Pittsburgh community theater cancels BIG FISH over inclusion of gay characters — Page 3

Ha!

artscallion said: "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."

I think that I was very clear in where my line is drawn. The straight-washing of gay themes written into a piece is where the line is drawn. This is nothing like either of those examples. This is a very short moment that was added by the director, and yes it was added, as evdidenced in this section of the article:

"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."

If this was something going on in the background, then perhaps it would not have been an issue, but this is blocking that is brought to the foreground. Its purpose is to directly affect the main character in the scene, and is therefore a moment that is being inserted into the main action of the production. Again, I am sure it would be a very nice moment, and I do not feel that there is anything wrong with the moment in and of itself. My argument does not stem from the blocking in question.

My argument stems from the fact that the producers have the final say-so. The producers have to run a business, and these producers share a space with a church, which is likely where a lot of their audience is coming from. I don't think a lot of you are following that. The producers have to know their audience in order to continue producing shows. The producers clearly feared this moment could be a problem.

The producers are not systematically trying to erase a class of people from existence, and this was more than two gay men simply walking by. It was a moment that was designed to play a role in the development of a main charcater. It was meant to affect the main character in the scene. It made the producers nervous, they asked for it to be changed, likely with a specific audience in mind. The article also mentions that before the production ever began, the director met with the producers to discuss and reach a comprimise on how to include gay characters. The plan was always to include them, but apparently those characters ended up with more focus than what the producers were comfortable with. Again, they were not being erased, the plan was always for them to be there, the problem came from how the scene was blocked. It seems the focus was the problem. If the producers asks for that focus to be changed, then just change the focus, don't say, "It's my way, or no way."

John August was the sole author of the screenplay in addition to being the book writer for the musical. I think his opinion - artistically - would be the only one that mattered.

I'm trying to work from a place of empathy and kindness. Trying. Very hard. So much so that I'm sweating. Which is good because I need to drop a few pounds (you say ONE word, Kad...)

jimmy, I get you have a line. And that's fine. I disagree and that's what makes the world go round. But...the idea that you are saying the people fighting for this moment are silly and that it isn't important is not something I can abide. It's note something I can grant the respect of 'agree to disagree.' There is nothing textually in BIG FISH that would preclude moment. In fact, it's a daily occurrence in Central Park. And if showing an innocuously sweet display of family going about their lives is something that is considered offensive to some and therefor should not be shown, then the handwriting of where we are right now is on the wall. It couldn't be clearer. And if fighting for a representation of us in a completely justified moment in a musical written by an out gay man is silly or too much for you...well...that makes me sad.

jimmycurry01, would you make this same argument if it were a mixed-race couple instead of a gay couple?

Kad said: "They don't share a space with a church, they are housed in a former church that they purchased and renovated- but have kept a cross prominently hanging in their performance space nevertheless. Their missionstatement includes the following:"We honor the family as the most essential unit of society, and want to accommodate those with families"- which drips with coded language. One of the co-founders expresses the sentiment that "She has always loved theatre, but has been frustrated that so many shows are inappropriate for children (and her!)!"

So, yeah, I think there's a bit more going on."

Kad, the Presbyterian church has closed; however, it seems the H2O Church shares the space.

Newintown, I suggested that it seems many aren't following is not because they diasgree with me, but instead because they seem to ignore the arguments i offer. You are one of the few to actually refute the arguments I have made. While you are clearly passionate, and emotinallay invested, at least you are actually makeing a genunie counterargument to my arguement, despite the name-calling.

I admit that I will call a homophobe a homophobe, a fascist a fascist, etc., etc. "Nice" will lead you straight into the gas chambers, if you let it. I don't think many people ever really change their minds, but on the rare occasions that do, it certainly isn't by "niceness;" that's a sentimental myth.

https://www.gq.com/story/on-rudeness

jimmycurry01 said: "Now tell me, newintown, would you as a producer, not try to sway your directorfrom including something that could elicitcomplaints 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.

I literally felt sick reading this part. Nice admitting that you're willing to stab the LGBT community in back in order to please the homophobic bigots because, ya know, money, money, money.

I think there is no more important fight than to be seen as LGBT people. In all ways. Even in 30 second moments in a small production of am musical in Pittsburgh. And, though I know we all have different beliefs, it stuns me that all out gay people don't agree with that.

As a Pittsburgh local, I think it's pretty sad that this happened. And that it's sending out the image it does, meanwhile this company is the lowest string of Community Theatre in the city.

I think the most shocking part is that they let their hand show, and yes that the producers chose "this hill to die on." Given their religious touting most people could infer the homophobia. But gay people worked with them because they appreciated the work, and the company worked with gays because that is what you get with the theatre community.

If you're too family oriented for a gay ensemble couple, stick to passion plays.

jimmycurry wrote: "I remain surprised that so many here would cancel an entire production over this. It just doesn't seem professional to me."

Again - the producers are cancelling it; the director and actors are quitting because they have a significant moral disagreement with the homophobic producers.

I would hope that moral issues would always be more important than commerce with anyone. And I'm not even sure that there are any commercial issues here - that theatre's website makes it look like a volunteer organization.

jimmycurry01 said: " I get that, but no one is saying they couldn't or shouldn't be seen. The disussion about that was made before rehearsals ever began. It was agreed that the gay couple would be on stage and would be seen. The problem seems to come from an extended focus. It seems that the focus is what made producers uncomfortable, not their prsence, which was already made welcome."

But them being gay IS the problem for the producer, unless s/he would have also demanded that moment of focus be removed if the director had blocked a straight couple with a baby in the same way.