Erin Quill Bizarrely Obsessed With - Page 2

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 8:26pm

"And quit arguing where they are from...its obviously a "brown-skinned" land. The use Asian Indian accents for gods sake. Please, stop letting your love for the show make you stupid."

Hey rude person. Have you ever actually studied Dickens or the original novel or the many, many productions of this show over time? No one is being stupid. There are MANY interpretations of their characters and they have been played many different ways. For example, the BBC miniseries does use actors of Indian descent. Then again, that is a direct adaptation of the book, so it lacks the frame that the musical has.

Jessie Mueller and Andy Karl are playing Janet Conover and Victor Grinstead, who are written as Caucasian members of the theatre troupe who play Neville and Helena in their production of The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Disagree with the writing all you want, but the reality is their casting is perfectly appropriate for the show as it was written.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 08:26 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 8:30pm

"The [sic] use Asian Indian accents for gods sake."

Actually, according to Helena, they use "geographically undefinable" accents.

Are you trolling or just playing devil's advocate, Owen? Either way, no need to be insulting.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 8:31pm

Kelly, good spot on the altered photo. That seems pretty shameless and hypocritical. As has been mentioned time and time again, Mueller and Karl are playing actors in a BRITISH theatre troupe portraying people of an ethnic background, I'll leave the debating about where exactly the characters are from to the experts.

Sure, the musical easily could have been colorblind cast, even though it wouldn't be faithful to an actual English music hall, but I doubt anyone would care since race has nothing to do with the story or conceit. Obviously the creative team elected to cast the roles with the "true to life" appearance, or perhaps colorblind casting and this is who they liked the best. Regardless, this whole argument is so senseless.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 8:50pm

And why now? The show has been in performances since October. The cast was announced months before that. The show's been around since the late 80s. It's not as if the rug were pulled out from the theatre community on this.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 8:59pm

Kelly, for someone who's criticizing people for making baseless accusations, it's pretty hilarious that you've just blatantly and falsely accused the AAPC of doctoring a production photo.

The photo that you claim in your blog post was "darkened" came directly from Roundabout's website, as linked below. The one you claim is the "original" is actually the one that's been doctored, so "that right there is where you lose the argument and you lose my support of even continuing the conversation."

http://www.roundabouttheatre.org/getattachment/f3d6578c-1cf9-442d-9f99-7120823d575d//Image-Gallery/Drood/MED12_andy.aspx

For the record, I agree that any allegations of racism here are a bunch of nonsense, given the context of the characters within the story, but you are as hypocritical as hypocritical can be. You're saying these people are publicly jumping to conclusions without the proper evidence to support their points and yet that's exactly what you did in condemning them.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 08:59 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:02pm

Somethingwicked, if you're correct then I'll happily remove the accusation. The photo I placed as the original was taken from a tumblr post. I had no reason to believe it wasn't accurate. The photo I saw on the Facebook page looked completely inaccurate to the makeup I had seen in person just this week. So, if this is not the case then I apologize and have no problem admitting to being wrong.

On another note, does no one find her tweets to be racially offensive? I mean, to me, when you're talking like that it's hard to take it seriously when you call someone else out for racism.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:02 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:07pm

I linked the original photo directly, but you can also go to the Roundabout website and verify the same image in the photo gallery. You're completely wrong, and thus your accusation is entirely fabricated. You've gone as far as to say that the AAPAC's post is "littered with factual errors, misstatements, and conclusions not found in evidence," and yet so is yours, as proven by your inaccuracy as far as the production photos are concerned. You've pretty much destroyed your own credibility.

I also find it interesting that you write this in your blog posting:

If you’re seriously hurt/offended, AAPAC, why not cut the press release, and contact Roundabout and try to have a conversation? These tactics are desperate and just seem like you’re trying to stir up some controversy to get more than 673 likes on your page.

Couldn't someone say the same thing about what you're doing by writing a public blog entry instead of writing a private letter to the AAPAC like you're saying they should have done with Roundabout? Especially considering the lengths you go at the end of your post to encourage people to spread the word in agreement with you, it's the exact same thing.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:07 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:09pm

Did I say it was "inappropriate" casting? And it IS stupid to try to pretend they are NOT putting on "brown face" to portray characters. Even STUPIDER to do so cause you think someone is just talking bad about your wittle Edwin Drood show...

And I like how Kelly completely ignored my comment about "The Scottsboro Boys". Which, I think is a bad comparison, as I think that would add depth to the show.

But what if there was a show that somewhat celebrated white Southerners putting on black face for a fun filled comedy romp, with down home Southern black accents. What would you say then?

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:13pm

"Especially considering the lengths you go at the end of your post to encourage people to spread the word in agreement with you, it's the exact same thing."

You're absolutely right. I did write it with the intention to spread the word. Because I feel that if there is a movement to spread their message, it is completely appropriate for there to be a counterbalance to that with an opposing view.

I should also disclose that I had a Twitter exchange with Ms. Quill about the issue over the hypocrisy of singing "The More You Ruv Someone" and complaining so bitterly about stereotypical roles in theatre. Her response was to claim Christmas Eve was in no way racist and then talk about how she scares "white people". I find it pretty funny that she thinks it isn't racist to try and guess someone's race based on one photo. Cause...I'm not even dominantly Caucasian. Just look it!

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:14pm

Everyone is ignoring your comment about The Scottsboro Boys, precisely because, as you say yourself, Owen, it is a bad comparison.

"But what if there was a show that somewhat celebrated white Southerners putting on black face for a fun filled comedy romp, with down home Southern black accents. What would you say then?"

I would say that would be a completely different thread.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:14 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:17pm

Kelly, if it's okay for you to publicly express your disagreement with the AAPAC, why is it not okay for them to publicly express their disagreement with Roundabout? You say they should have taken this issue up with Roundabout privately, and yet you yourself didn't take up your issue privately with the AAPAC. The fact that they'd already made this a public issue is beside the point- the issue of contention is still the same, and you've gone against the very course of action you advocated in dealing with it.

I agree entirely with your basic point that the AAPAC's claim of racism is inappropriate, but who are they to be prevented from freedom of expression, just as you are free to blog in rebuttal? And yet you basically say they have no right to speak as you speak to condemn them.

Besides your manner of disagreement being nothing short of hypocritical, you're also in borderline slander territory, considering what you inaccurately accused the AAPAC of as far as the pictures go. If I were you, I'd remove any references to photo doctoring from that blog post before someone else does a quick Google search and finds you out for a fraud as quickly as I did.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:17 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:22pm

I removed the reference as soon as you pointed out it's inaccuracy. Unlike some people, when someone gives me factual reasons to show I was incorrect, I have absolutely no qualms about correcting the issue ASAP.

And I did attempt to resolve my concerns privately. I actually did contact Ms. Quill after her original post, in addition to a member of AAPAC and they were completely unresponsive to my concerns about their argument and combative towards me. My post was made after that, as I was unable to engage in any kind of productive dialogue privately.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:22 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:28pm

That's all well and good, but who's to say the AAPAC's post wasn't made after they felt their concerns weren't adequately dealt with when they addressed them privately? As they point out, Roundabout has a documented history of a lack of diversity when it comes to casting, and they explain verbatim in the statement why they're making it public in addition to reaching out to Roundabout privately:

We are reaching out to the Roundabout to engage in closed-door discussions about these issues and are hopeful that they will accept our invitation. We are certain that their record does not reflect a conscious policy of exclusion and we hope that by bringing these issues to a more conscious level, the Roundabout can become an ally in an industry-wide commitment to more inclusive casting.

They want to bring this to light to put public pressure on Roundabout to address the documented lack of diversity in their artistic expression. Whether or not you agree with the validity of the point, their reasoning is very clearly articulated. When you had an issue in this circumstance, you made overtures to the appropriate parties privately, weren't satisfied with the response you got, and thus made a public post expressing your concern. You are completely within your rights to do that, but the AAPAC did the same exact thing, and yet you condemn them for it. It's hypocritical in every sense of the word.

You can disagree with someone's point without denying their right to express it.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:28 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:32pm

Actually, I made the post based on the fact that private talks had not occurred and failed yet. That's great that their statement requests them and I hope they get what they want. There are certainly valid points to be made generally regarding minority actors in Roundabout's shows. I just think Drood is not an example of that and their use of it as their primary example discredits the argument and shows a lack of understanding of the show.

I don't really have anything to add beyond that and I'm sorry if the explanation provided isn't a satisfactory one for you. I'd be happy to continue to discuss the issue privately if you wish to, but I don't want to completely derail this thread from having a very valid discussion about the merits of their complaint.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:32 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:32pm

"I would say that would be a completely different thread."

That's what I mean about being stupid.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:32 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 9:44pm

"That's what I mean about being stupid."

And that's what I'd call a nonsensical ad hominem attack. You're talking apples and oranges.

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 09:44 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 10:09pm

That's what you'd LIKE to think. It makes things easier, doesn't it?

Look, I never thought about it until this came up. But it would be the same thing. The British subjugated and were (and incidentally still ARE) horribly racist to their "owned" peoples of India.

Now, I don't know if there is anything like the sordid history of the minstral show in the UK. Did they make fun of Asian Indians in their music hall sketches on a regular basis? And if they did were Asian Indians eventually insulted by it? I don't know.

But to pretend this isn't the same thing is not just stupid, its head-in-the-sand denial. Just cause you happen to like the show that is possibly being racist.

And its not the Roundabout. Its the show itself. It mocks, sweetly, yes, but it still mocks Helena's accent, dress and demeanor and Neville is described in not-exactly-un-racist terms (now that I'm looking for it). Which would be bad enough. BUT it has the white actors of the Musical Hall, the subjugating oppressors of these people, putting on brown face to further mock them.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 10:21pm

"Just cause you happen to like the show that is possibly being racist. "

And, where, exactly, did you get the idea that I like the show?


Updated On: 2/1/13 at 10:21 PM

[tomatlcm]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 10:36pm

"The British subjugated and were (and incidentally still ARE) horribly racist to their "owned" peoples of India."
As a British citizen I found this comment most disturbing. First of all I would like to know exactly who we own in India, but after that I would also like you to know that whatever England may do it does by no account mean that it's populace condones slavery or "ownership" of any peoples. I hope you can deliver cold hard facts before you deliver such a black and white statement.

[sparepart973]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 11:01pm

Just because there is an "explanation" that they are Brits playing South Asians doesn't make it less of a brown face. Let's see what the heck they do with Aladdin.

[Boredathome]

Posted: 2/1/13 at 11:37pm

As much as I love the show, I agree. It tried to eek humour out of the Landless' "otherness" it's distasteful to say the least.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 2/2/13 at 3:10am

It's the same think Danny Burstein's character did in The Drowsy Chaperone. He was "a master of a thousand accents...each more racist than the one before." In a different time period (like the one Drood takes place in) white actors would paint ethnic features. I'm not saying it's right, but it happened. Heck, Yul Brenner made a career out of playing a man whose race he WASN'T (and Rita Moreno is clearly Siamese as well). Before the Thin Man movies Myrna Loy was always cast as an Asian temptress.There's a joke in Blazzing Saddles where Mel Brooks plays and Indian cheif with a stereotypical Jewish accent. The Indian in the anti-litter commerials in the 70s was Italian-American. Andy Karl and Jessie Mueller aren't playing people from Ceylon. They are playing white actors in 1985 who specialize in the glamorous "foreign" roles.

Again, I'm not saying we need to pull a Mickey Rooney for the Breakfast at Tiffany's that's coming up, but within the structure and time period of Drood, it fits. I'm sure we could cast Raza Jaffrey as Neville and he would do a fine job, but a lot of the "joke" of the character would be lost. The appropriateness of the "joke" in general is a different story.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/2/13 at 8:22am

One of her points did give me pause: had they been from Jamaica, say, rather than Ceylon, would the characters appear in blackface? If so, would we be more bothered?

Exactly, Reg. Everybody should think about that.

This isn't a new subject, for those of you saying, "Why bring it up now?" You missed the posts. We discussed it at length right here on BWW in a long thread, months before the Drood revival opened. I erred on the side of Erin Quill (long before her post), although I was not nearly as outraged, I still think it's as uncomfortable as blackface and just as offensive.

As for Danny Burstein, I think that "uncomfortable factor" cost him his Tony Award (which I thought he deserved). I don't think people could vote for that portrayal in good conscience even if they laughed their assess off in the theatre.

EDIT: I will add that in Drowsy Chaperone, it's called out as an offensive portrayal, and horribly "wrong" even in its time, much less today. It's not an "accepted conceit," it's meant to be awkward and uncomfortable. To me, that's where the humor comes from, not from looking at the funny white guy playing a clownish Latin lover. That character is based directly on Eric Rhodes's performance as "Rodolfo Tonetti" in the 1934 Astaire & Rogers film classic "The Gay Divorcee."

Updated On: 2/2/13 at 08:22 AM

[mikem]

Posted: 2/2/13 at 8:40am

I have mixed feelings about this issue. The actual use of brown makeup doesn't bother me as much as it does some other people. Fred Armisen's portrayal of Obama on Saturday Night Live with brown makeup, to me at least, is not racist, and I would put the use of brown makeup in Drood in the same category.

But I will say that the portrayal of the Landlesses in the show skirted on making me uncomfortable. I think the problem is the context. As Best12bars mentioned, in other recent shows with racial stereotypes, such as Drowsy Chaperone, Thoroughly Modern Millie, or the Roundabout revival of Anything Goes, either the stereotyped group is portrayed heroically or there is some kind of commentary within the show that the stereotypes are wrong. Drood doesn't do either of those things. It brings up "exotic" stereotypes and just lets them hang there. The actors aren't mocking the stereotypes within the show.

Maybe the accents are supposed to be "geographically undefinable," but to my ear, they sound like poorly executed attempts at Indian accents. If they were going the "undefinable" route, they should have stayed away from any resemblance to South Asian accents. And Andy Karl and Jessie Mueller are excellent actors -- they could play a "I know this is ridiculous" winking-to-the-audience subtext about their accents/gestures/dress within the parameters of the show without disrupting it. But they don't. I'm guessing because no one asked them to.

Drood is a very light, fluffy comedy. Neither the libretto nor the current directorial vision seem to be making any attempt at social commentary. The show is presenting racial stereotypes without criticizing them. And it may be historically accurate, but it's not a show that is striving for realism in other ways. So it sticks out.

Updated On: 2/2/13 at 08:40 AM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/2/13 at 2:34pm

For those curious, a friend saw the show last night and said that there was absolutely no change in the makeup, costuming, or performances of Ms. Mueller or Mr. Karl. As it should be.

Updated On: 2/2/13 at 02:34 PM