|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 11:34:33 GMT
That's not the point that's under discussion at all. In Shakespeare's day Cleopatra (for example) was played as a female character even though the actor was a boy. What we're discussing here is the gender of the character being switched - so the character Cleopatra played as a man. Not the same at all. So no need to roll your eyes. I feel like we should just divert everybody to an old thread, where this conversation has been thrashed out before. The fact of the matter is, we're never going to know whether Shakespeare would approve and if it does actually do the piece a disservice. He's not as readily available for questioning as Stephen Sondheim is and it's all a matter of opinion anyway, which is not fact. If we were to speculate whether Shakespeare would still want his plays to be performed using the same rulebook 500 years down the line with no opportunity for re-interpreation, invention or, God forbid, to go some way to creating a certain equality between genders within the acting world, I'd probably hazard a guess that he'd probably be quite encouraging of the practice. Is there a single example of a living playwright who has allowed roles to be gender-swapped in one of their plays ? Why not ? But you think dead playwrights would have been OK with it ? I am not opposed to it really but it skews the plays in a way clearly not intended by the playwright, the NT Malvolia for example, the closeted lesbian subtext became a major part of the play and of course that is no part of the original. |
|
1,087 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jul 21, 2017 11:51:03 GMT
I feel like we should just divert everybody to an old thread, where this conversation has been thrashed out before. The fact of the matter is, we're never going to know whether Shakespeare would approve and if it does actually do the piece a disservice. He's not as readily available for questioning as Stephen Sondheim is and it's all a matter of opinion anyway, which is not fact. If we were to speculate whether Shakespeare would still want his plays to be performed using the same rulebook 500 years down the line with no opportunity for re-interpreation, invention or, God forbid, to go some way to creating a certain equality between genders within the acting world, I'd probably hazard a guess that he'd probably be quite encouraging of the practice. Is there a single example of a living playwright who has allowed roles to be gender-swapped in one of their plays ? Why not ? But you think dead playwrights would have been OK with it ? I cited it in my original response - Stephen Sondheim has just allowed a female to be cast as Bobby in Company. Simply saying "It works". And yes, yes, I do. Plays aren't sacred texts, they're stories, even when they're based on fact. People reinterpret stories, it's how storytelling began. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 13:59:50 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat?
What I mean is that while it's true that changing character genders alters the plays dynamics and the way that audiences connect to & interpret the story, the same is true of pretty much every aspect of casting (and indeed most artistic decisions; location and setting for instance).
After all, a 13 year old Juliet falling in love with a 16 year old Romeo would play differently to the same play with young adults. Similarly, changes in actors' races or nationalities might mean the audience react to the play differently, and even superficial stuff like their appearance and accents would. If we felt that the actor playing Romeo was very good looking and Juliet was ugly or vice versa then that would alter, even subconsciously, how we feel about the love at first sight-iness.
The connection with the audience also changes in ways completely out of the creators' control. The way a film with a mixed race couple might have been daring decades ago but watching the same film these days wouldn't have the same impact, or how plays that happen to coincide with big news events might take on meaning that was never intended.
The thing is that, even if you remain true to the original intentions as written I'm not sure that the thing necessarily plays to the audience the same anyway, since we are watching the story through the lens of modern sensibilities and with a completely different framework. Even going to a relatively 'true' production at the Globe we won't really take in the play in the way that audiences did originally.
I'm not saying that the changes made don't matter, just that it seems strange that 'changing gender' is felt by some to be something that simply shouldn't be done, rather than something you would think about like any other casting choice (i.e. considering whether you like it on a case-by-case basis, based on the eventual actor, the role and the actual performance).
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 21, 2017 13:59:51 GMT
Jan: Malvolio fancies Olivia so why worry whether he is a he or a she? (I didn't see this production)
My problem is when they change a character and it damages the whole shebang as in the RSC King John when they changed the Bastard into a woman but maintained the historical context. The whole point of the play is that the Bastard would be a much better king than John and displays all the best Shakespearean Kingly traits but he can't be king cos, hey, he is a Bastard. If you make him a her , she wouldn't even be in the picture as women were still viewed with horror as inheritors of the crown. And don't go on about Elizabeth cos that is not what Willy was addressing in this play cos he didn't make the Bastard a woman, he kept to the historical facts as he knew them, in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 14:01:28 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 21, 2017 14:05:53 GMT
No ho ho, don't mention blind casting...
Actually I read a very odd review of Fiddler in Chichester which seemed to think that casting a man who is Iranian heritage ( and not Jewish) as Tevye was in some way something to be remarked on. Can o' worms?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 14:23:48 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* While I'm sure that sexism is a part of it, perhaps even a major part, I'm not sure it's all that useful a response. I know that messageboards lean towards short witty responses with concrete black/white views, but FWIW I think there's a risk with treating relatively complex and serious topics in this way. Partly because the word has such a wide ranging meaning, but also because it sort of makes everyone defensive. I would think that many people who might feel intrinsically opposed to gender blind casting wouldn't consider themselves sexist, but starting a discussion with that basically makes the line very clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 14:34:34 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man.
As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT. Sometimes great risks lead to great artistic reward, so directors should always have the freedom to try, no matter how non-traditional or non-textual the risk may seem.
Besides, don't most (if not all) Shakespeare plays have several different versions dating right back to Shakespeare's time? We can't hold the bard himself up as having a clear vision that should be revered 400 years down the line when he didn't even keep things consistent during the period he was writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 21, 2017 14:37:53 GMT
I don't think everyone who objects to changing the gender of a character is necessarily sexist.
In my own work I have always worked to increase the opportunities for female actors in my Shakespeare productions. Whether that is just switching gender (Antonio becoming Antonia in Much Ado) or by creating a new role using existing lines from the text (adding Queen Joan into Henry IV using lines from various nobles) - I have always aimed to work with the text and the structures of the play to create a more balanced casting.
With my own Lear, I had a female Fool - not sharing the role with Cordelia but that hypothesis was very much in my mind when I took that decision. As an outsider to the social structures of the play, the Fool can be viewed in a broader set of ways which made regendering an easy decision to take.
I remain unconvinced about a female Kent as I am not certain that the intimacy of the relationship that grows between Lear and Caius is one that would emerge so clearly with a Male/Female casting. As I said in my initial posting on this subject, it will all depend on how it plays out in the production and the world the director creates. I think a female Gloucester has more dramatic potential - a contrast to Lear - Father with Daughters against Mother with Sons. The blinding becomes an even more shocking act. If I ever revisit the play it is something I will almost certainly seek to explore.
I know Lynette did not enjoy the RSC King John - but I do disagree with her that the restructuring of the play to create a female Bastard was a bad idea. Because it was such a radical recutting of the text and the production was played out in a heightened modern setting, I felt it worked brilliantly and gave Pippa Nixon a great showcase for her talents. It still remains one of my favourite productions.
Each director takes a view as to what they want to achieve with their production and the casting reflects this. However the productions that to my mind succeed the most are the ones that work with the structure of the play and the detail of the text rather than working against it. If you don't trust the text, perhaps you aren't the right director for that project...
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 21, 2017 14:39:47 GMT
No ho ho, don't mention blind casting... Actually I read a very odd review of Fiddler in Chichester which seemed to think that casting a man who is Iranian heritage ( and not Jewish) as Tevye was in some way something to be remarked on. Can o' worms? Sorry to go OT, but that's an interesting one. Fiddler is a show about a minority group of people, much in the same way The Colour Purple is, for example. But there would never, ever be a Celie cast as anything other than black, I should think? Should the same apply to Fiddler? Their original Lazar Wolf, Chris Jarman (who is now no longer part of the production), is a black, non-Jewish man playing a Jewish man whose skin colour is indeterminable. Is this comparable to Shug Avery being played by anyone other than a black woman? Must stress, this ISN'T my opinion, but a question to which I have no answer! On the other hand (to coin Tevye's phrase), to cast an entire musical where being Jewish is directly related to the story, with only Jewish people is probably far less logistic than casting an entire musical with black people, where it is dictated by story. I've seen other reviews that said having mixed race/black people in Fiddler adds yet another level of contemporary realism to the story, which is also a good point. Of course, being Jewish has nothing to do with skin colour and Jewish people are far less likely to be "denied" a job based on that factor compared to a black actor, for example, so of course it's not a like-for-like comparison by any stretch of the imagination, but a smattering of food for thought nonetheless. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 14:45:59 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man. As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT.  Apologies for coming across overly 'debate-club teachery', I'm still new here and forget that things like this are probably issues that have been discussed on the board at length over and over through the years. Regarding Doctor Who however, while I'm all for having greater diversity in acting, the idea that a shape-shifting immortal alien in a time-travel fantasy show might be played by a woman is just crazy. How is that even remotely believable!? (edit: I realise that tone & intent don't always come across well on messageboards, so for the avoidance of any doubt, I was kidding in the sentence about Doctor Who; I know he's regenerating, not just shape-shifting) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 14:47:36 GMT
Once a play is past a very short time (a few years? Less than a year with very topical plays), it is impossible to be able to watch and respond to it as per the original. Company, as Sondheim realises, is now very much a period piece and therefore ripe for reimagining, as he has also allowed for Sweeney Todd, Forum etc.
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 21, 2017 14:56:02 GMT
Given the gender imbalance of Shakespeare plays and his continuing hold over the British theatre scene gender blind casting gives actresses more opportunities to play significant roles.
One of the arguments against the female Doctor was to question why they don't just create new major female roles - perhaps a fair point on TV where new series and characters come through all the the time but more of an issue in theatre where the classics continue to dominate.
It's perhaps a bit more unexpected in Lear which already has decent female roles but without it the roles for women are even more limited than they currently are.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 15:16:28 GMT
One of the arguments against the female Doctor was to question why they don't just create new major female roles - perhaps a fair point on TV where new series and characters come through all the the time but more of an issue in theatre where the classics continue to dominate. Given that the role is explicitly one that changes appearance, I'm not sure why the Doctor's gender (or the appearance of human gender anyway) needs to be tied down any more than their height, speech or hair colour. Talking of hair colour, I kinda feel that in a few years this will be looked back on like James Bond: Daniel Craig is announced, and some tabloids proclaim that James Bond couldn't possibly be blonde -as though hair colour was James Bond's defining feature- and a few years on, Craig is the best bond since Connery and fingers crossed he does one more... |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 16:11:21 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* I was waiting for you to say that. *rolls eyes* |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 16:14:21 GMT
Given the gender imbalance of Shakespeare plays and his continuing hold over the British theatre scene gender blind casting gives actresses more opportunities to play significant roles. One of the arguments against the female Doctor was to question why they don't just create new major female roles - perhaps a fair point on TV where new series and characters come through all the the time but more of an issue in theatre where the classics continue to dominate. It's perhaps a bit more unexpected in Lear which already has decent female roles but without it the roles for women are even more limited than they currently are. We're not talking about gender blind casting. We''re talking about changing the gender of a character in the play. So it is quite possible to object to the NT Malvolia without objecting to the Donmar all-female Julius Caesar. |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 17:08:53 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* This is the kind of insulting and superficial comment that does a disservice to the cause of "anti-sexism". Firstly, you have no idea what I do or what my values are, or even my gender- and so your jibe is based on virtually no evidence. But then, it's easier to try to close down dissenting voices with the use of loaded terms like "sexism", than actually engage in a discussion. Your comments, as demonstrated by Jan Brock, make it clear that you haven't understood the distinction between the actor and the character. I have no objection to gender-blind casting as displayed in the all-female 'Julius Caesar', where the director is saying, "let us neutralize the dynamics of gender across the whole play". In such cases, the play is usually sold as such, too- it becomes the raison d'etre for the production and, oftentimes, for the audience to attend. However, in this specific production, to have an inconsistent approach, where gender is apparently relevant to some of the casting but not to others, shows conceptual inconsistency and also risks confusing audience members who do not know how the play is usually cast. This might not be so problematical if gender politics were not so central to the themes of 'King Lear'. Kent is a man who is meant to represent the antithesis of Lear. They must be similar so we can see how one takes the wrong path, and one the right. If you add gender difference into the mix, you risk ending up with a weaker and simpler conclusion: "Lear got it wrong because he was male whereas Kent was right because she was female." This demonstrates the way the intention of the text can not only be identified, but should be served by directorial choices. If a director decided to cut off Gloucester's hand instead of blinding him, a crucial metaphor would be lost: physical blindness is meant to mirror moral/ emotional/ intellectual blindness in the patriarchs. To omit the blinding would impoverish the play. In the same way, to omit the deliberate parallels drawn by the author between two similar men with distinctive differences of temperament, also impoverishes the play's ideas. I would have less of a quibble with a female Kent, joined by a female Lear and a female Gloucester. And as previously mentioned, for those who can't distinguish between actors and characters, this is totally different to an all-male 'Twelfth Night' or all-female 'The Tempest'. It's not even about whether there should be more actresses in leading roles in British theatre- as has been pointed out, that is discussed elsewhere. What "got my goat", as it was so pejoratively put, was a questionable casting choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 17:41:10 GMT
This is the kind of insulting and superficial comment that does a disservice to the cause of "anti-sexism". Firstly, you have no idea what I do or what my values are, or even my gender- and so your jibe is based on virtually no evidence. But then, it's easier to try to close down dissenting voices with the use of loaded terms like "sexism", than actually engage in a discussion. Your comments, as demonstrated by Jan Brock, make it clear that you haven't understood the distinction between the actor and the character. I have no objection to gender-blind casting as displayed in the all-female 'Julius Caesar', where the director is saying, "let us neutralize the dynamics of gender across the whole play". In such cases, the play is usually sold as such, too- it becomes the raison d'etre for the production and, oftentimes, for the audience to attend. However, in this specific production, to have an inconsistent approach, where gender is apparently relevant to some of the casting but not to others, shows conceptual inconsistency and also risks confusing audience members who do not know how the play is usually cast. This might not be so problematical if gender politics were not so central to the themes of 'King Lear'. Kent is a man who is meant to represent the antithesis of Lear. They must be similar so we can see how one takes the wrong path, and one the right. If you add gender difference into the mix, you risk ending up with a weaker and simpler conclusion: "Lear got it wrong because he was male whereas Kent was right because she was female." This demonstrates the way the intention of the text can not only be identified, but should be served by directorial choices. If a director decided to cut off Gloucester's hand instead of blinding him, a crucial metaphor would be lost: physical blindness is meant to mirror moral/ emotional/ intellectual blindness in the patriarchs. To omit the blinding would impoverish the play. In the same way, to omit the deliberate parallels drawn by the author between two similar men with distinctive differences of temperament, also impoverishes the play's ideas. I would have less of a quibble with a female Kent, joined by a female Lear and a female Gloucester. And as previously mentioned, for those who can't distinguish between actors and characters, this is totally different to an all-male 'Twelfth Night' or all-female 'The Tempest'. It's not even about whether there should be more actresses in leading roles in British theatre- as has been pointed out, that is discussed elsewhere. What "got my goat", as it was so pejoratively put, was a questionable casting choice. Just as John McDonnell sees everything through the prism of theoretical Marxism, and some Remainers dismiss all Leavers as racist, so some academic feminists see everything through the prism of sexism. Reminds me of the old saying "If all you've got is a hammer everything's a nail". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 17:49:14 GMT
Horton - The dynamics of gender in the Donmar Trilogy weren't neutralised, they were considerably heightened,
Did you see The Roman Tragedies where this type of change worked perfectly from Cassius to Cassia (to take one example)? That did everything that you say shouldn't be done but, once you have seen it work, it is no longer deniable as an option. The dam is already breached.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 18:07:17 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man. As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT. Sometimes great risks lead to great artistic reward, so directors should always have the freedom to try, no matter how non-traditional or non-textual the risk may seem. Besides, don't most (if not all) Shakespeare plays have several different versions dating right back to Shakespeare's time? We can't hold the bard himself up as having a clear vision that should be revered 400 years down the line when he didn't even keep things consistent during the period he was writing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 21:13:56 GMT
Horton - The dynamics of gender in the Donmar Trilogy weren't neutralised, they were considerably heightened, Did you see The Roman Tragedies where this type of change worked perfectly from Cassius to Cassia (to take one example)? That did everything that you say shouldn't be done but, once you have seen it work, it is no longer deniable as an option. The dam is already breached. Yes I did, but I struggle to think of the exact word I mean. It's something like "it made it a level playing field" or "it prioritized a completely matriarchal power structure" or "it positioned the audience to specifically consider the dynamic of gender/ politics" in a way that casting the odd female character doesn't. It's not very elegant, but do you see what I am driving at? |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 21:16:59 GMT
And what is that picture meant to mean?
Are we now crayoning stick people to avoid having to engage?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 12:03:17 GMT
Bill or Ben? (Flowerpot men).
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Jul 22, 2017 20:15:43 GMT
Is Kent being played as a woman or by a woman? Given that it's an actor of Sinead Cusack's talent she may well be playing it as male. Derbhle Crotty and Aisling O'Sullivan have played Henry IV and Henry V for Druid as males.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 22:29:13 GMT
|
|
Apologies for coming across overly 'debate-club teachery', I'm still new here and forget that things like this are probably issues that have been discussed on the board at length over and over through the years.
