Pittsburgh community theater cancels BIG FISH over inclusion of gay characters — Page 4

The producers made it clear that even permitting the presence of a same-sex parent couple in the ensemble in one number was a compromise, but that highlighting that couple was too much. This is not just a producer saying "I don't like this blocking" and the director sucking it up and doing what the producer wants.

This is a producer saying, "What you are showing does not belong on my family-friendly stage."

Those are very different things. One is taste. One is moral.

What good comes from capitulating here? A show happens and the producers can continue?

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 03:31 PM

artscallion said: "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."

I would somewhat diagree. The article clearly states:

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.

This suggests that the couple being gay was not the primary problem, but instead the focus brought to the gay couple that made producers worry. It had already been agreed to that the gay couple would be present in the production.

"So, it is intinsically [sic] right for a director to leave a production, thus leading to its cancellation, and letting down those in the cast who are not affected by the scene in question, simply because the director holds a belief that a scene he has blocked in the foreground, rather than the background, is the only right choice to be made? Again, keep in mind that the producers already gave approval for the gay couple to be present in the scene."

It's "intrinsically" right for a director to leave a production because the producers are moral morons who are forcing her or him to do what he or she sees as an immoral act.

Actually, a director is perfectly welcome to quit a production at any time. There are always others who can step in and take over, if the producers truly want to do the show. Even, I imagine, in Pittsburgh.

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 03:48 PM

Well...when you're from Pittsburgh you have to do something.





I KID. I know Pittsburgh has a strong theater scene. I just like Auntie Mame.

jimmycurry01 said: "This suggests that the couple being gay was not the primary problem, but instead the focus brought to the gay couple that made producers worry. It had already been agreed to that the gay couple would be present in the production."

No, Jimmy. It suggests that including two fathers holding a baby was somehow considered as a "compromise" by this producer. Interesting how they talk of "genuine acceptance" when the producer does the complete opposite. Hypocrites.

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 03:55 PM

I held back on pointing out that the bus driver had the right to make Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus, but thought that might be going a bit far. But that Ayn Rand bomb makes me wanna take the gloves off.

Your fealty to authority and those who hold the purse strings makes me think of a Republican sitting in a log cabin.

SonofRobbieJ said: "I held back on pointing out that the bus driver had the right to make Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus, but thought that might be going a bit far. But that Ayn Rand bomb makes me wanna take the gloves off.

Your fealty to authority and those who hold the purse strings makes me think of a Republican sitting in a log cabin."

The right, yes; but to what moral good? None.

In this case, the director had an obligation to the show, the cast, the pit, the tech crew, etc. An entire production was being made. Yet, he left because of his personal belief that his way of blocking this scene was the only way it should be done. You really don't see that as being objectivist? I do.

Kad said: "He was clearly objecting to the producer's MORAL BELIEF THAT DEPICTING GAY PARENTS ONSTAGE EVEN IN A MINIMAL WAY WAS WRONG.

To quote a show this theatre will never produce: UNDERLINE UNDERLINE UNDERLINE"

But the thing is that they already agreed to depict gay parents in a minimal way, as seen here:

"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."

Again, the problem was the focus, not their presense. Again, we do not know what that comprimise stems from, but in any case, the producers were already in agreement that the gay parents would be depcited on stage.

SonofRobbieJ said: "'But the thing is that they already agreed to depict gay parents in a minimal way'

Sadness. Nothing but sadness for your willingness to minimize yourself and others. If I could go to therapy for you, I would."

How is this minimizing myself? Everyone agreed that gay parents would be seen on stage. There was a problem held by the producers about the focus of those characters. No one here has said that the character should not be depicted. There is pleanty of reason for the characters to be there. There was no needd for a focus to be placed on these characters, the producers didn't want the focus to be on the characters, the director didn't like that. To be more to the point, there is no need for there to be any focus on those characters. They are ensemble; they're are meant to be in the background. None of that is even slightly minimizing.

kdogg36 said: "Would having astraightcouple in the crowd scene be inserting a personal agenda? If there's a difference, please explain."

I meant that if you include a gay couple or specifically don't consider including one, you are still making a agenda-driven decision. Doing something that may upset the apple cart often forgets that the apple cart isn't automatically benign.

Kad said: "The fact that walking across the stage is the most the producers would tolerate should infuriate you. The fact that a moment of focus on two men parenting a child was considered out of bounds with atheatre's mission statement to be "family friendly"should infuriate you. Instead, you're bending over backwards while rolling over.

Why should that infuriate anybody? There are NO gay characters written into the show. What would you have them do other than be a walk-on? Write them in a love song? Make the lead character gay? It's an ensemble role, there should be nothing infuriating about two ensemble actors walking across the stage. There is no need for there to be any direct focus on this couple in the first place.