Any shows that offended you?- Page 4

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 12:29pm

Drowsy offended me a bit. It take a bite at its audience, and also has a truly repugnant stereotypical closeted gay man on stage the whole time just to get laughs.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 12:43pm

DROWSY got on my nerves, too, the way it kept insisting on the supremacy of pure entertainment with zero content.

And that Man In Closet, really pathetic. I thought he had a valid point when he mentioned that he had been married and then shook his finger at us, saying not to make assumptions, but for him to then spend the rest of the show drooling over the hunky leading man made me lose all interest in or respect for him.

And I got offended by I AM MY OWN WIFE, when the author declines to investigate the possibility that Charlotte had actually been in the employ of the Secret Police, because he needs to have a gay hero. Idiotic. If someone had written a similar play about Richard Nixon, declining to investigate the possibility of Nixon's involvement in Watergate because he needed a Republican hero, the play would have been laughed off the stage.

[me2]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 12:44pm

I tend to know what I'm getting myself into. For example, being a teacher, I know HISTORY BOYS would offend me greatly for how the teachers behave.

I was thrown off by the tour of JEKYLL AND HYDE which was very risque in "Bring on the Men" (the B'way show never bothered me). I also walked in green to MISS SAIGON and was embarrassed that most of the women spent the majority of the show in little clothing. I'm straight, but I don't seek such entertainments outside the theatre . . . I never expected to get them inside!
Broadway Blog: Advice for Making a Solo Album AND 50 Amazing Broadway Performers . . .

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 12:47pm

I remember that there were people who were deeply offended by MAMMA MIA, the whole story line about the woman not knowing who the father of her child is had a lot of Christians upset.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 1:14pm

"I also walked in green to MISS SAIGON and was embarrassed that most of the women spent the majority of the show in little clothing. I'm straight, but I don't seek such entertainments outside the theatre . . . I never expected to get them inside! "



Me2, you did go in knowing that the show was about a prostitute, right? I mean, they weren't going to be wearing turtlenecks.

[avab802]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 1:19pm

The King and I. South Pacific.

I don't care if they're classics; so is Uncle Tom, but that doesn't make it appropriate to portray in this day and age without a giant disclaimer.

Why? How can we learn from our past if we "revise" it to make everything politically correct and "safe" for today's audiences? I think when you are viewing theater (and film/television as well), you need to take into account the time/place/condition of the characters and the action. Especially in period pieces, being offended by off-color words or stereotypes does us no good. If what we find offensive was the reality in that time period, we should take that and learn from it.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 1:22pm

I agree.

[markus907]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 2:32pm

Has anyone ever heard of the musical "King of Hearts"?
It's about a bunch of French people in an insane asylum during World War II. Well, eventually they break out of the asylum into their old deserted town and the first thing they do is go to the town whore house to "dance" as they call it. This results in a very suggestive can can number which is clearly talking about sex, and using "dancing" as a substitute verb. Anyway, I was in a production of it recently and we made all the suggestiveness very clear, just for comic value. (I can get into details if asked) It all got a lot of laughs, but one night some people left because of it. Oh, well.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 2:34pm

Lestat, Tarzan, and Sping Awakening. Because they were written.

[thesondhead]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 3:23pm

The thing that upsets me about Man in Chair's marriage and closeted sexuality is that, in a way, the show makes it seem as if that is okay - that gay men should marry women if it is convenient. Perhaps Bob Martin should get down off that particular soapbox.

Updated On: 8/23/07 at 03:23 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 3:29pm

Well, it certainly did answer the question of what exactly the Man In Closet was so desperate to escape from.

It just seemed terribly hypocritical. I just wanted to ask him if it was okay for me to make assumptions based on his blatant ogling and drooling over the leading man.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 3:42pm

And how could I forget the horrific CORAM BOY, which shoe-horned in a performance of Handel's MESSIAH in an opportunistic and ultimately vain attempt to borrow some desperately needed artistic quality?

[thesondhead]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 3:43pm

Part of me wants to believe that it's autobiographical...

[Act0r721]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 3:47pm

You people are beating a dead horse with the joke that a show offended you because you don't like it. Enough?

Anyway, I have never been offended. It is art, pretty hard for me to be offended. I suppose the only time I am slightly offended is by the audience, laughing at inappropriate times and so forth.

Rudy2- Spring Awakening - Very well acted and performed, but if there's anything our generation doesn't need it's more sexual liberation. Talk about something we can't (or, at least, shouldn't aspire to) relate to in 2007.

We don't need more sexual liberation? I think we do. I understand that you may be coming from a standpoint that we need to be promoting safe sex, sex is all over the media and there are many who are irresponsibly promiscuous. Yet, there is still plenty to be done. Abstinence only sex education still exists. That fact speaks loud enough for how far we still need to go, let alone that people are still not free to have sex with whichever gender they please.

As well, I don't think that sexual liberation is the only thing you can pull from the show. On a broader scale, it is about breaking free from ignorant authorities, resisting censorship and the general struggles that teenagers face in finding out who they are.

For those teenagers who do not relate to this show at all, I think you are focusing too narrowly. *SPOILERS* If you think that because you have not faced abuse from your father or a forced abortion from your mother, you cannot relate to this show, you are wrong. I think it is careless to say that about almost any show. You can always pull something from it, especially a show such as this that is just brimming with real human emotion.

Hope I am being clear!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 4:16pm

>>You people are beating a dead horse with the joke that a show >>offended you because you don't like it. Enough?

Well, no. There's a difference between shows that offended me (aspects of THE DROWSY CHAPERONE, I AM MY OWN WIFE) and shows that I didn't like but didn't find offensive, like RING OF FIRE or GOOD VIBRATIONS or DEUCE.

[Act0r721]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 4:29pm

If it doesn't apply to you, then I was not directing it at you. =)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 4:29pm

I was a little offended by the portrayal of the gay characters in Spring Awakening. For such a "progressive" show, I was surprised that the two gay characters were mostly characterized as being overly effeminate and/or freakish. Kudos on the kiss, which The Full Monty cowardly copped-out on, but come on!

"Spring Awakening - Very well acted and performed, but if there's anything our generation doesn't need it's more sexual liberation."

Except that it's not about sexual liberation at all. It's about sexual education, which is completely different and totally necessary. Unfortunately, it only displays the results of sexual ignorance and does not really educate the audience at all. What the hell is a purple summer anyway?

[CHGriffiths]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 4:47pm

Right I have three things to say

1)You really shouldn't be offended by Drowsy, it's abit of innocent Humour, and if you think its saying its right for closeted homosexuals to marry woman, then you are completely wrong, as he says in the show that he told his ex wife he loved her on the spare of the moment and wished he hadnt said it, so if anything he was saying that it was the worst thing he ever did, so I dont know how that can offend (but in all fairness, if you cant tell from the picture, I am a HUGE Drowsy fan)

2) I dont really get offended by shows, I'm open minded about shows and take offensive things as a joke, I mean isnt that pretty much what Avenue Q tells us to do, it says everyones a little bit racist so why dont we just get over it, OH MY GOD, im actually taking life advice from Avenue Q

3) Eventhough it is my favourite show, I was slightly offended by Wicked for the pure fact that I think it does the novel no favours, which I am a HUGE fan of and resmbles Gregory Maguires vision in no way, but it's still my favourite show

But the moral of the story is that find out abit before the show before you see it and if it sounds like it might offend you or you wont like, DONT SEE IT, then you cant be offended!

[Rudy2]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 5:06pm

You guys are right as far as the sexual education is concerned, but I still feel the same way otherwise. We need more sexual education, but no more sexual liberation. I felt weird seeing kids have sex so often and so frequently on stage. The last thing we need is to encourage this generation to have even more sex.

I also was offended by the 2 gay characters in Spring Awakening - simply because it was put there for the sheer sensation of having gay characters. Their scene meant nothing to the whole of the story - just came and went and elicited chuckles from the audience - surely not the desired response. It was just put their for PC and sensationalism. In that light, very offensive and crude.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 5:07pm

Drowsy- I'm glad you guys gave us your perception of Drowsy but as for drooling over Percy? He was described more as a guy with no talent but a name? He seemed to admire/dislike most of the characters in the show for one reason or another. I understand your disgust over a Gay Man not living his life but what if he isn't Gay?

I didn't see it at all. It was narrative and I didn't see MIC as being Gay. Could be but I didn't see any reason to read more into the script than was written. I see how some might be trying to typecast him because of his mannerisms but I know plenty of straight guys who act this way. The humor is tongue in cheek from writers who actually love Musicals but felt some of them deserved to be canned. If you read the background interviews, (try googling Bob Martin ), you will see Bob identifies with the character the most. I assure you, he isn't Gay but is not offended if you got the whole concept of his being wrong.

I'm not homophobic. I just prefer we allow people to say who they are. We shouldn't project anything on anyone. We will hurt feelings and be offensive if we do. The character was left, ambiguous on purpose.

I guess, if you get offended, by a Musical about offensive Musicals, than it did what it was suppose to do? It didn't if you couldn't find it entertaining. Which is too bad.

On the Spring Awakening side-

I see it not that we need people to be more promiscuous. We need Parents/Adults to be more honest about sexuality in general. We still live in an age that Parents are still fighting to keep their Children as ignorant as possible. Why? So they learn about Sex from a potential Boyfriend/Girlfriend or worse a Pedophile? The logic defies me. The more you know, the better prepared you are to make responsible choices when it comes to sex.

I don't think we need more or less of it but we have to keep it in perspective and be responsible. That doesn't mean not having sex, it means making sure you know and understand what you are getting yourself into before ruining your life or that of a child you never planned on supporting or raising in the first place. I'd say we need better birth control options and easier access to it. If we have birth control, there will be a lot less abortions. We have so many abortions because Adults are denying the fact that it is normal for teenagers to be sexually active. Then denying them a means to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

There is a reason for this though. Teens should do everything they can to make sure they have birth control options available. When they start thinking like Adults, then, they will find they have more rights than are given to them by their Parents. That, is why Planned Parenthood was created and why more teens should give themselves permission to take advantage of it, if they need birth control and want to be responsible. It's free.

[Rudy2]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 5:09pm

Thanks for understanding about LB Anna. :) Yes, I found that offensive. That's that.

[2ndBalcony]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 5:20pm

Four pages of responses and nobody mentioned Avenue Q?

"I can't wait to suck her **** again!" - ugh. Yeah, I get the joke, but still - ugh.

[2ndBalcony]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 5:21pm

Ha! That line must have offended the board filter - I did NOT put in the stars!

[thesondhead]

Posted: 8/23/07 at 6:08pm

Man in Chair is a homosexual.
There's no way around it. It's not perception, it's fact.

Posted: 8/23/07 at 6:15pm

Spring Awakening and its attempt to pass off what is essentially rape as true love.