|
Post by talkingheads on Jul 8, 2020 13:27:07 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. Really any actor should be able to play any part (unless it involves blackface etc)
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jul 8, 2020 14:25:31 GMT
I rewatched Yankee Doodle Dandee last night and there is a short but uncomfortable blackface scene, but then it was charting the history of the Cohans, and they were part of such revues. Do we think that The Scottsboro Boys can be performed again, containing a deliberate and very pointed scene where the black cast themselves adopt blackface - again it was history but it took my breath away. A lot of powerful layers going on in that moment.
|
|
4,593 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 8, 2020 14:45:49 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). Although severe forms of learning disability and autism would need to be acted owing to cognitive factors
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 14:47:50 GMT
Halle Berry has apologised and will no longer be playing a trans character: Does this mean that other parts will be bolted down or would it only apply to certain roles like trans or disabled ones for example? On a positive note Neighbours have a trans character who is played by a real life actress who has transitioned called Georgie Stone and they are featuring her considering when to have her final opp. Apparently Georgie pitched the idea to the show's producers for a trans character and landed the role herself. But would such a well loved character such as Hayley superbly portrayed by the excellent Julie Hesmondhaigh in Corrie now be thought that it should be played by a trans actress? I love that Neighbours are doing this storyline. The actress isn’t the strongest but I love the character and how they’re deliberately trying to normalise the entire situation without shying away from it. To be honest the entire pride week was great - Shelia in drag was brilliant. Hayley Cropper was a unique situation - originally perceived as a novelty character (for an episode or two I believe) she developed into something much more culturally important - national acceptance that she was trans character was a huge step forward at the time and they weren’t afraid to dip into transphobic storylines sporadically along the way either. However there was commentary - particularly towards the end of Hayley’s run that the casting was somewhat problematic. To be honest I don’t know how wide the trans acting pool was back in the 1990s for them to have cast it authentically, but I think we can agree attitudes and the number of trans actors has increased to the point it’s just unacceptable for anyone but trans to play trans. I don’t know where things stand at the moment, but I don’t believe that any UK soap has cast a trans person in a non-trans role yet - which has to be the next step forward (though I could be wrong, I don’t watch them all. To be honest I don’t think Corrie has actually cast a trans actor yet have they?
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 14:51:38 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). One issue through is it can limit the talent pool available for a role meaning high quality productions featuring trans or disabled characters remain rare due limited amount of suitable actors available.
There are probably more "suitable actors" than you think - and perhaps you have the impression that suitable actors aren't available partly or even entirely because producers and directors so often default to actors who are cisgendered/not living with a disability/whatever.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 14:55:04 GMT
But would such a well loved character such as Hayley superbly portrayed by the excellent Julie Hesmondhaigh in Corrie now be thought that it should be played by a trans actress? YES. And good as she was, there were plenty of people who thought so when Ms. Hesmondhalgh joined the show too. This is not an opinion that has suddenly appeared overnight. The difference NOW is that people who have power over such things are (finally) starting to pay attention.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 15:04:35 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. Really any actor should be able to play any part (unless it involves blackface etc) A trans character is a trans character - they are going to have stories that have to deal with the fact they are trans, and it is problematic in 2020 for anyone who is not trans to tell the story of a trans person. The very fact someone decides a character should be trans is entirely for storyline purposes - otherwise why write it in the script? Otherwise they’d be a cis character and anyone could apply: a trans person applying for a cis role is not problematic, in the same way a gay actor can quite easily play a straight character.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 8, 2020 15:14:28 GMT
But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. Really any actor should be able to play any part (unless it involves blackface etc) A trans character is a trans character - they are going to have stories that have to deal with the fact they are trans, and it is problematic in 2020 for anyone who is not trans to tell the story of a trans person. The very fact someone decides a character should be trans is entirely for storyline purposes - otherwise why write it in the script? Otherwise they’d be a cis character and anyone could apply: a trans person applying for a cis role is not problematic, in the same way a gay actor can quite easily play a straight character. Through this is where the issue becomes more controversial that a minority can play a minority and a majority character but a majority person can't play a minority- weither gender, racial or sexuality.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 15:23:22 GMT
But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. The point is that there are fewer trans roles than cis roles, so where possible trans roles should be played by trans performers - partly because it's appropriate for trans people to be represented when their stories are being told, partly because a trans performer is almost certainly going to do a more authentic job of embodying a trans character, and partly because there are simply fewer opportunities for trans actors to tell their stories than there are for cis actors to tell theirs. BUT at the same time, of course there's no reason a trans actor shouldn't be cast in a cis role. Did anybody care - or, really, notice - when Adèle Anderson played Billie Trix in Closer To Heaven?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 15:34:17 GMT
A trans character is a trans character - they are going to have stories that have to deal with the fact they are trans, and it is problematic in 2020 for anyone who is not trans to tell the story of a trans person. The very fact someone decides a character should be trans is entirely for storyline purposes - otherwise why write it in the script? Otherwise they’d be a cis character and anyone could apply: a trans person applying for a cis role is not problematic, in the same way a gay actor can quite easily play a straight character. Through this is where the issue becomes controversial that a minority can play a minority and a majority character but a majority person can't play a minority. There is nothing controversial about it. The majority of all roles in almost everything are for cis characters. No actor needs to play a trans person to demonstrate their acting ability anymore. I'm not saying actors can't play such parts and do them well (Felicity Huffman was fantastic in Tranamerica, for example - winning an Golden Globe for the part) but any justification applied previously is now outdated. For anyone who doesn't quite get why it's problematic just watch something like Pose, which has a large trans cast playing trans roles. Once you've watched something like that you'll understand why it wouldn't work with a cis cast, and once you understand that, you'll understand why only trans should play trans.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 8, 2020 15:53:09 GMT
Through this is where the issue becomes controversial that a minority can play a minority and a majority character but a majority person can't play a minority. There is nothing controversial about it. The majority of all roles in almost everything are for cis characters. No actor needs to play a trans person to demonstrate their acting ability anymore. I'm not saying actors can't play such parts and do them well (Felicity Huffman was fantastic in Tranamerica, for example - winning an Golden Globe for the part) but any justification applied previously is now outdated. For anyone who doesn't quite get why it's problematic just watch something like Pose, which has a large trans cast playing trans roles. Once you've watched something like that you'll understand why it wouldn't work with a cis cast, and once you understand that, you'll understand why only trans should play trans. What about a non-binary character? Is that suitable for a cis gender person to perform?
Would a heterosexual trans women be inappropriate to play a lesbian trans women?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 16:54:03 GMT
There is nothing controversial about it. The majority of all roles in almost everything are for cis characters. No actor needs to play a trans person to demonstrate their acting ability anymore. I'm not saying actors can't play such parts and do them well (Felicity Huffman was fantastic in Tranamerica, for example - winning an Golden Globe for the part) but any justification applied previously is now outdated. For anyone who doesn't quite get why it's problematic just watch something like Pose, which has a large trans cast playing trans roles. Once you've watched something like that you'll understand why it wouldn't work with a cis cast, and once you understand that, you'll understand why only trans should play trans. What about a non-binary character? Is that suitable for a cis gender person to perform?
Would a heterosexual trans women be inappropriate to play a lesbian trans women?
If a character is specifically in a script as non-binary then yes, I'd argue a non-binary character should be played by a non-binary actor. But I also think a non-binary actor should be able to play a gendered role too. Regarding a heterosexual trans woman playing a lesbian trans woman, then that's okay: it's still trans playing trans. I understand the point you're getting at, but the reality is that we have a growing community of trans actors that have decided to be open about their transition and are putting their hands up asking to be cast in roles specifically written as trans characters. That is largely being respected and shouldn't be viewed as an attack on the availability of roles to cis people. It really doesn't need to be any deeper than that. To me, its no different to any other minority that has stood up and called out casting directors for casting white cis people in minority roles. Trans actors have banged on the door, and are now demanding their seat at the table. Good for them.
|
|
|
Post by cjamess on Jul 8, 2020 18:41:04 GMT
The fact of the matter is similar to casting people who are fat in roles. Directors typically will only cast a larger person in a role if it is specifically in the storyline as a character trait. Trans people are rarely utilised unless its a character trait or something to do with a plot. Also with exception to Hamilton and &Juliet, most musicals only have a racially diverse cast unless race is a feature of the plot for example Memphis, Hairspray, South Pacific. SO currently most shows have 1 Bame male and 1 Bame female as tokenism it could be argued this is even worse for Asian actors who are consistently overlooked in favour of black. Roles aren't written white usually for a character in mainstream musical or have any relevance to the plot so why can't actors be of colour for traditionally white roles.
Wicked springs to mind: the musical who's core message is to not judge someone by the color of their skin has never had a Black or Asian Elphaba or Glinda during its whole time on Broadway only understudies.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 19:17:01 GMT
O currently most shows have 1 Bame male and 1 Bame female as tokenism it could be argued this is even worse for Asian actors who are consistently overlooked in favour of black. Roles aren't written white usually for a character in mainstream musical or have any relevance to the plot so why can't actors be of colour for traditionally white roles. I thought it was a step forward when the London production of School of Rock cast Preeya Kalidas as (Italian-American) Patty di Marco (and she was terrific) - but then when the cast changed her replacement was white, and they didn't redress the balance by casting non-white performers elsewhere among the adult leads. Once you open a door, I think it's not a good look if you close it again at the next cast change.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 1:44:18 GMT
Thanks for the feedback. Georgie Stone is a good addition as the trans character in Neighbours. Okay she isn't the greatest actress but she is effectively playing herself and the current storyline trying to gain acceptance from her father is a really good one. I only found out that Georgie had transitioned when I googled her after she joined the show. So a good move to cast "like for like".
It would be unfair to really label Georgie trans as she has transitioned into a woman like Caitlyn Jenner did. She is now referred to as a woman as was obviously referred to as a man when she was a he as Bruce.
Sheila in drag costume looking like an aged brothel madam was hilarious and fair play to Colette Mann for squeezing into that risque outfit at 70 years old.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 9, 2020 12:19:27 GMT
O currently most shows have 1 Bame male and 1 Bame female as tokenism it could be argued this is even worse for Asian actors who are consistently overlooked in favour of black. Roles aren't written white usually for a character in mainstream musical or have any relevance to the plot so why can't actors be of colour for traditionally white roles. I thought it was a step forward when the London production of School of Rock cast Preeya Kalidas as (Italian-American) Patty di Marco (and she was terrific) - but then when the cast changed her replacement was white, and they didn't redress the balance by casting non-white performers elsewhere among the adult leads. Once you open a door, I think it's not a good look if you close it again at the next cast change. Through then it's not colour blind casting but quota casting - and therefore one of the lead roles having to be seen as non - white while re-casting it.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 9, 2020 13:12:08 GMT
I thought it was a step forward when the London production of School of Rock cast Preeya Kalidas as (Italian-American) Patty di Marco (and she was terrific) - but then when the cast changed her replacement was white, and they didn't redress the balance by casting non-white performers elsewhere among the adult leads. Once you open a door, I think it's not a good look if you close it again at the next cast change. Through then it's not colour blind casting but quota casting - and therefore one of the lead roles having to be seen as non - white while re-casting it.
That's a rather cynical (and, frankly, revealing) way of looking at it.
I never said they should have cast just one leading role with a non-white performer when they changed the cast, or that they should impose some kind of quota - simply that it's not a good look to open a door and then close it again, particularly on a show where any of the leading roles could be played by performers of any race/skin colour/ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 13:31:08 GMT
The Republican Party in the US long ago effectively vilified the term affirmative action so that far too many people falsely equate it with a quota system.
In one of the university ethical leadership courses I took, it was reframed as a far more expansive and useful construct: are you (as an individual, organization, profession, et al) being affirmative in your actions so that they align with your stated values? Or in a self-assessment form, what values do your actions affirm?
As a CEO who deeply values diversity, equity, and inclusion that means that when I am recruiting talent, for staffing or our board, in order to align with those stated values we want to affirmatively cultivate the broadest, deepest, and most diverse pool of qualified candidates, as well as ensure our selection processes do not reflect implicit biases. This is hard work ... for me, as well as everyone on our leadership team.
If I/we've done our work in this regard, more often than not we end up with a more diverse composition in our organization ... without any quota system in the hiring/selection. And if quotas are needed to produce better results, we've found widespread support throughout the organization for it to be in the % of the pool.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 21, 2020 16:29:39 GMT
Looking at the Debate on the BBC today Tory backbenchers seem opposed to scrapping shows for being un PC and also coded attacks on non mainstream projects and casting - it was quite clear what type of programmes they see as not being in popular in their seat.
It feels like they will be similarly critical towards theatre due to the coronavirus bailouts being seen as requiring more mainstream theatr.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 9:23:45 GMT
I was looking through YouTube last night and I stumbled across a post that comedian Jim Davidson had done recently about current events. Jim as a lot of you will know was a rather infamous comedian at his peak before moving onto doing more main stream TV such as Big Break and the Generation Game alongside his stage work.
A lot of Jim's output was/is offensive and would never get on TV today and regardless of his politics ( he's a Tory and mocks strong lefties) his take on current sensibiliities was interesting and quite thoughtful as he tried to breakdown what you could and couldn't say now from a moral and a comedy standpoint and might be worth a listen.
If anyone watched Jim when he was on Celebrity Big Brother a few years back it is that Jim that we see, somethings he does say are still very near the knuckle and some may not find comfortable but for those of a broader mind it is an interesting listen.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jul 24, 2020 12:50:03 GMT
I was looking through YouTube last night and I stumbled across a post that comedian Jim Davidson had done recently about current events. Jim as a lot of you will know was a rather infamous comedian at his peak before moving onto doing more main stream TV such as Big Break and the Generation Game alongside his stage work. A lot of Jim's output was/is offensive and would never get on TV today and regardless of his politics ( he's a Tory and mocks strong lefties) his take on current sensibiliities was interesting and quite thoughtful as he tried to breakdown what you could and couldn't say now from a moral and a comedy standpoint and might be worth a listen. If anyone watched Jim when he was on Celebrity Big Brother a few years back it is that Jim that we see, somethings he does say are still very near the knuckle and some may not find comfortable but for those of a broader mind it is an interesting listen. Regardless of his politics he's a thoroughly unpleasant man and I have no interest in listening to the viewpoints of a racist.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 24, 2020 15:02:29 GMT
Going by the You Gov polling on removing statutes I suspect the public would be starkly divided on issues like Censoring offensive musicals and colour-blind casting historical roles.
|
|
2,529 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jul 24, 2020 15:12:17 GMT
There is, however, a big difference between "censoring" shows and just deciding not to do them.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 24, 2020 15:37:48 GMT
There is, however, a big difference between "censoring" shows and just deciding not to do them. Through even then is a desire for less pc projects - more so on TV.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 15:41:44 GMT
Going by the You Gov polling on removing statutes I suspect the public would be starkly divided on issues like Censoring offensive musicals and colour-blind casting historical roles. What about say West Side Story one of my all time favourite musicals? With it's legendary close creative control would all the various estates agree to any changes? I don't think any ALW shows contain any immediately offensive lyrics but with ALW and his co-collaborators still all with us or the vast majority of them then any tinkering can be done and ALW overseeing it. I have no issue with colour blind casting as long as it is consistent like the RSC's Romeo and Juliet when you had one family black and one white. I just don't like a random white, asian, black character turning up as a brother or sister when the rest of the family are all one consistent race. The none birth related characters can be played by anyone of any colour if that bst explains it. Black husband -White wife no issue. Black Brother, White Sister I don't like unless it is a clear half brother/sister scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 15:53:23 GMT
I was looking through YouTube last night and I stumbled across a post that comedian Jim Davidson had done recently about current events. Jim as a lot of you will know was a rather infamous comedian at his peak before moving onto doing more main stream TV such as Big Break and the Generation Game alongside his stage work. A lot of Jim's output was/is offensive and would never get on TV today and regardless of his politics ( he's a Tory and mocks strong lefties) his take on current sensibiliities was interesting and quite thoughtful as he tried to breakdown what you could and couldn't say now from a moral and a comedy standpoint and might be worth a listen. If anyone watched Jim when he was on Celebrity Big Brother a few years back it is that Jim that we see, somethings he does say are still very near the knuckle and some may not find comfortable but for those of a broader mind it is an interesting listen. Regardless of his politics he's a thoroughly unpleasant man and I have no interest in listening to the viewpoints of a racist. A lot of Jim's material I did find distasteful and his treatment of some of his wives wasn't pleasant. But I did find this interesting as he was trying to break down in his own mind what was right and wrong to say. Such as he is apparently allowed to impersonate a white friend, but he couldn't now do a black friend or being able to do a white Afrikanner accent but not a black one. He didn't go into one of his most famous characters as very few people now talk like that in the UK apart from the epically sad white kids who prentend to be a different race. I no way am I condoning a lot of Jim's material and the sad thing was that he could be a funny comic when he wanted to. Like an even more infamous openly racist comedian whose name I won't even type on here who was one of the best joke tellers out when he kept it away from race.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jul 30, 2020 14:59:59 GMT
There is, however, a big difference between "censoring" shows and just deciding not to do them. And with theatre, it's normal enough to make a few changes, either resetting a story against a more modern backdrop, or updated cultural references. I completely agree that it's important to distinguish between a character being a racist and a piece of work or the writer being racist (or sexist), but it has to be the right kind of racist for the story and the audience. So in Fawlty Towers, at the time of writing, the Major using the N word was already pretty shocking, but it's far more shocking for today's audience, and not actually necessary for the plot. Or rather it doesn't add enough value to the plot to justify its inclusion. On the other hand, serious dramas about racism, or slavery, then toning down language raises new problems. If you are to treat a subject with respect then a certain amount of authenticity is required, but just how often do you need to include particular terms? When does authenticity become sensational? IMO, the bigger issue moving forward for the arts is representation. It's all very well looking at how things could have been done better in the past, and pondering whether or not a story about slavery should include some of the nastier aspects of slavery, but how many stories about slavery do we need? Aren't there better stories and characters for black actors to portray? The point was made previously regarding Little Britain. I genuinely think they didn't mean harm by doing black face, and just felt that they should include a range of characters and not exclude black ones. But the real solution would have been to include some black actors in their cast, and to find black actors to contribute to the writing. Possibly find a woman while they are at it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 20:10:38 GMT
There is, however, a big difference between "censoring" shows and just deciding not to do them. And with theatre, it's normal enough to make a few changes, either resetting a story against a more modern backdrop, or updated cultural references. I completely agree that it's important to distinguish between a character being a racist and a piece of work or the writer being racist (or sexist), but it has to be the right kind of racist for the story and the audience. So in Fawlty Towers, at the time of writing, the Major using the N word was already pretty shocking, but it's far more shocking for today's audience, and not actually necessary for the plot. Or rather it doesn't add enough value to the plot to justify its inclusion. On the other hand, serious dramas about racism, or slavery, then toning down language raises new problems. If you are to treat a subject with respect then a certain amount of authenticity is required, but just how often do you need to include particular terms? When does authenticity become sensational? IMO, the bigger issue moving forward for the arts is representation. It's all very well looking at how things could have been done better in the past, and pondering whether or not a story about slavery should include some of the nastier aspects of slavery, but how many stories about slavery do we need? Aren't there better stories and characters for black actors to portray? The point was made previously regarding Little Britain. I genuinely think they didn't mean harm by doing black face, and just felt that they should include a range of characters and not exclude black ones. But the real solution would have been to include some black actors in their cast, and to find black actors to contribute to the writing. Possibly find a woman while they are at it! David and Matt were at best naive when they did black/brown face. Both were University educated and would have surely been aware of the sensitivities around this. David was born in the same year as me and I was aware of it by the 1990's and we are talking about them doing these characters 15 to 20 years after that. The only logic I can think of is they oved some of the classic sketch shows from the 1970's and 1980's and followed those. I can recall Benny Hill, Stanley Baxter, Ronnie Barker and David Jason all wearing black/brownface on old cips but all would have been 1985 or earlier I'm pretty sure.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 31, 2020 22:05:41 GMT
A Taste of Honey
A terrific play by Shelagh Delaney the National Theatre’s production was only in the West End last year. However you wouldn’t write a play today which featured a black sailor knocking up a white girl. However it was written in the 1950s when the country was very pious and conservative, it is a play that spoke for its time. As long as the audience is aware of this and it is a play that that is 65 yers old then fine.
Again The Merchant of Venice one of Shakespeare’s finest play, but it is also totally anti-Semitic, when you see a Jew getting stiched up and loses his wealth, but he can be rescued if he converts to Christianity, and all this was written in the name of comedy if you please, Again it spoke for its day, you wouldn’t write that today, but you wouldn’t change the piece also, as it is important to understand great historic literature. The play also has some of Shakespeare’s greatest lines.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jul 31, 2020 22:21:51 GMT
I think they fell into the trap of believing that blackface wasn't that big a deal any more, and what they were doing didn't count as blackface because it wasn't done in the style of the Black and White Minstrel Show, and that because they didn't think of themselves as racist, then it couldn't possibly be racist and so on.
But even if they assumed it was all fine, then someone in the production team should have questioned it. That's not to relinquish them of the blame, and I'd hope that responsible comedians who enjoy edgy jokes also have the sense to employ someone who will give everything a once over to check for stuff that might cross the line.
|
|