Yes, it's possible. Based on what (little, but non-zero) I know of the casting process, that was not a factor.
Not to say that this wasn't problematic casting; yes to say this wasn't driven by subconscious racist ideas of what certain characters should look like.
Let me put it this way. I'm living in a racist society. I'm surrounded by media which portrays problematic racial narratives. I'm surrounded by images of "good" and "bad" which are suffsed with racist narratives. I know I am affected by these things.
If I cast a play in which the one non white character was an evil fairy, I would have no problem admitting (with much sheepishness and shame) that the casting was undoubtedly affected by all of that.
From your response, it seems that your original question was rhetorical, and no real response would satisfy you. As far as I am aware, the casting decision was extremely race-conscious. It may have been a poor decision--or a wrong decision, take your pick--but it was not a decision made by people unaware of the issues (including that of good/evil character imagery) except on a subconscious level.
Does their awareness negate the effects of social programming? No, but it does bring that programming outside of the realm of the subconscious.
Trying to discount the effects of systemic culture wide racism on issues like this, is like trying to discount the effect of gravity or have a serious discussion about the good points of creationism.
I must be grossly misunderstanding something. Where am I discounting effects? Is it where I say that the people involved ARE affected by systemic culture etc. and ALSO, in this instance, aware of it? And that therefore the effects play out on the conscious level instead of the subconscious?
I guess I must be grossly misunderstanding something, then, because I don't see how the fact that they consciously made a decision to be blatantly racist makes this okay, when it wouldn't have been okay if they'd done it subconsciously.
You really think that any perspective which does not view this to have been a blatantly racist act is flat-out no-discussion wrong? That there is no chance whatsoever that any other thoughtful/intelligent/moral perspective on this issue exists?
It doesn't make it okay, it makes the issue a different one. The casting involved both conscious thought and, most relevant, good and valid reasons. The actor wanted the role. She was good for it. No other role was as good for her, and she was most suited to that one. I do know that you disagree with at least some elements of the above, but on this issue I give more weight to the expressed thoughts and desires of the people actually involved
( ... )
I'm not clear whether you saw the play... did you? I'm not saying your opinion isn't relevant without that, but I'd be curious whether you heard the music. It's been said that voice was the primary reason for casting her and having seen the show, I have no doubt this is true. I'm curious what you think about that aspect of the question.
[Edited to add] Meanwhile, this discussion has overall presumed that the "evil fairy" is in fact what it says on the box. It does perhaps bear scrutiny that her evil action was to 'curse' the baby with being a lesbian.
It does perhaps bear scrutiny that her evil action was to 'curse' the baby with being a lesbian.
I was wondering if there was some intention along those lines, but then toward the end Hexasper says... what was it? Something like "I should have turned her into a hedgehog or a platypus or..." So it seems like she was just malicious.
It's true, but it's also true that the common people were annoyed by the royals already at the beginning of the show, though the royals were oblivious. We/ Stare in wonder at their plunder/ Starve while they grow fat. As someone commented elsewhere, I find the queen in many ways more objectionable than Hexasper.
Sorry, this gets a bit off-topic, delete if you want.greenlilySeptember 30 2009, 17:42:26 UTC
(In case this gets tangled in a net of comments, this is specifically in response to clauclauclaudia's comment, quoted below.)
(Also, disclaimer: T@F cast member here, not speaking officially for T@F, just MHO.)
It does perhaps bear scrutiny that her evil action was to 'curse' the baby with being a lesbian.
When I got cast and told my mom about the plot, her immediate response was, "Hang on. This is a story about a baby being cursed with something bad that's going to happen to her when she grows up? And the bad thing that's going to happen is that she's going to be a lesbian? Are you seriously telling me that that's not offensive to gay people?" (If it matters--which I'm not sure it does--my mom is sixty-one years old and straight.)
In the context of the play, it's pretty clear that this particular curse isn't gratuitous or sensationalistic. The original versions of "Sleeping Beauty" generally mention that the wicked fairy curses the princess out of pique at not being invited to the christening. However, in Never After, we know from the King and
( ... )
Re: Sorry, this gets a bit off-topic, delete if you want.greenlilySeptember 30 2009, 18:00:09 UTC
You're right, I should've been clearer and now it won't let me re-edit my comment. I didn't mean to imply that no one had any issues with any of the gender portrayals, or any of the characterization issues. A few of them rubbed even me the wrong way, and I'm notoriously not given to analysis of anything other than "Was that chord in tune?" :) What I meant was that the specific issue that being a lesbian is the worst thing that can happen to a woman, has not to my knowledge resulted in broad-spectrum accusations of homophobia on anyone's part.
I don't know that no one was offended, because I can't read everyone's mind. But there's been a difference between the response to the plot and the response to Sonya's being cast as Hexasper, and I think it serves us well to examine how our different actions might've inspired the differing responses.
Is it possible that subconscious racist ideas of what "good" and "bad" characters look like played into the decision that she was the best choice?
Reply
Not to say that this wasn't problematic casting; yes to say this wasn't driven by subconscious racist ideas of what certain characters should look like.
Reply
If I cast a play in which the one non white character was an evil fairy, I would have no problem admitting (with much sheepishness and shame) that the casting was undoubtedly affected by all of that.
I can say that with comfort (well, discomfort).
Reply
Does their awareness negate the effects of social programming? No, but it does bring that programming outside of the realm of the subconscious.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I am, to understate, not convinced of this.
Reply
Reply
[Edited to add] Meanwhile, this discussion has overall presumed that the "evil fairy" is in fact what it says on the box. It does perhaps bear scrutiny that her evil action was to 'curse' the baby with being a lesbian.
Reply
I was wondering if there was some intention along those lines, but then toward the end Hexasper says... what was it? Something like "I should have turned her into a hedgehog or a platypus or..." So it seems like she was just malicious.
Reply
Reply
(Also, disclaimer: T@F cast member here, not speaking officially for T@F, just MHO.)
It does perhaps bear scrutiny that her evil action was to 'curse' the baby with being a lesbian.
When I got cast and told my mom about the plot, her immediate response was, "Hang on. This is a story about a baby being cursed with something bad that's going to happen to her when she grows up? And the bad thing that's going to happen is that she's going to be a lesbian? Are you seriously telling me that that's not offensive to gay people?" (If it matters--which I'm not sure it does--my mom is sixty-one years old and straight.)
In the context of the play, it's pretty clear that this particular curse isn't gratuitous or sensationalistic. The original versions of "Sleeping Beauty" generally mention that the wicked fairy curses the princess out of pique at not being invited to the christening. However, in Never After, we know from the King and ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I don't know that no one was offended, because I can't read everyone's mind. But there's been a difference between the response to the plot and the response to Sonya's being cast as Hexasper, and I think it serves us well to examine how our different actions might've inspired the differing responses.
Reply
Leave a comment