Trailer for Netflix's MATILDA musical. Starring Emma Thompson as Trunchbull, dir. Matthew Warchus.- Page 2

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/15/22 at 4:25pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Come on, folks. Casting Trunchbull came down to name value. Bertie Carvel was never going to be offered that part in a midbudget studio film. This required a Thompson/Fiennes level name to get it greenlit."

We can still say we would have preferred someone else. I get how this industry works, and I’ve seen it destroy many stage to screen adaptations.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 6/15/22 at 4:28pm

I don't think a man playing a woman would have worked as well on film and, even as good a job as Carvell did disappearing into the role, there would still be internet outcry about it being insensitive to trans women. In this day and age, social media controversy can sink a film. Thompson looks good here as Trunchbull. The film overall looks better than I was expecting. I think Warchus got the tonal balance between absurdity and groundedness right.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 1:15am

Does anyone know why Trunchbull has traditionally been cast as a man?  I saw an article that said they originally auditioned both genders for the stage musical but I think every subsequent cast has had Trunchbull as a male actor.  That being said, i agree that a man playing a woman on film wouldn't necessarily work as well, since there's just an added level of expected realism on film.

[ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 1:20am

Well I think there’s more to it, but one big part of it is that they wanted Trunchbull to be a towering figure. On film you can use tricks to make Emma Thompson look well over six feet, but onstage you can’t hide an actor’s height.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 2:02am

ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Well I think there’s more to it, but one big part of it is that they wanted Trunchbull to be a towering figure. On film you can use tricks to make Emma Thompson look well over six feet, but onstage you can’t hide an actor’s height."

I think that's a big part of it, but I think British theatre tradition also came into play. Trunchbull is very much like a panto villain, and there is a long tradition of men playing that type of role as women in the British theatre. This is similar to the witch in RSC's Wizard if Oz being played in drag years ago. The British also don't seem to get as internet offended over such things as Americans do.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:16am

The anti-drag thing that's going on is pretty ridiculous.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:30am

Casting a (very famous, very capable) woman in the role of Trunchbull was a totally sensible decision for the film (and I believe regional productions also cast women in the role fairly regularly). Let’s not make this a stupid culture war issue. 

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:35am

I'm aware, but the choice to cast Emma Thompson (she was not the original choice to play Trunchbull here) in the role was due to a lot of anti-drag rhetoric.  It is a culture war issue.

Updated On: 6/16/22 at 09:35 AM

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:39am

....orrr maybe film is a more literal medium and casting a male would be cheesy. 

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:43am

verywellthensigh said: "....orrr maybe film is a more literal medium and casting a male would be cheesy."

Well it looks super cheesy anyways....

Also it wouldn't lol.  Not any cheesier than plastering Emma Thompson with a bunch of ridiculous prosthetics.

There's been a lot of anti-drag rhetoric being spread around this role in recent years. Let's not act like that hasn't been happening.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:48am

I don’t see how this is the result of anti-drag rhetoric, either- which would be pressure from the Right, not from trans folks. 
 

What, exactly, is lost here if the role is played by a woman? 

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 9:57am

Kad said: "I don’t see how this is the result of anti-drag rhetoric, either- which would be pressure from the Right, not from trans folks.


What, exactly, is lost here if the role is played by a woman?"

There's anti-drag rhetoric coming from the left too.

You're missing my point.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 10:10am

Because your point is ill-defined. I’m not seeing any evidence of a major push by anybody to get this role cast with a woman. I’m not seeing any evidence that this casting is in response to such a push.

 

It’s worth noting that Ralph Fiennes was never officially announced in the role- it was a Deadline article that reported they “understood” he was attached that was the source of that. And that was in May 2020. The production was then delayed for a while due to COVID, at which point Emma Thompson was formally announced- in January of last year. We have no idea what caused that change. 

[betyourass]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 10:12am

I think Emma Thompson looks ahmaaaaazing so does this trailer. I am so excited for this movie!!!

Updated On: 6/16/22 at 10:12 AM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 10:14am

Equating a man playing Trunchbull to transphobia is a bit of a stretch. 
 
That said, Bertie Carvel did something really special with the role. He played it as a woman and was totally believable. Conversely, when I saw Christopher Seiber do it, he totally played it as a gay man in drag. It didn’t work. It was like Edna in Hairspray - total camp, when the material demands something a little closer to realism for the role to be as funny and scary as it was meant to be.

I think that in general, it’s just a hard role to cast, and on stage, it can be done by either a man or a woman as long as they have the chops (and height) for it. On film, I agree that a woman is probably the better choice.

Updated On: 6/16/22 at 10:14 AM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 10:17am

@GeorgeandDot

While the role might have had some roots in common with classic Panto drag tradition, surely you can’t deny that the show/role has been circumstantially distanced from those roots?

Matilda, in its current form, in its current place in the cultural landscape, is NOT a panto. It’s just not. The material AND the production model has far more in common with a standard Broadway-style musical than it does with the pantomime tradition. I won’t even bother listing the ways in which that’s true, because they are so numerous and prominent.

In distancing itself from panto tradition, the role also distances itself from drag culture. What does Trunchbull REALLY have in common with drag culture, aside from the most basic facts of being a “man in a dress” and both involving some form of exaggerated performance? Culturally, stylistically, and artistically, there is very little resemblance.  EDIT: I guess this point is muddied somewhat by @Distinctive Baritone’s comment about Siebe above. The actors I saw as Trunchbull post-Carvel weren’t really playing it in a drag, campy, style. But maybe some did. 

You’re correct that there has been disagreement about drag culture among the left as well. But that doesn’t feel particularly relevant to this conversation. Yes, the criticisms of drag culture from the left ARE closely tied with the discourse around transphobia and misogyny - but these discussions, in my experience, are treated with far more complexity, nuance, and awareness of the rich history of drag culture and its roots, and even its partial intersections with trans identity.  Whereas the mainstream culture of “man in a dress = funny” is treated with far less care and nuance, because it doesn’t deserve it. 

Updated On: 6/16/22 at 10:17 AM

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 10:31am

I wouldn't be bringing this up had Emma Thompson been cast outright, but she's a replacement after a small controversy surrounding a man being cast in this role.  Fiennes was originally approached.

I think there should be more roles that allow actors to play characters outside of their own gender identity.

I also do not think film is or should be a more "realistic" medium than theater, but that's a different conversation.

Updated On: 6/16/22 at 10:31 AM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 10:40am

Georgeanddot2 said: "II think there should be more roles that allow actors to play characters outside of their own gender identity."

 

I completely agree! But context matters, and presentation matters. I’ve seen a tons of shows where actors played characters of other genders, and nobody found it offensive because it was done matter-of-factly, with sincerity, or for particular dramatic purpose. What people take issue with is when it’s used as a joke, or when it’s used to promote the idea than a “man in a dress” is dangerous or predatory – perpetuating the “fox in the henhouse” myth used by people like JK Rowling to villainize trans people in the name of feminism. 

A case could be made that Trunchbull falls into the latter category. But again, it seems to have varied depending on the actor – see my first post in this thread. 


 

 

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 11:52am

I've felt the conversation has been more aligned with "a man wearing a dress trying to decieve someone else". Trunchbull doesn't fit that.

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 12:40pm

I agreed that Trunchbull should of been played by a woman on film as it likely wouldn’t of translated well if the role was played by a man … but in saying that I’d have thought they would’ve redesigned the character because Emma Thompson looks like a woman playing a man playing a woman. Where as Pam Ferris was playing a butch woman in the first movie Emma Thompson looks like a panto dame in this movie. So.. what was the point? 

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 3:38pm

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Equating a man playing Trunchbull to transphobia is a bit of a stretch.

That said, Bertie Carvel did something really special with the role. He played it as a woman and was totally believable. Conversely, when I saw Christopher Seiber do it, he totally played it as a gay man in drag. It didn’t work. It was like Edna in Hairspray - total camp, when the material demands something a little closer to realism for the role to be as funny and scary as it was meant to be.

I think that in general, it’s just a hard role to cast, and on stage, it can be done by either a man or a woman as long as they have the chops (and height) for it. On film, I agree that a woman is probably the better choice."

It's interesting to compare the part to Edna in Hairspray. Obviously, the drag element would have been grandfathered in (so to speak) by Divine having played the part initially on film, but I remember some people didn't appreciate how John Travolta didn't camp it up in the 2007 film, but basically plated the part as a woman.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 3:47pm

Was about to make this point! Travolta was earnest and sincere in his portrayal of Edna. And a camped-up portrayal of Edna likely wouldn't have worked. Travolta's sincerity fit the sanitized tone of the musical. And I'm saying this as someone who loves the movie. I saw it three times in the theatre. But John Waters' Hairspray it is not.

Updated On: 6/16/22 at 03:47 PM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 4:45pm

Sally Durant Plummer said: "Was about to make this point! Travolta was earnest and sincere in his portrayal of Edna. And a camped-up portrayal of Edna likely wouldn't have worked. Travolta's sincerity fit the sanitized tone of the musical. And I'm saying this as someone who loves the movie. I saw it three times in the theatre. But John Waters' Hairspray it is not."

I also don't think the problem with Travolta wasn't whether he was camp or sincere, but he just played the role so small and meek (and saddled himself with that awful Baltimore accent that made him sound like he was doing a bad Ed Sullivan). Divine radiated strength in the original film, and also played the absolute truth of Edna's womanhood, and Harvey in the original production had a great arc from shut-in housewife to finding a voice between "Welcome to the 60s" and "Big Blonde and Beautiful," also while maintaining the reality of Edna's femininity. I've seen subsequent Ednas play with that constant winking to the audience indicating "look, it's a man in a dress, isn't that funny?" and it just doesn't work.

[ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 6:06pm

Hoping they’ve kept Telly in the film. The stage show’s context of breaking the fourth wall obviously wouldn’t work on film, but I imagine they can repurpose it.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 6/16/22 at 11:39pm

See, I feel like Travolta's performance in the Hairspray film didn't work because Edna IS written to be played as camp/a man in drag. By trying to make Edna grounded in realism - while wearing very strange and unconvincing makeup - Travolta just fell flat in the role. 

Trunchbull, by comparison, requires that the role be played straight (no pun intended). Matilda is a pretty dark musical as far as "family" shows go, and if Trunchbull is played with too much "wink wink, nudge nudge, I'm actually a man in a dress and aren't I FABULOUS?" like Seiber did it, the role loses its teeth and it's just silly, nothing more.

Matilda is one of my favorite musicals and perhaps I am biased in my opinion because Trunchbull is definitely near the top of list of musical theatre roles I'd like to play, and if men aren't going to be allowed to do it anymore, that would make me very sad. Conversely, as a high school drama teacher who will likely direct the show at some point, I will almost definitely cast a female actor in the role as I imagine very few teenage boys would be willing to do it - or be able to do it well, and god knows with the current obsession the right has with "transing the kids," that is a land mine I would definitely avoid stepping on.

BTW, in the handful of audition notices I've seen for it recently, in the breakdown for Trunchbull it usually says "gender: any."