greensgreens said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "greensgreens said: "I’ll be honest. This show is of zero interest to me without a queer lead. I’m kind of surprised people weren’t more upset with the decision for a cis female to assume the role. I was so excited when talk of JCM stepping in was swirling. I honestly have no desire to see a cis woman in the role - it would be like Glenn Close playing a Charles Busch role. Could she do it and do it well? Absolutely. Does it change the show with a cis woman? Also, absolutely and I think it takes some of the ridiculous campy humour out."
what a sad, narrow worldview--to which you are certainly entitled! Isnt Cole's current understudy a cis woman?"
I’m not saying it can’t be played by a cis woman and it obviously is being done to positive effect. Just doesn’t entice me into buying a ticket and seems like a missed opportunity to give another non-cis thespian a successful show for their talents. And for those who think this is going to tour just fine without a cis Mary, you clearly don’t understand theatre throughout the country, only the metro areas. So, in a way, if de-dragging the role is preparing it for broader consumption, which I believe is the case, I guess this was inevitable. People will leave theatres the minute a drag Mary steps onstage (sure, not in Chicago or even Kansas City but what about the smaller regional markets?) but would have no problem with any other part of it if played by a cis actress. It loses its subversiveness and becomes just a really funny and “random” play. Also entertaining, but that subversive edge was what pushed this into “can’t miss art worthy of a $400 premium ticket.”"
I'm excited for Betty but I get where you are coming from. I think this will hit differently with a woman. Just compare the posters of Cole and Betty side by side: Cole is inherently funny/campy as Mary, whereas Betty looks like she's in a prestige drama.
