Drag queen to play Judy Garland on stage :-(

[FuriousAndFrustrated]

https://www.whatsonstage.com/news/jinx-monsoon-to-play-judy-garland-in-over-the-rainbow-london-revival_1704383/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinkx_Monsoon

So we can't have a woman playing a transwoman, but it's ok to have a drag queen playing Judy Garland?

Ridiculous casting.

Ah, ok good. Though I’m still dubious - the role may be a good one for SF, but I still doubt that he’s better for the role than any number of female actors - Lady B isn’t a pantomime dame.

That's one traumatised person. Seeking solace in new identities and hiding behind make up and characterisations by the looks of it. And now on HRT chasing yet another one. Very sad.

In any other female role I woukd agree with you, but Judy Garland has an important meaning for LGBTQ people with the euphemism of being a "friend of Dorothy" being an important tool to communicate and find each other at a time when admitting to being gay was Taboo. Casting a male person as Judy comes into the same category as casting a female actor as Hamlet - it allows the production to explore a different side of the story. I think it's artistically valid and can be appreciated without believing that the actor in question is "actually" a woman.

But just because JG is important to gay people doesn’t mean she herself would be ok with being represented by a man. Surely that matters more?

Quite why a famous role that is specifically written for a black man would need a white man to play it is anyone's guess. Perhaps the director didn't believe there were enough talented black actors out there - which raises some interesting questions.

Maybe we should go back to men doing all roles on the stage? Just squeeze actual women out completely

I think, given all the context, it would be great for Jinx to be in a show singing JG songs.

I also think that a woman had a short and tragic life because of the pressure put on her to keep her body small and childlike. She was abused in every way by the industry, because she was a woman. Starved, drugged, criticised, eroded.

For her to be played by a man adds salt to the wound.

For the same reason a Black woman can play a 13th century 13yo noble girl from Verona. Because she's a good actress (or singer, in operas).

Don't get the argument about roles for women - if anything there are surely more women than men performing in musicals these days?

It's a new interpretation, there's a long history of drag artists impersonating Judy as an homage, it's certainly not seen in the community as mocking her.

And many black actors are perfectly capable of playing Othello - there's no good reason to cast a white man in the role. There are so few Shakespeare roles specifically written for black actors, no need to limit them.

In this case of course, JG was a woman who faced so many challenges and so much patriarchial oppression from a young age. So many great female actors out there, but no - a man who does womanface is given the role.

Yes I agree.
I'd say that it was more by luck than good that playing Lady B in that way worked very well.
I did feel some underlying stress throughout though in case Fry decided to make a speech at the end about the poor males and the mean terfs or something! (He didnt!)
And I got the definite impression that the director was trying very hard to be terribly 'progressive'. Algernon and Jack were played as over the top camp, as if somehow that were ground breaking. But it just ended up as an old-fashioned romp!

Many Black actors are excellent at playing Othello. It does not mean White actors can't. Because if Othello is restricted to Black men, then Romeo is restricted to White men, and this I completely disagree with.

Yes, because there's a real shortage of roles written for white people, aren't there...

How would you feel about a white man blacking up to play Othello?

I would think it distasteful in the current UK or France. Either the director believes racism is the core topic of the play, in which case she should seek out a Black actor (no shortage of them indeed); or she doesn't (eg jealousy / not fitting in is), in which case any ethnicity will do, without blackening the actor's face. For the same reason, if a director believes Romeo and Juliet is about being a teenager, she should pick very young actors; if it is about passionate love, they may very well be 40.

But I absolutely won't say or think that quotas or affirmative actions or difference of treatment ("Black" roles for Blacks only, "non-Black" Roles for anyone / "old" roles for seniors only, "young" roles for anyone, or the other way around) is a good thing. Both from an artistic and a civic standpoint. If that's your position, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The question is: is theatre entertainment or is theatre art?

Theatre as entertainment should be uncomplicated. While the story may be complicated with many threads and interpersonalities, the audience finds it easy to resolve them and simply enjoy the story.

Theatre as art is completely different. It poses questions: Why was this? What was that? Why was this important? Why wasn't that important? How does this work? Why doesn't that work?

It's all theatre but it is impossible to compare The Lion King with A View From The Bridge.

Blind cating is quite common in the other direction, without any attempt at stage make up.

But I don't have a problem with stage make up of any kind. I don't care if actors change their appearance in any way, if they wear rubber skin or big noses or change their hair colour, or accent, or give themselves bad teeth, or play someone with differernt sexual preferences, or pretend to have a lisp. I don't care if they use prothetics to give themselves giant cocks, or hide them.

I don't care if Ryan Reynolds plays Morgan Freeman and uses every trick of the stage to make it convincing. I don't care if Morgan Freeman does the same to play Kier Starmer. I am delighted if Chow Yun Fat is the next Winston Churchill in a production of "Churchill, Kung Fu Master." I am happy to see Temura Morrison play a Japanese man or a South American (as he in fact did, because being restricted to playing Maori people makes for a small career internationally.) If Jennifer Lawrence wants to dress up as a man and fake a Danish accent she can play Hamlet and that's great.

Actors act, and I don't think they need to be restricted in what they can attempt. Pretending to be what they aren't is their whole trade.

Cross sex casting has been really popular for the last few years in classic plays, particularly Shakespeare, but more often women in male roles.

To some extent I think it's just meant to be new and innovative and attract some attention from people who buy tickets, but I also think it's done partly because the actors enjoy the challenge.

I don't think it will ever be so popular that it is a significant element in taking roles away from women or men. It's just usually worse, rather than better, and often amounts to a gimmick. As does cross race casting in most cases (amount to a gimmick I mean.)

But if actors want to try it, I don't think there needs to be anything more to it. If it's not effective people won't buy tickets.

A man playing Judy Garland? Why? How weird and insulting.

Cross sex casting has been really popular for the last few years in classic plays, particularly Shakespeare, but more often women in male roles.

Now that makes sense, as the female roles were played by boys in Shakespeare’s time! It’s fun to invert that. But more seriously it casts a different light on the characters. I loved a production of Henry V I saw, with the king and many of the warriors played by women, powerful and clear-headed. But the princess was played by a bearded man, which just looked ridiculous. That didn’t work at all.

He's not pretending to be a woman in real life, though. I don't have a problem with it.

He is. He's on HRT and "identifies as trans-femme non binary" whatever the hell that means.

Debbie Wileman is a fantastic Judy tribute act if you want to see a really entertaining show. Focussing on how great she was not wallowing in the sad life Judy had later on. Which this production probably will.

Personally, I find it reprehensible pointing out the simple fact the NUMEROUS females playing males / male roles has not been addressed. To find it blatant sexism because a director chose to use someone who identifies as a trans female, people fail to conveniently to talk about the numerous roles that men were shut out being taken over by actresses and their main requirement was being female. The hypocrisy of it all is definitely not lost here - just simply accountability to cherry pick the idea that escapes so many people who obviously just want to show their own prejudices. Where was the boycotts, the rage, the idea that gender roles cannot be interchangeable between males and females on both sides of the aisle so much vitriol needs to be spread by the same sad people. Seventeen muscles for a smile, but continue with your forty-three muscles for a frown.

Women Who Played Male Roles

Women playing male roles in Stratford & London Shakespeare plays

13 Actresses Playing Male Roles And Taking Masculinity To A Whole New Level!

When there are an equal number of parts written for black and minority actors as there are white so that they can all move freely between them, then I'll agree with you. In the meantime, you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree.

In this case, the director has deliberately chosen to ignore the many thousands of talented female actors who could have played a female and decided that a man who does womanface could do a better job. The sexism and male privilege is so engrained they can't see a problem with this.

Society is sexist. Recorded history focuses on males. Writing was discouraged in women unless it was in an approved style or on approved subjects. Factors like these have resulted in there being many more parts for men than for women. There are many fewer male actors. Many more actresses are unemployed at any one time. Actors have better quality and bigger parts.

Taking good parts away from women to give to men for no good reason is wrong, IMO.