Color-blind and gender-blind casting — Page 4

This discussion has gone off the rails. The OP made a few errors. A White actor must be cast in A RAISIN IN THE SUN because there is a White character in the play.  Three white actors must be cast in PORGY and BESS because there are three White characters in the opera. The OP didn't list them, but there are White characters in three August Wilson plays, GEM OF THE OCEAN, JOE TURNER'S COME AND GONE and MA RAINEY'S BLACK BOTTOM.

The term "color-blind casting" is out of date. BIPOC actors rightly complain, you don't see them. "Color-conscious casting" is a better term.

I'll admit, there was a time when I worried about BIPOC actors cast in roles traditionally played by White actors, but for the most part, my worries are long gone.  A few years ago, I saw wonderful productions of Shakespeare's HENRY IV, Parts 1 and 2. Henry was White and Prince Hal was Latino. Not for one second did I think about the historical Hal. I got caught up in both actors' performances.  If I saw BIPOC actors in CHICAGO I wouldn't worry about about historical accuracy. I also know that women in prison in 1927 would not be singing and dancing all the time.

Joevitus - I hope you don't think I'm hijacking the conversation when I say you have dug yourself into a hole. It's time to stop digging.  You state,"You and everyone agreeing with you is also, actually agreeing that there are some roles which people of color cant' be cast in, unless of course you think you can cast a person of color as Magnolia." Joe you are grasping at straws or to put it in theatrical terms, you are covered in fop sweat.

 

Full disclosure, I'm a white person (I'd also guess that pretty much everyone here is too), and I do fundamentally believe that since all white people benefit from white supremacy, we are all racists. That being said, I've accepted that as my truth, and that the more I become conscious of how I benefit from a white supremacist society, the more I can challenge and unlearn all of the racist garbage I've been taught. I truly believe this is the case for every single white person in America, specifically.

That being said, my stance has changed on this over the years, and I do think it really is a case-by-case basis, based on the show and what the intention is. You may notice some contradicting opinions ahead, and it's something I find myself thinking about sort of constantly, so I'm still trying to navigate the "truth" in what is an inherently subjective medium--especially during this time where I feel it is imperative as white people to be not only not racist, but anti-racist.

First, I think we should collectively abandon the term "colorblind" because none of us are blind to race in the US, specifically (and I am specifically talking about US since that is my lived experience). However, as some people have mentioned, if "colorblind" casting can exist, it can happen in fantastical worlds. Heathcliff Saunders wrote a very powerful essay on this that really hit the nail on the head I recommend anyone interested in this topic read his response hit the nail on the head where he cites the idea of real worlds vs. imagined--among other things. What's interesting here is that even in "imagined worlds", racism can still exist. It really struck me when I recently realized that the only reason Wicked is so popular is because it's a story that talks about racism but in a way that doesn't make white people feel bad, because people with green skin don't exist in the real world. Therefore, it is more palatable to white tourist audiences because the colourism in Wicked only exists in an allegory where white audiences can distance themselves to colourism and racism in their everyday lives--and while shows like Wicked helmed by white creators is allowed to run for 20+ years and not the same can be said for a show about actual racism written by actual non-white writers, that's a problem in and of itself. And yet, a Black actor playing Glinda took so long to happen because the role of Glinda is so closely associated with being a preppy white girl. Even in Oz, race is a thing. We know this because people other Elphaba because her skin is Green. Strangely, we've even had few Black Elphabas, and I suspect the reason for this is that producers are fearful that it hits too close to home for white audiences, and white audiences expressing discomfort = less butts in seats. In the reverse of this, The Wiz boarders on afrofuturism--a world where blackness is the norm, which, especially for its time, was very healing for black audience members I imagine (despite the fact that Glinda descended from a giant watermelon instead of a bubble the OG production, but I digress).

With regards to "historically accurate casting", Bitter Gertrude has written a really helpful piece on what "historically accurate casting" means that I found to be really helpful. For lack of a better phrase, there have always been those in BIPOC* groups who have "slipped through the cracks" and were able to assimilate into mainstream white society. While I'm inclined to agree in Chicago, for instance, that it is unlikely a black woman could run a prison--it doesn't mean it never happened. It was unlikely for women in any variety to be in leadership roles in the 20's, but again, it did happen--which leads to me believe that it is possible that it could've happened. There's also an entire argument to be made that there are many biracial individuals, for instance, Carol Channing, were black but were able to "hide it" and therefore assimilation was more achievable for them--which is why I believe strongly that it could've happened. However, the US has such an ingrained history of racism--it is truly the fabric our nation was founded on--that I think when we don't cast consciously, we run the risk of erasure, which is, currently why so many (including myself) are pushing back against "colorblindness"--and I truly think that erasure is in many instances, just as bad as actual racist depictions of characters.

As Healthcliffe touches on, in the instance of Hamilton (and though he doesn't mention it, and I'm sure he didn't because was in it and didn't want to piss off Dave Malloy, et al) and Natasha, Pierre...those works have caused harm to some extent, because those works are attempting to evoke a world that the creators wish exist but doesn't: which is a postracial world--but retelling through the lens of the past. But every story is different. I won't say the title of the play as it will identify me, but I directed a production based on a true crime story that was the first NYC revival of the piece, which was originally cast with an all-white cast, because the real life figures were all white--and when I directed it, I chose for two of the main characters to be played by a black woman and an asian woman, respectively. I still am not sure if I made the right call or not. My thinking at the time does in some way mirrors how I feel now, which is that it is better to cast inclusively than not, even in historical pieces--because if we completely exclude actors of color, then we are also extremely complicit in blatant, systematic, racism. But I can't help but wonder if I was complicit in erasure. I think both of the actors were very happy in the production, and that it was evident they were cast in the roles they were cast in was because they were talented above all else. However, if I could've done it again, I don't know if I would've made the same choices that I did back then. Especially because while race wasn't talked about in that play--but it's also not talked about because all of the characters were white. However, as others have pointed out, when we are watching a play, we are deciding that we are seeing a dramatization of something--and white audiences in America are often able to overlook gender or age when not cast "appropriately", but race is something we just can't see past. However certain stores have just been done to death, that they almost feel like pageantry--and while I wouldn't leap at the opportunity to cast a woman of color as Rose in Gypsy, at this point, it almost feels so long ago that it's like a legend. Same goes for Hamilton, or even Assassins. But here we are, right where we started: if we just agree to say "f_ck it, this is a dramatization, it's all non-reality anyway--so who cares?" we wind up with erasure. 

However, in the context of historical casting--where a story is linked to a certain time and place, and the story focuses on white people--how to you tell the story responsibly and be inclusive? Going back to Bitter Gertrude's point, BIPOC* as I suggested, were in certain instances able to assimilate. But when we do we get to decide what characters were and weren't allowed the same permissions in relation to other white characters within a dramatic context is an entirely different predicament--especially when social class is involved. I think the only guaranteed way to reduce harm for the audiences, actors, and everyone involved is to specifically hire a person of said group and have them be involved in the creative process, and pay them well. You risk tokensim, and not all people of that group exist in a monolith, therefore, you can still create something that has elements of racial tonedeafness or ickiness, for lack of a better word, but I think if a noble attempt is made to include a person of said ethnicity on board and is actively involved in the process, it almost always adds more nuance. It also actively takes work not to tokenize creatives of color in this way, and I think allowing space to be honest about this and not expect creatives of color to be a mouthpiece to "approve" your decisions as a writer or a director is above important, above all else.

This was a long read, and I'm still not really finished saying what I want to say, but if you got this far, good on you. I think at the end of the day, the best resolution is to keep doing what we're currently doing--which is expand the cannon to feature more writers of underrepresented races, and we will run into these ethical clusterf__ks somewhat less.

*I know a few black creators who have taken issue of the use of the term BIPOC, and that the experience of each of these racial groups should not be lumped together. I am inclined to agree with this--although there are certain themes that almost all disenfranchised racial groups tend to experience, it is a disservice to lump them all in together. Especially when colourism is also very prominent in almost all disenfranchised racial groups.

Rob120 said: "Open your mind, suspend your disbelief, explore your own biases and bigotries, and learn to celebrate talented performers having the opportunity to play a variety of roles."

Everything else you wrote is completely on point. But this last sentence is very helpful.  We're already in a theatre, so the suspension of disbelief has to already be there...so your mind is halfway opened already. The final part is a little bit harder, but most of the people on the board you've accused (rightly, I cynically believe) of bigotry, I believe are at war with themselves.  Their prejudiced head rejects the colorblind castings for the reasons you've stated, but I believe just being a regular theatre-goer, in their heart, they have already accepted what their heads reject (and that is the UN-cynical part of the war in MY head).

 

joevitus said: "I'm not at war with myself. Nor am I a bigot. I doubt the others posting on this subject who say color-blind castingworks sometimes not all the time are, either.It really shouldn't be hard to have a seriousdiscussion around here without flinging accusations;apparently, for many people here,it is.

Arguing that color-blind casting works on a role-by-role or production-by-production basis in no way implies bigotry on the part of anyone making that argument, or on the part of casting directors who make that decision."

After some remove, I have come to the conclusion you do not read and process what is written here. 

1. No one has called you a bigot. You seem to be the one determined to make this about you, and to (in your words) hijack the thread. 

2. You are not processing the distinction between color blind casting and color conscious casting (something pointed out to you by someone above that, like much else, you ignore).

3. When a show is color blind, the expectation is that the audience will suspend belief about skin color. If a person cannot get past the skin color in a color blind production, that's the result of what I called racial baggage. (Early on, I suggested that substituting eye color for skin color might help understand this baggage. This thread would never have started if a brown eyed daughter had somehow infiltrated a blue eyed family.) We in the USA (especially) are fixated on race. (Duh.) It is something we all need to work hard to get past. That's not an attack, just a truth.

4. As also stated previously and ignored, casting directors do not make casting decisions. They decide who to bring in and who to recommend but if they don't do that consistent with the desires and intentions of the artistic and production teams, they will not be casting directors for long.

 

I am not going back to 1 or 2 because you've been down that hole before. I'll take another stab (probably fruitless since you don't process) at the last 2.

joevitus said: 

3. I do not believe it is possible to be "conscious of" and "suspend belief" at the same time.

You can't be serious. That's what people do nonstop when they go to the theatre. Aren't you conscious of the fact that someone's living room sofa does not suddenly appear through a trap door into the same space that had tree trunks planted in the ground a moment before (and that then flew away)? Are you not able to suspend belief about that? Aren't you conscious of the fact that Tevye did not have a different tradition because he was a Roman slave named Pseudolus before he married Golde? If you need a refresher on all this, go read the Prologue to Henry V.  

4. I didn't say casting directors cast. I said if casting directors in deciding whom to bring in decide that a role isn't right for a person of color because of some aspect of the role or the show's plot, and so don't bring in people of color to read for that role, that doesn't make them racist."

Actually, you said "on the part of casting directors who make that decision" but who's checking? The point is, casting directors don't "decide that a role isn't right for a person of color"; they execute what the creatives and producers decide. But this is all beside the point as well. 

Most of us have to unlearn lots of things. It's not an attack to say so.   

 

StageManager2 said: "I'm guessing HogansHero is a far-left liberal with major white guilt and a white savior complex,who thinks in black-and-white terms (no pun intended). In these extremists'simple minds, one size fits all. But not every play/musical canbe easily cast color-blind, especially when it takes place in a specifictime and place. For example, in Rodgers & Hammerstein'sCinderella,which is set in a magical fairyland where anything goes, it's okay; but a piece like Carousel (1800s Maine, which even today is 95% white)or My Fair Lady (1913 London),it's just absurd. These so-called Social Justice Warriorsjust want us to suspend ALL disbelief,which is insane! Well, then again, they all seem to be. They need to get a grip on reality. There IS such a thing a miscasting. Imagine that!"

Race in My Fair Lady is not important to the story- having black people play any of the roles doesn't change the core message of the piece. That really is the only measure regarding color blind casting, whether or not race/ethnicity  is an important enough feature to the story that not following it would be a serious disservice. No white Coalhouses and no white Effies for instance. But in Carousel, race isn't especially important to the story on a historical level although making one of the starring roles black does add an extra component to it although should that be accepted? We don't need to dwell so much on the stereotype of an abusive black man hitting a white woman even though we do know it exists.

apologies duplicate post

Updated On: 11/6/20 at 09:49 AM

henrikegerman said: "Themes

Diversity and Representation- like all other areas of endeavor, theatre should provide opportunities for people, especially opportunities that have long been barred to many people. Theatre should also represent all of us including those who have long been unrepresented

Vision - a creativevision may include a consideration of color - race is a huge part of our lives, some stories reflect on race, some stories can be interpreted or reinterpreted, textually or subtextually, with meanings that can be brought to life through deliberate choices of casting based on color... as well as a host of physical characteristics, as has always been there in traditionalcasting. Non-traditional casting is not always "blind," casting, but casting with an intended vision.

At other times, an actor is castwith no other objective than their being right for it, irrespective of race. The creative vision is that - period.

Clarity, Jarring and Compelling- sometimes of course the casting of an actor of particular colorwill call attention to itself, for good or ill - the vision is not necessarily effective; that is for us to decide when we see the work.

Theatre, Imagination and the Limits of Disbelief - curiousthat theatre audiences are asked to have faith in all sorts of things that under prosaic circumstances mightdefy belief, but some draw the line at casting which confounds theitsense of the demographic ... WTF?

Ignorance - the gut feeling that a particular character could not convincingly be a person of color because of the lies we have all been taught about history

Ditto on gender and other demographic considerations"

Well as for clarity of intention, I would argue it would have been clearer in the recent My Fair Lady if they had cast a white woman as Freddy's mother.  And possibly not giving Audra's Lizzie a black brother in "110 In the Shade".  That sort of thing confuses the audience.  If parentage or siblings are white then you sorta have to accept the black person playing "white" and not wonder "....how can this mixed family be so well respected in f''ing racist Jim Crow 1910 Oklahoma???"

 

And perhaps you're speaking for yourself and assuming you speak for the audience as well.

HogansHero said: "Owen22 said: "That sort of thing confuses the audience."


Please don't speak for the audience. What you mean is it confuses you (for reasons I have expounded on at length in this thread and won't repeat)."

No. I get it just fine. But believe me, that kind of familial casting confused and continues to confuse members of THE AUDIENCE.  Whom I can easily speak for because I've post-play conversed with numerous people who question this. Granted, a lot of them have been out of town tourists, not as sophisticated as yourself, I'm sure, Hogan. But they're still audience...

 

HogansHero said: "They are a part of the audience and apparently not even a representative cross-section, so I repeat my request. Beyond that, I am not quite sure what you are advocating: that theatre should be produced for the least common denominator? I don't agree with that but you are entitled to your opinion."

Yes. That is exactly what I am advocating.  Lowest common denominator theatre.  What I'm obviously all about.

Dude, you gotta try harder than your passive aggressive limp bitch slaps.  And yes, that's my opinion and I know, I'm entitled to it...

 

HogansHero said: "Owen22 said: "HogansHero said: "Yes. That is exactly what I am advocating. Lowest common denominator theatre. What I'm obviously all about.

Dude, you gotta try harder than your passive aggressive limp bitch slaps. And yes, that's my opinion and I know, I'm entitled to it..."

First of all, passive aggressive is not what I am. Aggressive, sure, and part of that aggression is calling you out on something you now seemingly want to avoid with sarcasm and insults. If you are not saying that there should be no color blind casting because "tourists" can't processit [I beg to differ btw] then what are you actually saying? Own it but don't avoid it: that's not a pretty look."

First of all, you were being COMPLETELY passive aggressive.  But you are entitled to your own opinion.

See what I just did there?

Second of all, if you read my earlier postings, my semi-arguments with Joe, (earlier agreements with you!) then you'll see I am a huge advocate for color-blind casting and the opportunities it creates. But this is a DISCUSSION board.  I had been away from this forum a couple days and during that time I remembered conversations I've had after both "110 in the Shade" and "My Fair Lady" and thought I could offer this up as why some people (not the incredibly enlightened Hogan maybe) possibly might have trouble with it. (And, again, who cares if people have trouble with it?  It's the right thing to do).  But in your silly arrogance you turned it around to make it look like I'm anti color-blind casting. 

And incidentally, you go ahead and be as passive aggressive and sillily arrogant as you need to be. Just because I'm calling you out on it doesn't mean you shouldn't own it. I myself can be combative and sarcastic on these independent, anonymous discussion boards. Who the f cares if it's a "pretty look"??? Just don't try to cloud my righteous political intent. THAT makes me mad.

Also, going back over these discussions I sorta noticed that you, Joe and I are basically arguing the SAME THING!  Pretty much in agreement. So the three of us are kinda just trying to prove who has the biggest d*ck.  Party on, Garth!

 

Updated On: 11/8/20 at 09:32 PM

HogansHero said: "@owen First of all, I am mystified by the passive part. If you are so inclined point it out and I promise I'll take a look. THat is honestly not something usually leveled at me (and there is plenty that is).Second, I confess I don't follow every statement you've madestem to stern. I think we have all acknowledged (pretty much foundationally in this thread) that there are a ton of people who have problems with color blind casting. What I was reacting to (and I have a better understanding of the point you were trying to make now) is that I don't think that fact (whether in general or specifically) supports the artistic/producing decision to eschew color blindness in reaction to those "problems." As I think I have expressed fairly aggressively, I see that problem (which looms largest in the US) are a symptom of our "racial baggage," an issue that all of us need to confront with heightened awareness and less denial. (I have no reason to think you disagree with that. Maybe you do somewhat or a lot.) So to say that some tourists (or locals, for that matter) couldn't wrap their heads around it doesn't, to me, speak to the issue. Two more things quickly:I didn't really understand what "cloud my righteous political intent" referred to. And I am intrigued about the "agreement" you see. If you care to expound, I'll read it. And speaking of reading, now that I read your last post, I guess I may have misinterpreted why you brought up the tourists. I was not trying to frame you as anti-. I was just reacting to what I was reading, admittedly without committing everything you have written to my conscious thought. Sorry for blowingit."

No prob!  It seems to me, that you, Joe and myself all believe in color-blind casting except in the case where racial concerns are part of the play or musical, which would confuse and/or harm the play or musical's political raison d'etre.  I think there are some ancillary things we disagree on, or maybe disagree on reasons why it's a good thing, or how it confuses the audience, but basically I get that we're all on the right side.