5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Mar 4, 2017 23:20:40 GMT
And some people do become members because it gets them early access to the cheaper tickets. If you're a regular and savvy booker, you can make your membership fee back easily in what you save by buying the cheapies instead of something more regularly priced. Rich people stay rich by being smart with money, not by buying the most expensive thing all the time.
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 4, 2017 23:42:20 GMT
Gosh I wish I'd known that.
|
|
3,458 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 4, 2017 23:45:59 GMT
Earlier access to tix was certainly why I paid for membership for the first time this year, though not for cheaper tix. Ideally membership would provide both but as I nearly always need to book matinees at CFT due to trains, and it's one of those venues which doesn't have matinees during previews (grr!), I can't save by booking the initial performances. So the £35 cost of membership added an extra £5 to each ticket and I didn't benefit from any reduction on the price of the tickets themselves. However, it was still worth it for the choice of dates and in some cases - particularly with the NT - membership does indeed enable me to book cheaper tickets.
|
|
5,203 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Mar 5, 2017 10:36:15 GMT
Couldn't imagine anything worse than seeing this. He is just too hammy these days it will be unbearable.
|
|
959 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 5, 2017 10:44:58 GMT
Couldn't imagine anything worse than seeing this. He is just too hammy these days it will be unbearable. Especially as, in this gender equality production, he'll be playing Goneril.
|
|
3,019 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jul 20, 2017 22:57:06 GMT
Baz is tweeting away about the cast for this and it looks brilliant. Includes Sinead Cusack, Dervla Kirwan, Jonny Bailey, Damien Molony, Tamara Lawrence.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 20, 2017 23:16:19 GMT
Am intrigued by the idea of a female Kent. I have always seen the Lear/Kent dynamic as being between two males particularly when Kent is disguised as Caius. I guess a lot will depend on the world created by the play and the overall concept of the production.
A female Gloucester would seem an easier transition to make.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 20, 2017 23:17:53 GMT
The false proscenium arch will be played by Brian Blessed.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 20, 2017 23:20:33 GMT
Am intrigued by the idea of a female Kent. No Deal is better than a drag Deal.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 5:43:34 GMT
Am intrigued by the idea of a female Kent. I have always seen the Lear/Kent dynamic as being between two males particularly when Kent is disguised as Caius. I guess a lot will depend on the world created by the play and the overall concept of the production. A female Gloucester would seem an easier transition to make. Kent is rarely done well, even McKellen himself was undistinguished in the role. A female Kent sounds wrong on the face of it but we'll have to wait and see.
|
|
742 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 21, 2017 6:23:19 GMT
I really dislike this fad for gender-bending the casting of Shakespeare. If you are going to re-invent the character dynamics and gender relationships, then call your production a play BASED ON 'King Lear', because it isn't what Shakespeare intended.
'Lear' is so delicately constructed with very intentional connections between Lear, Kent and Gloucester as paradigms of patriarchy and good sense, that to add gender into the mix is to have an entirely different discussion than the one Shakespeare wrote.
Do it, by all means, but don't call it Shakespeare's play.
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Jul 21, 2017 7:08:32 GMT
"Fad", like all the female roles weren't originally played by boys and Sarah Bernhardt never played Hamlet.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jul 21, 2017 7:33:36 GMT
Am intrigued by the idea of a female Kent. I have always seen the Lear/Kent dynamic as being between two males particularly when Kent is disguised as Caius. I guess a lot will depend on the world created by the play and the overall concept of the production. A female Gloucester would seem an easier transition to make. Kent is rarely done well, even McKellen himself was undistinguished in the role. A female Kent sounds wrong on the face of it but we'll have to wait and see. By an odd coincidence Saskia Reeves is playing the same role at the Globe!
|
|
834 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jul 21, 2017 8:02:48 GMT
I really dislike this fad for gender-bending the casting of Shakespeare. If you are going to re-invent the character dynamics and gender relationships, then call your production a play BASED ON 'King Lear', because it isn't what Shakespeare intended. 'Lear' is so delicately constructed with very intentional connections between Lear, Kent and Gloucester as paradigms of patriarchy and good sense, that to add gender into the mix is to have an entirely different discussion than the one Shakespeare wrote. Do it, by all means, but don't call it Shakespeare's play. It can work in other circumstances, certainly if the play is set in/updated to contemporary Europe. In the Ivo van Hove Roman tragedies Cassius was a woman (as she will be in the Hytner next year) and so was Octavius. The Guildernstern in the Icke Hamlet (or was it Rosencrantz) was a woman, and that wasn't an issue. I'm sure there are lots of times when it works, one or two when it doesn't. Few seemed to have a problem with the NT's Twelfth Night this year.
|
|
3,019 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jul 21, 2017 8:40:03 GMT
Phil Daniels as The Fool
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 10:15:08 GMT
"Fad", like all the female roles weren't originally played by boys and Sarah Bernhardt never played Hamlet. That's not the point that's under discussion at all. In Shakespeare's day Cleopatra (for example) was played as a female character even though the actor was a boy. What we're discussing here is the gender of the character being switched - so the character Cleopatra played as a man. Not the same at all. So no need to roll your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 10:20:00 GMT
Oh. That's not good. He's hopeless. Still in shock from his Autolycus.
|
|
944 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jul 21, 2017 10:50:35 GMT
"Fad", like all the female roles weren't originally played by boys and Sarah Bernhardt never played Hamlet. That's not the point that's under discussion at all. In Shakespeare's day Cleopatra (for example) was played as a female character even though the actor was a boy. What we're discussing here is the gender of the character being switched - so the character Cleopatra played as a man. Not the same at all. So no need to roll your eyes. I feel like we should just divert everybody to an old thread, where this conversation has been thrashed out before. The fact of the matter is, we're never going to know whether Shakespeare would approve and if it does actually do the piece a disservice. He's not as readily available for questioning as Stephen Sondheim is and it's all a matter of opinion anyway, which is not fact. If we were to speculate whether Shakespeare would still want his plays to be performed using the same rulebook 500 years down the line with no opportunity for re-interpreation, invention or, God forbid, to go some way to creating a certain equality between genders within the acting world, I'd probably hazard a guess that he'd probably be quite encouraging of the practice.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 11:06:53 GMT
Quite frankly, no-one is going to be taking a blind bit of notice of anyone else on stage in this production because the delightfully scrumptious Jonny B is playing Edgar.
Ian who?
'nuff said.
|
|
944 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jul 21, 2017 11:09:48 GMT
Quite frankly, no-one is going to be taking a blind bit of notice of anyone else on stage in this production because the delightfully scrumptious Jonny B is playing Edgar. Ian who? 'nuff said. Is Edgar the one that gets naked?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2017 11:34:33 GMT
That's not the point that's under discussion at all. In Shakespeare's day Cleopatra (for example) was played as a female character even though the actor was a boy. What we're discussing here is the gender of the character being switched - so the character Cleopatra played as a man. Not the same at all. So no need to roll your eyes. I feel like we should just divert everybody to an old thread, where this conversation has been thrashed out before. The fact of the matter is, we're never going to know whether Shakespeare would approve and if it does actually do the piece a disservice. He's not as readily available for questioning as Stephen Sondheim is and it's all a matter of opinion anyway, which is not fact. If we were to speculate whether Shakespeare would still want his plays to be performed using the same rulebook 500 years down the line with no opportunity for re-interpreation, invention or, God forbid, to go some way to creating a certain equality between genders within the acting world, I'd probably hazard a guess that he'd probably be quite encouraging of the practice. Is there a single example of a living playwright who has allowed roles to be gender-swapped in one of their plays ? Why not ? But you think dead playwrights would have been OK with it ? I am not opposed to it really but it skews the plays in a way clearly not intended by the playwright, the NT Malvolia for example, the closeted lesbian subtext became a major part of the play and of course that is no part of the original.
|
|
944 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jul 21, 2017 11:51:03 GMT
I feel like we should just divert everybody to an old thread, where this conversation has been thrashed out before. The fact of the matter is, we're never going to know whether Shakespeare would approve and if it does actually do the piece a disservice. He's not as readily available for questioning as Stephen Sondheim is and it's all a matter of opinion anyway, which is not fact. If we were to speculate whether Shakespeare would still want his plays to be performed using the same rulebook 500 years down the line with no opportunity for re-interpreation, invention or, God forbid, to go some way to creating a certain equality between genders within the acting world, I'd probably hazard a guess that he'd probably be quite encouraging of the practice. Is there a single example of a living playwright who has allowed roles to be gender-swapped in one of their plays ? Why not ? But you think dead playwrights would have been OK with it ? I cited it in my original response - Stephen Sondheim has just allowed a female to be cast as Bobby in Company. Simply saying "It works". And yes, yes, I do. Plays aren't sacred texts, they're stories, even when they're based on fact. People reinterpret stories, it's how storytelling began.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 13:59:50 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat?
What I mean is that while it's true that changing character genders alters the plays dynamics and the way that audiences connect to & interpret the story, the same is true of pretty much every aspect of casting (and indeed most artistic decisions; location and setting for instance).
After all, a 13 year old Juliet falling in love with a 16 year old Romeo would play differently to the same play with young adults. Similarly, changes in actors' races or nationalities might mean the audience react to the play differently, and even superficial stuff like their appearance and accents would. If we felt that the actor playing Romeo was very good looking and Juliet was ugly or vice versa then that would alter, even subconsciously, how we feel about the love at first sight-iness.
The connection with the audience also changes in ways completely out of the creators' control. The way a film with a mixed race couple might have been daring decades ago but watching the same film these days wouldn't have the same impact, or how plays that happen to coincide with big news events might take on meaning that was never intended.
The thing is that, even if you remain true to the original intentions as written I'm not sure that the thing necessarily plays to the audience the same anyway, since we are watching the story through the lens of modern sensibilities and with a completely different framework. Even going to a relatively 'true' production at the Globe we won't really take in the play in the way that audiences did originally.
I'm not saying that the changes made don't matter, just that it seems strange that 'changing gender' is felt by some to be something that simply shouldn't be done, rather than something you would think about like any other casting choice (i.e. considering whether you like it on a case-by-case basis, based on the eventual actor, the role and the actual performance).
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 21, 2017 13:59:51 GMT
Jan: Malvolio fancies Olivia so why worry whether he is a he or a she? (I didn't see this production)
My problem is when they change a character and it damages the whole shebang as in the RSC King John when they changed the Bastard into a woman but maintained the historical context. The whole point of the play is that the Bastard would be a much better king than John and displays all the best Shakespearean Kingly traits but he can't be king cos, hey, he is a Bastard. If you make him a her , she wouldn't even be in the picture as women were still viewed with horror as inheritors of the crown. And don't go on about Elizabeth cos that is not what Willy was addressing in this play cos he didn't make the Bastard a woman, he kept to the historical facts as he knew them, in this case.
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Jul 21, 2017 14:01:28 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem*
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 21, 2017 14:05:53 GMT
No ho ho, don't mention blind casting... Actually I read a very odd review of Fiddler in Chichester which seemed to think that casting a man who is Iranian heritage ( and not Jewish) as Tevye was in some way something to be remarked on. Can o' worms?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 21, 2017 14:23:48 GMT
Out of interest, why is changing character genders specifically the thing that seems to get people's goat? *cough*sexism*ahem* While I'm sure that sexism is a part of it, perhaps even a major part, I'm not sure it's all that useful a response. I know that messageboards lean towards short witty responses with concrete black/white views, but FWIW I think there's a risk with treating relatively complex and serious topics in this way. Partly because the word has such a wide ranging meaning, but also because it sort of makes everyone defensive. I would think that many people who might feel intrinsically opposed to gender blind casting wouldn't consider themselves sexist, but starting a discussion with that basically makes the line very clear.
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Jul 21, 2017 14:34:34 GMT
Fair point, apologies for my flippancy. I do think it's a hefty part of it though. There has historically been a strong sense in the arts (theatre, literature, TV, cinema, etc) that "straight white man" is the "default", and if I may lift an example from this week's papers, people have always been fairly calm when yet another straight white man is cast as the lead in Doctor Who, but apparently one woman in the role after a run of twelve(ish) men spanning more than 50 years is a valid reason to flip lids across the globe. For some people - not necessarily people here but certainly plenty of 'em - casting a woman in a traditionally male role is not seen as giving a role to a woman, it is seen as taking a role away from a man.
As a woman myself, I am always delighted when someone decides to subvert things in an effort to redress the balance - women outnumber men on a global scale, but you wouldn't think it looking at the average cast list! - and as someone who's seen more than a dozen different unique productions of King Lear in less than a decade, I am STRONGLY IN FAVOUR of any sort of reinterpretation. Of any Shakespeare, in fact. The joy of theatre is that it is a non-realistic medium where we can try new things, knowing that nothing is set in stone, knowing that the next production is round the corner, knowing that we may fail but the joy is in trying, and if that includes seeing how Kent works as a woman this year, then why the H-E-double-hockey-sticks NOT. Sometimes great risks lead to great artistic reward, so directors should always have the freedom to try, no matter how non-traditional or non-textual the risk may seem.
Besides, don't most (if not all) Shakespeare plays have several different versions dating right back to Shakespeare's time? We can't hold the bard himself up as having a clear vision that should be revered 400 years down the line when he didn't even keep things consistent during the period he was writing.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 21, 2017 14:37:53 GMT
I don't think everyone who objects to changing the gender of a character is necessarily sexist.
In my own work I have always worked to increase the opportunities for female actors in my Shakespeare productions. Whether that is just switching gender (Antonio becoming Antonia in Much Ado) or by creating a new role using existing lines from the text (adding Queen Joan into Henry IV using lines from various nobles) - I have always aimed to work with the text and the structures of the play to create a more balanced casting.
With my own Lear, I had a female Fool - not sharing the role with Cordelia but that hypothesis was very much in my mind when I took that decision. As an outsider to the social structures of the play, the Fool can be viewed in a broader set of ways which made regendering an easy decision to take.
I remain unconvinced about a female Kent as I am not certain that the intimacy of the relationship that grows between Lear and Caius is one that would emerge so clearly with a Male/Female casting. As I said in my initial posting on this subject, it will all depend on how it plays out in the production and the world the director creates. I think a female Gloucester has more dramatic potential - a contrast to Lear - Father with Daughters against Mother with Sons. The blinding becomes an even more shocking act. If I ever revisit the play it is something I will almost certainly seek to explore.
I know Lynette did not enjoy the RSC King John - but I do disagree with her that the restructuring of the play to create a female Bastard was a bad idea. Because it was such a radical recutting of the text and the production was played out in a heightened modern setting, I felt it worked brilliantly and gave Pippa Nixon a great showcase for her talents. It still remains one of my favourite productions.
Each director takes a view as to what they want to achieve with their production and the casting reflects this. However the productions that to my mind succeed the most are the ones that work with the structure of the play and the detail of the text rather than working against it. If you don't trust the text, perhaps you aren't the right director for that project...
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 21, 2017 14:39:47 GMT
No ho ho, don't mention blind casting... Actually I read a very odd review of Fiddler in Chichester which seemed to think that casting a man who is Iranian heritage ( and not Jewish) as Tevye was in some way something to be remarked on. Can o' worms? Sorry to go OT, but that's an interesting one. Fiddler is a show about a minority group of people, much in the same way The Colour Purple is, for example. But there would never, ever be a Celie cast as anything other than black, I should think? Should the same apply to Fiddler? Their original Lazar Wolf, Chris Jarman (who is now no longer part of the production), is a black, non-Jewish man playing a Jewish man whose skin colour is indeterminable. Is this comparable to Shug Avery being played by anyone other than a black woman? Must stress, this ISN'T my opinion, but a question to which I have no answer! On the other hand (to coin Tevye's phrase), to cast an entire musical where being Jewish is directly related to the story, with only Jewish people is probably far less logistic than casting an entire musical with black people, where it is dictated by story. I've seen other reviews that said having mixed race/black people in Fiddler adds yet another level of contemporary realism to the story, which is also a good point. Of course, being Jewish has nothing to do with skin colour and Jewish people are far less likely to be "denied" a job based on that factor compared to a black actor, for example, so of course it's not a like-for-like comparison by any stretch of the imagination, but a smattering of food for thought nonetheless.
|
|