COMPANY starring Katrina Lenk and Patti LuPone will open March 22

[SisterGeorge]

JBC3 said: "Elder was one of the stiffest George's I've ever seen. He could sing the part, but certainly not act it. He should fare better here though."

That's exactly how I felt about his Giorgio in Signature Theatre's PASSION. Maybe he should just stay away from the George roles because he was quite moving and, of course, gorgeous in Tennessee Williams's ONE ARM.

[benfox2]

Referring to Joevitus,

Man, idk. Your post is really just a long winded way to say that only white people should be cast, which is just ridiculous. If we limited all revivals the the same race as their predecessors, then what’s the point of a revival? Broadway is so much more diverse today then it was 30 years ago, much less the 100 years of shows it has. Why can’t a person of color play a white person’s role? Hell this revival’s whole point is changing the gender of the main character, so the idea of ‘sticking to the way the characters were originally written’ is already out the door. I agree there shouldn’t be diversity ‘quotas’ to fill, but there also shouldn’t be roles strictly for white people.

[dramamama611]

Not what he said, at all.

[benfox2]

dramamama611 said: "Not what he said, at all."

To clarify: I’m mostly talking about his last paragraph. His first two actually are pretty true with hanging out with people of your own race. Maybe I’m the one who’s off base here but that’s how it read to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[Mike Barrett]

Agreed, was Christian Dante White not available? Sorry, just imagining again.



Honestly though, the lack of diversity here is my only gripe heading into this production. I understand Joevitus’s point about social segregation, as that sadly still feels prevelant here in Boston but in society in general. However, this is NYC. I don’t know statistics, but I’d assume on population ALONE it’s the most diverse city in the country. It’s not wild to think she has more than white friends. Ugh.

[ljay889]

Mike Barrett said: "Agreed, was Christian Dante White not available? Sorry, just imagining again.



Honestly though, the lack of diversity here is my only gripe heading into this production. I understand Joevitus’s point about social segregation, as that sadly still feels prevelant here in Boston but in society in general. However, this is NYC. I don’t know statistics, but I’d assume on population ALONE it’s the most diverse city in the country. It’s not wild to think she has more than white friends. Ugh. "

That’s exactly my point. Why would a woman as dynamic as Bobbie not have friends of multiple races? 

[JBC3]

Mike Barrett said: "It’s not wild to think she has more than white friends. Ugh."

Agree, but it's also not wild to think she doesn't ... or at least not ones with whom she socializes regularly enough that they would be in her life as these characters are.

[wish i were here2]

Just because some of y'all don't interact with people of color or other ethnicities, in real life, doesn't mean this character Bobbie, who is not based on an actual human being, does or doesn't. So, why can't she have a diverse group of friends.

The whole concept of this revival was to modernize the show to be a representation of today, and one way they could've was to make it ethnically diverse, to reflect the New York we see today. Not saying the cast they hired isn't amazing or talented, or that there aren't women in their 30s who live in New York with mostly white friends; it just seems like a missed opportunity to be able to showcase society today.

Broadway is known to be a some what progressive art form, so by diversifying the cast would further progress the show from what it was. The show was created to satirize the upper-middle-class people, who go see these Broadway shows, and poke fun at their upper-middle-class problems. So, why not poke fun at the more ethnically diverse upper-middle-class, that we have today, and their upper-middle-class problems.

[ljay889]

^ Amen to everything you wrote.

[poisonivy2]

Actually in NYC most people that I know of have a diverse group of friends. Men, women, different ethnicities, different sexualities. It's kind of the NYC experience. 

Company even in 1970 was kind of dated in the fact that Bobby's friends are all white, snooty "ladies who lunch." NYC was never a segregated city. 

[wish i were here2]

In addition, I just wanted to add that a person's skin color is not always vital to a story. What I mean is there are certain shows like Caroline, Or Change or Miss Saigon, where a certain character's ethnicity is absolutely integral to the story. But, in a show like Company, where the entire concept is about "A man/woman with no emotional commitments reassess his/her life on their thirty-fifth birthday by reviewing his/her relationships with his/her married acquaintances and his/her girlfriends/boyfriends," the ethnicity of any of the characters are not vital to the story. 

There is absolutely no mention about any of Company's characters' ethnicities, therefore that doesn't automatically mean they're Caucasian or were written with Caucasian mindsets. Most of the characters are only seen in a series of short vignettes which only gives the audience brief insight into their lives. Ethnicity doesn't stop a couple from fighting using karate or getting a divorce. The audience only gets a quick look into the lives of most of these supporting characters, whose main purpose, in the overall story, are to just serve as examples of Bobby/Bobbie's skewed idea of marriage and relationship. 

Considering how the show was created to satirize the upper-middle-class who go see these Broadway shows, an African American, Asian person, Latino person, etc. could easily play any of these parts, since skin color doesn't automatically mean they are in lower-middle class, middle class, or lower class. Skin color does not reflect social class. Sure, most of the upper-middle-class are Caucasian, but that doesn't mean there aren't people of color up there, as well. So, stating that just because the Company characters weren't specifically written to have a viewpoint of being a person of color, means a Caucasian person is better suited to play them, doesn't make any sense, in this situation, because the color of their skin is not what the story is about, its looking at the, sometimes outrageous, mindset of these ethnically ambiguous characters in the upper-middle-class.

Also, to the people who are saying that people of color are usually not in the Yuppie groups or were not during the time Company first came out in the 1970s, I reply, that does not mean there aren't some now in modern day New York. I mean, just recently on Broadway, Ann Sanders, an Asian American woman, and Ivan Hernandez, a Latino American man, just spent the past few months playing a Yuppie Jewish parents in Dear Evan Hansen, and they were both brilliant.

Okay, that's my two cents. Either way, the cast they got is amazing and extremely talented and I still can't wait to see the show, but I still feel like it was a missed opportunity to show off the amazing diversity seen in New York today. 

[benfox2]

100% agree, wish I were here. Spoken beautifully

[ljay889]

Definitely a wonderful post. I found the post about yuppies in NYC not mixing socially with people of color to be completely icky. Glad I'm not the only one who picked up on that. 

[joevitus]

wish i were here2 said: "Just because some of y'all don't interact with people of color orother ethnicities, in real life, doesn't mean this character Bobbie, who isnot based on an actual human being,does or doesn't. So, why can't she have adiverse group of friends.

The whole conceptof this revivalwas to modernize theshow to be a representation oftoday,and one way they could've was to make it ethnically diverse, to reflect the New York we see today. Not saying the cast they hired isn't amazing or talented, or that there aren't women in their 30s who live inNew York with mostly white friends;itjustseems like a missed opportunity to be able to showcase society today.

Broadway is known to be a some whatprogressive art form, so by diversifying the cast would further progress the show from what it was. The show was created to satirize theupper-middle-classpeople, who go see these Broadway shows,and poke fun at their upper-middle-class problems. So, why not poke fun at the moreethnically diverse upper-middle-class, that we havetoday, and their upper-middle-class problems."

Except he clearly doesn't because that's not what the writers decided. But that isn't even the point of my post, which was just sticking a person of color in a white role to be "diverse" or "realistic" is a sloppy and fake representation of both people of color and how people live in our society.

[Mike Barrett]

joevitus said: "wish i were here2 said: "Just because some of y'all don't interact with people of color orother ethnicities, in real life, doesn't mean this character Bobbie, who isnot based on an actual human being,does or doesn't. So, why can't she have adiverse group of friends.

The whole conceptof this revivalwas to modernize theshow to be a representation oftoday,and one way they could've was to make it ethnically diverse, to reflect the New York we see today. Not saying the cast they hired isn't amazing or talented, or that there aren't women in their 30s who live inNew York with mostly white friends;itjustseems like a missed opportunity to be able to showcase society today.

Broadway is known to be a some whatprogressive art form, so by diversifying the cast would further progress the show from what it was. The show was created to satirize theupper-middle-classpeople, who go see these Broadway shows,and poke fun at their upper-middle-class problems. So, why not poke fun at the moreethnically diverse upper-middle-class, that we havetoday, and their upper-middle-class problems."

Except he clearly doesn't because that's not what the writers decided. But that isn't even the point of my post, which was just sticking a person of color in a white role to be "diverse" or "realistic" is a sloppy and fake representation of both people of color andhow people live in oursociety."

But thats not what people are saying or hoping for here. The reality of a 35 yr old women in NYC is that she likely doesn't have all white friends. Its an incredibly diverse city, its 2019, its not a wild thought or "sloppy and fake". Sure, social segregation is a thing but you act like its the only way people in our society live. Simply, completely, untrue. It may be true for you but it is not for many others. We are a diverse country. People reach out beyond their stereotypical social circles, believe it or not.

I think others who have seen this show will speak to this point better, but Joevitus, how are any of the men "white roles"? Is there a point in the show that specifically points this out? If not, its just a role that a white person has. Its not a "white" role. Again though, I have not seen Company but nothing to my knowledge acknowledges the race of any of these people. I could be wrong, however. 

[joevitus]

Mike Barrett said: "joevitus said: "wish i were here2 said: "Just because some of y'all don't interact with people of color orother ethnicities, in real life, doesn't mean this character Bobbie, who isnot based on an actual human being,does or doesn't. So, why can't she have adiverse group of friends.

The whole conceptof this revivalwas to modernize theshow to be a representation oftoday,and one way they could've was to make it ethnically diverse, to reflect the New York we see today. Not saying the cast they hired isn't amazing or talented, or that there aren't women in their 30s who live inNew York with mostly white friends;itjustseems like a missed opportunity to be able to showcase society today.

Broadway is known to be a some whatprogressive art form, so by diversifying the cast would further progress the show from what it was. The show was created to satirize theupper-middle-classpeople, who go see these Broadway shows,and poke fun at their upper-middle-class problems. So, why not poke fun at the moreethnically diverse upper-middle-class, that we havetoday, and their upper-middle-class problems."

Except he clearly doesn't because that's not what the writers decided. But that isn't even the point of my post, which was just sticking a person of color in a white role to be "diverse" or "realistic" is a sloppy and fake representation of both people of color andhow people live in oursociety."

But thats not what people are saying or hoping for here. The reality of a 35 yr old women in NYC is that she likely doesn't have all white friends. Its an incredibly diverse city, its 2019, its not a wild thought or "sloppy and fake". Sure, social segregation is a thing but you act like its the only way people in our society live. Simply, completely, untrue. It may be true for you but it is not for many others. We are a diverse country.People reach out beyond their stereotypical social circles, believe it or not.

I think others who have seen this show will speak to this point better, but Joevitus, how are any of the men "white roles"? Is there a point in the show that specificallypoints this out? If not, its just a role that a white person has. Its not a "white" role. Again though, I have not seen Company but nothing to my knowledge acknowledges the race of any of these people. I could be wrong, however."

They are all white roles. They are all written in the voices--and frankly, the spoiled, selfish concerns--of upper-middle class white people.

Yes, a woman living today in New York City might have a more diverse crowd of friends (and I'm only going to say "might" because look at Sex and the City and Girls). Someone could write that show. But that isn't this show. It's an interesting conceit to play Bobby as Bobbie and place the action in our current calendar date, but this is an early 70's show that reflects a view of a small group of privileged people in Manhattan at that time. 

[Mike Barrett]

joevitus said: "Mike Barrett said: "joevitus said: "wish i were here2 said: "Just because some of y'all don't interact with people of color orother ethnicities, in real life, doesn't mean this character Bobbie, who isnot based on an actual human being,does or doesn't. So, why can't she have adiverse group of friends.

The whole conceptof this revivalwas to modernize theshow to be a representation oftoday,and one way they could've was to make it ethnically diverse, to reflect the New York we see today. Not saying the cast they hired isn't amazing or talented, or that there aren't women in their 30s who live inNew York with mostly white friends;itjustseems like a missed opportunity to be able to showcase society today.

Broadway is known to be a some whatprogressive art form, so by diversifying the cast would further progress the show from what it was. The show was created to satirize theupper-middle-classpeople, who go see these Broadway shows,and poke fun at their upper-middle-class problems. So, why not poke fun at the moreethnically diverse upper-middle-class, that we havetoday, and their upper-middle-class problems."

Except he clearly doesn't because that's not what the writers decided. But that isn't even the point of my post, which was just sticking a person of color in a white role to be "diverse" or "realistic" is a sloppy and fake representation of both people of color andhow people live in oursociety."

But thats not what people are saying or hoping for here. The reality of a 35 yr old women in NYC is that she likely doesn't have all white friends. Its an incredibly diverse city, its 2019, its not a wild thought or "sloppy and fake". Sure, social segregation is a thing but you act like its the only way people in our society live. Simply, completely, untrue. It may be true for you but it is not for many others. We are a diverse country.People reach out beyond their stereotypical social circles, believe it or not.

I think others who have seen this show will speak to this point better, but Joevitus, how are any of the men "white roles"? Is there a point in the show that specificallypoints this out? If not, its just a role that a white person has. Its not a "white" role. Again though, I have not seen Company but nothing to my knowledge acknowledges the race of any of these people. I could be wrong, however."

They are all white roles. They are all written in the voices--and frankly, the spoiled, selfish concerns--of upper-middle class white people.

Yes, a woman living today in New York City might have a more diverse crowd of friends (and I'm only going to say "might" because look at Sex and the City and Girls). Someone could write that show. But that isn't this show. It's an interesting conceit to play Bobby as Bobbie and place the action in our current calendar date, but this is an early 70's show that reflects a view of a small group of privileged people in Manhattan at that time."

But its not, this revival is a re-imaigning and takes place in 2019. 

[qolbinau]

Also I literally watched a black Bobbi in this very production (in London), who was the understudy. I don’t think the characters should or have to be white. I personally don’t get the argument. At the same time I do trust that the creatives involved in this production would have cast others if they thought they were better for the role. The director is not incognisant of diversity issues - she just directed an all black version of Death of a Salesman in the west end, she turned a male-led show into a female-led show, and the show in London might have even had slightly more racial diversity.

[Kad]

joevitus said: "There's also the issue that the characters were originally written as white and heterosexual(subtlyswinging Peterexcepted), and trying to diversify them for the sake of a new production while sticking to the script is a somewhat difficult task. Say you make Amy a woman of color. Or Joanne. Well, neither characterevinces any viewpoint or even a way of expressing their viewpoint that comes with being a woman of color--which is different from the viewpoint that comes withbeing a white woman because racism and the social realities ofAmerica wind up forminga woman of color or a white woman differently--so the performer playing Amy under those circumstancescomes off as unreal/artificial: awhite person in a person of color's body, essentially. It's a fake solution."

Well, the women in the show were written by men. Society forms men and women differently, so any woman's role written by men would not authentically evince a woman's viewpoint- a male voice in the body of a woman. That's your implication here, and the logical progression of what you're arguing. 

[ljay889]

Joevitus has made some extremely questionable comments since joining this board.

[benfox2]

Mike Barrett said: "qolbinau said: "Also I literally watched a black Bobbi in this very production (in London), who was the understudy. I don’t think the characters should or have to be white. I personally don’t get the argument. At the same time I do trust that the creatives involved in this production would have cast others if they thought they were better for the role. The director is not incognisant of diversity issues - she just directed an all black version of Death of a Salesman in the west end, she turned a male-led show into a female-led show, and the show in London might have even had slightly more racial diversity."

This is very true, but I don't think anyone is arguing against the director being incognisant, I think its just simply more surprising. Nothing is this show is a "white role" <<edited by BWW staff>>. Oddly, Survivor had a wonderful segment last evening after subtle racism and white privelege. I recommend everyone takes a watch on it."

I did not expect to come on this board to talk about survivor, but I 100% agree that people should go watch the scene. It handled the situation beautifully.

[Mike Barrett]

benfox2 said: "Mike Barrett said: "qolbinau said: "Also I literally watched a black Bobbi in this very production (in London), who was the understudy. I don’t think the characters should or have to be white. I personally don’t get the argument. At the same time I do trust that the creatives involved in this production would have cast others if they thought they were better for the role. The director is not incognisant of diversity issues - she just directed an all black version of Death of a Salesman in the west end, she turned a male-led show into a female-led show, and the show in London might have even had slightly more racial diversity."

This is very true, but I don't think anyone is arguing against the director being incognisant, I think its just simply more surprising. Nothing is this show is a "white role" and it just speaks to the subconscious racism of Joevitus. Oddly, Survivor had a wonderful segment last evening after subtle racism and white privelege. I recommend everyone takes a watch on it."

I did not expect to come on this board to talk about survivor, but I 100% agree that people should go watch the scene. It handled the situation beautifully."

Head to the off topic board, even a thread on it! But truly, I recommend it for everyone. The show and the people involved handled the situation with perfection, and speaks to a lot of the big issues regarding racism. I think it applies to this discussion in some ways as well. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYWwLxHxIIg

 

[joevitus]

Kad said: "joevitus said: "There's also the issue that the characters were originally written as white and heterosexual(subtlyswinging Peterexcepted), and trying to diversify them for the sake of a new production while sticking to the script is a somewhat difficult task. Say you make Amy a woman of color. Or Joanne. Well, neither characterevinces any viewpoint or even a way of expressing their viewpoint that comes with being a woman of color--which is different from the viewpoint that comes withbeing a white woman because racism and the social realities ofAmerica wind up forminga woman of color or a white woman differently--so the performer playing Amy under those circumstancescomes off as unreal/artificial: awhite person in a person of color's body, essentially. It's a fake solution."
 
Well, the women in the show were written by men. Society forms men and women differently, so any woman's role written by men would not authentically evince a woman's viewpoint- a male voice in the body of a woman. That's your implication here, and the logical progression of what you're arguing."

It isn't the logical progression of the argument. William F. Brown is a white man, but he wrote the book for The Wiz, and the characters in The Wiz aren't white, is isn't "more logical" to cast white people in those roles. The writer's color doesn't alter the characters he creates. .And if Furth had written a racially diverse cast of characters, as he wrote both male and female characters, we'd be dealing with a different issue. But just casting a person of color in a role not written for a person of color doesn't make it an authentic image or a more realistic depiction of society. It's a stop-gap answer to a more complicated problem.