Time for Women with Talent to Take Back Older Female Roles in Pantos

@GreenIsTheColourOfMyHoliday Craig Revel Harwood played Miss Hannigan, which I was referencing

Aha, I'd forgotten the good fairy. That's good. It's not as if the only available female characters in the stories are negative/passive princesses.

Linking theatre with plays as "but that's what I mean when I say theatre" is dismissing musicals

If you mean plays, say plays not theatre

Musicals showcase a wide variety of female leads, more women are producing and directing as well as stage managing and all those important backstage roles (trust me, I know several)

And lots of musicals are written by the same 2 or 3 men let's be real

Imo that's the single biggest reason we should keep them.

Good post. On that, the interactive element is another thing which highlights how unreal it is. This ties into the wider swapping/unreal elements with dames etc

Panto season is the single reason why local theatres can stay open. The money raised from those performances covers the losses made the rest of the year.

Exactly

The role of "dame" is a comic role, there to be mocked and laughed at

The good fairy, mostly played by a woman, however is a heroic figure

You said that they should cast young men that girls would want to look at

What is that but saying "cast sex objects"

And pantos, Disney movies and lots of family entertainment (because pantos are family not children's entertainment) have adult jokes and humour because they are aimed at both adults and children

Most children do not question the cast or find it unbelievable or takes them out of the story or whatever. They're too busy singing along to the popular songs included, shouting out "he's behind you" and whatever catchphrase the comic has, being dazzled by the costumes and the lights and the dancing, laughing at the jokes and screaming at the villains

I think the problem with that is that panto's meant to be unreal & unbelievable. The dame is the biggest example of that.

I don't think dames are positive though. Adjusting it to be played by a woman could keep the over-the-top humour side. I suppose however some might question whether it remains a panto if the dame tradition goes.

The easiest option might be to abandon pantos but otoh they are a big Xmas thing for many people. I don't think it has to be all-or-nothing. Maybe to start with, dame roles could be more positive (I know some are) rather than Ugly Sister type stuff?

I haven’t dismissed them. You have put those words in my mouth. I said when I think of theatre I think of straight drama. That doesn’t mean I am snobby about musicals, because I am not. Some are genius. They still don’t represent women properly for the reasons I have set out. Thee is no good reason why less than 9% of musicals in the UK are written by women. I think the figure on Broadway is slightly higher at 13%. That’s dire.

Tbf as I'm bi I don't have that kind of issue with principal boys, but as I said to pp, I know most women do. However, mostly they cast young male acting/singing idols anyway, for that reason.

At least women get a chance for a heroic main part that way. Panto dames could become strong parts for older women, but at the moment they don't really function that way since they're ridiculous figures and often negative (ugly sisters for one). Princess love interest roles are the main female role otherwise.

Agree, why men, its silly...

Panto Dame characters are not "female" though

As mentioned several times, the humour often comes from the fact the entire audience knows its a man

Re this : Victorian principal boys usually wore tights and short tunics or breeches in a storybook/pageboy style — showing legs, yes, but not burlesque-style or “barely covered.” It was standard theatrical costume, closer to ballet or operetta than anything sleazy. If the tradition had been seen as indecent, it’s unlikely Princess Elizabeth would have been allowed to take part at all.
I agree there was a male gaze element but I don't think Victorian pantos as a whole were as sleazy as you say. The dame tradition is definitely sexist imo but otoh Victorians had burlesque and other more risqué forms or entertainment for prurient men to go to- family pantos would presumably not have been their main outlet.

But it's not the same as blackface and throwing that around as an equivalency isn't helping

(On a side note, yellow face is still a thing in Panto, with Aladdin, and Ballet, with The Nutcracker, that is only just being moved away from and only then slowly)

So it's ok for them to cast a "good looking young man" that the women can ogle?

Hippocrasy

Dismissing Musicals as you have is a harmful practice because, like it or not, musicals are the current "popular" form of entertainment

Women are also coming stronger and stronger on to the scene, having more of a say and being seen and visible, making their mark

You have dismissed then as being a valid form of theatre where female lead is thriving

Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake isn't a gimmick

It's a beautiful interpretation intended to subvert expectations, as are most of his work

Straight plays aren't popular and are mostly based off old stories because people like "classics" - but a fair few of those are Agatha Christie plays

Smaller, local theatres are more likely to host newer plays and put calls out specifically for under represented voices