Next to Normal with an all-black cast — Page 5

I have to agree with Kelly2 when she says that race matters to a lot more people than we'd care to admit. I don't think, however, that there is a need for the producers of any show to pander to the lowest common denominator. maybe someone will come in and be a little turned off by an all Black cast, or an all Asian cast, or a mixed race cast. but maybe that same person will have such an appreciation for whatever show they're seeing, and the story there, that it won't matter what ethnicity the cast is.

This is not Ragtime, or M. Butterfly, or even Finian's Rainbow. this is a modern story about a family that could be anywhere. race really doesn't make a big difference.

---

I know I'm optimistic, even naive at times, but if it's not there, how can we expect something to change? I mean, if plays and movies and tv shows and music aren't challenging conventions, then when will they change? if 100 people go into a show with a mixed cast, and 3 people leave with their attitudes changed, isn't that still something?

---

'A saddening majority of people polled don't know the capital of Illinois isn't Chicago, and can't find Iran on a map, you think those people can understand the complexities of colorblind casting?'

I guess the part that I disagree with you on how people cannot understand the complexities of colorblind casting in regards to this specific show. Sure, had the family in the show been African American or Latino, it may have attracted different audiences and brought in new perspectives. But I don't think the message of the show would have been any less shocking, especially since this show tackles mental illness, a problem universal to all Americans no matter what race, and how it can affect the ones you love.

I used to take an abnormal psychology class, and we watched case study videos of people with mental illness. Each one was shocking/intriguing, no matter what the race. I can see past a person's color because mental illness in itself can be extremely eye-opening and shocking. Next to Normal showcases how mental illness affects the 'perfect' American family. 'Perfect' families are not just white families. What upset people was that it was almost as if you were implying that this wasn't the case, since apparently the message would be less shocking if it was an African-American family.

If the American general public is turned off by the idea of a bi-racial/ethnic family in Next to Normal, it is really unfortunate.

In terms of the complexities of color blind casting, the situation would be different for a show such as, say, Jersey Boys, where audiences may distracted to see an African-American play Frankie Valli. Not because he is less talented, but because the real Frankie Valli was not African-American.

That said, I am generally open to color blind casting.

---

Updated On: 8/2/09 at 01:01 AM

I hate to interject, but I really can't help myself. So basically Kelly2 you're saying that although you disagree with the underlying reasons you believe that an all-black/minority version of Next to Normal wouldn't be as successful (both economically and thematically) because the majority of the theatre going audience is white and would therefore not be able to relate to the Goodman family's struggles.

Nothing to do with optimism or pessism, but I have to diagree with you on the basis that I think we can all name a hundred different shows or movies (some very successful) that deal with African-American/minority characters and still move people. Why do you think that a majority of people have to see themselves exactly in a character to empathize with them? I am nothing like Natalie, but boy does her plight gut-punch me. I wish you would share with us what experiences in your life would lead you to believe that a "majority" of Americans would not be able to empathize with an African-American Diana.

I am really having a hard time wrapping me head around your statement that having a minority cast would change the effect of the show on the audience. While I may concede that a very, very small percentage of people may choose not to see the show (sad as that may be), I don't think it would ultimately change the effect it has on those who choose to.

Do you think that having an African-American Billy Elliot would kill the success of that show? Change how people felt about Billy? I sort of get what you're saying about race giving more of backstory as to what might inform a character (struggles they may have had, family situations, etc), but I think what most people are saying here is that in a lot of cases it doesn't matter or overwhelmingly affect the piece. And in this one is doesn't.

Finally, what about The Lion King...sure they're "playing" Lions, but really do you think people miss the fact that they're black. That show still packs them in after all these years and it has an all-black cast. So really...a "majority" of Americans wouldn't pay $120 to see African American actors...really???

Updated On: 8/2/09 at 01:38 AM

It's different because 120$ is a hell of a lot more of an investment than 10$ to go see a movie or the NOTHING that it costs you to see a TV show. If you think money doesn't change a lot of things for people, you're crazy. And it isn't that people won't pay to see actors of another race. I was speaking to THIS SPECIFIC SHOW and it's SPECIFIC MESSAGE. And like I said, people can feel free to disagree with me and be more optimistic about the way the world is and the way Americans think than I am. I'd love to live in that world.

---

Updated On: 8/2/09 at 01:48 AM

"Is mental illness a subject matter that people must see in someone they relate to in order to be effected by?"

No, I think because the show claims to represent the "average American family", there are a lot of ignorant people who would have pretty specific expectations for that racially.

I think it's that hard of a concept to understand.

---

I think you all should get together for a beer. A n2n Beer Summit.

Who's going to be Joe Biden and get stuck drinking the non-alcoholic brew?

Sadly, I think the show wouldn't fare as well with an all-black cast because white people wouldn't want to see it en masse (not like they're seeing this show en masse anyway, but, these are my thoughts.)

IT'S UNFORTUNATE!!!

Look at the recent revival of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."

---

Well, most people didn't think N2N on Broadway would even last through the end of summer, so they're not doing so bad. Most people on here didn't even think they'd have an opening night.

---

"Either way, Kelly2 at first you said that the show's whole message would and I quote-"of course"-change if a black woman or a black family were to inhabit these roles. Now you are saying that it would just change other peoples' view? So which one is it? "

I already said that I didn't think I phrased what I meant properly and explained myself. Read the thread before posting, maybe.

---

Kelly2, the basis of your argument is that "the show claims to represent the average American family."

I'm sorry, but where is that distinction made? I believe the opening lyric to the show is, "We're the perfect loving family, so adoring." There's a very specific difference between that and the implication you're deriving from "the average American family." In what world is one supposed to assume that a "perfect loving family" is contextually supposed to be white?

Further more, the phrase "average American family" is not used in any of the press material either, so I'm a bit put back as to how you've determined that as a message the show is deliberately sending either in context or in marketing.

I think you're trying to say that there is added shock value in the surface normalcy of the characters within the story, but the correlation between the majority of America being white (even though minorities are fast approaching the majority) and the claim that the Goodmans represent the "average American family" is coming from you, not the show.

---

Semantics are extremely important in this instance. There's a big difference between what the show "claims" and what you derive from it.

What evidence do you have that "the show claims to represent the average American family" in any way? That's like putting words in someone's mouth, or the difference between saying, "CATS claims to be an allegory for World War II" and "I think CATS is an allegory for World War II." They're two very distinct things, especially when used as the basis for a pretty radical opinion (as you're expressing.)

I'm not strictly talking about the marketing material either. You bring up mental illness- that can clearly be identified as a major part of the show within the text, but what you're saying can't because it's you who is expressing it, not the authors of the piece.

It's fine if that's your point of view, but you can't tag that onto something the show "claims" when it doesn't.

---

Updated On: 8/2/09 at 02:05 PM