Pennsylvania college cancels play after author objects to white actors

[mhendo]

@DSeid

From his FB post, bolding mine
I read his words as being asked on several occasions to participate by the college and their request being rejected several times.

Just out of interest, do you think that there might be another explanation for the words “unable to participate,” apart from sheer pig-headedness, which is what you seem to be suggesting?

Some friends of mine asked me to be part of a Skype conversation a while back, but i was unable to participate because i was really busy at the time. Do you think it’s possible that something like this might apply to Suh? I guess it’s possible that he sits back and just waits for those massive $500 royalty checks to roll in, but it could be that he actually has to work to keep food on the table.

Also, more generally, do you think he has a responsibility to participate in the conversation with the students, and the preparation of the play? When you pay to license a play, you pay for the right to perform it. You are not necessarily paying for one-on-one access to the playwright, unless the contract explicitly says so. Do you think that David Mamet or Andrew Lloyd Webber would honor a request to work with every theater group that performs their work?

[Kimstu]

@treis

If Suh wanted to cancel the play for a non-racist reason I would hold him to the same standard. And, no, I also do not think he should do whatever the theater people want. He’s free to make reasonable requests in the process of coming to a solution. In this case, Suh didn’t. […]

[…] I conclude he’s an asshole.

I’m confused about the level of hostility being directed at Suh here. Are you equally disapproving of the production shutdowns due to race/gender-related casting changes that I linked to an article about back in post #113?

Is it, for example, “assholish” or “unreasonable” or “misogynist” in your view for the copyright holders of the musical Grease to deny permission for a production with an all-female cast?

I’m reminded of science-fiction/fantasy author Ursula K. Leguin’s remarks on the difficulty of getting cover art showing dark-skinned people for editions of her novels in which characters are explicitly described as (for the most part) dark-skinned:

In most of my books, a minority of the characters, or none, are specified as white, while major characters or whole populations are described as dark-skinned.

With very rare exceptions, the cover art of my books in both America and England has utterly ignored specific descriptions in the text and portrayed the characters as white. […]

Many readers believe that writers get to choose the covers of their books. In traditional publishing, it’s a lucky author who even gets a look at the cover before the book comes out. Some of us who have gained a little clout get a clause in the contract that gives us cover approval, but our approval is “not to be unreasonably withheld.”

Guess who gets to define “unreasonable”?

I’ve fought the blonde bimbos and the hairy-chested, blue-eyed Aryan heroes tooth and nail for forty years. Over and over I have been utterly defeated. Publisher’s cover departments are patronizing and impenetrable. We know what sells, they say. Covers with people of color on them don’t sell.

I don’t really see how it’s “assholish” or “racist” for a living author to feel strongly that the specified ethnicity of the characters in their works is important for some reason intrinsic to the nature of the work, and to want that ethnicity to be convincingly portrayed in visual representations of the characters.

This is not the same thing as getting all mad when people experiment with different ethnicities for representing iconic cultural/literary/religious figures. This is about how you’re representing the specific and detailed creation of an individual author who’s expressed a strong opinion on the matter.

[treis]

@mhendo

Also, more generally, do you think he has a responsibility to participate in the conversation with the students, and the preparation of the play? When you pay to license a play, you pay for the right to perform it. You are not necessarily paying for one-on-one access to the playwright, unless the contract explicitly says so. Do you think that David Mamet or Andrew Lloyd Webber would honor a request to work with every theater group that performs their work?

He has a responsibility to not drop bombshells at the last minute. If he chooses to not be involved in the process than he takes the risk that a choice may be made that he doesn’t agree with. If he’s not comfortable with that then he shouldn’t have licensed the play. Or he should have clearly communicated his red lines at the beginning of the process.

[treis]

@Kimstu

I’m confused about the level of hostility being directed at Suh here. Are you equally disapproving of the production shutdowns due to race/gender-related casting changes that I linked to an article about back in post #113?

Is it, for example, “assholish” or “unreasonable” or “misogynist” in your view for the copyright holders of the musical Grease to deny permission for a production with an all-female cast?

I didn’t catch it the first time around.

Grease cancelling the female high school version the day before production was a jerk thing to do. I don’t condemn them as harshly as Suh because they (presumably) had no participation in the show. I assume it was just sort of a download the license and pay the agency kind of thing.

I’d want to hear their objections to an all-female cast before I condemn them. Interesting part of that article was:

In 1992, she directed a professional production of “Grease” at Alice B. Theatre in Seattle with men in the women’s roles and men in the women’s roles. Armenante says she got a cease-and-desist letter from Samuel French but went ahead with the show anyway.

Ms. JILLIAN ARMENANTE (Actor, Director): It’s OK for me to play a Hispanic woman in “West Side Story.” It’s OK for me to play a straight lawyer on television. I’ve played many men in plays. So when they approached me and said, You can't do this play,' I said, Well, come and stop me.’

ROSE: Armenante says the show was a hit and she never heard from Samuel French again.

@Kimstu

I’m reminded of science-fiction/fantasy author Ursula K. Leguin’s remarks on the difficulty of getting cover art showing dark-skinned people for editions of her novels in which characters are explicitly described as (for the most part) dark-skinned:

I don’t really see how it’s “assholish” or “racist” for a living author to feel strongly that the specified ethnicity of the characters in their works is important for some reason intrinsic to the nature of the work, and to want that ethnicity to be convincingly portrayed in visual representations of the characters.

This is not the same thing as getting all mad when people experiment with different ethnicities for representing iconic cultural/literary/religious figures. This is about how you’re representing the specific and detailed creation of an individual author who’s expressed a strong opinion on the matter.

I think it depends on why they think the ethnicity is important. For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird Tom has to be black or the story makes no sense. If Tom Clancy insists Jack Ryan has to be white because no black person could be that smart, then he’s a racist asshole.

[Kimstu]

@treis

Grease cancelling the female high school version the day before production was a jerk thing to do.

Nitpick: No, the DeStefano all-female-cast production of Grease was not a high school production but a “collaboration between two small theater companies”. You may be thinking of the attempted high school production of the musical Big River also mentioned in that article, in which “the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization stopped a performance […] because a white student played the slave Jim while a black student played Huck Finn”.

[QUOTE=treis]

I’d want to hear their objections to an all-female cast before I condemn them.

[/quote]

It pretty much sounds like you already have condemned them by calling their refusing permission to the all-female production “a jerk thing to do”.

Personally, speaking as a feminist who’s played several male roles or “pants parts” in community theater and opera productions (and who is very much looking forward to the upcoming Ghostbusters remake with female leads), I think you might be being excessively politically correct here. I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically bigoted about copyright holders stipulating a particular ethnicity, gender, age, size, whatever for the portrayal merely because that’s the way the character was written.

I enjoy many non-traditionally cast productions, but some of them I absolutely hate. (For instance, when I see a production with a character of indubitably Scottish ancestry and identity being played by an actor with an Irish accent, I am not on board with that. I know the Irish have historically been victims of appalling discrimination, but that doesn’t make it appropriate for them to play Scots if they can’t plausibly pass for Scots.)

I think it’s important for any director contemplating a non-traditionally cast production of a work under copyright to contact the rights holder with specific details of their vision for the production and a case for why they think it doesn’t violate the spirit and the nature of the work. Then the rights holder can consider that request and decide whether they agree. And if they don’t agree, their decision should be respected. Just because some directors get away with putting on non-approved productions without getting sued doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

@treis

I think it depends on why they think the ethnicity is important. For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird Tom has to be black or the story makes no sense. If Tom Clancy insists Jack Ryan has to be white because no black person could be that smart, then he’s a racist asshole.

But if Tom Clancy insists that Jack Ryan has to be portrayed as white simply because the character was written as white, there’s nothing intrinsically racist about that.

Similarly, I’m not seeing any evidence of Suh expressing any racist or chauvinist reasons for having originally written his characters as South Asian. And I don’t see anything prima facie racist about his insisting that the characters should be portrayed as South Asian because that’s the way they were written.

[Trinopus]

@treis

. . . I’d want to hear their objections to an all-female cast before I condemn them. . . .

I think it depends on why they think the ethnicity is important. For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird Tom has to be black or the story makes no sense. If Tom Clancy insists Jack Ryan has to be white because no black person could be that smart, then he’s a racist asshole.

Agreed and agreed. There might be good reasons to nix the all-female Grease, but I’d want to hear them made explicit.

@Kimstu

. . . And I don’t see anything prima facie racist about his insisting that the characters should be portrayed as South Asian because that’s the way they were written.

Yanking the show because they didn’t have Asian actors available for the play is jerkish. And absolutely demanding that only Asian players may play his Asian parts – well, yeah, that’s racist.

As per the quote from LeGuin, the ideal would be to have Asian players in roles that fit them. It gives them opportunities they aren’t often able to enjoy. It’s a good and noble ideal.

But it isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, and must not be. Women have been playing Peter Pan for ages. Othello is often black…but what if a black actor wanted a shot at Iago or Portia? Not allowed, because the characters were white?

Encourage diversity, but if the diversity isn’t extant, and can’t be whipped up by widening the casting call, then do the show with the actors you have.

[treis]

@Kimstu

Nitpick: No, the DeStefano all-female-cast production of Grease was not a high school production but a “collaboration between two small theater companies”. You may be thinking of the attempted high school production of the musical Big River also mentioned in that article, in which “the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization stopped a performance […] because a white student played the slave Jim while a black student played Huck Finn”.

It pretty much sounds like you already have condemned them by calling their refusing permission to the all-female production “a jerk thing to do”.

You’re right, I did mix them up. What I thought the jerk thing to do was cancelling a high school performance hours before it started.

@Kimstu

But if Tom Clancy insists that Jack Ryan has to be portrayed as white simply because the character was written as white, there’s nothing intrinsically racist about that.

If the distinction is just skin color and not, for example, hair color, eye color, weight, height, etc. then yes, I think it’s racist.

@Kimstu

I enjoy many non-traditionally cast productions, but some of them I absolutely hate. (For instance, when I see a production with a character of indubitably Scottish ancestry and identity being played by an actor with an Irish accent, I am not on board with that. I know the Irish have historically been victims of appalling discrimination, but that doesn’t make it appropriate for them to play Scots if they can’t plausibly pass for Scots.)

I just don’t see substituting races, in most cases, as making a play non-traditionally cast, except for the literal definition of traditionally. By that I mean casting a black man as Danny in Grease doesn’t change how I view the play in the slightest bit.

[Leaper]

@Trinopus

Yanking the show because they didn’t have Asian actors available for the play is jerkish. And absolutely demanding that only Asian players may play his Asian parts – well, yeah, that’s racist.

As per the quote from LeGuin, the ideal would be to have Asian players in roles that fit them. It gives them opportunities they aren’t often able to enjoy. It’s a good and noble ideal.

But it isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, and must not be. Women have been playing Peter Pan for ages. Othello is often black…but what if a black actor wanted a shot at Iago or Portia? Not allowed, because the characters were white?

Encourage diversity, but if the diversity isn’t extant, and can’t be whipped up by widening the casting call, then do the show with the actors you have.

Indeed. The status quo, where producers and directors can just cast whites because that’ll sell, is much better.

[Kimstu]

@Trinopus

But it isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, and must not be. Women have been playing Peter Pan for ages. Othello is often black…but what if a black actor wanted a shot at Iago or Portia? Not allowed, because the characters were white?

Not really analogous cases. Peter Pan has traditionally been played by a woman since the very first production (because it was felt an adult actor was needed for the role and a prepubescent boy was more easily simulated by a woman than a man), so it’s not as if there’s any question of overriding authorial wishes by unauthorized genderbending.

And Shakespeare’s likewise irrelevant here because it’s public domain. You can argue about whether it should be considered racially insensitive for white actors to play Othello or whether historical-reenactment productions with male actors cast in female roles as in Shakespeare’s own time are unfair in some way to female actors, but Shakespeare himself doesn’t get any say, legally speaking.

[QUOTE=Trinopus]
Encourage diversity, but if the diversity isn’t extant, and can’t be whipped up by widening the casting call, then do the show with the actors you have.
[/QUOTE]

If you’ve got the rights holder’s permission, then I’m absolutely fine with that. If I don’t think the non-traditional casting works believably, I just won’t go see the show. No problem.

But don’t deliberately flout the rights holder’s legal authority to specify the conditions under which their work may be used, and then try to pass it off as striking a blow for freedom and equality.

@treis

If the distinction is just skin color and not, for example, hair color, eye color, weight, height, etc. then yes, I think it’s racist.

This kind of baffles me. I get the point that there are lots of characters for whom racial identity is not really relevant to the work or their role in it. But surely we can all agree that there are also lots of characters for whom racial identity is quite relevant, even if it doesn’t involve specifying every detail of their physical appearance?

Face it, in any literary work portraying a non-race-neutral society, a white character—whether blond or brunette, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, tall or short, fat or thin—will often confront different opportunities, expectations and heritage than a non-white character would. It just doesn’t make sense to demand that an author must be willing to have those aspects of their work erased in the name of an artificial form of racial egalitarianism.

To return to the Jack Ryan example, Ryan’s father was written as a veteran of the WWII Battle of the Bulge serving with the 101st Airborne Division, which at the time was not a racially integrated unit. Ergo, he was white. If you’re going to make the character of Jack Ryan a black man, you’re going to have to posit a mid-20th century interracial marriage for his parents, which necessarily will significantly alter his backstory.

If you’re just going to throw out the backstory as written and make up a new personal history for an African-American Jack Ryan, you’re telling Tom Clancy that he doesn’t get to determine how the character he created and wrote should be portrayed. If Tom Clancy objects to that cavalier treatment, I just don’t see how that should automatically be considered a racist reaction.

[Banquet_Bear]

@treis

He has a responsibility to not drop bombshells at the last minute.

…Clarion had a responsibility not to drop bombshells at the last minute. Clarion dropped the bomb.

If he chooses to not be involved in the process than he takes the risk that a choice may be made that he doesn’t agree with.

That isn’t how the process works. The licencing system is in place so that there is no risk that choices will be made that the writer doesn’t agree with.

If he’s not comfortable with that then he shouldn’t have licensed the play.

“If she didn’t want to be raped, she shouldn’t have worn that dress.”

“If he didn’t want his image stolen he shouldn’t have put it online.”

This particular line of argument doesn’t get any prettier no matter how much you dress it up.

Or he should have clearly communicated his red lines at the beginning of the process.

My first contact with Clarion was in January, when Marilouise Michel requested a copy of the play and invited me to work on it with her students. Due to other commitments, I was unable to participate, but I did express willingness to let them use the play for classroom purposes without me.

The first red line: the play can be used for classroom purposes. Back in January.

“Beth Blickers, Suh’s agent, commented that while she had inquired about the racial casting early on, and was told it was too early to know, but there was considerable communication about the new score.”

“I didn’t hear anything again until late May, when I was informed they were experimenting with the piece as a musical. It is highly atypical to do such work without direct collaboration from the author, so I asked for more information. In particular, if their exploration was simply for private, in-class use, I was happy to let them do whatever they desired. Although I could not participate directly, I was certainly curious what they might discover. However, if their intention was a full production with a public audience, I asked specifically whether they would be able to honor the general ethnicity of the characters.”

*Her response on November 2 acknowledged receipt of our previous question on casting, but in her words:

“When you asked, I hadn’t cast the show, and then I forgot.”*

The second red line: in May.

I’m pretty sure that in May that the professor of theatre in the Department of Visual and Performing Arts at Clarion University knew perfectly well what the demographic make-up of Clarion University was. If there were only 57 Asian students, and if they were going to struggle to honor the general ethnicity of the characters, then it was in May that Clarion should have addressed this.

[Trinopus]

@Kimstu

. . . But don’t deliberately flout the rights holder’s legal authority to specify the conditions under which their work may be used, and then try to pass it off as striking a blow for freedom and equality. . . .

Fair enough. But I do get to demean them as racist sons of bitches if they are making race the basis of their denial of production rights.

(There might also be a civil rights lawsuit… “I won’t allow my play to be produced if a [nationality] is the lead actor.” That doesn’t differ a great deal from “I won’t allow [nationality] into my store.”)

[Peremensoe]

@Trinopus

(There might also be a civil rights lawsuit… “I won’t allow my play to be produced if a [nationality] is the lead actor.” That doesn’t differ a great deal from “I won’t allow [nationality] into my store.”)

It’s completely different. A creative work is not a public accommodation.

[Kimstu]

@Trinopus

Fair enough. But I do get to demean them as racist sons of bitches if they are making race the basis of their denial of production rights.

I just don’t get that. Not every character in a literary work has a race-neutral identity or role in the work, so race-neutral casting won’t really work for those characters.

I don’t see what’s “racist”, for example, about the Gershwin estate requiring that the characters in Porgy and Bess have to be played by black actors.

If what you’re saying is that more characters ought to be originally written in a more race-neutral way to accommodate more diverse casting, then sure, I agree. And if you’re saying that people in general ought to be more open to seeing classic works and cultural icons reimagined with different race (or gender) identities, I think that’s great too.

But for a work still under copyright, where the rights holder has assigned a specific racial identity to the character for a reason relevant to the work, I’m just not getting how insisting on that racial identity in portrayals of the character would automatically make the rights holder a “racist son of a bitch”.

[QUOTE=Trinopus]

(There might also be a civil rights lawsuit… “I won’t allow my play to be produced if a [nationality] is the lead actor.” That doesn’t differ a great deal from “I won’t allow [nationality] into my store.”)

[/quote]

As I said, IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that those statements do differ quite a bit. (And even the former statement differs quite a bit from what’s actually being said in this case, which is “I won’t allow my play to be produced if the ethnicity of the characters as I originally wrote them isn’t realistically portrayed”.)

[DSeid]

@mhendo

Just out of interest, do you think that there might be another explanation for the words “unable to participate,” apart from sheer pig-headedness, which is what you seem to be suggesting? …

Your interpretation is imagined. I suggest no such thing.

I had stated

@me

They asked for input from Suh along the way; he was too busy otherwise would have. No ill intent in being too busy but no intent on the college’s part of only paying lip service either.

BB disputes that there was a good faith effort by the school to get his input, (s)he believes they did not want his input and acted with intentional bad faith to go against what they knew were his clearly expressed demands. I on the other hand believe that school did not understand a question about casting to be a demand about casting, did not understand from that question that it was the big effing deal to him that it is, and screwed up on who was supposed to do what regarding the final contract. Incompetence maybe. Ill-intent? No.

Suh asked a question about what casting would be possible when he should have stated what he apparently meant, that non-White casting was required. Suh’s schedule was such that he could not accept the invitations to participate. No pigheadedness in that. Good for him that he has many projects that demand attention! I do fault him however for responding to the last of the series of invitations to participate with a relayed cease and desist order based on a knee-jerk response to seeing white faces and a presumption of what that meant rather than a direct reply of “Say what? You are doing what?” to the director when the crossed wires became clear.

I suspect that if he had responded to that last invitation with a conversation rather than a cease a desist order the solution that both you and I have suggested would have been obvious.

[Trinopus]

@Peremensoe

It’s completely different. A creative work is not a public accommodation.

But the contract to purchase the right to perform is an ordinary matter of buying and selling. “I won’t allow any production with black actors” would seem to be an obvious civil rights violation.

@Kimstu

. . . I don’t see what’s “racist”, for example, about the Gershwin estate requiring that the characters in Porgy and Bess have to be played by black actors. . . .

Well, I see it as hellishly racist, especially if a small production company doesn’t have the personnel to accomplish that. It closes people off from opportunity on the basis of race: what other word could there be?

I know casting is exempt from equal rights laws, and I know that an “all black remake” is legitimate – The Wiz, etc. But if some joker wanted to do an “all white remake” of Porgy and Bess, and the rights owners denied this on that basis alone – then the rights owners are engaging in racism.

(I have some sympathy for the definition of racism that requires sociopolitical advantage – i.e., that the empowered majority cannot exercise “racism” against a disempowered minority. So, for these purposes, instead of an all-white and all-black example, perhaps a case involving Hispanic-American and Vietnamese-American populations would serve better. “I refuse to allow the role of Gonzalez to be played by Mr. Nguyen.” To me…that’s racism.)

[Banquet_Bear]

@DSeid

BB disputes that there was a good faith effort by the school to get his input, (s)he believes they did not want his input and acted with intentional bad faith to go against what they knew were his clearly expressed demands.

…there was not a good faith effort to keep Suh updated on changes to the play. If there had been a good faith effort to keep Suh updated this would have been taken care of back in May. What input did they ask of him? They told him they were making a musical. He conditionally agreed. Suh asked a question that they did not answer. How many other times did they contact him to tell them what they were doing? When did they inform him that the play was going into production as a public performance?

I on the other hand believe that school did not understand a question about casting to be a demand about casting, did not understand from that question that it was the big effing deal to him that it is, and screwed up on who was supposed to do what regarding the final contract. Incompetence maybe. Ill-intent? No.

It wasn’t a demand about casting. It was a question about casting. Remember at this stage as far as Suh was concerned this was still only a classroom exercise.

Suh asked a question about what casting would be possible when he should have stated what he apparently meant, that non-White casting was required.

What was asked was “whether they would be able to honor the general ethnicity of the characters.”

That isn’t a demand for non-white cast members only. It was a question that may well have been answered in a way that would have satisfied Suh’s requirements. It was an invitation to a dialogue. Suh tried to have that dialogue in May. You seem to think it was more appropriate to have that dialogue just a few days before the curtain went up.

Suh’s schedule was such that he could not accept the invitations to participate. No pigheadedness in that. Good for him that he has many projects that demand attention!

Why on earth would the writer of a play be expected to participate in anything? This is a very “entitled” view of the creative process.

I do fault him however for responding to the last of the series of invitations to participate with a relayed cease and desist order based on a knee-jerk response to seeing white faces and a presumption of what that meant rather than a direct reply of “Say what? You are doing what?” to the director when the crossed wires became clear.

The play wasn’t even supposed to be in production. How did you expect him to react?

I suspect that if he had responded to that last invitation with a conversation rather than a cease a desist order the solution that both you and I have suggested would have been obvious.

I suspect that if Clarion had responded to the invitation to a conversation way back in May then a cease and desist order would not have been required, don’t you agree?

[Kimstu]

@Trinopus

Well, I see it as hellishly racist, especially if a small production company doesn’t have the personnel to accomplish that. It closes people off from opportunity on the basis of race: what other word could there be?

What other word? How about “art”, for example?

As in: sometimes a creator’s artistic vision involves characters of specified ethnicities. If a particular production company cannot realistically portray those ethnicities, they are not capable of adequately representing that particular artistic vision, so they can’t produce that particular artwork.

I don’t know where you get the idea that theatrical production companies somehow have a moral right to perform any copyrighted artwork while making any changes to it that they want or require. They don’t, any more than, say, a printmaker can expect to make reproductions of a living artist’s original painting while changing some of the colors or details. The fact that the printmaker may not have the resources to produce prints that are fully accurate reproductions doesn’t give them a pass to produce ones that the artist considers inadequate.

Look, as a participant and board member of a local community theater group myself, I do understand how important it is for small and amateur companies without a lot of resources to be able to put on interesting and entertaining shows. We all recognize that there are lots of works that groups like ours are effectively shut out from, because the royalties are too expensive or we don’t have the talent pool to get an adequate cast or we can’t afford the requisite sets or costumes. But that doesn’t mean we’re being unfairly discriminated against when we run up against some of those constraints.

[QUOTE=Trinopus]

So, for these purposes, instead of an all-white and all-black example, perhaps a case involving Hispanic-American and Vietnamese-American populations would serve better. “I refuse to allow the role of Gonzalez to be played by Mr. Nguyen.” To me…that’s racism.)
[/QUOTE]

But that’s not what authors say: they say something like “I refuse to allow the role of Gonzalez to be played by someone who can’t realistically sustain the character’s ethnicity as written”. There’s nothing specifically anti-Vietnamese or anti-anybody about that. All it’s saying is that the character has a particular ethnic identity that the production must clearly and accurately represent.

By the way, I notice you don’t seem to be feeling a lot of sympathy for the poor Irish-accented actor in my hypothetical who is ruthlessly excluded from playing a Scots character whose ethnic dialect he cannot realistically portray. Why is that? Doesn’t that also count as “racist” in your book, just as much as specifying a Hispanic ethnicity for a character that effectively excludes most Vietnamese actors from playing him?

The fact is that theatrical performance is not only about being a talented actor and knowing one’s lines: it’s also to some extent about “looking the part” (and sounding the part, etc.). That’s not automatically a racist requirement.

Yes, it’s a good thing to have theatrical roles that can be flexibly interpreted in terms of race, gender, age, size, etc., but it’s not necessarily bigoted or discriminatory if an author chooses to limit the permissible interpretations of a role more strictly.

[Magiver]

@Kimstu

Now now, I know it’s been a bit of a shock to you to find out that a playwright whose works are under copyright retains legal control over how his material may be used, but there’s no need to overreact so drastically.

You will be reassured to know that neither Suh nor anybody else is legally entitled to restrict who may comment on his works or his exercise of legal control over the rights to his works. So you can go ahead and post your comments regardless of your non-South-Asian ethnicity.

What the playwright is doing is adding racial covenants his work. That’s really no different than a covenant in a deed saying the house can’t be sold to South-Asian’s. It’s discrimination. Period.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Magiver

What the playwright is doing is adding racial covenants his work. That’s really no different than a covenant in a deed saying the house can’t be sold to South-Asian’s. It’s discrimination. Period.

No, it’s free speech. A playwright has the right to demand that his artistic vision be respected in a performance of his work. Actors aren’t interchangeable cogs. How an actor looks affects audience reception. If you cast a fat middle-aged man as Juliet, it will change the story of Romeo and Juliet, regardless of how good an actor he might be. Now, that new story might be an interesting one to tell, but if the playwright is still alive (and holds the copyright) then he gets final say on whether or not his work can be used to tell that new story.

As a fat middle-aged man myself, I might feel a slight twinge of regret that I will never be able to appear onstage in the role of a dewy ingenue, but I don’t think that I am being unjustly discriminated against. I am physically incapable of delivering the required performance.

[DSeid]

BB personally if I’ve twice asked someone if they want to be involved in a project and they say twice, no, that they simply don’t have the time to right now, I am not going to keep updating them on progress. I’d feel I’d be imposing upon someone who is too busy for me. No question if I had understood his question asking if we would be able they would be able to honor the general ethnicity of the characters if they were going to perform (which the director did not yet have an answer to as she had not yet known if any of the few Asians of the college would try out or not) as a statement that such was a requirement, or a demand for an answer, or even an important item, then I’d then and there ask for clarification. I’d explain the nature of the student body and we’d discuss.

No question that at that point there was a miscommunication. Suh did not say what he meant and sent clear signals that he had too much else on his plate to be bothered with them much. The director failed to understand Suh meant and failed to follow up on a question once she did have the answer … and should have answered then with the straightforward “I don’t yet know. I will try my best but we have fairly few of color in our college and not many interested in theater, and the irreverent nature of your show (which I love sir) may give some of them pause. I’ll do my best though.”

Yes, if they had done that this might have been avoided as well. Several places on both sides, none with any apparent malintent.