Featured Actor Joined: 5/21/04
Wow..I can't believe that in this day and age, dear midtowngym, that you would hold such a racist attitude.
Grow up and take a look around the world. Or take a look out of your padded cell and see the different colors and the different ideas. People like you make me ashamed to be in theater.
For God's sake, if you have a problem with the casting DON'T GO!!! I, for one, would rather the role be sung and acted well, even if the person looked like the frigging elephant man, than done with mediocrity by a slender white woman.
A lot of the classics dont specifically mention the race of a character yet have traditionally been played by non-minorities. If casting directors stuck with this, then no minorities, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, etc. would ever get a role, especially since there arent a whole lot of roles being written specifically for minorities these days. Plus as many have said this is a concert rather than a full production and the story itself is fiction. Why cant we just look at the story and the art, and not the ethnicity of all the performers? Unless it is an historic figure or race is essential to the story, it shouldn't matter. As a minority who loves theatre, I find it absolutely wonderful to see great performers who look like me on stage, particularly in roles I love that havent featured minorities. Gives me something to aspire to and, to be honest, its a great way to get more minorities to the theatre as both consumers and perfomers.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
Oh, and Midtown- by mentioning Nazis, you've invoked Godwin's law. You lose. :) Updated On: 8/19/04 at 12:01 AM
I thought AM did an amazing job with Carrie Pippenridge in "Carousel."
SueleenGay said it best. I'd rather have someone who "can" do it and not "look" the part than someone who "can't" do it, but "look" the part.
Chorus Member Joined: 8/19/04
First of all--this thread made me decide to post my first message.
Not to break this issue down to "petty" high school productions of Sondheim, but my senior year of high school I appeared in "Sunday"--with a dazzling, wonderful young black actress playing Dot. She had an amazing stage presence, great diction, and an excellent hold on Sondheims difficult, difficult lyrics. The audience (age range from 15-75) had absouetly no probelm whatsoever.
Now,speaking as a young african american theatrical, I agree more parts SHOULD be written with minorties in mind--but theres still that little issue of a few hundred years of theatre where stories were written in times where minorties wern't exactly present. I say we encourage minorties in theatre to tackle these roles--who are we to say that a role must be handled "this" way or "that" way?
I say we let the best young actress in musical theatre (who just happens to be black) tackle one of the best roles for a young actress in musical theatre.
(cue applause, dim the lights.)
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
Look, it's not right to pick on Midtown Gym regarding this sometimes very complicated issue that isn't black and white (no pun intended) and where it simply isn't possible to come up with one general standard, one rule that fits every production, every play, every role and every actor. Theatre is about suspension of disbelief and we who love it and see a lot of it are used to being asked to accept all manner of stage conventions, artificial affects and creative casting choices in furtherance of the overall artistic vision of a given production -- and not all of them work all of the time and in every case. In theatre, playwrights, directors, actors and designers are seeking to promote an illusion of truth/an alternative form of reality, and any element on the stage that interferes with that illusion can break the spell and undercut the "story" being told.
Given the proper context by the writing and the direction etc... audience members can accept the notion that in such an alternative reality, people can suddenly break into song and dance at the drop of a hat (with a full orchestra supporting them), that a well-arranged set of Xmas lights can be the night sky, that a well-lit circle of cardboard can be the moon, that a hunk of styrofoam with plastic grass can be a mountain, that two lone chairs on a bare stage can be a car or a ferris wheel or a covered wagon or a spaceship -- theatre truly is magical thing.
Audiences can seemingly accept and go along with almost any theatrical convention you throw at them. The only exception seems to be -- in some cases -- certain forms of nontraditional casting in certain shows. If the actor cast in the role of stunningly beautiful person isn't (subjectively to a certain audience member) stunningly beautiful, or the young femme fatale character is played by someone clearly over 50 or if a man plays a female character (I know people who couldn't/wouldn't understand why Harvey Fierstein was cast as Edna in "Hairspray" and refused to see it), or, yes, if a black actor plays a role traditionally played by a white actor, for certain audience members it destroys the basic illusion presented by the play, it's too distracting or too unrealistic that they find it impossible to "go along with" the story being told.
The case of Audra McDonald is an interesting one. She came to fame and won her first Tony playing Carrie Pipperidge opposite a white Mr. Snow in Maine of the 1870s. I can remember John Simon and other critics noting at the time that such an interracial couple would simply never have existed at that time and that (I wish I could remember Simon's exact words), it was a breach of the piece's versimilitude and a ridiculous case of nontraditional casting. Well, Simon was certainly quite right historically that there probably weren't a whole heck of a lot of interracial couples in a small 19th century New England fishing village -- in fact, there were probably none. I suppose for Mr. Simon, McDonald's very presence on the stage ruined the entire show for him -- that he was totally fine with the styrofoam rocks and the cardboard trees and the 28 piece orchestra, but as soon as a black woman wandered out singing "When I Marry Mr. Snow" it spoiled the entire experience for him. I guess someone should have told Nicholas Hyner that "Carousel" was supposed to be a documentary on 19th century New England life and not a musical comedy. Amazingly (!), the vast majority of the audience quickly forgot about such matters as soon as McDonald opened her mouth and began to sing (if any of them had even thought about such things to begin with) and willingly and gleefully suspended their disbelief, warmly embracing what everyone could see was the emergence of a major new star in their midsts. For most of the audience other than Simon, McDonald and the great black opera star Shirley Verrett as Nettie were not only "accepted" as the characters they were portraying, they were two of the main highlights of the entire production.
McDonald playing Dot is apparently also problematic for some. It's fine apparently that all of these fictional 19th century French people wander about speaking and singing in American-accented English or that paintings come to life and sing or that cardboard cut-outs of soldiers have affairs or that cardoard dogs have their own musical numbers -- but Dot couldn't have been black because the women in the painting were apparently white (though George had no problem making green hats red and didn't spend any time depicting any of faces in the painting with any level of detail -- the color and the characteristics of all of the faces in that painting are very generic .... none of them look like Bernadette Peters or anybody else for that matter and the real Seurat clearly had no interest in depicting them with any accuracy).
We know nothing whatsoever about the real Seurat or how his color pallette reflected real life and it's silly to even speculate on such matters. Artists clearly see light and color and composition in their own unique ways. To take another example, we do know that much of Picasso's cubist experiments with painting portraits and faces were based on and heavily influenced by the shapes and linear contours of African masks, all of which were originally the color dark brown or ebony. In his paintings, however those faces appeared to be white, yellow, red, blue, brown and every color of the rainbow.
Can be we so sure that a visionary such as Seurat didn't use some non-white models for "La Grande Jatte"? Especially considering that that island was mostly frequented by working class individuals, some of whom (in terms of actual history) would have been in the 1880s in Paris, domestics of African descent? Without overplaying this particular speculation, there truly is no reason that the fictional character of Georges Seurat couldn't have had a black artist model (or two) during that period in Paris (artists models typically came from the lower classes, a small but significant portion of which would have been of African descent in that period). And given that both the real and the fictional Seurat had little interest in accurately depicting faces and played extensively with the color pallette for skin tones, fabric tones, water and grass tones ....... who's to say that he didn't have a black girlriend or mistress that ended up depicted in the same amorphous pink-ish hue as the rest of the people in the painting?
One last thing -- I remember seeing the play "Kit Marlowe" at the Public a few years back which dealt with the playwright Christopher Marlowe. It was partially based on the historical record -- what little is known of Marlowe -- and included a few well-known historical figures as characters. One such character was Sir Walter Raleigh, a friend, patron and confidant of Marlowe's and in this production, Raleigh was played by the fine African-American actor Keith David. Now, most of us know that the real life Raleigh was an English nobleman and as white as they come. David, a great stage actor, played the role with such charisma and power and panache that his color became utterly irrelevant. At intermission, I remember having a conversation about the issue of David's casting with several of the friends I attended the show with (about 6 of us). When I raised the question, I got several blank looks, and then sudden jolts of recognition. I discovered during the conversation that all of us had had the same initial reaction of "Hmmmmm, "interesting" choice...." upon David's first entrance when we realized that the character Sir Walter Raleigh (whom we, of course, all knew was a white man) was being played by a black actor. But, David was so utterly brilliant in the role and so dominated every scene he had been in that by the time of intermission when I raised the question, each of my very smart and very critical friends had completely forgotten whatever their initial trepidations might have been and by the end of the play's first scene completely accepted David as Raleigh and thought it was a wonderful casting choice.
Great actors can do that. They make you forget color and race and age and aesthetics and even gender ...... if they're REALLY good. They make audiences forget the limitations of the body and focus on the qualities of the soul. Great actors can so inhabit a character that it fools the eye and alters the mind.
Not every actor can play every role in every production -- that's why nontraditional casting has to be done with care and intelligence and common sense. And when race somehow plays a role in the story being told, one has to be especially careful. But, I think that in many many instances, great performers have the ability to overcome most people's perceptions and pre-conceived notions and transcend any boundaries that age, gender and ethnicity might place upon them in order to give life to and sustain a theatrical illusion.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
Once again, Margo, you have helped me to consider my own thoughts and presented ideas in a way that is non-judgemental. Thank you.
May I add, that when members here resort to the tried-and-true 'racist' label, they lose all credibility with me.
I can understand where midtowngym is coming from and I can support his thoughts. For participants on this board to pull the racist card is wrong and insensitive.
I personally could understand and accept Audra Mc Donald
in Sunday In The Park With George in a concert presentation, but I wouldn't want to see a black actress playing the role in a full production. It wouldn't sit right. I'm all for 'colourblind' casting where appropriate but in some instances it is (historically) incorrect. A black cockney Eliza Dolittle would be as wrong as a white cast Raisin or Purlie, or how about a white/ blonde cast for Bombay Dreams.
I think this is the point he is making. Chill people!
Thanks ego. I've gotten several PM's in support too. I guess it's too hot of a topic for some to publicly support.
Thanks, but who put **** in my reference to My Fair Lady?!?
Now that is over sensitive, I don't get it.
Stand-by Joined: 8/30/03
You know, I think Audra is quite light skinned anyway. I think it would be a little different if someone with the complexion of, say, Whoopi Goldberg played the part. This is like Halle Berry making a big deal of her being black, when her mother is white and she certainly has white-looking features.
Ok...I'm going to tell a little story of how non-traditional casting can not only hurt a production, but also send an unintentionally racist message.
There is a young actor working today in NY that some of you know who played Young Joe Hardy in DAMN YANKEES. As most of you know, there is that magical moment where Old Joe is singing GOODBYE, OLD GIRL and walks through his front door and is magically 40 (or however many) years younger. Problem with this production? Old Joe was black. So...the magic of that moment was lost, not only because the audience had to deal with a race change...but also a very disturbing statement. In order for this man to go back and be a hero for his baseball team, he had to go from being a feeble old black man to a virile, young white man.
I'm in no way advocating against non-traditional casting. I'm a big proponent of it. BUT...all I'm saying is that if one is going to make the choice, one must consider the implications it will have on the script and for the audience sitting in the theatre. Are you prepared to deal with any unintentional statements or incongruities in the script? Very few things can't be overcome through subtext...so do the work.
Well, I remember reading reports that AM received hate mail regarding her role as Grace in the Rob Marshall directed for TV "Annie." Critics had no problem praising her performance. But for Victor Garber playing Daddy Warbucks, suggesting that Annie, Grace, and himself all be one big happy family was more than some people could take.
But as an aside, how would some members take an "inverted" Othello (meaning a white Othello, and a black Iago)? Because it has been done before, to much acclaim, I've heard.
cant believe, and IMO its sad that in the 21st century a discussion of race still has to take place....
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
Well, everyone's a little bit racist. :) More importantly, everyone has a different point at which they can suspend their disbelief. Some people just can't deal with the fact that people burst in to songs during musicals. Others can't accept the hilarious psuedo-science of sci-fi movies. If some people can't accept a black lead in Carousel- well, I feel bad for them. They're limiting themselves. But they're not evil, really.
i've gone from racist too not evil. Now, THAT'S progress. And Marquise, i'd like to do all sorts of naughty things to your Puerto Rican butt!
hey! hey! hey! leave my butt outta this! LOL
Robbie, I actually think that is a very interesting concept for DAMN YANKEES, depending on the year it was set. At the time black players were fairly new to baseball (1947 Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers) so for Joe to go back and "save" the day, he became white to fit in and be more accepted. I don't know if this was the director's intent, but it could work as a commentary on the racism of the period. I'm sure it was not total color blind casting in that case.
Problem with that, Sueleen, is that no...it wasn't the director's intent.
And another problem is you are asking a very breezy show to hold a deep social meaning. It's tough to impose that on the text of DAMN YANKEES.
SITPWG is a different story. It could...since much of the drama is actually subtextual.
The only thing I'm saying is if someone is going to cast non-traditionally, it's irresponsible as an artist to not take into account what implications could be made from such a decision.
PS The hat he paints actually isn't red. He uses red (and a multitude of colors) to blur together the create a very intense, dark shade.
I'd like to publicly apologize to Midtowngym if any of my comments in this thread yesterday were construed as calling him "racist". I never used the word and was honestly trying to understand his viewpoint. Since then, other posts have helped me better understand how "gray" and complicated this issue can be and that there are legitimate times when casting can be awkward based on race. And, people will have different levels of sensitivity to decisions that get made in either direction. I, naively, like to think that the world should always be colorblind, so I always question what, on the surface, sounds like decisions based solely on race. It would be unfair, though, to characterize someone's opinion as racist just because they are more or less sensitive than I am to casting decisions.
Robbie, if the director didn't consider the message in casting a Joe of a different color he is an idiot. Maybe I was giving him the benefit of the doubt when he did not deserve it.
By the way, there is a very interesting exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago about how Sunday on the Island came to be painted. If anyone has a chance to see it I highly recommend it.
Oh no...he didn't deserve it.
I once had the chance to see La Grande Jatte. I didn't move for about a half hour.
The painting is truly amazing. There is a video feature at this exhibit where the camera zooms into the painting so close all you see are extremely detailed dots of many colors. Then quickly it zooms back out and you see how brilliant his use of color and light is. There are also many studies of different characters and landscapes that are as beautiful as the finished painting itself.
Seurat Exhibit
Videos