1,061 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.
|
|
5,017 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
5,017 posts
Member is Online
|
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? |
|
2,495 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 19, 2018 9:29:04 GMT
Sean Holmes has joined as an associate director
|
|
2,495 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 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 9:41:39 GMT
Michelle Terry and her real life partner Paul Ready will be playing the Macbeths in the Swanamaker!
|
|
2,495 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 19, 2018 9:51:53 GMT
|
|
5,017 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Sept 19, 2018 11:22:47 GMT
Michelle Terry and her real life partner Paul Ready will be playing the Macbeths in the Swanamaker! Disappointing she’s following the same path as Norris and Doran and handing work to her partner (I’m assuming he didn’t audition) - not many jobs where that would be remotely allowed (MP being another of course). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 11:26:36 GMT
Well, he's a skilled Shakespearean and Globe regular, and - crucially for your comparison - the play's being directed by Rob Hastie rather than Michelle Terry. It's far from the first time they've been in a play together (Love's Labour's Lost, London Assurance, In the Republic of Happiness, to name but three) and neither role is wildly out of either's wheelhouse, so it's possibly a little early to start the gloom train on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 19, 2018 12:52:27 GMT
I have to agree with the good doctor on this one. The optics are not great when this sort of casting happens. Far better to keep your working and your family lives separate - it means you eliminate that source of criticism. The casting may have been utterly above board with rigorous auditions and so forth - but it just looks like they put together a project to work on together.
Also less impressed with the casting for Richard II - not because I think she will do a bad job. It is just that I don't like directors appearing in their own work like that. It is very hard (even with a co-director) to act and direct at the same time and to retain the critical eye necessary to assess the whole - when you are also right at the heart of the stage action.
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Sept 19, 2018 12:57:20 GMT
Typically no news on the one production Edward II that i have booked for.
|
|
5,017 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Sept 19, 2018 13:35:04 GMT
Michelle Terry and her real life partner Paul Ready will be playing the Macbeths in the Swanamaker! Are they gender-swapping it ? Terry playing Macbeth, might be interesting. I can't recall a female Macbeth, more often it's Hamlet, Richard II, Richard III, King Lear. |
|
5,017 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Sept 19, 2018 13:37:59 GMT
Well, he's a skilled Shakespearean and Globe regular, and - crucially for your comparison - the play's being directed by Rob Hastie rather than Michelle Terry. It's far from the first time they've been in a play together (Love's Labour's Lost, London Assurance, In the Republic of Happiness, to name but three) and neither role is wildly out of either's wheelhouse, so it's possibly a little early to start the gloom train on this one. Except she is AD and she appointed the director, he's a hired hand, I doubt he'd object to the casting. I'm not that bothered but I maybe expected that as an actor she'd be a bit different to the usual director as AD, a bit more democratic maybe. |
|
403 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by altamont on Sept 19, 2018 13:55:17 GMT
Michelle Terry and her real life partner Paul Ready will be playing the Macbeths in the Swanamaker! Are they gender-swapping it ? Terry playing Macbeth, might be interesting. I can't recall a female Macbeth, more often it's Hamlet, Richard II, Richard III, King Lear. No, not gender swapping the lead roles. I agree though, it would be very interesting |
|
5,017 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Sept 19, 2018 15:14:42 GMT
Bit surprised to see Sean Holmes appointed as an associate artistic director. First because it’s a step down for someone who was a full artistic director, and secondly because his recent Shakespeares have been exactly the sort of thing that got Emma Rice into trouble. Anyone heard who’s taking over from him at the Lyric Hammersmith ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 15:21:08 GMT
It's also probably helpful that Paul Ready is in one of the biggest and most talked about TV shows of the year.
|
|
