Is a lead actor's personal politics a good enough reason to avoid seeing a show? — Page 3

I agree with those who have said you have every right to vote with your dollars however you see fit.

But I also agree with those who feel this specific instance might be a bit misguided: your money is mostly going to go to a cast of liberal, gay friendly people. A team of producers who are making this progressive piece of theatre happen. Writers who have proved themselves quite worthy of your support.

And, frankly, a libertarian actor, who while aligning himself with Republicans/Conservatives is helping to sell said progressive show to the masses, including many who maybe need the message most.

And, I agree with those that see a HUGE distinction between race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. and political views. I do not despise Maggie Gallagher for her race, gender, sexual orientation, weight, or even her personal beliefs. I despise her for her politics as they create action that directly affects my life.

I think personal beliefs become politics when you take action with them.

---

A boycott takes more than ONE person not going to see the show.

Everyone is jumping down the OP throat for simply asking a question.

He has a right to his opinion.

Using words like 'bigot' and such to describe them is silly.

---

Amen. Because, regardless, he's gonna get the same paycheck every week whether or not you go.

---

"I think personal beliefs become politics when you take action with them."

True to a point, Jerby. It's usually in numbers that it really becomes "politics." If I were to instigate a boycott because of my personal beliefs and actions, then it would definitely be political.

Even if I were to tell you that you should or shouldn't see a show or actor because of (blah, blah, blah), that would also be political.

But if I were to say, "no, thanks, I don't feel comfortable seeing that actor/show, etc.," then it's my own choice based on values. It's not a political movement, in and of itself.

---

Agreed, b12b. Good clarification.

JMP6--that's a bit harsh. I get your point because it is a personal decision, but perhaps the OP wanted a good discussion, which this has become.

---

I don't think, by definition, a boycott has to mean more than one person, though of course that is the modern connotation.

In any case, a boycott is meant to affect change, and as has already been said Kelsey Grammer will get his fee regardless and the only thing being hurt is the production. It's fine if you feel that you'd rather the show didn't exist than for it to employ Kelsey Grammer, but that is what refusing to buy a ticket for this reason means.

I also want to add that yeah, that personal beliefs, no matter what they might be, will always be met with derision by someone. If you capitulate to others because they sneer at your for them, then they aren't that deeply held in the first place. And yeah, if you boycott something with Kelsey, you're boycotting everyone else in a sense, but if you boycott a store (or whatever example you want to use) you're going to hurt everyone involved, too. There's always going to be some sort of collateral damage.

Like I said earlier, only you can decide where to spend your money and why. If it takes you so out of the performance that it hampers your enjoyment of it, there are plenty of other things you can go see.

Updated On: 5/1/10 at 06:13 PM

Isn't Arthur Laurents an out, proud gay writer?

::ducks for his dear life::

---

And FEWER people will see Nick Adams in drag.

I'd rather not see Nick Adams at all, but that's besides the point.

Isn't Arthur Laurents an out, proud gay writer?

Ask Harvey...

---

Thank you Dramamama for pointing out that fact!

Other people used the word boycott, not the OP.

---

"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."

I got stuck on this. Are you honestly saying that once someone commits a crime, they are negated from that point on?

"The op's original post implies that he.."

Again with the 'implications'.

Why is it you can't just take the post for what it is, and stop trying to make it fit what you want?

He NEVER asked for a boycott, people 'implied' it.



""Using words like 'bigot' and such to describe them is silly"

Careful, Diva, OP doesn't like those words"

I meant other people describing the OP as such. I never used those words to describe him.

---

Updated On: 5/1/10 at 09:15 PM