Why is Broadway soooooo GAY!!??- Page 4

[DAME]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 1:19pm

Oh... honey... come here and give me a smile.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 1:30pm

Okay, if you promise not to share this with ANOTHER LIVING SOUL...

It's part of our agenda to take over the world, one entertainment media at a time.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 1:31pm

Stone Philips is just the start.

[DAME]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 1:33pm

YUM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 1:48pm

Feh! The whole "Theater(re) is too gay" thing probably goes all the way back to Euripides. When Albee wrote "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf", people attacked it as being too gay, same with "Company", same with Tennessee Williams, same with ANYTHING that has the gays (or even one gay) involved...I remember reading some review of some Bob Fosse production where the reviewer cooed about how nice it was to see such blatant heterosexuality in a musical.
Personally, I don't see it. Seattle is supposedly a totally gay city but when I look at the homos working in the theater here I could probably count 'em on one hand. It's an antiquated "argument".

[DAME]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 2:19pm

Seattle is a gay city?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 2:21pm

the space needle. 'nuff said.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 2:25pm

Is it the same with the Empire State Building?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 2:33pm

Check out Toronto's CN Tower. World's largest phallic symbol. There's even a testicle to boot (the Skydome).

I don't think the question is, "Why are there so many gay people working on Broadway?" and is rather, "Why do so many gay people like Broadway?" I don't work in the entertainment industry, but I do love live theater. Is it because gay people love fantasy, escapism, etc., because the real world is so harsh to us? Or do we like to see people expressing themselves, being vulnerable, open? Both these things? What else? Why are gay people so artsy?

Of course, theater has LONG had queer leanings, from cross-dressing boy-actors in Renaissance England to the Wilde's male pansy characters.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 2:37pm

"cross-dressing boy-actors"


HARVEY

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 3:05pm

No, he was an invisible rabbit.

Came out at the end, tho, so I guess it still works. :)

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 3:17pm

Gay males are not embarrassed to do what they do on Broadway...for most straight males, Broadway is not 'cool'.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 3:21pm

Wouldn't it be a great world if one's sexuality was less an issue or a concern for others than what one actually contributes to life?

The contributions don't have to be on a grand scale. One can make positive contributions to those around oneself in one's own corner of the world. What I do mean is that the contributions one makes are what's important, not with whom (or what) one is physically intimate.

But we're all human and we nearly all have some amount of appetite for a bit of salicious news. And it's not a perfect world. Oh well, it was for a moment.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 6:25pm

"Vagina, schmagina, let's call the whole thing off."

[boborunstheshow]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 6:34pm

Has anyone ever seen Lincoln Nebraska" state capitol building?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 7:30pm

Gays have always made up a disproportionate number of people in the arts -- theatre, dance, and music especially. From Wilde to Coward to Inge, Williams, Porter, Bernstein, Samuel Barber, Sondheim, Laurents, Robbins, Albee, Herman, McNally, Bennett, Landford Wilson, Fierstein, Kushner et al to say nothing of the countless performers and designers (and many closeted folks I've chosen not to name).

Yet, despite so many gay folks on stage, behind the scenes and in the audience, it's only been a relatively short period of time that positive gay characters have become the norm in American film, television and theatre. If theatre seems "gayer" now than a few decades ago, I think that's more a function of the growing acceptance gays have attained in general society than anything else. Gay writers and composers were very hesitant to deal with gay subject matters a half a century ago, partly because they were closeted and feared what damage acknowledging their sexuality would have on their careers, and partly for fear of whether the audience would accept such stories (interestingly, two of the only hit shows to deal with homosexuality before 1960 -- "The Children's Hour" in the 30's and "Tea and Sympathy" in the 50's -- were written by straight playwrights).

Tennessee Williams was able to push the envelope considerably in the 50's with "Cat" and "Suddenly Last Summer" but the gay themes there were veiled and hardly positive or flattering to the (closeted) gay community. Read Vito Russo's "The Celluloid Closet" (or the Lily Tomlin-hosted documentary based on it) and you'll see that for generations, from silent film through the 80's, nearly anytime gays were depicted on screen (and many of the films were adapted from plays), they were the object of ridicule or scorn and in a horrifically high number of times (in several dozens of films), they were murdered or committed suicide by the final reel of the film.

Williams and other gay playwrights of the time were controversial figures and famously, three of them (Williams, Albee and Inge) were accussed by the Times of writing women characters who were actually gay men in drag, which all vehemently denied. During the 60's, gay writers, while respected in some circles, were marginalized and held up to ridicule by certain very powerful critics and producers.

With the opening of "Boys In The Band" in 1968 just prior to the Stonewall riots, mainstream audiences were for the first time able to see a play written by a gay playwright, featuring gay characters (and a mostly gay cast) and no one died at the end. While there later was a backlash against the play and subsequent film by some in the gay community who saw its characters as too self-loathing and bitter, it remains a landmark in the history of gay theatre (the original off-Broadway run lasted a 1000 performances).

In the 35 years since "Boys In The Band" we've seen the flowering of the gay rights movement and the concept of "gay pride" enter the lexicon. As more and more gays have come out and become visible, society as a whole has become more accepting of the gay community and, as such, with more out gay actors and directors and playwrights and composers than ever before, it's been a natural progression for more gay-themed works and characters in end up in the mainstream. In the era of "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye" and "Angels In America" (and certain gay composer-lyricists smooching on the Tonys -- Go Marc & Scott!), it's clear that society at large -- gay and straight -- is willing to embrace good work that prominently and unapologetically features gays and lesbians. It's taken a very long time and it should be celebrated.

And speaking of celebrations, I need a drink and a burger, so let me end yet another long-winded missive by saying, "HAPPY 4th!" I'm off to a barbeque.......

Updated On: 7/4/04 at 07:30 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 7:35pm

Thank you, Margo for putting things brilliantly as always!

We're not flaunting--we are just living openly.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 7:58pm

Going to disagree with you, JR. In many instances it is flaunting.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: flaunt
Pronunciation: 'flont, 'flänt
Function: verb
Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around -- more at PLANET
intransitive senses
1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice
2 : to wave or flutter showily
transitive senses
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : PARADE
2 : to treat contemptuously
synonym see SHOW

Living openly I would define as being comfortable with oneself and one's way of life and able to publicly demonstate one's choices with ease and comfort. Flaunting would be demonstrating that comfort for the sake of making a public display of one's lifestyle choices. That's how I would define the differences.

Some folks might applaud Shaiman and his partner for their TONY kiss. I certainly respect their love for one another, whatever it might be. My personal opinion however is that it came across as more a flaunting of one's private life choices because of the media moment. Not something I personally admire.

Don't throw out the the "in the closet" argument. It's not about being in/out of the closet. It's about another word: discreet.

Briefly, according to Merriam-Webster:

1 : having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech : PRUDENT; especially : capable of preserving prudent silence
2 : UNPRETENTIOUS, MODEST
3 : UNOBTRUSIVE, UNNOTICEABLE


You have every right to disagree with me.

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 7:59pm

Margo remains my favorite on the boards ...

Updated On: 7/4/04 at 07:59 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:04pm

Jose--if it has been a husband and wife team--you would never have felt it was flaunting. And, even IF Shaiman did it to make a point--which I believe he said he did not--THAT's where we are in history--the need to say something.

But, no, holding hands in public and giving each other a kiss is NOT flaunting. Talking about one's boyfriend or husband is NOT flaunting.

And telling one's story on stage is NOT flaunting.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:15pm

But JR, who made the rule that something must be said?

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, and certainly more accepted socially than it has been for the last 105 years or so. Past societies have accepted it much more comfortably than we can ever imagine.

So, why now, do some gays feel it necessary to flaunt their choices? Perhaps the flaunting is becoming a bit counter-productive? Whereas, living openly without the need to forceably demonstrate one's choices might actually go farther to gain acceptance. It is after all a heterosexually majoritive world that we know and inhabit.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:22pm

I'm running out the door, but......

Is Hugh kissing his wife or Idina kissing her husband Taye Diggs or countless other straight folks kissing their opposite-sex partners in the audience at the time of their big win also "flaunting" or is it only flaunting when gay people kiss each other? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a straight couple who have both won the same award and ended up on stage at an awards ceremony together, but I can't imagine there would be any outcry if such a couple kissed each other at such a triumphal moment. Why the double standard?

Straight people wear their wedding rings and put pictures of their spouses on their desks and go out to work functions together and talk about their kids and go to PTA meetings and simply walk hand in hand down the street together -- are these all political statements? Are they doing it just to rub their heterosexuality in everyone's faces? Or are they simply expressing their affection for one another? And is it their problem or yours if you get offended by seeing it?

It's 2004. There is NO REASON anymore to apologize for being gay. NONE. There's nothing immoral or illegal about it. It's not about agendas or politics or shocking anyone. It's not about sex and private behaviors, it's about status and orientation and not being ashamed of who and what you are. Gay people are not hiding any more and altering their natural, human, normal everyday behaviors just so straight people can feel more comfortable. JRB said it -- it's not flaunting, it's simply living openly and without fear, the same way straight people behave every single moment of their lives.

Updated On: 7/4/04 at 08:22 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:43pm

Jose--I CAN NOT believe that you think that gays are done and set to go when we are in the midst of HUGE civil rights issues.

Hmmm--A Constitutional to ban gay marriage?

Gays are banned in the military (except in war times)

We are still eligible for discrimination in the workplace in many places

Adoption rights?

And so much more

No--I guess you are right--we really should just sit back and continue to get crapped on.

Updated On: 7/4/04 at 08:43 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:45pm

I don't disagree with either of you. What it points out is that behaviour that can be "flaunting" to one person can be "living openly" to another. Hence, it is nearly always subjective.

There are times however when people engage in public displays for the sake of showing off behaviour that they themselves perceive to be against the norm and thereby do so to provoke.

Segueing to the main idea espoused by YO--I, too, am find it tired that gay characters appear to be prevalent on stage in every play or musical. How about some theatre about issues and the human condition. Sexuality if just one small part of it all.

And another parrallel thought...remember when chorus lines were comprised of masculine men and feminine women? Now it seems that some directors/choreographers go out their way to hire non-masculine men for the chorus or leads and hire chorus women on whom a healthy male wouldn't want to spend $100.

If I spend $100 for a ticket I want to see great-looking, of either sex!

Gee, did I just say that? Must be the BBQ.

Updated On: 7/4/04 at 08:45 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:50pm

U damn bifriendly hypocrites/devil advocaters!!!! :)

SMOOCH!