• Home
  • About
    • Performance Monkey
    • David Jays
    • Contact
  • Other AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

Performance Monkey

David Jays on theatre and dance

And the winner is… old-time sexism?

February 19, 2009 by David Jays 6 Comments

It’s the time of rustling envelopes, awkward presentations and a deranged gush of thanks or gracelessness. Awards season reaches its Oscar apogee this weekend, while British theatre continues to scatter statuettes over the profession, leading up to the Olivier Awards ceremony on 8 March.
As we know, awards are random acts of randomosity and little weight should be attached to who’s in and who’s out (though should the monkey ever find himself nominated for, say, best speccy no-mates it will be a different story). But surely we can agree on the categories? Writing, directing, designing, yes? My personal favourites are the Clarence Derwent Awards which recognise supporting roles, at which the British excel (in the US, they are awarded to promising young actors) – as Anthony Lane observes, ‘Character acting is, of course, one of the four things that the British still do supremely well, the others being soldiering, tailoring, and getting drunk in public.’
But why in 2009 are acting awards still divided by gender? What is it that male and female performers do that is so very different from each other? Aren’t Judi Dench and Ian McKellen engaged in a similar process on stage and in rehearsal? Is it sensible or valuable to discuss actors separately according to their gender? How does that help us assess a performance?
Now, I’m naive but not wholly idiotic. I realise there are other factors at work here. In both theatre and film, actors tend to grab more headlines than their creative colleagues. They provide glamour and celebrity and idiosyncratic red-carpet attire. On the podium they blub and blurt. Who wouldn’t want to double the acting categories and thus the attendant news coverage?
But we can always devise new acting categories in order to guarantee thespian involvement. Many recognise comedy as well as drama, single out musical theatre and Shakespeare. Let’s add prizes for best sweaty naturalism, period prancing or conceptual dedication. But surely it’s time we dropped the division by gender. After all, wouldn’t you like to love to see Streep and Rourke go head-to-head? A Brangelina smackdown? See, feminism can be fun…
What is the Monkey missing here? Should we continue to separate the sexes at awards time? And if you could bestow just one acting Oscar or Olivier, who would you pick? Kate Winslet or Sean Penn? Penelope Wilton or Derek Jacobi?

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Everycritic says

    February 19, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Really good roles are not always evenly distributed between the sexes and I’ll venture to suggest that male performances and stories are STILL considered slightly more relevant, important and impressive than women’s roles and stories which are often dismissed as “chick flicks.” (EVENING is a good example.)
    My guess is that if we disbanded the two categories, we’d occationally have female winners but male winners would be far more common.

    Reply
  2. Performance Monkey says

    February 19, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    A depressing thought but all too plausible, everycritic. Male angst is still an endlessly fascinating theme for those who assess seriousness in acting and writing. And, as you suggest, men still receive the lion’s share of screen time. Take the differing views across the awards panels about whether Kate Winslet’s performance in The Reader should be considered as a leading or supporting role.

    Reply
  3. Mary Toth says

    February 20, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Look, it wasn’t that long ago that there were actors and actresses. Oh, wait a minute, there still are….

    Reply
  4. Elizabeth Taylor says

    February 23, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    There are only two possible reasons:
    1. All the people involved with these organizations and all of those who support them are sexist pigs
    OR
    2. There simply are different standards for actors and actresses.

    Reply
  5. S Tucker says

    February 24, 2009 at 2:51 am

    There are many talented actors each year. Giving out an award for each gender allows twice as many people to be recognized for their outstanding artistry.

    Reply
  6. Performance Monkey says

    February 25, 2009 at 8:56 am

    So, gang, the Oscars are done. If you’d just had one shiny statuette to award, would it have gone to Kate or Sean? Sean or Kate? (I’d probably have picked Winslet, but for Revolutionary Road rather than The Reader. So I’ve cheated already).
    You’ve given me good sense and cruel sarcasm (that’s not a complaint), but I’m still wanting to know: what’s the diff (beyond the obvious) between male and female actors?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Mary Toth Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

David Jays

I am a writer and critic on performance, books and film and currently write for, among others, the Sunday Times and the Guardian. I edit Dance Gazette, the magazine of the Royal Academy of Dance. I’m also a lifelong Londoner: it’s the perfect city for connecting to art forms that both look back and spring forward. [Read More]

Performance Monkey

This is what theatre and dance audiences do: we sit in the dark, watching performances. And then, if it seems worth it, we think about what we've seen, and how it made us feel. The blog should be a conversation, so please comment on the posts and add your thoughts. You know what I've always … [Read More...]

@mrdavidjays

Tweets by @mrdavidjays

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Veronica Horwell on Hamilton | Lockdown Theatre Club 17: “Know what you mean about the underpowered pre-17late90s shoulder: a bottle slope approach to body outline — the Hamilton coats…” Jul 8, 13:41
  • Sarah Lenton on Hamilton | Lockdown Theatre Club 17: “Blimey. A tour de force! Hugely enjoyable. Slight demur on whether a period raised fist would have produced a scrunched…” Jul 7, 21:44
  • william osborne on Hamilton | Lockdown Theatre Club 17: “An article that analyzes the serious problems with “Hamilton” by Ed Morales, a journalist and lecturer at Columbia University’s Center…” Jul 7, 20:20
  • william osborne on Hamilton | Lockdown Theatre Club 17: “Indeed, in the late 18th century people learned that properly toned-down attire was important for slave owners proclaiming democracy. And…” Jul 7, 19:28
  • David Jays on Bringing Up Baby | Lockdown Theatre Club 16: “Hello Ana, and thanks so much for this. Joining in is, I hope, easy: we all find the film on…” Jul 3, 16:02
February 2009
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728  
« Jan   Mar »

An ArtsJournal Blog

Recent Posts

  • Hamilton | Lockdown Theatre Club 17
  • Bringing Up Baby | Lockdown Theatre Club 16
  • The Go-Between | Lockdown Theatre Club 14
  • Girlhood | Lockdown Theatre Club 13
  • All That Jazz | Lockdown Theatre Club 12

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in