More controversy with an English Theatre Production:
"...the producer's decision in Jolson & Co. removes Al Jolson from the context of his era and denies the fact that blackface and minstrelsy have been intrinsic to western entertainment since the 19th century. To put it another way, the idea of contemplating Al Jolson without blacking up is like considering Marvin Gaye without sex; if the producers wanted to avoid controversy, they shouldn't be doing a musical about Al Jolson."
--Michael McMillen, in last Friday's Guardian Theatre Blog, writing about the decision to do a show about the life of American singer Al Jolson from the early twentieth century without showing him ever performing in blackface, something he did frequently in Broadway shows and movies--
What do you think? Is it political correctness gone amuck or merely sensitivity and awareness? Are we to avoid all historical unpleasantness or ugliness and adjust historical fact so that it placates and complies with our current social and moral barometer? Or should we be able to dispassionately look at things through an historical perspective and dramatic context without it being interpreted as an agreement with, an advocacy for, or an approval of attitudes that were prevalent in our past?
"...the producer's decision in Jolson & Co. removes Al Jolson from the context of his era and denies the fact that blackface and minstrelsy have been intrinsic to western entertainment since the 19th century. To put it another way, the idea of contemplating Al Jolson without blacking up is like considering Marvin Gaye without sex; if the producers wanted to avoid controversy, they shouldn't be doing a musical about Al Jolson."
--Michael McMillen, in last Friday's Guardian Theatre Blog, writing about the decision to do a show about the life of American singer Al Jolson from the early twentieth century without showing him ever performing in blackface, something he did frequently in Broadway shows and movies--
What do you think? Is it political correctness gone amuck or merely sensitivity and awareness? Are we to avoid all historical unpleasantness or ugliness and adjust historical fact so that it placates and complies with our current social and moral barometer? Or should we be able to dispassionately look at things through an historical perspective and dramatic context without it being interpreted as an agreement with, an advocacy for, or an approval of attitudes that were prevalent in our past?
(Editor's Note: It was interesting when I went to Google Images for a pic of Al Jolson, on the first page about 1/2 are of him in blackface and I am NOT ABOUT to put a pic of Al Jolson in blackface on this blog, nor will I link to it. A couple of years ago there was a controversy in Lexington over recognizing D.W. Griffith with a Kentucky Star, in honor of his ENORMOUS influence on the history of film making. Ultimately it was decided not to honor him and the committee that selects these honorees will not reconsider him...and you know what, I'm ok with that. D.W. Griffith is dead, his contribution to film will not change whether we honor him or not and if honoring him offends folks because of films like Birth of a Nation, then there is no need to do so...the film still stands, watch it whenever you want...Maybe I am guilty of being overly sensitive but I would rather err on the side of compassion...I will say, I am delighted to see England does just as bad a job about having these conversations as we do...)
0 comments:
Post a Comment