LarryD2 said: "RainyAgwe said: "LarryD2 said: "I'd love to see Nicolette Robinson come back. Her singing and acting were great. It's also worth noting that she was the first Jenna who had actually been pregnant, and I thought that affected her performance very strongly, including the way she moved on stage that some of the other actors didn't quite get.
Jordin Sparks was also an excellent Jenna -- she sang extremely well and really acted it beautifully, including that she seemed totally working class, which I don't think Bareilles, Mueller or McPhee ever fully captured."
Not attempting to derail anything here, but there's something about the wording of this that really rubs me the wrong way. I get that you mean that her performance feltmore authentic to you, but the way that this is worded felt a little "this woman of color felt more working class than the prominent white women who have played the role".
I'm not attempting to accuse you ofactuallysaying this, but wanted to point this out as folks whodomean it this way often code their language similarly."
Accusing me of using “coded language” is exactly what you’re doing. It’s good to remember that you actually know nothing about any of the people behind these screen names. Not that it should matter, but I am Black, and I grew up in a very working class environment. The story of Waitress resonates with my experiences.
In my comments, I highlighted that Sparks acted Jenna more authentically than any other actress I saw. She inhabited the character believably as a woman stuck in a dead end job and a marriage that she couldn’t see a way out of. If you read something untowardinto that, it’s on you.
I don’t expect an apology, but I do hope you’ll proceed with a bit more grace in the future."
I'd like to comment that I am also black along with a graduate Theatre/African American Studies double degree (woot!), looking at such language (theatrically or otherwise) has been a part of what I have done as my educational background. Not only did I pretty tamely address the potential use of language, I addressed the specifics of how you worded the statement and not your intent (which I also brought up)
Not only did I note that it is the wording that could be interpreted this way, but I also in a literal sense let you know that that's not what I believe that you intended. I feel like you took what I had pointed to and decided to exasperate the comment and make it into something much more than what I said. I pointed to the potential coding that could exist. To say that she "acted it beautifully, including that she seemed working class" is absolutely something that could be used as coded language. I'm also, as noted above, not the only one who found the wording odd.
Heck, even in your amended version of your perspective you worded it differently. You're talking about the performative nature of theatre, and "seeming" can mean a lot of things. You're now talking about authenticity in tangible means, but "seeming" is almost always implying an outward apperance (Merriam-Webster defines as both "external appearance as distinguished from true character" and "outwardly or superficially evident but not true or real"
. This is about language, which is what I was talking about, not the user or their intent. I'll also reiterate that I, again, said that this is sometimes how people can code language... not that you did.
If you took my comment as some sort of personal attack, that's on you. Honestly of all the times I've seen someone point stuff like this out dare I say this is the most calm/general point out I've witnessed, especially that I literally absolved you of intent. You've now interpreted this as me accusing you as some racist who used coded language, which is a bit absurd.
I will not apologize because I have nothing to apologize for, and I hope that you'll proceed with a bit more grace and self-reflection in the future instead of jumping to such a conclusion when something along this line is brought up.
Updated On: 10/7/21 at 10:22 PM
