BRIGHT STAR Previews — Page 4

Well put, mariel9.

mariel9 said: "If there is no excuse for an all white cast in 2016, there is also no excuse for a segregated cast of any ethnicity. Story and context has to be the voice of reason in this otherwise infinite debate.

Integrated or "color blind" casting that expands opportunities for underrepresented minorities is not remotely the same as integrating the cast of Color Purple or Allegiance. I was really put off to see an all white cast in a musical set in the South, especially given how diverse Broadway has been this past year and the increased conversation around these issues. The fact that Bright Star is all about family and love interests and so of course it has to be all white ignores the fact that the writers chose to write a segregated story. They didn't have to."

As a minority, I am acutely aware of the feeling of exclusion and yet I have a problem with the logic of your argument. I want great stories and great parts for minorities. I want parts that are colorblind in that it doesn't matter who plays them. I also want parts for minorities that speak to their experience, as well as advancing how audiences perceive minorities other than in their narrow racially stereotypical roles. By the same argument, I don't want non-minorities playing minority specific parts as they ARE racially specific -- think August Wilson plays, The Color Purple. How do we tell all stories and be true to those stories AND be sensitive to stereotyping as well as to historical narrative? Do we not tell stories about the south because blacks were disenfranchised and we don't want to present that? Do we not tell stories about whites without blacks simply because we want to be inclusive even if there were communities that were segregated AND they had experiences that had nothing to do with segregation? Do we need to include that theme in everything? Isn't that argument when flipped on its head just as bad?

I don't expect Steve Martin or Edie Brickell to have the cultural perspective to tell stories about minorities, and quite frankly they have no responsibility to tell them -- they're simply writing from their experience. Would you be happier if there were token minorities in Bright Star just to have them even if historically and contextually speaking they would be inconsistent with the time and place of the piece? What purpose does that serve? Do we not tell stories if they don't include minorities (or majorities for that matter) because it wouldn't be inclusive? Isn't the point that we tell stories that have something universal to tell, something about the human condition that connects with an audience? I think its simplistic to suggest it's the author's responsibility to write inclusive stories, just for inclusiveness sake. If you want to make the argument about Star Wars where this is the future and there are aliens but no blacks, by all means do, and I'd be right there with you. But in this instance I think its a bit much.

RippedMan said: "And who is to say that any talented minorities even showed up for a Bright Star audition?"

And wouldn't that be an entirely new problem within itself?

Beyond the "historical accuracy" argument with which I don't agree, is there any reason why this is a specifically Caucasian story?

When a story doesn't pertain specifically to an oppressed minority or particular racial themes, diversity on stage is important to me because I believe art should be a reflection of humanity in its current state. Despite the times in which they are set, these shows are being made for TODAY'S audiences. I want to see theatre for a new generation with themes that reflect and inspire people of all colors.

Updated On: 2/26/16 at 04:01 PM

I saw this at the Kennedy Center and am now realizing that this gives me a Finding Neverland feel. It will be relatively successful, but not so overwhelming. Might get snubbed by the Tony's (but I doubt it because this is a lot less mainstream and more chill, whereas FN was like OH KELSEY GRAMMAR IS IN THIS EVERYONE COME SEE THIS MATTHEW MORRISON IS IN THIS GUYS ITS RLLY GOOD COME AND SEE US).

Why can't all of us admit that everyone is a little bit racist? My hat's off to Avenue Q for its honesty, though sometimes sounding a little scathing. The problem of racism is not race itself, but the racial hierarchy that permeates the hierarchy of labor, especially job opportunities. Overemphasis on the idea of diversity as inclusion of all races in everything is merely tokenism out of pity that perhaps perpetuates racism in many ways.

Updated On: 2/26/16 at 10:32 PM

By no means am I racist and by no means am I against diversity on Broadway. I just saw She Loves Me, and there is no reason they couldn't have had a diverse cast. No way.

But having not seen Bright Star, apparently, it was part of the breakdown for casting, so it was a conscious decision. So, for that, I can't fault them. That was their decision. It's not my money. It's not my decision. But something like "She Loves Me" did not have that stipulation. So...

And Cupid Boy2, absolutely! As an actor, I was recently in for a Broadway show, and the holding room was decidedly white. For no reason. Nothing in the breakdown stipulated that the cast should be white, but I'd say 99.9% of the holding room was white men and women. Now, when Hamilton had it's call, everyone was all excited to see such a diverse in the holding room. That's great, but why can't that be every time? Why does a show have to obvious as Hamilton to get people of color to audition? And why does people of color basically always mean black people? I mean, we had Here Lies Love, and no one came to cheer them. And "Les Miz" has always been pretty progressive in casting a multitude of looks.

You're reducing the decision to cast a Tony Award winning actress in a major Broadway revival to having been based upon nothing more than the color of her skin? Am I understanding correctly?

I dont think she was cast only because of the color of her skin. Certainly her experience in theatre, her Tony award, and her popularity with fans were driving factors. But even her biggest supporters were admitting the role was all wrong for her. Look, I think she's incredibly talented. But a lot of people thought that was a total miscast, including an awful lot of theatre reviewers. But do I think it was easy for the casting directors to put her in that role? Absolutely. They cast several actors of color in roles in the revival, and I remember hearing so much talk about it at the show's first preview back here, because some of that casting worked really well, and some of it didn't. I firmly believe people better for that role auditioned for it, but did it make sense to cast her when they were looking to drive ticket sales with talented names? Absolutely. And on that note, Nikki herself has been doing an excellent job on The Good Wife...playing an attorney who was not hired into a mostly all-white law firm because of the color of her skin. So is it not safe to say that The Good Wife cast her because of the color of her skin? I think actors (all actors, no matter their color) are used to casting decisions being based on what they look like as much as their talent. I think most theatre fans and fans of movies, tv, etc just want someone who works best for the role. And honestly, I think the average or casual theatregoer, particularly in NYC where many are tourists, don't stop to consider casting. They react to sound and sight and emotion. If what's on stage in front of them works, they'll respond to it. If it doesn't, they'll express dissatisfaction. I don't think many casual or infrequent ticket buyers stop to think of who could have been better in the roles, because that variety of choice isn't right in front of their face. The people who see a lot of theatre and know the actors out there are the ones who are going to (and clearly are, at least here) talk about color blind casting. Me? I just want to watch and hear the very best actor who auditioned. The best actor at any audition should be the one who is cast, in my mind, no matter the color of their skin or what their ethnic background is.

"

Updated On: 2/27/16 at 07:38 AM

Excellent! Look forward to hearing what you think of it!

Updated On: 2/27/16 at 06:26 PM

Saw the matinee today and honestly really enjoyed it. As mostly everyone else said, Act 1 is a bit of a mixed bag and I admit that at intermission, I wasn't entirely sure what to think. The music had grabbed me and I thought the acting and singing in Act 1 was just fine, but the story itself seemed like it needed some tweaking...particularly in the case of the elder Dobbs. Act 2, however, not only brought the show full circle, but I swear you could feel the audience warming to it. Having the onstage musicians opening act 2 really made a difference in the atmosphere, but the pacing of the story was so much better, too. Favorite parts? Cusak's solo in Act 2, Cusack and Nolan's chemistry and Act 2 song, and Hannah Elless was really a scene stealer throughout. Loved Emily's song with AJ Shively at the top of act 2. Was the show somewhat predictable once you figure out what's going on? Yes. But I felt it was very well acted, and so, the twist packs some emotional punch. I would recommend this to theatre fans who enjoy solid acting and great singing. It's not the best thing I've ever seen, but I'd see it again (and plan to). Some people sitting behind us started comparing it to other currently-running musicals on the way out, and said, "It's hokey, but it's not a bad hokey. It's a sweet hokey with good music!"

Updated On: 2/27/16 at 08:39 PM

How are people liking Emily Padgett?

Maybe I expected too much because I love the artsy style of the poster, but I do feel it needs work. Music-wise, Bright Star is definitely amazing, and the opening of the second act quickly pulls you into the scene. However, the story leaves a lot to be desired. The twist, as many have mentioned, is super predictable. You've got two different stories going on stage at the same time. And the twist is the only logical way for the them to converge. Also, Billy's reaction after the

Anyway, the show has potential and is only three days into the preview. I'll go again, and I hope by then the writers will have fixed the problems in the plot.

Just had a thought. Wouldn't it be more interesting and emotional if the audience is told of the twist early in Act 1 and the protagonists keep missing chances of finding out the truth?