(He wasn’t seriously disabled–but that’s Shakespeare for you.)
The Globe Theater in London, famous (thought I was gonna say “iconic,” didn’tcha?) for its traditional association with William Shakespeare and his plays, is going to stage Richard III with a woman in the title role–and “activists” are fit to be tied (https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/02/no-you-dont-need-to-be-disabled-to-play-richard-iii/).
They’re not mad that it’s a woman. We can smell gender politics at work. But what gets their goat is that this woman is NOT DISABLED!! No, precious, she does not have the “lived experience” of being disabled! The part of Richard III should only go to a disabled actor! Hiss, hiss!
Dude, if you’re looking for strict historical accuracy, Shakespeare is not your guy. But you don’t care about that, do you? If it were left up to you, Richard III would be a disabled black woman confined to a wheelchair, in England illegally, with a transgender “partner” and a deep commitment to Philippine cuisine.
Years ago, James Earl Jones played King Lear on Broadway. Yeah, all right, Lear was not a black man. So what? I’d have loved to see that show: James Earl Jones was one of America’s greatest actors. And any time Denzel Washington wants to play me in a movie, go for it.
I suppose it’s possible for a woman to do an excellent job playing Richard III, although I would cross the street to avoid it: again, I’d suspect Far Left gender shenanigans. But good grief! Where is the “acting” if you can only play a part because you’ve “lived” it? What if you want to play Peter Pan? Who’s lived that experience?
You can’t even enjoy a Shakespeare play, these days, without getting nagged by some blah-blah grievance group.
