The "Queering" of Broadway -- Agree or Disagree? — Page 3

Jose--whether you know the history of gay playwrights or not, this question has an ugly tradition of intended and inadvertent homophobia.

In the mid 1960s, before Gay Liberation, it was socially acceptable for critics to ask if the heterosexual characters in plays by William Inge, Tennessee Williams and Edward Albee were just "frauds," a "secret plot to disguise homosexual male characters as women." These great American playwrights were belittled and demeaned and accused of producing "hateful misogynistic parodies of heterosexual love, marriage, and the family"--that's how these critics charcterized plays like Bus Stop, Streetcar and Virginia Woolf.

The otherwise excellent critic Stanley Kaufmann wrote an infamous article for The New York Times in 1965 called "Homosexual Drama and Its Disguises," in which he accused Albee, Williams, Inge and others of producing a "badly distorted picture of American women, marriage and society" by creating what he called a "two-sex version of the one-sex experience."

Even William Goldman, in his otherwise brilliant book The Season, accused Albee of writing "boy-girl relationships when he really means boy-boy relationships; he understands boy-boy relationships but is forced to write them as boy-girl." Goldman accused Albee of "treating heterosexuals viciously," an accusation that was itself vicious.

In recent years John Simon would often decry what he considered the ubiquitous presence of homosexuality in the theatre in phrases collected elsewhere here on BroadwayWorld by our own MargoChanning.

So for you to start this thread claiming to be unaware of its gay-baiting undertones is either naive or disingenuous.

If your answer is naive and you were unaware of the homophobic odor, please accept my apology for having accused you unfairly. If, however, you were aware of this tradition, an apology from you would be nice, as your question has made both gays and straights on this board feel uncomfortable.

---

Updated On: 5/22/05 at 01:42 AM

"There exists a debate that in the last few year Broadway has become a ground of "gay" humor and inneuendo, and is fixated on a "queer" agenda. As a result, the argument goes, mainstream audience are turning on their backs on live theatre as the recipent of their discretionery entertainment dollar."

As I'm reading this, Jose' is saying that a controversary already exists because someone has expressed this thought before (presumably in some other arena and/or media.) I don't see him expressing his own opinion, but rather asking what others think about an arguement that is already taking place. Seeing as this is a theatre board with many self-identified gay posters, it seems logical to open this topic for discussion here.

I don't find Jose's question offensive. It is obvious that homosexuality is alive and thriving in theatre today. I just don't see how this is some sort of unique phenomenon.

In the past 30 years, the homosexual community has made leaps and bounds towards public education and open acceptance in society. It is now not only acceptable but celebrated to be gay and adds to the rich colourful tapestry which is our little planet. It is obvious in all forms of Media and The Arts that acceptance of homosexuality and interest is sought after. I dare anyone to name a popular sitcom that doesn't have a homosexual character or two. When you have a part of society considered so dark and taboo for so many centuries now thrust into the limelight for all to consider and gain understanding from, OF COURSE people will be interested. This must be why there are so many gay character roles written now, and to be quite honest they make fantastic viewing.

I say keep them coming (don't read into that!) and while we're at it try more diverse character roles. After all, the source of all art is everyday life and there are so many people from all walks of life you can gain from.

---

There you go with those moral equivalences again, DG.

I frequently start threads (and, yes, on the Off Topic Board) quoting or crossposting writers in order to inspire, empower and provide a common language for progressives.

Is that what you are saying Jose did here? Was he bringing up a hot-button issue or deliberately pressing people's buttons?

---

I personally don't notice this, but a friend of mine who's in a Broadway show claims that the whole balance of the show has been thrown off because so many of the male cast members are gay. I don't understand why this would be, though; he never really explained himself. I find it a rather nasty comment.

"(not that I Have a problem with them-- most of them are well-behaved and clean people, just like 'regular' folks)."

You have got to be kidding with that remark. If you are, it is in very poor taste. Just like "regular" people?

Honestly, this entire thread illustrates the hypocricy and the ignorance of a large number of people on this board.

I know the point you're attempting to make with the remainder of your post, taht this is how others think. However, the use of the word SPIC, no matter what the point, is inappropriate and ignorant. If you were making the same point about shows that star African Americna's, would you so freely use the N word? I dare say not. You would be afraid to.
I find SPIC to be offensive in any context, in any attempt to make any point and even coming from Latin Americans. It's a degrading word of the worst kind.

This entire thread is ridiculous and Jose should use his own power of deletion to edit himself once in a while. God knows, you need it. You show, at times, an inability to edit your thoughts prior to committing them to writing.
Jose, regardless of what you say, you do have a history of creating threads for the purpose of controversy when the heat is on you and members are giving you a hard time. You are much like our president in that way, start a war to take focus from another issue that makes you look bad.

Jose is a mean spirited person. This "moderator" posts garbage like the "queering" of Broadway and he PMs members and offers nasty insults. Not the type of behavior you'd expect from a person in charge of editing content on this board.

.

Updated On: 5/22/05 at 01:10 PM

Nina I guess I need to explain: I used a completely tasteless ethnic slur (Spic) JUST LIKE Jose used the word "Queer" in an attempt to draw attention to the complete offensiveness of the post. I should have posted: "IRONY! POSTER IS NOT IN ANY WAY ANTI-LATINO."

Anyway, I still say Jose's post stinks. I think saying "THis controversy exists" is just a way to present the argument without say "I think this is so." Again, I'm stunned that a MODERATOR of this forum would use such a term.

To quote Cole Porter: You may know Jose, but you don't know Jose.

---

PJ, I'm sure you don't see this, but it is you who is coming across as divisive.

This thread was one of many questions I posted several days ago that centered on today's Broadway, frankly because, in my opinion, the level of the discussion threads on the board could use some other topics bsides the ubiquitous ones. So shoot me.

Instead of supporting one side of the question I raised or the other, or heaven forbid, instead of offering several theatre-related topics of your own, you, and a few others, chose this as a pretext to personally attack me.

I am comfortble with the fact that we've never met, you don't know me, nor do you have any clue of my personal morals or ethics. So, I see at the root of your responses your ignorance of me and your intolerance.

If you don't like a message thread I create, don't read it, and don't respond. It's that simple.

If your purpose in responding to a thread I post is to personally attack me, then you might want to consider getting a life. Otherwise it's starting to look as if you have nothing of value to contribute whatsoever.

José

I wish Nina would have been equally as vocal about being insulted by the use of "Queering." I am latin and gay and both words offend me.

It reminds me of the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke.

(To paraphrase Margo Channing.)

---