Seana McKenna (left) as Julius Caesar and Michelle Giroux as Mark AntonyPosted on 07/20/2019 7:12:10 AM PDT by NOBO2012
Last year I went to the annual Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Ontario. You may remember me discussing it at the time.
They had a production of The Tempest showcasing Martha Henry as Prospero – the revenge seeking wizard exiled to a remote island. The role of Prospero is considered a plum role and highly sought after by men in their fifties or sixties as it is quite possible they would have a 15-year-old daughter. Given that the director chose to fundamentally transform Prospero’s character from Miranda’s father to her mother it’s a bit more of a stretch for the 80 year old actress. But hey, that’s the magic of theater.
Also part of last year’s Shakespearean offerings was Julius Caesar…where the lead was played by Seana McKenna, Cassius by Irene Poole, and Michelle Giroux as Mark Antony – women all. Nor were they the only gender bending roles, several other male characters in Julius Caesar were played by women because:
“It makes a lot of sense that in this day and age, a play with so few female characters should have women playing some of the more juicy male roles.” - BWW
It makes a lot of sense to a certain segment of the population. To the rest of us it just appears stupid and manipulative.
Seana McKenna (left) as Julius Caesar and Michelle Giroux as Mark Antony
Yet CBC Radio seemed surprised that all that gender-bending created a bit of blowback.
This year at Stratford, two of Canada's theatre greats will be playing "trouser roles." Seana McKenna will play Julius Caesar and Martha Henry will play Prospero.
Even in the 21st century, it has unsettled some patrons.
Speaking to The Sunday Edition's Michael Enright, Martha Henry says that Stratford has had complaints about the cross-gender casting.
"They've had people who were really incensed about this. Some even said they weren't going to come."
Martha's response?
"Tell them that if they don't come, they can't complain, because they will have nothing on which to stand. Come first, and see what you think."
Um, okay, I’ll not complain about not spending $100+ per ticket to not see the performance. We chose instead to see the Music Man which was a wonderful production. Even then one had to suspend one’s disbelief somewhat to imagine that in 1912 River City, Iowa a black Henry Hill could pull off the con of selling non-existent band instruments and wooing Marion the fair librarian.
But then, The Music Man is a bit tongue-in-cheek in the believability department to begin with so casting is less critical than it is in oh, say, a historical Shakespearean play where they pretend to be gender blind. Daren A. Herbert, the actor who portrayed Hill explained why he hates the term “colourblind” casting:
“I hate the lie it portrays because it insinuates that you’re seeing something that is not unseeable. People come to see this show and they see me — a black guy. There’s no way to pretend that I’m not.” – Windsor Star
In other words, there is no such thing as “colourblind” casting: nothing is more obvious than the color of one’s skin. It is what it is. And that’s fine. Herbert is a great actor, a great singer and dancer and the musical was a delight. But you know and I know and Daren A. Herbert knows he was chosen for the part because he was black, not despite it. The arts have an agenda. At least The Music Man’s director wasn’t trying to convince us that men and women are interchangeable parts.
Plus they did their homework to ensure that the pluralistic culture of the mythic River City wasn’t a complete pipedream:
Herbert and director Donna Feore did some homework on that period — “and it’s not as though there were no black people there. There was one who was fairly high up in the Republican Party, so we’re not completely out of the bounds of reality.”
Ha ha! A Republican! Now isn’t that a kick in our racist teeth. Anyway, we all know the premise is still a stretch - it’s not a racist thing, it’s a historical thing - but we chose to play along and had a good time.
All of which is a long way around to the lede, allow me to introduce the next Agent 007: Lashana Lynch will play 007 in new James Bond movie.
“It’s a popcorn-dropping moment. Bond is still Bond but he’s been replaced as 007 by this stunning woman,” the source told the Mail.
Either that’s a bad publicity photo of Lashana or I no longer understand the meaning of “stunning.” For insurance purposes however Danial Craig still plays a retired James Bond although his special number has been reassigned. Good luck social engineers of the arts and letters crowd, sooner or later you hit the wall. I think you may have arrived.
Posted from: MOTUS A.D.
Yeah, that creature is as scary as Mike Obama.
It’s time to retire the whole Bond thing! Read Fleming’s novels Bond was a WWII vet, he’s in his 90s now at least.
The “entertainment-powers-that-be” need to come up with another SIS superspy. They then can make him as SJW as the want and see how that flies. Hollyweird & Tinsel World need to show some creativity! Here’s their chance!
I seriously object to a bunch of sexist deviants lecturing me on the patriarchy with a bland, boring Mary Sue protagonist but they keep on doing it and I keep on not going.
Liberals say cultural appropriation is wrong when some white person makes a breakfast burrito or a young woman wears a Chinese-style dress to the prom, but then they fully support Hamilton as a black man or James Bond as a woman or making up new genders out of random strings of letters. They can’t even be consistent in their hypocrisy.
Agree!
Screwing with the premise in this manner is worse that the joke a minute Roger Moore incarnation of James Bond.......they and all their social engineering idiots are welcome to it.
Ahem, that's "The Saintly Roger Moore..."
Why not keep the all male ‘007’ franchise and start a new one for the females? It could be called...
...oh, I dunno...
...the ‘Double “D” 7’ franchise? :)
Just think of the new logos! The “007” logo where the 7 is shaped like a gun could have the 0s replaced with...
...but perhaps I go too far...
Saw her TV Guide promo interview, and quite frankly, she came off as "the lights may be on, but nobody's home" as we used to say in HS.
Get woke, go broke.
Not all blacks, just those the Left has successfully conditioned. Just like its only the whites that the Left has succesfully conditioned who feel guilty about having white privilage. The esca2oe from this conditioning is to just treat people as people, and only take color into account when it makes sense, just like any other characteristic. Somebody with a light comolextion may need sun block. Somebody who is black may need to be checked for cycle cell problems by thier doctor. Somebody playing Shakesperes Othello should be black. And so forth. Just like somebody in a horse race should be small but a sumo wrestler should be big.
You mean the founding fathers in blackface.
I thought it was a demeaning and embarrasing concept for the actors.
And again what has Fleming not caring for Sean Connery got to do with the bastardization of his creation, at least while Connery was playing Bond they stayed fairly close to the stoires, then they went full clown act with Moore(I bet Fleming would have loved Moore’s smarmy idiocy). I don’t give a hoot in hell about who has the rights and how it’s their ‘right’ to screw up the franchise and kill it. Because that’s the bottom line they are killing the franchise with this crap, if you want to spend your money for PC bullshit that’s up to you
It is this simple.
They are not doing it to make a better show. They are doing it to push a leftist social agenda.
It is sort of disappointing that many people have been brainwashed (and that is the correct term) to think they should love this garbage.
“Not all blacks”
True. There is that 3% that didn’t support Obama.
Ian Fleming, and the real-life sources for the composite character of James Bond, were all white males, as far as I know.
Quite correct—not “stunning”.
You could add Patrick McGoohan to the picture gallery:
Danger Man / Secret Agent Man / Number Six was the first choice to play James Bond, both before and after Sean Connery.
He was a devout Catholic, and refused to portray a womanizer. He turned down enormous fame and wealth for his scruples. He actually recommended Connery to the studio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
