1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 5, 2018 8:56:35 GMT
I was at a play recently which was so underwhelming that I found myself thinking "if you are an actress, you must never eat" as all the females in the cast were so stick thin! I know some folk go round to the stage door to meet the cast and felt like going round with fish and chips and burgers for the girls - they looked so desperate for a meal!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 18:28:12 GMT
The Jesus Christ Superstar ensemble was diverse. In all these ways (except perhaps age-wise) and was all the more exciting for it, but a critic commented on the size of one of the dancers who was slightly bigger than the others.
|
|
316 posts
|
Post by martello736 on Aug 5, 2018 20:48:30 GMT
And even when doors open, they don't always stay open. Preeya Kalidas was cast as Patty di Marco in the opening cast of 'School of Rock', and it passed more or less without comment - as it should, she's absolutely qualified for the role and she gave a very funny performance. Having opened the door for a minority performer in the role, though, her replacement is white. That doesn't send a great message.
See I think that's a two way street. A role suitable for anyone repeatedly going to a white person (as very frequently happens in the West End) is wrong, but it's also wrong to insist a similar role once played by a person of colour is always played by a person of colour. Partially because it's more likely to stop the casting directors impartially - or as impartially as possible - considering people of colour for the other roles in the show if one role is earmarked "the minority role", but also because you're restricting yourself to a smaller pool of talent. We saw what happened with Great Comet when the "if a role that can be played by someone of any ethnicity is played by someone of one ethnicity once, it must be like that forever" mentality took hold, the show was pushed into closing, and a lot of people lost their jobs. I'm very excited to see Wicked's Claudia Kariuki as Rosalie Mullins though, she's first cover in the new cast and I honestly think it's inspired casting.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 5, 2018 20:53:18 GMT
Personally I think there's far too much diversity. There should be no diversity at all. Absolutely none. Every role should be played by the same person, and that person should be BRIAN BLESSED. Or do you want to put the final nail in the coffin for sound designers.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 5, 2018 22:11:50 GMT
And even when doors open, they don't always stay open. Preeya Kalidas was cast as Patty di Marco in the opening cast of 'School of Rock', and it passed more or less without comment - as it should, she's absolutely qualified for the role and she gave a very funny performance. Having opened the door for a minority performer in the role, though, her replacement is white. That doesn't send a great message.
See I think that's a two way street. A role suitable for anyone repeatedly going to a white person (as very frequently happens in the West End) is wrong, but it's also wrong to insist a similar role once played by a person of colour is always played by a person of colour.
Who has more opportunities in the West End at the moment - white actors or actors from visible minorities? If you open a door, it does not look good if you close it again after one person walks through it.
|
|
316 posts
|
Post by martello736 on Aug 5, 2018 22:35:14 GMT
See I think that's a two way street. A role suitable for anyone repeatedly going to a white person (as very frequently happens in the West End) is wrong, but it's also wrong to insist a similar role once played by a person of colour is always played by a person of colour.
Who has more opportunities in the West End at the moment - white actors or actors from visible minorities? If you open a door, it does not look good if you close it again after one person walks through it.
Like I said, I think diversity should be encouraged across the cast, instead of saying “here’s the minority role”. Tokenism limits casting vision substantially more than attempting to make a concerted effort to increase diversity in general. At the moment Wicked has a black Doctor Dillamond, they could easily decide that’s the role for actors of colour and then they’d feel less pressure to cast non-white Elphabas, Glindas and Fiyeros. There shouldn’t be “a” minority door, there should be several doors that the people on top do their best to make sure everybody gets their opportunity to go through.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 6, 2018 0:08:04 GMT
Who has more opportunities in the West End at the moment - white actors or actors from visible minorities? If you open a door, it does not look good if you close it again after one person walks through it.
Like I said, I think diversity should be encouraged across the cast, instead of saying “here’s the minority role”. Tokenism limits casting vision substantially more than attempting to make a concerted effort to increase diversity in general. At the moment Wicked has a black Doctor Dillamond, they could easily decide that’s the role for actors of colour and then they’d feel less pressure to cast non-white Elphabas, Glindas and Fiyeros. There shouldn’t be “a” minority door, there should be several doors that the people on top do their best to make sure everybody gets their opportunity to go through.
I don't disagree, but I'm not talking about "tokenism". I'm talking about how bad it looks when someone opens a door to a more broadminded approach to casting and then closes it the next time the role is up for grabs. If the aim is to increase diversity across the board, that's indefensible.
|
|
1,115 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 6, 2018 0:38:25 GMT
Jamie has a fairly diverse cast which is refreshing especially given the subject matter and the fact that it's a new musical.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Aug 6, 2018 5:18:21 GMT
I don't disagree, but I'm not talking about "tokenism". I'm talking about how bad it looks when someone opens a door to a more broadminded approach to casting and then closes it the next time the role is up for grabs. If the aim is to increase diversity across the board, that's indefensible. But isn't that the same as saying (for example) "This is our black role" with the implied "All other roles are white"? I often hear people say that there aren't enough roles for non-white performers, but that's nonsense. The overwhelming majority of roles have no explicit or implied colour and can be cast however you want. To a lesser extent there are many roles with no implied gender, age, body shape, or anything else. They often aren't cast that way, but that's a very different problem: it's the casting decisions that end up excluding people, not the roles. When people start concentrating on specific roles, such as saying that they cast a black person in this role and now it's a white person, they're reinforcing the idea that there's something about the role itself that is connected with the type of person playing it, and it's that idea that is the core problem. It's like a golf club condescendingly allowing people outside its traditional membership to come into the clubhouse. Yes, it's good that they're allowing more people in, but they're not addressing the fundamental issue of thinking that golf is a game solely for wealthy white men in the first place. It's the underlying attitude that needs addressing, and as long as shows are cast on a basis of "look how broadminded we're being" that attitude is still there.
|
|
18,816 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 6, 2018 7:08:59 GMT
Some posts about the original poster and responses have been removed.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 6, 2018 14:15:10 GMT
I don't disagree, but I'm not talking about "tokenism". I'm talking about how bad it looks when someone opens a door to a more broadminded approach to casting and then closes it the next time the role is up for grabs. If the aim is to increase diversity across the board, that's indefensible. But isn't that the same as saying (for example) "This is our black role" with the implied "All other roles are white"? Not necessarily. Or to put it another way, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd taken a broader approach to casting in another lead or featured role when they were casting replacements, but they didn't. The show's adult cast, as far as I can tell from the pictures on the show's website, are whiter than a loaf of Mother's Pride, although they've cast a diverse group of kids. There's no reason any of those adult roles have to be, well, any specific race/ethnicity/whatever - so, as I said, I find it indefensible that they opened a door in the original London cast and then closed it again. I just do not believe they could only find white performers to fill those roles.
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Aug 6, 2018 15:17:27 GMT
But isn't that the same as saying (for example) "This is our black role" with the implied "All other roles are white"? Not necessarily. Or to put it another way, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd taken a broader approach to casting in another lead or featured role when they were casting replacements, but they didn't. The show's adult cast, as far as I can tell from the pictures on the show's website, are whiter than a loaf of Mother's Pride, although they've cast a diverse group of kids. There's no reason any of those adult roles have to be, well, any specific race/ethnicity/whatever - so, as I said, I find it indefensible that they opened a door in the original London cast and then closed it again. I just do not believe they could only find white performers to fill those roles. Your argument appears to be that because an ethnically ambiguous role was once given to an ethnic minority, it should end up being a token ethnic role from that point hence. If so it's not a very good one. Perhaps they are not looking for the best person of a particular skin tone, but the best person full stop? You are advocating tokenism, and I can assure you most ethnic minority people do not want it.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 6, 2018 16:07:36 GMT
Not necessarily. Or to put it another way, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd taken a broader approach to casting in another lead or featured role when they were casting replacements, but they didn't. The show's adult cast, as far as I can tell from the pictures on the show's website, are whiter than a loaf of Mother's Pride, although they've cast a diverse group of kids. There's no reason any of those adult roles have to be, well, any specific race/ethnicity/whatever - so, as I said, I find it indefensible that they opened a door in the original London cast and then closed it again. I just do not believe they could only find white performers to fill those roles. Your argument appears to be that because an ethnically ambiguous role was once given to an ethnic minority, it should end up being a token ethnic role from that point hence. If so it's not a very good one. Perhaps they are not looking for the best person of a particular skin tone, but the best person full stop? You are advocating tokenism, and I can assure you most ethnic minority people do not want it.
No I'm not. I'm not suggesting they cast any role in any particular skin tone. I'm suggesting that it's not a good look to open the door to diverse casting, and then cast an entirely white set of replacements when the original cast leaves.
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Aug 7, 2018 7:08:29 GMT
Just 'cos there's a website doesn't mean it's not a fairly recent development (2013, as far as I can tell), nor does it make my cringe-reflex any less pronounced. The Southbank has historically been a bit of a wasteground so benefitted from having a unifying name. Trafalgar Square + the Strand + surrounding areas are somewhat more historically well-known and oft-visited and more than capable of standing on their own two (or however many applicable in this instance) feet. Not to be pedantic, it's the South Bank. Unless it's the arts centre, which is the Southbank. I'll get my coat
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 7, 2018 7:46:11 GMT
not enough American actors of colour getting film roles! British Asian and Black British actors in films are often ignored or actively dismissed (or viewed as competition). I think they have good reason to be annoyed: British BAME actors have more advantages compared to their US counterparts - well funded education at school and college, good healthcare, not the same legacy from slavery or segregation - so if a film studio points at a cast and says "look how diverse we are!" based solely on skin colour I can see why BAME American actors would get p-d off. It relates more deeply to the issue of social class, discrimination, connections and life chances.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 7, 2018 8:50:28 GMT
not enough American actors of colour getting film roles! British Asian and Black British actors in films are often ignored or actively dismissed (or viewed as competition). I think they have good reason to be annoyed: British BAME actors have more advantages compared to their US counterparts - well funded education at school and college, good healthcare, not the same legacy from slavery or segregation - so if a film studio points at a cast and says "look how diverse we are!" based solely on skin colour I can see why BAME American actors would get p-d off. It relates more deeply to the issue of social class, discrimination, connections and life chances. An international multi-ethnic cast is diverse, by any sensible definition of diversity. It's just that 'diversity' is not a magic bullet for solving inequality. It helps with the representation and aspiration elements, but not with the structural economic inequalities and legacy of historic inequality. Casting alone simply can't solve every structural problem.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 7, 2018 9:44:48 GMT
any sensible definition of diversity. No - because you're generally still getting people from the same privileged social strata. I used to know a group of people who were at the BBC on their minority/diversity-applicant trainee scheme, something supposedly to increase BBC diversity and access. Three of the four people I knew on it - two with disabilities, two BAME - had been to public school, two to Oxford and the other to a top art college, and all were middle class with own-home-owning, bank-of-Mum and Dad university-educated parents. They were the social class of people who would be at the BBC, Guardian etc. anyway.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 7, 2018 11:05:02 GMT
So class background overrides all other facets of identity? I think there's many people who would disagree with that perspective.
This is the problem with the term 'diversity', and why I have come to dislike it so much in this discussions.
There isn't a useful consensus about what it means, so we can't meaningfully measure it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 11:47:47 GMT
It should be an umbrella term rather than anything, so it's more intersectional. You can have gender diversity, racial diversity, bodily diversity, class diversity, and so on, so it's worth looking at as many different aspects as you can if diversity is your goal. No point getting an equal balance of men and women if they're all white, skinny, able-bodied, posh, etc. Have a clear idea of what *specific* diversity you're after, and *all* the different forms diversity can take, and keep that in your mind when casting.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 7, 2018 12:31:42 GMT
class background overrides all other facets of identity? We're talking about "diversity" not "identity". In current thinking, your identity is now whatever you personally want it to be. There are plenty of arts establishments etc. that make a visual show of "diversity" but in many cases the new talent used as examples are from similar backgrounds to your typical old school arts/media intake. They are rarely bringing in people with different life experiences, perspectives, voices.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 7, 2018 14:41:11 GMT
So class background overrides all other facets of identity? I think there's many people who would disagree with that perspective. This is the problem with the term 'diversity', and why I have come to dislike it so much in this discussions. There isn't a useful consensus about what it means, so we can't meaningfully measure it. The issue of class is seen by many as a separate, so not equal, aspect of intersectionality. Any equality within existing economics is going to leave the middle class better off regarding diversity whilst those at a lower socioeconomic level are going to be still left trailing. So, for me, yes I'd say it does 'override' other facets, it isn't more important but it should be seen as of a different order.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 7, 2018 19:41:12 GMT
It should be an umbrella term rather than anything, so it's more intersectional. You can have gender diversity, racial diversity, bodily diversity, class diversity, and so on, so it's worth looking at as many different aspects as you can if diversity is your goal. No point getting an equal balance of men and women if they're all white, skinny, able-bodied, posh, etc. Have a clear idea of what *specific* diversity you're after, and *all* the different forms diversity can take, and keep that in your mind when casting. ...And then accept that you are going to be criticised for not being diverse in every other way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 20:37:27 GMT
Off the back of that, and possibly off-topic but frankly as I'm not sure what the topic is even intended to be at the moment I'm sure you'll forgive me, does anyone know why London has decided to try rebranding the Strand area as the "Northbank"? You don't *have* to have a north version just because there's a south version (otherwise surely there'd be a Nussex to go with Sussex, Essex, and Wessex), so I just get a lot of second-hand embarrassment when I walk along this reasonably-iconic-in-its-own-right road in the winter and see all the "THIS IS THE NORTHBANK " decorations. I think I prefer Nossex (please, we’re British) to Nussex.
|
|
14 posts
|
Post by perfidious_albion on Aug 7, 2018 21:14:45 GMT
Apologies in advance for taking this discussion away from the West End. In the 1990s, Contact in Manchester was my go-to theatre when I wasn't making twice-yearly trips to London for my West End fix. Then, somewhere around the time of the new millennium, it completely changed its artistic policy and target audience (young, ethnically diverse and gender fluid), to the extent where I haven't much connected with a lot of what they've produced in the last 15 years. Recently, I was browsing their new season programme and, again, I thought there's nothing much here that interests me. Then it dawned on me. Contact's programming isn't meant for me. There's plenty of 'my theatre' elsewhere, but this theatre is for those we've previously excluded: yes, it should be their space, their voice, their terms, not mine and folk like me. Certainly, I have neither the right nor experience to say, now I know how it feels to be the other. But it's certainly given me pause for thought.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 7, 2018 22:50:46 GMT
Dreamgirls Tina Turner - The Musical Motown Hamilton The Lion King Thriller - The Musical Aladdin - The Musical (Maybe)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 1:23:52 GMT
Apologies in advance for taking this discussion away from the West End. In the 1990s, Contact in Manchester was my go-to theatre when I wasn't making twice-yearly trips to London for my West End fix. Then, somewhere around the time of the new millennium, it completely changed its artistic policy and target audience (young, ethnically diverse and gender fluid), to the extent where I haven't much connected with a lot of what they've produced in the last 15 years. Recently, I was browsing their new season programme and, again, I thought there's nothing much here that interests me. Then it dawned on me. Contact's programming isn't meant for me. There's plenty of 'my theatre' elsewhere, but this theatre is for those we've previously excluded: yes, it should be their space, their voice, their terms, not mine and folk like me. Certainly, I have neither the right nor experience to say, now I know how it feels to be the other. But it's certainly given me pause for thought. I am interested that you think that the Theatre they are making isn’t for you. I am not gay but am very interested in plays by gay writers and, as far as I am able to, support gay rights; I am not young but I often see and sometimes enjoy work that is obviously written for a younger audience; I am not a man but watch plays written by men day in and day out...
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 8, 2018 8:42:23 GMT
the Theatre they are making isn’t for you I don't think it's a bad thing to say some theatre isn't for you. The sort of stuff put on in the west end (or cleary destined for it - The Ferryman) has never really appealed to me. I generally can't stand musicals. Yerma I found parochially middle-class North London, ditto Fleabag (on TV - I didn't see it on stage) - I couldn't relate to any of the characters or lifestyles depicted. I'm aware they exist, but have no emotional connection whatsoever. I'm not mad keen on the current spate of history plays either - Ink and This House were well done but felt - not sure how to put this - like plays for men. Network likewise. I've booked for the Lehman trilogy because of SRB but think it might be a bit of a chore.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 8:49:08 GMT
the Theatre they are making isn’t for you I don't think it's a bad thing to say some theatre isn't for you. The sort of stuff put on in the west end (or cleary destined for it - The Ferryman) has never really appealed to me. I generally can't stand musicals. Yerma I found parochially middle-class North London, ditto Fleabag (on TV - I didn't see it on stage) - I couldn't relate to any of the characters or lifestyles depicted. I'm aware they exist, but have no emotional connection whatsoever. I'm not mad keen on the current spate of history plays either - Ink and This House were well done but felt - not sure how to put this - like plays for men. Network likewise. I've booked for the Lehman trilogy because of SRB but think it might be a bit of a chore I think what you’re talking about is quite different. I think it’s a shame that we don’t engage with work by people who have historically been seen as “the other”. That lack of engagement is quite noticeable on this Board.
|
|
642 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by greeny11 on Aug 8, 2018 9:13:48 GMT
Your argument appears to be that because an ethnically ambiguous role was once given to an ethnic minority, it should end up being a token ethnic role from that point hence. If so it's not a very good one. Perhaps they are not looking for the best person of a particular skin tone, but the best person full stop? You are advocating tokenism, and I can assure you most ethnic minority people do not want it.
No I'm not. I'm not suggesting they cast any role in any particular skin tone. I'm suggesting that it's not a good look to open the door to diverse casting, and then cast an entirely white set of replacements when the original cast leaves.
The replacement cast at School of Rock starting in a couple of weeks has Claudia Kariuki and Martina Isibor both joining the show- and as mentioned earlier, Kariuki will be 1st cover Miss Mullins - so hopefully this redresses the balance.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 8, 2018 9:42:00 GMT
we don’t engage with work by people who have historically been seen as “the other”. I probably fit more into "the other" category. I have tried many times over the years to introduce friends to the sort plays, musicians, films etc I like and have sat there feeling bad that I'm enjoying the show and they clearly aren't (on some occasions friends walked out after a few minutes - then narked at me for not joining them. One friend sat out an entire Cure gig in the bogs). Btw, I generally paid for their tickets! I try to see a range of shows but my budget is limited and since I started getting back into theatre 3 years ago after a long illnesss I have gradually found which new directors, writers, actors, designers etc. work I like and who to avoid.
|
|