Bitter Gertrude: With last year’s massive national controversy about The Mikado in Seattle, it’s difficult to believe that anyone, anywhere, would be doing The Mikado in yellowface, right? I mean, Rick Shiomi at Skylark Opera in collaboration with Mu Performing Arts in Minneapolis showed us all how it’s done back in 2013: Since the work is actually meant to lampoon British Victorians, why not actually dress them as British Victorians? A few very small, non-invasive line changes and voila. Now you get to have Mikado sans racism. That’s what we all want, right?
7 comments:
To the internet commenters of the world: We get it. You don't want anyone to think you are racist. However, the galling lengths that some people will go to justify their racist opinions is astounding. Saying that you are not racist doesn't mean that you are not a racist, just like my saying that my hair is not brown wouldn't mean that my hair is not brown. I could dye it, but as much as I might try to argue that the people people around me just can't handle the true nature of my hair or that the only reason that they they think it is brown is because they themselves have brown hair, until I actually make active measures to change the color of my hair, it is still going to be brown. Racist people cannot explain away their racism. It is easy to say that race is irrelevant when you are someone for whom race has never been an issue. Yellow-face and other discriminations of that ilk are heinous dehumanizations that somehow everyone is still ok with. However, what people need to remember is that nearly every person who feels that they can make cavalier jokes about the system of racism are the very ones that benefit from it.
"These people have no interest in purism as such. They’re upset because they feel entitled to the right to be able to decide what is acceptable and what is not. White people have always had that right, and the idea that people of color might have the cultural power to contradict them and be heard galls them."
There are works that were written for a different time that simply cannot be translated to modern day. In the example of yellowface, because the rascism in the subject matter was simply not an issue to theater audience of a more sheltered time. But the fact that people still insist on keeping it "pure" for their own entertainment even in a time that the voices of those who it discriminates against can be heard is a serious problem.
This particular case hits close to home because in recent years my high school had performed The Mikado, and being a largely white private school, it was all in yellowface. And also in my junior year they put on Thoroughly Modern Millie, another play that featured Asian stereotypes and particularly one character literally written to be a racist yellowface portrayal of an Asian woman by a white actress from New York. I was cast as Mrs. Meers, that character. I thought the show was so much fun to do and the character was really interesting and a blast to perform, but now I realise maybe I should have thought twice about what I was putting onstage. Most people that came to our show loved it, but reading this article makes me think that we should have paid more attention to those who objected to the show.
This topic is certainly a controversial one that can be argued and argued. I think when the author brought up "Purism", that is where we can get to the root of the problem. These artists claim that they are trying to be pure to the original work but the author made a great argument for the fact that purism cannot be argued unless the artist has taken other steps in order to make the work 'pure'. The hazy part comes with the argument that being racist can be justified by trying to preserve the piece's meaning but I believe that there are little works, if any that are solely racist in meaning and if there are, they are respectful ways to work around this or to simply not preform these pieces. If you are participating in a work, I think that to some degree you believe in the plays meaning or you think the meaning teaches an important enough lesson that you also want to teach. The argument that the real racists are those who claim the piece is racist are outrageous. Commonly, racism is unseen by the actual racist.
My junior year of high school, we put on Anything Goes. A major plot point of the show is that two of the (white) main characters pretend to be Chinese to get out of a jam. They did the accents, they wore the hats and silk, some of us were uncomfortable and some people weren't. There are two characters in the show who are ACTUALLY supposed to be Chinese - that's what gives the main characters the idea. Because only one Asian girl audition for the show, they cast her and a white kid as the Chinese characters - and again, they did the accents, wore the hats, etc. I thought it was really gross, but not that many other people did.
An argument people gave me when I voiced my concern was that "This was how it was done when it was written!" Guess what, guy who told me that, that doesn't matter now. If The Mikado was originally performed in Victorian times in yellow face, it was because Victorian society was so racist they literally wouldn't allow Asian people to play the parts. Any woman who ever wants to be in a Shakespeare show can be told the same thing - "Sorry, you can't play this woman because it was originally played by a man." The logic there completely falls apart, especially in our "enlightened" age of 2015. Anyone defending this probably doesn't understand how history works, or have the cultural sensitivity to care.
I am interested in the show she mentions at the beginning, however, where Asian actors play Victorians in the mystical land of Ingland, intrigues me, as it ACTUALLY highlights the original plot of the play: Victorians are racist!
Racism in art? In some sense it seems impossible to have racism in art or art in racism, but they both exist together. In the case of The Mikado, or plays that say the N word onstage for the purposes of historical accuracy, I really don’t think there is anything wrong with it for the purposes of art. I think that a piece of antiquated culture shouldn’t be suppressed for being offensive just because racial tensions about a particular group are fresh in our head, if we want to argue that all art, drama, and writing that portrays an antiquated, racist, sexist view, then why don’t we get rid off all of Shakespeare, greek literature, and any law written before tomorrow. I think it is perfectly capable of showing a portrayal of a flawed culture without being criticized for supporting that culture. Satire shouldn’t be belittled as the privileged of the upper class white males, it should be universalized. The real problem isnt racism, it’s economic disparity. A white person making a joke about their Hispanic gardener, or a black person deriding a white people isnt racism anymore other than in face, its economic prejudice. Its still acceptable to discriminate against the poor in effect, “because that was a choice they made, not one they were born with”. The second half of that statement is true, but the first isnt because they made that choice, its because they were not afforded the same opportunities as the rest of us.
First, this is a terrible idea regardless, but in the magical-fairy-unicorn world in which the producers were actually intending to highlight the inherent racism in Victorian society, which was used to parody the aristocratic culture of the time period, I so look forward to reading about the in depth outreach and dramaturgical presentations they are planning on presenting to the audience that highlights these facts. Oh? They were just hoping that the only people who would come and see a production of The Mikado are Gilbert and Sullivan aficionados who share not only an academic level of concern for the world in which the play was produced, but also a penchant for Wheel of Fortune and Polydent. Oh wait, they’re a theater company with an interest in economic survival so probably want to build a younger audience base? Then, yep, congratulations assholes, you are super racist.
Couching the overtly racist nature of The Mikado in erudite, academic gobbledegook is a cop out, and frankly worse than being overtly racist and not caring that you are caricaturing an entire population. By “pointing out” that the original audience members of the show were racist, you are putting your own audience in the position of the racist Victorians, which isn’t backed up by deeper analytical insight into the world of the play. Audiences are not going to see this production for the purposes of analyzing the Victorian public’s views on their own aristocracy and imperialism at large. They’re going to listen to “Three Little Maids from School” and laugh. Knowing that that is their intent, it is indefensible to say that producing The Mikado in yellowface is anything other than a lack of concern for anything other than white people’s entertainment.
Art is a form of communication, and it can be used to communicate some of the most difficult issues and ideas. Even if art doesn’t communicate the right thing, it can at least spark conversation that does. This production, and all of the buzz (or, uproar) that it has created is one such case. Art that offends, minimalizes, miscommunicates or stereotypes, or causes erasure, etc… is NOT productive communication. If your art is hurting someone, then maybe you shouldn’t be making it. This has come up a lot with cultural appropriation issues from pop artists such as Katy Perry and (*gags*) Iggy Azalea. Luckily, what can come from these infractions can actually be progressive and start conversations that otherwise may not have reached as many people. There’s plenty of Katy Perry fans who had no idea that a Katy Perry performance could offend so many people, and hopefully the media buzz created following cases like these (in music, theatre, etc) helps to educate more people, even if just at a basic level. Racist art is not productive communication, but luckily, it can start productive communication in response. This process, however, is far less empowering to the minority group being offending than if the conversation-starting-art had been intentionally been trying to bring light to the issue in an empowering way.
Post a Comment