Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, February 17, 2023
All-male Beckett play canceled for only hiring male actors
www.irishcentral.com: A Dutch production of the Samuel Beckett play "Waiting for Godot" was canceled because the show's Irish director only allowed men to audition, despite Beckett clearly stating that the cast should be five men.
5 comments:
Jackson Underwood
said...
This is a really interesting case to me. I’m interested to know why the director chose to do this play in the first place. I don’t know much about the play, so I can’t really say whether he was justified or not. It seems to me like the play is one where characters can be interpreted in many ways and could be any gender. And such, it is pretty misogynistic for Beckett to restrict his play to only male actors. Regardless, a male-only casting call is kind of a red flag on its own. Even if it's a small case of male characters, most small cast plays can be any gender. I do, however, love that Ohio College cast an all-female version of the show. That’s pretty badass. At the end of the day, I think it’s in the directors hands to not choose shows that will get them into these kinds of situations. There are so many shows out there that feature a wide array of diverse characters, so why choose one where you would be restricted to casting only men?
While I don’t know the play very well, my initial thought is that the show didn’t have to necessarily be canceled solely because it only included men. I’m sure there are nuances to the situation that I’m missing from only reading an article on it, but if the director and script calls for five men I don’t see why that prompts canceling a show unless the fact it only casts men hurts other marginalized groups via the script or company practices. I do understand the argument for this play in particular from what people for the cancellation have said that a woman or other non-male person could play the roles, and I don’t think excluding certain people is appropriate. I mean if Beckett was only casting men because he's misogynistic or refusing to cast trans men or something of the like then I think that is wrong. However if the casting is for narrative purposes and isn’t problematic then I think canceling was an extreme solution.
The reasons for the cancellation are unfortunate, with concerns over the play's inclusion of blackface and racial stereotypes being cited as the main factor. It is understandable that modern audiences are increasingly sensitive to issues of racial representation and that there is a need for theatre to evolve and adapt to changing social norms. However, it is also important to acknowledge the historical context in which the play was written and to consider the intentions of the playwright.
This cancellation is a reminder of the complexity of cultural expression and the challenges that arise when attempting to navigate societal shifts. It is also a reminder of the power of theatre to provoke thought and spark discussion around important issues. While it is disappointing that this particular production will not see the stage, it is my hope that it will continue to inspire dialogue and reflection on the role of theatre in our society.
This is a really interesting situation. Every party mentioned in this article seems to have a different outlook on this problem, and, at least in my opinion, a fair argument can be made for each one. The director of the play wanted to cast non-male people, but didn't because he feared a lawsuit from Beckett's estate. Then, the University of Groningen wanted to cancel the play for fear of being sued because it wasn't inclusive. It's interesting that a college in Ohio canceled a female production of the play in fear of a lawsuit - exactly the opposite of this situation. I mean, what can you do? The play has an all-male cast, which you don't have to stick to EXCEPT Beckett's estate might sue you, but it needs to be inclusive.... In my opinion, the play shouldn't have been canceled. If the director was looking for male actors, why shouldn't they only audition male actors? But, like I said, I think a fair argument can be made either way.
I find that the conversation surrounding the validity of having an all-male cast is something that really needs to be talked about; because we do not need to be trying to pick fights where fights do not need to be picked. If a cast calls for all men, I see no reason for there to be anything wrong with that, especially considering that you can still find diversity in an all-male cast. There are gay men, trans men, non-binary people willing to play male roles, and there are different races of men too. I suppose a way to look at it is that men being men is not inherently a reason they should not be cast, and there shouldn’t be a reason to hate on an all-male cast if the reason for such hatred is simply because they are all men. I understand wanting representation; it is all I have ever wanted really, growing up trans, and this is how you get that representation in some ways, but I think it is perfectly to not always be represented in everything. There is no way for everyone to be represented in everything: everyone has their own unique identity and facets, and a play with an all-male cast can be representation in its own way.
5 comments:
This is a really interesting case to me. I’m interested to know why the director chose to do this play in the first place. I don’t know much about the play, so I can’t really say whether he was justified or not. It seems to me like the play is one where characters can be interpreted in many ways and could be any gender. And such, it is pretty misogynistic for Beckett to restrict his play to only male actors. Regardless, a male-only casting call is kind of a red flag on its own. Even if it's a small case of male characters, most small cast plays can be any gender. I do, however, love that Ohio College cast an all-female version of the show. That’s pretty badass. At the end of the day, I think it’s in the directors hands to not choose shows that will get them into these kinds of situations. There are so many shows out there that feature a wide array of diverse characters, so why choose one where you would be restricted to casting only men?
While I don’t know the play very well, my initial thought is that the show didn’t have to necessarily be canceled solely because it only included men. I’m sure there are nuances to the situation that I’m missing from only reading an article on it, but if the director and script calls for five men I don’t see why that prompts canceling a show unless the fact it only casts men hurts other marginalized groups via the script or company practices. I do understand the argument for this play in particular from what people for the cancellation have said that a woman or other non-male person could play the roles, and I don’t think excluding certain people is appropriate. I mean if Beckett was only casting men because he's misogynistic or refusing to cast trans men or something of the like then I think that is wrong. However if the casting is for narrative purposes and isn’t problematic then I think canceling was an extreme solution.
The reasons for the cancellation are unfortunate, with concerns over the play's inclusion of blackface and racial stereotypes being cited as the main factor. It is understandable that modern audiences are increasingly sensitive to issues of racial representation and that there is a need for theatre to evolve and adapt to changing social norms. However, it is also important to acknowledge the historical context in which the play was written and to consider the intentions of the playwright.
This cancellation is a reminder of the complexity of cultural expression and the challenges that arise when attempting to navigate societal shifts. It is also a reminder of the power of theatre to provoke thought and spark discussion around important issues. While it is disappointing that this particular production will not see the stage, it is my hope that it will continue to inspire dialogue and reflection on the role of theatre in our society.
This is a really interesting situation. Every party mentioned in this article seems to have a different outlook on this problem, and, at least in my opinion, a fair argument can be made for each one. The director of the play wanted to cast non-male people, but didn't because he feared a lawsuit from Beckett's estate. Then, the University of Groningen wanted to cancel the play for fear of being sued because it wasn't inclusive. It's interesting that a college in Ohio canceled a female production of the play in fear of a lawsuit - exactly the opposite of this situation. I mean, what can you do? The play has an all-male cast, which you don't have to stick to EXCEPT Beckett's estate might sue you, but it needs to be inclusive.... In my opinion, the play shouldn't have been canceled. If the director was looking for male actors, why shouldn't they only audition male actors? But, like I said, I think a fair argument can be made either way.
I find that the conversation surrounding the validity of having an all-male cast is something that really needs to be talked about; because we do not need to be trying to pick fights where fights do not need to be picked. If a cast calls for all men, I see no reason for there to be anything wrong with that, especially considering that you can still find diversity in an all-male cast. There are gay men, trans men, non-binary people willing to play male roles, and there are different races of men too. I suppose a way to look at it is that men being men is not inherently a reason they should not be cast, and there shouldn’t be a reason to hate on an all-male cast if the reason for such hatred is simply because they are all men. I understand wanting representation; it is all I have ever wanted really, growing up trans, and this is how you get that representation in some ways, but I think it is perfectly to not always be represented in everything. There is no way for everyone to be represented in everything: everyone has their own unique identity and facets, and a play with an all-male cast can be representation in its own way.
Post a Comment