites in the U.S., they were banned from our stages and either banned from our audiences or confined to a special area such as the balcony. This wasn't just an ancient practice, either, but continued in some places well into the 1960s.

That is the history and context that makes "black face" (literal or approximate) different from white kids playing Latinos, old people, blondes, etc.

There might be a way around the problem in shows where black characters are minor roles or where race is not an issue, such as THE WIZ. But I honestly can't even imagine a production of HAIRSPRAY performed without African-Americans, given that race is the central issue of the play.

[ggersten]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 4:11pm

Shaiman does on occasion peruse and post here, so perhaps he'll have something to add. Years ago he posted on the all-white show choir which changed the lyrics to Run and Tell That. Off to the search function...
Ah here.... https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?boardid=1&boardname=bway&thread=938103#3080563


Run and Tell ... Updated On: 1/31/12 at 04:11 PM

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 4:54pm

On the subject of Once on This Island, my college did it in the fall, and I saw it.
My college's production features terrible, African-inspired choreography, choreographed by a white girl and performed by a cast of all white actors except for one black ensemble member who didn't have any solo lines.
Besides the choreography, the music alone led one to question what they were seeing.

Does anyone know what the changes are in production? Were there specific references to race in the original that were removed?


I think in the case of Hairspray, you have to have African American actors playing those parts. The very show hinges on the fact, and the songs reference race. The same goes for Ragtime, Show Boat, and many, many other shows.

[robbie_731]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 9:02am

Read Marc Shaiman's letter in full:

"A recent article out of Plano Texas reported of a children's theatre production of "HAIRSPRAY" that featured not a single black actor.

Many years ago, when MTI started preparing for the release of "HAIRSPRAY" for licensing to regional, community and children's theatre, the subject of "color-blind casting" was hotly debated. Starting the discussion with "absolutely no production can exist without actors who are the race of the characters" I was asked by a rep of MTI "Ok...what about in Japan?". "Oh..." I replied.

"How about South America? Scotland? Sweden?" they said. "Oh..." I replied.

I then remembered when Scott & I went to his summer stock alma mater when they performed HAIRSPRAY. Up to Vermont we drove only to see two Asian actors in Velma Von Tussle's "Nicest Kids In Town". This was a company of young actors put together to put on a bunch of shows that summer. Were we to stop the production because it was unrealistic that Velma would allow Asian teenagers to be on The Corny Collins Show? Would that not be a form of racism?

I thought back of when I musical directed a community theatre production of WEST SIDE STORY in Plainfield NJ in the early 70's. "Anita" was played by a African American (a beautiful woman named Audrey) who was probably in her 40's. And she was, probably, the only non-white in the cast. Should we not have been allowed to tell this story of the consequence of bigotry. Should Audrey not have been allowed to play Anita because she was black? Or 40?

By the way, the kid who played Tony was REALLY cute.

I have grown to realize that when you write a show -- particularly one you are lucky enough to see have a long life -- you are, in effect, giving birth to a child. And you try your hardest to teach that child what's right, instill good values -- and a sense of humor -- and then, when the time comes, send it out into the world. My mother and father raised me right, but would they be proud of every single choice I have made in my life since leaving home? Probably not. But they did their best, I do my best and we authors of HAIRSPRAY do ours.

A few years ago, we were horrified when pictures appeared online of a one weekend only bootleg production of our show in Italy that had people in full blackface. Really terrible images. By the time we saw the photos, the "production" had come and gone but we were put on red alert to what some people out there might do. So, we authors wrote a program letter that acknowledges that not every community on earth has the correct racial make-up to portray the characters in HAIRSPRAY as written. But that we did not feel it was correct to tell an actor they are incapable of portraying a character and hopefully moving an audience by inhabiting that character, regardless of their skin color. Which, ironically, is a huge part of the message of HAIRSPRAY. But that blackface was forbidden. Who knew we would even have to say that?

We also stress to every group that licenses it that the best solution is to look outside their community until every avenue is exhausted. There are literally (and lucky for us) thousands of productions out there. It is simply impossible to police every single one but MTI does a remarkable job. As do the folks who license it throughout the world.

I would ask for everyone to consider what I am saying here before assuming that greed and only greed has led to the decision to allow HAIRSPRAY to be performed to the best of the ability of each troupe that takes it on. This is an ongoing learning process, and we authors are doing our best to spread the right message and learn the lessons each production and each year brings us.

-Marc Shaiman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/all-white-production-of-h_n_1244955.html

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 9:30am

I still want to know if Edna is contractually required to be played by a man.

Also, there's a big difference between a production of the show in Japan and a production in Texas.
Updated On: 2/1/12 at 09:30 AM

[PattiLover]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 10:55am

I am an advocate of color blind casting, but if the script calls for something specific, you have to adhere to it.

It's not this theater's "right" to do Hairspray if they don't have the correct people to play the parts.

The USA has over 300 years of terrible race relations that we've been trying to correct, from our treatment of Indians and our treatment of Blacks to Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's etc. People forget that the USA is built on diversity, and sometimes those ethnic makeups clash with one another, sometimes violently. Musical Theatre is also a wholly original American art form, and it needs to reflect our history when we tell American stories.

This is a common sense thing. Nobody wants to see an all white Raisin in the Sun, but I wouldn't mind a Japanese Annie Oakley. Audra McDonald even played Evita...but Evita isn't a story with racial themes.

Hairspray takes place during one of the most crucial time periods in African American history, the Civil Rights movement. I don't care what this creative team in Plano was trying to accomplish. It was a stupid, stupid decision to do this show without the correct cast. I'd rather they'd have done Follies with tons of powder and pancake makeup than a production of Hairspray with not a single once of diversity.

[PattiLover]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 10:58am

"When a school has no Puerto Rican kids, no one seems to get upset when West Side Story is filled with kids faking accents."

I HATE it when High Schools in all-White suburban neighborhoods do West Side Story. I also hate it when they do The King and I with kids slathered in tan makeup with their eyes taped back. It's sickening and offensive. If you don't have the people to do the show, do Oklahoma instead.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 2:56pm

I love Marc Shaiman's work and while I don't know the man, he was once very kind to me when I needed a piece of information about a Judy Garland lyric.

But I strongly disagree with his letter, reprinted above.

And I think he should ask himself: if whites can play blacks in a play where race is the central issue, then why NOT use blackface? Why is confusion some sort of virtue in this matter?

On the contrary, if blackface is offensive (and it is, for historical reasons listed above), then why is "virtual" or "partial" blackface any better?

[Patash]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 8:16am

So if I'm reading some of you right, if a school is all white then they should never do shows about race since they don't have actors to play the roles. Good point. Keep those all white schools from learning or dealing with race issues. Interesting. God forbid an all white school should learn anything about other races.

Meanwhile, I realize that minstrel shows gave blackface a well-deserved bad name! It was horrible. But I fail to understand what white actors in silly blackface with white eyes shuffling across a stage and acting like idiots has to do with an actor as believably as possible playing someone of another race. Why is portraying a person of different color any different than portraying a person of different hair color, or age, or nationality (using a dialect)? Only because we can't seem to let go of the past when it was done is a negative way.