Backstage Pass Discussion

Hey all,

I am so happy this discussion is broadening and being more widely heard. Over Spring Break I did a lot of thinking and re-evlauating my position on a lot of different issues including this production, and the department, and the U in general.

First off, I commend the people who made those comments in the first place. Although many people have been talking, joking about it, and have asked the same thing, you actually spoke up about your concerns and feelings about this production.

Now, let's talk.

As it has been said, this issue of diversity in this department has been ongoing for YEARS. As much as this department talks about being diverse and having diversity, the comments like the ones that started this discussion (on this board) prove that people who claim to advocate diversity need to look up the definition, take note of what it actually says, and furthermore, find out if theatre is the place for them. In my opinion (take it or leave it), Diversity is the moving pass race, ethnicity, sex, religion, majors, minors, departments, and the list... goes... on. It is the setting aside of differences. That in itself is what THEATRE is : moving beyond difference, addressing issues of society and culture in a creative way, and ultimately prompt thought and discussion in order to tackle the issues that cause such huge conflicts in the first place. As artists, our work becomes a source for opening eyes. But what gives us the right to do and tell people to do that if we are keeping our eyes closed? Are we so small minded that we have forgotten the purpose of theatre and our role as artists? WHAT THE HELL DO WE DO IT FOR?? And, I'm sorry, like Ivory (Dorothy) said, are we so uncreative and fruitless that we can't look beyond the way things were orginally done?? What happened to being innovative?? WHAT HAPPENED TO BEING ARTISTS??

Admittingly, in the beginning, we, including myself, were all curious as to how the Wiz would work with the lack of racial diversity in this department, particularly the lack of black people. But I feel that everyone neglected to think about what The Wiz is even about. I mean, seriously, how many people took the opportunity to really read the script?? And, no, flashing through the pages to see what part you'd be good for does not constitute for reading.

From my understanding and conversations with the director and the people involved, the artistic concepts and vision for this production spoke to capturing and illuminating the messages embedded in this story. And THAT doesn't call for an all black cast. Song has the power to rhymically capture a feeling and make connections but even so, its not about The Wiz being a musical. Its not about Micheal Jackson and Diana Ross, its not about Stephanie Mills, Ted Ross or Hinton Battle. Its not about dance sequences, cool costumes nor flashing lights!

Please, step away from the spectacle and look at the message!

It is disheartening to hear and know that people only associate diversity with race and ethnicity. With that, it is unfortunate that diversity is such a big issue period, but that is EVERYWHERE, not just limited to the walls of this department. That is a reason why this production of The Wiz is so mandatory. As much as we fuss and joke (and I'm guilty) about not being diverse, WE are! It goes as simple as to asking how many people have double majors in this department. And are we completely seperating ourselves from the community and culture of the U? Are we declaring ourselves a seperate entity? We need to remember that we ultimately are a subculture among a ripple of others within the world of this University and as a theatre, WE SHOULD BE OPEN TO IT. We have diversity living and trying to come into this department and an example of it shines in the phenomenal cast of this production. Sadly though, we still complain because its not the kind of diversity we want and we don't bother to go beyond that of what our sight gives us to interpret. And being a communal space, we don't even ask and speak to one another, so we just resort to assumptions. Like Briar said, we are too hung up on what we see. We generalize and forget that there is more, so much more than skin color being an issue here.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we can't drag people of color in by chains to call ourselves diverse. As much as many people who read that will say "We know that," we act as though that's what we want to do. Its more than that and its about BEING more than that. Furthermore, although diversity is a big issue, we dwell on it so much that we neglect other problems, feelings, and situations that all of us experience and share. And that's what this production is about. Its about dealing with difference, finding courage, believing in yourself, and finding your place in the world. Don't we need reminding of these things sometimes and are these things ever bad to hear? We as people are so selfish that we dwell and complain about what we want and continue to neglect what we need. In this department, this campus, and this community in general, this cast, production team and this production of The Wiz is what we need.

Progress doesn't happen over night folks; we've only scratched the surface of this. Please, as we discuss, continue to open yourself beyond what you think and know. That in itself is progress.

I would like to respond to the question: Why is 'diversity' being based on race?

This is an excellent question and is something that I've been asking since the Town Hall was held last year about 'Diversity'. If anyone remembers this it was a disappointing and eye opening experience about the department and education system that we living in. Most of what was said was about race and more specifically about the black race. This is troubling because it tells me that people first think about race, the racial struggle when they speak about diversity because it doesn't quite get at the roots of the issue. It is also telling that people are concerned with the differences of what we see in material terms. If this is the thinking that people are at right now, then I think race is the place that we need to start from in order to get at other aspects of diversity and their issues. Anyone who has studied issues involving race understand that race intersects with many other aspects of life. Another words one cannot discuss race critically without discussing class, gender,sexual orientation, politics, religion, war, capitalism, or representation in art. These are just a handful, the rabbit hole goes much further. If the Wiz does call for a black cast and the university is predominantly white then that seems like the perfect opportunity to address issues that surround racial representation in art as well as society. Talking about race isn't just talking about race. Let's see how far it takes down that rabbit hole.

Thought:
This word Diversity has been bugging me for a long time and I want to share something that I've been thinking of. When speaking about the different definitions of 'Diversity' it has been my understanding that no matter what people say it seems to be positive idea. I get the impression that people want 'Diversity' to be a celebration of differences, that there is an equal and just representation of differences that we praise for being different. Good Right? Yes and No. I feel that something needs to be included that is being left out about being different. Everyday people acknowledge differences everyday but only to separate ones self from those differences. In our discussion of 'Diversity' I feel that we need to be talking about the things that define our differences and how they perpetuate the problems of being different from each other. How do these problems of difference carry over into art and the creation of art?
Think about it.

I'd like to just add in the notion of "the politics of visibility." Let's face it, we're all a little bit lazy, and we place a grand emphasis on what we can see. This seems real to us. Race seems real when we see the difference between lighter skin and darker skin. We love these black/white binaries because this binary is the most dramatic representation of race we have. But this essentializes race to only two over-generalized groups, eliminating intricate differences among black people themselves, or white people for example. Remember a black American, born and raised in the US is much different than a black American immigrant from Senegal. Our tendency is to cage-in difference and erase ethnicity entirely in these discussion.

Furthermore, these politics of visibility are the most charged because they are undeniable and we feel we have to "deal" with them. There is a great anxiety about religion specifically concerning Muslims because some choose to display visible markers we recoginize as Islamic. We are no longer able to "ignore" or make "invisible" these Muslim beliefs/people because they are visibly marking themselves in some undeniable way. If a Muslim woman auditioned for a show and refused to act without her hijab, her Muslim identity would forceably need to be "dealt with." This example may seem outrageous, but is not. In countries all over the world, even predominately Islamic states, these issues arise for actors all the time. In the United States, the most anxiety we can seem to produce is concerning race, and most specifically concerning black people.

Though controversial, I'd finally like to point out the notion of "passing." Many people (such as various Asian Americans, Chicana(o)s, Latina(o)s for a small and sad example) note how they are able to "pass" as white, thus playing into the politics of visibility in a more subversive manner. Such an uproar would not occur on diversity if an Asian American actor was "passing" as white.

And lastly, i'd love to move beyond talking about diversity as an issue to be addressed, rather a goal towards which we should strive.

emoticon it up yo -

Here is my question to add:

Why is 'diversity' being based on race?

I believe the cast member from the Wiz has the right idea. Yes, as far as plain numbers are concerned the Wiz cast is predominantly white, though not by as much of a margin as some people might think. This is only including cast members, not including members of the production team who also have a large influence into the scope of the show. But these original questions assume that because just over half (and I do mean 'just') the performing cast of the Wiz is white, that they are not diverse.

Coming from someone working inside the production, I will say that this idea is false. Each cast member is different when considering together race, religion, gender, sexuality, upbringing, family status, discipline, the list goes on. Does only race dictate our view of diversity and if so, why? Shouldn't we be encouraging diversity in every aspect, not just race? I'm not asking anyone to ignore these differences or to be colorblind. I think difference should be acknowledged and appreciated as another beautiful marker of our individuality. But why are we only measuring one kind of difference? Is it just easier to measure than varying beliefs or differing abilities? In this particular case, are we placing a larger emphasis on race because 'the Wiz' was originally an all-black musical? If plays were only staged as they were originally performed, I am sure that most of us would not be doing theater.

Yes, I believe race should be factored into creating diversity, but it is not the only factor. And to claim that diversity doesn't exist because a nominal majority of the cast is white doesn't factor in the countless other ways that people differ from each other and the countless ways that they add to the creation of ideas or to the production of a work like 'The Wiz' or to the broader scope of the world at large.

I would like to add, too, to those who believe this show could or should be cancelled because of the way you feel these issues are being addressed: This is quite honestly a fantastic piece of theater, an educational experience, and something that a lot of people are working very, very hard to make happen. Part of the reason that people are putting so much effort into it is not just because the department decided it would be in our season and musicals are fun; it's because we are approaching this show in a new way, and because we feel that it is relevant to our time and our environment. We have a fantastic production team and a fantastic cast who are all doing everything in their power to make this show both meaningful and entertaining.

I do encourage those of you who don't necessarily believe this to somehow get in touch with this production. If you know someone who is working on this show, ask them about how rehearsals are going and what issues are being addressed about identity and diversity. Keep raising questions. Read the marketing blog. Come see the show and attend the talk back session. These are concepts that need to be discussed. I just believe we should give this show a chance to discuss them.

Hey!

To start off with, I have no idea what the flow or form of this entry is going to be. It’s 1:30 in the morning but I need to put some of these thoughts out there and I don’t dare wait until morning…later morning…whatever.

This discussion about difference and diversity and The Wiz is very interesting, and I want to talk specifics more after I see the production (I’m along the same lines as George here…) but I did want to add to the discussion now without waiting. This discussion extends so far beyond The Wiz and Rarig and theatre, etc. It’s all related and it’s all involved, but there is so much more. For now, I want to take a beginning look at some current frustrations with classroom/education structures, the way [we] understand and teach theatrical design, and how these two connect to a larger sense of tranquility that we foster in our culture to avoid conflict. That’s a lot, and I’ll add more as I think of it…but here goes.

Classroom. Education. Why are we here? I am beginning to be convinced that undergraduate experiences are being/have already been reduced to another form of generalist education, fostered by the idea of survey classes. This translates to some form of rigid structure and an inability to foster discussion and improvise as needed to create valuable learning environments. The majority of the classes I have taken so far (and most I have to look forward to) rely on this idea of disseminating large amounts of general information. In order to accomplish this (on paper) we are provided with syllabi at the beginning of the semester that outline everything that will (and wont…) be covered in each course. We must stay on track in order to “get through everything.” In my experience this has one, dominant result—the silencing of opposition. There is no room for conflict or anything that may be perceived as difficult discussion because it stalls the only type of progress this structure values—progress that is definable, linear, and able to be proven. This in no way encourages articulation of individual thought and produces a learning environment based on a sense of false tranquility. Conflict is avoided because it is scary and messy and time consuming.

(…and now I’m going to link these thoughts to some of my ideas about design without a “proper” transition)

I would argue that the way theatrical design is thought about (in most American theatre, and certainly at the University) creates elements of visual pleasure that are void of necessity and immediacy. It has become a disposable element of theatrical production because it is used in a predictable, didactic, and superfluous manner. Not only do I see this on the stage but I see it in our classrooms as well. We are taught (in our neatly packaged survey class) about one type of design that works for one type of theatre space, relying on one understanding of theatricality. We are taught that design elements function as a supplement—a reinforcement of the story. Shifts in music and lighting dictate the emotions of audience members and tell them what to feel. Scenery is often realistic in style or just non-existent. Consideration for the audience is often excluded from the design process or tossed in as an after-thought. What about the possibility of design elements functioning in a different way? What if design elements don’t reinforce a difficult moment but contradict it? What if the audience doesn’t know what they are supposed to feel, but they know that they feel something? I don’t think we should expect everything to be intelligible to every audience member. If you provoke thought, rage, confusion, satisfaction, or joy (or a million other things…) than I think there is an element of success. Do all the “answers” really have to be presented in such a digestible fashion? I think our possibilities in the theatre are being destroyed with these survey classes that offer solutions—answers where none exist. There is no formula for this process—only attempts at accessing or creating some sense of community and thought and feeling, if only for a few moments.

(yet another shift to related ideas without a handy transition…apologies)

My final thoughts consider how all of this relates to current the discussion of difference and diversity in a larger context. As I said earlier, I think that our culture often avoids conflict for the sake of creating a sense of universal tranquility. This tranquility is understood through ideas of unity—unity among difference. Someone recently reminded me that our country’s motto is E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one). What does this mean? How is this realized? I feel like our collective fear of difference forces us to create unity when we could create harmony. We don’t know how to all exist with our differences without fighting, so we gravitate towards establishing common ground that proves we can exist together. But we don’t do this to develop harmony—but instead we foster the goal of unity. We all must think the same things, feel the same ways, come to the same conclusions on our multiple-choice tests. This translates to a fear of the unknown, which then inhibits creative practices. If we don’t know how the audience will react, can we do it? What if it doesn’t work? What if we make people mad? In composition, harmony, unity, and variety are tools to help create and establish a certain aesthetic and to tell a certain story (or at least they provide us with a vocabulary with which to discuss these things). I think it’s possible to also think about these as useful vocabulary when thinking about difference and diversity. What is the role of each of these elements and what are the implications of relying on one over the other two?

Okay. I’m done for now. This is a lot of stream of consciousness, so…yeah. Hit me back!

One of the cast members of THE WIZ wrote to me and told me that I could post her email on this discussion board. She also posted it on the UMN Theatre Marketing Blog. Read this carefully, there's a lot of information there.

hey will,

i noticed your comments on the u of m theater message board and wanted to
send you my response in an entry i just wrote for the theater marketing
blog:

First of all,

I have to wonder who presented the two questions you addressed.

Where are these folks getting their information and how did they ever get
the idea that the wiz is an all-white cast?

we're not.

we're not even a mostly white cast.

however, most of us are not theater majors or the usual faces one often
spots in the theater building.

and thank god.

it's about time we started reminding people that the theater department
extends far beyond BA's and Rarig regulars.

furthermore, this show also plays with what you referred to as
"difference"...

the wiz, whom everyone expects to be a man, is, in fact, a woman, our
wicked witch is (presumably) transgender, the tin woman is a lesbian, and
there's even more than that.

it can be argued that our show's a little gimmicky, that we're trying too
hard to be edgy and p.c, but we ARE diverse and we DO address difference.
those things, in my opinion, are not the problems.

why aren't we talking about why the director wants oz to symbolize the
university or why he's going to feature photos of african slave ships in
the beginning of the first act?

the askers of those questions are presumptuous and completely in the dark
about what's really going on with our show.

Will does a nice job of presenting the complexity of this issue, and so I will try to say something else, though hopefully related. One of the things that has to first be acknowledged is that dealing with difference is messy. It is not easy. It is incredibly complicated and there are no short, quick and easy answers. It often comes down to the idea of My Rights Versus Yours (the name of a New Pornographers song, yes, but I think the phrase fits). This is what we have seen happen with affirmative action. To gaurantee jobs/rights/privileges to one group of people that has historically been denied them at the cost of denying those same jobs/rights/privileges to another group of people that has historically had access to them isn't getting us anywhere. The problem is bigger than the Wiz. Yet, here we see an opportunity for theatre to participate in a larger social discourse...we can here see that a show like the Wiz, that on the surface has little more to it than "entertainment value," could be used to start a discussion and provide a point of intervention for these much larger issues. Of course, I have to mark my own place of privilege that I can sit here and think/type about this and am not exhausted from working hours upon hours at some manual labor job that destroys my body and doesn't allow the time for free comtemplation of such issues. This turns the conversation to class and class and race are intimately related. And gender. And sexuality. And age. And all of this is a mess, and to deal with it, you need to allow the mess. Once you start to clean it up...well...who gets to do the cleaning and how they go about it is the stuff that World Wars are made of...

So how do you deal with difference and allow it to be messy? I don't know. If I knew, it wouldn't be a mess. One thing, that has become clear in our current Democratic race for a Presidential candidate, is that even talking about racial issues is incredibly difficult without pissing someone off, or stepping on someone's toes, or deeply hurting and further oppressing someone. Do we then choose not engage in this conversation? Or do we all agree that, like lovers' quarrels, sometimes to move the relationship forward you have to take the gloves off and risk hurting and being hurt? Otherwise you suffer in silence and end up resenting the other person and stalling out.

What opportunities is The Wiz presenting and what opportunities is it preventing for action? Other than some offhand comments in the halls of Rarig, and some fliers comparing the production to the Oscars, I haven't seen any action taken on anyones part. Also, I am reluctant to say much about the actual production, because I haven't been to a rehearsal. I have no idea how the show is shaping up. Are the people dropping the questions into Backstage Pass actually aware of what is going on, or just acting on rumor and hearsay? At the TownHall, Dominic pointed to the fact that the racial issues with producing The Wiz point to a larger problem in the academy, an institutionalized racism. How do we begin to attack this problem? Perhaps, Dominic is with his direction. Do we know that he is not addressing this? He was aware of it at the TownHall and said he felt the play needed to be "grounded." Could this be the ground where the production has found its footing?

As for allowing the show to not open...this is a problem with theatre that goes beyond this production. To think that at the end of a rehearsal process there is some "product" that can be peddled to the audience is a problem. The entire production process is that...process. This means that the possibility for failure must exist. The possibility to say, "Never mind" must exist. The production must remain fluid and in flux and never stabilize into a fixed product. I know this has, does, and will continue to happen as long as production budgets are based on ticket sales...and unless we're going to bring back the patron system somehow...I understand the real world consequences of this. But I have to second Will's call for the possibility of a show not opening. The show must go on...why?

I'm out. Here's some emoticons while you contemplate your responses. Come on.

The Wiz presents us with several problems. The first, most obvious problem is that our department's (and the entire university's) predominately white student body seems completely antithetical to the casting needs of a show like The Wiz, which, traditionally, requires a predominately black cast. The second problem, however, is even stronger. This has to do with the inability of our department (and, again, the university) to discuss the first problem. Without trying to be didactic, I want to point to the two questions posted by the Peers as perfect examples of this inability to talk about the issue of race and casting, and its materialization on the Mainstage.

Question 1: "The Wiz? White cast? Not cool! Diversity please?"

The vagueness of this question/statement makes it completely unhelpful. In fact, it becomes part of the problem. Of its may deficiencies, the "Diversity please?" is probably the worst. What are we supposed to think about the word diversity in this context? The word diversity itself has become commodified by corporations and non-for-profits alike. It has been made to take over for its predecessor, affirmative action. What was formerly the "Diversity Committee," formed by members of the Department of Theatre Arts and Dance, has now become the Committee on Institutionalized Exclusion. The driving force behind the name change was precisely the vacuity and impotence of the word "diversity," its complete inability to cause meaningful change in the day to day discussion of race/sex/religion/thinking. More specifically, the committee members wanted to acknowledge difference, not wipe it away. Difference is important. We want difference. We want as much difference as possible on the stage at the university and in the classrooms. We want different races, different ways of thinking, different creeds, and different sexual orientations. There are probably numerous differences that have been excluded from the production of The Wiz, and I think we need to name them all. The absence of black people is not the only one. What about staging technique? What about dramaturgical absences, like, say, a concerted effort on the part of the cast and crew to connect with the students in the department to let them know why issues of difference have or have not been addressed? Question #1 only shines more light on an already well-lit problem. What we need to do instead is locate the problems presented by The Wiz specifically, and I think they have to do with difference, not "diversity."

Question 2: "Why is the Wiz being done with a predominately white cast? Diversity?"

The problem with this question is that the person who asked it most likely already knows the answer. Why is the Wiz being done with a predominately white cast? Because there are predominately white people who audition. Diversity? Well, again we run into the problem that Question 1 presented us with. If we're going to talk about the issues surrounding the idea of difference that The Wiz is making highly visible to all of us, we need to ask the right questions. If students are unhappy about the musical, then maybe they should find out how to make something like this never happen again. That would involve figuring out the tower of babel that is the Producer's Meeting. If students think that the Wiz demands a predominately black cast, or any other racial configuration than the one it has now, then we have to find the place in the auditioning process where blackness was excluded. Without knowing for sure, I'm willing to bet that it was excluded several months before the musical was even decided upon, when, for the Nth time, the powers-that-be failed to address the problem of race and casting in the department.

Here's my take on the issue. The biggest problem I have with the Wiz is that the possibility for it NOT to happen does NOT exist. The Wiz is going to open. People will be upset. The upset will go underground. Nobody will talk about it anymore. The Wiz will become an inside joke for the students who return next year, only nobody will be certain what it is they are laughing about. I think that we need to figure out a way to convince the Producer's that every mainstage show should have the opportunity of not opening. In the case of the Wiz, a reason for not opening would be that students finally do ask the right questions; students get teachers to listen; Dominic organizes a meeting and hears what everyone has to say; the cast reflects on the numerous shortcomings of the show, and the decision is made to go back to the drawing board. When shows are chosen with ticket-sales as the primary motivation, the possibility for meaningful discussion becomes void. That the Wiz will certainly open and that it will disappoint, even if it only disappoints or offends a handful of people, is a problem. It is a problem because there is no alternative. There is no way to stop the process. This, however, does not have to be the case. In terms of the Wiz, the show will go on. But we should make sure that this won't happen again. How can we do that? Let's use this discussion board to figure it out.

Several comments have been submitted to the Sounding Board concerning the upcoming production of The Wiz, directed by Dominic Taylor, musical direction by Sandford Moore.

One student asks, "The Wiz? White cast? Not cool! Diversity please?"

Another student asks, "Why is the Wiz being done with a predominately white cast? Diversity?"


Reactions/thoughts????