SHAKSPER 2000: To be an actor or not to be an actress

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 06/08/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1189  Thursday, 8 June 2000.

From:           Sam Small <samsmall@globalnet.co.uk>
Date:           Wednesday, 07 Jun 2000 20:59:32 +0100
Subject:        To be an actor or not to be an actress

Why is so very PC to call oneself an actor if one is a woman? It seems
to be the done thing to drop the word *actress* as if it a derogatory
term.  It is as if the male dressing room was the whole world and the
females occupied little more than the stage boom cupboard.  Perhaps by
calling oneself an actor whilst being female, the world would think more
of one.  It is a fact that a woman would almost never be asked to play a
male part in film television or stage.  So why this curious fashion?
The fact that there are more good parts by far for men does not distract
from the wonderful female parts in Shakespeare, for instance.  Be as it
may, male and female are not interchangeable in spite of the avant guard
theatre.  I *like* the word *actress*. It is not a put-down.  To be
called a great actress is a great compliment.

SAM SMALL


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.