NYT Updates on Restaged Depictions of Race in Book of Mormon, Lion King, and more — Page 2

"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."

Satire is history IMO because there is not one movie, Broadway show or TV series that does not have every line checked because it may offend somebody and that alters the ability to make fun of somebody or group. Let's take a show like "The Producers", could they run on Broadway today without massive changes? Would the character "Roger" have to be totally changed because of the "over the top" depiction of a gay man. Audiences back then thought he was hysterically funny, would it be funny in 2021? If they did change it would it alter the enjoyment of the show? The old ladies tap dancing with walkers had the audience howling with laughter, would it now be considered ageist to make fun of them?

I have not seem BOM in quite a few years so I don't recall every last detail of the show. The intent of the show was to poke fun at Mormons and Ugandans and it wildly succeeded. Ok, you can change race depictions in the show but you leave in where they say "F**** God". Not sure I get why leaving that line in the show is ok and not considered offensive.

It shows how bad things are when there is debate about calling "Rafiki" a monkey in "Lion King" when the character is actually a monkey - OMG.

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 because it is supposed to make you laugh and THEN make you angry when you realize what you're laughing at."

But here in lies the difference between theatre and film/tv. Film & TV exist in a tight time capsule of when they were created and it's easier to view them as that. Even some theatre I feel can be dealt with from that head space in the idea of a Revival. It frames it as a show from another time and there's more understanding for what it is in instances where the show is not reinterpreted. A show like BOM has had an on going presence around the world for a decade now. It's not a product of another time, it's had to continually exist through cultural changes and has more expectation to answer to those changes instead of being able to hide behind "Well it's from a different time!"

Why must you always escalate things so quickly and always leave with a *mic drop* moment. Just leave, or don't read the thread. It's cool.

Sutton, I think you're right to point out that a lot of these changes are cosmetic, and that people in power often use these small changes to put on a show of progressivism, without actually making the serious structural changes needed (Aunt Jemima, the "Black Lives Matter" street in DC, etc.). It's definitely worth pointing those things out when we see them.

But I don't think that's a reason AGAINST make these small changes when (a) it MIGHT alleviate some small amount of harm (b) takes barely any effort and (c) has no negative side-effects. Should we be showering them with praise for doing the bare minimum? No. But neither should we (IMO) actively discourage them from doing something that's better than nothing.

But as you say, you're welcome to your opinion. I'm just responding for the sake of the dialogue!

Playbill_Trash said: "
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."

^
Everyone needs to read this again.

This is from 2020, but I don't recall it being posted here; it's from a former member of the Ugandan ensemble in the West End:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OPz7LZDNkw&ab_channel=JadeJohnson

Updated On: 10/24/21 at 04:55 PM

JasonC3 said: "Leaving in "cosmetic" changes is worse than doing nothing about them.

"

Fascinating take. How so?

I did notice the lyric change in Aladdin from "barbaric" to "chaotic" but I guess it's been so long since I last saw it I didn't even realize that was in the original version of the show, I just thought they changed it before for Broadway and I didn't catch it previously.

I do remember with this whole BOM thing that part of the problem was that subsequent casts and whatever AD or SM directing those replacements was losing the satire and so the onstage delivery wasn't coming off as it originally should. So maybe the changes are a stronger attempt to "future-proof" the show for incoming casts?

Huh? Because it's easier/more cost effective to just drop the "monkey" bit and keep the fabulous actresses they have? Because black people being referred to as "monkeys" is not a positive thing - look at Roseanne.

The Distinctive Baritone said: "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."

This makes me happy this specific change is being made--thank you for sharing. I don't get not calling a monkey in The Lion King a monkey, but if in fact the actors felt very unhappy/uncomfortable with what they were asked to do, I'm all for, as Parker and Stone point out (and J Broadway rightly emphasizes) clarifying the satire.

HogansHero said: "dadaguza said: "But the other animals are portrayed by black actors. It's not like they specifically cast a black actor to play Rafiki. Why don't they then just cast a white or non-black actor to play him/her instead of changing the kind of animal he is?"

Are you really this oblivious and clueless? The issue is the special pejorative/racist meaning of the word "monkey," a connotation that does not exist with mandrill or any of the other animals. It is beyond sad and shocking to me that multiple people who post on this board are so infused with their white privilege that this is a challenge for them to understand."



Are you really this arrogant and condescending all the time? Yes I get the derogatory connotation. I was expressing an opinion and another way they could've handled the change. How do you even know I'm white? I usually scroll right past your posts because you are so obnoxious with your ad hominem attacks and annoying verbose, but I had to respond to being called out on something I'm not.

I worked at an event space in NYC and it had a bunch of different artwork and one was a gorilla in a 3 piece suit. It was a painting. And so many people complained that it was racist, so they took it down. And a black coworker was like "Wait, so just all monkeys are racist now?" So yeah, it's an interesting topic.