What do you think of an All-Black version of "Les Miserables" — Page 5

It was an arbitrary change, as far as I can see, from the original material. One could argue that it was done in the name of inclusion, which would be fine, but again, he's described one way in the novels, then shows up as something else for the musical. So the story-driven reason for that would be?

---

I guess the creators of the musical thought it didn't matter.

What was the story-driven reason for him to be white?

I mean, if you hadn't read the book, would you think the character was meant to be white and that you were seeing some sort of disconnect?

I never bought that silliness about "women wouldnt trust a black gynecologist". That was just looking for a reason not to like it.

---

And, you know, there ARE roles that are owned by white people by the necessity of the script. The white folks in Ragtime, for example, are just as tied to race as the black.

Absolutely, Taryn. There are all kinds of roles that can pretty much only be played by an actor of a particular race (unless you're really making some sort of point) because of internal evidence. If the Miss Daisy and Hoke weren't white and black respectively the play would cease to make sense as soon as they opened their mouths.

But that's not true for lots and lots of parts.

So I'm genuinely curious what the issue might be with a black Jon.

Updated On: 7/25/11 at 07:22 PM

Sean, I agree that is silly.

So what is it about the character in the show that's specifically white?

Huh?

Updated On: 7/25/11 at 09:14 PM

Actually, it was was D'Orothea, not Deedee. And it was pills, not medical procedures.

But, oooooh Jesus, Jon's not a blonde!

Updated On: 7/25/11 at 11:44 PM

There's such a thing as historical accuracy, people.

Yes, there is, and I'm perfectly satisfied applying it to costumes and not skin color.

When I was 16, I waited in Central Park all day to get a ticket to see Stacy Keach as Hamlet, Colleen Dewhurst as Gertrude and James Earl Jones as Claudius.

It remains one of the most powerful evenings in theater of my entire life. If you think I or anyone in the audience was bothered for even a fraction of a second by the color of James Earl Jones's skin, I pity your lack of imagination.

The summer before I had seen Two Gentlemen of Verona, with Raul Julia and Clifton Davis. The production was so much fun it won the Tony over Follies. No one in the audience worried for an IOTA of a second whether or not 16th-century Verona had black or Puerto Rican people.

Since then I have seen many color-blind productions, and unless issues of race are involved in the plot, I see no reason why it should not be the norm.

Whatever you have in your mind about "historical accuracy, people" seems more like thinly veiled racism.

---

But again, Sean, what is there about the character that requires him to be white? Because I don't think we're really talking hair color here. If they'd cast a white, albeit not blond, actor, would you have been equally bugged?

I recall any protests when Billy Campbell played him in the miniseries.

We've already had several variations on that joke (maybe even that one), but I think everyone would agree that there are plenty of reasons to cast black actors in that. Similarly, there are reasons to cast most Guerney plays with white actors, to take one example.

What I keep trying to talk about are those parts that may have been originally played by white actors but where it really doesn't matter. Or black, for that matter: I don't see a textual reason for Collins or Joanne to be played by black actors.