The Problem With Broadway Revivals: They Revive Gender Stereotypes, Too — Page 2

Oh yeah, I know it's about depriving choices, and that's what annoys me. It's dangerous thinking to try to "ban" every single piece of art that has something even remotely problematic in it. If you start doing that, then eventually, you have to strip away everything, and you have nothing left. Humanity is inherently problematic, and while it's never good to glorify that, it's also a reality that we need to face.

I don't like Dear Evan Hansen. I think the show is preachy for all the wrong reasons and does a terrible job at representing mental illness. However, I'm not about to go writing up pretentious thinkpieces and claiming the show is Bad and that we shouldn't put up productions of it anymore. I get that the show means something to other people, so if I ever take another trip to New York, I'll just skip seeing it and find something more fitting to my tastes.

Bettyboy72 said: "I still don't understand why women are just supposed to accept the outdated context, but other minorities are allowed outrage and changes are made. Should we accept Ching and Ling in Anything Goes just because racism and "chinky" characters were acceptablethen? Hell no.

Also, if you don't think Carousel romanticizes abuse, you're in a dreamworld. And this time it will be a man of color abusing a white woman. Perfect.

And the more I think about Waitress the more Im grossed out. I know its based on a film, but a marrieddoctor unethically beds his patient, who is in an physically and sexually abusive relationship. Yuck."

Then don't see those shows, pretty simple. You are obviously bothered by what is featured in a huge number of older shows, movies, books, that are set in different times. That's your loss, but doesn't give you or anyone else the right to ask for art to change.

After Eight said: "It's about depriving peopleof choices.It's about providing only what is deemed acceptable, and quashing/extirpating/banning everything else.

Sounds great, doesn't it?"

Sounds disgusting, and it's exactly what people do nowadays. Complaining about anything that doesn't conform to the current political climate.

Completely oblivious to the art of storytelling. Whatever a character does in a certain situation in a certain show is by no means depriving any people of another opinion, or what is generally deemed acceptable, whatsoever.

Updated On: 2/26/18 at 08:53 AM

Tim Carter said in the article:

“It is almost impossible to rescue the show from Julie Jordan’s apparent acceptance of domestic abuse,” Mr. Carter said. “The only sensible solution — in my view — is to accept the problem and then engage with it, rather than, say, sanitizing the work to remove the problem in the first place. Otherwise there’s no end to it.”

I agree. You accept the problem as is and then present it to the audience through your own modern point of view. That's the way we have been doing Merchant of Venice and Othello for ages. You don't have to change the work itself - you change how you feel about it and what it means in today's world.

When I was in Jr High I read Gone With the Wind for the first time. I loved the story, but the racial attitudes made me very uncomfortable. I still had older relatives who's views weren't all that far from the white folks in the novel.

I have re-read the book several times since then, most recently last year. Much time has passed, and those old relatives and their ideas are gone and have been repudiated.

Of course the book is still the same, but it's not uncomfortable now as much as it is instructive. Rather than see it as trying to say that this is an accurate portrayal of black and white people during and after the Civil War, I now see it as a glimpse at how southern white people in the early 1930s saw the world and their history. These were their myths and stories.

Sometimes we look at something like segregation and wonder "What were they thinking?". Well, GWTW is what they were thinking. Segregation was accepted because they had a very particular and isolated culture with a specific view of the world. It doesn't justify or excuse anything, but it does on a human level explain what was going on in their heads.

It's the same with Julie Jordan and Carousel. We need to face the fact that we used to be those people that thought such abuse was only a minor sin. Art holds the mirror up to us and that is an uncomfortable place to be. Good. We could use some discomfort with our R&H songs.

The same goes for MFL. As for Pretty Woman, I got nothing. I have no idea why that thing exists.

Updated On: 2/26/18 at 07:08 PM

I think real dialogue can come out of these pieces and a piece likeCarouselis definitely a piece that is worthy to be the center of discussion. It is art and one Broadway's best offerings.

This would make sense if it was promoted with sensitivity and with the intention to generate discussion about how women were treated then in relation to present times. To simply put it out there as a classical romance makes the producers and creative team highly offensive and insensitive imo. It's not like everyone going in knows what they're in for.

I like the music but watching this man beat up these women is problematic. If you want to sympathize with him because he's a tormented character, why no sympathy for a tormented man who would do the exact same today?

dramamama611 said: "Outdated context? Are there no more abusive men? Or abusive relationships, for that matter? Do "nice" people not stray from their marital vows? I was unaware we had found Nirvana.

The important thing, in reference to Waitress, is that the lead character FINDS the strength to say no more, to stand up for herself and get herself in a better place.
"

I had some problems with Waitress. Most of the show was about the abuse. it's only in the last 10-15 when everything becomes 'bright and cheery" it was very awkward to watch that for 2 hours.

BuddyStarr said: "dramamama611 said: "Outdated context? Are there no more abusive men? Or abusive relationships, for that matter? Do "nice" people not stray from their marital vows? I was unaware we had found Nirvana.

The important thing, in reference to Waitress, is that the lead character FINDS the strength to say no more, to stand up for herself and get herself in a better place.
"

I had some problems with Waitress. Most of the show was about the abuse. it's only in the last 10-15 when everything becomes 'bright and cheery" it was very awkward to watch that for 2 hours."

I mean, the whole point of the show is that she is in this horrible, abusive relationship and is trying to get out. And then she does. We are on her side. Isn't that something to be celebrated? (I take the point someone made about the questionable ethics of the doctor/patient relationship though. That is something that hasn't been ok for decades).

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 04:57 PM

Are you being sarcastic or serious? First, why have you mentioned the word 'white' in that paragraph? In this context especially (Waitress the musical), it is not relevant at all that you may be white or not. It might be relevant that you are a 'male' - but because we are humans and we (most of us at least) have empathy, it is possible to use our cognition to understand the perspective of others without being female. It is an absolute myth propagated by our insane identity-politics cohort that you can't understand someone's experience unless you belong to a particular oppressed group and have 'lived experience'. And indeed, belonging to a particular oppressed group can sometimes distort someone's perception just as much about a particular event/situation as not belonging to a particular group (this is why for a while now, it is unfortunately common for people to suggest racism and sexism exist in situations where they simply do not). Thus, being an 'oppressed minority' does certainly not make you an authority of whether a particular situation is 'problematic' or 'offensive'.

Biases will exist in different ways whether you interpreting a situation from the perspective of a male or female - and the way to move forward is to try and adopt the scientific method and use reasoning/logic to overcome these biases. Not to dismiss someone's opinion and take another one's as 'true' because of their identity. This is a very dangerous and non-scientific precedent.

But finally, if we want to 'swallow the kool aid' and suggest that one's own identity really is absolutely pivotal to how we interpret the world (it is, but not as much as they'd have us believe) then - as gay men - one of the LEAST privileged groups in the whole world - we must not let people suggest our perspective comes from a place of 'privilege'. We are not privileged.

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 05:21 PM

I honestly don't think there is a need (or that it is scientifically accurate) to elevate yourself as some kind of amazingly privileged, well-off person because you happen to be white and male. Being white and male can offer some advantages, but your 'privilege' in society is based on so much more than your group identity, and in fact is probably more largely explained by individual differences. For example, your intelligence especially (which will have a major impact on your education potential, job performance and career success), personality factors (if you happen to be highly conscientious, out-going and friendly you will have better outcomes), socioeconomic status of your family, region where you grew up, friends, health - it is amazingly complex. The concept of 'privilege' is so utterly overly simplistic they make it sound like if you are a white straight male you've good all the tools you need to win at life. You just simply don't. It's not how the world works. If ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, there are certainly advantages to being a white, straight male. But there is much more variation WITHIN identity groups than BETWEEN identity groups that we seem to only focus on the, no pun intended, skin deep issues. I suppose the concept of 'intersectionality' has helped add complexity but seems to be used in a rather inconsistent way and is more about the intersection of group identifies rather than considering individual differences.

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 05:51 PM

qolbinau said: "I honestly don't think there is a need (or that it is scientifically accurate) to elevate yourself as some kind of amazingly privileged, well-off person because you happen to be white and male. Being white and male can offer some advantages, but your 'privilege' in society is based on so much more than your group identity, and in fact is probably more largely explained by individual differences. For example, your intelligence especially (which will have a major impact on your education potential, job performance and career success), personality factors (if you happen to be highly conscientious, out-going and friendly you will have better outcomes), socioeconomic status of your family, region where you grew up, friends, health - it is amazingly complex. The concept of 'privilege' is so utterly overly simplistic they make it sound like if you are a white straight male you've good all the tools you need to win at life. You just simply don't. It's not how the world works. If ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, there are certainly advantages to being a white, straight male. But there is much more variation WITHIN identity groups than BETWEEN identity groups that we seem to only focus on the, no pun intended, skin deep issues. I suppose the concept of 'intersectionality' has helped add complexity but seems to be used in a rather inconsistent way and is more about the intersection of group identifies rather than considering individual differences."

Thanks for the respectful conversation. I think we’ll just simply have to agree to disagree. I certainly agree that just because someone is born white or male, doesn’t mean that person will necessarily have an easier life. Some of that relates to the intersectionality that you mention. But science (research) does tell us that our society is much more forgiving of the faults of those with privilege while being more punitive towards those with less privilege. I’ve seen this in my own life where perhaps I’ve received preferential treatment in some instances due to my whiteness and maleness while perhaps also receiving unfair treatment due to being gay. One example of privilege is the rate and severity with which black and brown young men are incarcerated when compared to white men with similar offenses. I’d also say privilege goes the other way too. Those with privilege may have their desirable traits enhanced while those without privilege may have to go further to receive acknowledgement.

adam.peterson44 said: "I find it flabbergasting that anyone would say that Carousel the show romanticizesspousal abuse or domestic violence, or even that the character Julie herself romanticizes the abuse.

Spoilerbelow:



End spoiler



As for the person who referenced "watching this man beat all these women" in reference to Carousel, it is clear that the person has never actually seen Carousel. Only one woman (not plural women) were ever hit by Billy, and it is not shown at all (hence we don't "watch" it) - it is only talked about after the event happens once offstage. And it is handled pretty realistically - lots of people today stay in abusive relationships because of the apology/kindness/loving phases that punctuate the abusive phases. If someone were always cruel and violent, it is less likely that people would enter into relationships with them at all, but people stay (even today, not just in the late 1800's when Carousel was set) in abusive relationships because the abuse is followed by an apology, a promise to change, and kind, loving treatment. Until the next time the whole cycle repeats. Recognizing this reality does not "romanticize" abuse - it explains it and depicts it realistically.

Or the abuse victims"stay" because they are children who are entirely financially and legally dependent on their parents and cannot just walk away as much as they might want to and as much as they recognize from an extremely young agethat the cycle will keep repeating forever.or until they can reach adulthood, become financially independent, and escape.

It is an issue that lots of people still have to deal with today, and our stories deserve to be told as much as the stories of people privileged enough never to have had to deal with domestic violence as part of their upbringing. The story is sadly just as relevant today as ever. And the message of hope that it ends with, with the local doctor giving the graduation speech that Louise can make what she wants of her life and not be held back by the legacy of her parents, and not have her life be hurt permanently by the legacy because she is free to build her own life as she chooses, is an absolutely critical and uplifting message for abuse victims to hear. It gives hope that a better life is possible ahead, even with a rocky start that she couldn't control. Also a timely message today."

I do wish you’d have used the spoiler alert feature (which totally hides the spoiler unless you touch it) as I received this in my email and read the first line of the spoiler before I stopped reading. Nevertheless, your synopsis makes me want to use my Delta Skymiles and Hilton points to fly into NYC just to see this. I just might do it!!!

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 11:35 PM

adam.peterson44 said: "Sorry about that - i have tried before (and again tonight) to use the spoiler tag feature by highlighting the text that i want to hide, and selecting the spoiler option in the editing box, and the spoiler box appears, but without the text inside. Sorry that the manual labels don't hide the text effectively. If anyone knows how to correctly use the feature, i'll try to edit what i posted to incorporate it."

You have to select the spoiler option first then type your spoiler info inside the box itself. It won’t do it for you.

adam.peterson44 said: "Thanks. Edited to add the spoiler box."

Thank you!!!