Dylan Mulvaney cast as Anne Boleyn

[dementedpixie]

Came up on fb and thought it was satire to start with! Would put me off going to see it tbh

This doesn't bother me. If they are good, it will be entertaining for the people watching it. If it is just a publicity stunt and they are bad they will be dropped. It isn't like this is a big Anne Boleyn movie where only one person gets to play the role.

Although using 'hysterical' - an insult based on the female biology the queens all had and young Manne Broleyn never can - is amusing me slightly.

Anne Boleyn’s song is supposed to be a counterpoint to the usual portrayal of her as manipulative and calculating - instead it’s supposed to be an ‘oh I did a thing and didn’t expect it to blow up like this’. It doesn’t make much sense.

Yes, I know but earlier in the thread someone (not the poster I quoted) claims that you have to be trained to be able to tell a counter tenor from a soprano and I don't think that is true. I'm not trained and I can tell a counter tenor from a soprano easily despite not listening to much classical music that includes singing (because I really dislike opera).

I was disappointed in the show. Not what I was expecting. It was very shouty I felt. Loud.
Not my thing.

Dont give a fuck who is clever or who isnt. Clever is as clever does. I'm sick to the back teeth of the turgid wank of the gendership and all who sail on it. Vapid, shallow, meaningless bollocks.

'Hysterical' and 'bleating' are favourite terms of misogyny, whose main aim is to shut women up. Insult us, malign us, and most of all, repeatedly criticise our voices, in the hope we'll be quiet.

We won't wheesht, you ought to know that by now.

I would go and put lovely terf-y stickers everywhere!

The points about voices are interesting for that reason. Are both writers men?

Cross sex casting can be really effective. You see the character in a new way and you also see how your own expectations are shaped by sex.

The reason it works is because the actor's sex is not the sex of the character (or the sex they are usually played as). The difference is what makes it work.

However when it comes to trans casting, the fundamental article of faith we are supposed to accept is that the trans identity is that there is no difference between a trans actor's sex and the sex of the character. We have to pretend we think trans women are just as much women as female people. And therefore the only interesting thing about trans casting is a thing we are not allowed to acknowledge and are told we are bad people to think about.

In short, cross sex casting is done for the sake of the play and the audience, trans casting is done for the sake of the trans actor and the producers' egos. It's not really surprising that the first works and the second doesn't.

I saw Six recently and it was incredible - I felt it was so empowering for women but this just completely takes the piss.

Is this casting just for Broadway? I'm booked to see it in the UK later this year and I don't want to go if there's a bloke in it. The whole point of the show is that it's all women!

Yeah after I posted I remembered it was less satire and more counter factual I.e what if she wasn’t this cool, calculated, intelligent woman but some sassy airhead. I’m not sure it works in the context of the show but as a whole I really liked the show (although the AB song is my least favourite)

2 things - first totally agree with you about the man in legally blonde - was rubbish! But then much as I loved the actress playing Elle I wasn’t sure about her casting either - but that’s a different discussion.

the thing about having women playing Richard 3 is that they are women who they director has intentionally chosen for their skill, and either they have crossed the whole role (so female clothing/talking about her not him) or they are dressed convincingly as men. There are far fewer really meaty parts for women in Shakespeare- I totally get why female actors want a chance at them. I’ve also seen it with female Hamlet and male Ophelia (6 foot with chest hair showing over his strapless ball gown)…that was a disaster as the cognitive dissonance made it impossible to focus on the words - good Shakespeare isn’t always easy to follow at the best of times.

also saw it with Ian McKelken as hamlet (only 70 years or so too old ) - that was really bad - I don’t know if it was just hideous costuming choices (scruffy tracksuit) but all I got was senile petulant old man not angry youth. Which is a shame because his Lear was astoundingly brilliant.

but the issue with DM isn’t about cross dressing/casting - it’s about the fact that he and the writers/directors are pretending that he’s a women being cast as a woman. Cast Tom Holland and I’ll come and see it like a shot (look for him dancing to Umbrella)…because he’s not claiming to be female. (Actually still don’t think casting a man as one of the 6 is appropriate but I can see he would be amazing).

However in a slight ray of hope I am seeing fewer pronouns in bios in programs these days…

@FlirtsWithRhinos said it so much better than me!

In theatre dont they play different genders all the time?

I loved the Six, but the writers haven’t had hit since.
I wouldn’t go, if a man was playing any of the characters! Especially as I’m sure part of the songs are women doing it for themselves without Henry’s need for a male heir!

Perhaps they want to play it in the historical customs of Shakespeare's time?

Brilliantly put

Well how ironic… the real Anne Boleyn had her head chopped off for not being able to conceive a male child. We’ll need to be careful here though, or we’ll get our heads chopped off for complaining about it.

great post!

It's not always. I saw a trans man play a role recently and if I hadn't been told that they used to be a woman I wouldn't have been able to tell. Maybe up close it would have been obvious, but not from the gallery. They did a good job. Similarly the brilliant woman playing Richard 3rd was playing him pretending to be a man, they hadn't changed Richard in to a woman.

I want to see someone cast who a) is capable of the acting/dancing/vocal demands of the role, and b) makes me believe that they are the person they are portraying. If they can do that I'm happy.

Of course some roles are too problematic to overcome gender/colour blind casting because it impacts the understanding or meaning of the show. But I'm not convinced that's true here - everyone knows who Anne Boleyn is, so they won't be confused, it's not historically accurate in plenty of ways, and there's basically no plot to the show anyway.

Tudor women faced many problems in a society dominated by males. Anne Boleyn certainly did eg; being executed for not producing a male child.
Seems particularly ironic for her to be played by a male.
Females who faced male oppression being played by males seems similar to black slaves being played by white actors in black face or native americans played by white actors ...just seems insensitive at best.

The world has gone mad.

Yes, that would have been the better choice. Instead the one Henry doesn't fancy has in both the productions I've seen, been played by the only woman of colour in the line up.

I love musicals but I looked up some of the songs of this show and thought 'what a pile of shite' how on earth is this positive for women? I don't think it could be made any worse by sticking a man in it tbh. Definitely not getting 'wildly intelligent writers' or female empowerment from this cringe fest.

Three in the bed
And the little one said
"If you wanna be wed
Make up your mind!"
Her or me, chum
Don't wanna be some
Girl in a threesome
Are you blind?

[Ensemble:]
Ooh

[Anne Boleyn:]
Don't be bitter

[Ensemble:]
Ooh

[Anne Boleyn:]
'Cause I'm fitter

[Ensemble:]
Ooh

[Anne Boleyn:]
Why hasn't it hit her?
He doesn't wanna bang you
Somebody hang you