NY Times Today Editorial on "Gypsy"

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 12:05pm

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/audra-mcdonald-gypsy-broadway.html

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 1:26pm

McWhorter is always worth listening to, and I generally find myself impressed by how he makes me rethink my perspective even when I disagree with him but

this seemed like a very long way of saying "why make this a Black Gypsy" when the answer is "why not?" 

Sure they could have done colorblind multiracial that makes no historical sense- that would work just fine. Newsflash, Anne Boleyn wasn't Black and audiences are still able to enjoy SIX.

But then why would a Black Gypsy, admittedly also making no historical sense, not also be just fine? Why not?

[romain2]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 1:44pm

A few years ago Chicago had a Gypsy led by a Black actress, the great E. Faye Butler. And it was a terrific production. NYC feels so tentative and cautious at times because so much money is involved. 

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 1:47pm

I agree 100 percent with his opinion. He explained in great detail "why not".   The whole article was about "why not"

Theatre is storytelling about specific people in a specific time.And that makes a difference!   The color of that person in that time period makes a difference historically and dramatically. He makes all the points I have been wanting to say.  Using "Six" as an example is not relevant to this discussion. I wouldn't call SIX a great work of art.

Theatre is changing but it's not evolving. There is a difference. I applaud his opinion! And I am glad someone finally wrote about it. I have had the same opinion for some time now, and I have been called a racist for it. Which is highly insulting to me. I am glad a black man wrote about this.
 

Updated On: 6/16/24 at 01:47 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 2:20pm

nothing racist about disagreeing with him, but i dont follow. Gypsy with a Black family at its center is not historically accurate for all the reasons he says. But so is Gypsy with a Black leading actress and a white daughter and an Asian husband, etc. etc. Sadly, once Audra steps into the part (and we all agree that we want her to, yes?) then the historical accuracy of this (not at all historically accurate) story goes out the window. 

[binau]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 2:30pm

For me personally, I don’t really watch GYPSY thinking too much about reality. It’s just a vehicle for great theatre and for our divas to show off their star power and chops. Also, George C Wolfe is a director I have a lot of faith and trust in. If that’s how he wants to tell the story I’m willing to listen. It’s not that I disagree with the article, it’s just it feels to me very academic intellectual interpretation and taking everything a bit literally/seriously.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 3:27pm

How do you have "great theatre" that isn't rooted in reality?  Even a fantasty has it's "own" reality.   I love George C Wolfe but I don't think he has a magic wand that can change the historical reality of what being Black was like during this time period.  Why do we have dramaturgs? What is the point of them, if anyone can just rewrite history and historical reality?  Yes, the story is loosely based on Gypsy Rose Lee, and it's called a "musical fable" but that doesn't change the historical context. 

He makes the point far better than I do. But again, his opinion is not an academic opinion. It's the truth, and some people want to justify otherwise. 

[binau]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 3:52pm

Gurl I just want to hear that Gypsy overture and watch/listen to Audra slay in the role so I can fire the gay dopamine in my brain that seems to love divas in musicals more than most things in the world, and maybe at best seeing a bit more subtext in the characters from George C Wolfe's direction and racialisation of the characters (who is also a black man and thinks it's just fine apparently). 

I'm not personally going for a history lesson or to think about the specific time or place. That's what I mean by not caring about reality. If people want to debate this in a Columbia University classroom (or even on this forum) they are welcome to, I'm just saying I personally just want to have a good time and I can tell I'm going to no matter what race they cast. I would suggest most of the audience will feel the same, it's almost non-issue except to people that are perhaps taking it very literally and seriously. You're welcome to do that, I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm just trying to explain what I think.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 3:57pm

I don't agree with you but I appreciate the conversation. Thank you.

[RUkiddingme]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:03pm

Does this writer really have the inside scoop on casting for the other 3 leads?

Who knows who will be getting these roles.

[Speed]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:04pm

CurtainsUpat8 said: "I agree 100 percent with his opinion. He explained in great detail "why not". The whole article was about "why not"

Theatre is storytelling about specific people in a specific time.And that makes a difference! The color of that person in that time period makes a difference historically and dramatically. He makes all the points I have been wanting to say. Using "Six" as an example is not relevant to this discussion. I wouldn't call SIX a great work of art.

Theatre is changing but it's not evolving. There is a difference. I applaud his opinion! And I am glad someone finally wrote about it. I have had the same opinion for some time now, and I have been called a racist for it. Which is highly insulting to me. I am glad a black man wrote about this.
"

Is Hamilton a great work of art?  Newsflash: George Washington wasn't black.  Nor was Aaron Burr, sir.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:06pm

For me, it's that this editorial is speaking as if the production is already done and finished. He's asking why wouldn't Rose be trying to model her child's career trajectory after other black entertainers of the time period, but ignoring that depending on how light-skinned they cast the actors for Baby and Dainty June it could very easily be that she's trying to get June to viewed as white. It's not hard to imagine that Wolfe is trying to point out that this Rose wants more for her daughter who, again, depending on casting, could potentially pass as white. That's hardly an unknown circumstance, both historically and in musical theatre (such as Julie in Show Boat).

[Speed]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:07pm

CurtainsUpat8 said: "How do you have "great theatre" that isn't rooted in reality? Even a fantasty has it's "own" reality. I love George C Wolfe but I don't think he has a magic wand that can change the historical reality of what being Black was like during this time period. Why do we have dramaturgs? What is the point of them, if anyone can just rewrite history and historical reality? Yes, the story is loosely based on Gypsy Rose Lee, and it's called a "musical fable" but that doesn't change the historical context.

He makes the point far better than I do. But again, his opinion is not an academic opinion. It's the truth, and some people want to justify otherwise."

Hamilton.

[binau]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:07pm

RUkiddingme said: "Does this writer really have the inside scoop on casting for the other 3 leads?

Who knows who will be getting these roles."

I assume it's based on the casting notice, which was public and explicitly specifies the races they were looking for. 

[Strange Lupone]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:49pm

binau said: "Gurl I just want to hear that Gypsy overture and watch/listen to Audra slay in the role so I can fire the gay dopamine in my brain that seems to lovedivas in musicals more than most things in the world, and maybe at best seeing a bit more subtext in the characters from George C Wolfe's direction and racialisation of the characters (who is also a black man and thinks it's just fine apparently).

I'm not personally going for a history lesson or to think about the specific time or place. That's what I mean by not caring about reality. If people want to debate this in a Columbia University classroom (or even on this forum) they are welcome to, I'm just saying I personally just want to have a good time and I can tell I'm going tono matter what race they cast. I would suggest most of the audience will feel the same, it's almost non-issue except to people that are perhaps taking it very literally and seriously. You're welcome to do that, I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm just trying to explain what I think."


 

I can’t abide previews — it’s just a thing I have. I never attend them. But that gay dopamine you so eloquently speak of got me to buy a ticket for the first preview. There’s no way in HELL I can’t be part of the rapturous insanity that will greet the lights doing down, that fan-f*cking-tastic overture, her first walk up the aisle, and every minute thereafter. 
 

And I don’t care one whit for “historical accuracy” — and won’t, until video proves that Rose and Gypsy broke into song revealing their inner most thoughts. It’s musical theater, McWhorter. Reality is suspended at the door.

Updated On: 6/16/24 at 04:49 PM

[binau]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 4:57pm

The energy of first previews & closing night of most shows is unmatched. I love attending a first preview because you get to see the show without the preconceptions that word of mouth/reviews bring to it (e.g. we will get to make up our own mind on Audra's voice before we start having people debating about it or reviewers commenting on it), and you get to be the first people to see whatever surprises are to come (this is the first time a production of Gypsy has been in New York City without Arthur Laurents controlling directly or mingling in the background controlling it, such as the Sam Mendes Gypsy).

You made the right choice going to the first preview of Gypsy, trust me!! I will also be there. As will any gay who's who is New York. It's Christmas come early. 

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 6:02pm

Speed said: "CurtainsUpat8 said: "I agree 100 percent with his opinion. He explained in great detail "why not". The whole article was about "why not"

Theatre is storytelling about specific people in a specific time.And that makes a difference! The color of that person in that time period makes a difference historically and dramatically. He makes all the points I have been wanting to say. Using "Six" as an example is not relevant to this discussion. I wouldn't call SIX a great work of art.

Theatre is changing but it's not evolving. There is a difference. I applaud his opinion! And I am glad someone finally wrote about it. I have had the same opinion for some time now, and I have been called a racist for it. Which is highly insulting to me. I am glad a black man wrote about this.
"

Is Hamilton a great work of art? Newsflash: George Washington wasn't black. Nor was Aaron Burr, sir."

I agree 100 percent that Hamilton works as it was written.. BUT.... Hamilton was conceived this way.  It's a brilliant show that works on every level.  But it isn't an existing show that someone changed. That is huge difference. Hamilton is a very rare show. The show was written around a strong concept. It's not the same as taking an existing show, that is probably 70 years old and rewriting it to fit the concept Hamilton uses.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 6:34pm

I genuinely do not follow his reasoning why colorblind casting can be fine in this instance but race-conscious casting isn’t. In fact, his arguments would seem to apply equally to colorblind casting. 
 

(to say nothing of the fact he’s opining on a production that isn’t yet in performance, or even fully cast).

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 6:43pm

I'm with him for most of the op-ed, although in typical NYTimes fashion, it's sort of milquetoast and meanders to a non-ending.

The push for colorblind/inclusive casting is admirable and, when done well, brilliant. However, it's becoming studied, disingenuous and sometimes comes across as the casting version of that old, delusional liberal chestnut "I don't see color."

Perhaps the bigger question should be: Why aren't musical creators falling over themselves to write new plays and musicals for Audra McDonald instead of dragging shows like Gypsy, 110 in the Shade, and Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill out of the mothballs.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 7:57pm

This is a great question and it's THE QUESTION.  If theater is going to progress/evolve it shouldn't be with a show like Gypsy or Bye Bye Birdie that is tortured to make it work.  Create new works for everyone!  

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 6/16/24 at 9:38pm

This is a thoughtful piece that some seem to be misunderstanding, based on the responses I've seen to it around the internet. He's simply pointing out the challenges that crop up with "color conscious" casting versus "color blind" casting. In the latter, anyone can play anyone. In the former, questions of "is this believeable?" tend to rear their heads. He makes a strong case for asking if the story of this white family could have happened to a Black family in the same era. It reminds me of the discussions around the recent Company revival, and the awkwardness some perceived in turning Bobby into Bobbie and updating it to present day. 

It's a fair question, but I don't understand why he is hung up on "why" Audra will be playing Rose as a Black woman. It's simple: She and Wolfe are interested in exploring that. I have a feeling it might not make complete sense(similar to the new Company), but I think most people will be interested in this new angle. If not, most people will overlook it and just enjoy watch a great performer in a great part. 

[dtlajim]

Posted: 6/17/24 at 12:40am

Kad said: "I genuinely do not follow his reasoning why colorblind casting can be fine in this instancebut race-conscious casting isn’t. In fact, his arguments would seem to apply equallyto colorblind casting.


From what I've seen "colorblind" casting is completely race-conscious & a misnomer. The rather rigid race-conscious rules appear to be: 1. White people are restricted to portraying only white people. 2. People of color can portray any & all "white" roles. 3. People of color can only portray people of color of their same race, they can portray no other race. Doesn't seem race blind at all. Otherwise all actor would be able to portray any race they wish. "The Octaroon" is the play I've ever seen that made an attempt to be truly colorblind. 

 

[Impeach2017]

Posted: 6/17/24 at 1:46am

In a way, this "alternate universe" that is currently in vogue now is an insult to those who experienced racism and segregation in the past.  Indeed, burlesque was segregated at that time, not to mention many hotels and other venues.  Also, it must be very strange to Gypsy's son, who is still alive and kicking, to be informed that your mother is now a black woman, and your aunt is bi-racial passing as white, apparently from an extra-marital liaison.  But most of the people panting for this production remember perhaps the last 15 minutes on TikTok, so it really doesn't matter.

[binau]

Posted: 6/17/24 at 4:04am

This is the tricky situation with these kinds of issues - you can never win because the ideas and goal posts keep changing. And there is so much infighting between people who are trying to achieve the same goals. Is this an ‘insult’ or is it just a musical trying to tell a story? I think we are focussing on the wrong issues here personally. And while we are doing this we are also starting to take away what should be a celebration - a black Rose, a black Louise and June, with an iconic and important black musical theatre director - and turning it into something sour. We can keep doing this but I don’t think it’s going to achieve the goals you want either. It’s just more division and infighting. The audience are adults not children and I think they can probably recognise some of these issues without needing to make a big deal out of it. 
 

No one is walking out of this production of Gypsy thinking it’s giving them a historical lesson on racism or real people. It’s not a documentary and it’s hinted in the title ‘a musical fable’. And if we’re lucky they might actually be walking out with a more complex understanding of the racial dynamics and challenges of success in this environment.  Is this not what we want?

This is a microcosm of a wider societal problem on the west that we do seem to prefer fighting between us than solving problems. I get the sense that things are calming down a little bit. And it’s why I don’t think this issue is going to go anywhere after this thread dies. But come on - can we please trust black artists to tell the story they want to tell about black people without catastrophising what the meaning of this? This is good literary academic criticism in the theoretical environment of a class room or perhaps this forum. But not real life. 
 

 

Updated On: 6/17/24 at 04:04 AM

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 6/17/24 at 6:32am

“But it’s it accurate/believable!!!” is such a red flag. Tell me your lack imagination and creativity without….

None of you are complaining about these same problems with every other show on Broadway. It’s very telling. We can only suspend our disbelief for so much - and the rest we’re giving passes to because, I don’t know, it doesn’t fit the narrative of the commenter (“no Hamilton is a ~special show~ so it works but I cannot believe a black women playing Gypsy”) 

We’re also suddenly unhappy with the gift that is Audra in Lady Day and other works? It’s all just so silly.