Audiences are flocking to see Hamilton on Broadway. The show is sold out through the fall and has received rave reviews from most critics. While unable to afford a ticket, I listen to the cast album almost daily. One day I’ll see the show, but until then I listen and read all the news about this unique recasting of American history in living color.
The most recent headlines about the play have not dealt with its content but with an issue raised around its casting, and the writer and producers’ intent to explicitly have the founding fathers played by non-white actors. In The Atlantic article Hamilton: Casting After Colorblindness, Spencer Kornhaber writes, “Hamilton does not merely allow for some of the Founding Fathers to be non-white. It insists all of them be.” He concludes:
This insistence is part of the play’s message that Alexander Hamilton’s journey from destitute immigrant to influential statesman is universal and replicable (and comparable to the life stories of many of the rappers who inspired Hamilton’s music). Obama, recently hosting the cast at the White House, gave the standard interpretation: “With a cast as diverse as America itself, including the outstandingly talented women, the show reminds us that this nation was built by more than just a few great men—and that it is an inheritance that belongs to all of us.”
That last line might sound like a platitude, and there have been times in history when it may have really been one. But movements like Black Lives Matter, and renewed calls for the consideration of reparations, are built on the idea that “all” remains an unfulfilled promise—and that fulfillment can only come by focusing on helping the specific populations that suffer greatest from America’s many inequalities rooted in oppression. The national discourse in the past few years has demonstrated that this remains a controversial idea. While Hamilton does not explicitly take a side, the simple fact of its casting suggests which way it probably leans. As the production goes on tour outside New York City in the coming years, it will spread its argument about America—and perhaps also, finally, start a few.
Kate Shindle has weighed in as president of Actors’ Equity Association, writing a guest column for Variety titled “Hamilton Casting Controversy Spotlights the Importance of Diversity:”
Last week’s firestorm about the casting notice for the Broadway juggernaut “Hamilton” was frustrating, disappointing, enlightening and educational. On its face, it was a simple disagreement about the language in an employment ad, and the distinction between hiring qualifications (i.e., the race/ethnicity of a character) and Equal Employment Opportunity (the race/ethnicity of an actor). That it was blown up into a “war” between “Hamilton” and Actors’ Equity Association, the union that represents more than 50,000 professional actors and stage managers across the United States, was mostly an unfortunate byproduct of the informational echo chamber in which we live. As the President of Actors’ Equity, I can unequivocally state not only that we are ready to move on, but also that our industry desperately needs for us to do so.
Anyone who followed the #Oscarssowhite controversy in 2015-16 probably understands that diversity in casting is a daunting mountain for the entertainment industry to climb. “Hamilton” is a valuable benchmark in that respect, unquestionably demonstrating that there is a robust audience for stories told by actors of color; it also tells us that if the story and the performances are strong enough, patrons will pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for that experience. With its decidedly race-specific casting of primarily non-Caucasian performers who portray many of the very real (and very white) historical figures involved in the birth of the United States, “Hamilton” makes an extremely visible case that both artistic and financial success can be directly traced to imaginative casting and creative choices.
But as rightly celebrated as this musical is, it would be shortsighted to assume that it solves the industry’s diversity problem, any more than electing Barack Obama solved America’s. Indeed, the theater is a microcosm of the nation, in terms of the forces at work and the problems that need remedies. Certainly, one should expect that entrenched power brokers throughout the industry may dig in their heels to defend existing paradigms, as power brokers do in just about every other context. Nor should “Hamilton” and similar shows be expected to satisfy some kind of diversity quota, allowing the rest of the status quo to stand unchallenged. While it could be argued that some diversity is better than none, this is simply not good enough. The statistics tell us that changing the way we think of race and ethnicity in the theater will not be easy. Of Equity’s 50,823 active members, 68% identify themselves as Caucasian. This is not because there aren’t many gifted minority performers; a look at any number of current Broadway shows (the upcoming “Shuffle Along,” for example, boasts an astounding roster of talent) clearly disproves that assertion. It’s because we need to do better at fostering artists of color.
There have been many other responses.
Zeba Blay wrote:
No, The ‘Hamilton’ Casting Call For ‘Non-White’ Actors Is Not Reverse Racism
There is, of course, a case to be made for the importance of colorblind casting, the practice of choosing actors for parts based solely on their ability and not on race or ethnicity. And if you think about it, “Hamilton” is perhaps as colorblind as castings come — when else would black and Latino actors get to play the Founding Fathers?
But what makes “Hamilton” work so well is the fact that it’s a commentary on America’s past through the prism of America’s present, its future. It works because the historically white, male founding fathers are being played by a predominantly non-white cast of blacks and Latinos (there are also plans to cast women in the roles of men).
Now, what would the musical look like if Alexander Hamilton wasn’t played by Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Aaron Burr wasn’t played by Leslie Odom, Jr, but instead the characters were played by two capable, talented white actors? The show would likely still be entertaining, but the context and the conversation would change. It’s like suggesting that “For Colored Girls...” or “The Color Purple” have an all-white cast. It’s a completely different show.
Continuing the same critique in Madame Noire, Nneka Samuel wrote an article entitled “Why Hamilton’s So-Called ‘Controversial’ Casting Call For ‘Non-White’ Actors Wasn’t Reverse Racism:”
If anything, perhaps the casting call was poorly worded, but it didn’t exemplify a case of so-called reverse racism. Nor were the producers of Hamilton, which does employ White actors, just not in principal roles, guilty of discrimination. This is a non-issue “controversy” mitigated by a “What if?” In an interview with CBS News, McLaughlin asked, “What if they put an ad out that said, ‘Whites only need apply? Why, African Americans, Latinos, Asians would be outraged.” But what claims like this fail to realize is that White is the default. White is the standard, a standard that has often been used to deny opportunity and uphold the very backward belief that for a project to be universal and relatable – heck, even believable – a majority of the characters need to be White.
But Broadway, whose audience is 80 percent White according to the Broadway League and whose actors, as previously mentioned, are predominantly White, is becoming less and less The Great White Way. The success of Hamilton, along with that of Eclipsed, the play written by Danai Gurira starring Lupita Nyong’o, The Color Purple, Shuffle Along, starring Audra McDonald, Head of Passes starring Phylicia Rashad and Motown: The Musical, returning to Broadway for a limited engagement, proves that the wheels are turning. And while there’s still a lot of work to be done to usher in new work by writers, directors and actors of color, when was the last time a musical starring a majority Black, Latino, and Asian cast was invited to the White House, heralded and aided by a hip-hop loving President of the United States? Hamilton is being taught in schools. It’s winning Grammys. The cast recording was the highest Billboard debut of its kind in over 50 years. To put it simply, Hamilton with its majority Black, Latino, and Asian cast, is making history. Its success is not a fad. Its success is not an accident and it’s exciting to witness such change.
Not everyone agrees with this assessment. While achieving fame and providing opportunities for actors of color (black, Latino and Asian), the success of the production should not blind us to the fact that “diversity” on Broadway is still a major problem. The Guardian posted a sobering look by Alexis Soloski titled “New theater season once again shows lack of diversity on Broadway and Off.”
The new Broadway season includes no new plays by women or writers of color, and last season less than a quarter of plays produced in the US were by women. While people are finally beginning to react, the problem stems from history. The picture for musicals is a little rosier. But not a lot. Off-Broadway is somewhat better, though nothing like parity…
Complete statistics are hard to get a hold of and there are more available reflecting disparities in gender than those in race. As reported in American Theater, last season less than a quarter of plays produced in America and written in the last 50 years were by women, despite women making up a preponderance of the theatergoing population. An accounting of the previous three seasons showed only 12% of American plays were penned by writers of color…
But what’s wrong with so many white men? At the Manhattan Theater Club, where, before the addition of Skinner’s play, the roster featured all white men, there was still much to look forward to, for example new plays from Nick Payne and Nick Jones. But as long as other writers are excluded, who knows what excellent plays we’re missing, what stories are going untold, what questions aren’t being asked, what minds aren’t being changed. Vogel wonders if the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would have such a hold politically if a greater diversity of lives were reflected in art.
Much of what black actors and other actors of color have achieved on the Broadway stage is oft forgotten. A lot of that history is captured in Stewart F. Lane’s Black Broadway: African Americans on the Great White Way.
(You can view some photos from the book here.)
The African-American actors and actresses whose names have shone brightly on Broadway marquees earned their place in history not only through hard work, perseverance, and talent, but also because of the legacy left by those who came before them. Like the doors of many professions, those of the theater world were shut to minorities for decades. While the Civil War may have freed the slaves, it was not until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s that the playing field began to level. In this remarkable book, theater producer and historian Stewart F. Lane uses words and pictures to capture this tumultuous century and to highlight the rocky road that black actors have travelled to reach recognition on the Great White Way.
After the Civil War, the popularity of the minstrel shows grew by leaps and bounds throughout the country. African Americans were portrayed by whites, who would entertain audiences in black face. While the depiction of blacks was highly demeaning, it opened the door to African-American performers, and by the late 1800s, a number of them were playing to full houses. By the 1920s, the Jazz Age was in full swing, allowing black musicians and composers to reach wider audiences. And in the thirties, musicals such as George Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess and Eubie Blake’s Swing It opened the door a little wider.
As the years passed, black performers continued to gain ground. In the 1940s, Broadway productions of Cabin in the Sky, Carmen Jones, and St. Louis Woman enabled African Americans to demonstrate a fuller range of talents, and Paul Robeson reached national prominence in his awarding-winning portrayal of Othello. By the 1950s and ’60s, more black actors―including Ruby Dee, Ossie Davis, and Sidney Poitier―had found their voices on stage, and black playwrights and directors had begun to make their marks.
This history has a lot of meaning for me, and brings back a lot of mixed memories. My father George B. Oliver acted on Broadway in the ‘40s in both Cyrano de Bergerac and Strange Fruit. That production of Cyrano starred Jose Ferrer, a Puerto Rican (like Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator of Hamilton) actor, producer, and director. My father also appeared in the stage adaptation of Lillian Smith’s best-selling novel about interracial love, Strange Fruit, which Ferrer directed.
I grew up around many of those actors, and experienced their frustrations about the paucity of parts firsthand.
My hopes for the future of both colorful and colorblind casting on Broadway and other stages have been raised by both the efforts of groups who are lobbying for change, and by attention that has been paid from the White House. President Obama and the first lady have been assiduous in spotlighting the work of talented actors and artists of color. On March 14, 2016, they welcomed members of the cast of Hamilton to perform at the White House.
Here’s an excerpt of remarks by the president at "Hamilton at the White House" (full transcript).
There is a reason why this has become a cultural phenomenon. In Ron Chernow’s extraordinary biography of Alexander Hamilton -- and a great historian is here on the front row. (Applause.) Lin-Manuel picked up this biography at the airport for some light beach reading -- (laughter.) But he identified a quintessentially American story. In the character of Hamilton -- a striving immigrant who escaped poverty, made his way to the New World, climbed to the top by sheer force of will and pluck and determination -- Lin-Manuel saw something of his own family, and every immigrant family.
And in the Hamilton that Lin-Manuel and his incredible cast and crew bring to life -- a man who is “just like his country, young, scrappy, and hungry” -- we recognize the improbable story of America, and the spirit that has sustained our nation for over 240 years.
And in this telling, rap is the language of revolution. Hip-hop is the backbeat. In each brilliantly crafted song, we hear the debates that shaped our nation, and we hear the debates that are still shaping our nation. We feel the fierce, youthful energy that animated the men and women of Hamilton’s generation. And with a cast as diverse as America itself, including the outstandingly talented women -- (applause) -- the show reminds us that this nation was built by more than just a few great men -- and that it is an inheritance that belongs to all of us.
In his remarks, the president referenced an earlier visit.
Now, the truth is, though, they do owe me -- (laughter) -- because seven years ago, Lin-Manuel Miranda came to the White House Poetry Jam, and he took the mic and he announced that he and his musical collaborator, Alex Lacamoire -- (applause) -- that they were going to perform a song from a hip-hop album they were working on -- and I’m quoting him, “about the life of somebody who embodies hip-hop -- Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.” (Laughter.) And so we all started laughing, but Lin-Manuel was serious. And who’s laughing now? (Laughter.) Having said that, not to take undue credit or anything, but this is definitely “the room where it happened, right here. This is it right here, on this stage. (Applause.)
Writer and star of the Broadway musical In the Heights, Lin-Manuel Miranda performs "The Hamilton Mixtape" at the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009. Accompanied by Alex Lacamoire.
The future of stage, screen, and American culture must reflect the mosaic that we are. Productions like Hamilton explore the possible. Art and entertainment are political. They are also deeply rooted in both our racist past—and our multicultural future.