Pittsburgh community theater cancels BIG FISH over inclusion of gay characters- Page 2

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 11:45am

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...

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 11:46am

 

Wow. Some of these responses. Just when you think gay men can't find any new ways to be disappointing...

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 11:47am

No, this is not worth dying over. It just isn't. This isn't a case of giving something up, they are trying to add something, and then getting mad because they were told no.

Straight-washing Rise was something worth fighting for. In that case a characters sexuality was changed in an effort to make it more palatable for the masses, that was wrong. This is a case where 10 seconds worth of blocking, that were never indicated in the script in the first place, were rejected by the producers. You are telling me that those 10 seconds are worth this much of a fight? Maybe as a child, yes; but as an adult, you are really telling me that this 10 second directorial choice, that is never mentioned anywhere in the script, is really worth shutting down an entire production? Seriously, we are talking about one brief moment of blocking during a song, and you would shut down the entire show over that?

I am aware that our existence can be erased, and I know where my lines are drawn, and I believe this was a rather ridiculous line to draw. The response seems childish and very amateur. There are way better fights to have, especially in the world if the arts.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 11:51am

Jimmy, that argument can be applied directly to the producers who were objecting to such a minor moment!

If they are rejecting something so minor, do you think they're gonna be programming something as horribly non-neutral as La Cage aux Folles? Falsettos? Fun Home? Rent?

They revealed themselves and the director and some of the cast said **** you. Good for them.

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 11:51 AM

[Impossible2]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 11:53am

So no one batters an eyelid over the sociopathic, pathological lying heterosexual male at the centre of the story, yet they're offended by a couple of gheys wandering around in the background?

God Bless 'Murca x

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:01pm

I don't know why I'm constantly surprised by homophobia and self-hate, but I am.

By the way, jimmycurry - the homophobic producers are the ones shutting down the show. If they want to replace the director and the actors who have a real sense of right and wrong, they can. Judging by the comments here, there must be plenty of theatre folk who would be happy to kowtow to them.

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 12:01 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:08pm

I am genuinely surprised by some of the reaction. Truly. And here I thought BWW had lost its capacity to surprise.

 

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:08pm

Kad said: "Jimmy, that argument can be applied directly to the producers who were objecting to such a minor moment!

If they are rejecting something so minor, do you think they're gonna be programming something as horribly non-neutral as La Cage aux Folles? Falsettos? Fun Home? Rent?

They revealed themselves and the director and some of the cast said **** you. Good for them."

True, and that idea had also crossed my mind, but look, the producer has the final say. Ultimately, it is their production. If you are going to play cards at someone's s house, you play by the house rules. This is something that the producers rejected. Generally, I think that a producer should trust the director. I want to be clear, I do not think that the blocking in question would be a problem, and I think it would have been a nice moment; however, this is the nature of the business. The producers were clearly nervous about this moment, and they have the business end to worry about. Clearly, they are afraid of losing ticket sales, subscriptions, or sponsorship. A producer has to know his audience and where the money comes from. For all we know some conservative group could be lead sponsors for this theatre. This could be why discussion before production began was necessary. We don't have all of the facts. What we know is the business end disagreed with the artistic end, and the production was shut down over a brief moment.

I would understand if the producers were doing Rent and wanted to cast Angel as a female. That has actually been an issue in the past, and that is worth the fight, a brief moment where two men are carrying a baby just doesn't feel like a war or principles worth fighting. Maybe I am wrong, but I really don't think there are better battles to fight.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:21pm

Your moral backbends to defend the producers, jimmycurry, are an astounding feat of contortion, but ultimately, what you are saying is it's OK to believe that it's dangerous, subversive, and morally wrong to show two men and a child in a family relationship.

And that's repellent.

[kasim]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:23pm

RippedMan said: "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..."

 

Back when Rent the movie was coming out this lady I think either walked out or was done she goes up to me (no clue why me) and was like "are you going to go see Rent" me ... "no I am going to watch XYZ", her: "well good all they do is singing" .... me: "well yeah it was a Tony winning musical that was on broadway for like over 10 years sooo yeah"

[kdogg36]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:32pm

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."

I would think a good director would work on creating some sort of characterization even for background ensemble actors in a crowd scene. Are you suggesting that the crowd should never have a gay couple in it, lest the director be inserting a personal agenda?

[haterobics]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:35pm

kdogg36 said: "Are you suggesting that the crowd should never have a gay couple in it, lest the director be inserting a personal agenda?"

If they do that, they are still inserting a personal agenda.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:42pm

"If they do that, they are still inserting a personal agenda."

Or maybe just living in the contemporary world...

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:53pm

I think this is silly from both sides. It's such a small moment that half the audience probably wouldn't even notice nor care about. Canceling the whole show over it is ridiculous. They should be able to come to some sort of compromise.

I've only been to Pittsburgh once but I can't imagine a city of that size would care about this less then 30 second moment either way.

[Lot666]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 12:56pm

If I understand correctly, the two men with the baby had no lines and were nothing more than part of the scenery (please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is true, then in order for this to be a case of "inserting" something that wasn't in the original script, the script must specify the sexual orientation, gender, race, age, and physical appearance of every person in the park during the scene. If it does not, then how is the director to know whether those background people should be straight, bi, gay, trans, male, female, white, black, Asian, Middle Eastern, young, old, thin, fat, buff, short, tall, etc.? 

If the director places two men and a baby in the background and they have no lines, and none of the speaking actors provide specific information about those men in the background, how would the audience even know that they were gay? This is purely assumption; they could be brothers or best friends in the park with a baby.

Just because the script says that the lead character is in a park with people in the background, that doesn't mean that all of those people are straight. To suggest so is incredibly presumptuous and the height of heterosexual privilege.

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 12:56 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:02pm

haterobics said: "If they do that, they are still inserting a personal agenda."

Would having a straight couple in the crowd scene be inserting a personal agenda? If there's a difference, please explain.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:03pm

newintown said: "Your moral backbends to defend theproducers, jimmycurry, are an astounding feat of contortion, but ultimately, what you are saying is it's OK to believe that it's dangerous, subversive, and morally wrong to show two men and a child in a family relationship.

And that's repellent."

It isn't that I want to defend the producers per se, I just find it rather humorous that so many here point out that theatre is business, unless it doesn't suit their argument. Theatre IS business. Producers ARE ultimately responsible for a production. Furthermore, after a tiny bit of research, it seems that this group shares it's space with H2O church, something to keep in mind from a producers stand point, as there is likely some crossover in terms of audience.

While you might find the idea that I can not only see where the director is coming from, but also see things from the angle of the producer as repellent; I find your inability to to see things from the producers side at all to be equally repellent. You are so quick to take the side that you are most emotionally drawn to. I understand the emotional draw, I understand that the director is, and should be disappointed by the decision of the producers.

Divorce the situation from emotion. Just look at business. I am sure you agree that a producer has to know the anticipated audience in order to run a successful theatre. If you run a theatre that caters to mostly a crowd of 65+ years of age, I am certain you would not produce a show like Spring Awakening. If you share a performance space with a church, you are likely to choose a show that will draw in that crowd. So here we have a theatre company that is, at least in part, catering to a church crowd. Now tell me, newintown, would you as a producer, not try to sway your director from including something that could elicit complaints from a large chunk of your audience? I would. I am gay as the day I was born, but I know that if I am catering to a group that has certain expectations, I am going to deliver on those expectations without trying to push the enevelope or an agenda that I really do truly believe in. In terms of business, I understand that there is a time and a place to demonstrate my personal feelings and emotions towards a particular subject. In this case, it seems to me, that this was not the time to push it. 

Of course, in the end, both parties here have lost. In this case the director and a few cast members get to keep their dignity, but nobody gets to put on the show. No money will be earned,  a few seconds of blocking will never be seen, and the cast members that just wanted to have fun and put on a show will have to find something else to move on to.

 

 

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:03pm

jimmycurry01 said: "Maybe I am wrong, but I really don't think there are better battles to fight."

 

Obviously the people involved felt differently.

When it comes right down to it, no one has done anything they did not have the right to do. The producers objected to the way the director was doing the piece - very homophobic reasons, but they had the right, and they asked that it be changed. (On a side note, I hate producers who micro manage everything, especially if they try to influence the way a director does his job). The director, because he felt like his vision could not be realized, left the production. Several actors, who also believed in the director and were upset the way the producers were acting, left the show as well. (Does anyone know how many actors walked out? It must have been quite a number of them, because the production got cancelled).

What a shame that something like this is still going on. Oh well, hopefully the cast and director will get other shows with better companies. Also, if this particular company goes out of business, it sounds like no great loss.

 

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:10pm

jimmycurry, you are still saying that it's OK to censor the image of two men and a child in a family relationship, merely for commerce. And that's a textbook definition of morally repellent. You're saying that money defines morals.

[binau]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:24pm

I wonder what kinds of values and beliefs have led to people complaining about a gay couple? Got to love this forum. They get hysterical over the outcomes of these awful values and beliefs - but if you call out and challenge these values and beliefs directly for what they are and the terrible impact they have on gay people you get accused of being a bigot. This is example #685 of why false, right-wing belief systems are harmful for society. And this is about the most minor they come: try living in any Islamic country. Every single one is awful for gay people. All of them. I hope there will be consistency in standing up for gay rights in future here. Not just when it’s politically convenient. 

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 01:24 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:24pm

 

What's the gay version of "Uncle Tom"?

Uncle Chase?

Uncle Tristan?

[Tag]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:27pm

Gotta love the Streisand effect here!

[artscallion]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:29pm

jimmycurry01 said: "No, this is not worth dying over. It just isn't. This isn't a case of giving something up, they are trying to add something, and then getting mad because they were told no.

This is a case where 10 seconds worth of blocking...You are telling me that those 10 seconds are worth this much of a fight? Maybe as a child, yes; but as an adult, you are really telling me that this 10 second directorial choice, that is never mentioned anywhere in the script, is really worth shutting down an entire production? Seriously, we are talking about one brief moment of blocking during a song, and you would shut down the entire show over that?"

 

Where's the line, jimmy? How many seconds does it take before you stand up?

And I'd like to correct an assumption that's being made here. Nothing is being inserted. Nothing. The script calls for people in the park. Gay men are people. The go to parks. Having women walk by is not inserting anything. Having people of color walk by is not inserting anything. So why is having gay people walk by inserting something. We are "people" just like any other. And the directors choice to have them is no different than his choice to have a man and woman walk by would be.
The fact here is that the director was not inserting something, the producer was by eliminating certain types of people. And that, my friend , is definitely worth fighting over.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:35pm

themysteriousgrowl said: "

What's the gay version of "Uncle Tom"?

Uncle Chase?

Uncle Tristan?"

Uncle Tom Cruise?

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:40pm

Uncle Mame?