Could a woman play Sweeney Todd?

[blaqur]

I understand you’d have to alter some notes/ sing it up the octave in some songs but do you think it’s plausible? Would it work well or destroy the character? Also what about a male Mrs. Lovett? Maybe an entire genderbent cast would be interesting...

[Deleted]

This does sound like a very interesting idea and I proababky would want to see it . I see you are probably coming from the ideas of the new production of Compnay and while I do think a gender bent Sweeney Todd would be interesting it may seem a bit uneeded as with Company they are making the story more relivent and contemporary by gender switching but I don't know if that would work with Sweeney as I think you would need a valid reason for gender switching and an aim of what you are trying to achieve with iy  as it may seem a bit like a stunt. 

[Deleted]

Well anything is possible...

I wonder how much longer we’ll have to wait for a male Evita or a male Norma Desmond?

[Deleted]

The rather obvious issue with gender swapping Sweeny Todd would be the hole it would create in the backstory.
Todd is banished away from London by a crooked Lawyer in pursuit of Todd's wife. It is whilst banished from London that Todd meets Anthony at sea and from there the story continues on.

Is it plausible to say in 1700s London that women could work as Judge's and therefore expel a 'Mrs S Todd' from London in order to pursue her husband, thereby going out to sea, working on ships meeting another woman (Antonia)?
Its quite a hole to navigate and would not only require some re-orchestration of music by lyric and story.

[ali973]

In principle, yes. In practice, Sondheim probably wouldn't allow it.

But beside the novelty of it..why? What would a gender swap say and what value would that add?

It just so happens that "The Visit" is about woman who comes back home to seek revenge.

[Deleted]

[oxfordsimon]

There is nothing about turning Bobby into Bobbi that makes it more relevant or contemporary. It just reframes the piece from a different perspective. There is nothing inherently more relevant about a female lead. There is nothing inherently more worthy about the change.

It frustrates me that people use relevance as justification for changing gender of a lead character.

A female Sweeney would not be more relevant. It would throw up a number of challenges that any production would need to address in order to make it work. Ignoring the need to rearrange the harmonies, you would have to deal with how Johanna came into being.

Do you change the Beggar Woman into a Beggar Man? If so, that alters the narrative of the Judge. And Pretty Women ceases to make sense.

If you don't change the Beggar Woman, you have to explain how Lucy and Sweeney became parents. And I don't think the story works if Johanna was adopted by Sweeney.

You also lose the different perspectives on fatherhood that you get with the contrast of Sweeney and Turpin. Yes, you can reframe that as parenthood but that doesn't have the same dramatic power. The piece is about male abuses of power towards women, at least in part.

You can avoid this by having a female actor play Sweeney as a man. But what does that achieve? It would risk appearing to be tokenism.

Change should never be for the sake of change.
It should be positive and illuminating.

If you want to tell the story of a female serial killer with a taste for vengeance, tell that story. But don't change a carefully crafted existing piece to suit an agenda.

[oxfordsimon]

Feb 19, 2018 18:54:42 GMT @cmonfeet said:

I remember watching that when it first aired. It is cringe-inducingly bad.

[ali973]

Feb 19, 2018 19:01:32 GMT oxfordsimon said:

If you want to tell the story of a female serial killer with a taste for vengeance, tell that story. But don't change a carefully crafted existing piece to suit your agenda.

The structural and thematic issues you raised are all valid and strong. But don't you think you're being slightly aggressive? The poster hardly had "an agenda". 

[robertb213]

I say leave things as they are and just write new things to tell different stories. Otherwise things could just get in a right pickle. We'll have Elphaba and Glinda being played by men, Jean Valjean and Javert played by women, Simba and Nala played by horses and Grizabella and Skimbleshanks played by golden retrievers!

[Deleted]

Oy with the Poodles already, a person can't ask a simple question without being accused of having 'an agenda'.

In actual answer to the question, why not? It could be transposed/re-orchestrated and whether Mrs Lovett became Mr Lovett etc could have some interesting implications. And it could be an interesting take to see how audiences would react to a male version of the Demon Barber.

As others have said Sondheim would be unlikely to allow it. But it's an interesting thought.

Also, because I can't not say it, and will keep saying it: yes chancing Bobby to a man does raise different and relevant questions.

[ali973]

I don't think ST lends itself well to a gender swap but I do appreciate creative changes that could make things a bit more inspired.
A female narrator in Joseph and a Leading Player in Pippin works better than a man.

I was watching the Company concert a few days ago and it would have to be significantly rewritten for it to click now. Just changing Bobby's spelling wouldn't really quite cut it. The way the character connects and associates is very male, and I would imagine they would have to address these things. Having said that, I do like the concept, and I do like the fact that it's getting a time update since it was annoyingly dated.

[Deleted]

Feb 19, 2018 19:03:10 GMT oxfordsimon said:

I remember watching that when it first aired. It is cringe-inducingly bad.

I never said it was good!

[oxfordsimon]

I have edited my posting from 'your agenda' to 'an agenda' - I wasn't accusing the OP of having an agenda - but there is certainly a group of people in the arts who do seem to have an agenda about regendering characters in existing pieces. For good or ill, it is a growing trend and one that does not always work for every given piece.

My track record with regards to theatre-making has always been as inclusive as possible, with significant numbers of gender changes in my Shakespeare productions (including creating new characters - with agency - using lines taken from different characters, not just reassigning whole roles)

But everything I have done has been in response to the text and the productions I have created have been in response to the narratives and themes in the text. I never impose a change that cannot work within the framework of what was already there.

I believe strongly in widening participation in theatre and am actively taking steps within my local community to achieve that.

But I will not always support regendering a role because it is possible. Nor will I always oppose it. It has to be done for positive reasons not just because it can be done.

Bobby becoming Bobbi does raise different questions but I deny the assertion that they are automatically and inherently more relevant. How a man deals with relationships in the modern world can be just as relevant as how a woman deals with relationships. They are different perspectives, raising different issues and different challenges.

The fact that there are fewer scores and scripts that examine the role of women is undeniable and that is something that is changing and will continue to change. I welcome that. But it doesn't mean that the female perspective is automatically and inherently more relevant than the male.

Relevance is different to lack of visibility or opportunity.

Yes, there need to be more roles for all under-represented people. I have never denied or argued against that - nor will I. I want an open theatre that gives voice to every part of our communities.

I want to see new shows that do reflect on contemporary concerns. I want to see new stories told in exciting and innovative ways.

I just don't believe that changing the gender of a central character is always going to be the right move. Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done. There has to be a better artistic reason for doing it.

[JJShaw]

I did think that you could have a Mr Lovett, even more reason for Sweeney to not love him (if you kept Sweeney male and straight). It could be a bit tilt to show the crazy lengths Lovett would go for the love fo Sweeney; murdering and cooking people, deceiving his one true friend in the show because he loves Sweeney (Ok I know not much tops murdering and cooking people, but in the interest of LGBT couple you could also have Johanna and Anthony as a same sex couple? Change Anthony to a female?)

[Seriously]

Claire Sweeney Todd.

[profquatermass]

My understanding is that when Whoopi Goldberg took over from Nathan Lane in Funny Thing Happened, there were no script changes. Any more than there are for female Hamlets or Lears. That would be the way to do it

[sf]

Feb 19, 2018 18:50:18 GMT ali973 said:

In principle, yes. In practice, Sondheim probably wouldn't allow it.

But beside the novelty of it..why? What would a gender swap say and what value would that add?

Having a woman play the role needn't necessarily involve giving the character a gender swap, of course. I'm sure a Takarazuka Sweeney Todd would be fabulous.

[Deleted]

That, of course, is the thing, isn't it? When you cast a female performer in a male role, you're not automatically changing the gender of the character. Richard II was still the king, even when he was played by Fiona Shaw or Cate Blanchett. Theatre is inherently non-naturalistic, and practitioners must always be free to experiment with the form and the source material (within the confines decreed by the writer, obvs, which is why Shakespeare plays tend to be a damn sight more interesting than Beckett plays and why we just don't see as much of West Side Story as maybe we should), whether that be through creative staging, a particular reading of the dialogue, making any alterations that are permitted and that will serve your vision, or through simple non-traditional casting. I was recently privileged enough to be in an all-(but-two)-female production of a fairly modern musical, and it is without question one of the best productions that particular society has ever put on. It fit the theme of the musical, we did a damn good job, and received more positive feedback than for any other show we've put on for years.

[Seriously]

Feb 19, 2018 21:37:56 GMT profquatermass said:

My understanding is that when Whoopi Goldberg took over from Nathan Lane in Funny Thing Happened, there were no script changes. Any more than there are for female Hamlets or Lears. That would be the way to do it

Do female Lears say "I am a man more sinned against than sinning"?