Gender Blind Casting? — Page 2
Posted: 10/11/11 at 6:48am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 6:48am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 7:41am
In my opinion it can work, but you usually have to change more than one gender, as well as a few changes to the characters lines and background if you want the audience to buy it.
Take Wicked for example. If the gender of the two leads was reversed, Fiyero would become female. Most of the show would still work but certain scenes and songs, such as "popular" would have to be changed dramatically, as no audience is going to believe that two straight college guys sit up at night giving each other makeovers and teaching each other how to toss their hair. Of course it's possible that two guys would do this, and there's nothing wrong with it, and times are changing, but most audiences, even in this day and age just wouldn't buy it.
A gender reversal of the King and I would be great, but as it's based (loosely) on history and the lead characters are not fictional, another option is to write and adaptation of the piece. Perhaps a new musical with the same themes and ideas, but set in another country where an all powerful queen rules. It's not what the OP meant, but it's probably the closest you can get to changing genders realistically.
Posted: 10/11/11 at 9:30am
I understand but feel differently. For me, it's made possible by the suspension of disbelief made possible by the right casting and the suspension of disbelief allowed by theater.
People in the audience can generally distinguish gender. But people on stage also don't suddenly burst into song or speak in iambic pentameter.
Or, in the case of Peter Pan, fly.
In any event, it's beside the point for this thread, as OP was speaking, as you mention, of scriptural changes.
Posted: 10/11/11 at 9:42am
Dramamama
I thought so. I am angry about this because I was one of the guys at callbacks who got cut. I kind of want to do something about it, but I probably won't...
Posted: 10/11/11 at 9:54am
It's like that statement in the color blind casting thread that I found incredibly racist (hey, racism goes both ways, remember?!?) that basically said black actors should play parts over white character because they're black. It's ridiculous. Just more PC bullshlt and it's beyond ridiculous.
Posted: 10/11/11 at 10:27am
Have you seen On A Clear Day? If not, are you already convinced it can't work?
Have you ever seen His Girl Friday with Rosalind Russell and Carey Grant? Great movie in which Russell plays Hildy, originally a male character in the play on which the movie is bawsed, The Front Page.
Posted: 10/11/11 at 10:31am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 10:33am
A famous example being These Three with Hopkins, Oberon and McRea which Wyler directed long before Hollywood allowed him to make The Children's Hour as written with Maclaine, Hepburn and Garner. There the purpose was the opposite of political correctness. It was censorship. Surprisingly, it was still a pretty good movie.
The new On A Clear Day reverses orientation like These Three but also reverses gender. There the purpose is a new take on a story to make it more interesting to contemporary audiences, I take it.
Posted: 10/11/11 at 10:35am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 10:42am
Because once you start with "I don't mind experimenting or reversing genders because you're supposed to suspend belief when you walk into the theater", than where do you stop? And if all of those people mentioned above "wanted" to be in the show and play those parts, why shouldn't they be able to?
I stop when it doesn't make any sense or when even for one second you're taken out of the story to have to figure out who people are, is that really a man or a man playing a woman?, Wait is Madame Armfeldt going to take her wig off and say she's a man?, Wait, I'm confused - Is that character gay? HE'S been talking about his love of men all night. Why is he with a woman now?
Posted: 10/11/11 at 10:57am
Updated On: 10/11/11 at 10:57 AM
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:02am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:07am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:15am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:17am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:23am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:35am
Posted: 10/11/11 at 11:54am
Oh, what am I saying? Joe naked in Follies and all-you-can-eat Swedish meatballs is like winning the lottery while French kissing Anderson Cooper on your birthday.
Posted: 10/11/11 at 1:05pm
Strangely enough, when they had a black actor playing Scrooge one year, they had a white boy play young Scrooge. Color blind is one thing. But I think this only served to confuse people.
Updated On: 10/11/11 at 01:05 PM
Posted: 10/11/11 at 1:23pm
Posted: 10/11/11 at 1:29pm
Posted: 10/11/11 at 1:40pm
The original post was clearly not proposing willy nilly giving a role identified as female to a man (as in Jordan's apt example of the, er, folly, of having a 300 pound man playing Phyllis) or giving a role identified as male to a woman, as an analog to race-neutral casting.
It also wasn't about drag casting (either in its conventional or camp traditions, as exemplified by the Tudor and early Stuart stage, Divine, or the Takarazuka Revues, or in its realistic form as exemplified by Bedford's extraordinary Lady Bracknell).
It was about purposely revising a script to change the gender of a character, maintaining the character's general situation in the plot but giving the piece a different take - and hopefully with some relevant purpose - by altering the gender makeup of the dramaturgy.
They are two, or rather, three, very different things.
Updated On: 10/11/11 at 01:40 PM
Posted: 10/11/11 at 2:40pm
Updated On: 10/11/11 at 02:40 PM
BroadwayWorld TV