351 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 13, 2018 15:22:09 GMT
Richard 11 to be all female/multi racial company.
Thoughts...?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 13, 2018 15:41:07 GMT
Same as with a conventionally cast version of the play - depends on who the actors are. I saw the play at NT with Fiona Shaw in the lead - in theory good casting but in practice rather disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2018 15:59:50 GMT
If it is done with care, thought and a purpose - and done well - then great. Go for it.
If it is done for the sake of it, in order to promote an 'issue' - then not so great.
You have to have something more than an agenda to justify radical shifts. Just because you can is not a good enough reason to my mind.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 13, 2018 16:59:25 GMT
"Multi racial" casting is the norm now, surely - only worth mentioning when a cast is surprisingly white (eg Knights of the Rose, the Kingston-upon-Thames War of the Roses). All female cast - why not. They've done all male casts at the Globe enough times. Actually they've done an all-female productions at the Globe alongside the all-male productions in 2003 - www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jun/13/shakespeares-globe-theatre-20th-birthday
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2018 21:28:18 GMT
If it is done with care, thought and a purpose - and done well - then great. Go for it. If it is done for the sake of it, in order to promote an 'issue' - then not so great. You have to have something more than an agenda to justify radical shifts. Just because you can is not a good enough reason to my mind. A serious question: What 'purpose' could be more important than wanting to make your artform (or society in general) better and more inclusive (as they presumably are hoping to achieve)? I get that it feels frustrating when people that we respect make artistic choices that we think are bad. However, when you say "if it's done ... with a purpose" what purpose would be acceptable? The arts can't ever really be assessed objectively, and so choices like casting will always be affected by the underlying desires & biases of the creators. Artistic decisions might not have always had the focus on gender/racial equality that it has now, but other 'agendas' were in place, even if they might not have been as explicit. Furthermore, given the state of the world, making a conscious effort to ignore the 'issues' you describe is, in a way, a political statement in itself.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 13, 2018 21:46:31 GMT
Why should we even comment on race now in Theatre casting? Do we mean ethnic groups, or colour of skin or what? So proper daft now. Talent is all that counts. Gender blind is different. Honour the author's intention.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 22:31:45 GMT
Richard the Eleventh? You know we've only had three, right?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2018 23:26:40 GMT
If it is done with care, thought and a purpose - and done well - then great. Go for it. If it is done for the sake of it, in order to promote an 'issue' - then not so great. You have to have something more than an agenda to justify radical shifts. Just because you can is not a good enough reason to my mind. A serious question: What 'purpose' could be more important than wanting to make your artform (or society in general) better and more inclusive (as they presumably are hoping to achieve)? I get that it feels frustrating when people that we respect make artistic choices that we think are bad. However, when you say "if it's done ... with a purpose" what purpose would be acceptable? The arts can't ever really be assessed objectively, and so choices like casting will always be affected by the underlying desires & biases of the creators. Artistic decisions might not have always had the focus on gender/racial equality that it has now, but other 'agendas' were in place, even if they might not have been as explicit. Furthermore, given the state of the world, making a conscious effort to ignore the 'issues' you describe is, in a way, a political statement in itself. When a production is created to fulfil an agenda, this is a risk that it fails to serve the play and the audience because the focus is on something external, something other. The aim of anyone tackling a play like Richard II should be to tell the story of those characters and to celebrate the language of the script. Anything less than that is not what I am looking for when I go to the theatre. Every choice has to have a reason that has some clear relevance to the text. You must, as an audience member, be able to see why a choice has been made. It should not require further illumination from a note in a programme or an interview in the media. I need there to be a reason for making a production in a certain way. Having an all-female ensemble is great - if you are seeking to explore the contrasts between original performance techniques and how that works with female rather than male actors. It is great if you want to look at the differences between male attitudes towards leadership and those exhibited by women. There are plenty of valid ways of exploring the questions raised by Richard II as a play and Shakespeare as a theatremaker. I am always less convinced by deciding on an all-ANYTHING production simply because you want to. There has to be a theatrical case to be made for that decision. It has to grow out of the text not be imposed on it. I appreciate that I almost certainly have a view that is not widely shared on topics like this. But I am very much of the belief that with Shakespeare (and many other writers), you start with the text. Every decision you take, every choice you make has to be in response to that text. That does not mean being slavish or reverential about it. It is the starting point for your journey through the play. I don't like productions where things feel like they were imposed on the original. In my own work with Shakespeare, I have not once stuck to the original genders of all the characters. I have always cut and reshaped the text (to a lesser or greater extent) and I love productions where enormous risks have been taken. So I am in no way a purist. Would I consider working with an all-female ensemble in a production I was seeking to stage? Absolutely - but only if I felt that it offered something to the play not just because I wanted to work with an all-female cast.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 14, 2018 7:40:27 GMT
"Multi racial" casting is the norm now, surely - only worth mentioning when a cast is surprisingly white (eg Knights of the Rose, the Kingston-upon-Thames War of the Roses). All female cast - why not. They've done all male casts at the Globe enough times. Actually they've done an all-female productions at the Globe alongside the all-male productions in 2003 - www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jun/13/shakespeares-globe-theatre-20th-birthdayI saw an all-female production of Taming of the Shrew at Stratford East in 1985.
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jul 14, 2018 8:23:56 GMT
With all this discussion we really have to ask what theatre is. It is certainly not, by it's very mechanics, literal or realistic. It uses artifice to tell it's stories- using artifice in lighting, music, design, choreography, staging - none of it literal, so why should that apply to the actors. The word I think we should use is credible. Does that actor provide a credible character in the moment of the performance?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 9:54:28 GMT
Personally, I think "I just wanted to" is an extremely valid reason for doing something, especially in theatre, ESPECIALLY with someone as overproduced as Shakespeare. Nearly as valid as "female roles have been seriously underwritten over the centuries and it's still going to take a while before there's anything close to real parity so in the meantime let's have female actors playing male roles because guess what these seasoned pros are probably going to be quite good at it".
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jul 16, 2018 11:06:45 GMT
Anyone booking a jury ticket for the Ralegh thing? Can't decide whether I'd need to concentrate too much!
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 16, 2018 13:28:50 GMT
More on Richard II cast and creatives ...
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jul 16, 2018 14:33:38 GMT
I refuse to see plays that make a huge deal of the identity politics of the cast or team as a promotional tool. It's such an obvious targeted ad towards the type of people that are most likely to go the theatre, which also happen to be kind of people who are fixated on this stuff, white middle-class Londoners. I am a "person of colour" (hate that expression) and my friends and I would never choose a play based on this. It's for people to pat themselves on the back.
If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be difference, but as usual it's front and centre. Also is choosing a cast based on skin colour even legal? Patronising and awkward.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 16, 2018 15:28:23 GMT
I refuse to see plays that make a huge deal of the identity politics of the cast or team as a promotional tool. It's such an obvious targeted ad towards the type of people that are most likely to go the theatre, which also happen to be kind of people who are fixated on this stuff, white middle-class Londoners. I am a "person of colour" (hate that expression) and my friends and I would never choose a play based on this. It's for people to pat themselves on the back. If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be difference, but as usual it's front and centre. Also is choosing a cast based on skin colour even legal? Patronising and awkward. The way that the play is promoted doesn't necessarily reflect the artistic integrity of the creative team. So even if you feel that the play is being promoted poorly (i.e. 'using' issues of race & identity to maximise ticket sales) it doesn't mean that the creatives have such a cynical view.
You say:
'If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be different'
but what does this even mean? Choosing to have women playing male characters from history isn't really going to happen 'by chance'. Certainly not in the current climate it's always going to be an active artistic choice that is at least partly made with a view to sexual politics.
Furthermore, while it's fairly common to get comments like "it would be fine if you had an all-X cast by chance, but don't just shoe-horn it in" I can't help but feel that those same people would never believe that an all-female cast did happen by chance. Never mind that all male films, plays etc. have been happening 'by chance' for decades.
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jul 16, 2018 16:21:16 GMT
I guess I put that poorly, I meant plays that have all female/male casts in a way that actually serves the plot, like in Top Girls or Glengarry Glen Ross. I've seen several of these all female Shakespeare productions (most notably the Donmar trilogy) and it always felt like it served no real purpose to me. What is the purpose of having all women of colour, other than as a marketing gimmick? But either way, the cynical promotion of the play using our current climate of divisive identity issues is a real turn off for me.
|
|
1,010 posts
|
Post by David J on Jul 16, 2018 17:31:15 GMT
I don’t want to get too deep into this here and maybe this discussion should be put into a general thread
I have seen plenty of productions where characters played by actors of different genders and races. Some where simply great in the role, some brought an eye opening interpretation, or else they didn’t force a message down my throat
Last year I saw the best Malvolio and Kent from King Lear I’ve seen so far. They were Tasmin Greig and Sinead Cusack because they brought a poignant dimension to those characters that I hadn’t seen a male actor do yet
And at the end of the day these gender/race bending interpretations are one of hundreds that have been and yet to be made. This Richard Ii will come and go and we’ll have a production where it’s business as usual
But I am growing cynical about these identity politics that’s showing up in all areas of culture and media (inevitably really). And I am worrying that the globe is ticking that equality box as an empty gesture of virtue signalling. I didn’t mind Emma rice doing good some gender bending but You’d think the globe would want to keep that to a minimum after she left
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 4:43:20 GMT
But I am growing cynical about these identity politics that’s showing up in all areas of culture and media (inevitably really). And I am worrying that the globe is ticking that equality box as an empty gesture of virtue signalling. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/5100/shakespeares-globe-winter?page=2#ixzz5LU1wLEPlI don’t think this production will seem like an “empty gesture of virtue signalling” for those actors who have been under-represented or denied the opportunity to play great Shakespearean parts. I don’t think it will be an empty gesture to the new audiences who might find their way to the Globe who might otherwise (probably erroneously) have felt unwelcome there. As for the writer’s intentions...what with all the modern dress versions etc that have been produced over the years I don’t think this argument has much substance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 4:50:51 GMT
A suggestion: those of you who are opposed to this kind of production don’t have to buy tickets for it - there are so many other plays for you to watch which don’t upset the status quo. But please allow the rest of us to enjoy something different, to watch black women extending their range in work that will challenge them as well as the audience.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 17, 2018 5:58:17 GMT
I am in favour of colour-blind casting. This is exactly the opposite of that, it is casting based on race. If you're conceding the point that that is acceptable then stop complaining about all-white casting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 7:57:23 GMT
I am in favour of colour-blind casting. This is exactly the opposite of that, it is casting based on race. If you're conceding the point that that is acceptable then stop complaining about all-white casting. I... feel like we've explained over and over and over again how actively casting people who aren't white cis men is about redressing centuries of imbalance in favour of presenting the white cis man as default and everyone else as other, so yes, it's a double standard, but a perfectly reasonable one rather than rank hypocrisy. Maybe people disagree, but it is getting weird to continue wilfully misunderstanding it.....
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jul 17, 2018 8:25:12 GMT
I am in favour of colour-blind casting. This is exactly the opposite of that, it is casting based on race. If you're conceding the point that that is acceptable then stop complaining about all-white casting. I... feel like we've explained over and over and over again how actively casting people who aren't white cis men is about redressing centuries of imbalance in favour of presenting the white cis man as default and everyone else as other, so yes, it's a double standard, but a perfectly reasonable one rather than rank hypocrisy. Maybe people disagree, but it is getting weird to continue wilfully misunderstanding it..... I don't think people misunderstand it, it's just not a very good explanation in my opinion because it seems to disingenuously ignore the rather obvious fact that for centuries the entire population was white and even today the overwhelming majority still are. White people were/are the default just as the default in Kenya and the NT in Nairobi is black. There is no nefarious exclusion plot and there was no "other". As the proportions have changed as have the diversity of casts (Although it glosses over that it seems to me most productions consider diversity to mean a 60/40 ratio of white to black people, with very little concern for other "excluded minorities" (in quotes because I do not fully buy that in our times we are excluded in any systematic way)). So maybe the argument applies to all female productions (although women been appearing in Shakespeare since the 17th century), but I can see why people have a hard time swallowing it for this one. It just rings a little hollow. Says it all, and it feels a bit distasteful to me coming from a white, middle class audience. I'm going to quietly exit this discussion before it gets too toxic - I'm sure I won't be missed here.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 17, 2018 8:44:09 GMT
I am in favour of colour-blind casting. This is exactly the opposite of that, it is casting based on race. If you're conceding the point that that is acceptable then stop complaining about all-white casting. Come on now, you're not seriously making this argument(?!!)
You can't equate efforts to get more people of colour into acting with efforts to get more white people into the theatre, because the distinction isn't really about race, class, disability, sexuality or gender. Yes, those things are the visible labels, but the distinction is really about access, underlying biases and diversity.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 17, 2018 8:54:46 GMT
I guess I put that poorly, I meant plays that have all female/male casts in a way that actually serves the plot, like in Top Girls or Glengarry Glen Ross. I've seen several of these all female Shakespeare productions (most notably the Donmar trilogy) and it always felt like it served no real purpose to me. What is the purpose of having all women of colour, other than as a marketing gimmick? But either way, the cynical promotion of the play using our current climate of divisive identity issues is a real turn off for me. Fair enough. I suppose my nervousness is that we're talking about the intentions behind the creative choices, but we're only ever able to see the final products, rather than the process.
That's not to say that I think we should blindly assume that artistic decisions aren't made for commercial reasons. So many plays deal with modern important world & social issues (american politics, public/private life, brexit, identity, etc.). Some are great, others are ham-fisted, and some use the topics as a gimmick, but it seems like it's those that deal with gender, sexuality and race that get the highest concentration of "that was clearly just done for the sake of it/virtue signalling" arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 17, 2018 9:08:23 GMT
I am in favour of colour-blind casting. This is exactly the opposite of that, it is casting based on race. If you're conceding the point that that is acceptable then stop complaining about all-white casting. I... feel like we've explained over and over and over again how actively casting people who aren't white cis men is about redressing centuries of imbalance in favour of presenting the white cis man as default and everyone else as other, so yes, it's a double standard, but a perfectly reasonable one rather than rank hypocrisy. Maybe people disagree, but it is getting weird to continue wilfully misunderstanding it..... I didn’t say it was hypocrisy. I just said you are conceding the point it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race. I disagree and think that is a dangerous point to concede because each individual can then decide what type of discrimination is acceptable.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 17, 2018 9:33:58 GMT
I... feel like we've explained over and over and over again how actively casting people who aren't white cis men is about redressing centuries of imbalance in favour of presenting the white cis man as default and everyone else as other, so yes, it's a double standard, but a perfectly reasonable one rather than rank hypocrisy. Maybe people disagree, but it is getting weird to continue wilfully misunderstanding it..... I didn’t say it was hypocrisy. I just said you are conceding the point it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race. I disagree and think that is a dangerous point to concede because each individual can then decide what type of discrimination is acceptable. You're equating casting biases made in individual theatrical productions with (perhaps subconscious) biases in the artform as a whole. Sure, you could say that a creator deciding to put on a play that explores racial and gender identity with women of colour is 'discriminatory' of white men. But only in as much as you could say that a director wanting a woman who is at least 30 or 40 to play Lady Capulet is discriminatory against children. The issue (in my opinion at least) isn't that decisions should never be made with thought to any factor other than 'acting ability', it's just that as a whole the artform should move towards better representation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 9:48:36 GMT
I am in favour of colour-blind casting. This is exactly the opposite of that, it is casting based on race. If you're conceding the point that that is acceptable then stop complaining about all-white casting. I... feel like we've explained over and over and over again how actively casting people who aren't white cis men is about redressing centuries of imbalance in favour of presenting the white cis man as default and everyone else as other, so yes, it's a double standard, but a perfectly reasonable one rather than rank hypocrisy. Maybe people disagree, but it is getting weird to continue wilfully misunderstanding it..... Perhaps it’s better understood if we give people the facts: colour blind casting usually means an all-white cast with (usually) one black performer in a role not necessarily written for a black performer. That role is usually not a “star” part unless the black performer is a star (of which there are very few). What this means in practice is that most plays are cast along racial lines - in favour of white actors. By the way, when directors cast stars they usually make a “straight offer” meaning that they do not audition that actor or see others for the part until they get an answer from the actor. The reason I mention this is because people seem to think that casting is like a job interview where those best qualified for the job - regardless of colour - are considered. Theatre is nothing like that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 10:36:52 GMT
I... feel like we've explained over and over and over again how actively casting people who aren't white cis men is about redressing centuries of imbalance in favour of presenting the white cis man as default and everyone else as other, so yes, it's a double standard, but a perfectly reasonable one rather than rank hypocrisy. Maybe people disagree, but it is getting weird to continue wilfully misunderstanding it..... I don't think people misunderstand it, it's just not a very good explanation in my opinion because it seems to disingenuously ignore the rather obvious fact that for centuries the entire population was white and even today the overwhelming majority still are. White people were/are the default just as the default in Kenya and the NT in Nairobi is black. There is no nefarious exclusion plot and there was no "other". As the proportions have changed as have the diversity of casts (Although it glosses over that it seems to me most productions consider diversity to mean a 60/40 ratio of white to black people, with very little concern for other "excluded minorities" (in quotes because I do not fully buy that in our times we are excluded in any systematic way)). So maybe the argument applies to all female productions (although women been appearing in Shakespeare since the 17th century), but I can see why people have a hard time swallowing it for this one. It just rings a little hollow. Says it all, and it feels a bit distasteful to me coming from a white, middle class audience. I'm going to quietly exit this discussion before it gets too toxic - I'm sure I won't be missed here. All right then I stand corrected. What I really meant was: to support black women - I think this how they have identified themselves in their publicity. If not I apologise. Your emphasis makes my statement seem quite creepy - yuck! I think those women have a right to put on a production like this. I can't see why anyone would be troubled by it. Why is it so unsettling for some people? There are so many other productions on why pick on this one?
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 19, 2018 9:29:04 GMT
Sean Holmes has joined as an associate director
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 19, 2018 9:37:39 GMT
'Michelle Terry appoints a core team of Globe Associates: Athena Stevens, Brendan O’Hea, Federay Holmes and Siân Williams, as well as members of the Hamlet / As You Like It Ensemble as Associate Artists. Sean Holmes (former Artistic Director and Joint Chief Executive of Lyric Hammersmith) will join as Associate Artistic Director. Find out more on the blog: po.st/GlobeNews
|
|