So of course it is good to not just blindly praise things you like and to point out their flaws and all. That being said, there’s been a lot of criticism of a certain musical recently that I feel is mostly a result of people who aren’t theater people forgetting that this is a musical (which is the theater equivalent of a summer blockbuster) and not, say, an academic treatise or a deliberately and heavily symbol ridden MoMA piece (you know the kind I’m talking about). 

First of all, while I on the one hand want to believe that a lot of this stems from the play being so popular, I can’t remember there being anywhere near the amount or the kind of critiques leveled at, say, Wicked, Phantom, or Les Mis. All of those plays had (and continue to have) all-white or almost all-white casts, and a predominantly or entirely white creative team as well. This obviously cannot be said for the musical in question (which I’m not typing out because I don’t want to get accused of tagging things when it shows up in the damn search feature no one asked for when i didn’t even tag it). I’m not trying to say that criticizing this musical is racist because that’s just a stupid thing to think, I just find it a little uncomfortable that this one is being held to much much higher standards than your average broadway money fest. And I have been made aware that it is a common phenomenon for people of color to face much higher levels of scrutiny than white people for doing the same or similar things. So I think it’s good to maybe question why this musical needs to be perfect, while the hundreds of truly mediocre stereotype-reviews which are mostly allowed to be mediocre and nobody really asks anything more of them. Again, I’m not saying criticism isn’t valid or shouldn’t happen, just something to think about.

Secondly, there’s a lot of people who are writing some really intense phD level stuff about whether or not the choice to make a play “about” America’s founding and then have a non-white cast is really progressive, and why and how it is or isn’t. These are good questions and good discussions, but I think a lot of them miss something that happens a lot in theater (but not film) that is really easily missed if this is your first big dive into the genre. (Looking at you, historian who I adore and respect and will therefore not name)  I feel like we could also ask if it’s progressive to perform, say, Macbeth with an all PoC cast, since technically all the characters are still white and Scottish, and the playwright was a white Englishman, and the play is really divine-right propaganda, so if we perform it today, what does that say about our views on divine-right? It says absolutely nothing on our views on divine right, because here’s what you do with dusty old stories in theater. You transform them. You take the basic plot elements that speak to you, you take the character traits that speak to you, you take certain themes that you have decided either are present or can be present with some tweaking, and basically you steal those building materials and use them to tell a completely different story than the one the author (or history) originally intended. This is frequently good for getting your points across because, since audience members will recognize the building blocks you stole, they will a) be more likely to come see your show and b) they’ll have a base of understanding (oh, I know the storyline of this play because we read it in hs) from which they can jump into your messages. So, in a way, and I believe people involved in the production process have said this, the musical in question is not telling the story of gross dead white men. It is using the basic plotlines and names of these gross dead white men to tell a story about, among other things, immigrant excellence and the massive struggles to be seen as legitimate that people of color face in modern America, and the bullshit they have to deal with from the white power structure represented by the king, which is quite relevant to modern issues. It is absolutely fair to think that this was a poor storytelling vehicle. But I don’t think that saying it’s essentially 1776 with a PoC cast is really catching what’s being done with the storytelling.

There’s also a phenomenon that i like to call “look the bigots dead in the eye and rub your dirty hands all over that thing they love that they said you couldn’t have.” It’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s not deeper than that. It’s never trying to be. It is literally just about re-appropriating a thing the people in power said you couldn’t have because you were [insert marginalized identity here] and being like “mine now, you mad?” This is not like… ever? a serious indictment of power structures or anything, but I do feel like it is a valid and important (and yes, progressive) response to being told you can’t take part in a very important piece of the culture you find yourself in’s mythos. Rey, Finn, and Poe in TFA is actually also a prime example of this. TFA doesn’t challenge dominant sci-fi paradigms, it’s literally just the same exact type of fun sci-fi flick, but now with the people white fanboys have excluded from the franchise as the stars. There is a place for that more surface kind of subversion. And yes, this means the musical is not itself without an all (except the king) PoC cast, and is in fact nothing if you fuck with the casting. The casting is not “the only thing that makes it remotely ok,” the casting is the point. Like… you wouldn’t say about Fun Home that it’s only cool because it’s got a woman cast as the romantic interest because that’s?? the point????? There are a lot of people who get so discouraged by feeling like they can “only” play roles like “the slave” in period pieces or can’t be in period pieces at all because of their race. That’s what this play is addressing, not like… whether or not the American Revolution was a net positive and what it, historically meant. You want that discussion, there’s plenty of historians better qualified to have it than a playwright.

Also like… this is a musical. Musicals=summer blockbusters. They are the stupid romcoms, buddy comedies, and action flicks of the theater world. I’m not saying that they aren’t a legitimate art form or don’t take massive skill or talent. But, just as films are trying to do a different thing in different ways than movies, straight-plays (of certain types) are trying to do different things in different ways than musicals. A lot of the things people are wishing this play did are things that are done in several straight plays that exist, and are things that (i think) are done better in a straight plays period in my opinion. Basically, if your criticism boils down to “why isn’t this a different play?” then maybe rethink it.

Lastly, as said historian had hinted at, I would LOVE for there to be more black historical figures portrayed well on stage. Ona Judge’s life would make a hell of any type of play. The crystallization of the free Black community of Philadelphia would make a fantastic play. (Somebody get on that pls) But this particular playwright is under no obligation to write those plays. He made a story that people said wasn’t for him and made it quite literally about his own experience and, as a classical theater person who does literally that with the works of billy shakespeare, I feel like that’s ok. This play can just be what it is.

Again I’m not trying to say you can’t criticize this play, just something to think about.