90 actresses say no
A play that criticises JK Rowling’s views on gender is struggling to cast women with 90 actresses so far rejecting parts.
Good! Serves it right!
The stage production, which is set to debut at the Edinburgh Fringe, has already caused outrage over a working title which labelled the gender-critical Harry Potter author a cunt.
Yeah women who defend women’s rights are such cunts, aren’t we.
The production is yet to cast any of the female roles, including that of Rowling herself. The part of Harry Potter film star Emma Watson has also been repeatedly turned down, and around 90 actresses have refused to take part in the project amid concerns over its critique of Rowling.
Calling women “cunts” is not a “critique” of said women.
The play, which was written by queer-identifying Hollywood scriptwriter Joshua Kaplan, tells the story of a fictional intervention staged for Rowling by the stars of the Harry Potter franchise, Watson, Grint and Radcliffe.
Oh fuck off. Intervention yourselves. Women don’t need a god damn “intervention” because we won’t say that men are women.
The work was initially titled TERF CUNT, with TERF standing for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term which has been deployed pejoratively against women who have opposed trans ideology.
Guess what other term has been deployed pejoratively against women who have opposed trans ideology. That’s right! “Cunt”! (The Telegraph of course doesn’t actually use the full word, it uses the coy “c***” so that we won’t think it’s vulgar.)
It has been suggested by producers that some actresses may not want to appear in a play critiquing Rowling and ruin their chances of appearing in the lucrative new Harry Potter TV series on the Max streaming service.
Ah that’s nice. That’s lovely. It can’t be because they don’t want to appear in a play marinated in misogyny, no no, they must have some other greedier reason.
Oink oink fucking oink.
While I’m sure there’s some conflict with the targeted misogyny of the play, not getting a job on a Rowling show is a much greater incentive. Greedy? Maybe, but humans are greedy creatures; we’re built that way.
As to casting, are there just not enough tranny “actresses” to fill the roles? Why bother with using women in the parts considering the ideology infusing the play?
Wait, the Telegraph won’t print the full word? But I’ve been assured that only uptight Americans are offended by that word, that in the UK and Australia it’s just a friendly term of endearment with no sexist connotations!
But we were told by websites like The Mary Sue that all people except fascists hate J. K. Rowling.
So why don’t women want to join this play then?
Because the producers believe that trans women are women, they can cast all the female roles with TIMs. It’ll be like Monty Python Does Feminism.
Mostly Cloudy: my theory is that none of the actresses want to run the risk of offending The Most Oppressedest People In The World. The play might use last month’s terminology, or give JKR one sympathetic line, or perhaps it will suddenly be decided that cis bitches shouldn’t take parts that talented trans actresses could play. Why take the risk of being hounded when you can simply avoid touching the whole mess with a ten-foot pole?
Screechy @ 2 – Yes, it’s so funny when people say that while other people are energetically using the word as the Top Insult.
It also just sounds like a dumb play.
Dramas can have a message, and even be a bit didactic, but having three actors “intervene” with an older successful writer to educate her on her wrongthink sounds like one of those straight-to-streaming low budget Christian evangelical films starring Kirk Cameron or Kevin Sorbo.
Even people who agree with the message might not want to be cast in schlock.
Wasn’t there an Australian play where “Rowling” is “interviewed”?
Oh yes, here it is: https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2023/bold-and-daring/
Funny how they have to put words in her mouth, or “translate” her statements in order to make their case, since they can’t do it with anything she’s actually said. Quite the opposite for their side, what with death threats and assaults at public demonstrations, violent intimidation against women’s events, etc.