Three times this year we have seen plays where the gender or race of a major character in a play was changed. In Richard III at Stratford, a woman played the part of Richard. Although it didn't affect my reading or enjoyment of the play, I have friends who couldn't get past it--the physical differences were too great. It didn't bother me much to have a woman play Richard, because we were not supposed to see it as a shift in genders. The actress was still playing the role as male.
Then in THE HOMECOMING, an African-American actress played a part that was traditionally played by a white actress.
But in THE HOMECOMING, a play about working class Brits, having a black actress play the wife of a character, changed it quite a bit. Were we not supposed to notice this working-class bloke had married a black woman? Or was she supposed to be interchangeable with a white actress?
Pinter did not mean for the issue of race to be addressed-the means of discussing it were not in the script. So we had to treat her as a white woman although she was not.
Can a white actress effectively play the part of a traditionally black character in works like A Raisin in the Sun or The Color Purple? Can a man play a woman without it being a statement about sexuality? Does race/sex matter?
At the Shaw Festival, the male lead, a nineteenth century British clergyman, was played by a black actor. Was he supposed to be a typical Englishman? In this case, I doubt it made any difference.
Clearly there are far fewer black playwrights and black characters in plays. And in many cases it makes little difference to have black actors play the part. But in some cases, and I would say THE HOMECOMING might constitute one, it does matter. The character is too pivotal-- to change her race.
What do you think? Does changes in gender or race affect your reading of a work?
22 comments:
Patti - Oh, tough question! I really think it depends on the role. I don't think, for instance, that the main characters of A Raisin in the Sun could be easily played by whites. On the other hand, I couldn't see that race matters very much for some of the main characters in A Chorus Line. Same thing with Rent. In that play, I think, the race of the characters matters less.
In the case of THE HOMECOMING,given the kind of men there were (angry, insulting, damaged), there is no way they would not have commented on their son/brother marrying a black woman. There is no way that would not be an issue. But often it would make no difference at all.
I agree with you that in CANDIDA it didn't really affect the play but it certainly can in other plays. The Shakespeare in the Park that Joe Papp (& his successors) put on in Central Park each summer makes a point of "color blind casting" and the results are often mixed. Some critics are fine with the results but others (John Simon comes to mind, naturally) are often very hostiie.
I'd say the quality of the acting does have something to do with it, but it also depends on the play. If it's set in 19th Century Russia and you have a black woman playing one of the THREE SISTERS, it's going to be jarring (at a minimum).
They did a version of WEST SIDE STORY with dialogue done partly in Spanish (one of the gangs was supposed to be Puerto Rican, after all) and it got very mixed reviews, to the point where part of the dialogue was put back into English.
Years ago we saw an all-black version of HELLO DOLLY and another of GUYS AND DOLLS and neither of them worked any less well than the all-white versions.
I'd think it would be more noticeable with one black actor playing a sibling in a white family and no mention of the fact (as in THE HOMECOMING that you cited) that would be startling.
Jeff M.
I mean, imagine a "color blind" FIDDLER ON THE ROOF where one of Tevye's daughters is black. As the character would put it: "Unthinkable! Absurd!"
But having Mama Morton in CHICAGO played by a black actress worked fine.
So yes, context is everything.
Jeff M.
Hm. I haven't read nor seen the Pinter, but at this point, there have been relatively "normalized" (particularly) Afro-Caribbean Britons for quite a few decades...and not a few of them not out of the working class...not all skinheads have been racist, and not all yobbos, either, I suspect...
Yes, but if the playwright did not intend for her to be black, isn't the production adding a dimension that is not addressed in the script. In the 1960s a working class British fellow bringing home a black wife to this den of thieves would raise comments. And it simply is not addressed. It can't be.
Ah, so it wasn't in a "contemporary" setting, but very much still set in the 1960s. Gotcha. (THE SERVANT, for example, isn't really so timebound.)
Though another way that Context Is Everything is the notion that what the switch means to certain sets of viewers will differ from other sets of viewers. Which sometimes is simply playing on the audience's ignorance...or, perhaps more kindly, in some instances their innocence.
Very much late fifties, early sixties. Set today, it would be a non-issue most likely.
A woman playing Richard III would bother me. African-Americans appearing as characters in an Oscar Wilde play is jarring, too. I understand the motives to include women and minorities in plays, but the political agenda can't trump the integrity of the work without audience consequences.
One such casting coup comes to mind. Ossie Davis played John F Kennedy in the clever horror-satire spoof BUBBA HO-TEP.
Great movie, wasn't it?
It is a real problem. For instance, WSU's repertory graduate program has three African-American actors out of a group of about 12. Their recent production of Hollywood/Ukraine featured a black female Harpo. She was good in the part but to change the race and sex was quite a leap.
Last year, they had a black Richard III who was brilliant. But again, it introduces a new element.
That really did work, but they did (sort of) explain it.
I agree with George about the black Richard III, though I know it has been done. Ruby Dee played Gertrude (with Sam Waterston as Hamlet) in Central Park (we didn't see it so I can't judge). On the reverse side, Raul Julia played Othello opposite Frances Conroy.
Jeff M.
Again with my favorite answer: it depends.
It the race or gender does not have an effect on the perception of the play, fine. If, however, the audience is asked to suspend too much disbelief, it can become a conceit of the actor or director. Helen Mirren can't play Celie Johnson in THE COLOR PURPLE. That's fine. Whoopi Goldberg can't play Queen Elizabeht. It has nothing to do with their relative ability of actors. The stunt casting places too much attention on the actor for the story to hold its place.
Good analysis. And in THE HOMECOMING, given the craven instincts this family of men have, given what they say about women, in general, a black woman would invite excoriating comments. Thus when her color is not mentioned (because it is not in the script) it loses its truth.
I think it bothers me when a white actor plays a traditionally non-white part because the stages and screens are so monochrome these days. But no one "owns" a part. If a local theater does it, I care less than if a major studio does. They'll audition 2000 girls for True Grit, then say well, we made this character white because we couldn't find an actor of that race. Seems rather ridiculous.
Seeing a nonwhite actor play a white part bothers me less. Just as I'm able to watch older films that are appallingly racist by today's standards, I am also able to get past seeing a black actor play Mercutio or Hamlet or really, does it matter that much? The audience is not there to be placated all the time. They are meant to be poked and angered and provoked.
Shakespeare's plays have been enriched by such things. But if a black actor's inserted into certain roles, color needs to be addressed. And naturally, unless the playwright updates his work to accommodate the change, things are thrown off.
IMHO, of course.
Couldn't disagree more about A RAISIN IN THE SUN. The whole point of it is that the family is black and wants to move into an all-white neighborhood.
I saw a community theater play in which a black guy played Zeus. He was fine in the part, but it did seem a little off. My basic thought is that if race or gender is intrinsic to the play or character, it should be cast traditionally.
Day late and a dollar short again, but here are my 2 cents:
Watching a play requires a willing suspension of disbelief. It already takes place in a world with its own logic. Antony and Cleopatra speak Elizabethan English, a language that didn't even exist in their time.
Anything can break that illusion for a viewer, including the race or gender of a performer that seems "wrong." Whether that happens depends on the viewer and has less to do with the casting.
I say such tinkering is unwanted and unnecessary. No, there are probably not enough plays with leading parts for black actors, but then commission one, don't try to change what was never the author's intent. Bah.
I'll just say that, as a playwright, I'd appreciate that directors who think outside of that little box would have the insight to make my dated play, current and relevant to this century and the reality that nothing is as it was. I do agree, however that it's difficult to suspend reality when gender or race is intrinsic to the story
Post a Comment