If Trevor Nunn is staying true to history, where are the pox-ridden actors?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/17/trevor-nunn-war-roses-all-white-history

Version 0 of 1.

When I was a kid I loved musicals. My friend Deborah and I would listen to them till the cows came home. They helped us escape from what reality had done to us – was doing to us.

Related: Trevor Nunn to stage The Wars of the Roses

One of the musicals we took refuge in was Les Misérables, directed by Trevor Nunn. In my childhood memory, the original company was all white, yet in later years black, Asian and minority ethnic actors were visible. What happened as a result? Did the production collapse? Were there demands for it to close? Of course not. It became one of the biggest shows in theatrical history.

Nunn’s decision to cast his cycle of history plays, The War of The Roses, according to “historical verisimilitude” has caused Act For Change and our friends at Equity much concern since the announcement back in July.

Nunn explained that in this instance he decided considerations of historical accuracy should “take precedence” over his usual concern for diversity. His casting director, Ginny Schiller, has endorsed this, calling Nunn “a director with a proven commitment to diverse casting”.

Nunn did indeed introduce a diverse casting policy during his time at the RSC. But it is his actions now and not his record that are being called out.

If you’re casting a production according to principles of “historical verisimilitude” should one also take into account other factors? For example hair and eye colour, height and religion? At the time in which the play is set England had expelled anyone of Jewish faith, and yet this hasn’t resulted in the exclusion of Jewish actors.

Instead of Nunn’s defence of “historical verisimilitude”, perhaps he should have simply come out and said “I cast these plays in this way because I wanted to”.

As I write this I am preparing to play Tom Wingfield in Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie for Nuffield theatre, a part historically performed by a white actor. The director made a conscious decision to cast colourblind. I draw attention to this because every theatre maker has a choice. We choose the stories we tell and how we tell them.

When Nunn claims these plays are “extremely complex” and that therefore “everything possible must be done to clarify for an audience who is related by birth to whom” he underestimates the audience’s intelligence.

Look to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical Hamilton, about the life of one of the United States’s founding fathers, which is breaking box office records across the pond, to see just how history can be an inclusive, celebratory experience that incorporates the diversity of the present day.

Nunn has chosen to appeal to historical accuracy, but his argument doesn’t stand up: it would be legitimate to complain that he won’t be hiring actors ridden with the pox and to ask why a Norwegian has been cast as a British king. Sounds absurd? Well, it’s an absurdity of Nunn’s making.

We should not see this as a step back, but as a watershed moment. Nunn is part of yesterday’s regime. I don’t say this to disparage his excellence or past successes, but I am genuinely hopeful about our future storytellers.

Perhaps he should’ve simply come out and said 'I cast these plays in this way because I wanted to'

A whole new generation of theatre makers is engaging positively in conversations about diversity. Granted, many are still white, able-bodied and Oxbridge-educated, but they are finding ways to honour those who are unrepresented.

Rather than fight against the old guard, perhaps our energies might be better focused on trendier mainstream boutique theatres. Institutions that haven’t yet begun to explore how best to create opportunities for performers who reflect the diversity we see around us – race, gender, disability.

Real change needs diverse leadership and management. We have seen significant progress: Sky, Channel 4, ITV, the BFI, and Equity are all reviewing their policies on diversity. Rufus Norris publicly announced at Act For Change’s event in June that the National Theatre would be involved in creating a production specifically for disabled performers. Colleagues are finally being called to castings for which they would never have been considered, even two years ago. People are engaged.

Will this new attitude to diversity last? Will organisations and individuals pay lip-service to the issue until the clamour has died down, then go back to the old ways? We don’t yet know. History writes itself.

What is important is that we keep having these conversations publicly. It is not a question of shaming but of saying that in this day and age a company of that size, which is all white and able bodied, should stick out like a sore thumb. You can observe historical accuracy and be completely colour blind. They are two entirely separate things.