The New York Times: A first-time visitor to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival might be struck by any number of things. The festival’s idyllic location in this small city surrounded by vistas of rolling hills. Or the splendid Tudor-style outdoor Elizabethan theater, just one of the three spaces where performances take place six days a week for more than seven months, for an impressive total of roughly 800 shows.
8 comments:
Theatre is about life, and as such, should be accessible to everyone who experiences life. The sad truth of the matter is that commercial theatre plays largely to a white, upper-class audience, and is an industry run by white, upper-class men. I applaud the efforts The Oregon Shakespeare Festival, because it can be very difficult to diversify an art so steeped in its backwards traditions. The fact that soon the majority of the actors will be people of color is incredible, and having a company that is so well known taking these steps sends a big signal to the rest of the theatrical world. I’m also very glad that The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is promoting women playwrights, as it is one of the other major flaws theatre has presented. The other point I found very interesting, and hadn’t really thought of before, was the lack of diversity in the audience. I’m glad that the festival has recognized this issue and taken steps to remedy it. The whole point of diversifying theatre is to make is more accessible to minorities, and if they aren’t even attending, then there’s no point. It also serves to mention that the lack of diversity in theatre is probably what turned the minority crowd away from it in the first place. I hope that simply by making the diverse casting choices, the festival will draw a more diverse crowd. Theatre is by far one of the most enjoyable, and should be one of the most accessible art forms available. The fact that a large part of the population is being underrepresented and turned away is horrifying. The work that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is doing to combat this should set an example for other theatres across the country.
Perhaps the key to The Oregon Shakespeare Festival's noted success in color-blind casting, diversification, and ethnic representation is that they acknowledge that this is not meant to be a choice which stands out from other theaters - if anything, it is to be an example of what must be made the new norm. If theater - an art form whose contributors are frequently told is dying and unprofitable - is to survive in a modern age, it must seek to represent the people of that age because (as we all know) "art imitates life". By seeking the diversification of its audiences, playwrights, and employees, as well as its casts, The Oregon Shakespeare festival acknowledges that surface diversity is no longer enough. Diversification of theatre as a whole must become a priority if our art is to survive. In fact, it must ultimately become the common expectation. Thus, The Oregon Shakespeare Festival knows that in order to thrive, it must not remain such a rare jewel for long.
While there will always be some roles specifically meant for a person of one ethnicity or another, I truly believe that color-blind, or at least color conscious casting is the future of theatre as it is meant to be. Theatre and other media as it is now treat people with white backgrounds as the "default," but there is absolutely no reason for that to remain the case. Shakespeare in particular has a large degree of universality in his work. The decision to keep white from being the standard is a good one, if not a truly ground breaking one. I absolutely think that this should be the case in far more theaters, because if you think about it, we all feel heartbreak and loss and misery and fear, and any other of the billions of human emotions that do not relate to the color of our skin. I don't understand why those must take a back seat to the issues that polarize us rather than connect us.
The debate of color-blind casting is definitely one of extreme importance to the modern state of the theatre. I have heard the argument dramaturgically that everything that is written has a particular culture and race attached and therefore to cast anything without that in mind is technically insensitive. However, with that in mind, I highly doubt that we have, in the past hundred years, been able to cast people who are accurately members of a community that would perfectly reflect any show, and therefore the more important issue than historical accuracy is obviously modern social issues of gender and race.
The article's focus on Shakespeare is great, primarily because it mentioned that its consumption is mostly comfortable-living white patrons over the age of 45. The desire to change our country's view on its people is only as powerful as the people experiencing the message. We definitely need to continue to cast women and people of color with strong intention, not simply 'blind' to who is the 'best' for the role. Yet, these changes are not being felt by the people who truly need to hear them, mostly because those people (young people of every race, gender, and ethnicity) are not coming to theatrical productions. It should be the purpose of theatrical researchers to discover how to unlock the youthful audience. Some would say that our shows should have different audiences, as they appeal to different types of people. This is true. But universally, everyone making work should know the importance of casting color-conscious, and with intentional diversity in mind, as Oregon Shakespeare has been doing.
Everyday, I see more news and media companies taking their time and drawing attention to the issues of diversity. Though there have been huge strides taken towards variety and equal representation in theater and film, there is still a lot of work to be done. I give so much respect for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival for their attention to these issues. A staff that is willing to work towards equality and spend time and money on representation is a staff that is showing their competence and education in the matters of the world. Having said all this, my favorite part of this article was the attention given to the lack of diversity in the audience. I am often really frustrated with how my audience looks, and I know that’s superficial. But I believe having an audience that is uniform in age and race, means having an audience that could be ignorant about certain things, there could be holes in what they know and what they care about.
I absolutely love Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Their plays are amazing, both in terms of the actor’s skill, but also because of the gorgeous tech. The primary reason why I love OSF so much (and want to work there one day) is because of the quality of their shows. That being said, the true diversity of their cast makes me like them even more. There are a lot of reasons why this is important. There is the social responsibility side of it: keeping in mind the value of making the world of plays be reflective of the real world rather than limiting them to fraction of it. There is also the element of making the theater a more welcoming place, and having a diverse cast helps with that. But even if you put the benefits of diversity for diversity’s sake aside, OSF’s conscious effort to have a diverse cast leads to better shows. It means they are actually casting the best actor for the role, not the best actor within the limited pool that “looks rights for the part”. When I see OSF’s shows, it doesn’t feel like they are trying to make sure they meet a diversity quota, it just feels like they are picking the actor that is right for the role. I think some theaters feel like they need the cast of the show to look like what the audience expects, but OSF proves that doing that is not only unnecessary, but the show will be better if you don’t put unnecessary limits on the cast.
As Olivia said there are some roles that are meant for a certain ethnicity but usually that is when a role is specifically written to be played by a person of color. Because at least a few years ago, unless specifically stated, a role was assumed to be played by a cis, white person. But I love the attention to Oregon Shakespeare Festival bringing to this issue. And not only are they talking about it, which a lot of people are, but they are also taking action. And not only diversity onstage, but also diversity in the audience which is something I haven't actually thought about before this article. I also appreciate that they are bringing more opportunities for women. One thing that always bugged me as an actor was being female and having all the interesting roles in a certain play be male. I remember having long talks with my director before she decided to cast me as Mercutio in a production of Romeo and Juliet.
The danger with color blind casting is making the play feel like you are "trying to meet a diversity quota." But from this article and the comments above I would love to see one of these interesting, diverse, well-cast shows.
I hope reviews in the theaters for a production won't have to point out the race within the cast in the future. It's sad that this is still an issue in our community. We shouldn't even say the word diversity. Yes diversity is good, but it has a negative cogitation because it points out that there is a difference within our community. Color has been a part of our lives since the beginning of man kind and as actors and others in the entertainment world, we are known as storytellers. There shouldn't be a division in races unless the play specifically tells you to do so. I love that the community is trying to make a difference by adding diversity to the stage, especially in non-profit organizations. But pointing it out just proves that it's still a problem waiting to be fixed. If we have gay rights now and why must our eyes deserve us and make us think that skin color is a problem. Everyone is unique and we need to appreciate that.
Post a Comment