#26
Posted: 7/7/06 at 5:53pm
No director in the world is brave enough (or crazy enough) to try that. I would have less problems with an all-female cast of 1776 than having a black man play Ruteldge - it just COMPLETELY defies the entire point of the character. Aside from it being an obvious stunt, casting a black man as Ruteldge wouldn't serve any purpose. It would confuse the hell out of the audience (especially one who had never seen the show before and lacked basic historical knowledge, which, let's face it, is most of America) and make his entire argument about the benefits of slavery meaningless. At best, a director who chose to do this would THINK they were making a statement about how far we've come as a nation, but in fact the play does that on its own and does not need the distracting "here-I'm-hitting-you-over-the-head" stylistic choice.
Like I said, if the role doesn't depend so heavily on the race of the character (as Ruteledge - and indeed most of the 1776 cast - clearly does) then I'm all for color blind casting, even if historical accuracy is forfeited (ie Javert).
Like I said, if the role doesn't depend so heavily on the race of the character (as Ruteledge - and indeed most of the 1776 cast - clearly does) then I'm all for color blind casting, even if historical accuracy is forfeited (ie Javert).
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.