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

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:45pm

Roy Cohn.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 1:52pm

 

Ha!

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:17pm

I remember this scene in the original production. I think two women jogged through the scene with free weights and a couple pushed a stroller down a path. Unless it specifically says in the script, “Two female joggers and a straight couple pushing a stroller cross from stage right” then there is no “insertion.” If the stage directions simply say, “New Yorkers wander around Central Park” then it could be argued that it would be unnatural NOT to have some gay guys in the background. 

We must fight anyone who wants to take us out of the stories of theater/tv/film. Gay people are part of the world and should be included in fictional versions of it. I can’t believe I’m going to pay Margaritaville a compliment, but they had a gay couple in the ensemble who danced all the couple dance moves together and it was great to see the representation up there. For those arguing that this is altering the script and the author’s intention, because the Margaritaville original Broadway production has a gay couple in the ensemble, does that mean every future production must have a gay couple in the ensemble? It that messing with the author’s intent to only have straight couples at the restort? 

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:26pm

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." 

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:41pm

"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."

No, I think everyone is "following" just fine. We're also disagreeing with you. The producers don't really have the "final say;" the directors and actors can quit if they disagree, which says something after the producers.

I don't care if their audience was comprised entirely of nuns and evangelicals; there's no moral reason to say that you can't show two men and a kid in a family relationship. There are only heinous reasons for that.

Don't pretend that those who disagree with you "don't understand" or "aren't following." Face up to the fact that others disagree with your ideas of right and wrong (in this situation, at least).

[Tom5]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:42pm

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.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:48pm

They don't share a space with a church, they are housed in a former church that they purchased and renovated (more info on that here)- but have kept a cross prominently hanging in their performance space nevertheless. Their mission statement  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.

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 02:48 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:53pm

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.  

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:54pm

They also claim that they just presented Clue, so apparently they're OK with murder, but not same sex families.

Typical.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:55pm

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

[BroadwayStar4]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:55pm

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.
 

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:55pm

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.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 2:56pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "Which is good because I need to drop a few pounds (you say ONE word, Kad...)"

When have I ever made a crack about your weight? That's too obvious.

 

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:01pm

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]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:03pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "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."

I don't want to seem as if I believe it is unimporatant to fight for one's priniples. Nor do I think that the director's argument was silly or stupid. What I find childish is that the fight has gone as far as shutting down the entire production over such a short moment of blocking. I find it reprhensible that a considerable amount of time, and work, and money is thrown out because this battle had to be faught. I think that we as a community have much larger battles to fight, much more important things to stand for. Perhaps if the article made it sound as if the entire cast was behind this decision I would feel differently. It sure doesn't seem that way though. This seems like the director and a select few had a problem with the producers requests, and for that they threw it all away rather than working toward bringing the production to fruition. That is what I find ridiculous, that they felt they were that comprimised by such a sort bit of blocking.

[BroadwayStar4]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:07pm

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:09pm

"What I find childish is that the fight has gone as far as shutting down the entire production over such a short moment of blocking. I find it reprhensible [sic] that a considerable amount of time, and work, and money is thrown out because this battle had to be faught [sic]. I think that we as a community have much larger battles to fight, much more important things to stand for."

No, in this matter, there are no battles too small.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:09pm

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.  

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:16pm

themysteriousgrowl said: "
jimmycurry01, would you make this sameargument if it were a mixed-race couple instead of a gay couple?"

Since my argument is that a few seconds of blocking is not worth shutting an entire production down over, I would say that I would say the same thing no matter what kind of couple it is. Gay, mixed-race, martian-human, ant-grasshopper... a few seconds of blocking isn't worth shutting down an entire production. If the producer says, change it, just change it. In my life I get asked to do things that I disagree with every day, sometimes I passionately disagree with those things I am being asked to do. Now, I may express my discontent, I may offer a different soulution, but if I am still told to do it, then I do. It would take something incerdibly big for me to throw away a job, and the hard work i put into it. I remain surprised that so many here would cancel an entire production over this. It just doesn't seem professional to me.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:17pm

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.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:20pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "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."

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:21pm

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.

[Mary_Sunshine]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:23pm

I have heard from past cast members that they also change their scripts to uphold their "Family Friendly" values. As in... taking swear words out, taking out things like "for God sakes" and replacing it with "for gosh sakes" and any mention of sex, etc.

I don't know the copyright laws... but I feel like this is more manipulative of the author's text than adding a gay couple to a park scene? Also, is it even allowed? Updated On: 5/16/18 at 03:23 PM

[artscallion]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:29pm

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.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:29pm

newintown said: "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 - theproducersare 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 alwaysbe more important than commercewithanyone. And I'm not even sure that there are any commercial issues here - that theatre's websitemakes it look like a volunteer organization."

Yes, I understand the producers are canelling it, but the loss of the director is the cause of cancellation.

As for morals, maybe I am an altruist. I am willing to put my beliefs on hold for the good of something else, in this case, that would be the fate of the show at large.