|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:21:06 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.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? All the things you listed are very different from making a personal political statement in front of a room of paying people who may not agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:22:51 GMT
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? That's very different from dragging people back into the poisonous political atmosphere that has been hanging around the US for the past 2 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:22:55 GMT
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. So walk out into the lobby and come back to watch them walk off stage if people want to be that petty. Once again, this point is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:24:04 GMT
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? That's very different from dragging people back into the poisonous political atmosphere that has been hanging around the US for the past 2 years. Nope, not at all. There are people that will outwardly say that they don't care about AIDS and they hope all gay people get it and die from it. It's a political standpoint for these people, not just an illness. And a lot of those people will be the same type of people that would get offended by minorities asking for their rights. HIV funding is actually one of the political viewpoints that makes Pence controversial. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:25:22 GMT
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. So walk out into the lobby and come back to watch them walk off stage if people want to be that petty. Once again, this point is ridiculous. Speaking of ridiculous points... Go out into the lobby and then come back? Seriously? The point is people shouldn't have to run from uncomfortable things at the theatre. If you can't see that, then I won't waste any more of my time on you. |
|
2,762 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 20, 2016 13:25:55 GMT
[All the things you listed are very different from making a personal political statement in front of a room of paying people who may not agree with you. I'm really struggling to see in the statement what people "may not agree with". It was not a direct condemnation of any of Trunp's or Pence's policies - "we welcome you and we thank you". It asked audience members not to boo. And it asked the administration to work on behalf of all Americans, which is what they are obliged to do. What's the controversy? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:27:38 GMT
So walk out into the lobby and come back to watch them walk off stage if people want to be that petty. Once again, this point is ridiculous. Speaking of ridiculous points... Go out into the lobby and then come back? Seriously? The point is people shouldn't have to run from uncomfortable things at the theatre. If you can't see that, then I won't waste any more of my time on you. I was giving a ridiculous suggestion to the ridiculous idea that seeing people walk off a stage should be a HUMAN RIGHT of attending the theatre. You probably shouldn't waste any more of my time on me because I'm never going to agree with someone who thinks it's more important that people get to see people walk off stage than it is for the disenfranchised to stick up for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:27:49 GMT
[All the things you listed are very different from making a personal political statement in front of a room of paying people who may not agree with you. I'm really struggling to see in the statement what people "may not agree with". It was not a direct condemnation of any of Trunp's or Pence's policies - "we welcome you and we thank you". It asked audience members not to boo. And it asked the administration to work on behalf of all Americans, which is what they are obliged to do. What's the controversy? No controversy for me. I completely agree with the contents of that speech. But some people may not have wanted to be confronted with current politics once again. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 20, 2016 13:28:14 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? I know, we have to decide, is this a 1 way street or a 2 way street. We can't be hypocrites about this. The cast started crossing a line, so they can expect that reaction back. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Nov 20, 2016 13:28:34 GMT
[All the things you listed are very different from making a personal political statement in front of a room of paying people who may not agree with you. I'm really struggling to see in the statement what people "may not agree with". It was not a direct condemnation of any of Trunp's or Pence's policies - "we welcome you and we thank you". It asked audience members not to boo. And it asked the administration to work on behalf of all Americans, which is what they are obliged to do. What's the controversy? Anyone offended by that statement should just stay home coated in bubble wrap! |
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Nov 20, 2016 13:28:57 GMT
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? All the things you listed are very different from making a personal political statement in front of a room of paying people who may not agree with you. I dont't see how they are though- what if its a couple proposing, and they are gay men (or women doesnt matter) and the audience member is (much like Pence himself but nevemind) an itense homphobe who thinks they shoud burn at the stake let alone get married, and their precious evening was ruind by seeing that public display of affection. their night is no longer about "escaping reality", instead they'll remmember it as the night they saw the gay proposal after a show. It's the same- but there is a place for that proposal regardless of that one or many audience memmbers, becuase it's a service the producers deemed okay, and that audience member is free to leave or stay- but the proposal is going to happen. The producers were clearly okay with what the cast did at Hamilton or it wouldn't have happened- those actors were not risking their jobs for a statement I wouldn't think. Same thing with the BC/EFA- what if an audience member is digusted by the cause? shouldthe cast not collect money for it becuase the audience member is not on board with the idea? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:29:13 GMT
Turns out, they think they do! Now what do we do...where does it end? I know, we have to decide, is this a 1 way street or a 2 way street. We can't be hypocrites about this. The cast started crossing the line, so they can expect that reaction back. Nope, there are rules against interrupting a show and not rules against speaking after one. It's not an equivalency. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:29:26 GMT
Speaking of ridiculous points... Go out into the lobby and then come back? Seriously? The point is people shouldn't have to run from uncomfortable things at the theatre. If you can't see that, then I won't waste any more of my time on you. I was giving a ridiculous suggestion to the ridiculous idea that seeing people walk off a stage should be a HUMAN RIGHT of attending the theatre. You probably shouldn't waste any more of my time on me because I'm never going to agree with someone who thinks it's more important that people get to see people walk off stage than it is for the disenfranchised to stick up for themselves. Where the hell did I say it's a HUMAN RIGHT? Stop making stuff up. My whole point is that not you nor anyone else should decide what is or is not important to certain people. I'm out. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:30:41 GMT
Turns out, they think they do! Now what do we do...where does it end? I know, we have to decide, is this a 1 way street or a 2 way street. We can't be hypocrites about this. The cast started crossing the line, so they can expect that reaction back. In my opinion, there shouldn't be a street at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:31:25 GMT
I was giving a ridiculous suggestion to the ridiculous idea that seeing people walk off a stage should be a HUMAN RIGHT of attending the theatre. You probably shouldn't waste any more of my time on me because I'm never going to agree with someone who thinks it's more important that people get to see people walk off stage than it is for the disenfranchised to stick up for themselves. Where the hell did I say it's a HUMAN RIGHT? Stop making stuff up. My whole point is that not you nor anyone else should decide what is or is not important to certain people. I'm out. I said a human right of attending the theatre. Anything can be important to anyone. Telling someone they don't deserve rights could be important to someone. Doesn't mean I can't think they're stupid and wrong for thinking so. Bye! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:32:34 GMT
All the things you listed are very different from making a personal political statement in front of a room of paying people who may not agree with you. I dont't see how they are though- what if its a couple proposing, and they are gay men (or women doesnt matter) and the audience member is (much like Pence himself but nevemind) an itense homphobe who thinks they shoud burn at the stake let alone get married, and their precious evening was ruind by seeing that public display of affection. their night is no longer about "escaping reality", instead they'll remmember it as the night they saw the gay proposal after a show. It's the same- but there is a place for that proposal regardless of that one or many audience memmbers, becuase it's a service the producers deemed okay, and that audience member is free to leave or stay- but the proposal is going to happen. The producers were clearly okay with what the cast did at Hamilton or it wouldn't have happened- those actors were not risking their jobs for a statement I wouldn't think. Same thing with the BC/EFA- what if an audience member is digusted by the cause? shouldthe cast not collect money for it becuase the audience member is not on board with the idea? Only in this particular case, almost half the country voted for the people they're going after. |
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Nov 20, 2016 13:36:05 GMT
Yes because a drunk objecting to a positive lyric about immigrants in the middle of the show and not even involving the same cast is the same as a dignified plea for acceptance at the end of the show. False equivalence in action once again.
Maybe you should try and empathise with the people who have experienced physical violence at the hands of Trumps supporters or those gay teens who went through electro shock therapy rather than people hearing a few words they may or may not have liked.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 20, 2016 13:36:19 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. How is it possible to realize something ugly is going to happen and cast and audience members are about to get personal and then find the time to run out of your row, grab your coat in time and be out without experiencing the bitter taste? I don't want any of that personal interaction when I visit a show. |
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Nov 20, 2016 13:36:36 GMT
I dont't see how they are though- what if its a couple proposing, and they are gay men (or women doesnt matter) and the audience member is (much like Pence himself but nevemind) an itense homphobe who thinks they shoud burn at the stake let alone get married, and their precious evening was ruind by seeing that public display of affection. their night is no longer about "escaping reality", instead they'll remmember it as the night they saw the gay proposal after a show. It's the same- but there is a place for that proposal regardless of that one or many audience memmbers, becuase it's a service the producers deemed okay, and that audience member is free to leave or stay- but the proposal is going to happen. The producers were clearly okay with what the cast did at Hamilton or it wouldn't have happened- those actors were not risking their jobs for a statement I wouldn't think. Same thing with the BC/EFA- what if an audience member is digusted by the cause? shouldthe cast not collect money for it becuase the audience member is not on board with the idea? Only in this particular case, almost half the country voted for the people they're going after. I'm in a hurry to class so I'm reading quickly and maybe I don't fully understand- but I thought your point was not to ruin an audience member's evening? and I gave a counter point to show it;s not the theatre's job to satysfy everyone once the actors took their bows..? And you never said anything about how much people outside of the theatre would be against what was said? And by that logic, wouldn't more than half the country have voted against everything that guy (Pence )stands for? therefor would be behind Ham 100%? maybe I don't understand, sorry... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:37:22 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. 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. The cast are welcome to their political views. I'm sure I share a lot of their thoughts. But they shouldn't be stating them, to one person's face (even if they are in the lobby), in the theatre. Booing happened throughout, according to some reports? (Though they may be erroneous, I wasn't there.) And sorry, but two sides becoming more entrenched never solved any problems. I can't celebrate something that risks causing far more danger to those already vulnerable. In the US, as in the UK, we're seeing left and right become more diametrically opposed. Some on the right would say - have said, in fact - that this is due to them being lectured by people who think they're better than them. If they view what happened in that theatre, in that atmosphere, in that way then I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with them. And frankly, I'd rather be able to disagree with them than not! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:40:13 GMT
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. How is it possible to realize something ugly is going to happen and cast and audience members are about to get personal and then find the time to run out of your row, grab your coat in time and be out without experiencing the bitter taste? I don't want any of that personal interaction when I visit a show. Well first of all nothing ugly happened. The first words of that speech: 'we had a guest in the audience tonight'. That would be the indication that something is about to be said. Plenty of time to walk out without stopping to listen to the speech. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:43:12 GMT
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. The cast are welcome to their political views. I'm sure I share a lot of their thoughts. But they shouldn't be stating them, to one person's face (even if they are in the lobby), in the theatre. Booing happened throughout, according to some reports? (Though they may be erroneous, I wasn't there.) And sorry, but two sides becoming more entrenched never solved any problems. I can't celebrate something that risks causing far more danger to those already vulnerable. In the US, as in the UK, we're seeing left and right become more diametrically opposed. Some on the right would say - have said, in fact - that this is due to them being lectured by people who think they're better than them. If they view what happened in that theatre, in that atmosphere, in that way then I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with them. And frankly, I'd rather be able to disagree with them than not! Well we disagree. I think they should be stating them. I haven't seen anyone saying booing happened during the show. Do you have links? People that politely ask for their rights are better than people that try to fight against giving others those rights. People that stayed complacent during the 1930s was what allowed Hitler to happen. If people hadn't have fought for womens rights to vote, or black peoples rights to vote (and had some women and black people suffer in the meantime) then it would never have happened. Sometimes we have to fight against the opposition in order to progress. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:43:19 GMT
Yes because a drunk objecting to a positive lyric about immigrants in the middle of the show and not even involving the same cast is the same as a dignified plea for acceptance at the end of the show. False equivalence in action once again. Maybe you should try and empathise with the people who have experienced physical violence at the hands of Trumps supporters or those gay teens who went through electro shock therapy rather than people hearing a few words they may or may not have liked. No one is saying that Trump supporter was right to do that. But the fact just is that this probably wouldn't have happened if the hamilton cast hadn't directly addressed Pence. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 13:45:07 GMT
I dont't see how they are though- what if its a couple proposing, and they are gay men (or women doesnt matter) and the audience member is (much like Pence himself but nevemind) an itense homphobe who thinks they shoud burn at the stake let alone get married, and their precious evening was ruind by seeing that public display of affection. their night is no longer about "escaping reality", instead they'll remmember it as the night they saw the gay proposal after a show. It's the same- but there is a place for that proposal regardless of that one or many audience memmbers, becuase it's a service the producers deemed okay, and that audience member is free to leave or stay- but the proposal is going to happen. The producers were clearly okay with what the cast did at Hamilton or it wouldn't have happened- those actors were not risking their jobs for a statement I wouldn't think. Same thing with the BC/EFA- what if an audience member is digusted by the cause? shouldthe cast not collect money for it becuase the audience member is not on board with the idea? Only in this particular case, almost half the country voted for the people they're going after. No. Less than half of the people who voted, in an election with a low turn-out of eligible voters, in a country which also has a lot of residents who are ineligible to vote. The actual number is closer to 19% of the country voting for the people they're going after. The vile, inexperienced, bigoted people who are indirectly through their policies going to hurt and kill a LOT of people over the next four years. I have NO sympathy for Trump or Pence being made to feel uncomfortable for a couple of hours, and I'm frankly astonished that people genuinely consider this polite, considered, thoroughly civil statement to be an act of *bullying*. JFC. |
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Nov 20, 2016 13:46:29 GMT
Yes because a drunk objecting to a positive lyric about immigrants in the middle of the show and not even involving the same cast is the same as a dignified plea for acceptance at the end of the show. False equivalence in action once again. Maybe you should try and empathise with the people who have experienced physical violence at the hands of Trumps supporters or those gay teens who went through electro shock therapy rather than people hearing a few words they may or may not have liked. No one is saying that Trump supporter was right to do that. But the fact just is that this probably wouldn't have happened if the hamilton cast hadn't directly addressed Pence. Someone asked if it was a one or two way street. I was pointing out that they weren't the same thing in the first place. |
|
