Dispatches from LALA Land

Diversity and Its Discontents in Southern Californian Theater

The Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers Foundation recently hosted a panel discussion on diversity in Southern Californian theater at the Pasadena Playhouse. “Diversity: Through a Director’s Eye” featured Tim Dang, Artistic Director of East West Players; Seema Sueko, Associate Artistic Director of Pasadena Playhouse; Christopher Ashley, Artistic Director of La Jolla Playhouse; Marc Masterson, Artistic Director of South Coast Repertory; Jessica Kubzansky, co-Artistic Director of The Theatre @ Boston Court; Barry Edelstein, Artistic Director of The Old Globe; Sheldon Epps, Artistic Director of Pasadena Playhouse; and Michael Ritchie, Artistic Director of Center Theatre Group.

For a panel on diversity, the participants were not very diverse: Dang is of Asian descent, Epps is black; and Sueko is a half-Japanese, half-Pakistani, Muslim American. In other words, five of the panelists were white. Only two were women. None were Latino.

Early on, Jessica Kubzansky of Boston Court mentioned that her perspective on the necessity of developing a diverse audience, casting a diverse range of actors, and producing a diverse range of shows was completely changed when she attended a previous panel on which Tim Dang also spoke. To that end, I can understand why the organizers might have believed that inviting white male artistic directors of major theaters to participate might ultimately produce results: They, like Kubzansky did, could have heard something that will effect genuine changes in their programming.

And the need for genuine changes is evident. Of twenty-three plays in their 2013–14 season, Center Theatre Group did only two plays by women (one a woman of color) and five by male writers of color (four of which were one-man shows). In other words sixteen of CTG’s shows were written by white men. In a twelve-play season (not including the as-yet-unannounced Pacific Playwrights Festival shows), South Coast Repertory did three plays by women, one of whom is Asian American. Nine plays were by white men. Interestingly, La Jolla Playhouse, still in the shadow of last year’s controversy over yellowface casting in The Nightingale, has a far more diverse season this year.

This particular framing of the conversation about the need for diversity in the American theater has been happening since the 1980s, and all of the participants at this panel indicated that their audiences are increasingly tolerant of experimentation and risk. So why have these artistic directors, who proclaimed loudly and repeatedly their dedication to diversity, made so little progress? Why have they continued to find themselves in hot water for casting choices, such as with The Nightingale, and programming choices that continue to not reflect the diversity of our field?

Edelstein acknowledged that ticket prices create a major barrier to entry for audiences, and that as long as the business model of major American theaters relies on ticket prices, that problem will remain. Michael Ritchie of CTG admitted that, whereas he can read a play or watch an audition and decide to take a chance on a playwright or actor, he has a hard time trusting unknown directors. However, the biggest obstacles to progress were most evident in the assumptions underlying many of the statements made by the white male artistic directors, statements that on the surface imply an interest in diversity but, when examined, reveal a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to do the work that it takes to implement lasting changes.

Marc Masterson of South Coast Repertory shared that his desire to diversify stems from a “curiosity about the human condition.” He is “curious about what it means to be a humanist” and curious about the way his organization is and is not reflecting his community. As anyone who has spent any time fighting inequality will tell you, curiosity is not enough to get the job done. Changing the status quo requires strategy, action, and accountability, not passive curiosity. One of the prevalent claims of Western theater is that the white male experience represents the human experience—that white males are universal—and anyone who subscribes to this theory can presumably satisfy his curiosity without ever producing a play by or about women or men of color. In fact the SCR season reflects the limitations of relying purely on curiosity to diversify.

 

As anyone who has spent any time fighting inequality will tell you, curiosity is not enough to get the job done. Changing the status quo requires strategy, action, and accountability, not passive curiosity.

 

 

The logos for the presenting organizations
The logos for the presenting organizations. Photo by Stage Directors and Choreographers Foundation. 

Christopher Ashley furthered the notion that plays by women and racial and sexual minorities are not representative of the universal human experience when he referred to us as competing “interest groups:” Women and racial and sexual minorities are not constituents of his theater, they are not artists invested in making high-quality work, they are interest groups lobbying him for resources:

“Sometimes different interest groups can feel in competition with each other in unhealthy ways. This past year there was a lot of conversation—for example, at the TCG conference—about breaking the glass ceiling of gender, or should we focus on race, who gets included in the conversation, and is it a really finite pie where there’s only so much progress to be made?”

Though resources are indeed scarce, every single feminist I know (and that is quite a few) are what’s called “intersectional,” which means they are as deeply invested in racial, ethnic, religious, LGBTQ, and economic justice as they are in gender. As a member of an oppressed group, I consider myself an ally to every member of every other oppressed group. Women and racial and sexual minorities are not competing with one another. We—a united majority—are competing with the assumptions that lead artistic directors to allot white men—a minority of the population—the majority of their theaters' resources.

When audience member, local playwright, and Artistic Director of Casa 0101 Josefina Lopez asked whether CTG is conscious of the fact that they discriminate against West Coast playwrights, Ritchie replied,

“It’s not discrimination. Regardless of my responsibilities in my job, I also have my own personal morals, ethics, experience, and the things that guide my life as well as my job. I was lucky enough to grow up in family at a time and in a town that was as liberal as it could be. So the choices that we make at that theater have nothing to do with discrimination. On my staff, diversity of voices and specifically in playwrights is something that is discussed every day.”

As with Masterson’s “curiosity,” I contend that “discussion” is not enough, nor is being liberal. Everyone is affected by the patriarchal rule of white men—we all live under it and we are all subliminally influenced by it. The essential first step in changing the homogeny that still exists in the upper echelons of the American theater is acknowledging the legacy of privilege that led to the creation of that homogeneity.

Given that no fewer than three references were made in the course of the evening to The Public Theater/New York Shakespeare Festival, where I was privileged to work for two years under George C. Wolfe, I was floored to hear Ritchie further proclaim that, “I haven’t run the numbers, but it is my expectation that CTG has probably produced more diverse plays than any other theater in the country. I could be wrong.” In reality, only 30 percent of CTG’s season was written by women and racial minorities, and the majority of those were one-person shows, meaning that the majority of the actors on stage were also white. Very few people consciously discriminate, but Ritchie’s own theater’s track record and his lack of awareness of it betrays the notion that being raised liberal is enough to effect change.

Not surprisingly, the most practical advice of the evening came from the one woman of color on the panel. Seema Sueko offered,

“One of the biggest obstacles is intentionality and the assumption that we know what the community wants or needs, as opposed to having a real conversation. I don’t think we should assume we’re the solution to the community’s problems. Rather we need communities more than communities need us. And so we have to engage in genuine conversation where our action should be listening.”

In that vein, Kubzansky told the audience, “Those of you who have great ideas about how to make better reaches, I would love to know. Please see me because frankly it’s an ongoing quest, and I don’t know that we are always successful. So great ideas are gladly appreciated."

Tim Dang encouraged his colleagues to diversify at the same rate as the population or risk becoming obsolete, and urged more mentorship of young directors and writers of color “in the pipeline” as well as a dispersal of authority over that pipeline. Edelstein echoed the statement with an acknowledgment that institutions must throw their resources behind developing young artists. Ashley, on the other hand, encouraged young directors to be more aggressive about getting his attention, suggesting the only reason that women and racial and sexual minorities aren’t getting more work is that they aren’t trying hard enough.

Sheldon Epps volunteered that “we have to be able to tolerate the messiness of the conversation about diversity,” repeating something the moderator had encouraged everyone to do in the course of the evening. So, as the audience-question period came to a rapid close and I had not yet been called upon, despite raising my hand and standing up, I moved towards the stage and shouted, “I’m being aggressive! Take my question!” They did not.

My question was going to be why the lack of gender parity on stage and in the choice of directors and writers getting produced was not a part of the evening’s conversation at all—but it was clear that an aggressive means of approach will not necessarily yield results any more than curiosity, humanism, and liberalism will.

Evelina Fernandez of the Latino Theater Company recently told me that she wishes Latino artists would create their own movement rather than pursuing success through major regional theaters. If this panel was any sign of the opportunities available for women and racial and sexual minorities in big Los Angeles theaters, we’re going to have to start more than a movement. We’re going to have to start a revolution.

Bookmark this page

Log in to add a bookmark

Interested in following this conversation in real time? Receive email alerting you to new threads and the continuation of current threads.

subscribe

Comments

8
Add Comment
Newest First

Holly Derr’s information about South Coast Repertory's seasonisn't entirely accurate, and doesn't tell the whole story. SCR produces anine-play season for adults. Of the nine plays in our 2013-14 season, twoare canonical works (Death of a Salesman and Tartuffe) and are indeed by whitemen -- but our production of Death of a Salesman featured an African-Americancast. Of the other seven plays, three are by women. We haven't evenannounced one of those yet, so Ms. Derr’s math leading to “nine plays by whitemen” is apparently based on a bad assumption about that TBA slot. Theother three plays in our "twelve-play" season are from our Theatrefor Young Audiences series. As it happens, this season all three areadaptations done by white male playwrights, but one of the three adapted booksis by Annie Barrows. Also, all three productions have women directors –in fact 6 of our 12 directors this season are women. Without disputingMs. Derr’s contention that we (L.A.-area theatres and the American theatre atlarge) still have a long way to go in achieving greater diversity, I also thinkit's important to get the statistics right and not to use statistics from asingle season of work as the be-all and end-all of a progress report. HistoricallySCR does very well with gender equity among both our playwrights and directors(designers, too), and continues to strive in meaningful ways to achieve greatercultural/ethnic diversity as well. More than half our current commissionsare with women playwrights, and about 40% are with writers of color (happy toprovide a complete list to anyone who’s interested). We have recently instituted a playdevelopment program called CrossRoads, which links commissioned playwrights tosegments of our diverse Orange County community: in the pilot phase ofthe program, the eight participating playwrights are Aditi Brennan Kapil, TanyaSaracho, Carla Ching, Marc Bamuthi Joseph, Mona Mansour, Qui Nguyen, LuisAlfaro and Julia Cho. In another community-based project, playwright JoseCruz Gonzalez is writing a new site-specific piece with and for the people ofneighboring Santa Ana. The piece isbeing devised with the participation of community members and will be performedby a mix of professional theatre artists and Latino community members for boththe people of Santa Ana and members of our traditional audience. We intendto contribute a blog piece to HowlRound soon, to tell our colleagues more aboutthese two programs, which were instituted by Marc Masterson shortly after hisarrival as SCR’s new artistic director, to address one of his key strategicpriorities for the organization going forward. Polly Carl has also offered us the opportunity to respond more fully toMs. Derr’s piece in a future posting, in which we can provide a fuller pictureof how we’re addressing the urgent concerns raised in this article.

Brava to Holly for this essay! I can't vouch for the details on the numbers count at SCR, but what I can say is that women and people of color are tired of being relegated to the community-based work, the youth work, the development workshop dead-end and the commissions-that-go-nowhere hell. And you have a play written by a man from a novel written by a woman that you want us to count? Really? We are sick and tired of the terms like "we strive" and "we have a long way to go." We need parity for women and people of color on the mainstage now, and for every season. And we should stop supporting the theaters that can't manage that.

Thanks for your clarification, John. I agree with Ellen that having women do the kids' theater, the community theater, and the workshops is very different from putting them on the main stage and giving them big budgets. We don't need any more development and we don't need any more mentoring - we've been doing this for as many years as the men have and we are at least as well trained. And though many women have chosen to do community theater and are particularly qualified for it, at least as many want to do and are qualified to do professional, big budget shows with Equity casts. I'd be very pleased to see Masterson translate these projects into mainstage opportunities for women and people of color.

I look forward to reading your response, but I hope that you will use the opportunity to listen instead rather than trying to convince us that we are not being discriminated against. Asking questions of women and people of color as to what their concerns are would give me much more faith in your theater's ability to diversify successfully than dismissing us with the assurance that "you're trying". Likewise, listening to the overwhelming number of voices who are dissatisfied with your efforts to date will do more to convince us that you are trying than protesting that you know 'other white men do this,' but you're different. Acknowledging the privilege that is at play here is the essential first step to changing the paradigm.

This is a fantastic recount and perspective - thanks for getting messy, being aggressive and fearlessly challenging us all to do the same!

thanks for this insightful review of the panel and it's woeful indeed 'discussion'. the diversity needs to happen on so many levels that its probably never going to happen -- at least not this way, by 'discussing' it to death and evading the real issues. like how entrenched people with power are and how they are NOT going to give it up. they are just not going to. even with actors -- i see the same actors of color over and over again at these big theatres and they are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to break into. yes, i am an actor and writer, and despite having good regional credits i can't get through the door. i won't even bother to try as a writer. our industry is so subjective that any obvious exclusionary tactics are easily explained away by that horrible phrase 'we don't hire by race/gender whatever but only the best qualified blah blah blah...' Crap. i think latinos, asians and black people over the centuries have attempted to 'have their own thing' to varying degrees of success.... but why shouldn't we also enjoy the fruits of theatre houses that can make careers? why should they be the only ones to receive the large grants and the necessary long term institutional support that is required to survive rough economic times?

who knows what will ultimately bring about change, but a full on quota system might be in order. because they will not give up that power. it has to be taken and wrested from their grips.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the American theater is so far behind corporate America on this one, it's embarrassing. The theater is still stuck in the "I love minorities/women but they bring down the property values." We can't call ourselves liberal and progressive when most BANKS do better on this than we do. Slapping myself with embarrassment here...