Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keith Wann, 53, was one of at least two people forced off the production by the non-profit Theatre Development Fund – which staffs Broadway shows with American Sign Language interpreters – after the group decided it was “no longer appropriate to have white interpreters represent black characters for ASL Broadway shows.”
Ah. Now it makes sense. My prior statement shall be withdrawn, with appropriate apologies extended, due to my ignorance concerning the intended point.
(see, leftists, I CAN admit I'm wrong. When I'm wrong.)
I don't agree with all you post but there are certainly some where I do. I didn't understand your response and just chalked it up to the not agreeing and let it drop.
And for the record I love Hamilton, paid $500 for stage tickets and watched it on Disney uncounted times. The race of the actors had no bearing on my enjoyment of the production.
And for the record I love Hamilton, paid $500 for stage tickets and watched it on Disney uncounted times. The race of the actors had no bearing on my enjoyment of the production.
I've never seen Hamilton, so I can't comment on the quality of the show. But what bugs me is the rank hypocrisy between that show and what is being discussed here.
Alexander Hamilton was a real historical person. He was white. In the play named Hamilton, he is being played by a black person. OK, fine. But what about the reverse? White people have gotten into trouble for wearing black face and attempting to play black roles, much less just straight-up playing black roles. It's OK for a black man to portray Alexander Hamilton, but it would never, ever be considered OK for a white man to portray Martin Luther King or Booker Washington or Thurgood Marshall or even Barack Obama (who is half white). Doesn't this seem in the least bit hypocritical?
And now it's gotten worse. A sign-language interpreter isn't actually portraying any character. He is the human equivalent of subtitles on a screen; his function is to make it so deaf people can "hear" what is being said by the characters. So his race should be irrelevant, just like the race of whoever attaches the subtitles to the screen should be irrelevant. But now a white man is being told that he can't interpret a black character.
A black man can play a white historical figure, and everyone raves about it. Yet a white man can't interpret the words spoken by a black actor. How is this possibly considered anything other than horribly racist?
I've never seen Hamilton, so I can't comment on the quality of the show. But what bugs me is the rank hypocrisy between that show and what is being discussed here.
Alexander Hamilton was a real historical person. He was white. In the play named Hamilton, he is being played by a black person. OK, fine. But what about the reverse? White people have gotten into trouble for wearing black face and attempting to play black roles, much less just straight-up playing black roles. It's OK for a black man to portray Alexander Hamilton, but it would never, ever be considered OK for a white man to portray Martin Luther King or Booker Washington or Thurgood Marshall or even Barack Obama (who is half white). Doesn't this seem in the least bit hypocritical?
And now it's gotten worse. A sign-language interpreter isn't actually portraying any character. He is the human equivalent of subtitles on a screen; his function is to make it so deaf people can "hear" what is being said by the characters. So his race should be irrelevant, just like the race of whoever attaches the subtitles to the screen should be irrelevant. But now a white man is being told that he can't interpret a black character.
A black man can play a white historical figure, and everyone raves about it. Yet a white man can't interpret the words spoken by a black actor. How is this possibly considered anything other than horribly racist?
I've thought about that and finally realized they were men and women who happened to be white so their race wasn't important to the story. If you wanted to do a play on MLK then that would be about a Black man and wouldn't be appropriate to cast a White man in the role.
The interpreter case is absolutely wrong.
And if you get a chance watch the Disney production of the stage play. I didn't think I'd like it but became obsessed with it.
I've thought about that and finally realized they were men and women who happened to be white so their race wasn't important to the story. If you wanted to do a play on MLK then that would be about a Black man and wouldn't be appropriate to cast a White man in the role.
The interpreter case is absolutely wrong.
I see your point regarding "happen to be white" versus being black is integral to the person's place in history. But can you imagine ANY black person who has gained enough fame to be known as an historical figure being played by a white person? Charles Drew's claim to fame is that he developed the modern blood-bank system, not that he was a black guy. But I can't imagine any white person being allowed to portray him on stage or on screen, even though the color of his skin had little if anything to do with why he's historically important.
I see your point regarding "happen to be white" versus being black is integral to the person's place in history. But can you imagine ANY black person who has gained enough fame to be known as an historical figure being played by a white person? Charles Drew's claim to fame is that he developed the modern blood-bank system, not that he was a black guy. But I can't imagine any white person being allowed to portray him on stage or on screen, even though the color of his skin had little if anything to do with why he's historically important.
Did he have challenges due solely to his race? I've heard of him but just marginly so don't know. If so then it wouldn't "translate" to being played by a White actor.
Did he have challenges due solely to his race? I've heard of him but just marginly so don't know. If so then it wouldn't "translate" to being played by a White actor.
I don't know specifically about Dr. Drew. But that just goes back to my previous question: is there ANY historically noteworthy black person that it would be acceptable for a white actor to portray?
Does the UN use this rule for voice interpreters, as well? Are there also howls of protest for sexism, for the same misogynist hate-crimes? When the delegate from Jamaica speaks, do we have to find a Black to transate it into fluent Russian? I bet there's a lot of qualified applicants for that job.
They should get the South African sign language guy who was at the Obama event and turned out to be saying jibberish in fake sign language.
I remember that. It was funny. No one screened him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
