STRAIGHT WHITE MEN Previews — Page 5

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

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 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.

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.

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??

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?

Did Arndt ever even do an official performance?

Probably because of this thread lol.

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.

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