Posted: 3/31/16 at 12:12pm
I'm sure he's in a place where he can connect to the internet (the fact that he hasn't tweeted in several days shouldn't be indicative that he's out of contact with the world)
Posted: 3/31/16 at 12:21pm
Wilmingtom said: "If you have to ask, you won't understand the reason."
While I, too, had sort of a :| reaction to the original question, it's a little ridiculous to say that no one can be educated on an issue like this.
Posted: 3/31/16 at 1:03pm
When HAMILTON first opened and you could tell it was destined to be around for years to come, I imagined an ideal situation in which there would be fabulous multi-cultural casting variations on Broadway and in the tours. Could there be black Hamilton? or an Asian Angelica, or even a white Burr? Sure, why not in an idealistic color-blind casting world.
But, I have a feeling eventually they are going to have to just declare in the casting breakdowns a specific ethnicity for each role. That's essentially what happened in RENT. Unfortunate because it limits the scope of possibilities. But for all the obvious reasons already debated and exhausted, the union is never going to advocate discriminatory casting notices.
Posted: 3/31/16 at 2:37pm
PalJoey said: "
Is this a troll post?
"
Yep for sure. But it turned into an interesting and intellectual discussion about the effect the races of the actors in Hamilton affects the show and the experience of the audience. Which is pretty much the best way to NOT feed the trolls in my opinion.
Posted: 3/31/16 at 2:58pm
https://twitter.com/ActorsEquity/status/715608362608631808/photo/1
Posted: 4/1/16 at 4:08am
Interesting -- Equity is coming down on the side of race-neutral casting for all roles.
When I read about the "Hamilton" casting notice, I wondered what "non-white" meant. I have known several Hispanic people who are fair-skinned and blond. Because of varying definitions among Indian tribes as to who is eligible to join, it really is possible to cast someone who is legally Native American (a dues paying tribal member) but who has three white grandparents and one "full-blooded" Native American grandparent. If someone looks "white," I think they should be treated as "white" for purpose of this casting notice.
Also, what about folks from the middle East? Arab people were usually considered "white" for purposes of government programs, such as the SBA's 8(a) government contracting program, at least when I worked with the program up to 2003. Yet Arab people often do not "look white."
I definitely favor more opportunities for minority individuals to get acting jobs. However, a blond Hispanic person named Smith or Jones (Dad is Caucasian and Mom is Hispanic, for example) is realistically NOT being discriminated against in casting.
I think the "Hamilton" folks also risked getting into a situation, albeit unlikely, where everyone they cast looks white, but isn't technically "white." I doubt that's what they want.
Only Nixon could go to China, only environmentalists can be trusted to say when a particular environmental problem has been solved, and only those who support opening more roles to actors of color, where those roles were traditionally played by white actors, can reasonably say so when things go too far. The "Hamilton" casting notice, IMO goes too far, because it is both under-inclusive (Equity's concern) and over-inclusive (white-looking persons of color) in the category. If I were the show's lawyer, I would have suggested they change it.
Audrey Liebross
Posted: 4/1/16 at 10:32am
Nothing to start clutching my pearls about, but in a show where every actors' ethnicity (or minority status) is integral to the playwright's significant artistic statement, I wish that King George were not so consistently cast with an openly gay actor. It's too easy to form a misconception.
Just an observation. ...And yes, I'm aware that Brian D'Arcy James played the role for a brief period, off-Broadway, before the show hit its stride, and that in the workshop, he was played by an African-American actor.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 10:32 AM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 10:57am
LizzieCurry said: "Because Lin said so.
"
So Lin deliberately casts on race? Even though it is historically incorrect?
Now, I'm not saying that is good or bad, but we have to make up our minds. Should we all do that? Or should we all not do that?
In my opinion we should. Whatever the creative team wants to create/feel/show/cast is fully op to them. Playing roles goes far beyond skin color, any race can play any race as far as I'm concerned. Anyone complaining about it is a bigot. But it is not a 1 way street. It works both ways.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 10:57 AM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:08am
This isn't a documentary and this isn't a period piece. The language is modern, the music is modern, the staging is modern, the costumes are anachronistic and stylized, so why shouldn't the cast reflect a modern America?
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:15am
It's not about modern America, because that has a majority of white people. It is about deliberately casting on race.
Now, I'm not saying that is good or bad, but we have to make up our minds. Should we all do that? Or should we all not do that?
In my opinion we should. Whatever the creative team wants to create/feel/show/cast is fully op to them. Playing roles goes far beyond skin color, any race can play any race as far as I'm concerned. Anyone complaining about it is a bigot. But it is not a 1 way street. It works both ways.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 11:15 AM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:23am
I agree, Kad, but I would add, the challenge for the creative team as this production moves forward is determining what "contemporary America" looks like. Yes, it looks like what is on stage with the original cast, but is that it?
From a casting standpoint, its going to take real continued vision to fill these roles from a color-blind or diverse casting missive, unless they just want to put a cap on it and say, okay, 'Hamilton is always cast latino, Burr is black, Eliza is asian, etc...."
Bringing up RENT again, I remember when they first began casting for future replacements, they pledged that they were not tied to the ethnicities of the OBC being the template for future casting. But that is exactly what happened. Maybe in that situation it was because the author of the musical was no longer around to chime in, but I thought the musical lost something of what made it fresh when that happened. It started to make the diverse casting look 'stock' and not organic. I think many of the original actors in RENT were cast because they were special with no regard to their ethnicity. It became a little disheartening to me (as an example) when afterwards even a small role like Lexi Darling needed to always be played by an actor of one specific race: the race of who created it originally.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 11:23 AM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:27am
Dave19 said: "LizzieCurry said: "Because Lin said so.
So Lin deliberately casts on race? Even though it is historically incorrect?
Many musicals are "intentionally cast on race" (Porgy and Bess, Ragtime, South Pacific, The Color Purple, In the Height, Dreamgirls, etc.) because it is an integral part of the artistic vision of the creator. In the past, casting actors of specific ethnicities has been done primarily because race was integral to the story being told. In the case of Hamilton, although it would seem that race is not integral to the story (and indeed is casting against historical accuracy), I would argue that having cast with a strong ethnic minority presence is just as integral to Miranda's artistic vision as his choice to tell this story through the idiom of rap and hip-hop music.
Hamilton is not just a retelling of the life of Alexander Hamilton. It's a retelling and a commentary on that man's life and legacy from the perspective of a 21st century mind (Lin-Manual Miranda's), in the context of an America whose contemporary musical heritage is steeped in the contributions of marginalized ethnic groups. That juxtaposition -- of a history involving those somewhat remote cravat-wearing, wigged white men we see on our coins and bills with a highly contemporary, immediately accessible musical idiom and (purposely) ethnically-inaccurate cast --specifically shakes up the audience's preconceptions and projects these historical occurrences in a new and dramatically different light. This effect could not have been achieved otherwise.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 11:27 AM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:31am
QueenAlice, that's because those people think in race too much and don't have creative/color-blind vision.
They live by the idea that once a person of color got something, there is no way back. That is what I mean by a 1 way street. That's not how it works.
I am fully supporting the idea that the creators of Hamilton have the right to do what they want, a non-white cast, as they said in the casting notice. But they should be honest about it. It is their creative vision. It is their personal preference. Casting should never have to be politically correct. It is entertainment.
But we don't have to deny they deliberately cast on race out of personal strategy and preference. And we certainly don't have to complain if it happens both ways. You are either in favour of free casting or against it.
@MikeInTheDistrict, I agree.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 11:31 AM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:41am
I agree Dave, and per my post, it can just very easily become a game of 'we need a racially diverse cast' but its too difficult to maintain a racial balance as we replace actors, so we're just going to go with the ethnic breakdown of the original cast. I would be disheartened if that happened, because I think there really is an exciting opportunity with HAMILTON to say 'yes, this is what America looks like, in all its beautiful ethnically diverse ways' -- but I understand that may be idealistic and since (like it or not) a musical of HAMILTON's size becomes its own 'industry' - and its just easier to give everyone a photocopy of what people saw on stage when the production first opened.
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:49am
I agree, but it depends on what their strategy is. Is it: "we deliberately want non-whites" (which it seems like), or "we really don't care, we want people". Either way is good, it's their show, but only in the second situation you get more diversity.
Posted: 4/1/16 at 11:55am
And I do understand that I think what the casting team was really trying to encourage with the casting notice was the attendance of ethnically diverse actors with skills (rapping) that aren't common to musical theatre performers, the phrasing was just unfortunate.
Posted: 4/1/16 at 12:05pm
Yes, we will see how the casting turns out, that will give more clearness about their motives.
Posted: 4/1/16 at 12:10pm
QueenAlice said: "I agree, Kad, but I would add, the challenge for the creative team as this production moves forward is determining what "contemporary America" looks like. Yes, it looks like what is on stage with the original cast, but is that it?"
IMO, there's more involved than just 'what contemporary America looks like'. If you trace the production back to where Miranda speaks about its roots, his first connections with the book were in regards to the parallels to hip-hop music. The original work was going to be "The Hamilton Mix Tapes" (perhaps an album only??). All those "Easter eggs" in the show still reflect that the original concept was about the connections to hip-hop music and hip-hop artists.
It seems to me there's a possibility the piece grew to be more inclusive of the additional concepts we're talking about now, as his work progressed.
There's a LOT going on in "Hamilton", which is why I keep returning to the OC album and the Internet and always learn more. The point I'm trying to make is that the show is as much about making the connections to the history of hip-hop artists and their music as it is about the connections to American history (among other themes). To focus singularly on historical accuracy, or the actual races of the founding fathers, or any singular element of the show would mean missing out on a 'bigger picture' regarding how well all these elements are woven together to create a work that goes far beyond just telling one story well.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 12:10 PM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 12:23pm
True JohnAdams, but you have to be able to define that in tangible terms; i.e. in the physical bodies playing the roles on the stage. And I stick by my point that yes, in the current racial make up of the OBC, the 'hip-hop' connection is believable, but it would be simplistic (stereotypical?) to say that these specific ethnicities in these specific parts ARE 'what' that hip-hop culture looks like.
It's just a very interesting, unique situation will need to be carefully thought out in future casting, if they indeed want to keep true to their pledge that they are open to ethnicities different from those specifically defined by the OBC taking on the roles.
Posted: 4/1/16 at 12:45pm
QueenAlice said: "it would be simplistic (stereotypical?) to say that these specific ethnicities in these specific parts ARE 'what' that hip-hop culture looks like."
I hear 'ya Alice! I think, to clarify, I believe that by incorporating so many examples from hip-hop artists into the score, "Hamilton" makes a connection to how the artists and their music are expressing very similar stories to those of the founding fathers. They share the same frustrations and express them with similar passions. In other words, I think that beyond the historical tale, Miranda is also telling the story of contemporary story-tellers (Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?). And Miranda is referencing specific story-tellers in his score via the "Easter eggs" (which technically aren't Easter eggs, but more like homage).
For that reason, I have to ask myself, "Why cast a white man to tell the story of a black man (or any of the other ethnicities)?" Again, I'm mindful that this particular thought is not a singular theme in "Hamilton".
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 12:45 PM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 12:59pm
I also think Miranda is making connections between the frustration and determination the founding fathers felt and experienced in their time, with the feelings and issues (still faced) by minorities in the United States today. That's all well and good, except it again becomes complicated when you don't want to be defined by specific minority casting (as the creative team is claiming) for future replacements.
I personally think you could, pending the racial make up of the cast as a whole, have a white Eminem-style rapper playing Thomas Jefferson and it would still feel radically atypical from our stereotypical historical perception, and could still play into the themes of the story (there are still plenty of poor whites who also still feel disenfranchised) but I suspect, like I said earlier, the role will (as most replacements are) be cast in the future with someone strongly resembling (physically and otherwise) the actor who created the role originally.
Updated On: 4/1/16 at 12:59 PM
Posted: 4/1/16 at 1:12pm
QueenAlice said: "I personally think you could, pending the racial make up of the cast as a whole, have a white Eminem-style rapper playing Thomas Jefferson and it would still feel radically atypical from our stereotypical historical perception, and could still play into the themes of the story (there are still plenty of poor whites who also still feel disenfranchised) but I suspect, like I said earlier, the role will (as most replacements are) be cast in the future with someone strongly resembling (physically and otherwise) the actor who created the role originally."
Yup, for the most part, agreed. I'm going to try to find the article I read where Miranda specifically mentions the specific contemporary artists that "match-up" (for lack of a better term) with the specific characters in "Hamilton". (Maybe someone else can find it faster than I?!) I won't do that as a way of discounting your thoughts, but rather as a way of perhaps shedding a little light on what Miranda has expressed regarding his intentions.
The only thought I might disagree with is casting "a white Eminem-style rapper". But that's just personal taste, for me. 
Posted: 4/1/16 at 1:21pm
AHLiebross said: "Interesting -- Equity is coming down on the side of race-neutral casting for all roles."
They would pretty much have to do that, wouldn't they?
Personally, I think this whole brouhaha is about an unfortunate choice of words. Similar to Miranda discounting our forefathers as "old, dead white men" in an early NYT article. Stuff happens.
Posted: 4/1/16 at 1:22pm
Yes, I'd be curious to read that. And truly - if Miranda has specific reference points in his casting - i.e. I've heard that Angelica is inspired by Beyonce - that he feels are important or essential, racially, to the characters and the story he's telling -- he should just call it and the casting breakdowns should state that's the specific ethnicity of the character. There is nothing wrong with that. It's this perception that what they are saying instead is we want racially diverse casting (but not white) that has made this ridiculously overblown.
