white Broadway — Page 5

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's points of view on this thread guys. You've all been so eloquant and it's been a real debate. Someone above mentioned about the new castings in Billy Elliot, and there is a thread on Whatsonstage on the subject, which has some "interesting" views... read it - words fail me to describe it...

http://www.whatsonstage.com/dforum/download_thread.php?thread=1140782992&bn=whatsonstagecom_musicals&site=whatsonstagecom

I think that a lot of one's opinions on this issue depend on the degree of realism that he or she values in theatre. There are shows for which there are absolutely no race-specific references or settings, and for those I completely support color-blind casting. But the fact remains that many plays or musicals are set in a specific time period, and oftentimes colorblind casting just isn't realistic. I don't *personally* have a problem with the idea of a black Marry Poppins because, as pointed out by others, the premise itself is highly unrealistic, but I can see how others would. It just doesn't make sense to cast a black actress in a role such as Eliza Doolittle because it would be highly unlikely in the historicalI context of Victorian England and the unconventional casting couldn't be dealt with in the text. I think that there are plenty of roles where race shouldn't matter at all, but it seems irresponsible to ignore the social climate of period-specific pieces when casting.

This doesn't seem entirely fair, given that the underrepresentation of minorities throughout history also translates to a lack of roles for minority actors in the theatrical literature up until now. Times are changing, though, and hopefully more plays and musicals will be written that depict modern times in which race is less of an issue for casting.

Did Bryant Gumbel write that? The original "article" posted was nothing more than unresearched speculation. Had the author actually done a little digging, they would have discovered numerous instances of color-blind casting in the last couple of decades. And Rent is not "founded on race" as the article suggests. The original cast was racially diverse, but there is nothing in the show that defines their ethnicity with the exception of Mimi's line "where the Spanish babies cry", which could allude to her Latin descent, though Mel B., who was the last Mimi I saw, is not Hispanic.

"Can a Latino Jean Valjean in pre-Revolutionary France make the role believable?"

Uh, why don't you ask the people who saw Philip Hernandez as Jean Valjean AND Javert at the Imperial? Or what about a Latino Marius (Ricky Martin), a black Madame Thenardier (Fuschia Walker), a black Fantine (Melba Moore), an Asian Eponine (Lea Salonga), etc.

And I've seen black, white and hispanic Angels as well as a white Tom Collins. I also remember Lillias White in How to Succeed, Phylicia Rashad and Vanessa Williams in Into the Woods, most recently, James Earl Jones and Leslie Uggams in On Golden Pond, and many many many others. If the author is going to discuss the lack of minorities on Broadway he/she should actually do a little reseach first.

People are just so eager to get angry about something, they will try to look for the worst in anything. In this case, though, it was just a flagrant display of ignorance.

---

Quote: “But the fact remains that many plays or musicals are set in a specific time period, and oftentimes colorblind casting just isn't realistic.”

Really good theater challenges us to see the world differently. And by and large, people who love theater do see the world differently. We don’t think it’s hokey when someone bursts into song. We don’t dismiss modern dress productions of Shakespeare because they’re historically inaccurate. We don’t think it’s unbelievable when gang members dance up and down the streets of New York. If you can believe that, why can’t you believe a black person playing Henry Higgins? James Earl Jones in his prime would have made an excellent Higgins. Some would argue that it’s not historically accurate. I would argue that every production of every play does not have to be historically accurate.

There are even some shows where a switch in race would enliven the proceedings. Why not do an all-black production of 1776? It would add a provocative edge to all the discussions about the formation of the country. Or Oklahoma with a black Judd? (Which, in fact, would be historically accurate.) That would certainly rile people up. Would it make him more sympathetic because his isolation is more understandable or would it play into stereotypes of sexual aggression? East West Players here in LA do all-Asian productions of classic musicals and they’re great. Deaf West, a company of hearing impaired actors, did a beautiful production of Big River that eventually made it to Broadway. Deafness isn’t exactly the same thing as race, but I’m sure there were people who didn’t go because they thought half the cast being deaf was a PC gimmick. It was their loss.

But the fact of the matter is, a lot of Broadway shows do cast multiculturally. I've yet to hear of any patrons demanding their money back because of the racial make up of the cast. It would actually be hilarious if they tried to. Could you imagine the conversation at the box office?

The fact that it's "ludicrous" is what makes it interesting to me. Just another way to deconstruct familiar material. It would make audiences pretty damn uncomfortable hearing a black man sing "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" and maybe listen a little differently to a song they've heard a thousand times. Some theater goers actually like to be challenged occasionally and see things outside of the box. And, no, I don't expect an all-black production of 1776 to hit Broadway any time soon, but if I taught theater at an all black high school, you bet your ass I'd put on a production of 1776.

Jasonf, the way I see it theater by it's very nature is a gimmick. It's not real life. It's not supposed to be. Mrs. Lovett playing the tuba is a gimmick. Denzel Washington doing Brutus in modern dress is a gimmick. Thomas Jefferson singing songs in the first place is a gimmick. And yes, a black person pretending to be Thomas Jefferson would be a gimmick, as well. It could be horrible or it could be interesting. Who knows? It's not going to happen any time soon, so you don't need to worry about it. I chose the most extreme example I could think of to make my larger point.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that you don't like to be challenged. I just don't think works are diminished when people attempt to perform them in unorthodox ways. Sweeney Todd (to mention a current controversial example) will always be Sweeney Todd no matter what.

I apologize for the threadjack as well.

I agree that a black man as Jefferson would alter the show. I don't agree that it would make the words hypocritical and meaningless. It might make them ironic. Or it might make them even more powerful, in a "we've come a long way, baby" sense. I don't know. I just don't think it would render them meaningless.

I agree that because of our racial baggage an all-black cast would make the show into something it isn't currently. I just don't think that thing would necessarily be a mockery of the show. It would just be different. The "Small House of Uncle Thomas" number in the King and I didn't render Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel meaningless. It actually brought new life to it.

Like I said, the East West Players do all-Asian productions all the time. Not 1776, but Sweeney Todd is running currently. They've done Three Penny Opera, Follies, Hedda Gabbler, Passion, M.Butterly, Proof, Come Back Little Sheba, among others. Often your initial reaction is "that's weird," but then you get over it. You could argue that because Jefferson is a historical figure it's even harder to suspend disbelief. But it's a musical that's been performed a gazillion times around the world. One theoretical production that approaches things a little differently doesn't strike me as a big deal. If people don't like the idea of it, they don't have to go.

[Scroll Past]

Updated On: 2/25/06 at 12:59 AM

Somtimes, I think CU students look too hard to find conflict where there isn't... or at least where it's not as clear-cut as they like to make it out to be.

I find that I rarely agree with stuff published in my own University's paper. *shrug* So much of their opinion writing has this really bizarre all-or-nothing spin to it when the issues are often way more blurred than the writers want to concede they are. I wouldn't give it all that much credit, personally.

Anyway, in terms of the agree/disagree thing, I think that it's an unfortunate reality that looks DO factor into who can play what part. I don't think it's exactly something that's the same as what's normally termed inherent racism, or anything derogatory like that. I think that some roles, in order to be accurate (even if fantastical), for lack of a better term, *are* race specific. I don't think that concessions should really be expected to be made in specificity of a piece in order to accomodate this desire for across-the-board race-blind casting, almost... just for the sake of doing it. I think that of course there are certain roles where it may not truly matter, that have thusfar not been played by minority actors, but I wonder who's to say that that's the *reason*. The writer just seems to be looking at it from a very all-or-nothing looks versus talent perspective.

---

Updated On: 2/25/06 at 01:05 AM

All the black shows? Don't generalize be specific because frankyl i don't know what you're talking about. Secondly if there were to be an interracial couple there would be no way to tell if there'd confusing of anything. You're imposing that onto people. I THOUGHT Rabbit Hole was about a couple dealing with the death of a child. I'm sorry but that seems universal. WHat would an interracial couple bring to the play that would be so confusing. The fact that that would "confuse" things or that people are saying "looks matter that's not really racist or derogitory" seems to be a problem. THe fact that race is an issue that's this big is a HUGE problem in this country that no one seems to be acknowledging. Maybe it's because all these people are white. However saying you can't play this role because you're black IS derogatory and inherant racism. THe fact that someone didn't use a racial slur to say that doesn't make it any less racist! Who's to say that's the reason? Plenty of people have been told that.

I have to say I find this thread slightly rediculous. How can so many of you honestly argue that either A.) There's no racial inequality on Broadway or B.) The casting is necessary?

The dominance of white actors in lead roles is undeniable.

I have to again say, what is piont of making theater 'real'? Don't we go to the theater to escape, to see a story? Now there are some roles where yes, race can not be munipulated, but I refuse to believe that such a thing is true for the majority of Broadway (or theater in general).

"The piont [sic] is, they're all actors, and all human, and they all do a fantastic job. I only wish more shows would follow in their footsteps."

More shows probably will and many already have, but not all shows are written to do that.

"The dominance of white actors in lead roles is undeniable."

The dominance of white people in America is undeniable as well. The dominance of straight actors in leading roles is also undeniable. I'm sure the dominance of Asian actors in Japanese theatre is also undeniable. All that says is that the majority demographic of the US is the same in American theatre, which is simply math.

"I have to say I find this thread slightly rediculous [sic]. How can so many of you honestly argue that either A.) There's no racial inequality on Broadway or B.) The casting is necessary?"

Personally, I find American theatre in general to be one of the most racially (and sexually) diverse businesses in the country, second only maybe to the sports industry. But again, no matter what anyone does, it will never be enough to satisfy because that is the nature of American behavior. Americans are never satisfied. Ever.

"I have to again say, what is piont [sic] of making theater 'real'? Don't we go to the theater to escape, to see a story?"

Some people do and some people don't. People go to the theatre for a variety of reasons. Just as plays and musicals are also written for a variety of reasons. Some are for entertainment, some are artistic challenges, some are educational, some are historical, and some are social or political commentaries. And not every single play or musical has to be written or directed to be racially diverse. If so, then it's just stifling the creativity just as much as forcing every shows to be cast as only the author envisioned. Believe me, if there were a white girl playing Celie in The Color Purple, there would be HELL to pay, so pretending that race-specific casting only benefits white actors is both ignorant and foolish. The backlash of Jonathan Pryce in Miss Saigon illustrated that perfectly. And I did not agree with that casting, either.

"Now there are some roles where yes, race can not be munipulated [sic], but I refuse to believe that such a thing is true for the majority of Broadway (or theater in general)."

It may or may not be true. The key is that EVERY SHOW IS IMPORTANT IN ITS OWN WAY. Find the essence and the meaning of the show and analyze each angle of how multi-racial casting may impact the show either positively or negatively. The racially diverse Carousel was a risk that paid off. A racially diverse Mary Poppins could go either way. I've never heard or seen evidence of black nannies in 19th century England, but a black Mary Poppins could completely backfire with a negative response. Cast a black woman and she has to be a servant? Think that won't some up in liberal commentary? You can't please everyone. Personally, I can't stand Mary Poppins and think the character is a lying evil bitch, so I don't care what color she is. I'm not planning on seeing the show.

---