Queer production of As You Like It at Shakespeare’s Globe

I think you may be out of luck with seeing the originals!

(I know what you mean but you made me grin.)

I guess what I'm getting at is that we all have an impression in our heads of what 'proper' Shakespeare is. And for you, that's togas and cloaks, because there was a fashion in the not so distant past for doing Shakespeare's history plays as if they were films set in the time of the play, with full historical accuracy.

But that's not actually what Shakespeare's lot did, so far as we know; it's not particularly more 'faithful' to the text than any other approach, including fannying about with cross-dressing.

This "everyday gay person" thinks it's massively tiresome, for sure

The point is that as it was the Globe I was expecting something simpler. It's hard to appreciate a "fresh take" until you have seen the originals for context.

I saw Measure for Measure at the Sam Wanamaker (indoor Globe) a year or two ago with a female Duke and that was fascinating - really changed some of the dynamics in an interesting way, without muddying the clarity of the plotting.

I also like the trend of changing some of the minor characters to women- usually makes zero difference to the plot, or actually makes it easier to follow, as I always get the minor characters muddled up.

Agree with everyone though that it needs to be done well and thoughtfully.

I love that!

I'm a Shakespearean actor (though I've never been invited to the Globe, sadly, possibly because I'm a boringly straight, white, middle-aged woman!) and a few years ago I played Banquo in Macbeth, but they had me play him as a woman.

It was a really interesting way to do it, because all we changed was the pronouns. So she was still a tough, brave, protective soldier - just a female one.

Cross-casting can absolutely work - and it's great for older actresses as it levels the playing field a bit, as there are so many brilliant older male roles in Shakespeare and not many older female ones.

Couldn't figure out who was who because each actor randomly male or female seemed to be playing two or three characters wearing similar/ same costumes.

We saw Macbeth at globe this summer they'd swapped some roles to female - and some cast playing multiple parts but it was easy to follow had little real impact on play and was really well done generally - so costume people must have thought it all through they there were in modern stuff.

My children - two of how thanks to GCSE English Lit thought they hated Shakespeare - and one possibly doing that play this year loved it much to their surprise.

I'm really glad we saw that one and not the one PotteringPondering went to which sounds like it would have put them off.

I don't think this is true at all. I realise we can't be absolutely certain what he thought, but if he wasn't playing at cross-dressing, why would he write so many plays where it is central to the plot?

I have no issues with this in the arts which we know, when we watch, is make believe. The problem is the erosion of actual women in the real world when we are asked to close our eyes to evidence and accept a fallacy as the truth.

Shakespeare wasn't playing at cross dressing - he was fulfilling a no female mandate. Not the same energy at all.

That sounds fabulous!

Yes it did work. They were quite delicate and subtle with their gender swapped casting. The same company did an absolutely stonking and charismatic female Henry V.

Oh, I missed that one! DD was just too little. I think I remember you going, though I don't remember you mentioning that casting. Did you think it worked there, too?

They did Theseus/Titania and Hippolyta/Oberon at the temporary Rose in York before the pandemic! It worked great. But no longer feels original to me 😉

But ... would they have been wearing togas and cloaks? I know they do on I, Claudius and so on (and I know there's an image from Shakespeare's day that might be showing some attempt at historical dress onstage). But isn't it quite as likely they'd have been wearing sixteenth-century standard issue?

That's it. I took my teenager thinking it would be a good example of a conventional production, or possibly an authentic historical production. It was Julius Caesar so she wanted to see togas and cloaks. They didn't look like senior military leaders, more like crusties kitted out at the army surplus store.

Well, in that case, Shakespeare's not original or creative either, is he?

Surely, any approach - including cross-gender casting - is either successful because it's done well, or it fails because it's done badly. This play may well have done it badly, but I get the impression from the OP that she's affronted that it was done at all.

You can do really clever, original things with cross-gender, I think. The play I've just seen had the actor who played Theseus also play Titania (Theseus is usually doubled up with Oberon), and it was a really clever little detail - usually the doubling up of the characters reinforces the misogyny of the men, but pairing Theseus and Titania made it feel as if Theseus got a taste of his own medicine. It's just an example, but there would be others.

agree @Rudderneck its all about the bids for funding. It’s getting boring now.

When Dd did Macbeth for GCSE, the one they watched was a very grainy black and white Thames tv production with a young Judi Dench and Ian McKellen in it as it was the best one that concentrated on the script.
Ian McKellen popped up decades later for Richard III but the teacher had then to discuss everything that was different in that production.

It's not really a very original or interesting approach though. Gender swapping has been done forever, it's like the go to thing dumb young actors reach for when they want to be edgy. They were doing it 30 years ago.

And you can't go to any artistic event, or museum, these days without it being "queered" which usually means shoehorning in irrelevant stuff. Queer plants etc.

It's so transparently about uncreative people jumping on bandwagons, and trying to secure arts funding, that it's really depressing.

Mmm, maybe so.

I totally agree there’s a place for lots of different approaches. I am just not sure the Globe is the right place for this approach, given its audiences.

I saw an RSC production a couple of years ago of one of the comedies, cant remember if it was 'All's Well That Ends Well' and they'd messed around with the sexes too. I've seen a lot of Shakespeare but I found it really hard to follow and it made no sense. I guess all the passing fads show up in our culture, however silly they are.

Cross post. I'm sceptical because, TBH, it sounds to me as if the OP took umbrage at this turning out to be a 'queer production' and decided she wouldn't like it on principle. Could be wrong about that.

"what turned out" - did you not look at the website / promo stuff? So ignorant. It's a play, they are acting.