What do you think of all-male/all-female productions of Shakespeare?

Recently there were two productions of Romeo and Juliet in America- one with an all male cast, the other with an all-female cast.

Do you think that would be an interesting experiment or just weird?

The obvious argument against it is that it is being 'awkward'. Women couldn't appear on stage and so young boys were forced to play the parts; there wasn't a choice. Even if we might excuse an all-male cast, an all-female cast doesn't have much grounding.

However, Shakespeare knew that he was writing for an all-male cast (yes, the boys were still young but they were male). There aren't many female characters and there is a lot of gender-bending. Did he have any concept of women ever playing the roles? And having an all-male cast gives a different dynamic.

Thoughts?

Although all male productions were the sole authority in Elizabethan times such a staging today is disrespectful of the few female parts in the plays. I have seen an all female Richard III and it was great, and I'm not just saying that because my wife was in it. There are twice as many female actors as male and their caliber is better too. Why not take advantage of that and raise the status of women actors in Shakespeare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Although all male productions were the sole authority in Elizabethan times such a staging today is disrespectful of the few female parts in the plays. I have seen an all female Richard III and it was great, and I'm not just saying that because my wife was in it. There are twice as many female actors as male and their caliber is better too. Why not take advantage of that and raise the status of women actors in Shakespeare.

---

I don't think it's disrespectful of female actors. It should hardly even be an issue, there is no harm in a diversity of interpretations and productions.

There is much to be said for the gender play in Shakespeare that is created by an all male cast, and it can only help us gain a greater understanding of Shakespeare to see it performed in a non-traditional, by today's standards, way. Likewise, an all female cast may just give us a new perspective on the characters and works. At the least, a female actress playing a male character makes us think about gender representation itself.

I want to a see a production of shakespeare where all the male roles are played by women, and all the female roles played by men. I'm sure it's been done, bet it would be a bit of fun.

Sometimes is actually can help a production - the best version of the Dream I've ever seen was all male. The obvious transvestite nature of the women added to the sense of bawdy comedy, and add into it the fact that the chap playing Helena was having a wonderful time constantly breaking the fourth wall, with sly looks, knowing grins, and expressions of self-aware horror/bemusement made it highly engaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I don't think it's disrespectful of female actors. It should hardly even be an issue, there is no harm in a diversity of interpretations and productions.

There is much to be said for the gender play in Shakespeare that is created by an all male cast, and it can only help us gain a greater understanding of Shakespeare to see it performed in a non-traditional, by today's standards, way. Likewise, an all female cast may just give us a new perspective on the characters and works. At the least, a female actress playing a male character makes us think about gender representation itself.

I want to a see a production of shakespeare where all the male roles are played by women, and all the female roles played by men. I'm sure it's been done, bet it would be a bit of fun.

---

I must respectfully and whole heartedly disagree.

Due to the Elizabethan conventions modern actresses are sorrowfully underrepresented by the world's greatest (arguably) playwright. Having been involved in an all male Shakespeare workshop and seen it performed I can tell you with certainty that it added nothing to the interpretation at all. Within moments the audience no longer cared what sex the actor is and they got on with the task of enjoying the story and production on its artistic merits. This was also the case in the all female Richard III as well. What was wonderful about the latter was the opportunity to see women pursue actions too often denied to them by Shakespeare's plays due to his conventional limitations, but not by our own society's. All female raises the status and opportunity of the female artist quite deservedly while all male strips it even more bare than it already is.

Shakespeare did very well by women for his time, but we have a different society now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Sometimes is actually can help a production - the best version of the Dream I've ever seen was all male. The obvious transvestite nature of the women added to the sense of bawdy comedy, and add into it the fact that the chap playing Helena was having a wonderful time constantly breaking the fourth wall, with sly looks, knowing grins, and expressions of self-aware horror/bemusement made it highly engaging.

---

I may stand corrected under certain circumstances.

Edit: What I will say is that I am very interested in handing traditionally male roles over to women to handle. We did this with Antonio in Much Ado and I've seen it done in an adaptation of Lear. 'Lysandra' seems, on first consideration, to be an interesting idea with regards to the Dream. I think there's plenty of room for that without having to retread the 'experiment' of solo gender performances.

You can't just cast people because you feel sorry for them. All-female casts, sad to say, tend to come off as an attempt to 'correct', as opposed to having any reason for them. However, there is going to be an all-female version of Shrew in Swansea, which considering the misogynistic themes should be quite an interesting exploration.

Using all-male or all-female casts does create different dynamics- when watching it, you get caught up in the story, hopefully, but if you pause and think, the dynamics will come through.

I think it's more interesting to see a male cast because on the funny side, seeing men playing women is far funnier than women playing men, and on the more serious side, it's harder for men to play women seriously. Women can assume bravado and strength fairly easily but a man is required to almost 'weaken' himself and puts himself up for a lot of ridicule. There's more at stake, which gives a danger that you couldn't get with a female cast.

For example, 'Shakespeare's R and J' is Romeo and Juliet set in a Catholic boys school. They act it out for laughs but then it turns serious. Unfortunately I've only seen clips and read it, but it raises interesting issues about gender perceptions, racks up the tension, and makes what is a very overdone play seem exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

You can't just cast people because you feel sorry for them.

---

I also mentioned that the caliber of female actors is generally higher than that of their male counterparts. Ask any casting director. It's a smart decision.

The R III I saw had no real sexual dynamic and that might be part of why it didn't matter which sex was playing what.

[QUOTE=xman;853077]I also mentioned that the caliber of female actors is generally higher than that of their male counterparts. Ask any casting director. It's a smart decision.
[QUOTE]


Not necessarily. And yes, there are less opportunities for women to get decent parts but there are good female Shakespearean roles and plenty of iconic female roles in other plays. It's not all about acting ability; it's about what you want to communicate, the look.

Lord I'm posting long after the last poster, but I love seeing the dynamic of actors playing the opposite sex. Especially since the plays themselves can bring up so many interesting views on how genders were stereotyped and viewed back in that time period.

I am a part of a teen/youth Shakespeare theater in my town (I'm 16), where we do uncut Shakespeare. Our director is really open on letting girls play guys roles, because he thinks that Shakespeare has so many fantastic parts that he doesn't want to just limit the girls to the female roles - he wants them to have a chance playing some of the greatest male roles in literature.
Since the ratio of girls to guys is large, in productions guys aren't allowed to play female roles. However, in workshops and open house performances they get chances to play female leads if they so choose.

I've found, personally, that working onstage with my love interest/husband being played by a female to work really well - I had much more chemistry with my Othello that was a female than working with a male Lysander/filling in for another (male) Othello's Desdemona.
Some of the best actors of male parts have been female. I've a friend who has cried 3 times at something he's seen onstage: my Othello this past fall, my Othello's sister when she played Lear, and one other Lear - all female. Another friend of mine (who played my Iago when I was Desdemona) has seen over 20 different Othello's, including herself - male and female, professional, movie, and in our very own theater - and she said that the girl that played our Othello blew them all away.

What I'm pretty much trying to say, is that the gender lines can get blurred, you can provide interesting dynamics when put an actor in a role of the opposite sex. Shakespeare has many great roles that shouldn't be limited by gender boundaries, because sometimes a female can play a male (or vice versa) more astoundingly and beautifully than a male (or female) can.

This topic called my attention for three reasons: experimenting as such, artistic challenge and life – art mirroring.

Experimenting is an integral part of human nature. It has always been practiced in all walks of life and will continue to be so. It is necessary and sometimes but not always productive. In the pursuit of the innovative in art, which for many, in fact for most, is the ultimate achievement this one only proves the point. I would like to see it.

Artistic challenge is another point here. As an actor I have tried something similar, namely I played Lady Magbeth on stage. We can talk about an other ultimate here – ultimate challenge for an actress/actor. Not only stepping into some other character, more or less unlike ourselves, but casting away our gender at that too… wow it is almost irresistible.

When it’s about life- art mirroring which ultimately (this word again) is what it is all about the biggest artistic impact rests undoubtedly with the traditional role distribution. It also presents the greatest challenge of all – being different, new and interesting while remaining quire normal.