Is a lead actor's personal politics a good enough reason to avoid seeing a show? — Page 2

Lets make this clear. I was not calling for a boycott of the show. I was just talking about me.

I also don't think the James Barbour situation is the same. He was convicted (a plea of guilty is a conviction) to a criminal act, and I clearly understand why someone would not want to support his endeavors.

A good show is a good show. A good performance is a good performance.

I'm in the UK and I certainly wouldn't rule out going to see Jersey Boys because Glenn Carter believes that humans were created by four foot tall aliens.

I'm trying to think if there's any examples where I wouldn't go and see a show because of a cast member's beliefs, and the only occasion I can think of might be convicted sex offenders - and even then if it was a show I really wanted to see, I'd make efforts to find out when that cast member was on scheduled holiday and visit then.

"Also, how would it be better to see a show that has actors whose politics you don't know? Maybe their politics are even worse. Is it okay if you don't know about it? Where do you draw the line? "


When the performer is making commercials, waving flags and spouting his opinion in a national campaign ad, I think the OP has a right to question if he wants to spend his money seeing said performer.

---

Here's Grammar's promo language for RightNetwork:

"There's wrong and there's right." "Right Network: All that's
Right with the world." Gosh - a little closed minded there dare I say, bigoted, isn't it?

Plus - rightnetwork manifesto - wants to pay homage to historical figures including Reagan (but at same time takes swipe at national debt).

Ok. I said specifically that I read and considered all of the posts that addressed this issue thoughtfully. I just didn't say how I came out on the issue. I have no need to attack them. Only addressed language and arguments that had emotional flavor to them. It is the use of such emotion and belittling language that makes it difficult for two sides to come to reconciliation after a disagreement has been resolved.

See, here are two words, "moronic" and "shame." Neither make a legitimate point. If I were a moron, I probably could not have started this thread. Nor could I take myself - all by my lonesome - to NYCe. Plus, if you reread my initial post, you would see you don't have to "break" anything to me. I recognized then the potential for a double standard.

I still don't see how it affects his (scripted) performance in any way, shape, or form. It's your choice, of course, but I just don't understand the thought process behind choosing not to see a show that you would otherwise see, based on one actor's political party. You've said why you disagreed with his political stances, more or less, but haven't really explained how you think that would translate to his performance.

Not seeing a show because of one of the actor's politics is moronic. Almost as dumb as someone voting for Ahhnold Schwartzenegger because they liked Total Recall and Terminator 2.

In fact, if everyone took this approach - hardly any show or movie would EVER make any money because there's almost always going to be both a liberal and a conservative involved in any large production.

It's especially dumb when the show in question is about as far opposite as the political opinions you take issue with.

See. AC's comments are thoughtful and proably right on. Jsut like many here. He did nto use inflammatory language, and his analogy to Redgrave may make me see the tunnelvision I was using. Thoughtful discourse. It's effective and intelligent and smacks of "elitism." But, god, I love it.

Now, the dance card has Next Fall, Promises (didn't care for Hayes' coming out interview, might initiate a boycott - don't know though, think I gotta get a little bit more "bigoted" first), Hair, MDQ, and The Temperamentals. Have one more slot. I'm gonna have a great time regardless.

Now, I'm off to take this 50 year old, formerly fat ass for a run. Next week, I'll be running in Central Park and across the Brooklyn Bridge - bucket list objectives.

And if we are going to put this in a large context, I'm sure you unknowingly "underwrite" many Republicans every time you make a food purchase, clothing purchase, anything.

Honestly? ONLY you can decide if it is "worth" boycotting over. I will NEVER financially support anything that Mel Gibson would benefit from: even if only from a single movie ticket. I have found his actions and beliefs to personally offend me. But that is the ONLY circumstance (at this time) that I feel that strongly about.

BUT....just because someone is an extreme rebulican? Nope.

---

No.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to decide where and how you spend your valuable time and money.

If you don't want to support someone "selling" something for any reason, you don't have to. It's your choice. And it's not a "moronic" decision to avoid it. It's a conscientious one.

Why should you blithely turn a blind eye to someone (for example) who might vote to deny you rights or donate their time and money to a cause that makes you a second-class citizen?

Yes, I have avoided restaurants, plays, CDs, books, TV shows, etc., because of political clashes. I'm not suggesting everyone should do it, but it's not a moronic choice, by any means.

Actually, the fact that some of you can't understand it is rather moronic.

---

It's one thing to see and support shows with Republicans in them. I'm sure I've done that hundreds of times. For me, the difference with Grammer (who I really liked in the show, by the way) is that he has become the spokesman for a new far-right television network that declares it's "pro-America and pro-military" (as if the other side somehow isn't).

Let's also be clear about a couple of facts- Grammer has NEVER said he was pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. He's given the wishy-washy answer that the government shouldn't be involved. He'll probably stop even saying that once the Right Network folks get more control of him. He's also expressed great admiration for Sarah Palin (who advocates "praying away the gay"), whom he calls "dynamite" and said he can't wait to see her in about ten years. I'm also sure it's no coincidence that he's suddenly taken back the claim that he would be assuming the role of Albin in six months. The Right Network doesn't want their spokesman playing a gay drag queen.

It all does seem a little disingenuous, given the nature of the show he's performing in. Everything La Cage purports to be about is exactly what the people he associates himself with are dead set against. You can say it doesn't matter to you all you want (and that's a choice YOU have to make on your own), but at the very least acknowledge the hypocrisy of it all.

Updated On: 5/1/10 at 05:39 PM