Non-traditional casting
Jon Goldberg
friend about Pacific Overtures:
Aside from specific contractual stipulations (e.g. the Gershwin estate
preventing non-black productions of Porgy and Bess) and refusals (i.e.
the production of Anything Goes that was denied its crossdressing Reno),
should there be restrictions put on non-traditional casting,
specifically "color-blind" casting in shows that deal with historical
fact and racial issues?
Someone had posted that non-traditional casting in 1776 would seem
wrong. But since this show is essentially historical FICTION, how much
would it really matter? I did a college production of Assassins a few
years back, and in the casting pool was a wonderful black actor/singer
who wound up playing the Balladeer in part because the director couldn't
see a non-caucasian playing any of the real-life caucasian assassins.
(On the plus side, a boon to the drama was the added tension in "The
Ballad of Booth," where Booth not only uses the N-word, but keeps
calling the Balladeer "boy.") Shows that deal with specific black-white
conflicts (Ragtime, Show Boat, Lost In The Stars...) might be harder to
follow if the actors were cast against type, but an enterprising
director (and perhaps costume designer) might be able to make it work.
But WOULD it work??
BUT - How many productions of West Side Story have there been with
non-hispanic Sharks? We have certainly seen many productions of Verdi's
Aida with caucasian Egyptians and Ethiopians, and productions of his
Otello (and of Shakespeare's Othello) with white Moors Of Venice. I have
known more than a few productions of King And I without an Asian King
(in addition to other parts).
And the other question which came up the other day with a friend of mine
- would Sondheim's Pacific Overtures work with a non-Asian cast? As
pointed out by my friend, not all the characters in the show are Asian -
but, of course, the viewpoint in the show is Asian, and part of the
irony in the show is Asian actors "impersonating" other cultures. (And,
of course, the conflict between the two leads - the Japanese native who
ultimately embraces Western culture, the other, born in Boston,
ultimately embracing traditional Japanese culture.) The Kabuki style
intended for the production dictates that men play all the roles (until
the final number, "Next," when Japan has become Westernized). Would
women in the female roles seem wrong? It would, at very least, weaken
the impact of the finale. BUT - COULD the show work from the viewpoint
of non-Asians "simply" telling the same story? Or would it be missing
something, or even be seen as a racial slur? (BTW - I tend to think the
only way to REALLY do justice to the show is with an Asian cast. But I
wanted to put the question out here...)
How blind is color-blind, and when is it either inappropriate,
confusing, or even offensive? How about Ain't Misbehavin'? Changing the
feel of the show a bit, there's no reason white actors couldn't sing
these songs (in other contexts, they do all the time.) BUT - would that
heartbreaking arrangement of "Black And Blue" make ANY sense? I think it
would seem very out of place. (And I couldn't fathom a production of the
show without it!!)
On the other hand, I think back to the overly cautious director of our
high school's production of Guys And Dolls (1981) - they cast the one
black actor as Grandfather Arvide, and decided he needed to be Uncle
Arvide instead. I really hate to think anyone would have been that
offended had he remained Grandfather (and shame on my town if they
had!!).
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"Jean Prouvaire"
> Aside from specific contractual stipulations (e.g. the Gershwin estate
> preventing non-black productions of Porgy and Bess) and refusals (i.e.
> the production of Anything Goes that was denied its crossdressing Reno),
> should there be restrictions put on non-traditional casting,
> specifically "color-blind" casting in shows that deal with historical
> fact and racial issues?
Should there be restrictions? No.
But as you've stated later in your post, it's more difficult to make the
show convincing/successful if it specifically deals with matters of race and
ethnicity - Ragtime, Show Boat, Pacific Overtures etc.
Opera I think is a somewhat different matter - most operatic audiences's
suspension of disbelief is already more finely honed by seeing the
stereotypical 100 kg 50 year old matron playing the 40 kg 20 year old
consumptive waif.
King & I might also be a special case - because the part of the king so
closely identified with Yul Brynner (who I don't believe looks particularly
Asian), it might make it more acceptable to audiences to cast a non-Asian
king even though the cultural conflict is at the heart of the story.
______________________________
"I think this line's mostly filler."
Karen Mercedes
these:
Caucasian characters may be played by people of any race.
Asian characters may be played by other non-Caucasians, but if they're
played by Caucasians, watch out, there will be a huge uproar among
pro-Asian activists (remember Jonathan Pryce and MISS SAIGON?).
African-American characters better be played by blacks - American or
non-American - or you'll really have a riot on your hands. Non-traditional
casting does not now and probably never will extend to being able to cast
Caucasians in the role of Jim in SHOW BOAT.
In opera and Shakespeare, there's still a little more leeway - though I
think you're going to see fewer and fewer black-faced Othellos in the
latter in future. But in the opera world, objections to Caucasian
Cio-Cio-Sans, Turandots, and Otellos are virtually unheard-of. In opera,
it may be because audiences have long been conditioned to suspend their
disbelief to a much greater extent than in the theatre (let alone film or
TV). In opera, we're perfectly willing to accept a 50-year old tenor from
Brooklyn portraying the 18-year old son of a Mediaeval Spanish gypsy, or a
50 year old Italian diva playing a 15 year old Geisha - or, for that
matter - a 40-year old American woman playing a 15 year old
sex-obsessed French boy who happens to sing in Italian. But then remember
that opera originated in a world where men who'd had their vas deferens
snipped before puberty so they would continue to sing in the soprano
register for the rest of their lives were routinely cast as the most macho
of romantic heroes.
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
***************************************
The ones I love are incapable of ill will, and return love for hatred....
[They] who serve both friend and foe with equal love....Such as these
are dear to me. [Bhagavad Gita, Chap. 12]
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that
ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven. [Matt. 5:44-48]
Larry Rekow
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I tend to agree with the above regarding Opera. Likewise, I don't
think there should be restrictions for a lot of reasons, especially
when you have schools needing to fill certain roles, as well as
productions mounted in other countries, etc.
But if you're mounting a production and have the resources to make it
the best you can, then IMHO Pacific Overtures needs to be an all Asian
cast.
Manjiro IS Japanese and was not born in Boston. He was a Japanese
fisherman swept away at sea and saved by a non-Japanese vessel. He
ended up in Boston for several years where he learned English and grew
to love it there. Therefore, every single character in the show is
supposed to be Japanese. All of the American, Russian, French,
English and Dutch characters are supposed to be Japanese portraying
them, creating the irony that is key to the show.
An award winning version of the show was mounted in Palo Alto,
California last summer with an all Asian cast, and it was stunning.
However, they DID cast women in the female roles. I think the show
works both ways in that regard. Certainly this one did.
So let the school and small-town civic light opera companies do
non-traditional casting if and when they need to; full blown
professional productions need to be more aware of what helps or
"makes" a show work, and what on the other hand takes away from the
show.
Larry Rekow
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
Stephen Farrow
> But if you're mounting a production and have the resources to make it
> the best you can, then IMHO Pacific Overtures needs to be an all Asian
> cast.
Right. I've seen more than one production that used a (mostly) caucasian
cast, and it (IMO) seriously weakened the show.
Stephen
--
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working
knowledge of Latin..."
Stephen Farrow
> Asian characters may be played by other non-Caucasians, but if they're
> played by Caucasians, watch out, there will be a huge uproar among
> pro-Asian activists (remember Jonathan Pryce and MISS SAIGON?).
Which was ridiculous, in no small part because the Engineer isn't a
purely Asian character anyway - he's Eurasian, mixed-race, so either a
caucasian or an Asian actor would be appropriate casting. I saw an Asian
actor on Broadway (I forget the name, and I don't have the playbill - it
was a replacement cast several years into the run), and Jonathan Pryce
and Hilton MacRae in London, and it didn't make a lot of difference.
What I thought was *really* interesting was when the Broadway production
cast an Asian actress as Ellen.
Steve & Rhonda
Re: Non-traditional casting
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, May 3, 2002, 10:47am From:
dal...@radix.net (Karen Mercedes)
are these: Caucasian characters may be played by people of any race.
Asian characters may be played by other non-Caucasians, but if they're
played by Caucasians, watch out, there will be a huge uproar among
pro-Asian activists>>>
KING AND I is still done without Asians on a regular basis. FLOWER DRUM
SONG is not. I still contend that is one of the major reasons we see
fewer productions of the latter.
<<<African-American characters better be played by blacks - American or
non-American - or you'll really have a riot on your hands.>>>
It's a one-way street.......
<<<Non-traditional casting does not now and probably never will extend
to being able to cast Caucasians in the role of Jim in SHOW BOAT>>>
You mean Joe. Jim is white.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
"All day, the records play..."
-Bob Merrill
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Stephen
old-school gays would call a "rice queen". I think it's an interesting
choice.
"Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:3CD2AB6D...@chass.utoronto.ca...
Grammarian
Overtures with a caucasian cast, and the album is available. I never
saw the show, but I have the highlights disc (there's also a complete)
and I don't care for it nearly as much as the Broadway cast. Of
course, that's mostly on musical grounds.
Doc Bender
>think you're going to see fewer and fewer black-faced Othellos in the
>latter in future. But in the opera world, objections to Caucasian
>Cio-Cio-Sans, Turandots, and Otellos are virtually unheard-of. In opera,
>it may be because audiences have long been conditioned to suspend their
>disbelief to a much greater extent than in the theatre (let alone film or
>TV). In opera, we're perfectly willing to accept a 50-year old tenor from
>Brooklyn portraying the 18-year old son of a Mediaeval Spanish gypsy, or a
>50 year old Italian diva playing a 15 year old Geisha - or, for that
>matter - a 40-year old American woman playing a 15 year old
>sex-obsessed French boy who happens to sing in Italian. But then remember
>that opera originated in a world where men who'd had their vas deferens
>snipped before puberty so they would continue to sing in the soprano
>register for the rest of their lives were routinely cast as the most macho
>of romantic heroes.
Yes, but look at the big fight now over trouser roles from shows like The
Marriage of Figaro. Countertenors want to attempt such parts and women feel
that it's invading their turf. Not even opera is immune to gender switching -
somehow, it's okay for a woman to sing Julius Caesar, but not okay for a
countertenor to take a woman's role because of the difference in voice quality.
Doc Bender
Jon Goldberg
news:ie75dugpnloaqes7p...@4ax.com
> Manjiro IS Japanese and was not born in Boston. He was a Japanese
> fisherman swept away at sea and saved by a non-Japanese vessel. He
> ended up in Boston for several years where he learned English and grew
> to love it there.
Oops - you're absolutely right! Must have been the drinks I had after
the show last night...<g>
Jon Goldberg
news:17272-3CD...@storefull-2211.public.lawson.webtv.net
> <<<Non-traditional casting does not now and probably never will extend
> to being able to cast Caucasians in the role of Jim in SHOW BOAT>>>
>
> You mean Joe. Jim is white.
Actually, I assume she meant Jim in BIG RIVER.
BUT - I did a Big River with a children's theatre a few years ago, where
Jim was doublecast, with a black and an Asian actor alternating
performances. I was ok with it, but I don't know if the show *really*
worked as well for audiences who saw the Asian actor. (I would hope so,
but one never knows.)
In the same production, although both Alice and Alice's Daughter were
played by black girls, the gospel solos originally sung by the daughter
were reassigned to a white singer (she was the only person in the cast
who could sing it!) "The Crossing" had a black soloist and a "mixed"
chorus, but was done in silhouette behind a scrim (behind Huck and Jim
in the boat), which worked very well.
Jon Goldberg
news:58d092e3.02050...@posting.google.com
> The English National Opera company put on a production of Pacific
> Overtures with a caucasian cast, and the album is available. I never
> saw the show, but I have the highlights disc (there's also a complete)
> and I don't care for it nearly as much as the Broadway cast. Of
> course, that's mostly on musical grounds.
Actually, I enjoy that recording from a musical standpoint (I have the 2
CD version, and the fact that it's a complete recording of the show
helps validate it), but I still prefer the sound of the Asian actors on
the OBC.
I guess the *real* question concerning that production is - did it work
for the audiences? (Anyone here see it???)
Karen Mercedes
> Yes, but look at the big fight now over trouser roles from shows like The
> Marriage of Figaro. Countertenors want to attempt such parts and women feel
> that it's invading their turf. Not even opera is immune to gender switching -
> somehow, it's okay for a woman to sing Julius Caesar, but not okay for a
> countertenor to take a woman's role because of the difference in voice quality.
This isn't entirely true anymore either - consider the production of
RAKE'S PROGRESS at San Francisco Opera (1996 and 2000) that featured Brian
Asawa as Baba the Turk. Nor is Asawa the only countertenor to have
sung the role of Baba in Stravinsky's opera. Arthur Stefanowicz sang
the role in Amsterdam in 1997. And, of course, there's a long tradition
of men _en travesti_ singing the role of Rosina Daintymouth (the Witch)
in Humperdinck's HANSEL UND GRETEL.
Don't see why it's such a "biggie". Men have been singing female roles in
falsetto in Chinese Opera for centuries....
Larry Rekow
wrote:
>The English National Opera company put on a production of Pacific
>Overtures with a caucasian cast, and the album is available. I never
>saw the show, but I have the highlights disc (there's also a complete)
>and I don't care for it nearly as much as the Broadway cast. Of
>course, that's mostly on musical grounds.
To add to the fact that it is non-Asian and not as good musically as
the OBC, it is also recorded very poorly.
Larry Rekow
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"Go home Jake. It's Chinatown."
Kswan7321
>From: "Jon Goldberg" jongo...@msn.com
>BUT - I did a Big River with a children's theatre a few years ago, where
>Jim was doublecast, with a black and an Asian actor alternating
>performances. I was ok with it, but I don't know if the show *really*
>worked as well for audiences who saw the Asian actor. (I would hope so,
>but one never knows.)
>
>In the same production, although both Alice and Alice's Daughter were
>played by black girls, the gospel solos originally sung by the daughter
>were reassigned to a white singer (she was the only person in the cast
>who could sing it!) "The Crossing" had a black soloist and a "mixed"
>chorus, but was done in silhouette behind a scrim (behind Huck and Jim
>in the boat), which worked very well.
>
student-produced shows was Big River. A big deal was made of inviting the
black population of NU to audition, as they were very poorly represented in
most campus theatre productions. Instead of auditioning, the black
fraternities and sororities picketed, saying that they would not audition for
nor pay to see a story onstage which portrayed blacks as slaves.
The result was that one black theatre major was begged to play the role of Jim,
and the rest of the cast was entirely Caucasian. As with the children's show
mentioned above, the Crossing was done upstage in silhouette.
As a white American, I doubt I have the understanding of racial oppression in
this country which necessitates this kind of behavior, but as an
actor-choreographer, I wonder if black actors shoot themselves in the
collective foot sometimes. Huck Finn's literature, after all, and the
point-of-view of the writer and director are very clear about what slavery and
freedom meant. As in Ragtime.
On another subject: it is common knowledge (although always spoken in whispered
tones) that several recent Broadway shows with largely split-race casts often
have enormous racial tensions backstage: Big River, ShowBoat, Ragtime, Lion
King. I have personally known more than a few black actors who work all the
time in New York and regionally who complain that they are used as "tokens" in
many shows, yet they also complain, when they are doing black revues like Ain't
Misbehavin' or Five Guys Named Moe, that they are being "displayed in darkie
entertainments"- honest to goodness, that's a quote. I just can't get my head
around that kind of complaining, when there are so many thousnads of actors out
of work.
Flame away.
Doc Bender
>RAKE'S PROGRESS at San Francisco Opera (1996 and 2000) that featured Brian
>Asawa as Baba the Turk. Nor is Asawa the only countertenor to have
>sung the role of Baba in Stravinsky's opera. Arthur Stefanowicz sang
>the role in Amsterdam in 1997. And, of course, there's a long tradition
>of men _en travesti_ singing the role of Rosina Daintymouth (the Witch)
>in Humperdinck's HANSEL UND GRETEL.
Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a great deal of rancor
over this in the opera world.
>Don't see why it's such a "biggie". Men have been singing female roles in
>falsetto in Chinese Opera for centuries....
I think the whole thing is stupid as well. I'd be fascinated to see a
countertenor attempt one of the traditionally female roles myself.
Doc Bender
RmadlloLvr
was great and as far as I know, readily accepted by the audiences...
-Karan
Bill
non-traditional casting won't work.
It dilutes and destroys the author's intent, essentially rendering the
play moot.
In my high school in Detroit, whites were in the minority. We had an
extremely active and ambitious drama program, and non-traditional
casting was the norm. We had a black Abner with a white Daisy Mae; our
FORUM had a white Senex/black Domina and black Hero/white Philia. And
this was in the 60s/early 70s.
It wasn't until I graduated and began doing shows at university & summer
stock that casting lightened up considerably.
Bill
Jon Goldberg
news:20020503200849...@mb-mr.aol.com
> I worked on a production of "Evita" with Audra McDonald playing Eva Peron. She
> was great and as far as I know, readily accepted by the audiences...
> -Karan
Which makes me think that the general rule SHOULD be - when you have
great talent, USE IT, no matter what. I wish I could have heard Audra in
Evita. I'm sure she sang the hell out of the role!
Jon Goldberg
news:20020503191148...@mb-bg.aol.com
> I have personally known more than a few black actors who work all the
> time in New York and regionally who complain that they are used as "tokens" in
> many shows, yet they also complain, when they are doing black revues like Ain't
> Misbehavin' or Five Guys Named Moe, that they are being "displayed in darkie
> entertainments"- honest to goodness, that's a quote. I just can't get my head
> around that kind of complaining, when there are so many thousnads of actors out
> of work.
Well, I suppose it's easy for most of us to say "be grateful you have a
job" - but if you relate this to many actors who get perpetually "typed"
into one kind of role, the frustration gets closer to home. It is also
unfortunately the case that a majority of black roles are indeed related
to racial conflicts (that is - many "white" plays may not have race as
an important theme - plays with black or mixed casts usually do.)
Sometimes I indeed wonder if black actors resent getting cast in black
roles. (Ditto for any ethnicity.) Then again, as has been noted before,
having a white actor play an important black role might cause a lot of
uproar (unless of course the playwright or director is doing this on
purpose to make a point).
As far as Ain't Misbehavin' goes - I assume it's the "Harlem nightclub"
style of the piece that reflects the idea of "darkie entertainment" -
and ironic enough (or not?) that this concept was developed in part by
white Richard Maltby, but it would be hard to imagine the show without
the attitude, the banter, etc. Without that, it becomes just another
"composer catalogue" revue. But yes, I can certainly understand if black
performers want to get away from this type of stereotyping.
Another case in point: We've just begun the process of auditions for a
production of Side Show I'll be doing next year. The role of Jake is yet
another role that, to make any sense, has to be cast as a black male in
a predominantly white cast. Yet - it's the same old story of a mixed
race love being taboo (with, of course, the added twist of loving one of
a pair of Siamese twins being taboo as well) - I know we will wind up
casting an actor who will be happy to do the role, but will there be
that subtext of "token" in the back of his head? I wouldn't fault him
for thinking that way.
Steve & Rhonda
Re: Non-traditional casting
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, May 3, 2002, 11:11pm (EDT+4)
From: kswa...@aol.com (Kswan7321)
audition, as they were very poorly represented in most campus theatre
productions. Instead of auditioning, the black fraternities and
see a story onstage which portrayed blacks as slaves. As an
actor-choreographer, I wonder if black actors shoot themselves in the
collective foot sometimes. Huck Finn's literature, after all, and the
point-of-view of the writer and director are very clear about what
actors who work all the time in New York and regionally who complain
that they are used as "tokens" in many shows, yet they also complain,
when they are doing black revues like Ain't Misbehavin' or Five Guys
just can't get my head around that kind of complaining, when there are
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Based on my own experiences, your statements are quite accurate. In fact
I've posted similar comments about actors doing AIN'T & FIVE quite
recently. In regional theater circles AIN'T MISBEHAVIN' is simply
notorious. A producer's worst nightmare. It's *synonymous* with "five
impossibly demanding performers." And yet when some of these same
performers do Shakespeare for scale, they're entirely different.
MaryLyon
>When race is an issue in a script -- as it is in 1776 -- then
>non-traditional casting won't work.
>It dilutes and destroys the author's intent, essentially rendering the
>play moot.
I am the original poster with regard to 1776, and I agree with the above
sentiments. Also, even though 1776 is, as one poster noted, 'historical
fiction," it is vital that this particular play be cast traditionally to convey
the full message. And 1776, unlike many musicals based on real people and
events, is a lot heavier on the "historical" than the "fiction" - that's what
makes it so powerful.
I am all in favor of non-traditional casting when it is appropriate to the
piece - which it often is. But 1776 with non-Caucasian members of Congress
would make "Molasses to Rum" awfully strange...however, I think perhaps the
Courier could be cast non-traditionally. A young Black man, for example, might
add a whole new layer of depth to "Mama Look Sharp," and I find this idea
intriguing.
On the other hand, take a show like BARNUM - this show is based on real people
but highly fictionalized, and I could easily accept a non-Caucasion in many
roles, particularly Chairy or Tom Thumb. But a non-African-American Purlie
(though not based on a real person) is an awfully silly idea, and would ruin
the whole concept of the production, IMHO...
As for non-musicals, there was a recent local production of OUR TOWN with
non-traditional casting - I believe Emily was African American - I didn't see
the production, but I'm sure that if the actors were skilled, the production
was a good one. This is a good example of a show where non-traditional casting
would likely be neither distracting nor a "statement," but an example of using
the best actors for the best roles. I also think a play like '''night Mother"
could certainly be cast with non-Caucasians - maybe even two actresses of
different races - because race is not an issue in the play. Same with "Wit" -
lots of opportunities there for creative casting.
The bottom line is this issue needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's not. And personally, I think Reno Sweeney
in drag would be a HOOT!!!
Best, Amy :)
Matthew Murray
> As for non-musicals, there was a recent local production of OUR TOWN with
> non-traditional casting - I believe Emily was African American - I didn't see
> the production, but I'm sure that if the actors were skilled, the production
> was a good one. This is a good example of a show where non-traditional casting
> would likely be neither distracting nor a "statement," but an example of using
> the best actors for the best roles.
Not always. It's easy to think that Our Town is foolproof, but it
really isn't. I saw a production a couple of months ago that cast George
and Emily with actors in their 60s. Were they decent enough actors?
Sure, I guess, but they weren't right for the roles (this went beyond
their ages, but those were absolutely a factor). The casting was
dishonest, a gimmick, and even stated so by the director, because he
didn't want to do the show the way it had always been done. (I guess that
means in a way that allows the story to make sense.) Keep in mind that
this director also cast a 14-year-old in the role of the Stage Manager in
that same production. I don't know what show I saw that night, but I'm
darned sure it wasn't Our Town.
I don't mind race/age/sex-blind casting in shows that can support
it (and I feel Our Town can) as long as it IS a case of the best actors in
the best roles. But when it's not, and when it's not in the best interest
of the show, I don't think it should be done.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
Stephen
march on the theatre with an army of my fellow differently-abled and we will
burn it down, so help me God!
Seriously, where are you doing SIDE SHOW?
"Jon Goldberg" <jongo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3a1aa423b9ff53d11b8...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Stephen
complain about. On an upbeat note, I recently saw (in the L.A. TImes) a
breakdown of feature film roles over the past few years. The proportion of
lead film roles played by black actors was something like 16%, which is
several points higher than the proportion of blacks in the U.S. population.
A racial breakdown of supporting roles showed an even higher percentage (18%
as I recall) going to blacks. So at least in the movies, blacks are
actually *over*represented. Which is fine with me. No profession's
demographics exactly match those of the general population, since certain
groups of people naturally gravitate towards certain jobs, owing to any
number of factors like cultural tradition, geographical distribution,
educational patterns, etc. Can you imagine how orchestras would be
devastated if we limited the number of, say, Jewish violinists to the Jewish
proportion of the nation's population? (Less than 4%, I believe.) This
kind of bean-counting is meaningless without positive evidence of
discrimination.
When the NAACP spends so much time insisting show business exactly mirror
the current racial breakdown of the U.S., I've wondered why they don't apply
the same logic to the near-total absence of whites, Asians, or Hispanics
among the multi-millionaire players of the NBA. Talk about
under-representation! But does it mean white or Asian players are being
unfairly discriminated against?
But if people insist on finding something to feel bitter and cheated about,
they'll find it.
"Steve & Rhonda" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4273-3CD...@storefull-2217.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Stephen
few years ago the biggest national modeling agencies rushed to open Seattle
offices, since Seattle models kept winning "model of the year" and other
industry awards.
Are Seattleites just naturally gorgeous? I'd like to think so, since I'm
from Seattle myself, but the crucial factor seems to be the city's generally
cloudy weather which nurtures near-perfect complexions. I notice this every
time I get off the plane in Seattle -- how beautiful people's skin is.
"Stephen" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3RUA8.1877$U11....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
MaryLyon
>Not always. It's easy to think that Our Town is foolproof, but it
>really isn't. I saw a production a couple of months ago that cast George
>and Emily with actors in their 60s.
This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard - talk about doing a
disservice to a brilliant play! I am appalled that the actors agreed to be in
it at all.
Best, Amy :)
hendrik
Your Gun" and the second main female lead was played by a black girl. She
was a great singer and dancer, but every time she was on stage I spent the
time wondering how she could have been the daughter of a very white blonde
lady, another main character in the show, in that period in America's
history.
I had the same problem with the NT production of "Carousel", where a black
actor played Mr Snow in a mixed race cast. The actor in question, Clive
Rowe, is a great singer, but he seemed totally wrong for this role. Now, if
the plot was set in modern times, this would have been fine and logical, but
not so in the period of the action. I could not fathom out how a black
person would have been able to rise to such a position socially and
economically in that part of USA at that time, or why there would be such a
large proportion of Asian workers in the community.
This was the case again in the NT production of "My Fair Lady", as it would
have been unlikely that there would have been such a large percentage of
black aristocrats at Ascot and the Embassy ball, let alone Covent Garden, in
Edwardian England.
In a recent production of "The Pajama Game" in London, the part of Gladys
was played by a black actress. Yet again I was puzzled, as I wondered how in
the 1950s, with racial prejudice still at a high level, she would have
managed to attain such a high post as being a chief secretary. Again the
actress was a talented performer, but seemed to me as unconvincing as if the
part were played by an eighty year old woman, or a man for that matter.
I did not have this problem with the English National Opera version of
"Pacific Overtures" which is such a highly stylised show, that does not
require such a sense of reality, and the casting of Caucasian actors added
another interesting layer to the Broadway/Kabuki style. The only difficulty
with this version was that the performers were mainly opera singers, whereas
the original Broadway one had superb actors who could sing and dance, and
the all-Asian/American cast brought a consistency to the show.
In the Donmar production of "Company" which also had Clive Rowe in the cast,
Bobby was played by another black actor, Adrian Lester. Lester is another
talented actor, who can sing and dance, but I kept wondering if a black guy
in the 60s would have found himself in such a milieu as that portrayed in
the show.
I saw "The King And I" at the London Palladium last year and there was no
attempt at mixed race casting. All the Asian characters were played by Asian
actors and the Westerners were played by white actors. This was the
traditional method of casting of musicals before ludicrous political
correctness took over and it really worked.
Last night on television I saw the highly over-rated opera singer Lesley
Garrett, who is not unknown for making an inappropriate attempt at songs
from musicals, make a complete mess of "Beat Out That Rhythm On The Drum"
from "Carmen Jones". I found it both hilarious and embarrassing, as the
lyrics cry out for a black singer, with a strong feeling for jazz, to
perform them, not a rather shrill soprano. I wondered just how awful it
would be if there were all-white or mixed-race versions of "Carmen Jones" or
"Porgy And Bess".
I loathed the film of "Othello" with Olivier in the title role, as I was
conscious throughout of this white actor in heavy dark make-up, pretending
to be a black man, yet without the true voice and mannerisms to carry it
through.
Casting against type and race just doesn't work for me.
Hendrik
"Jon Goldberg" <jongo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a5d3129c7a52dc4e45a...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> How blind is color-blind, and when is it either inappropriate,
> confusing, or even offensive? How about Ain't Misbehavin'? Changing the
> feel of the show a bit, there's no reason white actors couldn't sing
> these songs (in other contexts, they do all the time.) BUT - would that
> heartbreaking arrangement of "Black And Blue" make ANY sense? I think it
> would seem very out of place. (And I couldn't fathom a production of the
> show without it!!)
>
> On the other hand, I think back to the overly cautious director of our
> high school's production of Guys And Dolls (1981) - they cast the one
> black actor as Grandfather Arvide, and decided he needed to be Uncle
> Arvide instead. I really hate to think anyone would have been that
> offended had he remained Grandfather (and shame on my town if they
> had!!).
Twc6
was played by a black actress. Yet again I was puzzled, as I wondered how in
the 1950s, with racial prejudice still at a high level, she would have
managed to attain such a high post as being a chief secretary. >>
Did you stop to think why she was singing in the office or where that orchestra
music was coming from? It's not reality, it's theater.
Twc6
Your Gun" and the second main female lead was played by a black girl. She
was a great singer and dancer, but every time she was on stage I spent the
time wondering how she could have been the daughter of a very white blonde
lady, another main character in the show, in that period in America's
history.>>
Do you mean if it weren't for this black actress you would have really thought
she was related to this other actress? I think it takes more work to be
distracted by a black actress than to just accept it at the beginning of the
show -- it can be just one of the given things that you accept --like the fact
that people are singing instead of talking and there is dramatic lighting
everywhere and people are doing intimate and private things in front of a room
full of people and both sides have agreed to pretend that's not the case.
Suspension of disbelief is part of the theatrical experience.
"Jean Prouvaire"
>Suspension of disbelief is part of the theatrical experience.
Some beliefs are harder to suspend than others. :-)
______________________________
"I think this line's mostly filler."
Matthew Murray
Did I mention the extra scene the director added?
It was pretty darn excruciating to sit through, and made bearable
only by the fact that the script is just REALLY that good. I can't
imagine having to do it five or six times a week over the course of a
month or two, but at least one of the performers (Jeff Edgerton) deserved
it.
Doc Bender
>
>Some beliefs are harder to suspend than others. :-)
Especially those that concern race.
And I don't mean in the theater.
Doc Bender
MaryLyon
>A few years ago, in London's West End, there was a production of "Annie Get
>Your Gun" and the second main female lead was played by a black girl. She
>was a great singer and dancer, but every time she was on stage I spent the
>time wondering how she could have been the daughter of a very white blonde
>lady, another main character in the show, in that period in America's
>history.
>
What character did she play? Dolly Tate? I just finished a production of AGYG,
and I can't conjure up any reference to a character being the daughter of
another, but then, I did the "revised" version. Just curious...
Best, Amy :)
Bushwhacker
>
> <<A few years ago, in London's West End, there was a production of "Annie Get
> Your Gun" and the second main female lead was played by a black girl. She
> was a great singer and dancer, but every time she was on stage I spent the
> time wondering how she could have been the daughter of a very white blonde
> lady, another main character in the show, in that period in America's
> history.>>
>
Weren't you *also* bothered that the role was played by a girl instead of a woman?
Stephen Farrow
> I had the same problem with the NT production of "Carousel", where a black
> actor played Mr Snow in a mixed race cast. The actor in question, Clive
> Rowe, is a great singer, but he seemed totally wrong for this role. Now, if
> the plot was set in modern times, this would have been fine and logical, but
> not so in the period of the action. I could not fathom out how a black
> person would have been able to rise to such a position socially and
> economically in that part of USA at that time, or why there would be such a
> large proportion of Asian workers in the community.
It's called 'suspension of disbelief'. Would you expect to see a
racially-correct production of 'Cats'?
Rowe, I thought, gave a superb performance in 'Carousel'; his race, to
me, was not an issue for a moment (other than that having a black actor
walk out as Mr. *Snow* is an obvious sight gag). I thought he was
wonderfully humane and funny, and he certainly sang the music
beautifully (and he played wonderfully opposite both Janie Dee and
Katrina Murphy). For me, he had *all* the right qualities for the role;
his skin colour was irrelevant.
> I did not have this problem with the English National Opera version of
> "Pacific Overtures" which is such a highly stylised show, that does not
> require such a sense of reality, and the casting of Caucasian actors added
> another interesting layer to the Broadway/Kabuki style. The only difficulty
> with this version was that the performers were mainly opera singers, whereas
> the original Broadway one had superb actors who could sing and dance, and
> the all-Asian/American cast brought a consistency to the show.
Well, there were other dificulties with that production - like the
ponderous pacing, the un-subtle direction, the ridiclously broad acting
performances, and the fact that none of the singers really connected
with the material, which in any case isn't improved by being performed
with operatic voices - but actually, I'd argue (and have elsewhere in
this and other threads) that 'Pacific Overtures' is one show that *is*
damaged when it isn't cast with race-specific actors. A huge amount of
comment and irony is lost when that show is performed by caucasians, and
- to me at least - it doesn't really work under those circumstances.
> In the Donmar production of "Company" which also had Clive Rowe in the cast,
> Bobby was played by another black actor, Adrian Lester. Lester is another
> talented actor, who can sing and dance, but I kept wondering if a black guy
> in the 60s would have found himself in such a milieu as that portrayed in
> the show.
Hmm. The play was first produced in 1970, and that production was set in
the present day. Mendes and his design team didn't really make any
effort to set their production 'in period' (i.e. in 1970) - in fact,
they seemed to be very consciously trying to avoid tying the look of the
production to the late 60s/early 70s (the set looked like something
you'd find in a home design magazine article about a very contemporary -
1990s - slightly retro-ish loft development). But even if the production
*had* been set in 1970, I can't see why that would automatically make a
black Bobby problematic - it's hardly as if there was no black middle
class in the USA in 1970 (which is what you seem to be - somewhat
ignorantly - implying). I had all kinds of problems with Lester in that
production (chief among them the fact that he was often inaudible during
his songs), but his race wasn't one of them (and I had no problem at all
with Clive Rowe in the same show - his was just about the best
performance of the lot).
Come to that, there was nothing wrong with Lester's *acting* in the RNT
'Sweeney Todd' either (though once again his singing wasn't really up to
the job - he has a nice voice, actually, but his technique isn't great -
there's too much breath coming through, and his projection isn't
wonderful - he doesn't seem to have much dynamic range, and tends to
either bellow or whisper, so that either he sounds forced or you can't
hear him at all). I don't suppose his casting there was racially
accurate either, but for me, at least, that wasn't a problem (just as I
can't see any problem with Brian Stokes Mitchell playing the role in
Washington this summer - in fact, that's something I'd like to see,
though I won't get the chance).
Stephen
--
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working
knowledge of Latin..."
Bushwhacker
Sorry, I attributed that comment to the wrong person. The target is hendrik.
Ms. La Diva
"white", I simply suspend my disbelief. Just as someone else pointed
out...I also suspend my disbelief enough to accept the
representational sets, the orchestra in the pit, people bursting out
in song, exploding into dance, etc.
I'm, personally, sad when I think of how much someone is missing when
they have such a problem with non-traditional casting. But that's
just me.
And on a side note...how come nobody gives a rat's ass when roles like
Molly Brown are always cast with thin women instead of fat? That's
going against historical accuracy...but you don't hear anyone
complaining about that!
Joseph Sauris
fully examine. USA society has been "been-counting" since the
Constitution established that a black person was .67 of a human. The
Jim Crow laws insisted that a genetic parentage of .0001% from
Sub-Saharan Africa qualified one for .67 humanity status.
I don't know what's happening in New York, but here in Chicago concerns
expressed about "nontraditional" casting will be met with a snore. In
my years of theatregoing here, I have seen whites play blacks, blacks
play "white" roles, Anglos play Latinos & vice versa. Some 10 years ago
there was a production mounted here of _The Great Gatsby_, and the title
role was played by an African-American. And yes, the Pegasus Players,
arguably the finest interpreters of Sondheim in the American Interior,
produced the dreaded Caucasian _Pacific Overtures_. Not only did the
show receive rave reviews, but we all lived to talk about it.
Steve & Rhonda
of AGYG, and I can't conjure up any reference to a character being the
daughter of another, but then, I did the "revised" version. Just
curious... Best, Amy :)>>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She must mean Winnie Tate of Winnie and Tommy ("Who Do You Love, I
Hope") fame. Did the Stone version make it to the West End or was this a
revival of the 40's original?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
"All day, the records play..."
-Bob Merrill
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve & Rhonda
of a woman?
Now, BW, don't go all PC on us. Would you remove such delightfully
evocative terms as Show GIRL or Chorus GIRL from the Musical Theater
lexicon? Well there's always "ingenue." Of course these days, that could
even include Steven Weber.
Steve & Rhonda
Again as I understand it, it was not "in drag." It was a man playing a
man named Reno who convinced the ingenue's fiancee to "misbehave."
Steve & Rhonda
able to rise to such a position socially and economically in that part
of USA at that time, or why there would be such a large proportion of
Asian workers in the community.
In America, one the biggest problems with the CAROUSEL revisal was that
the Ensemble representing the community seemed to have wandered in from
a community college. (But then so did a fair number of the principals.)
They were indeed annoying and distracting because of their ages and
abilities.
Matthew Winn
<hen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I had the same problem with the NT production of "Carousel", where a black
> actor played Mr Snow in a mixed race cast. The actor in question, Clive
> Rowe, is a great singer, but he seemed totally wrong for this role. Now, if
> the plot was set in modern times, this would have been fine and logical, but
> not so in the period of the action. I could not fathom out how a black
> person would have been able to rise to such a position socially and
> economically in that part of USA at that time, or why there would be such a
> large proportion of Asian workers in the community.
>
> This was the case again in the NT production of "My Fair Lady", as it would
> have been unlikely that there would have been such a large percentage of
> black aristocrats at Ascot and the Embassy ball, let alone Covent Garden, in
> Edwardian England.
Is it not also unlikely that Higgins would suddenly be inspired to
burst into song in Covent Garden, or that a common flower girl would
have a marvellous voice?
The only time colourblind casting bothers me is when it creates an
obvious logical problem within the show, such as black parents having
white children. In that case it seems as though the director is more
concerned with slapping the audience to get their attention while he
shouts "Look at me, I'm not racially prejudiced" than with getting the
message of the show across. But when it comes to black aristocracy in
MFL I have no trouble because the colour of the people in the ensemble
has no relation to any other aspect of the show. For the same reason
I can't object to a black Mr Snow -- or Carrie for that matter -- so
long as the children are suitably matched.
If you want to get into historical authenticity, why are there so many
21st century hairstyles around in musicals set in the past?
Matthew
Richard C. Wall
all-white production of PORGY AND BESS or AIN'T MISBEHAVIN'?
I think if anyone even tried to produce those versions, they'd
get strung up all over town. It just wouldn't happen. which is not
even intended as a defense, just a comment for thought.
I participated in a production of SWEENEY TODD in which the
Anthony was African-American. He performed the role beautifully,
but it always went against my realism-factor that the relationship
of a Black Man and a White Woman would never have happened in
1840's London.
I conducted a production of AMAHL AND THE NIGHT VISITORS
this year in which the mother was African-American and her son
was Caucasian. And this took place in the deep south and not
one person objected. In fact, we had to turn people away at the
final performances for lack of seats in the theatre! So much for
prejudice.
But I would draw the line at changing a character's sex, such as a
male Mame or female Harold Hill. I think any of these changes
would also be an infraction of the performing license, anyway,
wouldn't they?
Richard
http://www.mindspring.com/~rcwall5000/index.htm
Matthew Murray
> But would you suspend disbelief (or even attend) an
> all-white production of PORGY AND BESS or AIN'T MISBEHAVIN'?
> I think if anyone even tried to produce those versions, they'd
> get strung up all over town.
Don't count on that, Richard--there's a school of thought that
thinks an all-black Porgy and Bess isn't necessarily the right idea at
all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/20/arts/music/20NOTE.html
Beb11572
Well, she was singing in the office because it's a musical and the orchestra
music was coming from (presumably) the pit.
Moving on past the genre of The Musical, that still leaves the question as to
whether a black woman in 1950's ... IOWA ... would have managed to attain such
a high post as being a chief secretary (and married a white company executive).
"It's not reality, it's theatre."
Does this simply mean that Gladys can be played by an actress of any race, or
that she can also be played by:
A 10 year old
An 80 year old
A man in drag
Roseanne
Logically, yes. "It's not reality, it's theatre."
Steve & Rhonda
written before, the Gershwin estate put a toe in the water several years
back by allowing a two person jazz cabaret act version of almost the
entire score to be performed by a white duo. It was met with critical
acclaim.
Steve & Rhonda
which I love, but whose time and setting would be seem to be " sometime,
somewhere Northwest of Dogpatch," in terms of necessary reality-- I'm
finding this argument of the artifice of musical theater itself
equalling "anything goes" in casting as lame as its use as a defense for
CABARET's anachronistic "nipple rings." There's also a sanctimonious
attitude here that anyone who examines casting matters in anything but
the most liberal, one size fits all attitude is backwards-- or worse.
Not a problem for me but for others: James Earl Jones as a "plantation"
owner in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF. A problem for me but not others: casting
a perceptibly African-American looking (or sounding!) actress as Julie
Laverne, a part that's all about "passing"--not only to theater
audiences of the time-- but to Queenie. Since CAROUSEL is about this
uptight Yankee town and its "outsiders," some questioning about casting
roles like Bascombe or Snow (who represent the status quo) are not
unreasonable. The point: this kind of thing is very personal and very
subjective in terms of what calls attention to itself (thereby
distracting from the storytelling) and what doesn't. Encores! DO RE MI
is the perfect example. If they wanted to cast it interracially, I
thought they did it backwards. We're talking a very specific time here
in pop-music ("What's New at the Zoo?) that was very white. (In its last
gasp.) It didn't help that I don't like Heather Headley's vocal stylings
to begin with (she's certainly not suited to play a 1960's "folk singer"
hitting the charts with a "novelty" song) and that I was disappointed by
Mitchell's underpowered vocals, compared to John Reardon's. But this was
a case where, for me, race called attention to itself for very specific
reasons.
Re: Non-traditional casting
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, May 5, 2002, 2:11pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
<<<"It's not reality, it's theatre."
Does this simply mean that Gladys can be played by an actress of any
race, or that she can also be played by:
A 10 year old
An 80 year old
A man in drag>>>
Logically, yes. "It's not reality, it's theatre."
Matthew Murray
Encores! The Pajama Game is supposed to be a CONCERT. In a concert
setting, I think things such as someone's appropriateness for a role
judging by their skin color does become rather besides the point. The
argument can be made that, since the concerts are (at least minimally)
staged, it should be more of a factor. But as every walks around wearing
clothes in different variations of black and white evening wear for 99% of
the evening anyway, that we're in a concert reality is also apparent.
Were this a fully staged, designed, and implemented production, then I
think there might be slightly more weight to the argument as it relates to
The Pajama Game. Just about everyone here has made great points, but do
they apply to an Encores! presentation?
The case, then, becomes one of how good are the performers. I
didn't have much of a problem with Ms. Goodwin to be honest--she dances
well, she was funny, and she sang the music just fine. Her skin color
didn't bother me, as she seemed an appropriate type for Gladys in a
concert. What did bother me about her came up in "Steam Heat," and aside
from John Carrafa's bad choreography (has he done anything good since
Dirty Blonde?), when she was joined in the dance by two black men. Does
that make "Steam Heat" a racial number? I think THAT is relevant.
Of course, more problematic for the concert for me was Karen
Ziemba. Listen, I think she's a wonderful performer, I really do. But in
a concert, where the focus is really supposed to be on the music, I have
something of a problem with someone of her limited vocal capacities being
asked to take part. I really would have preferred to hear the music
really SUNG. In every other way, I accepted her as Babe, and thought she
would be a knockout in a real production of the show, when there are lots
of other considerations to be taken into account.
Richard C. Wall
singing as Babe, I should direct you back to the OBC recording
and have you listen to Janis Paige sing "I'm Not At All In Love".
It is a quarter-tone flat throughout. Not a great singer, either.
And I love Janis Paige. She just "ain't" no great shakes as a
vocalist! (and I'm not a fan of Ziemba's, either.)
Richard
http://www.mindspring.com/~rcwall5000/index.htm
Steve & Rhonda
a concert, where the focus is really supposed to be on the music, I have
something of a problem with someone of her limited vocal capacities
being asked to take part. I really would have preferred to hear the
music really SUNG.>>>
This happened when they assigned Ziemba the female lead in Mufti's OH,
CAPTAIN! (a soprano role originated by Jacqueline McKeever who was
Eileen in the TV version of WONDERFUL TOWN!) And had she traded parts
with the featured SuEllen Estey, both would have been excellent.
Bushwhacker
>
> Weren't you *also* bothered that the role was played by a girl instead
> of a woman?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Now, BW, don't go all PC on us. Would you remove such delightfully
> evocative terms as Show GIRL or Chorus GIRL from the Musical Theater
> lexicon? Well there's always "ingenue." Of course these days, that could
> even include Steven Weber.
>
Note the quote: "the second main female lead was played by a black *girl*. She
was a great singer and dancer, but every time she was on stage I spent the
time wondering how she could have been the daughter of a very white blonde
*lady*..." Call it PC or whatever, I think it's demeaning to refer to a woman, particularly if
she's black, as a "girl," especially in the same sentence as "white lady." I have no problem with
chorus girl or show girl as long as there are chorus boys and show boys. And I don't mind "ingenue"
being applied to Weber.
(Oh, on another subject, you asked "what's an Eminem?" Watch SNL next Saturday.)
Bushwhacker
>
> The fussiness of this debate cranks me, for reasons I must one day more
> fully examine. USA society has been "been-counting" since the
> Constitution established that a black person was .67 of a human. The
> Jim Crow laws insisted that a genetic parentage of .0001% from
> Sub-Saharan Africa qualified one for .67 humanity status.
>
> I don't know what's happening in New York, but here in Chicago concerns
> expressed about "nontraditional" casting will be met with a snore. In
> my years of theatregoing here, I have seen whites play blacks, blacks
> play "white" roles, Anglos play Latinos & vice versa. Some 10 years ago
> there was a production mounted here of _The Great Gatsby_, and the title
> role was played by an African-American.
I was fortunate to see that. His performance, the direction and other factors persuaded me that I'll
probably never see a better production of GATSBY. And I saw it at a matinee filled with high school
students, many of whom were seeing their first live theater. They were equally spellbound.
Michael Benedetto
beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572) wrote:
That's kind of ducking the issue -- all the examples you cite are of
people who would change the nature of the character in an unacceptable
way by making it impossible for her to relate to Hines or Sid as she
needs to. (It arguably might make her an interesting comic character,
but really not one that the authors had in mind.)
A black actress is entirely different, as the only thing the audience is
asked to filter out is something they should have been willing to filter
out fifty years ago, both on stage and in real life. The point of
nontraditional casting in musical comedy is not only to give actors a
chance to play roles that they're right for, race not withstanding, but
also to convey that the idealized world on stage includes people of all
races.
I would find it very hard to justify doing a light, breezy musical
comedy without having at least a few nonwhite faces on stage for the
happy ending. I'm sure black audience members have always been keenly
aware of being excluded from everyone else's good time -- musical
theatre that's always cast with an eye towards ethnic accuracy is
musical theatre that only white people can ever really enjoy.
-Mike
--
The Cast Recordings FAQ -- http://www.castalbums.org
Steve & Rhonda
as a "girl," especially in the same sentence as "white lady."
I understand the second part, but not the "particularly" in the first.
KAR
"Michael Benedetto" <epent...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:epenthesis-25D33...@nyctyp01fb.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> In article <20020505101121...@mb-de.aol.com>,
> beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572) wrote:
>
> > ><<In a recent production of "The Pajama Game" in London, the part of
Gladys
> > >was played by a black actress. Yet again I was puzzled, as I wondered
how in
> > >the 1950s, with racial prejudice still at a high level, she would have
> > >managed to attain such a high post as being a chief secretary. >>
> > >
> > >Did you stop to think why she was singing in the office or where that
> > >orchestra
> > >music was coming from? It's not reality, it's theater.
> >
> >
> > Well, she was singing in the office because it's a musical and the
orchestra
> > music was coming from (presumably) the pit.
> >
> > Moving on past the genre of The Musical,
Why shouldn't the genre be consequential in the discussion? A Musical,
especially an old-fashioned musical comedy like Pajama Game is unrealistic
in every possible way, which includes the presence of the orchestra and the
chorus as much as the snappy colors, the unrealistic dialogue and the
cartoon characters. You cannot dismiss the fact of it being a musical out of
hand as if that is not germane to what is being disucssed; as Mr. Benedetto
says so well, why shouldn't all people consider that a happy ending might
apply to them?
Ms. La Diva
talking only of when the race of the characters isn't of importance.
I would not cast an all-white RAISIN IN THE SUN or an all-black CAT ON
A HOT TIN ROOF. But yes, I would ABSOLUTELY cast a black Anthony in
SWEENEY TODD...why not? Race has nothing to do with the story. It
just doesn't matter to me.
Bushwhacker
>
> I think it's demeaning to refer to a woman, particularly if she's black,
> as a "girl," especially in the same sentence as "white lady."
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I understand the second part, but not the "particularly" in the first.
>
For a black woman, it's doubly demeaning, recalling the racist references to adults as "boy" and
"girl."
Harry MacAfee
his octuplets performing My Fair Lady.
~Paul.
Twc6
Does this simply mean that Gladys can be played by an actress of any race, or
that she can also be played by:
A 10 year old
An 80 year old
A man in drag
Roseanne>>
Yes, the role could be played by any of those people, or by all of them
simutaneously even. That happening wouldn't bring about the end of the world.
It may not be particularly effective for the show, but anyone COULD play Babe.
If you went to see a summer camp version of Pajama Game would you really object
to all the roles being played by kids? No, you would accept that as a given and
just want to the see the best person available for each role.
I think you can be vocally right for a part, act it beautifully and be the
right type, even if you are of the "wrong" race. I would rather see the better
performer in the part than see a lesser person cast because they were the
"right" race, but not as appropriate in terms of voice, acting, type, etc.
Stephen Farrow
Right. I did, as I said, have some problems with Adrian Lester's Anthony
(and his Bobby in 'Company', come to that), but they were about his
voice, not his skin colour.
Stephen
--
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working
knowledge of Latin..."
Stephen Farrow
> "what's an Eminem?"
Something a stupid person peels to get to the chocolate?
Stephen
(who had a *really* long weekend at work)
MaryLyon
>And personally, I think Reno Sweeney in drag would be a HOOT!!!
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Again as I understand it, it was not "in drag." It was a man playing a
>man named Reno who convinced the ingenue's fiancee to "misbehave."
>
As Emily Litella might say:
"Oh. That's different. Never mind!"
Best, Amy :)
Bushwhacker
>
> Oddly enough, this topic was brought up on The Simpsons tonight, with Apu and
> his octuplets performing My Fair Lady.
>
What?? All the roles were performed by *cartoon* characters? Did that subvert or distort Lerner and
Loewe's artistic intentions?
(Seriously, thanks for the heads-up. I'll watch my tape right away.)
Kent
: was a great singer and dancer, but every time she was on stage I spent
: the time wondering how she could have been the daughter of a very white
: blonde lady, another main character in the show, in that period in
: America's history.
: This was the case again in the NT production of "My Fair Lady", as it
: would have been unlikely that there would have been such a large
: percentage of black aristocrats at Ascot and the Embassy ball, let alone
: Covent Garden, in Edwardian England.
Um, the POINT of "color-blind casting" is that you aren't SUPPOSED to
think of them as "black" (or whatever color). The script for "My Fair
Lady" does NOT say that they were black aristocrats, it says they were
aristocrats, which is what they're playing.
The fact that you cannot see past a person's skin color, even when playing
a role in a musical, tells me more about you than it does the productions.
Yes, this even goes for shows where parents & children are played by
different-race actors.
(This is not to say I don't think "color-blind casting" is a one-way
street. Yes, I can ony imagine the hubbub of casting Dorothy in "The Wiz"
as white.)
Kent
Kent
I was in a production of FIDDLER where we had a "Black Russian" :) It was
slightly ironic to have a black actor running the Jews out of Anatevka in
1911, but in the usual color-blind suspension of disbelief, it was fine.
Might have been harder for people to wrap their minds around a black
Rabbi, for example.
I DID hear of a production of "Sound of Music" that had black NAZI
SOLDIERS! *That* just makes me laugh. :)
Kent
AngiBelle1
>street. Yes, I can ony imagine the hubbub of casting Dorothy in "The Wiz"
>as white.)
My high school did The Wiz in the early 80s with, from what I could tell from
the video clips, an entirely white cast. I'm sure this what out of nessecity.
There just haven't been many black actors at my school.
-Angela
Steve & Rhonda
playing a role in a musical, tells me more about you than it does the
productions.
Not directed to me, but *this* knee-jerk, pc line-- not a hyperbolic
9-11 crack-- CONTINUES to be the most insulting, personal, insensitive,
unexamined and unwarranted statement on RATM.
Matthew Winn
made a valid point by writing:
> Um, the POINT of "color-blind casting" is that you aren't SUPPOSED to
> think of them as "black" (or whatever color). The script for "My Fair
> Lady" does NOT say that they were black aristocrats, it says they were
> aristocrats, which is what they're playing.
...but then totally buggered it up with this:
> The fact that you cannot see past a person's skin color, even when playing
> a role in a musical, tells me more about you than it does the productions.
> Yes, this even goes for shows where parents & children are played by
> different-race actors.
Every single person on the stage has been placed there by the
director. If a group is supposed to be a family but the director has
deliberately chosen to use a racial mix which is uncommon--such as
white parents with black children--then the perceptive audience is
going to notice this and wonder why that decision has been made.
It's not just skin colour, of course. If a character who is obviously
a man is played by someone who is obviously a woman, or if someone
who's supposed to be an eight-stone weakling is played by a giant,
then the audience is going to want an explanation. It's fine to say
that you should look past physical features, but how is the audience
supposed to know which physical features to ignore? If white parents
have black children is this colourblind casting or is the director
hinting at a situation which will become significant later in the
show?
Eleven minutes later:
> I DID hear of a production of "Sound of Music" that had black NAZI
> SOLDIERS! *That* just makes me laugh. :)
Why? Isn't your point that they're Nazi soldiers, and you should see
past the colour of their skin?
Matthew
Tim Gowen
<kmXXp...@pageszNET.invalid> writes
>I was in a production of FIDDLER where we had a "Black Russian" :)
Wow, that's like a White Russian but not made with milk? I suppose they
use coffee instead.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/Tim/Theatre/TheatreLinks.htm
Karen Mercedes
> On the other hand, take a show like BARNUM - this show is based on real people
> but highly fictionalized, and I could easily accept a non-Caucasion in many
> roles, particularly Chairy or Tom Thumb. But a non-African-American Purlie
> (though not based on a real person) is an awfully silly idea, and would ruin
> the whole concept of the production, IMHO...
I think Purlie's race is less important than the fact of Tom Thumb being
a midget. And yet, I have yet to see a production of BARNUM in which an
actual midget - or even a dwarf - was cast as Tom Thumb.
If you're going to impose rules about traditional or non traditional
casting, do so CONSISTENTLY within a show: if you feel you must cast
certain roles traditionally, then cast ALL roles traditionally. Otherwise,
don't consider race, ethnicity, or even gender at all, but cast entirely
based on talent. But I'm sick of "selectively non-traditional casting" -
i.e., casting which insists that ethnic and racial minorities be able to
play any old role, but which limits caucasians to playing caucasian
characters, and women to playing female characters.
Frankly, I am NOT advocating that we start casting RAISIN with a white,
hispanic, and asian cast. Nor that we have Gaylord Ravenal played by a
girl. By the same token, I think it's absurd to say that P.T. Barnum can
be played by an African American, but Purlie can't be played by an Asian
or Caucasian. There's no logic to it, and frankly, you're requiring the
audience to keep going back and forth on its suspension of disbelief.
Either a show is realistic, or it isn't. The audience shouldn't be
expected to readjust their suspension of disbelief for every character.
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
***************************************
The ones I love are incapable of ill will, and return love for hatred....
[They] who serve both friend and foe with equal love....Such as these
are dear to me. [Bhagavad Gita, Chap. 12]
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that
ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven. [Matt. 5:44-48]
Karen Mercedes
audiences to indulge in non-traditional viewing.
Karen Mercedes
non-traditional casting":
Why is it that people have trouble suspending their disbelief when an
actor of a race or ethnicity that conflicts with what would have been
feasible in the period during which the play is set - but they have no
trouble suspending their disbelief when actors portraying historical
characters don't smell historically accurate, have historically accurate
rotten teeth, etc.?
KAR
One assumes, since the Von Trapps were fleeing, it was Nazism (i.e., the
Captain fighting for the Nazis) that they were fleeing.
When it's implicitly about race, it matters.
"Matthew Winn" <mat...@mwinn.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6hfdduc2p2jot8r5g...@4ax.com...
MaryLyon
>Indeed, the main problem with non-traditional casting is that it requires
>audiences to indulge in non-traditional viewing.
I'm not sure if I would agree that this is the MAIN problem with
non-traditional casting, but I would agree that, in many circumstances, it is
appropriate to challenge the audience's expectations - isn't this how true
"art" (whatever the heck that means) comes about, anyway?
When I was in college, I was taught that the actor and director were there to
serve the playwright first, and then the audience. It seems to me that often
directors and actors want first to serve "themselves," and hope that the
audience/playwright will go along for the ride - if they don't, they are
branded as too rigid or too stupid to "get the concept." How arrogant!
Some works lend themselves more easily to this sort of creativity than others.
Shakespeare is the classic example...but for every VOODOO MACBETH, there are a
thousand other productions that try different casting/settings/concepts/etc,
fail miserably, and do a disservice to the work.
There has been an awful lot of discussion about what roles would or would not
be appropriate to cast "non-traditionally." But I say again, this is an issue
that needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. The right performer at the
right time in the right setting, though unorthodox, may mean the difference
between the brilliant and the banal - or vice versa!
There are no hard and fast rules, gang - sorry - and isn't that what we love
about the theatre in the first place? :)
Best, Amy :)
Bill
<< I think Purlie's race is less important than the fact of Tom Thumb
being a midget. .........
Frankly, I am NOT advocating that we start casting RAISIN with a white,
hispanic, and asian cast. Nor that we have Gaylord Ravenal played by a
girl. By the same token, I think it's absurd to say that P.T. Barnum can
be played by an African American, but Purlie can't be played by an Asian
or Caucasian. There's no logic to it, and frankly, you're requiring the
audience to keep going back and forth on its suspension of disbelief.
Either a show is realistic, or it isn't. The audience shouldn't be
expected to readjust their suspension of disbelief for every character.
>>
..............................
Oh, come on: Purlie can't be played by a white actor because race and
subjugation are the primary issues of the play. It isn't necessary that
Tom Thumb be played by a dwarf or midget because it's much easier to
disguise a lone actor's height by using large-sized props & set pieces
(as they did in the original production).
Theatre audiences are, generally speaking, much smarter than they are
usually given credit for.
Bill
Michael Benedetto
<Pine.GSO.4.43.02050...@saltmine.radix.net>,
Karen Mercedes <dal...@radix.net> wrote:
> If you're going to impose rules about traditional or non traditional
> casting, do so CONSISTENTLY within a show: if you feel you must cast
> certain roles traditionally, then cast ALL roles traditionally. Otherwise,
> don't consider race, ethnicity, or even gender at all, but cast entirely
> based on talent. But I'm sick of "selectively non-traditional casting" -
> i.e., casting which insists that ethnic and racial minorities be able to
> play any old role, but which limits caucasians to playing caucasian
> characters, and women to playing female characters.
>
> Frankly, I am NOT advocating that we start casting RAISIN with a white,
> hispanic, and asian cast. Nor that we have Gaylord Ravenal played by a
> girl. By the same token, I think it's absurd to say that P.T. Barnum can
> be played by an African American, but Purlie can't be played by an Asian
> or Caucasian. There's no logic to it, and frankly, you're requiring the
> audience to keep going back and forth on its suspension of disbelief.
> Either a show is realistic, or it isn't. The audience shouldn't be
> expected to readjust their suspension of disbelief for every character.
That assessment relies on a deeply flawed interpretation of what "white"
and "nonwhite" roles are. Most roles traditionally played by white
people can be filled by nonwhite people just because there's no real
reason why they should be played by one race or another. Most roles
traditionally played by nonwhite people were written specifically that
way, with race integral to the character. I'd call that very logical.
In fact, I don't know that I can think of any shows in which some
characters were clearly written to be one race and others were not -- if
race is important to the character, it's going to inform how that
character interacts with others, and that can't be tampered with either.
Your argument about suspension of disbelief, then, doesn't hold water.
Ms. La Diva
> Right. I did, as I said, have some problems with Adrian Lester's Anthony
> (and his Bobby in 'Company', come to that), but they were about his
> voice, not his skin colour.
>
> Stephen
Stephen,
I was responding to someone else's post.
By the way...was that the London cast? I think I have that CD...if
so, you're right. I thought the voices were weak on that CD.
Stephen Farrow
>
> >
> > Right. I did, as I said, have some problems with Adrian Lester's Anthony
> > (and his Bobby in 'Company', come to that), but they were about his
> > voice, not his skin colour.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Stephen,
>
> I was responding to someone else's post.
I know you were! I was just saying.
>
> By the way...was that the London cast? I think I have that CD...if
> so, you're right. I thought the voices were weak on that CD.
Yes, that was the 1995 London revival. I didn't buy the CD because I
hated it in the theatre (it was somewhat better on TV, and, I assume,
after it transferred to the Albery, where the actors were all miked,
which would have solved the balance problems). At the Donmar, the
problem with the voices was that about half the cast were actors who
sort of sang, and the other half were musical theatre performers with
strong voices - and it was only this second group who could project
their singing over the band (the production wasn't miked at the Donmar).
Chris Connelly
"hendrik" <hen...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ab1ocq$nf9$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> I had the same problem with the NT production of "Carousel", where a black
> actor played Mr Snow in a mixed race cast. The actor in question, Clive
> Rowe, is a great singer, but he seemed totally wrong for this role. Now,
if
> the plot was set in modern times, this would have been fine and logical,
but
> not so in the period of the action. I could not fathom out how a black
> person would have been able to rise to such a position socially and
> economically in that part of USA at that time, or why there would be such
a
> large proportion of Asian workers in the community.
This, apart from the Atlanta Alliance's yearly debacle A CHRISTMAS CAROL is
the most problem I've ever encountered with non-traditional casting.
CAROUSEL is *about* bigotry - the townspeople, led by Snow and Carrie are
prejudiced against Billy, and later Louise because they come from "the wrong
side of the tracks." It is logically inconsistent to have a racially
diverse New England community look down their collective noses at someone
they perceive as "not one of us." - not to mention historically ludicrous.
If their purpose was to present a society's bigotry in an ironic manner they
missed the boat, big time.
In short, if the show is "realistic" and set in a specific pre-1965 locale -
especially America, then I think NT-casting can be perilous - not
intrinsicly wrong - but easily a liability.
If the show has a more fanciful, not-quite realistic feel to it (FORUM, JCS,
etc.) then who cares.
Marty Feldman taught an aspiring comedy writer (Graham Chapman?) that comedy
needs to be logically consistent. You can write a sketch where everyone has
a dustbin (trashcan) lid on his/her head. However, if you introduce a
character into the sketch who does NOT have a dustbin lid on his head - THAT
you have to explain.
I think the same is true in period theatre - especially shows based in
America from, say, 1620 to1966. If you are mounting a pretty traditional,
"realistic" production and choose to cast a person of color, great! But
you're going to have to deal with the character's color within the framework
of the show. In some cases, like the pal or wife in MISS SAIGON or the
Jewish-caterer-lesbian in FALSETTOS, NT casting can add additional layers to
a work.
On the other hand, if you choose to do, say, a PAJAMA GAME as total 50s
fantasy - non-traditional casting is no longer an issue. However, if a
director were to fantasize a production like this, I would prefer a real
rainbow cast to underline the fantasy rather than find a home for one or
two.
Karen Mercedes
> Greetings:
>
> >Indeed, the main problem with non-traditional casting is that it requires
> >audiences to indulge in non-traditional viewing.
>
> I'm not sure if I would agree that this is the MAIN problem with
> non-traditional casting, but I would agree that, in many circumstances, it is
> appropriate to challenge the audience's expectations - isn't this how true
> "art" (whatever the heck that means) comes about, anyway?
Maybe we need to take other things into account when we decide for or
against non-traditional casting. For example, if I'm using a Stanislavsky
approach to direction, where creating an appearance of strict realism -
or, at least, strict *credibility* - and "breaking down the 4th wall"
between actors and audience are key objectives, it may well turn out to
be HARDER to do non-traditional casting than it would if I'm using a
Brechtian approach, where the objectives are the reverse: I'm trying to
create a sense of alienation and unreality, in which the audience
absolutely does NOT identify with the actors. In the latter kind of
production, non-traditional casting would actually be an IMPERATIVE - and,
indeed, if you read about some of the directions Brecht, Piscator,
Meyerhold, and other proponents of Verfremdungseffekt ("alienation") gave
to actors to achieve that alienation, they were things like "play a
serious scene as if it were comic". Brecht also constructed his plays -
and his productions of other people's plays - to use devices that
continually reminded the audience that they were watching a play, not
"experiencing a mirror on reality".
And yet...Brecht also insisted on strict versimilitude when it came to
props and costumes. Costumes had to be absolutely historically accurate.
If the play called for a chicken to be plucked on stage, there was the
actor, with a real chicken, plucking real feathers! No mime. No rubber
chicken with feathers glued on. My guess is that this is because the
UNREALITY in Brecht came from the overall alienation he strived to
achieve, through the acting styles and the constant reminders, to the
audience, that they were watching a play - Brecht clearly believed the
audience's main job was to THINK about the meaning of what they were
watching, to constantly be analyzing it on the intellectual level. It was
NOT to have the audience "lose itself" in what they were watching, and
react to it on a purely emotional level.
Stanislavsky, by contrast, clearly hoped the audience would do exactly
that - lose itself in the emotions created by the drama onstage -
identifying with the characters. To this end, it was extremely important
that the actors portray those characters as fully fleshed out, credible
beings, not as archetypes or symbols (a la Brecht) of some larger
political or social idea. And because the REALITY in Stanislavsky was
created at this human level, it made it very easy - once the audience had
suspended the disbelief enough to accept that the characters onstage were
(at least for the time they were onstage) "real people" worthy of empathy
- it was perfectly acceptable for those "real people" to pluck glued-on
feathers off a rubber chicken. To them, that chicken was entirely REAL -
and so, too, to the audience.
So perhaps "non-traditional casting" would actually work better in the
Stanislavsky production: if the Asian actor playing John Adams, or the
African-American playing Lady Thiang, or the woman playing Sir John
Falstaff _en travesti_ (it has been done), are successful in creating the
reality of those characters to the degree that Stanislavsky, Stella Adler,
Lee Strasberg, et al would have them do, then perhaps the colour of the
actor's skin, the shape of the actor's eye, or the depth of the actor's
voice would truly become "invisible" to the audience...which is exactly
the hope - indeed, the expectation - of proponents of non-traditional
casting. If we're already in the business of suspending disbelief, they
ask, why is it that there's this really rather arbitrary point beyond
which the audience (or at least some members of the audience) just don't
seem able to allow their imaginations to go? Why can one accept a slender
John Adams with a full head of dark brown hair when, in fact, the real
John Adams was decidedly plump, with light brown hair that was rapidly
receding by the time he attended the fateful Continental Congress of 1776?
And yet, one can't accept a decidedly plump John Adams with receding
hairline who also happens to be black. Why is colour of skin an
insurmountable obstacle for audiences' imaginations to overcome, when
colour of hair, shape of physique etc., are not?
Karen Mercedes
> Oh, come on: Purlie can't be played by a white actor because race and
> subjugation are the primary issues of the play. It isn't necessary that
> Tom Thumb be played by a dwarf or midget because it's much easier to
> disguise a lone actor's height by using large-sized props & set pieces
> (as they did in the original production).
>
> Theatre audiences are, generally speaking, much smarter than they are
> usually given credit for.
I also believe that theatre audiences have more imagination than some
people here are giving them credit for - or, at least, they SHOULD HAVE.
Why is it so hard, when a person is watching a play - WHICH IS NOT REALITY
- for them to *imagine* that the white person onstage playing an Asian is
- for purposes of the play - actually an Asian, or that the black person
on stage playing a white person is, by golly, indeed a white person...for
the two hours and fifteen minutes he's onstage. Audiences are able to
accept that three flats painted to look like houses are actually houses,
and they're able to accept that the rubber chicken I've glued feathers on
so my character can follow the stage direction that says "says this while
plucking a chicken", and they're able to totally lose themselves in the
very INcredible, artificial realities of some of the more absurd dramas
and comedies. But they're not able to get past that stupid, minor detail
of someone's skin colour. Forget the fact that the real PT Barnum never in
his life sang a song about his failed museum or skyscraper - and even if
he had, it wasn't *those songs*, i.e., the ones written by Cy Coleman.
More basic yet, how come an audience can manage to suspend disbelief
enough to accept a bunch of people going around SINGING their innermost
thoughts - when tragedy strikes, what do they do? They break out into
song! People in real life did that, they'd be considered eccentric if not
actually committable! And yet, audiences of musical theatre and opera have
no trouble at all accepting this extremely bizarre, artificial, UNREAL
premise, i.e., that when people feel strongly about something, they SING
about it. Why is *that* conceit something we simply take for granted that
the audience will accept. But God forgive us if the actor playing the 19th
Century Frenchman who suddenly breaks out in song upon learning that all
his friends were killed on the barricades in the 1830 revolution happens
to be BLACK. Can't have that! O no no no no no - because it's not
REALISTIC.
PUHLEEZE!
KAR
"Chris Connelly" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
news:ab9fdu$rk8$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
>
> "hendrik" <hen...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ab1ocq$nf9$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> > I had the same problem with the NT production of "Carousel", where a
black
> > actor played Mr Snow in a mixed race cast. The actor in question, Clive
> > Rowe, is a great singer, but he seemed totally wrong for this role.
That would be the tour. It's also the production where in NY, Audra
MacDonald played Carrie beautifully (and FWIW winning a Tony for her
performance; she won another Tony for Master Class in which by merely being
a black actor, the role does not require a black actor, she won a subsequent
Tony for Ragtime in which the actor necessarily must be black.).
Now,
> if
> > the plot was set in modern times, this would have been fine and logical,
> but
> > not so in the period of the action. I could not fathom out how a black
> > person would have been able to rise to such a position socially and
> > economically in that part of USA at that time, or why there would be
such
> a
> > large proportion of Asian workers in the community.
Carousel is that realistic musical where the lead goes to heaven and steals
the star after killing himself before becoming invisible to everyone but his
daughter, right?
pssssst.... it's a fantasy.
>
> This, apart from the Atlanta Alliance's yearly debacle A CHRISTMAS CAROL
is
> the most problem I've ever encountered with non-traditional casting.
>
> CAROUSEL is *about* bigotry - the townspeople, led by Snow and Carrie are
> prejudiced against Billy, and later Louise because they come from "the
wrong
> side of the tracks."
Their prejudice is about class/respectibility and not at all about race
which is not an issue in the play, nor should it necessarily be an issue for
the audience. "Color-blind" i.e., blind to color. The race of the cast was
intended to be of no consequence. Your determination to make it
consequential and label it a realistic piece, is not the problem of the
production.
It is logically inconsistent to have a racially
> diverse New England community look down their collective noses at someone
> they perceive as "not one of us." - not to mention historically ludicrous.
>
> If their purpose was to present a society's bigotry in an ironic manner
they
> missed the boat, big time.
I don't think that was their purpose at all; beyond your own perception of
the racial problem in the casting, where else did you see the play talk
about bigotry in an ironic manner? "Color-blind" casting, which was the
casting concept here, is just what the name implies. You seem to be
implying that color-blind casting is not acceptable because you keep seeing
the races of the actors. Despite any number of unrealisitc criterion which
is a given in a musical ("let's not talk about that, as that's the genre" is
a ridculous argument to that standard), I wonder why skin color is such a
problem for you. Needless to say, in a puritan-based, predominantly working
class New England village, public dancing at the turn of the century would
also have been frowned on. Why is the only reality that threatens your
acceptance of this world about skin color?
>
> In short, if the show is "realistic" and set in a specific pre-1965
locale -
> especially America, then I think NT-casting can be perilous - not
> intrinsicly wrong - but easily a liability.
Bad choices tend to be liabilities to good productions. If the Mr. Snow you
saw was a bad actor, that would be a liability, not that he was black.
Seeing his being black as the problem seems to me to not be a liability of
the production. Although "it seemed totally wrong" is hardly the kind of
criticsim that qualifies his performance.
>
> If the show has a more fanciful, not-quite realistic feel to it (FORUM,
JCS,
> etc.) then who cares.
>
> Marty Feldman taught an aspiring comedy writer (Graham Chapman?) that
comedy
> needs to be logically consistent. You can write a sketch where everyone
has
> a dustbin (trashcan) lid on his/her head. However, if you introduce a
> character into the sketch who does NOT have a dustbin lid on his head -
THAT
> you have to explain.
OK. Carousel is not a comedy. What's your point? In fact, the whole play
is about the guy who doesn't have a dustbin on his head, but it's still not
a comedy.
>
> I think the same is true in period theatre - especially shows based in
> America from, say, 1620 to1966. If you are mounting a pretty traditional,
> "realistic" production and choose to cast a person of color, great! But
> you're going to have to deal with the character's color within the
framework
> of the show. In some cases, like the pal or wife in MISS SAIGON or the
> Jewish-caterer-lesbian in FALSETTOS, NT casting can add additional layers
to
> a work.
Non-traditional casting is not about creating layers, it is about casting.
Why must a character's race necessarily be scrutinized for its purpose if it
is played by a non-white actor?
Karen Mercedes
> CAROUSEL is *about* bigotry - the townspeople, led by Snow and Carrie are
> prejudiced against Billy, and later Louise because they come from "the wrong
> side of the tracks." It is logically inconsistent to have a racially
> diverse New England community look down their collective noses at someone
> they perceive as "not one of us." - not to mention historically ludicrous.
And it's ludicrous, period, that people walk around and suddenly break
into song to communicate to each other, or to reveal their innermost
thoughts. They don't do it now, and they didn't do in the era in which
CAROUSEL was set.
I think it's pathetic how unimaginative some audience members apparently
are. They can't simply IMAGINE that the black person onstage is white for
the 2 1/2 hours the play is on? They can accept the essentially
two-dimensional reality of the stage set. They can accept the ground
underneath people's feet suddenly starting to revolve to CREATE THE
ILLUSION that the people are walking a long distance. But they can't
accept that a black person is - FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PLAY - white.
It's amazing how very selective people are about what they're willing to
"pretend" and "imagine" and what they're not. IT is, frankly, a really
pathetic reflection on just how far we have yet to go to overcome the fact
that the first thing that many people notice - and care about - is the
colour of a person's skin.
"Jean Prouvaire"
"Karen Mercedes" <dal...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43.0205071659440.25918-
> So perhaps "non-traditional casting" would actually work better in the
> Stanislavsky production: if the Asian actor playing John Adams, or the
> African-American playing Lady Thiang, or the woman playing Sir John
> Falstaff _en travesti_ (it has been done), are successful in creating the
> reality of those characters to the degree that Stanislavsky, Stella Adler,
> Lee Strasberg, et al would have them do, then perhaps the colour of the
> actor's skin, the shape of the actor's eye, or the depth of the actor's
> voice would truly become "invisible" to the audience...which is exactly
> the hope - indeed, the expectation - of proponents of non-traditional
> casting.
So, to tie in a theme from another thread, the success of non-traditional
casting should be assessed not so much in terms of its intent, but its
execution? Works for me!
Fascinating post BTW.
______________________________
"I think this line's mostly filler."
"Jean Prouvaire"
"Karen Mercedes" <dal...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43.0205071728390.25918-
> But God forgive us if the actor playing the 19th
> Century Frenchman who suddenly breaks out in song upon learning that all
> his friends were killed on the barricades in the 1830 revolution happens
> to be BLACK. Can't have that! O no no no no no - because it's not
> REALISTIC.
Of COURSE it's unrealistic!'
Because that revolution actually happened in 1832!!
;-)
Steve & Rhonda
you do, certainly not admit it. Ruby Dee was superb as the wife of E. G.
Marshall and later Leonard Frey in a Moliere play. Did her race matter
to the audience? No. However, if I were casting the stage version of
PAINT YOUR WAGON (which has a major subplot of: Mexican juvenile is an
outcast in the mining camp) it would be baffling to the audience to have
a person of color accepted by the Miners. Also, regarding CAROUSEL--
there is, or should be, as much comedy as drama. (I'm guessing not in
any of this guy's productions.) And treating the whole show as a
"fantasy" (because it briefly becomes one) sort of defeats the purpose,
doesn't it?
Re: Non-traditional casting
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Tue, May 7, 2002, 9:44pm (EDT+4)
From: K...@earthlink.net (KAR) to Chris C:
Race is not an issue in CAROUSEL, nor should it necessarily be an issue
for the audience. Your determination to make it consequential is not the
problem of the production. You seem to be implying that color-blind
casting is not acceptable because you keep seeing the races of the
actors. Despite any number of unrealisitc criterion which is a given in
a musical, I wonder why skin color is such a problem for you. Why is the
only reality that threatens your acceptance of this world about skin
color? Non-traditional casting is not about creating layers, it is about
casting. Why must a character's race necessarily be scrutinized for its
purpose....
Stephen Farrow
>
> "Chris Connelly" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
> news:ab9fdu$rk8$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
> >
> > "hendrik" <hen...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:ab1ocq$nf9$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > > I had the same problem with the NT production of "Carousel", where a
> black
> > > actor played Mr Snow in a mixed race cast. The actor in question, Clive
> > > Rowe, is a great singer, but he seemed totally wrong for this role.
>
> That would be the tour.
No, that would be the original London runs of the production, at the
Lyttleton (late 92-early 93) and the Shaftesbury (mid-to-late 93).
Chris Connelly
> I think it's pathetic how unimaginative some audience members apparently
> are. They can't simply IMAGINE that the black person onstage is white for
> the 2 1/2 hours the play is on? They can accept the essentially
> two-dimensional reality of the stage set. They can accept the ground
> underneath people's feet suddenly starting to revolve to CREATE THE
> ILLUSION that the people are walking a long distance. But they can't
> accept that a black person is - FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PLAY - white.
So is this the key to the whole thing? If they "act" white then it's OK?
Isn't that kind of limiting and confining to the actor?
The other production where NT casting really bothered me is the annual
CHRISTMAS CAROL at the Alliance where the Cratchitts are consistently cast
as an interracial couple with white and black children.
This is fine as they all "act" as if they are in Victorian England -
complete with moderately believable accents.
However, there are also black divas singing gospel carols at odd moments
throughout the evening and the Ghost of Christmas Present is played as a
Jamaican (with dredlocks and a "hip" if not island accent) in a kilt blowing
on bagpipes.
Now, maybe it's me, but I kinda have a problem with this - not on its own
terms - but because it's inconsistent with the rest of the "realistic" -
"white-acting" production.
But what do I know? I have no imagination.
Karen Mercedes
> This is fine as they all "act" as if they are in Victorian England -
> complete with moderately believable accents.
>
> However, there are also black divas singing gospel carols at odd moments
> throughout the evening and the Ghost of Christmas Present is played as a
> Jamaican (with dredlocks and a "hip" if not island accent) in a kilt blowing
> on bagpipes.
>
> Now, maybe it's me, but I kinda have a problem with this - not on its own
> terms - but because it's inconsistent with the rest of the "realistic" -
> "white-acting" production.
Maybe the director was consciously trying to achieve Verfremdungseffekt.
And it would appear he (she?) succeeded. :)
Chris Connelly
"KAR" <K...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PUXB8.1454$Yi6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Carousel is that realistic musical where the lead goes to heaven and
steals
> the star after killing himself before becoming invisible to everyone but
his
> daughter, right?
>
>
> pssssst.... it's a fantasy.
Sorry, KAR - the last thirty minutes of the show is a fantasy. In order for
the show the work, the first two hours needs to be "realistic" within the
musical theatre idiom.
If Scrooge is played like a cartoon or a monster - and not a lonely, bitter
old man with serious issues, (i.e., "realistically") the fantasy in ACC has
no emotional payoff. If George Bailey lives in an idealized Disneyworld
then the fantasy has no resonance. It's Stewart's edgy, bitter performance
that grounds the film in an emotional reality.
Attractive as that CAROUSEL's idealized, PC community who embrace diversity
but ostricize perpetrators of domestic violence may be, the production
didn't ring true to me bacause it was fantasy on top of fantasy.
Let's look at another high-profile example that deals with ethnicity but not
color: MAME.
One of the reasons Babs would have been an horrible choice for the TV
version of MAME is because a rich New York jew would never have been
(finally/initially) accepted by the Burnsides of Georgia or the Upsons of
Connecticut respectively. Although cut from the musical script, the Upsons
in the original L&L play and IIRC, the novel are rabidly anti-semetic.
Great a star as Babs is, she would never be able to let an audience relax
and view her as non-jewish, yet to not have the Burnsides or Upsons
acknowledge and deal with her jewishness would have been logically
inconsistent with the timeframe and social attitudes expressed in the show.
In short, MAME, like CAROUSEL is an American period piece - and both deal
with social order, acceptance, biigotry, etc. - even if not EXPRESSLY about
race. When material is THAT specific about time and sociology then, IMHO,
NT casting can be problematic.
However, I can certainly see Gooch being played by a woman of color to great
effect. WIth the excising of the Upson's anti-semitism, Gooch's color could
be used to great effect in making the Upsons unconfortable during the "big
blow-out" scene.
KAR
>
> "KAR" <K...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:PUXB8.1454$Yi6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Carousel is that realistic musical where the lead goes to heaven and
> steals
> > the star after killing himself before becoming invisible to everyone but
> his
> > daughter, right?
> >
> >
> > pssssst.... it's a fantasy.
>
> Sorry, KAR - the last thirty minutes of the show is a fantasy. In order
for
> the show the work, the first two hours needs to be "realistic" within the
> musical theatre idiom.
What does that mean? Why is it that your suspension of disbelief seems in
this argument to exclusively be about color. As I said before, this is your
limitation in being able to accept the conventions of musical theatre
precisely because of years of acclimation and dismiss thinking that argues
for a similar willing mindset. Your argument is based on your unwillingness
to accept multiple ethnicity as another convention of a genre which is based
on accepting basic givens. Much fantasy presumes a normal world until the
fantasy elements are introduced. You're now arguing against color-blind
casting because you claim it jars (apparantly all) with dramatic structure.
>
> If Scrooge is played like a cartoon or a monster - and not a lonely,
bitter
> old man with serious issues, (i.e., "realistically") the fantasy in ACC
has
> no emotional payoff. If George Bailey lives in an idealized Disneyworld
> then the fantasy has no resonance.
I think he does, with an idealized Disney villain in it.
It's Stewart's edgy, bitter performance
> that grounds the film in an emotional reality.
Stewart is an all-loving, all Disney character (agreed it's a wonderful
performance) until the conflict is introduced. That's a basic dramatic
convention that most identifiable characters are fully accessible until the
conflict is introduced.
>
> Attractive as that CAROUSEL's idealized, PC community who embrace
diversity
> but ostricize perpetrators of domestic violence may be,
I've read it four times now. I have no idea what you're saying here.
the production
> didn't ring true to me bacause it was fantasy on top of fantasy.
So you're arguing against fantasy on top of reality as well as fantasy on
top of fantasy. Perhaps you're opposed to fantasy?
>
> Let's look at another high-profile example that deals with ethnicity but
not
> color: MAME.
Apples. oranges. Indeed the Babcocks *are* bigots (they make specific
anti-semitic remarks) and the notion of the protected life they have built
for little Glory presumes that Patrick is as Lily-white as they are. It is
the dropping of the mask of what Babcock actually implies with his notions
of the respectable upbringing of Patrick which frightens Mame to her roots.
Carousel, however, is not about racism. Period; nothing whatsoever in the
text deals with race. Mame's second act absolutely implies it is very much
about elitism and bigotry in its most insidious forms. The first act's
major number is a reminder to Patrick that he should aspire to be
unconventional during which time Mame exposes him to multiple religions,
lifestyles and experience. The turnaround for Patrick in the second act is
the revelation -- not at her aunt's funky furniture -- but at the insidious
nature of the woman whose family he came thisclose to marrying into. It is
very much about the seductive nature of conventionality which really masks
insidious evil. The Upsons are absolutely comic, but at their worst (and if
properly played and directed) they are horrifying. That's the major crisis
of the play. How can you possibly say it's not a play which concerns race?
Carousel is a play about redemption. How can you possibly these two plays as
similar in their casting needs?
>
> One of the reasons Babs would have been an horrible choice for the TV
> version of MAME is because a rich New York jew would never have been
> (finally/initially) accepted by the Burnsides of Georgia or the Upsons of
> Connecticut respectively.
(The major reason, however, is that she can't act anymore and there is
nothing about her that qualifies her for the part, including, in this case,
her ethnicity.) Mame is like the other roses in the bouquet, but proves to
be more fragrant. That's the entire point of the piece. If she is not like
the people she shatters by proving how superior she is, it's not Mame.
Although cut from the musical script, the Upsons
> in the original L&L play and IIRC, the novel are rabidly anti-semetic.
Yes. I believe they are still anti-semetic in the musical, but I could be
wrong. I think the musical sacrificed much texture and turned Mame into a
Rohrschach of our sense of her. The Upsons are definitely the final
gauntlet of respectibility shattered by Mame who IS resectable while still
outrageous.
> Great a star as Babs is, she would never be able to let an audience relax
> and view her as non-jewish, yet to not have the Burnsides or Upsons
> acknowledge and deal with her jewishness would have been logically
> inconsistent with the timeframe and social attitudes expressed in the
show.
>
> In short, MAME, like CAROUSEL is an American period piece - and both deal
> with social order, acceptance, biigotry, etc. - even if not EXPRESSLY
about
> race.
You're simply mistaken. Mame is absolutely *about* bigotry of all kinds
which includes racism. Mame's invective against Patrick (i.e., the major
character conflict) calls him to task for becoming like the Upsons. That's
the heart of the piece, the set-up to the eleven o'clock number. That's
what Mame has spent her life trying to keep Patrick from becoming. You have
yet to make a similar case for Carousel except it bugs you to see black
people in a New England village. (I haven't even started with the argument
that the milltowns of New England at the turn of the century were very
logical places to find a next generation of freed slaves because I don't
think debating the reality of a musical fantasy is at the heart of your
determination to see color blind casting as problematic. I think your
determination to see every character as an issue/choice if they aren't
white as the issue.).
When material is THAT specific about time and sociology then, IMHO,
> NT casting can be problematic.
>
> However, I can certainly see Gooch being played by a woman of color to
great
> effect.
And she's the nanny. Perfect!
Chris Connelly
>
> "Chris Connelly" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
> news:abbc96$sv1$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
> for
> > the show the work, the first two hours needs to be "realistic" within
the
> > musical theatre idiom.
>
> What does that mean? Why is it that your suspension of disbelief seems in
> this argument to exclusively be about color. As I said before, this is
your
> limitation in being able to accept the conventions of musical theatre
> precisely because of years of acclimation and dismiss thinking that argues
> for a similar willing mindset. Your argument is based on your
unwillingness
> to accept multiple ethnicity as another convention of a genre which is
based
> on accepting basic givens. Much fantasy presumes a normal world until the
> fantasy elements are introduced. You're now arguing against color-blind
> casting because you claim it jars (apparantly all) with dramatic
structure.
Are you saying NT casting would be a greater issue in a production of
LILLIOM moved to 1870s New England? In other words, do you propose that by
telling the story in the fanciful musical comedy idiom all historical and
sociological presedence (horrendously morally wrong as it is/was) magically
flies out the window?
If this is the case, why is it necessary to cast strictly upon racial lines
in frivolous musical comedies which DO deal with race (RAGTIME, SHOW BOAT,
PORGY & BESS, PURLIE, etc.)?
The Hyntner (sp) CAROUSEL was very specific in underlining the realism in
the piece. This includes a grittier acting style and more detail to period
detail. Even Billy's version of heaven is modeled after a New England
Shaker community. Yet with all this "realism" we are supposed to buy into
an EXTREMELY racially diverse community in which no one comments about its
unusuallness in that area during that era.
I find that logoically inconsistent. You have no problem with it. Good for
you.
> Stewart is an all-loving, all Disney character (agreed it's a wonderful
> performance) until the conflict is introduced. That's a basic dramatic
> convention that most identifiable characters are fully accessible until
the
> conflict is introduced.
I think you sell Stewart's performance short. Let's move on.
> >
> > Attractive as that CAROUSEL's idealized, PC community who embrace
> diversity
> > but ostricize perpetrators of domestic violence may be,
>
>
> I've read it four times now. I have no idea what you're saying here.
>
> the production
> > didn't ring true to me bacause it was fantasy on top of fantasy.
> So you're arguing against fantasy on top of reality as well as fantasy on
> top of fantasy. Perhaps you're opposed to fantasy?
No. You miss my point entirely. Fantasy needs a basis in reality. The
opening paragraphs of ACC repeatedly drive home the point that Marley was
dead. This is the "reality" from which Scrooge's fanciful journey begins.
Dorothy lives on a very real and drab Kansas farm - so her fanciful journey
to Oz has greater resonance because it springs from a realistic base.
IMHO - the townspeople are the realistic center of CAROUSEL. In order for
the fantasy to work, the audience needs to believe that these people are
"real" within the musical comedy idiom.
>
> >
> > Let's look at another high-profile example that deals with ethnicity but
> not
> > color: MAME.
>
> Apples. oranges.
Why?
> Indeed the Babcocks *are* bigots (they make specific
> anti-semitic remarks)
NOT in the stage musical.
> and the notion of the protected life they have built
> for little Glory presumes that Patrick is as Lily-white as they are. It is
> the dropping of the mask of what Babcock actually implies with his notions
> of the respectable upbringing of Patrick which frightens Mame to her
roots.
>
> Carousel, however, is not about racism. Period; nothing whatsoever in the
> text deals with race.
Both plays are about bigotry. The townspeople in CAROUSEL hate Billy (and
his father ... and Louise ... and Jigger ... and Mrs. Mullins) because they
are not "part of the group." Bigotry comes in many forms - not just racism
or anti-semitism - but homophobia, anti-feminism, religious introlerance,
political intolerance, etc. etc. etc. Hammerstein, who dealt with group
acceptance (usually in terms of race) in much of his work was very clear
(moreso than Molnar) in his book for CAROUSEL.
I applaud racial/cultural diversity and when it has worked out it has made
the US the strongest nation on the planet. When it doesn't work .... and it
HASN'T worked historically in many instances ... it has made the US weaker.
Because of this, I felt that presenting a racially diverse group of
townpeople in 1970s New England who are bigoted towards Billy and the other
outsiders are logically inconsistent. Why are they supportive to each other
and not all-embracing?
Perhaps you agree with the townspeople and see Billy as the villain of the
piece UNTIL he reforms.
I see the townspeople as the collective villain THROUGHOUT the piece. Billy
achieves salvation by saving his daughter from the pain that destroyed his
life. But in a way he also loses because Louise, by being accepted runs the
risk of being just as small-minded as the other members of her community.
Only Julie has managed to bridge both camps successfully and judge people
for who they are ... as people.
> Mame's second act absolutely implies it is very much
> about elitism and bigotry in its most insidious forms. The first act's
> major number is a reminder to Patrick that he should aspire to be
> unconventional during which time Mame exposes him to multiple religions,
> lifestyles and experience. The turnaround for Patrick in the second act
is
> the revelation -- not at her aunt's funky furniture -- but at the
insidious
> nature of the woman whose family he came thisclose to marrying into. It
is
> very much about the seductive nature of conventionality which really masks
> insidious evil.
Is your last sentence describing the Burnsides, the Upsons or the villagers
from CAROUSEL?
The Upsons are absolutely comic, but at their worst (and if
> properly played and directed) they are horrifying. That's the major crisis
> of the play. How can you possibly say it's not a play which concerns
race?
Carrie & Snow should also be absolutely comic AND horrifying. How can you
say CAROUSEL is not about bigotry?
> > One of the reasons Babs would have been an horrible choice for the TV
> > version of MAME is because a rich New York jew would never have been
> > (finally/initially) accepted by the Burnsides of Georgia or the Upsons
of
> > Connecticut respectively.
>
> (The major reason, however, is that she can't act anymore and there is
> nothing about her that qualifies her for the part, including, in this
case,
> her ethnicity.) Mame is like the other roses in the bouquet, but proves
to
> be more fragrant. That's the entire point of the piece. If she is not
like
> the people she shatters by proving how superior she is, it's not Mame.
Much as she annoys me, babs *can* act when she wants to. Her problem is a
resistence to be directed by anyone else - to give up any authority at all.
But yes, this is the primary casting problem.
But *if* she were to ever to allow herself to be directed, than her
ethnicity *would* get in the way. Substitute Bette Midler for Babs if that
makes the argument easier to digest. Neither star would work in the role.
> Although cut from the musical script, the Upsons
> > in the original L&L play and IIRC, the novel are rabidly anti-semetic.
>
> Yes. I believe they are still anti-semetic in the musical, but I could be
> wrong.
You are. This is one musical wherin I would welcome a revisal - based to
much of the original stage play script - to put some teeth back into the
book - especially in terms of the Upson's anti-semitism.
"Jean Prouvaire"
> Great a star as Babs is, she would never be able to let an audience relax
> and view her as non-jewish
Barbra Streisand is Jewish?
KAR
Actually, I'm talking about Carousel. Why don't we stick to the subject at
hand instead of constantly introducing extranea.
In other words, do you propose that by
> telling the story in the fanciful musical comedy idiom all historical and
> sociological presedence (horrendously morally wrong as it is/was)
magically
> flies out the window?
Would I have a problem with a play set in Budapest having a racially diverse
cast? No.
>
> If this is the case, why is it necessary to cast strictly upon racial
lines
> in frivolous musical comedies which DO deal with race (RAGTIME,
the play is about racism
SHOW BOAT,
the play is about racism
> PORGY & BESS,
the play is an ostensible portrayal of a black-specific culture.
PURLIE, etc.)?
the play is an ostensible portrayal of a culture where race and geography
are an actual part of the story.
>
> The Hyntner (sp) CAROUSEL was very specific in underlining the realism in
> the piece. This includes a grittier acting style and more detail to
period
> detail. Even Billy's version of heaven
ah heaven, once again, the bastion of realism.
is modeled after a New England
> Shaker community. Yet with all this "realism" we are supposed to buy into
> an EXTREMELY racially diverse community in which no one comments about its
> unusuallness in that area during that era.
Racial diversity was not the point. You keep refusing to see the play and
are absolutely blocked by the presence of non-white skin as marring the
reality of the universe (which you argue only includes heaven for a half an
act and therefore is still realistic) in which people sing and dance in
public streets. The purpose of using actors of various races in the
village, was to use actors of various races. It was not to make a statement
about racial diversity, although you're determined that it somehow renders
this play unrealistic. Interestingly enough, though, you are determined to
see the casting choice (in a completely surrealistic setting, by the way,
with big round playing field reflected in big round moons) as a jarring note
marring the reality of the play, dismissing singing, dancing, heaven and
setting as arguable distortions.
>
> I find that logoically inconsistent. You have no problem with it. Good
for
> you.
>
> > Stewart is an all-loving, all Disney character (agreed it's a wonderful
> > performance) until the conflict is introduced. That's a basic dramatic
> > convention that most identifiable characters are fully accessible until
> the
> > conflict is introduced.
>
> I think you sell Stewart's performance short. Let's move on.
>
> > >
> > > Attractive as that CAROUSEL's idealized, PC community who embrace
> > diversity
> > > but ostricize perpetrators of domestic violence may be,
> >
> >
> > I've read it four times now. I have no idea what you're saying here.
> >
> > the production
> > > didn't ring true to me bacause it was fantasy on top of fantasy.
> > So you're arguing against fantasy on top of reality as well as fantasy
on
> > top of fantasy. Perhaps you're opposed to fantasy?
>
> No. You miss my point entirely. Fantasy needs a basis in reality. The
> opening paragraphs of ACC repeatedly drive home the point that Marley was
> dead. This is the "reality" from which Scrooge's fanciful journey begins.
> Dorothy lives on a very real and drab Kansas farm - so her fanciful
journey
> to Oz has greater resonance because it springs from a realistic base.
Realism in what context? Is Kansas really black and white, or is this a
stylistic choice by which the contrast of the color of Oz is brighter?
>
> IMHO - the townspeople are the realistic center of CAROUSEL. In order for
> the fantasy to work, the audience needs to believe that these people are
> "real" within the musical comedy idiom.
Can you address the "muscial comedy idiom" and why its conventions don't
make a prima facie argument that we accept certain variations in reality as
a given in musical theatre?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Let's look at another high-profile example that deals with ethnicity
but
> > not
> > > color: MAME.
> >
> > Apples. oranges.
>
> Why?
>
> > Indeed the Babcocks *are* bigots (they make specific
> > anti-semitic remarks)
>
> NOT in the stage musical.
I don't have the musical text. (I don't care for the musical's dramaturgy).
Is not the home for unwed mothers still bought off the land from the Jewish
violinist? Or is it just an empty plot of land. [This doesn't change my
point at all; the entire underlying content of the Upson Babcock alliance
with Darien and Rumson U is specifically cartooned-WASP values which in the
play are implicity and undeniably racist and ugly]
>
> > and the notion of the protected life they have built
> > for little Glory presumes that Patrick is as Lily-white as they are. It
is
> > the dropping of the mask of what Babcock actually implies with his
notions
> > of the respectable upbringing of Patrick which frightens Mame to her
> roots.
> >
> > Carousel, however, is not about racism. Period; nothing whatsoever in
the
> > text deals with race.
>
> Both plays are about bigotry. The townspeople in CAROUSEL hate Billy (and
> his father ... and Louise ... and Jigger ... and Mrs. Mullins) because
they
> are not "part of the group." Bigotry comes in many forms - not just
racism
> or anti-semitism - but homophobia, anti-feminism, religious introlerance,
> political intolerance, etc. etc. etc. Hammerstein, who dealt with group
> acceptance (usually in terms of race) in much of his work was very clear
> (moreso than Molnar) in his book for CAROUSEL.
The kind of prejudice which is being addressed in Carousel has nothing to do
with race. It is partly economic (ie., Snow vs. Billy), it is partly
perception (Billy's friendship with Jigger) and is partly about one's past
(Billy as a carousel barker). It is simply not about race. Bigotry and
racism are not the same unless you choose to see them as such.
>
> I applaud racial/cultural diversity and when it has worked out it has made
> the US the strongest nation on the planet. When it doesn't work .... and
it
> HASN'T worked historically in many instances ... it has made the US
weaker.
>
> Because of this, I felt that presenting a racially diverse group of
> townpeople in 1970s New England who are bigoted towards Billy and the
other
> outsiders are logically inconsistent. Why are they supportive to each
other
> and not all-embracing?
>
> Perhaps you agree with the townspeople and see Billy as the villain of the
> piece UNTIL he reforms.
Billy is the villain of the piece. He exists in a context which the play
questions. Whether or not he is reformed is arguable to me, but that's an
entirely different conversation.
>
> I see the townspeople as the collective villain THROUGHOUT the piece.
Billy doesn't get a break from them. The play is called Carousel in part,
though, because this is a chicken-and-egg cyclical conundrum to my way of
thinking. The town doesn't give Billy any credit. But Billy doesn't do
anything to earn it. They are mutually supportive of each other's
pathology. The play's central question, though, is what that process does
to Billy's child (and similarly to Carrie and Enoch's children) and how they
can get off the horse. Again, this has nothing to do with race. Mr.
Hammestein would have you believe it has everything to do with walking on
with hope in your heart, which again, has very little to do with race. When
the play is about race, the casting needs to acquiesce to the play's issues.
When it doesn't, it needn't.
Billy
> achieves salvation by saving his daughter from the pain that destroyed his
> life. But in a way he also loses because Louise, by being accepted runs
the
> risk of being just as small-minded as the other members of her community.
> Only Julie has managed to bridge both camps successfully and judge people
> for who they are ... as people.
>
> > Mame's second act absolutely implies it is very much
> > about elitism and bigotry in its most insidious forms. The first act's
> > major number is a reminder to Patrick that he should aspire to be
> > unconventional during which time Mame exposes him to multiple religions,
> > lifestyles and experience. The turnaround for Patrick in the second act
> is
> > the revelation -- not at her aunt's funky furniture -- but at the
> insidious
> > nature of the woman whose family he came thisclose to marrying into. It
> is
> > very much about the seductive nature of conventionality which really
masks
> > insidious evil.
>
> Is your last sentence describing the Burnsides, the Upsons or the
villagers
> from CAROUSEL?
It is not about Carousel at all, unless you can point out a place where
racism exists in Carousel.
>
> The Upsons are absolutely comic, but at their worst (and if
> > properly played and directed) they are horrifying. That's the major
crisis
> > of the play. How can you possibly say it's not a play which concerns
> race?
>
> Carrie & Snow should also be absolutely comic AND horrifying. How can you
> say CAROUSEL is not about bigotry?
You need perhaps to make a distinction between racism and prejudice. They
are not at all the same thing.
>
> > > One of the reasons Babs would have been an horrible choice for the TV
> > > version of MAME is because a rich New York jew would never have been
> > > (finally/initially) accepted by the Burnsides of Georgia or the Upsons
> of
> > > Connecticut respectively.
> >
> > (The major reason, however, is that she can't act anymore and there is
> > nothing about her that qualifies her for the part, including, in this
> case,
> > her ethnicity.) Mame is like the other roses in the bouquet, but proves
> to
> > be more fragrant. That's the entire point of the piece. If she is not
> like
> > the people she shatters by proving how superior she is, it's not Mame.
>
> Much as she annoys me, babs *can* act when she wants to. Her problem is a
> resistence to be directed by anyone else - to give up any authority at
all.
> But yes, this is the primary casting problem.
>
> But *if* she were to ever to allow herself to be directed, than her
> ethnicity *would* get in the way. Substitute Bette Midler for Babs if
that
> makes the argument easier to digest. Neither star would work in the role.
Neither can act, IMO. Bette Midler was castable as Rose (despite the fact
that Rose was not Jewish, ahem; which I have no problem with even with Gypsy
being biographical. The play is not about religion any more than Carousel
is about race). She simply couldn't play it. I never disagreed with the
belief that the script mandates that Mame must resemble the Upsons or she
would never see her nephew engaged to Glory. The Upsons are meant to
represent WASP sensibilities. That's an inarguable fact of the play and
therein rests its basic premise of defying conventionality. The basic
premise of Carousel, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with racial
intolerance. You have imposed that as a specious argument in your
determination that a New England village must be all-white to make a musical
work.
>
> > Although cut from the musical script, the Upsons
> > > in the original L&L play and IIRC, the novel are rabidly anti-semetic.
> >
> > Yes. I believe they are still anti-semetic in the musical, but I could
be
> > wrong.
>
> You are. This is one musical wherin I would welcome a revisal - based to
> much of the original stage play script - to put some teeth back into the
> book - especially in terms of the Upson's anti-semitism.
>
Again I ask about the Jewish violinist....? Don't know the answer. Why is
the land next door to the Upsons available?
>
Chris Connelly
>The Upsons are meant to represent WASP sensibilities.
As, IMHO, are the villagers in CAROUSEL. You refuse to accept that they
are. I refuse to accept your premice that NT casting is negated ONLY when
issues of race are involved. You refuse my assertion that this caveat
should include more general forms of American, waspish bigotry - when it
makes sociological and dramaturgical sense, as I believe it does in
CAROUSEL.
We will never agree on this issue. Let's move on.
> > > Yes. I believe they are still anti-semetic in the musical, but I
could
> be
> > > wrong.
> >
> > You are. This is one musical wherin I would welcome a revisal - based
to
> > much of the original stage play script - to put some teeth back into the
> > book - especially in terms of the Upson's anti-semitism.
> >
>
> Again I ask about the Jewish violinist....? Don't know the answer. Why is
> the land next door to the Upsons available?
>
There is no Jewish violinist in the musical - it's only a vacant lot next
store. There are no Jewish references at all in the stage musical. The
Upsons' bigotry is completely non-specific in a calculated move to make the
musical more marketable to a mass audience.
KAR
Steve & Rhonda
show called CAROUSEL wherein the HERO, a flawed man, who hit his wife
once (less than most married FOLK of his era or ours, since people who
are passionate about one another don't always limit their clashes to the
verbal) and who probably isn't even particularly bright, stumbles on a
way (with divine guidance) to sort of communicate some reassurances to
the family left behind. Then there's this stage musical COMEDY called
MAME which needed a big belly-laugh payoff segment near the end of its
second act (at least on stage) and whose primary aims (like most
succesful and *good* musicals) were to entertain and to tell us a story.
Sociological tract grafting (see Hytner's CAROUSEL which has turned off
more people I know to a particular piece of theater than has any other
single production, play or musical) is the curse of our time. Oh, how
I'd love to see a PRE-MO production of either show RIGHT NOW!!
Re: Non-traditional casting
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Wed, May 8, 2002, 5:24pm (EDT+4)
Attractive as (Hytner's) CAROUSEL's idealized, PC community who embrace
diversity but ostricize perpetrators of domestic violence may be.....
-----------------------------------
I've read it four times now. I have no idea what you're saying here.
Indeed the Babcocks *are* bigots (they make specific anti-semitic
remarks) ......
------------------------------------
NOT in the stage musical....
------------------------------------
I don't have the musical text. (I don't care for the musical's
dramaturgy). Is not the home for unwed mothers still bought off the land
from the Jewish violinist? Or is it just an empty plot of land. This
doesn't change my point at all; the entire underlying content of the
Upson Babcock alliance is specifically cartooned-WASP values which in
the play are implicity and undeniably racist and ugly.....
-------------------------------------
Bigotry comes in many forms - not just racism or anti-semitism - but
homophobia, anti-feminism, religious introlerance, political
intolerance, etc. I felt that presenting a racially diverse group of
townpeople in 1970s New England who are bigoted towards Billy and the
other outsiders are logically inconsistent. Why are they supportive to
each other and not all-embracing?
--------------------------------------
Billy is the villain of the piece. Whether or not he is reformed is
arguable to me... (Billy and the town) are mutually supportive of each
other's pathology. Louise, by being accepted runs the risk of being just
as small-minded as the other members of her community. If
properly played and directed the Upsons are horrifying.....
---------------------------------------
Carrie & Snow should also be absolutely comic AND horrifying. MAME is
one musical wherin I would welcome a revisal - to put some teeth back