Saturday, September 29, 2012
Not to be passed by
The Stage: The true path towards acceptance and integration of minorities isn’t made, of course, when special pleading is made for them but they’re happily, healthily and naturally integrated into the way of things.
It’s why colour-blind casting in the theatre is so brilliant; both Derek Jacobi and currently Jonathan Pryce, playing the title role in King Lear at the Donmar Warehouse and Almeida Theatres respectively, had one of their three daughters played a black actress — respectively Pippa Bennett-Warner (as Cordelia) and Jenny Jules (as Regan), without comment or surprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This article attempts to draw a connection between color-blind casting and plays that treat alternate sexual lifestyles as normal. To my understanding, these are two completely separate issues.
I do not believe in color-blind casting that disrupts that production, like the production of King Lear that Mr. Shenton describes at the beginning of this piece. How could only 1 of the daughters be a different race? How could they possibly be related? That kind of casting doesn't present a person of color "without comment or surprise" as this article suggests. Rather, it makes the audience question if that daughter is adopter or conceived out of wedlock.
Alternately, a production where the entire family was cast with people of color, where the focus of the production stayed away from issues surrounding people of color, would make progress. In that scenario, the person(s) of color really are being introduced "without comment or surprise." That is making progress. Disrupting the suspension of disbelief that the actors on stage are actually related to include a person of color in the cast is the exact type of "special pleading" Mr. Shenton speaks negatively about.
I agree with Pia that the specific example of having one of King Lear’s daughter’s played by a black woman is a bit of a nonsensical choice. However, the point that the article is trying to make about introducing minorities onstage “without comment or surprise” is a great one. Calling too much attention to inter-racial casting in a production makes that the focus of the production. It also puts across an underlying message that this type of casting is unusual, when really it should be commonplace. The same goes for homosexual relationships onstage. If you don’t call extra attention to it, then consequently it is accepted as the norm.
This is a weird article because it is a bit all over the place in topic. It began by stating the importance of color-blind casting, which I personally believe does not work. Racially incorrect casts are distracting to the audience. As someone who had to sit through many performances of Guys and Dolls with an African American Sarah and Spanish Nathan Detroit I believe that directors should stick with the race already dictated to the play by the stage directions or the time period OR make the executive decision for the ENTIRE cast to be different races.
But then the article continues only two lines later by addressing plays that are able to have homosexual characters without having them hidden behind "codes" in the play. This is a completely different topic than racial casting.
I agree that this article was a little bit all over the place and didn't do a very good job of tying the ideas together, but to play the devil's advocate a little, why are the two situations so different? Yes, inter-racial casting and homosexuality onstage are two very different things, but in the big picture, maybe the're not. Portraying both situations onstage "without comment or surprise" demonstrates essentially the same thing: that it is a normal, everyday occurrence so why should it even be mentioned? If King Lear has an African American daughter, why does it matter if she was adopted? It still means she's his daughter. If an African American woman and a Caucasian man have an Asian son, why does it need to be commented on (Cinderella-starring-Brandy reference here...)? Interracial families and homosexual relationships were both at one time instigators of enormous violence and civil rights violations, so treating them as the norm on the stage does the same thing: it puts them into everyday life without a need to comment.
I agree with Cat that by putting these possibly controversial situations on stage it is treating them as the norm and placing them in everyday life as they should be. However, it can become distracting to the play in some instances. Not because there is a problem with casting actors of different races, but because sometimes plays that are supposed to be from certain time period don't make sense when they are cast with people of different races. Depending on the concept of the artistic team, you can not stay true to the intent of the play if you don't stay true to the casting considerations.
This article is a little bit confusing to me. I mean, I get the idea, and agree with it. If you present minority actors or characters in a "this is not a big deal" kind of way, your audience is just going to have to go ahead and accept the fact that it's not a big deal. I totally agree with the concept of presenting a gay relationship simply like a relationship, instead of emphasizing the gay side of it. The bit of the article that I don't get is the awkward connection they're making between color-blind casting and plays bout gay couples; it's not the same issue at all, and trying to present them as so just doesn't work.
Post a Comment