|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 18:41:01 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. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 4, 2018 20:52:26 GMT
Our discussion of diversity issues gets mixed up with North America's. We don’t have the same demographic mix as they do, so we really should be approaching representation differently, as we have different underrepresented groups compared to our population. Of course it’s partly because a lot of our cultural products need to travel across the pond to be financially viable, so need to be keyed into that conversation.
It's not just about minority groups, though. A while back I suggested here that it was less than impressive that the revival of 'The Rink' at the Southwark Playhouse had a nearly-all-male creative team (just about everything I've seen this year has had a nearly-all-male creative team), and I was rewarded with an entirely predictable set of responses saying I was being ridiculous (or words to that effect), all of which as far as I could tell came from white men, and one of which even hilariously equated hiring more women in major creative positions to "stifling creativity".
In most theatre/drama degree programmes, women outnumber men (not to mention that women outnumber men in most theatre audiences), but somehow theatre is still, all too often, a (mostly very white) boys' club. It's not necessarily about setting quotas. It IS about making sure everybody who is qualified gets a shot at the job. It's a sweeping generalisation, true, but people working in the arts more often than not tend to be left-leaning/progressively-inclined in their politics, and more often than not would absolutely claim to support inclusivity in hiring practices - and yet, as I said, theatre all too often is a very white, very middle-class boys' club, and the suggestion that something is amiss is all too often dismissed out of hand. It's a problem.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 23:11:45 GMT
I think what they meant was maybe producers including a “token” person of colour as part of a show to avoid having an all-white cast? I’m not sure. We will never know the meaning of the original post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 23:40:36 GMT
A bit more bodily diversity would be nice. The whole woman issue aside, I found that most of the cast of The Inheritance looked incredibly samey from where I was sitting, even though they clearly had different faces and a couple even had different skin tones. My friends come in an array of shapes and sizes, so I get INCREDIBLY frustrated when I look at a cast and see the vast majority fit just one particular body-type (inevitably thin and/or fit), especially in plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 23:49:37 GMT
I get INCREDIBLY frustrated when I look at a cast and see the vast majority fit just one particular body-type (inevitably thin and/or fit), especially in plays. ^ THIS. I was very pleased with the Kinky Boots tour cast because there is actually some diversity in the female ensemble casting in terms of body types and skin tones. When I look at programmes and just see the same sort of people making up the cast, it really disappoints me. |
|
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. |
|
5,068 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. |
|
1,972 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. |
|
1,972 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.
|
|
1,134 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 6, 2018 7:08:59 GMT
Some posts about the original poster and responses have been removed.
|
|
1,972 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. |
|
1,972 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 |
|
3,040 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. |
|
4,156 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. |
|
3,040 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. |
|
4,156 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.
|
|
3,040 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. |
|
