Laurie Metcalf and Rupert Everett in WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? — Page 3

bdn223 said: "Stephen75 said: "I imagine they are going for a queer-themed production of this show, between the casting and the artwork. It seems very pointed. Not to imply that Izzard or Everett aren't good enough for it, but it does seem like their is a very specific vision for this production/the dynamic of George and Martha."

I agree in the casting of Izzard, Everrett and Tovey, but isn't there a bigger gay/queer name to play George. Cough*Nathan Lane* Cough Cough.... Or Dennis O'Hare, David Hyde Pierce, or even Joe Mantello himself. Honestly at this point, I'm more instrested in seeing Tovey then I am Everett, which is an issue."

They could go with Rosie O'Donnell to play George, and really think out of the box.

Bettyboy72 said: "Everett makes this far less interesting for me. I don't think he's a particularly good actor. I think he did well as Wilde because he's a bit of a misanthrope himself. His plastic surgeries make him look unnatural to me. I've never found him able to convey the level of intensity that would be necessary for Woolf. To me, he was a pretty boy actor who peaked in the 90s with some skill at comedy and period pieces. Not much more. His books were pretty good. I did enjoy those.

His misogynistic comments about women also make me cringe. He acts like they are Barbies and does not like when women offend his fashion sensibilities. He's an odd bird."



Such a vitriolic post.

Disappointed Izzard dropped out of this. I was really looking forward to his interpretation of George. Not surprised by it though....a couple months back he was on Colbert talking about standing for Parliament next year and he seemed serious about it. I was wondering how that was going to work out with the play.

girlcop said: "Disappointed Izzard dropped out of this. I was really looking forward to his interpretation of George. Not surprised by it though....a couple monthsback he was on Colbert talking about standing for Parliament next year and he seemed serious about it. I was wondering how that was going to work out with the play."



He mentioned Parliament in his Southern California show. As an aside, one of the stories he told involved the word "magnum". A heckler in the balcony challenged his knowledge of the word. Izzard stepped to the front of the stage, engaged in a brief back-and-forth with the man, and then very firmly (but politely) put the guy in his place (to audience applause). I don't think Izzard will have any problem at all holding his own in Parliament.

Bettyboy72 said: "Everett makes this far less interesting for me. I don't think he's a particularly good actor. I think he did well as Wilde because he's a bit of a misanthrope himself. His plastic surgeries make him look unnatural to me. I've never found him able to convey the level of intensity that would be necessary for Woolf. To me, he was a pretty boy actor who peaked in the 90s with some skill at comedy and period pieces. Not much more. His books were pretty good. I did enjoy those.

His misogynistic comments about women also make me cringe. He acts like they are Barbies and does not like when women offend his fashion sensibilities. He's an odd bird."



Agreed. RE is not a worthwhile replacement. It felt like a rushed decision.

Now, instead of a true clash of titans, it's going to be Metcalf's Martha solo. I can't see RE matching her in acting or interpretation skill. She's going to overpower and overshadow him.

This trailer for Rupert Everett's film "The Happy Prince" illustrates well that this man knows his craft. His performance was nothing less than stunning. He will be the perfect "George". With the possible exception of Eddie Izzard, I can think of no one I would rather see take the stage with Laurie Metcalf. I will count myself more than lucky to be in the audience for this exciting production.

PepperedShepherd said: "Am I the only one who finds Rupert as George -- and Russell as Nick -- to be far more interesting prospects than Laurie as Martha?"

I definitely think Mantello wants to have a queer bent to this production with George being attracted to Nick, maybe even a mutual attraction. Correct me if I'm wrong, I know the estate can nix castings in top-level productions but as long as Mantello doesn't change a word of the script they're allowed to do whatever they'd like with direction. I've heard of writers hating certain productions because of things like this but not having control to stop it. But I also think I've heard about Sondheim stopping productions where Bobby is clearly played as a gay man and Martin Charnin shutting down a production of Annie that ended with Annie waking up in the orphanage.

Isn't the whole point of the play that George and Martha are a pair of psychopaths who get their kicks by inviting people over and destroying them? They get their kicks gaslighting, manipulating and torturing people for the evening.

I find it highly believable that either of them would shag either sex as psychopaths don't usually have a sexuality. They will shag whoever gives them attention x

Impossible2 said: "Isn't the whole point of the play that George and Martha are a pair of psychopaths who get their kicks by inviting people over and destroying them? They get their kicksgaslighting, manipulating and torturing people for the evening.

I find it highly believable that either of them would shag either sex as psychopaths don't usually have a sexuality. They will shag whoever gives them attention x"

Hi, have you seen the play? That's not an accurate description. I don't want to put in spoilers. Martha invites the guests, George does not want them. Martha is so nasty to George that he breaks down and returns the favor to her and the guests, who happen to be in the way. That too is way too simplistic. George is not really "getting his kicks" from the experience, and he is in no position to "shag" anyone. The evening does not go at all like Martha expected.