This gender - does-it-matter-at-all? - question has exercised us - far too much
in our household today with much discussion of key roles in literature being redefined by opposite gender.
I recently saw the Bristol Old Vic/National Theatre's version of Jane Eyre where a key male character was portrayed by a woman. I loved every other part of the production, appreciating the bold and imaginative reinterpretation of a treasured classic, but St.John Rivers...played by a woman ... this was a distraction - and seemed pointless to me. Maybe I am just too simple to recognise high culture ... and to celebrate all the pro-feminist challenge of gender tripping. I just kept thinking 'There are plenty of men in the company - what point are they trying to make?' instead of enjoying the storyline.
I know the gender swap chestnut has been chewed on several times. My DH remembered the debate surounding a female Hamlet:
www.thestage.co.uk/news/2016/half-of-brits-dont-want-female-hamlets-claims-research/
DH and I agreed that unlike prescribed roles in literature, Dr Who goes on developing and can easily transcend gender. As one commentator on BBC Breakfast today put it - the development of the programme /character 'reflects the zeitgeist of our time.'
No doubt the producer/s of Jane Eyre were aiming for some of that too ...
I simply hope the new Dr brings the same mix of quirkiness and gravitas to the role as others have.
What would kill it for me is if we move to emphasis - with either gender - on dealing with personal conflicted sexuality questions. Simply not where the programme should / needs to time travel ...
And today, I have also been pondering a female Mr Darcy ... no, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
.