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

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...

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.

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

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

---

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.

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?

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

Or maybe just living in the contemporary world...

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

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.

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.

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

Uncle Chase?

Uncle Tristan?

---

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.

---

Uncle Mame?