• London Theater: Diversity vs. Quality

Quentin Letts, a critic with the London-based Daily Mail, has caused a stir with comments on an actor in a recent Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) production. In a review of The Fantastic Follies of Mrs Rich, he remarked,

“There is no way he is a honking Hooray of the sort that has infested the muddier reaches of England’s shires for centuries. He is too cool, too mature, not chinless or daft or funny enough.

“Was [the actor] cast because he is black? If so, the RSC’s clunking approach to politically correct casting has again weakened its stage product.

“I suppose its managers are under pressure from the Arts Council to tick inclusiveness boxes, but at some point they are going to have to decide if their core business is drama or social engineering.”

That set off a barrage of criticism in the UK press, which almost universally branded Letts a bigot for suggesting that the actor may have been cast for reasons other than his talent. The RSC slammed his “blatantly racist attitude” and insisted that the actor’s race had nothing to do with their decision to hire him for this part, citing his many stage and television appearances as proof, I assume, of his acting ability.

I haven’t seen the show, which I understand is quite good, and the actor for all I know is very fine. But I understand completely where Letts is coming from. I admit to frequently having the same uneasy suspicion in my semiannual London visits. My perception over the past 5-10 years is that black actors in particular make up a significantly higher percentage of the principal characters in many London productions, especially at the RSC, Globe and National Theatre, than their percentage of the UK population, which appears to be around 3%. That is not blind casting. I recall that in one trip some years ago, nine of the 13 shows I saw (yeah, I take in a lot of theater) were non-traditionally cast, which practically speaking means blacks in roles that historically or culturally would be white. (One of the four outliers was an all-black play, and half the cast in another case involved black actors playing black characters.)

Nothing wrong with that, of course, if these are truly the right actors for the role. But often – way too painfully often – they’re clearly not. I’ll avoid naming names here, but I can say from experience that for every Adrian Lester (to name the best of the best), there are multiple others who have no business standing on a West End stage, at least in the roles they’re being given. When this starts to repeat itself, it’s impossible not to believe that there are other considerations at work than simply choosing the right person for the right role. The noble social goals of the creators are bringing down the quality of the experience for those of us in the audience, who are only there to see a good show (and paying plenty for it). In other words, I get the feeling that creating great theater is becoming secondary to ensuring a proper racial balance, however that’s defined. And that means that every minority actor, justifiably or not, is going to be tarred with the same affirmative casting brush, i.e., “he’s only cast because he’s (ethnicity here)”. The media can scream all they want to, but it won’t change the reality for those of us who have to sit through it. Casting “diversely” is absurd as a goal in itself. Casting is, or should be, solely about putting the best people in the right roles. Diversity in race or ethnicity is fine as an incidental result, but diversity of acting quality is not. I don’t see how employing bad actors for the color of their skin will help the actors themselves, the audience or British theater in the long run.

More pointedly, another feature I’ve noticed about London is that the proportion of minorities on the stage is markedly higher than the percentage in the seats – the West End, the Globe, the National, you name it, are all overwhelmingly white on this side of the footlights, with only East Asians punching above their weight. This is true on Broadway as well, where surveys have found that Hispanics and blacks make up 30% of the roles but only 10% of the audience. I suspect the figures in the UK are similar.

Could it be that black viewers just aren’t interested in seeing other blacks pretending to be white? Would white audiences go to a show where white actors are portraying traditionally black characters? Whatever the cause, those complaining about minority representation would do better first to concentrate on getting more minorities interested in attending live theater, such as encouraging more minority writers and directors. Once diverse viewers are there, producers will have more incentive to employ plays and casts that attract them. And, as a theater buff, I’m convinced that once such audiences catch the theater bug, they’ll naturally explore a broader range of shows and subjects.

In any case, it’s unseemly for black actors to be crying about lack of roles and begging white producers to hire them – aren’t they embarrassed? Shouldn’t they be staging their own shows rather than leaving it to other ethnicities to do the job for them? Then they could control their own destinies and ensure their representation on stage in a manner they consider worthy of their dignity and talents. New York is well ahead in that respect, with a number of ethnic-based groups putting out innovative material in high-quality productions; the level of acting is also in general quite high.

In any case, it is tiresome to hear the racist card played at every turn in lieu of a serious dialogue. When London theater is better known for its “diversity” than its quality, there’s a problem. It’s time to acknowledge it.