NYT Updates on Restaged Depictions of Race in Book of Mormon, Lion King, and more

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/theater/broadway-race-depictions.amp.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/theater/broadway-race-depictions.html

I apologize if neither of these links are clickable, Im copying/pasting from my phone. But this is an article from NYT: As Broadway Returns, Shows Rethink and Restage Depictions of Race earlier today.

The article goes through several shows that are updating either their books, staging, and choreography etc and lists examples of changes for each show.

My question here is,
For anyone here that has seen the shows referenced since re-opening and notices the differences (or possibly anyone here with contact to people in other productions still being worked on and havent re-opened yet - like Book of Mormon) - are the specific changes referenced in this article all, or just some, of the changes? Just curious if there are more that arent referenced, or if this article covers all the changes being made.

Also, and I trust this question wont spark any confrontations on this dear message board, what do people think of the updates listed here?

****puts on protective gear and goes to shelter****

My friend and I were discussing Book of Mormon last night, and I was wondering what (if any) changes were going to be made. Glad to hear that everyone involved took this seriously and workshopped changes together.

The only thing that made me scratch my head a bit was Lion King removing any references to Rafiki as a monkey, when that's quite literally (or, as the writer said, taxonomically) what Rafiki is. But if the cast and crew decided that was a necessary change, then I support it.

Sutton Ross said: "What are they supposed to call him? He is LITERALLY A MONKEY. I can understand if asshole tourists were making monkey noises and throwing bananas at him. But, that's never happened at The Lion King. That's just really fu*king stupid."

She. Rafiki is female in the musical. The gender of the character was changed to give the show a stronger female presence.

Broadway is being so Broadway here... turning anything and everything into its own Ballyhoo.

A couple months ago when it was announced that changes were being made, a colleague of mine who was part of the Ugandan ensemble years ago had some interesting things to say about his experience on Facebook (basically, "It's about damn time". Past cast members weighed in in the comments, and evidently Black ensemble members have been silently (and sometimes not so silently) unhappy with the depiction of the Ugandans in the show basically forever.

I get it. I mean, I think white Mormons take a much harder hit in the show, which follows the Mel Brooks rule of "as long as you are offending everyone, it's okay," but comedy in general doesn't age well. No matter what the changes I can't see BOM having much life in it. I certainly would not be as comfortable laughing at certain scenes now as I was ten years ago.

While I completely understand and respect the need for changes in these shows, BOM in particular, it also makes me worry for satire in general because it is supposed to make you laugh and THEN make you angry when you realize what you're laughing at. Jonathan Swift's 1729 satire A Modest Proposal suggests that to get rid of the annoying (and at that point nonwhite) poor starving Irish babies, English people should start to eat them instead. Funny! But....wait a minute what the heck we need to do something with that whole Irish people dying of hunger thing! Fast forward 300 years and you have BOM asking us to laugh at female genital mutilation, lack of access to clean, safe water, warlords, the AIDS epidemic, racism, and Mormonism thinking it's the cure to all those problems. Heck yes we should be angry after seeing BOM and from what I've heard, we still will be. The satire will be more pointed lest anyone think we were actually laughing AT Noxema for thinking she can send texts on a typewriter.

Anyway, I'm all for respecting the diverse voices in theater and trusting them, even if/especially if it doesn't make sense to the white powers-that-be or the average white Broadway audience.

Phantom4ever said: "While I completely understand and respect the need for changes in these shows, BOM in particular, it also makes me worry for satire in general"



But I think the wording in the article speaks to that. Matt and Trey came in to make changes to "clarify the satire," not to get rid of it. I think it's possible that there was some unintentionally problematic stuff that wasn't actually a deliberate part of the satire, or if it was a part of it, it was conveyed with a 2011 level of social consciousness. Satire changes with the times, more than any other style of humor.

As for the "monkey" business. I agree it's a little strange when the character is literally a monkey, and if there's an issue with having a Black woman play a monkey, then the issue goes further than simply calling her one out loud. But I think the idea behind is that: anyone can look at the show in context and see that the way Rafiki is portrayed doesn't evoke any harmful stereotypes linking Black people to monkeys. In fact, the character is played in a pretty human way, even more so than the the lions. There's very little about her characterization that screams "monkey," and even the anatomical elements are only loosely suggested through the colors in the makeup and costume.

So I guess the idea is that actually REFERRING to her as a "monkey" might be discomforting in a way that the portrayal itself isn't.

And worth noting as well: it doesn't matter enough for the creators to push back. It's sort of like "People don't like that she's called a monkey out loud? Well she is a monkey, but it doesn't really affect the show if we remove those lines, so we might as well."

There are no human characters in the The Lion King, Rafiki is a monkey. Not talking about a fact in a musical is beyond ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to make it better.

You can also say mandrill and it makes it more accurate and far less offensive. A Black human plays the character, so that’s where the offense lies when you say it to them. Do we not understand why it’s potentially harmful?

HeyMrMusic said: "You can also say mandrill and it makes it more accurate and far less offensive. A Black human plays the character, so that’s where the offense lies when you say it to them. Do we not understand why it’s potentially harmful?"

Yeah, I agree. Being more specific works better, but I also don't think it'll be confusing to anyone that they just refer to her as a "she." Her costume is def the least animal of all of them anyway.

It's a win win for sure.

Book of Mormon has more of a mountain to climb. I haven't seen it in about 5 years, but I saw a preview of the OBC and laughed so hard, and this other time it felt very "worn." Like, it just felt like the show had seen its time. Not sure how it'll play in a 2021 sense.

It's neither of those things to me, actually. There was no need to change it, people were not outraged by it for the last 24 years, and it's a piss poor attempt at being "woke". It's a monkey. Period.

That's my opinion, feel free to have another.

You can still have Rafiki be a monkey and not have jokes about her being a monkey, especially if those happen to be exactly the racist jokes hurled at Black people for centuries. They aren't mutually exclusive. I agree the change is a win-win.

I saw Hamilton and didn't notice the change, but it sounds very small.

I agree with the previous points made that the Lion King change ends up being a win-win. It won’t hurt the show and everyone will be comfortable in it.

It’s not like this is the first time this exact update was made. I remember when NBC did The Wiz Live (I believe in 2015) and they changed the flying monkeys to be referred to as “winged warriors” for the same reason as the show has an all black cast.

So how is this any different? This didn’t hurt the show at all and everyone is comfortable. Win-win.