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

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 9:30pm

BakerWilliams said: "Regardless of authorial intent or not, this was a bad move on the part of the Albee estate. This is going to do nothing but look bad for them.

 

"

Exactly. The optics here are terrible. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 9:53pm

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.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 10:24pm

I'm sorry, but this is straight up racist and is spitting in the face of progress.  There is no real TEXTUAL reason why a black actor could not play this part.  They pulled the damn rights over the color of an actor's skin.  I could see this making sense if race were a major theme in the show, but this kind of reaction is frankly, disgusting, revolting, offensive, and downright motherf*cking racist.  The Albee estate should maybe wake up and realize that they're living in 2017.  I don't care what they consider to be the white (oops sorry I meant "right" ) way to cast this role, maybe it's time to allow black actors to play more than maids and poor August Wilson characters (no disrespect to Mr. Wilson).  Absolutely ridiculous.

Updated On: 5/18/17 at 10:24 PM

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 10:37pm

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."

[carnzee]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 10:50pm

Apparently there are references to Nick being Aryan or something. That's what Riedel's article says. I read the play years ago and don't remember. 

Still no reason not to do a color blind casting, but I can understand an estate not approving of color blind casting and only wanting literal casting. It's simply a matter of taste.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 10:55pm

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.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 10:57pm

Everything on stage is a choice and every choice matters. But CASTING is arguably the most important choice of all.

icecream is wrong that Nick's race isn't specified in the text. He is clearly white because George talks about how Nick's life is privileged and his future bright; MARTHA compares Nick favorably to George. George says science will someday make everyone exactly like Nick. NOBODY ever talked about an African-American in such terms in the early 1960s.

Nobody in the play (not even the stage directions) says Nick is white because NOBODY NEEDS TO DO SO. He is assumed to be white unless he looks and "acts" black. A black professor at an integrated college? Only that would require comment.

VIRGINIA WOOLF takes place before Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS case that struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Before Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, a film that was considered shocking because black Sydney Portier was brought home by a white girl to meet Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy! Before Capt. Kirk and Lt. Uhura shared one of the first interracial kisses on TV!

Given the intimacy of the evening and the amount of alcohol flowing, there's no way George and Martha don't ask (black) Nick and Honey, "Where are you from and where did you get married? Have you had any problems with the police or with your families? Do you avoid states that criminalize your relationship? Is it true black men have bigger dicks? Can I feel your hair? I've always wanted to feel 'colored' hair! (Alas, I'm neither kidding nor exaggerating.)"

I doubt some are old enough to remember all of the above, or a thousand other details of the play's period. But they should be old enough to understand that the Estate doesn't want people thinking about all that racial stuff--WHICH IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT IN ALBEE'S TEXT!--while watching Albee's play. (One more: "Why can't Nick and Honey actually get pregnant? Is it because she subconsciously doesn't want to give birth to a biracial child?" The four characters are so artfully constructed and multi-layered that changing a major attribute such as race would make any one of them unrecognizable.)

Yes, it's 2017 and many of us think differently than we did then. But that doesn't mean George, Martha, Nick and Honey have come into the 21st century with us.

Updated On: 5/18/17 at 10:57 PM

[Ziva56]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 11:05pm

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. 

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 11:19pm

Your privilege is showing.......

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 11:24pm

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.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 11:27pm

Nope this is racism.  Racism is definitely the right word to use in this situation.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 11:55pm

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

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 12:55am

So. You suggest they cut the lines referring to the character's looks or... what? Ask the audience to pretend they don't see the color of the actor? Neither really seems like an acceptable solution in this instance. One would be a violation of a playwright who was known to be very insistent his words not be changed, the other would be cultural erasure. 

It's not about doing the play "traditionally." There are lots of ways to do the play non-traditionally that don't go against the text of the play. A lot of folks I've seen seem to be trying to make an a generalized argument about casting for all plays... this is a specific production of a specific play by a specific playwright.  A playwright who had specific objections regarding the specific "world" of the specific play he wrote.  Pretending that race wouldn't have an effect on the play is disingenuous. And for the record, a lot of playwrights and/or their estates don't care. Albee cared and it makes sense that he wanted his estate to care... so I'm not sure trying to make some broad statement about privilege or racism really applies here. 

Updated On: 5/19/17 at 12:55 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 1:12am

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

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 1:26am

Very well put Ziva56.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 2:04am

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]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 2:05am

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.

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 2:11am

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.

 

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 2:37am

I ultimately believe that the theatre was at fault in this case. They did not go through the proper channels to secure the rights to the play they wanted to produce. I think that is beside the point because it brings up something very ugly about the history of the American play. They are so inherently white because that is the era and social climate during which these plays were written. To this day, plays that are written in this similar style rarely contain people of color (friends of mine refer to them as rich white people problem plays). And yes, that is privilege and essentially systemic racism. So to "stop calling everything racist" is a little hard when still to this day, people of color are not invited to the table. And this comes from a theatre artist of color who has many friends who are people of color who do the same four or five shows because those are the only shows they are allowed to be seen for. And when two or three of those shows are considered racist by white American theatergoers, it's a lose-lose situation. It really is a shame that people of color can't ever have the experience of delving into these quintessential, meaty roles in American theatre, but are forced to make a career of finding productions of Dreamgirls, or are told they should feel ashamed for playing a role while in actuality they are proud to finally book Broadway on their 12th production of Miss Saigon. Again, not saying this necessarily will fit into this specific scenario, but yeah, it's hard to "stop calling everything racist" when very little is done to change the diversity of theatre. I don't think anyone ever told Laura Osnes to "create your own art" if she wanted to have a career as a Broadway actor.

Updated On: 5/19/17 at 02:37 AM

[bk]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 4:16am

"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.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 4:25am

bk said: ""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.

 

"

Right. Except American theater has only one Fences where there's more than a dozen Virginia Woolf.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 4:32am

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

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 5:15am

Jesus. I can name a handful of black actors off the top of my head who I'd love to see in the role of Nick. John Boyega would kill it.


This article disturbs me somewhat as I'm currently setting up a theatre company for Queer actors and was hoping to produce a production of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" with a transwoman. I didn't think it would be an issue at all but after seeing this I better do some more research. 

Updated On: 5/19/17 at 05:15 AM

[Sondheimite]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 6:18am

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.  

[djoko84]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 7:31am

Anyone against the author's wishes for their own work is an idiot. They are absolutely in their right to honor Albee's wishes. No one has any right to alter the vision an author has for his or her OWN work.