376 posts
|
Post by hitmewithurbethshot on May 24, 2018 13:43:54 GMT
Casting announcements for Fame and Hairspray have both come out in the past week, and both have slim girls playing Tracy and Mabel, both of whom are described as large multiple times in the script. I have friends in Royal Caribbean's Grease at the moment and their Jan (described in the casting call as a "chubby compulsive eater") is maybe a size 10. Why bother telling stories about fat girls if you're not going to cast them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 13:46:05 GMT
Is this like when they put Michael Crawford in a fat suit for The Woman in White?
|
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on May 24, 2018 14:22:49 GMT
Slim children as Augustus Gloop? Fat suits are used there too. Bruce in Matilda used to have a fat suit but a recent child I saw didn’t look like he was wearing one and was slim. Tour of Lord of the Flies Piggy didn’t live up to his name and description in the book. The list goes on.
|
|
19,660 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 24, 2018 17:21:53 GMT
^^^ cobblers.
Leanne Jones managed to maintain her roundness (ably abetted by a huge sandwich before each performance as I recall from a radio interview at the time, to keep her strength up).
If casting a white girl as Maria is bad, then casting a skinny girl as Tracy is also bad. I know you can’t change your ethnicity whereas you can change your weight but it raises the exact same arguments about opportunity and conformity.
Fat people exist, you can’t expunge them from theatre because you don’t like the look of them. As for their health, 1. mind your own business and 2. anyone singing and dancing 8 shows a week, regardless of their weight, is probably healthier than most.
Must dash, my chips are ready.
|
|
253 posts
|
Post by No. on May 24, 2018 18:29:30 GMT
I saw Rosie O’Hare as Tracy as she’s currently the understudy, In that circumstance I understood it because in the context of the show having larger ensemble girls in the Corny Collins show makes no sense. She was an amazing performer, but I don’t agree with her full casting.
|
|
19,660 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 24, 2018 18:51:02 GMT
Perhaps we should ban from the performing arts anyone who smokes too. The health issues that smoking brings on anyone is wrong and trumps...blah blah.
And then anyone who drinks alcohol, or does drugs. Bad for your health.
That’s 75% of the acting community out of work. Who next?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 19:06:04 GMT
I recall Michael Ball telling a story of his wife telling HIM while in Hairspray that he was in fact wearing a fat suit and didn't need to eat like he was trying to match that size (or words to that effect)...though he's not been a slip of a lad for many years bless (with love, I do love the Balls).
But I'm inclined to agree that a) "fat girls" in stories on stage should be, well, fat girls. b) that we should also just damn well be casting normal/fat girls in everything else anyway. I'd agree if an understudy is doing a few roles that can't be helped though.
And also Burly is quite right that size is not always indicative of health, and even if it is well it's nobody's place to intervene.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on May 24, 2018 19:29:38 GMT
I recall Michael Ball telling a story of his wife telling HIM while in Hairspray that he was in fact wearing a fat suit and didn't need to eat like he was trying to match that size (or words to that effect)...though he's not been a slip of a lad for many years bless (with love, I do love the Balls). But I'm inclined to agree that a) "fat girls" in stories on stage should be, well, fat girls. b) that we should also just damn well be casting normal/fat girls in everything else anyway. I'd agree if an understudy is doing a few roles that can't be helped though. And also Burly is quite right that size is not always indicative of health, and even if it is well it's nobody's place to intervene.
Absolutely.
Unfortunately if directors do cast actors who are any heavier than, well, emaciated, comments in forums like this one invariably swing the other way, because some people - who are obviously perfect in every respect themselves - are incredibly judgmental when it comes to issues like weight. There were a few quite unpleasant comments here about Alex Young in Follies, for example; Ms. Young, as far as I can tell, is a perfectly normal, healthy weight, and in fact exactly the right body shape to meet the idealised standard of female beauty in the 1940s, when curves were the fashion, which is what matters for that particular role. Nevertheless, there were a few incredibly snotty comments here and elsewhere about her being "too heavy" - hilariously, mostly from people who clearly had absolutely no clue about what a showgirl in 1940 would have looked like.
And unfortunately those comments were absolutely predictable, because this is the one area where people - invariably thoroughly stupid people, and yes that's me being judgmental, but as a person who isn't stick-thin myself it's borne out of years of experience - feel perfectly entitled to be as unkind and unedited as they like.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on May 24, 2018 19:31:20 GMT
Surely a) it's impossible to do 8 shows a week and not burn off calories and tone up - certainly the "Bat Out Of Hell" leads testify to that; and b) to wish all the health issues that obesity brings on anyone is wrong and trumps any other consideration?
Actors come in all shapes and sizes, and for women there's a lot of distance between size 10 and obese.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on May 24, 2018 20:10:01 GMT
"It's time we put kids on the show who look like the kids who watch the show." Corny Collins, Hairspray.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on May 24, 2018 20:23:16 GMT
I recall Michael Ball telling a story of his wife telling HIM while in Hairspray that he was in fact wearing a fat suit and didn't need to eat like he was trying to match that size (or words to that effect)...though he's not been a slip of a lad for many years bless (with love, I do love the Balls). But I'm inclined to agree that a) "fat girls" in stories on stage should be, well, fat girls. b) that we should also just damn well be casting normal/fat girls in everything else anyway. I'd agree if an understudy is doing a few roles that can't be helped though. And also Burly is quite right that size is not always indicative of health, and even if it is well it's nobody's place to intervene.
Absolutely.
Unfortunately if directors do cast actors who are any heavier than, well, emaciated, comments in forums like this one invariably swing the other way, because some people - who are obviously perfect in every respect themselves - are incredibly judgmental when it comes to issues like weight. There were a few quite unpleasant comments here about Alex Young in Follies, for example; Ms. Young, as far as I can tell, is a perfectly normal, healthy weight, and in fact exactly the right body shape to meet the idealised standard of female beauty in the 1940s, when curves were the fashion, which is what matters for that particular role. Nevertheless, there were a few incredibly snotty comments here and elsewhere about her being "too heavy" - hilariously, mostly from people who clearly had absolutely no clue about what a showgirl in 1940 would have looked like.
And unfortunately those comments were absolutely predictable, because this is the one area where people - invariably thoroughly stupid people, and yes that's me being judgmental, but as a person who isn't stick-thin myself it's borne out of years of experience - feel perfectly entitled to be as unkind and unedited as they like.
Well, it was me who called her “heavy”. And I explained many times thst it has nothing to do with her figure and weight. I also explained that English isn’t my native language. That I was talking about her manner of moving and dancing. Even people of size 4 can be “heavy” in that meaning of the word I used. I’ll let others decide who is more stupid here. |
|
134 posts
|
Post by spendleb on May 25, 2018 7:54:47 GMT
^^^ cobblers. Leanne Jones managed to maintain her roundness (ably abetted by a huge sandwich before each performance as I recall from a radio interview at the time, to keep her strength up). If casting a white girl as Maria is bad, then casting a skinny girl as Tracy is also bad. I know you can’t change your ethnicity whereas you can change your weight but it raises the exact same arguments about opportunity and conformity. Fat people exist, you can’t expunge them from theatre because you don’t like the look of them. As for their health, 1. mind your own business and 2. anyone singing and dancing 8 shows a week, regardless of their weight, is probably healthier than most. Must dash, my chips are ready. The big lad who performed in Spring Awakening @ Hope, I was blown away by his energy, his size wasn't an issue at all for him, in fact the bloke who originated the same role on Broadway was also a big lad and it hasn't stopped his career. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 25, 2018 8:30:37 GMT
Surely a) it's impossible to do 8 shows a week and not burn off calories and tone up - certainly the "Bat Out Of Hell" leads testify to that; and b) to wish all the health issues that obesity brings on anyone is wrong and trumps any other consideration?
Actors come in all shapes and sizes, and for women there's a lot of distance between size 10 and obese.
Most dancers are more like size 8 than 10, anyway. You only have to cast someone who is a size 16, which is *the average size of women in the UK* and stand her next to a bunch of size 8 dancers, and she'll look like she's a size 20. People's brains tend to take the most common size in the group as the 'norm' - you don't process that you have an average-sized woman in among a group of exceptionally slim women, you see the exceptionally slim women as average and the average woman looks huge. |
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on May 25, 2018 14:43:30 GMT
I remember the first couple of "proper" Hairspray tours- the lead Edna was a bigger girl, there was also a standby, and then a fat suit for the understudy.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 25, 2018 16:24:40 GMT
Can't a 30 year old woman play a 16 year old Christine or Elisabeth?
Can't we use make up and prosthetics to make a character look anything but him/herself? Uglier, more handsome, older, younger, disabled, blonde, brunette, etc, etc.
I don't see any reason why not.
The only reason for a topic like this is wanting to exclude a certain group (fat people), as if being fat should be something they might find negative, or something to be insecure about, so basically excluding them in the way of thinking they need some kind of privilege to have the exclusive right on roles.
That's wrong. The arts are about painting with all the colors of the wind and excluding fat people by putting a stigma on them as if a fatsuit should be something sensitive or offensive, is basically saying that fat people don't deserve to be treated normally.
Casting is not about demanding privilege because you have a certain trait.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 25, 2018 16:38:38 GMT
Why bother telling stories about fat girls if you're not going to cast them? Because the beauty of showbusiness is that actors play with traits that are not their own. |
|
253 posts
|
Post by No. on May 25, 2018 16:46:06 GMT
Why bother telling stories about fat girls if you're not going to cast them? Because the beauty of showbusiness is that actors play with traits that are not their own. Actors do play with traits that are not their own, but I wouldn’t exactly categorise weight into that. Hair colour and youthful looking makeup are entirely irrelevant to the plot than the weight of a character in a show like Hairspray where the main character is meant to be a larger girl. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 25, 2018 21:16:19 GMT
I know, so it's important that the character looks large in the role/show, but that does not have anything to do with the given that people who have that trait in real life should have a certain right to be cast first or anything, like the op suggests.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on May 26, 2018 8:39:56 GMT
In the example of Hairspray, to have someone wear padding etc. kind of goes against one of the themes of the show...that bigger girls shouldn't be ashamed of themselves and can do whatever they dream of...
...except star in Hairspray. Apparently.
What a disappointment to anyone seeing the show, hoping to be inspired or have their confidence bolstered, to see that they're not even represented in a show which addresses issues/topics which they might associate with.
The core of the argument in this case, as well as the aforementioned Maria in WSS conversations etc., is that we should he striving to represent a wide range of people on stage, and just because you *can* change someone's appearance to make it seem like they are representing a certain person/body type/race, etc. doesn't mean you *should*. See Jonathan Pryce in Miss Saigon for an example of why using prosthetics to change someone's appearance is not always the right thing to do.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on May 26, 2018 8:47:39 GMT
See Jonathan Pryce in Miss Saigon I agree with what talkstageytome is saying. The only caveat is that with the original "Miss Saigon," musical theatre hadn't developed worldwide to the point where it was possible to cast on ethnicity as we would wish today. While the eye thing was clumsy and is indeed "wrong," back then it seemed the only solution due to the talent available. A very good point. But in that case, as it's very easy to find larger actors who can sing, dance and act very well, surely that makes the casting and padding out of someone smaller all the more egregious. (Food for thought, not a jibe in your direction theatremonkey 😊) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2018 9:07:56 GMT
Actors padded up just look silly, same with what Pryce in Miss Saigon where I kept wondering why they’d embalmed him.
There are theatrical styles where you can do that, as long as its a storytelling mode which allow for ‘actors playing characters’, but mostly it’s a thudding realism they are aiming for that becomes anything but real (and unintentionally weird/funny). It’s similar to the uncanny valley, you know something isn’t right and it destroys the illusion.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 26, 2018 9:50:46 GMT
I completely disagree with the posts above.
This is not a racial issue, about groups being discriminated or having the need of being represented because of history.
This is about the opposite, about one of thousands general traits that a person could have.
It's ridiculous that every trait one can be insecure about will now be used as a tool for exclusivity on roles. That is not how casting works. First, if we would go down that road, we can't cast anything anymore, for example, normal looking guys in a muscle suit as Gaston. Can we now only hire very muscular guys because muscle Mary's in the audience need to see themselves represented? Can we now only hire people with social anxiety as Evan Hansen? Because people with social anxiety need to see themselves represented? Representation lies in the opposite and everything in acting is always illusion.
What about ugly people versus beautiful people? What about old bodies playing young bodies? What about men playing women? What about a man playing the butler in The Addams Family and using high shoes to make him taller? What about a suit for Edna in Hairspray?
This kind of misplaced sensitivity has no place in the arts. That is not how it works.
|
|
253 posts
|
Post by No. on May 26, 2018 10:05:04 GMT
There’s a distinct line between physical appearance and personality that needs to be recognised. The job of an actor is to play somebody different to themselves most of the time, but there’s an issue when a main character is meant to be a larger girl is being played by somebody who will probably never face the same weight-related issues. It juxtaposes everything that Hairspray is about as somebody above said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2018 10:41:25 GMT
I completely disagree with the posts above. This is not a racial issue, about groups being discriminated or having the need of being represented because of history. This is about the opposite, about one of thousands general traits that a person could have. It's ridiculous that every trait one can be insecure about will now be used as a tool for exclusivity on roles. That is not how casting works. First, if we would go down that road, we can't cast anything anymore, for example, normal looking guys in a muscle suit as Gaston. Can we now only hire very muscular guys because muscle Mary's in the audience need to see themselves represented? Can we now only hire people with social anxiety as Evan Hansen? Because people with social anxiety need to see themselves represented? Representation lies in the opposite and everything in acting is always illusion. What about ugly people versus beautiful people? What about old bodies playing young bodies? What about men playing women? What about a man playing the butler in The Addams Family and using high shoes to make him taller? What about a suit for Edna in Hairspray? This kind of misplaced sensitivity has no place in the arts. That is not how it works. My post above answers all of those questions. If you are creating realism, where the sets, costumes etc. are there to make you believe the actuality then any element that stops that is a mistake. Whether that be a polystyrene rock, a period inappropriate dress or someone clearly artificially enhanced. If it isn’t realism then, depending on the style, there are many possibilities. An actor who cannot believably imitate social anxiety should similarly not be cast, again it’s the believability of the appearance given. Also, Beauty and the Beast has (so far) been boringly designed to replicate the animation, cartoons are not real thus neither is Gaston. The same could said of John Waters’ films I suppose but the ‘uncanny valley’ aspect overrules absolutely everything. If the audience don’t believe it and if you haven’t used a style that allows it to, then don’t do it. What you claim is about sensitivity is, instead, predicated on believability. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 26, 2018 10:58:37 GMT
There’s a distinct line between physical appearance and personality that needs to be recognised. The job of an actor is to play somebody different to themselves most of the time, but there’s an issue when a main character is meant to be a larger girl is being played by somebody who will probably never face the same weight-related issues. It juxtaposes everything that Hairspray is about as somebody above said. I saw the touring version of Hairspray last weekend. I am not sure whether we saw a padded understudy or a naturally larger lady as Tracy, as we were back in the balcony. However I rather suspect it was the former, because Tracy - and particularly the idea of her and Link as a couple - seemed to be being played for laughs, like it was inherently ridiculous that a good-looking boy could fall for a fat girl, and I felt like the audience were being encouraged to laugh at her rather than with her. It was a very different interpretation from the West End Tracys I have seen and I was not keen. |
|
