I am willing to bet a ticket to Hamilton that she did NOT have proper permission. We are dealing with an inexperienced (in theatre) publicist speaking to "the producer" in a show that had several inches of producers. I am willing to bet a ticket to Hadestown that it was not an experienced producer either (and this is the sort of thing that would actually require the GM as it is a LOT of work).
OlBlueEyes said: "Hogan, my problem with you as a poster is simple. Reading your posts here, they all consist of declarative sentences. The truth is handed down to you from Mount Olympus and you in turn enlighten all those beneath you. You have no doubts. Any disagreement is dismissed, with no attempt to soften the blow andoften with a pejorative statement thrown in such as the person needs to get out more or the person is one of a surprisingly ignorant group. To others no compliment
@gaveston I don't think we are "post-racial" (would that we were). I also think (as I think you acknowledge) that it is easier to cast "blind" with non-modern settings (and we see it a lot). With more modern pieces (and this could include your Billy point), even if the casting decision was not intended to have a racial component, there can be unintended consequences. (We talk about unintended consequences here all the time in non-racial contexts, e.g., a lack of chemis
GavestonPS said: "Yes, every choice made in a production means something. But what it means is determined by the context of the production and the context of the society in which the choice is made."
Yes of course, but what seems to escape some in this thread is that sometimes that choice is simply to cast the actor who you think will give the most thrilling performance, without loading it with subtext.
1. I never suggested we were beyond redemption; I said it was something of which we had to remain mindful. And what is surprising to me about this thread is that a lot of people seem to be writing dissertations about things that they don't know anything about.
2. Re film vs theatre, my point was that they are different genres and it confuses the discussion. We also don't use CGI in the theatre. We cannot even make someone look shorter or taller by editing
@BlueEyes what you are evoking is what I mentioned earlier: the race fixation that is part and parcel of the U.S. pathology. Do you look at a production and find a lack of verisimilitude when a character has blond hair instead of brown? Of course you don't: that's not something on which we are fixated.
Regarding Downton, first of all it is apples and oranges. (It's a TV show, not a play.) Secondly, I could do without the racist link which is just gross. Finally, the no
AADA81 said: "it's marmalade-skies to think that race never plays a role by [sic] who is cast. We live in one of the most overtly racist times in generations. To think that casting can be color blind is to be blind."
No one has suggested that "race never plays a role." Of course it can and does, for a variety of reasons.
Your next sentence seems like a non-sequitur, unless you are suggesting that there are no people who are not
I (obviously) don't know what you do, but with no offense intended let me suggest you spend some time talking or listening to some folks who actually make theatre: casting directors, directors, producers, artistic directors, etc. before making assertions that sound to me like an idea chasing a reality.
But we have lots of current examples of color blind casting that would seem to make a joke of the notion that it is out of date. Or are you just suggesting a semantic change? {still confused}
I loved it. Almost as much as I loathe posts that comment on "dramatic weight on the story" that they have not seen. Alex, you did not "give the show a listen," you gave the recording a listen. You certainly don't have to be a fan of the recording but you don't have standing to have affect relative to something you have not experienced.
ChairinMain said: "It should be noted that in my recent experience, color blind casting has, in fact, been challenged as dated - a recent production at a high level regional theater, for example, was criticized for casting actors of color only as the show's villains; that sort of thing.The stated goal of many companies performing standard work is now "color- conscious" casting along with color-blind or non-traditional. "color-conscious" being a casewhere an ac
There is no favored nations provision in the production contract (or most other AEA agreements).
There are many (non-contractual) reasons a top dancer might be paid more than the minimum, not the least of which is the the choreographer wants them so he or she will look good. That said, it is not going to be a huge sum.
For in depth, nothing can beat the Commercial Theater Institute. In terms of books etc, I have not looked or noticed in years but probably the best is Donald Farber's book on producing theatre. I don't know if it has been updated and I am sure the copy I had would be over 20 years old by now, so if you find it, realize it may be seriously outdated in many ways but the basic contours are mostly still in place. Re what Davenport writes, I would take that with a grain of salt too, bearin
A Director said: "Oh dear! The phrase "color-blind" is so last century. Today, the preferred phrase in non-traditionalcasting. Color-blind casting implies you don't see the person as a person."
You are confounding two separate things, and "color blind" is neither dated nor disrespectful. (In fact, I would suggest it elevates the person qua person, rather than defining them in terms of their race, which is, sadly, the first thing
The hesitance expressed below is well founded, and the numbers are pretty meaningless. There are just too many variables. Aside from existential differences in marketing budgets for what's being sold, there are dramatically different styles of marketing and advertising. Want a multi-page color spread in the Times? That's gonna blow a small fortune. Some producers do it; some, you'll notice, don't. So how do you generalize? Got high paid actors? How do you compare that wit
As a general proposition, it is a separate entity, but that does not mean it is not weighted down by the original. (It also varies in structure some between the typical off-B (or regional) transfer, which is almost always a non-profit and thus by definition separate, and a London transfer, which is often commercial.)
It may or may not reduce the costs, and the savings may or may not be all that significant. In general, I think you are more optimi
I am not especially interested in wading back into the substantive discussion, which has been rehearsed as to both shows in at least one thread each.
So I will just make a couple of passing comments:
1. To correct a misimpression, R&H had COMPLETE "control over casting and race."
2. Although I admit press releases tend to overstate these things, I think EVERY production (unless it's bad) reveals "something that wasn't in the orig
There was a great deal written on this subject on the other board, with particular reference to the comments that have been made by OHIII aka Andy Hammerstein. You'll find considerable scholarship over there, which you are of course free to take with a grain of salt, as I do. Things over there do no stayed archived for that long but if you go now you will find at least some of it.
I assume (or at least hope) that your thesis is about a broader subject than what the creators think s
