Raul Esparza Interview in Sunday Times- Page 11

[Danielm]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 6:27pm

Rath paints homosexuality as shameful by saying that the family of this professor would be so devastated at the knowlege that he was gay that it shouldn't be mentioned. That somehow that is more important than the effects he had on Esparza.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 6:31pm

Actually, her last posts deal with the fact that there was a teacher-student relationship.

I want to point out I am in the camp of people who support this article fully.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 6:34pm

The people who were in that school at that time, or in that theater program they went to after, will know who the professor was
If you had read the article clearly, it says that the instructor helped him get the audition at the Chicago theater, not that they went to the company together.

In fact, I'm guessing most of the Raul supporters here would be screaming about privacy issues if something that personal and potentially inflammatory was written about a member of their family.
What was potentially inflammatory? The fact that he killed himself? If the people you mentioned above figured out that's who Raul was talking about, his suicide is on his death certificate and in public records, so that can't be the privacy issue. The fact that he slept with a student? Well, he did. If that's inflammatory and his family is so concerned about people learning about it, they should have taken that up with him while he was still living. His family can't seriously expect every student he ever slept with to never mention it because it might upset *them*. What about the students? They were taken advantage of by their professor. Just because he killed himself doesn't mean everyone should forget all his wrongs and elevate him to sainthood in case the truth might hurt his family.

You don't know if the family has a problem with it. Until the professor's family does come forward and announces that they were upset by Raul's interview, your entire argument it pure speculation. You're beating the dead horse and insisting that because YOU have a problem with it, that makes it wrong, and no one else's opinion or reaction should matter.

Updated On: 11/29/06 at 06:34 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 6:47pm

Wow. I'm homophobic now! Awesome.

Really, I give up. No one here is interested in hearing anything except Raul is God, and tjat he's even more God-like now. So carry on with your hero worship, and I'll go back to the real world.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 7:41pm

What's baffling to me is that in all of this is that since there are crappy components latent in what he did, no good can be acknowledged whatsoever. It's almost as if the feeling is that the baggage negates all importance of what he did, and that because he didn't come out in your ideal fashion, what he did can't be considered a good thing at all.

You've presented your argument and had people hear it many, many times now, but you seem to feel that you should be able to state a controversial point without having anyone say anything back to it, as many times as you want. It's like you expect that people will just say nod, say "hmmm" to your points and not voice disagreement with it -- and when they do, you insist that they don't understand or aren't interested, so you bring it up yet again. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that by doing that, you perpetuate the debate -- but rather, the perpetuation is everyone else's fault but your own.

I'd say that we should probably all just agree to disagree on this one because unless you can convince us and we all hail you for being right and bringing us such enlightenment, we won't be "interested" enough for you, but that almost seems too easy in this barage of fabulously mature comebacks and twisting of words.

Updated On: 11/29/06 at 07:41 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 7:45pm

The fact is, I wanted people to give some thought to my point, that's all. Instead he was defended as if I accused him of murdering someone. It was blown COMPLETELY out of proportion.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 7:47pm

And you assumed that people didn't give any thought to it. Standing by original opinions doesn't necessarily mean nobody thought about it, or considered that what he did may not be ALL positive.

Updated On: 11/29/06 at 07:47 PM

[Danielm]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 7:58pm

I brought up the possibility of the unethical affair with the student befor Raith did--and I don't see why we should protect the professor over the student.

[travtrev2]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 10:41pm

i know who he's daaaating :p

:)

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 10:42pm

...um?

Okay.

P.S. Why join BWW and only post this? Seems kinda pointless.

Updated On: 11/29/06 at 10:42 PM

[travtrev2]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 2:47am

gimme a break, it's my first post. i've gotta start somewhere

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 11:50pm

More on this, in an interesting hybrid report-opinion... piece.

http://www.timeoutny.com/newyork/tonyblog/?p=269more-269

I take some issue with a few of the assumptions made, but whatever.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 11:50 PM

[ChildofDestiny]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:10am

Wow...I think this settles this whole thread! A comment from the man himself is on Broadway.com.

Bravo, Raul. How very classy.
Raul Talks About Times Article

[gumbo2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:24am

Nice. "I just wish that the piece had been more about the show and less about...you know, who cares?"

Amen, Raul.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:24am

Wow. Definitely classy, and handled very well. And *very* interesting. I'm definitely surprised that it was unplanned and wasn't set to be a coming-out article before it took place. I can't assume that it wasn't somewhere in his mind to do at some point, because he had been considering in some capacity, but I have no reason not to believe what he says about it being somewhere in his heart and happening for a reason.

He very eloquently clears up a lot: that he didn't know this is what it would be going in, what he wishes it had been... and that he knows he made some mistakes. In that sense, if you can believe him at all, I think you can no longer contest that he has no regard for the people impacted. He acted with his heart more than his head, and I can't place much fault with someone who recognizes that and handles it with class.

My friend and I got a chance to speak with him after a performance this week. I don't want to go into what was said on the boards, but I'll repeat this much of what I've said to a number of people privately since then. I think he's a good egg.

Bravo to you, Raúl.

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 02:24 AM

[IssaMe]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:01am

And as much as I have tried to stay out of this discussion, I will once again say - you'd have to know the "interviewer" (I choke as I use the word here) involved to fully understand what happened.

Believe me, I know from sad personal experience just how her "stories" can be shaded, re-focused, re-formulated, and taken in a direction the subject had no intention to go initially. She can be charming at the time - but so can a cobra.

My advice to everyone I know in the business is - unless you are a mongoose - stay AWAY from Joyce Wadler in any and every way.

And a LOT isn't being said in public about this. It is being handled very carefully.

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo Raul!!!!!!!!!!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 11:33am

I read something similar about the writer in one of the comments on Broadway.com's blog; I think it was the first one that talked about the Times article. That person held that it was irresponsibility on the part of Raúl's "people" to let this fall into her hands. But I suppose if it wasn't set to be a coming-out article, then there wasn't the need to to have an excessive amount of care placed on whose hands it fell into -- though no matter what, there should have been.

I interpreted what he said to mean that he talked about it, but didn't expect it to end up being the focus of the article; I sort of wonder if he made clear that that's not what he wanted and she did it anyway, or if he just let it go and ended up displeased with the outcome. I don't know, I'm reading too far into this -- and trying to read between the lines of your post, Issa.

I don't want to look as though I'm defending her, but on one hand, if he opened up about this in the interview, it was fair game to talk about -- however, if the case is that he expressed what he did or didn't want it to be and she went against his wishes, then that's a big problem.

Anyway, I'm glad he's able to hold his head high through all of this.

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 11:33 AM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 11:48am

I'd imagine he must have intended to say something it, but thought that it would just be a mention in a larger article about everything else they discussed, and the interviewer pounced on that for further questioning. It was probably naive of him to let her, if that's what happened.

Does that imply some sort of action against Wadler, IssaMe?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 12:42pm

I was going to stay out of this, but the comment about gay people not having considerations for others when they "come out" was bordering on the offensive. First and foremost, when a gay man or woman comes out, they are admitting to who they really are. Whether mom and dad are hurt, or whether or not their partner doesn't want him or her to say anything is irrelevant. He or she is no longer going to hide, nor should he hide just to "save face." It is a personal choice, and it's his choice and his alone. There should NEVER be any considerations. As for this specific case, he did not name the professor. And so what if people can figure it out. His fellow classmates would likely have known, even if it wasn't a public relationship. And you know what, it doesn't matter if the man's family disapproves of "outing" him. He was what he was, and no amount of hiding it will change that fact. The world is full of unpleasant truths (not that being gay is unpleasant, but it is perceived as such by some people). We don't know enough to condemn the "outing of Professor X nor to take a stance that this was the wrong way to do it. Professor X is dead and gone now, it doesn't matter if he's outed.

[hellzapoppin2000]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 1:22pm

Who cares if the instructor committed suicide? That has nothing to do with his actions concerning having a teacher-student relationship. TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. Anyone will tell you that the important thing to remember is that he clearly crossed a professional line when he became involved with his student. And was it love? It may have appeared to be love to a sexually confused young man undergoing familial pressure and perhaps a lot of Raul's actions and confusion come from the fact that he was a victim of someone who breached professional and ethical standards. When the balance of power is tilted, it is easy to exploit a sexually confused young man. Seeing Raul on Broadway world and his hemming, hawing and talking in vague circles, it is clear he is a man who is troubled. As the victim of a sexual predator (myself), my heart goes out to him.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 1:32pm

Your speculation is fair and heartfelt, given the nature of student/teacher relationships and all of their implications. But there's no indication of who initiated the relationship, and for all we know, as inappropriate as the relationship is under any circumstances, it could have been the other way around. I have no idea whatsoever and frankly, I don't want to know, but I'm just throwing the possibility out there because there's a huge amount of assumption going on here, which is sort of a danger. One thing that's sort of telling to me is that at the time, someone in that position could very well have mistaken it for love because he was confused. But he's thirty-six now, and still says he thinks he was in love with him. I don't think that makes the relationship any more appropriate by fairly accepted ethical standards, but it is quite a leap to assume what happened, and that that's why he is this way.

[hellzapoppin2000]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 1:45pm

I think its highly improbable that a sexually confused young man would go after a teacher; seeing Raul interviewed, it just doesn't seem likely. And if he were, the instructor clearly should have declined. And I know from experience, that I thought I was in love with my perpetrator until I was well into my thirties. Why? Because he died of AIDS and there was no closure. An interesting read on this topic is Martin Moran's memoir, The Tricky Part. While it might appear to have been love and continue to appear that way, sometimes the truth is something else entirely.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 1:49pm

Oh, absolutely, I agree that it's highly improbable. I purposefully gave a really extreme example. I wouldn't exactly have trouble believing that it was mutual, either, though. But again, who knows? Those kinds of things are for him to deal with.

For what it's worth, even though I'm challenging you, I do find your perspective interesting.

[Shiksa Goddess2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 1:57pm

First of all, these are two consenting adults, not some middle school student with a 60 year old man. Raul was 20something at the time, as was the instructor. Unless he stated to him "You will fail if you don't have sex with me", then there is nothing wrong there.

Second of all, I think it's horrible we are all condemning a dead man who none of us knew when we have VERY little information on the topic. What's done is done, give a little respect to those who have passed, especially considering Raul seemed to have loved him very much and certainly has not publicly blamed him for any emotional damage beyond what a suicide will cause to family and friends.

[Edited for typo] Updated On: 12/1/06 at 01:57 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:05pm

Unless he stated to him "You will fail if you don't have sex with me", then there is nothing wrong there.

That's not necessarily true. It's not my place to pass judgement on whatever the hell Raúl did in college, but as a general statement, there are two things that go on when this happens: there's consent by age, and then there are ethical rules and professional codes that exist within universities, which make it able to be deemed wrong -- the latter of which you've ignored. School environments have the license to enforce stricter disciplinary codes than would be enforced in an identical situation outside of that environment; so if you had an age gap occurring anywhere arbitrarily and there was consent, then no, there's nothing wrong. But in a school, if there *are* rules about it, then it can very well be, regardless of age consent.