RightAmerica's board name and profile are ridiculous enough for him to either be joking or crazy. Either way we should disregard him.
I feel very strongly about this, I'll try to make it as concise as possible. Let me preface by saying that, although I feel very strongly, I don't have a black-and-white opinion on the raceblind casting issue. And that was seriously no pun intended. Really, I promise.
I think it's important to realize that changing the race of a character does have an impact on the character and the show as a whole. There is no way around that. And that is always true. On the other hand, color-blind casting doesn't necessarily change a character's race. Before you object, let me explain what I mean; I'll break it down into two categories: shows that mention a character's race and those that don't.
On historical accuracy and shows that mention the race of a character: If you're going for accuracy, the characters in a show like Pacific Overtures HAVE to be Asian. The actors don't, as long as they can be made up to look Asian. However, I have seen Once on this Island performed with an all-white cast. The race issue was cut entirely, and it became a class issue. Which worked, except that they had to cut a song. My point is that many people have argued that color-blind casting is okay, as long as race isn't an issue in the story. I'm proposing that color-blind casting is okay, as long as you don't mind it changing the plot. I also argue that it's okay to cast color-blindly, maintaining the plot, as long as it works for the character (Maria in WSS is Puerto Rican and can realistically be played by a White or Black person, as well as some people of Asian or mixed descent).
On shows where the character's race isn't mentioned: Changing the race of the character CHANGES the character. A white Joanne in Rent presents different implications for Joanne and her friends than a black one. That isn't to say I necessarily have a problem with the change, as long as the difference is taken into account. I present, for example the Lippa and LaChiusa versions of The Wild Party. In the former, Mr. Black was played by Taye Diggs, a black actor, while the latter employed a white actor. (At least he looked white - he had the weirdest frickin name in the world, who knows what his background is). Anyway, it made a difference. Queenie and Kate's interest in a black Black (ha) implies an open-mindedness, curiosity, or indiscriminatoriness on their part, while Black's presence with a white woman implies a courage, a lack of regard for what others may think. I say this in large part because of the underlying factor of segregation during the Prohibition era in which The Wild Party takes place.
Such casting in a contemporary show, however, is not much different. I think as theatre people, we forget that most, for example, right-wing southern couples are not interracial. So to have an interracial couple on stage implies something about those people (they are likely liberal, open-minded, experimental). RENT's Joanne consistently being played by a black actress, then, is not for nil. Maureen is projecting her acceptingness, liberal attitude, and rebelliousness into the world by being an openly gay woman in an interracial relationship. Don't tell me that doesn't mean anything, even in today's society. That doesn't mean Joanne can't be played by a white woman, it just means that, as much as you'd like to think everyone's the same, changing Joanne's race would change a dynamic in the show.
I probably forgot something I wanted to say, but that's my piece for now.
theatre.
Updated On: 8/3/06 at 02:13 PM
) 
