Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, September 05, 2018
New Repertory Theatre in Massachusetts To Stage Diverse and Gender-Bent Production Of 1776
www.broadwayworld.com: BroadwayWorld has learned that New Rep Theatre in Massachusetts will stage color-blind cast, gender-bent production of 1776 this holiday season! The production is set to run at the Mosesian Center for the Arts November 30th through December 23rd.
4 comments:
Iana D
said...
We’ve seen racially diverse casting of historically white characters recently, with Hamilton being the prime example and I believe historical theater is a particularly effective place to introduce this. Obviously we can’t be racially ambiguous when shows are particularly centered around race or ethnicity, but practicing color blind casting when race truly doesn’t affect the plot is a wonderful habit for the industry to get into. As for the genderbending, I’m interested to see how it turns out with 1776. I haven’t had much experience with gender bent casting, so I’m curious. I see it as an interesting social experiment, and a good way to send the message that women are just as capable as men, but in the long run in this industry I would rather see more diverse roles being written for women, rather that just having them play male roles. Of course, for those that identify as gender neutral, nonbinary, etc., gender bending on stage is a very important part of their equal representation and opens up many more opportunities for them on stage. Overall, I believe that as an industry, we should be more open to crossing gender boundaries if want or need be, but we should also focus of diversifying content and writing for a wider acting pool.
Hmm… I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this could bring about some compelling discussion about gender inequality and could provide an avenue to discuss such issues, but it seems that there is a fine line between correcting inequalities and covering them up. Women faced a lot of very significant and very real hardships in colonial America. To write over those hardships risks dismissing them. For instance, many people are in favor of removing confederate monuments and other idols of slavery from places of respect and admiration like parks and city squares. Those confederate figures do, however, belong in places like museums, where they exist not to be honored but to be learned from. Advocating for the removal of confederate figures from museums would be as, if not more, problematic than having them in places of honor. Similarly, caution might be advised when rewriting history (with respect to both gender and race) if the show does not well enough address those issues. Some shows do, of course. For instance, while Hamilton does not specifically address slavery as a plot line in the story, it acknowledges the condition of People of Color during the time, and so can do one better by offering real and significant opportunities for People of Color today. A better, though admittedly more difficult to enact in the short term, solution is to write more shows with more substantive parts for women and minorities and which explore issues relative to their lives. A white-male centered narrative recast with People of Color and women is still, at the end of the day, a white-male centered narrative.
I too am interested in how this will turn out. I wonder what kind of complaints and praises this performance will generate for its casting decisions. I myself, like Margaret above, have mixed feelings about it. I think it’s a good way to add something to a show many people just know now as fun. It might not necessarily add depth to the show itself, but it adds at least opportunity for non white, non male actors. Giving New Repertory Theatre the benefit of the doubt in the wake of Broadway World describing them as having plays that “reflect our world and community, and regularly explore ideas that have vital resonance in our lives, here and now,” I am hopeful that they will use this opportunity to perhaps subtly point to the inequalities from them and now. Even if they don’t use this casting as any sort of statement, they do need to be careful they don’t accidentally work to erase the fact that despite any modern day twist it was still white men. Hamilton got flack for not representing any of the people of color of its historical time; it was criticized for glazing over the fact the Jefferson, Madison, and Washington (and others) owned slaves. We almost forget that the briefly mentioned “Sally” (in “What’d I Miss”) is more likely than not a house slave. New Rep needs to either have a purpose behind this casting, or be careful that when people create purpose for them they do not erase the past.
I, like many others, have mixed feelings about this show. It is great to give opportunities to women and minorities, but why can't there actually be shows written for them? I also think it can be incredibly damaging to make a habit of gender and race bending the founding fathers and other historical figures. It is so important to recognize that this country was built on oppression of women and minorities, because the fact that we still have to race/gender bend today is a direct result of that oppression we began with. Blind casting is a great habit, but sometimes race and gender matter. If the root of a show is about race or about gender, it matters. I am glad they are taking a step towards equality, but I wish they would instead pick a show that already necessitates a diverse cast. You know what's better than a gender and race bent production? A production that was actually written for those people.
4 comments:
We’ve seen racially diverse casting of historically white characters recently, with Hamilton being the prime example and I believe historical theater is a particularly effective place to introduce this. Obviously we can’t be racially ambiguous when shows are particularly centered around race or ethnicity, but practicing color blind casting when race truly doesn’t affect the plot is a wonderful habit for the industry to get into.
As for the genderbending, I’m interested to see how it turns out with 1776. I haven’t had much experience with gender bent casting, so I’m curious. I see it as an interesting social experiment, and a good way to send the message that women are just as capable as men, but in the long run in this industry I would rather see more diverse roles being written for women, rather that just having them play male roles. Of course, for those that identify as gender neutral, nonbinary, etc., gender bending on stage is a very important part of their equal representation and opens up many more opportunities for them on stage.
Overall, I believe that as an industry, we should be more open to crossing gender boundaries if want or need be, but we should also focus of diversifying content and writing for a wider acting pool.
Hmm… I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this could bring about some compelling discussion about gender inequality and could provide an avenue to discuss such issues, but it seems that there is a fine line between correcting inequalities and covering them up. Women faced a lot of very significant and very real hardships in colonial America. To write over those hardships risks dismissing them. For instance, many people are in favor of removing confederate monuments and other idols of slavery from places of respect and admiration like parks and city squares. Those confederate figures do, however, belong in places like museums, where they exist not to be honored but to be learned from. Advocating for the removal of confederate figures from museums would be as, if not more, problematic than having them in places of honor. Similarly, caution might be advised when rewriting history (with respect to both gender and race) if the show does not well enough address those issues. Some shows do, of course. For instance, while Hamilton does not specifically address slavery as a plot line in the story, it acknowledges the condition of People of Color during the time, and so can do one better by offering real and significant opportunities for People of Color today. A better, though admittedly more difficult to enact in the short term, solution is to write more shows with more substantive parts for women and minorities and which explore issues relative to their lives. A white-male centered narrative recast with People of Color and women is still, at the end of the day, a white-male centered narrative.
I too am interested in how this will turn out. I wonder what kind of complaints and praises this performance will generate for its casting decisions. I myself, like Margaret above, have mixed feelings about it. I think it’s a good way to add something to a show many people just know now as fun. It might not necessarily add depth to the show itself, but it adds at least opportunity for non white, non male actors. Giving New Repertory Theatre the benefit of the doubt in the wake of Broadway World describing them as having plays that “reflect our world and community, and regularly explore ideas that have vital resonance in our lives, here and now,” I am hopeful that they will use this opportunity to perhaps subtly point to the inequalities from them and now. Even if they don’t use this casting as any sort of statement, they do need to be careful they don’t accidentally work to erase the fact that despite any modern day twist it was still white men. Hamilton got flack for not representing any of the people of color of its historical time; it was criticized for glazing over the fact the Jefferson, Madison, and Washington (and others) owned slaves. We almost forget that the briefly mentioned “Sally” (in “What’d I Miss”) is more likely than not a house slave. New Rep needs to either have a purpose behind this casting, or be careful that when people create purpose for them they do not erase the past.
I, like many others, have mixed feelings about this show. It is great to give opportunities to women and minorities, but why can't there actually be shows written for them? I also think it can be incredibly damaging to make a habit of gender and race bending the founding fathers and other historical figures. It is so important to recognize that this country was built on oppression of women and minorities, because the fact that we still have to race/gender bend today is a direct result of that oppression we began with. Blind casting is a great habit, but sometimes race and gender matter. If the root of a show is about race or about gender, it matters. I am glad they are taking a step towards equality, but I wish they would instead pick a show that already necessitates a diverse cast. You know what's better than a gender and race bent production? A production that was actually written for those people.
Post a Comment