More Non-Traditional Casting Double Standards Hypocrisy: “Whitewashing ‘Little Shop of Horrors'”

Here is another installment of a frequent topic on Ethics Alarms: non-traditional casting, DEI casting, and and virtue-signaling stunt casting just to appear woke. The position here as a long-time stage director who has been responsible for some audacious non-traditional casting in my time (I once cast the role Cole Porter with a woman) remains unchanged: if it works and the audience enjoys the show as much or more than it would have with a traditional casting choice, then all is well. (Full disclosure: casting Cold Porter as female did NOT work. At all…)

The mission of any stage production is to be fair to the show’s creators and make the production as effective theatrically as possible, not to make political or social statements that get in the way. (Prime example of the latter: this.)

Curmie sent me a link to “Yes, You Can Whitewash ‘Little Shop of Horrors’, But Please Don’t” at Chris Peterson’s Onstage blog. I love the musical (my old high school doubles tennis partner, Frank Luz, co-starred as the sadistic dentist in the original off-Broadway production and the cast album) based on the wonderful 1960 Roger Corman camp movie classic. I thought its creators would revive the genre, but Disney snapped them up (“The Little Mermaid”; “Beauty and the Beast”) and then half the team, Howard Ashman, died.

Peterson cites the license-holders’ quite reasonable casting note:

The description of the set and characters in the front of the libretto-vocal book for Little Shop of Horrors were derived from the original 1982 production’s Stage Manager’s script and are not meant to restrict the way in which licensees stage or cast their productions of the show. Rather, they are an insight into how that production was presented.

In casting your show, an inclusive approach is suggested. While any actor can play any role in the show (i.e., there are no requirements or restrictions other than to perform the book, music, and lyrics as written), it is encouraged that the roles of Crystal, Ronnette, and Chiffon be played by actors of color. There is no such suggestion with regard to any of the other characters, regardless of how those characters have been cast in other productions. The gender of the characters, however, must remain as written in the script.

Then he argues that while all of the white characters could (and, in the interests of diversity, maybe should) be cast with actors-of-color, the three black street urchins should never be cast as white. He writes,

Given that it’s explicitly stated in the casting information that the roles were written for Black performers, I think it’s a mistake to include language that provides a loophole to whitewash the show. That’s why I was so thrilled to see the creators of ‘Hairspray’ remove similar language. But, at least for right now, theatres are allowed to cast all-white productions of ‘Little Shop of Horrors’. At the same time, just because you “can” doesn’t mean you “should.” The show, which draws heavily from the sounds and styles of 1960s Motown and doo-wop, thrives on the diversity of its characters. The musical’s roots are deeply entwined with Black culture, especially through the iconic trio of street urchins. By casting these roles with non-Black performers, theatres not only dilute the authenticity of the production but also miss an opportunity to celebrate and honor the contributions of Black artists to musical theatre and popular music. Representation matters, and ensuring diverse casting in ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ allows for the story to be told in its fullest, most genuine form, providing audiences with a richer, more truthful experience.

What a load of plant fertilizer. What he is saying, if you eliminate all the blather, is that it is fine to cast the white roles as black but it is wrong to cast the black roles as white. Oh. That seems fair.

The practical implications of the woke bloggers’ position is that high schools that don’t have sufficient numbers of black female students who can effectively carry off the roles of the black girl group chorus in the show can’t do “Little Shop” at all. The same would be true of community theaters in predominantly white communities, and “Little Shop” is an unusually good musical for students and amateurs to perform because they can do it well with available talent (unlike, for example, most Sondheim shows).

Would a production with a black chorus be preferable? Of course. The whole idea is to evoke the Chiffons, Chrystals, Shirelles and the others; some of the jokes depend on it. And yet, singing about the evil dentist Owen, the trio sings, “There he goes girls, the Leader of the Plaque!” referencing the iconic Shangri-Las hit “Leader of the Pack.” They were a white girl group.

Casting the urchins as white is far less disrupting to the show’s Fifties vibe than casting the doomed heroine, Audrey, for example, as black rather than as a blond Marilyn Monroe-ish bimbo with a heart-of-gold, which is what the authors intended. At one point, reflecting on the idyllic future she dreams of, Audrey sings that she will look “like Donna Reed,” the most popular of the TV wives in that decade. A black Audrey singing that lyric would seem like she was wishing she were white, gratuitously injecting race into a plot that has nothing to do with race.

“Little Shop” doesn’t “thrive on the diversity of its characters,” it thrives on a clever plot, sharp dialogue, brilliant lyrics, terrific music, and a giant man-eating plant puppet. Diversity is irrelevant, but if the only tool you have is a hammer, as the saying goes, everything looks like a nail.

I also want to mention that the total ban on gender-reversed casting seems excessive. Seymour, Audrey and her abusive dentist boyfriend should be cast as written, and making the black girl group male would be far worse than casting it with one or more white actresses. There is no reason, however (except musical ones, of course) why any of the other characters in the show couldn’t be gender-switched, like Mushnik, the comic flower-shop owner.

There’s one more thing, as Columbo would say. The movie (above) is OK, but “Little Shop of Horrors” is one of those musicals that is much better live and onstage, even with a non-professional cast.

And good night, Frank Luz, wherever you are…

9 thoughts on “More Non-Traditional Casting Double Standards Hypocrisy: “Whitewashing ‘Little Shop of Horrors'”

  1. Okay, I think we need something on this line: That’s why I was so thrilled to see the creators of ‘Hairspray’ remove similar language.

    Hairspray is almost exclusively about race. It very much makes sense for those roles to be cast with specific races in mind. Am I missing something here?

  2. Random thoughts:

    Like Jack, I know someone in the original OB cast: one of my best friends in college played Crystal.

    I’ve seen amateur productions of the the play twice: of the six women in those roles, one was black.

    I haven’t seen a female Mushnik, but one of my former students was in a production with one. I don’t know if they got permission, or if the gender rule is more recent than their production, or if they just violated the terms of the rights and royalties agreement. I agree that it doesn’t hurt the show, but obeying the rules is generally a good thing.

    Am I forgetting someone, or is there only one role in the show first played by a white woman? I’ve spent a lot of time around theatre programs. I’d guess that well over half of university theatre majors are white women; it’s probably a higher percentage than that for high school “theatre kids.” Having roles for the people you’ve got is always going to be a consideration, and I’m guess that the rights-owners are willing to cash the royalty checks providing the production isn’t outrageous (e.g., the white MLK in a university production of The Mountaintop a few years back).

    It does strike me that the show’s creators (and their agents) might know more than Chris Peterson (or, indeed, the rest of us) about what they intended. Having just put together a syllabus with both “required” and “recommended” readings, I am acutely aware of the difference between those terms. I’d suggest that we honor the distinction.

      • I think I referenced it before–maybe on your post about the black Anne Boleyn?

        Kent State, mid-teens… ’16, maybe? Anyway, the student director decided that the way to determine whether we have moved towards MLK’s vision of content of character rather than skin color was to double-cast his role in Katori Hall’s The Mountaintop: one night it would be a white actor, then on alternate nights a black actor. He insisted it wasn’t a gimmick. It was a gimmick.

        Then, for some reason the black actor dropped out of the show and the white actor did all the performances. Hall found out, and was less than pleased. Apparently it never occurred to her that someone would be tone-deaf enough to try a stunt like this. It’s now written into the contract that the role must be played by a black actor… I wonder if there’s a similar clause insisting that the actor be male…

  3. I’ve always protested that I’d be great as Gary Coleman in Avenue Q. “But you’re not black!” I’m always told. “But he’s not a girl!” I always respond.

    Other than personally enjoying the opportunity to sing some of his parts, I actually wouldn’t be any good in the role. But it sure is satisfying to watch people hem and haw over that one. At least until they shrug, call me both racist AND sexist, and walk away.

    I’m still waiting for a chance to Play George Washington in Hamilton. THAT I’d be good at.

Leave a reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.