Posted: 4/6/21 at 12:58pm
jdrye222 said: "I haven't said anything about my judgment of the artistic validity of the production. I just really do find it strange to call it "gender-inclusive" while excluding male and male-identified actors in the mix. It's like calling something "color-blind" when in fact you intend to do an all-black version."
What I don’t get is why they didn’t cast men as the two women. If you’re gonna gender bend, might as well go the whole way.
Anyway I’m not really too into the idea of women playing these roles. I’m fine occasionally genderbending parts like if there’s some powerful artistic merit or historical basis behind it, or if a part of one gender just physically calls for the opposite gender to do it.
This just sort of feels like gender bending for the sake of gender bending, I’m not picking up a real valid point in doing so. Doesn’t mean the production can’t be good, it just strikes me as an odd choice. Maybe there’s more to the choice then meets the eye though, I guess people will see next spring. but I just can’t help but think If someone wanted a big cast made up entirely of women, why not just choose a show that was actually designed to be performed that way? I’ll withhold judgement on the whole thing though.
Updated On: 4/6/21 at 12:58 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
