David Badiel thinks jewish people are the group that has been neglected in considering diversity. Hmm, i think he may have forgotten women

[JustcameoutGC]

I dont yet know where i stand on the principle that only gay / trans / NB / jewish etc people should play characters that are the same. The question for me instantly flips the other way, so if you are gay you shouldn't play straight characters? I also put my faith in the training and skill of actors. But there is still much to do to open up the entertainment industry to minorities.

But read some of these passages.

Casting is about respect. There is something disrespectful about casting an able bodied person in a disabled part. A deaf actor coined it when she said "deaf is not a costume"
The deep truth of any marginalised identiy is only available to those who live that identity. The deep truth of any marginalised identity is only available to those who live that identity. Casting a non-minority actor to mimic that identity feels, to the progressive eye, like impersonation, and impersonation may carry with it an element of mockery – or at least seem reductive, reducing the complexity of that experience by channelling it through an actor who hasn’t lived it.

Yet, Eddie Izzard can choose to be in girl mode, or boy mode, and we are supposed to celebrate that.

Drag queens are essentially woman face, and now they are reading stories to early years kids in libraries.

Really made me quite grumpy this morning

Those points are all fair enough. My post was clumisly titled, i dont expect him to make any arguments or contrast between the points he was making about the treatment of the Jewish community and women. He has his own corner to fight and is doing it very eloquently.

It was really more my own personal reaction, that many of the same very valid points he was making are totally applicable to the place of women in identity politics, but it would be totally verboten to say so, particularly in that publication.

I wonder if some similarities in the muted reaction to blatant antisemitism and misogyny are because they are both so ingrained they are invisible to many.

Hmmm, it was a very thought provoking piece of writing

Well there doesn't seem to have been a pile on as a result of what he said, but if it had been woman saying the same thing about the apropriation of all thimgs female there defo would've been a right old hoohah.

I like and admire David Baddiel.
He stands uo for Jewish people, which, inexplicably, is controversial these days.

He also stands up for women. He doesn't have to do both at once.

Has he mentioned trans or did I miss something?

Are women and girls regularly being played by men and boys?

Apart from panto dames and back in Shakespeare times?

Is the TV and film industry casting trans males in female roles?

It's a no surely.

Apart from anything else.
Casting a male in any production whatsoever where a het male/female aspect is involved. Romance, flirting, sex scenes??!! Revealing clothes etc. Anything.

Men wouldn't like that at all!

Having a male in a tight dress shimmying about then seen undressing sexily as all women do when alone.

No no no way!

Have I missed something?

@BigWholeBean

He can’t write an article about Jewish people being marginalised without focusing on other groups? Why not? Also, Jewish has a capital J.

BECAUSE HE'S A JEWISH MAN WHO IS PASSIONATE ABOUT JEWISH HISTORICAL OPPRESSION AND CURRENT ISSUES!

When discussing women's rights, do you give a nod to the characterisation and abuse Jews are subjected to in UK?

Oh fuck sorry went off half cocked.

Sorry to misread of bean post.

Also to making a point made by everyone on thread.

RTFT lesson learnt

Bedtime.

Sorry,.

I think whichever group you belong to that gender politics is wiping out, will be your main focus. Women should not have to include everyone else when they talk about their concerns. Gay men should not. Lesbians should not. Jews should not. Muslims, Christians.

You cannot say women do not have to centre other groups then complain when other groups speak for themselves. Everyone outside the identity politics rubbish should support one another to speak out.

I think the underlying premise about casting of minorities is deeply problematic, so I can't really accept his argument.

Frankly if we really believed acting worked that way, it would destroy the theater.

You can choose to have realistic casting, or non-realistic casting. Both are valid and which is chosen is going to depend on the nature of the production more generally. But neither really works when there is this double standard that anyone who is "diverse" (god that's an awful word used that way,) can be cast in any role, but anyone white can only play other white people. It's particularly limiting for things like school or local theaters.

Anyone who thinks that being deaf is not a costume, or any other particular set of characteristics like ethnicity, physical features, sex, etc, are puritans and iconoclasts. They shouldn't be acting at all, as they are, in every instance, pretending to be someone with whom they do not share something important.

As for whether Jewish people in general are left out of diversity considerations - I think in some ways that can be true. On the other hand, in other instances it may just not be relevant because there may not be a lack of representation of Jewish people. In general it's probably a mistake to think that disparities related to things like race or ethnicity are simple and straightforward.

@RoyalCorgi

in 1601

Very good. Also in 2012, but I'm sure you knew that!

The Globe started off doing all-male casting when it opened in the late 90s, as part of the experiment of trying to do Shakespeare as close as possible to how it would have been done in Shakespeare's time. All about exploring the space. It certainly gave meaning back to the opening of Henry V to talk about "can this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France? Or may we cram within this wooden O, the very casques that did afright the air at Agincourt?".

But they realised very early on that this wasn't going to be a long-term strategy. They've had some all-women casts to redress the balance, as well as some gender-blind casting. Janet McTeer as Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew was fabulous, as was Kathryn Hunter as Richard III and Vanessa Redgrave as Prospero.

I've no problem with the occasional "original practices" productions, they have their place in understanding the plays of their time.

I have to say, I generally dislike genderblind casting. I can appreciate original practices type productions, but it's a kind of historical interest in a way. But all of them, including those that I've seen, end up being a little too meta for me. I end up thinking about the production elements more than anything else, and that isn't my favourite way to enjoy a play.

I don't generally find the same with race-blind casting in plays, unless it's done in a way that's not so much blind as very knowing. I do rather miss the days when stage actors were allowed to change their appearance dramatically for roles, though.

Don't know what "those I've seen" was meant to mean, above. I have no opinions on plays I haven't seen...

I don't like blind gendering either. I was at a female led Hamlet a few years ago and although the actress was phenomenal, and the the relationship gay, it effectively changed some key themes of the play. 'Frailty, thy name is woman' certainly had quite different meaning.

People feel free to experiment with Shakespeare in a way they don’t with other writers. There was a production of Othello where Patrick Stewart played the lead (not blacked up) and all the other characters were played by black actors.

Obv DB is English but this mainly stems from USA.

I've heard and read that they follow a different school of acting to us.

Their approach involves the idea that having experience of the things myself you give a better performance as can tap into that, will give a more powerful convincing performance.

Here it's about acting being about well. Acting. Maybe because from evolution here. Small theatres , same actor playing more than one role, the play changing regularly and same group performing etc.

I mean this not my area but I here I've definitely heard actors lauded for versatility, ability to give totally engaging convincing performance, really inhabit a wide range of roles.

For the USA thing I think-
Where as everywhere same group dominate even when those who have the things that are involved for the character, who have skills etc for role and good audition. Should be given that opportunity ahead of someone who doesn't. The main thing for me is, as everywhere, the way various groups are just less considered.

And tbh where USA approach fails and theatre acting approach is better with this.

Is that there's no reason, if it's the acting that's key. That someone from another group should be in the frame only when the part is for person like them. Given most stuff here still about certain type person for obvious reasons (majority population).

There's no actual reason why anyone else can't play those roles. Esp given for yonks others have played roles about them!

I bet there'd be a right fuss about that! In fact there has been. People get in a right pickle about a black person in an historical drama. Is it about the story and delivery? Or is it about seeing a sea of white people?

What's sauce for the goose etc.

(Although Johanson playing lead on film based on ghost in the shell got on my tits big time!). When making something about popular thing from a different language/culture then I think show a little respect to the creators and those who enjoyed it in original form and made it well known!).

I can only comment about this in a tiny little way but.......... here goes.

Im autistic. Im a huge fan of inspector morse/lewis and have watched both multiple times. My all time favourite episode is called "when the moonbeams kiss the sea" - one of the main characters in it is autistic. He paints the same view of an Oxford river day after day.

The actor himself isnt autistic (well not based on my attempt at researching him online) but his portrayal of someone with autism is perfect imho. Totally had me believing he was autistic.

I think it can be a good idea for a character to be acted by someone who shares that characters background eg a jewish person playing a jew etc but by no means essential. Thats the whole point of "acting" surely - playing a part. Acting.

Agree waffles.

If actor auditions and is in mix for role. Then better I'd say. Others would say checkbox unfair etc.

But given actors who aren't the usual characteristics find it much harder to get opportunities, think that's aok.

And the visibility point yes. Representation v important.

Could be their break and (shocker) gets more roles that aren't autistic characters!

Of course the biggest one is looks.

Certain roles esp for women. Got to meet general societal beauty standards.

Oh and be young. Etc.

David Baddiel's article is very nuanced. Do read the whole thing rather than rely on the selective quoting in the OP.

He's also as far as I know GC. Many Jewish people are, for precisely the reason the OP (clumsily) makes - that the Jewish and female experiences have a lot in common, in that both groups are and have been attacked historically and currently in similar ways. As a Jewish woman I never cease to be astonished by the similarities in the way Jews and women are seen and treated.

Slightly off-topic, but I'd disagree strongly with the criticisms of the recent all-male Twelfth Night at the Globe, btw, which I had the privilege of seeing, and which was far and away the best Shakespeare production I've ever seen. Don't forget that the whole plot of Twelfth Night hinges on a character who is a woman who dresses up as a man, so when the part is played by a man dressing as a woman dressing as a man (as it was written to be), there are whole layers of jokes you wouldn't really get without it being performed that way. If it was just a woman dressed as a man it would be a much more conventional, duller love story. It's the subversion of the audience knowing it's a man all along that adds the extra edge. So not as simple as a modern play in which a TW played a female role. And absolutely nothing like a drag show or womanface. Shakespeare was deliberately making quite subtle comments on the relative positions and roles of men and women in his society (and it's still revealing now).

David Baddiel was responding to attacks on Maureen Lipman for her suggestion that Jews should play Jewish parts.

Because of course Jews are the only ethnic minority that will get attacked for this. No-one would attack a black person for saying that Mandela should not be played by a white man. No-one would dream of suggesting that kind of casting in the first place! But casting Golda Meir with a non-Jew? Here it doesn't even occur to people that there might be an issue. And not only do they do it without thinking about it, but when a well-known Jewish actress objects, they attack her.

So Baddiel is right. It is double standards. Either everyone can play ethnic minorities. Or they can't.

I have certainly recently seen a couple of productions of 'Jewish' shows done by non-Jews, and both left me (as a Jewish woman) really quite uncomfortable. Both tended towards stereotype and neither show 'got' Jewish people, or understood the cultures they were parodying portraying.

The first was Falsettos, which opens with a number called Four Jews in a Room Bitching' and has lots of jokes and references to the fact the main characters are all Jewish. None of the actors or director were Jewish and having the audience laughing at what were intended to be self-mocking in-jokes was really really uncomfortable. Because the audience and the cast were not Jewish. They were laughing at us not with us and certainly not at themselves, as intended.

The other was a recent production of Fidler On The Roof. Again by a non-Jewish director. Again, continuously revealing a lack of understanding of the culture it was attempting to portray. For example, the director had Tevye, the male lead, physically threaten women to get them to stay in line. Which just fundamentally misunderstands how patriarchy works in Judaism. It was just one of many places that really didn't ring true, sadly.

I think anyone should be allowed to play anyone. If it's realistic, they have to look convincing, but that still leaves plenty of room for that.

What things do you mean by convincing? That's a part of this overall conversation. Means different things to different people.

Just that acting is excellent character is embodied well so no time that even slight slip into it's acting?

That's one extreme and anyone could play anyone irrespective of the basics age sex that stuff.

A 14yo prodigy could say give an incredible performance as king Lear but unless it was eg special talented young people performance can't see that happening just generally.

The acting being convincing I'd say more and the look realistic? Potato Potatah prob.

Thing is what different people see as important to them for suspension disbelief/accepting that the character is them iyswim. Really differs.

The bottom line is a great actor can convince across loads of roles. Irrespective of lots of physical characteristics and etc.

So what do you personally mean when you say look realistic?

I've not thought about it for me but will.

The other big factor is the massive influence we get from existing entertainment.

If we're not used to seeing people who are not the characters sex, ball park age, face and body type, whatever. Then it comes as a surprise and makes it more difficult to accept and believe iyswim.

The other really interesting think is mainstream USA output plenty of it, actors just always are the same pretty much.

And I find that weird and ruins ability to suspend reality and immerse.

Robert Downey junior is obvious example. Over and over. I don't see iron Man. Holmes. I see Robert Downey junior doing what he always does.

That's the other extreme isn't it.

Some of the actors in the mainstream output are really good.

Chris Evans. I mean sure only my opinion. But he IS captain America when you watch. He's in my current favourite film Sunshine (Danny Boyle fair few years ago) awesome film. All in that film act their pants off.

Ditto Thor. Also Loki. Thingy. Problem with trousers years ago... Um. Jude law! He can act.

The other extreme from incredible 12yo girl incredible actor playing Hercules in ancient Greek play.

Is someone who looks exactly as character described, then just delivers the lines. That's worse for me tbh.

What counts as convincing would depend on the production, and ultimately what the audience would accept. It's not like it's something that needs to be hammered out ahead of time in every detail.

The point being that the outcome of an audience that isn't convinced should be poor ticket sales and reviews, rather than some sort of moralizing over the background, real or imagined, of the actors.

xxyzz

Thank you for sharing those examples, they are really good ones.

Incidentally I agree with you and DB about the way anti-Semitism is seen as somehow 'different'.

And I struggle with it. Round here I know synagogues have had security. (Not Jewish so I don't know how widespread etc).

There for years has been not infrequent swastika graffiti and nasty things sprayed area that known as Jewish (even though no longer other groups more live there now).

I heard and saw the results of bomb Jewish charity on a high street years back. Burnt out car, glass blown out shops down whole section etc).

I mean and targeting of schools... It just goes on and on.

And it's somehow... Different?

Sorry went off on one.

@xxyzz

David Baddiel was responding to attacks on Maureen Lipman for her suggestion that Jews should play Jewish parts.

Because of course Jews are the only ethnic minority that will get attacked for this. No-one would attack a black person for saying that Mandela should not be played by a white man. No-one would dream of suggesting that kind of casting in the first place! But casting Golda Meir with a non-Jew? Here it doesn't even occur to people that there might be an issue. And not only do they do it without thinking about it, but when a well-known Jewish actress objects, they attack her.

So Baddiel is right. It is double standards. Either everyone can play ethnic minorities. Or they can't.

I have certainly recently seen a couple of productions of 'Jewish' shows done by non-Jews, and both left me (as a Jewish woman) really quite uncomfortable. Both tended towards stereotype and neither show 'got' Jewish people, or understood the cultures they were parodying portraying.

The first was Falsettos, which opens with a number called Four Jews in a Room Bitching' and has lots of jokes and references to the fact the main characters are all Jewish. None of the actors or director were Jewish and having the audience laughing at what were intended to be self-mocking in-jokes was really really uncomfortable. Because the audience and the cast were not Jewish. They were laughing at us not with us and certainly not at themselves, as intended.

The other was a recent production of Fidler On The Roof. Again by a non-Jewish director. Again, continuously revealing a lack of understanding of the culture it was attempting to portray. For example, the director had Tevye, the male lead, physically threaten women to get them to stay in line. Which just fundamentally misunderstands how patriarchy works in Judaism. It was just one of many places that really didn't ring true, sadly.

It's not just Jewish characters but also Muslims. The amount of times I've seen the token Muslim played by a non-Muslim (usually a Hindu, atheist or a Sikh actor.) And it isnt generally seen as an issue.