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.

It's very Shakespearean and not in a good way.

I didn't realise, sorry! That's unacceptable then.

Judy Garland was a gay icon and supported the LGBTQIA+ community. So why you care when she wouldn’t is wild (get a hobby) https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20190923-why-is-judy-garland-the-ultimate-gay-icon

I am completely baffled by drag. Surely it’s a job, not an identity?

How do you know what JG would or wouldn't have minded @Sheepydoggo ? And gay isn't T, Q, I, A or +, is it? Who knows what she would have thought about rapists being placed in female prisons, or children being given hormones will long term adverse health effects, or young people being surgically mutilated, or women being forced to share changing rooms with males as a condition or their employment, or being denied places and medals in their chosen sport?

I find this a bit tricky to call. Theatre has a long tradition of casting people in opposite sex roles.
Originally no women on stage at all, of course, but even since then it's not exactly rare. Peter Pan is always played by a woman, for example.
So no, I don't think I have an issue with it. I would if the man playing the role claimed to be an actual woman.

Having said that I wouldn't go to see this production if you paid me, but if others want to let the go ahead.

I should also add that this is my instant reaction, and I haven't really thought it through.

As Judy was put on cigarettes, amphetamines, and a chicken soup diet to keep her figure childlike for filming, forced to wear breast binders and so on, I think she might actually be quite opinionated about the transing of little girls.

“Garland herself had been asked if at a San Francisco press conference if she minded having such a large gay following, to which she responded: “I couldn’t care less. I sing to people!”

That’s not really a lot to base your assumption on. She may be very LGB friendly, but there’s no particular reason to suppose she’d welcome being played by a man.

She was a very clear victim of patriarchy.

Ahhh, I've just RTFT (it had updated with new comments while I was reading), and I now see that he is 'trans' and claims to be some kind of 'femme' or something.
So bollocks to him.

Hmmm, I’m as GC as they come, but can’t get worked up about this. It’s a short run in a small theatre, in the suburbs. If this was a huge west end production I might be bothered, but it’s basically fringe theatre. It’s not making or breaking anyone’s career. There are literally hundreds of shows, of all types, all over London, all the time. This is just one of them.

[As an eyerolling aside, the list maker on that Onedio article includes Milla Jovanovich playing Joan of Arc.]

It's the Soho Theatre in Walthamstow which is part of the main Soho Theatre in Dean Street. 960 seats, comparable in size to the Hackney Empire. So not just a fringe venue. End of the Rainbow premiered at Sydney Opera House in 2005 and has been performed in the West End and on Broadway. It's been made into a film starring Renee Zellweger. Judy Garland is the main part. The show is pretty much guaranteed an audience because the subject matter is an iconic figure and it's a musical. So it is a big deal, IMO.

Actresses need work. This is the kind of job they would give their eye teeth for. But the producers thought, you know what, we're all tired of boring old properly trained actresses - let's hire a man instead.

ETA:
And just to hammer my point a bit more - even though it's about Judy Garland, I bet there are more male than female roles in it. Just off to check!

It's a man, playing a woman.
That's the issue.
It's very simple.
And outrageous.

Quoting my own post to say I was right - three male roles and one female role in the original production.

So now 4 males playing the roles?

Probably. How utterly depressing.

Wow. Good work, @WandaSiri
Patriarchy stomping on her even in death.

RRFT, I'll summarize my position: a man playing a woman on stage, as a man - fine, especially as part of an artistic approach. A man playing a woman on stage claiming to be a woman playing a woman on stage - not fine.

So it seems! Although the third male character hasn't been in every stage production, so it might be three men rather than four.

ETA:
And as for artistic reasons, I'm sure that's what the producers will claim as their rationale, while being very vague about what those reasons actually are. The drag performer in question has said nothing about what special qualities he can bring to the role (apart from being a bloke, of course 🙄) that convinces me we would see a fresh take.

I think you need to learn to count NumbersGuy. 13 is not NUMEROUS when there is generally a 57% vs 43% split in male/female roles, it's just trying to even out the balance a little.

And crucially the women's parts are smaller - they have less dialogue and are in fewer scenes.

In film and TV...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2024/02/27/women-held-only-35-of-speaking-roles-in-2023-films-according-to-study/
35% of roles in films that year, compared to 65% for men.
Plus think about all the background artists and one-line parts - all those films with warriors, soldiers, policemen... And add to that that the proportion of male to female actors is said to be 35%-65% - in America, at least, so probably not that different over here.

A jobbing actress in her forties (the age of JG in this play) will have seen her career opportunities drop off a cliff in her late thirties, while her male counterparts start getting really meaty parts.

And those bastard producers know all this.

I don't understand the 'i can't get worked up over it, it's only one person' argument.

There is fierce competition for acting roles, many many people never make it. There are fewer rules for women in the first place. Why should even one of those women lose out to a man?

Tell me you're a sexist without telling me you're a sexist 🙄

Basically 'meh it's only one woman being shat on by a man so it doesn't count'.

It bloody does count, to actors and all women.

Judy Garland was a very petit 4ft 11in tall. How is this galumping bloke going to manage that?

He certainly didn't look petite in Doctor Who!

See also La Voix, set to play Miss Hannigan in a tour of Annie. Another great character part for an actress of a certain age handed to a man - several men. Which seems to be saying ‘yuck, by the time actresses are this age they’re mingers anyway so let’s just cast a man’.

Sorry but can you translate that into English. I think your ChatGPT is glitching.