3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Jun 30, 2017 16:00:58 GMT
You're racistt. I'm sorry, but it has to be said.
|
|
114 posts
|
Post by showbizkid on Jul 4, 2017 7:30:10 GMT
You're racistt. I'm sorry, but it has to be said. One T. Actually no I'm not racist - I don't think an Asian is less than a white person or that a black person is lower than a ginger haired person. I just want everything to be clear from the starting post and complete blind colour casting works every way. My point is and you still don't understand, why wasn't Kristoff black in the film then? And why can't a white person play Simba in Lion King? Surely that is racist? Hm... |
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Jul 4, 2017 19:16:50 GMT
Eugh, we've had this discussion so many times that I think I should just make a word document with the argument written in it that I could just copy and paste on to here. In short... Non traditional (aka 'color blind') casting operates in order to provide a level playing field for underrepresented people (the same point stands for race blind, gender blind etc. casting) because representation is important and people shouldn't be boxed into playing certain roles (and often stereotypes) because of their race (or gender etc.). Literally thousands of roles are implied to be for white people, and even roles where race is not important to the character (e.g. anyone from Les Mis/Phantom... yep, non white people lived in France in the 19th Century.... shocking revelation, I know  ) seem to cause controversy when a they are cast 'nontraditionally'. It's beyond me why it even matters to people... at all. Diversity is so important, as well as casting the best person for the job based on skills, rather than appearance. Also, at the end of the day it's a family musical based on a family film. Are young children really going to be tugging at their parents' sleeves and asking about the realism of the races of people living in a fictional 19th century scandinavian country? I doubt it. I'm writing this is a hurry and I'm sure someone else could phase this all much better than me right now, but in short... I can't fathom why a diverse cast could / would anger someone so much. Does it really matter that much to you? Because I'm pretty sure the impact that a diverse cast will have on its young impressionable audience is much more important than replicating the film beat for beat. Or perpetrating the lame "historical accuracy" spiel. |
|
114 posts
|
Post by showbizkid on Jul 5, 2017 7:40:55 GMT
Eugh, we've had this discussion so many times that I think I should just make a word document with the argument written in it that I could just copy and paste on to here. In short... Non traditional (aka 'color blind') casting operates in order to provide a level playing field for underrepresented people (the same point stands for race blind, gender blind etc. casting) because representation is important and people shouldn't be boxed into playing certain roles (and often stereotypes) because of their race (or gender etc.). Literally thousands of roles are implied to be for white people, and even roles where race is not important to the character (e.g. anyone from Les Mis/Phantom... yep, non white people lived in France in the 19th Century.... shocking revelation, I know ) seem to cause controversy when a they are cast 'nontraditionally'. It's beyond me why it even matters to people... at all. Diversity is so important, as well as casting the best person for the job based on skills, rather than appearance. Also, at the end of the day it's a family musical based on a family film. Are young children really going to be tugging at their parents' sleeves and asking about the realism of the races of people living in a fictional 19th century scandinavian country? I doubt it. I'm writing this is a hurry and I'm sure someone else could phase this all much better than me right now, but in short... I can't fathom why a diverse cast could / would anger someone so much. Does it really matter that much to you? Because I'm pretty sure the impact that a diverse cast will have on its young impressionable audience is much more important than replicating the film beat for beat. Or perpetrating the lame "historical accuracy" spiel. Fine..... So I look forward to seeing a white Effie in Dreamgirls then!!! |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Jul 5, 2017 8:50:29 GMT
Clearly you don't get it. To approach race (and casting race) with no understanding or appreciation of how a power dynamic exists or how greatly disadvantaged minority performers are is either stemming from ignorance or purposely being obtuse. I'm really done trying to reason with this kind of foolery.
|
|
114 posts
|
Post by showbizkid on Jul 5, 2017 16:29:21 GMT
Clearly you don't get it. To approach race (and casting race) with no understanding or appreciation of how a power dynamic exists or how greatly disadvantaged minority performers are is either stemming from ignorance or purposely being obtuse. I'm really done trying to reason with this kind of foolery. Actually no, you clearly don't get it. I completely agree with everything you say. Why then couldn't a fat person play a thin role? Or why are Asian males rarely used in colour blind casting? Why can't we mash up every way possible? Because it's all token, PC box ticking and only works one way round (black people taking white peoples roles) that's why. That's fine and amazing but it's not fair it it's only one way. Jonathan Pryce would never be cast in Miss Siagon if it started today - THAT is my point. If Disney are all for power dynamics as you say then why not have Kristoff as black in the first place. I wouldn't have cared and THAT would have been a stronger message to society and Disney viewers all around the world. |
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Jul 5, 2017 18:06:40 GMT
Fine..... So I look forward to seeing a white Effie in Dreamgirls then!!! .. well, no. Because race/racism in 1960s America is a significant element of the story. I sincerely hope this sort of thinking is weeded out of anyone who ever has anything to do with casting any show ever again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 19:41:17 GMT
You are right, technically there is no reason why you cant have a white simba in any future productions of The Lion King. However in the current production, the way it was conceived and the directors vision race plays a key part. They envisioned that for their version of the story the majority of the cast would be black. In fact id say the majority of people would say this aspect brings an authenticity to the show that would be lost otherwise. A future director may have a different vision.
I do agree though that there is hypocrisy when it comes to diverse casting (you only have to look at this forum when race isnt involved how often other sections of society are put down or mocked) and the majority of people dont actually want equality but positive discrimination
|
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Jul 6, 2017 0:26:31 GMT
There was actually a white understudy Simba on the Lion King UK tour a couple of years back who I saw in Birmingham and he was very good.
I don't want to wade in on the colourblind casting argument too much, but in a nutshell my opinion is that (putting aside roles where race/origin is integral to the role i.e. Hairspray) it shouldn't matter someone's race. We should be employing the best actors and the most suitable for the role, regardless of how they look. Absolutely we should be encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to be able to have opportunities, but in my mind to give someone a role or job (and this goes for any industry) just because of their 'diversity' becomes a tick-box exercise and completely undermines the whole idea.
That said, if people are being denied jobs because of their diversity, then that is of course a major issue and needs addressing.
From a devils advocate point of view, could a white/Asian/Latino person play a role like Lola, or Rachel Marron that has been traditionally cast black? There's probably further examples that aren't coming to mind right now, but I wonder what roles are intended to be played by people of a particular ethnicity, versus those that are intended to not be played by a particular ethnicity...my examples being: Glinda, states Caucasian in the casting call; Javert, any ethnicity; Aaron Burr, any non-Caucasian ethnicity. Etc etc
EDIT - I feel like this is straying a bit off-topic from Frozen...is there a suitable thread in the General section that a mod could move the last few posts to?
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Jul 6, 2017 5:06:31 GMT
I just want to respond to the white Simba and white Effie nonsense first. Performers who are black, Latin, etc welcome playing roles that are traditionally white, I'm sure, such as this example in Frozen. But in reality, I am sure they are more at ease and interested in playing roles that don't require this kind of masquerade or blind casting. Roles written with POC in mind in musical theatre specifically are far and few in between, where the overwhelming majority of roles are written for (and are cast with) caucasians. So when once in a blue moon an Effie, Simba, or Rachel Marron comes along, let's not say that a white performer is also entitled for consideration.
On the politics of non-traditional casting, a lot of people talk about affirmative action or "being PC" as if it's a bad thing. This system is put in place because discriminatory actions still happen, and are in fact so ingrained in the system. So protocols need to be put in place for corrective actions and to protect individuals who continue to be disadvantaged because of their minority status. PC=not a bad thing. In fact, I ask for people to suppress whatever microagression and "light" racism they have, and yes, please be PC and tick off the damn box.
In casting world, minorities don't get a free handout or a job just because of their skin color. We're talking Disney here. They won't give these guys the job if they don't think they are capable. So I think it's interesting that we only read about "jobs should go to the most appropriate person regardless of race" only when race-blind casting is in practice. Except you don't hear this kind of language when traditional casting is in place. So yes, clearly non-traditional casting still bothers people, which is why this is said over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 6:06:14 GMT
What's a 'thin role'? Unless you're in a show that directly refers to weight, there's no such thing.
The fact is, 99% of the time that colour blind casting is used, race isn't mentioned in the script. I hardly think they're going to stop in the middle of Frozen and sing a new song about how white everybody is. That's the difference between saying why can a black person be in Frozen but a white person can't be in Dreamgirls or The Color Purple. The latter two shows directly deal with race, because racism is a thing and no, white people historically have not been the victims of it. Therefore, there are no shows about how hard it is to be white. If there were, then yes it would be strange to have non-white people playing the parts.
Why does it mostly happen with black people? Well the majority of colour blind casting happens in the US where there are three times the amount of black people as there are Asian people. Not to mention different cultures have different levels of exposure and interest in musical theatre. Asian people have certainly been a part of it in the past though, notably in Hamilton and Les Miserables.
The whole point of colour blind casting is to give people of colour more opportunities. It would have made no difference if Kristoff had been black in the film because he still would have been voiced by the white Jonathan Groff, so in the films yes they may as well go for what is closer to historical accuracy. Especially as Disney have a large number of animated films concentrating on character of other ethnicities. It doesn't mean that they can't throw a black performer a bone when it goes to Broadway though. I don't know of Jelani's work but he looks the part to me, can easily see how he'd be the love interest. And if he's the best person for the part, why not?
One day maybe we'll see a new musical like Dear Evan Hansen that doesn't refer to race but has black actors playing the family members anyway. Until that time comes, I think it's fair enough that we give non-white actors an opportunity to play characters that don't have to remind them of how their race has been discriminated against every single time they go to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 6:40:19 GMT
Performers who are black, Latin, etc welcome playing roles that are traditionally white, I'm sure, such as this example in Frozen. But in reality, I am sure they are more at ease and interested in playing roles that don't require this kind of masquerade or blind casting. Roles written with POC in mind in musical theatre specifically are far and few in between, where the overwhelming majority of roles are written for (and are cast with) caucasians The overwhelming majority of roles are not written for caucasians. The overwhelming majority of roles have no implied race or colour at all, and casting a non-white performer in such a role is not some kind of masquerade. It's true that roles written specifically as non-white are few and far between, but roles written specifically as white are few and far between as well. There are probably fewer explicitly white roles than explicitly non-white roles. Roles are often cast as if they're explicitly white, but that's a very different thing from the roles being explicitly white. And that difference is crucial. To me, what you've posted above is the problem. You refer to a non-white performer in a white role as a masquerade, but in doing so you're buying into the idea that the role is implicitly white. I believe that to make any real progress we have to step past the idea that we're being good by accepting a black person in a white role and pay attention to the fact that we shouldn't have been thinking of it as a white role in the first place. The racism is in that underlying assumption. Compensating for it by casting black people anyway is papering over the problem, not solving it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 7:24:44 GMT
Re: political correctness, I always liked this from Neil Gaiman:
|
|
114 posts
|
Post by showbizkid on Jul 6, 2017 9:57:46 GMT
Thank you guys. Thank you. This is exactly what I am trying to say.
But on another note we should go back to Frozen! How much of the Hyperion 90 minute Disneyland current live show do you think they will use? In the Let It Go clips I think it's done tremendously well actually with the cape, staircase, projections, ice chandelier and snap costume change!!!
|
|
571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Jul 11, 2017 14:08:36 GMT
The Let It Go sequence is superb!!!
|
|
2,051 posts
|
Post by infofreako on Jul 22, 2017 21:50:41 GMT
I just want to respond to the white Simba and white Effie nonsense first. Performers who are black, Latin, etc welcome playing roles that are traditionally white, I'm sure, such as this example in Frozen. But in reality, I am sure they are more at ease and interested in playing roles that don't require this kind of masquerade or blind casting. Roles written with POC in mind in musical theatre specifically are far and few in between, where the overwhelming majority of roles are written for (and are cast with) caucasians. So when once in a blue moon an Effie, Simba, or Rachel Marron comes along, let's not say that a white performer is also entitled for consideration. Where does that sit with the white Simba mentioned in the post immediately before yours. If a white Simba is nonsense clearly that wouldnt have happened |
|
21 posts
|
Post by sushisamba on Aug 1, 2017 14:31:02 GMT
'Official trailer' apparently...
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 1, 2017 18:37:41 GMT
I was actually pretty surprised at how much they've revealed (though it's really just a rehearsal), considering it doesn't open on Broadway until next year. Normally Disney is very hush hush about their products.
|
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Aug 4, 2017 16:33:59 GMT
A first look at the new artwork, and the designs that didn't make the cut.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 4, 2017 16:55:03 GMT
^ Thank you. I saw the poster release but didn't know there was an article about the different trials. Gonna make myself a snack and read away  |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 4, 2017 18:25:38 GMT
I quite like some of the rejected designs like the sci-fi one. The final version is good but I wouldn't be surprised if it changed again before Broadway, happened with Aladdin which had a different logo for the pre Broadway tryout in Toronto
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 22:27:15 GMT
I would have voted for the "too safe" one. But they would need to make Elsa look more like the letter R...somehow.
But I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if it changed before Broadway. I do love seeing artwork development for shows before the final well-known thing, especially if they're out of town. I still have the Matilda leaflet from the RSC with the Quentin Blake illustrations, and even the original Mary Poppins leaflet and programme with the cherry tree petals!
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 4, 2017 22:33:57 GMT
A really interesting article, thanks for posting daniel! And re: the Matilda artwork as mentioned above, I don't think any of their changes have ever been as good as their original with a multitude of colour. The whole dark blue/white thing does hardly anything to represent the glory of that musical! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 22:51:24 GMT
A really interesting article, thanks for posting daniel! And re: the Matilda artwork as mentioned above, I don't think any of their changes have ever been as good as their original with a multitude of colour. The whole dark blue/white thing does hardly anything to represent the glory of that musical! I didn't mind when the Matilda artwork first went to blue and white (like the US and Aus/NZ productions look like now), but at some point early last year the London artwork (and now UK tour) turned even darker blue, the font was less playful and less flying letters were visable so now it looks dreadful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 23:26:08 GMT
I really didnt see the 2 faces until i read it in the text. Until then i thought a big snowflake was just stupid. Now i really like it.
I really like the knitted 'too playful' version! Perfect as a christmas time alternative.
|
|
) seem to cause controversy when a they are cast 'nontraditionally'. 
