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

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 5:45pm

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.

[Ryan4]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 5:52pm

I don't really know if it's appropriate to boycott an entire show, whose story does espouse your own beliefs, because one member of the cast does not.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 5:58pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 5:58pm

I don't see that Grammar would have a problem playing this role, if he truly is an "actor." Actors play people all the time who go against their own beliefs and values. You don't have to be a serial killer to play Sweeney Todd or a Nazi to play Rolf in The Sound of Music. Actors assume roles. It's their job. It's playacting. It's Grammars decision if he's comfortable assuming the role.

It is not, however, my "job" or my obligation to support an actor or writer or producer or businessman who clashes with my beliefs and values. I can chose to ignore my issues and pay money, or chose, if it really bothers me, to avoid their "products." Either way, I live with the decision.

And how much political impact my choice has in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant and a poor argument. This is a individual's decision, whether I'm comfortable with patronizing and supporting a person's "commodity" or not.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:00pm

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

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:03pm

Dude,

If you even have to ask people's permission and/or opinions about whether Grammar's "repugnant" politics versus seeing/not seeing this show---as opposed to making up your own mind about that---then there is something weak-willed and just wrong with you, period.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:05pm

"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.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:06pm

Very well said, Jerby and adamgreer.

Christine Ebersole's politics, loony as they might appear, are fringey and honestly kind of benign compared to the politics of someone who proudly aligns themselves with the current American Right. Those politics are actively detrimental to myriad groups, including but to limitied to gays, women, minorities, foreigners, etc, etc, etc.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:07pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:11pm

I didn't get that the OP was asking my "permission," either, dude. Just posing a question.

And a good one, at that.

It's obviously opened up an interesting debate. And the answers are as individual (and potentially volatile) as the people posting comments.

[Ryan4]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:11pm

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.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:12pm

There are a few 'harsh' posts here which doesn't surprise me.

Too many people on this board want to think they now the thoughts of every poster. Commenting on the 'tone' and what they THINK the poster REALLY means.

It's called an opinion. Sheesh.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:13pm

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

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:33pm

So let's all boycott the show because of Kelsey's politics. That way FEWER people will experience the show's message of fierce LGBT pride and complete acceptance of our relationships and families.

FEWER people will see the work of two out, proud gay writers: Harvey Fierstein and Jerry Herman.

And FEWER people will see Nick Adams in drag.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?!?!?!?!?!!!!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:35pm

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

::ducks for his dear life::

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:35pm

I want people to do whatever they feel is right. I'm not seeing La Cage because I think it's a snoozer.

And Nick Adams in drag is another reason for me to NOT see the show, not an incentive to see it.

Updated On: 5/1/10 at 06:35 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:47pm

And FEWER people will see Nick Adams in drag.

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

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:49pm

Yeah, Nick Adams seems like kind of a douche. I wouldn't boycott something just for him, though, because it's not like he ever has a big part.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:57pm

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

Ask Harvey...

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 6:58pm

The poster never asked ANYONE else to "boycott" anything.

If his views go against yours and it is something that truly bothers you, then I, for one, completely understand your point of view.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 7:03pm

Thank you Dramamama for pointing out that fact!

Other people used the word boycott, not the OP.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 7:37pm

The op's original post implies that he does not have a strong opinion, and asks for others, since he's unsure:

"Trying to decide whether to see La Cage, but Grammar's politics are repugnant to me. Should I underwrite him with my ticket purchase and see a show with universally good reviews and a show I've never seen or go with something that has actors in it whose politics I don't know?"

Again, I don't know how it is better to go see something that has actors in it whose politics s/he doesn't know - is ignorance bliss?

"Maybe I don't know enough about him, but I really don't think what this country needs is another right wing group."

Which is almost a non-sequitur. OP admits he may not know enough of his politics, but finds them "repugnant" anyway.

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

He asked for opinions.

"He has a right to his opinion

Of course he does, so does everyone else whose opinion has been asked for by OP.

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

Careful, Diva, OP doesn't like those words

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

Neither do I.

"The poster never asked ANYONE else to "boycott" anything."

I don't think anyone has said he has, but the word does apply, and was used initially as regards to the ATC discussion. Do I smell a sock puppet? A new poster comes in, posting an opinion in the form of a question asking for opinions on a volatile subject, then takes off for a run.
Updated On: 5/1/10 at 07:37 PM

[Q]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 9:07pm

"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?

[hannah_bway]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 9:14pm

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

I'm not the person who posted that, and I would see something with James Barbour in it just for the fact that he's talented. Without presuming to speak for the poster, I understood what they were saying as that they can't see past his past misconduct when seeing him perform. If that's the case, wouldn't it therefore impact their enjoyment of the show? And who wants to spend money on something that they can't enjoy?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/1/10 at 9:15pm

"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