A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE -- Does casting effect its sexual dymanics?

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:31pm

The current revival of STREETCAR has come under attack from a number of quarters because of the casting.

How does the casting of the current revival work for, or against, the undercurrent of sexual attraction between Blanche and Stanley?

Updated On: 5/19/05 at 11:31 PM

[feinstein9]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:46pm

an interesting question! i myself had wondered a bit about the casting when it was first announced- how was it going to work? then i saw it, and i understood. previously i had only seen the film version, starring two rather irresistable sex pots. john c. riley has very little in common with Marlon Brando, aside from the fact that they're both great actors. i realized, though, when watching the play, that it actually harms the narrative to be attracted to Stanley. we're supossed to be appalled at the characters, and it's kind of hard to be disgusted with Brando. in the film, the underlying attraction b/w Blanche and Stanely comes mostly as a result of Stanley being hawt. in the current production, Stanely plays into the flirtation wielded by Blanche- the ball is in her court, not his. it helps us understand as an audience how she uses men and suduces them, thus helping us understand her past and her as a character. in the film, it seems more coincidental that she and stanely have that tension, rather than it being a character trait on her part. John C.'s portrayl of Stanely is quite a bit more frightening than Marlon's, since at no time do we think "yeah he's violent... but it's kinda sexy!" also, seeing him break his useal typecasting of the sweet husband or innocent bystander really made his outbursts more effective.
i was slightly taken aback at the fact that ms. richardson was neglected a nomination this year, but i suppose it's a good sign: there are so many worthy productions and performances that even the good guys get left out.
Updated On: 5/19/05 at 11:46 PM

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:50pm

{That subject line of mine was wacko.]

Interesting perspective feinstein. Something to think about.
Updated On: 5/19/05 at 11:50 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:46am

While some of the critics disagree, I thought that there was a palpable sexiness to Reilly's Stanley that served the play well. A sexiness that was raw and messy and animalistic and common -- not in anyway idealized as it was with Brando, who was similarly raw and base, but obviously EXTREMELY desirable. I bought that Stanley and Stella couldn't keep their hands off each other and that Stanley and Blanche were more than mere antagonists.

Richardson played it that Blanche had an odd attraction for Stanley, in spite of herself -- not everyone saw that, but that's what I saw the night I attended the play. It gave the play a darker tone and made the tension between Stanley and Blanche far more interesting and ambiguous. I'm not saying that Reilly was better than Brando, but I thought his choices as an actor and his casting were equally valid choices for the role.

Updated On: 5/20/05 at 12:46 AM

[feinstein9]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 3:36am

those are interesting points, margo, and certainly a different way of looking at it for me. i think it's a testement to how great of a drama it is that we can all walk away with different POVs that are all equally valid. anyone else?

Posted: 5/20/05 at 7:11am

Good points Margo and feinstein.

Anyone else have thoughts on this they would like to express?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 7:31am

I think the casting has an effect on the dynamics. The chemistry and the attraction has to be palpable to the audience watching Streetcar. And that is something that goes deeper than the way someone looks or their physicality. I am interested that Margo got so much from this production of Streetcar when he saw it. I saw 2nd preview and neither Reilly nor Richardson gave strong enough performances to generate the necessary heat to their relationship.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 9:02am

I have talked about this before...but as good an actor John C. Reilly is, he is not Stanley Kowalski and therein lies the failure of the current show on Broadway. Tennessee Williams called for Stanley to be some sort of animalistic archetype of male beauty. Reilly doesn't fit the bill. He actually would have been a much better Mitch. The two actors could have easily switched parts. Chris Bauer would have been a perfectly acceptable Stanley, but because Reilly was the "name" he had to be cast as Stanley.

Amy Ryan and Natasha Richardson were excellent..it took me a little bit to warm up to Natasha's Blanche but it worked. But never did I buy any sexual chemistry between Blanche and Stanley as much as Richardson tried to sell it but I never bought it on Reilly's part which is ironic because you would think Richardson flitting around in a negligee would be easier to sell than Rielly with his girdle to hide his love handles popping out.

(lest you think I'm being to harsh on Reilly, he and I are cut from the button popping character actor cloth and neither one of us are a Stanley Kowalski)

For those unfamilar with the show, consider the following a spopiler:

Could the lack of sexual chemistry been a choice...a bad choice... on the part of the director? Thereby making the rape more horrible and not a "Luke and Laura rape".... a horrible act that Stanley gets away with.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 9:04am

Interesting perspective, Margo. Food for thought.

Posted: 5/20/05 at 11:01pm

What would happen if Blanche were "Blaine" and two males played opporsite each other as "Blaine" and Stanley?
Updated On: 5/21/05 at 11:01 PM

[sabrelady]

Posted: 5/21/05 at 1:13am

The William's Estate would probably seek legal action.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 5/21/05 at 11:22am

Yet I have a strange image of my head that Tennessee Williams would be shouting, "You go, girlfriend!" from his grave.