re: Raul Esparza Update! He Reacts to the Times Story Here...- Page 2

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:17pm

He probably practiced his answer to that question. If I were him I would have been expecting to be asked about it. Not denying his eloquence and other-worldly wordiness, just a thought.

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:22pm

I have nothing but respect for Raul. I thought his comments in the Times were brave and I also found his response to the article to be brave as well. What a great guy!

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:32pm

Now, how do I get Raul to propose to me?

[trikaraokeidol]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:50pm

I've been waiting for somebody to use the "b" word. Brave? Hardly. The ones who are brave are the ones who say they are gay at a very young age and have to endear the ridicule of their classmates and peers for years. It's not brave to marry a woman who loves you, have gay affairs on the side and then talk about it in the NY Times once you have a Broadway lead and are an established name in the theatre world.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:55pm

What about the "better late than never" argument?

Not that it negates past mistakes, but it's brave that he did it at all, period, at any time, as far as I'm concerned.

Your argument, on the other hand, ignores the idea of suppressing who you are, and opts for the easy case of not wanting people to know. That's hardly even all that valid here.

PS, one does not "endear" ridicule. One "endures" it.

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 06:55 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:59pm

That's not true. I find ridicule endearing.

[trikaraokeidol]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:03pm

I find it endearing as well!

Still, I don't find what Raul did "brave".

How does my argument go against being who you are? My argument is more like who cares who he his? Why is he so arrogant to think that the one time he sits down for a cover story with the NY Times, he should talk about his personal life like that? But if that is WHO he is, so be it.
Updated On: 12/1/06 at 07:03 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:05pm

I don't really understand how you can say it's not brave at all just because he waited until he was (sort of) ready, and that it's only brave at a certain time. It takes a lot to do what he did, no matter when, even if he did spend years hiding.

But whatever, this will go nowhere but in circles.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:08pm

Ack, you edited while I was posting.

I didn't say your argument goes against being who you are. I'm saying that this doesn't present itself as an issue of "I'm gay, but I don't want anybody to know so I'm going to stay in the closet and hide behind my marriage" -- which is what you're arguing that it is -- but more an issue of "this is not who I am." He says in the article that that's how he looked at it. It was an experience he had, but not who he was, until he came to terms with it.

[trikaraokeidol]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:13pm

I'm not understanding your argument against my opinion that what he did is not brave. I have re-read your last post about 5 times and I don't get it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:19pm

Sigh.

My argument against your not thinking he was brave and what I said in my last post are two different things.

My argument against why you think he's not brave is quite simply a matter of opinion. Yes, he hid for many, many years, but I think that no matter when you do something like this, it's brave, at any point in your life. Whether you do it at sixteen or thirty-six, it takes courage to open up and talk about things like this.

To re-explain my last post (yet again)...

You said this:

The ones who are brave are the ones who say they are gay at a very young age and have to endear the ridicule of their classmates and peers for years. It's not brave to marry a woman who loves you, have gay affairs on the side

When I read that, I read that you were considering Raul's case to be one of someone who hides because he doesn't want people to know he's gay or bisexual or whatever he is. But if you read the article, you should have seen him talk about being conflicted because he didn't see certain experiences he has as who he was. Being unsure of who you are and trying to work around that runs quite a bit deeper than knowing who you are and hoping to keep it a secret.

So if you're saying he's not brave because he hid for the reason you seem to be basing it on, then it sort of all falls through, to me. Your argument makes it way easier to point fingers and say he was a coward, but it doesn't seem accurate based on the story he told.

Is that clearer?

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 07:19 PM

[trikaraokeidol]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:23pm

Yes it is - thank you!

It's also a little clear that you have some emotional connection here and/or are a huge fan. Would you consider that your opinion may be a bit biased? Do you think it was arrogant of him to not just talk about the show, the cast, and his experience with it? Having said that, I blame the writer for thinking that outing a musical theatre actor is front page news.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:28pm

I have no problem being very up front about the fact that I am a huge fan of his; his work has touched my heart a lot, and I respect him very much.

That said, I'm sure you could say that my opinion of what he did has a biased spin and that a great many people are going to discount it for that reason, but I'm still going to argue that I think in general, it is a brave action at any point in someone's life. All I'm doing is extending a general belief I have to someone I happen to support -- not just saying it because it's Raúl.

Do you think it was arrogant of him to not just talk about the show, the cast, and his experience with it?

I think it's unfair to assume that he didn't talk about it. No, I don't think it's arrogant of him not to have stuck exclusively to it, though. We don't know what kinds of questions he was asked, and from his opinion of the final printed product in the video, I get the impression that he expected much more about the show itself to be in there. If he expected it to be in there, well, he had to have talked about it.

I also think it's a lot easier to take issue with him for some of these things than it is to take issue with the journalist, whose fault it might actually be, you know?

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 07:28 PM

[trikaraokeidol]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:47pm

I definitely agree with you on the journalist issue.

However, he gave her a helluva lot of info. Why talk to a reporter like that and have it be off the record?

I found the article very entertaining and was thinking about it for a while afterward. He did it (the interview) for publicity. Perhaps they both got waht they wanted.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:51pm

He did it (the interview) for publicity.

The interview itself was definitely for publicity -- by nature. If you mean he came out for publicity, that I disagree with, but I won't press the matter because I've pretty much exhausted it.

I think a great many of the things people are having problems with can be blamed on the journalism, really. Just depends on how you want to look at it.

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 07:51 PM

[trikaraokeidol]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:02pm

I liked him in COMPANY. But I just don't think people like him or McGreevey, Heche, etc. are "brave".

I can't completely blame the journalist. It made for a compelling read - which is her job.

HE GAVE HER THE INFO!!! She didn't make it up!

:)
Updated On: 12/1/06 at 08:02 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:11pm

He's sorry that what he said might have a negative impact on the people involved who are not in the business. At the same time, he acknowledges that "everything happens for a reason" and that he has to assume that somewhere in his heart there was something that needed to be changed in his life. Sounds like what he's saying is that he's Sorry/Grateful.

But in all seriousness, I applaud him.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:15pm

You're sorry-grateful,
Regretful-happy.
Why look for answers
When none occur?
You'll always be what you always were,
Which has nothing to do with,
All to do with her.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 8:17pm

Oh, no no. I'm not implying that she made it up at all, but part of a journalist's job is to put a "spin" on things. It's really easy to fall into traps and misconstrue what people say, which can lead to a lot of misinterpretations on readers' parts. That probably happens often.

[Ariella]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 10:50pm

And it's true, in spite of what Raul said, some people DO find interviews containing intimate details about sex far more compelling than info about the actual production itself. She clearly recognized that, as would any journalist. The angle of the piece was out of Raul's control, and he clearly did not intend for the interview to have the focus it did. However, Raul's ambiguity of not actually stating a specific orientation certainly reflects Bobby's own ambiguity. In that sense, the interview wasn't too off-topic and it certainly generated considerable interest (for better or for worse).