WITH over $25 million in ticket sales and countless jobs on the line, last summer's Miss Saigon controversy has forced actors, directors and audiences to rethink their ideas of just and unjust, plausible and implausible. The basic question: Who gets what role and why?

The trouble began this past summer when British producer Cameron Mackintosh announced that English actor Jonathan Pryce would reprise is starring role as a Eurasian pimp in the Broadway version of the much heralded London musical. The Actor's Equity Association and several members of the theater community opposed Mackintosh's casting decision and in response Mackintosh threatened to cancel the show.

After a few weeks of negotiations with Equity, Mackintosh agreed in writing to cast Asians in central and understudy roles. Pryce also consented to discontinue the use of eye prosthetics and make-up which made him appear Asian.

Associate News Editor of Equity News Helaine Feldman comments that "since the settlement, casting has gone on smoothly--but no new [definite] casting decisions have been made yet." Equity is consulting with Mackintosh during the casting process.

After much debate and criticism, the controversy has died down. But the conflict between maintaining artistic freedom and integrating the drama world is not easily resolved. Certainly the agreement between Actor's Equity and Mackintosh offers no ideal solutions.

The hullabaloo that occurred this summer made it seem as if racial cross casting had never been done before. But in fact, cross casting isn't anything new. No Chinese actor ever played Charlie Chan.

More recently, Denzel Washington portrayed royal white villain Richard III in this part summer's Central Park Shakespeare series, sponsored by The New York Public Theatre. "We have been casting across racial lines since producer Joseph Papp started the Theatre in 1954" explains a Theatre spokesperson. "Morgan Freeman appeared recently in our production of The Taming of the Shrew."

Public debate surrounding Miss Saigon revolved around two poles of thought. Perhaps Actors' Equity had a right to demand that Pryce's role be reserved for a minority actor since few performances are so custom-made for affirmative action casting? On the other hand, perhaps the union was infringing upon the rights of both producer and actor involved in what may be viewed as a case of reverse discrimination?

Actor B.D. Wong and M. Butterfly playwright David Henry Hwang are key proponents of nents of Equity's attack on Miss Saigon casting. According to Equity News, the pair envision the casting of minority actors in minority roles as the first step zoward non-traditional casting across the board.

American Repertory Theatre director Robert Brustein expressed his opposition to the Equity stance in numerous periodicals throughout the summer. "It is an irony tat while actors rightly hate typecasting, their union is insisting that racial roles be played only by minorities," Brustein remarks in a recent issue of the New Republic.

In the same article, Brustein cites the realm of theatre as one of the few forums for genuine experimentation across ethnic lines. "The art of the theatre is the art of transformation--regardless of racial or ethnic composition."

As the immediate dispute surrounding Miss Saigon subsides, Equity News admits that perhaps it has "applied an honest and moral principle in an inappropriate manner," in its initial attempts to take ultimate casting decisions out of the hands of the show's producer.

"We knew that it was time to deal with what we saw as a moral issue." Equity president Colleen Dewhurst says in Equity News. "But once we went beyond Mr. Pryce's application and exploded into the issue of whether or not Mr. Pryce had a creative right to play this role, we then invaded an area in which we do not belong--ever--and that is the question of our denying anyone freedom to make an artistic choice--good, bad or indifferent..."

All the controversy has predictably whet the public's appetite for the scheduled spring premiere of Miss Saigon. "Undeniably, this whole business has been good in terms of publicity for the show," Feldman says. "There still haven't been any ads in the New York Times for ticket sales--but that isn't worrisome."

Beyond Broadway