Could Mrs. Lovett work as a man? — Page 2

I don't understand why authors do that, it's not like it's going to hurt Sondheim's estate, it's only going to bring a more diverse audience to the piece.

I love Sondheim, but ass-backwards thinking, and ego crap will keep you out of posterity, Steve.

---

Let me clarify ... I meant to say that I was appalled at the people involved with the production for making the gender switch in role. Sondheim was TOTALLY within his rights to put his foot down ... it wasn't what he wrote!

What I meant was men playing women, and women playing men... not changing the gender of characters... that would mean changing the writing, which I don't ever favor really, unless you are translating the work from another language and can justify it. That was something Wallace Shawn did quite well with Lucy in Threepenny. It was highly theatrical as well, which works in the epic theater construct.

ANYWAY

as for that comment about gays wanting to put on dresses, not so funny

it wasn't THAT long ago that women were not allowed to act, I mean it was a long time ago to US, but in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't that long ago. Men HAD to play women as well. It is an interesting and unusual challenge. It can also create many valuable opportunities for a director.

As for Broadway Backwards, I don't think it's the right thing. They are about raising money, and stars. This would be really an artful experiment, which may or may not be a big hit. It would all depend on the director, actors, designers, producer and publicity, and the audience targeted.

I find that women's roles are written better in most musicals. They are also written wonderfully in many classical plays. Women are allowed to be more expressive emotionally, and unfortunately, that stereotype has carried over into playwrighting for a long time, and continues to today. That sounds like a huge generalization, but find me a modern play that has relationships between men akin to those descibed in Shakespearean sonnets - not necessarily sexual, yet affectionate and full of platonic-romance, a concept, we of course, don't even have a word for.

Sensitive men are not allowed to express themselves in GENERAL without falling into the stereotype of gay-clown, gay-fiend, brooding rockstar on the brink of tragedy, or socially inept artist.

I shall stop, I could write a book LOL!!

This topic is so funny. I'm all for it being done as long as it serves a purpose and is intended to make a point. I agree with some just being totally pointless...could you imagine Evita being played by man? I mean I know every gay guy out there would want to...but it wouldn't serve the purpose of the show but just to show a man dressing up as Eva. But I mean, it could be done.

I mean look at M. Butterfly in relation to Miss Saigon. Could it be done? Possibly. But then you run into the problem of how in the world does man give birth to a child? The list goes on and on.

Personally I think we should resurrect WING and bring her back to Broadway.

---

I'm thinking it is workable - IF the actor and performance in question is of the stature of, say, William Hutt performing Lady Bracknell.

---

It works here every Monday at showtune night at the bar!

---

I could see The Witch played by a man a lot more than Lovett played by a man.

I'm just not sure I can see Lovett's obsessive love for Sweeney coming through as clear being played by a man.

Other than a few jokes with lines ("A woman alone with limited wind"; "If ever there was a maternal heart...") and the ongoing gag of a man playing a woman, I see little point. Kind of like when they get a man to play Lady Bracknell. It's kinda funny but is just so utterly random.

And how would I justify Edna Turnblad being played by a man? Simply, John Waters.

Here's the thing about Edna Turnblad. Divine was a transvestite, basically happiest when living life as a woman, even thought Divine wasn't doing so exclusively. So in essence, the actress Divine was a woman before being cast as Edna Turnblad. There's a difference.

---

I honestly don't see any point to doing this. The only "point" such casting would make is to say "look how evil and morally reprehensible gay men are". I honestly don't see any social commentary coming from casting Mrs. Lovett as a man. If you have a fabulous drag performer who played it "straight" so to speak I guess you could justify it as a showcase for this performer but there are so many great women who could really bring something to this role beyond stunt casting.

Also, Fenchurch, I don't think Sonheim refusing to license these kind of shows is going to keep him out of posterity--get real.

---

Just as an historical note to anyone still listening to the troll. It was fairly common for free black people to be involved in merchant class work in London in that time period, and even more common to have someone of african descent running a pie shop that is poorly patronized, for a variety of reasons. Just because people of African descent were slaves doesn't mean that they were only slaves. And besides, who says the actor/tress playing Mrs. Lovett isn't a mixed race person? That adds even more verisimilitude for her being a free black woman, not that the situation needs explaining, because it is completely plausible. Don't think that just because you don't know enough about history it makes uncommon situations implausible. That is a problem in the viewers perception, not the authors.

---

Just checking, ljay - sometimes around here you just can't tell (although, on this I was pretty sure )