Estate of Edward Albee Yanks Rights to Production Over Casting of Black Actor — Page 5

Dancingthrulife2 said: "CarlosAlberto said: "I am a person of color and I can definitely see that this is NOT a case of racism at all. This is clearly a case of the estate protecting the original author's intent and the integrity of the play.

You have to set some sort of boundaries or else theatrical companies/directors will just run amuck with your work. Respect the author's vision.





"

I'm sure Shakespeare wanted his Twelfth Night to be set in 1990's Cuba



If the author's estate ok's changes that's one thing and if the author is deceased and has no estate representation that's another, but when the author's estate has the responsibility of protecting the author's work then their decision has to be respected.

HogansHero said: "@orangeskittles except that's not what happened so what you say adds nothing to the discussion.

And yes of course lash out at Albee as you do. I'm sure his ashes will view your hissy fit in much the same way he famously does that of the infamously racist John Simon."

Then what happened? The estate said the theatre wouldn't license the show with a black actor playing Nick. What about this is inaccurate? Discriminating on the basis of someone's race is racism.

And hissy fit? I'm not that invested in this. I don't like the play and have no intention of seeing any future production regardless of the casting. You're the one who appears to be obsessively defending Edward Albee.

Edward Albee was entitled to do whatever he wanted regarding his work, but I think it's short-sighted for any playwright to limit the production their work in perpetuity based on non-textual historical accuracy. By the year 2057 when his copyright expires, will subsequent generations of theatre directors still be selecting a play that requires them to submit headshots to prove their cast is all white? Or will they simply choose another play?

Dancingthrulife2 said: "It's really interesting that just because the States itself was (and still is) racist and homophobic, some people assume the rest of the world to be the same."

Please help me understand how this history (from your previous post) is not anti-gay:

"the earliest documented bans on homosexuality date to the early-mid 17th century. Gregory Karpovich Kotoshikhin recorded during the reign of Czar Alexis Mikhailovich that male homosexuals were put to death, and also states that female homosexuals are also put to death by burning.[1] Government attempts at preventing homosexual practices began in the 18th century, with Tsar Peter the Great banning homosexual relations in the armed forces in 1716, as a part of his attempt to modernise the country. In 1832 further laws were enacted criminalising certain sexual acts between two males"

Lot666 said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "It's really interesting that just because the States itself was (and still is) racist and homophobic, some people assume the rest of the world to be the same."

Please help me understand how this history (from your previous post) is not anti-gay:

"the earliest documented bans on homosexuality date to the early-mid 17th century. Gregory Karpovich Kotoshikhin recorded during the reign of Czar Alexis Mikhailovich that male homosexuals were put to death, and also states that female homosexuals are also put to death by burning.[1] Government attempts at preventing homosexual practices began in the 18th century, with Tsar Peter the Great banning homosexual relations in the armed forces in 1716, as a part of his attempt to modernise the country. In 1832 further laws were enacted criminalising certain sexual acts between two males"



"

Why did you so conveniently leave out the last sentence, which mentions people being openly gay despite of the laws? Your argument is that having gay couples in the show is anachronistic, and that sentence offers an evidential justification for their existence.

@orangeskittles

The estate did not order anyone to do anything. They declined to grant rights to someone who failed to obtain the rights as required before casting the show (with a racially explicit role added to the breakdown) and even advertising that casting. Even on Broadway, with a famous director and a famous cast, a production that wanted to change anything would not proceed without both making its pitch in advance, gaining approval and having the rights granted. That's producing 101. Here, there was NEVER a presentation made to justify the change in the play. It is silly to suggest that Albee should "get with the times" or whatever nonsense is being suggested. In fact, there have been productions approved and even witnessed by Albee with persons of color in roles that were not written as such. What there has not been are productions seeking to exploit the race of an actor to alter the story. And while that might be an interesting idea, it can also be a terrible idea, and it is absolutely normal for a rights holder to not willy nilly grant the right for some unknown director who has already transgressed the rules to execute what may well be a poorly thought out idea, but in any event one that has not been pitched to the rights holder. That's what this is about.

It's perfectly fine that you don't like the play. It's also not relevant. I like it but what I am obsessively defending is not Albee but the established norms of literary licensing in America in 2017 and the seemingly simple notion that proceeding to produce a play and even going so far as to change the story without permission is a practice unworthy of defense regardless of how I feel about either the underlying legal framework or the merits.

And as should now be obvious to you unless you are consciously avoiding the facts and history of productions is that the Albee is not and has not limited anything on the basis you suggest. And I would not worry about folks deciding to do another play instead of one of the most sacred texts of 20th Century American theatre. But you go on disingenuously fretting about that, ok?

@LesMiz24601

easy. go look up the non-traditional casts that have been routinely approved by the rights holder.

HogansHero said: "@LesMiz24601

easy. go look up the non-traditional casts that have been routinely approved by the rights holder.



"

I guess I am confused because my understanding of the statement from the estate is that the text suggests that Nick is white. Therefore it should be played by a white actor.

Sorry if I am missing something, but is it your belief that the estate would be ok with "colorblind casting" but not with casting Nick as an African American? If that is the case, how would the rights holder know the difference when a request is made and photos are submitted?

I'm sure if Albee was alive he would have said something to the effect of "Just do The Goat or The Play About the Baby."

Also the estate might have been kinder and listened to a pitch about why they wanted to cast a black Nick intentionally if they had just gone through the proper channels.

Dancingthrulife2 said: "Right. Except American theater has only one Fences where there's more than a dozen Virginia Woolf.



"

Only a dozen? Because August Wilson is the most successful American playwright of any race on Broadway over the past half-century. He left us ten or more plays that enjoyed successful NYC runs. Add Suzanne Lori Parks, Amiri Baraka, George C. Wolfe, Lorraine Hansberry, Langston Hughes, etc. and so forth, and there's quite a body of dramatic literature written primarily for black actors.

And, as I said above, I think August Wilson let Robert Brustein back him into a corner in that essay where Wilson declared black actors should only play characters written as black. Personally, I think there are hundreds of roles where race doesn't matter; Nick just isn't one of them. Directors and casting directors SHOULD be checking and rechecking their assumptions about the racial identity of characters.

But a sincere belief that the text of a play requires certain racial identities in the cast shouldn't automatically be seen as "racist".

wonderfulwizard11 said: "I think it's very easy to say "go create your own work", but it ignores the difficult reality of finding a place to do that work...."

"

Just FTR, white people (actors, directors and playwrights) are told this at theater conferences all the time. In fact, many if not most of our "new" playwrights are actors writing roles for themselves.

(I don't disagree with your argument encouraging non-traditional casting. My point all along has only been that it is equally silly to say "all roles must be cast with an actor of the originally intended race" AND "all roles can be cast with an actor of any race".)

Lot666 said: "GavestonPS said: "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."

This is part of the reason why the casting of Denée Benton in The Great Comet was a poor choice to me; the suggestion that a young black woman might have been a countess involved in a love triangle with two princes in 1812 Moscow requires far too much suspension of disbelief. I wholeheartedly support the casting of different races, and even genders, in roles that have been "traditionally" performed by a certain physical type of actor if the character is not bound be the era of the work, but historical pieces start to fall apart for me when such anachronisms are introduced.



"

Leontyne Price was a famous and critically acclaimed Butterfly in the 1950s. Opera and musicals aren't realistic works to begin with, so I have no problem with a black Russian countess in 1812.

Someone above questioned why we have seen no black Elphabas. I can only guess, but I wonder if the creators feel an angry, mostly white mob chasing a "wicked" black witch would turn the entire show into something quite different. I suspect this may be the case because we all know plenty of black actresses can play the role.

Kad said: "Well, the overwhelming majority of the western theatrical canon- dating back to the ancient Greeks- is made up of works that were written either explicitly or implicitly to be performed by white actors.

It's all well and good to suggest that *contemporary* playwrights write works for people of all backgrounds, but that doesn't negate the 2,000 years of theatrical works that came before and are still regularly produced.

Personally, I think playwright estates- and playwrights themselves, though this sort of strict control seems to be largely passé- need to be more flexible. Allowing varied interpretations of work is beneficial to the work's longevity; it opens up the text to more and more possibilities and, in turn, more productions and audiences. I think Sondheim is very savvy in this regard, as his openness to having his works re-interpreted means they are constantly in the public eye and gaining exposure.



"

But haven't Sondheim and Firth spoken out against (and at least hinted that they might not approve) productions of COMPANY that include overt indications that Robert is gay? I believe they have (and I don't blame them: a gay Robert reduces the entire, complex play to a simplistic moral, "be yourself".