|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 15:44:00 GMT
Ha! 4 pages to decend into people getting offended!!
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 15:54:11 GMT
Mostly what I'm getting from this thread is that men think sexism is no big deal and white people think racism is nbd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 16:13:07 GMT
I've been told to my face, by major industry names, that audiences won't come to plays without a male protagonist or that "having only female protagonists makes a political statement and I'm personally not comfortable with that." I can understand that point of view. I mean, you only have to look at the abysmal box office failure of female-led films like Frozen to see that the public just isn't interested in stories where women play a significant part. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 16:15:29 GMT
It doesn't matter one jot if people who generally superserved complain about isolated shows, companies or venues which offer something different and not to their personal taste.
But it does matter if no one is offering anything at all to underserved audience sectors.
|
|
43 posts
|
Post by sayers500 on Aug 10, 2016 16:19:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 16:21:21 GMT
Isn't "buddy" just autocorrect for "burly"? (In which case count your blessings, it might have come up with "Bundy".)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 16:54:35 GMT
Mostly what I'm getting from this thread is that men think sexism is no big deal and white people think racism is nbd. I really don't think that's the case |
|
3,589 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Aug 10, 2016 19:16:21 GMT
As a female, I would certainly like to see more plays with strong female roles - or even with a few more parts for women, thinking of some I've seen recently, which had few or none. But I certainly don't wish to see women playing roles written for men, as to me that's just gimmickry. Luckily it seems mainly to happen with Shakespeare and I simply don't go to see any Shakespeare anyway, so I'm spared; just hope it doesn't spread too far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 21:49:50 GMT
While acknowledging that we've wandered a teensy bit away from the thread and mrslovett's question re 'are women more likely to attend shows featuring gender-blind casting?', I'm genuinely interested to hear: do those who express some resistance here to women playing traditionally male roles feel the same way about openly gay actors playing traditionally straight roles, or BME actors playing traditionally white roles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 22:17:11 GMT
While acknowledging that we've wandered a teensy bit away from the thread and mrslovett's question re 'are women more likely to attend shows featuring gender-blind casting?', I'm genuinely interested to hear: do those who express some resistance here to women playing traditionally male roles feel the same way about openly gay actors playing traditionally straight roles, or BME actors playing traditionally white roles? In films at least it's incredibly difficult for open gay actors to play straight roles. Women can't sleep with them, men don't want to be them. It's prob different in theatre as its infamous for the pink pound |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 22:37:35 GMT
I think seeing a woman play a man or vice versa is more jarring than seeing a gay person play straight or a person of colour play white because you have to get past not only the appearance of the person, but the sound of their voice. I don't really have an issue with any of it and I would happily see a reverse gender performance, but I admit I would rather see better and bigger roles written for women playing women. On the other hand, seeing people of colour play white in something like Hamilton appears completely natural to me (likely helped by the R&B and rap music they perform in the show), to the point where I often forget the historical figures did not actually look anything like that. Likewise, I wish more gay actors were allowed to play straight, it would certainly allow a lot more Hollywood figures to come out. I think gay playing straight is almost a different matter altogether though because there is no way of telling someone is gay in real life from seeing them play a role, unlike the way you can usually immediately tell someone's gender or race. The main conclusion from all of this though is that once we get to the point where women, POC and LGBT characters are represented in equal measures to their white, straight, male counterparts, then there will be much less need for this kind of reverse casting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 7:46:02 GMT
For me, theatre is an extremely unrealistic artform. A good show will always mine real emotional depths, but the method of getting there is pure artifice. For example! If a film or TV show has a scene set in, say, a living room, they will either build a beautifully realistic living room set, or they'll find a real living room that suits their needs and film in it. Either way, the finished product is a scene that takes place in what has every appearance of being a real living room. Theatre does this too, of course it does, but it's just as likely that they'll present you with a bare wooden stage, or a perspex box, or a couple of upturned milk-crates, and leave you to fill in the gaps yourself.
So with all the many inherently unrealistic ways of telling the story that theatre presents, why on earth would it bother me if there's a woman playing a man, or a black actor playing a Swedish character, or a homosexual playing a heterosexual, or a human playing a dog (or three humans playing a horse)? I mean, if people take the built-in flexibility of casting and use it to put straight white able-bodied men in all the roles with a weak cry of "but it's ALL pretend" when people question the blinding lack of diversity, then we've got a problem. But if people look at a play and go "well, there's literally no reason why we can't have that role played by a woman, or why that role can't be played by a deaf actor, and there's nothing in the text that would be affected if we had this character played by an Asian actor, so let's do it", then it's a great way to ensure representation and visibility of all types of people on stage while simultaneously not actually "ruining" anything, because theatre is so very very open to creativity and interpretation in a way you'd rarely get away with in other media to begin with.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Aug 11, 2016 9:09:50 GMT
If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a woman, I will choose the one that puts more women on stage every time As a white male, should I follow this precept?: "If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a man, I will choose the one that puts more men on stage every time" and
"If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a white person, I will choose the one that puts more white people on stage every time"
That would be simply foolish. So, if it is all the same to you, I will see the productions I think are most interesting irrespective of gender, race, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 9:14:19 GMT
If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a woman, I will choose the one that puts more women on stage every time As a white male, should I follow this precept?: "If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a man, I will choose the one that puts more men on stage every time" and
"If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a white person, I will choose the one that puts more white people on stage every time"
That would be simply foolish. So, if it is all the same to you, I will see the productions I think are most interesting irrespective of gender, race, etc.
To be fair I did ask the women on the board if they where more likely to go see production with gender blind cast as there is the idea that colour blind casting atracts more minorities. Chill |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 9:15:58 GMT
Everyone has their own ways of deciding what they would like to spend their time and their money seeing, and just because your methods aren't the same as mine, that doesn't automatically make mine foolish. Thanks anyway though.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Aug 11, 2016 10:42:13 GMT
I am very keen on gender blind casting (and blind casting in other cases). Just that if the gender blind casting produces a result one way or another it is unlikely (on its own) to affect my choice of whether I go to see a production.
Sorry, Baemax, I did not mean to say your ways of deciding are foolish - it was just an attempt to say how I would feel about myself if I preferred a predominantly male cast on principle.
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 11, 2016 11:21:02 GMT
If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a woman, I will choose the one that puts more women on stage every time As a white male, should I follow this precept?: "If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a man, I will choose the one that puts more men on stage every time" and
"If I've got an afternoon to spare and two possible plays to see in that slot, then as a white person, I will choose the one that puts more white people on stage every time"
That would be simply foolish. So, if it is all the same to you, I will see the productions I think are most interesting irrespective of gender, race, etc.
Men and white people are not underrepresented on stage though. If the industry undrerepresents women and non-White people because they think that's what audiences want, as an audience member that does not want that the only thing you can really do to make your preference known is vote with your wallet, and support the work you want to see more of. It's just the same as choosing to see a new original musical over a jukebox musical. |
|
