JAGGED LITTLE PILL announces reopening dates and replacements (UPDATED) — Page 10

Sutton Ross said: "Jordan Levinson said: "Should I even bother starting a reopening night thread for this show? Will there be anyone left on these boards who will dare to see this again?"

No."

All right then - at least we’ve still got the first preview back of “Mrs. Doubtfire” to highlight on October 21!

As someone who has only lightly been keeping tabs on all this, and as someone who is more informed about the industry and inclined to care about this sort of thing than the general public, I have to say... it's confusing and really hard to care about. Schell's account is what's truly troubling here, and the gravity of that I grasp and sympathize with. But the issues surrounding Patten and the development of that character... just feel so small, and blowing them up only makes them seem smaller. It's also hard to succinctly summarize- "a character was coded as non-binary, but then they changed it to be more ambiguous than it was, and the actor who the role was tailored to is not non-binary and she should step down" is not exactly something that is gonna motivate masses to care.

I think the producing team falling all over themselves to address this is just coming across as pathetic. It's not going to appease the aggrieved, and it's going to look like silly progressive over-correction to the general public.

Updated On: 9/26/21 at 12:14 PM

SouthernCakes said: "But what would the statement say? Sorry y’all don’t like the way I wrote a character? Lordy who cares. "

“I already said like five times that I didn’t want the character to be non-binary or trans, and I’m so sorry for not writing what a very vocal, misinformed minority on the internet wanted me to write. I’d also like to thank my parents for all of their support.”

songanddanceman2 said: "So are we gonna make sure no non binary actors don't play roles that are a not non binary from now on?"

There are a total of 5 negatives in that 1 sentence. 4 will cancel each other out. Could you let us know which one you would like to survive?

HogansHero said: "songanddanceman2 said: "So are we gonna make sure no non binary actors don't play roles that are a not non binary from now on?"

There are a total of 5 negatives in that 1 sentence. 4will cancel each other out. Could you let us know which one you would like to survive?"



Hogan, don’t egg them on. It’s clear they’re making the age-old “reversal” argument about casting restrictions - a stale old argument that has been trotted out time and time again, despite being debunked and over and over. At this point, we have to assume that this is willful ignorance, and bad-faith debate.

songanddanceman2 said: "You can say what you want, but people are screaming on social media to fire Lauren, all because of her identity. How is that right? It's a simple question, and how has it been debunked, what is debunked? "

It does make sense because non-binary folks are often overlooked for cis roles and they rarely get the chance to tell their own stories. That being said, I very much believe Lauren has every right to tell Jo’s story as a queer gnc woman.

songanddanceman2 said: "You can say what you want, but people are screaming on social media to fire Lauren, all because of her identity. How is that right? It's a simple question, and how has it been debunked, what is debunked?"



For the record, I don't think it makes sense at this stage to fire Lauren. And there are a lot of things about this situation that I think are in a grey area. But these stale straw-man arguments add nothing to the conversation. But if you're actually asking this question genuinely in good-faith, then fine, I'll bite:



I've written about this in many threads over the years, so I went back and copy-pasted my most recent post on this topic, so I didn't have to type out all the same points yet again. Here goes:

All these arguments like, "it's called acting" or "why can [x marginalized group] play [blank], but [blank] can't play [x marginalized group]?" or "So everybody is only allowed to play themselves now?" - these are straw-man arguments relying on very narrow views of the situation. No one is saying that people are only allowed to play themselves. But there are some marginalized identities that can't be played respectfully by other groups. It has to do with context, history, and existing systemic issues.

In a world without systemic oppression, anyone could play any role, but we don't live in that world.

On a practical level, it partly has to do with job availability. When someone faces systemic obstacles that make it more difficult for them to get jobs, active choices have to be made to counter those systemic obstacles. There are very few roles written for trans actors, so when there ARE trans characters, casting cis actors denies them that role. And likewise, casting trans actors in traditionally cis roles is another method of alleviating the lack of opportunities for trans actors.

And on more symbolic / artistic level, we've seen historically that allowing marginalized communities to tell their own stories yield more respectful, accurate portrayal - and most of the time, it actually yields better art. Not always, not exclusively. There are of course, exceptions. But this is what the general trend indicates, and that, combined with the job issue, is really the heart of this "unequal" approach.

I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the performers jump ship now, which will honestly epitomise how so much of the theater community has become about performative allyship!

oh man this is all so hilarious and emblematic of what Obama warned us about years ago: the Left eating its own and conducting a perennial circular firing squad.

the wokest, most eager-to-scream-about-every-single-issue show in Broadway history (right? cant think of any other) gets devoured by 64 people on social media because it isn't sensitive ENOUGH, isnt apologetic and groveling ENOUGH. "The character has to be written the way WE SAY IT SHOULD BE!" And once someone says their feelings are hurt, there is no option to say "Thats a shame" or "Wasn't anyone's intent, hope you pull through." Thats not allowed, so the producers grovel and apologize, and that just is more chum for the 64 people who now number 128, because everyone loves to join in a feeding frenzy of outrage like this, and here we are.

and it still wont make one iota of difference in the real (post-college, grown up) world. the show's struggles or success will have nothing to do with any of this. but if it closes in winter (which i expect it to), the social media mob squad will be SO SO proud of themselves! and if it runs for a year, they'll be even more outraged, even more incensed, and even louder online.

meanwhile MJ: The Child Molestation Musical is opening with nary a peep.

FosseTharp said: "This has NOTHING to do with the character of Jo and ALL to do with Nora’s accusations and possibly other issues of mistreatment that haven’t been made public. "

His statement did not read that way to me. Also, what is the creative team and producers supposed to do? Literally all they can do right now is hold and investigation before they take action.