Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Two recent stories have got me thinking about these things this week...
First, the "women-only" screenings of Wonder Woman. I understand that an oppressed minority celebrating themselves is really not that big of a deal to most of us, but my sense of fair play makes me wonder why this is okay...Women-only screenings are, by definition, sexist. How would it be perceived if there were, say, men-only screenings of "Fight Club?"
How is one different than the other? Should we care, or is this a brouhaha over nothing?
Oppression? Women in America have more legal rights than men, but...
The problem seems to be more about the explicit rules than the implicit rules, but either way, creating divisions for absolutely no good reason isn't good.
We don't live in a country where women should feel "threatened" by the presence of men. That constant dialog and encouragement of those beliefs truly bother me. I know that studies say this or studies say that, but the reality is far different from the perception, and we should really be trying to promote unity instead.
Quote:
Second, that a production of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? fell apart after the Edward Albee estate refused to allow the casting of a black actor in a key role.
Director Michael Streeter, working within a theater company in Oregon, had intended to use an actor of color in the role of Nick but posted on Facebook that he was “furious and dumbfounded” after being denied the rights.
“The Edward Albee estate needs to join the 21st century,” he wrote. Streeter also added: “There are valid arguments to not cast Nick as black. I believe the positives outweigh the negatives. The Albee Estate does not agree.”
A memo sent by Sam Rudy, representing the estate, to Streeter claimed that he was in “gross violation of standard agreements” for reportedly promoting the play without first obtaining rights. But Rudy also goes on to explain why a black actor would not be suitable for the role.
“...it is important to note that Mr. Albee wrote Nick as a caucasian character, whose blonde hair and blue eyes are remarked on frequently in the play, even alluding to Nick’s likeness as that of an Aryan of Nazi racial ideology,” he writes. “Furthermore, Mr Albee himself said on numerous occasions when approached with requests for non-traditional casting in productions of Virginia Woolf? that a mixed-race marriage between a caucasian and an African American would not have gone unacknowledged in conversations in that time and place and under the circumstances in which the play is expressly set by textual references in the 1960s.”
I think the Albee Estate has a point. Could you imagine a production of A Raisin in the Sun casting a white actor in the role of Walter Lee Younger?
Now, some might say that the latter play is about the "black experience," and so it would be ridiculous to cast anyone but a black actor in that role. That Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe is not necessarily about race at all, and that it wouldn't matter what color an actor is...
What do you guys think?
What is our responsibility to showcase an artist's work as initially intended?
This is also makes me remember the controversy over a publishing house releasing a new print of Huckleberry Finn with the word <N-word> replaced with the word "Slave." I found this to be reprehensible, because by changing that word, you are changing what Mark Twain was trying to portray in that book.
Or am I being unsympathetic, and possibly racist, to people of color with this attitude?
I think that the majority of people don't care. I grew up as a 3% white, had mainly minority friends growing up, etc. To be honest, they don't care and think white people are silly with this trash.
This doesn't ignore the fact that there are people who are too far gone and openly promote hatred of others, but that's not really a function of race (racism points in all directions), but a function of figuring out who Big Brother is.
If Twain and Albee are too complex for the common person to understand, wouldn't it be a better to educate them properly rather than cowtow to their ignorance?
But the play seems a little more strange. I don't know what the director's intent was. If he was planning to explore the dissonance of altered casting and how it affects the mood of the play, then I see that as artistic exploration and possibly parody, but if he was doing it just to be more politically correct, then I'm kind of not sure about it. The difference is minor, but it depends on your belief system about art, which is:
Is art "owned" by a certain segment of the population or is it simply a living, breathing thing that can be updated to reflect modern times, regardless of the hidden truth or apparent sensitivities the original artist was trying to show us?
Personally, I think there is room for many interpretations, but I think that art shouldn't be updated for absolutely no reason. In some ways, I'm a purist, but I demand a new perspective, although I accept my personal perspective doesn't agree with everyone else.