|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 9:52:36 GMT
It's still yellow face, so given the reactions I've seen as I've been following the story, I'd say yes. Though *possibly* there would be a small additional contingent thinking "well they've cast BAME actors, I don't see the problem", well-meaning enough but still entirely missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 9:55:19 GMT
Do you think the Print Room would have the same protests if it had cast 4 black actors instead of 4 white actors? For the record I don't have a strong opinion on this play because as I stated I don't know the play. I was just reporting back something I was seeing on social media because it seemed pertinent to the conversation here. Also I'm not sure this 'protest' is actually that big of one...again I'm just passing on what I've seen.
Do you mean 4 black actors in this particular play? if so probably, as the issue seems to be that it is a play about Chinese culture/heritage so not only is it a version of 'yellowface' to put actors of a different ethnicity in the role, but it's also an element of cultural appropriation. Again I'm paraphrasing what I understand from various discussion I've read on the play. It IS an interesting question however when you swap one minority group for another. In some plays/musicals it doesn't matter-others it does because the characters are directly linked to a certain group.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Dec 19, 2016 10:01:28 GMT
I am not sure why anyone thinks the play was written for a Chinese cast. As far as I know it started as a play on Radio 4 with Richard E Grant in 2013. Yes, it was a Radio 3 play with an all white cast including Grant and Francesca Annis. I've found a couple of reviews (including one from The Stage) which give no indication that the Chinese characters being played by Caucasian actors is part of the point of the play (if you see what I mean). Interestingly neither of the reviews mentioned the fact that the characters were all played by Caucasian actors.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 10:08:09 GMT
I am not sure why anyone thinks the play was written for a Chinese cast. As far as I know it started as a play on Radio 4 with Richard E Grant in 2013. Yes, it was a Radio 3 play with an all white cast including Grant and Francesca Annis. I've found a couple of reviews (including one from The Stage) which give no indication that the Chinese characters being played by Caucasian actors is part of the point of the play (if you see what I mean). Interestingly neither of the reviews mentioned the fact that the characters were all played by Caucasian actors. Yeah when first reading about it I wondered if there was some kind of artistic/political statement being made in using White actors too, but apparently not!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 10:11:54 GMT
In not purposefully making a statement though, they are continuing to indirectly but loudly make the statement that "white is default, white is baseline, white is the norm", which the world REALLY needs to get over like yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 10:18:04 GMT
In not purposefully making a statement though, they are continuing to indirectly but loudly make the statement that "white is default, white is baseline, white is the norm", which the world REALLY needs to get over like yesterday. Yes, sorry I was trying to include that sentiment in my comment... couldn't' find the right wording!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 19, 2016 10:33:08 GMT
Coming late to this thread, I can report that I listened to the BBC Radio 3 production of Howard Barker's play. It's like most of his plays in that it's not at all an ethnological immersion in a culture, but instead a philosophical firework sparked by a situation or moment or character, real or fictional. All his roles are pure Barker creations, all speaking in his unique poetic language, and they aren't even strictly characters because they mutate from scene to scene or even from line to line, with only the voice remaining the same. It would be completely missing the point to want Howard Barker's roles to be cast and played on the basis of the supposed race or characteristics of any real people or known fictional characters suggested by their names.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 10:51:53 GMT
Coming late to this thread, I can report that I listened to the BBC Radio 3 production of Howard Barker's play. It's like most of his plays in that it's not at all an ethnological immersion in a culture, but instead a philosophical firework sparked by a situation or moment or character, real or fictional. All his roles are pure Barker creations, all speaking in his unique poetic language, and they aren't even strictly characters because they mutate from scene to scene or even from line to line, with only the voice remaining the same. It would be completely missing the point to want Howard Barker's roles to be cast and played on the basis of the supposed race or characteristics of any real people or known fictional characters suggested by their names. Thanks for the clarification Honoured Guest- as I said further up I was just reporting on it because the social media comments seemed relevant to the discussion we've already been having here in the broader context, and not knowing the play at all wondered what anyone who did thought.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 19, 2016 16:27:40 GMT
Coming late to this thread, I can report that I listened to the BBC Radio 3 production of Howard Barker's play. It's like most of his plays in that it's not at all an ethnological immersion in a culture, but instead a philosophical firework sparked by a situation or moment or character, real or fictional. All his roles are pure Barker creations, all speaking in his unique poetic language, and they aren't even strictly characters because they mutate from scene to scene or even from line to line, with only the voice remaining the same. It would be completely missing the point to want Howard Barker's roles to be cast and played on the basis of the supposed race or characteristics of any real people or known fictional characters suggested by their names. This is not going to make any difference - I can see people on Twitter already claiming that using Chinese names means its cultural appropriation. I am really coming to hate the 'cultural appropriation' criticism. I'm old enough to remember when progressives thought that the melting pot - cultures mixing and melding with one another - was a good idea, and the best way to encourage tolerance and peaceful co-existence. I definitely preferred that philosophy over this current trend for getting offended over fancy dress, fusion cooking and using words and names from other cultures.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 16:34:37 GMT
Just because some people throw the words "cultural appropriation" around willynilly doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism in many cases. It's perfectly possible to explore, appreciate, and enjoy other people's cultures without ignorantly pissing all over them to make yourself seem "cool" or to make your vanity project look more "mystical". We still have WAY too much ignorant pissing going on to do away with the term "cultural appropriation" all together.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 19, 2016 16:43:22 GMT
The word is "altogether".
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 19, 2016 16:48:51 GMT
It just seems that some so-called 'activists' are determined to go after low-hanging fruit with their criticism, and often have a knee-jerk offended reaction to stuff without even knowing anything about its context, and then double-down when people who do have some actual knowledge point out that their criticism doesn't really apply.
We end up with people twisting themselves up in knots trying to negotiate a way through without offending people and still getting called racist. And that *is* the word that gets used - there's rarely nuance allowed, it all boils down to 'racist'.
It really makes it hard to take seriously once you've seen that happen a few times to people and organizations who are trying painfully hard to be diverse and actually doing really good work.
And when we have real, *actual* racists getting into positions of real, actual power, it really makes the angst over who uses what words, who wears what clothes, who makes what food, and who plays what roles seem completely pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 23:35:34 GMT
It would be nice to think Keates' heart is in the right place, but unfortunately the tone of his correspondence is unpleasant and comes across as somewhat bullying. 'Your tiny theatre', 'cancerous little show', 'disgusting and bigoted casting' (and I see one of his supporters has now started criticising the actors they've cast - how delightful).
If you're going to engage people in debate, the least you can do is address the points they make. His response to the theatre's statement appears only a small step above sticking his fingers in his ears, going 'nyah nyah nyah, can't hear you' and stamping his foot even louder the second time. Which does a huge disservice to the very serious issue of under-representation in the arts.
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 20, 2016 7:06:06 GMT
This controversy got me wondering, are opera companies these days obliged to cast Chinese/Japanese singers when they perform Turandot or Madame Butterfly? I don't follow opera at all so have no idea to what extent they are subject to the same pressures as the theatre world.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 7:17:28 GMT
|
|
2,557 posts
|
Post by viserys on Dec 20, 2016 7:48:43 GMT
This controversy got me wondering, are opera companies these days obliged to cast Chinese/Japanese singers when they perform Turandot or Madame Butterfly? I don't follow opera at all so have no idea to what extent they are subject to the same pressures as the theatre world. Nope. I saw Turandot in Liege in October and there wasn't a single Asian singer among the leads. Tiziana Caruso (Italian) was Turandot and José Cura (Argentinian I think?) was Calaf. I can't remember the names of the cast members when I last saw Madama Butterfly in Cologne a few years ago, but Cho-Cho San was definitely white too. On the other hand I saw a Korean Mimi in La Boheme years ago. Her Asian appearance didn't bother me at all, it was more her rotund form that didn't really work for someone supposedly dying of tuberculosis. Come to think of it, I also saw a Korean lead guy in Rigoletto.
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by bee on Dec 20, 2016 8:13:32 GMT
This controversy got me wondering, are opera companies these days obliged to cast Chinese/Japanese singers when they perform Turandot or Madame Butterfly? I don't follow opera at all so have no idea to what extent they are subject to the same pressures as the theatre world. Nope. I saw Turandot in Liege in October and there wasn't a single Asian singer among the leads. Tiziana Caruso (Italian) was Turandot and José Cura (Argentinian I think?) was Calaf. I can't remember the names of the cast members when I last saw Madama Butterfly in Cologne a few years ago, but Cho-Cho San was definitely white too. On the other hand I saw a Korean Mimi in La Boheme years ago. Her Asian appearance didn't bother me at all, it was more her rotund form that didn't really work for someone supposedly dying of tuberculosis. Come to think of it, I also saw a Korean lead guy in Rigoletto. Yeah I thought that might be the case, certainly the opera lovers I know very much want to see the best singers no matter what colour (or shape!) they are. This whole thing makes me very uneasy. If you look at the Print Room's website they hardly seem like the bastion of old school racism they're being made out to be - a musical theatre work about Srebenica, a concert featuring lyrics taken from the diaries of women with mental illness, a play about Karen Blixen, it seems like their heart is in the right place to me. I don't think they're a suitable victim for the Offended Police to be setting the dogs on. I didn't particularly fancy this play but I think I'll make a point of going now to show a bit of solidarity.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Dec 20, 2016 8:33:09 GMT
I've been poking my nose into this on Twitter because I doubt Barker wrote this as something that should only be cast with white, English actors and claiming that it is an English story set in China (with Chinese characters) was badly worded and suggested that The Print Room do not think East Asian actors are British/English. The statement has made a volatile situation even worse I think I am surprised because this is exactly the sort of venue that should be saying there are some great actors of East Asian descent, let's do a version with them. I can see why actors are angry, there have been some great East Asian modern plays recently that have sold well and been critically acclaimed.
I suspect The Print Room are just delighted to get such high profile casting like William Chubb and Stella Gonet and I think the question has to be asked whether the casting was genuinely open to all and if these were the best actors available for the role. I don't think anyone should be obliged to employ anyone and I disagree with the protest but as I have said here there are many roles for caucasian actors, if black and Asian actors are truly to break the glass ceiling they need to be given the initial leg up in colour blind casting and theatres need to put on more diverse modern works.
I am mixed race and I honestly suspect the lack of theatre attendance amongst BME is not only culture (I was never taken to the theatre as a child and I doubt my mum will ever go) but a feeling they will be unwelcome and judged. The Print Room's (in Notting Hill!) casting is not helping that perception.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Dec 20, 2016 8:44:12 GMT
I hate to be all militant about this sort of thing but these small steps that exclude people are exactly how the likes of Trump et al get into power. If you alienate a group of people by saying "This is an English play so we have cast white actors" and as a non-white, I am going to question my Englishness and it makes (some) white people question my Englishness too.
Now imagine that over 10, 20, 30 years etc. I am not saying The Print Room are racist or even that is a racist statement but you can see why people are offended, especially wishy-washy-arty-farty liberals.
For example, The Print Room could argue that there weren't enough experienced East Asian actors like Chubb and Gonet but again why aren't there? Because when Gonet and Chubb were starting out there weren't the opportunities for East Asian actors to be in the roles were Gonet and Chubb made their name and speaking to one actress on Twitter she was one of 5 East Asian actors that graduated from Drama School in the 1980s.
Racism isn't immediate name calling or discrimination, for me, it is about generations being held back and their lack of achievement being justification for why they shouldn't be given rights and shouldn't be treated as equals.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 20, 2016 8:51:41 GMT
It seems to me that the Print Room has honestly and clearly explained the situation in this case but that the Twitterati have chosen to interpret the explanation as dishonest spin and to persist in shrieking their agenda and erroneously using this production as their example.
I have no respect for the protesters who are here either malicious or ignorant or stupid. They show a complete misrepresntation or ignorance or misunderstanding of this play. Casting of it could have been open to everyone, and almost certainly was, but it isn't a Chinese fable.
As for the general point that more productions could cast actors of East Asian heritage, I agree.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Dec 20, 2016 8:59:45 GMT
Just to add I have compared this The Good Person of Szechwan as I saw a puppet-based production with an all-white cast in Wimbledon (which was great) but stated that I had never seen a Chinese production of this play. I found out that only on two occasions has it been done with East Asian (not a full cast) and that Brect wanted Annamay Wong for it in 1950 but the powers that be stopped him.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Dec 20, 2016 9:08:13 GMT
Just catching up on this and read the Print Room's statement. Can't believe they actually said this ...
Thanks to HG for details of the play. Problem here is that if the ethnicity of the actors is not important, why are they all white? And why does The Print Room say 'English' = 'White', in a statement they had 4 days to come up with?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 9:11:47 GMT
I think (having caught up a bit with this yesterday/overnight) that The Print Room could have made an honest mistake, but now that I've had chance to read more about the piece it seems ridiculous to me that anyone would consider it with all white actors, but it is of course possible to be uneducated in these matters.
Having had a front row seat (being FB friends with the ringleader) to some of the protesters I also agree that they have not all handled themselves very well- throwing around some of the terms above and others I've seen don't do much for showing caring and engaged people in society. (Their point, particularly the East Asian actors themselves speaking out is a valid one, just as ever a vocal minority are diluting the good and reasonable debate with name calling that isn't helping anyone have a real dialogue)
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 20, 2016 9:14:30 GMT
I hate to be all militant about this sort of thing but these small steps that exclude people are exactly how the likes of Trump et al get into power. If you alienate a group of people by saying "This is an English play so we have cast white actors" and as a non-white, I am going to question my Englishness and it makes (some) white people question my Englishness too. I have nothing but respect for you Snciole, but this is a misrepresentation of the situation. They did not say they cast white actors because it's an English play, they said it is an English play and casting white actors is therefore not 'yellowface'. It's entirely different - they were specifically accused of yellowface, and I'm sure that interpretation never even crossed their minds - it didn't cross mine!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 20, 2016 9:16:21 GMT
Brecht was a political artist and was, to some extent, writing about China. We could argue about his entitlement to do so, as a cultural outsider. In complete contrast, Barker plays with ideas, emotions and behaviours in rigorously decontextualised constructions. Authenticity in Barker can only be to the text and to his imagination; there is no representation of any real world.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Dec 20, 2016 9:22:57 GMT
I hate to be all militant about this sort of thing but these small steps that exclude people are exactly how the likes of Trump et al get into power. If you alienate a group of people by saying "This is an English play so we have cast white actors" and as a non-white, I am going to question my Englishness and it makes (some) white people question my Englishness too. I have nothing but respect for you Snciole, but this is a misrepresentation of the situation. They did not say they cast white actors because it's an English play, they said it is an English play and casting white actors is therefore not 'yellowface'. It's entirely different - they were specifically accused of yellowface, and I'm sure that interpretation never even crossed their minds - it didn't cross mine! This quote can be interpreted so badly (whether the intent was bad was a different matter) and you can see why people are surprised. "It is, in fact a very ‘English' play and is derived from thoroughly English mores and simply references the mythic and the ancient. It has therefore been cast accordingly."
That I hope you can see why people are even more concerned about the motives behind the casting. I don't think anyone consciously went "Hey, guys! Let's be racist" but there was no consideration at a very sensitive time.
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Dec 20, 2016 9:28:54 GMT
I have conflicted views on the issue of the Print Room casting.
If we insist that the cast should all be Chinese actors, does that therefore mean we can only produce Jesus Christ Superstar with an entirely Hebrew/Israeli cast (with a couple of Italians to play Pilate and the Romans)? That Medea and any Greek tragedy must be performed by only those of Mediterranean origin?
Ironically, there are numerous productions of Aladdin going on up and down the country at the moment, but nobody is protesting that these casts on the whole do not feature Chinese performers.
Also, did I miss a meeting? Since when did 'yellow face' get redefined? Like 'black face', it has always meant using make up techniques to transform Caucasian features into those of another ethnicity, in a stereotypical and offensive way. It now means White actors playing Chinese characters because some people say it does?
I'm also a bit suspicious of Andrew Keates' histrionic response to this. The cynic in me can't help wondering if one motivation for his outrage is his forthcoming production "Chinglish" in March which is cast with Asian actors and will undoubtedly benefit from some of this publicity.
Having said that, the Print Room dropped a real clanger equating English with White. Unbelievable that nobody checked that statement and advised them that that would be digging them further into a hole.
My main concern is that we're heading towards a situation where due to activism from minority groups who rightly feel under represented in the Arts, we have strident voices insisting that actors can and should only play parts that equate to their own personal experiences or cultural or gender backgrounds. So only gay actors can play gay parts, only trans actors trans parts, etc.
I think more should be done across the board to increase diversity across the spectrum in the theatre, but it's difficult to do this when drama schools are increasingly the preserves of the white middle classes, and minority ethnicities are under represented. Piling in on one unfortunate show and pillorying them is not entirely helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 20, 2016 9:41:41 GMT
The actors could be of different races but their accents and physicalities shouldn't suggest that they are of another culture because that would confuse the audience who would misread the play. It's actually quite important that the audience doesn't think that the play is about ancient China, so an all-East Asian cast would start with a particular disadvantage!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 9:42:04 GMT
I mean someone else said that some people's motivations (and soundbites) might not be entirely altruistically motivated...
I think at this point though I'm less annoyed by the Print Room's casting than I am their response, because yes the whole White = English thing was not shall we say the most productive response to the criticism.
Going back to the more general point, the opera (and while we're at it ballet) raises and interesting question.
|
|
2,557 posts
|
Post by viserys on Dec 20, 2016 10:02:44 GMT
Brecht was a political artist and was, to some extent, writing about China. We could argue about his entitlement to do so, as a cultural outsider. In complete contrast, Barker plays with ideas, emotions and behaviours in rigorously decontextualised constructions. Authenticity in Barker can only be to the text and to his imagination; there is no representation of any real world. Brecht himself stated in the foreword of the German edition that the play is meant to be a parable and Szechuan stands for "any place in which people exploit people" - it's initial working title was "Die Ware Liebe", which is a hard to translate word play as "Ware" means commodity but in German sounds the same as "wahre" which means true. He seems to have picked Szechuan rather randomly for his setting. I hold a special place of loathing for this play as we did it in school in Germany and my teacher gave me an F for the subsequent written test about it on account of "how I totally hadn't got it". Back then I took it lying down, these days I'd raise a hell of a racket over theatre being open to interpretation, especially since Brecht purposely left it open ended. But we're getting off-topic now, so I'll shut up.
|
|