There really isn't a great way to start this interview other than--
I'm a nosy little armchair detective.
First off, you want the background, right?
Okay, so--there is currently a West Side Story revival on Broadway happening right now, and there is a lot of drama surrounding it for various reasons, but the main one centers around the casting of one of the roles, and you can read all about that here--
(https://www.onstageblog.com/editorals/2019/8/28/why-you-should-boo-amar-ramasar-in-west-side-story-revival)
Yes, I'm making you do some homework. My apologies.
Since all this began, I've been diving into every message board and Reddit thread asking questions and trying to piece together how someone could have this much baggage behind them and still get cast in a Broadway show.
Usually I drop my email address at the end of anything I post along with a link to this blog and offer to talk to anyone who might want to speak to me, and for the most part, it leads nowhere.
That is--until very recently.
I got an email from someone associated with the production saying they would be willing to correspond with me digitally regarding the production and the casting provided I allowed them to remain anonymous even to me. The email address was clearly something they had thrown together without much though, and I was told that if I asked something that they felt could give away their identity, they wouldn't answer, and they wanted to see the interview before I posted it.
Because I'm not a journalist, I said, "Sure. Whatever you want."
That means that I was pretty much willing to post an interview with someone without knowing if I was just being conned.
At least, that was the case until yesterday, when I was able to confirm that person I was talking to is working on the show (again, I'm not saying in what capacity), although I still don't know their exact identity, so take that for what it's worth.
This interview is going to be cut into two parts. The first one you're about to read deals solely with the issue of casting this one particular actor. On Friday, I'm going to be posting another interview with the same person on the Patreon (www.Patreon.com/EpicTheatreCo) about this person's experience with the show as a whole (rehearsals, backstage politics, etc.) and to read that, you just have to sign up for my theater's Patreon, and if that seems advantageous, welcome to America--where the Cadillacs zoom and the industries boom.
Here's the interview:
ME: What made you want to reach out to me?
THEM: I found a comment you left and started reading your blog.
ME: Have you spoken to anyone else about what you're going to say?
THEM: I've spoken to friends about some of what I'm about to say, but I haven't told them I was speaking to someone who would be going public with this information.
ME: So do you have actual information or just opinions?
THEM: I have what I believe to be information.
ME: About the casting?
THEM: Yes.
ME: I think the big question everybody has is--Why would a production hire someone with so much bad press attached to them? Did they feel like this person was so talented it was worth overlooking their baggage or did they just not know about it?
THEM: They knew about it.
ME: So then do you know the reason they decided it was worth overlooking it?
THEM: That's not the way it was looked at. It wasn't about overlooking this. The creative team and the team behind the show felt like this was a good thing.
ME: They felt like having somebody with this kind of story attached to them in the show was a good thing?
THEM: Yes.
ME: Why?
THEM: For different people, it's going to be different reasons. I think there are all kinds of thinking when it comes to casting a show. Some people like to cast based on the person's personality. I know there were conversations that happened within the creative team about how this story was something that spoke to this person being right for the role.
ME: How could that be?
THEM: From what I know, the creative team felt that this person's actions demonstrated something that they thought could work for that character and they were very insistent that he be cast.
ME: Based on that alone?
THEM: No, he's also very talented. Nobody is saying he's not, but you asked about whether or not there was a feeling that nobody else could play the role? That's not the case. Somebody else was heavily considered. The person that was cast was not initially in the running. That was a change.
ME: So was their thinking--this guy is kind of a jerk? Kind of sinister? That'll work for what we want to do with this character or how we see him?
THEM: Yes.
ME: That's like casting Ted Bundy in American Psycho.
THEM: I think when I tell you more about the process and how the creative team has conducted itself during the process, you'll understand that they think along those lines.
ME: It's not unheard of. It's a very European way of thinking. To just have everything be as real as possible and to hell with acting.
THEM: I want to take this opportunity to say that I don't feel I have a dog in this fight when it comes to whether or not this person should be removed or not.
ME: Well, he can't be removed.
THEM: That's right. I'm saying that I don't know that he's displayed any bad behavior since he's been involved with this production, but I do think it should be made public what the decision-making process was, because I think it's a bad practice to cast people this way.
ME: Because then you're putting actual murderers in Chicago.
THEM: It's not a good way of doing things.
ME: Was there any feeling like 'there's no such thing as bad publicity?'
THEM: You have the creative team and the people who are in charge of marketing and the producers. I think some of the thinking was like you say that any awareness of a show and a revival is a good thing. You need all the help you can get to sell a show and it's true that if people are talking, that's half the battle, as long as they're not saying the show is bad. I think one way this controversy helped was that we're talking about one actor in the show and not everything else that's going on behind-the-scenes.
ME: I've heard the show itself is good.
THEM: I would have a hard time keeping an objective opinion. I love West Side Story. I think it would be very hard to have a bad production of it, but I think some of the people on the team gave it their best shot.
ME: I want to talk about the protesters. Do you feel like they're doing the right thing by protesting the show?
THEM: It's not about whether I think it's the right thing or not. I think they should be outside protesting the right people. This actor did what he did and I'm not going to defend him or advocate for him. I don't have a dog in that fight, like I said. I do feel that his situation is being used to benefit people other than him who are not being protested. He can't cast himself in a show. If someone wants to give him a role, he's entitled to take it. If somebody has an issue with that, write the director's name on a sign and go protest. Write the producer's name.
ME: Do you think this is an issue where the people protesting aren't insiders and they just don't understand how that works?
THEM: No, I know that some of them know the real story of what went on. They're insiders. You don't protest over something like this if you only have a passing knowledge of what's going on.
ME: Then why are they limiting their focus in the way that they are?
THEM: I can't speak for them, but I think the real narrative is very complicated, and like a lot of things in theater, it's also illogical. People in this business make illogical and sometimes bad decisions that are dangerous or just generally gross, and you can't be out there on the sidewalk taking twenty minutes to explain to everybody walking by why seventeen people made a call because they thought the dominoes would fall in all these different ways. You and I know that happens, but this is West Side Story. Theater people are going to see it, but it's a major revival on Broadway. That means it's for tourists or people who go to the theater once a year, and they don't care about any of this. If anything, I think it helps the show to be able to say 'We're upsetting these snowflakes,' because on the surface of it, the revival comes across as being very progressive when it's not at all, and I'm happy to go into that with you. Because of this controversy, you have protesters who are using progressive rallying cries and so you can use that to market a show that's made some major changes to a classic show to an audience that would normally be against all that, and have them get behind it almost out of spite.
ME: You think the marketing calculations were that involved?
THEM: I think if your entire job is figure out how to make every single bit of a show work in favor of selling tickets or getting awareness then you set up every domino you can and hope for the best, but nobody who knows the inner workings of all this believes that anything happens accidentally.
ME: It sounds like it's a hell of a marketing team.
THEM: It's the best. That's why I find it strange that you asked me if I thought they just weren't aware of what this actor had done.
ME: I'm just asking what I know other people are asking because they can't make sense of it.
THEM: You brought up Chicago which is all about using notoriety to get ahead.
ME: Here's the question I've heard people ask in regards to this--should this person be targeted for what they've done to the extent that it even is a story? I know my answer to that, but I'm curious to hear your answer.
THEM: We talked about this before we started the interview. People are targeted for all kinds of reasons. We tell people in this business all the time that they are replaceable and that if you make a little mistake your career could be over. I think even he would say that he made a mistake. Should that end his career? I don't know. Other careers have ended for less. I just know that this story that people have speculated on about whether nobody else but him could have played the role is not true. Nobody involved at the higher levels of this production felt that was the case. The whole point was to use new talent so why would you argue that somebody they were looking at was too good to pass up when you're saying that the title and the director are what you're using to sell the show?
ME: I was going to say, I could see if you felt like you found the perfect Tony or Maria, but it seems like going out on a limb for the perfect Bernardo is strange even if you did think they were the perfect Bernardo.
THEM: Some of this has to do with other things that have gone on behind the scenes and I think when you put it all together, it makes a lot more sense.
ME: Then let's talk about the production itself and how it came together.
THEM: There's a lot to talk about.
The second part of the interview will post this Friday, February 7th on the Epic Theatre Company Patreon page for anyone who has signed up to be an Epic supporter.
I'm a nosy little armchair detective.
First off, you want the background, right?
Okay, so--there is currently a West Side Story revival on Broadway happening right now, and there is a lot of drama surrounding it for various reasons, but the main one centers around the casting of one of the roles, and you can read all about that here--
(https://www.onstageblog.com/editorals/2019/8/28/why-you-should-boo-amar-ramasar-in-west-side-story-revival)
Yes, I'm making you do some homework. My apologies.
Since all this began, I've been diving into every message board and Reddit thread asking questions and trying to piece together how someone could have this much baggage behind them and still get cast in a Broadway show.
Usually I drop my email address at the end of anything I post along with a link to this blog and offer to talk to anyone who might want to speak to me, and for the most part, it leads nowhere.
That is--until very recently.
I got an email from someone associated with the production saying they would be willing to correspond with me digitally regarding the production and the casting provided I allowed them to remain anonymous even to me. The email address was clearly something they had thrown together without much though, and I was told that if I asked something that they felt could give away their identity, they wouldn't answer, and they wanted to see the interview before I posted it.
Because I'm not a journalist, I said, "Sure. Whatever you want."
That means that I was pretty much willing to post an interview with someone without knowing if I was just being conned.
At least, that was the case until yesterday, when I was able to confirm that person I was talking to is working on the show (again, I'm not saying in what capacity), although I still don't know their exact identity, so take that for what it's worth.
This interview is going to be cut into two parts. The first one you're about to read deals solely with the issue of casting this one particular actor. On Friday, I'm going to be posting another interview with the same person on the Patreon (www.Patreon.com/EpicTheatreCo) about this person's experience with the show as a whole (rehearsals, backstage politics, etc.) and to read that, you just have to sign up for my theater's Patreon, and if that seems advantageous, welcome to America--where the Cadillacs zoom and the industries boom.
Here's the interview:
ME: What made you want to reach out to me?
THEM: I found a comment you left and started reading your blog.
ME: Have you spoken to anyone else about what you're going to say?
THEM: I've spoken to friends about some of what I'm about to say, but I haven't told them I was speaking to someone who would be going public with this information.
ME: So do you have actual information or just opinions?
THEM: I have what I believe to be information.
ME: About the casting?
THEM: Yes.
ME: I think the big question everybody has is--Why would a production hire someone with so much bad press attached to them? Did they feel like this person was so talented it was worth overlooking their baggage or did they just not know about it?
THEM: They knew about it.
ME: So then do you know the reason they decided it was worth overlooking it?
THEM: That's not the way it was looked at. It wasn't about overlooking this. The creative team and the team behind the show felt like this was a good thing.
ME: They felt like having somebody with this kind of story attached to them in the show was a good thing?
THEM: Yes.
ME: Why?
THEM: For different people, it's going to be different reasons. I think there are all kinds of thinking when it comes to casting a show. Some people like to cast based on the person's personality. I know there were conversations that happened within the creative team about how this story was something that spoke to this person being right for the role.
ME: How could that be?
THEM: From what I know, the creative team felt that this person's actions demonstrated something that they thought could work for that character and they were very insistent that he be cast.
ME: Based on that alone?
THEM: No, he's also very talented. Nobody is saying he's not, but you asked about whether or not there was a feeling that nobody else could play the role? That's not the case. Somebody else was heavily considered. The person that was cast was not initially in the running. That was a change.
ME: So was their thinking--this guy is kind of a jerk? Kind of sinister? That'll work for what we want to do with this character or how we see him?
THEM: Yes.
ME: That's like casting Ted Bundy in American Psycho.
THEM: I think when I tell you more about the process and how the creative team has conducted itself during the process, you'll understand that they think along those lines.
ME: It's not unheard of. It's a very European way of thinking. To just have everything be as real as possible and to hell with acting.
THEM: I want to take this opportunity to say that I don't feel I have a dog in this fight when it comes to whether or not this person should be removed or not.
ME: Well, he can't be removed.
THEM: That's right. I'm saying that I don't know that he's displayed any bad behavior since he's been involved with this production, but I do think it should be made public what the decision-making process was, because I think it's a bad practice to cast people this way.
ME: Because then you're putting actual murderers in Chicago.
THEM: It's not a good way of doing things.
ME: Was there any feeling like 'there's no such thing as bad publicity?'
THEM: You have the creative team and the people who are in charge of marketing and the producers. I think some of the thinking was like you say that any awareness of a show and a revival is a good thing. You need all the help you can get to sell a show and it's true that if people are talking, that's half the battle, as long as they're not saying the show is bad. I think one way this controversy helped was that we're talking about one actor in the show and not everything else that's going on behind-the-scenes.
ME: I've heard the show itself is good.
THEM: I would have a hard time keeping an objective opinion. I love West Side Story. I think it would be very hard to have a bad production of it, but I think some of the people on the team gave it their best shot.
ME: I want to talk about the protesters. Do you feel like they're doing the right thing by protesting the show?
THEM: It's not about whether I think it's the right thing or not. I think they should be outside protesting the right people. This actor did what he did and I'm not going to defend him or advocate for him. I don't have a dog in that fight, like I said. I do feel that his situation is being used to benefit people other than him who are not being protested. He can't cast himself in a show. If someone wants to give him a role, he's entitled to take it. If somebody has an issue with that, write the director's name on a sign and go protest. Write the producer's name.
ME: Do you think this is an issue where the people protesting aren't insiders and they just don't understand how that works?
THEM: No, I know that some of them know the real story of what went on. They're insiders. You don't protest over something like this if you only have a passing knowledge of what's going on.
ME: Then why are they limiting their focus in the way that they are?
THEM: I can't speak for them, but I think the real narrative is very complicated, and like a lot of things in theater, it's also illogical. People in this business make illogical and sometimes bad decisions that are dangerous or just generally gross, and you can't be out there on the sidewalk taking twenty minutes to explain to everybody walking by why seventeen people made a call because they thought the dominoes would fall in all these different ways. You and I know that happens, but this is West Side Story. Theater people are going to see it, but it's a major revival on Broadway. That means it's for tourists or people who go to the theater once a year, and they don't care about any of this. If anything, I think it helps the show to be able to say 'We're upsetting these snowflakes,' because on the surface of it, the revival comes across as being very progressive when it's not at all, and I'm happy to go into that with you. Because of this controversy, you have protesters who are using progressive rallying cries and so you can use that to market a show that's made some major changes to a classic show to an audience that would normally be against all that, and have them get behind it almost out of spite.
ME: You think the marketing calculations were that involved?
THEM: I think if your entire job is figure out how to make every single bit of a show work in favor of selling tickets or getting awareness then you set up every domino you can and hope for the best, but nobody who knows the inner workings of all this believes that anything happens accidentally.
ME: It sounds like it's a hell of a marketing team.
THEM: It's the best. That's why I find it strange that you asked me if I thought they just weren't aware of what this actor had done.
ME: I'm just asking what I know other people are asking because they can't make sense of it.
THEM: You brought up Chicago which is all about using notoriety to get ahead.
ME: Here's the question I've heard people ask in regards to this--should this person be targeted for what they've done to the extent that it even is a story? I know my answer to that, but I'm curious to hear your answer.
THEM: We talked about this before we started the interview. People are targeted for all kinds of reasons. We tell people in this business all the time that they are replaceable and that if you make a little mistake your career could be over. I think even he would say that he made a mistake. Should that end his career? I don't know. Other careers have ended for less. I just know that this story that people have speculated on about whether nobody else but him could have played the role is not true. Nobody involved at the higher levels of this production felt that was the case. The whole point was to use new talent so why would you argue that somebody they were looking at was too good to pass up when you're saying that the title and the director are what you're using to sell the show?
ME: I was going to say, I could see if you felt like you found the perfect Tony or Maria, but it seems like going out on a limb for the perfect Bernardo is strange even if you did think they were the perfect Bernardo.
THEM: Some of this has to do with other things that have gone on behind the scenes and I think when you put it all together, it makes a lot more sense.
ME: Then let's talk about the production itself and how it came together.
THEM: There's a lot to talk about.
The second part of the interview will post this Friday, February 7th on the Epic Theatre Company Patreon page for anyone who has signed up to be an Epic supporter.
Comments
Post a Comment