4,958 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 6, 2022 17:33:22 GMT
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 6, 2022 17:35:06 GMT
Nice! As long as they can sit the role and act it, gender really isn’t really a consideration. Charlie as a name can be used interchangeably so no fiddling with the script. My only slight concern is how they play the Wonka/Charlie dynamic. Slightly eccentric, borderline creepy with a little girl has the potential to seem a little gross at times, but I’m sure they will work it out.
Writers (and the Dahl estate) were fine with switching around which of the bucket parents was alive and the other not, so they’ll be fine with this too.
|
|
1,905 posts
|
Post by LaLuPone on Sept 6, 2022 18:49:03 GMT
Nice! As long as they can sit the role and act it, gender really isn’t really a consideration. Charlie as a name can be used interchangeably so no fiddling with the script. My only slight concern is how they play the Wonka/Charlie dynamic. Slightly eccentric, borderline creepy with a little girl has the potential to seem a little gross at times, but I’m sure they will work it out. Writers (and the Dahl estate) were fine with switching around which of the bucket parents was alive and the other not, so they’ll be fine with this too. Since when are one of the parents dead??? Is that just in the musical? I swear they’re both alive in the novel and the Tim Burton movie?
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 6, 2022 18:59:04 GMT
Nice! As long as they can sit the role and act it, gender really isn’t really a consideration. Charlie as a name can be used interchangeably so no fiddling with the script. My only slight concern is how they play the Wonka/Charlie dynamic. Slightly eccentric, borderline creepy with a little girl has the potential to seem a little gross at times, but I’m sure they will work it out. Writers (and the Dahl estate) were fine with switching around which of the bucket parents was alive and the other not, so they’ll be fine with this too. Since when are one of the parents dead??? Is that just in the musical? I swear they’re both alive in the novel and the Tim Burton movie? Whooops, Strike that and reverse it, compete lies - I'm mis-remembering it!! I recalled the song "If your mother was here" from the London production changing to "If your father was here" on Broadway and filled in a few too many blanks - its been a while. Stand down haha.
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 6, 2022 19:22:28 GMT
I remember If Your Mother Were Here. Confusing the first time I saw that. By the time the musical finished in the west end they had tried improving it, but otherwise it felt completely unnecessary and comes out of nowhere
Like even if his biological mother had died at no point do we feel Charlie misses her
|
|
211 posts
|
Post by sprampster on Sept 6, 2022 23:26:57 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters !
|
|
|
Post by hadeswasking on Sept 6, 2022 23:33:36 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters ! Can you explain what you mean by "done for wokeness" please.
|
|
2,745 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 12:06:31 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters ! Have to say, I agree. As a bit of a traditionalist, I'd quite like to see something staged that simply sticks to the original script/story. It's a bit like when the Old Vic casts girls as Tiny Tim only to visually dress them as boys on stage as they have done on occasion. But current fashion seems to be to fiddle with everything so that boxes can be ticked and nobody can subsequently be accused of being gender/age/colour biased. Is it genuine open casting or is it fear of a backlash from the vocal local woke-alls?
|
|
6,306 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 7, 2022 12:22:31 GMT
If it was Wonka being blind casted, I might understand the outrage but having Charlie being played by a both a girl and a boy is actually interesting casting.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 7, 2022 12:29:46 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters ! Have to say, I agree. As a bit of a traditionalist, I'd quite like to see something staged that simply sticks to the original script/story. It's a bit like when the Old Vic casts girls as Tiny Tim only to visually dress them as boys on stage as they have done on occasion. But current fashion seems to be to fiddle with everything so that boxes can be ticked and nobody can subsequently be accused of being gender/age/colour biased. Is it genuine open casting or is it fear of a backlash from the vocal local woke-alls? There was nothing in the original Matilda novel to imply Trunchball had male genitalia under the skirt, yet men play that role quite effectively on stage, to much applause too. Would you rather a woke intervention take hold of that show also and insist boy plays boy and girl plays girl?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousoctopus on Sept 7, 2022 12:36:05 GMT
Don’t understand the ‘woke’ backlash either. There’s no in-text reason the Charlie needs to be a boy at all. Charlie is a child who is defined by his kindness and selflessness, Charlie is a unisex name, and the character’s gender doesn’t play into the plot so nothing except pronouns needs to be changed.
They’ve cast two boys and two girls, two white kids and two black kids - it literally couldn’t be more balanced and gives more opportunity for both younger girls and black children who often aren’t seen for these roles because of the idea that Charlie Bucket needs to be a white boy. The idea that any casting outside of ‘tradition’ (ie white boys/men) as just being woke boxticking seems rather narrow.
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 7, 2022 12:45:47 GMT
I think it's nice to celebrate a boy for being kind, rather than tough. Casting girls doesn't make a huge difference in terms of singing etc at that age, but I don't really see there's a massive benefit to it either.
Pretty sure the reason behind casting a man as Miss Trunchbull is different — she's definitely a woman, but casting a man is "theatre trickery" to make the character look more physically imposing surely? Like the costume and camera angles used in the film. The Matildas can't actually be 4 or 5, so you cast somebody taller and broader as Miss Trunchbull to get that size difference.
|
|
6,306 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 7, 2022 13:06:30 GMT
I think it's nice to celebrate a boy for being kind, rather than tough. Casting girls doesn't make a huge difference in terms of singing etc at that age, but I don't really see there's a massive benefit to it either. Pretty sure the reason behind casting a man as Miss Trunchbull is different — she's definitely a woman, but casting a man is "theatre trickery" to make the character look more physically imposing surely? Like the costume and camera angles used in the film. The Matildas can't actually be 4 or 5, so you cast somebody taller and broader as Miss Trunchbull to get that size difference. I believe the role of Miss Trunchbull doesn't exclude females from being cast but I've yet to see a woman cast in the role.
|
|
2,745 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 13:57:08 GMT
Have to say, I agree. As a bit of a traditionalist, I'd quite like to see something staged that simply sticks to the original script/story. It's a bit like when the Old Vic casts girls as Tiny Tim only to visually dress them as boys on stage as they have done on occasion. But current fashion seems to be to fiddle with everything so that boxes can be ticked and nobody can subsequently be accused of being gender/age/colour biased. Is it genuine open casting or is it fear of a backlash from the vocal local woke-alls? There was nothing in the original Matilda novel to imply Trunchball had male genitalia under the skirt, yet men play that role quite effectively on stage, to much applause too. Would you rather a woke intervention take hold of that show also and insist boy plays boy and girl plays girl? Good point about Trunchbull - hadn't crossed my mind. As I said, I'm a bit of a traditionalist. As a fan of the CATCF musical, I look forward to seeing whatever improvements have been made since Drury Lane, though of the two recordings available, I prefer London to Broadway.
|
|
2,745 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 14:00:00 GMT
Don’t understand the ‘woke’ backlash either. There’s no in-text reason the Charlie needs to be a boy at all. Charlie is a child who is defined by his kindness and selflessness, Charlie is a unisex name, and the character’s gender doesn’t play into the plot so nothing except pronouns needs to be changed. They’ve cast two boys and two girls, two white kids and two black kids - it literally couldn’t be more balanced and gives more opportunity for both younger girls and black children who often aren’t seen for these roles because of the idea that Charlie Bucket needs to be a white boy. The idea that any casting outside of ‘tradition’ (ie white boys/men) as just being woke boxticking seems rather narrow. You might enjoy reading this: blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2017/09/18/charlie-from-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-was-originally-written-as-a-little-black-boy/ Seems relevant to the thread.
|
|
2,745 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 14:00:46 GMT
I think it's nice to celebrate a boy for being kind, rather than tough. Casting girls doesn't make a huge difference in terms of singing etc at that age, but I don't really see there's a massive benefit to it either. Pretty sure the reason behind casting a man as Miss Trunchbull is different — she's definitely a woman, but casting a man is "theatre trickery" to make the character look more physically imposing surely? Like the costume and camera angles used in the film. The Matildas can't actually be 4 or 5, so you cast somebody taller and broader as Miss Trunchbull to get that size difference. I believe the role of Miss Trunchbull doesn't exclude females from being cast but I've yet to see a woman cast in the role. Emma Thompson in the film?
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 7, 2022 14:10:00 GMT
And Pam Ferris. But you can do things with cameras that you can't do on a stage.
|
|
5,274 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Sept 7, 2022 21:57:30 GMT
Charlie being a girl is a stupid idea. Clearly there is absolutely no sense these days of honouring the author who created these stories.
Looking forward to Wonkas understudy being a woman.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on Sept 7, 2022 23:10:51 GMT
Charlie being a girl is a stupid idea. Clearly there is absolutely no sense these days of honouring the author who created these stories. Looking forward to Wonkas understudy being a woman. If the Dahl estate signed off on it then I guess that's as close to honouring the author as can be achieved these days
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 8, 2022 7:48:40 GMT
There was nothing in the original Matilda novel to imply Trunchball had male genitalia under the skirt, yet men play that role quite effectively on stage, to much applause too. Would you rather a woke intervention take hold of that show also and insist boy plays boy and girl plays girl? Good point about Trunchbull - hadn't crossed my mind. I think it's quite different actually. With Charlie you're changing the character to match the actor, although it probably doesn't make a lot of difference in this case whether it's a girl or a boy. With the Trunchbull you're changing the sex of the actor, but not the character. It's more like a trouser role in opera. It's not like a pantomime where the audience are "let in" on the fact the pantomime dame is a man (while the principal boy is simultaneously treated as a male character. It's no wonder that people from abroad are often very confused by pantos!).
|
|
4,958 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 1, 2022 9:39:55 GMT
Full cast now announced. Christopher Howell is spending Christmas in West Yorkshire. Yay!
|
|
3,059 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Oct 1, 2022 13:31:18 GMT
Let's note as well that the Dahl Company have signed a contract with Netflix for all kinds of spin-offs and updates. So they're very open to new interpretations of the original texts and characters.
When I read Christopher Howell, my first thought was he'd make a marvellous Willy Wonka. Grandpa George is such a small role. Still, he's always excellent.
|
|
4,958 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 1, 2022 14:05:41 GMT
So what you're saying, Dr Tom, is you'd like to see Christopher Howell's Willy? 😉
|
|
4,958 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 28, 2022 14:21:05 GMT
An 'exclusive' glimpse inside the rehearsal room...with added singing in the background.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Oct 28, 2022 17:00:01 GMT
Many thoughts. Primarily, have they changed the score again?? The backing music here sounds like an adaption of Juicy from the London version, which didn't make it to the final Broadway version. Doesn't sound like anything I remember from either soundtrack. Then again, it wouldnt have expected them to have any studio time to record new songs for promo.
|
|
4,590 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Oct 29, 2022 7:44:00 GMT
looks fab. i cant wait to see it
|
|
2,745 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Oct 30, 2022 11:02:37 GMT
Many thoughts. Primarily, have they changed the score again?? The backing music here sounds like an adaption of Juicy from the London version, which didn't make it to the final Broadway version. Doesn't sound like anything I remember from either soundtrack. Then again, it wouldnt have expected them to have any studio time to record new songs for promo. This song actually sounds like the part when the Oompa Loompas sing to Violet as she gets taken to the pressing machine, rather than "Juicy".
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Oct 30, 2022 12:25:43 GMT
Many thoughts. Primarily, have they changed the score again?? The backing music here sounds like an adaption of Juicy from the London version, which didn't make it to the final Broadway version. Doesn't sound like anything I remember from either soundtrack. Then again, it wouldnt have expected them to have any studio time to record new songs for promo. This song actually sounds like the part when the Oompa Loompas sing to Violet as she gets taken to the pressing machine, rather than "Juicy". In which production? I don't remember that. In London Juicy started with "Tomato soup..." then goes through the meals as she's eating the gum, which builds into the full song with the Oompa intro "And here she is, new in the number one, Chewing up the charts..." and the song ends with her exploding with the purple confetti. On Broadway there was an underscored elongated list of food as she's chewing away, then as she reaches blueberry and starts to inflate she's just taken off stage in silence and everyone moves onto the next scene, awkwardly.
|
|
2,745 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Oct 30, 2022 14:02:04 GMT
This song actually sounds like the part when the Oompa Loompas sing to Violet as she gets taken to the pressing machine, rather than "Juicy". In which production? I don't remember that. In London Juicy started with "Tomato soup..." then goes through the meals as she's eating the gum, which builds into the full song with the Oompa intro "And here she is, new in the number one, Chewing up the charts..." and the song ends with her exploding with the purple confetti. On Broadway there was an underscored elongated list of food as she's chewing away, then as she reaches blueberry and starts to inflate she's just taken off stage in silence and everyone moves onto the next scene, awkwardly. Listening to the lyrics, this sounds like a bit of OompaLoompa "dibbidy-doo" singing (like the film) which I'm guessing has been brought in to bridge the awkward gap you mention. I preferred the London version, so I'm thinking that it might have been tweaked to create a hybrid of London/Broadway versions for this production. Can't wait to see it!
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Oct 30, 2022 16:48:47 GMT
In which production? I don't remember that. In London Juicy started with "Tomato soup..." then goes through the meals as she's eating the gum, which builds into the full song with the Oompa intro "And here she is, new in the number one, Chewing up the charts..." and the song ends with her exploding with the purple confetti. On Broadway there was an underscored elongated list of food as she's chewing away, then as she reaches blueberry and starts to inflate she's just taken off stage in silence and everyone moves onto the next scene, awkwardly. Listening to the lyrics, this sounds like a bit of OompaLoompa "dibbidy-doo" singing (like the film) which I'm guessing has been brought in to bridge the awkward gap you mention. I preferred the London version, so I'm thinking that it might have been tweaked to create a hybrid of London/Broadway versions for this production. Can't wait to see it! I didnt really get an 'oompa' vibe until the very last line, but could be me. It's very 70s in its disco rhythm, with synth brass and strings which is what Juicy was, hence the association. Hopefully there is no awkward gap in this version, given the director mentions "exploding blueberries". Time will tell. Less than 20 days til curtain up!
|
|