There was a story online talking about the meaning of Eliza's gasp at the end. Once again, I'm disheartened by the responses of people in the comment section (of said story). I'm going to have to learn that most people COULD be decent and just have lives and the people who ARE commenting are just a bunch of ignorant scum bags and have NO lives, which is WHY they are commenting. But, of course, people were saying that the play wasn't good because they were casting non-whites to play whites and complaining and whining "George Washington wasn't BLAaaack! WaAAahh!" And calling it a double standard because people complain when whites portray non-whites, etc.
*Sigh* Once again people just don't GET things.
The performers in Cats aren't actual cats. The performers in The Lion King aren't lions and hyenas and moving plains of grass. The performers in Starlight Express aren't actual cars of a train (or whatever the hell they were supposed to be - I've never watched that).
The whole spirit of theater is people taking on the role of an "other". To put themselves in the shoes of another being. At least, that's what it's SUPPOSED to be. Anyone can play anyone else. Men and women can change roles, people who are not whatever the role is can portray that role. Do people think if they go see Les Miserables in Japan that the Japanese actors are implying the French were actually Asian?
The problem is ----- Men and boys played women and girls in early theater not necessarily in the spirit of theater (though I'm sure some actors themselves were all for that and not getting political or patriarchal), but because WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED. And white actors portrayed non-white characters in early film and theater not necessarily because that was all that was available, but because they weren't giving non-white actors the CHANCE, they thought they weren't good enough or whatever, even if they WERE available. (Like portraying Asian characters or Mexicans or something). And white audiences thought actors who weren't white were beneath them and didn't want to see movies with them in them unless they were being portrayed stereotypically and as inferior. And the worst reasons, such as minstrel shows with white actors wearing black face: they were being downright insulting and putting down an entire race of people. There may have been some who thought they were just having fun and not consciously being derogatory (like kids a few decades ago dressing up as Indians or something on Halloween) and may not have seen it as themselves being a-holes, just putting themselves in those shoes, but whatever. The connotations were there (is that the word I'm looking for?).
So whites playing non-whites has all that baggage attached to it. If it didn't, we would just be left with theater, and anyone could play anyone. Like, a black actress playing Hermione in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Maybe it wasn't implying that the character Hermione was black. Maybe it's just, you know, an actress who happens to be black playing A CHARACTER.
I get that folks may have issues with someone of a different skin color playing a character who is established as white, black, Latina, whatever. That character is fictional, an actor can portray that character no matter what, or should be able to - in the spirit of theater. And I get people would have
bigger issues if the character portrayed is based on a real person in history. Like, they wouldn't want a white person portraying Kunta Kinte, so they wouldn't want a black person portraying George Washington. But, - theater. No one's saying George Washington WAS black. It's an actor who happens to BE black portraying an historical figure. If all the baggage of black face wasn't around, I don't think this would be a problem. Especially if it weren't just a bunch of actors of one race portraying everyone, but if ALL the characters in a play or a movie or whatever were all mixed up. People would be more able to identify with "the other" if they saw people like themselves going through all the trails and tribulations of the characters.
That's one of the reasons why I think Hamilton is great. Small minded people got mad when people of other ethnicities were purposely chosen to play white historical figures, but, it lets the actors identify more with these historical figures and makes them feel more a part of this history, as well as audience members who aren't white. Even though the people and times being portrayed have their flaws and everything about them shouldn't be celebrated, they did do extraordinary things that affect, and are a part of, us all. And I think white audiences who see this, and see nonwhites in these roles, maybe it also helps to NOT see them as an "other." Does that make sense? That's why I think this particular play is really in the true spirit of theater.
And it just pisses me off that people are still racist f*cks who just refuse to see what was meant here and that they still don't get why this wasn't meant to erase the whiteness of the historical figures or why they still don't see why there is still some baggage with when white people portray nonwhite characters. I mean, if you're going to have a white person portray an Egyptian god, why not have a person of another skin color portray a white person in the same movie? Mix everything up if you're going that route, not just - white people do everything. I hope I'm making sense here and people are getting what I'm saying. If more of this is done, than the white people portraying nonwhite people will no longer have the baggage of racism and it will just be - theater.
Also, people in the comment section of the story I was reading were saying things like (paraphrasing) "oh, the play sucked anyway and the actors were horrible, I studied music and they couldn't even sing to save their lives" or "I walked out after 10 minutes" or other such nonsense. I was thinking it was just more racist rants. It HAD to be. That person could not have POSSIBLY studied music. I mean, everyone has different tastes and not everyone has to LIKE the play, but to say they had no talent? How could one listen to Burr or Washington or Anjelica and think they CAN'T SING??? Holy sh*t, their voices were amazing. (Though I get that the people commenting may have not seen the originals and a worse actor might have been playing the part at the time or maybe having a not so great performance, but I'm just thinking the person lied about having gone at all). And the complexities of the choreography and the genius of the lyrics? Come on. Go to bed, old man!
So anyway, that's my rant. I hope you all get what I was going for here.
Edit: Also people were complaining that it wasn't all "accurate". Yeah, okay, like people go to a musical to get their history lessons. All play and film adaptations take artistic license, but I doubt these same people were complaining about Braveheart. Also, it was only 2 and half hours long, not three weeks long. And I heard there is actually a disclaimer at the beginning of the show that tells people to go read up on the actual stories, so that's also a good thing about it.
Another Edit: This is an old thread, so don't know if anyone's going to read this but - I actually played George Washington in a class presentation when I was still in grammar school. (Just the parents of the kids in the class attended). I just played Washington saying the Oath of Office speech. No one back then was flipping out about it and thought that
we thought that George Washington was a 10/11 year old kid - and a
girl.
* shudder * IT WAS. A PLAY.