I’m no expert on the matter, but do some folks use “South Asian” to refer only to the Indian subcontinent? Perhaps one answer to my question would be:
A Jordanian? He’s Middle Eastern, not South Asian!
But then you start thinking… what about Iran or Afghanistan? Anyway, it’s not at all clear to me what makes a person “South Asian”.
Hell, I’d be overjoyed to have anyone willing to put on a production of my play.
I sure as fuck wouldn’t make a name for myself as an arrogant prick demanding a school shut down a production a week before it opens because their cast doesn’t meet my racial quota.
On the other hand, someone like me never would have heard of this guy or his play if not for this.
A creator has the human right to discriminate in any way he sees fit: he or she made the work and therefore can control the work until he is dead.
Shaw had a very annoying way of spelling, leaving out elements: no-one had the right to change that — but if they liked they could decide not to read or put on Shaw.
How exactly do you think the theatre works ? Playwrights do not ‘sell’’ their works to anyone.
Not in the last 150 years.
Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn’t a casting director have the ability to say that the actor playing Henry V should be a white male? Just the same as playing Kunta Kinte in Roots should be a black male?
Do we break this down by gender as well? Are you saying it would be bigoted not to allow me, a male, to play Juliet?
I think that these are reasonable casting decisions and are not motivated by a belief in the superiority of any race or gender.
I am going to spin off the above. The following is not directed at UltraVires or any poster in particular. Just to the world at large.
Generally, if you are going to go against type in a production it needs to bring something to the production. If race is irrelevant, who cares. Let’s use Shakespeare! Henry V was brought up. It matters not a whit if Henry is Black. Makes no difference at all to the play. His race is never discussed or brought up in any way shape or form. You could have him played by a woman, that would be adding an interpretation onto the role that may or may not make sense. But make no mistake, it would be making a statement about gender and gender politics because his being male IS important to the play.
How about Romeo and Juliet? If you have a man play Juliet you are doing one of two things. Making statments about gender equality and sexuality OR holding true to the original traditions of Shakespeare. Depeding on how it is staged either could be really interesting and work. Her femaleness is essential to the character and having her played by a male changes things.
Let’s get really advanced and talk about Othello! His race is IMPORTANT to the character. Have Othello played by a white guy in black face and, well, it’s not good. Don’t do it. All you are saying is that you don’t have black actors. Sure Orson Wells did it, it wasn’t great then either. Have a black guy play Iago? It could work. But having a non minority actor play the part of a minority character when ethnicity is important has a name.
BLACKFACE IS BAD. Even if you aren’t putting on blackface as an African American. White guys playing Asians is also bad.
Why do so many white people still need to be told this?
EDIT:
Also, performing and especially adapting a playwright’s work without their knowledge or consent is also really bad. The text is sacred in theater. The director should have known better and totally screwed the pooch all the way around on this one.
Let me start that I don’t really have negative feelings about what’s known as non-traditional casting. I’m a big opera fan, and opera has been more open than many performance forms to casting without regard to ethnicity. And to productions that transpose an opera from one place and time to another. I’ve seen Carmen set during the Spanish Civil War, and I’ve seen Le Nozze di Figaro set in Trump Tower. OK, the Figaro production sucked, but the Carmen production has become (I think) the regular Met production, and it’s fantastic.
That said, to say that “It matters not a whit if Henry is Black. Makes no difference at all to the play. His race is never discussed or brought up in any way shape or form” is flat-out wrong.
Henry V was a real person, first of all, and his ethnicity matters very much to the play. It is, after all, set during the Hundred Years’ War. Henry is English. Henry is the very personification of the English people. Henry V cannot be understood (at least as intended by the author) outside the context of the relationship between the French and the English.
Now, a black (or South Asian, or East Asian, or what have you) actor may well be able to convey all of this in his performance, if he’s good enough. But to say that it doesn’t matter, I think, is incorrect. His race is never discussed, but that’s because it doesn’t have to be discussed. He’s the King. Everyone knows who he is.
OK. Fine. Henry was maybe a poor example. I am not sure I totally agree but I am willing to concede the point. (I won’t invite you to my fantasy production of Henry V staring Idris Elba as Henry 
) Could we maybe agree that it doesn’t matter if Oberon is black in Midsummer? And that the rest of my point about white people not playing minority characters when the ethnicity of the minority character is actually critically important to the play, stands?
I dunno. It wouldn’t matter to me at all if I was watching a production of Henry V and the king was played by a black actor. It’s a play, not a documentary.
Wouldn’t matter to me, either. As I said, if a black or Asian (or any ethnicity whatsoever) actor was good enough, he’d be able to convey the essential Englishness of the character, and it would work fine.
I was responding to NAF1138’s claim that “*t matters not a whit if Henry is Black,” with which I do not agree.
Look, I’m sorry. Maybe I’ve been splitting hairs here. I think it would not make for a good production if a black actor (for example) presented Henry as a black man. I think it wouldn’t matter if a black actor played Henry as an Englishman.
Does that make sense? Anyway, sorry to derail the thread (although I do think there is a valid point buried somewhere in what I said).
Sure. It certainly doesn’t matter in the case of Oberon – it’s utterly irrelevant in the case of pure fantasy.
As to white people playing minority characters where that minority status matters to the play, point well taken. Although I guess it would be an interesting challenge for an actor who is white to make it work. Don’t know if it could be done or not.
If we’re speaking purely in artistic terms, it matters not a whit. If it bothers someone, then they’re viewing it as a documentary, not as a piece of art.
Sure. If the purpose of the production is to make a statement on race or gender roles then absolutely, cast a black dude as Henry V or a man as Juliet. But if we assume a traditional performance, I think it would have to be oddly distracting to cast an actor who doesn’t “look the part.”
Suppose we had a play that featured George Washington. We wouldn’t cast a white guy who was short and overweight. That’s not because we hate short or overweight people and want to deny them access to meaningful roles. It’s just that they would be a distraction to the audience who wants to be able to suspend disbelief and look at someone who could pass for George Washington. It’s the same line of thought that would disqualify a black guy or a woman to play him.
I’m just not seeing the racial animus at play here by requiring that Henry V be played by a white guy, Juliet by a woman, or Martin Luther King by a black male.
I’m unfamiliar with the play, but like Brickbacon, I recognize the possibility that this play could involve social commentary addressing racial issues. If that’s so, and I repeat I am unfamiliar with the play, then I could see how it might matter very much.
Think of putting on HuckFinn and making Tom a white guy. Not quite making the sample points now, is it?
I believe I’ll reserve judgement until I’m familiar with the play in question. Rather than just jump on the bandwagon.
So popular I can’t afford tickets.
Edit: dammit now I’m picking nits. Still. Sometimes race doesn’t matter in casting. Sometimes it does. It did in the case of Jesus in India.
Tom is a white guy. I expect you mean Jim. 
And this is why visibly non-white actors will always be at an disadvantage. There are so many roles out there where the “part” is a white person. Usually a white male. The default human being is still a white male, in many people’s minds. If you depart from this, suddenly you’re politicizing and making a “message”. Please.
Imagine for a moment an all-black theater group. Maybe the group is located in a predominately black locale, or it is associated with a predominately black institution (like a historically black university). In other words, the group’s make-up is not intentional. It’s just coincidence. Should the group avoid putting on a Shakespeare play for fear of needlessly “politicitizing” and just stick with “Raisin in the Sun”? Or should they put on whatever hell kinda play they want to as long as people pay to see it?
How does a black actor ever get to prove their acting chops as a Shakespearean lead if the only roles they are selected for are for their “part”?
Thank you Peremensoe !!
I did indeed mean Jim. Not Tom!:smack:
I have been to all black productions that were not message, and a few people were pissed. I saw A Christmas Carol with original language and setting, the cast just happened to be black. Loved it, but some people were wondering why it wasn’t more “black.”
Grrr.