Posted: 1/18/16 at 2:39pm
I never enter into any discussion like this as I don't have the intelligence to debate with many here but the replies got me to look up the word 'racist'-----'a person who believes that a particular race is SUPERIOR to another'. When that becomes integral to your message-then you are one, and didn't see that happening here.
SL.....x
Posted: 1/18/16 at 2:49pm
RACISTLY. TINGED.
Posted: 1/18/16 at 3:01pm
gypsy101 said: "12% of the population of where? France in 1832?"
Actually, 12% in the USA in 2016.
I'm not even getting into the accuracy of the story/time, because then it would be around 0,01 %. Nowadays we have to cast "outside" of facts, that's "hip". I wonder when we have a 65 year old Fantine.
Let's pretend black people don't exist, and that their race, history and legacy do not exist or matter. Just make them disappear. Then we are on the right path, right?
I personally will always see race, age, gender, and I embrace it completely. That does not mean that anyone should play anything.
Updated On: 1/18/16 at 03:01 PM
Posted: 1/18/16 at 3:13pm
Anyway, happy Martin Luther King, Jr. day.
Posted: 1/18/16 at 3:54pm
gypsy101 said: "Dave19 said: "There clearly wasn't enough white talent to be found, so I don't mind, but it is kind of interesting, considering only 12% of the population is black."
12% of the population of where? France in 1832?"
Sorry to jump in, but according to the USA government, about 13% of the USA population is black as of 2010.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
(Page 4)
Posted: 1/18/16 at 4:05pm
Yes, it is somewhere between 12 and 13 %.
So when 1 in 3 performers in les Mis is black, that either means that there is a casting director who deliberately casts on race, which is racist, or that caucasian/white/other races, basically 88,7% of all the other people/races auditioning were not good enough.
That means that for every black person that auditioned, 8 other people/races auditioned and none of them were as good.
Which is interesting.
Updated On: 1/18/16 at 04:05 PM
Posted: 1/19/16 at 10:53am
The casting directors' choices here do ask us to utterly ignore genetics. OP's comment did quickly devolved into immature trolling, though.
Les Mis is very dear to me. I thought Brennyn Lark totally nailed Eponine. Fabi Aguirre was a precious young Eponine. I'm happy I got to see the talent that met/exceeded my own standards. And it wasn't weird that they were completely and utterly of different genetic backgrounds. Or that there were so many people of color in a time period when there weren't so many (we're in NYC, people!).
Now, I think people do appreciate casting choices in matching / pairing. Like when casting directors pair potential leads together to see how they 'look' or 'fit' and whether the have that 'chemistry' before making a choice. Or when directors pick an actor who closely resembles a younger version of an adult character's actor. Or a child that resembles the parent. That was blatantly ignored here, and anyone's understanding of genetics was disregarded. There is a valid discussion point here somewhere, I think, for a non-Hamilton type of casting situation. It wouldn't have been a bad choice for the child to look like Brennyn.
So. It IS a little weird. Or it can be for some. I knew the cast I would be seeing, and I know the material like the back of my hand. So it totally WASN'T weird to me. I am NOT their primary target audience. I can even see it being that much weirder now with the casting choices. But I don't think weird is bad. It's just different. And those ARE interesting casting choices.
P.S. 'Ignorant' not 'racistly tinged'. Anyway, I do subscribe to Avenue Q; they call it like it is!
Posted: 1/19/16 at 10:56pm
mpkie said: "The casting directors' choices here do ask us to utterly ignore genetics. OP's comment did quickly devolved into immature trolling, though.
Les Mis is very dear to me. I thought Brennyn Lark totally nailed Eponine. Fabi Aguirre was a precious young Eponine. I'm happy I got to see the talent that met/exceeded my own standards. And it wasn't weird that they were completely and utterly of different genetic backgrounds. Or that there were so many people of color in a time period when there weren't so many (we're in NYC, people!).
Now, I think people do appreciate casting choices in matching / pairing. Like when casting directors pair potential leads together to see how they 'look' or 'fit' and whether the have that 'chemistry' before making a choice. Or when directors pick an actor who closely resembles a younger version of an adult character's actor. Or a child that resembles the parent. That was blatantly ignored here, and anyone's understanding of genetics was disregarded. There is a valid discussion point here somewhere, I think, for a non-Hamilton type of casting situation. It wouldn't have been a bad choice for the child to look like Brennyn.
So. It IS a little weird. Or it can be for some. I knew the cast I would be seeing, and I know the material like the back of my hand. So it totally WASN'T weird to me. I am NOT their primary target audience. I can even see it being that much weirder now with the casting choices. But I don't think weird is bad. It's just different. And those ARE interesting casting choices.
P.S. 'Ignorant' not 'racistly tinged'. Anyway, I do subscribe to Avenue Q; they call it like it is!
"
Being ignorant of what? And with regards to your claiming that I was "trolling" immaturely, I would appreciate it if you can provide a more detailed explanation on what I was trolling about and how I was doing so. In short, my argument is when you see the Fantine is Race A and The Thenardiers are Race B, but instead Cosette is Race B and Eponine is Race A, it's very natural for someone to think maybe Valjean got the wrong kid.
Posted: 1/19/16 at 11:47pm
"Got the wrong baby? LOL~" is a really silly joke / comment to make and can easily be construed as trolling. Whether it is or not, wouldn't know, as I'm not you and can't say what your intentions were when you decided that was a funny comment to make and what particular type of response you were trying to provoke or what you expected as a result of it. Nor am *I* personally calling your comment ignorant, I was more trying to select a likely more appropriate word choice to the other person's comment about your comment (their reaction was to call it 'racistly tinged' and I don't think that's an appropriate categorization.
No need to get all defensive. I was merely stating that you probably had a very valid point of discussion, however potentially insensitive the phrasing may have been to some. Thanks.
