Any LGBT Characters? — Page 3

BroadwayStar4 said: "Some would argue that the lack of representation is progress. I don't know if I'll explain this well, but as being gay becomes increasingly more accepted and part of the mainstream, as out politicians make news, and more actors come out, and we hear gay-related stories nearly nightly on the news, perhaps the theater community sees less a need to help society hold a mirror to itself and show positive views of homosexuality.

Then at this rate, soon there won't be any LGBT characters at all. And that's problematic. LGBT stories should be told - not to help straight people understand homosexuality - but to present that LGBT people exist in this world and they have stories to tell too (and not all of their stories have to be about AIDS or homophobia). I mean, straight people are everywhere, do we really need another straight romance forced into every show? We need some gay love around here! Hollywood is too chicken**** to make a Disney movie about two gay princes, so why can't Broadway make their own? Let's try that idea for starters!



"

So if this is what YOU want, why not write it? "Broadway" is under no obligation to make you, personally, happy.

There are two sides to Broadway the creative work you see on stage, and the people who make that happen. I think it says something that so many out people are recognized for their achievements and at event like the widely broadcast Tonys, winners are shown on camera kissing their same-sex partners/spouses, and acknowledging their husbands, wives, etc from the podium. And what was NPH's opening a few years back, "It's Not Just For Gays Anymore" or something like that? That says something to have such an in-your-face opening.

I'm sure I'm going to get attacked for this, but:



LGBT people make up roughly 3-5% of the population. As such they should only be the focus of 3-5% of the shows on Broadway. This year 40 shows opened on Broadway. Percentages indicate there should be 1-2 LGBT focused shows. We had much more than that. If anything LGBT people are over represented on Broadway.



On the other hand, African Americans make up 12.6% of the US population. Where are the 5 Broadway shows focusing on them this season?

The percentage of the LGBT population is tricky and difficult to determine due to the fact that many LGBT people are either still in the closet, in denial, don't even know it yet or don't believe in labels. I also doubt young LGBT kids took part in those statistics either. Considering how sexuality itself is complex and fluid, 3-5% seems far too low.

Regardless, representation of any minority group in shows and movies should not be limited to their percentage. It's just unfair. That's like giving straight people a big suitcase of cash, while gay people get a small pouch of quarters just because they're a minority. Straight people have tons of options to choose from, they always have a wide variety of shows that reflects who they are. Meanwhile, gay people are only left with a handful. How is that right? How does that make them feel like they're treated as equal?

Dozens upon dozens of shows that don't feature any gay characters at all should not be excused or justified just because there's one or two other shows that are LGBT-focused. Why? Because each show has its own universe; its own world. That's why each show should include the existence of gay people, because they exist and they have always existed on this earth since the dawn of time.

Updated On: 5/2/17 at 09:01 PM

"Dozens upon dozens of shows that don't feature any gay characters at all should not be excused or justified just because there's one or two other shows that are LGBT-focused. Why? Because each show has its own universe; its own world. That's why each show should include the existence of gay people, because they exist and they have always existed on this earth since the dawn of time."

Seriously, I'm a borderline queer-separatist in that I find most things only about straight people boring but- relax. Sure, more queer representation is always better, but if you're expecting literally every show to have it, you're going to be disappointed and in for a lot of lousy storytelling. Tons of things have existed since the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean every piece of art should include them. I can't believe I'm arguing against representation here, but that's an unrealistic and, frankly, absurd notion.

Sure- more representation is always a good aim. But (artistic merits of the respective shows aside) we got a gay classic in Falsettos this season, a look back at lesbianism in theatre with Indecent, and a contemporary look at gay relationships in Significant Other. Additionally, shows like Come From Away and Six Degrees of Separation (among others) feature queer characters. There was some significant (pardon the word choice) representation this season. Plus, not every show needed it. A Doll's House, Part 2 is a pretty feminist play, for example, and having a queer character just stuck in there for the sake of representation would have likely blunted the impact of the piece.

BroadwayStar4 said: "Yes, we have three gay shows this season, and two shows with gay characters in supporting roles. But there's well over a dozen shows that pretty much ignored the existence of gay people. It could be better. You mentioned "A Doll's House, Part 2", and while I agree that adding a gay character for the sake of representation would be forced, it could still be possible if it was written in a way that made sense."

Except that obviously wasn't the story Lucas Hnath wanted to tell nor the themes he wanted to explore. Queer representation is different from having racially diverse casts- given the period, it wouldn't make sense for something like Anastasia to have openly queer characters. Queer people have always existed, but that doesn't mean it's logical to stick a storyline into a period or story where people weren't open and out about it.

Diversity for the sake of inclusion with an organic root in storytelling will always be praiseworthy, but it's not the same as diversity for pure box-checking progressive inclusion. For example, look at the early years of the "Welcome to Night Vale" project (a novel, podcast and stage show series focusing primarily on queer characters and/or people of color), versus the past year or so, in which it feels like every newly added character is created primarily to check off another inclusivity goal.

Perhaps each included character does speak to at least one marginalized audience member, which is great. But it's occasionally begun to feel like Burger King Kids Club self-congratulatory diversity. (A story arc last year introduced a semi-practicing Muslim lesbian, despite a previous story arc revealing that our world religions do not exist in the alternate dimensions which contain Night Vale and Desert Bluffs; save for Judaism, which is inexplicably a full-contact sport.)

haterobics said: "But he didn't want to.

And, if he had, couldn't you just make the case that he barely addressed her sexuality rather than unpacking it and digging into that aspect? To the point that it did nothing to advance the story beyond token inclusivity at the expense of actual representation?"

I know he didn't want to, that's why he didn't do it. That's beside the point. Also no, I wouldn't make a case like that because I've seen so many shows and movies where a straight character would briefly mention about their love interests, and then that's it, the story moves along. I guess it counts as a small character development of sorts.

kdogg36, It's not the best analogy, but it's hard for me to explain. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that LGBT people don't have a lot of options here. They only have a very limited amount of LGBT-focused shows to choose from, while straight people get to have everything and beyond. How is that equal? Let's look at movies, for example. LGBT people grew up watching movies that doesn't represent them in any way. To this day, they still have no choice but to watch movies that always includes straight relationships because their choices are limited. Straight people don't have this problem. At all. They can even switch to a jewelry commercial, and it will always be a man proposing to a woman with an engagement ring. We live in a hetero-normative society, and because of this, LGBT people feel like they're second-class citizens; like they're "the other". But it doesn't have to be that way. If it were up to you, how would you fix this problem?

Updated On: 5/3/17 at 12:51 PM

BroadwayStar4 said: "How is that equal?"



Why should it be? We're talking commercial entertainment here, not civil rights. I get you want more shows where you can identify with the main characters. African Americans want that too. As do Indian Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinx Americans. In terms of groups that should be represented on Broadway more, frankly LGBT Americans are at the bottom of the list since they are already quite well represented.

Because if that's by any chance the kind of random sensationalized lgbt visibility you are suggesting, I would hardly call it progress.

It is considered progress because it's at least a start. You gotta start somewhere.

Why should it be? We're talking commercial entertainment here, not civil rights.

Commercial entertainment can reflect the reality of the diverse people living in this society without it having anything to do with the civil rights movement.

Having a racially diverse cast doesn't necessarily mean the writing needs to be altered, which is the case if you introduce a queer storyline.

I'm not talking about introducing a queer character in an already existing, established show. I'm talking about brand new shows.

MrsSallyAdams said: "Summing up the thread I'm seeing LGBT characters as:

Leading roles in: Falsettos, Significant Other, Indecent, Six Degrees of Separation
Supporting roles in: In Transit, Come from Away, War Paint, The Glass Menagerie
Comic relief: Holiday Inn, Sunset Blvd. Present Laughter (?)
Possible Chorus Members: The Great Comet, Miss Saigon, Groundhog Day"

The only gay implication in Miss Saigon involves a self-professed Mormon who can't seem to drag himself away from a male dancer in a club. It's a relatively brief and not remotely serious or plot-relevant interaction. I'd file this one under comic relief.