|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 15:48:05 GMT
Does the usual demographic on Broadway change for The Color Purple and Hamilton? And if so to what extent? Does it completely flip the other way and do you expect the same to happen when Hamilton comes to London? How about Dreamgirls? Hamilton does have a more diverse audience than the average Broadway audience but I think you would see that much more if the prices weren't so high. Most of the audience is still made up of the rich white people that inhabit Manhattan. The Color Purple was probably 50% black people when I saw it. Shuffle Along was also much more diverse than usual. |
|
5,716 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 9, 2016 16:17:44 GMT
Haha, good question, Baemax. I assume the thought is that the second generation (who is supposed to have these aspirations) is busy studying to become lawyers or doctors and thus neither think about performing on stage nor about attending the theatre as an audience member. Personally I would love to see more stories from Africa, Asia or South America on stage instead of white men's fantasies of the orient (Miss Saigon) or the token black leading man in Shakespeare. It's annoying enough that Aladdin isn't able to cast the leads with actual Middle Eastern performers, but there are so many incredible tales to be told, either historical or modern. If shows like Bombay Dreams and Bend it like Beckham can draw more Asians to the theatre, why not encourage more writers from non-white communities to create new plays and musicals that reflect their history and stories? I would much prefer to see more shows like Here lies love (that actually encouraged me to read a biography of Imelda Marcos and learn quite a lot about the Philippines) than yet another story of plucky white people from decades ago. Good point re black actors in Shakespeare. This was my point re current RSC Hamlet. Why did the actor have to wait til they do an African' Hamlet? This is like expecting or a bit like expecting Japanese people to flock to Madame Butterfly..well. not quite but what I'm trying to say is that why should anyone of ethnicity or person of heritage only be cast in a production about that ethnicity and why should an audience look like cast? Having said all that, rather poorly expressed, I have to add that I've only seen black audience members in more than token numbers at the NT for the play about the church choir and at the Tricycle at another play all about black people by that guy who had hit with the kitchen play. ( memory for names terrible as you know by now and also I cut my finger last night badly so lost a least a thimble of blood! ) |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 9, 2016 16:39:27 GMT
And yet still whenever the NT or the RSC cast a non-White actor as anything but Othello there are still howls of outrage. These are exactly the attitudes that need to be bulldozed out of the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 16:55:01 GMT
There does seem to be something of a variable standard here. On the one hand we're told that non-whites are put off going to the theatre because there aren't enough non-whites on the stage. On the other, we're told that we're supposed not to notice the colour of anyone on stage. It does rather suggest that an awful lot of white people are frantically worried that they might not be showing exactly the right amount of impartiality towards different ethnicities instead of simply getting on with treating people as people.
It brings to mind Dave Barry's comment on the etiquette of introductions: If you are introduced to a member of a minority group, use the "high-five" style handshake, followed by a remark designed to show you don't mind a bit, such as "I see you are a (name of a minority group)! Good!"
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Aug 9, 2016 18:23:35 GMT
I don't think it's so much "don't notice the colour of anyone on stage" as much as "acknowledge it in a respectful way." Like you're not going to look at a colorblind-cast production of a traditionally very white show (so, not something akin to Hamilton) and not notice someone's ethnicity. That's an unrealistic expectation. At the same time, you shouldn't let colorblind casting get in your way of enjoying the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 18:45:58 GMT
White, 35, homo, not sure which class (neither parents went to uni but dad owns his own house. Working? Middle? I'd say Upper Working), hot, black adopted sister, poor, hot
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 9, 2016 21:05:04 GMT
Well, as long as you're hot...
|
|
5,121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 9, 2016 21:06:32 GMT
Mmmmm
You cannot force people to do something, because it is politically correct and ticks several boxes and everyone can give themselves a good jolly pat on the back - they will come if they want to and they do, for example in another genre of entertainment it is well supported by BAME, look how many Chinese frequent gambling establishments for example.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 1:10:23 GMT
Who is talking about forcing anyone to do anything?
The purpose of theatre is to reflect society and humanity. But in reality most plays only represent a small privileged minority. That is a problem. The resentment and racism that exists in the industry, that those of us who work in theatre unfortunately have to deal with, is a problem. The way that racism affects and marginalises audiences is a problem.
Fortunately many of us theatre-makers are working hard to overcome those problems. I'm proud of what we've achieved so far but we still have a long way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 7:36:16 GMT
on the other hand if theatre are putting things on for minorities/working class etc are these people arnt going to see them (for what ever reason) then is there really any point these theatres putting these things on (unless of course they have been subsidised to do so)?
Rugby, golf, polo are very much white middle class sports. No one cares. Theatre is very much a white middle class sport too. Does anyone have to care?
There is so much ringing (wringing?) of white middle class hands at the moment at theatre of how to be diversive and inclusive but with prices how prices are they arnt going to attract the people they want.
Ps. as we prob have more women on here than minorities, if you're a woman are you more likely to go see something with gender blind casting in it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 7:53:19 GMT
If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a woman, I will choose the one that puts more women on stage every time, and I can't even BEGIN to tell you how much I'm loving theatre's current phase of casting women in male roles in Shakespeare. Say what you like about the lighting rig and the microphones (only please don't, you've said it all before and I'll never agree with you), Emma Rice's Globe is IMMEDIATELY better for gender parity than it ever was under the previous administrations. So yes. And not just gender-blind casting, but also purposefully gender-bent casting.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 8:43:56 GMT
There is so much ringing (wringing?) of white middle class hands at the moment at theatre of how to be diversive and inclusive but with prices how prices are they arnt going to attract the people they want. "We're very inclusive. We accept both gold and platinum credit cards." |
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 10:37:08 GMT
If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a woman, I will choose the one that puts more women on stage every time, and I can't even BEGIN to tell you how much I'm loving theatre's current phase of casting women in male roles in Shakespeare. Say what you like about the lighting rig and the microphones (only please don't, you've said it all before and I'll never agree with you), Emma Rice's Globe is IMMEDIATELY better for gender parity than it ever was under the previous administrations. So yes. And not just gender-blind casting, but also purposefully gender-bent casting. Tokenism at its very worst. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 10:47:41 GMT
You're going to have to expand on that, buddy. I mean, I know the theatrical canon has been largely skewed in favour of men ever since quite a long time ago, and the best way to address the gender imbalance would be to take it back to the writing and ensure that great plays and great roles are being written, but in the meantime, the existing canon isn't going away, so why not have female Hamlets, Henrys, Lears, and Malvolios? Why not take on a theatre devoted to a playwright who never managed more than half a dozen female characters in a play, and say "okay, but even though there aren't equal numbers of men and women in the play, I can still put equal numbers of men and women on the stage and ensure employment for equal numbers of men and women"? People are going to be doing Shakespeare for a really long time - I'm just not sure I agree that opening out the great roles to all actors counts as "tokenism", let alone "at its very worst". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning, but you kinda have to provide the reasoning if people are going to have a conversation, otherwise it's not a conversation, just blaring out statements.
|
|
2,711 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 10, 2016 13:00:07 GMT
To throw another two cents in here: Personally I'm not interested in seeing female Hamlets or Lears. I'd much rather see fewer productions of those and more productions that are centered around strong female leads which aren't done that often. I understand the British obsession with The Bard, but really, there's so much more than Shakespeare and his canon (and even he wrote a bunch of decent female roles). But our own Schiller for example wrote two fantastic female leads in Mary Stuart with Mary and Elizabeth I. facing off throughout the play. There's Dangerous Liaisons which recently gave Janet McTeer a chance to shine, there's plenty more in the canon and most certainly dozens of plays I've never heard of.
And what's stopping writers from creating new strong female parts and plays centered around female characters? Just as I'd love to see more stories from other parts of the world that will give more black or Asian actors juicy parts to play, I'd love to see more stories about strong and interesting females.
While I did love Harry Potter for example, I found it rather typical that despite everything, the plot once again centered around two boys and not two girls. In musical theatre, far too many female characters are still all about finding/holding on to/winning back a man instead of doing other things. For all their flaws, one of the great things the recent string of London flop musicals had in common was that they had female leads that were NOT concerned with a man - they wanted wanted to run a theatre and get through the war, fight for equal rights in a factory or simply play football.
So, to get back to topic: It does feel to me a bit like tokenism to say "here, we do something for gender balance and let a woman play Hamlet" instead of just writing/staging more plays with strong female characters in the lead instead of forever recycling the same few plays with fat male leading parts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:22:57 GMT
See, I'm not *hugely* enjoying Greg Doran's tenure as AD of the RSC with regards to the Shakespeare, but I really do appreciate that he regularly works to feature strong female roles in productions in the Swan (and that's something I respected the hell out of Dominic Dromgoole for too - paucity of female roles in Shakespeare? Then let's do Nell Gwynn, Heresy Of Love, Blue Stockings, and Anne Boleyn as well). As you point out, it's not like there aren't great roles in the existing canon, they're just not as well known as Hamlet and Lear and Shakespeare generally (also I could really do without yet another Blanche Dubois on our stages, guys). Anyway, now I totally understand why gender-flipping Shakespeare can be considered tokenism, though I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to be thrilled by it. |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 13:23:56 GMT
And what's stopping writers from creating new strong female parts and plays centered around female characters? Sexism in the industry. I make theatre. I've made West End shows. I've been told to my face, by major industry names, that audiences won't come to plays without a male protagonist or that "having only female protagonists makes a political statement and I'm personally not comfortable with that." It's simply astronomically easier to get a female-led Shakespeare production on than to get a female-led new writing production on, unfortunately. It's much easier to get a Shakespeare on than a new writing piece anyway, of course. Maybe, hopefully, seeing female Hamlets etc. on stage will make people more open to the ideas of female-led theatre in general? It does feel to me a bit like tokenism to say "here, we do something for gender balance and let a woman play Hamlet" instead of just writing/staging more plays with strong female characters in the lead instead of forever recycling the same few plays with fat male leading parts? Agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:25:42 GMT
See, I'm not *hugely* enjoying Greg Doran's tenure as AD of the RSC with regards to the Shakespeare, but I really do appreciate that he regularly works to feature strong female roles in productions in the Swan It's all down to Erica Whyman, the RSC's Deputy Artistic Director. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:27:42 GMT
OOH! Excellent, I can go back to moaning unreservedly about the Greg'n'Ant Show that the RSC has become! Thanks!  |
|
2,711 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 10, 2016 13:37:10 GMT
Anyway, now I totally understand why gender-flipping Shakespeare can be considered tokenism, though I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to be thrilled by it. That's totally fine! I (I can't edit the dumb smiley out, ugh)
If I lived in/near London and would be able to go to the theatre more often, I would be quite interested in seeing the odd gender-flipped Shakespeare. My only experience of this so far was Mark Rylance's Twelfth Night at the Apollo - which did work for me, so why shouldn't it work the other way round? I can also understand why female actors might want a go at a role like Hamlet. But yes, let's hope these gender-flipped Shakespeares may lead the way to more female-led plays in general. I could name about a dozen interestig historical female characters who I'd like to see on stage and none of their names are Elizabeth I. or Anne Boleyn  |
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 13:54:17 GMT
You're going to have to expand on that, buddy. Please don't call me "buddy", unless of course you'd like me to call you "sweetheart"? Sorry for the brevity of my earlier post. I'd love to spend all day musing about how ridiculous it is to cast women in male roles simply to make a point about how hard done-to women in theatre are, but the day job and my very inadequate coffee breaks forbid it. And anyway Viserys put it more eloquently than I could ever hope to. And now, if it's ok with you, I have a Kit-Kat to deal with. |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 13:55:15 GMT
Maxine Peake's Hamlet was v good and available on DVD. It's also on Sky Arts from time to time.
I know watching it on TV isn't like live, but would give a good idea of it.
|
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 14:01:25 GMT
And now, if it's ok with you, I have a Kit-Kat to deal with. If that is a euphemism, that's way too much information, BB. The tea lady person gave it to me. Whilst calling me "Sir" |
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 14:17:02 GMT
Matron: "Ohhhh Doctor Tickle, don't you understand? I want to be wooed!"
Dr Tickle (backing away) "Well you're not going to be wooed with me!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 15:01:32 GMT
Yawn
|
|
