Mrs. Doubtfire is gonna get protested — Page 2

Jordan Catalano said: "There’s my beloved signature gif! I haven’t been able to post them in forever!!"

It's dedicated solely to you then. Enjoy!

well, it hasn't had the time on the boards - before or after the lock down. Didn't it only have a handful of previews....like 3? And it hasn't yet re-opened.

I'm just going to say this.

I recognize the internet and social media is a cesspool. There are tons of bad faith ignorant points of view out there that come from young people and old.

I do the work to recognize what's noise and what's worth considering in the time of progression cause I think that's what we should all be doing.

To be so reductive about young people and their "wokeness" and "getting back on TikTok" is to not realize you're also being a parody of yourself having a curmudgeon "everyone is offended by everything these days" point of view. You are choosing ignorance over doing the work to understand the growth of your community.

Not all "woke" points of view are eyerolls.

Not one person here thought about where I was coming from and simply just proceeded to bulldoze my point of view. On a THEATRE thread. Where we all gather to love this medium about challenging audiences with new storytelling and growth especially about LGBT.

Congrats on instead of having a conversation, choosing instead to be an ignorant bully.

No no no. Disagreeing and recognizing nonsensical outrage isn’t “bullying”, no matter how badly you need it to be in order to fit your narrative.

Updated On: 9/20/21 at 12:33 PM

OP, in general I support your side of this debate, but I think there’s only so much value in bringing it up now when it’s been discussed before, and you’re not bringing up specific points of how it’s done in the actual show. Which is partly why you’re receiving such bad-faith responses in return.

I haven’t seen the show yet, so I can’t comment on it, but I remember them saying they planned to hire a consultant to avoid falling into transphobic tropes. And I think the key is to de-emphasize the gendered comedy – let the comedy come from the situation of someone being in disguise, not the fact that they are a man dressed as a woman. I think it can be done responsibly. HAS it been done responsibly in this case? I don’t know, because I haven’t seen it or heard from others about it. Have you? If so, I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on the show specifically, rather than just basing this argument on how you predict other people will react.

To everyone in the thread: I believe/hope we can all get to a place where we can recognize that a piece can be enjoyable – and we ourselves can even enjoy it – while still being allowed to criticize it. This applies to people on both sides of this argument IMO: people criticizing a show ideally wouldn’t try to discourage people from enjoying it, only to enjoy it responsibly and critically. And people who are being told about potentially problematic elements of a show ideally -- in my opinion -- dismiss these criticisms outright simply because they enjoy the show. As I say on this board all the time: more than one thing can be true at the same time.

BTW I use the word “ideally” very deliberately in this post so no one thinks I’m trying to control them, and to make it clear that this is all my personal opinion. It’s my intention with this post to provide some rebuttal to other people’s perspectives based on specific reasons, but I’m not trying to tell anyone they aren’t allowed to have their own opinions.

JBroadway said: "OP, in general I support your side of this debate, but I think there’s only so much value in bringing it up now when it’s been discussed before, and you’re not bringing up specific points of how it’s done in the actual show. Which is partly why you’re receiving such bad-faith responses in return.

I haven’t seen the show yet, so I can’t comment on it, but I remember them saying they planned to hire a consultant to avoid falling into transphobic tropes. And I think the key is to de-emphasize the gendered comedy – let the comedy come from the situation of someone being in disguise, not the fact that they are a man dressed as a woman. I think it can be done responsibly. HAS it been done responsibly in this case? I don’t know, because I haven’t seen it or heard from others about it. Have you? If so, I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on the show specifically, rather than just basing this argument on howyou predict other people will react.

To everyone in the thread: I believe/hope we can all get to a place where we can recognize that a piece can be enjoyable – and we ourselves can even enjoy it – while still being allowed to criticize it. This applies to people on both sides of this argument IMO: people criticizing a show ideally wouldn’t tryto discourage people from enjoying it, only to enjoy it responsibly and critically. And people who are being told about potentially problematic elements of a show ideally -- in my opinion -- dismiss these criticisms outright simply because they enjoy the show. As I say on this board all the time: more than one thing can be true at the same time.

BTW I use the word “ideally” very deliberately in this post so no one thinks I’m trying to control them, and to make it clear that this is all my personal opinion. It’s my intention with this post to provide some rebuttal to other people’s perspectives based on specific reasons, but I’m not trying to tell anyone they aren’t allowed to have their own opinions."

I saw the show on March 11th last year, the final preview before the shutdown, so my memory might be a little hazy. I recently rewatched the film and I thought that the show handled the comedy in a much better way - I was surprised by how many lines in the film haven’t aged well, and it certainly has to be seen as a product of its time. I found that, like you said, the show tended to focus on the aspect of disguise as a whole or the physical comedy (which McClure did wonderfully) and avoided the punchline being “man dressed as woman.”

I don’t think the show is perfect and am more than willing to listen to other viewpoints on this, but I found the show to be much more sensitive to the current social climate. The focus is really on a father wanting to be with his kids and the idea of family, without making a joke out of the disguise itself.

TOOTSIE's "protests" had little to nothing to do with the show's financial failure. That is a small bubble; it didn't sell because audience's didn't connect with the show, and other shows overshadowed it that season. It also had an abysmal ad campaign, and the score & ending to the show weren't memorable.

MRS. DOUBTFIRE, on the other hand, has been working with GLAAD and Trans consultants because they witnessed the downfall of Tootsie and don't want to repeat that. The reasons for a man dressing as a woman are also a little more palatable in Doubtfire (a dad wanting to spend time with his kids, vs an arrogant actor who wants a job). None of that means that it's smooth sailing for Doubtfire, but they at least have the benefit of Tootsie's experiences from which to learn.

Updated On: 9/20/21 at 12:52 PM

HogansHero said: "I support anyone's right to protest, and I support hearing any thoughtful articulation of why a particular show (or anything else) might warrant protest. But that's not what the OP is doing here. They are not protesting, they are predicting something, and they are doing so without articulating anything. That just renders the post superficial, troll-y, and prompting the exact kind of ridicule that has been posted here. I'm glad to hear (not from the OP, of course) that the production appears sensitive to the issue that's ineptly dancing around in the OP's post.We like meat on our bones, not poorly constructed skeletons."

I actually wasn't here to troll. I do think my OP does come off more clickbaity and reactional and I recognize that could've been a mistake. But the production has me concerned and I have enough friends upset about it who actually marched on Broadway recently.

And I had not seen this voiced in this thread yet. And my intention was coming more from "Look, I have defended this in the past. And I've heard enough of an apposing perspective to realize maybe I shouldn't be."

KFC1991 said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said:

As much as I feel inclined to say "well but if you look at what the story is about and how they handle it" I don't feel it's my place to defend it.

This is the problem with The Left's idea that only certain people from certain groups are allowed to opine on certain topics: saying I don't feel like it's my place to defend it essentially means "I don't have a right to think for myself because I don't belong in a particular group."

The other presumably cis people on this thread feel like they DO have a right to their opinion on this issue. But disagreeing with what some trans people are saying about Doubtfire does not equal "not standing with the trans community.""

Bravo and Amen.

Also, just staying super focused on this specific allegation of possible transphobia: unless they radically changed the plot, the character wants to see his kids and to do that he dresses up like an old british lady. that isn't mocking anything trans- it isnt even in the same universe. the whole point is that the character has to be totally costumed and unrecognizable.

as i will keep saying forever, no matter how unWoke it is, *intent matters* and the vast, vast majority of people in this country, including most liberals who want nothing more than to ally with the LGBT+ community, are always going to be reasonable about whether an "outrage" makes sense to them. Protesting a beloved film starring a beloved (and progressive as F) movie star about something so obviously not meant to mock or demean anyone, will go nowhere beyond the perpetually outraged crew on social media. use the collective shrug about Tootsie's transphobia as a guide, and focus on stuff that actually matters. (Start with the disgustingly tiny amount of attention paid to trans crime victims in our national police forces, or the violent suppression and erasure of trans people throughout much of the non-Western world?)

@KFC

This is one of the most difficult things to process around being an ally in today's world, and it's something I think about very frequently, and have tried to learn a lot about in the past year. How do we reconcile these 2 seemingly conflicting truths, that (a) people in marginalized groups know better about the kind of oppression they face, and their voices should be prioritized in conversations around their own group, and (b) that no marginalized group is a monolith, which means that if an ally wants to support a cause, they will inevitably find themself occasionally arguing against someone in that marginalized group. To this day I still don't entirely know what the right "answer" is to this problem, but the best I can figure is that we should try to listen to as many marginalized voices as we can, and educate ourselves as much as possible on the different perspectives within marginalized groups, and yes, eventually form your own opinion based on that education. It’s tricky and there’s no perfect solution, and it’s an ongoing process, but we have to do the best we can.

So yes, the tendency to not think for one's self is a valid criticism of the left, but we also can't use that as an excuse to then ignore actual criticisms coming from marginalized group just because "well, I'm thinking for myself." Because unless you've really put in the effort to educate yourself on the issues at hand, it's likely that you're "thinking for yourself" but with missing information or based on false assumptions. (EDIT to clarify - I'm not accusing you of doing this, KFC, just speaking about it in the abstract)

Updated On: 9/20/21 at 01:23 PM