Even the Plank Chicken is White 2: white identity theatre
_Here's what Valerie Sing Turner wrote to us, following on from the debate started by_ "David C Jones":http://plankmagazine.com/thots/even-plank-chicken-white-diversity-perfor...
Hey, guys...
I don't know if you're aware of the debate regarding the lack of diversity on Vancouver/Canadian stages that was sparked by a letter from David C. Jones to Jerry Wasserman's "vancouverplays":http://www.vancouverplays.com/letters.shtml and to which Morris Panych has sent in a thoughtful response. Below is a copy of the letter I sent to Jerry late last night, because so far it was only the white guys weighing in - vital to the debate, yes, because for far too long, the attitude was that us coloured people had to somehow fix it all by ourselves - but we need many perspectives.
Which segues nicely to why I'm writing you: Plank offers a unique critical forum for this kind of debate, and while I noticed and applauded Alex's comments regarding the Playhouse's lack of meaningful diversity in his Miss Julie piece, I was wondering when Plank was going to really tackle the big white (pun intended) elephant in Canadian theatre.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Cheers, Valerie
_And here’s Valerie’s letter to Jerry_
As an artist of colour in the Vancouver theatre scene, I'd like to throw out a few thoughts on this important issue that the intrepid David C. Jones has brought to your and your readers' attention.
First of all, I'd like everyone to consider throwing away labels such as "colour-blind" and "non-traditional" casting. When I'm on stage, there's no way for me to pretend I'm white when I play a character that might originally have been written with a white actor in mind, nor would I want to pretend; my ethnicity adds uniqueness, more layers of complexity and a heretofore unmined richness to an already well-known story - if the director has the imagination to see those possibilities. And to think that an audience is "blind" to colour is ludicrous and disingenuous at the same time. As for the term "non-traditional", there's a negative implication that to cast diverse actors goes against tradition, but one must ask, exactly whose tradition is that? In Asia and other non-white societies, they have a long tradition of casting non-white actors in plays written by western European and North American writers, and they don't think it strange at all to have, say, a Chinese Hamlet, or a South Asian Nora. Only in Canada, it seems, we do have a tradition of persistently creating an oddly unreal world populated only by white people. So in discussions regarding (lack of) diversity, my vote is for "contemporary casting", which has the positive connotation of reflecting contemporary society, and therefore making the work relevant to contemporary society.
Like David, I don’t believe it is most people's intention to be exclusive; it’s just that very few people make much of an effort to be _in_clusive. At a time when it is generally acknowledged that theatre’s traditional audience of predominantly white upper- and middle-class patrons is greying and urgently needs to be replaced, the lack of recognition for the need to make Canadian theatre relevant to a younger, more diverse audience is unfortunate. Statistics Canada has forecast that by 2017 - only 8 years from now! - the so-called visible minority will be the visible majority, particularly in Canada’s urban centres. It is ironic that in a city whose glorious diversity is a fact of our everyday lives, such reality remains invisible, rather than visible, on Vancouver's stages.
I think about this issue a lot. I have to. People make judgments about me - good and bad - just by looking at my face. So at yet another recent discussion about diversity, this time with Canadian Actors' Equity's Council, I had something of an epiphany: I would venture to say that 95% of what passes for "Canadian" theatre is actually white identity theatre. We all know what identity theatre is. If a production has a black playwright, with a black director and a predominantly black cast, it's black identity theatre. Same idea whether it's Asian, Aboriginal, South Asian, you name it. So if there's a white playwright, a white director and a predominantly (or usually exclusively) white cast, then it's white identity theatre. (And probably 80% of that is white _male_ identity theatre, but that's a whole other discussion.) But that's OK: there's a place for white identity theatre, just as there is for black/asian/aboriginal/south asian/everything-else identity theatre in the theatre ecology, because all those stories need to be told. But please, just put a sign on your door, put it in your mandate and in your grant proposals and have the courage to declare that that's the kind of theatre you're interested in doing. Please don't pretend you're producing Canadian theatre.
And please don’t suggest that there isn’t enough talent among the visible minority; that is a specious and insulting argument. I know many talented actors of colour who toil away in undeserved obscurity. As one young black actor said to me, “My parents warned me that I would have to be 10 times as good as a white actor in order just to get noticed.” Case in point: I attended the tribute to Lorena Gale at the Firehall on Monday night, and I was thrilled by the number of talented artists of colour onstage, as well as the incredible diversity of the nearly full house. The talent is out there; it’s just that few people are willing to look. And in a world where white and inter-racial couples adopt children from Asia and Africa, there are absolutely no limitations as to who can play what – except in our imaginations.
So the real question isn't why isn't there enough diversity on Canadian stages. The real question is, why do we produce theatre? What is theatre’s raison d’être for present-day Canadians? Is it merely to entertain? To provide a pleasant distraction? To provide an alternative for those consumer dollars? These are all valid reasons, but as an idealist, I believe that at its best, theatre can resonate within its audiences in both small and profound ways that provoke change for the better in ourselves as individuals and as a society. So what message are we conveying to our audiences when we exclude nearly 50% of our society from the stage? How can we open people’s minds to other possibilities if the world we present doesn’t reflect their own? And who are we not reaching? What limitations are we unwittingly imposing on ourselves if we fail to make ourselves relevant to the youth of this country who take a diversified world for granted, and who don’t go to theatre because they don’t recognize the world they live in?
I realize this is getting long, but bear with me, Jerry, for one last thought. I think the critics in this country need to be more pro-active in contextualizing the merits of the productions they review in terms of the individual production's relevancy to today's audiences. I mean, I get tired of seeing the same old stories presented from the same old predominantly white perspective, and I wonder if you get a little weary about that too, since you see many more shows than I do. So my challenge to you and your colleagues is to try to view and review the work through a slightly different lens and comment on a particular play's appeal and resonance to a wider, more diverse contemporary audience. C'mon, start a revolution: I thought theatre and the arts were supposed to lead the way to a more progressive society, and you guys have the power to help Canadian theatre find its way.
Oh, and thanks, Jerry, for providing a great forum for this discussion. I guess you're already helping!
Cheers, Valerie
Valerie Sing Turner