When Whoopi was the lead in 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum&

Question:The love interest was still a woman, but the character Whoopi was playing wasn't involved IN the love part of the plot at all, anyway.

In the play, you have the guy trying to get the girl, and Whoopi's character was a slave who was trying to help the guy do that in exchange for being set free.

And to respond to Iris above -- many reputable directors have indeed done transgender casting. Changing the gender or race of a character can lead to some very interesting and fresh interpretations of famous works -- I've heard of productions of OTHELLO where they cast a white actor in the lead role and cast black actors in all the other parts; I've heard of productions of KING LEAR starring women; I've also worked on a production of HAMLET with Hamlet as a woman. I also worked on a play from 1908 that was about a love triangle -- the director made all three characters male and set it in the 1950's, and we had rave review and everyone who saw it raved about it.

Such ideas don't always work, granted, but other times they can lead to some very intriguing and fresh new ideas about the plays and what they are about.

In this case, the actual gender of the character Pseudolous wasn't crucial to the plot -- so a talented female entertainer could take on the role, giving her an opportunity that she wouldn't have had if people stuck to "only girls can play girls' parts".

Edit part 2: :-) Iris, I'm not sure what you mean: is it "a woman playing a part traditionally written for a man, AND playing it as a man" that you object to, or "a woman playing a part traditionally written for a man, but the character's been changed to a woman"? Those are two different things, and I'm sincerely unclear which you're referring to.

For the record, I've seen good AND bad examples of both. The actress Linda Hunt played an Indonesian Man in the film "The Year of Living Dangerously" and was superb; and I've also seen a woman play Hamlet, and they played it where Hamlet WAS a woman. Then there's the case of Sarah Berhnardt, another woman who played Hamlet, but played Hamlet as a man.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but personally I think that if you've got a talented enough actor and director to give either option a try, why not. If such an attempt succeeds, it can be thought-provoking; if it fails, I'd chalk it more up to the actor or director not being very good as opposed to them being irresponsible. (And I will definitely agree that there are actors and directors who aren't all that good; but they'd be mediocre in more traditional stuff too, is all.)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: The love interest was still a woman, but the character Whoopi was playing wasn't involved IN the love part of the plot at all, anyway.

In the play, you have the guy trying to get the girl, and Whoopi's character was a slave who was trying to help the guy do that in exchange for being set free.

And to respond to Iris above -- many reputable directors have indeed done transgender casting. Changing the gender or race of a character can lead to some very interesting and fresh interpretations of famous works -- I've heard of productions of OTHELLO where they cast a white actor in the lead role and cast black actors in all the other parts; I've heard of productions of KING LEAR starring women; I've also worked on a production of HAMLET with Hamlet as a woman. I also worked on a play from 1908 that was about a love triangle -- the director made all three characters male and set it in the 1950's, and we had rave review and everyone who saw it raved about it.

Such ideas don't always work, granted, but other times they can lead to some very intriguing and fresh new ideas about the plays and what they are about.

In this case, the actual gender of the character Pseudolous wasn't crucial to the plot -- so a talented female entertainer could take on the role, giving her an opportunity that she wouldn't have had if people stuck to "only girls can play girls' parts".

Edit part 2: :-) Iris, I'm not sure what you mean: is it "a woman playing a part traditionally written for a man, AND playing it as a man" that you object to, or "a woman playing a part traditionally written for a man, but the character's been changed to a woman"? Those are two different things, and I'm sincerely unclear which you're referring to.

For the record, I've seen good AND bad examples of both. The actress Linda Hunt played an Indonesian Man in the film "The Year of Living Dangerously" and was superb; and I've also seen a woman play Hamlet, and they played it where Hamlet WAS a woman. Then there's the case of Sarah Berhnardt, another woman who played Hamlet, but played Hamlet as a man.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but personally I think that if you've got a talented enough actor and director to give either option a try, why not. If such an attempt succeeds, it can be thought-provoking; if it fails, I'd chalk it more up to the actor or director not being very good as opposed to them being irresponsible. (And I will definitely agree that there are actors and directors who aren't all that good; but they'd be mediocre in more traditional stuff too, is all.)

Whoopi played Pseudolus, a male character. The role was not made female for her; the plot and other characters remained unchanged.

It's called "transgender casting," and reputable directors don't do it.

Edit: There's a difference between "transgender casting," when the director allows a female to play a male part or vice-versa without changing it and actually changing the role from male to female or vice-versa. It is changing the sex of the actor *without* changing the role that I am objecting to. I agree that changing the sex of a role can be a valid directoral decision, depending on the reasoning.