Sunday, May 28, 2006

Role reversal

Try casting a Shakespeare performance with females as males, and males as females.


Hayden said...

cool. I get the sword this time.

Davo said...

Now it's my turn to 'not understand' your comment, Hayden.
Have to admit that these last series of "snippet" posts were prompted by some things that I was reading/thinking about elsewhere, and don't actually make sense by themselves. I just 'forgot' to write the 'explanations'.

This one was prompted by a post,and comment that I made over at Gerry's,
interesting concept "role reversal". Watched a play once upon a long time ago where the "roles' were specifically changed - females took the male roles and visa versa. Have to say that the blokes could find their 'femininity' easier than the females could find anything anywhere approaching 'masculinity'.

now he has asked me to explain, and am not sure that I can. Will have to think about it.

Hayden said...

was being silly. Seems like all of the male characters in Shakespeare get to wear swords and slash each other, while the women are unconstrained in other, sex-traditional ways.

of course, Juliet got to borrow the dagger, but that seems to have been a clear error.

just being silly.

Gerry said...

If I can make you think, then I am glad... ;-)

Anne Johnson said...

Shakespeare is a bad example. In his day only men and boys could act, so the "women" are always dressing up and acting like men.

I've always hankered to do Stanley in "Streetcar Named Desire."