Lack of LGBT Protagonists- Page 2

[greensgreens]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 6:42pm

Luminaire2 said

Imagine a show where a character was gay, or black, or First Nations, or Asian and it really didn’t matter to the story, it wasn’t a part of the story persay, it was just a part of who the person was?

Isn’t this exactly what’s going on at Frozen???

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 6:54pm

Broadway is commercial theatre. Meaning it is produced with goal of making money. Thus, shows that get produced are usually those that reflect the tastes and demographic of mainstream audiences. I would say there are actually proportionately a large number of gay characters on Broadway in relationship to other commercial forms of entertainment.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 7:25pm

BroadwayStar4 said: "It's not just a feeling, but it's also pretty obvious that they're underrepresented. Straight people get to have countless ofshows with straight protagonists, meanwhile gay people only get a few here and there....and why? Just because they're minorities? So straight, white people should always be the protagonists just because they're the majority? Do you not see how problematic that is?"

OK, so as soon as Boys In The Band opens, will that balance the scales? It is hard to quantify feelings and what is obvious.

My issue is the same as when we look at how many POC are nominated for Academy Awards, it is so far downstream from the inception and casting of things to nearly be irrelevant. So many things happen before those things (from the way scholarships and grants choose who gets to go to writing programs to the diversity of the people who invest in Broadway shows) that affect the shows we see and what we look like... that by the time it is on Broadway, the discussion is too late, since you're only looking at the final stage in a massive puzzle.

If you're not heading out of the confines of Broadway to see Charm at MCC or Hir at Playwrights Horizons, or countless other shows that are going out of their way to champion diversity on all fronts, then you shouldn't then expect to see those stories transfer to bigger, more expensive stages.

[BroadwayRox3588]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 8:17pm

Evsever said: "BroadwayRox3588 said: "A solution: Pick up a pen & paper, and start writing a musical with an LGBT protagonist."

I'm flattered that you think I havethe time and thetalent to write a musical, and you think I have connections in show business to make it happen, but in actuality,that's not something that I have. I don't think telling people "well, write your own" is gonna fix the root of the problem. Even if I had Sondheim's talent and came out with a musical with a gay protagonist,that's still just one show."

Okay, then what is your solution? So far, I've seen a lot of complaints (complaints that, to your credit, are very fair), but no ideas on how to solve the problem. I posed a potential solution, and it was met with yet another complaint.

Updated On: 4/18/18 at 08:17 PM

[SFCowboy]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 8:26pm

The upcoming Head Over Heels has no shortage of LGBT+ protagonists.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 9:08pm

Like most major entertainment forms, Broadway is about making money, particularly the wads of tourists that make up the majority of the audience. When it comes to trends, one of which could be considered "the acceptance of people who aren't white heterosexuals", the huge machinery of what is functionally corporate art is slow to move and picky about what it moves on. Broadway is not for experimentation, and since it's in the curious position of being both relatively culturally irrelevant and swimming with money, it will probably take other, more broadly accessible art forms (tv but mostly film) to become more front-and-center with their representation first.

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 9:15pm

Okay- let's count how many black characters- jewish characters- how many Asians, disabled, etc. Find it a very distasteful enterprise at best- gays have nothing to complain about compared to other minorities  in the theater- some years there are a lot of gay productions- some years not. Let's not be like the color counters every Oscar season. Be patient- plenty of gay characters are always coming down the pike.

Updated On: 4/18/18 at 09:15 PM

[Evsever]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 9:32pm

QueenAlice said: "Broadway is commercial theatre. Meaning it is produced with goal of making money. Thus, shows that get produced are usually those that reflect the tastes and demographic of mainstream audiences. I would say there are actually proportionately a large number of gay characters on Broadway in relationship to other commercial forms of entertainment."

It sounds like Broadway is just playing it safe, keeping it mostly straight and white to appeal to a mass audience, when that's not the direction they should be going. Aren't musicals (or movies and tv shows) suppose to challenge people's minds. Isn’t it their responsibility to elevate the standards and change people’s perceptions? If the image they are setting constantly mirrors those very common standards, they are also not inspiring an entire generation and entire nations to make the leap towards acceptance and open-mindedness. This is the importance of making musicals, TV shows, movies, etc. This is not only entertainment. It goes way beyond that. 

I'm aware that there are gay characters in some of them, but the problem is that they're usually written as secondary/minor characters. They should be doing better than this. Why is diversity only seen as a "risk"? Because the public will laugh at them? Because the public is not ready? Because the public hates gays, like God, I assume? Those hardships have been hindering our progress to a more diverse, more elevated sort of storytelling. 

[Impossible2]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 9:42pm

It's almost like the last 5 years of Angels in America, Avenue Q, Mean Girls, The Color Purple, Come From Away, Falsettos, Fun House, Cabaret, Hedwig, Kinky Boots, Spring Awakening, Torch Song (about to start it's 2nd run) and pretty soon Boys in the Band never existed...

Updated On: 4/18/18 at 09:42 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:09pm

Well no; Broadway’s principal service has always been to entertain. Clearly, as evidenced by the things that are commercially successful and those that are not- not everybody wants to pay 200 dollars a ticket to have their minds challenged.

It seems like you have an issue that homosexuality isn’t viewed as commercial and somehow feel producers should be willing to lose millions in an effort to educate the morality of those who like populist entertainment.

That is not what Broadway is about. That is more the missive of not-for-profit theatre.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:14pm

Impossible2 said: "It's almost like the last 5 years ofAngels in America,Avenue Q, Mean Girls, The Color Purple, Come From Away, Falsettos, Fun House, Cabaret, Hedwig, Kinky Boots, Spring Awakening, Torch Song (about to start it's 2nd run)and pretty soon Boys in the Bandnever existed..."

 

Or extending the time line- The Nance,Take Me Out, RENT,Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Breaking the Code, The Laramie Project, Buyer and Cellar..

 

One sl correction- it's FUN Home not FUN House.

 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:35pm

I can't think of a single character (protagonist or otherwise) in any musical or play who is asexual.  Can anyone think of any examples?  That is an even more severely underrepresented group (about as common population-wise as lesbians according to most statistics that i've seen. And very few physically disabled characters as well. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:39pm

I would say Elsa in FROZEN is pretty asexual. At least in terms of being a leading character who has no romantic interest.

 

 But again, I don’t think it is a commercial producer’s  job to “represent”. It is a commercial producers first  job to repay their investors. Just as it is for any corporation. Perhaps a more interesting thesis would be on the moral obligation of commercial producers and how that sits in a shelf with the issues of financing commercial productions. 

 

Updated On: 4/18/18 at 10:39 PM

[Evsever]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:43pm

Impossible2 - Most of them don't have gay PROTAGONISTS.

sabrelady - I've never even heard of most of them. 

QueenAlice - So a gay protagonist equals losing millions? Did Fun Home or Hedwig lose millions?

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:51pm

HEDWIG was on a Broadway because it had a major bankable star attached to it. FUN HOME was the rare thing- an artistic Off Broadway musical that managed to transfer to a small Broadway theatre where it played a year and BARELY made back its money.

Both were relative anomolies. Are you trying to argue that because these shows didn’t lose millions other producers should be inspired to gamble similarly?

Some producers are willing to take the risk. And they are to be praised.

By you aren’t thinking about the way most commercial theatre is put together and financed or again the goal which is to make money for the investors. 

There are several good books on the subject that would be very informative for you to read if you pursue this thesis.

Updated On: 4/18/18 at 10:51 PM

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:52pm

sabrelady - I've never even heard of most of them. 

Well I 'm guessing then for you all those shows, performances, royalties etc  don't really exist  since it is only the shows YOU know about that validate your opinion of a Lack of LGBT "Protagonistse".

QED.

[Evsever]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 10:56pm

sabrelady, why are you so snarky and rude. Seriously, what is your problem? 

[BroadwayStar4]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 11:09pm

QueenAlice said: "HEDWIG was on a Broadway because it had a major bankable star attached to it."

Then maybe that's what the producers should start doing more often. Make commercially pleasing musicals with gay protagonists, and just a have a big celebrity name attached it. There, problem solved!

 

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 11:11pm

You proposed a thesis (complaint) a Lack of LGBT Protagonists and sited examples to prove your case. Some of us ( myself included) have quoted examples  rebutting your theme and you dismiss them -"I've never heard of them", as if that was the only criteria for proving  your case and you call me out as "snarky and rude"? Unless I agree with you I have "a problem"?  (Like that would pass for "snarky and rude on THIS site!)

Quid erat demonstratum.

[Evsever]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 11:22pm

Yes, sabrelady. I've dismissed them. Did I hurt your feelings? Is that why you decided to be condescending towards me? Is that how you behave in front of people, or is it only online?

Updated On: 4/18/18 at 11:22 PM

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 11:34pm

Interesting thread.

I'm sure many of you read Jesse Green's long piece about the history of gay plays.

A Brief History of Gay Theater, in Three Acts

Here's a quote from it:

Can it be that “Angels” — the play that proclaims “The great work begins!” — is actually the end of the line? After 25 years without a similarly thundering new entry into the canon, it may be time to recognize that the spotlight is moving on. ..., many of the best young gay male playwrights — Stephen Karam, Jordan Harrison, Branden Jacobs-Jenkins — no longer write about gay people anyway, or write about them only peripherally.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 11:42pm

Evsever said: "Yes, sabrelady. I've dismissed them. Did I hurt yourfeelings? Is that why you decided to becondescending towards me? Is that how you behave in front of people, or is it only online?"

So this isn't just the first day you joined to start this thread, but also your first day on here?

If you have a limited knowledge of the subject you are discussing, and come to a place where people have more knowledge, and then dismiss those plays because you don't know them... it sort of seems like we're just here to validate your theory, which has a lot of flaws.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/18/18 at 11:43pm

QueenAlice, I agree with you that Elsa could quite logically be read as asexual - it is certainly a possibility that is consistent with everything we see about her.  It is not explicitly mentioned, though, and by that method (of guessing something consistent with behaviour), many lead characters in many shows could be bisexual or asexual (and in the latter case often either biromantic, heteroromantic, or homoromantic as well, since sex scenes rarely take place on stage).   I am not arguing against your point at all - i think it is fine to interpret or "code" character's sexual and romantic orientations on a best-guess basis if one is looking for representation that they can identify with.  And in the case of an asexual character who is also aromantic, it would only come up if it is a relevant story point, whereas often people infer a sexual orientation for any character portrayed as having a romantic relationship onstage, so any orientation other than asexual is more likely to be inferred from the nature of relationships shown onstage..  

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 4/19/18 at 12:01am

I understand, yes there could be more LGBTQ+ leads out there.

I welcome more LGBTQ+ characters. I think that where I differ on the issue is n two ways:

1) Can we just have characters that are gay? As in being gay is (for lack of a better term) another personality trait? Like did the original gay character on Glee really have to be a flamboyant, Broadway loving guy who all he wants to do is play both Victor and Victoria? When will I see the private, masculine, non flamboyant gay, like my father?

2) There was a time when a lot of television shows were using LGBTQ+ characters like they were getting extra funding if there was a gay character. I got to the point where, as a supporter I got frustrated when basically every doctor on Grey Anatomy came out.

To conclude my thoughts, yes. Let's more diversity. Let's write these shows. However, there is so much more to the situation.

[Evsever]

Posted: 4/19/18 at 12:02am

haterobics said: "If you have a limited knowledge of the subject you are discussing, and come to a place where people have more knowledge, and then dismiss those plays because you don't know them... it sort of seems like we're just here to validate your theory, which has a lot of flaws."

I asked for thoughts, not a list of plays and musicals that completely misses the point that I'm making. Yes, there are shows with gay characters, but that's not the point. The point is that most of them are not protagonists. The point is that most shows with gay protagonists are from the 60s, 80s, or 90s. The point is that there's a lack of LGBT protagonists, therefore less options to choose from. And I hear ya, producers are too cowardly because they care more about money and less about the art. Broadway is commercial and a business. But see, that's not a good excuse. At least not to me. There's no excuse to just ignore diversity and continue to make protagonists that are white and straight. And it's sick and disgusting that some of you seem to be fine with that. 

Updated On: 4/19/18 at 12:02 AM