Flavorwire: A lot of the discussion surrounding gender-swapped Shakespeare productions hinges on an idea of theatrical reparation. The idea isn’t just that these casting decisions make up for the Elizabethan refusal to let women play any part, but also that they address the dearth of substantial female roles in Shakespeare’s works (at least outside the comedies). People talk about revival/reboot culture in TV and film — but theater has functioned as a revival culture for centuries, and has proven both the innovations and the potential paralyses therein. In an art form predicated primarily on endless reconstitutions of the past, that not only cherishes its classics, but necessitates their constant rebirth, such changes have to be made if the theater wishes to explore and critique male-dominated pasts without perpetuating a male-dominated present.
7 comments:
Theatre has consistently been focused on recreating the past or revamping something old. Original ideas are cherished and extremely rare and often unrecognized. Instead, many theatre artists use the concepts and ideas they grew up with and put their own spin on them. I feel like this comes from a selfish place, like we deserve to rethink a show that already exists because we think our ideas will be even better and more moving than the original. We need to inject our opinions on the subject and we need to do it in our own way. I know this sounds like a harsh critique of the majority of the theatre world, but I promise, it comes from a place of understanding. I have also felt the urge to unnecessarily “revamp” and I am extremely aware that absolutely none of my ideas are original. I think the work that Phyllida Lloyd is doing is really credible and I think its coming from a place that will cause an effective piece of theatre.
There was one line of this article that definitely stuck with me. “…such changes have to be made if the theater wishes to explore and critique male-dominated pasts without perpetuating a male-dominated present.” So this is saying that plays from the times of male dominated societies should not enhance the idea of the male dominated society today, is what I am gathering from this. Gender swapping in Shakespeare plays reminds me of a show I worked on in high school. We did One Flew Over the Coco’s Nest with an all-female cast. This decision was heavily driven by the fact that the acting program in my high school was female dominated at the time. But it is interesting to think how this production of the famous play defied the male role. Thinking about it now it almost didn’t matter the gender, it was more about just…being human. Using a different gender for a play does have the effect of trying to ‘even’ out the genders with the past and now.
I really enjoyed the points this article brought up about revival culture in theatre, and why it exists. I think that revivalism is essential to theatre as an art form. Theatre’s job is to dissect and analyze, and is less suspense based than TV or Movies. It is about understanding the many perspectives that can emerge within a text, and presenting them to the audience. That leaves so much room for interpretation amongst even one short text. Particularly Shakespeare, which often explores numerous themes throughout the text, has an incredible amount of room for interpretation. People never tire of seeing a Shakespeare, and I think that’s because each production is showing the audience something new. The idea of swapping gender in Shakespeare has been done before certainly, but maybe not with the histories. This gender swap can really let people focus on the patriarchal influences of the text and the time period.
This article's discussion about the Henry IV revival was incredibly interesting, and I wish I had time to go and see this production. Shakespeare, of course, is revived and recast all the time because of the sheer number of playhouses that put on Shakespeare plays, but this type of revival is especially interesting because as the article stated, it helps to reframe the original story and context of the story. With this production in particular, it points out the variety of patriarchies within the three worlds of the play, and it is particularly interesting to examine these issues within the context of one of the historical plays, which are much less likely candidates for dramatically different revivals. The casting of these types of plays can have a major effect on the messages sent by the play and the way the characters are perceived by the audience-this article points out that the rebellion crushed by Hal was cast mostly with black actors/prisoners, which sends a much different message than if they had been cast with white actors. These types of revivals can help to explore the different meanings within a play and can bring a fresh look on even a playwright as frequently revived as Shakespeare.
I do love the idea presented in this article. Shakespeare's plays in the years they were first performed were completely male-dominated, and to have an all-women show makes perfect sense. That being said, it has to make sense in a way. When the all male troupe did Shakespeare in the early days, they were not doing it to say, 'hey, look what women can't do.' but instead it was just theater. They were attempting to bring joy or insight to everyone. The fact that they were all male was not a major factor of the play. It would then make perfect sense that if there were to be an all women production of a Shakespeare play, that the major focus not be on the fact that the actors are women. I saw an all female production of the Tempest, and the three major characters were portrayed by women in three, very different ways. The first was the drunk who was a comic relief and was played very gender ambiguously. Because of the performance, it would be impossible to tell if the character was written for a man or a woman. The next was the king, who was played so convincingly, almost the entire audience believed her to actually be a man. The last character was the one who played Prosporo. Her portrayal is the only portrayal i would disagree with for an all women production of Shakespeare. She stayed very feminine but with facial hair, and the portrayal felt like she was trying to show the audience how progressive this was. It took the audience out of it, and was incredibly distracting. All-female productions of shakespeare can work, but only if they are done well.
The idea of gender swapped Shakespeare is both an interesting and a vital one. However, I don't think that that means women should pretend to be men. Shakespeare's characters are many layered, complex and diverse, and many of them are only men because of the necessities of the time. Hamlet does not have to be a man. There is little to nothing about Hamlet that necessitates him being a man, except for the fact that historically women would not be granted so much leeway to express their emotions in such a wordy and flowery way. The only roles in many of Shakespeare's plays are girlfriends and mothers, which is limiting to the way we view women today. I think that for many of Shakespeare's characters, gender almost becomes irrelevant. It shouldn't matter, because Shakespeare doesn't necessarily tell the stories of men or women. He tells the story of human beings.
Here is the thing about the article, and it is a lot of the trouble that we faced when working on Lord of the Flies. Genderswapping does not have to mean women playing men. It means women going onstage play a character that is traditionally another gender but in some (and most ways), it does not matter. We discover more and more every day that gender is more of a societal defined structure than a biological one. A woman can play a man’s role and have their pronouns and still be a woman because in today’s society, it does not matter. Sometimes this dichotomy actually makes the story more relevant because it brings to the surface that this is not just a traditional Shakespeare, and that the message is universal to humanity. All PEOPLE are capable of what the text is talking about and gender does not matter. In a llot of cases, a play can hide behind traditional gender norms to prevent from discussing the real message. It is nice to see that productions like Henry V are not doing that; they are embracing what genderswapping and framing can do for the message they are trying to portray.
Post a Comment