School Play + girls can't audition for boys parts

[Cobblersandhogwash]

This year's school play is Oliver Twist.

Dd (Year 6) has been told by the deputy head that girls can't audition for the boys parts because the Year 8 boys will get those as it's their last year at the school and they shouldn't be "disappointed". Years 7 and 8 are boys only at dd's school.

Dd is pretty hacked off about this as she really wanted to try out for the Artful Dodger and now she can't. It's her last year too before she goes off to secondary school.

I've emailed the deputy head to ask why he's done this but I've had no response.

Aibu to think this is really unfair on the girls and other brilliant actors at the school who happen not to be boys and in Year 8?

Ah, not sure then.

Is it Oliver! or a play about Oliver Twist?
If the former then the plot omits Rose completely.

Dd has just performed in Oliver this afternoon. She's yr 6, last yr of primary and the yr 6 children have always known they will get the best part as its their final year.

Dd was the artful dodger (and excellent although I'm biased) mainly because she's loud and can sing, Oliver, Bill Sykes and Fagin were also girls. Mr Bumble was played by a yr 4 boy. He was the only boy in a main role.

Three of the girls in Year 6 have been training with LAMDA since reception.

Is it because of this? Many schools I know tend to have an unspoken rule of prioritising parts for those who aren't already participating at a high level in performance outside of school (the same applies to sport). We have a child in our school who has performed in several mainstream musicals and does not take on a lead role in any of our performances (her parents are in complete agreement with this). Children who wouldn't otherwise have the chance to perform in lead roles tend to get prioritised.

I guess this is one of the (limited) advantages of going to an all girls school. I loved playing the boys parts.

YANBU, the AD is the kind of part that could be played really well by a girl. The only roles that really suffer (IMO) when played by girls are the male romantic leads. Of which there aren't any in Oliver.

Kids parts and character parts are fine for girls to play.

Casting is a minefield whatever you do.

On age:
I prioritise year 8 where I can and certainly avoid giving a large part to anyone below Year 7.

But if the school has different leaving ages for the different sexes then yes, Year 6 should become the priority casting year for the girls.

On sex:
I usually cast boys as boys and girls as girls in large cast shows because I just think it looks better (girls look fine playing boys but not so much the other way around ime) and, if you're lucky enough to get talented Year 8 boys whose voices have broken, it sounds better.

Oliver! is a tricky show because of the imbalance in male leads when prep schools (middle schools?) tend to have a higher number of girls wanting to be in the plays than boys (curse of the performing arts world in general). Although there are certainly more good female parts than just Nancy, it isn't even and I a) only put Oliver! on in a year when there are more talented boys than girls and b) tend to cast Dodger as a girl - Fagin's 'boys' have to be mixed in a mixed school so Dodger becomes sex non specific imo.

So, on balance, I think YABU if they have a lot of good senior boys but that they shouldn't be ignoring Year 6 girls in favour of boys who aren't great but are being cast purely for the sake of the age and sex.

Midnite as long as those schools would apply the same rules to their sports teams?

Why choose a play with so few girls' parts if they are going to have this rule? Just stupid?

My DD2 just played Hamlet and got the role ahead of many boys, on merit.

as long as those schools would apply the same rules to their sports teams?

We do Noeuf. We use language like "who is best for the team, not who is the best player". We have a real demographic mix in our school, from children who have parents who will ferry them to every after school activity and pay for the top coaches, to parents who can barely get out of bed to help their children get to school. There are huge social issues. Our job is to give children what they need, not to win medals against another school.

Are the boys allowed to audition for the girl's parts?

Girls playing male roles or vice versa is just a distraction for the audience.

Oh, don't be ridiculous, Andrewofgg. It's common, and has been common for, oh, ever since plays were invented. Also, it's acting.

If you are going to restrict auditions of boy roles to boys, then you need to choose a play where the main roles, and almost all the other roles, too, are evenly divided into boys and girls. Oliver Twist is not that play.

Why choose a play with so few girls' parts if they are going to have this rule?

I agree that it's not the best choice but it does work very well as a school show and there aren't as few girl parts as you'd think:

Boys:
Oliver, Fagin, Dodger, Sykes, Bumble, Sowerberry, Noah, Brownlow

Girls:
Nancy, Corney, Sowerberry, Bet, Sarah, Bedwin

He has probably ear marked a particular boy honestly....

Are all the orphans going to be boys too?!

Most of the male roles are large and most of the female roles are small. Unless the split in the school is similarly heavily weighted I agree it's a bad policy.

Your DD should tell the school that she identifies as a male and therefore must be allowed to audition for the boy's parts.

And I'm only half joking - I'm stunned at some (most) of these responses. Mumsnet, rightly in my opinion, gets properly up in arms when the subject of gender fluidity is raised, and the possibility of men - who haven't a female feeling in their body - being able to say they identify as women and immediately have access to women's safe spaces. Yet when a girl is excluded from playing a male part, MN falls over itself to say that's perfectly reasonable.

Double standards.

(And when I was at junior school, I played the part of St George. Everyone could audition for any parts - the teachers were expecting the biggest, tallest boy to get it, but when one of the smallest girls did it best, she got the part. And that was many years ago.)

TheDevil I don't understand what you mean by double standards.

And I'm only half joking - I'm stunned at some (most) of these responses. Mumsnet, rightly in my opinion, gets properly up in arms when the subject of gender fluidity is raised, and the possibility of men - who haven't a female feeling in their body - being able to say they identify as women and immediately have access to women's safe spaces. Yet when a girl is excluded from playing a male part, MN falls over itself to say that's perfectly reasonable.
Double standards

Hang on a minute, I'm confused. That's not a double standard it's the same standard -
men wanting automatic access to a woman's space = not okay to most of mn
a girl 'taking' a boy's part = not okay to most of mn

The two situations follow the same principle of keeping to what 'belongs to/is designed for' your sex.

I'm not saying scenario 2 holds anything like the same level of importance as scenario 1 and am happy to sometimes cast children of the 'wrong' sex in parts. But there's no double standard in not liking either scenario - unless I'm feeling a whole lot more tired and brain dead than I thought I was.

She could just say she identifies as a boy and they can bend the rules, this is how it works now.

I mean that we fight again men in women's spaces but won't stand up for the girls who are being excluded from boy's spaces, and suggest that the rights we are now talking about extending to males should be extended to females too.

I don't agree with the idea of any man being able to just say he's a woman and demand to be treated as such, but if we HAVE to have it (as the law is being proposed) then we should also be standing up for girls' rights to be in male spaces - if they want to be.

Imagine what would happen if the play Steel Magnolias was being cast, and a bloke turned up demanding an audition for a part because he identifies as a woman - even though that's the first anyone has heard of it from him. If the director said no, only people with a vagina can play these parts, the outcry from the trans activists would be deafening.

Yes, the outcry from the transactivists would be deafening. But mumsnet would support it. Therefore being consistent

I mean that we fight again men in women's spaces but won't stand up for the girls who are being excluded from boy's spaces, and suggest that the rights we are now talking about extending to males should be extended to females too

If we did stand up for a girl who was being excluded from a boy's space but also fought against men in women's spaces that that would be the definition of a double standard, wouldn't it?

What you have written above is having the same rule for all - a single standard of 'stick to your own sex's space.

Your post would make total sense if mumsnet in general was supportive of TIMS rights to access female spaces - but it isn't.

@MidniteScribbler that's good to know. I don't think it's fair though that parents that do bother to take their kids places get viewed as somehow pushy or their kids less worthy of celebration or success. I'm sure that not what happens from why you say but as a parent who has encouraged a performing arts interest, sat in halls for hours, listened to lines etc it's infuriating to see him as second donkey on the left 'to give someone else a chance' when often the sports teams are always filled with the 'best' kids not the ones who might fancy a go.

I played Scrooge in my last year of primary school. I don't think anyone was confused by that. I auditioned like everyone else (the teachers suggested what we should audition for).

Personally I'd let anyone audition for anything and cast accordingly.

Well, I am against men who identify as women having access to women's spaces, but I am totally fine with cross-sex casting in plays.

When Harriet Walter played Brutus, she wasn't claiming to be a man, she was acting.