The Making of Miss Saigon
#2
Posted: 8/30/08 at 9:41pm
If you're a huge fan of the show, yes. I can't count how many times I've watched it, but I'm a Miss Saigon freak. 
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#3
Posted: 8/30/08 at 9:46pm
The book or the vhs/dvd?
Both are big PR vehicles with racist undertones, but still interesting.
Both are big PR vehicles with racist undertones, but still interesting.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#5
Posted: 8/30/08 at 9:49pm
Oh, right, I forgot about the book! I have that, too. It's interesting but not something you'll reread over again.
May I ask how it's racist, Lizzie? I must be naive or something
May I ask how it's racist, Lizzie? I must be naive or something
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#6
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:09am
Both book and DVD are worth having. I watch/read them often. I don't get the racist remark. To quote AVE Q, "we're all a little bit racist."
#7
Posted: 8/31/08 at 2:25am
hmm... the only thing i can think of with the racist undertones is the discussion about casting Linzi Hatley in the role of KIM when the audition weren't going well...
#8
Posted: 8/31/08 at 2:26am
Racist..........what the F? Been a long time since I've seen it, so I'll have to pull it out and check out what you are referring to.
#9
Posted: 8/31/08 at 3:25am
The only thing that can be even semi racist that I can think of is the casting of Pryce.
Goodbye Sister Disco
#10
Posted: 8/31/08 at 3:32am
oh wait... there was also the objection of how the women were portrayed in the show... didn't asian actors protest how the women were portrayed as submissive asians? as well as the opening number being offensive?
i for one never saw this show as offensive to asian women at all... i mean the opening number did take place in a strip bar... how else were they supposed to act? and KIM was never submissive at all... just a naive girl who turned into a strong woman...
i for one never saw this show as offensive to asian women at all... i mean the opening number did take place in a strip bar... how else were they supposed to act? and KIM was never submissive at all... just a naive girl who turned into a strong woman...
#11
Posted: 8/31/08 at 6:28am
I never heard that. I did however, hear of protests to stop the show from coming to Broadway. I never heard of anything with regards to the women being offensive. But, I do remember people thinking that it was offensive to cast Jonathan Pryce as The Engineer because that character is Asian. However, what I don't understand is why people would take that as something offensive because his character was half white half asian.
Goodbye Sister Disco
#13
Posted: 8/31/08 at 11:03am
I actually hate it when the Engineer is played by a white guy. Even if he is half European, I think that he would have to look more Asian in order to be accepted into society. I think that whole half-European thing was just a cop-out so they could have Pryce play the role.
But even if you can defend Pryce, IMO you can't defend Keith Burns playing Thuy!
But even if you can defend Pryce, IMO you can't defend Keith Burns playing Thuy!
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#14
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:11pm
This has been debated a million times before on the board. So, here we go again, I guess.
The casting of Pryce, some people, think was racist because he wasn't Asian. He's an actor....that's the bottom line. If he has to put makeup on to get the look.....so what? What's the big deal? That's the whole point of acting. And, anyone who says otherwise is a complete fool.
BD Wong, back in 1990 got his stinger all of out joint because he wasn't cast as The Engineer, and we all remember what happened with that nonsense. He claimed that the producers of the show were racists, he went to Actor's Equity, the Broadway show was cancelled, then it opened, etc.... All of it was BS!
It was the producers decision to hire Pryce over Wong, or anyone else for that matter. They don't have to check with Wong, or with anyone when casting a show. It's their show, not his. Wong played the race card about the whole thing - and, remember this was before the OJ race card in the mid 90's. When you audition for a show - there's a chance you'll get it, and there's a chance that you won't.
Wong is an idiot.
The casting of Pryce, some people, think was racist because he wasn't Asian. He's an actor....that's the bottom line. If he has to put makeup on to get the look.....so what? What's the big deal? That's the whole point of acting. And, anyone who says otherwise is a complete fool.
BD Wong, back in 1990 got his stinger all of out joint because he wasn't cast as The Engineer, and we all remember what happened with that nonsense. He claimed that the producers of the show were racists, he went to Actor's Equity, the Broadway show was cancelled, then it opened, etc.... All of it was BS!
It was the producers decision to hire Pryce over Wong, or anyone else for that matter. They don't have to check with Wong, or with anyone when casting a show. It's their show, not his. Wong played the race card about the whole thing - and, remember this was before the OJ race card in the mid 90's. When you audition for a show - there's a chance you'll get it, and there's a chance that you won't.
Wong is an idiot.
Updated On: 9/1/08 at 12:11 PM
#15
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:19pm
hmm... the only thing i can think of with the racist undertones is the discussion about casting Linzi Hatley in the role of KIM when the audition weren't going well...
Pretty much, and the assumption that they wouldn't find any Asian girl at all to be able to sing the score.
When I said "racist" earlier, I wasn't talking about the show at all -- but rather some of the tone and wording used in both the vid/DVD and the book.
Pretty much, and the assumption that they wouldn't find any Asian girl at all to be able to sing the score.
When I said "racist" earlier, I wasn't talking about the show at all -- but rather some of the tone and wording used in both the vid/DVD and the book.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#16
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:23pm
The casting of Pryce, some people, think was racist because he wasn't Asian. And, for those people....GET A FRICKING LIFE! He's an actor....that's the bottom line. If he has to put makeup on to get the look.....so what? What's the big deal? That's the whole point of acting. And, anyone who says otherwise is a complete fool.
So you would not be opposed to casting, say, Aaron Lazar as Coalhouse in a revival of Ragtime? How about Lea Michele as Sarah?
So you would not be opposed to casting, say, Aaron Lazar as Coalhouse in a revival of Ragtime? How about Lea Michele as Sarah?
#17
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:27pm
nealb1... uh no.... the difference being they changed him to look Asian! it wasn't like he was getting age make-up done or making him look like a damn cat! if a role calls for an Asian person then I expect an Asian person to be cast... not some white person trying to look Asian... seriously... argh... we could debate this for hours... so i'm gonna stop right there... i don't know what your ethnicity is but like i've said before in another post... if you're someone who is marginalized in society on a regular basis then you're not going to understand our frustration... so to respond to your first statement... we do have lives thank you very much!
oh and i'm kinda of in agreement with sporkgoddess
oh and i'm kinda of in agreement with sporkgoddess
#18
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:29pm
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#19
Posted: 8/31/08 at 12:33pm
In the Broadway production, Pryce didn't wear much eye makeup at all, vs. when he did the show in London - to make him look more Asian. When you see the "Making of Miss Saigon" video, you can see him in his dressing room all made up.
Again, if he was "changed" to look Asian, that's what acting is all about. I'm sure back when casting first started for "Miss Saigon" in London back in the late 80's, Jonathan Pryce wasn't the only person that the producers saw. I'm sure they saw a lot of Asians, Whites, etc. Pryce got the job because the producers cast him.
You're right, we can debate this for hours and hours. And, it's great that we are so passionate in our beliefs. Makes for good topics.
The first time I heard about "Miss Saigon" was in Oct/Nov of 1989. "Time" magazine reviewed it, and I went immediately went to The Wherehouse Records store here in Burbank to get the cast recording. It had just arrived that Tuesday morning and it was still in the boxes waiting to be put out on the shelves. I fell in love with the show immediately. Once tickets went on sale in the Spring of 1990, a full year before it would open, I mailed in and got 2 tickets - for May of 1991.
Then of course, everything happened, it was cancelled, and everyone was told to mail back there tickets. NO WAY! Ha, ha.. I just knew that it would ulitmately open, and it did.
I saw it twice in mid May 1991 - before the Tony Awards. It was an amazing experience and lived up completely to my expectations. And, of course there was a lot of controversary at The Tony Awards that year, too. It won 3 for acting - Best Actor, Actress and Featured. But, was competely snubbed in the larger catergories.
Again, if he was "changed" to look Asian, that's what acting is all about. I'm sure back when casting first started for "Miss Saigon" in London back in the late 80's, Jonathan Pryce wasn't the only person that the producers saw. I'm sure they saw a lot of Asians, Whites, etc. Pryce got the job because the producers cast him.
You're right, we can debate this for hours and hours. And, it's great that we are so passionate in our beliefs. Makes for good topics.
The first time I heard about "Miss Saigon" was in Oct/Nov of 1989. "Time" magazine reviewed it, and I went immediately went to The Wherehouse Records store here in Burbank to get the cast recording. It had just arrived that Tuesday morning and it was still in the boxes waiting to be put out on the shelves. I fell in love with the show immediately. Once tickets went on sale in the Spring of 1990, a full year before it would open, I mailed in and got 2 tickets - for May of 1991.
Then of course, everything happened, it was cancelled, and everyone was told to mail back there tickets. NO WAY! Ha, ha.. I just knew that it would ulitmately open, and it did.
I saw it twice in mid May 1991 - before the Tony Awards. It was an amazing experience and lived up completely to my expectations. And, of course there was a lot of controversary at The Tony Awards that year, too. It won 3 for acting - Best Actor, Actress and Featured. But, was competely snubbed in the larger catergories.
Updated On: 8/31/08 at 12:33 PM
#20
Posted: 8/31/08 at 8:39pm
I love Miss Saigon more than almost anything; it's my favorite show. But I enjoy the show more when the Engineer is played by an Asian. It just makes more sense to me.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#21
Posted: 8/31/08 at 11:40pm
it's weird... i love jonathan pryce... haven't seen him in the role but some clips of him and i thought he was amazing... it's just weird that he's not asian... it's almost like the movie Tropic Thunder! hahaha... awesome movie btw...
i saw a regional production a few months ago and the Engineer was white... HORRIBLE! the other odd thing... i was more mad that he couldn't act worth crap! his characterization was awful! maybe if he could act i might have been able to see past the color (but not fully because well... he ain't remotely asian!)
i saw a regional production a few months ago and the Engineer was white... HORRIBLE! the other odd thing... i was more mad that he couldn't act worth crap! his characterization was awful! maybe if he could act i might have been able to see past the color (but not fully because well... he ain't remotely asian!)
#22
Posted: 8/31/08 at 11:44pm
I don't think you can call someone foolish for calling the casting of Pryce innappropriate. For a lot of asians, it has the same feeling as if casting a white woman in black face in The Color Purple. Even if the makeup was light...I guarantee the NAACP would feel righteous in arguing it.
It's ignorant to call people foolish for their beliefs that its wrong for someone to dress/imitate another race. Unless you plan to start an argument saying that black face isn't racist....then I'm done.
It's ignorant to call people foolish for their beliefs that its wrong for someone to dress/imitate another race. Unless you plan to start an argument saying that black face isn't racist....then I'm done.
Updated On: 8/31/08 at 11:44 PM
#23
Posted: 9/2/08 at 6:46pm
This might help with the racist thing. In London Pryce had prosthetic eye pieces to give a slant to his eyes. The look was a bit bizzare and there were complaints about it. He quickly stopped using them. There was the thought he might use them on Broadway, but he did straight make up with no attempt at an Asian look.
#24
Posted: 9/2/08 at 7:13pm
"He's an actor....that's the bottom line. If he has to put makeup on to get the look.....so what?"
That is absolutely ridiculous. There is absolutely no justification to put make-up on someone to look like an entirely different race. Jonathan Pryce does not audition for roles, he is "offer only." And while I personally don't care that he was cast since the character was mixed race, I feel that he as an actor was inappropriate for the role acting-wise. But I guess that's just me. Go put on black face and play Joe in Show Boat...then we'll see "so what?".
That is absolutely ridiculous. There is absolutely no justification to put make-up on someone to look like an entirely different race. Jonathan Pryce does not audition for roles, he is "offer only." And while I personally don't care that he was cast since the character was mixed race, I feel that he as an actor was inappropriate for the role acting-wise. But I guess that's just me. Go put on black face and play Joe in Show Boat...then we'll see "so what?".
#25
Posted: 9/3/08 at 1:51am
if you're someone who is marginalized in society on a regular basis then you're not going to understand our frustration...
This is a complex issue and I don't think there is a definite answer. It has to do with the content of the show, the sensitivity (or lack thereof) of the portrayal, the period in question and a lot of other things. Should Yul Brynner (Russian) have never played the king of Siam? Or Laurence Olivier never play Othello?
I was always curious about Anthony Quinn (Mexican) and Alec Guinness (English) pretending to be Arabs in Lawrence of Arabia without speaking a line of Arabic. I think that dates the otherwise fine film the most.
In Tabor Ukhodit v Nebo the two lead actors, Svetlana Toma and Grigore Grigoriu are Russian and Moldavian, not Romani, yet I wasn't offended due partly to the poetic and symbolic nature of this unreal film (as beautiful as it is). Tony Gatlif (Half Romani, half Algerian) even cast Asia Argento as a Romni in Transylvania. The whole premise of the title of the play Gypsy is based on a racial/ethnic stereotype.
Irene Dunne performed in black face in Show Boat, but there she was portraying a white actress who was performing in black face and it was suitable in the context.
It's theatre and art. Film is by its nature is somewhat more realistic and to me it seems more appropriate for actors to be of the corresponding race, but I try not to get too upset about it if it is otherwise the portrayal is sensitive and done with respect for the race and culture.
Should a German never portray the French or English onstage? Should a Jew never portray a Christian? Should Omar Sharif never have portrayed a Russian?
It's an issue that can be discussed over and over again because I don't think the lines are clear and they shift with time. But there is certainly a point where it seems disrespectful, but it's not a hard science with a fixed equation.
This is a complex issue and I don't think there is a definite answer. It has to do with the content of the show, the sensitivity (or lack thereof) of the portrayal, the period in question and a lot of other things. Should Yul Brynner (Russian) have never played the king of Siam? Or Laurence Olivier never play Othello?
I was always curious about Anthony Quinn (Mexican) and Alec Guinness (English) pretending to be Arabs in Lawrence of Arabia without speaking a line of Arabic. I think that dates the otherwise fine film the most.
In Tabor Ukhodit v Nebo the two lead actors, Svetlana Toma and Grigore Grigoriu are Russian and Moldavian, not Romani, yet I wasn't offended due partly to the poetic and symbolic nature of this unreal film (as beautiful as it is). Tony Gatlif (Half Romani, half Algerian) even cast Asia Argento as a Romni in Transylvania. The whole premise of the title of the play Gypsy is based on a racial/ethnic stereotype.
Irene Dunne performed in black face in Show Boat, but there she was portraying a white actress who was performing in black face and it was suitable in the context.
It's theatre and art. Film is by its nature is somewhat more realistic and to me it seems more appropriate for actors to be of the corresponding race, but I try not to get too upset about it if it is otherwise the portrayal is sensitive and done with respect for the race and culture.
Should a German never portray the French or English onstage? Should a Jew never portray a Christian? Should Omar Sharif never have portrayed a Russian?
It's an issue that can be discussed over and over again because I don't think the lines are clear and they shift with time. But there is certainly a point where it seems disrespectful, but it's not a hard science with a fixed equation.
Updated On: 9/3/08 at 01:51 AM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95