Anika Chapin: "So after that post, what did you think of Memphis?"
... *dies.
Little did he know that one little question would launch him into a response that would take five days to properly compose.
Based on the parameters that I had set up for myself in last week's post (Arts & Entertainments), I can tell you, Anika, that the show was merely entertaining. Broadway faithful, before you get up in arms, yes!!! Yes, they sang well; yes, they danced brilliantly; yes, they did... other things. What they didn't do was challenge me. I couldn't remember any of the songs upon exiting the theater, but they were good when I was there. I couldn't help but feel that they really feel that they missed an opportunity to really deal with racism in a way that wasn't kitchy and filled with only white people solving problems. A lot of the more risky opportunities to shine a light on social injustice were glazed over or turned into a joke, some of which some people really ought to think about being uncomfortable at laughing at. Just saying.
That's all!? It took you five days to come around to composing that? For real?
Well, yes and no. I could go on giving my piffling revue of the show, or I can turn to the far more interesting conversation that the show did, in fact, spark. I should say that there was a moment when we had stopped and considered that the show that we (Toni Ann, Zarif and myself) had been railing on, had indeed opened up a conversation about a greater problem, which forced us to reconsider it's status as art, but after some deliberation, we had decided to go with our first assessment. No.
Many of the opinions I'm about to share may be a little touchy, so please feel free to set me straight if you disagree with anything I write hereafter.
I started in on the show and it's treatment of the subject of racism. I really feel that the show was more brimming with sentimental hufflepuff and feel-good, "everybody gets along", ideology where we can all leave the theater feeling like we've accomplished something and that we no longer live in small-minded, barbaric times where people drink at different water fountains based on the color of their skin. I feel that anything or anyone that presents a message that we live in a post-racial society is immensely dangerous.
You may be the type of person, that I would like to consider myself to be, where you don't have any particularly hostilities towards people of a different race or openly hate "the other" or use derogatory, demeaning, hurtful language. That's a brilliant thing. Truly. But what I believe is important to remember is that there are still people out there who openly and actively believe that certain races are superior to others, or have warped perceptions, like "Korean people are good at math", or "Irish people are really bad at showering daily", or "All Pakistani people want to destroy your neighborhood." The worst thing that can possibly happen is turning a blind eye to these things. The problem isn't gone, it's only not "as bad" as it used to be according to our current social paradigm, but the problem isn't gone.
There has been a convention, in the contemporary theater that, in my opinion, has been one of the biggest perpetrators of this idea that we live in a post-racial society: the idea of color-blind casting. Allow me to explain, I'm not against the concept entirely. Can a Romeo of one racial background romance a Juliet of another? Absolutely! Bring it on! But if I see a production of All My Sons where Chris is white and Ann is Asian and that fact is not somehow addressed, I'm distracted because, to me, it defies the reality of the period (1940's America, it would have been a big deal). I recognize that this is not, in fact a family as they are written. I'm taken out of the show for a moment, as I have to consider this, and for me, it's a rather mammoth distraction. To go back to 'Arts & Entertainments', it's an added layer that possibly distracts or confuses the audience from the thought and intent of the play.
Can the show not be performed by a mixed cast? Not at all! As long as it makes some sort of sense for the benefit of the story; let's do it. But as Zarif and I agreed on, there's no believable way (I think we were talking about film) that we could ever pass as blood-related. Well, maybe but it's a stretch. I mean, if you've seen Zarif, you'd know immediately that he's way to attractive to be related to me. FACT. Now, can Zarif and I play brothers in a scene in class? Of course; that's how we learn. In the outside world, however, if there simply are no suitable actors to audition for a play with a clearly defined part in a text, is it ok to cast someone who doesn't outwardly suit the part? If the theater must do the show, then yes, of course. But to establish a hard and fast rule set where people who are perfectly suited to play a part have the possibility to be passed on for someone whiter or thinner or, I dunno... blonder is a shame, and a terrible one.
I've seen fantastic black actors turned away from playing slaves in a slave drama in favor of a multicultural cast; I've seen a white Tituba (she was 'darkened' which lent itself to a whole different set of uncomfortable feelings) in The Crucible when a incredibly capable actress could have taken the part. I had a friend once tell me that the director that she auditioned for had told her that she was the best actress for the part, but she was to "big" to be cast. I know this isn't racial, but I'm questioning the thought of verisimilitude here; she was auditioning for Helen in Fat Pig... the titular fat pig of the show. How does that make any sense? Is it fair? In these particular cases, I certainly feel that much of the gravity of the situation is taken away and that we disrespect and dishonor the our shared history and the mistakes and cheat ourselves of the opportunity to remind ourselves where we are, where we were, and where it is possible for us to go, when we do these things. Do I enjoy seeing people enslaved? Absolutely not, but in these cases, I believe that the color-blind casting was not color-blind, but very color-aware and a gruesome mistake. I can totally wrap my head around non-traditional casting. It may, perhaps, take an added level in suspension of disbelief, admittedly, but as long as the truth and the intent is not usurped, I think it's amazing. The abuses that are made, waving the flag of homogeny, I take issue with. We are not all the same, but we are all beautiful; and if we lie to ourselves, how can we be honest for the audience?
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2
-William Shakespeare
I realize that I may not be qualified at all to posit anything on this subject. I might be getting a bit "big for my britches" to put these thoughts out into the world, but the fact that the bard agrees gives me a little comfort. I'm not sure there is a perfect answer. There are is a lot of grey area, but I want to examine it and see if there is a perfect answer. The search for it is meaningful. I do feel, deep in my soul, that if we ignore the problem, not only do things not improve for us as one human race, but we suffer the possibility of backsliding in to the same old mistakes. Let's continue to embrace and delight in our differences. If you made it this far, thank you for indulging me in my semi-theater-related rant. Tomorrow I promise a return to form!
The discussion makes us stronger.
... *dies.
Little did he know that one little question would launch him into a response that would take five days to properly compose.
Based on the parameters that I had set up for myself in last week's post (Arts & Entertainments), I can tell you, Anika, that the show was merely entertaining. Broadway faithful, before you get up in arms, yes!!! Yes, they sang well; yes, they danced brilliantly; yes, they did... other things. What they didn't do was challenge me. I couldn't remember any of the songs upon exiting the theater, but they were good when I was there. I couldn't help but feel that they really feel that they missed an opportunity to really deal with racism in a way that wasn't kitchy and filled with only white people solving problems. A lot of the more risky opportunities to shine a light on social injustice were glazed over or turned into a joke, some of which some people really ought to think about being uncomfortable at laughing at. Just saying.
That's all!? It took you five days to come around to composing that? For real?
Well, yes and no. I could go on giving my piffling revue of the show, or I can turn to the far more interesting conversation that the show did, in fact, spark. I should say that there was a moment when we had stopped and considered that the show that we (Toni Ann, Zarif and myself) had been railing on, had indeed opened up a conversation about a greater problem, which forced us to reconsider it's status as art, but after some deliberation, we had decided to go with our first assessment. No.
Many of the opinions I'm about to share may be a little touchy, so please feel free to set me straight if you disagree with anything I write hereafter.
I started in on the show and it's treatment of the subject of racism. I really feel that the show was more brimming with sentimental hufflepuff and feel-good, "everybody gets along", ideology where we can all leave the theater feeling like we've accomplished something and that we no longer live in small-minded, barbaric times where people drink at different water fountains based on the color of their skin. I feel that anything or anyone that presents a message that we live in a post-racial society is immensely dangerous.
You may be the type of person, that I would like to consider myself to be, where you don't have any particularly hostilities towards people of a different race or openly hate "the other" or use derogatory, demeaning, hurtful language. That's a brilliant thing. Truly. But what I believe is important to remember is that there are still people out there who openly and actively believe that certain races are superior to others, or have warped perceptions, like "Korean people are good at math", or "Irish people are really bad at showering daily", or "All Pakistani people want to destroy your neighborhood." The worst thing that can possibly happen is turning a blind eye to these things. The problem isn't gone, it's only not "as bad" as it used to be according to our current social paradigm, but the problem isn't gone.
There has been a convention, in the contemporary theater that, in my opinion, has been one of the biggest perpetrators of this idea that we live in a post-racial society: the idea of color-blind casting. Allow me to explain, I'm not against the concept entirely. Can a Romeo of one racial background romance a Juliet of another? Absolutely! Bring it on! But if I see a production of All My Sons where Chris is white and Ann is Asian and that fact is not somehow addressed, I'm distracted because, to me, it defies the reality of the period (1940's America, it would have been a big deal). I recognize that this is not, in fact a family as they are written. I'm taken out of the show for a moment, as I have to consider this, and for me, it's a rather mammoth distraction. To go back to 'Arts & Entertainments', it's an added layer that possibly distracts or confuses the audience from the thought and intent of the play.
Can the show not be performed by a mixed cast? Not at all! As long as it makes some sort of sense for the benefit of the story; let's do it. But as Zarif and I agreed on, there's no believable way (I think we were talking about film) that we could ever pass as blood-related. Well, maybe but it's a stretch. I mean, if you've seen Zarif, you'd know immediately that he's way to attractive to be related to me. FACT. Now, can Zarif and I play brothers in a scene in class? Of course; that's how we learn. In the outside world, however, if there simply are no suitable actors to audition for a play with a clearly defined part in a text, is it ok to cast someone who doesn't outwardly suit the part? If the theater must do the show, then yes, of course. But to establish a hard and fast rule set where people who are perfectly suited to play a part have the possibility to be passed on for someone whiter or thinner or, I dunno... blonder is a shame, and a terrible one.
I've seen fantastic black actors turned away from playing slaves in a slave drama in favor of a multicultural cast; I've seen a white Tituba (she was 'darkened' which lent itself to a whole different set of uncomfortable feelings) in The Crucible when a incredibly capable actress could have taken the part. I had a friend once tell me that the director that she auditioned for had told her that she was the best actress for the part, but she was to "big" to be cast. I know this isn't racial, but I'm questioning the thought of verisimilitude here; she was auditioning for Helen in Fat Pig... the titular fat pig of the show. How does that make any sense? Is it fair? In these particular cases, I certainly feel that much of the gravity of the situation is taken away and that we disrespect and dishonor the our shared history and the mistakes and cheat ourselves of the opportunity to remind ourselves where we are, where we were, and where it is possible for us to go, when we do these things. Do I enjoy seeing people enslaved? Absolutely not, but in these cases, I believe that the color-blind casting was not color-blind, but very color-aware and a gruesome mistake. I can totally wrap my head around non-traditional casting. It may, perhaps, take an added level in suspension of disbelief, admittedly, but as long as the truth and the intent is not usurped, I think it's amazing. The abuses that are made, waving the flag of homogeny, I take issue with. We are not all the same, but we are all beautiful; and if we lie to ourselves, how can we be honest for the audience?
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2
-William Shakespeare
I realize that I may not be qualified at all to posit anything on this subject. I might be getting a bit "big for my britches" to put these thoughts out into the world, but the fact that the bard agrees gives me a little comfort. I'm not sure there is a perfect answer. There are is a lot of grey area, but I want to examine it and see if there is a perfect answer. The search for it is meaningful. I do feel, deep in my soul, that if we ignore the problem, not only do things not improve for us as one human race, but we suffer the possibility of backsliding in to the same old mistakes. Let's continue to embrace and delight in our differences. If you made it this far, thank you for indulging me in my semi-theater-related rant. Tomorrow I promise a return to form!
The discussion makes us stronger.
-R
