I was thinking yesterday about the whole issue of the theater being, all the way back to Ancient Greece, a white, patriarchal institution, and how we in the industry are working to reinvent the art form to include the voices of everyone and make it accessible (and desirable) to everyone. Although I believe rethinking the classics and using color conscious casting is great, if we are going to truly move forward, we need to also focus on new works with characters of a wide range of ethnicities. Having, say, black actors playing roles that were obviously written for white actors in a show like Follies may give those actors opportunities, and bring a more diverse audience to that particular production, but it will not really fulfill our long-term goal.
The reworking of Shuffle Along a couple years ago I guess was kind of "the black version of Follies," but Broadway is becoming less and less hospital to those kinds of works, which is why the future of theatre really is in Off-Broadway and regional theatre.
This is one of the threads I spoke about last night, where it seems that (relatively new) posters ask rather dumb questions for the sole purpose of posting often, or tricking other posters into looking under the bridge.
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium." - Patti LuPone, a Memoir
Deliberately casting shows on 1 color is the core of the problem and does not fit society anymore. That is not progress. Hopefully soon these left wing race counters understand that, so we can move along to a better, equal world.
Dave, I think most of us lefties agree that doing the "black" version of a show (like the Pearl Bailey Hello Dolly!) is, today, actually in many ways more racist than deliberately excluding black actors from an all-white production. That's white I was trying to politely communicate.
Why though? There are several black performers that I would love to see do Follies like Brian Stokes Mitchell and Audra Mcdonald, but I find this kind of thing just kind of problematic. I just don't see what sort of message it would send or how it would inform the play. Why not just cast the best person for the part. You would probably end up with a wonderfully diverse cast.
Instead, let's put money behind projects written by PoC, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and women in order to give them an authentic voice out there.
I grew up in a very 'white Australia' era, never coming in contact with an Aborigine and all performers seemed to be white. There was a very well known Indian male singer, a black American in Camelot ,then there was The Wiz and in the production of Porgy and Bess they were all from New Zealand[and it was sensational].
It's all a matter of conditioning and acceptance to my little brain.
It takes me time to adjust to a ballet dancer of either sex if they are not white and God forbid if one of the men are showing any body hair ! --but then the talent usually takes over.
I have been a member here for a few years now[had to change my sign-in as everything crashed] and have learnt so much about the theater and acceptance.
I watch a lot of TV series now as I can't go out as often as I would like and because of discussions on here regarding gender and race acceptance, whenever I see a mainly white cast and a non white character walks into a scene, I automatically think, 'token'.
I hope that isn't so because as the scene/act/series continues I usually forget the race and get back to being engaged in the story--it's just the brain adjusting to the little speed bump.
Type writers were the only 'accessory' we had at school, not like today, so my acceptance to change takes much longer. With the ideas being fought for today, the stage and the world should be a multicoloured pot-pourri for the youth of today and the word 'token' would only exist at the subway.
In no way were my thoughts meant to inflame or cause derision Let's not even think about a black version of Follies, just, I want to go see Follies.
I don't know many uptown details about the period of the Weissman Girls, but I wonder if it could be moved to something closer to the Harlem renaissance than Zigfield. Bring the drag king persona of many female performers of the period to one of the secondary characters. (Yes, I realize many of the butch women would not be Zeigfield follies-type girls) Additional perspectives could be brought by making Ben be very light-skinned and anglo in comparison to Buddy. And bringing Loveland to the Cotton Club opens up possibilities as well.
Vanessa Williams as Phyllis Brian Stokes Mitchell as Ben Audra McDonald as Sally David Alan Grier as Buddy put Lillias White in there somewhere (would she work as that lady that sings I’m Still Here?)
that’s who i want to see in a cast
also i would definitely not agree that all-black productions are more racist than all-white productions. that’s absurd.
"Contentment, it seems, simply happens. It appears accompanied by no bravos and no tears."
It’s a great idea. But why not cast some less obvious, more mature, choices? Jenifer Lewis as Stella Deems Pam Grier as Carlotta Campion LaTanya Richardson Jackson as Hattie Walker
The Distinctive Baritone said: "I was thinking yesterday about the whole issue of the theater being, all the way back to Ancient Greece, a white, patriarchal institution, and how we in the industry are working to reinvent the art form to include the voices of everyone and make itaccessible (and desirable) to everyone. Although I believe rethinking the classics and using color conscious casting is great, if we are goingto truly move forward, we need to also focus on new works with characters of a wide range of ethnicities. Having, say, black actors playing roles that were obviously written for white actors in a show like Folliesmay give those actors opportunities, and bring a more diverse audience to that particular production,but it will not really fulfillour long-term goal.
The reworking ofShuffle Alonga couple years ago I guess was kind of "the black version ofFollies," but Broadway is becoming less and less hospital to those kinds of works, which is why the future of theatre really is in Off-Broadway and regional theatre."
I think SHUFFLE ALONG failed because it felt like a dusty lifeless history lesson (with little individual bursts of creative energy), unlike the revival of FOLLIES with Bernadette and Jan Maxwell, et al that was just jaw-droppingly fabulous from start to finish, and throbbed with life. I don't necessarily agree that Broadway is less hospitable to such shows, DEAR EVAN HANSEN, THE BAND'S VISIT, etc. being prime examples of wonderful contemporary artistic fire...
But the idea of an all-black FOLLIES is an exciting idea to me! I see Audra and Stokes, and LaChanze and Brandon Victor Dixon, Leslie Uggams or Diane Carroll "I'm Still Here"..... I'd put my money down for this one in a heart beat!! :)
It would be interesting to hear what potential performers in this show might think about the concept, as well as consider the possibilities of an all-multicultural cast (ala Hamilton) instead of all-black.
Follies never struck me as one of those shows that was made with white performers in mind. In fact, I think it lends itself unusually well to colorblind casting. Terri White's performance as Stella in the last revival was one of the best things I've ever seen on a Broadway stage. The crowd went nuts for "Who's That Woman," and I was a little disappointed when Jayne Houdyshell got the Tony nom...and I like Jayne Houdyshell a lot.
Speaking of which, I know Terri has been quite ill these past few years and had astronomically high medical bills. Does anyone know how she's been doing?
I think an all-black cast of Follies would carry historical connotations that a diverse-cast production doesn't. It would need to be a more conceptual production that has specific things to say about race and entertainment- a topic that is not at all addressed in the text.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Follies is about the all-white Ziegfield Follies. Yes, Sondheim is the Shakespeare of musical theatre, and you can make say, Julius Caesar about any republic, but...come on. Let's use the money that would be used to make yet another Follies revival to foster a new musical that doesn't require black people to force themselves into a white story. And seriously, doing the "black version" of a classic show nowadays - especially if it's for a predominantly white audience - has all sorts of unwanted implications.
I think casting all one race version of productions is something that is not very done often (unless it's all white) because they simply never get funded, especially for a Broadway run so we don't need to be in fear of it every time somebody mentions this idea the way some always freak out when it's mentioned. Even if somebody funds the project, I don't see the big deal. It's one production out of many AND it's probably done in a way to allow black actors to play roles they normally never get to play. The thing about Follies and other classic theatrical works is that all actors study the work, study the roles, and hold it in high esteem but are usually never given the opportunity to be in those productions due to the color of their skin. Having an all black production may seem ridiculous and historically inaccurate, but some works are so classic that they'll survive some historical inaccuracy and unless you're like Brian Stokes Mitchell or Audra McDonald getting to play the principal roles in a "regular" production most of the actors in all-black or all whatever productions won't be given this opportunity ever again. Plus it may invite new audiences to these shows and to Sondheim's music. Now I'm going to hear somebody respond with "then in the name of fairness we should allow an all-white production of Raisin in the Sun" etc. I said it so you won't have to.
The Distinctive Baritone said: "Dave, I think most of us lefties agree that doing the "black" version of a show (like the Pearl BaileyHello Dolly!) is, today,actually in many ways more racist than deliberately excluding black actors from an all-white production. That's white I was trying to politely communicate."
It's not about which one is worse. They are both bad.
Doing the same thing in return because you feel you have somehow earned the right is just as wrong.
ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I think casting all one race version of productions is something that is not very done often."
This is interesting, a good example is the Sound of Music movie. This could be considered an all white cast. If the movie woud be made today, one of the children would be black, or the Barones, or the Captain or whatever.
In this particular project, that would not feel as truthful, given the setting and time.
There is a difference between "deliberately excluding black actors" and "casting that works best". This difference seems to be hard to understand for people.
These forced current "all black" topics, deliberately excluding whites, are not the same as something as The Sound of Music film.
Because if there is true equality, not everybody has to be in everything, and that should not matter.
joined:2/27/06
joined:
2/27/06
Posted: 7/1/18 at 5:47pm