The "Queering" of Broadway -- Agree or Disagree?- Page 3

Posted: 5/21/05 at 11:57pm

Updated On: 5/22/05 at 11:57 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 1:42am

Jose--whether you know the history of gay playwrights or not, this question has an ugly tradition of intended and inadvertent homophobia.

In the mid 1960s, before Gay Liberation, it was socially acceptable for critics to ask if the heterosexual characters in plays by William Inge, Tennessee Williams and Edward Albee were just "frauds," a "secret plot to disguise homosexual male characters as women." These great American playwrights were belittled and demeaned and accused of producing "hateful misogynistic parodies of heterosexual love, marriage, and the family"--that's how these critics charcterized plays like Bus Stop, Streetcar and Virginia Woolf.

The otherwise excellent critic Stanley Kaufmann wrote an infamous article for The New York Times in 1965 called "Homosexual Drama and Its Disguises," in which he accused Albee, Williams, Inge and others of producing a "badly distorted picture of American women, marriage and society" by creating what he called a "two-sex version of the one-sex experience."

Even William Goldman, in his otherwise brilliant book The Season, accused Albee of writing "boy-girl relationships when he really means boy-boy relationships; he understands boy-boy relationships but is forced to write them as boy-girl." Goldman accused Albee of "treating heterosexuals viciously," an accusation that was itself vicious.

In recent years John Simon would often decry what he considered the ubiquitous presence of homosexuality in the theatre in phrases collected elsewhere here on BroadwayWorld by our own MargoChanning.

So for you to start this thread claiming to be unaware of its gay-baiting undertones is either naive or disingenuous.

If your answer is naive and you were unaware of the homophobic odor, please accept my apology for having accused you unfairly. If, however, you were aware of this tradition, an apology from you would be nice, as your question has made both gays and straights on this board feel uncomfortable.

Updated On: 5/22/05 at 01:42 AM

Posted: 5/22/05 at 6:08am

I'm waiting to hear Jose pose an interesting question to spark discussion about the "Spic-ing" of Broadway. Because there are way too many hispanic themed shows. And a LOT of people don't like hispanics (not that I Have a problem with them-- most of them are well-behaved and clean people, just like 'regular' folks). And people will stay away from Broadway because of all the "Spic" shows. Are they staying away now? And what about all the people who think I'm hispanic, just cause I bought Altar Boys (That IS a Spic show, no matter what you say!!) and Tango Argentina! Are Spics killing Broadway? I think it's worth discussing. Then we can talk about all the Jews. And the Dutch-- god, those pushy dirty dutch!

Jose, your question stinks. And I don't want to hear some apology about how you were just stirring up a discussion. You do that with a question that bears discussing. This doesn't. I'm really surprised that someone who has some sort of official connection to this website thinks that whether there are too many "Queers" ruining broadway is worth discussing.

Posted: 5/22/05 at 6:25am

"There exists a debate that in the last few year Broadway has become a ground of "gay" humor and inneuendo, and is fixated on a "queer" agenda. As a result, the argument goes, mainstream audience are turning on their backs on live theatre as the recipent of their discretionery entertainment dollar."

As I'm reading this, Jose' is saying that a controversary already exists because someone has expressed this thought before (presumably in some other arena and/or media.) I don't see him expressing his own opinion, but rather asking what others think about an arguement that is already taking place. Seeing as this is a theatre board with many self-identified gay posters, it seems logical to open this topic for discussion here.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 8:25am

But isn't there a difference between opening up a dialogue and stirring up a hornet's nest?

[Audryna]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 10:04am

I don't find Jose's question offensive. It is obvious that homosexuality is alive and thriving in theatre today. I just don't see how this is some sort of unique phenomenon.

In the past 30 years, the homosexual community has made leaps and bounds towards public education and open acceptance in society. It is now not only acceptable but celebrated to be gay and adds to the rich colourful tapestry which is our little planet. It is obvious in all forms of Media and The Arts that acceptance of homosexuality and interest is sought after. I dare anyone to name a popular sitcom that doesn't have a homosexual character or two. When you have a part of society considered so dark and taboo for so many centuries now thrust into the limelight for all to consider and gain understanding from, OF COURSE people will be interested. This must be why there are so many gay character roles written now, and to be quite honest they make fantastic viewing.

I say keep them coming (don't read into that!) and while we're at it try more diverse character roles. After all, the source of all art is everyday life and there are so many people from all walks of life you can gain from.

Posted: 5/22/05 at 11:18am

PalJoey - you frequently start threads on the off-topic board that deal with 'hot-button' political issues, presumably to jump-start conversation or awareness about a particular subject. I don't see a difference here. Jose' didn't instigate a controversary, he recognized one and asked for comments on it from the board.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 11:40am

There you go with those moral equivalences again, DG.

I frequently start threads (and, yes, on the Off Topic Board) quoting or crossposting writers in order to inspire, empower and provide a common language for progressives.

Is that what you are saying Jose did here? Was he bringing up a hot-button issue or deliberately pressing people's buttons?

Posted: 5/22/05 at 11:46am

I'm not going to judge Jose's motivation any more than I'm going to judge yours. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, whether you are comfortable with that or not.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 11:47am

I personally don't notice this, but a friend of mine who's in a Broadway show claims that the whole balance of the show has been thrown off because so many of the male cast members are gay. I don't understand why this would be, though; he never really explained himself. I find it a rather nasty comment.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 11:54am

Who's goose and and who's the gander?

But you frequently judge my motivation and judge it negatively, whether you're comfortable with THAT or not as well.

My guess is that Jse is thrilled that you and I are breaking our Audrey-inspired detente over his question.

And, yes, Shbrt, that's the hornet's nest Jose's question was tossed into.

[Nina]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 12:19pm

"(not that I Have a problem with them-- most of them are well-behaved and clean people, just like 'regular' folks)."

You have got to be kidding with that remark. If you are, it is in very poor taste. Just like "regular" people?

Honestly, this entire thread illustrates the hypocricy and the ignorance of a large number of people on this board.

I know the point you're attempting to make with the remainder of your post, taht this is how others think. However, the use of the word SPIC, no matter what the point, is inappropriate and ignorant. If you were making the same point about shows that star African Americna's, would you so freely use the N word? I dare say not. You would be afraid to.
I find SPIC to be offensive in any context, in any attempt to make any point and even coming from Latin Americans. It's a degrading word of the worst kind.

This entire thread is ridiculous and Jose should use his own power of deletion to edit himself once in a while. God knows, you need it. You show, at times, an inability to edit your thoughts prior to committing them to writing.
Jose, regardless of what you say, you do have a history of creating threads for the purpose of controversy when the heat is on you and members are giving you a hard time. You are much like our president in that way, start a war to take focus from another issue that makes you look bad.

[Chlydomnestra]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 12:40pm

Broadway and live theatre has always had a large homosexual foundation, and throughout time, it has been opened a little bit at a time. I applaud Broadway and Theatre in general for being one of the first mediums to show "normal," loving, serious partnerships between same-sex couples. Yes, Broadway and Theatre do have comedic, stereotype characters as well, but look at Rent, where people had a glimpse of Collins and Angel, who were not comedic centerpieces, but rather a loving couple. TV/Film is only now getting to where they are showing gay couples as they are, and not using them as a sense of comic relief. This is not to say that there can't be some aspect of ha-ha funny, with characters like Jack from Will & Grace, but in my opinion, TV/Film is a long way away from being able to balance their programing with more realistic and positive gay roles. I feel like Broadway and Theatre have made greater strides in balancing, which no doubt has something to do with the fact that homosexuality has for the most part always been in it, someway or another. I get a little tired of seeing the "token" gay guy in a tv show, where the only way he gets a laugh is by being over the top, flamboyantly gay. Can't he just be funny? Not to say I don't get a laugh out of it, but TV/film is still a bit to scared to show the more "normalized" side of it. So, I understand a little of the original post in the fact that Broadway and live theatre does put homosexuality in the forefront a little more, but it's been pushing for a long time, and it didn't JUST start, and I certainly don't think it's the reason Broadway has declined in ticket sales. There are some small minded people out there, who don't want to see it, and they don't come...but God-willing, they don't make up enough to cover the total decline. Am I making any sense?

Posted: 5/22/05 at 1:10pm

Jose is a mean spirited person. This "moderator" posts garbage like the "queering" of Broadway and he PMs members and offers nasty insults. Not the type of behavior you'd expect from a person in charge of editing content on this board.

.

Updated On: 5/22/05 at 01:10 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 2:07pm

I hereby nominate Nina the Moderator's Moderator.

Rob, Craig--how about giving Nina exclusive power to delete Jose's posts?

Posted: 5/22/05 at 3:23pm

Nina I guess I need to explain: I used a completely tasteless ethnic slur (Spic) JUST LIKE Jose used the word "Queer" in an attempt to draw attention to the complete offensiveness of the post. I should have posted: "IRONY! POSTER IS NOT IN ANY WAY ANTI-LATINO."

Anyway, I still say Jose's post stinks. I think saying "THis controversy exists" is just a way to present the argument without say "I think this is so." Again, I'm stunned that a MODERATOR of this forum would use such a term.

[Glindafan]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 4:03pm

There are a lot of open-minded people - far from NYC who love theater and wonder about questions like Jose's. Experience has taught me that when an opportunity to take part in an open discussion arises, you TAKE it. The effects of gays, in and around theater is a topic many of us want to discuss; learn about and understand.

I applaud anyone who poses such open-ended questions as Jose, because it stimulates everyone differently. In this case, we've had lengthy, serious input and observations from several people while others seem mired in what can only be described as 'deep water wheel-spinning' because they'd sooner attack the question and its poser rather than contribute meaningful dialogue.

We've nothing to fear from people willing to pose these questions - only those who would call for such questions to be banished.....under ANY pretense. A suggestion: Rather than assuming the worst; rather than attacking an idea - - try assuming the BEST motive, then give us YOUR ideas.

I am grateful beyond words to those of you who takes this subject seriously and contribute your insights.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 4:11pm

To quote Cole Porter: You may know Jose, but you don't know Jose.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 6:21pm

Any show that tells its story with respect and thoughtfulness (whether it be comedy, drama, whatever) has a place on broadway. One thing I don't like is when movies, shows, or tv series use homosexuality (or religion or anything) as a way to drum up excitement without really showing respect for the subject.

Posted: 5/22/05 at 7:31pm

PJ, I'm sure you don't see this, but it is you who is coming across as divisive.

This thread was one of many questions I posted several days ago that centered on today's Broadway, frankly because, in my opinion, the level of the discussion threads on the board could use some other topics bsides the ubiquitous ones. So shoot me.

Instead of supporting one side of the question I raised or the other, or heaven forbid, instead of offering several theatre-related topics of your own, you, and a few others, chose this as a pretext to personally attack me.

I am comfortble with the fact that we've never met, you don't know me, nor do you have any clue of my personal morals or ethics. So, I see at the root of your responses your ignorance of me and your intolerance.

If you don't like a message thread I create, don't read it, and don't respond. It's that simple.

If your purpose in responding to a thread I post is to personally attack me, then you might want to consider getting a life. Otherwise it's starting to look as if you have nothing of value to contribute whatsoever.

José

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 8:16pm

I was once told that you should never say the words "Get a life" in an Internet debate, because your very presence in an Internet thread means that pointing finger easily points back the other way.

I bear no personal animus toward you Jose. Along with many others, I simply disagree with the lack of impartiality with which you wield the power you've been granted by Rob and Craig , as well as what Nina insightfully described as your "history of creating threads for the purpose of controversy when the heat is on you and members are giving you a hard time."

Those are Nina's words, not mine, and if there's one thing I've learned on BroadwayWorld it's NEVER go mano a mano with Ms. Nina. Those stilettos are loaded.

I wish you the best, I thank you for your good wishes about my getting a life. I hope you get a life too.

xoxox

Updated On: 5/22/05 at 08:16 PM

Posted: 5/22/05 at 8:24pm

I wish Nina would have been equally as vocal about being insulted by the use of "Queering." I am latin and gay and both words offend me.

Posted: 5/22/05 at 8:30pm

That reminds me of the time I was working the telephone, and a customer asked me my name.

"José," I said.

"José," she replied. "That's Polish ain't it? I know 'cause my daughter's boyfriend is Polish, and his name is José, too."

"Yes, it's Polish," I replied. "When did you want to start this order?..."

Sometimes, you just go with the flow.
Updated On: 5/22/05 at 08:30 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/05 at 8:35pm

It reminds me of the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke.

(To paraphrase Margo Channing.)

Posted: 5/22/05 at 9:14pm

I don't get it Jose, are you saying I should do like you? So I'm you and...you're the idiot who thought you were Polish? OK

I'm sure it won't be too much of a stretch.