#101
Posted: 5/6/11 at 2:58pm
No, Mimi, he didn't.
There are plenty of Nasty Arthur Laurents stories around. You needn't make up or spread around false ones.
Far be it from me to defend the man from his nasty tongue (when I myself was the victim of it), but the point that Charles Strouse missed when he told that Tony Perkins story was the closet.
Arthur was fiercely, aggressively proud of the fact that he and Tom were out of the closet at a time when it was considered career-suicide to be openly gay. That was as true for writers, directors and choreographers as it was for actors.
Tony Perkins had gone to extraordinary lengths to deny that he was gay, including electro-shock therapy and marrying one of the most beautiful women in the world. He denied he was gay and carried on a secret life.
To Arthur, this was a slap in the face--to Arthur, almost anything could be a slap in the face--because Arthur set himself up as being BETTER than everyone else. So if anyone followed a different path than Arthur, they were declaring war on Arthur.
What was "funny" to Arthur about the Tony Perkins news was not the disease or the effects of the disease or indeed anything about the disease. Had Arthur said, "Anthony Perkins has AIDS? Oh, that's terrible--and how ironic" or "Oh, that's terrible--isn't karma a bitch" or anything less derisive than laughing, it still would have been appalling but Charles Strouse would not have repeated it.
Arthur may have written works of art and beauty, but when he was mean, he was the meaner than I hope any of you ever experience. When Arthur gloated, it was as ugly as humans can get. When Arthur's fangs came out, they wounded to kill.
He was one of those people who had no filters. He said whatever he thought and didn't care how anyone reacted to it. He was one of those people who think of themselves as "truth-tellers"--and if you couldn't take it, it was because you can't take the truth, not because of the way he said it. There was never any possibility to Arthur that he himself could have been in the wrong.
Yet he could never "take it" himself when it was dished back to him. Invariably, he would say "So-and-so said something unforgivable about me and we will never speak again."
And so he said what he said about Tony Perkins. And Charles Strouse heard it and was appalled. And whoever hears the story will also be appalled.
And there it is.
There are plenty of Nasty Arthur Laurents stories around. You needn't make up or spread around false ones.
Far be it from me to defend the man from his nasty tongue (when I myself was the victim of it), but the point that Charles Strouse missed when he told that Tony Perkins story was the closet.
Arthur was fiercely, aggressively proud of the fact that he and Tom were out of the closet at a time when it was considered career-suicide to be openly gay. That was as true for writers, directors and choreographers as it was for actors.
Tony Perkins had gone to extraordinary lengths to deny that he was gay, including electro-shock therapy and marrying one of the most beautiful women in the world. He denied he was gay and carried on a secret life.
To Arthur, this was a slap in the face--to Arthur, almost anything could be a slap in the face--because Arthur set himself up as being BETTER than everyone else. So if anyone followed a different path than Arthur, they were declaring war on Arthur.
What was "funny" to Arthur about the Tony Perkins news was not the disease or the effects of the disease or indeed anything about the disease. Had Arthur said, "Anthony Perkins has AIDS? Oh, that's terrible--and how ironic" or "Oh, that's terrible--isn't karma a bitch" or anything less derisive than laughing, it still would have been appalling but Charles Strouse would not have repeated it.
Arthur may have written works of art and beauty, but when he was mean, he was the meaner than I hope any of you ever experience. When Arthur gloated, it was as ugly as humans can get. When Arthur's fangs came out, they wounded to kill.
He was one of those people who had no filters. He said whatever he thought and didn't care how anyone reacted to it. He was one of those people who think of themselves as "truth-tellers"--and if you couldn't take it, it was because you can't take the truth, not because of the way he said it. There was never any possibility to Arthur that he himself could have been in the wrong.
Yet he could never "take it" himself when it was dished back to him. Invariably, he would say "So-and-so said something unforgivable about me and we will never speak again."
And so he said what he said about Tony Perkins. And Charles Strouse heard it and was appalled. And whoever hears the story will also be appalled.
And there it is.
Updated On: 5/6/11 at 02:58 PM
