STRAIGHT WHITE MEN Previews- Page 5

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/4/18 at 8:42pm

"I think we should all blind ourselves with kitchen utensils so that we can't see what race everyone is. That'll solves racism!" -Dave2828

[briansb]

Posted: 7/4/18 at 10:05pm

Warning: Long review ahead. TLDR: Didn't like it at first, thought more about it, appreciated it more. Still some issues with the framing devices of the play, but can see that the play is already achieving what it set out to do (even if what exactly is being communicated isn't clear).

I saw this Sunday evening. During the play, and right after seeing it, I really wasn't enjoying it too much/at all. There were funny moments, and I thought the acting from Josh and Armie was great, but the whole "meaning" of the play was completely lost to me. I thought it should have been either more subversive and really tackle the subjects of privilege, race and society in the ambitious manner that the playwright set up the play to be, or lose the subversive elements and leave it as the pseudo family drama the bulk of the play was. It sat right in the middle of those two ethoses, and I felt at the time brought nothing to the table because of it. The whole play felt disjointed to me, between the "subversive" scenes with the Persons in Control (and the music in the beginning, which I was really enjoying. I don't get how it tied in with the play beyond "making the normal audience at Broadway feel uncomfortable" as stated in the beginning, but more on that later), the very playful and over-the-top moments with the brothers feeling like a cheesy sitcom, and then suddenly being hit over the head with the serious and blatant discussions of privilege and success. I wanted something thought-provoking, and instead spent a lot of the time watching 3 brothers goofing off for extended periods of time. Why? Was I just not getting it? What is being communicated here?

However, after ruminating for some time and reading more about the playwright's intentions, I'm coming around to appreciating it bit more. It will surely be a conversation starter, and did treat all the subjects fairly without the bias one *might* expect with a title like 'Straight White Men'. The fact that people are uncomfortable/angry (on this thread nonetheless) is ironic, as its perfectly inline with what the Persons in Control say the very purpose of the play framing device is. My favorite bit is that she does play with our expectations a lot--with the production itself, how we respond to the characters, etc--which is something we just don't get in the theater enough and something we all need. Subversion doesn't have to be overt or explicit, and I think the playwright achieved that for the most part. I applaud her for not taking "the easy route" in exploring this subject (i.e. giving into stereotypes of straight white men). The set itself fit the purpose and perhaps made some of her intentions a bit more clear (literally, as a picture frame), but is nothing to write home about.

I still do wish the Persons in Control and those elements of the play were better bound to the overarching narrative and structure of the play. No matter how much I think about the purpose of the play, I cannot get past the disjointed nature of the production as is. It doesn't necessarily need to be more subversive like I originally may have thought, but perhaps more carefully integrated to bolster the dismantling of complacency the playwright is seems to be going for--otherwise, I feel like the value of the play will be lost on most viewers. I don't quite understand why the playwright was so subtle about some things (like the role of the Persons in Control, which I wouldn't even understand if not reading the playwright's notes posted here), and yet so overt about other things like (no spoilers) each brother's perspective on why one brother is acting the way he is (their arguments come across with court room style bluntness, lacking any kind of conversational naturalism). And still--why so many scenes of brotherly playfulness?

I think it is worth seeing, but coming in with a very open mind and reading carefully about the playwright's intentions will help any viewer a lot. Major congrats to Young Jean Lee though on the production, and wishing a lot of success for the play. I guess it's only fair too to disclose that I am a straight white man critiquing this, and do not think AT ALL that this play is trying to be divisive or unfairly critical, so get over it to the people complaining!

[JBC3]

Posted: 7/4/18 at 11:28pm

And still--why so many scenes of brotherly playfulness?



Well, many straight white men do choose to go about their lives somewhat oblivious to the realities of others' existence.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:22am

GeorgeandDot said: ""I think we should all blind ourselves with kitchen utensils so that we can't see what race everyone is. That'll solves racism!" -Dave2828"

It's not about not seeing color. It's about choosing to think in separation.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 6:00am

Briansb wrote:

"Was I just not getting it? What is being communicated here? "

Brian, I wouldn't wrack my brains on either score. The play is just an ineptly-written stinker. It's not worthy of the slightest rumination, only of contempt.

"The fact that people are uncomfortable/angry (on this thread nonetheless) is ironic,"

There's nothing ironic about it. She wanted to make people angry/uncomfortable and she did. The real problem is why she is being praised for that. Which really speaks to the, ahem, "values," (cough, cough, cough --- gee, I need a Ludens) of some of the hip among us. "She's being subversive!" Thunderous applause. "Isn't "subversion" just fantastic? Those patsies who spent money to get their head handed to them, ha ha ha,- more authors should do that more often." Yes, subversion is oh, so fashionable, oh, so chic. As long as it's the people you despise being subverted. Just as anarchy is such a cool notion among the hip set. That is until a rock is thrown through one of their windows. Than it somehow loses its allure.

" My favorite bit is that she does play with our expectations a lot--with the production itself, how we respond to the characters, etc--which is something we just don't get in the theater enough and something we all need."

Yeah, something we all need, just like impetigo, migraines, and fungal toenails.

"do not think AT ALL that this play is trying to be divisive"

What are you talking about? You've just been praising it at long length for its "subversion."

" so get over it to the people complaining!"

Actually, her intent was to make people complain, and seeing how highly you think of her intent, you should be applauding people's complaining. But in any case, it's not for you tell anyone else to stop complaining. Especially when there's so much to complain about!

Updated On: 7/5/18 at 06:00 AM

[astromiami]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 9:02am

Dave28282 said: "GeorgeandDot said: ""I think we should all blind ourselves with kitchen utensils so that we can't see what race everyone is. That'll solves racism!" -Dave2828"

It's not about not seeing color. It's about choosing to think in separation."

It is easy for white people to talk about "choosing to think in separation."  I think a big part of what this play is about is that straight white men so dominate the culture that they are not defined as part of any group. Because they own the whole culture they do not need to claim any cultural identity and see anyone who does as divisive.

The sweet kind men of Lee's play are not bad people, but you cannot help but think how different the action of the play would look if they were not straight, or white, or men.

 

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 10:10am

But the goal should not be "making groups".

Clearly, some people put white straight men on a pedestal and choose to live by the idea that different races have different values, maintaining this separation. I understand that "being not defined as part of any group" like you describe is something people are jealous of and long for, but making groups is not the solution to that. The only way to achieve that is not thinking in separation of race yourself either.

Also, these made up groups have no worth at all in reality. People in life who have to fight a little harder are by no means victims at all times. The Broadway audiences and people on the producing side are very much pursuing equality. Even in this thread, we are all meaning well, and like we discussed before, the number of, especially black people in projects exceeds the percentage of the population. Which is remarkable if all castings would be purely based on talent only, but great. So besides the fact that the approach is wrong (by making groups and separating) it is also questionable what the goal is? Is the goal more than equal? Is the goal a war between races? How much out of balance must the percentage be before people are content? If we could just stop this toxic separation behaviour, we could start the road to equality.

What is the next step? I have a question for you:

A show is cast. It's a cast of 5 people. For every role 10 actors audition. Per role 6 whites, 2 hispanic/latino, 1 black, 0,5 Asian and 0,5 Indian. Relax people, I know there are no half people, talking percentages here. 

This means there is only a 10% chance that any of the roles is played by a black person. So my question is, do you want equality? Equality would mean equal chances for all people, which would mean a lot more white shows, just because the white population is so much bigger and the chances that any role is won by a white person are therefore bigger.

Or do you not want equality, but a deliberate race focus and division, which indeed can be beneficial for black people, by keeping them in the victim role, treat them with special benefits and use this race focus to ensure their places in each and every show out there, till the end of time. So basically cast deliberately on race, no matter how unfair to chances of other people, but ensuring that black people get more roles at the cost of chances of others. I mean, we could make an agreement that 1 role in every cast of 10 MUST be played by a black person, but that is not equality. That is not the first situation I described. This would mean a fair reflection of society in a show, but not in chances/opportunity.

This may sound harsh, but I think this is the core of the problem. There are 2 different visions of equality in every discussion about this. People need to be very aware which one they pick/their view is.

This is not about whining about getting what you want, or white people hand in things, or playing victim, or getting even. It's about equal chances in real lives. Not about the fulfillment of ego's or things you love to see in a show.

So if you pick the latter one, I can imagine where your resistance comes from, because then you don't actually want equal chances. You want to maintain a certain victim role to ensure roles.

Which is in a way understandable, but this will never result in seeing people as equals. But maybe that's a good thing because equals means less opportunity for certain minorities.

This could explain the fighting against equality from the left and the constant need for separation.

Updated On: 7/5/18 at 10:10 AM

[astromiami]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 11:42am

Dave28282 said: "But the goal should not be "making groups".

Clearly, some people put white straight men on a pedestal and choose to live by the idea that different races have different values, maintaining this separation. I understand that "being not defined as part of any group" like you describe is something people are jealous of and long for, but making groups is not the solution to that. The only way to achieve that is not thinking in separation of race yourself either.

Also, these made up groups have no worth at all in reality. People in life who have to fight a little harder are by no means victims at all times. The Broadway audiences and people on the producing side are very much pursuing equality. Even in this thread, we are all meaning well, and like we discussed before, the numberof, especially black people in projects exceeds the percentage of the population. Which is remarkable if all castings would be purely based on talent only, but great.So besides the fact that the approach is wrong (by making groups and separating)it is also questionable what the goal is? Is the goal more than equal? Is the goal a war between races? How much out of balance must the percentage be before people are content? If we could just stop this toxic separation behaviour, we could start the road to equality.

What is the next step? I have a question for you:

A show is cast. It's a cast of 5 people. For every role 10actors audition. Per role 6 whites, 2 hispanic/latino, 1 black, 0,5 Asian and 0,5 Indian. Relax people, I know there are no half people, talking percentages here.

This means there is only a 10% chance that any of the roles is played by a black person. So my question is, do you want equality? Equality would mean equal chances for all people, which would mean a lot more white shows, just because the white population is so much bigger and the chances that any role is won by a white person are therefore bigger.

Or do you not want equality, but a deliberate race focus and division, which indeed can bebeneficial for black people, by keeping them in the victim role, treat them with special benefits and use this race focus to ensure their places in each and every show out there, till the end of time. So basically cast deliberately on race, no matter how unfair tochances of other people, but ensuring that black people get more roles at the cost of chances of others. I mean, we couldmake an agreement that 1 role in every cast of 10 MUST be played by a black person, but that is not equality. That is not the first situation I described. This would mean a fair reflection of society in a show, but not in chances/opportunity.

This may sound harsh, but I think this is the core of the problem. There are 2 different visions of equality in each and every discussion about this. People need to be very aware which one they pick/their view is.

This is not about whining about getting what you want, or white people hand in things, or playing victim, or getting even. It's about equal chances in real lives. Not about the fulfillment of ego's or things you love to see in a show.

So if you pick the latter one, I can imagine where your resistance comes from, because then you don't actually want equal chances. You want to maintain a certain victim role to ensure roles.

Which is in a way understandable, but this will never result in seeing people as equals. But maybe that's a good thing because equals means less opportunity for certain minorities.

This could explain the fighting against equality from the left and the constant need for separation."


I enjoy the new idea that white people's roles should be bigger because there are more of them.

By that standard there should be bigger non-singing roles in musicals since most people cannot sing.

If you want to succeed as a troll you cannot keep repeating the same stuff. Think about what someone who actually believes the stuff you post would think, and use that to find new spiels.

Other than the size of role twist, this is too much of the same to have any fun with.
 

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 12:07pm

astromiami said: 

If you want to succeed as a troll you cannot keep repeating the same stuff. Think about what someone who actually believes the stuff you post would think, and use that to find new spiels.

Other than the size of role twist, this is too much of the same to have any fun with.


I think people misunderstand Dave. He isn't a troll. He isn't trying to provoke, he genuinely believes what he says and wants to share his view.

I don't believe him when he says he saw this play though. I can't imagine that anyone with his views would walk into a theater where the marquee said Straight White Men. 

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 12:16pm

astromiami said: "Other than the size of role twist, this is too much of the same to have any fun with.
"

My previous post completely floors your ideas about so called equality. I expected you wouldn't find that fun.

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 12:21pm

astromiami said: "I enjoy the new idea that white people's roles should be bigger because there are more of them.

By that standard there should be bigger non-singing roles in musicals since most people cannot sing.
"

No. Wrong statement, wrong comparison. Read my post before you react please.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 12:25pm

carnzee said: "I think people misunderstand Dave. He isn't a troll. He isn't trying to provoke, he genuinely believes what he says and wants to share his view.

I don't believe him when he says he saw this play though. I can't imagine that anyone with his views would walk into a theater where the marquee said Straight White Men.

"

Thanks! Could be, but they misunderstand "equality" even more.

And I have seen the show. I am involved in this subject matter and do not close my eyes selectively as many people in this discussion do. In fact, I really wanted to see it.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 2:36pm

[little_sally]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:11pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Stephen-Payne-to-Replace-Denis-Arndt-in-STRAIGHT-WHITE-MEN-20180705

And now Denis Arndt is out...

[ahhrealmonsters]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:15pm

little_sally said: "https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Stephen-Payne-to-Replace-Denis-Arndt-in-STRAIGHT-WHITE-MEN-20180705

And now Denis Arndt is out..."

What is happening over at the Helen Hayes??

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:28pm

More turnover than the White House?

[ahhrealmonsters]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:44pm

From what I recall, the Public production was very smooth behind the scenes. I actually worked at The Public at the time, and while I wasn't involved in the show (I was on another show), I don't remember hearing drama. What changed with the transfer?

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:50pm

It's not a transfer... is probably the main answer to your question. 

[quizking101]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:57pm

Did Arndt ever even do an official performance?

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 4:58pm

Pretty sure they're going to run out of straight white men to play this role. Is Phylicia Rashad available?

[JBC3]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 5:33pm

ahhrealmonsters said: "little_sally said: "https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Stephen-Payne-to-Replace-Denis-Arndt-in-STRAIGHT-WHITE-MEN-20180705

And now Denis Arndt is out..."

What is happening over at the Helen Hayes??"

Probably because of this thread lol.

[10086sunset]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 5:53pm

Happy for Payne.
He deserves the opportunity.

[oldfriends]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 6:00pm

10086sunset said: "Happy for Payne.
He deserves the opportunity."

I agree. Wonderful they're giving him a chance to step up. They've got enough "star power" already.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 6:11pm

Payne was the u/s for the role already. And did Arndt perform at all, or has Payne been on since the first preview?

[DramaTeach]

Posted: 7/5/18 at 6:30pm

^ Payne did the first preview.  Don't think Arndt went on at all.