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

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:31pm

 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

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:32pm

"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."

I certainly wouldn't call that altruism, any more than I would call staying silent during the Holocaust was altruism for the good of the Nazi state.

That is to say "no community theatre show is more important than questions of right and wrong."

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:34pm

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.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:39pm

newintown said: ""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."

I certainly wouldn't call that altruism, any more than I would call staying silent during the Holocaust was altruism for the good of theNazi state.

That is to say "no community theatre show is more important than questions of right and wrong.""

So, it is intinsically 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. 

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:48pm

"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

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:50pm

Pittsburgh has a burgeoning theatre scene, for what it's worth.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:52pm

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]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:55pm

newintown said: "
It's "intrinsically" right for a director to leave a production because theproducers [sic] are moral morons who are forcing her or himto do what he or she sees as an immoral act."

You are absolutely correct, assuming that director is Ayn Rand.

[BroadwayStar4]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:55pm

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

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 3:59pm

BroadwayStar4 said: "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 producersays the complete opposite. Hypocrites."

Ah, but a comprimise to what? Unfortuntaely the article (or portion posted here) does not elborate on what the options were brior to the compirmise. 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:00pm

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.  

[newintown]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:06pm

jimmycurry, I think you might want to read the page linked below, and then ask yourself - "Could this be me?"

Collaborator

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:10pm

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]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:21pm

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

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 04:21 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:28pm

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]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:31pm

'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.  

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:38pm

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.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:42pm

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 a theatre's mission statement to be "family friendly" should infuriate you. Instead, you're bending over backwards while rolling over.

Would you, hypothetically, keep cashing checks from this company until the producers actually made a textual change to a script in order to straightwash it?

Would this have happened if the director made a straight couple the focus, do you think? Would you be arguing that there needn't be focus on the ensemble at all, in that case?

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 04:42 PM

[haterobics]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:51pm

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.

[haterobics]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:55pm

newintown said: "They also claim that they just presentedClue, so apparently they're OK withmurder, but not same sex families.

Typical."

If the same sex family was murdered, then that would be ideal.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/16/18 at 4:58pm

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.

[haterobics]

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

jimmycurry01 said: "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."

I'm not sure why you're OK with the mere casting of two gay fathers as requiring an initial compromise, though. You seem to think this means they were OK with it. If that were true, it wouldn't have even been an issue, as opposed to something requiring a compromise.

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

Haven't been on here in years. Phyllis ripped me about this thread had to see for myself. Lawsy Miz Scarlett good to see everone stayin' in dere place!

I wonder if they'd remove a hot dog cart to be sensitive to vegans?

[Kad]

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

jimmycurry01 said: "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."

It seems you like are being willfully obtuse at this point.

The director wanted to insert a gay couple with a child into the ensemble and, then, feature them in a moment in their capacity as ensemble. This is no longer a particularly rare occurrence in ensembles these days, just as mixed race coupling is commonly seen in ensembles.

The producers objected to the depiction of a gay couple at all and then particularly objected to them having any focus.

How is that not infuriating? Whether or not this was written into the text is immaterial at this point. The couple could've been straight. The fact they were gay is the crux of all of this. The producers did not want this sort of depiction of same-sex parents on their stage.

This isn't a persnickety director. This is a director who thinks that's ****ed up in 2018.

 

Updated On: 5/16/18 at 05:18 PM

[dearalanaaaa]

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

I'd like to make a nice, sarcastic paragraph on how these producers and like:

I would NEVER let my theatre put on March of the Falsettos. There are only straight couples, and I would never let those on my stage. Our production of Fun Home had been loved by so many LGBT people, while I could never imagine the horror they would fact with from witnessing March of the Falsettos. There is a straight couple with a child! Despite them not being the main focus, I still would never have this under our roof. What a shame for those who were excited about it. Begone, straight!

THIS IS ALL SARCASM for I do not own a theatre, nor would ever have views like this.