A Catered Affair (3/31/08)...why???? — Page 2

Glory, you're probably better off seeing CATERED AFFAIR. Even if it didn't succeed, it's trying to do something new. Whereas CRY-BABY is trying to be the new HAIRSPRAY.

---

Nitsua, that is such bs answer.

It is true that a piece of theatre should be self contained. And yet you and others bring your own preconceived notions of what it was like for every gay man in the 50s. Instead of accepting what the writer is showing you or choosing to learn something new, you declare that the writer got it all wrong. No thought that maybe you are wrong, that the writer did his homework and discovered something new that defied conventional wisdom.

And the fact is that if you were more up on your lgbt history, you wouldn't have been surprised at the portrayal at all.

The fact is there were many gays and lesbians who were attempting to be open about their sexual orientation at that time. It didn't just suddenly begin happening in the summer of '69.

---

Looking for something dull or silly?
Catered Affair or Cry Baby. Your choice!
(I'd go with the silly)

well then I wasnt talking about you was I?

---

if the statement doesnt apply to them, why should they feel the need to defend themselves?

---

I find it funny how Leslie Kritzer is going HIGHLY unnoticed in this show lol.

hank, there are good reviews on bww, too. Check out miss pennywise among others for a completely different perspective.

---

every gay man wasn't like that. I didn't say that.

The original source has winston, an bachelor uncle. Its entirely possible that the character was written as straight. But its entirely possible he was written as subtextually gay. Back then, film and plays did shy away from the topic. Tennessee Williams battled this issue as well.

So now we have the opportunity to paint a more open portrayal of a stereotypical bachelor uncle. Gay. And if he was a mattachine society kind of gay, he might just be open about it. And how fascinating to be able to juxtapose this gay man against a wedding when this is such a huge issue in our country.

Theatre is affected by

The period of the play's setting

The period of when it was written

The period of whenever it is performed.

So why not? It's Harvey's adaptation. He bought the rights. He's allowed to tell the story how he pleases.

---

I haven't seen the film. Does he fall in love with her? What happens in the play?

Would it really surprise you if Hollywood took a gay character and heteroed it up? Or toned the gay down?

Have you ever compared cat on a hot tin roof the play to the film? Same for streetcar?

In any case, I already acknowledged that the musical may be the first time re character was in any way intended to be gay. That's Harvey's choice. This is HIS script for a catered affair.

---

I was the biggest Grey Gardens fan. I loved every bit of it. I also know plenty about LGBT history. Thanks for the snotty suggestion, but I'll pass. Incidentally, whatever the L,B and T have to do with Harvey's performance, I'll never know. I do know it was over-the-top and irritating how he pulled attention to himself. I also believe that it was incongruous with the tone of the show.

I love Matt Cavenaugh and wish he had more to do in the show. There are probably 350 guys in midtown Manhattan with one-tenth of Matt's formidable talent who could do that part.

This show is boring. The score is uninspired. Faith Prince gave me blue balls: I was waiting for the big release and it never came. That's my opinion, and it's clearly shared by others here.

You must work on the show, jrb, and it's cool you're defending it. No need to be offensive and personally attack others for their opinion, though.

"No need to be offensive and personally attack others for their opinion, though. "

I don't believe I have been.

"You must work on the show, jrb, and it's cool you're defending it."

Yes--that's common knowledge on BWW. But, I don't defend things because I work on them. I defend them because I believe in them.

"This show is boring. The score is uninspired. Faith Prince gave me blue balls: I was waiting for the big release and it never came. That's my opinion, and it's clearly shared by others here. "

I'm sorry you had this experience. It's the exact opposite that I and others have had. And, I have NO problem with someone not liking the show. I have only taken issue with people who choose to go blast the show over and over and over again or people who have posted ignorant assessments of things. And, I'm not saying that to be rude. I'm using the true, sincere definition of the word "ignorant".

"I love Matt Cavenaugh and wish he had more to do in the show. There are probably 350 guys in midtown Manhattan with one-tenth of Matt's formidable talent who could do that part."

This isn't a flaw of the show. Matt chose to do the role. How lucky that this wonderful show can have so many talented people in minor parts.

"I also know plenty about LGBT history. Thanks for the snotty suggestion, but I'll pass. Incidentally, whatever the L,B and T have to do with Harvey's performance, I'll never know. I do know it was over-the-top and irritating how he pulled attention to himself. I also believe that it was incongruous with the tone of the show. "

That's fine. I have no problem with one feeling that the WAY the role is played, or perhaps written, doesn't match the tone of the rest of the piece. That's a fine debate to have. But, I do have a problem with the opinion that no gay men would have been open in that time and place, when, infact, there were. I have a problem with the opinion that bringing this aspect of the character out of the closet of subtext and juxtaposing it against the various issues of the show is inappropriate.

And, I say again--I have no issue with someone not liking the piece. A piece like this is going to have a love/hate reaction (that's why I compared it to Grey Gardens). I have a big issue with people who obsess over hating a show--any show. Even shows I hate. So, if you guys want people to respect your dislike of the piece, you need to respect the people who do like the piece. Every year we go through this. Certain people just can not allow a thread to go by praising something they hate.

And, remember--like/dislike is not necessarily the same thing as good/bad.

---

Updated On: 4/2/08 at 11:41 AM

I don't know how this is risky.

Sure, it relies on character more than spectacle/plot, but that just makes it different.

---