Horrible histories - live show disappointment

[Mner2019]

Just back from seeing Horrible Histories’ live show. Whilst the show in and of itself was good fun, I was disappointed. Just two men on stage the whole time who did all the characters (men and women). One of their lines was that history is written by the winners and the irony was huge.

Yes history is indeed written by the winners - white middle class men. Why couldn’t our expensive ticket stretch to women being involved as well...?

The only women up there were two pulled from the audience to act as witches which just seemed to emphasise the ridiculous sexism even more to me - underpaid, there to help the men with the banter!

DS was disappointed with the lack of the rat. I missed the women. 50% of the population and barely deserving of a mention. Barmy Britain indeed!

Not that I can see. This stuff is insidious, firstly women weren’t allowed to act so men played both male and female roles roll on to 2019 and men are still playing both parts. Pretty sure Michelle Williams would have liked to have been paid $1.5m for a film reshoot like Mark Wahlberg rather than $1000. This stuff matters. www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/03/michelle-williams-paralysed-by-news-she-was-paid-1000-mark-wahlberg

Sigh. In that company both men and women play both sex parts.

But you are determined to see something that isn’t there so I give up.

It’s a great company consisting of friendly talented people.

Never heard of either of them. What’s it got to do with children’s theatre anyway?

You are right - the OP wanted to see something that wasn’t there; a woman.

if You go to the theatre wanting to see a specific person or gender you are going to be sorely disappointed. Your ticket is for the show, not specific actors.

Tough. She didn’t see a woman. So what.

In this kind of show it is a given that actors will be playing cross sex roles some of the time. It's the same as with a comedy troupe, it happens even when the actors are mixed sexes. I've seen cases where the man played the women and vice versa, because they were the right body type, or could do the right voice, or even just for comic effect.

Insisting on gender parity for each individual circumstance, and only playing same sex roles, isn't practical, isn't necessary, and it's limiting for male and female actors.

That Guardian article was pretty uneven, it somehow failed to mention that Williams was obliged by her contract to do reshoots, while Wahlberg wasn't, or that he already had taken a significant pay cut for the role.

There are real things you could discuss in relation to their disparate salaries, but they undermine the subject by making such a shallow attempt.

I am surprised that this has been as controversial as it has been considering I posted in feminist chat, not AIBU. Not everyone agrees and this is fine but if we don't challenge stuff when we see it, nothing will ever change.

Arusedmoose Everyone else has managed to disagree using reasoned debate, there is no need for name calling. Please stay off the thread if you have nothing useful to add.