Des McAnuff: It's not non-traditional casting - it's just casting

[canmark]

Posted: 6/5/09 at 9:40pm

Interesting piece by Des McAnuff concering his new production of Macbeth at Stratford. Set in Africa, with a white Macbeth (Colm Feore) and a black Lady Macbeth (Yanna McIntosh), and both black and white actors in the various other roles.

=========

Tonight's production employs what is often called "non-traditional casting" -- a term that means, among other things, that "ethnically diverse" actors get to play Shakespearean roles other than Othello.

This to me is a fundamental requirement for any theatre that presumes to call itself a leader in the Canada of the 21st century. The term "non-traditional" does raise the question of what we mean by "traditional".

I think that when some use the term "traditional" they really mean "Victorian" for tradition unfortunately is often limited to the outer reaches of human memory.

The Victorians were greatly concerned with "historic detail". Our traditions here go much further back, to Shakespeare and beyond. And Shakespeare was an "eclecticist" when it comes to questions of historic setting and for that matter, casting. Shakespeare's Company was composed entirely of men and so I suppose one could argue that casting women in female roles is non-traditional casting.

Ours is a multi-racial society -- in fact, our closest metropolis, Toronto, is one of the most diverse cities in the world. If our audiences can't find their own reflections on our stages, as Shakespeare's audiences did on his, we cannot possibly claim to be speaking to Canadians today. The complexion of Canada has changed and continues to change, and we must change with it in order to stay at the forefront of our art.

Think about it. Even the most literal-minded of audiences are
willing to accept a painted backdrop as an indication of a mountain landscape, or a flat wooden floor as representative of the rocks and shoals of Prospero's island. And yet to many of those same audiences, the idea of a black or Asian Hamlet or Henry V violates all credibility. I find that very limiting, and somewhat sad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/theatre/des-mcanuff-its-not-non-traditional-casting---its-just-casting/article1171143/

Full text of McAnuff's commentary:
http://www.stratfordfestival.ca/about/pdf/NR222009.pdf

http://www.stratfordfestival.ca/plays/macbeth.cfm

Updated On: 6/5/09 at 09:40 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/5/09 at 9:49pm

I'd rather see Bedford's Bracknell.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 6/5/09 at 10:49pm

I can't take anything he says seriously after he cast
GUYS AND DOLLS.
If he can mess up that show he can certainly screw up the Scotish play set in Africa.

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 7:42am

Last season's Romeo and Juliet was strangely cast with both black and white actors - it's as if he was trying to comment on race but failed miserably. Both Romeo and Juliet had one black and one white parent, so the issue of racism or anything of the sort was completely lost. Dude just wants to be shocking but doesn't know how.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 12:31pm

R&J seems like an obvious spot to try a multi-racial casting that would actually enhance the show- one family white, one black.

[homeimp]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 1:20pm

Well, I really liked both Guys And Dolls and Romeo And Juliet at Stratford. I think some of you missed the point about the casting in R & J. I didn't think Des was trying to comment on race at all. The actors he chose just happened to me a reflection of the racial mix in modern cities. Thanks, Des. And I enjoyed your talkback with Anthony at Stratford last season.

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 1:23pm

If that's how it was done, it would have made more sense. Instead, my friends and I spent the entire show trying to figure out why the heck he purposely cast black and white members in the same family. It completely eliminated the issue of race and made the whole point moot.

[A Director]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 7:08pm

YAWN! To me, anymore, this is a non-issue. I recently saw a production of the Scottish play with black actor playing the title role, a white actor playing Lady M, a black actor playing MacDuff and a Chinese actor playing Lady MacDuff. All four were cast because the director thought they were the best for each role. I also saw a production of The Music Man with a black actor playing Marian, a black actor playing Mrs. Paroo, and white actor playing Winthrop. They were all cast because of their talent.

I've seen a production of Three Sisters where two sisters were black and one was white. They were all cast because of their talent.

I've seen a production of Romeo and Juliet where the parents were white and the children were black They were all cast for their talent.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 7:27pm

I agree with him DESPITE his mangling of Guys and Dolls.

Why can't actors just be evaluated by their interpretations of the parts?

Why do they have to be evaluated by their complexions?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 6/6/09 at 8:20pm

Temple University did a black and white Romeo and Juliet back in the 70s. Nothing ground-breaking happening.

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/7/09 at 12:02am

While it's lovely to think that talent should be the frontrunner when it comes to casting a show, it's rarely the case - people are always typed out for their looks. I fully support colour-blind casting, but when a main subject of a play is feuding families and you introduce race into the picture, that's what your audience is going to focus on. This was a much-debated topic among the Toronto theatre community last season - it's not only my thoughts.

[Plum]

Posted: 6/7/09 at 3:07am

Casting actors of more than one race doesn't necessarily "introduce the topic" of race into a play. If, as you say, both the Capulets and Montegues were multi-racial families, then it doesn't sound like he was trying to play up a racial rivalry between them at all. They were just the traditional "we hate each other because we do" rivals we see in conventional interpretations of the play.

Is a multi-racial cast really so stunning these days that race must become the center of the play whenever it's used? Maybe I've seen too many school plays that were multi-racial by necessity, but I'm not seeing what the big deal is, in this Macbeth or in the Romeo and Juliet you mention.
Updated On: 6/7/09 at 03:07 AM

[blueq123]

Posted: 6/7/09 at 3:36am

To say this is a non-issue is unfair to the legions of actors of color who routinely do not get cast in roles they could otherwise play successfully, were it not for the color of their skin. Yes, there are productions/companies that do not take the actors' races into consideration when casting them, but unfortunately, there are many more productions/companies that do. As long as this exists, it IS still an issue.

[A Director]

Posted: 6/7/09 at 4:59am

blueq123 - I understand and agree with your comments. The examples I mentioned in my original post are from a company that does not take the actor's races into consideration. This has been the case for close to twenty years.

It clearly is an issue for many given the reaction on this board to Phylicia Rashad appearing in August:Osage County. Tracy Letts gave his okay.

There is a jaw dropping letter in the June 7 NY Times in which the writer says he's offended by her casting and white should stick to white roles and blacks should stick to black roles.

And then there's John Lahr's review of Death of a Salesman at Yale Rep with Charles S. Dutton.....

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 4:44pm

Romeo and Juliet was marketing for months prior to the opening with an image of a (seemingly nude?) white Romeo with his arms clasped around his black Juliet. That plants a firm idea of a main theme of the piece, and you can't deny that. So after being fed this picture before walking into the theatre, the audience was expecting one thing, and I, personally, was baffled as to why it would be illustrated that way then strangely handled onstage, ignoring the suggestion that was made with the program's cover. If the goal was to prove that love knows no race, there were clearer ways to go about that.

Certainly, another message of McAnuff's piece was the timlessness of the star-crossed lovers, and the piece jumped from present-day to the Romantic period, then back to present day without any rhyme or reason.

I'm being long-winded and disorganized, but what I'm getting at was that McAnuff's production was sloppy and strangely directed when it seemed as though he was hoping to be awe-inspiring and deep. It was stunning to look at a lovely idea, but was mishandled.

That being said, I have tickets to see Macbeth in three weeks and am quite excited to see it.

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 4:47pm

Accidental double-post.

Updated On: 6/10/09 at 04:47 PM

[sparkleplenty]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 7:07pm

Sometimes the ethnic casting works sometimes it's ridiculous. I saw a college production of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" with a black Nick and it made little sense. Martha and George probably would have brought the racial issue up.

[Plum]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 7:15pm

Romeo and Juliet was marketing for months prior to the opening with an image of a (seemingly nude?) white Romeo with his arms clasped around his black Juliet. That plants a firm idea of a main theme of the piece, and you can't deny that.

I think I can deny that, and I do deny that. Why does the sight of an interracial couple on an ad automatically have to mean the play is "about" race? Apparently, for you, when Romeo and Juliet are both white they're kept apart by their feuding families, but when Romeo is white and Juliet is black, well, it must be about race. I disagree. Strenuously.

And while we're on this subject, why should the casting of non-white actors in a play that's not about race have to be explained at all? It's not like Shakespeare was particularly concerned with cultural/historical "accuracy" when writing plays set in Italy. White is not the default. "Deviations" from that "norm" don't need any explanation. That's why I don't like the term "non-traditional casting" - it gives all-white casting too much authority and weight.

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 8:36pm

When you have an interracial couple in a play about their families not wanting them to be together, your audience is going to make assumptions at first glance. Obviously it's not right and it's not what we'd hope for in our perfectly PC society, but that insinuation is still there. Just because you don't think this way doesn't mean that I'm a crazy person.

Also, I NEVER said that "white is the 'norm'" and that anything else is a "deviation." I said it before - I completely support colour blind casting. I just believe that in some roles this carries more weight than in others. Nobody is begging explanation with why some of lovers in this season's Midsummer are black and others are white or why Julius Caesar is "colour blind cast." It's brought up with Romeo and Juliet because of the subject matter.

I'm saying that McAnuff's treatment of Romeo and Juliet was baffling and sloppy - not that he should have an all-white cast or that it needed to be about race. Merely that he tried to make a weak point and shoved it in his audiences' faces without ever really explaining what he was doing.

[teh_pretty]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 8:50pm

What's more, McAnuff's ...Juliet WAS about race. His casting was no coincidence, and was used to mark that "love is (colour) blind." From my readings of the director's notes and of subsequent reviews, it was an attempt at proving that race does not matter (in that, neither does time period, nor genealogy, nor social standing...). However, I remain steadfast that it is not the message that he imparted well.