Rodgers and Hammerstein on Revivals (Question) — Page 3

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#51

Rodgers and Hammerstein on Revivals (Question)

Posted: 8/23/19 at 9:44am

OlBlueEyes said: "Hogan, my problem with you as a poster is simple. Reading your posts here, they all consist of declarative sentences. The truth is handed down to you from Mount Olympus and you in turn enlighten all those beneath you. You have no doubts. Any disagreement is dismissed, with no attempt to soften the blow andoften with a pejorative statement thrown in such as the person needs to get out more or the person is one of a surprisingly ignorant group. To others no compliments, no concession of a single point.

Your last statement in you last post is the only contradiction that I can find, and it was made to one who certainly towers over me as to knowledge and expression of knowledge.

I don't suppose that you will see any validity in what I've written above. Meant not as attack but as a criticism. Perhaps you don't realize how you come across. Or perhaps there is no general agreement with what I've said."

@BlueEyes, Yes I am aware that I am vigorous in making points, and I don't think that is likely to change. I like robust discussion. But it is simply not true that I always speak declaratively. (As an example, if you scan back through by posts, you'll find that I use the words "I think" repeatedly. And when I don't, generally it is implicit in the context of what I have written.) There are also concessions by me when someone points out something that causes me to rethink an opinion. (And if you want to find more "contradictions" you can quickly find them, but personally I don't really think it is all that interesting as a way of spending time.) What I do not do is give people a pass when they post factually incorrect information, and there is a major example of that in some posts in this thread.

I do not see what you wrote as an attack, although I don't really enjoy when posts become about each other rather than the reason we come here. (And to be clear, I see no signs of the incessant attack mode into which some threads deteriorate in anything you have said here.)

Do I rub some people the wrong way? Sure, and you are not alone (although there are also others who seem to like what I post). I do not post with the intention of condescending, but in areas I am knowledgeable, I do try to enlighten people. I think that when I attack, it is against ideas, not people. I admit that I have no sympathy for people who post incorrect factual information (as opposed to opinions), and that I will give you a run for your money on opinions that differ from mine. I hope that with this explains me a tiny bit, and that we can get back to discussing theatre rather than Hogan.

#52

Rodgers and Hammerstein on Revivals (Question)

Posted: 8/23/19 at 12:09pm

In the last century it was much easier, I think, to cast a play The intent was for the production to be a hit, with long lines at the box office. Casting was a major way of attracting an audience. If Hepburn was available, you grabbed her. G. B. Shaw, as class conscious as anyone in England, did not offer the role of Eliza to a twenty one year old unknown, but selected two established stars, Mrs. Patrick Campbell and Wendy Hiller, to fill the roles on stage and screen.

Referring back to the story of the casting of the role of Tommy in the Music Man revival. If a black were cast in that role, it would seem to go against appealing to the audience. No one is going to see the show due to that casting, but there will be some percentage of the audience that finds that casting so bizarre that this will be their principal response to all who ask them about the show. Attendance might suffer. Why run the risk? To please the critics and the message board posters? What about the investors?

So it appears that I'm in the midst of a group of people who think that racism is running rampant in the country now. I don't see it. Just two generations ago we had segregated schools. One generation ago we had "white flight," where the first black family moving into a white neighborhood soon had crosses burning on their lawn while many of the whites around them quickly put their homes up for sale to try to beat the expected decline in home values. There were race riots in Watts and other cities.

How was it that under the Democrats Kennedy and Johnson one of the worst discriminations against blacks occurred: the student draft exemption that allowed hundreds of thousands of whites to hide from the Vietnam War by enrolling in college while blacks were drafted and sent to that muddy, disease-ridden jungle in numbers far out of proportion to their actual percentage of the draft population?

So what offenses do we have today that measure up to these other fairly recent ones? Don't tell me that it's "go back to your island" as I think that this is more elementary school playground talk. If everyone is a racist than no one is a racist. The public will just become immune to the word.

Not to be too much of a bore, what we are not doing is addressing the problem of lower college attendance by white and black boys. We know that educated and employed people have less prejudice and greater tolerance. Those on the bottom rungs of the social ladder are envious, bitter and angry. They want to find someone to blame and the males can easily go violent.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $58

Tickets From $106

Tickets From $71