562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 14:45:59 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man. As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT. 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)
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2017 14:47:36 GMT
Once a play is past a very short time (a few years? Less than a year with very topical plays), it is impossible to be able to watch and respond to it as per the original. Company, as Sondheim realises, is now very much a period piece and therefore ripe for reimagining, as he has also allowed for Sweeney Todd, Forum etc.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 21, 2017 14:56:02 GMT
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.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 15:16:28 GMT
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. Given that the role is explicitly one that changes appearance, I'm not sure why the Doctor's gender (or the appearance of human gender anyway) needs to be tied down any more than their height, speech or hair colour. Talking of hair colour, I kinda feel that in a few years this will be looked back on like James Bond: Daniel Craig is announced, and some tabloids proclaim that James Bond couldn't possibly be blonde -as though hair colour was James Bond's defining feature- and a few years on, Craig is the best bond since Connery and fingers crossed he does one more...
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 16:11:21 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* I was waiting for you to say that. *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 16:14:21 GMT
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. We're not talking about gender blind casting. We''re talking about changing the gender of a character in the play. So it is quite possible to object to the NT Malvolia without objecting to the Donmar all-female Julius Caesar.
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 17:08:53 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* 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.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 17:41:10 GMT
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. Just as John McDonnell sees everything through the prism of theoretical Marxism, and some Remainers dismiss all Leavers as racist, so some academic feminists see everything through the prism of sexism. Reminds me of the old saying "If all you've got is a hammer everything's a nail".
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2017 17:49:14 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 18:07:17 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man. As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT. Sometimes great risks lead to great artistic reward, so directors should always have the freedom to try, no matter how non-traditional or non-textual the risk may seem. Besides, don't most (if not all) Shakespeare plays have several different versions dating right back to Shakespeare's time? We can't hold the bard himself up as having a clear vision that should be revered 400 years down the line when he didn't even keep things consistent during the period he was writing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 21:13:56 GMT
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?
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 21:16:59 GMT
And what is that picture meant to mean?
Are we now crayoning stick people to avoid having to engage?
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 22, 2017 12:03:17 GMT
Bill or Ben? (Flowerpot men).
|
|
309 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Jul 22, 2017 20:15:43 GMT
Is Kent being played as a woman or by a woman? Given that it's an actor of Sinead Cusack's talent she may well be playing it as male. Derbhle Crotty and Aisling O'Sullivan have played Henry IV and Henry V for Druid as males.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 22, 2017 22:29:13 GMT
|
|
309 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Jul 22, 2017 23:01:38 GMT
Oh that sounds like an exciting interpretation - mind you she could be a great Lear when she's old enough!
|
|
515 posts
|
Post by callum on Jul 28, 2017 2:06:07 GMT
Danny Webb in this production - he was in Glenda at the Old Vic last year too. Is he playing the same role as last year? Easy work for him if he is I suppose.
|
|
966 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jul 28, 2017 7:13:46 GMT
No. He was Cornwall at the Old Vic, now playing Gloucester.
|
|
260 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 13, 2017 9:18:03 GMT
A handful of tickets for various performances of this have just become available on the CFT website. Hurry if you want one.
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by frosty on Aug 22, 2017 8:31:17 GMT
For all the youngsters out there, tickets for 16-25 year olds have been released for all performances today. Get 'em while they're hot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 17:16:50 GMT
Be still my beating heart. That face, that smile, that quiff, those arms. Rehearsal images are out for 'King Lear' starring the foxy Jonny B. There are some other people in it too apparently. Received loud and cLear
|
|
3,080 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Sept 22, 2017 19:23:11 GMT
I really hope this comes to London but I'm not holding my breath. Chichester and Bath transfers seem to have dried up over the last year or two.
|
|
|
Post by Spectator on Sept 25, 2017 16:04:13 GMT
Seeing this Wednesday and was wondering about logistics.
Somewhat optimistically hoping to catch the 23:17 train to Brighton (yes, I know...)
Understand running time is 3 hours plus interval and c. 20 minute walk to the station, so would be cutting it really fine.
Just wondering how people usually handle this and how easy it is to exit the Minerva before the performance ends.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 17:00:43 GMT
I have before now made my entire row in the Minerva move up one so I can be on the end of the row for a quick escape. If you're reasonably able-bodied, I think it's quicker to dash from theatre to station on foot rather than gamble on a taxi. There's sometimes a later train that goes to Three Bridges, from where there are reasonably regular trains to Blackfriars and Victoria through the night, which is a useful plan B for London-bound theatre-goers. Maybe worth checking if there's a way to Brighton from there? If it's three hours though, I should hope you'd be fine as long as you don't dawdle, even with a 7.45 start. They must know people travel by train!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Sept 25, 2017 17:33:17 GMT
Could you swim to Brighton from Chichester?
|
|
|
Post by Spectator on Sept 25, 2017 23:15:08 GMT
I have before now made my entire row in the Minerva move up one so I can be on the end of the row for a quick escape. If you're reasonably able-bodied, I think it's quicker to dash from theatre to station on foot rather than gamble on a taxi. There's sometimes a later train that goes to Three Bridges, from where there are reasonably regular trains to Blackfriars and Victoria through the night, which is a useful plan B for London-bound theatre-goers. Maybe worth checking if there's a way to Brighton from there? If it's three hours though, I should hope you'd be fine as long as you don't dawdle, even with a 7.45 start. They must know people travel by train! Thanks - this is really helpful. Just wondering if I can summon the courage to ask everyone to move during the final act: "Howl, howl, how-sorry; train to catch"
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by frosty on Sept 26, 2017 7:46:25 GMT
Be still my beating heart. That face, that smile, that quiff, those arms. Rehearsal images are out for 'King Lear' starring the foxy Jonny B. There are some other people in it too apparently. Received loud and cLearSaw it last night..Jonny B is almost naked...I didn't know where to look...
|
|
2,813 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Sept 26, 2017 8:09:28 GMT
I don't like that almost
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 8:17:59 GMT
Be still my beating heart. That face, that smile, that quiff, those arms. Rehearsal images are out for 'King Lear' starring the foxy Jonny B. There are some other people in it too apparently. Received loud and cLearSaw it last night..Jonny B is almost naked...I didn't know where to look... Almost? AL-MOST? If the pants don't come off I shall be writing a strongly worded letter to Sir Ian. I would have expected him of all people to have insisted, nay DEMANDED, that Jonny B take the lot off. That's my whole reason for schlepping off to the middle of nowhere to see yet another King Lear. I am outraged. OUT. RAGED.
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by frosty on Sept 26, 2017 9:07:10 GMT
Saw it last night..Jonny B is almost naked...I didn't know where to look... Almost? AL-MOST? If the pants don't come off I shall be writing a strongly worded letter to Sir Ian. I would have expected him of all people to have insisted, nay DEMANDED, that Jonny B take the lot off. That's my whole reason for schlepping off to the middle of nowhere to see yet another King Lear. I am outraged. OUT. RAGED. Well it is still in previews, they may make the artistic decision to remove the pants to big up his part....
|
|