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

[SpringTimeIsRingTime]

Panto Dames have been a thing since 1806 when a certain Mr Simmons decided to play Mother Goose as a Witch (how original) rather than as a caring grandmother figure. Nowadays panto dames are mainly played by gay men in drag.

I think it's time for talented actresses to take back elder female roles from the tired tropes played by men since the Victorian era.

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

Agree, why men, its silly...

Not to ogle - it's part of the original story - I never said Prince Charming had to wear tights and a cod piece - no thank you. I prefer more modest clothing for children's entertainment.

As a child I was really disappointed to see Prince Charming played by a grown woman. It takes away from the story and is simply unbelievable. Anyway this practice has all but died out. Time for men in frocks to go the same way.

The practice of the principal boy being a woman has all but died out, probably because it no longer serves its original purpose.

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.

Showing your ankle in Victorian times was considered outrageous behaviour so having a young woman with her legs and thighs on full view must have been quite the treat for the average Victorian man going to see a panto.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

The villain roles are quite often female too, even gender swapped Captain Hook as I mentioned before

I've seen a couple of pantos where they tried to make the princess less "passive" too and give her more of a voice and a chance to fight for herself

You have made your mind up about what I meant. You obviously believe you know my mind better than I do so there is absolutely no point whatsoever in me engaging with you any more.

Claire Sweeney is playing her next year...

That sounds good re princesses. Captain Hook could definitely be an interesting role for an actress to have a chance at.

I haven't made my mind up about what you meant

I'm saying your choice of words painted a particular image

You very clearly dismissed roles for women in "ttheatre"and then, when musicals with lots of female roles were listed, said "I meant plays not musicals" which is intrinsically linking "theatre" as meaning "plays"

Oh no it isn’t!!

The roles can be play differently by women and be every bit as funny.
Dawn French played a Dame in Jack and the Beanstalk a few years ago.
Other actresses I would like to see in these roles are Hannah Waddingham, Miranda Hart, Jennifer Saunders, Caroline Quentin, Sarah Milican and lots more besides.

Hmm...I agree somewhat but Victorian ankle etc taboos have been retrospectively exaggerated somewhat. That applied to everyday middle-class dress, not theatre. On stage Victorians were already used to ballet dancers, breeches roles and music hall performers in tights, so principal boys weren’t some shocking new display. There might have been a bit of cheeky appeal, but pantomime was still family entertainment, not a leg show for men- as I've said ,burlesque and to some extent music hall were available as a more sleazy niche.

Good, I think Miss Hannigan should be a female part.