Sean, the script describes him as a person of color, or that's how this production was cast?
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?
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
And a few people on here have taken huge objection to that (though I still think that's bunk - it never occured to me that a woman in the 70s might not trust a black gynecologist and I doubt it did for 95% of audiences).
One of the said protestors claims Jon was cast as black on purpose, which if true, I can only think was to add more diversity to a fairly white cast once D'Or was cut from the workshops.
I definitely agree with your point above about an all black production - or an all anything production pushing things too far, and I don't think there's any purpose or use for such productions in this day and age
Updated On: 7/25/11 at 07:12 PM
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?
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
So the story-driven reason for that would be?
Racism, pure and simple. PC gone amok! How DARE they. I mean, HOW DARE THEY!
I never bought that silliness about "women wouldnt trust a black gynecologist". That was just looking for a reason not to like it.
Well, clearly one dissenting example invalidates the entire point. I did, after all, say "probably."
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.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
So the story-driven reason for that would be?
To take a role away from an obviously more deserving white actor!
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
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
The poster seemed to come on here, go on about how much he hated Tales of the City (and fair enough - I really liked it with heavy reservations, so admit my bias), and then disappear, but he was adamant, about living in San Fran in the 70s and that no white woman would trust a black gynecologist. I dunno, Deedee is from a well off family, but in the books is clearly not even slightly concerned about what race different characters are, so I don't think it would play a part at all.
Sean, I agree that is silly.
So what is it about the character in the show that's specifically white?
Featured Actor Joined: 10/2/08
There's a thread somewhere on this board that there's a rumor of Lauren Ambrose taking the role of Fanny Brice. That excites me. Does that make me a racist?
Featured Actor Joined: 10/2/08
I also strongly disliked "Spring Awakening"? So, yeah...I must be totally racist.
Updated On: 7/25/11 at 09:14 PM
>> So what is it about the character in the show that's specifically white?
Answer in a moment. First: to Phyllis -- sweetie, take a Valium, kay? Just chill.
All right, as for Jon Fielding... call me purist, but that's how he's written in the books, and I should think that, for the first production anyway, the authors would honour that. Yes, it's a small thing in the Grand Scheme of Things, but, speaking solely for myself as a huge fan of the original work, it's making a change just to be "inclusive" instead of using it to say something more about the relationship between Jon and Michael. It's just arbitrary.
By contrast, in the novels Maupin constructed the character of DeeDee as someone who *made* herself black through medical procedures because she thought it would help her advance in her modelling career. That to me is far more telling than just saying, "Hey, let's make Jon black! It'll be so cool!"
Again, it's a small thing -- one certainly not worth Phyllis' hysterical rants.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
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
I stand corrected on the name, thank you. But funny, last time I checked, taking prescription pills was a medical procedure.
As for the colour of Dr. Fielding's hair, I would beg to differ. I'll have to get the books out of storage to check, but I'm fairly certain I'm right on that incredibly tiny (not to mention insignificant) point of discussion.
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.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
I guess I wasn't clear enough for you, SeanMartin. I wasn't arguing that Jon wasn't a blonde. I was sniping because I find it amusing that you got nothing else right about the story, but you're stuck on the fact that Jon was a blonde in the book.
Because, really, YOU'RE the one who brought it up under the guise of "what's the text based reason for not giving it to a white actor?" I agree that it's insignificant, but again, YOU are the one who brought it up.
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.
Coming soon, an all white PORGY AND BESS !
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.
I am happy for your experience, P.J., but just because some people allow themselves to be taken in by nonsense does not mean that it's right or that I have to agree with it.
What's next? An all-black BAREFOOT IN THE PARK? Because there might have been one or two young black attorneys in New York the '60s? Yeah, no problem, let's continue to misrepresent history by making it look common. Good grief.
Videos