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

[nycfan2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:14pm

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.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:14pm

By all means, let's go with the dictionary:

big·ot·ry? ?[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
See images of bigotry
Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to F bigoterie

—Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

You really can't dictate how people express themselves - simply because it doesn't work. Most here have been giving you reasoned opinions - you're choosing to focus on those that you can attack, and ignoring the rest.

[algy]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:14pm

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.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:15pm

Say what's on your mind Scary. Don't hold anything back.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:18pm

"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.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:19pm

Do you also boycott films and TV shows with actors whose politics you don't agree with?

I hate to break it to you, but when you take into account all of the creative team, performers, staff, technicians, designers, crew, artisans, musicians, producers, executives, and all others that it takes to create a piece of art (tv/radio/film/stage) -- there's bound to be a VARIETY of opinions, sexual orientations, ethnicities, religions, political affiliations, and gender.

To boycott just a single instance is moronic, ESPECIALLY in this instance with Kelsey Grammer. Shame shame shame.

[nycfan2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:22pm

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.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:23pm

Shame on who?

If he doesn't believe in what Kelsey is selling in his off time, why should he feel ashamed for having principals?

[nycfan2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:36pm

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.

[AC126748]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:36pm

Kelsey Grammar is entitled to his political beliefs, as are you. If your knowledge and discomfort with his personal philosophy will genuinely preclude you from enjoying his performance in La Cage Aux Folles, then by all means don't go.

What interests me about these debates is that, whenever the term "boycott" is bandied about, it only seems to affect the celebrities who are most vocal about their beliefs. The other day on All That Chat, a poster declared that he/she refuses to see anything with Vanessa Redgrave because he (mistakenly) believes that she has called for the destruction of Israel. He only mentioned Ms Redgrave, and none of the dozens of other pro-Palestinian celebrities who aren't as vocal with their views as she. Personally, as a gay man and a liberal, I had no trouble enjoying Mr Grammar in La Cage. And Patricia Heaton gave one of the best performances I've ever witnessed in The Scene. In both cases, I separated the person from the performance, which is what we should all do when we attend theater.

Updated On: 5/1/10 at 03:36 PM

[hannah_bway]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:36pm

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.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:39pm

"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."

100% agree. nycfan has only just now said he's not calling for a boycott, only wondering whether or not to "underwrite" Grammer - but read again all his/her posts. Do they read to you someone truly looking for an opinion? Or someone looking simply to voice one? Which is all well and good, but be honest about it.

""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?"

Sure is. I do know Grammer's politics, despise everything he stands for and think he sucks as an actor. What's your point?

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:40pm

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.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:42pm

Double-post Updated On: 5/1/10 at 03:42 PM

[nycfan2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:46pm

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.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:46pm

I guess the problem I have is that nycfan2 didn't say that Kelsey has a specific belief that they took offense to, and doesn't want to "underwrite." It was basically "he's a Republican" in not so few words. That logic just baffles me.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:47pm

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.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:49pm

A Republican who has chosen to be the face of a network that is coming into existence to promote the views on the Right are the only ones that are right.

I see nothing wrong with someone using his conscience as a guide to where to spend his money.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 3:57pm

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.

[raker]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 4:20pm

An actor's personal politics can be enough for me to avoid anything in which they appear. Kelsey Grammer is dead to me. Mel Gibson too. Let them think what they want, but not with my support.

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 4:38pm

No.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 4:39pm

What about the politics of the rest of the cast? Are they to be considered?

What about the politics of the writers? And they producers?

Certainly Harvey Fierstein's lifetime of progressive politics balances out Kelsey's conservative politics, no?

And what about the message of the show? Doesn't that count for anything?

Why didn't we boycott Christine Ebersole? Her political beliefs. Are dangerously lunatic: She believes that Bush and Cheney engineered 9/11 and that the Democrats and Big Business are in cahoots to unite us with Mexico and replace the dollar with a Pan-American currency called "the Amero," like the Euro.

What exactly does boycotting La Cage aux Folles accomplish? Anything?

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 4:44pm

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.

[raker]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 4:55pm

I would not boycott a Kelsey Grammer show because he's a Republican, but because he's a Republican Party spokesman. He promotes lies and half-truths on behalf of the team that brought you torture, and everyone's favorite wedge issue, homosexuality. I would stay away from his show, not to hurt the show, as though that were possible, but for me. It would be intolerable for me to sit through a show with Kelsey Grammer.

I love Christine Ebersole and her loopy, but maybe not so loopy theories. Her motives are good, and she seems like a kind person with a good heart. The other team, not so much.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 5:39pm

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