And yet no-one complained that David Tenant wasn’t Danish when he played Hamlet.
Andyf
2 years ago
the decision “contravenes the Globe’s ethos of diversity and inclusion across all protected characteristics”
Surely that ethos of “inclusion” should imply that a black person could play a white role, a disabled a non disabled and vice versa? Or is there a strict hierarchy which mean a disabled, black, gay, “trans” woman is eligible for all roles yet a white man with no disabilities and “straight” sexual orientation is only allowed to play that type of part?
The Meissen Bison
2 years ago
And no-one complained that David Tenant wasn’t bi-cardial when he played Dr Who.
John
2 years ago
So the fact that Richard isn’t being played by a disabled actor is an issue but having him played by a woman (the real biological sort) is just fine and dandy.
Will she walk across the stage with a slight limp or would that be judged harshly?
Why do I even care?
jgh
2 years ago
Would it be a prosthetic limp?
I’m here all day….
Boddicker
2 years ago
I have a friend who’s been an aspiring actor for years. He’d be the first to say he’s not the most talented, but as a gay he felt sure that the above rule of gays playing gays meant he’d surely land a roll. Turns out that he’s the wrong type of gay. Oh how I chuckle (behind his back)
Bloke in Wales
2 years ago
Turns out that he’s the wrong type of gay.
There are types of gays? Do they divide into givers and receivers, or is it something else?
Hallowed Be
2 years ago
“Non-disabled Richard III actor to press on despite calls for recast”
lame and unfashionable.
Nautical Nick
2 years ago
I didn’t realise Richard III was a hunch-front…
Sam Vara
2 years ago
Considerations of race, gender, sexuality and disability pale into insignificance when trying to cast Hamlet’s father.
Chernyy Drakon
2 years ago
How dare they assume she isn’t disabled?
Not all disabilities are visible and this seems very ableist of them.
Maybe she identifies as disabled as well.
Bigots.
Grikath
2 years ago
Inclusivity Snowflakes get in a tiff over “miscasting” in malign propaganda theatre piece…
Anyhoo.. I prefer the versions where they re-introduced the bawdyness and drumrolls and alarums, as they were actually done in the day.
None of that snooty highbrow stuff.
>”Bloke in Wales
February 2, 2024 at 12:26 pm
Turns out that he’s the wrong type of gay.
There are types of gays? Do they divide into givers and receivers, or is it something else?”
Here’s a breakdown of the types;)
BniC
2 years ago
I believe the correct term isn’t givers and receivers it’s tops and bottoms
Tractor Gent
2 years ago
Gays: more subgroups, I guess: Old Queens, Screaming Campers, Leather Boys, Twinks. Is there a steroid-using subculture? Perhaps as many as the multifarious genders screaming for attention.
As for Richard III you would think that if a woman wanted to play an evil monster (though there’s controversy about whether RIII was), then Lady Macbeth would be tailor made. For me the cross-casting is more offensive than the disability nonsense.
And yet no-one complained that David Tenant wasn’t Danish when he played Hamlet.
the decision “contravenes the Globe’s ethos of diversity and inclusion across all protected characteristics”
Surely that ethos of “inclusion” should imply that a black person could play a white role, a disabled a non disabled and vice versa? Or is there a strict hierarchy which mean a disabled, black, gay, “trans” woman is eligible for all roles yet a white man with no disabilities and “straight” sexual orientation is only allowed to play that type of part?
And no-one complained that David Tenant wasn’t bi-cardial when he played Dr Who.
So the fact that Richard isn’t being played by a disabled actor is an issue but having him played by a woman (the real biological sort) is just fine and dandy.
Will she walk across the stage with a slight limp or would that be judged harshly?
Why do I even care?
Would it be a prosthetic limp?
I’m here all day….
I have a friend who’s been an aspiring actor for years. He’d be the first to say he’s not the most talented, but as a gay he felt sure that the above rule of gays playing gays meant he’d surely land a roll. Turns out that he’s the wrong type of gay. Oh how I chuckle (behind his back)
There are types of gays? Do they divide into givers and receivers, or is it something else?
“Non-disabled Richard III actor to press on despite calls for recast”
lame and unfashionable.
I didn’t realise Richard III was a hunch-front…
Considerations of race, gender, sexuality and disability pale into insignificance when trying to cast Hamlet’s father.
How dare they assume she isn’t disabled?
Not all disabilities are visible and this seems very ableist of them.
Maybe she identifies as disabled as well.
Bigots.
Inclusivity Snowflakes get in a tiff over “miscasting” in malign propaganda theatre piece…
Anyhoo.. I prefer the versions where they re-introduced the bawdyness and drumrolls and alarums, as they were actually done in the day.
None of that snooty highbrow stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc9_mxvP1K0
>”Bloke in Wales
February 2, 2024 at 12:26 pm
Turns out that he’s the wrong type of gay.
There are types of gays? Do they divide into givers and receivers, or is it something else?”
Here’s a breakdown of the types;)
I believe the correct term isn’t givers and receivers it’s tops and bottoms
Gays: more subgroups, I guess: Old Queens, Screaming Campers, Leather Boys, Twinks. Is there a steroid-using subculture? Perhaps as many as the multifarious genders screaming for attention.
As for Richard III you would think that if a woman wanted to play an evil monster (though there’s controversy about whether RIII was), then Lady Macbeth would be tailor made. For me the cross-casting is more offensive than the disability nonsense.