Rodgers and Hammerstein on Revivals (Question)- Page 2

[joevitus]

Posted: 8/20/19 at 10:16pm

HogansHero said: "ChairinMain said: "It should be noted that in my recent experience, color blind casting has, in fact, been challenged as dated - a recent production at a high level regional theater, for example, was criticized for casting actors of color only as the show's villains; that sort of thing.The stated goal of many companies performing standard work is now "color- conscious" casting along with color-blind or non-traditional. "color-conscious" being a casewhere an actor's race is taken into account in order to avoid roles becoming tinged with stereotype or to provide a nontraditional point of view."

I am confused by your example, because it seems to be what you are calling color-conscious casting. And I am not sure how color-blind casting is "dated" when we see it almost constantly."

The meaning is that the term is dated and thus the mentality behind it. "Color-blind" suggests "I don't see color" and out of date platitude, whereas "color-consciousness" indicates being very aware of race and the differences of racial experience in American, which is a very contemporary and "in" notion. But all this was explained in the post itself.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/20/19 at 10:56pm

But we have lots of current examples of color blind casting that would seem to make a joke of the notion that it is out of date. Or are you just suggesting a semantic change? {still confused}

[joevitus]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 12:39am

No, it's more than that. I'm saying that while you may see a person of color cast in a traditionally white role and say to yourself "this is an example of color-blind casting," the people who cast the show almost surely thought they were involved in an example of "color-conscious casting," a difference in title which is more than just semantics because it reflects change in the relation they see between the role and what it will mean to put a person of color into it than the principle of "color-blind" casting used to.

Updated On: 8/21/19 at 12:39 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 12:50am

I (obviously) don't know what you do, but with no offense intended let me suggest you spend some time talking or listening to some folks who actually make theatre: casting directors, directors, producers, artistic directors, etc. before making assertions that sound to me like an idea chasing a reality.

[joevitus]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 10:51am

I don't understand the waspish tone. The concept of "color-conscious" casting isn't at all new in the theater at this point, and anyone currently in the business likely uses that term with that meaning rather than an outdated one. You keep saying you see instances of "color- blind" casting all the time, but are you talking to the people in the show and know they are using that term with that meaning, rather than the term "color-consciousness" with it's meaning? I just sound like you're putting the casting decisions you see down to one concept when likely it's the other. 

[AADA81]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 1:47pm

R & H were very specific about the creation of their shows and very particular about revivals, which they often produced or oversaw during their lifetimes.  I'm not surprised that Rogers would have taken exception to straying too far from the original concept of his shows and I understand what he had that perspective.  As times change, approaching older material can become trickier as sensibilities change and so adaptation almost becomes a necessity.  A total reinvention, however, can take an author's intent and flush it right down the toilet.

That said, I was quite skeptical about the current Oklahoma! revival but saw it because I love the show.  Initially off put, I ended up thoroughly enjoying it.  If a production works, it works.

I will add, I've never quite gotten the R&H reputation for happy, idyllic, family-friendly shows because most of their work has dark undercurrents and discomfiting themes, including Oklahoma!.  There's so much more to them than "A Cock-Eyed Optimist" and "Climb Ev'ry Mountain".

[MollyJeanneMusic]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 3:12pm

AADA81 said: "I will add, I've never quite gotten the R&H reputation for happy, idyllic, family-friendly shows because most of their work has dark undercurrents and discomfiting themes, including Oklahoma!.There's so much more to them than "A Cock-Eyed Optimist" and "Climb Ev'ry Mountain"."

It's Sound of Music.  Thanks to that show, specifically "Do-Re-Mi" and "My Favorite Things," Sound of Music became the backbone of children's introduction to musicals, alongside Disney.  

As for the "color-conscious" vs. "color-blind" debate, I think it's a semantics change that also carries a little more weight.  A show like Carousel would be color-blind, because any changes to the race of specific characters are more for the appearance of diversity, even if (in the case of Joshua Henry as Billy Bigelow) there are unintended consequences to particular decisions.  (Although, I heard his Soliloquy on Sirius XM today and it still holds up - if the rest of the cast had been more diverse, his casting would've worked really well).  Shows like Ragtime, Parade, and The Scottsboro Boys are color-conscious because they specifically deal with racial issues and make a point of it with their casting decisions.  Ragtime wouldn't work if Coalhouse Walker, Jr. wasn't played by a black man; neither would it work if Tateh wasn't played by a white man.

An interesting point of discussion is shows like Hadestown, Hamilton, and Great Comet: shows where the race of characters doesn't really matter for the plot of the story, but the casting directors specifically try to diversify the cast.  They wouldn't be "color-conscious," because they don't specifically deal with racial issues; however, they wouldn't be "color-blind," because the actors' race can make a difference in the minds of audience-goers (just ask Okieriete Onaodowan and Mandy Patinkin).

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 3:18pm

OlBlueEyes said: "I have no degree in theater; I will just make one observation and apply it only to myself.

The 2018 revival of Carousel, which ran for 180 performances and 40 previews, cast a black man in the role of Billy. Had I seen this production with no advance knowledge of Carousel, and noted the evident direct comparison between Billy and Mr. Snow, I would have taken it that the book author was, at least in part, telling us that black men in comparison to white were more shiftless, lazy, prone to wife abuse and crime, including murder. I think that I would have been justified in drawing these conclusions and that Oscar would have been appalled that Carousel was being used to promote such conclusions.

R&H would have been correct in not allowing this production so cast, but I doubt that they had any control over casting and race."

I never voiced my opinion publicly on this board but this is exactly how I felt when I first learned that Joshua Henry was cast as "Billy Bigelow" in the recent 2018 revival of "Carousel". I couldn't believe that the producers and casting directors could be that incredibly tone deaf as to not see how this casting could be construed in that way. 

I am all for diversity in casting, when it is done responsibly and if it honors the text and the intention of the piece and does not compromise it for the sake of being "edgy", "current" or "woke". 

[AADA81]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 9:11pm

CarlosAlberto said: "OlBlueEyes said: "I have no degree in theater; I will just make one observation and apply it only to myself.

The 2018 revival of Carousel, which ran for 180 performances and 40 previews, cast a black man in the role of Billy. Had I seen this production with no advance knowledge of Carousel, and noted the evident direct comparison between Billy and Mr. Snow, I would have taken it that the book author was, at least in part, telling us that black men in comparison to white were more shiftless, lazy, prone to wife abuse and crime, including murder. I think that I would have been justified in drawing these conclusions and that Oscar would have been appalled that Carousel was being used to promote such conclusions.

R&H would have been correct in not allowing this production so cast, but I doubt that they had any control over casting and race."

I never voiced my opinion publicly on this board but this is exactly how I felt when I first learned that Joshua Henry was cast as "Billy Bigelow" in the recent 2018 revival of "Carousel". I couldn't believe that the producers and casting directors could be that incredibly tone deaf as to not see how this casting could be construed in that way.

I am all for diversity in casting, when it is done responsibly and if it honors the text and the intention of the piece and does not compromise it for the sake of being "edgy", "current" or "woke"."

When I saw the initial cast photos with Joshua Henry, I also wondered if the production was trying to make some kind of statement regarding race or prejudice.  I couldn't see what that statement might be, but I did wonder.  When I saw the production, it seemed that there was no statement in any way about race/prejudice .... just color blind casting.  That said, it's marmalade-skies to think that race never plays a role by who is cast.  We live in one of the most overtly racist times in generations.  To think that casting can be color blind is to be blind.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/21/19 at 10:03pm

AADA81 said: "it's marmalade-skies to think that race never plays a role by [sic] who is cast. We live in one of the most overtly racist times in generations. To think that casting can be color blind is to be blind."

No one has suggested that "race never plays a role." Of course it can and does, for a variety of reasons. 
 

Your next sentence seems like a non-sequitur, unless you are suggesting that there are no people who are not racist in this business. That's pretty sad and horrifying if you honestly believe it.

Casting can and frequently is color blind. This desire to state rules of universal application will get you in trouble every time.

 

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 12:25am

Carlos Alberto. You should have your opinion heard here more often. The worst they can do is call you names. You get used to it.

There are grave historical problems in casting Billy as a carnival barker in 1876 New England. Blacks would probably not be admitted to the amusement park. Certainly a black man could not have been working on a carousel talking and touching the white women.

Racial intermarriage, as Oscar taught us in Show Boat, was illegal in many states and not favored in the others. In fact Abe Lincoln, in the Fourth Lincoln Douglas debate in September,1858, stated that 

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people....

I saw here today that the new production of The Music Man is casting Tommy, the boyfriend of the Mayor's daughter, and that he may be of any ethnicity. An Hispanic or an Asian young man in 1912 River City, Iowa? I guess the audience could accept that, but Music Man is perhaps the most successful sentimental musical, and I'm not sure that audiences that grew up on the film version really want to have to work that hard. I honestly don't know how that goes down with the audience.

So I was thinking about the Brits and how their historical dramas never seem to bother with such matters. Typing in "Downton Abbey diversity" brought up an interesting article on the subject. Apparently British creatives can still get away with "Just Say No" to diversity in casting. Historical accuracy comes first.

Challenged on the diversity issue, Gareth Neame, executive producer, has said the series had a duty to depict the class system as it was – and “Britain was not a multicultural country in 1920”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/downton-abbey-popular-in-america-because-there-are-no-black-people-in-it-claims-barry-humphries-a6796746.html

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 9:59am

@BlueEyes what you are evoking is what I mentioned earlier: the race fixation that is part and parcel of the U.S. pathology. Do you look at a production and find a lack of verisimilitude when a character has blond hair instead of brown? Of course you don't: that's not something on which we are fixated.

Regarding Downton, first of all it is apples and oranges. (It's a TV show, not a play.) Secondly, I could do without the racist link which is just gross. Finally, the notion that the British can't see beyond skin color in casting is startlingly myopic. As a salient example, do you think Adrian Lester (who essentially made a career of playing people sans any racial fixation) an impediment to audiences? The idea would be nonsense.  

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 10:06am

The whole use of Downton Abbey in this argument is disingenuous; the show is neither whitewashing nor using "forced diversity." If I recall, the second to last season dealt with issues of race explicitly, as a white member of the aristocracy was challenged in her desire for an interracial relationship with a black American musician.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 10:10am

OlBlueEyes said: "Carlos Alberto. You should have your opinion heard here more often. The worst they can do is call you names. You get used to it.

Thank you. 

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 12:47pm

HogansHero said: "@BlueEyes what you are evoking is what I mentioned earlier: the race fixation that is part and parcel of the U.S. pathology. Do you look at a production and find a lack of verisimilitude when a character has blond hair instead of brown? Of course you don't: that's not something on which we are fixated.

Regarding Downton, first of all it is apples and oranges. (It's a TVshow, not a play.) Secondly, I could do without the racist link which is just gross. Finally, the notion that the British can't see beyond skin color in casting is startlingly myopic. As a salient example, do you think Adrian Lester (who essentially made a career of playing people sans any racial fixation)an impediment to audiences? The idea would be nonsense."

How fortunate we are that you, who found this thread too tediously repetitive of other threads, and could only make a few passing comments, are now "all in."

I wasn't going to mention this, but you were guilty of a complete Non Sequitur here.

 In addressing race in casting, I think we (a) can choose to cast color-blind, or not, and (2) no matter how hard we try to be color blind, we need to be mindful that in the US (and unfortunately this is a cancer that's spreading elsewhere) our brains are hard-wired to notice race (in a way that we do not apply to, say, hair color) 

If our brains are hard-wired to notice race, then we can not choose to not notice race. In that case our brains would be programmable, as most believe.

An old argument.

Nellie: "I can't help it. It was born in me."

Emile: "I do not believe it is born in you!"

Cable: "It's not born in you. It happens after you're born."

If you think that different casting rules apply to historical dramas presented on stage versus historical dramas committed to film (as the case with the film Downton Abbey just shot), I don't see the distinction. I'm just talking about diversity casting, as is the case of the mayor's daughter's boyfriend in Music Man being an Asian or a black for no other reason than to open up more jobs for ethnic entertainment.

Which quote do you find racist? Lincoln? Do you believe that the country is more racist now than during slavery, reconstruction, segregated schools, white flight (which quietly seems to have disappeared) and race riots?

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 1:27pm

@BlueEyes

1. I never suggested we were beyond redemption; I said it was something of which we had to remain mindful. And what is surprising to me about this thread is that a lot of people seem to be writing dissertations about things that they don't know anything about. 

2. Re film vs theatre, my point was that they are different genres and it confuses the discussion. We also don't use CGI in the theatre. We cannot even make someone look shorter or taller by editing. It's apples and oranges. Like I said.

3. What I said was racist was the link, not a quote. There was only one.

4. When I choose (or anyone else chooses) to enter, leave, and re-enter a thread does not strike me as a valid point. Like most of us, I post (a) when I have time, (b) when something motivates me to, and (c) especially when I read things that are wrong. It seems you do the same.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 2:28pm

A Director said: "
Pray tell, how did you feel about Audra playing Carrie in the previous revival of the show?

"

I didn't see that production either, but Carrie isn't a wastrel or a criminal and does not beat her spouse. She's a good friend, a busy mother and a loving wife; if these are stereotypes of black women in America, I doubt anyone objects.

Now as for the latest Broadway revival (which is beautifully sung on the OBCR), I inferred from another's post that Billy was the only or nearly the only African American in the show. The character touches on a number of negative stereotypes of black men as lazier (i.e., more "shiftless" in the parlance of the period), more criminal and more violent than other men. Surely if you have spent more than an hour in this country, I don't have to explain why neglecting to give a black actor a multiracial context is problematic for that particular role. If I misunderstood what Blue Eyes was saying, by all means, just tell me and I'll change my mind.

Porgy's Bess, on the other hand and in my opinion, exists in the context of a black community of all sorts of people. The monster that is Crown is contrasted by the loyal, even heroic, love of Porgy. I realize Paulus, McDonald & Co. felt other aspects were problematic and changed them with the permission of those who hold the rights to Porgy and Bess. I haven't talked to them, but I have heard from other African Americans on the subject of that particular opera and I appreciate their objections. I think giving Porgy a cane instead of a goat cart (as I have heard was done) is a terrible decision and ought to be picketed by disabled rights advocates everywhere. I think putting the Gershwins' name in the title is just as crassly commercial as it was when Meredith Willson did it. Otherwise, I can't tell what all was changed from the OBCR, but the Houston Grand Opera production of the early 1970s probably spoiled me for good when it comes to P&B. I look forward to seeing what the Met does in January.

Yes, every choice made in a production means something. But what it means is determined by the context of the production and the context of the society in which the choice is made.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 2:31pm

A Director said: "GavestonPS said:
Look at the sacrificial lambs in his shows:

SHOW BOAT -- Julie:not dead but disappeared

> This what happens in Edna Ferber's novel. In the novel, Gaylord disappears. In the novel Capin' Andy falls off the CottenBlossom during a storm.


OKLAHOMA! -- Jud

> Oscar is following Lynn Riggs.

"

You've picked two examples out of more than a few. I'm not conversant enough with OHII/Kern operettas, but many of them also follow the same pattern according to the dissertation I (so vaguely) cited.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 2:34pm

Someone in a Tree2 said: "The above comment just reinforces Ol Blue Eyes’ thesis: most of those playwright’s works feature casts where African Americans are in the majority. Had they cast CAROUSEL with a chiefly African American cast, Billy Bigelow’s color would have ceased to be an issue, and the depiction of that character with all his flaws would have had nothing to do with race."

 

Thank you. I thought I had said the same, but apparently not as well.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 2:37pm

GavestonPS said: "Yes, every choice made in a production means something. But what it means is determined by the context of the production and the context of the society in which the choice is made."

Yes of course, but what seems to escape some in this thread is that sometimes that choice is simply to cast the actor who you think will give the most thrilling performance, without loading it with subtext.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 2:46pm

HogansHero said: "A Director said: "Oh dear! The phrase "color-blind" is so last century. Today, the preferred phrase in non-traditionalcasting. Color-blind casting implies you don't see the person as a person."

You are confounding two separate things, and "color blind" is neither dated nor disrespectful. (In fact, I would suggest it elevatesthe person qua person, rather than defining them in terms of their race, which is, sadly, the first thing we are conditioned as Americans to notice.) "Non-traditional" refers to an intention to cast an actor with different attributes than the scripted (or historical, if applicable) ones; "color-blind" refers to casting without any attributionalintention at all."

The problem in my view, Hogan, is that I don't believe we are in any way "post racial" in this country--and the evidence that we are not is tragically on display from the White House and more of the country than I once thought possible.

I don't believe anyone of any racial category is really "color blind". Even less do I believe a director can assume her audience will not notice the races of the cast.

I'm not condemning everyone. I think the point is what we do with the biases we have received in our lives. Are we sufficiently self-aware to mostly restrain ourselves from acting on prejudices we know to be untrue? And is the work of artists sufficiently self-aware to avoid reinforcing nonsense?

(In case anyone is still confused as to what I think, I am all for casting men of color as Billy Bigelow. Just don't make him the only black guy in the play. We ain't there yet.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 3:18pm

HogansHero said: "Yes of course, but what seems to escape some in this thread is that sometimes that choice is simply to cast the actor who you think will give the most thrilling performance, without loading it with subtext."

But that's really not good enough reason if you end up reinforcing racial biases in your audience. If you want to cast a black actor as Billy just because he's the best Billy you can find, go for it! But then recognize the problem in Billy being the only black man on stage and rethink the rest of the 20- or 30-odd people in the cast.

Your post and Blue Eyes' discussion of historical verisimilitude point to something I've thought for a long time: if we really care about diversity on stage, we need to let go of our love affair with Realism as a style of theater. We've already done so with Shakespeare (except for Othello and Shylock); why not bring diversity to later centuries as well?

The answer, of course, is that giving up Realism may mean giving up the best plays of Williams, Miller and even August Wilson! And also some of the most beloved musicals of the alleged Golden Age, which were as "realistic" as any musical can be. And I don't think anybody wants to make that sacrifice.

[joevitus]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 3:57pm

I really love your posts Gaveston. Thoughtful and interesting. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/22/19 at 7:30pm

@gaveston I don't think we are "post-racial" (would that we were). I also think (as I think you acknowledge) that it is easier to cast "blind" with non-modern settings (and we see it a lot). With more modern pieces (and this could include your Billy point), even if the casting decision was not intended to have a racial component, there can be unintended consequences. (We talk about unintended consequences here all the time in non-racial contexts, e.g., a lack of chemistry, a powerful actor who overshadows a weaker one, etc.) But to say no casting is done blindly is, for anyone who has ever been involved in the process, just wrong. 

We don't have to abandon realism in all modern settings either. Certainly in romantic or family situations it is unlikely that our "hard wiring" leaves open the possiblility of blindness, but we see it frequently in office settings, as an example, among friends and neighbors, etc. 

You've raised good and reasonable points, devoid of the absolutism I reacted against. I agree it is thoughtful and interesting.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 8/23/19 at 9:08am

Hogan, my problem with you as a poster is simple. Reading your posts here, they all consist of declarative sentences. The truth is handed down to you from Mount Olympus and you in turn enlighten all those beneath you. You have no doubts. Any disagreement is dismissed, with no attempt to soften the blow and often with a pejorative statement thrown in such as the person needs to get out more or the person is one of a surprisingly ignorant group. To others no compliments, no concession of a single point.

Your last statement in you last post is the only contradiction that I can find, and it was made to one who certainly towers over me as to knowledge and expression of knowledge.

I don't suppose that you will see any validity in what I've written above. Meant not as attack but as a criticism. Perhaps you don't realize how you come across. Or perhaps there is no general agreement with what I've said.