cross-gendering roles- Page 3

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:03am

I want to play Blance in Streetcar and i am preposing it as my senior thesis.... but i think Victor/Victoria should be done cross gendered except for Victoria, King, Toddy, and Mr Bernstien


lol i would wanna play Norma in that case!

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:53am

Norma Desmond is a role I think belongs to women but maybe not.
I have a question, I wasn't aware that many modern productions of Streetcar cast a man in the role of Blanche, why is this done?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:16am

grizabella--

Thank you. You articulated your opinions very well (and you're right, too!).

[fiatlux]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 4:16am

"I have an "incredibly short-sighted view of things"? The easy response to that would be that you have an incredibly stupid view of things, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and instead continue my argument"

Thank you so much for the benefit of your doubt. Your condescension is greatly appreciated. However, I note you don't answer my question.

Your argument relies on the fact that nowadays you are conditioned to seeing male actors playing male roles and female actors playing female roles, and black actors playing black roles etc. I am merely suggesting that to have that conditioned view would appear to blinker yourself to the possibilities of theatre, which is a pity.

There are communties (not to mention countries) that do not have the advantage of having the right gender or (more usually in the case of countries) race balance; are you suggesting that they should limit themeselves to pieces that reflect the status quo? One of the best presentations of Fiddler on the Roof, that I saw, was in a community where there were no Jewish actors and two actresses playing Motel and Perchik - what it had was heart and truth - and frankly one of the best, original and touching interpretations of Motel I have seen. That is one of many.

Theatre is not a documentary, it demands imagination, thought, passion and fun. God protect us from the new, self-appointed Lord Chamberlains who would appear to want to write a rule book on how things should be done and believe themselves to be arbiters of taste and what is right.




Updated On: 12/19/05 at 04:16 AM

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 11:32am

I played Lady in an experimental, class production of the Scottish play during college.

As for the emcee in CABARET, having a woman play it as a woman does make "Two Ladies" a little odd.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:19pm

A brilliant film on cross-gendering roles in classic theater is STAGE BEAUTY. I suggest y'all give it a watch.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 5:44pm

I agree that the only reason people are so biased against cross-gendering is the culture conditioning they've been through. I've been in all female casts multiple times...most recently we did My Fair Lady. Playing Higgins helped me grow as an actress. As a female, there are certain roles which are not so challenging emotionally, and to have the opportunity to be pushed to the other end of every emotion I have to conjure as an actress helped me understand the scenes more fully. That sort of experience has helped me in other productions, and has made my other (female) preformances more convincing and honest.

[sparky310]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 7:09pm

cross gendered casting..frankly...is just stupid. what does it accomplish. really.. nothing. so i man plays mama rose. who cares. its bad enough we have actors that are not trained, and actors that feel they have the right to try to direct the show. for god sakes keep your hands off the script and do your work as an actor. and for those producers out their that want to make money. find an original work. quit messing with the good stuff. if you are so hell bent on cross gender casting..go home..dress up in the mirror and sing funny girl

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:02am

Thank you, Sparky. Not quite the way I would have put it, but it's nice to have someone thinking rationally.

Here's something I've learned about life: being open-minded is a good quality to have--but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Again, I reiterate my point that SOME roles can and have been cross-gendered successfully. However, most of the time, this is a bad idea. And I'm sorry, a "My Fair Lady" with a female Henry Higgins? Who directed that production--Roger DeBris? Updated On: 12/19/05 at 12:02 AM

[fiatlux]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 4:29am

"Again, I reiterate my point that SOME roles can and have been cross-gendered successfully. However, most of the time, this is a bad idea. And I'm sorry, a "My Fair Lady" with a female Henry Higgins? Who directed that production--Roger DeBris? "

Did you see the production? If not, you have no right to be so cavalier and dismissive about others' experience.

I seem to remember the same argument when it came to colour-blind casting - only "some roles" would benefit and they turned out to be the villains of the piece and/or the butt of the joke.

Yours and sparky's argument seem to think it should be reserved to taking on the role of larger-than-life women in certain musicals - and even then it's to be pitied more than encouraged. The problem for your argument and repeated assertion is that in the history of the theatre (at least in Europe and the UK) cross-gendering has a long, honourable and successful past and present that goes beyond the ghetto to which you seem to wish to confine it.
Updated On: 12/19/05 at 04:29 AM

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 7:06am

Ray-allthatjazz i was reffering to Norma Cassidy from Victor/Victoria

[Kgshrauder]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 9:17am

I was in a production of Once Upon a Mattress where the jester and the mistrel were both played by two excellent females. It worked out fine.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 10:08am

fiatlux--

Not only are you twisting my ideas around and implying things about me that are untrue, but you are no longer making any sense. Having a "heated argument" is one thing, but if you're going to imply that I'm racist and sexist just because I like to stick to the script, then you are not only irrational but a real jerk. People like you are not even worth reasoning with. Bye.

[fiatlux]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 10:14am

"you are not only irrational but a real jerk"

Well that really demonstrates a mind that is worth reasoning with.

I was not implying that you were racist, I was reflecting that it seemed that you were restricting the use of cross-gender casting on a false premise. You have twisted that to say that I've accused you of being a racist. However more importantly you would appear to be dismissive of someone else's work and experience, which is not really on.
Updated On: 12/19/05 at 10:14 AM

[sparky310]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 10:53am

thanks baritone. sorry my somewhat agressive tone. and yes there have been some successful cross gendered castings, but to do it just for the sake of doing it is ..well..i think very insulting to the works of many playwrights and the talents of many very good actors/actresses depending which direction your headed.
in this day an age, we should be teaching actors how to work and be successfull at the craft, not the game.

[willact4food]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 10:54am

Cross gendering roles, I think, is a wonderful idea. For instance, I can't imagine Edna in Hairspray being played by a woman. It just would not work. And there are always roles where it would work, and it would bring a little something more to the show.

Cross gendering isn't all that bad, guys. . .

[understudygirl]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:55am

if the emcee in cabaret was played by a woman, perhaps the "two ladies" could be men in drag

[children&art]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:16pm

"As for the emcee in CABARET, having a woman play it as a woman does make "Two Ladies" a little odd."

They did it like on Bway with the Emcee (woman), Lulu (woman), and Bobby (man dressed as woman) - so there were 2 ladies, but it still bit the big one.

[zelda]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 7:08pm

for all of you defending cross gendering. please defend the why i do not see a purpose. in the case of hairspray you were dealing with a brilliant actor who didnt play it as a drag queen but as a woman. anyone want to give this a shot. and not with some flippant answer. "oh cause its cool" really substantiate why.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 9:34pm

Ally Sheedy in Hedwig was an abomination, and a good argument against this thread. Count me in with those who prefer that shows/plays be cast the way they originally worked, the way they were written and seen as by the writers. Why do some people have a problem with traditional casting? The role of Edna was originally played by a man and he was superb, as Divine always was.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 10:11pm

I, for one, applaud Albee for not letting the fact of his homosexuality get in the way of his story. And I'm glad he won't let others mess with it, either.

That's what it really comes down to: the story. Does this cross-gendering business HONESTLY serve the story? Or does it just hinder it?

The whole idea is, in my book, quite absurd.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:50am

First of all- Ally Sheedy is a horrible bitch. People on the production have reported to me that she was just that. So what? She was good in the breakfast club, and beyond that she was in a bunch of BAD art films. I wouldn't even bring her up in this.

Secondly- a woman could totally play edna- Rosanne, Bette Midler- both perfect for the role. I won't bring up my a man could play tracee arguement (if he had the range of a woman- which ive seen)

Thirdly- Its rediculous to say that men shouldnt play women on theatre. If a man pulls it off isnt that a testiment to some brillant acting? There are many reasons for cross-gender casting- Maybe its a chance to deliver a message? Maybe it says something about hummanity- about men and women and universality. Maybe it says that a parent is a parent is a parent. Maybe it just warms the heart. Who cares if its just so ****ing cool. Look at amazingly meaningless musicals like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang- it says NOTHING about anything of anything important. But why was it a good show? BECAUSE THE FLYING CAR WAS SO FLIPPING COOL. Lets face it- Broadway is a commericial venture- the purpose is ultimately to make some money. so if that sells some tickets- go for it.

Also- in your world of men should only play men thing- what parts do intersexed babies play?

[fiatlux]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 6:53am

Perhaps the question really is why do we cast by gender? Because 20/21 century theatre is going through that particular fashion, probably. We're used to women playing women's parts and men playing men's parts.

Elsewhere in the world of work, however, if we tried that little scam - there are certain jobs for the boys and girls should only have certain jobs - we would quite rightly be greeted with cries of derision. It should be the same with acting.

Every day as an actor one is asked to play a role that often (if not generally) falls outside one's own personal experience be it a King, murderer, a bachelor in New York with commitment problems, a Jew in a concentration camp, a Cardinal, Medea or a Captain in the Austrian Navy with seven children and a servant problem (I'm just thinking back on mine). None of these are me - I may invest the characters with my understanding and sensibility but at the end of the day, I take my costume and slap off and go to the pub.

What then is the difference between playing these roles and a character, that happens to be female or male? The female or male bit is surely the least important facet in many ways - their motivation and their character should be paramount not their anatomical make up. It should be possible (and it is) for audiences to look beyond a literal presentation and accept actors playing a certain role and just as they "know" that they are not watching a real king or a real murderer or a nun singing on a hillside, but an actor playing the part, the same goes for an actress playing Hamlet or an actor playing Martha.

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 06:53 AM

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:42am

*applauds* thank-you

[freeadmission]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 9:02am

"What then is the difference between playing these roles and a character, that happens to be female or male? The female or male bit is surely the least important facet in many ways - their motivation and their character should be paramount not their anatomical make up. It should be possible (and it is) for audiences to look beyond a literal presentation and accept actors playing a certain role and just as they "know" that they are not watching a real king or a real murderer or a nun singing on a hillside, but an actor playing the part, the same goes for an actress playing Hamlet or an actor playing Martha."

Suspension of disbelief is the problem. It is very difficult for the vast majority of people to get past the fact that "that's not a real woman up there". Maybe the the audience's fault, maybe it's not. Either way, the story suffers and, in my book, the story takes priority. I hate it when people take a show and try to mash it into their worldview instead of letting the story win out and dictate what the audience may learn.

It is, of course, a whole differnt case where the man in a woman's role is entirely convincing as woman or when the show is in a educational context and there aren't enough of one gender to fill the parts.