Did nobody read The Atlantic Monthly?
Miriam Nadel
There was an article about Leonard Bernstein in the June 1993 issue of
The Atlantic which had some interesting remarks about musical theatre.
In particular, the claim that opera and musical theatre are two very
different genres, in part because of content. The basic thesis is that
opera reflects the composer's personal feelings while the musical is a
popular art and has to reflect the feelings of the audience instead.
The claim is interesting. The "proof" is the following:
"Nearly all the musicals of the Golden Age are based on the same plot
device - intermarriage. Lovers have to overcome the differences between
ranchers and farmers, gamblers and Save-a-Soul missionaries, whites and
blacks, Americans and Scots, Cockneys and upper cursts, Jets and Sharks.
The recurrence of the theme of intermarriage reflected the anxiety of the
New York audience, predominantly Jewish or otherwise second-generational,
not merely about the literal question of marrying 'out' but also in the
broader sense of cultural assimilation. The musicals represented the
audiences' own aspirations to marry into American culture."
This seems a rather extreme view to me (I find it hard to interpret Guys
and Dolls as really about intermarriage; it seems more a matter of
challenging ones expectations about marriage) but I thought it interesting.
The claim goes on that it is the best theatre comes about when pretensions to
realism are dropped.
Miriam Nadel
kenneth mccoy
>There was an article about Leonard Bernstein in the June 1993 issue of
>The Atlantic which had some interesting remarks about musical theatre.
>In particular, the claim that opera and musical theatre are two very
>different genres, in part because of content. The basic thesis is that
>opera reflects the composer's personal feelings while the musical is a
>popular art and has to reflect the feelings of the audience instead.
>The claim is interesting. The "proof" is the following:
(some deleted)
>The recurrence of the theme of intermarriage reflected the anxiety of the
>New York audience, predominantly Jewish or otherwise second-generational,
>not merely about the literal question of marrying 'out' but also in the
>broader sense of cultural assimilation. The musicals represented the
>audiences' own aspirations to marry into American culture."
It seems to me that an equally compelling (or not, depending on how you
take these statements) claim can be made that the musical theatre was in
more of a position to reflect "popular" tastes -- being the artistic
product of a democracy -- than the opera -- being the product of a
theocracy or monarchy.
In Shaffer's "Amadeus," Salieri tells the audience "We were servants, yes,
but *learned* servants." Opera has (and often some non-musical theatre has
as well) been considered an "elite" art form. But when Joe Six-Pack goes
to the theatre (when his SO drags him there, that is), it is more often to
see a musical.
Let's not forget that marriages in drama is nothing new. From Plautus
(Pseudolus=Funny thing happened on the way to the forum) through
Shakespeare up to the Magic Flute, the marriage of the lovers in the play
has always provided a certain "dramatic" consummation.
>The claim goes on that it is the best theatre comes about when pretensions to
>realism are dropped.
This is really a different thing. I suspect the author is writing about
presentational styles of production (the crucial element to musical
theatre, but to opera, too). Psychological realism re: Stanislavski
is a turn-of-the-20th-century aesthetic applied largely to non-musical
(i.e., representational) styles of text and performance.
Oddly (or fittingly) given the elaboration of reader-response theories, there
is a new critical respect for the presentational element in theatrical
performance. Brecht's epic theatre in particular seems to have become a
place where the literati and the theatre practitioner may meet, but in my
opinion, the boost of respectability given the musical theatre by Popular
Culture studies and Performance Theory may present mulch for the garden as
well.
Thanks for reading,
Ken
The StinkyCheeseMan
>
>There was an article about Leonard Bernstein in the June 1993 issue of
>The Atlantic which had some interesting remarks about musical theatre.
>In particular, the claim that opera and musical theatre are two very
>different genres, in part because of content. The basic thesis is that
>opera reflects the composer's personal feelings while the musical is a
>popular art and has to reflect the feelings of the audience instead.
I read the article and for the most part enjoyed it though I didn't
agree with most of his opinions. (It's been a few months and I threw
out the magazine, so I can't make reference to it.)
I interpreted this point somewhat differently. I'd assumed
that it was as much the anxiety of the composers (a large
number of whom -- ie. Berlin, Gershwin, Bernstein -- were Jewish
or in some other way outside the "mainstream" of American life)
as the anxiety of the audience. (I also thought he defined this
audience in a limited way. The theatre people themselves, mostly.)
So, I wouldn't say they were reflecting
the feelings of the audience any more they were reflecting their
own feelings and those feelings coincided with some anxieties of
the audience.
As I recall, that was part of the author's point. That the
majority of New York theatre crowd (writers, directors, actors, etc.)
believed themselves as outsiders (because of ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, etc) even before becoming theatre folk and
that outsideness is reflected allegorically in the intermarriages of
the musicals.
I don't agree with the major thesis at all. The difference between
opera and musical theatre is not the thematic motivation of the
composer (does he reflect his or his audience's views?). In both
opera and musicals, they usually reflect both their own and their
audiences views.
>The claim is interesting. The "proof" is the following:
>"Nearly all the musicals of the Golden Age are based on the same plot
>device - intermarriage. Lovers have to overcome the differences between
>ranchers and farmers, gamblers and Save-a-Soul missionaries, whites and
>blacks, Americans and Scots, Cockneys and upper cursts, Jets and Sharks.
>The recurrence of the theme of intermarriage reflected the anxiety of the
>New York audience, predominantly Jewish or otherwise second-generational,
>not merely about the literal question of marrying 'out' but also in the
>broader sense of cultural assimilation. The musicals represented the
>audiences' own aspirations to marry into American culture."
>This seems a rather extreme view to me (I find it hard to interpret Guys
>and Dolls as really about intermarriage; it seems more a matter of
>challenging ones expectations about marriage) but I thought it interesting.
>The claim goes on that it is the best theatre comes about when pretensions to
>realism are dropped.
In the context of his argument, I'd say it is an intermarriage (as is
the marriage in Oklahoma, etc.) You have two people from walks of
life (the sinner and the saver of sinners) that are in conflict and
two people decide to cross that line. It's not as obvious as say
West Side Story or Pajama Game, but it's consistent with his thesis.
And his treatment of the marriage as a symbol.
Of course, it seems like 75% of all love stories in all mediums (in some
way or another) involve similar "intermarriages". (That's a point that
the writer never really addressed in his essay.)
John D.
P.S. Incidentally, in a more recent (July I think) issue of Atlantic,
there is a rather interesting article on Jelly Roll Morton. It's motivated
by the play "Jelly's Last Jam" and explores the accuracy of the portrayal
of Morton. (They conclude that it's not very accurate.)
kenneth mccoy
In a recent production of "Oklahoma" at the Huron Playhouse, Huron, OH,
an African-American actress was cast in the role of Aunt Eller (although
a Caucasian actress was Laurie). In light of this "intermarriage" thing,
that's interesting, huh?
Of course, I make no claims myself. Just reporting a quirky coincidental
thing.
Ken
Betsy Perry
for the recommendation!), but it's worth remembering that "all
comedies end in a marriage", and that there has to be some barrier
between the romantic leads at story's beginning. Otherwise, Pinza
shows up, sings "Some Enchanted Evening", Martin falls into his arms,
and you're out of the theatre at 8:45 wondering what to do with the
rest of the evening.
If the original AM author can define the tension between
Laurie/Curly/Jud at OKLAHOMA!'s beginning as based on intermarriage, I
suspect he/she/it is stretching the term out of all recognition. Class
and racial/cultural barriers are useful in keeping romantic leads apart, but
they're by no means essential to golden era musicals. Consider DAMN
YANKEES. BYE BYE BIRDIE. ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. PETER PAN. GYPSY.
--
Betsy Hanes Perry bet...@vnet.net
(formerly bet...@apollo.HP.com)
Steve R. Van Dien
: In a recent production of "Oklahoma" at the Huron Playhouse, Huron, OH,
: Ken
Casting a black as Aunt Eller in Oklahoma makes as much sense as casting
a white actor (without blackface) as Walter in Raisin in the Sun.
Color-blind casting is admirable in theory, but often absurd in practice.
Steve Van Dien
Mark Bernstein
:
: Casting a black as Aunt Eller in Oklahoma makes as much sense as casting
: a white actor (without blackface) as Walter in Raisin in the Sun.
: Color-blind casting is admirable in theory, but often absurd in practice.
I can't agree. Raisin in the Sun is (I believe -- it's been years since I
read it), among other things, *about* being black. I agree that casting
white actors in those roles makes little sense.
Oklahoma!, on the other hand, contains no references to race, so I have no
problem with ignoring race in casting.
Did seeing Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves cast as brothers ruin your
enjoyment of Branagh's "Much Ado"? It didn't for me.
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@cimage.com
Joe Reda
>Oklahoma!, on the other hand, contains no references to race, so I have no
>problem with ignoring race in casting.
>Did seeing Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves cast as brothers ruin your
>enjoyment of Branagh's "Much Ado"? It didn't for me.
>--
>Mark Bernstein
>ma...@cimage.com
The casting in "Much Ado" was interesting, but it was a bit difficult
for me (I had never seen the play) to remember that they were brothers.
As for "Oklahoma!", I think it does (in an oblique way) have references
to race - they're supposed to be settlers or descendants of settlers,
and (I assume) they would be white? It would be extremely strange to
me to watch an ethnic Aunt Eller or Laurey or Curly (although I expect
I'd get over it) as it would be to watch a white Kim in "Miss Saigon".
I think what we're going for here, IMHO, is balance. Non-traditional
casting when it works, and traditional casting when it works. And the
casting in "Much Ado" was *very* interesting!
\\Joe
--
****************************************************************************
Joe L. Reda, KC6TXU | j...@netcom.com | Campbell, CA | all opinions are mine
"Full separation of church & state . . not just a good idea, IT'S THE LAW!"
****************************************************************************
just another theatre geek
>ma...@cimage.com (Mark Bernstein) writes:
>>Oklahoma!, on the other hand, contains no references to race, so I have no
>>problem with ignoring race in casting.
>to race - they're supposed to be settlers or descendants of settlers,
>and (I assume) they would be white?
That's the problem with assumptions. Sometimes they can be foolish.
Now, why do you think that the settlers would be WHITE?
>me to watch an ethnic Aunt Eller or Laurey or Curly (although I expect
>I'd get over it) as it would be to watch a white Kim in "Miss Saigon".
.....as opposed to what a part is WRITTEN to be?
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
"David Henry Hwang's BONDAGE is about an Asian male attaining his fantasy: being
dominated and humilated by a Caucasian blonde. Sheer fantasy, of course; we all
know in real life it's the other way around."
Tovah Hollander
>As for "Oklahoma!", I think it does (in an oblique way) have references
>to race - they're supposed to be settlers or descendants of settlers,
>and (I assume) they would be white? It would be extremely strange to
>me to watch an ethnic Aunt Eller or Laurey or Curly (although I expect
>I'd get over it) as it would be to watch a white Kim in "Miss Saigon".
But once again, as the previous poster said, the character of Kim is
_aboout_ being Vietnamese; the characters in OKLAHOMA! are not _about_
being white (even if their prototypes happened to be so).
I've been trying to think of characters who need to be cast as white,
using these criteria. So far, all I can come up with are those such
as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
Or Chris in MISS SAIGON, who at least needs to not be Asian -- but
again, by way of contrast. Or real historical figures -- at least
recent ones. Would a black FDR in SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO work?
If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
--
Tovah Hollander
to...@panix.com -or- to...@onion.salad.mssm.edu
Joe Reda
>But once again, as the previous poster said, the character of Kim is
>_aboout_ being Vietnamese; the characters in OKLAHOMA! are not _about_
>being white (even if their prototypes happened to be so).
Indeed . . . I guess I wasn't making distinctions to that level? :)
I would tend to agree with you about OKLAHOMA! -- but isn't the
character Kim very much about being a Vietnamese person in Vietnam?
(at least that's the way it struck me).
>I've been trying to think of characters who need to be cast as white,
>using these criteria. So far, all I can come up with are those such
>as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
>mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
>Or Chris in MISS SAIGON, who at least needs to not be Asian -- but
>again, by way of contrast. Or real historical figures -- at least
>recent ones. Would a black FDR in SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO work?
I'm not sure. I suspect, since it was a historical drama, that
it might not work. Which is not to say, however, that it could
not and should not be tried.
>If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
>you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
I'm really not sure if there are any that I know of that have to
be specifically cast white. I generally don't pay that much attention
to it. My SO, who is a professional theatre person (I'm not, if you
couldn't tell!), and I have had some lively discussions about casting
that usually run to who we think is good or not good for a part, based
on talent. For example, he thinks Sheena Easton would make a great
Evita -- I can't see it?
Scott Amspoker
>As for "Oklahoma!", I think it does (in an oblique way) have references
>to race - they're supposed to be settlers or descendants of settlers,
>and (I assume) they would be white? It would be extremely strange to
>me to watch an ethnic Aunt Eller or Laurey or Curly (although I expect
>I'd get over it) as it would be to watch a white Kim in "Miss Saigon".
Interesting, I saw a production of "Oklahoma" several years ago in which
the leads were black. It took about 30 seconds to get used to it.
On the other hand, I was more conscious of the fact that they cast it
in such a way that there was no interracial "courting" going on.
--
Scott Amspoker | Head like a hole, black as your soul.
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | I'd rather die
| Than give you control.
sc...@bbx.basis.com | - Nine Inch Nails
just another theatre geek
>>I've been trying to think of characters who need to be cast as white,
>>using these criteria. So far, all I can come up with are those such
>>as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
>>mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
>>you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
>be specifically cast white.
This leads into a related area, which crops up in a lot of areas
in ethnic theatre (and whatnot): that too many critics, audience members
and artists assume that what is white is universal and what is ethnic is
too specific to appeal to everyone. Ergo, we have color-blind casting.
This is a vast oversimplification, of course. Yet, if we make the
assertion that it would be ludicrous, say, to cast a Caucasian female as
the title role of M. BUTTERFLY, then to be consistent we must accept the
assertion that that there are roles that would have to cast with white actors.
Personally, I feel there's a certain amount of truth to this, but more
so with more recent shows than for the classics. For example, SIX DEGREES or
the more recent Neil Simon comedies tend to demand certain types as their
characters. Yet for classics such as Shakespeare, color-blind casting
is more accepted, tolereated and even encouraged (ROMEO AND JULIET, for
instance, seems to my mind to gain from that kind of casting).
Ultimately, I'd say that it all boils down to the fact that
ethnicity carries a certain amount of baggage with it that can immensely
add to a production, just as actors' height and physical presence can (I
recall a production of KISS ME KATE where we cast a 5'1" actor as Fred against
a 5'10" actress as Lily......)......
Richard S Sucgang
longest time. When I went to see My Favorite Year (quite enjoyable,
despite the flaws), it wasn't until much later, when I got to see
the film, that I realized that Rookie Carroca was supposed to be
Filipino. In fact, they casted a Japanese actor, who played the part
with a Japanese accent (I thought). Make no mistake, I can recognize
a Filipino accent on the drop of a pin, I speak fluent Tagalog myself.
What I saw here is an apparent mindset that is: you've seen one
Oriental, you've seen 'em all. That all the diverse cultures of
Asia could in fact be lumped together into some amalgam of a stereo-
type. Granted, I am not insisting that they cast a Filipino for the
role, he could've been Polish-Arabic, for all that race matters, but
I fault the DIRECTOR for not making a better study of the culture and
language. Rookie Carroca's nationality and race was integral to the
character, and to Benjamin Steinberg's objections, and I thought that
the interpretation falls short of this altogether.
Comments, anyone?
-rich
Richard Sucgang : Dept. of Anatomy and Cell Biology Columbia University
(suc...@cuhhca.hhmi.columbia.edu | rs...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu)
"...Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, individually, collectively or otherwise."
-Colm Wilkinson, Highlights from Jekyll and Hyde
Chip Clark
LL Cooljay played the son of a white father - It never occured to me that
this was an issue until - after the movie - when we were talking about the
family relationships. - Yes, it could be a throw back. Yes his mother
could be black - but she went to Vietnam as a Jane Fonda look alike -
so no she couldn't be black. It is obvious that he was cast beyond color
and until it is done more often - it will continue to look funny to some -
Those unfortunates who can't get beyond their eyes and see the story!!
Yes - I'm flaming!!!
Chip Clark
just another theatre geek
>This thread brings up something which has bothered me for the
>longest time. When I went to see My Favorite Year (quite enjoyable,
>despite the flaws), it wasn't until much later, when I got to see
>the film, that I realized that Rookie Carroca was supposed to be
>Filipino. In fact, they casted a Japanese actor, who played the part
>with a Japanese accent (I thought).
>language. Rookie Carroca's nationality and race was integral to the
>character, and to Benjamin Steinberg's objections, and I thought that
>the interpretation falls short of this altogether.
This is artistic sloppiness (if not outright racism). If you don't
bother to get the details right, why make the effort to do the show at all?
I wouldn't be surprised that this was part of the reason why the show
didn't do better.....
Steve R. Van Dien
: Steve R. Van Dien (svan...@post.its.mcw.edu) wrote:
: :
: : Casting a black as Aunt Eller in Oklahoma makes as much sense as casting
: : a white actor (without blackface) as Walter in Raisin in the Sun.
: : Color-blind casting is admirable in theory, but often absurd in practice.
: :
: I can't agree. Raisin in the Sun is (I believe -- it's been years since I
: read it), among other things, *about* being black. I agree that casting
: white actors in those roles makes little sense.
: Oklahoma!, on the other hand, contains no references to race, so I have no
: problem with ignoring race in casting.
How about ignoring history? Color-blind casting often is, in effect, a
rewriting of history in an effort to hide or ignore unpleasant facts.
Certainly Oklahoma
in the 1880's was no model of an integrated society. Thus to cast a black
as Aunt Eller makes hash of history. In this sense, OKLAHOMA is about being
white, just as RAISIN IN THE SUN is, as you suggest, about being black.
: Did seeing Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves cast as brothers ruin your
: enjoyment of Branagh's "Much Ado"? It didn't for me.
It was certainly *puzzling.* But it didn't bother me nearly as much as
the obvious problems both actors had with verse and speech, and Reeves'
problems with basic acting.
Steve Van Dien
Steve R. Van Dien
Oh, Roger, there you go again. Joe's assumption was based on some
knowledge of history, and therefore it's hardly foolish. On what would you
base *your* assumption?
And I do wish you'd quit calling yourself a "theatre geek." You're
obviously a thoughtful and knowledgable fellow, even though I often disagree
with you.
Steve Van Dien
Marc A. Sarrel
just> In article <25e23g$8...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> rs...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Richard S Sucgang) writes:
>When I went to see My Favorite Year (quite enjoyable, despite the
>flaws), it wasn't until much later, when I got to see the film, that
>I realized that Rookie Carroca was supposed to be Filipino. In fact,
>they casted a Japanese actor, who played the part with a Japanese
>accent (I thought).
just> This is artistic sloppiness (if not outright racism). If you
just> don't bother to get the details right, why make the effort to do
just> the show at all? I wouldn't be surprised that this was part of
just> the reason why the show didn't do better.....
I'm not flaming anyone here. I'm just trying to raise another
question (to which I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer).
Would casting an actor of Japanese descent to play a Filipino
character be different from casting an actor of (let's arbitrarily
say) Greek descent to play an English character?
Can we say that culturally, linguistically, historically, genetically,
or however we choose to measure the difference, that Greeks are more
or less different from English as Filipinos are from Japanese?
Again, don't flame me, I'm just asking...
Marc
--
Marc Sarrel "My squid's name is Ned, or maybe Fred.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory He's painted red
m...@porgy.jpl.nasa.gov To match his bed.
A pedigreed squid thoroughbred
N7OLI Is Ned, or Fred, or is it Ted?"
-B. Kliban
just another theatre geek
>just another theatre geek (gwan...@carson.u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: Now, why do you think that the settlers would be WHITE?
>knowledge of history, and therefore it's hardly foolish. On what would you
>base *your* assumption?
Hmmm......according to the history I was familiar with, while the
majority of settlers were white, a small percentage was not. Are my
sources in error? (And if not, my question still stands.....)
David Herberg
rs...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Richard S Sucgang) wrote:
>
> My Favorite Year (quite enjoyable, despite the flaws)
> It wasn't until much later, when I got to see the film, that I realized
> that Rookie Carroca was supposed to be Filipino. In fact, they casted a
> Japanese actor, who played the part with a Japanese accent (I thought).
Until you mentioned it, I *still* didn't realize that Rookie was supposed
to be Filipino. Even with all the "That's Carroca.
Carrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroca." I just thought of it as a weird Japanese name.
It made no difference to the story. The only point was that it sure as hell
wasn't Jewish.
> What I saw here is an apparent mindset that is: you've seen one
> Oriental, you've seen 'em all. That all the diverse cultures of
> Asia could in fact be lumped together into some amalgam of a stereo-
> type.
> I fault the DIRECTOR for not making a better study of the culture and
> language. Rookie Carroca's nationality and race was integral to the
> character, and to Benjamin Steinberg's objections, and I thought that
> the interpretation falls short of this altogether.
I disagree. Rookie's Filipino-ness is not essential to Ben's objections.
For the purpose of the play, Rookie is seen through the eyes of a group of
the most stereotypical Jews imaginable. The Jews are far more stereotyped
than is Rookie. To *them*, "you've seen one Oriental, you've seen 'em
all." For the purposes of the story, Ben's aunt was living with the
gentile's gentile, and it didn't make any difference which particular Asian
she was hanging out with. Any effort on the part of the director to
elaborate on a study of Filipino (or Japanese, or any other) culture and
language not only would be superfluous to the story, but would detract from
the focus rightly given to her attempting to appear "proper" to her
swashbuckling visitor.
_My Favorite Year_ was My Favorite Show on my last trip to NYC.
David Herberg
Herber...@tandem.com
Steve R. Van Dien
: jo...@ESD.3Com.COM (Joe Reda) writes:
: >As for "Oklahoma!", I think it does (in an oblique way) have references
: >to race - they're supposed to be settlers or descendants of settlers,
: >and (I assume) they would be white? It would be extremely strange to
: >me to watch an ethnic Aunt Eller or Laurey or Curly (although I expect
: >I'd get over it) as it would be to watch a white Kim in "Miss Saigon".
: But once again, as the previous poster said, the character of Kim is
: _aboout_ being Vietnamese; the characters in OKLAHOMA! are not _about_
: being white (even if their prototypes happened to be so).
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. What about the historical
context? But read on; I'll get to that subject --
: I've been trying to think of characters who need to be cast as white,
: using these criteria. So far, all I can come up with are those such
: as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
: mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
: Or Chris in MISS SAIGON, who at least needs to not be Asian -- but
: again, by way of contrast. Or real historical figures -- at least
: recent ones. Would a black FDR in SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO work?
: If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
: you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
: --
: Tovah Hollander
: to...@panix.com -or- to...@onion.salad.mssm.edu
There are *so* many! The Tyrones in LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, for
example, are specifically Irish-American, *not* African-American. The
Lomans in DEATH OF A SALESMAN are clearly white -- the social and verbal
milieus of the play are New York Jewish. I saw a production of INHERIT THE
WIND at the Milwaukee Repertory Theater which cast black actors in the roles
of the accused schoolteacher and judge, even though there are plenty of period
references to place the action of the play in the 1920's South, a thoroughly
segregated society.
Tovah, the problem *is* history. Many realistic plays have a clear
historical context. The context includes social mores. As I've said,
OKLAHOMA takes place in a society where racial lines were clear. Thus to
cast a black actress as Aunt Eller is to ignore history. Likewise to have a
black Blanche or Stanley in STREETCAR. As I said before, color-blind
casting is admirable in theory. But when you put the theory into practice
by distorting historical truth -- however unpleasant that truth may be --
you're indulging in the sort of thing that goes on in a totalitarian state.
There are other problems in color-blind casting. Since I've already
opened the proverbial can of worms, I might as well address those, too.
Some black actors can give quite plausible performances in traditionally
white roles. James Earl Jones, for example, has done well in Chekhov. But
Jones' features and accent are highly adaptable, so that the fact that he is
African-American does not draw attention to itself in such roles.
Many black American
actors are not so lucky, nor so talented. I saw, for example, a production
of THREE SISTERS (again at the Milwaukee Rep) in which a black actress
played Olga. Her accent was Southern American, and her features, though
striking, were plainly those of a woman whose ancestry was African. She
simply couldn't blend with the other performers, because her voice and
appearance made her stand out. The thinking viewer couldn't notice anything
about her *except* her race.
Now, after all this, permit me a statement. I accept color-blind casting
in realistic plays (non-realistic plays are another matter altogether)
where the race of the "non-traditionally cast" performer *does not
draw attention to itself.* Here's an example, and it concerns, ironically, a
production of OKLAHOMA. It was at the Skylight Opera Theatre here in
Milwaukee. One of the women in the chorus was played by an African-American
-- as it happens, a former college classmate of my wife's. Now, this young
woman's features are not especially Negroid, and her coloring is fairly
light; she could plausibly pass for an American Indian, particularly of
mixed white and red blood. Since such folks *were* part of regular society
in 1880's Oklahoma, we found this casting easy to accept. It helped, too,
that the young woman is a very talented and personable performer --
Steve Van Dien
Steve R. Van Dien
: >just another theatre geek (gwan...@carson.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: >: Now, why do you think that the settlers would be WHITE?
: > Oh, Roger, there you go again. Joe's assumption was based on some
: >knowledge of history, and therefore it's hardly foolish. On what would you
: >base *your* assumption?
: Hmmm......according to the history I was familiar with, while the
: majority of settlers were white, a small percentage was not. Are my
: sources in error? (And if not, my question still stands.....)
Read that history again, you ol' theatre geek, you. Sure, some
settlers were non-white, even black. But they did NOT cross the clearly
drawn racial lines in that society --
Steve Van Dien
: --
Steve R. Van Dien
: to...@panix.com (Tovah Hollander) writes:
: \\Joe
Well, this is getting off the thread, but I can't see it, either. Easton
relies so much on attitudinizing. I doubt that she can *act* at all.
Steve Van Dien
: --
arn...@cubldr.colorado.edu
> kenneth mccoy (kmc...@andy.bgsu.edu) wrote:
>
> : In a recent production of "Oklahoma" at the Huron Playhouse, Huron, OH,
> : an African-American actress was cast in the role of Aunt Eller (although
> : a Caucasian actress was Laurie). In light of this "intermarriage" thing,
> : that's interesting, huh?
>
> : Of course, I make no claims myself. Just reporting a quirky coincidental
> : thing.
> Casting a black as Aunt Eller in Oklahoma makes as much sense as casting
> a white actor (without blackface) as Walter in Raisin in the Sun.
> Color-blind casting is admirable in theory, but often absurd in practice.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything in Oklahoma that
explains Laurie's domestic situation. Is Aunt Eller her mother's sister?
Father's sister? Father's brother's wife? Where are the parents? Is any of
that explained?
If not, it's possible that Aunt Eller isn't related at all. Maybe Laurie's
family came from Alabama and Aunt Eller was her black mammy. Like Aunt Jemima.
It might be a shock at first, but I think I could sit through an Oklahoma with
a black Aunt Eller.
I did have a hard time last summer during a production of The Importance of
Being Earnest with a black Cecily (or was it Gwendolyn). I tried and tried to
not think about it, but I couldn't. It didn't ruin the play or anything, it
just didn't quite work.
I also saw a production of The Apple Tree several years ago with a black man in
the leading roles. So we had a black Adam and a white Eve. But that show is
so good that you could put Calvin and Hobbes in the leading roles and it
wouldn't matter.
Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Van Dien
Arun Chopra
fact that he talked with an english accent was not apparent or inportant.
Arun Chopra
Richard S Sucgang
>I'm not flaming anyone here. I'm just trying to raise another
>question (to which I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer).
>Would casting an actor of Japanese descent to play a Filipino
>character be different from casting an actor of (let's arbitrarily
>say) Greek descent to play an English character?
>
>Can we say that culturally, linguistically, historically, genetically,
>or however we choose to measure the difference, that Greeks are more
>or less different from English as Filipinos are from Japanese?
I was afraid of this interpretation of my objection.
It isn't the actor's race that is in question, it is the interpretation
of the character. The actor in no way portrayed a Filipino character
either in speech or mannerism; and in My Favorite Year, Carroca's
race/nationality is a sore spot with Benjy's relationship with his
mother (a Jewish connection), given that Rookie was in fact his stepfather.
I've always thought that the actor's racial makeup is
irrelevant here...could've been Denzel Washington, if
it be the case, BUT a Filipino CHARACTER needs to come
out of it. I thought I was watching a Japanese one, both
in accent and body language. what I object to is the assumption
that all Asians are in fact alike when it comes to creating a
stage character...I dunno, has David Hwang written anything
interesting inthis respect?
-rich
Richard S Sucgang
>Until you mentioned it, I *still* didn't realize that Rookie was supposed
>to be Filipino. Even with all the "That's Carroca.
>Carrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroca." I just thought of it as a weird Japanese name.
>It made no difference to the story. The only point was that it sure as hell
>wasn't Jewish.
>
>For the purpose of the play, Rookie is seen through the eyes of a group of
Oh, but it is. You see, there are certain things to be said about a Jewish
woman in 1954 marrying a Filipino: 1. Filipinos tend to be Catholic - a
hilarious thought in and of itself 2. the early 50's mark the end of the
official American occupation of the Philippines; historically, I imagine
this to be a view of the upcoming love-hate relationship between the
two countries. In the film, Benjy, after being reminded about dinner,
retorts, "Should I bring him a machete?", insinuating the primitive nature
of his stepfather.
With Carroca being Japanese does not carry these implications;
in fact, it is not likely that he could have been realistically
been so in Brooklyn (or won a boxing match) this soon after
WWII.
Damn, overanalyzing humor deadens it, doesn't it?
:) Glad you had a good time with it, though.
-rich
Steve R. Van Dien
: to...@panix.com (Tovah Hollander) writes:
: >But once again, as the previous poster said, the character of Kim is
: >_aboout_ being Vietnamese; the characters in OKLAHOMA! are not _about_
: >being white (even if their prototypes happened to be so).
: Indeed . . . I guess I wasn't making distinctions to that level? :)
: I would tend to agree with you about OKLAHOMA! -- but isn't the
: character Kim very much about being a Vietnamese person in Vietnam?
: (at least that's the way it struck me).
: >I've been trying to think of characters who need to be cast as white,
: >using these criteria. So far, all I can come up with are those such
: >as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
: >mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
: >Or Chris in MISS SAIGON, who at least needs to not be Asian -- but
: >again, by way of contrast. Or real historical figures -- at least
: >recent ones. Would a black FDR in SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO work?
: I'm not sure. I suspect, since it was a historical drama, that
: it might not work. Which is not to say, however, that it could
: not and should not be tried.
Well, Joe, I'm sorry, but this is preposterous. FDR existed in history;
he really lived. We *know* that he was not black, but white. SUNRISE AT
CAMPOBELLO is a realistic play. It should be self-evident that a black FDR
wouldn't work. That it isn't to many people is just another indication of
how readily people abandon common sense in the name of color blind casting.
Steve Van Dien
: --
Steve R. Van Dien
: >to...@panix.com (Tovah Hollander) writes:
: >>I've been trying to think of characters who need to be cast as white,
: >>using these criteria. So far, all I can come up with are those such
: >>as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
: >>mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
: >>If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
: >>you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
: >I'm really not sure if there are any that I know of that have to
: >be specifically cast white.
: This leads into a related area, which crops up in a lot of areas
: in ethnic theatre (and whatnot): that too many critics, audience members
: and artists assume that what is white is universal and what is ethnic is
: too specific to appeal to everyone. Ergo, we have color-blind casting.
: This is a vast oversimplification, of course. Yet, if we make the
: assertion that it would be ludicrous, say, to cast a Caucasian female as
: the title role of M. BUTTERFLY, then to be consistent we must accept the
: assertion that that there are roles that would have to cast with white actors.
: Personally, I feel there's a certain amount of truth to this, but more
: so with more recent shows than for the classics....
Hooray! Roger and I agree on something!
: Ultimately, I'd say that it all boils down to the fact that
: ethnicity carries a certain amount of baggage with it that can immensely
: add to a production, just as actors' height and physical presence can (I
: recall a production of KISS ME KATE where we cast a 5'1" actor as Fred against
: a 5'10" actress as Lily......)......
And it can *detract* from it as well -- that's what I'm trying to
say.
Steve Van Dien
: --
Mathemagician
>If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
>you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
Well, I'd say that unless the director was trying to "make a
statement," characters that have direct references to their race made
during the course of the show and historical figures should be cast
with regard to race. I'm really sorry for all the non-whites out
there, but FDR was white. Unless the individual in question can pull
off a convincing white person (and I see nothing wrong with using
makeup to achieve that effect), we're going to have to find a white
person for the role of FDR in _Annie._
I also have a personal bias that familial members should have the
*possibility* of being related. That is, siblings with the same
parents should look somewhat alike (unless that's a point of the
play...again, all this depends on what the director wants to do with
the show.)
--
Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bev...@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
kenneth mccoy
will work if the audience is color-blind, and it won't if they're not. In
my experience, it doesn't matter much to most people. It matters more to
theatre practitioners (actors, directors, etc) than it does to the world
at large. IMHO, of course.
I originally reported the color-blind casting of Aunt Eller, in a part of
the country where few black people live. Nobody cared; they loved the actress.
One more observation, and I'll go. When plays are so popular or well-known
that they can be considered "owned" by the pubic (Oklahoma, Romeo and
Juliet, etc) they are, in effect (if not in actuality) "public domain."
In the world of (post-)postmodern art, that gives license to those who
interpret these dramatic works to their audiences. No one is "ruining"
Macbeth by making it Biker Macbeth or Voodoo Macbeth; they are simply
adding a new perspective for take-it-or-leave-it consumption.
I'm done.
mjo...@drew.drew.edu
> In article <25dmt9$b...@panix.com>, Tovah Hollander <to...@panix.com> wrote:
>>If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
>>you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
>
> Well, I'd say that unless the director was trying to "make a
> statement," characters that have direct references to their race made
> during the course of the show and historical figures should be cast
> with regard to race. I'm really sorry for all the non-whites out
> there, but FDR was white. Unless the individual in question can pull
> off a convincing white person (and I see nothing wrong with using
> makeup to achieve that effect), we're going to have to find a white
> person for the role of FDR in _Annie._
This conversation really frightens me. IT's no wonder that racism is
still a problem in this country. Why can't we consider the fact that
the "FDR" in Annie is a character. In fact, he's no more a real
depiction of FDR than Miss Hannigan is of Eleanor! Color, even in a
realistic piece, should make no difference. If you look at SUNRISE AT
CAMPOBELLO as a piece of literature that is BASED on history, instead
of a picture perfect piece of reconstructed history (which it isn't),
then it really should make NO difference at all what ethnic background
the actors happen to have. I saw an excellent production of THE LION
IN WINTER with an African American Henry and three caucasian sons.
Henry II may have been a historical British king, but the character
that Jim Goldman wrote is not supposed to be the historical recreation
of Henry. It worked. It worked well. Hell, I was in a production of
THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE with an African American Pirate King, Chinese
Frederic and Mabel, and a Caucasian Major-General who had daughters of
every color and persuasion. Suspend your disbelief! It's theatre!
>
> I also have a personal bias that familial members should have the
> *possibility* of being related. That is, siblings with the same
> parents should look somewhat alike (unless that's a point of the
> play...again, all this depends on what the director wants to do with
> the show.)
Why? Just so YOUR concept of a family unit is held intact? Of all
people, Brian, I would think that you would understand the flexibility
of a family unit.
>
> --
> Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
> bev...@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
This thread scares me.
Michael Barret Jones "You've got to learn how
mjo...@drew.drew.edu NOT to be where you are!" -Aurora
Joe Reda
>: >as the Upper East Side rich folks in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, who
>: >mostly need to be white in contrast to the man who's conning them.
>: >Or Chris in MISS SAIGON, who at least needs to not be Asian -- but
>: >again, by way of contrast. Or real historical figures -- at least
>: >recent ones. Would a black FDR in SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO work?
>: I'm not sure. I suspect, since it was a historical drama, that
>: it might not work. Which is not to say, however, that it could
>: not and should not be tried.
> Well, Joe, I'm sorry, but this is preposterous. FDR existed in history;
>he really lived. We *know* that he was not black, but white. SUNRISE AT
>CAMPOBELLO is a realistic play. It should be self-evident that a black FDR
>wouldn't work. That it isn't to many people is just another indication of
>how readily people abandon common sense in the name of color blind casting.
Well, on reflection, perhaps a black FDR wouldn't work. My SO (the one
that's the pro) and I were talking about this just this morning. He
says that anyone could play, for example, Eva in EVITA. I said that
she was a real historical figure, so I thought whomever played her
should at least resemble an Argentinian (whatever that is, I don't
know and don't want to make any generalizations). Interesting point --
he told me about being at an EVITA audition ten years ago when a very
talented woman was turned down, after barely singing a note, because
"we don't cast any Mexican Evas"! This woman went on to become
Suzanna Guzman of the Metropolitan Opera.
I think (IMHO) that talent, and only talent, makes the optimum
criterion when casting . . .
\\Joe
-SLM-
kmc...@andy.bgsu.edu (kenneth mccoy) writes:
>Well, all this flaming thread really proves is that color-blind casting
>will work if the audience is color-blind, and it won't if they're not. In
.stuff deleted. o
>
>I originally reported the color-blind casting of Aunt Eller, in a part of
>the country where few black people live. Nobody cared; they loved the actress.
>
>One more observation, and I'll go. When plays are so popular or well-known
>that they can be considered "owned" by the pubic (Oklahoma, Romeo and
>Juliet, etc) they are, in effect (if not in actuality) "public domain."
.stuff deleted.
>
>I'm done.
>
> Ken
> kmc...@andy.bgsu.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our theatre did a Christmas show (a relatively new work called "A
Winter's Tale" copyrt 1984, a musical "Christmas Carol") & we cast
an African-American actress as Mrs. Crachitt! Our basic philosophy
is the same as Chuck Noll's--you draft/cast the best in that po-
sition/role. In something as innocuous as "OKLAHOMA!", it's hard
for me to believe that an African-American Aunt Eller is seen as
a problem (I had a friend from Oklahoma who had a Negro nanny whom
she called "Aunt"). However, I do think our production of "Ma
Rainey's Black Bottom" would've suffered if we'd cast a white ac-
tress as Ma Rainey! Nevertheless, I think you would find in the
audition process that, altho' many actors are great with accents &
gestures which are culturally different from his/her own, what you
can't do is "act" a cultural attitude & POV--it's very subtle yet
vitally important to any interpretation of dramatic subtext (IMHO).
-SLM-
just another theatre geek
> Well, Joe, I'm sorry, but this is preposterous. FDR existed in history;
>he really lived. We *know* that he was not black, but white. SUNRISE AT
>CAMPOBELLO is a realistic play. It should be self-evident that a black FDR
>wouldn't work. That it isn't to many people is just another indication of
>how readily people abandon common sense in the name of color blind casting.
Hmmmm.....I'd have to agree, at least with a realistic, historic
and naturalistic play like SUNRISE. I'd argue that it's less so with
classical plays and even less with musicals set in the nevernever land
that they were so often set in during the 30s and 40s (which is why i have
less of a problem with casting non-whites in OKLAHOMA than in SUNRISE).
Anyway....nice thread for discussion....
Linda Snow
>he really lived. We *know* that he was not black, but white. SUNRISE AT
>CAMPOBELLO is a realistic play. It should be self-evident that a black FDR
>wouldn't work. That it isn't to many people is just another indication of
>how readily people abandon common sense in the name of color blind casting.
I agree.
Which is why I thought it was so preposterous that Equity made such a stink
about Jonathan Pryce (Caucasian) playing a *fictional* Oriental character
in Miss Saigon, while *during the same season* Denzel Washington was
cast to play a very *historical, Caucasian British* Richard III at
Shakespeare in the Park.
.
.
.
Tovah Hollander
[a lot of things about "colour-blind" casting]
Steve, there's a lot I could say in reply to your articles, but
the bottom line is this: You are not in favor of color-blind
casting. What you are talking about when you say you _do_
approve is _not_ what I think of as "color-blind," merely something
vaguely "non-white-specific".
"Color-BLIND" (to me, at least, and to many of the other posters
in this thread) means that the audience should be blind to the
race of the actors. Period.
I was then suggesting that we explore the idea of when (and if) color-blind
casting is inappropriate, *even for those of us who believe in the concept
in the first place.*
You obviously do not. Which is, of course, your privilege.
Tovah Hollander
>It isn't the actor's race that is in question, it is the interpretation
>of the character. The actor in no way portrayed a Filipino character
>either in speech or mannerism [...]
Richard, I definitely appreciate your objections here.
But to a certain degree, what you are describing here is an objection
based on expert knowledge, probably more than the majority of the audience
members have.
I can relate to this. For example, it drives me up the wall watching
choral or orchestral conductors in the movies, because most of them are
simply dreadful. And (to get closer to your point) many dramatic
depictions of things Jewish are wrong enough to make my skin crawl.
We both have legitimate complaints. Getting the details right is
important. But it's not surprising if some of them get lower priority.
Scott Amspoker
>Color-blind casting is not only admirable - but in "toys" a black actor -
>LL Cooljay played the son of a white father - It never occured to me that
>this was an issue until - after the movie - when we were talking about the
>family relationships. - Yes, it could be a throw back. Yes his mother
>could be black - but she went to Vietnam as a Jane Fonda look alike -
>so no she couldn't be black.
I wouldn't call that color-blind casting. I got the impression that
it was rather intentional - another tidbit to amuse the audience like
so many other aspects of the film.
--
Scott Amspoker | Head like a hole, black as your soul.
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | I'd rather die
| Than give you control.
sc...@bbx.basis.com | - Nine Inch Nails
Stuart Sechrest
>
> . . . Color, even in a realistic piece, should make no difference.
>Michael Barret Jones "You've got to learn how
There is something strange about artists and those devoted to the arts
arguing about what is allowable and what is not allowable, what should
make a differrence, and what should not make a difference.
There is nothing that says that color-blind casting can't work, and nothing
that says that it has to work. Furthermore, since art is fundamentally
a communication of ideas, it is ridiculous either to blame a work for
trying to communicate some idea (such as ``color doesn't matter in this human
situation'') or to blame an audience for failing to accept that idea.
Sometimes ideas are good, sometimes they are just dumb. Sometimes performer
and audience are on the same wavelength, sometimes they are not.
Color-blind casting does present an idea. In some situations it is not
an idea of great centrality. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING is not a realistic
play, so the idea of casting Denzel Washington does not clash with other
ideas, and audiences everywhere have accepted it. On the other hand, if
James Earl Jones had been cast as Adolf Hitler, rather than, say, Alec Guiness
in THE LAST DAYS OF HITLER, the clash of ideas would have been so overwhelming
as to render the movie preposterous. I would not argue that color-blind
casting should be used only when it ``doesn't matter.'' I saw an interview
with Christopher Plummer several years ago in which he said that in the US,
white actors never get to play Othello, while black actors never get to
play Iago. He said that their ought to be a production in which the actors
exchanged roles on successive nights.
Casting whites as the default (Edward G. Robinson as an Egyptian in THE TEN
COMMANDMENTS) is also an idea which has become more salient over time.
Now directors have to worry about whether this idea will fit in with the
overall bundle of ideas they are trying to communicate.
--Stuart Sechrest
Steve R. Van Dien
: In article <25f1e2$s...@carina.unm.edu>, bev...@unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
: > In article <25dmt9$b...@panix.com>, Tovah Hollander <to...@panix.com> wrote:
: >>If you generally approve of color-blind casting, what characters do
: >>you think _have_ to be cast white (or any specific race) and why?
: >
: > Well, I'd say that unless the director was trying to "make a
: > statement," characters that have direct references to their race made
: > during the course of the show and historical figures should be cast
: > with regard to race. I'm really sorry for all the non-whites out
: > there, but FDR was white. Unless the individual in question can pull
: > off a convincing white person (and I see nothing wrong with using
: > makeup to achieve that effect), we're going to have to find a white
: > person for the role of FDR in _Annie._
: This conversation really frightens me. IT's no wonder that racism is
: still a problem in this country. Why can't we consider the fact that
: the "FDR" in Annie is a character. In fact, he's no more a real
: depiction of FDR than Miss Hannigan is of Eleanor!
Now, *this* concept frightens *me.* When logic and common sense are
thrown out the window, and accusasions or "racism" are tossed about like
confetti, then I *really* worry.
Color, even in a
: realistic piece, should make no difference. If you look at SUNRISE AT
: CAMPOBELLO as a piece of literature that is BASED on history, instead
: of a picture perfect piece of reconstructed history (which it isn't),
: then it really should make NO difference at all what ethnic background
: the actors happen to have.
Nonsense. NONSENSE! How on earth can you say that a production of SAC
with a black FDR is based on history? WHAT history, for heaven's sake?
You're pushing logic past the breaking point!
I saw an excellent production of THE LION
: IN WINTER with an African American Henry and three caucasian sons.
: Henry II may have been a historical British king, but the character
: that Jim Goldman wrote is not supposed to be the historical recreation
: of Henry.
What is it supposed to be, then?
It worked. It worked well. Hell, I was in a production of
: THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE with an African American Pirate King, Chinese
: Frederic and Mabel, and a Caucasian Major-General who had daughters of
: every color and persuasion. Suspend your disbelief! It's theatre!
Theatre is a reflection of *life.* That means a facsimile of reality.
You don't get that when you play fast and loose with history! That's the
sort of garbage the Red Chinese did when they declared that the protests in
Beijing *didn't* happen. Suspend your thinking process and ignore
*historical facts* if you want to, but don't ask me to do it.
: >
: > I also have a personal bias that familial members should have the
: > *possibility* of being related. That is, siblings with the same
: > parents should look somewhat alike (unless that's a point of the
: > play...again, all this depends on what the director wants to do with
: > the show.)
: Why? Just so YOUR concept of a family unit is held intact? Of all
: people, Brian, I would think that you would understand the flexibility
: of a family unit.
: >
: > --
: > Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
: > bev...@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
: This thread scares me.
What scares *me* is your willingness to ignore the truth if favor of
color-blind casting -- and your implication that those who have problems
with it are racists. That would be a novel notion to my nephew. My
sister-in-law's first husband was African-American, by the way --
Steve Van Dien
: Michael Barret Jones "You've got to learn how
Steve R. Van Dien
Well, Tovah, if you define color-blind casting that way, I am indeed
against it, for reasons I've tried to make clear. Among other things,
theatre is supposed to stimulate thought; but casting a palpably minority
actor in a non-minority role demands that the viewer *suspend* thought, far
beyond the acceptance of the illusion of reality that theatre is. That, to
me, is the bottom line.
Steve
Steve R. Van Dien
: In article <1993Aug25.0...@drew.drew.edu> mjo...@drew.drew.edu writes:
: >
: > . . . Color, even in a realistic piece, should make no difference.
: >Michael Barret Jones "You've got to learn how
: There is something strange about artists and those devoted to the arts
: arguing about what is allowable and what is not allowable, what should
: make a differrence, and what should not make a difference.
What on earth is strange about it, for heaven's sake? The history of all
the arts is rife with discussion about ideas and trends. Why should this be
any different?
: There is nothing that says that color-blind casting can't work, and nothing
: that says that it has to work. Furthermore, since art is fundamentally
: a communication of ideas, it is ridiculous either to blame a work for
: trying to communicate some idea (such as ``color doesn't matter in this human
: situation'') or to blame an audience for failing to accept that idea.
: Sometimes ideas are good, sometimes they are just dumb. Sometimes performer
: and audience are on the same wavelength, sometimes they are not.
I think I agree, but I'm having trouble following your argument --
: Color-blind casting does present an idea. In some situations it is not
: an idea of great centrality. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING is not a realistic
: play, so the idea of casting Denzel Washington does not clash with other
: ideas, and audiences everywhere have accepted it. On the other hand, if
: James Earl Jones had been cast as Adolf Hitler, rather than, say, Alec Guiness
: in THE LAST DAYS OF HITLER, the clash of ideas would have been so overwhelming
: as to render the movie preposterous. I would not argue that color-blind
: casting should be used only when it ``doesn't matter.'' I saw an interview
: with Christopher Plummer several years ago in which he said that in the US,
: white actors never get to play Othello, while black actors never get to
: play Iago. He said that their ought to be a production in which the actors
: exchanged roles on successive nights.
This is probably in reference to the Iago Plummer played in '81-82 to
James Earl Jones' Iago. I'd like to have seen those two excellent actors
alternate those roles. But the question of whether only black actors should
get to play Othello is peculiar, since Othello is a Moor -- which is to say,
an Arab, not a Negro --
: Casting whites as the default (Edward G. Robinson as an Egyptian in THE TEN
Steve R. Van Dien
: Well, all this flaming thread really proves is that color-blind casting
: will work if the audience is color-blind, and it won't if they're not. In
: my experience, it doesn't matter much to most people. It matters more to
: theatre practitioners (actors, directors, etc) than it does to the world
: at large. IMHO, of course.
: I originally reported the color-blind casting of Aunt Eller, in a part of
: the country where few black people live. Nobody cared; they loved the actress.
: One more observation, and I'll go. When plays are so popular or well-known
: that they can be considered "owned" by the pubic (Oklahoma, Romeo and
: Juliet, etc) they are, in effect (if not in actuality) "public domain."
:
In the world of (post-)postmodern art, that gives license to those who
: interpret these dramatic works to their audiences.
You seem to imply that there used to be one sanctioned way to produce and
interpret plays, and I don't think that theatre history backs you up here.
There have long been reinterpretations. I don't know what the "public
domain" and "(post-) postmodern art" have to do with this.
No one is "ruining"
: Macbeth by making it Biker Macbeth or Voodoo Macbeth; they are simply
: adding a new perspective for take-it-or-leave-it consumption.
Agreed, but I don't think I or anyone else here was arguing about
"ruining" Macbeth or whatever. I was arguing against "a new perspective",
color-blind casting.
Steve Van Dien
: I'm done.
The_Doge
>Tovah Hollander (to...@panix.com) wrote:
>: svan...@post.its.mcw.edu (Steve R. Van Dien) writes:
>
>: [a lot of things about "colour-blind" casting]
>
>: in this thread) means that the audience should be blind to the
>: race of the actors. Period.
>
>: I was then suggesting that we explore the idea of when (and if) color-blind
>: casting is inappropriate, *even for those of us who believe in the concept
>: in the first place.*
>
>against it, for reasons I've tried to make clear. Among other things,
>theatre is supposed to stimulate thought; but casting a palpably minority
>actor in a non-minority role demands that the viewer *suspend* thought, far
>beyond the acceptance of the illusion of reality that theatre is. That, to
>me, is the bottom line.
>
not taking this logic far enough. After all, if audience members are
"supposed" to ignore an actor's skin color, why shouldn't they be obliged to
ignore every other physical attribute as well? Why is skin color more vital
in this respect than (say) biological sex, age, height, or weight?
Or, to put it more specifically: if it's a Good Thing(tm) for a
black man to play Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, then surely it's also a Good
Thing(tm) for a couple of elderly gents to play Romeo and Juliet.
Otherwise, aren't we being ageist and sexist? >:-)>
IMHO, color-blind casting *can* work just dandy with some material
(most of Shaekspeare's comedies, for example). But the closer the setting
gets to contemporary or familiar historical reality, the sillier it gets.
Would you cast "Death of a Salesman" with a Chicano Willy Loman and white
family? Not unless you're trying to impose a political concepton the play
by doing so. Conversely, it would be rather perverse to cast a white
"Porgy and Bess" or "Raisin in the Sun".
As with most artistic matters, it's a judgement call. "All or
nothing" political and social agendas are out of place, IMHO.
************************************************************
* The_Doge of South St. Louis *
* Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) *
* "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm *
* 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio *
* "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" *
* -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" *
************************************************************
kenneth mccoy
> You seem to imply that there used to be one sanctioned way to produce and
>interpret plays, and I don't think that theatre history backs you up here.
Let me try to clarify: each "generation" has its own "definitive"
production which sets a standard that lasts until someone else produces a
"definitive" production that changes all that. While any interpretation
rules, it is _often_ considered to be the only interpretation. I have a
witnessed a debate which continues to rage over whether or not there is a
"church" scene in "Much Ado," for example.
>There have long been reinterpretations. I don't know what the "public
>domain" and "(post-) postmodern art" have to do with this.
By "public domain" I mean that when a play is sufficiently well-known, it
enters the realm of myth. It comes to be "owned" by the culture as a
whole; it becomes a kind of cultural artifact. Its finer points can
therefore become subject to manipulation by such techniques as
cross-gender casting, anachronistic settings, etc.
Such manipulations of pre-existing works of art within a present work of
art (theatrical or otherwise) is a distinguishing characteristic of the
postmodern, and since many critics feel we have moved even beyond that,
the post-postmodern. Andy Warhol's "36 is better than one," in which he
reproduces the Mona Lisa 36 times on one canvas is an example. The Mona
Lisa is Da Vinci's; however, because it is so well known, it can become a
"tool" for the artist, like the color red or the use of dual point
perspective.
> No one is "ruining"
>: Macbeth by making it Biker Macbeth or Voodoo Macbeth; they are simply
>: adding a new perspective for take-it-or-leave-it consumption.
> Agreed, but I don't think I or anyone else here was arguing about
>"ruining" Macbeth or whatever. I was arguing against "a new perspective",
>color-blind casting.
Well, I disagree. I think many here were arguing about "ruining" Oklahoma
or Miss Saigon by not casting performers in roles that correspond to their
own ethnicity -- an accident of birth. To be truly "color-blind" in
casting means that the subject of race for the audience must be irrelevant
to the art that they are witnessing (or participating in).
I only opened my mouth in the first place since as a theatre director, I
engage this issue frequently.
Regards,
Ken
Linda Carson
>
> Theatre is a reflection of *life.* That means a facsimile of reality.
>
surprised at the threatened bitter tone of this thread. So little
of contemporary theatre would satisfy such a demand. Maybe Top Cops
or Rescue 911 fits the bill?
I'm less interested in why some viewers (well and vocally represented
on this thread) dismiss colour-blind casting than in what it has to offer.
*Why* do some theatres, directors, actors and viewers seek colour-blind
casting?
Maybe actors of colour are looking for work and access to the
great roles they've studied but seldom been offered. Maybe
directors are looking for broader or alternative interpretations of
roles and relationships. Some theatres are trying to bring a
wider range of voices into the chorus, so to speak. Some theatres
are trying to put more asses in the seats by shaking up preconceptions.
Some colour-blind casting is about re-interpreting a classic play, and
sometimes it's just about using the best people available... on the
principle that if audiences have accepted white Anglo-Saxon actors
as Greeks, Chinese and Norsemen all these years, how could anyone
balk at seeing Greeks play Chinese, Chinese play Norsemen, and
Norsemen play Richard III?
But my favourite question is, why do some *viewers* seek colour-blind
casting? We do, you know. Sometimes we're looking for a new
take on an old classic. Sometimes we're hoping to see ourselves
represented on the stage. And sometimes, just sometimes, we're
taking advantage of the chance to see a truly great actor in a
once-in-a-lifetime role. We're hoping, dreaming, of the chance to
see... well, you tell me. Who would you like to see, and in which
role? A young James Earl Jones in A Winter's Tale? A mature
Graeme (sp?) Green in Lear?
If the walls fell, and you could see any actor in any role,
regardless of race or even sex, who would *you* hope to see?
Theatre is people on some sort of a stage, movement, maybe some lights.
Theatre is words, sometimes dance, and sometimes they bring in the
elephants. Theatre is NOT reality, or history, or documentary.
It's not even a facsimile of reality, although some theatre has
tried (not much, lately). I don't miss kitchen-sink drama and
I'm perfectly happy to skip experiments in real-time performance, too.
That still leaves me that vast majority of modern theatre for
my viewing pleasure.
On a very good day, theatre is a magic place where "Truth" happens--but
it's not about reality.
Linda Carson
lcca...@thinkage.on.ca
VALERIE LYNN MEACHUM
Actually, an interracial Adam and Eve makes more sense than any
other possible pair of characters. Where the heck would we all
have come from otherwise, if your show is taking them as literal
people? I belive they did the reverse in "Children of Eden",
and the _Times_ review made favorable mention, especially in
light of the whole prejudice situation with Yonah in Act 2.
--
The Bad Penny * Valerie Lynn Meachum
<ag...@freenet.hsc.colorado.edu>
What you do then is remember this old thing you heard me say:
It's the storm, not you, that's bound to blow away
myra.bronstein
I was lucky enough to get to see David Henry Hwang speak at
my company as part of Asian American Heritage month a few
months ago. An audience member asked him his opinion
on the Jonathan Pryce/Miss Saigon casting brouhaha.
He said that he does believe in color-blind casting (which could
have cut both ways in this case: non-Asian actor playing
an Asian role, or Asian actor playing a non-Asian role).
But he added that he was strongly opposed to the casting
of Pryce merely as a matter of practicality;
since there are so few roles available to Asian actors,
they can't afford to lose any.
(I feel a little queasy about trying to accurately reconstruct
someone else's remarks, but I'm confident I recall them accurately
so I'm brazenly doing it.)
Me again--I'm all done quoting.
I don't recall the Pryce/Miss Saigon debate all that clearly,
but I do think that the issue Hwang raised (of the loss to an
American/Asian actor of a plumb role) was part of the controversy,
so part of Equity's objection.
Myra
Sungsu Ahn
Let me see if I have the two major viewpoints:
Some people are able to place less of an emphasis on physical
appearance and can abstract out that part of the performance. When
presented with an incongruency in appearance, they can quickly adjust,
mentally rearranging their frames of reference to accept the actor's
appearance as correct.
For others, however, physical appearance is an integral part of many
roles and should not be sacrificed thoughtlessly. There is often a
historical context that must be considered. When they see that the
actor's appearance is obviously wrong for the role, their viewing
experience is disrupted significantly.
Can these two be reconciled? Should they be?
For the record, I support color (appearance) neutral casting. By this
I mean that one should be willing to cast someone of the wrong
race/gender/height/age, but with full awareness of the implications.
Some in the audience will be resentful, some will be appreciative, and
some might just be plain confused. Still, I feel that it is a risk
worth taking. Theatre, like other art forms, is evolving. Change in
conventions is inevitable and probably desirable. Appearance neutral
casting, when used thoughtfully, is a development that I believe
enhances modern theatre.
--
Sungsu Ahn
"Virtue is its own punishment"
Mathemagician
<mjo...@drew.drew.edu> wrote:
>In article <25f1e2$s...@carina.unm.edu>, bev...@unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> Well, I'd say that unless the director was trying to "make a
>> statement," characters that have direct references to their race made
>> during the course of the show and historical figures should be cast
>> with regard to race. I'm really sorry for all the non-whites out
>> there, but FDR was white.
>This conversation really frightens me. IT's no wonder that racism is
>still a problem in this country. Why can't we consider the fact that
>the "FDR" in Annie is a character. In fact, he's no more a real
>depiction of FDR than Miss Hannigan is of Eleanor!
You later use the phrase, "suspend your disbelief," Michael. Well,
I'd ask you to suspend yours for just a moment.
Miss Hannigan isn't Eleanor Roosevelt, but the FDR in _Annie_ *IS* the
FDR of America. Yes, you are absolutely right that it isn't "really"
him, but this is a *comic*strip.*
Yes, we can futz a bit, but to make FDR an Asian woman is going "too
far" (again, unless the director is trying to "make a point.")
I realise you don't like what I'm saying, but I *do* believe that
there *are* times when a person's physical attributes are important.
I auditioned for _Children of a Lesser God_ with absolutely *no*
intentions of actually getting a role. Why? Because I can hear and
the only roles for people my age are hearing-impaired. The only
reason I auditioned was on the off-chance that a hearing-impaired
person suitable for the role wouldn't show up. And sure enough, the
director found it a bit hard to find a hearing-impaired actor of the
right age-range...but he found one and I hold no ill-will toward him
for looking...I am *not* appropriate for the show because I am not
physically appropriate.
Let's take this toward gender: What are we to do about nude scenes?
I'm sorry, but B. D. Wong's character in _M. Butterfly_ is *male*...
and he has to be nude on stage. A female just won't cut it.
When a show is trying to make "legitimate" references to people who
*really* existed, then I don't see it as a political issue to cast the
role as a person who looks like the character in question. FDR, while
he could walk, needed the assistance of braces or was in a wheelchair.
If the character of FDR in a production is supposed to be a
"legitimate" reference, it would be foolish to have the actor playing
FDR running about the stage.
Now, I am of the opinion that the vast majority of roles could be
played by any race. But, there *are* times when we must be "racist" in
casting roles simply to maintain accuracy to the premises of the show.
>> I also have a personal bias that familial members should have the
>> *possibility* of being related. That is, siblings with the same
>> parents should look somewhat alike (unless that's a point of the
>> play...again, all this depends on what the director wants to do with
>> the show.)
>Why? Just so YOUR concept of a family unit is held intact? Of all
>people, Brian, I would think that you would understand the flexibility
>of a family unit.
No, Michael. It is because that I feel that the premises of a show
should be upheld (unless the director is trying to make a point...how
many times do I have to say that?) If a premise of the show is that
two characters are supposed to be identical twins (and that would be
evidenced by lines in the play), then it is *foolish* to cast people
who look radically different. Yes, people can alter the way they look
to various extents (even to the point of changing their skin color),
but that, to me, is stretching the premise to the point where it
breaks. It's like making Romeo not a member of the Montague's. If he
isn't, what's the point behind _RaJ_?
While I agree that a "family" can mean any group of people who feel
that they are "familial" to each other, that definition will not cover
characters who are supposed to be close, blood relations.
>This thread scares me.
Why? Is it taboo to even *recognise* the fact that a person is,
indeed, a certain race? Hey, I'm Greek, but there's very little about
my physical appearance that would suggest it. My father's Norwegian
and I look a lot more like him than I do my mother (though if you put
me next to her, it is apparent I am her child). I am pale white. I
have freckles. My hair is red (but dark enough, thanks to my mother,
to often be mistaken for brown).
I agree that it is bad to obsess about race. I agree that it is bad
to assume that all characters are white unless expressly described as
not white.
That's why I said that unless *specific*references* are made to a
character's race or unless an historical character is being used (and
I modify that in this post to "legitimate" representations), then a
character can probably be cast as any race you care to name.
I am all for switching "established" representations of characters...
especially if it can add something to a show. I still feel that _Into
the Woods_ could be done with a man playing the part of the Witch (the
show already does a bit of gender-bending in the second act "The
giant's a woman!"...casting the Witch as a man adds a new dimension to
why the Witch wants Rapunzel..."What would you have me do?/What would
you have me be?/Handsome like a prince?") Off-hand, I'd say 9 times
out of 10 you could cast a non-white person and not have a problem.
But, there *is* that 10th show where you can't. I'm sorry, but a
white person just won't do to protray Jelly Roll in _Jelly's Last
Jam._
Now, as I said in my last post, I am not against using makeup to
achieve what genetics has not provided. However, it's often a lot
easier just to go looking for someone who has the traits desired
without assitance.
Steve R. Van Dien
: svan...@post.its.mcw.edu (Steve R. Van Dien) writes:
: > You seem to imply that there used to be one sanctioned way to produce and
: >interpret plays, and I don't think that theatre history backs you up here.
: Let me try to clarify: each "generation" has its own "definitive"
: production which sets a standard that lasts until someone else produces a
: "definitive" production that changes all that. While any interpretation
: rules, it is _often_ considered to be the only interpretation. I have a
: witnessed a debate which continues to rage over whether or not there is a
: "church" scene in "Much Ado," for example.
Ken, I still don't know if I buy this. Would you give some more examples
of what you consider to be "definitive" productions? Before you do, maybe
my second dose of caffeine (didn't sleep much last night) has given my brain
enough impetus to think of one. Would you say that the original production
of DEATH OF A SALESMAN (Cobb, Kazan, Mielziner) was the definitive one for
at least a generation? And that the recent one starring Dustin Hoffmann --
which changed the way we think of Willy Loman, at least in a physical sense
(Cobb was a big man, Hoffmann is a small one) -- is definitive for *this*
generation?
: >There have long been reinterpretations. I don't know what the "public
: >domain" and "(post-) postmodern art" have to do with this.
: By "public domain" I mean that when a play is sufficiently well-known, it
: enters the realm of myth. It comes to be "owned" by the culture as a
: whole; it becomes a kind of cultural artifact. Its finer points can
: therefore become subject to manipulation by such techniques as
: cross-gender casting, anachronistic settings, etc.
: Such manipulations of pre-existing works of art within a present work of
: art (theatrical or otherwise) is a distinguishing characteristic of the
: postmodern, and since many critics feel we have moved even beyond that,
: the post-postmodern. Andy Warhol's "36 is better than one," in which he
: reproduces the Mona Lisa 36 times on one canvas is an example. The Mona
: Lisa is Da Vinci's; however, because it is so well known, it can become a
: "tool" for the artist, like the color red or the use of dual point
: perspective.
Okay -- I guess. But I still don't know whether this is germane to the
discussion. Because (if I
understand you) you imply that color-blind casting is an artistic tool; the
director uses it to make a point. I think that in some cases it *is* such a
tool; a director sets MACBETH in contemporary Haiti, for example, to show
that the desires that motivate Shakespeare's Scottish king-by-murder
transcend time and place.
But in many other cases -- the majority, I think -- cb-c is applied
because the director and producers think it doesn't matter whether a black
plays a white, etc. There's a difference between that idea and the one
you've described. And any "artistic manipulation" has to stand critical
scrutiny. Warhol can go ahead and reproduce the Mona Lisa 36 times on one
canvas, but a critic may stand up and show him that such an "artistic
manipulation" illustrates merely his lack of talent. (I'm a practicing
critic, by the way.) To go back to the issue we've been discussing, the
theatre critic, IMHO, has the responsibility to point out whether cb-c casting
is being employed for a valid artistic purpose, and to show whether or not
it works.
: > No one is "ruining"
: >: Macbeth by making it Biker Macbeth or Voodoo Macbeth; they are simply
: >: adding a new perspective for take-it-or-leave-it consumption.
: > Agreed, but I don't think I or anyone else here was arguing about
: >"ruining" Macbeth or whatever. I was arguing against "a new perspective",
: >color-blind casting.
: Well, I disagree. I think many here were arguing about "ruining" Oklahoma
: or Miss Saigon by not casting performers in roles that correspond to their
: own ethnicity -- an accident of birth. To be truly "color-blind" in
: casting means that the subject of race for the audience must be irrelevant
: to the art that they are witnessing (or participating in).
I guess this depends on what one means by "ruin." For example, I don't
think a black Aunt Eller in an otherwise white production of OKLAHOMA!
necessarily "ruins" the production. As I've said, this bit of casting
doesn't make sense in the social/historical context of the show, so it does
not *help* the production. But Aunt Eller is a fairly minor character. If
all the other elements of the production are first-rate, then I'd call the
production flawed but still worthwhile. On the other hand, a production of
STREETCAR in which the only minority actor is a black woman cast as Blanche
*is* ruined beyond all hope. Blanche is the main character of the play. If
she is cast against the social/historical setting -- and *not* as an
"artistic manipulation," but because the director didn't think cb-c casting
mattered in this instance -- the foundation of the play collapses.
: I only opened my mouth in the first place since as a theatre director, I
: engage this issue frequently.
You certainly don't have to justify "opening your mouth," Ken. This
thread is open to anyone.
Steve Van Dien
Trimm Industries
>kenneth mccoy (kmc...@andy.bgsu.edu) wrote:
>: svan...@post.its.mcw.edu (Steve R. Van Dien) writes:
>
>: > You seem to imply that there used to be one sanctioned way to produce and
>: >interpret plays, and I don't think that theatre history backs you up here.
>
>: Let me try to clarify: each "generation" has its own "definitive"
>: production which sets a standard that lasts until someone else produces a
>: "definitive" production that changes all that. While any interpretation
>: rules, it is _often_ considered to be the only interpretation. I have a
>: witnessed a debate which continues to rage over whether or not there is a
>: "church" scene in "Much Ado," for example.
>
>
> Ken, I still don't know if I buy this. Would you give some more examples
>of what you consider to be "definitive" productions? Before you do, maybe
>my second dose of caffeine (didn't sleep much last night) has given my brain
>enough impetus to think of one. Would you say that the original production
>of DEATH OF A SALESMAN (Cobb, Kazan, Mielziner) was the definitive one for
>at least a generation? And that the recent one starring Dustin Hoffmann --
>which changed the way we think of Willy Loman, at least in a physical sense
>(Cobb was a big man, Hoffmann is a small one) -- is definitive for *this*
>generation?
I normally ignore threads on "Political Correctness" but I did happen
to see Phantom of the Opera here in Los Angeles, when the Phantom
was played by the black guy who was on the sitcom "Benson" - Robert
Guilleme or something. When he was cast, nobody thought it was much
of a big deal, he went on stage, did his bit just fine, the audience
was happy, and so on. It seemed to work OK, at least in this case.
Why not just leave it up to the director to decide when it will work
and when it won't?
--
Gary M. Watson
Trimm Industries Internet: tr...@netcom.com
North Hollywood, CA 91605 Compuserve 72242,3437
** Day 223 of the Failed Clinton Presidency ** Vote Libertarian next time!
Trimm Industries
Annie on Broadway, Andrea McArdle, is all grown up now and playing
Fantine on Broadway's Les Miserables. And _boy_ did she grow up!!
Has anyone seen her? From the clips on ET she sounded like she
would be great as Fantine.
Richard Millward
: I saw on Entertainment Tonight last night that the girl who played
: Annie on Broadway, Andrea McArdle, is all grown up now and playing
: Fantine on Broadway's Les Miserables. And _boy_ did she grow up!!
: Has anyone seen her? From the clips on ET she sounded like she
: would be great as Fantine.
A friend saw her recently and said that, though she's a bit young for the
part (and by that he meant more 'immature as a performer' than 'physically
too young'), she sang the sh*t out of 'I Dreamed A Dream' - standing-O on
a Wednesday night! Hope this rehabilitates her career, the 'cause
'Tomorrow' or no 'Tomorrow,' she's got one of the most awesome belt voices
in all of show business.
--
Richard Millward
mill...@genesis.mcs.com
Quinn Thomas McCord
Andrea McArdle can't be THAT young, since she was in
the original Broadway cast of Starlight Express, which opened
in 1987.
-Quinn