Thoughts on the Hamilton non-whites notice — Page 2

newintown said: "This is not a conversation, because dissent (on this topic, at least) is not permitted. White people should not express an opinion; if they absolutely feel that they must, total agreement with the accepted dogma is the only acceptable expression - but it really is best for whites to abstain from comment.

As we all know, whites own the entire world. China is owned by whites; Japan and North Korea are owned by whites. All of Central and South America are owned by whites. There is no neighborhood, community, or nation on Earth that is not owned (and has not always been owned) by whites.

More ironically, whites are now in the minority everywhere in the world - as has been stated earlier, Hamilton is American history as told by America as it is today; that is, 98% non-white (if you identify Latino as non-white, but do we really need to muddy the argument thus?).

Like most topics and ideas, this one is completely black/white; there are no shades of grey, there is no ambiguity, there is no complexity - it can be reduced to a five second sound bite which essentially says "all whites are, and always have been, just the worst kind of people."

Excluding the former excluders really is the only practicable solution, because the human species cannot exist without some kind of hate.

 

"

slams head on the desk.

Did you read this thread at all. Read my post RIGHT ABOVE yours. I explained it. And white people are in the play.

This show is about America so I have no idea why you are talking about China and South America. Again part of the vision of the show is it is American history told by minorities who were often marginalized through out history and it is showing that American history belongs to all Americans not just white people who had rights back in the time it takes place. It's kinda claiming American history as their own as well even though at the time it didn't really include them. It's just a lens in which they chose to tell the story. It's not about "hating white people" Are you kidding. The show puts the founding fathers (who were really white) in a pretty positive light. George Washington is practically portrayed as a faultless god. Even Thomas Jefferson who is kind of an antagonist, your meant to find him funny and cocky. It's just telling the story through a minority lens. It's the same as The Color Purple where the race of the characters are important just more subtle in Hamilton. It's part of the reason the show works so well.

When Lin said "America now" he meant that all the people in the play are Americans but at the time it took place they would have had no rights or not even been considered Americans but they are still telling the story of the foundation of America. I really don't get how conservatives could dislike the message of the play. It's so patriotic and so many kids worship the founding fathers now because of it.

Anyway don't worry when the rights are released to high schools and community theatres you'll get to see white people in the roles since you desperately need that.

 

Updated On: 4/2/16 at 03:41 PM

newintown, that post takes the cutglass flyswatter. I would not even attempt to parse the pathology on display. One observation and one question: 

Observation: I am white as are, I suspect, many of the people who have posted in this thread. We have all expressed opinions. I can't speak for others but there is no "dogma" connected to my opinion unless you consider dramaturgy to be a dogma. 

Question: what is the "dogma" you think exists? Please state it because I really don't want to believe your comment is coming from where it sounds like it is coming. 

And then we have the irony of that other play about the Founding Fathers, 1776, showing up as one of the City Center's Encores productions, and featuring three, or possibly four of the FFs as African Americans, as well as the young soldier/courier in the person of John-Michael Lyles, who delivers the still moving "Momma, Look Sharp" to perfection. (There were African American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, but not at that time in Washington's army.)

There is really no comparison of the cross-casting of Hamilton versus that of 1776. The reason for the existence of Hamilton is tied to a non-Caucasian cast of Founding Fathers communicating through non-Caucasian speech and music. There is no reason for several of the Founding Fathers to be of the African American race other than showing an earnest effort to give blacks a bigger piece of the pie.

The most important role given to any non-Caucasian is the part of Richard Henry Lee, who is given one of the plum songs: "The Lees of Old Virginia. Jubilant Sykes plays the role, and his rendition of the song may well be the most entertaining of any one else who has played the role. There is a problem, though, at least for quite a few members of the audience. Sykes is not portraying Richard Henry Lee. He could most likely said to be playing himself as an entertainer. To some, as I listened in to a number of intermission conversations, it was going too far to apply equal opportunity at the cost of reinventing one of the production's starring roles who was based on an historic character.

I didn't have any strong reaction either way. My primary concern was that I had drunk a 20 ounce bottle of diet Coke just before I sat down, the first act lasted for 1:45, and I had no prayer of getting out before intermission.

On this production of 1776. I shared a lot of the sentiments of Ben. I thought that the first act just dragged on too long, as compared to the 1997 Roundabout/Scott Ellis/Kathleen Marshall production which moved faster and did not have so much time in-between songs...

 

Updated On: 4/3/16 at 04:09 AM

A few folks on the thread seem to have misinterpreted my post. One comment said, "I can't help but feel like you're reading too much into this in order to find a reason to let white people audition." I really wish I could convince the folks who favor more opportunities for POCs that I am indeed in your camp. I am NOT trying to find an excuse to have white people audition, I am objecting to poorly worded casting announcements that may cause trouble -- in other words, I'm thinking like the lawyer I spent 30 years working as.

One of the things that absolutely infuriated me about the 8(a) minority contracting program when I provided legal advice for the program was when whites suddenly discovered remote Native American ancestors and registered with the tribe so they could apply for the 8(a) program as Indian. I considered this a perversion of the program's intent. A casting notice that specifies "non-whites" may well generate a similar problem.

My view is always keep something worded loosely enough that a casting director has flexibility. He or she may never find a reason to make an exception, but you just never know. Also, even adding the word "preferably" before "non-white" could make a casting notice ok legally, although not a normal job announcement, where preferences based on race, religion, sex (but NOT sexual preference in most states, shockingly) are illegal.

I have a request to those who think folks like me have a hidden agenda: Ping me offline and I'll be glad to have a discussion about my views.

End of rant.

Audrey

 

The most controversial thing about the Hamilton casting notice is the closing line: "Bring a picture and resume that includes your contact information."  

It's time for the musical theatre industry to step into the 21st century in regards to audition protocol. The audition process would be much smoother, more efficient, and less time-consuming for all involved. 

What are your thoughts? Do you think it's time to automate the audition process?

For more on the movement to eliminate the hardcopy headshot and resume read my blog post The Hardcopy Headshot and Resume is Dead found here http://bit.ly/238Nb9I . 

This post betrays a fundamental misapprehension of the "audition process" involved. First, most actors working on Broadway got an audition that was initiated via a digital headshot and resume. Second, open calls are inherently inconsistent with that. Finally, any salesperson worth their salt (and yes that's what an actor is when they audition) wants to get their sales materials (yes, that's what a headshot and resume are) in EVERY way possible, and in the form that makes it more rather than less likely they will get cast. The shilling may take the cake, but the dumbness of the shilling takes the cutglass flyswatter.

The ONLY public statement I will make about this entire situation is directed at whoever noted that if it were ANY show BUT the mega-Ham, nobody would care. That is serious food for thought.

I guess this article belongs here since it touches on the casting of the show (among other criticisms - but despite the criticisms, the author loved the show)  http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2016/04/a_hamilton_critic_on_why_the_musical_isn_t_so_revolutionary.html