By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO — Recently, I attended a matinee performance of Thoroughly Modern Millie up in Ventura County. I enjoyed it, and why not, my teenage grand-niece, Ashlee Ford, had the title role, and I got to see her sing, dance, and even get kissed by a fellah on stage.
Afterwards, my brother Bill, and Ashlee’s parents, Caren and Craig, and her brother, Tyler, all went out to dinner, while Ashlee stayed behind to watch the alternative cast give another performance that same evening. Over dinner, we discussed the play, and while all agreed that Ashlee was wonderful, I expressed some reservations about the script.
Mrs. Meers and her two Chinese henchmen troubled me, I noted. Mrs. Meers runs the New York City boarding house where Millie stays while she is establishing herself in a career. Other female boarders, all of whom are orphans, disappear one after the other, kidnapped by Mrs. Meers and her lackeys to be sent to Hong Kong to become “white slaves,” eg., prostitutes.
The 1960s musical utilized broad, xenophobic stereotypes about Chinese people — that they are scheming, nefarious, secretive, not-to-be-trusted ‘Others’– and, notwithstanding that one of her assistants who fell in love with one of the victims ultimately turned against Mrs. Meers, I couldn’t help feeling offended, thinking how hurt some members of my Asian-American family might be made to feel by such a senseless characterization.
I know that I bristle whenever a far-more-prominent piece of theatre, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, is shown, because of its characterization of “the Jew” Shylock demanding a “pound of flesh” in repayment of his loan. Similarly, I become tense whenever I see a production of Oliver because of Charles Dickens’ nasty characterization of the money-hungry and child-exploiting Fagin as “the Jew.”
Recently, I saw Parade, the story of Leo Frank’s lynching–a musical that in dealing with the damage that stereotyping can cause had a stereotype of its own: depicting an African-American factory worker as a shuffling, obsequious southern Negro, whose loins rage with lust for white women and whose heart is embittered with hate and revenge against white society.
I knew that my thoughts were bordering on that dread disease called “political correctness,” but I wondered whether it’s considered okay for directors to separate the wheat from the chaff by eliminating offensive stereotyping in a play, and offering a version adapted to modern sensibilities. Is this “kosher” as far as theatre types are concerned, or is it a crime even worse than giving offense to innocent members of the audience?
I turned to some writers who think about the theatre almost every day of their lives to see what they would say.
Cynthia Citron, who writes Los Angeles-area theatre reviews for San Diego Jewish World, responded that making changes from the original script is not all that uncommon.
“I think it’s done all the time with the added notation ‘Adapted by…’ or ‘a new adaptation by…’ In that way the theater people involved can do whatever they want. Especially if the play or music is in the public domain, where copyright restrictions don’t apply.
“But even without the caveats, plays are cut all the time—even though they’re not supposed to be (according to Samuel French),” wrote Citron. “Most of the time, Hamlet is abridged with whole scenes left out…
“Of course, if the play’s plot deals with racism or out-dated bigotry it defeats the purpose to eliminate the stereotypes and ‘politically incorrect’ references. Most of today’s productions leave it all in and offer an explanation in the Playbill or elsewhere that the attitudes have to be understood in the context of the time frame of the play…”
*
Valerie Scher, an arts writer whose byline used to grace the San Diego Union-Tribune, answered as follows:
“To change or not to change? That is the question. My feeling is that each work must be considered on its own merits on a case-by-case basis, whether the author is William Shakespeare or a modern-day playwright.
“In an era influenced by PC values, the issues are complicated and often controversial. The new version of George Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess, for example, generated heated discussion even before its Broadway opening in January. Detractors — including legendary composer-lyricist Stephen Sondheim — slammed the production for daring to tamper with the iconic, 1935 folk opera about African-Americans in South Carolina. Supporters welcomed the fresh interpretation.
“Ultimately, it’s up to theater-goers to decide the fate of this Porgy and Bess. Either they’ll buy enough tickets or they won’t.
“More troublesome are Charles Dickens’ Fagin and Shakespeare’s Shylock, both of whom continue to ignite debate. Are these characters, caricatures or a combination of the two? Should we question the right of great writers to mold dramatic art from the ethnic clichés of their eras?
“And what about lesser writers, who create entertainment rather than art? To what standard should they be held? The ethnic and racial stereotyping that was once acceptable is now considered dated at best, offensive at worst. Production teams may ignore the issue, if they deem it harmless. Or they may try to defuse the situation through script changes, staging and other methods.
“One thing is certain. The challenges will continue.”
*
Carol Davis, who reviews local plays for San Diego Jewish World, suggested that the real issue may be whether to impose censorship or “should we just let the chips fall where they may?
“I think we should let them fall and through the fall out, we grow,” she added.
“I may not like it, I may choose not to see it. I do however think that it is up to the director and board to decide on a season and then the director and cast to decide how to play the characters and what they want to get across to the audiences. If there is discussion, pro or con that’s good.
“My guess is that if a piece is controversial, everyone will have an opinion, good, bad or indifferent.”
*
As for myself, I am a reader and an audience member, not a playwright nor a director. But as a consumer, I have my preferences, which some will share and others will disparage. I prefer characters with depth to those who are one-dimensional.
I am disappointed when a writer relies on stereotypes, rather than upon discerning description, to bring a character to life.
I’d much rather be introduced to a character whose experiences during the play causes him or her to grow than watch one who is simply a caricature, no better defined at the end of the play than at the beginning. If that means that the director has to “adapt” rather than to parrot the playwright, well so be it.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted at donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com