King Lear (McKellen) Chichester / Duke Of York’s

Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat?

What I mean is that while it's true that changing character genders alters the plays dynamics and the way that audiences connect to & interpret the story, the same is true of pretty much every aspect of casting (and indeed most artistic decisions; location and setting for instance).

After all, a 13 year old Juliet falling in love with a 16 year old Romeo would play differently to the same play with young adults. Similarly, changes in actors' races or nationalities might mean the audience react to the play differently, and even superficial stuff like their appearance and accents would. If we felt that the actor playing Romeo was very good looking and Juliet was ugly or vice versa then that would alter, even subconsciously, how we feel about the love at first sight-iness.

The connection with the audience also changes in ways completely out of the creators' control. The way a film with a mixed race couple might have been daring decades ago but watching the same film these days wouldn't have the same impact, or how plays that happen to coincide with big news events might take on meaning that was never intended.

The thing is that, even if you remain true to the original intentions as written I'm not sure that the thing necessarily plays to the audience the same anyway, since we are watching the story through the lens of modern sensibilities and with a completely different framework. Even going to a relatively 'true' production at the Globe we won't really take in the play in the way that audiences did originally.

I'm not saying that the changes made don't matter, just that it seems strange that 'changing gender' is felt by some to be something that simply shouldn't be done, rather than something you would think about like any other casting choice (i.e. considering whether you like it on a case-by-case basis, based on the eventual actor, the role and the actual performance).

*cough*sexism*ahem*

While I'm sure that sexism is a part of it, perhaps even a major part, I'm not sure it's all that useful a response.

I know that messageboards lean towards short witty responses with concrete black/white views, but FWIW I think there's a risk with treating relatively complex and serious topics in this way.

Partly because the word has such a wide ranging meaning, but also because it sort of makes everyone defensive. I would think that many people who might feel intrinsically opposed to gender blind casting wouldn't consider themselves sexist, but starting a discussion with that basically makes the line very clear.

I don't think everyone who objects to changing the gender of a character is necessarily sexist.

In my own work I have always worked to increase the opportunities for female actors in my Shakespeare productions. Whether that is just switching gender (Antonio becoming Antonia in Much Ado) or by creating a new role using existing lines from the text (adding Queen Joan into Henry IV using lines from various nobles) - I have always aimed to work with the text and the structures of the play to create a more balanced casting.

With my own Lear, I had a female Fool - not sharing the role with Cordelia but that hypothesis was very much in my mind when I took that decision. As an outsider to the social structures of the play, the Fool can be viewed in a broader set of ways which made regendering an easy decision to take.

I remain unconvinced about a female Kent as I am not certain that the intimacy of the relationship that grows between Lear and Caius is one that would emerge so clearly with a Male/Female casting. As I said in my initial posting on this subject, it will all depend on how it plays out in the production and the world the director creates. I think a female Gloucester has more dramatic potential - a contrast to Lear - Father with Daughters against Mother with Sons. The blinding becomes an even more shocking act. If I ever revisit the play it is something I will almost certainly seek to explore.

I know Lynette did not enjoy the RSC King John - but I do disagree with her that the restructuring of the play to create a female Bastard was a bad idea. Because it was such a radical recutting of the text and the production was played out in a heightened modern setting, I felt it worked brilliantly and gave Pippa Nixon a great showcase for her talents. It still remains one of my favourite productions.

Each director takes a view as to what they want to achieve with their production and the casting reflects this. However the productions that to my mind succeed the most are the ones that work with the structure of the play and the detail of the text rather than working against it. If you don't trust the text, perhaps you aren't the right director for that project...

Apologies for coming across overly 'debate-club teachery', I'm still new here and forget that things like this are probably issues that have been discussed on the board at length over and over through the years.

Regarding Doctor Who however, while I'm all for having greater diversity in acting, the idea that a shape-shifting immortal alien in a time-travel fantasy show might be played by a woman is just crazy. How is that even remotely believable!?

(edit: I realise that tone & intent don't always come across well on messageboards, so for the avoidance of any doubt, I was kidding in the sentence about Doctor Who; I know he's regenerating, not just shape-shifting)

Given the gender imbalance of Shakespeare plays and his continuing hold over the British theatre scene gender blind casting gives actresses more opportunities to play significant roles.

One of the arguments against the female Doctor was to question why they don't just create new major female roles - perhaps a fair point on TV where new series and characters come through all the the time but more of an issue in theatre where the classics continue to dominate.

It's perhaps a bit more unexpected in Lear which already has decent female roles but without it the roles for women are even more limited than they currently are.

I was waiting for you to say that.

*rolls eyes*

This is the kind of insulting and superficial comment that does a disservice to the cause of "anti-sexism".  Firstly, you have no idea what I do or what my values are, or even my gender- and so your jibe is based on virtually no evidence.  But then, it's easier to try to close down dissenting voices with the use of loaded terms like "sexism", than actually engage in a discussion.

Your comments, as demonstrated by Jan Brock, make it clear that you haven't understood the distinction between the actor and the character.  

I have no objection to gender-blind casting as displayed in the all-female 'Julius Caesar', where the director is saying, "let us neutralize the dynamics of gender across the whole play".  In such cases, the play is usually sold as such, too- it becomes the raison d'etre for the production and, oftentimes, for the audience to attend.

However, in this specific production, to have an inconsistent approach, where gender is apparently relevant to some of the casting but not to others, shows conceptual inconsistency and also risks confusing audience members who do not know how the play is usually cast.

This might not be so problematical if gender politics were not so central to the themes of 'King Lear'.  Kent is a man who is meant to represent the antithesis of Lear.  They must be similar so we can see how one takes the wrong path, and one the right.  If you add gender difference into the mix, you risk ending up with a weaker and simpler conclusion: "Lear got it wrong because he was male whereas Kent was right because she was female."  This demonstrates the way the intention of the text can not only be identified, but should be served by directorial choices.

If a director decided to cut off Gloucester's hand instead of blinding him, a crucial metaphor would be lost: physical blindness is meant to mirror moral/ emotional/ intellectual blindness in the patriarchs.  To omit the blinding would impoverish the play.

In the same way, to omit the deliberate parallels drawn by the author between two similar men with distinctive differences of temperament, also impoverishes the play's ideas.

I would have less of a quibble with a female Kent, joined by a female Lear and a female Gloucester.  And as previously mentioned, for those who can't distinguish between actors and characters, this is totally different to an all-male 'Twelfth Night' or all-female 'The Tempest'.  It's not even about whether there should be more actresses in leading roles in British theatre- as has been pointed out, that is discussed elsewhere.  What "got my goat", as it was so pejoratively put, was a questionable casting choice.

Horton - The dynamics of gender in the Donmar Trilogy weren't neutralised, they were considerably heightened,

Did you see The Roman Tragedies where this type of change worked perfectly from Cassius to Cassia (to take one example)? That did everything that you say shouldn't be done but, once you have seen it work, it is no longer deniable as an option. The dam is already breached.

Yes I did, but I struggle to think of the exact word I mean.

It's something like "it made it a level playing field" or "it prioritized a completely matriarchal power structure" or "it positioned the audience to specifically consider the dynamic of gender/ politics" in a way that casting the odd female character doesn't.

It's not very elegant, but do you see what I am driving at?

Bill or Ben? (Flowerpot men).