Thursday, November 19, 2020
'It's not about cancel culture': Hedwig and the Angry Inch postponed after trans-led petition
Culture | The Guardian: The creators of the show Hedwig and the Angry Inch have weighed in to a casting row that led to the producers of an upcoming Australian production pulling the show from January’s Sydney festival.
In a statement on Wednesday, John Cameron Mitchell and Stephen Task said they did not believe the title role was a trans character, and the role should be “open to anyone who can tackle it and, more importantly, anyone who needs it.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I want to say THANK YOU and uplift the people who caused a stir about this. I'm really glad this led to the production being postponed and conversations being had. I loved hearing the quotes of Czepanski and how they talked about starting conversations and giving power to trans and gender non conforming people. It was really great seeing people make sure that their work was aligning with their values. Granted it took a whole lot of labor to get the producers to see this but I'm glad they did (or at least say they do in press releases).
I am also confused about the line that says the creators "always maintained that because Hedwig does not freely choose a trans life" so anyone can play the character. Having gender dysphoria, which is talked about in the show has to do with the trans/gender non-conforming experience. This makes no sense. They admit that Hedwig is trans but because the character did not choose it means they aren't trans/non male/female sexed?
Also I’m glad the creators want people to relate to Hedwig but people can relate other people even if they don’t share the same biological or demographic traits. This isn’t a reason as to why to cast cis-gendered characters as a trans character. All theatre creators want relatable characters. This doesn’t excuse wrong casting choices.
I really dislike when I hear “I only want to see “type” person play this role”. I’m sorry but if you are neither the writer of the play nor the director, then thank you, please wait outside. If you are not happy with who get’s cast in a role, then don’t go see the show. Unless the writer specifically specifies who should play a role, either through character description or by the setting of the play, casting directors should be free to consider whoever they want in a role. I support casting according to the writer’s intentions. If they feel that a cis-gendered person or a trans person can equally play the role (as have been done in other productions), then so be it. We don’t know what happened during the casting process. I don’t think that casting a cis-gender male as Hedwig is wrong and as the article stated, this role has been played by trans persons before. There may have been a trans actor who auditioned but was not seen as a fit to the role. To me, when you say that “this isn’t about cancel culture”, I immediately think that it is. You are trying to dictate who can be at the table. I agree that conversations need to be had and I fully support those individuals who are trans/nonbinary/non-conforming in their right to be heard and seen in roles on the stage but if you claim to want people in the conversation, don’t treat them like the enemy.
While I understand the desire to see a trans actor play Hedwig, I don’t think the role should be reserved for trans actors if the writer of the musical said that the character isn’t trans. The production certainly shouldn’t be cancelled. I agree that room should be made for trans actors but don’t agree with forcing trans actors onto roles that are not trans. Why shouldn’t queer, cisgender actors be able to play the role as well? I also find it hard to believe that this “isn’t about cancel culture” when they are literally forcing a show to be cancelled. Why do they see the show being cancelled as a solution? They would rather get rid of queer stories all together than see them played by non-queer actors? That sounds like moving backwards to me. Because Hedwig is forced into a sex change operation, she isn’t freely trans. I understand why people would disagree with that idea, but I do think that explanation should be enough to solidify the casting decision happening here.
Being trans myself, this article highlights an issue I have pondered a lot. I have mixed feelings on needing to be [this] to play [this] if the character’s identity is not integral to the plot. However, this article seems to address that this is a systemic problem, rather than a problem with an individual show, which is true. There is so little trans representation in the entertainment industry, and when there is representation, it is often played by a cis actor. There is an unrest in which cis straight people will never understand in never completely seeing yourself represented in any character. And when that one trans character comes around, it is still a question of whether the representation is accurate to the trans experience. There is a constant frustration with the knowledge that because we are not represented, the world goes uneducated. Entertainment is the perfect medium through which to help people understand trans people in an engaging way that does not put them personally on the spot, and yet there is still pushback in the industry. Because the problem runs so deeply in our society, I agree with the decision to postpone the show, at least to deeply consider the role of the character and make an informed decision on whether to cast them as trans, rather than just subconsciously casting aside trans performers. I don’t know if I agree with the character needing to be played by a trans actor, but I think time to deeply consider the problem and formulate a response to this contention would be sufficient.
Post a Comment