Estate of Edward Albee Yanks Rights to Production Over Casting of Black Actor — Page 2

icecreambenjamin said: "*cough, cough* racism.



"

I don't think so, though I understand the argument that "the optics are bad". But if I were in charge of Albee's estate, I wouldn't worry that the public will suddenly boycott Albee's plays.

I think the latest letter from the estate is quite convincing. Nick is referred to as "the All-American boy" in various ways: comedically, admiringly, condescendingly and eventually with considerable hostility. Thematically, it's a lot more than a matter of precise hair color (and I can tell you from personal experience that "blond" covers a wide range of shades). It doesn't make any sense for a story set in the early 1960s that others see Nick as Jack Armstrong if he is black.

Were the story set today, Nick would have been written differently I feel sure. But it isn't and he wasn't.

So if one wants to complain on the ground of racial diversity, the question should be why the theater wanted to do the play at all?

Not all (realistic) plays can be cast with all racial combinations, but that doesn't mean actors of color must work less. It may merely mean some plays aren't produced as often in the future.

It's been a while since I read Woolf. I don't recall anything about Nick that would be explicitly "different" or wrong as a black man, other than the fact that an Everyman was a white man in that era.

i can't help but wonder, in regards to Benjamin, are there roles without race markers that a black actor should NOT play? I think a black Pierpont Finch would turn all of H2$ into a peculiar racist joke, particularly "Brotherhood of Man."

again, this was not color blind casting; it was color intentional casting. That is a huge difference and continuing to discuss this without recognizing that renders the discussion silly.

I completely understand why. By casting an African American actor in this role, it completely changes the story. It adds in complications of race and adds things to the story the author did not intend.

August Wilson spoke of this perfectly in his article Ground on Which I Stand when he said we need to encourage African American authors and produce African American stories within the theatre not just cast them in white people's stories and call it a day. It works in some shows, like Cinderella or the new Harry Potter, but for other's it's an absolute disaster. Remember the Streetcar production with an all-black cast? The one that felt kind of uncomfortable because the family money came from plantations?

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is another white person's story as that's how Albee envisioned it. And that's fine. But as for the issue of lack of roles for African Americans in the theatre, well that comes down to not enough African American stories being produced. We don't need more African American's being blindly cast in a role meant for a white person, we need more roles written for African Americans as well as other minorities. Period.

Beautifully said, Ziva56! And so concise!

Personally, I have no problem with black actors playing Charity, Lizzie, Carrie, Javert, Don Quixote, Richard III, Hamlet, Jesus or Seguismundo. I think Wilson was engaging in a little hyperbole to make his point.

But ultimately the answer is to encourage more diverse writing (which I think a lot of the regionals are doing), to resist the easy resort to realism as a performance style (the less representational the play, the less importance attaches to superficial characteristics), and to avoid hurling the word "racist" too quickly.

Ziva56 said: "But as for the issue of lack of roles for African Americans in the theatre, well that comes down to not enough African American stories being produced. We don't need more African American's being blindly cast in a role meant for a white person, we need more roles written for African Americans as well as other minorities. Period. "

While it's true there needs to be more roles open to black people (and all other races and ethnicities), we cannot have actors of color ONLY play roles written specifically with their race in mind. We need to have any role that is not race specific to be open to any ethnicity. It drives me crazy that there are "token" people in the ensemble of a musical because this means that in the world of that play, there are people of color integrated into society; why can't they play principal characters and why is there only one black man and one black woman? Yes, we need more stories about black people, Asian people, Latino people, etc., but that cannot be the only answer to diversify casting. At some point, we need to have actors of color in major visible roles where race doesn't matter. I've always wondered why the heck there aren't more Elphabas of color...the character is green for goodness' sake!

No matter the intention of this production being shut down, I do see systemically racist undertones and it is a very close-minded decision. I'm sorry, we can go on and on about how black people wouldn't have done this and that in that era, but I don't see anyone complaining about the several nonwhite ensemble members in Anastasia or the Asian people in Groundhog Day.

And then don't get me started about whitewashing Asian, Latino, black characters... White people have been playing against their own race forever and it's still so prevalent in Hollywood. Race is a factor for these characters and time and time again we see white people playing them. But okay, let's complain about a conscious choice to cast a black person in a role that is traditionally cast white; we won't learn any new things about the play unless it's only done traditionally.

Updated On: 5/18/17 at 11:55 PM

Ziva56 said:
August Wilson spoke of this perfectly in his article Ground on Which I Stand when he said we need to encourage African American authors and produce African American stories within the theatre not just cast them in white people's stories and call it a day. It works in some shows, like Cinderella or the new Harry Potter, but for other's it's an absolute disaster. Remember the Streetcar production with an all-black cast? The one that felt kind of uncomfortable because the family money came from plantations?

"

You mean Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I get that point, and probably agree with it somewhat. That said, I bet James Earl Jones, Phylicia Rashad, and Anika Noni Rose were so happy to be given a chance to play those characters in that classic play that they probably studied and analyzed as Tennessee Williams is such a institution in theatre now. Much of what we study in drama classes are European/American works where one cannot cast someone of color without it being anachronistic and that anachronism may undermine the work. I'm not saying it was a good production (I mean Debbie Allen...) or that casting African-Americans didn't contrast with the play, but that it must be nice for non-traditional actors to be able to play these classic characters in these classic stories in a professional production because they'll never be given the opportunity again or won't be given the opportunity very often. Anyway, from Brantley's review, the race aspect wasn't what was really wrong with that production.

Updated On: 5/19/17 at 01:12 AM

GavestonPS said: "Not all (realistic) plays can be cast with all racial combinations, but that doesn't mean actors of color must work less. It may merely mean some plays aren't produced as often in the future.

I understand both sides of the argument and while I don't agree with much of what's been stated in this thread, this stood out. If an estate isn't open to letting the work evolve because of "authorial intent" then maybe some plays just won't be produced as often in the future. It doesn't mean they won't still be classics or worth revisiting on stage and in classrooms but diverse casting is becoming an element of relevance like it or not and if a play is becoming less relevant, maybe it should stay on the shelf a little longer.

The theory about whoever was in charge casting without securing a go ahead and hoping the pressure would get the estate to bend is also shady if true. There are plays (where the race of the characters isn't specified) that are either not subject to copyright or where the authors would let you cast who you wanted. Why go after this play?

The Distinctive Baritone said: "I played Nick many years ago back when my hair was blonde...For the record, in the original script, Nick is specifically referred to as blonde by George. However, the recent Broadway revival did not include those lines and Nick (Madison Dirks) had dark hair. The stuff about Nick being "Aryan" or whatever is kind of pointless anyway. I'm not sure what the current licensed script includes.

Regardless, the play takes place in the 1960's, so no, it is very unlikely that Nick, who is a university professor in New England, would be non-white. And if he were non-white, it would definitely be brought up by George or Martha.

WAVW is a bit absurdist, but is essentially realism, and is a play about white people. "Colorblind" casting doesn't work with this particular piece. It's personally my favorite play, but yes, it's dated. And if you have a problem with that, then don't do it.

Stop calling everything racist. There are ACTUAL injustices that urgently need your attention right now.

Well put.

"Removing the lines about Nick's race would not change the story or really the character at all,"

REMOVING THE LINES, dear boy, CHANGES THE PLAY. And if you think you have the right to do that, think again. And if you look at some of the ridiculous posts in this thread you can see just how astute Mr. Albee was in keeping this kind of control over HIS work - let me say that again - HIS work. The fact that the estate has control over casting is not a secret and if everyone would bother to read the estate's two responses you would know just what an entitled jerk Mr. Streeter is. First off, in his Facebook post he LIED so that marks him a jerk right there - they didn't fire the actor, they simply would not grant permission for it to be cast that way, as is their RIGHT.

And to this endless "racist" horse manure - I do hope the person who keeps spouting how racist this is won't mind my all-white production of Fences. Two-way street and all.

I suppose in context of "white" plays, but my dear, in terms of quality and textual genius, there is only one Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. There's a reason it's one of the greatest plays of all time (my personal favorite, second only to my beloved A Streetcar Named Desire).

Updated On: 5/19/17 at 04:32 AM

This is a small theatre in Portland, this is a non-issue because this production would have lived and died and been done with. Did the estate of Albee do this to intentionally be "racist"? I doubt it. But making the choice to take on this battle in 2017 comes off as kinda racist. I get all the issues (the production didn't even have the rights to the play...) and both sides of this coin... But it just seems like a pointless and idiotic thing for the Albee Estate to do.