Could Little Edie (Act II) be successfully played by a man?

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:02pm

After re-watching "The Beales of Grey Gardens" and seeing a spot-on drag queen "do" Little Edie, I wondered if having a man play Little Edie in Act 2 might add more interest to the show for those who haven't seen it or have no interest in it.

If you do think a man could do it, any ideas who? Also, if a man played Little Edie in Act 2, then maybe one actress could play Big Edie in both Act 1 and 2 and get aged up for the second act. That might give the piece added continuity. Having a man play Little Edie would also appeal to the already built in gay interest. Please give your thoughts.

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:10pm

Having a man play the role Ebersole and Moore have worked to perfect would make the complexity and reality a joke. Maybe it would be "interesting" as an artistic choice, but in my time I hope it NEVER happens. The role is meant to be played by a woman and should be. Little Edie act II is not a joke, it is a reality.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:12pm

I think it would ruin the whole "mother-daughter" relationship that is at the heart of the show. I doubt that a man would ever be cast in a professional production.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:13pm

I don't necessarily think a man would play it as a joke or as a drag performance. I just think the audience would need to suspend some disbelief, but if he does a great job they wouldnt have a hard time. I don't think it would automatically be funny if a man who was good at gender illusion played the part.

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:15pm

Well even if all of those criterion are met, the show is a grand illusion, as well as disillusion for those who transport themselves into the lives of the Edies for 2.5 hours. Why make an audience work harder to understand or appreciate the story? That's just my particular view.

[postergirl]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:17pm

How about you, Bettyboy?

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:17pm

I see your points Laura. :)

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 4:26pm

Isn't part of the point for the actress to play two different characters in Act One and Act Two?

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 6:05pm

regardless of how the man playing Edie approached it...serious or not...it would become less about the story and more about the humor of a man playing the part. That is just the reality of the world we live in. I am sure a man could DO the role, there are people who can do anything these days, but it would be a disservice to the creators of this show.

[D2]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 6:09pm

It's a ridiculous idea. That said, the one man who could pull it off would be Charles Busch.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 6:25pm

The only person who should EVER play Edie is Ebersole. EVER. EVER!

That said, I would love to see Travolta try it if it is ever made into a feature film...

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 7:16pm

Can we just cut to the chase here? No Bettyboy, you could not and should not play Little Edie...Ever.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 11:43pm

Charles Busch. The only one. MAYBE Jefferson Mays. :)

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 3/31/07 at 11:56pm

I'm sorry, but this question is more ridiulous than asking what male -- of any age -- could play the role of Peter in Comden and Green's PETER PAN.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 4/1/07 at 12:19am

Hugh Jackman.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 4/1/07 at 12:32am

What would be the point of having a man play the role? How would this illuminate anything? Cross-gender casting works once in a while for very specific roles and very specific actors. This is surely not one of those cases.