Is Finding Nemo - The Musical "Live" singing, or a tape?

[dqpowell]

I'm sorry, but it is distracting when a woman plays a male role -- for kids, and for many adults. It isn't just distracting for kids -- it's downright confusing for them sometimes.

I can't be the only person who found Mary Martin's Peter Pan distracting either.

Maybe they can still get James Earl Jones to record the voice and the woman playing the part can lipsynch it.

This misses the point entirely. What's distracting isn't the voice -- usually a woman's voice is closer to a male child's voice than a man's would be. What's distracting is that the male character is visually obviously a woman. It confuses kids. "I thought Nemo/Peter Pan was a boy."

Nancy Cartwright voicing Bart Simpson doesn't present the same problem - the character on-screen is most obviously male. However I guarantee you if the Simpsons were live-action rather than animated, people of all ages would find Nancy Cartwright playing a 10 year-old boy distracting.

As far as the Nemo show is concerned, I would rather have a clean-shaven young man play the role of Nemo with a slightly less child-like voice than a woman who has a more child-like voice. Obviously somebody with a voice like James Earl Jones wouldn't be appropriate, but there are plenty of young adult males who could do it.

David

 

[Ariel Mae]

I can't be the only person who found Mary Martin's Peter Pan distracting either.

Mary Martin portrayed the male Peter Pan perfectly. You really don't notice that it's a female playing the part, b/c acting is acting, male or female. A female can portray a male just as well as a male can portray a male. It's something that is taught in acting schools: How to portray the opposite sex.

 

[bradk]

i think that might be the exception more than the norm. i mean, you'd think disney would know better if this was really a tragedy. and you'd think it'd be discussed more by now.

i was with kids watching it, neither mentioned anything of the sort.

although the 6 year old always found those identity theft commercials where they show one gender talking with the voice of the other gender downright hilarious.

at the risk of being too big a hypocrite, i took out who those woman all portray. but needless to say, it'd be detrimental to some of today's youth. but for the record, that's Nancy Cartwright, Tara Strong and E.G. Daly respectively.

wasn't there a point in time where ALL roles, including females, were played by males?

 

[Sooze]

It confuses kids. "I thought Nemo/Peter Pan was a boy."


David

I just wanted to add here.. that kids find lots of things in the world confusing!! That's when you grab the learning opportunity and teach them something. If my kid said this, I would explain to him why female actresses often portray young males... it's an educational moment, not a confusing one!

Just my two cents!

 

[dqpowell]

Mary Martin portrayed the male Peter Pan perfectly. You really don't notice that it's a female playing the part, b/c acting is acting, male or female.

I noticed it, as a child, and found it distracting.

A female can portray a male just as well as a male can portray a male.

This simply isn't true. Otherwise we'd have Dakota Fanning playing Harry Potter. A female can't play a male role as well as a male because, well, she's a female. Ditto for males playing females. The "tradition" of Peter Pan being played by a woman was abandoned for the 2003 Peter Pan movie and at least in that aspect, it was a better movie than it would have been with a woman in the role.

It's something that is taught in acting schools: How to portray the opposite sex.

To varying, but never total, degrees of success.

David

 

[dqpowell]

I just wanted to add here.. that kids find lots of things in the world confusing!! That's when you grab the learning opportunity and teach them something. If my kid said this, I would explain to him why female actresses often portray young males... it's an educational moment, not a confusing one!

Well, of course I explain these kinds of things to my children. That doesn't erase the confusion and frankly, I can't give them a totally satisfying answer anyway. I can educate them in as much as I can explain that sometimes women play the roles of male characters, but I can't give them a good reason why.

Everybody says, "it's the voice -- it's much closer." To that, I say "so what?" You're trading off some realism in the character's voice for a total lack of realism in the character's appearance.

I realize many people disagree with me on this. That's fine.

David

 

[Ariel Mae]

A female can't play a male role as well as a male because, well, she's a female.

It's acting. You can play anything you want if you have the skills. Mary Martin portrayed a male very well. Just because she lacks the body parts doesn't mean she couldn't do it. It's something expected of actors, now. Expected in the sense that they've learned it and come into knowing how to play it. When you're an actor, you've got to be ready for the next big thing, or the next weird thing, and sometimes, playing the opposite sex is just that. It's not uncommon. If it were, you'd not have any movies with drag queens, kings, and transgendered folk, as they 'couldn't portray such accurately'.

I noticed it, as a child, and found it distracting.

You noticed it. That doesn't mean everyone did.

This simply isn't true.

It may not be true to you, but to myself, I disagree. So do many others.

Otherwise we'd have Dakota Fanning playing Harry Potter.

That makes no sense. They hire based on auditions. There were a few girls who auditioned, but they didn't have the Harry Potter look, nor voice. I'm sure if Dan Radcliffe had auditioned, and a girl, better than him, had come along, the girl would have gotten the part. The part goes to the best, and, sometimes, gender is irrelevant in such.

I can educate them in as much as I can explain that sometimes women play the roles of male characters, but I can't give them a good reason why.

Try telling them: They did better in the auditions. Or: They looked the part. Or...well, you get what I'm saying. There can be many reasons as to why a female is playing a male's part. All reasons are 'acceptable', as they come from the director and the casting crew. They don't just place a woman in a male's part for grins and giggles! They have their reasons. (Like with, say, the short film I just watched. They had a guy playing a girl. Did I know it was a guy? Nope. He had the voice, the look, and the act down. The reason behind him playing the part? He was better than any of the females who audtioned. I think that's a good enough reason.)

To that, I say "so what?" You're trading off some realism in the character's voice for a total lack of realism in the character's appearance.

Realism? It's "Peter Pan", not "Survivor". The 'lack of realism' is hard to see. Mary Martin, for example, not only looked like Pan, but she acted like Pan, and walked like Pan, posed like Pan...she was Pan.

 

[bradk]

i'm just looking forward to dqpowell's review of the crying game.

 

[TDC Nala]

Okay, there's no way on earth they would have hired a girl to portray Harry Potter. And if Nemo was a teenager, they'd probably get a young man to do it. But Nemo is a small boy (Okay, he's a fish, I get it, of course he's a fish with the persona of a small boy), and it's also disconcerting to see adult men, however clean-shaven, playing small boys unless they're doing it as a parody (I loved Monty Python's schoolboy interviews.)

Can't say I had much of a problem with Mary Martin or Cathy Rigby or whoever playing Peter Pan, but obviously they wouldn't get Sophia Loren or Jessica Alba to do it. and Jaye Davidson in The Crying Game was another casting bit altogether.

Linda Hunt won an Oscar for playing a male character once, I believe. She looked like a man in the film but if you'd read anything about it you knew she wasn't one.

 

[dqpowell]

It's acting. You can play anything you want if you have the skills. Mary Martin portrayed a male very well.

She was alright. She had the right enthusiasm and attitude. But she didn't look the part. All matters of opinion, of course.

When you're an actor, you've got to be ready for the next big thing, or the next weird thing, and sometimes, playing the opposite sex is just that.

I am (or, technically, was) an actor. I played Ebenezer Scrooge in school, amongst other roles. I know what acting is, and I'm sorry but I disagree that a man can play a female character just as well as a male character, and vice-versa. Julianne Moore is one of my favorite actors - very talented, IMO, but the fact is that she would not be better in a given role as a male character than a boatload of talented male actors would be.

It's not uncommon. If it were, you'd not have any movies with drag queens, kings, and transgendered folk, as they 'couldn't portray such accurately'.

Nemo is not a drag queen or transgendered, AFAIK. Neither is Peter Pan.

Felicity Huffman was great in Transamerica. That was partly because of her acting skills and partly because of an incredibly good job with makeup. Was she better than an actual man would have been? We'll never know.

You noticed it. That doesn't mean everyone did.

I didn't say "everyone" did. But it certainly isn't uncommon.

I'm sure if Dan Radcliffe had auditioned, and a girl, better than him, had come along, the girl would have gotten the part.

You're imagining a girl that doesn't exist. The character is male. It would take a very unusual girl -- one that looks and talks just like a boy -- to have any chance of winning a male's role in a movie. When, in the past oh, say 50 years, has a male's character been played by a female actor in a mainstream motion picture, or vice-versa? I'm not talking about a Todd Solondz experiment, either. Solondz doesn't do cross-gender casting because the actor who won the opposite-gender role was a better actor than all those of the matching gender.

Try telling them: They did better in the auditions. Or: They looked the part.

If my children are asking why a woman is playing Nemo, a character they know is male, then clearly the actor didn't "look the part."

Realism? It's "Peter Pan", not "Survivor". The 'lack of realism' is hard to see.

It's not hard to see. The kids know and love that character. They know he's a boy fish. They are confused and distracted when they see somebody who is obviously not a boy playing the role. I can explain it all you want, in any way you suggest, and that doesn't negate the fact that the conversation wouldn't be happening if a boy was playing the role in the first place.

Mary Martin, for example, not only looked like Pan, but she acted like Pan, and walked like Pan, posed like Pan...she was Pan.

You are attempting to state as fact something which is opinion. Strongly-held opinions are not the same as fact.

Look, this has turned far more confrontational than I intended. I think it's best if we just accept that our opinions differ and move on.

David

 

[dqpowell]

i'm just looking forward to dqpowell's review of the crying game.

You're assuming too much. Jaye Davidson was the right actor to play a man pretending to be a woman. That was the entire point of the movie, after all. He has very feminine features, and the makeup artists did a great job. That doesn't mean Jaye Davidson is the right person to play, for example, Clarise Starling. Or Hermoine Granger. Understand what I'm saying?

David

 

[Ariel Mae]

She was alright. She had the right enthusiasm and attitude. But she didn't look the part. All matters of opinion, of course.

Of course.

I am (or, technically, was) an actor. I played Ebenezer Scrooge in school, amongst other roles. I know what acting is, and I'm sorry but I disagree that a man can play a female character just as well as a male character, and vice-versa.

To each their own, agree to disagree.

Julianne Moore is one of my favorite actors - very talented, IMO, but the fact is that she would not be better in a given role as a male character than a boatload of talented male actors would be. Nemo is not a drag queen or transgendered, AFAIK. Neither is Peter Pan.

I certainly know Nemo is neither a drag queen nor transgendered, as well as Peter Pan's lacking in that area.

Felicity Huffman was great in Transamerica. That was partly because of her acting skills and partly because of an incredibly good job with makeup. Was she better than an actual man would have been? We'll never know.

True enough. I always wondered, though...did a male ever audition for this part?

I didn't say "everyone" did. But it certainly isn't uncommon.

I disagree, again, because this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say something like that. Everyone I've ever talked to didn't notice it was a female playing Pan until the end, when the credits came up.

You're imagining a girl that doesn't exist. The character is male. It would take a very unusual girl -- one that looks and talks just like a boy -- to have any chance of winning a male's role in a movie.

Wait, so, women haven't played men in movie roles/television roles, and succeeded??

When, in the past oh, say 50 years, has a male's character been played by a female actor in a mainstream motion picture, or vice-versa?

Do you watch IFC? How about LOGO? It's quite common to see a male playing a female, and a female playing a male (reverse roles), and quite well, at that.

I'm not talking about a Todd Solondz experiment, either. Solondz doesn't do cross-gender casting because the actor who won the opposite-gender role was a better actor than all those of the matching gender.

I don't know who Solondz is, lol

If my children are asking why a woman is playing Nemo, a character they know is male, then clearly the actor didn't "look the part."

Does it really matter, as per Nemo? I mean, come on, the fish is talking! And the focus is supposed to be on the puppet work and the voice play, not the look. My view, not fact.

It's not hard to see. The kids know and love that character. They know he's a boy fish.

I didn't know he was a boy fish until the second viewing, to be honest.

They are confused and distracted when they see somebody who is obviously not a boy playing the role.

As I said, this is the first time I've ever heard of a child being 'distracted' by a gender swap. As a kid, I focused on the acting, not the person. I focused on the movie and the plot, not the person. As a kid, I let my imagination go. If a male played a female, or vice versa, I looked past that, and imagined the actor being the character, gender being no serious aspect.

I can explain it all you want, in any way you suggest, and that doesn't negate the fact that the conversation wouldn't be happening if a boy was playing the role in the first place. You are attempting to state as fact something which is opinion. Strongly-held opinions are not the same as fact.

So far, everything I've said has ended with 'imo, imho', etc. I have yet to say, 'This is how it is'.

Look, this has turned far more confrontational than I intended. I think it's best if we just accept that our opinions differ and move on.

David

Oops, didn't read this 'it the end.

 

[TDC Nala]

Why is it a huge deal to explain to kids that sometimes in the theater a female will play a male role?

 

[Ariel Mae]

He has very feminine features, and the makeup artists did a great job.

But he wasn't a female. The plot of the movie revered around a male, but the aspect of the movie was that of a female, so wouldn't one expect a female to play the part of a confused male? I mean, considering it's a female's part, and a female's lines, and looks, and skills being looked into.

 

[TDC Nala]

But he wasn't a female. The plot of the movie revered around a male, but the aspect of the movie was that of a female, so wouldn't one expect a female to play the part of a confused male? I mean, considering it's a female's part, and a female's lines, and looks, and skills being looked into.

Are you talking about the Crying Game....I thought the whole point of that one is that the character turned out to be male, wouldn't they have to have a man play it? I mean, the scene where the protagonist discovers the character he always thought was a girl is really a guy...that would have been a little different if the actor had been female in the first place.

Sounds like we are getting into Victor: Victoria now.

 

[dqpowell]

Why is it a huge deal to explain to kids that sometimes in the theater a female will play a male role?

It's not a "huge deal." Who said it was?

David

 

[TDC Nala]

It's not a "huge deal." Who said it was?

David

You are the one who brings it up that the children shouldn't notice and the fact that they ask about it means there is some sort of problem with the show, apparently. Kids don't understand that sort of casting - the way they see the world is "That's a girl and that's a boy" - and it's a chance to explain it to them since they will learn about theater that way. It made sense to me to have a female in the part but I was familiar with the Peter Pan thing.

I'm trying to figure out how somebody up here didn't know Nemo was a boy fish when Marlin spends half the film yelling "Where's my son?"

 

[dqpowell]

But he wasn't a female. The plot of the movie revered around a male, but the aspect of the movie was that of a female, so wouldn't one expect a female to play the part of a confused male? I mean, considering it's a female's part, and a female's lines, and looks, and skills being looked into.

I was just pointing out that Jaye Davidson played the role of a man 'pretending' to be a woman quite well, but that despite his feminine features, I don't think he would have been a good choice to play Clarise Starling or Hermoine Granger.

David

 

[bradk]

wait.. that was a GUY in the crying game?!?!

well thanks for ruining it for me. really.

i'm sure ifc never gave him a second look (tongue firmly in cheek), but todd solondz is best known for 'welcome to the dollhouse' (which launched Heather Matarazzo a minor career when roseanne decided to get hip when darlene went goth and brought her on to play dj's girlfriend) although his masterpiece in my opinion is 'happiness'.. best..movie.. ever.. but basically everything else has just.. well..

and.. last time i checked.. nemo is a fish.

you know what really confused ALL the kids EVERY TIME i've seen the show? the angler fish. did you know that all anglers are female? because the males are all these little tiny things that attach themselves to her and actually become a part of her.

 

[dqpowell]

You are the one who brings it up that the children shouldn't notice and the fact that they ask about it means there is some sort of problem with the show, apparently.

Look, here's the problem. Anything that pulls the viewer out of the story is a flaw, however minor. When a child asks, "Why is Nemo a girl?" they are no longer engaged in the story. That's a flaw - hopefully a small one, and they'll be re-engaged in the story soon enough. When Quentin Tarantino's self-aware and subpar acting pulls me out of the story in Pulp Fiction, that's a flaw. I should remain engulfed in the story rather than wishing he had hired somebody else to play his part.

I am unopposed to the concept of gender-neutral casting for roles, but for it to be successful, the actor must look and play the part so well that nobody should ever notice they aren't the matching gender; if they do, they have been pulled out of their immersion in the story. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, nor do I avoid the Nemo show. But it's hard to argue that any given show wouldn't be better if people were immersed in the story from beginning to end rather than losing that engagement here and there to ask questions.

I'm trying to figure out how somebody up here didn't know Nemo was a boy fish when Marlin spends half the film yelling "Where's my son?"

Me too... I can actually hear Albert Brooks' voice in my head saying that line.

David