Miss Saigon has received criticism for what some have perceived as its racist or sexist overtones, including protests regarding its portrayal of Asians and women in general.[34] Originally, Pryce and Burns, white actors playing Eurasian/Asian characters, wore eye prostheses and bronzing cream to make themselves look more Asian,[35] which outraged some who drew comparisons to a “minstrel show”.[36]
Yes, it’s hard to argue with the idea that using makeup and prostheses to make an actor look more like an Asian character is unnecessary and insulting. There are Asian actors. Why not use one? If you needed in a dog in a scene, would you cast a cat? A hamster?
Well, only if the hamster badly wanted to star in this show as a dog. Because the hamster wanted the challenge. The hamster wants to be famous and adored by the public.
See “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” for a notorious example (Mickey Rooney). If a black actor were to play Hamlet (as many have), would we want to make him look Danish? Why not? how come you don’t see black comedians or politicians in whiteface? Ever?
In the London production of Miss Saigon, Lea Salonga originally starred as Kim, with Jonathan Pryce as the Engineer. When the production transferred from London to New York City, the Actors’ Equity Association (AEA) refused to allow Pryce, a white actor, to recreate the role of the Eurasian pimp in America. As Alan Eisenberg, executive secretary of Actors’ Equity explained, “The casting of a Caucasian actor made up to appear Asian is an affront to the Asian community. The casting choice is especially disturbing when the casting of an Asian actor, in the role, would be an important and significant opportunity to break the usual pattern of casting Asians in minor roles.”[36] This ruling led to criticism from many, including the British Equity, citing violations of the principles of artistic integrity and freedom. Producer Cameron Mackintosh threatened to cancel the show, despite massive advance ticket sales.[37]
Ah– the collision of two liberal principles! No. 1, respect ethnicity enough to use actors belonging to that ethnicity. No. 2, respect “artistic integrity and freedom”.
Though there had been a large, well-publicised international search among Asian actresses to play Kim, there had been no equivalent search for Asian actors to play the major Asian male roles—specifically, those of the Engineer (Pryce) and Thuy (Keith Burns). However, others pointed out that since the Engineer’s character was Eurasian (French-Vietnamese), they argued that Pryce was being discriminated against on the basis that he was Caucasian. [Wow!!] Also, Pryce was considered by many in Britain to have “star status,” a clause that allows a well-known foreign actor to recreate a role on Broadway without an American casting call.[36] After pressure from Mackintosh, the general public, and many of its own members, Actors’ Equity was forced to reverse its decision. Pryce starred alongside Salonga and Willy Falk (as Chris) when the show opened on Broadway.[38][39][40] From Wikipedia
And here we get the pretzel: Jonathan Pryce is being discriminated against because he is a Caucasian! Would anyone pose this argument against someone re-making “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and replacing Mickey Rooney with an actual Japanese actor? But that would be discriminating against annoying, short, white actors!
All this over an actor playing the role of a pimp.
Now, will no one object to a Eurasian actor being cast in the role of a pimp? What an insult! We are all outraged! Everyone?