2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 24, 2019 8:30:55 GMT
Missing the point entirely! No one is demanding that every Jewish role should be played by a Jew, simply that with shows like this there should be representation in the room to ensure that the portrayals are authentic. How is that so hard to understand? [twitter url="https://twitter.com/AdamLenson/status/1164944932 047642624"] But they are just assuming that it isn’t already happening, when evidence suggests (at least in this case) that it is. They also specifically criticised Angels in America for a non-Jewish cast, but that production definitely had a Rabbi working as a consultant and teaching them the Hebrew prayer - they talked about that at the platforms discussions they had. So saying that they just want cultural consultants is not true, because they are specifically criticising productions that did have them. Kathryn, you are not the tiniest bit sceptical about how convenient it was that a day or two after the original letter was published, a British-Israeli cultural consultant magically appeared to have been working on the production all along, with no previous mention of him at all, especially when Selladoor could have *immediately* responded with this but instead stayed quiet and made absolutely no mention of this in either press statement? I’m sorry but that does not sit right with me and I do find it a shame that people seem to be so quick to wash their hands of this subject and accept the first answer they are given, when other minority groups trying to have themselves fairly represented in theatre do not get this treatment. What is the difference, may I ask? |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 24, 2019 8:35:01 GMT
My God, if I got upset every time the portrayal of gay culture was turned into stereotype or cliché, I would never leave the house! And this IS often by my fellow gays, so having gays in the cast and creative team makes no difference at all. It hasn't even opened yet. Watch it first, then judge! Out of interest, do you find that stereotype to be more or less played up when the story is *about* being gay, or when there are characters in the story who happen to be gay, but the story does not centre around that? Also if a group of concerned gay people decided that they wanted to see themselves fairly represented on and off-stage, and were tired of the cliches and stereotypes so decided to call a production out on it to make a wider point, would you agree and stand with them, do nothing at all, or actively discourage it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 8:44:02 GMT
My God, if I got upset every time the portrayal of gay culture was turned into stereotype or cliché, I would never leave the house! And this IS often by my fellow gays, so having gays in the cast and creative team makes no difference at all. It hasn't even opened yet. Watch it first, then judge! Out of interest, do you find that stereotype to be more or less played up when the story is *about* being gay, or when there are characters in the story who happen to be gay, but the story does not centre around that? Also if a group of concerned gay people decided that they wanted to see themselves fairly represented on stage and were tired of the cliches and stereotypes so decided to call a production out on it to make a wider point, would you agree and stand with them, do nothing at all, or actively discourage it? Both to be honest. I mean yes, I take your point, if people are concerned of course they should speak up and nobody should ever stifle that. And of course, yes, people should listen to concerns. But I do think in theatre, directors should cast who they think is best for the part. And I do think the open letter would have been better AFTER they had seen Falsettos. And the whole point of acting is that - it is ACTING - pretending to be something you are not. As for gays on stage, I WOULD like to see a broader representation. But the camp OTT stereotype doesn't upset me - oddly it did when I was a teenager/early 20s. But now I love it, and there is entertainment, empathy, humanity and love (and much fabulousness) at that end of the spectrum. Anyway, as ever, I do understand that this is a complex issue and some people do have strong feelings on it. |
|
316 posts
|
Post by ABr on Aug 24, 2019 8:57:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 9:06:12 GMT
Nice article. And it's kinda how I feel about the gay thing. Both gay people and Jewish people (and I imagine gay Jewish people) are so heavily involved on and off stage in musicals (and the arts generally) I guess I don't see it as too much of an issue if one production doesn't happen to have Jewish people (or gays) in it. These are not under-represented people in our world. Not the case for many other "minority" groups that perhaps we should be more worried about. But as I said before they are right to raise their concerns. And myself and others are right to reply with out thoughts while staying open to counter arguments. |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 24, 2019 10:21:40 GMT
Out of interest, do you find that stereotype to be more or less played up when the story is *about* being gay, or when there are characters in the story who happen to be gay, but the story does not centre around that? Also if a group of concerned gay people decided that they wanted to see themselves fairly represented on stage and were tired of the cliches and stereotypes so decided to call a production out on it to make a wider point, would you agree and stand with them, do nothing at all, or actively discourage it? But I do think in theatre, directors should cast who they think is best for the part. And I do think the open letter would have been better AFTER they had seen Falsettos. And the whole point of acting is that - it is ACTING - pretending to be something you are not. This is, I think, the thing that has been most misconstrued throughout this entire debate. I cannot stress enough how this is honestly not about saying actors cannot and should not play parts where they are not the same heritage or sexuality (or even gender, in some cases) as that part. As you said below, yes it is a complex issue, but actually the message is quite simple and clear: representation. Let those whose story is being told be involved in telling it. Either on stage or as part of the creative team or even part of a wider team that productions can bring in. To me, it has nothing to do with seeing the production and watching the actors. They will do their job and do it mighty fine, I'm sure. It's fair representation so that when the story that is being told is so deeply rooted in the heritage of a certain minority, that minority should have a say or give advice at least as to how that story gets told, somewhere a long the line. Take The View Upstairs at the Soho Theatre as an example. Could you imagine if that show was produced, directed and cast (and whatever else), without a single gay person involved in telling that story? Personally, I don't see what's that different here. However, I totally agree with your statement about the right of reply and counterarguments! |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 24, 2019 12:20:31 GMT
I think that, ‘onstage’ at least, the difference between a)Jewish people and b)Jewish stereotypes is an issue. People are people, and unless the text mentions/deals with someones religion, why would you know that they were Jewish?
Living in NW London for many years showed me that many of those stereotypes were just elements of real day to day living the same way that ‘some’ people eating eel pie & mash is true of a cockney, or owning a whippet that of a ‘northerner’. People must feel so isolated from society as a whole if there is outrage every time someone from outside of the characters true race or caste is hired. I am starting to believe that we are on the doorstep of civil war given how passionate people get about something like this. Who should decide on ‘the rules’?
“I’ve found you a native Faroe-islander for your play. Can’t act for sh*t but at least he’ll be authentic”
“I’ve found you the most amazing actor for your play. His audition was phenomenal and he’ll smash it out of the park...but he’s from Dagenham”
“I can’t believe real Faroe-islanders aren’t being sought out more to make this play authentic and not take roles out of their already limited pool of work”
It’s exhausting reading about it to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Aug 24, 2019 12:27:27 GMT
^civil war?
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 24, 2019 12:33:09 GMT
People take everything incredibly seriously, sometimes removing a sense of reality from proceedings; Choosing to fight for one cause because it’s part of the zeitgeist when in fact 800 more causes are more worthy. My comment/thought process was based on Brexit, but it’s relevant to all sorts of subjects. Thanks for challenging though. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 24, 2019 13:03:10 GMT
They also specifically criticised Angels in America for a non-Jewish cast, but that production definitely had a Rabbi working as a consultant and teaching them the Hebrew prayer - they talked about that at the platforms discussions they had. So saying that they just want cultural consultants is not true, because they are specifically criticising productions that did have them. No, they didn’t criticise Angels in America. They included it in a list of productions which had non-Jews playing Jewish characters. They didn’t make any judgement on who was behind the production or claim to have a problem with the production. Simply, it was in a list of productions which had non-Jewish people playing Jewish characters. And they did say explicitly, in the same paragraph, “This is not a criticism of these actors, but a question aimed at the authenticity of apparent Jewish performances. “ It’s an observation, a question. Not a criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Aug 24, 2019 13:20:07 GMT
We desperately need a world where tolerance and equality are sought after values and where patience and understanding with differing and diverse opinions are the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 24, 2019 13:22:15 GMT
I just had coffee with an industry friend (who is also a friend of the leader of the criticism) and he just can't believe what is being said.
If this production turns out to be massively inaccurate in how it presents Judaism or is in any way offensive, then sure, go on the attack. Call them out for getting it wrong.
But no-one has seen the production. No-one knows how good or bad it will be in the handling of the faith of the characters.
I do have to question the idea of there being an 'authentic' portrayal of Jewish characters. There is no one way of being Jewish. Sure you can get it wrong, but the idea of acting is that each actor reacts to the text, the character and the situation - thus creating their own interpretation. You cannot stand outside of a production and demand a say on interpretations.
I absolutely believe that all productions should treat issues of race, gender, sexuality and faith with sensitivity and respect. But no one outside group should be given a veto on how things should be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Aug 24, 2019 13:45:36 GMT
I haven't read this entire thread, so please forgive any repetition. I think the issue is not one of the fact that Jewish characters should be played by Jewish actors; but that a work that does focus on elements of Jewish identity appears to have no Jewish personnel associated with it. Remember, Judaism is not just a religion, it's an ethnic group. Even a Jewish convert to Christianity remains Jewish, and I think it's the cultural/ethnic identity rather than the religion, which is quite varied in its forms of contemporary expression, that is the focus here,.
I do think the identity politics has gone too far, including in drama. The Jewish community is actually coming late to this table. Most other groups have already complained. But again, it's not about the fine performances of James McArdle, Juliet Stevenson, or so many others. It's the total lack of any Jewish presence in a musical focusing on the culture.
I heard of a drama teacher at an American university who has decided to take early retirement, because a production of Brecht's The Good Person of Setzuan was being cast with some non-Asians. Asian college students complained bitterly, the production was cancelled, and the professor decided he's had enough. Of course the irony with The Good Person of Setzuan is that Brecht set the play in China to create some distance, as Shakespeare often did with Italians, et. al. Both Brecht and Shakespeare were writing about humanity.
On one of my first trips to London, a few decades ago, I had the pleasure of seeing Patrick Stewart playing Aaron in Titus Andronicus. Will that sort of casting ever be possible again?!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 13:47:46 GMT
They also specifically criticised Angels in America for a non-Jewish cast, but that production definitely had a Rabbi working as a consultant and teaching them the Hebrew prayer - they talked about that at the platforms discussions they had. So saying that they just want cultural consultants is not true, because they are specifically criticising productions that did have them. No, they didn’t criticise Angels in America. They included it in a list of productions which had non-Jews playing Jewish characters. They didn’t make any judgement on who was behind the production or claim to have a problem with the production. Simply, it was in a list of productions which had non-Jewish people playing Jewish characters. And they did say explicitly, in the same paragraph, “This is not a criticism of these actors, but a question aimed at the authenticity of apparent Jewish performances. “ It’s an observation, a question. Not a criticism. But it seems to me this comes back to precisely what someone here said they didn’t do - ie they reckon they didn’t say that non-Jewish actors shouldn’t play Jewish roles. I don’t see that you can read ‘the authenticity of apparent Jewish performances’ as anything BUT that? Or are they saying the casting would have been fine if there were other Jewish creatives involved in the production to guide them? (If that’s what they meant then it is indeed unfortunate that’s not how it reads - and again, how would they know there weren’t any Jewish people involved?). For heaven’s sake, SRB also played a flirtatious young woman in The Lehman Trilogy. As a woman, did I sit around debating whether they asked a young female to help guide his performance? Or did I assume he’d applied research, acting technique and observational skills to create a character - like all actors do?! I mean, if the letter writers had any actual examples of Judaism and Jewish characters/life being misrepresented in theatre recently, or Jewish creatives/advisors being actively excluded from the theatrical process, I’d be right behind them. But they don’t seem to have that, so it seems like they’re implying rather than stating a problem. Reading the follow-up letter suggests their real point was “let’s figure out ways to get more authentic voices into storytelling”. If they had just said that, without the supercilious tone and the rather scattergun attack on creative people just doing their creative jobs, I suspect they’d have been greeted with open arms by the theatre community. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 24, 2019 13:57:33 GMT
I don’t see how you can say “they reckon that they didn’t say that non-Jewish actor shouldn’t play Jewish roles” when they explicitly said “This is not to say that non-Jewish actors cannot accurately and sensitively represent Judaism on stage, but rooms that appropriate and erase Judaism are unacceptable; there is an obvious correlation between reduced representation in the creative process and increased misrepresentation in the product.” It’s a nuanced statement, but it absolutely isn’t saying what you’re claiming they said. You might agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed, but taking conclusions which are the direct opposite of what was said in the letter seems perverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 14:12:25 GMT
I don’t see how you can say “they reckon that they didn’t say that non-Jewish actor shouldn’t play Jewish roles” when they explicitly said “This is not to say that non-Jewish actors cannot accurately and sensitively represent Judaism on stage, but rooms that appropriate and erase Judaism are unacceptable; there is an obvious correlation between reduced representation in the creative process and increased misrepresentation in the product.” It’s a nuanced statement, but it absolutely isn’t saying what you’re claiming they said. You might agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed, but taking conclusions which are the direct opposite of what was said in the letter seems perverse. My point was that what they were saying in the letter wasn’t clear. If their gripe is with Falsettos (as it appears mostly, though apparently now misguidedly, to be), why list those other actors at all, followed by the line “This is not a criticism of these actors, but a question aimed at the authenticity of apparent Jewish performances.”? It is fully four (chunky) paragraphs later before they apparently go back on that line and say, as you point out, “This is not to say that non-Jewish actors cannot accurately and sensitively represent Judaism on stage, but rooms that appropriate and erase Judaism are unacceptable; there is an obvious correlation between reduced representation in the creative process and increased misrepresentation in the product.” So I say again: were any of the actors they named guilty of inaccurate or offensive portrayals of Jewish characters and the lives Jewish people lead? If not, why were they mentioned at all? Did all of those productions they worked on have no meaningful input at all from people who could accurately reflect Jewish life and character? If not, why were these productions listed? I’m pretty sure we can all get behind attempts to increase diversity in all of society, not just theatre as a microcosm. But let’s be led by facts, not assumptions. Because facts make a far better case. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 24, 2019 17:14:40 GMT
They literally use the term ‘Jewface’. They specifically list non-Jewish actors playing Jewish characters - even ones in productions that *did* involve Jewish cultural consultants and creative team members (writers and composers certainly *are* members of the creative team, arguably the most vital ones).
The idea that it’s not about casting simply doesn’t wash, no matter what caveats they add, when that is specifically what they are criticising.
How can any of these productions that were *written by people from Jewish backgrounds* be called ‘cultural appropriation’? None of these productions are stealing culture away from Jewish people.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 24, 2019 17:24:29 GMT
They also specifically criticised Angels in America for a non-Jewish cast, but that production definitely had a Rabbi working as a consultant and teaching them the Hebrew prayer - they talked about that at the platforms discussions they had. So saying that they just want cultural consultants is not true, because they are specifically criticising productions that did have them. No, they didn’t criticise Angels in America. They included it in a list of productions which had non-Jews playing Jewish characters. They didn’t make any judgement on who was behind the production or claim to have a problem with the production. Simply, it was in a list of productions which had non-Jewish people playing Jewish characters. And they did say explicitly, in the same paragraph, “This is not a criticism of these actors, but a question aimed at the authenticity of apparent Jewish performances. “ It’s an observation, a question. Not a criticism. Pfft. In this context, ‘a question’ *is* a criticism - the claim that it is not is simply a rhetorical device to make them sound more reasonable. The ‘I’m Just Asking Questions!’ defence of an argument. If they have problems with the representation of Jewish culture in any of those productions beyond the religious beliefs and ethnicity of the actors playing the characters, they should state them. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 24, 2019 17:38:11 GMT
Fine. I'll stick to what they wrote rather than what you think they meant.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 24, 2019 18:04:31 GMT
It’s really simple - there’s no reason to ask the question if everything is fine and there’s nothing to criticise.
*shrug*
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 21:58:52 GMT
Fine. I'll stick to what they wrote rather than what you think they meant. Well, surely the whole point is what people take from what has been written. If it is capable of being interpreted in a way that they apparently didn't mean, then they haven't got their actual message across clearly enough. I took them to be criticising both casting and production development, whether they meant to do so or not - by the very fact of mentioning casting they brought it into the discussion. |
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 24, 2019 22:12:15 GMT
The problem is that "what people take" is inevitably shaped by their own experience and perspective - you only have to look at the European trip by our PM this week, where some commentators have hailed it as a great victory for mr Johnson and other commentators have said he's been backed into a corner from which he cannot escape. What "people" take from what has been written can be many things, it may be capable of being interpreted in a way they didn't mean or a way they precisely meant. I think the original statement is poorly written, I actually don't have an opinion on the underlying accusation as I don't feel qualified to have a view on it, but what I'm struck by are the number of people who have assigned intentions and subtext where it's conceivable that none existed, or at least none intended. But I'm opting out of this now as I'm not actually discussing the underlying issue, but the way that the statement has been (mis)interpreted here and elsewhere.
I look forward to seeing Falsettos next month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Aug 25, 2019 21:12:00 GMT
"Hello. And what are you going to sing for us today? Lovely. And if you could just read this scene.... And now the dance. And just to check, what religion are you? Oh, sorry, we've already got enough Catholics. Would you consider converting to Judaism?" Missing the point entirely! No one is demanding that every Jewish role should be played by a Jew, simply that with shows like this there should be representation in the room to ensure that the portrayals are authentic. How is that so hard to understand? I see you're new to humour. Welcome. |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 26, 2019 10:36:39 GMT
Such a slippery slope.
Only gay people can play gay roles?
Only Scousers in Blood Brothers?
And I thought it was all acting and make believe!
|
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 26, 2019 10:41:09 GMT
Such a slippery slope. Only gay people can play gay roles? Only Scousers in Blood Brothers? And I thought it was all acting and make believe! Oh thank goodness you're here marge! I knew we could count on you to actually read everything that's been posted and use your sensitivity and tact and not completely and ignorantly misconstrue a part of the debate that's been talked about 800 times! |
|
