Even if it is making fun of white people, I think the problem is that they're doing so using racist stereotypes of non-white races.

It's punching someone's sister to hurt them. THAT is the problem.

So Asians stated they are offended and a black woman involved tries to silence them and disregards the criticism. Let's imagine if the races were reverse. Shame on Ms. Elend. The fact she is black does not give her the right to disregard the feelings of others anymore than if she was white.

Someone give Elend an editor already.

So, can the stupid thing never be played again? Played only if there is an all Japanese cast (because it would be just as wrong to have Korean or Chinese actors playing Japanese roles)?

This is stupid, as long as the cast does not go all 'Charlie Chan' or 'Sakini' on the roles its acting. In fact the racist stereotypes in the play - particularly the ones of the Westerners - might be a great place to start a discussion of all Western thought on Asian domination.

One episode of Jeeves and Wooster has Wooster sitting in with a minstrel band consisting entirely of upper crust white hooligans in blackface. On one hand it is offensive, but on the other hand, it is part of the story which P.J.Wodehouse wrote many years ago and it was a type of band that would have been seen in the year in which the story is set.

I don't really see what we gain if we eliminate every aspect of stories that we now consider racist. Doing so would eliminate our ability to see how race relations have changed over the decades.

As to the Mikado, it strikes me the text is racist. I don't see how a cast of Asian actors would make it better without a complete rewrite. And then really, what's the point? If Gilbert and Sullivan works are going to be performed they may as well be performed somewhat as they would have when the writers were alive.

Both this and the Othello casting remind me of the idea of race blind casting which is in vogue in certain theater circles. I watched the Danny Boyle Frankenstein recording and got a bit confused since Dr. Frankenstein's brother and father were both played by black actors, as well as his fiancee. Which is all fine, but I read it as her father and brother because there was certainly more family resemblance between all of them than with Dr. Frankenstein.

I have no problem with Dr. Frankenstein's fiancee being black or with Dr. Frankenstein being black, but having his father be black while he is white is just a bit weird.

“Seattle is fucking racist.”

My, how eloquent. So Seattle is to blame for Gilbert and Sullivan? That's good to know.

Stereotypes abound in musicals. "The Flower Drum Song", "South Pacific" and "The King and I" are full of caricatures of Asians. Is it OK if Asian actors play the Asian roles, or is it just unacceptable to mount these productions?

@2 Your statement would be a lot more compelling if it wasn't coming from a racist. Maybe you should just back away from this discussion.

@ 5, in 1990 the Metropolitan Opera mounted a video broadcast of the Ring Cycle featuring Jessye Norman, an African-American soprano who was visibly obese, as Sieglinde, whose twin was portrayed by white tenor Gary Lakes. Personally, I had no problem, especially since middle aged opera singers are forever portraying young characters which necessitates ignoring their actual appearance, but some people found it jarring nonetheless.

In the Victorian era, the likelihood of having even one Asian actor in a G&S performance was zilch.

Yes, it would have looked more like that photo, only with even ruddier complexions.

@ 10, it's a matter of history. As I said yesterday, The Mikado is free of the kinds of horrible stereotype that were common during WW2, but like blackface, it's not so much about the state of things today.

I'll admit that the photo for this particular production is troubling - it does look like "yellowface." I still find issue with the implication that it's wrong for white singers to perform this operetta, but they can certainly be more sensitive in their portrayal.

As always, Catalina is the voice of reason here on SLOG--thank you, dear! The world is going to shit and Seattle has its panties in a bunch about what a "Seattle Times" reporter wrote about a semi-professional production of "The Mikado" she did not see. For fuck's sake!

It is the same Times editorialist who played the race card hard and fast over the minimum wage battle in SeaTac, but even if she's wrong about this production, the comments here are a bit obtuse. Even if the target of the satire here is British government (and lord is it ever relevant to today's audiences to lampoon the Brits of G&S's day!), the use of Japanese stereotypes has to be done carefully or not at all. Whether it's the point of the show or not, they are still broad, cartoonish depictions of Asian people, and to have an all-white cast do it requires the deftest touch (or again, just don't).

You don't do Othello in blackface; you hire a black actor. If you do The Merchant of Venice, you don't play up Shylock's Jewishness for laughs. And if you really must do The Mikado, you don't get to act surprised when people are upset.

Nice try, Seattle Gilbert and Sullivan Society, but your white people's eyes aren't slanty enough. Maybe put some tape on their lids, or just have them use their fingers and pull the corners of their eye apart... just like they probably did when they were kids.

It's an interesting, and necessary debate, but not one that's ever going to elicit anything in the way of comprehensive answers suitable for all occasions. For example, do we stop reading "Huckleberry Finn", because Jim and other blacks are constantly referred to as "niggers", a term fraught with negative connotation today, but not so much when the book was written? Are we forever barred from watching Spike Lee's "Bamboozled", because of its presentation of African Americans in patently offensive blackface? Is "Breakfast At Tiffany's" to be relegated to the trash-heap of insensitive racist cinema because of Mickey Rooney's appalling performance as the grossly stereotypical buck-toothed Yunioshi?

The point being that, some acknowledgement of historical context must be given to these works, even if they are deemed racially insensitive or even patently offensive to our more contemporary sensibilities and awareness; sweeping them under the rug and pretending they never happened doesn't foster the discussion any more than does reflexively defending their obvious shortcomings.

It seems to me a far better, more constructive approach to these and similar works is to simply acknowledge their inherent (or blatant as the case may be) racism, and to re-construe them in such a way that they serve to not only illustrate the more archaic attitudes represented by their creators, but to shine a different sort of light on them, one that more directly confronts modern questions of race and gender. What, for example could "The Mikado" illuminate about our own culture, if all the roles were reversed, with Asian American actors portraying the Americans and vice-versa? Patrick Stewart made a very similar statement with his reverse-color "Othello" a number of years ago, and I don't recall there being anywhere near the criticism of that production than with the decidedly more traditional version one discussed here recently.

I think it IS possible to address the larger issues of race and identity performing these works call into question, it just requires more imagination, sensitivity, and awareness of what those issues ARE and how such works will be perceived in the context of modern presentation, than it appears the producers of the SG&SS production managed.

If any society deserves lampooning it's the Japanese. It continues to be one of the most egregiously racist societies on the planet. It refuses to own up to it's own history of racially motivated atrocities. It continues to treat war criminals as heroes. I have no problem with a jab at Japanese kow-towery, even if a bit of yellow-face is required to pull it off.

As an outsider to theater, this looks like just a plain weird one to bring back.

London; the 1880's, criticizing the crown wasn't OK, racial sensitivity wasn't a concern, far-off, exotic Japan was piquing Brittan's interest, and Gilbert and Sullivan were on a hot-streak. Enter this, a fun way to get away with the former while capitalizing on all the latter.

Fast forward 130 years or so—staging a production must me such a monumental task, I just don't see what value this particular play has to modern audiences. Honestly, it's hard to look at. "Three Little Maids" is certainly iconic (maybe all the songs, I don't know music theater); is the value in the music alone?

I'll defend their right to do so, but I don't understand their taste.

@13 that was to counter the specific charge that the show consisted entirely of lily-white Seattleites.

I wonder how many of the allegedly offended people, on the STimes staff and on this comment thread, have ever been to see The Mikado, anywhere, anytime?

@ 19, I'm guessing you've never seen it if you're seriously posing that question. (And @15 is being deliberately obtuse, as far as I can tell.) It may be a specific lampoon of imperial Britain but the themes are much more universal. It's charm is as much in the text as in the music. (The music, parts of it such as the overture with its "oriental" theme, may be more stereotyped than most of the text, truth be told.)

I'm for whatever sharon pian chan is against. She's the worst.

To save time can you just copy-paste the comments from http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive… ?

thx

@2 - Unless that one episode of Magnum P.I. counts (anyone?)—you're correct, I haven't and I'm asking. I only know of it. If you're saying it's got universal themes worth hearing today, I'll assume many others feel the same way. As someone that doesn't love musical theater, I'll have a hard time getting past The Mikado's packaging; for those that do and find this a brilliantly crafted piece of work besides some dated affectations, I totally get that. I've certainly defended my share of indulgences.

But I also agree with MacCrodile in that if you're gonna do it you're walking a fine line and you shouldn't be shocked by criticism. I keep imagining a theater company roundtable (that probably doesn't happen, huh?) where everyone's pitching their ideas for next years musical—when someone says "how 'bout The Mikado!!?" I'd expect at least a couple people at the table inhale through their teeth and tighten their shoulders and say "ehhhhhhhhh", but I guess not.

@22, not @2. My mistake.

@ 25, if you agree to that without knowing The Mikado, you're not doing so from an informed perspective.

@27 - That's fair.

I can't believe people are getting upset about the supposed "yellow-face" in this photograph. Perhaps I need new glasses, but it seems clear to me that only Katisha is wearing anything approaching production makeup, and I wouldn't call that particularly good. You want "yellow-face" you can object to? Go look at photos of the D'Oyley Carte productions, or the clips on YouTube of the BBC production.

Every one of G&S's operas has a satirical base; changing the characters to reflect modern sensibilities strips the operas of 99% of their humor, and satire without yocks is just sour grapes.

And Seattle composer Byron Au Yong simply said, via email, “Seattle is fucking racist.”

Was Yong asked to provide one possible version of the most stupid possible reaction to this situation?

It's been a long time since I've seen The Mikado but what I remember of it is that the whole damn thing is just one big joke about race and class. I kind of thought it was always done in "yellow face" by white actors and that was part of the joke. I remember it being pretty funny but then again, I'm a white guy and I was pretty young at the time so maybe the racial insults went over my head at the time.

If we are going to begin retroactively applying modern standards to period pieces, get ready to say goodbye to many of the world's most treasured works of performance art. Let's begin with Turandot, considered by many to be the finest standalone opera ever written; it too is set in the mythical Orient. All of Wagner would similarly be banned, along with Strauss since Wagner was virulently anti-Semitic and Strauss was associated with imperialism. Let's toss all religious-themed paintings on the bonfire too, for the Church has been a huge force for oppression; let's do Savonarola proud. Oh, and books. There are plenty of those to burn.

What's that you say? It's not fair to compare your pet purge of The Mikado to self-righteous moralistic crusaders who purged past works of art?

That's for the future to judge, isn't it? We just said it was. And if we can retroactively apply our moral standards to the past, why can't the future do the same to us? They will likely find some objectionable performers being advertised at The Stranger, and tar us all by association.

an unusually broad and public discussion about race and theater

These "discussions" suck all of the oxygen out of the air.

@10:

See @18 for the answer to your first question.

@17: indeed, as long as we accept the notion that future generations can condemn us on the basis of their standards rather than attempting to understand or contextualize ours, then it is highly probable that "gay" and "lesbian" will eventually come into disfavor as the perjorative expressions of an earlier era, tainting artistic works that employ them like Angels in America. There is plenty of precedent for this (e.g. "colored", "negro", just as "homosexual" is falling into disfavor today.)

It's a game that everyone loses unless we reach consensus on coming to terms with the past: recognize what was worthwhile so we can continue enjoying it, but not excuse or discount legitimate criticisms from marginalized voices. The Mikado has many redeeming qualities and is worth continuing to perform, even while we recognize that it was a product of its time. It is salvagable because its intent was not to marginalize the Japanese; it was meant as a satire of British society (there's a reason composer Sullivan was knighted but lyricist Gilbert was not.)

"Jew Suss", on the other hand, is inseparable from the anti-Semitism which motivates it and has no redeeming features except as an original historical source document for study of the Holocaust. Ditto "Birth of a Nation" for the KKK.

First off, you should see the show before writing about the show. This goes for Chan, her bandwagon-bff Jeff Yang on CNN, and all the commenters here. Chinese-American Chan admits on her radio interview that she hasn't actually seen Mikado. Nothing like a classic shortsighted bookburning mentality of "I heard it's sinful! Someone told me so! So we have to burn it!". I've seen the show, and the last 3, I have Japanese family members, and I enjoyed myself.
Secondly, the context of the production company is CRITICALLY KEY. This isn't the Seattle Rep putting on Mikado, this is the Seattle Gilbert & Sullivan Society. They exist for the sole purpose of cycling through the 'canon' of G&S works and keeping them alive. They do nothing but. They are essentially a museum, albeit a living operatic one; charged to preserve the historic value of G&S's art. (You can argue whether G&S are important enough to warrant such status, but there's no argument that their works have influenced an amazing volume of art throughout the world and touching the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries). The Seattle Society are in fact award-winning at this mission, and have been both host to, and guests of, the most revered British G&S societies. In short, Seattle's G&S may be the best G&S America has to offer. Some of Gilbert & Sullivan's works aren't so well known (Utopia, Limited, anyone?)- and they run in the red, so the SG&S unsurprisingly keeps coming back to Pirates, Pinafore, and the most popular of all G&S comedies, the Mikado, to stay afloat.
Third, despite membership in the society being inherently anglophile and thus likely to attract those of English heritage, the Seattle G&S is in fact multicultural. African heritage, Hispanic heritage, Indian, Jewish - many backgrounds populate the stage and production team. Three Asian-American actors are among the regular ensemble, and one of the shows in the last few years included an AA actress in a lead role as the young ingénue. While the cast doesn't mimic the exact demographic percentages of the city, the Seattle Society has zero track record to suggest they are racist.
Can Seattle G&S do a better job of changing their direction/production design to be more sensitive to opinions such as Sharon Chan's? Yes. Gilbert intended his works would be changed to fit current times (the pattersongs are always messed with). Is this particular production guilty of 'Yellowfacing'? Yellowface isn't about makeup color/design, it isn't about character names being dated, it's about offense and racism, arguably about intent to offend / willfully being racist and making fun of a race for comedic payoff. I don't think you can escape having some people offended, no matter what you produce, but 1885's Mikado is actually remarkable for it's lack of dated racism. The only thing that outright mocks Japanese culture, IMO, is the music itself. The ACTUAL Mikado of Japan came to see the piece in Gilbert's time, and thought the show was fine (some reports were that he was disappointed at the lack of offensive material).
I'm not sure the people riled up about this show understand that theatre's job is to reflect society - and as such, its job is also to push boundaries & challenge us a little. Despite Ms Chan's claims in interviews that blackface isn't done any longer, there IS acting that still does blackface: a strong example is Robert Downey Jr's somewhat recent turn in the comedy 'Tropic Thunder'. Was the point of his character to offend / be racist to African-americans? If you think so, you really truly missed the entire point. This film mocked white people, mocked actors, mocked racism & mocked ignorance itself.
Finally, the suggestion that Asian-heritage actors are better suited to be part of the show than the current cast is ridiculous and shows what little business Sharon has critiquing dramatic arts. (Chan suggests sketch comedy gods Pork Filled Players: I've had the pleasure of working with Roger Tang and co, and they are wonderful at what they do)
The very nature of the job of acting is PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE YOU ARE NOT. "Heritage Accuracy" does not and should not matter in casting. (There's racism is excluding others from a role for not being Japanese). If only Japanese actors (and PorkFilledPlayers are not exclusively Japanese, either, nor do they have Opera-singing chops) must be cast in Mikado, then by this logic: Fiddler must be cast with only Russian Jews, Sharks can only be cast with Puerto Ricans and Jets can only be Polish, Montagues & Capulets must all be Italian actors, and the cast of A Midsummer Night's Dream can only be played by fairies and Greeks. George Takei could not have been in The Green Berets or even the first draft of Star Trek, AND Flower Drum Song with Jack Soo (Suzuki) in his lead role would be blasphemy in this crazy world, ...and that would break my Japanese grandfather's heart.
He loves The Mikado, by the way: "Stupid Brits! ha! Fucking funny!" was his brief, to-the-point review when he saw it last turn at G&S.

If you'd like to see a little more journalism instead of op-ed, I recommend: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-americ…

Fucking hell, @37, use paragraphs and be succinct next time. Nobody is going to wade through that mess you posted to see if you have a point buried somewhere in it.

@ 36, Gilbert was indeed knighted, if his wikipedia page identifying him as "Sir William Schwenck Gilbert" is to be trusted.

@39: it's not.

I am going to name my next pet Schwenk. Or Gilbert. Schwenk for a cat, Gilbert for a dog.

@ 40, it says he was (in 1907, 24 years after Sullivan) and cites a biography published by Oxford Press. I'm going to go with that and say you're mistaken. But I'm open to being disproven.

I'm a middle-aged white guy, so should probably keep my mouth shut. But I feel compelled to put a few things out there. Make of them what you will.
Working for Seattle Opera, an org that regularly presents outdated, and potentially offensive, depictions of "exotic" cultures - (TURANDOT's China, BUTTERFLY's Japan, PEARL FISHERS' Sri Lanka, AIDA's Egypt, Rossini's "Algiers", even CARMEN's Spain [French composer Bizet never visited the place!], etc.) I have been following this story with great interest and a little trepidation - "OMG will 'they' come for the opera next?!". I would hope that if the opera ever were the subject of an OpEd piece like Chan's, the writer would first take the time to see/hear/experience the production in question to gather context BEFORE publishing an opinion of the producing company.
Since I started working here in 2000 I have witnessed our directors & designers consistently strive to bring context to their stagings and divert them from "the dung heap of history" as it were. Speight Jenkins is well known for being a pioneer in diverse casting. (PORGY AND BESS(r) notwithstanding - the strict casting guidelines for that particular property are set by the Gershwin(tm) estate - a meaty topic for another time.) Men of color in powdered wigs, asian women as Valkyries, it's all happened here. We've had white and asian "Butterfly"s; black and hispanic Toscas. And as long as they're inhabiting the role, hitting the notes, and telling the story, nobody thinks twice. The primary criterion for casting at SO is voice quality, with acting chops a close second. I'm happy to report that the vast majority of our audience seems to understand and appreciate this. Opera has indeed come a long way.
I can't say why Seattle G&S chose not to cast asians in their Mikado. But it's entirely possible that, since the work is in fact a =>cartoon parody of Victorian British society<=, no asians were interested in working on the show. (Some Asian sopranos never learn Butterfly or Turandot simply to avoid being typecast. The great Leontyne Price turned down an invitation to make her Met debut as Aida, despite the fact that the role of the Egyptian slave made her famous in Europe. Why? She wanted to make her U.S. debut "as a lady, not a slave." Go, Ms. Price!) G&S is a very distinct flavor - as British as kidney pie. Aside from Sideshow Bob's one-man HMS Pinafore, it's never been my cup of Earl Grey. It seems reasonable that others may be equally uninterested in the material, as either audience members or performers. My point being: artists' self-selection occurs before auditions.
Finally, I'll offer that my opera colleague (our social media guru) is also a member of the Japanese American Citizens League's PacNW Chapter. She's been busy all week visiting comment sections and making eloquent posts addressing the complex idea of proper context for presenting/understanding works from other eras. The situation is tricky and she's handling it better than anyone I know. A level-headed, young, Japanese American social activist/arts administrator/modern dancer who has been working diligently to dialogue with all sides: providing context for those who don't know the show and have been quick to judge harshly AND also challenging the traditionalists who blindly defend their creaky artform, encouraging them to bring their perspectives further in line with the times and even consider new ways of approaching "artifact" shows for the greater good. It has been inspiring to me to watch her at work.
Like most issues in life, there is a middle ground here. I believe all sides can take a step or two in that direction.

/whitey out

@42: sorry, I should have been clearer. There's a reason that *Queen Victoria* didn't knight Gilbert. He wrote too many satirical songs about incompetent generals ("when I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery...") and admirals ("I polished up the handles so carefully that now I am the ruler of the Queen's Navy.") She was not amused, and withheld his knighthood even though Sullivan was knighted in 1883 (she was pleased with Sullivan for writing Onward Christian Soldiers.) Gilbert would have to wait until Victoria had died and almost 25 more years for his own knighthood by Edward VII.

@38, from Denver.
Your opinions are noted and in this case are very stupid.

PI Smith offered some extremely interesting remarks -- thx PI Smith -- and for you. Mr Denver, to do the asinine Slog bully routine, well STFU.

Don't like long comments? Don't read them!

I also like the longer & very interesting remarks from Dr. Z and You Got Nerve. Thank you both. Your comments (and PI Smith's) are far more interesting and knowledgeable than those of SLOG staff.

Again, Mr Denver, don't like long comments? Don't read them.

@ 46, you still buttsore from my last thrashing? Lulz. Funny that you start shit you can't finish, so you have to cry bully. That's a very telling slip.

Try to be smart if you're going to try to flame me. It's very clear that I didn't read that because it was unreadable. Not very clever to tell me not to read it, eh?

@47
STFU