Pittsburgh community theater cancels BIG FISH over inclusion of gay characters

A couple of friends of mine involved in this production were among those who walked out when the decision was announced. The theater's website, Facebook page (where some of the “fiery discussion” is happening), and official statement are below. (Pay attention to some of the gross linguistic agenda-spinning: “inclusive to some but exclusive to others,” “also grieve because of the intolerance and the spite with which they were treated as well." ) One hates to see a theater close… but art isn’t easy.

www.palisadeplayhouse.com

https://www.facebook.com/palisadeplayhouse

 

******************************

Palisade Playhouse Halts Production of ‘Big Fish’

It is with deep sadness that Palisade Playhouse announces a decision to halt production of the upcoming musical “Big Fish”.

The decision to cancel “Big Fish” comes on the heels of a dispute between the director and co-founding producers over how to proactively insert representation of an LGBT+ family despite the fact that the script did not include any reference to the LGBT+ community.

In an effort to show genuine acceptance and welcome all, an initial compromise had been made upfront to include two gay fathers holding a baby and walking across stage as part of a scene with a bustling park setting. The direction shifted with blocking and scene direction that would have created an additional moment of reflection between the lead character and the gay parents during an emotionally charged song about the feelings of becoming a father for the first time. This added moment of focus created question about whether the director’s addition would convey a message about gay marriage in a way that would be seen as inclusive to some but exclusive to others.

As a result of the dispute, the director resigned and some cast members followed, creating a divide between the producers, directors, cast and crew, and igniting a fiery discussion on social media in the days following. Additionally, a campaign to disparage the reputation of the Playhouse emerged, and it soon became clear that working in harmony to produce the show on time and within budget would no longer be possible. Without the ability to move forward as planned, the Playhouse will face a significant financial loss and face the possibility of closing permanently.

Since its founding in July 2016, people of all different walks of life and with diverse views and beliefs have existed harmoniously and cooperatively within the Playhouse. Throughout this time, the Playhouse successfully produced a variety of family-friendly musicals, a host of choir concerts and events, and was fully immersed in the current 2018 season of shows, concerts and events. All shows were produced and planned with the intention to be welcoming to all, regardless of personal beliefs and views. Many people in the area had happily received the benefit of these offerings.

Palisade Playhouse’s founders grieve with those who feel hurt by this decision, but also grieve because of the intolerance and the spite with which they were treated as well. Palisade Playhouse remains true to its founding ideals, and for that reason, Palisade maintains the need as an organization to maintain a level of neutrality on this issue and many other issues, so that all people may feel welcome.

---

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 10:20 AM

"Palisade maintains the need as an organization to maintain a level of neutrality on this issue and many other issues, so that all people may feel welcome."

...this wasn't neutrality, though.

---

I’m not familiar with the musical, but I don’t remember any LGBT+ characters in the film (though it’s been a while since I watched it).

Wouldn’t this actually cause a potential rights issue if they aren’t inserting characters that don’t exist in the text?

---

I was thinking the same thing at first, but it doesn't pertain to the actual characters or even the text. It's just an ensemble scene and two dads walk across the stage together with a baby. It's not needed, but it's not not needed too, ya know? But again, I don't know why that would offend anyone. Especially someone coming to see a freaking MUSICAL. 

As a gay male, I understand the want and need for visual representation in the arts and media, but I also think that the idea that every group needs representation all the time in everything is getting a bit ridiculous. There has to be some middle ground, and when things don't go our way, I think we really need to think about whether or not it is really something worth taking our ball and going home over. Some times it will be important to take a stand, and other times, not. I suspect this is an occasion when it really wasn't worth it.

The addition of this moment was not in the script, it was not necessary to the story. While I think it could ve a sweet moment, I can also see how it could be seen as exploitive to the LGBT community as well as to those who do not support that community.

A director's job is stage a production that serves the story. Big Fish does not require this moment to serve the story, and as such, doesn't need to be there; if it didn't really need to be there, then I would argue that maybe it wasn't worth quitting over.

Kad is correct, as long as nothing specified in the script was changed (lyrics, etc.)...what's going on here is a directorial choice and legal in the eyes of TRW.

I haven't clicked any links yet, but I am willing to bet that the opposition is attempting to use some Christian platform, which does not sit well with me. "There is no Jew or Greek, neither slave nor free, no male and female, for you are all one."

When part of (any) community fails others, we have all failed them. It probably doesn't mean much coming from me, but I apologize. This issue is needlessly incendiary, but I HEAR YOU.

---

It’s fascinating -- and, frankly, horrifying -- how some of you choose to draw your lines. I wonder if you’d be so quick to say the director should have compromised and the producers’ wishes should have been heeded if it were an interracial couple and not a gay couple.

---

I think inserting material for your own personal agenda is untrue to the author's intent. This is corrupting the focus of the musical.

If they wanted to present gay characters, the should have presented
FALSETTOS.

---

jimmycurry01 said: "As a gay male, I understand the want and need for visual representation in the arts and media, but I also think that the idea that every group needs representation all the time in everything is getting a bit ridiculous. There has to be some middle ground, and when things don't go our way, I think we really need to think about whether or not it is really something worth taking our ball and going home over. Some times it will be important to take a stand, and other times, not. I suspect this is an occasion when it really wasn't worth it.

The addition of this moment was not in the script, it was not necessary to the story. While I think it could ve a sweet moment, I can also see how it could be seen as exploitive to the LGBT community as well as to those who do not support that community.

A director's job is stage a production that serves the story. Big Fish does not require this moment to serve the story, and as such, doesn't need to be there; if it didn't really need to be there, then I would argue that maybe it wasn't worth quitting over."

Yes, appeasement is always better when faced with bigotry.  We have learned that through all of LGBT history. Too bad you weren't at Stonewall and persuaded them to just let the cops kick their asses.  After all, it's not like its worth dying for.  

Dollypop said: "I think inserting material for your own personal agenda is untrue to the author's intent. This is corrupting the focus of the musical.

If they wanted to present gay characters, the should have presented
FALSETTOS."

The author's intent was to depict a father-to-be reflecting on that fact in modern day Central Park.

Last time I was in Central Park, though granted it's been days, there were all sorts of people of all genders, sexualities, and races.

Reflecting the world isn't an agenda.

 

---

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 11:29 AM

They describe themselves as "family friendly".  Apparently, they are only friendly with certain types of families.  

I recently worked at a regional theater in a small town, and we had some racy moments, and I liked that our director/owner said "Who cares if they walk out? They'll walk out, and inspire more people to walk in." Which, I think is kind of great. 

I'm just always shocked anyone who regularly goes to the theater would be offended by a gay couple simply walking across stage.... like WTF. You'll sit through RENT, but this is offensive? Like, c'mon...