Gender and Roles- Page 2

[leighmiserables]

Posted: 12/6/17 at 8:59pm

dramamama611 said: "Silly or not, happening or not.....you are supposed get permission."

Isn't that kind of incredibly discouraging (and not to mention discriminatory), both to performers who don't consider themselves as male/female and to the directors casting them? I have a nonbinary friend who loves theatre with all of their heart, but has been auditioning for less and less shows since coming out because they feel like they'll never get cast due to their gender identity. Luckily, the director at our school still gives them roles, both ones written as female and male. I genuinely cannot see how you could consider this morally inferior to asking permission, getting denied, and telling sixteen-year-old kids like my friend: "Sorry, you were the best one for the part, but because you were assigned as a female at birth and this is a part written for a male actor, I can't put you in my show." 

adam.peterson44 brought up how: "There is already so much under-representation, that proposing to cast a less-common female role with a male actor is regressive in terms." Is this not the same issue? There are hardly any meaty transgender/nonbinary roles in theatre (especially ones that high schools can do). Does this mean these people should just not be cast? 

I'm really not trying to attack/argue here, I'm just trying to figure out the other side of the discussion as I really, truly cannot see why this seems to be such an abhorrent thing to do.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/6/17 at 9:41pm

I'm not saying it's abhorrent to do it, at all. However, the manner you described isn't the same thing. I will (and have) cast students based on their identity. In fact, tomorrow I have a student that identifies as male auditioning, he will only be considered for male parts because he is a male regardless of his birth certificate.

A director choosing to have an actor play a part in drag is entirely different....but not necessarily wrong....wirh permission of the creator.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/6/17 at 11:50pm

GeorgeandDot said: "I'm really not wrong here. When gender bending a role in a small amateur theatre you don't really need to contact your rights holder if the text is remaining the same. If the role is being performed in drag, it's fine. The OP is doing a gender reversal of the character as it turns out and some minor changes may happen. In that case, maybe check with them, but if you don't they probably won't hunt you down. It's just the truth. You do you. Whatever helps you sleep at night."

G&D, as someone who is normally on your side of an argument I think
you are missing the more important point that a teacher should model
correct behavior to her/his students. Adding girls to fill out the chorus
is one thing. Having a female impersonator play Mrs. Shinn is quite
another, whether or not the rights agreement prohibits it.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 12/7/17 at 12:00am

I think there's a difference between casting someone who identifies as a woman in a female role and rewriting the role (and potentially dialogue) as a man. The original question was about the latter, which changes the work in a way the former (in my view) does not. You can't legally make artistic changes to a work without permission, which isn't to say that such permission would never be granted. (And some licenses may not even place restrictions on gender of some roles to begin with--although I would speculate most forbid changing dialogue.) Just like if you're get permission to reproduce a painting from the artist, that doesn't mean you can make changes to it. An artist is legally entitled to allow his or her work to be reproduced only in the manner originally intended. (Yes, I realize in many cases the licensor isn't actually the artist, but the artist has entrusted them with protecting those rights, or has assigned them.).

The bottom line is the licensor owns/controls the work and they can put restrictions on changes to it with the license (just as they can refuse to license it at all). If they want to, they can prohibit changes to things like sets, costumes, and choreography as well Just as if you want to put on a show you need to secure a license, if you want to make changes not contemplated by the license, you need authorization to do that as well. If you choose to forego either of those, whether you get caught or not, you're impinging on the artist's right to control his or her own intellectual property. Yes, it does restrict creative freedom, but there are restrictions on creative freedom when you're using someone else's work.

Sure, some people decide since they won't get caught they're ok with making the change. For small productions most copyright owners probably don't want to bother with the expense of enforcement. But in terms of whether you SHOULD, the original writers might have reasons for wanting their work produced a certain way, so if it were me, I would ask, and if they say no, I would find another vehicle for expressing my vision.

This is all assuming you're not engaging in a critique of the underlying work itself, which could be a parody in some cases and opens up a whole other can of fair use issues designed to protect free speech. Basically there is a whole line of cases trying to balance artists' rights with free speech. It's quite an interesting (and complicated) balance in each case.

I don't have any practical experience with licensing in this context, but I have not yet heard of any restrictions based on cis identity. There may be some states that would prevent that. Although the licensor can control the work, those rights could POTENTIALLY still be limited by antidiscrimination laws and the like. I don't know.

(Nothing in this post constitutes legal advice.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/7/17 at 12:04am

leighmiserables said: "dramamama611 said: "Silly or not, happening or not.....you are supposed get permission."

Isn't that kind of incredibly discouraging (and not to mentiondiscriminatory), both to performers who don't consider themselves as male/female and to the directors casting them? I have a nonbinaryfriend who loves theatre with all of theirheart, but has been auditioning for less and less shows since coming out because theyfeellike they'll never get cast due to theirgender identity. Luckily, the director at our school still gives them roles, both ones written as female and male. I genuinely cannot see how you could consider this morally inferior to asking permission, getting denied, and telling sixteen-year-old kidslike my friend: "Sorry, youwerethe best one for the part, but because you were assigned as a female at birth and this is apart written for a male actor, I can't put you in my show."

adam.peterson44 brought up how:"There is already so much under-representation, that proposing to cast a less-common female role with a male actor is regressive in terms." Is this not the same issue? There are hardlyany meaty transgender/nonbinary roles in theatre (especially ones that high schools can do). Does this mean these people should justnotbe cast?

I'm really not trying to attack/argue here, I'm just trying to figure out the other side of the discussion as I really, truly cannot see why this seems to besuch an abhorrent thing to do."

It's the same with any contract. You abide by it or you renegotiate it
(i.e., contact the licensing agent) or you don't get the benefits of it
(you don't do the show). I think you'll find most rights-holders
will agree in the cases you describe. But your good intentions
don't automatically trump a playwright's years of work and her/his
ownership of the work product. As dmama said, if you don't like the
conditions or can't meet them, do a different play.

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 12/7/17 at 5:15pm

leighmiserables said: "dramamama611 said: "Isn't that kind of incredibly discouraging (and not to mentiondiscriminatory), both to performers who don't consider themselves as male/female and to the directors casting them?"

I'm not sure I'm understanding the concern, because theatre is about playing a role. The issue here from OP (as I understand it) is changing a written role to be a different gender, and thus going against the author's intentions, as opposed to casting an actor of a different gender to play a role as written. So being trans or nonbinary shouldn't make a difference at all - if you're casting Chicago, what difference does it make if the person playing Velma is a cis woman, a trans woman, or a nonbinary person? It's a female character, and you're not rewriting the show. In the same way any actor would adopt some characteristics (either in wardrobe, song choice, accents and mannerisms, whatever) to try to convince a director that they're the best for the role, so should a nonbinary actor auditioning for a role. If you want to audition to play Velma, come ready to be Velma - i.e. female.

The issue only arises if the producer want to change the script to turn Velma into Victor, because that really changes the story and its intention. Same as if you're talking about changing the character of Velma herself to be a nonbinary character. That then goes back to the original question of consulting the licensors to make that change, and it's up to them and the creator of the show. But otherwise this is about playing a role, not playing yourself... so gender identity shouldn't make a difference. 

Updated On: 12/7/17 at 05:15 PM

[sfs1414]

Posted: 12/8/17 at 12:55pm

GeorgeandDot said: "Look, if you're a school or a small community theatre, I highly doubt that anyone will hunt you down and shut your production down just due to some gender blind casting. There might be a problem if there's any changes made to the script, but if you're doing something like Alex Newell playing Asaka in the Once on this island revival, I doubt there would be much of a problem. If you're a bigger theatre, I would check with the rights holders, if you're not don't sweat it and claim stupidity if anyone comes after you."

 

This is so problematic. Directors need to respect the rights of the playwright no matter what level of production. If you have 1,000 or 100,000 you have a responsibility to the text. When smaller theater's do these sort of thing...all it's doing is teaching the next generation of artists the totally wrong values. So if anything, it's more harmful at a smaller community level. 

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/8/17 at 1:27pm

Hear, hear!