carolinaguy said: "Question related to this kind of thing: Would someone like JoJo be eligible for any kind of compensation in a circumstance like this? They may have declined other work due to a commitment that is now void."
When I heard about the closing, that was the thought that immediately came to mind - and especially as they'd reneged on the day she was to start rehearsals.
I've been a fan of Judith Light since the late '70s when she played Karen Wolek on "One Life to Live". I was absolutely riveted to her performance giving testimony at Victoria Lord's (Erika Slezak) trial.
I also had a huge crush on Marco Dane (Gerald Anthony [Bucciarelli]). Those dark Italian features... swoon.
Regardless of the item of clothing (shorts, T-shirt, cap, etc.) I think the decision to allow/prohibit an item should be at the discretion of the House Manager, based on a theater's established and posted policy re: dress code (if they insist on having one).
IMO, only items of clothing that create an obstruction of view, or a sanitation issue (e.g., odor or physically soiled) should be considered.
Branding or messaging on an article of clothing is a tough decision re:
Kad said: "While Paris is Burning is the major cultural touchstone of ball culture, it’s also from over three decades ago (and TheatreFan4 is correct: trans women make up most of the subjects of the documentary and are rather explicitly depicted as trans or female-identifying even within the confines of the language and understanding of the time it was filmed."
Yes, it's over three decades ago, and I thought I was being careful to accentuate my view that "times have progressed (changed)", but It's the bolded phrase where I think differently.
I agree that "TheatreFan4 is correct: trans women make up most of the subjects of the documentary", but I still hold to my recollection of that era regarding what language was commonly in practice, at that time.
As I recall, "trans women" were (technically) those who had undergone surgery (like Christine Jorgensen), whereas "drag queens" relied more on costuming and make-up to display their femininity.
Additionally, in the 80s, people were not as conscious of how to respectfully, and accurately refer to, and acknowledge our population as we are today. As an exemplary "sign of the times", I think about the Gay flag and how many colors have been added since the 80s - not to mention all the additional alphabet letters that now represent our acronym (which at this point, I'm never 100% certain I'm always being completely inclusive of).
As I remember (and I'm very open to the possibility that my memory is is perhaps tainted with age), it was more commonplace (and certainly easier) to use inaccurate, or inappropriate "bucket" identifiers like "drag queen" to lump members of the community who looked or behaved similarly into a single "bucket". I pointed to the language used in those cited wiki articles as an example.
"There’s also considerable focus on ballroom performers who are cisgender men whose “drag” and “realness” consists of convincingly performing regular masculine roles. There are essentially few, if any, performative drag queens in the vein of RuPaul, Lady Bunny, et al in the documentary)."
Now, see... You're using the phrase "cisgender men", which few, if anyone would have understood in the 80s. Times have changed and progressed.
TBH, I'm a little unclear if you're saying that the cisgender men are ballroom performers in the film "Paris is Burning", or in CATS (?) If it's the movie, I definitely need to give it a re-watch. It's been decades since I've watched it.
"But putting Paris is Burning aside, Jellicle Ball isn’t a period piece- it’s set in today’s ballroom. And it’s been created with considerable input and with the participation of several generations of ballroom performers. So who exactly is appropriating here?"
Yes, I know and agree. I want to re-emphasize that I wrote: "If there are no, or few who identify as drag queens at the Jellicle Ball, then the Ball could be (not is, or must be) seen as an example of cultural appropriation."
"Cultural appropriation" in that the balls literally originated as "drag balls", and later participants were referred to (incorrectly or not) as "drag queens".
If the performers in "CATS" are utilizing those stylizations, but don't identify similarly as those who created the art form, it could be interpreted as cultural appropriation.
This is the "Unpopular Opinions" thread, so I'm comfortable calling in on that chip.
TheatreFan4 said: "The vast majority of the people that are the stars of Paris is Burning are Transwomen, not Drag Queens. Drag as it's used in a ball, is not particularly how you would use it to refer to Drag Queens. Anything you wearor portray is your Drag."
I've been thinking about this quite a bit and I think the differences in our thinking is due to a generation gap.
"The people that are the stars of Paris is Burning are Transwome
But gee whiz, after titling the episode "Goodbye for Now", why oh why didn't they play the song itself, sung by Maria Friedman or any other of the great Sondheim interpreters they have on hand anyway."
There's an anecdote about this song in the notes @ the YouTube page for Goodbye For Now - Unsung Sondheim that makes Warren Beatty look like a complete dolt. (I got a kick out of it!)
joevitus said: "[...] for all their (cherry-picked?) interviewees, they don't seem capable of looking beyond their personal experience/opinion to a wider view of their subject."
I agree.
I feel that the inability to look "beyond their personal experience/opinion to a wider view of their subject" creates an unintended bias that colors the podcast in a way that I found to be off-putting, and even self-aggrandizing on occasion.
As harsh as it may seem (or be), my objection to how Jones and Milnes have created this series is that they have inserted themselves into the podcast to a point where Sondheim too often shares lesser focus than the podcast's creators/narrators.
Episodes 10 and 11 (which focus on the relationship between Sondheim and Jones) are especially guilty of this. I suppose it could be chalked up to
I'm disappointed that the focus of every episode was less about Sondheim, and more about Martin Milnes going on regarding his interpretation of how important Peter E. Jones was in Sondheim's life. Milnes uses the phrase, "you, P.J." in every episode when I wanted to hear something more akin to, "you, Stephen".
No matter how each narrative began, the focus always turned to Jones at some point.
kdogg36 said: "My comment was definitely a compliment! "
So here's how this response progressed...
I wanted to stay on topic, so I waited and pondered. I thought, "I hope he doesn't feel like I'm mad, or ignoring his comment". I just didn't want to lose the thread.
In the meanwhile, inlovewithjerryherman commented on Theatrefanboy1's post, and that's when I knew this post was no longer about The Ed Sullivan Theater, and that the original intent was toast.
Soooo... still not proud (although I'd do it again in a heartbeat, if/when it's called for), but:
kdogg36 said: "You're very good at this. I'm glad you've never done it to me!"
I'm not proud of responding in this way.
I started this thread because I thought the video was an interesting look at an historic theater. I didn't appreciate seeing it go off the rails based on an incorrect interpretation of "fact" (in air quotes).
Theatrefanboy1 said: "JSquared2 said: " [...] Read your first sentence, then read your last sentence. See any contradictions there?"
That would be seen as a surface level contradiction."
I don't think so. I took out the extraneous words that really don't make any case in your argument's favor (or much sense, either). What's left is definitely a contradiction:
"While I truly couldn't care less about what they named this theatre, [...] I would love if they named it after these people".
You either "could care less about who they name it after ", or would "love if they rename it back to honour Oscar Hammerstein or Hal Prince".
"
