"The character of Dot is a fiction invented by Sondheim and Lapine -- she didn't actually exist (and the character of Seurat is also a fiction -- while such a person did exist, history recorded nothing about him other than he was a painter who died young .... the Seurat in the musical is an invention)."
Seurat did exist, I even saw his tomb in Paris at Pierre Lachese (Sp?)
singingbackup - you didn't understand the statement- Margo meant that the character of Seurat in the musical is an invention - based solely on the fact that he did exist and was a painter - none of the actions of the plays characters can be said to have happened in real life. (other than the fact that the paintings represented were really painted by Seurat). Don't be so literal.
"I don't really get the ending,all i can go with is when after several months,Judith saw Pat sang,and later she kissed him on the toilet,after that the story back to where Pat went down from the stage after he'd sung,and he went to the italian lady.I just don't get it,what Judith exatcly meant when he kissed Pat that she had seen,and did Pat end up together with The Italian Lady?Please help me,thank u very much!"
Quote from someone on IMDB in reference to a movie he/she didn't understand. Such grammar!
I don't think that the statement -- which you quoted from my post --
"while such a person did exist, history recorded nothing about him other than he was a painter who died young"
could be ANY clearer. We know that a painter named Georges Seurat existed, died young and never sold a painting in his lifetime. That's it. The way he is depicted in the musical -- that he was anti-social, that he had a difficult relationship with the art establishment of his time, that he became a pointillist because he "wanted to break through to something new, something of his own" (rather than he found it to just be a neat way to paint), that had a mistress named Dot -- not a French name, by the way (rather than a secret wife or a gay male lover) is all fiction invented by Lapine and Sondheim.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
I would have no problem seeing a black woman/man play a part that was originated by a white woman/man. If they fit the part (acting/singing/dancing) why not? The only thing that I think wouldnt really work is if a white/black person played a part that was based on a real person. Like Evita or something. She was a real person so you'd kinda want to cast someone who kinda looks like her. I don't want that to sound mean but I have a feeling if that was ever done, critics would say how it doesnt work and stuff and the show would close. But like a white Dorothy in the Wiz, there's nothing wrong with that. Another example is Motormouth Mabel (sp?) only because her race has something to do with the plot. Other than that, np :). I love Audra!
Everybody loves Audra. But the Wiz is a bit different than Sunday in the Park. The Wiz could take place anywhere/anytime with any actor in any role--why not? But Sunday in the Park while fiction, asks you to place yourself in 19th century Paris.
I guess I'm missing something here. What possible difference can an actor's race have on a story unless race is critical to the character? I admit I'd have a tough time believing a white cast of Porgy and Bess or Raisin in the Sun, but that's just because race is central to the characters and deviating from that just draws unnecessary attention to the actor and away from the character. Race is not central to the character of Dot regardless of how she is portrayed in the painting so I would totally believe Dot well-played by a black actress like Audra.
Because while plausible, a 19th century Parisian woman in that type of impressionist painting would probably not have been black. There are few (if any) impressionist paintings portraying that type of scene with a minority in them. I don't pay $100/ticket to sit through a casting directors PC choice. Audra is possibley our finest stage actress/singer, but there are many talented actresses who look like they'd actually be in a painting like that.
I guess I see what you're saying, but I know, for me, that it wouldn't cross my mind and certainly wouldn't be an obstacle to enjoying the performance. Not that much of a purist, I suppose.
I'm not criticizing; just trying to understand. It seems like black actors and actresses would continue to be at a severe disadvantage, then, until shows are written to "accommodate" their color and that sounds like a giant step back for society. At any rate, I respect your right to your opinion.
There is an issue with casting a black beggar woman (at least if she's the only black person in the cast). The big surprise at the end is kinda blown.
In the end, however, these are concert versions...race of any sort should make no difference.
However, and I'm still waiting for an answer or at least a fun debate, how does one suggest one get around the fact that a black actress playing Dot would not look anything like either of the two paintings used to represent her on stage...or a black Black Beggar woman (assuming the most/the entire cast isn't black)?
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
I guess i should expect that responsefrom someone who apparantly thinks an actor could play just about any part simply because they're talented, regardless of whether it's realistic for them to be in that role. All your whining about 'racial stereotypes' doesn't change that.
I think the issue many people have is that there is no blakc woman in the painting itself.
However, if you decide to embrace the new idea, it makes total sense:
-George paints two paintings...one of her, and one of the park...where she is "everywhere" (i.e. she inspired the painting, but her likeness need not be in the painting)
-George is often painting things a different color than they are...the mans hat that was green is now red to him, if you recall.
-This makes George more complex because he makes the social move to date/be seen with a black woman, but he will not paint her as black...how interesting is that? And...how much more important does the line "you will be in this painting" become with this kind of casting.
I, for one, think casting Audra not only makes the role sung beautifully, but makes the show itself even more amazing than it already is.
I don't even like Audra McDonald that much, but I find the argument that she can't play Dot to be ridiculous. Sunday in the Park With George isn't about historical accuracy or race at all- it's about the nature of art and artists. Dot, as Margo pointed out, is a completely made-up character. I've often wondered if a flat-figured actress would be cast in the role because of the lyrics about her figure in "Color and Light," but I never wondered about race. It doesn't matter.
"There is an issue with casting a black beggar woman (at least if she's the only black person in the cast). The big surprise at the end is kinda blown."
Yeah, especially after the character would have been described as pale and blonde. But you're right that it's not really an issue in concert versions.
And did anyone really have a problem with Ms. McDonald being cast as Julie in the concert version of Carousel? How likely was an interracial couple back then?
Updated On: 8/18/04 at 07:29 PM