The Root: “I remember he had the prettiest skin I had ever seen. Flawless. So chocolate you could see yourself reflected in it,” Carrie Hall, my mother, recounted wistfully. On March 28, 1968, she had caught a glimpse of Martin Luther King Jr. when he came to Memphis, Tenn., to lead a march for sanitation workers. It quickly descended into a police-provoked riot fueled by tear gas and bullets. My mother remembers fleeing for her life to the safety of her home, mere blocks from the Lorraine Motel. Seven days later, King would be murdered at that very motel, a sniper’s bullet piercing his flawless brown skin.
6 comments:
So I know that this is probably going to be a popular article to comment on this week do to the obvious controversy, but I’m going to try and not let the heat of that controversy influence my opinion on the issue. Race has always been a tricky subject in this country (ever since Europeans kinda stole this land from another race, and used racial slavery to build much of the infrastructure), and I sure don’t see an end to the racial divide coming any time soon. But talking about it in plain and honest terms, really trying to understand different people’s position on the subject, and listening to a person’s whole opinion before labeling them, seems to me a logical and rational way to proceed with the issue.
Right, so, in my opinion, it might not have been the wisest move to cast MLK as a white man. I understand where the director is coming form, trying to break down the racial barrier through non traditional casting. I get that MLK is an ‘American Hero’, but recognizing that shouldn’t get in the way of the fact that he was undeniably a black American hero. Race is a thing, and we can’t just ignore it or change it. That’s not to say any race is good, or bad, or best, or worst, but they are.
Casting MLK as a white man seems to me like an ignorant attempt at playing around with race. Instead of celebrating this hero of civil rights, the casting made people feel like his race was stripped from him, and even more, took the actions of a black man for the benefit of equality and put them into the hands of a white man.
The one (and probably only) thing I give credit to the director for is that he created a talking point. Be it bad or good (and believe me, it’s bad) this decision got attention. It made an impact, a contribution to the conversation in a way that didn’t directly or physically harm anyone. Now it’s our responsibility to take advantage of the talking point instead of (or perhaps in addition to) just getting mad the decision.
I think that this article was very interesting to read in many aspect. One of the most intriguing parts of this article was the fact that is was written by the playwright. This gave the readers the opportunity to get the real message of the play and really a timeline of the events as they happened and how that shaped what the playwright thought about the situation. The playwright explains that the director's purpose for casting a white actor was 'experimental' but I agree with the playwright that the director made no attempt to gather information and analysis of this 'experiment'. Especially in a play about a man that made great stride for the African American race while also being African American, race had a lot to do with his story and himself as a person. The director argued that MLK "was not just a prominent African American, but also a prominent American." , And while he was a prominent American, I think that the director missed the point that the playwright was aiming for, " to be in the Lorraine Motel, Room 306, with an extraordinary ordinary black man.". I think the fact that the director or the school did not make any attempt to contact the playwright also added something to the existing problem. As for the audience member who walked out on the play, I can see where they are coming from. A substantial moment in their history was in a way disrespected. The fact that an African American man had done so much for fellow African Americans was plain out rejected, is one that I think anyone can see. I like how the playwright also mentioned the fact how there are less roles for African Americans already and the practice of "black versions' highlights the racism in American theatre. Overall, I think that this article did a great job of presenting an event and what it meant in today's theatrical society. This article was eye-opening and honestly quite moving.
The Mountaintop is one of my favorite plays, and when I first saw this article, I was pretty surprised. The idea of casting a white man as MLK baffles me. It isn’t that I feel like historical figures must be played as people who are the same race as them, but The Mountaintop, as I remember it, has a lot to do with race. I would like to hear Oatman’s perspective on why he did this, because to me, it just doesn’t make sense. I get that it is experimental, and maybe he wanted to see how an audience would perceive MLK differently if he were portrayed as white, but honestly, I think it would just hurt the play. I honestly don’t know if I could watch a play about MLK that has a lot to do with race, and not be pulled out of the play by the fact the actor who plays MLK is white. I wish we lived in a world where it didn’t matter, but unfortunately, in our culture with our history of and current reality of racism, it does matter. Though I wouldn’t consider this casting decision morally wrong, I do think it should have been obvious that it went against the intentions of the playwright, is socially problematic, and it hurts the show both in terms of message and effective storytelling.
This is really quite disgusting. The fact that the author herself had to amend her licensing agreement to include a clause about only casting African Americans for the role of Dr. King was really the breaking point for me when reading this article. This is just almost so ridiculous that the director must be on another level of stupidity. Regardless of the amount of "justification" he had for double casting the production, there is no reason why a white man should be in the position to play an African American. The difference in privilege alone should be enough to stop an atrocity like this from happening, yet we still see white actors casted in productions of "The Wiz" which is literally written from the African American perspective and intended to capture and explore the story from that context from which it was written. Not even to mention the fact that this is one of the most prominent and well-known fighters for the African American people, not just "Americans".
I really feel that the point of race-revolutionary casting, or color-blind casting, or whatever you care to call it, is to force the stages of our world to begin to reflect the world we actually live in. Over the past weeks and months I have been at CMU and commenting on this blog, there are always articles about the need for more diversity, be it regarding race, gender identity, sexuality, or differently abled performers and artists. So in my opinion to use the excuse of “race-revolutionary” casting to take a role away from a black actor and give it back into the hands of a white male is counter-productive to everything we are working towards. In the case of Hamilton for example the casting works wonderfully. The work of the founding fathers, except for the fact that they could not have done what they did in their time had they not been white men, was not directly centered around their race. And as Lin-Manuel said in an interview he is telling the story of the founding of America reflected by what America looks like now.
But in this case it is a major issue in that MLK’s work in his life was very much about his race. I haven’t seen the production, but I bet that some of the words or the emotions would very much ring false when played by a white man. The other week after the article about the play about a transgender person with the direct call for trans actors, we were discussing the casting of cis people in trans roles. I definitely have opinions on those topics and will voice them, but I will also always defer to people that are actually trans, for one very simple reason: I might think I know something about this issue, but they’ve lived it and I have not. I just don’t think a white man could ever be the best actor to cast as MLK because he will never have as real an understanding of the racial issues involved as a black man.
I'm not sure how to begin to understand why the director of this play would ever think this was okay? Perhaps, if the play were about a black man doing ordinary things, maybe? But this play is about a man who stood up for his race, and was proud of being black. I'm not entirely sure that he would be okay with a white man protraying him.
What I love about this article is that it comes straight from the source. This is written by the playwright herself, and to hear her own feedback on the issue is incredible to me. And I agree with everything she says. Yes, people of color can take on "white" roles, and can play ALexander Hamilton, becaue also as she said 75% of performers are white. People of color need to be seen and are taking the opportunity by playing roles perhaps intended for "white" actors. But with those statistics, it doesn't need to be the other way around! We don't need even more roles for white men and actors. I'm glad that she altered who could play the roles, because otherwise her intent in her artwork is not shown.
Post a Comment