Actors being cast in opposite sex or different race historical roles

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

Sarah Amankwah, who is female and black, was just on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 (presented by Amol Rajan today) and talking about her role as Henry V at the Globe.

Is this not frowned on as cultural/gender appropriation? Eddie Redmayne was condemned for accepting a role as a transgender person and white Ed Skrein was later pressured to stand down after he'd been cast as an Asian character; yet Maxine Peake was widely praised for her Hamlet. Is it OK when a female takes a male role, but not the other way around, because of the vast discrepancy in available female roles owing to how society was so absolutely male-centric for most of history (and isn't necessarily that much better now)?

I personally see no real issue when it's a fictional character whose race isn't particularly a defining characteristic of the role - I don't understand why it would matter if a non-white actor should play James Bond (although he's a very unambiguously male character) and, as for Dr Who, it's a person who keeps regenerating over centuries, so why on earth wouldn't one of the regenerations be as a female?

But when it comes to an actual historical (or living) person, AIBU to wonder why it would be seen as appropriate to cast somebody to represent them who is very clearly the opposite sex and/or from a completely different racial background? Why would they even think to do it, apart from to provoke a reaction or to score some extra publicity?

Sarah is brilliant at her profession, but I just couldn't take her seriously when she performed the St Crispin's Day speech - the same as I couldn't have taken Benedict Cumberbatch seriously as Queen Elizabeth (whether using his own voice or trying to affect a female voice).

Then again, the whole point of it is ACTING - and nobody complains when, say, a Brit plays an American or a Scot plays an English person - so maybe I am BU. I just fail to find such a big elephant in the room convincing at all, but maybe it's my lack of imagination that's wholly to blame?

Is this just another part of modern life, where biological sex/gender boundaries are now often considered irrelevant and maybe even anachronistic as a concept - and is it boorish to even point it out or query it? I'm very now. AIBU to ask the question? Genuine thoughts on the matter appreciated.

I'd be interested to know the reasoning as to why they didn't cast a black little girl

Children can only do a certain amount of hours per week and need to be out of theatres at a certain time. If someone is sick they juggle the hours around. Plus they take into account schooling and rehearsal. My friend used to live in the Billy Elliot house and it’s really strict hours.

Okonedo of course.

People are being so ridiculous.

Some roles simply can’t be switched to a different gender or race and still make sense (eg Othello, Shirley Valentine). It wouldn’t make sense from a textual perspective.

Others could be if you wanted to explore how the change affects the text - can you imagine if Jean Brodie were played be a man at a boys school? Gene Brodie, perhaps? That would be interesting.

You can’t just change the cast of Top Girls to blokes and have it work - the sex is too fundamental.

Basically it’s fine for a black actress to play Henry V, but not fine for white guys to play Othello, because “What about the poor white male actors who are so underrepresented in our films and theatre? It’s very unfair to take one of the few major roles specifically written for that demographic away from them!” is a thing that nobody sensible has ever said.

You are, indeed, correct - but I was originally thinking from the point of view of the paying theatre-goer and their experience and enjoyment. The fact of the far fewer specifically non-white roles written for non-white actors is a very important one, but different from what I was originally addressing.

As I mentioned before, my own personal reservations are very much more swayed towards the 'sex-swap' rather than race-based scenarios; however what you say above about major opportunities for black actors is also very much equally the case for female actors. However, acting is a job like any other and most employers will hire the person whom they believe to be the most suitable for the job (in this case, being confident that paying audiences can relate to a female playing a king or a male playing a queen) rather than giving the job to the person who 'seems to need it the most'. That would just be patronising.

Some roles simply can’t be switched to a different gender or race and still make sense (eg Othello, Shirley Valentine). It wouldn’t make sense from a textual perspective.

But who is to say that the gender of the ROLE is actually being switched, just because the actor portraying that role happens to be the opposite sex to the gender of the role, if the key to good acting is making audiences suspend their belief and 'see' you only as the character?

I agree that Gene Brodie etc could be an interesting avenue to explore, but that is predicated on the CHARACTER role's sex being switched and not the ACTOR'S sex - which are two different things. Just like Sarah Amankwah isn't playing Queen Henry V, just because she herself happens to be female.

You are, indeed, correct - but I was originally thinking from the point of view of the paying theatre-goer and their experience and enjoyment. The fact of the far fewer specifically non-white roles written for non-white actors is a very important one, but different from what I was originally addressing

Before someone books tickets they have that information so they can choose to go or not. It is a very important point, and the crucial one in this discussion which can’t just be glossed over.

I think the whole actor / role argument is a tricky one because suspension of disbelief has its limits. I haven’t seen this production so can’t comment with specifics, but I know Maxine Peake played Hamlet as though she were male and did a bloody good job.

On the flip side, even with brilliant actors, you run the risk of caricature, and there’s still the pressing question of representation. Say Tom Hollander were cast in a west end revival of Shirley Valentine, playing the role as female. Could he do a good job? I’m sure he could. Would it probably distract from the play itself? I think so. And the most important issue - why is one of the few expansive roles for women in theatre being given to a bloke? Is there anything worth exploring in that juxtaposition that makes this a good choice?

Indeed. I won’t bother engaging with her further. Her argument is circular.

Me: It’s not the same because...

IL: Oh right. But why isn’t it the same?

Lame.

Of course anyone should be able to play any part.

Whether it works or not is a different matter. The producers/cast/director etc. have a duty to the audience to produce work of a high standard, and the publicity shouldn’t mislead, but nobody has a duty to produce some kind of standard Shakespeare production.

I think it’s very simple. If I don’t like the cast I don’t go.

I don't have a problem with a BAME actor playing the part of a white person, if you look at the history of this country the noteworthy people or characters are nearly all white so how would BAME actors/actresses get parts otherwise?

I think it’s just to breathe new life into a classic play/story. There have been thousands of versions of the most popular plays, and somebody wanting to create their own production is going to want to do something a bit different with it rather than just carbon copy the same old tired performance that’s been done so many times before. Partly for artistic creativity and partly to give their production a reason to stand out to the audience. I don’t think it’s an issue at all for actors of different ethnicities, sexualities and genders to play roles that were traditionally written with a specific individual in mind. And I believe that also when it comes to a man playing a typically female cast part or a white actor playing a typically black character.

I mean, I’d far rather go and see a gay male Romeo and Juliet than the traditional version as it would offer something new to me as a viewer and I’d probably take the play in with a different mindset and have different thoughts than watching the typical male/female hetero original.

Othello William Shakespeare’s “Moore” has consistently been played by various white actors

What’s wrong with that?

Perhaps because it makes nonsense of the lines "Haply for I am black..." and "Her name that was as fresh/As Dian's visage is now begrimed and black/As mine own face..." and "An old black ram/Is tupping your white ewe..." and "Your son-in-law is far more fair than black...", all of which are integral to the central concerns the play is exploring. Othello's insecurity over his relationship with Desdemona and how Iago manipulates that is the driving force of the play. If both Othello and Desdemona are white, it becomes nonsensical. Henry V does not become nonsensical if Henry is black because that is absolutely irrelevant to the plot.

If I can accept that Benedict Cumberbatch, Andrew Scott and David Tennant are Danish despite the colour of their hair, I don't see why I wouldn't accept somebody's Hamlet because of the colour of their skin.

As an actor, it's fantastic playing a role like that! Not usually available to me, a woman, but great to flex different muscles

"However, acting is a job like any other and most employers will hire the person whom they believe to be the most suitable for the job (in this case, being confident that paying audiences can relate to a female playing a king or a male playing a queen) rather than giving the job to the person who 'seems to need it the most'. That would just be patronising."

No risk at all that the theatre-going public might miss out on some really great actors if they simply never get cast? Or are we assuming that male white actors are automatically going to be greater than female black ones?

No risk at all that the theatre-going public might miss out on some really great actors if they simply never get cast? Or are we assuming that male white actors are automatically going to be greater than female black ones?

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't have such an issue with actors of different races being cast in parts that are based on historical people of a different race, but I personally (and I know many disagree, which is great) find it tiresome when they swap genders/sexes, unless gender-swap is specifically a major theme of the production.

I do assume that male white actors are automatically going to be greater (i.e. more convincing) inmale roles, just as I'd expect female actors to be greater in female roles - when it's a representation of an actual historical/living person.

There is definitely a need for more roles to be written for female actors - and especially ones specifically for non-white actors; but I don't see why we should be content with women having to make do with adapting male roles rather than actually having female roles written with their own sex fully in mind.

If other people want to see a production with Romeo played by Anne Hathaway and Juliet played by Colin Firth - or indeed two males or two females - then that's great for them; but it's not for me, thanks. I'm probably just boring and an old stick-in-the-mud, I realise

It works in Hamilton!

I do assume that male white actors are automatically going to be greater (i.e. more convincing) inmale roles,

My profuse apologies, that 'white' wasn't meant to be there at all. I was lazy and copied your comment to adapt when adding my response, but I didn't format it properly. Of course, I don't in any way think that white actors are any better or worse than non-white actors as a class.