HowlRound Theatre Commons: Molly Ringwald recently wrote in the New Yorker that when she re-watched the John Hughes films in which she starred, she was “taken aback by the scope of the ugliness,” seeing them now as "racist, misogynistic, and, at times, homophobic." Responding to this idea, comedian Bill Maher replied, "You can’t blame someone for not being woke thirty years before woke was a thing,” speculating that “you are tolerating things now that you’ll cringe at in twenty-five years: putting old people in old age homes, mass incarceration, beauty pageants, how we treat animals.” Any "music, TV, or movies from back when," Maher continued, will contain "something we just don’t do anymore.”
5 comments:
I think that producers and show runners that make a conscious effort to make clear to the audience that any dated material in the show is acknowledged as dated; accurate only to the time period and not to the producers’ current beliefs should be able to put on shows that would be considered unacceptable by modern standards in their original context. For example, shows like Angels in America and M Butterfly, that made an effort to change contentious content to make it more congruent with today’s standards, are acceptable to produce. In the case of Carousel and Children of a Lesser God, shows that have neither made an effort to change questionable content or even address the presence of such content, have not earned the privilege of presenting their shows to a modern audience. I wish that the commercial showrunners of today would see the benefit of catering to younger, “woke” audiences. If Broadway continues down a path of catering to the same generation of people, then their revenues will die with their patrons.
You know this article makes a good point. There are a lot of thing that we as a society have decided are no longer appropriate or right. So now that we have made that clear it seems like are trying to figure out how to handle “classics” and celebrating history. I feel like we really have to to be carful about what shows we use as a teaching tool specifically. I also thing this should lead to more new original works to better represent different eras in time with out erasing the negative things like abuse and racism and all the discriminatory things we have work so hard to over come. Other than the fact that there is no revival of this playing right now, I would have expected shows like the Drowsy Chaperone to be on this list. I also really like that this article pointed out the difference between color blind casting and color conscious casting. It made me thing about how there is a time and a place for both and we should know how to use them both to be effective as part of our story telling.
I am always conflicted when this issue comes up. I am a strong believer of the playwright as well as historical accuracy. I think that leaving things as written allows for the new thoughts and changes to happen within the audience instead of the show. Today's audience would react differently to yesterdays but, hopefully, they were all able to gain a new perspective in some type of way. For example, we would not be having this conversation if all plays were changed to fit the political climate of today and I think this outside conversation is much more effective than what was shown on stage. I do think that there are limits to leaving things as is. Every play/musical has an overarching message or meaning that it wishes to convey to the audience. If whatever is offensive or untimely does not contribute to this message then it should be changed or cut. Otherwise, it is obnoxious just to be obnoxious. In addition, there are limits to joking about the current societal issues because real people have experienced #metoo and saw their friends get shot down (#neveragain).
This article is really great. It goes through a couple of shows and what makes them better in todays society. Taking an old show and having it be correct for his day and age can be hard, also do people even want to see it anymore? In a season with a lot of revivals what is so special about them that audiences still want to see It but also being correct? Another great thing about this article is that they take the show and explain why the changes are being made and why they are wrong. I like how the go show by show and dot this. For example Angels in America which premiered in the 90’s even changed things. While there changes were very subtle, ““She’s not insane, she’s just bewildered.” In the original production, Hannah said “….she’s just peculiar.” I like how the authors were determined to make this play the best it can be.
I think this question of whether to alter a historical play for some of its potentially racist, sexist, homophobic content is one that has been reckoned with a lot this year, especially in the context of The Drowsy Chaperone. It was interesting to hear this being discussed at conservatory hour and then read the thoughts about broadway shows in this article, as there isn’t always a true and clear answer. I do think that shows should preserve their historical accuracy to some degree, because simply erasing the ugly parts of our past in no way corrects it. In many cases ignoring the negative parts of history completely undermines the struggles that many people have gone through to strive for equality and the better world we live in today. However there are also some parts of shows that are just downright offensive, as the article mentions. Offending the audience is only good in some contexts-- I would agree that antiquated parts of shows that come off as blatantly offensive or even violent could be altered. I don’t have the answer to how we should approach this issue, but I do know that we as theatre makers and audience members should continue to discuss and contemplate what to do with this issue to begin to reach a solution.
Post a Comment