I no longer find George Lopez funny. He broke into the industry and established himself as a recognized and successful talent by writing and performing cliché’ Mexican situations and promoting the stereotypes of my culture. I enjoy Mexican jokes; I tell Mexican jokes; I think it’s healthy to laugh at one’s self. But is George Lopez only funny if he continues his derogatory portrayals? He is now successful and recognized; he now represents Latino comedy success. Does he owe future Latino artists better modeling? Should he use his Hollywood weight to address politics? If he is a true comic and skilled writer and actor, why doesn’t he graduate from easy targets and create more intelligent material or three dimensional characters? Do successful artists of color who portray ethnic stereotypes anchor Hollywood and Broadway into racial profiles?
I know that individuals have choices and so George doesn’t have to “graduate” from portraying stereotypes. I know that alluring Hollywood contracts often cement an artist in one role or type. I value Americans’ freedom of speech. If I find someone’s art offensive, my biggest weapon of retribution is the dollar; I do not spend my money on George Lopez’s shows nor view his work.
How do we gauge what is appropriate in art? Or better yet, should we gauge what is appropriate in art? As a Latino, Hispanic, Mexican-American director, do I have artistic license over language and characters that a White director does not possess? (I wrote “Latino, Hispanic, Mexican-American” because even as a culture our label is inconsistent and in formation. Latin is more chic today; why? I can’t answer that, but I do see that the multiple labels reflect a lack of definition for a culture…we don’t even know what to call ourselves.) The whole cultural awareness topic is a sensitive one and it scares people. The recent Academy Award announcements (or lack of announcements) have even kindled into a fire.
An Anglo actor has the American right to purchase George Lopez’s material and perform it. But should he? Is it ok for a White actor to portray a Latin character? Is it ok for a White director to direct a story about the Latin experience? In today’s theatre world it is accepted that a Black actor can play a role written for an Anglo, but not the other way around. Middle Eastern, Indian, and East Asian actors are in the same situation.
We tend to be very respectful of ethnic boundaries and cautious not to offend minority cultures. But it is still theatre; in a theatre I know that the Black actor is only pretending to be Tom Robinson. The actor is practicing a theatrical convention, suspension of disbelief. Is it ok for a Black actress to play Tom Robinson (as a male of course)? Remember suspension of disbelief? Why will readers cringe when they read the following: Is it ok for a White male to play Tom Robinson? This is scary territory. Well, is it ok for a female to play Atticus as a male? We see more and more females playing roles written for men; are there untouchable male roles which women should not play? Shakespeare did all his work with men.
Broadway’s Hamilton is a White story told by people of color and it’s a success. We accept the casting because it reflects the themes; that’s the point of the show. Research and read about Kent State’s casting of a White actor as Martin Luther King Jr. in the play, The Mountaintop. The playwright rewrote the performance rights after that particular production. See: http://www.hesherman.com/2015/10/29/when-a-white-actor-goes-to-the-mountaintop/ If To Kill a Mockingbird is about bigotry and learning to walk around in another person’s skin, could audiences not accept a White Tom Robinson who is teaching us not to be bigots or is that insensitive to the Black experience? Recently, a production of In the Heights, at The University of Texas in Austin, ceased rehearsals until perceived inequities in casting and directing issues could be resolved. I am Latino, Hispanic, and Mexican-American; would this blog be read differently if it had been authored by a White writer?
What about playwright’s intent? I’m sure Shakespeare never envisioned a Black female Hamlet, yet I have seen two amazing productions with Black female Hamlets. Van Hove’s, A View From the Bridge, currently in New York uses a couple of benches, a chair and actors in bare feet in a fighting-like arena; that was not Arthur Miller’s intent, but many say the production is genius. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/theater/review-a-view-from-the-bridge-bears-witness-to-the-pain-of-fate.html?_r=0.
The historical purists will loyally represent history as it was; they have that right. But not all artists recreate the last New York production or follow all stage directions. The purpose of my art is different. Historically accurate costumes, sets, dialects and skin complexion and gender do not matter to me. My art is more Brechtian in style and hopefully calls audiences to get involved. Race, gender, wheelchairs, blind, deaf, little people, age, sexual orientations, the poor, pick a group to offend. Or pick a group to include in the creation of art.
I am a teacher of theatre. The classroom/stage is a place to experiment and to learn and to teach. It is a place to succeed and to safely fail. Playwrights show us who we are. Playwrights show us where we have been. And playwrights remind the next generation when they have revisited the same old human flaws and mistakes. Actors often have to wear ugly roles and speak and do uncomfortable things on stage. Someone has to play the villain. Even in Medieval morality plays, someone had to play Satan and the vices to urge audiences to define their Christian values. Directors take playwright’s words and actors to create an artificial world that urges audiences to react. The reaction isn’t always nice.
I hope that I was hired at my current job because I was the most qualified not because I am Hispanic, Latino, Mexican-American. When I was younger and couldn’t find roles to fit me or directors to cast me, I wrote my own material and performed and directed my own material. I know I have the right to play any race or gender as an actor. I know I have the freedom to direct any experience not just the Latin experience. But if the literature is not protected by copyright laws, should I touch racially sensitive literature? My opinion is yes, if the art is created with sensitivity, research and intelligence and for the purpose of teaching. I would never practice that right for profit or merely for sensationalism and audience shock (well maybe a little shock).
George Lopez is practicing his right; his art has caused me to react. His art has urged me to define my values and my purpose and write my own ending or future.
The post I NO LONGER FIND GEORGE LOPEZ FUNNY Or THE ARTIST OF COLOR IN A WHITE BUSINESS WORLD appeared first on Maestro Theatre Publications.