|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:46:17 GMT
Didn't know there were two shows running concurrently, sorry. But the basic point stands: if you choose to make your show overtly political, there will be consequences. And I don't see such a huge difference - both forced their opinions on an audience who hadn't come to be lectured/converted. Not sure I 100% understand your point about theatre not being church, sorry. And my point wasn't that they can get away with saying that stuff outside a theatre. My point was, they said it while campaigning. A theatre isn't a political campaign spot. Theatre isn't church?Sure. But I'd say it's not the senate or house of representatives, either. 'If you choose to make your show overtly political' This show is political. In its text alone, it is overtly political. It takes a pro-immigration stance, pro-women's rights stance, anti-slavery stance. It has opinions on war, how finance should be managed etc. Its diverse casting of white founding fathers is political. The show is named after a politician. Come on now. I would say: if you choose be outwardly homophobic, racist and bigoted, then there will be consequences when you go to to the theatre and expect those people to perform for you. You don't see a huge difference between a show being interrupted and something being said at the end of a show after the bows? Well one is against the rules of the theatre and the other isn't for a start. And as I've pointed out numerous times now, no one was forced to stay and listen to the speech, not even Mike Pence himself. My point about church (or other religious buildings) is that it is the only place that can be considered sacred. A theatre is not sacred and therefore you can't expect people to censor themselves within one, aside from following the rules of the show (ie. don't do it during the performance). The senate and the house of representatives are not the only places that Trump and Pence have aired their views. They don't only do it on the political campaign. And actually the Richard Rodgers theatre has been a political campaign spot...for Hillary Clinton. So perhaps Mike Pence should have thought about the fact that the theatre and cast had openly endorsed his opponent and considered that therefore they might have something to say if he decides to turn up (which he has every right to). Great. The show's political. So why feel the need to make another political speech at the end? Job done with the show alone, wouldn't you say? Plenty of people who are outwardly homophobic/racist/otherwise bigoted go to the theatre. The performers don't feel the need to lecture everyone who might disagree with them, at every show. They chose to do it with one person, one particular night. If you ask me, the only 'consequence' (and we're the arbiters of consequences now, are we? What a nice power that is to have) for a bigot who goes to the theatre and sees a gay/black/female/whatever performer giving their all, should be to learn that maybe there's more to that gay/black/female/whatever person, ie that they're an individual worthy of respect. And maybe that will transfer over to their dealings in 'real life' situations. I agree, the Trump supporter shouldn't have shouted during the performance. By the same token, the NY audience shouldn't have booed Pence during the show. I don't consider theatre sacred (though one look at the 'bad behaviour in the theatre' thread should show we do accord it a certain respect) ;-) But I do consider it somewhere a person can go and be entertained, influenced; dare I say it, transformed. What seems to have happened in these theatres in the last few days - on both sides of the political spectrum - has tainted that. And that makes me sad, when I know how powerful and effective stories can be in bringing about change. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:47:46 GMT
It's obviously still on Donald Trump's mind too.... Well, of course. They shouldn't have given that idiot ammo. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:50:42 GMT
Actually he was on his way out when they started talking to him an asked him to stay for the speech, which he did. Yes. He walked out into the lobby and listened. But no one was stopping him from leaving altogether now were they? True. But many people actually would have left. At least he stayed an listened. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:51:56 GMT
'If you choose to make your show overtly political' This show is political. In its text alone, it is overtly political. It takes a pro-immigration stance, pro-women's rights stance, anti-slavery stance. It has opinions on war, how finance should be managed etc. Its diverse casting of white founding fathers is political. The show is named after a politician. Come on now. I would say: if you choose be outwardly homophobic, racist and bigoted, then there will be consequences when you go to to the theatre and expect those people to perform for you. You don't see a huge difference between a show being interrupted and something being said at the end of a show after the bows? Well one is against the rules of the theatre and the other isn't for a start. And as I've pointed out numerous times now, no one was forced to stay and listen to the speech, not even Mike Pence himself. My point about church (or other religious buildings) is that it is the only place that can be considered sacred. A theatre is not sacred and therefore you can't expect people to censor themselves within one, aside from following the rules of the show (ie. don't do it during the performance). The senate and the house of representatives are not the only places that Trump and Pence have aired their views. They don't only do it on the political campaign. And actually the Richard Rodgers theatre has been a political campaign spot...for Hillary Clinton. So perhaps Mike Pence should have thought about the fact that the theatre and cast had openly endorsed his opponent and considered that therefore they might have something to say if he decides to turn up (which he has every right to). Great. The show's political. So why feel the need to make another political speech at the end? Job done with the show alone, wouldn't you say? Plenty of people who are outwardly homophobic/racist/otherwise bigoted go to the theatre. The performers don't feel the need to lecture everyone who might disagree with them, at every show. They chose to do it with one person, one particular night. If you ask me, the only 'consequence' (and we're the arbiters of consequences now, are we? What a nice power that is to have) for a bigot who goes to the theatre and sees a gay/black/female/whatever performer giving their all, should be to learn that maybe there's more to that gay/black/female/whatever person, ie that they're an individual worthy of respect. And maybe that will transfer over to their dealings in 'real life' situations. I agree, the Trump supporter shouldn't have shouted during the performance. By the same token, the NY audience shouldn't have booed Pence during the show. I don't consider theatre sacred (though one look at the 'bad behaviour in the theatre' thread should show we do accord it a certain respect) ;-) But I do consider it somewhere a person can go and be entertained, influenced; dare I say it, transformed. What seems to have happened in these theatres in the last few days - on both sides of the political spectrum - has tainted that. And that makes me sad, when I know how powerful and effective stories can be in bringing about change. Because politics are different now. Slavery is illegal. Women have the right to vote. America has had the same financial system for centuries. So it's not quite job done with just the show. The difference is, those bigoted people are not in public office. It is unlikely that the cast/producers etc. are even aware of those audience members being bigoted. When you go for a job in public office, it opens you up to public criticism and Hamilton will not be the last place that Pence finds it. The show did not agree with the audience booing, called them out on it numerous times on person, as did Lin on Twitter. There is nothing that stopped that audience from being entertained, and if anything, I think that performance was more likely to have influenced and transformed the audience than any other performance of Hamilton yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:53:15 GMT
Yes. He walked out into the lobby and listened. But no one was stopping him from leaving altogether now were they? True. But many people actually would have left. At least he stayed an listened. Yes I'm glad that he listened and Brandon Victor Dixon thanked him for doing so on Twitter also. The point is though is that he wasn't forced to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:53:18 GMT
For many people seeing the entire curtain call and sometimes even the playout music is part of the experience, especially if they can't afford to go to the theatre very often. Some people really want to savour that moment. And it doesn't matter how many people thought it was awesome that they were there to witness this. The theatre's job is to try to satisfy every single person in the audience. If even one person felt uncomfortable because of this, then you as a cast, producer, theatre owner have failed. And there would have been people there disappointed if they hadn't have said anything. So satisfying every person would be impossible. From the audience reaction, they satisfied far more people than not. Actually, seeing the VP elect be directly addressed by the cast is not what the audience payed for, so they shouldn't expect it to happen anyway, whether they like it or not. If people pay a lot of money, you shouldn't do anything that could potentially ruin anyone's experience, even if that makes the experience better for other people. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 20, 2016 12:53:34 GMT
If I was in the theater I would have been upset with what happened no matter what political officiation or beliefs I have. When I go to the theater I go to escape reality and be drawn into a world filled of song and dance. When leaving a show I want to leave on a high with only the story that was told in mind and nothing more. I want to leave the theater humming the songs and trying to remember every detail of the performance as it slips from my mind. There are cheaper ways to escape so making the decision to see any Broadway show for most people is one that is taken seriously. As a middle class New Yorker a night in the theater is one that I realistically afford no more than once every two years. Its not about respecting or not respecting the vice president elect, it's about not respecting the audience member that has planned, saved, and waited for an opportunity to see your show. Exactly, it's disrespectful to all audience members. Including the one they are speaking to. Theatre is an escape from reality and very expensive for most people. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:56:14 GMT
And there would have been people there disappointed if they hadn't have said anything. So satisfying every person would be impossible. From the audience reaction, they satisfied far more people than not. Actually, seeing the VP elect be directly addressed by the cast is not what the audience payed for, so they shouldn't expect it to happen anyway, whether they like it or not. If people pay a lot of money, you shouldn't do anything that could potentially ruin anyone's experience, even if that makes the experience better for other people. If you can find me an account from one person that attended that night that felt their night was ruined then I'd be grateful. And honestly if your night is ruined by people asking for human rights, then what kind of person are you? |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 20, 2016 12:56:48 GMT
The cast have the right to say it and he has the right to choose not to listen. You say it's not the right time or place. When else will these people get to talk to him? I don't think the cast has a right to speak to an audience member personally about his views at all. Do audience members have the right to shout things to the stage about personal beliefs of the actors too? This is theatre, not a zoo or a streetfight. If they wanted to talk to him or have something to say they should have asked the person to come backstage afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 12:57:36 GMT
The cast have the right to say it and he has the right to choose not to listen. You say it's not the right time or place. When else will these people get to talk to him? I don't think the cast has a right to speak to an audience member personally about his views at all. Do audience members have the right to shout things to the stage about personal beliefs of the actors too? This is theatre, not a zoo or a streetfight. If they wanted to talk to him or have something to say they should have asked the person to come backstage afterwards. Pence is in public office. He's not an average audience member. And there's no way that he would have gone backstage. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:01:56 GMT
Actually, seeing the VP elect be directly addressed by the cast is not what the audience payed for, so they shouldn't expect it to happen anyway, whether they like it or not. If people pay a lot of money, you shouldn't do anything that could potentially ruin anyone's experience, even if that makes the experience better for other people. If you can find me an account from one person that attended that night that felt their night was ruined then I'd be grateful. And honestly if your night is ruined by people asking for human rights, then what kind of person are you? I'm not going to ask every single person who was there whether or not their night was ruined. It doesn't even matter if anyone's night was ruined. The point is that it very well could have ruined someone's night, which the cast and producers knew in advance. Therefore they should never have done this. By the way, someone can completely agree with the words the cast said, and still have their night ruined as they went to the theatre to be entertained and escape their daily life for just a few hours, not to be confronted with Trump and Pence once again. And yes, if you're offended by people asking for human rights you're probably not a very nice person. But that shouldn't matter. That person still paid for their ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:03:08 GMT
I don't think the cast has a right to speak to an audience member personally about his views at all. Do audience members have the right to shout things to the stage about personal beliefs of the actors too? This is theatre, not a zoo or a streetfight. If they wanted to talk to him or have something to say they should have asked the person to come backstage afterwards. Pence is in public office. He's not an average audience member. And there's no way that he would have gone backstage. And the other audience members are not in public office. They don't have to be confronted with this if they don't want to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:03:12 GMT
Great. The show's political. So why feel the need to make another political speech at the end? Job done with the show alone, wouldn't you say? Plenty of people who are outwardly homophobic/racist/otherwise bigoted go to the theatre. The performers don't feel the need to lecture everyone who might disagree with them, at every show. They chose to do it with one person, one particular night. If you ask me, the only 'consequence' (and we're the arbiters of consequences now, are we? What a nice power that is to have) for a bigot who goes to the theatre and sees a gay/black/female/whatever performer giving their all, should be to learn that maybe there's more to that gay/black/female/whatever person, ie that they're an individual worthy of respect. And maybe that will transfer over to their dealings in 'real life' situations. I agree, the Trump supporter shouldn't have shouted during the performance. By the same token, the NY audience shouldn't have booed Pence during the show. I don't consider theatre sacred (though one look at the 'bad behaviour in the theatre' thread should show we do accord it a certain respect) ;-) But I do consider it somewhere a person can go and be entertained, influenced; dare I say it, transformed. What seems to have happened in these theatres in the last few days - on both sides of the political spectrum - has tainted that. And that makes me sad, when I know how powerful and effective stories can be in bringing about change. Because politics are different now. Slavery is illegal. Women have the right to vote. America has had the same financial system for centuries. So it's not quite job done with just the show. The difference is, those bigoted people are not in public office. It is unlikely that the cast/producers etc. are even aware of those audience members being bigoted. When you go for a job in public office, it opens you up to public criticism and Hamilton will not be the last place that Pence finds it. The show did not agree with the audience booing, called them out on it numerous times on person, as did Lin on Twitter. There is nothing that stopped that audience from being entertained, and if anything, I think that performance was more likely to have influenced and transformed the audience than any other performance of Hamilton yet. Either the show is political enough to be linked to the current situation (in which case the show stands alone), or it's not (in which case no speech is required because the link is too tenuous). We can't have it both ways. Public criticism is great. I hope the US public do a lot of it in coming years. But not casts in theatres. (Casts outside theatres: have at it.) If I made an overtly political statement in my job, I'd be sacked. Why is it different for this cast? Just because we agree with them? That way danger lies. Agree the cast appealed for the booing to stop, but my point is, we can't say it was just the Republican supporter who misbehaved during a show. I have to disagree about the audience being likely transformed by the happenings in NY. Seems like their minds were already made up when the show started. The only transformation, I fear, is that the two sides will become even more entrenched than they are already. And how sad that is, when the story could have been spun positively. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:06:57 GMT
If you can find me an account from one person that attended that night that felt their night was ruined then I'd be grateful. And honestly if your night is ruined by people asking for human rights, then what kind of person are you? I'm not going to ask every single person who was there whether or not their night was ruined. It doesn't even matter if anyone's night was ruined. The point is that it very well could have ruined someone's night, which the cast and producers knew in advance. Therefore they should never have done this. By the way, someone can completely agree with the words the cast said, and still have their night ruined as they went to the theatre to be entertained and escape their daily life for just a few hours, not to be confronted with Trump and Pence once again. And yes, if you're offended by people asking for human rights you're probably not a very nice person. But that shouldn't matter. That person still paid for their ticket. We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I don't necessarily agree with people that compare Trump to Hitler (just yet) but the more people that speak out, on any platform, in any forum, the more hope there is for the disenfranchised people of America. And I think that is more important than entertainment, and I say this as someone that values entertainment more highly than the vast majority of people. It's not like every American talk show host hasn't also been saying anti-Trump views on their shows. Politics and entertainment have been linked for much longer than people are willing to believe here. Yes it would be nice if people could go to the theatre and not think about politics. But it would be nicer if people's rights weren't being threatened. And I'll fight for the right to uphold the latter before I will the former anyday. And be proud of the people that join me in doing so, wherever they may choose to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:07:29 GMT
Pence is in public office. He's not an average audience member. And there's no way that he would have gone backstage. And the other audience members are not in public office. They don't have to be confronted with this if they don't want to. Right and if they don't want to they can leave. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Nov 20, 2016 13:08:06 GMT
The cast have the right to say it and he has the right to choose not to listen. You say it's not the right time or place. When else will these people get to talk to him? I don't think the cast has a right to speak to an audience member personally about his views at all. Do audience members have the right to shout things to the stage about personal beliefs of the actors too? This is theatre, not a zoo or a streetfight. If they wanted to talk to him or have something to say they should have asked the person to come backstage afterwards. Turns out, they think they do! Now what do we do...where does it end? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:10:18 GMT
And the other audience members are not in public office. They don't have to be confronted with this if they don't want to. Right and if they don't want to they can leave. And they may not have wanted to leave yet because they wanted to savour every moment |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:11:49 GMT
Because politics are different now. Slavery is illegal. Women have the right to vote. America has had the same financial system for centuries. So it's not quite job done with just the show. The difference is, those bigoted people are not in public office. It is unlikely that the cast/producers etc. are even aware of those audience members being bigoted. When you go for a job in public office, it opens you up to public criticism and Hamilton will not be the last place that Pence finds it. The show did not agree with the audience booing, called them out on it numerous times on person, as did Lin on Twitter. There is nothing that stopped that audience from being entertained, and if anything, I think that performance was more likely to have influenced and transformed the audience than any other performance of Hamilton yet. Either the show is political enough to be linked to the current situation (in which case the show stands alone), or it's not (in which case no speech is required because the link is too tenuous). We can't have it both ways. Public criticism is great. I hope the US public do a lot of it in coming years. But not casts in theatres. (Casts outside theatres: have at it.) If I made an overtly political statement in my job, I'd be sacked. Why is it different for this cast? Just because we agree with them? That way danger lies. Agree the cast appealed for the booing to stop, but my point is, we can't say it was just the Republican supporter who misbehaved during a show. I have to disagree about the audience being likely transformed by the happenings in NY. Seems like their minds were already made up when the show started. The only transformation, I fear, is that the two sides will become even more entrenched than they are already. And how sad that is, when the story could have been spun positively. To be honest, it's their show, their theatre and they can have it however many ways they want. Hamilton made it's first political views months ago. It's different for this cast because that speech was actually written by their bosses. It's the same as some newspapers that endorse presidential candidates. Some companies have political views and Hamilton is one of them. Well the booing happened before the show began. So yes it was actually only the Republican supporter that misbehaved during. And thank God theirs minds were made up to be on the right side of everything! Why should they be transformed into believing anything else other than people deserve rights? I hope the two sides do become more entrenched, this is not the time to be complacent. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 20, 2016 13:13:29 GMT
It terrifies me that some posts suggest that theatre has no place for politics - what? You don't get it. Of course theatre is full of politics, shows are a product of years of writing and history and life. It terrifies me that some people don't see the difference between that and the no-go of personal actor-audience member interaction like that. Can audience members do the same, talking to the stage, publicly, about personal views of actors during or after a show? Or is it a 1 way street? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:13:39 GMT
Right and if they don't want to they can leave. And they may not have wanted to leave yet because they wanted to savour every moment Sorry but this point is ridiculous. They would have already experienced 'every moment' that they would get in any other average theatre trip. This is in add-on and they can stay for it if they want or they can leave. There's nothing to savour about the cast walking off stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:14:05 GMT
I don't think the cast has a right to speak to an audience member personally about his views at all. Do audience members have the right to shout things to the stage about personal beliefs of the actors too? This is theatre, not a zoo or a streetfight. If they wanted to talk to him or have something to say they should have asked the person to come backstage afterwards. Turns out, they think they do! Now what do we do...where does it end? This wouldn't have happened if the Hamilton NY cast hadn't addressed Pence at their show. I completely disagree with what this Trump supporter did, but tbf it's the Hamilton cast's fault. They just gave the idiots ammo. Well done. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:15:52 GMT
Either the show is political enough to be linked to the current situation (in which case the show stands alone), or it's not (in which case no speech is required because the link is too tenuous). We can't have it both ways. Public criticism is great. I hope the US public do a lot of it in coming years. But not casts in theatres. (Casts outside theatres: have at it.) If I made an overtly political statement in my job, I'd be sacked. Why is it different for this cast? Just because we agree with them? That way danger lies. Agree the cast appealed for the booing to stop, but my point is, we can't say it was just the Republican supporter who misbehaved during a show. I have to disagree about the audience being likely transformed by the happenings in NY. Seems like their minds were already made up when the show started. The only transformation, I fear, is that the two sides will become even more entrenched than they are already. And how sad that is, when the story could have been spun positively. To be honest, it's their show, their theatre and they can have it however many ways they want. It is. But people payed a lot of money to see this. So they owe them a good performance, nothing less, and certainly nothing more. |
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Nov 20, 2016 13:16:25 GMT
And there would have been people there disappointed if they hadn't have said anything. So satisfying every person would be impossible. From the audience reaction, they satisfied far more people than not. Actually, seeing the VP elect be directly addressed by the cast is not what the audience payed for, so they shouldn't expect it to happen anyway, whether they like it or not. If people pay a lot of money, you shouldn't do anything that could potentially ruin anyone's experience, even if that makes the experience better for other people.But by this logic there would never be "last performance of this actor" speeches, muck up matinees, BC/EFA collection speeches at the end of the show, proposals at shows etc etc and alll those things happen, I like some, I dislike others- but it's not up to us to say- this should never happen, appologize for this. Theatre is a live being- it keeps changing. If anything- lke in the comment I posted before brom BWW, it is the theatre job, more than any other medium, to hold a mirror to society- and make people UNcomfortable- to provoke change and provoke uncomfortabe thoughts And of course this is all my opinion, and your opinions are yours, neither of which are worrying I think- that put me off a bit, to be worried by others thought in THIS particular subject is odd- it's just theatre (not wether gay people should be allowed to marry for example- then I would be worried by some thoughts) am I making sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:17:23 GMT
To be honest, it's their show, their theatre and they can have it however many ways they want. It is. But people payed a lot of money to see this. So they owe them a good performance, nothing less, and certainly nothing more. So what about when they collect for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS? If they don't owe them anything more, should they give up that too? Is it too political? Does it upset the people who just wanted to escape and not think about nasty things like AIDS or politics? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:19:06 GMT
And they may not have wanted to leave yet because they wanted to savour every moment Sorry but this point is ridiculous. They would have already experienced 'every moment' that they would get in any other average theatre trip. This is in add-on and they can stay for it if they want or they can leave. There's nothing to savour about the cast walking off stage. It's ridiculous for you to think you can decide what is and what is not worth savouring for other people. For some people there is something to savour about the cast walking off stage. If the house lights aren't on, the show is not over. |
|
