We're all in boxes... Let's take the lid off.

emilylouisehardy
Mar 21, 2014
4 min read

A response by Mikey

I want to expand upon the important and relevant argument made in a previous Postscript article by Eshwar Alladi. (Read article here.) Is it racism in theatre that we should be fighting, or is it the wide spread pandemic of inequality in theatre that (to varying degrees) effects all of us?

Most actors have experienced typecasting - getting or not getting a role for reasons relating to physical appearance. For the most part, if we are seen to be unsuitable on the page, then we won't get an audition in the first place. Esh is right that actors and actresses from ethnic minorities are often limited to playing certain roles and are rarely given the chance to reach beyond this. But while we're at it, don't busty blondes, rugged northerners and fey young men face the inequality giant on a daily basis too? I'm not for a moment equating every group or arguing that because inequality effects all of us that it's not particularly bad for some - I know it is. But I do want to highlight the fact that sexist, sizeist, ageist, elitist, and nepotistic casting is also "rife" alongside racism; it is, therefore not only ethnic minorities who have cause to complain.

In no other profession can you be so quickly judged and evaluated for what you look like in a 10x8. (Actually, who even uses the 10x8 anymore? Aren't we all judged on our Spotlight thumbnail first and foremost?) As an actor I believe I can portray something more than the sum of my parts and, believing this, I can empathise and agree with Esh in that "the way I look says so little about who I am." Just as I hold this profession in a tight and warming embrace, it can also be a painful and frustrating stranglehold. Ticking my Spotlight boxes: I'm white/white other, 5ft 8, playing age 25-35 and have a shaved head (let's face it I'm balding). I am judged on all these things.

Unfortunately, the fact is that, as actors, the way we look or what gender we are does directly effect our ability to do the job, regardless of talent. What you are is part of the truth of what you are aiming to share when in front of the camera, on stage, or on the radio. That said, I don't just want to play your trusty, rough-looking prison inmate with Neo Nazi tendencies for the rest of my career either. Weren't we taught that acting was about transformation?

If I attended a voice workshop in standard English and got told to think of RP as my "educated voice," then I'd be royally pissed off too. Being from Wolverhampton, I have an accent. People cast aspersions about me based on that - not the same ones, but aspersions none the less. I'm not saying this to dampen Esh's case; I'm merely contributing evidence for the argument against inequality as a whole.

Esh's view that there are not enough parts for non-white actors is only the tip of a greater iceberg. There aren't enough parts for female actors either - not by half - not by a quarter - and it's definitely not for a lack of talent. There are 'many equally prolific, beautiful, truthful actresses' and the sad fact is that most of them will never get the exposure they deserve either. Are women and ethnic minorities yet to be fairly represented in the arts? No. Because history hasn't given them fair representation either and new art must combat this.

From a panoramic perspective, I think that theatre, television, radio, film and the arts can be perceived to do a lot to rectify prejudice in general - more than it is often given credit for. Due to the artist's impenetrable desire to push boundaries, dismantle taboos and ridicule prejudice, you could argue that theatre is acutely aware of its fatal flaws. Inequality in theatre may even be a smaller cancer than it is in others areas of society. But it clearly exists and this comparison shouldn't ever discourage us from seeking further improvements, further change.

We are evolving and moving forwards but art is mimetic; it still reflects our world, including all of its shameful, unpalatable history. Sometimes that reflection can be enjoyed and laughed at but in many cases it makes you feel ashamed and humble. History hasn't always been a bed of roses; more often it's been one of thorns. If playwrights wrote more about the present and less about the past, would there still be space for such unforgivable misrepresentation in theatre? Would there be a need for quotas? Theatre is racist because it reflects our awful history and great deal of our unforgivable present too. I read recently on this very site that "our theatrical skills at the moment seem to lie more in interpretation than in original creation." We're imitative, not innovative. This is a problem. It's going to take something big to buck that trend and some incredible new writing.

Let's write characters who come from a place within contemporary society, or from a future where we might have all broken out of our boxes. Let's encourage kids from all backgrounds to train and let's continue to question the absence of all minorities, not just those we belong to, so that fresh blood can confidently chose to participate in an industry that they currently feel excluded from. In the last ten years we have seen significant progression. We need to see more: more non-white actors, more disabled actors, more female actors, more old actors, more openly gay, lesbian and trans actors taking on roles. But most importantly, we need to see the best actors and actresses taking on these roles, regardless of anything else. I am half Italian, half Anglo Indian. Would you know that to look at me and cast me on such? Yes/No/Maybe? Perhaps, if I'm the best person on the list, you should just cast me anyway.