I broadly agree that the overall quality of the adaptation matters more than any individual casting choices, but I must admit I do see Lady Sybil as being quite a bit older (like maybe two decades). I’m fine with all the other choices, though, including Cheery.
It’s pretty clear that whoever wrote that Cinema Blend article linked to above hasn’t read any of the books. Also, this quote from the article gives me pause:
As a calibration aid, I didn’t like the adaptation of TCoM, thought Hogfather was OK, and really enjoyed Going Postal. I also thought that the adaptation of Good Omens was near-perfect.
In Night Watch it was suggested (or outright said?) that her pregnancy was high risk because she was almost too old to have children. This wiki pegs her age then at around 46.
At this point, I’m fully exoecting her to be Secret Super Action Hero Girl. Expect a scene where she defeats 20 men using gymnastics.
It is stated or implied at several points in the books that Sybil is both constitutionally and physically badass - in “Guards! Guards!” she charges a group of soldiers while brandishing a broadsword (and then trips and knocks herself out, but still) and in “Snuff” Vimes tells Stratford he’s lucky he didn’t try to break into Sybil’s stateroom because of what she would have done to him. And she takes a straight-out attempt to murder her with a flamethrower in her stride, not to mention saving herself from a castle full of werewolves.
So gymnastics, no, but defeating 20 men using a morningstar and a small dragon, absolutely.
The thing with Cheery is, a faithful casting was impossible, because dwarvish sexuality works differently from human sexuality. Yes, in the books Cheery is decidedly binary, and presumably cis and hetero (though I don’t know if we have any real evidence on either of those scores), but she’s also, by her culture’s standards, gender-queer. Any casting was bound to be an affront of some sort or other, but I feel like casting a non-queer actor (of either sex) would have been the greater affront.
Sybil is very much part of the Nobility Female Establishment. Which, as Pratchett points out, has historically gotten the work done, including the defense work, while The Men are away at The Wars.
It’s also a major point in her character in the original that she’s not conventionally attractive, that she’s fat, and that she’s well past the usual age of marriage and making (until she meets Vimes) the best of expecting to wind up alone. And that she’s physically [ETA: as well as mentally] extremely able, and well worth getting married to. Pratchett was making a point. I gather that the casting not only misses the point, but attempts to turn it on its head and effectively deny it.
Miranda Hart would be ideal–anyone who’s seen her in Call The Midwife can attest that she has a solid, large physicality to her that would be perfect as well as having that bluff, hearty, no-nonsense, sports loving, dog (or dragon) breeding personality and manner of speaking dialled in. If you want Lady Sybil a bit older then Linda Bassett, who took over the Chummy type role in the show would also suit. Miranda’s funnier though.
And I would never in a million years have thought that would be a possible need–though I should have guessed. (Eyes rolling so hard that the edges are red-shifting.)
Would you call an Afghani woman who refused to wear a burka “gender-queer”? Or the suffragettes who wore reform dress? Those’re the closest RW equivalent of what Cheery does, to me.
Right–there are no basis in the book that she questions her gender or gender roles–she only wants to dress differently. And–I point out–Cheery never considered shaving her thick beard: she was female, but she was still a dwarf. So if the giant playing her doesn’t have and keep a thick beard, then that is just one more level of fundamental fuckup.
Cheery is a *metaphor *for gender issues in contemporary society. Like many Pratchett ideas, it’s a mirror image.
Dwarf society on the Discworld is rigidly gender neutral. They barely distinguish between male and female at all. Cheery defies dwarven convention by openly identifying as female. As such she encounters the same problems that a trans person might encounter in our world.
Interesting Topics here. I am as baffled as the next poster about the casting of Sybil. As thorny_locust pointed out, her being a large, mature women is an important Point of her character. Making her a sexy crazy Person is completely besides the Point.
With Cheery I have zero idea where they are going, but I don’t care about the gender of actors in one direction or the other - they are playing a role. It will be important how the role of Cheery is set up, not what the actors private gender identification is like. The size is a non-issue, if you look at the Hobbit movies Fantasy dwarfes can be made extremely convincing with modern technology. Though I admit, giving the role to an actual small Person would have worked as well. Pratchetts world is flexible enough to allow for his dwarves to look like real world small persons (with big beards). But I am not so sure how their communities feel about being Fantasy-dwarf Surrogates. Game of Thrones Tyrion is not a Fantasy dwarf at all, and dwarf is used as a derogative term in the real world. Better to give any role to a small Person where size is actually not important to the role, to give them more representation as average People.
I don’t agree. They’re rigidly patriarchal, not neutral. It’s only women who have to hide their femaleness - even motherhood - to be subsumed under maleness. I’ve always read it as much more about feminism than transgender rights.
“You shouldn’t have encouraged her. I mean, of course there’s female dwarfs but . . . I mean, they have the decency not to show it.” - Carrot, in FoC
“All dwarfs are men , sir […] I mean . . . traditionally." Cheery, in TFE
That’s not my interpretation of it at all. Key words there are “anywhere but in private” - they do see the difference, but choose to hide it. They’re not applying neutral terms to dwarfs, it’s made absolutely clear that they’re applying *male *ones.
I think it’s fair to say this show is going to be a huge disappointment if you go in wanting a clean, faithful, direct adaptation of Pratchett’s works. They’re taking aggressive liberties. Sybil is obviously going to be completely different character, the status of the Watch is a bit different, and I think the overall flavor of the city is going to be shifted. And, brace yourselves now, but I’ll damn near guarantee that Cheery isn’t going to actually be portrayed as a female with a bushy beard.
I’m absolutely fine with that. I don’t think Pratchett’s writing survives direct adaptation. The prior adaptations are all varying levels of okay to hokey. I don’t need a “live action” version of the stories I’ve already read and reread. If the showrunners make a decent show that draws good inspiration from Pratchett and finds a good balance of humor, adventure, and satire, I’ll be completely on-board.