|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 18:45:58 GMT
White, 35, homo, not sure which class (neither parents went to uni but dad owns his own house. Working? Middle? I'd say Upper Working), hot, black adopted sister, poor, hot
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 9, 2016 21:05:04 GMT
Well, as long as you're hot...
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 9, 2016 21:06:32 GMT
Mmmmm
You cannot force people to do something, because it is politically correct and ticks several boxes and everyone can give themselves a good jolly pat on the back - they will come if they want to and they do, for example in another genre of entertainment it is well supported by BAME, look how many Chinese frequent gambling establishments for example.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 1:10:23 GMT
Who is talking about forcing anyone to do anything?
The purpose of theatre is to reflect society and humanity. But in reality most plays only represent a small privileged minority. That is a problem. The resentment and racism that exists in the industry, that those of us who work in theatre unfortunately have to deal with, is a problem. The way that racism affects and marginalises audiences is a problem.
Fortunately many of us theatre-makers are working hard to overcome those problems. I'm proud of what we've achieved so far but we still have a long way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 7:36:16 GMT
on the other hand if theatre are putting things on for minorities/working class etc are these people arnt going to see them (for what ever reason) then is there really any point these theatres putting these things on (unless of course they have been subsidised to do so)?
Rugby, golf, polo are very much white middle class sports. No one cares. Theatre is very much a white middle class sport too. Does anyone have to care?
There is so much ringing (wringing?) of white middle class hands at the moment at theatre of how to be diversive and inclusive but with prices how prices are they arnt going to attract the people they want.
Ps. as we prob have more women on here than minorities, if you're a woman are you more likely to go see something with gender blind casting in it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 7:53:19 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, and I can't even BEGIN to tell you how much I'm loving theatre's current phase of casting women in male roles in Shakespeare. Say what you like about the lighting rig and the microphones (only please don't, you've said it all before and I'll never agree with you), Emma Rice's Globe is IMMEDIATELY better for gender parity than it ever was under the previous administrations. So yes. And not just gender-blind casting, but also purposefully gender-bent casting.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Aug 10, 2016 8:43:56 GMT
There is so much ringing (wringing?) of white middle class hands at the moment at theatre of how to be diversive and inclusive but with prices how prices are they arnt going to attract the people they want. "We're very inclusive. We accept both gold and platinum credit cards."
|
|
18,837 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 10:37:08 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, and I can't even BEGIN to tell you how much I'm loving theatre's current phase of casting women in male roles in Shakespeare. Say what you like about the lighting rig and the microphones (only please don't, you've said it all before and I'll never agree with you), Emma Rice's Globe is IMMEDIATELY better for gender parity than it ever was under the previous administrations. So yes. And not just gender-blind casting, but also purposefully gender-bent casting. Tokenism at its very worst.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 10:47:41 GMT
You're going to have to expand on that, buddy. I mean, I know the theatrical canon has been largely skewed in favour of men ever since quite a long time ago, and the best way to address the gender imbalance would be to take it back to the writing and ensure that great plays and great roles are being written, but in the meantime, the existing canon isn't going away, so why not have female Hamlets, Henrys, Lears, and Malvolios? Why not take on a theatre devoted to a playwright who never managed more than half a dozen female characters in a play, and say "okay, but even though there aren't equal numbers of men and women in the play, I can still put equal numbers of men and women on the stage and ensure employment for equal numbers of men and women"? People are going to be doing Shakespeare for a really long time - I'm just not sure I agree that opening out the great roles to all actors counts as "tokenism", let alone "at its very worst". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning, but you kinda have to provide the reasoning if people are going to have a conversation, otherwise it's not a conversation, just blaring out statements.
|
|
2,566 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 10, 2016 13:00:07 GMT
To throw another two cents in here: Personally I'm not interested in seeing female Hamlets or Lears. I'd much rather see fewer productions of those and more productions that are centered around strong female leads which aren't done that often. I understand the British obsession with The Bard, but really, there's so much more than Shakespeare and his canon (and even he wrote a bunch of decent female roles). But our own Schiller for example wrote two fantastic female leads in Mary Stuart with Mary and Elizabeth I. facing off throughout the play. There's Dangerous Liaisons which recently gave Janet McTeer a chance to shine, there's plenty more in the canon and most certainly dozens of plays I've never heard of.
And what's stopping writers from creating new strong female parts and plays centered around female characters? Just as I'd love to see more stories from other parts of the world that will give more black or Asian actors juicy parts to play, I'd love to see more stories about strong and interesting females.
While I did love Harry Potter for example, I found it rather typical that despite everything, the plot once again centered around two boys and not two girls. In musical theatre, far too many female characters are still all about finding/holding on to/winning back a man instead of doing other things. For all their flaws, one of the great things the recent string of London flop musicals had in common was that they had female leads that were NOT concerned with a man - they wanted wanted to run a theatre and get through the war, fight for equal rights in a factory or simply play football.
So, to get back to topic: It does feel to me a bit like tokenism to say "here, we do something for gender balance and let a woman play Hamlet" instead of just writing/staging more plays with strong female characters in the lead instead of forever recycling the same few plays with fat male leading parts?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:22:57 GMT
See, I'm not *hugely* enjoying Greg Doran's tenure as AD of the RSC with regards to the Shakespeare, but I really do appreciate that he regularly works to feature strong female roles in productions in the Swan (and that's something I respected the hell out of Dominic Dromgoole for too - paucity of female roles in Shakespeare? Then let's do Nell Gwynn, Heresy Of Love, Blue Stockings, and Anne Boleyn as well). As you point out, it's not like there aren't great roles in the existing canon, they're just not as well known as Hamlet and Lear and Shakespeare generally (also I could really do without yet another Blanche Dubois on our stages, guys). Anyway, now I totally understand why gender-flipping Shakespeare can be considered tokenism, though I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to be thrilled by it.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 13:23:56 GMT
And what's stopping writers from creating new strong female parts and plays centered around female characters? Sexism in the industry. I make theatre. I've made West End shows. 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." It's simply astronomically easier to get a female-led Shakespeare production on than to get a female-led new writing production on, unfortunately. It's much easier to get a Shakespeare on than a new writing piece anyway, of course. Maybe, hopefully, seeing female Hamlets etc. on stage will make people more open to the ideas of female-led theatre in general? It does feel to me a bit like tokenism to say "here, we do something for gender balance and let a woman play Hamlet" instead of just writing/staging more plays with strong female characters in the lead instead of forever recycling the same few plays with fat male leading parts? Agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 10, 2016 13:25:42 GMT
See, I'm not *hugely* enjoying Greg Doran's tenure as AD of the RSC with regards to the Shakespeare, but I really do appreciate that he regularly works to feature strong female roles in productions in the Swan It's all down to Erica Whyman, the RSC's Deputy Artistic Director.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:27:42 GMT
OOH! Excellent, I can go back to moaning unreservedly about the Greg'n'Ant Show that the RSC has become! Thanks!
|
|
2,566 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 10, 2016 13:37:10 GMT
Anyway, now I totally understand why gender-flipping Shakespeare can be considered tokenism, though I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to be thrilled by it. That's totally fine! I (I can't edit the dumb smiley out, ugh) If I lived in/near London and would be able to go to the theatre more often, I would be quite interested in seeing the odd gender-flipped Shakespeare. My only experience of this so far was Mark Rylance's Twelfth Night at the Apollo - which did work for me, so why shouldn't it work the other way round? I can also understand why female actors might want a go at a role like Hamlet. But yes, let's hope these gender-flipped Shakespeares may lead the way to more female-led plays in general. I could name about a dozen interestig historical female characters who I'd like to see on stage and none of their names are Elizabeth I. or Anne Boleyn
|
|
18,837 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 13:54:17 GMT
You're going to have to expand on that, buddy. Please don't call me "buddy", unless of course you'd like me to call you "sweetheart"? Sorry for the brevity of my earlier post. I'd love to spend all day musing about how ridiculous it is to cast women in male roles simply to make a point about how hard done-to women in theatre are, but the day job and my very inadequate coffee breaks forbid it. And anyway Viserys put it more eloquently than I could ever hope to. And now, if it's ok with you, I have a Kit-Kat to deal with.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Aug 10, 2016 13:55:15 GMT
Maxine Peake's Hamlet was v good and available on DVD. It's also on Sky Arts from time to time. I know watching it on TV isn't like live, but would give a good idea of it.
|
|
18,837 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 14:01:25 GMT
And now, if it's ok with you, I have a Kit-Kat to deal with. If that is a euphemism, that's way too much information, BB. The tea lady person gave it to me. Whilst calling me "Sir"
|
|
18,837 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 10, 2016 14:17:02 GMT
Matron: "Ohhhh Doctor Tickle, don't you understand? I want to be wooed!" Dr Tickle (backing away) "Well you're not going to be wooed with me!"
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 10, 2016 15:01:32 GMT
Yawn
|
|
|
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.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew 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 Honoured Guest 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
|
|
3,478 posts
Member is Online
|
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
|
|