Caricatures of homosexuality in legally blonde... — Page 2

I agree that for a musical which is supposed to be about girl power, it really undermines all the gains that feminism has made in the last three decades in that Elle can only succeed by being stereotypically 'girly.' If I were a parent, I wouldn't want her to be my daughter's role model. The other women in the show who don't choose to abide by the ditzy girl stereotypes are referred to as lesbians. I wasn't offended by the gay caricatures, but I didn't find it funny. I suppose by that point I really did not expect three dimensional characters. The treatment of gender and gay stereotypes for the sake of immature humor in the 'Gay or European' scene was very much in line with the rest of the play. I left thinking that the message of the play was not that we should embrace our individuality, but rather that we should strive to be like everyone else or else risk ridicule. In the end, that was what offended me more than anything else.

Jerry Mitchell would never allow his lifestyle to be treated without respect.

Well, there are some laughs at Enid's expense that could be considered questionable.

it's a Comedy... get over it!

I personally figure it's fine when the ACLU hasn't complained or bitched about it.

I haven't seen Legally Blonde, but I think an issue may be: Are campy gay stereotypes the only way gay people can be funny? It can be tiresome after a while, like watching too many Mel Brooks shows. Really, isn't there more to gay humour than limp wrists and... snap! (And I love me some "Men on Film" but I don't want that to be the only way we are represented.)

As for Spring Awakening, I think the humour served two functions. One, it was comic relief after Moritz's death/funeral and before Wendla/Melchior dramas. And two, the humour was in the fact that Ernst was so cutely naive and Hanchen was such a cocky player--not that they were gay, I thought.

---

I only saw this once, but I really can't remember anything offensive about Enid. (As others have said, Elle Woods is another matter.)

Not only are the gay/lesbian jokes potentially offensive, they're just plain not funny. At least, not in my opinion.

I'm also annoyed by the jokes regarding foreign names. Why did the audience laugh every time at the Greek and Indian (I think?) names? It just baffles my mind.

I love the Legally Blonde movie to pieces, so I'm terribly upset by what they did to Elle. I also dislike that they made Emmett poor just so he had some sort of character development. They could have easily developed him without going such a cliched route.

When you watch the interviews with the musical's creative team, they seem to have nothing but disdain for the movie and feel that they improved it with the musical by leaps and bounds. Though I disagree with them on many of their problems with the movie, they had good intentions, but the execution was horrible. It's fascinating how bad of a job they did, in fact. You can see what they meant to do, but they just made it even worse. I'd almost like to write an essay about it.

---

Updated On: 5/3/08 at 08:03 PM

While no musical is responsible for teaching young people anything (except for perhaps High School Musical), Legally Blonde is very clearly targeted toward young women. So I would hope that it would have an uplifting message that might (just might) teach people.


At some point, wasn't the campy gay portrayl the only type of portrayl of gays that is accepted? Now there are soooo many viewpoints in theatre that is accepted thanks to groundbreaking pieces. Why don't we see more of these in huge musicals?

I think any writer needs to think about the material and what type of influence it might have on people. I know as a teen that there were plenty of theatre pieces that influenced what I thought and felt at that time. Some of those outlooks are still in place today.

I don't think you can just write it off because the gay community is accepted and a large part of the theatrical community. I really don't think this is well known by touristy/occassional theatre-goers. I just don't. And perhaps those who direct and act in shows forget that sometimes.


As for Spring Awakening, I didn't find it offensive in the least. It is just a stark difference between the portrayl of the gay and straight characters. That doesn't mean it isn't there for a reason (comic relief). However, it begs the question is it funny just because it is funny, or it is funny just because they are gay? I think Matt Doyle brings a bit more of the funny because it's funny to the stage.

---

I am gay, European AND Greek and I found the scene and the song hilarious ! So did my friend, who watched it with me and he's also all three !

Normally i'm not so down with the "gay is funny" jokes that are made every day on tv and film. but this show is more harmless than a puppy. I just don't see why there always needs to be a sociopolitical discussion on every show. Can't we just enjoy things that are fun and full of airy goodness :) *the people who DO enjoy it anyway* ? I just don't see the need to try to dissect every single thing. I mean you could look into ANYTHING and find anti-gay, anti-black, anti-white, anti-jewish anti-whatever sentiments. However, it's all about in what context it's presented.

I agree with the fact that Jerry Mitchell wouldn't be directing a show that had parts that he found offensive. But that's not the point here.

The point is this show is meant to be enjoyed. It doesn't take a great deal of thought to watch so it shouldn't be viewed with this much scrutiny. I mean this is like Jerry Falwell concluding that Tinky Winky is a gay TeleTubby because he is purple and has a purse from time to time. My response to him is, of course, "Who cares if he's gay or not. He's a TELETUBBY. And even if he was he's not going to hurt your virgin eyes by showing affection."

(waiting for the hate to come my way)

---

Personally, I found it a very condescending number. "Is he Arab or a Suicide Bomber?" "Is she white or close enough?" Just because the guy knows last year's Prada shoe collection, doesn't mean he's as swishy as a Maytag washer machine. But given that the whole show's climax depends on that silly little pointless dribble, of all the little things to sweat, we can keep from perspiring on this little nothing number. I think the world of Jerry Mitchell and his work, and I wonder sometimes how these numbers make it into the final production. I must tell you, I was so upset with Harvey F. (Hairspray) for not getting upset when they wrote in the female gym teacher oogling her students and going to spy on them in the locker room shower. How droll.

Updated On: 5/3/08 at 11:13 PM

It's an over-the-top musical in a respects. It isn't meant to move mountains in terms of homophobia or women's rights. Its a campy, hysterical, well structured musical comedy in the best sense. Spelling Bee and Avenue Q feature gay stereotypes but also treat them with respect. Stereotypes do exist for a reason. I'd rather watch a fun gay character in a musical than another play where we're dying of AIDS or having a gay revelation. Why can't gay characters be funny and free without being offensive?

"I'm also annoyed by the jokes regarding foreign names. Why did the audience laugh every time at the Greek and Indian (I think?) names? It just baffles my mind."

See I don't think that people are laughing at the name or the fact that he is indian, it's a poke at the ivy league system that is so obsessed with diversity and money so obviously the 2 people they accept are the 1. the Indian royalty and 2. the jewish boy

---

Spork - it's all about STEREOTYPES.

yes, some of it is offensive... but that's what's funny.

Theatre lets us enjoy our guilty pleasures and our darker/naughtier side. that includes many who feel "free" to laugh at the raunchier + politically incorrect jokes. when it's written into a big comedy musical.

it's how it works. let's not get all ACLU here on this thread. please!