Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: The author who last week nixed a planned Clarion University performance of his play “Jesus in India” issued late Friday a statement defending his position that “people of color are not simply replaceable” with whites, even as the school continued to decry the cancellation as a stunning example of a decision based on skin color.
2 comments:
This is such a tricky story to continue following. I really have begun to wonder if it's not something that could have been resolved if the school hadn't contacted the playwright to say, "Hey, our school isn't very diverse and we're trying to cast actors of the correct heritage but we've got a real shortage around here." My thought was that Clarion University shouldn't have chosen the play if they couldn't cast the appropriate actors for the show, but I wonder if a quick conversation with the playwright wouldn't have shifted the priorities. Is it more important for the play to happen or that it be cast correctly? I, personally, find both to be of equal importance for completely different reasons and it's really hard to choose a side here. I think both parties involved have valid arguments and were both caught off guard by an unfortunate circumstance.
I stand by my comment from last week that I think that this whole situation is amazing. I applaud the playwright on standing up for his work because he wanted to make sure that his work was being performed in a way that he did not see fit. In so many ways, I wish that so many more playwrights stood up for their work. So many people change little things about plays to make their production “work”. I guarantee that what you see as nothing the playwright sure sees as a big deal. You have elected to do this play with everything that is written. You have paid for the rights, and have paid a company to produce this work. And then have signed a contract that says you are going to perform this script so many times and not make any changes and what not. In short, just do not make changes.
Post a Comment