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

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:17pm

"You guys jsut want a crack at one of the better female roles in musical history."

Wow, how ignorant.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:21pm

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.

[Ofayer]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:27pm

You gay guys will stretch logic as far as you can just to put on a dress and sing Sondheim songs. Get a grip! Girls play the girls roles, black play the blacks roles. Just how it works. Live with it.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:29pm

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!

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:38pm

While I understand that authors are within their rights to refuse changes of this spirit (although if a man is playing a woman and the character is still a woman or a woman is playing man and the character is still a man, I'm not sure where the quibble comes from. The gender of the character hasn't been changed, just the gender of the actor playing it), I don't think the argument "it goes against the author's intentions!" always holds much water. Look at revisals that stray drastically from their original incarnations.

I've always entertained the notions of mixing up gender for casting, although I think you have to examine your reasons for why you are doing it, and plan accordingly. Is it in the vein of Charles Busch, or are you taking a decidley less campy approach? Different material would dictate the tone as well, I guess. You'd be able to get away with a lot more winking whimsy with a man playing Mame than you would with say Evita.

[toomeytwopiece]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:45pm

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!!

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:46pm

Lupone pulled it off, it doesn't get much more manly than that.

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 1:54pm

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.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:07pm

I think it's fine, and authors shouldn't be so egotistical as to hold such a right reign on their works, especially if they are already classics like Company. No one is going to walk out of that show saying 'Why did Sondheim do that?" They'll know it's not his work, and maybe through a daring directors lens, it can shed light on the piece that even Sondheim may not have seen before. But if there's never a chance to try, then it just stifles the artform, and that's sad. Risks and challenges should be embraced, not scorned.

That having been said, I think there should be a reason for it, not just for the sake of itself.

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:16pm

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

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:19pm

I would feel a bit cheated if I saw a production of FOLLIES with a male Sally and Phyllis.

Some roles it would work, but others not at all.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:20pm

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

[AC126748]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:28pm

I'd love to see Justin Bond (as Kiki, of course) play Mrs. Lovett.

And, just to correct something, Sondheim was definitely NOT all for Billy Porter as the Witch. He even refused to let him audition for the role.

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:30pm

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.

[Ofayer]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:39pm

What if Lovett is played by a black man?

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:41pm

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.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:42pm

Oh look, Ms. Ignorant is back.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:45pm

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.

[Ofayer]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:51pm

What? Can't handle Lovett being played by a "black." Why? Just because it was highly unlikely that a black would have lived in that place at that time? But put a white guy in a dress and Oh yeah it can work. Neither works and you know it.

[Danielm]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:53pm

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.

[DG]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 2:59pm

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

You've got to be kidding.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 3:01pm

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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 3:03pm

You've got to be kidding.



- omigod i am

[DG]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 3:06pm

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

[thespianham08]

Posted: 5/25/07 at 3:14pm

that would be vey interesting! ive always wanted to see men play girl parts, or girls play men parts, not to see a man throw on a dress but to challenge the actors, i think its a great idea, being put in that sort of situation could really help you grow acting wise ect. my friends and i have talked about how cool it would be if there was a theatre group that switched the guy parts with girls parts ect. of course with some shows thats impossible to do, but i think it would be a great learning experince! and sometimes theres always those parts you fall in love with and would love to play that you normaly couldnt, i was actually called back for sour kangaroo in suessical the other day i thought that was funny! anyhoodle doing that would be very intresting... i would see it lol