I like to keep things open. I do love the stage, but the stage doesn't love me. I realized earlier this year that I just couldn't keep on doing these meaningless bit parts. Sure, I shine for my five minutes on the stage. I command the stage during that time. I bring out the best among those around me. Whatever. I want more.
My last show really demonstrated this for me. This show was two one-acts. The first act was based on "Gift of the Magi". The second act was very loosely based on "Christmas Carol", although I felt as though that was a bit of a stretch. The second act was a minor disaster because they kept having people drop out of a lead role. Finally, the director took on that role, but she was not prepared. That came through with forgotten lines and people getting lost in dialog. As it is, the play lasted ten minutes too long: I was getting very tired. I had problems with the play based on "Gift of the Magi" as well: I just don't "get it". "Magi" is not some heartwarming tale, and adding more characters to it doesn't change that. Sure, everyone hugs at the end, but these dreadfully poor people are stuck having spent considerable money on useless gifts. Did they have a return policy? And what on earth is the theme?
I would wager that everyone that auditioned got a part. I don't know this for certain, but I'm fairly sure that very few people auditioned. That meant that they had a handful of people, and they needed to find places to fit them. Given my dark skin, they figured that I would work best as the Italian soda vendor. Cool . . . except what did that mean for the leads? We had a narrator that kept tripping over his lines and didn't seem to have a sense of vocal inflection (he did get better as the run went on, though). We had a lead man that had a pleasant voice but doesn't seem to understand that that is not the same thing as acting. At times I wanted to grab him and shake him, saying "YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE UPSET RIGHT NOW!" And the lead woman that was easily the worst actress I have ever worked with . . . and remember that I have worked with kids! It's "beautiful", not "bee you tee full"!
What did they have in common? Like the rest of the cast, they were white, of course. They had the right look for how someone-or-another imagined the parts. The rest of us might put in our 110%, but these were the leads. When people look back at the show, they will remember, first and foremost, these three. No matter how good I might have been, these three ensured that the show was at best sub-par. What was the point of putting in my 110%? I'll go further: sure, I worked hard and put in a fine job, but that's not going to translate to me getting better parts in the future. My brown skin isn't going away.
My acting teacher remarked that it takes the audience 30 seconds to get over a brown person playing a part meant for a white actor. But few community theatres are willing to give that a try, and they are losing talent as a result. Lord knows, it appears that they have lost me (I'm sure that bothers the local community theatre world to no end). Community theatre is supposed to "work with what they have". No sofa? Get a pile of boxes: that'll work. Need a throne? Get a folding metal chair and put a cloth over it. Community theatre is willing to do that and rationalize that the audience will be fine. But . . . cast a brown person in a role written for a white person? Oh no! We can't do that!
There are times when race is important to the story itself. "Hairspray", for example, deals with racial segregation: sorry, but white people have to play the white people and african americans have to play the african americans. To do otherwise would dilute the theme. But there are very few plays where race is of any importance. There are other plays where race is mentioned. Stan in "Streetcar Named Desire" is of Polish descent. This is important in one three minute exchange, but beyond that doesn't affect the plot at all. An african american Stan? Why not? Cut out those three minutes. There are TONS of plays where a person is white because "that is what they would have been", but it makes no difference to the play. Dysart in "Equus" would probably be white, but who cares if he isn't? In fact, I understand that Charles Dutton played Dysart in an all-African-American version of "Equus". And then there are the plays where it makes no difference at all: Sidney in "Deathtrap" could be any ethnicicity. Insisting on casting white people for these plays is a pure disservice.
As of right now, I have two possibilities still "out there". One theatre company is supposed to do "Farragut North" in the spring. Another theatre company is supposed to do "Macbeth", also in the spring. I have heard nothing about "Farragut North", even though I auditioned back in October. I'm fairly sure I didn't get a part, but I sent off a "say, what happned?" e-mail today. With "Macbeth", the director wants me in the play, but he still has to determine where. If the part isn't challenging to me, I will turn it down.
And that will be my year. I'll audition here and there. When -- not "if", but "when" -- I am offered "guy that comes in in scene 3 and says one line", I will turn it down. Will there be anything remaining? I don't have reason to hope. And that means that I am saying "good bye" to theatre. And I'm sure that will bother the theatre world to no end.
No comments:
Post a Comment