Since the advent of storytelling and performance, actors have been able to play any tangible or intangible role. It is not unknown for actors to represent people, animals, objects and even emotions. This lack of boundary and boundless imagination is what makes stories come to life, what creates great art and what transforms perspectives, for both performers and audiences alike.
But just because it has been like this in the past, does it mean it should continue to be like this in our ever-perceptive future?
The Stage recently reported that 18 theatres across the country have pledged to cast only trans actors in trans roles, following the Trans Casting Statement led by companies Milk Presents, Outbox and Queer House.
Whilst I obviously commend progress on representation (the fight for race representation is still ongoing), I wonder whether, as an actor, this conversation is more complex. Just because red lines are relevant and necessary for certain disadvantages and minorities, should it mean the same strategy applies to others? I’m referring, of course, to boundaries and ethics of race-oriented casting and the red line that says characters of colour should only be portrayed by actors of colour. This was demanded to increase representation of a significant minority within the arts, and because the opposite has been, and is, racist. It also denies lived experiences that cannot be opted into. But can the rationale or strategy be applied to, say, the decision regarding trans roles?
I’m undecided on this for a few reasons: for one, trans representation in the arts/society is in its infancy – though arguably on the rise in the mainstream; the success of ‘Pose’ on Netflix is a good example of this. Comments underneath The Stage news article were averse to the idea: one person commented that it was “another nail in the coffin of creativity”, and certainly, I’m not sure I can see the value of the integrity of representation in this decision other than for representations sake.
Clearly, having stories that are of characters that match your lived experience is liberating, but are we saying that an actor has to be of the lived experience every single time? Would a gay man only be able to play the role of a gay man and nothing else? And if they are able to play a heterosexual role, then surely the reverse should be allowed? At what point do we draw the line in preserving the freedom and creativity of the performer and actor? And are we not in danger of completely confusing the cause due to such red lines that, on the face of it, seem proper?
For instance, since trans people have dual lived experiences, are they also able to be cast in roles that are cisgender? Presumably, this would be the desire of a significant proportion of trans people, especially in the interests of equality. But if we follow the logic on this, then the reverse should also be true?
A similar situation arose with Seyi Omooba and the controversy surrounding her being cast in The Colour Purple, as someone who thinks gay people are “not right”. This was an incredibly complex case, but even back then, it got me thinking about the artistic right of the actor and performer. Are we heading towards a docu-style form of representation? Will there be no freedom of creativity to imagine? Evidently from Tribe’s track record, I am against any type of creativity, or decision-making in the guise of creativity, that commits oppression of any kind, be it transphobia, racism etc., but we must be able to also have a conversation about the freedom and integrity of the performer and actor, who is usually the last to be heard in conversations about their craft.
There have been many instances where actors specifically go for roles that are opposite to their own world view, in order to understand those perspectives and reach common ground. This process usually leads to an appreciation of another view and set of opinions, but with red lines such as the one reported in The Stage, will this rob actors and performers of this transformative dimension of their craft?
I’d love to hear actors’ views on this.