4,450 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Being Alive on Jan 25, 2024 23:08:03 GMT
I don't get this as an argument though?
Rupert Goold directs every year at the Almeida at least once a year (in 2023 he directed twice). Michael Longhurst directed once if not twice every year that he was AD at the Donmar.
Are we saying ADs, who are directors first and foremost, should not direct when they run a building? And by association Michelle Terry, as an actor, shouldn't act whilst being an AD? Because that essentially goes against the way theatres have always been run?! Sorry I'm aware we're going off topic, km just utterly perplexed at this as a take.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Jan 25, 2024 23:38:11 GMT
I see there is some online upset over Terry's casting as Richard III because she does not have lived experience of disability. I know this is something we have debated a number of times. But the Globe should have been out in front of this one. They have a pretty decent record in terms of casting inclusivity so should have been aware of the likelihood of a backlash. Speaking personally I don't believe that this particular role should now only be cast with a disabled actor. The character is much more than a medical condition or physical challenge. But I suspect major companies will need to explain their casting better in the future. I don't think Terry is right for the role but that is nothing to do with disability. It is not great optics when the AD casts herself in this way. She does not have lived experience of manhood either but no-one's complaining. There is little historical evidence of Richard actually being disabled other than perhaps one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. He had a fearsome reputation as a fighter and given the type of fighting practised in those days plus the armour they war a significantly disabled person would simply have been unable to participate in serious fighting. The idea if Richard being "disabled" is allied to his being labelled as "deformed" and a hunchback and is basically a Shakespearean slur on him because, let's not forget, Richard was the mortal enemy of the Bard's queen's grandfather. In any case surely if it is strict veracity what is required then the disability of the actor playing Richard should be the specific disability the fictional Richard was supposed to have. It would not be enough to have an actor missing, for example, a limb to play the part as he would not have lived experience of the type of disability which (the fictional) Richard suffered from.
|
|
5,586 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 25, 2024 23:58:51 GMT
Can someone enlighten me as to the bilingual prod of A&C? Would that be Egyptian and Latin? What with the Ukrainian Lear in Stratford we might find languages becoming more popular in schools.
|
|
5,586 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 26, 2024 0:01:24 GMT
Ps so you can’t perform a part of which you have no actual experience in real life? Gonna be v difficult to find an actor who is a murdering bastard and possibly disabled who isn’t either in prison or on the run?
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Jan 26, 2024 0:16:48 GMT
Yeah I'm not sure what the difference is here with her acting instead of directing. She's an actor, so rather than directing a show a year, she stars in one. Would we be having the conversation if she was directing shows on a yearly basis? If that was depriving others of that opportunity, I would say so. If you are AD, that it your primary focus. Directing or acting should happen only very occasionally. I just think it's a conflict of interest. Focus on running the building. I'd never heard of Michelle Terry until they were announced as AD. I have an actor background and would not feel comfortable being an AD and then starting in a production that I've commissioned. Just doesn't sit right with me, but that's just my opinion. I've not seen her onstage nor do I know Richard III - but how about she opens up the platform for other talents?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on Jan 26, 2024 0:31:11 GMT
Can someone enlighten me as to the bilingual prod of A&C? Would that be Egyptian and Latin? What with the Ukrainian Lear in Stratford we might find languages becoming more popular in schools. English and BSL
|
|
367 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Jan 26, 2024 9:48:33 GMT
I find the argument rather preposterous. Laurence Olivier and Kevin Spacey acted in productions during their tenure and Terry, who is an excellent actress, has stated from the beginning that she would star in a production each season. In terms of casting someone with disability, I would actually praise the choice of giving the part of Cleopatra to Nadia Nadarajah who was excellent as Celia.
|
|
723 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 26, 2024 16:45:16 GMT
If that was depriving others of that opportunity, I would say so. If you are AD, that it your primary focus. Directing or acting should happen only very occasionally. I just think it's a conflict of interest. Focus on running the building. I'd never heard of Michelle Terry until they were announced as AD. I have an actor background and would not feel comfortable being an AD and then starting in a production that I've commissioned. Just doesn't sit right with me, but that's just my opinion. I've not seen her onstage nor do I know Richard III - but how about she opens up the platform for other talents? I had heard of Michelle Terry and she had an excellent reputation as an actor already, before she was AD at the Globe. They are lucky to have her.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 31, 2024 0:06:27 GMT
Issue not going away
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 31, 2024 1:03:54 GMT
I have huge sympathy for their position but it is predicated on one interpretation of the script and character. And on the idea that an actor must have lived experience of a particular characteristic in order to portray it on stage or screen.
Whilst I often much prefer to see gay actors play gay characters, I would never seek to insist on that.
Acting is not being. And it never should be.
I do not view having any physical disability to be a qualification to play Richard III. There isn't an actor alive today who can truly know what living with a severe form of scoliosis in 15th century Britain would have been like for a man born into the nobility.
We do, however, know that the historical Richard was a formidable warrior. We know that the historical image of him was created by Tudor propagandists and amplified by Shakespeare.
There is certainly a view that says physical disability is an integral part of the play. There are absolutely other perspectives on the character that can be theatrically interesting to explore.
There is space for both approaches (and many more)
But at heart of this is the fact that acting is acting.
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Jan 31, 2024 2:07:54 GMT
Aspie question: are we sure she is playing him with a severe physical disability?
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 31, 2024 7:40:53 GMT
What I find laughable is that when you advocate for inclusion and representation for so long, eventually you want to do something that upsets a group of people you’ve been advocating for
The Globe Theatre encountered this with I, Joan from women who see Joan as a figure head for them. And now they’re getting it from disabled people who believe a character should only be played by them.
Lesson: you’re not going to please everybody. And companies out there are starting to wake up to that.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 31, 2024 10:37:51 GMT
I have huge sympathy for their position but it is predicated on one interpretation of the script and character. And on the idea that an actor must have lived experience of a particular characteristic in order to portray it on stage or screen. Whilst I often much prefer to see gay actors play gay characters, I would never seek to insist on that. Acting is not being. And it never should be. I do not view having any physical disability to be a qualification to play Richard III. There isn't an actor alive today who can truly know what living with a severe form of scoliosis in 15th century Britain would have been like for a man born into the nobility. We do, however, know that the historical Richard was a formidable warrior. We know that the historical image of him was created by Tudor propagandists and amplified by Shakespeare. There is certainly a view that says physical disability is an integral part of the play. There are absolutely other perspectives on the character that can be theatrically interesting to explore. There is space for both approaches (and many more) But at heart of this is the fact that acting is acting. I agree with that in a perfect world, i wish it could be the case But i think the problem they feel is that they are locked out of so many able bodied roles, that to see one role with a disability in it also is excluded to them
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 31, 2024 11:31:00 GMT
Looking at the recent production history, actors with a disability have been cast as Richard on at least three occasions in the past couple of years or so.
So it is not right to say that disabled actors are being excluded from the role in professional theatre in the UK.
It is right to fight for representation and visibility.
But seeking to limit casting is not the right way to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jan 31, 2024 11:47:00 GMT
No one is demanding that the actor playing Richard III have scoliosis, just a disability. The argument for "lived experience" seems to be that it doesn't matter what kind of disability you have as long as it's a disability. It's entirely plausible that the AD Terry has a disability that we simply cannot see (i.e. some form of mental condition that is classified as a disability). I'd expect the disgruntled to recognize that. I think the perception of an AD casting herself in a role varies depending on the theatre. In a small theatre, it could be an important cost savings. In high profile, well-funded theatre, I'd prefer to see the work go to someone other than the AD.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 31, 2024 11:49:55 GMT
Globe response. Seems reasonable to me. Won't be playing Richard as disabled
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 31, 2024 11:59:28 GMT
This is what should have been ready immediately the casting was announced. They got a predictable and understandable response.
Personally that statement is full of self important buzz speak that sounds impressive but is fundamentally empty of any real meaning.
The important bit is the intention not to play the character with a physical disability. The rest is just noise.
It is important that they have stood up and finally made clear their intentions and are not bowing to external pressure.
It is also right that they have been subject to scrutiny.
They should have done better from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Jan 31, 2024 12:35:21 GMT
Hurumph!
I got it, and I'm not even normal.
Second aspie view: is this 'new media' rush to judgement something mature adults should be participating in.
Aspie question: are we sure she is playing him with a severe physical disability?
|
|
|
Post by happysooz2 on Jan 31, 2024 13:51:18 GMT
Hurumph!
I got it, and I'm not even normal.
Second aspie view: is this 'new media' rush to judgement something mature adults should be participating in.
Aspie question: are we sure she is playing him with a severe physical disability? I think the saying these days is ‘For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And a social media overreaction.’
|
|
|
Post by happysooz2 on Jan 31, 2024 13:55:41 GMT
Looking at the recent production history, actors with a disability have been cast as Richard on at least three occasions in the past couple of years or so. So it is not right to say that disabled actors are being excluded from the role in professional theatre in the UK. It is right to fight for representation and visibility. But seeking to limit casting is not the right way to go about it. Strongly agree that limiting casting is the wrong way to go about things. The focus on one role feels like arguing over scraps. Energy would be better spent finding ways for people with disabilities to play Hamlet, Lear, Malvolio, Juliet etc.
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by David J on Jan 31, 2024 14:14:08 GMT
As someone on the autism spectrum I am happy that disabled people are getting represented here and there. But there has to come a point where we can't have our cake and eat it.
The danger is if we say only disabled people should be casted as disabled characters, that could in turn pigeonhole them in those roles and nothing else
This is the problem with proclaiming representation and cancel culture (like this demand to cancel Michelle Terry from the role) that has been going on for years now. It opens cans of worms all over the place and as I say you can't please everyone.
Once upon a time you'd cast the best person that can deliver Shakespeare's lines and acts brilliantly. Sure it's not a perfect system. I find Terry's casting a bit nepotistic, but I know she's a capable actress who can play the role well. But casting by how you identify has caused more problems.
It's a good job no one cries fowl when amateur dramatics cast a non-disabled person as Richard III when chances are they don't have anyone of the sort in the company to start with. All they want to do is put on their version of the play.
And can I play Richard as an autistic or will I be blasted down unless I state very clear that I have an invisible disability.
Me and plenty of people are getting tired of all this. And companies of all kinds are starting to notice and are drawing the line.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 31, 2024 14:39:02 GMT
I haven't heard of an amateur company not doing R3 because they couldn't find an actor with a disability.
But I do know of a company that decided not to stage Priscilla because they were not certain of being able to cast a trans performer as Bernadette.
So the thought processes are already in place.
And whilst it is good to have authenticity in mind when it comes to repertoire selection and casting, you can end up overthinking things
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 31, 2024 15:10:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Jan 31, 2024 15:19:47 GMT
Ouch. 'It feels like a missed opportunity.' So maybe they could come up with a solution? The Globe not doing themselves any favours with that response. Who signed that off? Seems like it's upsetting a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 31, 2024 15:27:00 GMT
That is a story from 2022. It didn't get any other coverage other than that article (which I can't read due to the pay wall)
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2024 15:32:35 GMT
Over here in the real world a charge of “unsafe working conditions” is very serious and it should have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive. But of course it wasn’t, I assume ?
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 31, 2024 18:01:08 GMT
Over here in the real world a charge of “unsafe working conditions” is very serious and it should have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive. But of course it wasn’t, I assume ? Maybe they have? I don't know From the sounds of this, they have had complaints though
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Feb 1, 2024 8:49:45 GMT
Meanwhile the Globes social media channels are full of videos of dogs wearing ruffs.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 1, 2024 10:55:39 GMT
Another iconic disabled character is Dr Strangelove - Steve Coogan and Armando Iannucci better start writing their justification essays now, unless they intend casting a disabled actor in the lead of their musical.
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Feb 1, 2024 12:26:51 GMT
That will be interesting; a chair is likely to work less well on stage than on film. Also, not sure Coogan wants to be so limited for 2 hours.
|
|