Canada Assassins N word controversy

They removed the word, Sondheim (or representative) insisted it must be sung, they cancelled the show.

https://m.facebook.com/shawfestival/photos/a.119207541319/10160279182481320

Updated On: 8/11/21 at 11:25 AM

I'll admit, I'm forgetting how many times the word is used, but this whole situation seems ridiculous, as is their explanation.

Defund the art police.

I'm sort of confused by their reasoning: it sounds like they're saying they rehearsed it without using the N-word so as to not have to say it until it was totally necessary (i.e. in front of an audience) - fine, makes sense. Seems like a safe and respectful choice.

But then they say that they "the substitution of language had unwittingly become established as fact." What does that even mean? They got so used to using a substitute word that they...couldn't (?) change it back? Did the actors not know they were using a substitute word in rehearsal? I just literally don't understand how that happens.

In any case, I of course welcome alternate perspectives on this, namely from Black people. But for what my opinion is worth as a white person: the single use of the N-word in Assassins is undoubtedly the most carefully crafted, and most carefully contextualized I've ever seen from a white writer. It isn't used lightly, or excessively, or without consideration for its immense power. Quite the opposite. But of course I'm not Black, and I will never know what it's like to be a Black person and hear that word come out of the mouth of a white person, even onstage. So I don't know. But if there was ever a context in which a white writer aught to be allowed to use the word in their piece, it seems to me that this is exactly that context.

Updated On: 8/11/21 at 12:07 PM

The context is irrelevant because the people who are outraged have not, and will not, ever see the show.

ctorres23 said: "The context is irrelevant because the people who are outraged have not, and will not, ever see the show."

Did you read or take a moment to digest the statement?

It's an internal situation and a decision not to move forward. I don't understand it and it seems very odd and poorly dealt with but I don't think anyone is "outraged" except maybe you? This statement is the first the public is hearing about the situation so there was no outraged mob lobbing complaints.

JBroadway said: "ctorres23 said: "The context is irrelevant because the people who are outraged have not, and will not, ever see the show."



Did you read the article/statement? It sounds like this was an internal conflict, not a result of audience outrage. They don't say it outright, but if you read between the lines, it seems likely that one or more members of the cast or production team are the ones who spoke up about it, and in that scenario, they would obviously be familiar with the show."

That's what I took away from it also. I had to re-read it because they said they had Zoom rehearsals and I thought it may have been overheard by actor's family or someone in the space they were rehearsing from. But is says it was not used during those rehearsals.

I saw it on Broadway, Quite honestly I didn't remember when it was used until I read the letter. I wonder what the other show is that they are removing the same word from?

Kad said: "It is used only once, near the end of "Ballad of Booth." It's not just used willy-nilly, either- it's to totally subvert Booth's otherwise sympathetic account of his actions."

Exactly. The usage has an essential purpose in the storytelling and to delete it is to subvert that purpose. Do we know what the replacement was? (It's also critical to note that the word is coming from a racist so a watered down word makes mush of the inherent nature of Booth that is the precise point of the use. The audience is lulled to sympathy, the word dive bombs them back into the darkness of character's soul.)

NameGreg said: "Yeah it’s only said the one time, and there’s a very clear story reason for doing so. We learn to sympathize with Booth’s genuine motives for his crime, then he blurts that out and realize how much racism influenced him, and that we’ve been pitying a monster all this time. The word can’t be taken out of the show, it means too much for the musical’s big number."

This, this and this!!!!

joevitus said: "dramamama611 said: "I don't see a controversy: they wanted to make a change, they were turned down, they stuck to their beliefs and cancelled the show."

That is the controversy.

As per Webster's: "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views:DISPUTEThe decision aroused acontroversyamong the students."https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy"



My definition, and the one most of us think of goes a bit further: a disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.

joevitus said: "is ongoing, as the people mounting that production and Sondheim could not reconcile their views, and obviously it was heated, as they had strong feelings about not saying the world. "

I don't care about the definition "controversy" but nothing is "ongoing" and there is zero indication that anything was "heated." The production belatedly asked for permission to change the lyric and did not get it. Happens all the time. The subject was closed and, per the statement the festival recognized that the rights holders were within their rights to act as they did. No controversy and no indication anything was heated. Not even clear that the production had "strong feelings." What it said was that they screwed up by not putting it through the "process." Move on. Next time try to be more accurate.