Drag queen to play Judy Garland on stage :-(

Exactly.
Men have been stealing women's roles in the arts since Victorian times when Mr Simmons decided to take the role of Mother Goose, changing her from a kind, nurturing grandmother figure who teaches children nursery rhymes and how to read into a witch (how original). Joseph Grimaldi then grabbed the idea and ran with it as the public were getting bored with clowns.

Mother Goose should be a positive depiction of older women and instead she's been turned into a nasty, nagging, hideous caricature to appeal to misogynistic men.

How does that make it better?

Man who makes living from womanface gets womanface part in musical about real woman ahead of dozens of qualified actresses.

Judy Garland was a real person who was famously exploited as a child and as a woman.

As for bringing in an audience, the woman who is the subject of the play, Judy Garland, is still better known and loved than this drag artist, I venture to suggest. There must be female ex-winners of TV singing competitions, or soap actresses with name recognition.

Anyway. I am taking a break from Mumsnet for a bit, so enjoy your weekend, all.

I agree with what GC5 says, working on the presumption that without Jinkx’s involvement the production probably wouldn’t be happening at all, rather than him taking a highly-prized, competitively fought-for female role. If that’s wrong then I’d happily stand corrected.

I forgot as well that fwiw Jinkx was known for a viral Judy Garland bit from Drag Race already, so people know what he can do and there is probably more of a built-in audience for this than there would be.

Women are underserved when it comes to acting roles both in number and quality. Actresses over 35 are especially short of material. Men have a plethora of good parts for all ages.
It's unfair to take good women's parts and give them to men, especially when the men claim to be women.

I also disagree with some of the rest of your post (about the venue etc) but wanted to stick to my main point.

I know the venue (I live nearby) and the play but remain of the view it’s not a big deal. It’s one version /interpretation of a play. There are thousands of versions of thousands of plays. I have seen plays where women play male roles. I have seen plays where ethnic minorities play white roles. It happens across all arts - Matthew Bourne’s all male Swan Lake, for example, was fantastic. Adrian Lester playing Henry V is one of the best plays I have ever seen. I simply don’t care when they do that, so don’t care about this - I think re-working plays/dance etc and different interpretations are just art. As I say, if this were a proper west end production I MIGHT care more, but in the grand scheme of things, this is a non issue.

I do care about men claiming to actually be women. I care about the impact on prisons, sport, changing rooms, domestic abuse services, reporting sex discrimination, crime stats etc. This play just isn’t the problem to me for the reasons I set out above. I appreciate others feel differently and that’s fine.

It doesn't make any more or less sense.

In my experience it generally doesn't work. It's just, as a pp said, a distraction. But it's not an ethical issue.

He's going to identify as 4 foot 11 of course - and lo, it shall be so.

I was trying to get my head around this too

Sorry but can you translate that into English. I think your ChatGPT is glitching.

See also La Voix, set to play Miss Hannigan in a tour of Annie. Another great character part for an actress of a certain age handed to a man - several men. Which seems to be saying ‘yuck, by the time actresses are this age they’re mingers anyway so let’s just cast a man’.

Judy Garland was a very petit 4ft 11in tall. How is this galumping bloke going to manage that?

I don't understand the 'i can't get worked up over it, it's only one person' argument.

There is fierce competition for acting roles, many many people never make it. There are fewer rules for women in the first place. Why should even one of those women lose out to a man?

Tell me you're a sexist without telling me you're a sexist 🙄

Basically 'meh it's only one woman being shat on by a man so it doesn't count'.

It bloody does count, to actors and all women.

And crucially the women's parts are smaller - they have less dialogue and are in fewer scenes.

In film and TV...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2024/02/27/women-held-only-35-of-speaking-roles-in-2023-films-according-to-study/
35% of roles in films that year, compared to 65% for men.
Plus think about all the background artists and one-line parts - all those films with warriors, soldiers, policemen... And add to that that the proportion of male to female actors is said to be 35%-65% - in America, at least, so probably not that different over here.

A jobbing actress in her forties (the age of JG in this play) will have seen her career opportunities drop off a cliff in her late thirties, while her male counterparts start getting really meaty parts.

And those bastard producers know all this.

I think you need to learn to count NumbersGuy. 13 is not NUMEROUS when there is generally a 57% vs 43% split in male/female roles, it's just trying to even out the balance a little.

So it seems! Although the third male character hasn't been in every stage production, so it might be three men rather than four.

ETA:
And as for artistic reasons, I'm sure that's what the producers will claim as their rationale, while being very vague about what those reasons actually are. The drag performer in question has said nothing about what special qualities he can bring to the role (apart from being a bloke, of course 🙄) that convinces me we would see a fresh take.

RRFT, I'll summarize my position: a man playing a woman on stage, as a man - fine, especially as part of an artistic approach. A man playing a woman on stage claiming to be a woman playing a woman on stage - not fine.

Wow. Good work, @WandaSiri
Patriarchy stomping on her even in death.

So now 4 males playing the roles?

Quoting my own post to say I was right - three male roles and one female role in the original production.

It's a man, playing a woman.
That's the issue.
It's very simple.
And outrageous.

It's the Soho Theatre in Walthamstow which is part of the main Soho Theatre in Dean Street. 960 seats, comparable in size to the Hackney Empire. So not just a fringe venue. End of the Rainbow premiered at Sydney Opera House in 2005 and has been performed in the West End and on Broadway. It's been made into a film starring Renee Zellweger. Judy Garland is the main part. The show is pretty much guaranteed an audience because the subject matter is an iconic figure and it's a musical. So it is a big deal, IMO.

Actresses need work. This is the kind of job they would give their eye teeth for. But the producers thought, you know what, we're all tired of boring old properly trained actresses - let's hire a man instead.

ETA:
And just to hammer my point a bit more - even though it's about Judy Garland, I bet there are more male than female roles in it. Just off to check!

[As an eyerolling aside, the list maker on that Onedio article includes Milla Jovanovich playing Joan of Arc.]

Hmmm, I’m as GC as they come, but can’t get worked up about this. It’s a short run in a small theatre, in the suburbs. If this was a huge west end production I might be bothered, but it’s basically fringe theatre. It’s not making or breaking anyone’s career. There are literally hundreds of shows, of all types, all over London, all the time. This is just one of them.