This is an article from the New York Times from about 2 weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/theater/28diverse.html?_r=1&hp
I think it's really important and really interesting. For starters, it acknowledges that what people of color spend their money on matters. That's not always taken for granted (in fact, the status quo seems to be assuming it doesn't matter).
Then, there's the issue that it seems the main reason these shows are being marketed to a "Black audience" (which implies that all Black people who see shows are interested in the same kinds of shows as each other, and that those are probably different from the shows that appeal to the "White audience", which is usually just called "The audience") is because they feature Black people. Or, are about subject matter that has to do with "race", rather than subject matter that has to do with anything else. And, yet, there are people in the article (which doesn't mean that all Black theatregoers agree, but I certainly feel as a White reader that I'm supposed to think it does) who are quoted as saying they WOULD rather see Memphis if it's about an interracial couple than if it's about Elvis...but then, so would I (and I have seen Memphis, but not Million Dollar Quartet which actually IS - partially - about Elvis).
So, this is where it gets really complicated. Because on the one hand, the idea that people (Black, White or otherwise) only want to see shows about people who "look"* like them is clearly problematic and, I hope, false. One of the reasons I think musical theatre can be an effective tool for social change is that it can show us people who are different from ourselves. But, on the other hand, when it comes to representation, there are so many normalized images of White people, and so few images of not-White people, it makes a lot of sense that people will jump at the opportunity to see people on stage who look like them (because, when seeing the stories of people who have things in common with you - whether it's because they're Black or because they're from small town Indiana - is a rarity, it's exiciting to see that representation on stage - like, wow, I'm important enough to have a story like mine told). There's a logical fallacy, however, in assuming that therefore people of color will see anything featuring other people of color, regardless of what the show is. And, that that same section of the audience isn't worth marketing to for other shows.
So my first question is, why aren't ALL shows more aggressively marketed to different kinds of audiences, rather than just the assumed "White" audience? The article says that the Memphis producers were proud that Michelle, Sasha, and Malia Obama went to see the show - how did The Addams Family producers feel? Is that also a "race" show, because they saw it? Should the marketers start trying to get the "Black audience" into see that show more aggressively? Okay, okay. I "get" the difference. The obvious answer as to why one of these things is not like the other. But - I also think normalized race difference runs so deep in our society that we don't even notice how the "logic" behind the obvious answer perpetuates problematic assumptions (like, the "audience" is White, like, people of color only want to see shows about people of color, etc. et.c).
My second question is does it matter that some of these shows (I've seen a few of the ones listed) do not necessarily address issues of race and racism in a progressive way? (obviously, that's up for debate, too, and I don't expect a mainstream Broadway show to cause people to think radically about race - but, what if it's doing the opposite of that? what if it's reinforcing stereotypes or furthering the above mentioned problematic assumptions through its content?) Is it enough that producers and writers are responding to the presence of (aka acknowledging there is) a non-White audience, or is it worse to do that by puting forth shows that don't do anything to work against the structures that created the situation in which the non-White audience was previously (and in many cases, is still largely) ignored? Is it enough to talk about race, when what you're saying isn't working against institutions of racism? But, how do you do that in a way that is still commercially viable? This is about Broadway, after all. And, the whole point of this article, is that most of the people who go to Broadway shows are White (for any number of reasons from marketing to an assumed White audience to the reality that White people have more money to spend on things like Broadway shows), so you want them to relate to the show also. People don't learn things from a show if they're not having fun. And, I know, that probably a lot of people would disagree with my basic assumption that one ought to learn something at the theatre.
Anyway, there's a lot more to discuss about this - who goes to see shows is a major concern for everyone who is creating them. So, what are your thoughts on the article? On the issue of target marketing based on race? On what happens when the show "about race" is not necessarily about "ending racism"?
*EDIT: I originally said look, but really that's not true at all, to say that people of one race "look" more like each other than they do people of other races isn't really true - race construction in the US has very little to do with phenotype. What I meant by "look" really is being able to see yourself in someone else in some capacity because of an imagined (or real) shared identity.
Also, check out this line of thinking about pieces that portray issues of "race" : http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/06/rescue-dark-kids-who-would-never-have.html
And, while I'm linking you to other blogs I like, that are related to these kinds of things, check out: http://www.racialicious.com
I had very similar questions when reading this article.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was much younger, I used to go to off and on Broadway musicals/plays with my Grandmother. For the most part, whenever we decided on a play it was usually a rehashed Disney movie or a story that we both knew before. I used to attend the Alvin Ailey ballet every year too. And during high school and college, I learned how to examine literature using plays.
ReplyDeleteSo there was a genuine disconnect between "wanting to see people like" me on stage because I DID see people like me on the stage.
Furthermore, perhaps this "disconnect" that I had a child was because 1) in the Disney productions, the characters were WHITE, therefore their Broadway counterparts would be too. Which is telling of how "normal" it was for me, as a child, to racialize people. However, 2) I still saw Black people on stage (on or off Broadway) but I never connected "Broadway" as the pinnacle. To me, a stage was a stage and an audience was an audience.
But, I guess what I am trying to get at here, is can media use race in a meaningful way without falling into stereotypes? I honestly, thing no because they don't even know they are doing it half of the time.
For example, in the recent movie "The Last Airbender" there was a huge outcry against Paramount and Nick for not using Asian actors as the main cast because they perceived Avatar to be drawn from various Asian cultures (which it was.). But, at the same time the cartoon and the movie was produced, created, drawn and written by white people who, let's be real, picked and chose aspects of real Asian cultures and histories and then fashioned them in a way that was convenient for them. You had the marital arts, the "oriental magic", the "ethnic clothing", the long drawn out speeches about "honor," I could go on. But the point was, even with all their "authenticity" checking, it was still made and marketed to one type of audience: Whites.
So, why the outcry? Because people confused "cultural authenticity/heritage" with buying into out-group stereotypes. If you are going to have a Blackface show, then why not use Black people? It doesn't make it better. It seems to me like a super vicious cycle, where even the marketed audiences don't even understand what they are buying into half of the time. But the bottom line is, as you stated earlier, that in the States, people are willing to see whatever as long as they see "themselves" in someway, whether it's a rehashed stereotype or not.
On a personal note, you should hate the movie because of Shyamalan.
Furthermore, I do not agree with the assumption that Black audiences do not have the money to spend on plays. This is simply not true and another product of our racialized institutions. Every group prioritizes their "luxury" spending in different ways. Yes, people from lower economic standpoints struggle to maintain the status quo BUT that has not stopped them from acquiring brand name and high-end electronic goods. People will spend the money if the product is marketed properly.
Furthermore, when you delve into those statics for modern day theater goers, they tend to be middle-aged, middle to upper class white women because all other groups (race, gender) are watching movies. They are cheaper, less time consuming and more accessible.
My questions to you are: How do you take a social media, like theatre, and keep it relative and in competition with other modern day social media? Can you even use race and race relations in an engaging and interactive way to market to broader audiences, when the audiences and producers are both stuck in this cyclical racism? Should Broadway/Hollywood involve people of color in the creation of there productions in a more engaging way (like having more writers, actors, producers, etc.) to reach their target audience? 'Cause I am sick of the "consultant" crap.
Sorry, Ella! My mind is a whirligig! But great article! :)