Diversity on Broadway- Page 20

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 4:09pm

"Colored people"

[Showface]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 4:23pm

I would like for someone on this thread to define "racist" and "racism"...because some people still don't get it

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 5:04pm

There is some crazy tension on this thread right now. So obviously race matters? To anyone who said it doesn't, it's strange that you can say that when you go on and on in a thread about it. There is an obvious need for POC advancement in the arts. Broadway even. There also is just a general need for new material. We are flooded these days with revivals and movie-musicals. Let's find more shows like Hamilton and If-Then. I will tell you this, as I am a theater major at one of the major performing arts schools. The generation coming up is a whole lot less racist. We are diverse, new, and fresh and have ideas of blended shows, and all types of art form. There is little discrimination to be found here. I am currently taking Black history and culture and I can tell you now that POC are oppressed. It's just the truth. The Civil rights movement was only half a century ago. We can not forget, but we have to move forward, and arguing a point that revolves around the idea that "white people are not favorited in the theater world (or at least up to now)" is pointless... Rant over.

PS- Eclipsed is coming to broadway! Another success for POC this season. 

Updated On: 10/23/15 at 05:04 PM

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 5:28pm

Also, the sheriff in Misery is a black actor. Progress. 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 6:30pm

Dave19 thinks the slate has been wiped clean and we are starting again from scratch.

[Showface]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 6:41pm

...and that there is a 100% double standard

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 8:36pm

Good heavens, Dave19, I defended part of what you said, but now, I think you're sounding insensitive, at the least.

I believe that there is a lack of parallelism between white people and persons of color, just as there is between Christians and Jews, and between straight people and gay people. Those who say that we should ignore race (or religion, or any other minority status) do not, in my experience, mean that we should progress to a point where being a minority doesn't matter -- instead they mean to freeze the status quo and forget about doing anything further to address discrimination. This is a form of "don't ask, don't tell," which leaves the majority feeling less guilty, but does nothing to advance the day when the only race that matters is the human race.

I certainly admit that majority people have some legitimate beefs, especially when it comes to the clumsy way that many entities implement affirmative action. I worked for an entity that ran such a program, and no two people could figure out what it was designed to do, let alone how to do it fairly. I've also seen such programs backfire, because it leads to more anti-minority discrimination. (If you want to know how, please send me a private message).

What the cultural difference deniers fail to understand is that, by insisting everything be vanilla, they're insisting that people with other backgrounds conform to their own cultural model. It's easy for a person whose Christian family got to the US from Europe in the early 1800's to tell Jewish people to get over the Holocaust. We will, eventually, but others shouldn't judge. I'm sure black Americans would be "over" slavery by now if equality had replaced it, instead of a century of Jim Crow.

So, for goodness sake, Dave and others, please accept that the LAW may require equality, but that doesn't mean that there is yet equal opportunity in theatre or elsewhere. Sometimes, the most open-minded members of the majority (of whom I hope I'm one) will disagree with people of color regarding whether particular casting is justified -- I know I scratched my head when some folks argued that only Asian people should be cast in a G&S society's production of the Mikado.OTOH, I get quite upset when people say that the "best" performer should be cast in a role, as if the "best" were always white;"best" is often a subjective thing in theatre, based on whose performance we happen to like the most.

So, please, Dave19, show some sensitivity -- if you never had to worry about race, please don't assume that people who did should stop doing so because discrimination is illegal. It takes generations to get over a stain like Jim Crow.

End of rant. Carry on!

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 8:47pm

It's easier to argue with Dave19 than to address the very important point that was raised earlier on this thread. What meaning does "Diversity on Broadway" have if the increasingly diverse and increasingly POC generated shows are still performing to largely white audiences? 

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 3:02am

SinisterTeashop writes: What meaning does "Diversity on Broadway" have if the increasingly diverse and increasingly POC generated shows are still performing to largely white audiences? 

 

Actually, Sinister, I think that it's a sign of progress that POC-generated shows are attracting white audiences. I would love to increase attendance by African-American and Hispanic people (Asian people, in my unscientific observations, do seem to attend performances in large numbers), Nonetheless, to be a huge hit and make lots of money, the largest demographic groups (in other words, for now, at least, white people) must embrace a show. Otherwise, the show gets a reputation as a "niche" show, and can't earn as much money.

 

To give a nonracial example, "La Cage Aux Folles" drew huge numbers of gay men. However, I think it did so well because straight audiences loved it too. "Fiddler on the Roof" could not have become a classic without the support of non-Jewish theatergoers. I see POC-produced shows the same way.

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:45am

Jay Lerner-Z said: ""Intact" is all one word. I ignored it the first seventeen times you said "in tact", but now I must speak.

 

"

Thanks for the tip! English is my 4th language. And yours?

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:46am

Showface said: "I would like for someone on this thread to define "racist" and "racism"...because some people still don't get it

 

"

Racism = Any form of separation based on race in your mind. 

So if you feel the need for different rules, treatment or separate things, you are a racist, no matter how good you think you mean it.

 

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 06:46 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:57am

"I believe that there is a lack of parallelism between white people and persons of color, just as there is between Christians and Jews, and between straight people and gay people"

 

I know.

 

But what is the solution? That is the question.

 

That gay guys demand to play straight roles and HAVE to show they are gay in that role? I don't think so.

 

I understand that there are many minority groups, with characteristis, that people feel they have to fight for in real life, even to this day gay people are sentenced to death in many countries. Not even comparable to being African American today, in terms of acceptance and cruelty.

 

But demanding separate awards for gays, separate rules, and separate ways of using make up, is just horrible and extremely discriminating, no matter how good it might make you feel.

 

Same goes for colored people. Get rid of the separations in your mind. Only then things will get better.

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 06:57 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 7:08am

TerrenceIsTheMann said: "Also, the sheriff in Misery is a black actor. Progress. 

 

"

Black actor plays sheriff in Misery - Progress

Black actor plays Piangi in Phantom- Racist

Black actor plays Phantom - Progress

Black actor plays bargirl in Miss Saigon- Racist

Black actor plays Elphaba - Progress

 

Double agenda anyone? To me everything is progress. As long as Piangi looks and sounds Italian of course, but many black actors can pull that off I think. A little line around the eye can do a lot. So does accent.

 

Do people realize we are talking about "A ROLE" here? 

 

So let me see if I understand the racist rules; when make up requires a slight change it's racist, when a role is neutral it's progress, and when you don't see skin at all (Elphaba or Shrek), it's good to, as long as the skin is hidden?

WOW.

 

 

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 07:08 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 7:14am

sinister teashop said: "It's easier to argue with Dave19 than to address the very important point that was raised earlier on this thread. What meaning does "Diversity on Broadway" have if the increasingly diverse and increasingly POC generated shows are still performing to largely white audiences? 

 

"

Good question.

Also, what kind of diversity really matters, in actors or in roles. Big difference.

 

 

 

[Showface]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 10:13am

Someone (I'm not naming who) on this thread needs to strengthen his reading comprehension skills

Someone (I'm not naming who) on this thread needs to realize that his definition of "racism" I'd flawed

AGAIN

I'm. NOT. Naming.Who.

 

"Not even comparable to being African American today, in terms of acceptance and cruelty."

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 10:13 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 10:25am

"Someone (I'm not naming who) on this thread needs to realize that his definition of "racism" I'd flawed"

 

Of course it's flawed. It came from his own mind.

[c0113g3b0y]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 11:08am

just putting this out here.

With Matilda being a British story, would it be strange/ weird if they decided to cast a little girl of color (Asian / Black / Hispanic) in a the lead role? Or, to an extent, even cast her parents as different races - e.g. Mr Wormwood being black, while Mrs Wormwood is Chinese. I think it would reflect Britian's / NYC's multicultural-metropolitian society beautifully. 

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 3:15pm

The Matilda tour actually has a Filipino Matilda in the form of Gabby Gutierrez, and (obviously) it wasn't weird at all.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 4:26pm

One of the original American Billy Elliots was African-American, some people had a problem with it.

 

nor would any of your above scenarios.

 

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:28pm

"Not even comparable to being African American today, in terms of acceptance and cruelty."

 

Can you tell me which countries sentence you to death today for being African American?

 

Your turn.

 

 

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 06:28 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:38pm

"Someone (I'm not naming who) on this thread needs to realize that his definition of "racism" I'd flawed"

 

You know what's flawed? Not realizing that "positive" separation is also racist, and has consequences.

(like twisted rules for certain groups I mentioned earlier). 

But be my guest, keep on living by your double agenda and be happy with it.

Keep the separation intact.

 

 

 

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 06:38 PM

[Showface]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:40pm

EDIT: Oh, why even bother? Perfect time to use the "block" feature

This troll is too ignorant for words.

Someone let me know when his impending meltdown occurs.

 

(On a side note: I would like to thank those on this thread who have discussed and posted, who have their heads screwed on properly--these are the posters that I am thankful for.)

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 06:40 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 6:45pm

Showface said: "African-American. Yet, he mentions other countries. LOL"

 

You are too dumb for words. 

It doesn't matter where the person is from. It's about the characteristics that is illegal in countries today.

That also means that gay guys from all over the world are in danger when they visit such a country.

 

 

So, luckily being African American won't get you killed today anymore. But even the gays, who are in much more danger and are much more suppressed today, don't insist on using such ridiculous behaviour, such as own awards, treatments and rules.

There is nothing wrong with a black person using a line around his eye for a role to give a certain impression, as it has nothing to do with the person, only with the role. If you don't like that idea because you refuse to see him as a person, but just as a color, you are a racist.

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 06:45 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 7:14pm

Imagine, a black actor is offered the role of Piangi in Phantom. He needs to, of course, look and sound Italian. Mediterranean race. Just a slight bit of make up and accent.

 

1. You want that actor off the role as soon as possible and send him home because of his color and leave him with no job.

 

2. You love the idea that black actors can play anything and embrace the fact that he gets the job and see him as a real person and a real actor.

 

Which one is more racist?

 

 

 

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 07:14 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 7:24pm

"(like twisted rules for certain groups I mentioned earlier)"

 

Dave, twisted is the word I use to describe your thinking. I'm not trying to be snarky, I mean it. I've tried to understand what you're talking about and to make sense out of what you say, but as I said, it's all twisted.

 

You're in denial. The first step to getting help is admittance.