THE INHERITANCE to play the Barrymore this fall; Sept previews/Nov. opening — Page 5

Wick3 said: "jaffanout said: "As for him being straight, I fail to see the issue when many of the rest of the people involved are not. It's not like they purposefully avoided hiring gay actors for the London production."

That's the irony. One would think given how many LGBT people are involved with this production, that casting an openly out gay actor (for the lead gay role) would be pivotal. I don't know the hiring process but it is interesting to me how a self-identified straight actor is the bestperson the casting director can find to performa lead gay role set in modern New York City.If there is a dearth of openly out gay actors in NYC, then I understand... but come on."

Again, his casting hasn't even been announced yet. I have no insider information so for all I know he may be replaced with an out gay NYC actor for the Broadway production. But considering he got rave reviews and won the Olivier, I doubt they're concerned about finding someone that would be better for the part. I would imagine the goal with casting is to eventually get to the point where straight people can play gay, gay people can play straight and it genuinely comes down to who is most suitable. In a production that has chosen to cast people of a variety of sexualities, I'd say that's what they're working towards. It's not like this is a piece that revolves around one character. It's a true ensemble piece and the lead role is by any means not the only worthy one.

No, it's really not the same as Leonardo DiCaprio playing a black slave so let's not go there.

And again, plenty of gay actors were given gay roles in the London production so why are we saying 'we cant' give them that when 'we' already have.

This stuff is only going to get more complex as more and more people identify as bisexual or sexually fluid (which for all I know, Soller himself does). It's never going to be acceptable for a director or casting director to demand to know the sexuality of an actor in an audition and plenty of LGBT roles go to unknown actors, on stage and screen. Some of them are young enough to not even have figured out their sexuality.

Yes, there absolutely needs to be more work for out gay actors, of course. But pick your battles. A production that has hired a number of out LGBT actors can afford to hire one or two straight actors in a giant ensemble piece if the LGBT creatives find them the best for the part and the person that serves the story best. These people are not the enemy, looking to keep gay actors out of work. If they truly found a gay actor they thought would be better for the part, then there's no reason that that's not the actor they'd go with.

You all do realize that it's illegal to ask a prospective employee what their sexuality is before hiring/not hiring them right?

Wick3 said: "OhHiii said: "You all do realize that it's illegal to ask a prospective employee what their sexuality is before hiring/not hiring them right?"

Of course. At the same time, this is a small community. If the role is for someone who is 18 or younger than 24, then I understand your point. The main lead role is an openly out gay man in his 30s. I'm sure there are actors who are in their 30s who are openly out these days and who have the talent and established work experience."

That still doesn't make a difference when it comes to labor laws. You cannot hire someone based on sexuality. Assumed/out/otherwise. Emotion aside, that's just how it is. The union would have a fit if that was a determining factor in casting.

I should note that I do not in any way disagree that gay characters ideally should be played by someone with the experience because it would be more authentic. Andrew Garfield really stepped in it when he made those comments about choosing not to be gay during Angels. Roles, however, are given based on auditions. For this play, I highly doubt the performers were offer-only, so they indeed had to have the best audition to land the parts. Having seen the play, they're phenomenal at what they're doing.

n2nbaby said: "As an out and proud gay man, I couldn’t be more frustrated at these conversations saying that only gay people should play gay people. They’re actors, they’re hired for a job and they are usually good/great. Yes, there needs to be more work for out gay actors but it’s getting better for sure.

I’m happy that our stories are being openly told, that’s more important than anything."

I agree with you that they're all actors. I don't think only gay people should play gay people but I do think it makes a difference to the average gay guy such as myself if the main *lead* role is indeed performed by an openly out gay actor --- especially in a play that they're marketing as the next big thing to come to Broadway.

For the gay minor roles, sure hire any actor (gay or straight or closeted) who can do the part.

OhHiii said: "I should note that I do not in any way disagree that gay characters ideally should be played by someone with the experience because it would be more authentic. Andrew Garfield really stepped in it when he made those comments about choosing not to be gay during Angels. Roles, however, are given based on auditions. For this play, I highly doubt the performers were offer-only, so they indeed had to have the best audition to land the parts. Having seen the play, they're phenomenal at what they're doing."

I believe Toby was written for Andrew Burnap since he's done plays with Lopez before. He does a remarkable job with a character that most actors would just play as awful and comic. I liked him when I saw it but after reading the play a few more times I realized what a performance he was giving.

Lot666 said: "Does anyone know which orchestra row the mezzanine overhangs at the Barrymore?"

Row K

TheSassySam said: "Has anybody received a discount code? I believe there were mailers sent out."

Am curious about this too.. My November trip is already ridiculously expensive.

Wick3 said: "Did the union have a fit when they announced the cast of the Boys in the Band revival last year?"

As long as shows hold EPAs (even if just for understudies), Equity cannot claim that anyone is being "discriminated" against. And the union has never had a fit over the thousands of all-white casts, all-male plays, etc. Theatre is art, not science, and there will never be a scientific reason for casting certain people over others.

There was a minor hiccup when a Hamilton casting notice said that they were specifically seeing "nonwhite men and women." But simply changing the language to "performers of all ethnic and racial background" hasn't changed the fact that they're still casting non-white actors in the principal roles. And I hope to never see a mostly-white production of Hamilton!!!!



Aaaand just after I posted that, I see this. As far as we think the theatre world has come in terms of diversity and inclusion, it's important to remember it still has a long long long way to go.

Updated On: 7/19/19 at 09:08 PM

The marquee is up now, but still no news on the cast. And no news on discounts. This is a two-part drama. Do they think the buzz from London will be enough for this one?

DramaTeach said: "The marquee is up now, but still no news on the cast. And no news on discounts. This is a two-part drama. Do they think the buzz from London will be enough for this one?"

I'm holding out on either amazing casting or discount codes for my upcoming October trip. Irrespective of the buzz, sitting in a theater for over 7 hours is not super palatable at these prices unless I'm at least going to get bragging rights for having seen one of the best pieces of art or certain performers.

---