For me, the question is "Does the audience have an understanding
of theatre as metaphor/convention?"
In the classic psychological experiment, classes are divided
into "blue eyes" and "green eyes"-- not
based on individual 's eye color, but by random assignment of
a colored scarf. After a few days of authority-sanctioned oppression
of greens by blues, the subjects swap scarves. Victims quickly
learn to be oppressors of their last-week superiors. Instructors
discuss lesson.
If the audience understands on an emotional level that the
white kid is performing the role of an oppressed black adult
and the black kid is performing the role of a well-intentioned
but oppressing white kid-- and that both are ACTORS, not the
kids their classmates know but mystically empowered shamanistic
individuals who are demonstrating a relationship on behalf of
the community in order to investigate emotionally as well as
intellectually how individuals are shaped by communities-- then
all is well.
It seems to me that this metaphor-not-reality is something
kids who have had some serious experience of acting and of plays
-- this is, I think, an org like the Thespian Society of my
day?-- ought to be able to understand better than your average
audience.
Even if all is NOT well, certainly it is an experiment worth
making, esp in a school setting where the school as a community
can examine what it is learning about itself? (5/21/05)
See also Colorblind
Casting of Huck/Jim
by 
