Thank you. The ideas people are trying to foreword are impractical, illogical and inconsistent. Regarding that article - I guess it is interesting at least. The argument seems to be that even though Eva was a biologically ‘white’ woman, it should be played by a latinx actor because:
* Eva as written in this musical appears to make more logical sense in the text as a non-white woman. Personally I just can’t buy this given it is based on a historically real person and it is clear given historical casting the authors never intended this. I think this is a very tenuous link.
* People with latinx national/cultural identities should own latinx national/cultural roles. I suppose in theory this makes sense but when we start getting into details (as discussed in the previous post) it is far too messy, inconsistent and impractical to manage. In its practical application it wouldn’t make sense. So a latinx actor with no affiliation with Argentina is somehow more right for the role? And of course we never apply this standards to other cultural identities. It would mean a Chinese person shouldn’t play a Japanese person or vice versa. Or a Canadian person can’t play an American or Australian person. Or a British person can’t play American. And soon we’ll be saying only gay actors can play gay roles once we start moving identity beyond national or cultural identity.
Can we just stop it with this odd identity fixation where it is not important. This is acting!! There is nothing to be concerned about if a white actress plays a woman who was white in real life!
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
