Statement on Non-Traditional Casting

In his “Note on Casting” (see below), Mee insists that issues of race and disability are not key to his plays; from the few plays of his that I have read, I have no reason to think otherwise. Gender, however , is a critical factor, particularly in Big Love. Based loosely on Aeschylus’ The Suppliant Women, Big Love presents the proverbial “battle of the sexes,” in this case between a band of 50 (!) Greek sisters who have run away to Italy to prevent prearranged marriages to their cousins. Considerable text is spent defining, debating, and debunking traditional definitions of gender, i.e., what women should be and do contrasted with what men should be and do. These two separate but certainly not equal worlds are bridged only by the presence of Giuliano, Piero’s gay nephew, who feels as comfortable in drag (and a female-driven world) as in male attire. Given the central role played by gender, all male roles in our production including Giuliano must be played by men and female roles by women.

Regarding race and ethnicity, I recently saw a production of Big Love in which the man-hating Thyona was played by a black woman and the nearly silent Oed was played by a young black man. Although I fully endorse and practice non-traditional casting, I realize that some casting choices might be interpreted in ways that were never intended: if the only black actors in that company played the “bitch” and the “dumb jock,” might this have sent an unintentional but nevertheless inappropriate message? Further, if the only married couple (in our SHSU production) to survive the massacre at play’s end (Nikos and Lydia) is either non-white or inter-racial, is another unwitting message conveyed? What happens if the brides are all white and the rejected grooms are all non-white?

Similar questions might be raised by the casting of Giuliano, the only openly gay character. When Giuliano reveals his passion for Barbie dolls and his encounter with the older man on the train, should these come as surprises to an unsuspecting audience? Or, does Giuliano exhibit identifyably "gay" characteristics from his first appearance onstage? Does casting an openly gay actor in the role needlessly endorse or enforce stereotypes if only within the department? Or, does casting against type risk the possibility of real or perceived parody during the cross-dressing scene leading into the wedding massacre? At this point, I would recommend casting and playing a Giuliano every bit as masculine as the grooms, but with a masculinity free from the defensive and culturally conditioned mysogyny of the Greek grooms.

Physical capability does matter with the casting of the three representative brides (Lydia, Thyona, and Olympia) and their respective grooms (Constantine, Nikos, and Oed): according to Mee’s stage directions, all six engage in near acrobat feats such flinging themselves to the floor and immediately getting back up…only to repeat several times more. In addition, the three brothers rip their own shirts off in one testosterone-laden scene; the appearance of personal fitness and virility certainly would be appropriate, although casting against type, e.g., cocky and corpulent, might enhance the comic irony.

In his cast of characters, Mee lists “Bella/Eleanor” and “Piero/Leo,” thus suggesting that one woman play both Bella and Eleanor and that one man play both Piero and Leo. While doing so is physically possible given the order and composition of the scenes, it does not add, I believe, to our understanding of this world, its characters, or its themes. Certainly, the doubling might be fun for the actors and audience, but given our myriad student actors hoping to be cast, I cannot justify the doubling.

at 600 words; would like to revise