I enjoyed SA, but found myself to be somewhat disappointed that the same sex "love" scene in Act 2 didn't get the same respect and/or serious take as the straight love story of the entire play. It was played as a joke to break the drama, and I understand the need for some comic relief, but why at the expense of the homos? Anyone else offended (probably too strong a word)? It reminds me of the old movies/shows where the black nanny and plantation workers would be brought on to be laughed at ("I know nothin' bout birthin' no babies, Miss Scarlet) while the white hero and heroine would be presented seriously.
Broadway Star Joined: 1/29/07
I totally understand where you are coming from. But for some reason it didn't bother me. I can't even explaini why not....it just didn't for some reason.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/13/06
My guess is because, in the source material, the characters are already less developed. It's easier to thrust things like comic relief or exposition or other show development devices on underdeveloped characters.
I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to how offensive it may be. Though I do find almost every line Jonathan B. Wright delivers on the cast recording to be intrinsically hilarious. It's possible it developed more out of the characters or the performances than it did out a specific decision to make a joke out of the homosexuals.
There's an older thread where people discuss it more here.
Updated On: 2/2/07 at 07:55 AM
I haven't seen the show, so this isn't an educated comment... but does everything have to be serious all the time. At some point in tv, movies, theatre or whatever form, everyone is made fun of, used as comic relief, so why be sensitive. Enjoy it for the art not as some agenda
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
Wright's delivery is so extremely hammy and unconvincing that it IS a big joke. Then, when they begin to make out, their ferocity is so extreme that you can't help but laugh.
It was the one part of the show that I thought could be cut. It just didn't fit.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/13/06
Your description of the scene just makes me more anxious to see it.
Broadway Star Joined: 1/29/07
Well, look at it this way: The gay boy is much more well-adjusted and happy than the straight ones. I guess that's something!
Craww may have a point...on paper, that scene probably would not be comical in the least.....maybe it did grow sort of grow out of the ceative process, rather than being written that way.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
Same with the beating scene, which is unintentionally funny, as well.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
...He says, with a half-naked child actor as his avatar.
I had the same reaction to the scene between the boys...it seemed cartoonish. There were titters throughout the audience that wouldnt have been there had this been taken seriously.
I assume they wanted a light moment, because it was clearly intentional to be funny, unlike the flogging scene...but this shouldnt have been it.
It was the only flaw, for me, in an astonishingly good musical.
Leading Actor Joined: 1/22/07
i admit that at first i thought the same thing. i was sort of surprised that the homosexual relationship was played for laughs. however after repeated viewings i came to the conclusion that the homosexuality is not the source of the humor. the comedy lies in the innocence of ernst juxtaposed with the predatory nature of hanschen. the comedy comes through the confidence of johnny wright's hanschen which borders on cockiness. i disagree entirely with the criticism of johnny's performance. i think that his interpretation is spot on and true to the nature of the text.
Actually the thing that bothered me most about that scene was how they were like, about to kiss and then pulled out the microphones, which totally ruined it for me.
And I didn't think the whipping scene was funny at all, intentional or not. And no one even let out nervous laughter when I saw it either.
Broadway Star Joined: 1/29/07
I have the libretto and just read the whole scene....maybe it is written as a little humorous after all.
But..I just don't understand what is offensive about it. It is a seduction scene, it is gay, and it is humorous. I don't see why this combination is automatically bad. Actually, it was one of my favorite book scenes...maybe partly because I was sitting upstage and heard the dialog better than the rest (I guess J.B. Wright enunciated particularly well, heh...). I liked the speech about different types of people and the milk. It was like he was the only character who could step back and see everything objectively (if a little coldly). Nice contrast to the others.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
gym - I think people just like to shout that things are offensive.
I mean, look at the offense people took to the rape in The Fantasticks. So...
Broadway Star Joined: 1/29/07
And I didn't think the whipping scene was funny at all, intentional or not. And no one even let out nervous laughter when I saw it either.
Same here. I had heard much talk about the nervous laughter at that point, but on the night I was there, you could hear a pin drop. And from my seat I could see her bare bottom really clearly...yikes...uncomfortable to watch...
Yep, we might have been sitting in the same place...it was definitely a dramatic scene.
Leading Actor Joined: 1/22/07
the whipping scene is not supposed to be funny.
there is often nervous laughter but the scene is supposed to be upsetting.
Jonathan B Wright knows exactly what he is doing in that scene. He is very convincing and wonderful to watch. His diction and the delivery of his lines are very good indeed.
Updated On: 2/2/07 at 07:30 PM
Swing Joined: 1/15/07
gymdudeva, libretto??
That was the only scene that bothered me a little, I enjoyed it, but the way it was scripted made it seemed that it was included in the musical for comic relief since Moritz had committed suicide and everything else was going downhill. (Personally, “Totally F*CKed” took the bite out of Moritz’s death for me.) Arguably the scene with the gay couple just shows another type of love, and Sater and Duncan could have taken plenty of liberties with it because in Wedekind’s play, the source material the scene is short, and I believe that may be the only scene for those two characters.
The only point when I laughed during that scene was when the response to the comment: “In 30 years we’ll look back at this beautiful day and laugh” (something to that effect). The delivery of the response, something to the effect of “So what do we do until then?” was just great.
The pulling out of microphones just amused me, and was just a huge indicator of “we’re shifting to an interior monologue in song, damn it!”
The audience was pretty much silent during the beating scene when I saw it.
We are always going to get the sh*t end of the stick....no pun intended.....it was a way for comic releif, but why? why couldn't it be taken seriously? oh well, the rest of the show was great.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
"the sh*t end of the stick....no pun intended....."
That's why...
Featured Actor Joined: 8/6/06
Wedekind had this very odd sense of humor, it was a way for him to break up the horror in the story, and added it at very quirky moments.
My personal favorite moment is when they discuss initially what there is to do about Melchior, and when the headmaster asks what anyone else thinks the other teachers/professors just respond by saying "can someone open a window in here?" Very good.
Leading Actor Joined: 1/22/07
oh those crazy germans!
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
brainpolice - interesting you said that. It's a technique Chekhov often used and developed throughout his career. Having these big sentimental moments and making them anti-climatic by having some sort of interruption...usually comic.
And since Wedekind and he were writing in the same time (Wedekind was born four years later, and died fourteen years after Chekhov) - I wonder if there was any link between that style somewhere in Europe.
Updated On: 2/2/07 at 09:22 PM
Videos