Tensions explode at
December 15, 2004 10:45 AM Subscribe
"Nobody here is a bad person," she said. "Nobody here failed at the show. We failed as a community." Protestors unleash rage and sorrow against a University of Oregon production of "The Vagina Monologues." The issue? The queer community, the women of color community, and the plus-size community did not feel represented. At that rate, "the fact that they had auditions means that some people are automatically excluded." The solution? Replace auditions with nominations from student groups, looking past the "drama-oriented" to the politically active. More here.
There's a plus-size community? New one on me, seriously.
posted by scarabic at 10:49 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by scarabic at 10:49 AM on December 15, 2004
Oh fer crissake. Someone always feels left out or insulted in this country.
It's a form of affirmation, xmutex, my man. "I am offended, therefore I am."
I say we all write The Asshole Monologes and dedicate it to this bunch.
posted by jonmc at 10:51 AM on December 15, 2004
It's a form of affirmation, xmutex, my man. "I am offended, therefore I am."
I say we all write The Asshole Monologes and dedicate it to this bunch.
posted by jonmc at 10:51 AM on December 15, 2004
Women's Center spokeswoman Stefanie Loh said the de-emphasis on acting ability will provide a "down to earth" feel to the production as well as allow the producers to be more inclusive in their casting.
A university production of the Vagina Monologues??? Where the hell do I buy tickets???
It's good to read something like this every now and again, to remind myself that school wasn't all keg parties and skipping class. I have to wonder, though, if this policy doesn't discriminate against the disproportionately gifted?
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2004
A university production of the Vagina Monologues??? Where the hell do I buy tickets???
It's good to read something like this every now and again, to remind myself that school wasn't all keg parties and skipping class. I have to wonder, though, if this policy doesn't discriminate against the disproportionately gifted?
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2004
"That was one of the big concerns last year was that a white woman portrayed a woman of color," Pete said.
Okay, that was stupidity on their part.
But, sheezus. What's next? They didn't represent left-handed siamese twins, either. And, fuck, I'm pretty damn sure they didn't represent middle-class white atheist MEN, either. I DEMAND EQUALITY!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2004
Okay, that was stupidity on their part.
But, sheezus. What's next? They didn't represent left-handed siamese twins, either. And, fuck, I'm pretty damn sure they didn't represent middle-class white atheist MEN, either. I DEMAND EQUALITY!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2004
Sorry...disproportionately gifted community.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on December 15, 2004
I don't know how you carry off a productrion of TVM without some gay women and some women of color. If they somehow used the audtion process to screen out everyone except white women, then yeah, that's fucking lame, and they got what they deserved. I would usually just tell the folks who feel underrepresented to get more involved, but if they were systematically not cast for roles, then maybe they have a legit beef.
Unfortunately, whoever wrote this article is being a bit too diplomatic for us to tell what really happened. When your interviewing skills suck, you don't get the quotes you need to adequately express both sides' positions. It's awfully hard to tell what actually happened here. Sounds like they managed to crack the shell on their situation, though, and will do better next time.
posted by scarabic at 10:56 AM on December 15, 2004
Unfortunately, whoever wrote this article is being a bit too diplomatic for us to tell what really happened. When your interviewing skills suck, you don't get the quotes you need to adequately express both sides' positions. It's awfully hard to tell what actually happened here. Sounds like they managed to crack the shell on their situation, though, and will do better next time.
posted by scarabic at 10:56 AM on December 15, 2004
Women's Center spokeswoman Stefanie Loh said the de-emphasis on acting ability will provide a "down to earth" feel to the production as well as allow the producers to be more inclusive in their casting.
My god, this is like something out of "Harrison Bergeron." The world is not a self-esteem store, children.
posted by jonmc at 10:57 AM on December 15, 2004
My god, this is like something out of "Harrison Bergeron." The world is not a self-esteem store, children.
posted by jonmc at 10:57 AM on December 15, 2004
I think de-emphasis on acting ability leads to situations like this one. For a second I was scared, thinking this was her production.
posted by jessamyn at 10:57 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by jessamyn at 10:57 AM on December 15, 2004
Well, that's one production I'll never pay to see. Is it wrong to ask for a little talent or even competence to be a criteria when it comes to art forms like drama?
It's a stage for the entire audience, not a soapbox for a few in the "community."
posted by DaShiv at 10:58 AM on December 15, 2004
It's a stage for the entire audience, not a soapbox for a few in the "community."
posted by DaShiv at 10:58 AM on December 15, 2004
My god, this is like something out of "Harrison Bergeron." The world is not a self-esteem store, children.
Shhh, jonmc...we arts majors aren't supposed to learn that until AFTER we graduate.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:59 AM on December 15, 2004
Shhh, jonmc...we arts majors aren't supposed to learn that until AFTER we graduate.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:59 AM on December 15, 2004
Maybe their football team will "de-emphasize playing ability" when tryouts come. Should win a lot of games.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on December 15, 2004
It is my understanding that the Vagina Monologues are meant to affirm being a woman, not what "kind of woman" you are. It seems that the people who are offended are too concerned with labeling themselves as "queer Jewish feminist" and might be missing the point that they are also all women. Labels are necessarily exclusive and incomplete descriptions of a person. They should only be used sparingly. That is what seems like the core issue here.
posted by sciurus at 11:00 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by sciurus at 11:00 AM on December 15, 2004
<cheech marin in from dusk till dawn>
"Come on in, pussy lovers! We got thin, white, straight pussy..." "If we don't got it, you don't want it!"
<\cheech>
Doesn't quite have the same ring.
posted by anthill at 11:01 AM on December 15, 2004
"Come on in, pussy lovers! We got thin, white, straight pussy..." "If we don't got it, you don't want it!"
<\cheech>
Doesn't quite have the same ring.
posted by anthill at 11:01 AM on December 15, 2004
It's the Triumph of Mediocrity.
Please..."triumph" connotes competition and victory, which in this case excludes members of the lesser- or greater-talented.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:08 AM on December 15, 2004
Please..."triumph" connotes competition and victory, which in this case excludes members of the lesser- or greater-talented.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:08 AM on December 15, 2004
I attended the production of the VM last Valentine's day at Agate Hall at U of O. . .I did not see anyone with tape over their mouths. . .I DID see the preson mentioned in the second link do a *pre-monologue* that seemed obviously like an attempt at being inclusive.
I wonder what Eve Ensler would think. It is a dramatic production and I would want that content to stay faithful to the script, and the casting to stay with the producers of the show, who are accountable for the quality.
At the risk of sounding insensitive, it seemed a diverse cast and the production itself was mildly enjoyable. It also seems like cow-towing to groups and individuals who happen to wave the disenfranchisement flag is a pretty surefire way of killing a good theater experience.
And this is THEATER. My wife and I were thinking of making this an annual experiece, but having read those articles, I doubt it now.
On preview:
Maybe their football team will "de-emphasize playing ability" when tryouts come.
Already has happened, from the looks of the Ducks, this year.
posted by Danf at 11:10 AM on December 15, 2004
I wonder what Eve Ensler would think. It is a dramatic production and I would want that content to stay faithful to the script, and the casting to stay with the producers of the show, who are accountable for the quality.
At the risk of sounding insensitive, it seemed a diverse cast and the production itself was mildly enjoyable. It also seems like cow-towing to groups and individuals who happen to wave the disenfranchisement flag is a pretty surefire way of killing a good theater experience.
And this is THEATER. My wife and I were thinking of making this an annual experiece, but having read those articles, I doubt it now.
On preview:
Maybe their football team will "de-emphasize playing ability" when tryouts come.
Already has happened, from the looks of the Ducks, this year.
posted by Danf at 11:10 AM on December 15, 2004
As a playwright (yeah, yeah, stop laughing) who hasn't liked a political play since Happy Birthday, Wanda June, I've come to the conclusion that this is only a little worse than what the U of O Women's Studies production of The Vagina Monologues deserves. It's not about drama or art, as far as they're concerned - it's more of an affirmative political ritual. As long as they're all just shouting into a barrel, I suppose they might as well just get the people who most want to hold a barrel and shout into it.
The part about not seeking "drama-oriented" women makes me envision some quiet, reedy, lispy monotone reading from index cards, smug that her student group gave her the nomination, while somewhere in the audience the woman with the second most nominations from her group readies a poison pen letter and an impassioned speech.
Meanwhile, all the "drama-oriented" women are out doing other things. The end.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:11 AM on December 15, 2004
The part about not seeking "drama-oriented" women makes me envision some quiet, reedy, lispy monotone reading from index cards, smug that her student group gave her the nomination, while somewhere in the audience the woman with the second most nominations from her group readies a poison pen letter and an impassioned speech.
Meanwhile, all the "drama-oriented" women are out doing other things. The end.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:11 AM on December 15, 2004
Sorry, I was under the impression that auditions are there to ensure the best possible actors get on stage, thus (hopefully) leading to the best possible production.
But then, I'm a silly white man. What do I know?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:12 AM on December 15, 2004
But then, I'm a silly white man. What do I know?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:12 AM on December 15, 2004
I have to wonder, though, if this policy doesn't discriminate against the disproportionately gifted?
Like in "The Incredibles".
I had a college professor who used to say, "you know what's wrong with your generation? You all played t-ball."
posted by billysumday at 11:12 AM on December 15, 2004
Like in "The Incredibles".
I had a college professor who used to say, "you know what's wrong with your generation? You all played t-ball."
posted by billysumday at 11:12 AM on December 15, 2004
Yeah, make 'em play dodgeball. Prepare them for life.
posted by jonmc at 11:14 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by jonmc at 11:14 AM on December 15, 2004
This reads like something they cut from the "P.C.U." script cause it was too far-fetched.
posted by signal at 11:16 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by signal at 11:16 AM on December 15, 2004
Okay, I see we've already had the obligatory references to "Harrison Bergeron" and "why aren't the left-handed Lithuanian philatelists represented?"
Can I point out that a production that features a "white" actress talking about how, "as a black woman," she feels such-and-such, and a slim actress talking about how people perceive her some way because she's "fat" is very likely to be a POORLY CAST PRODUCTION?
The thing about The Vagina Monologues--which I'll admit is a fairly dimwitted play--is that it attempts to present women of lots of different ages, and from lots of different ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds.
It's true that a college production is very likely to make it necessary for 18-25 year old women to play women of all ages, but why limit the horizon still further by making all of the women be white and slim as well?
Now, of course, it is always interesting to cast against type, but it doesn't sound like that was what was happening. And, although the response was odd, the impatience with the tendency of university theater productions to be the "All-White Barbie and Ken Players" is understandable.
{And I say this as a white woman who played both Phillis Wheatley and Harriet Tubman in my all-white elementary school's plays.}
The thing, ultimately, about The Vagina Monologues is that it isn't a "play" in the traditional sense, and it doesn't require traditional acting skill--it is frequently staged with "celebrity" casts and no rehearsals. There is no reason why it couldn't be performed with equal skill by a group of "campus community leaders" as long as they can read and speak loudly enough to be heard in the theater.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:21 AM on December 15, 2004
Can I point out that a production that features a "white" actress talking about how, "as a black woman," she feels such-and-such, and a slim actress talking about how people perceive her some way because she's "fat" is very likely to be a POORLY CAST PRODUCTION?
The thing about The Vagina Monologues--which I'll admit is a fairly dimwitted play--is that it attempts to present women of lots of different ages, and from lots of different ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds.
It's true that a college production is very likely to make it necessary for 18-25 year old women to play women of all ages, but why limit the horizon still further by making all of the women be white and slim as well?
Now, of course, it is always interesting to cast against type, but it doesn't sound like that was what was happening. And, although the response was odd, the impatience with the tendency of university theater productions to be the "All-White Barbie and Ken Players" is understandable.
{And I say this as a white woman who played both Phillis Wheatley and Harriet Tubman in my all-white elementary school's plays.}
The thing, ultimately, about The Vagina Monologues is that it isn't a "play" in the traditional sense, and it doesn't require traditional acting skill--it is frequently staged with "celebrity" casts and no rehearsals. There is no reason why it couldn't be performed with equal skill by a group of "campus community leaders" as long as they can read and speak loudly enough to be heard in the theater.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:21 AM on December 15, 2004
When word gets out here in NYC that "auditions mean that some people are automatically excluded" there's going to be hell to pay. This here is what you call a Paradigm Shift.
posted by papercake at 11:23 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by papercake at 11:23 AM on December 15, 2004
Cross-ethnic casting is not all that much of an anomaly anymore. Pacino's played Puerto Ricans more times than I can count, DeNiro's played a Jewish guy, and Cahrlton Heston's occasionally played sane people.
posted by jonmc at 11:26 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by jonmc at 11:26 AM on December 15, 2004
It doesn't seem like some MeFi readers have actually seen the Vagina Monologues.
posted by trey at 11:27 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by trey at 11:27 AM on December 15, 2004
Solution: Do it one-woman, as it was intended. Then the director excludes everyone but herself. I mean, I understand that TVM is intended to be more a political piece than anything else, but no matter what not everybody is going to be able to participate. "The fact that they had auditions means that some people are automatically excluded"? No, the fact that there's a limit to the cast size means that some people are automatically excluded. Are holding elections really going to be any better, or more egalitarian? I'd bet that the student group nominations would just turn into popularity contests, and the Tyranny of the Majority would likely end up kicking people in the teeth.
posted by Iason at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by Iason at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2004
It doesn't seem like some MeFi readers have actually seen the Vagina Monologues.
Couldn't I just have my eyes removed with hot spoons instead?
posted by jonmc at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2004
Couldn't I just have my eyes removed with hot spoons instead?
posted by jonmc at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2004
obdisclaimer: I used to work for V-Day, the non-profit that organizes these college productions, among other things.
At the risk of upsetting the pile-on here, I think you all are reading too much into a college newspaper article.
Even when it's done in a commercial theater, the Vagina Monologues doesn't require tremendous acting ability. It is a series of monologues, which the actors read from index cards.
And yes, the college performances are very explicitly political events as much or more so than they are dramatic events. Many schools only have one or two rehearsals before the live performance. There's usually not much by way of set, props, or lighting. The play still has a strong impact. But the impact, in my experience, comes from the message and from the fact that woman are standing in public and talking about things that aren't talked about in public much, even today.
In terms of inclusiveness: last I checked, the instructions given to college productions ask them to find a way to include everyone who comes to try out. Many of the pieces can be performed by choruses, etc. So the producers made something of a mistake in casting it down the way they did. But beyond that, the play is sort of designed to generate campus controversies and give people fora for resolving them (which they almost always do).
So yes, it is about inclusiveness, it is about politics, it is about community, and it's a great show and a great campus tradition not in spite of all that but because of all that.
posted by alms at 11:31 AM on December 15, 2004
At the risk of upsetting the pile-on here, I think you all are reading too much into a college newspaper article.
Even when it's done in a commercial theater, the Vagina Monologues doesn't require tremendous acting ability. It is a series of monologues, which the actors read from index cards.
And yes, the college performances are very explicitly political events as much or more so than they are dramatic events. Many schools only have one or two rehearsals before the live performance. There's usually not much by way of set, props, or lighting. The play still has a strong impact. But the impact, in my experience, comes from the message and from the fact that woman are standing in public and talking about things that aren't talked about in public much, even today.
In terms of inclusiveness: last I checked, the instructions given to college productions ask them to find a way to include everyone who comes to try out. Many of the pieces can be performed by choruses, etc. So the producers made something of a mistake in casting it down the way they did. But beyond that, the play is sort of designed to generate campus controversies and give people fora for resolving them (which they almost always do).
So yes, it is about inclusiveness, it is about politics, it is about community, and it's a great show and a great campus tradition not in spite of all that but because of all that.
posted by alms at 11:31 AM on December 15, 2004
And the loopy far-left finally collapses in upon itself in a horrible tangle of logical absurdities.
posted by scheptech at 11:32 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by scheptech at 11:32 AM on December 15, 2004
I remember when it was Vagina that was offensive.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:33 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:33 AM on December 15, 2004
Can I point out that a production that features a "white" actress talking about how, "as a black woman," she feels such-and-such, and a slim actress talking about how people perceive her some way because she's "fat" is very likely to be a POORLY CAST PRODUCTION?
Let's take that as true. What is the normal, effective response to a poorly cast production? Criticism. I think what's different here -- and what really grates -- is the hubris of designated class groups essentially demanding the ability to produce the play as they would like it to be produced.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:34 AM on December 15, 2004
Let's take that as true. What is the normal, effective response to a poorly cast production? Criticism. I think what's different here -- and what really grates -- is the hubris of designated class groups essentially demanding the ability to produce the play as they would like it to be produced.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:34 AM on December 15, 2004
I've come to the conclusion that this is only a little worse than what the U of O Women's Studies production of The Vagina Monologues deserves. It's not about drama or art, as far as they're concerned - it's more of an affirmative political ritual.
I suppose it's true--every community gets the "art" that it deserves.
Can I point out that a production that features a "white" actress talking about how, "as a black woman," she feels such-and-such, and a slim actress talking about how people perceive her some way because she's "fat" is very likely to be a POORLY CAST PRODUCTION?
Fair enough. It still doesn't seem to me that the proper response is to throw the entire audition process out the window and turn it into a popularity contest (oops, I mean "nomination process"), but (having not seen VM myself) if VM, as you say, doesn't require much rehearsing or dramatic talent to perform, then I suppose auditions are moot to begin with.
So yes, it is about inclusiveness, it is about politics, it is about community, and it's a great show and a great campus tradition not in spite of all that but because of all that.
Thanks for the warning. Those aren't the reasons why I attend theater, so I think I'll stay away from these types of productions. I hope those who do attend will get what they're looking for out of the whole shebang.
posted by DaShiv at 11:39 AM on December 15, 2004
I suppose it's true--every community gets the "art" that it deserves.
Can I point out that a production that features a "white" actress talking about how, "as a black woman," she feels such-and-such, and a slim actress talking about how people perceive her some way because she's "fat" is very likely to be a POORLY CAST PRODUCTION?
Fair enough. It still doesn't seem to me that the proper response is to throw the entire audition process out the window and turn it into a popularity contest (oops, I mean "nomination process"), but (having not seen VM myself) if VM, as you say, doesn't require much rehearsing or dramatic talent to perform, then I suppose auditions are moot to begin with.
So yes, it is about inclusiveness, it is about politics, it is about community, and it's a great show and a great campus tradition not in spite of all that but because of all that.
Thanks for the warning. Those aren't the reasons why I attend theater, so I think I'll stay away from these types of productions. I hope those who do attend will get what they're looking for out of the whole shebang.
posted by DaShiv at 11:39 AM on December 15, 2004
Women's Center spokeswoman Stefanie Loh said the de-emphasis on acting ability will provide a "down to earth" feel to the production as well as allow the producers to be more inclusive in their casting.
This is an artistic choice that's best left to second-grade christmas pageants.
posted by mudpuppie at 11:40 AM on December 15, 2004
This is an artistic choice that's best left to second-grade christmas pageants.
posted by mudpuppie at 11:40 AM on December 15, 2004
As a member of the apathetic community, I am incensed that you expect me to give a shit about this. Your insensitivity knows no bounds.
posted by scruss at 11:40 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by scruss at 11:40 AM on December 15, 2004
"Oh fer crissake. Someone always feels left out or insulted in this country. It's really too much to bear or care about any more." ...
But hey, at least nobody gets left out of feeling insulted.
posted by c13 at 11:42 AM on December 15, 2004
But hey, at least nobody gets left out of feeling insulted.
posted by c13 at 11:42 AM on December 15, 2004
After reading the articles, I think it helps to bear in mind that for these... um... "human persons with breasts"... the play, the quality of the production, the theatrical experience - none of those things matter. For their purposes, an audience wasn't even necessary. They were playing a little political game of creating a "safe space for women" and, oh by the way, trading on the rather famous name of Ensler's play (perhaps as a fund raising ploy?).
This is the so-sick-it-would-be-laughable if it weren't so awfully true result of the whole "colorblind casting" hoo-hah from years ago. As an undergraduate director, I was excoriated for not casting a locally popular Asian kid as one of the sons in O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey Into Night" - and later as a grad student for casting a non-Asian guy to play Mr. Miyagi in an adaptation of "Holly Golightly" (more commonly known as "Breakfast at Tiffany's," the film title)...
posted by JollyWanker at 11:43 AM on December 15, 2004
This is the so-sick-it-would-be-laughable if it weren't so awfully true result of the whole "colorblind casting" hoo-hah from years ago. As an undergraduate director, I was excoriated for not casting a locally popular Asian kid as one of the sons in O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey Into Night" - and later as a grad student for casting a non-Asian guy to play Mr. Miyagi in an adaptation of "Holly Golightly" (more commonly known as "Breakfast at Tiffany's," the film title)...
posted by JollyWanker at 11:43 AM on December 15, 2004
I'm trying to compress my outrage at this triumph of mediocrity, general disgust at the pettiness of this situation, disdain for the piss-poor quality of the Vagina Monologues in general, etc. into a coherent comment. It's not working very well.
posted by ori at 11:46 AM on December 15, 2004
posted by ori at 11:46 AM on December 15, 2004
This is a perfect example of how feminism has failed. When suffrage was the issue, inclusion and "how you feel" wasn't part of the picture. It was about rights, and fighting for them in a legalist capitalist male dominated world.
Since then feminism has become a whine fest for people who feel marginalized, and so we have no equal work for equal pay, equal rights amendment, etc.
We do have alot of minorities and lesbians and fat people who are heard though. Alot. That's something.
posted by ewkpates at 11:50 AM on December 15, 2004
Since then feminism has become a whine fest for people who feel marginalized, and so we have no equal work for equal pay, equal rights amendment, etc.
We do have alot of minorities and lesbians and fat people who are heard though. Alot. That's something.
posted by ewkpates at 11:50 AM on December 15, 2004
talk about sexist: not a mention of any men included in the performance...
posted by buddhanarchist at 12:08 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by buddhanarchist at 12:08 PM on December 15, 2004
It is my understanding that the Vagina Monologues are meant to affirm being a woman, not what "kind of woman" you are.
If you have seen a production and know the format, you know that the show basically presents stories from many different women. You could quibble forever about how "different" is "different," but I do think that any production which isn't very diverse is weaker than one that is. Perhaps a special-themed production of all straight white women would be interesting for what it is, but having a diverse group is very much part of the spirit of doing it at all.
posted by scarabic at 12:14 PM on December 15, 2004
If you have seen a production and know the format, you know that the show basically presents stories from many different women. You could quibble forever about how "different" is "different," but I do think that any production which isn't very diverse is weaker than one that is. Perhaps a special-themed production of all straight white women would be interesting for what it is, but having a diverse group is very much part of the spirit of doing it at all.
posted by scarabic at 12:14 PM on December 15, 2004
As much as the obese want to devour a new politically correct moniker, they are still the most evident symbol of the choice of unhealthy excess, a living SUV eating another Big Mac. Fat is not black, or deaf, or unfortunate. Fat is a series of poor decisions.
America should never buy the fatty lie.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:17 PM on December 15, 2004
America should never buy the fatty lie.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:17 PM on December 15, 2004
The VM has always seemed like a strange play to me anyway. Isn't there a part in it where a female teacher turns one of her (high school) students on to the joy of vaginas? Isn't that sexual abuse? I thought pedophilia was bad. Is it only bad if you don't let a pedophile play the pedophile?
posted by OmieWise at 12:19 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by OmieWise at 12:19 PM on December 15, 2004
talk about sexist: not a mention of any men included in the performance...
But that's different, see... It's only a bad thing if XYZ special-interest-group feels marginalized.
This is all so much bullshit.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:19 PM on December 15, 2004
But that's different, see... It's only a bad thing if XYZ special-interest-group feels marginalized.
This is all so much bullshit.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:19 PM on December 15, 2004
Those aren't the reasons why I attend theater, so I think I'll stay away from these types of productions.
Fair enough, in which case I guess your comments about them are not so applicable? This is kinda like complaining that black and white photography is so drab and colorless. If you go the TVM for keen acting and not for the stories, you're missing the point. You also don't go to Shakespeare for the special effects. TVM is basically a spoken word act as much as it is "theater," and the audience experience is every bit as important as the production values that go into the stage performance. If the audience can't relate, the show has failed. In that sense, it is a community event as much as a play, and in any case it isn't about wowing theater critics. If some community of people thinks their local production sucks and doesn't relate to them, they're right to do something about it.
posted by scarabic at 12:23 PM on December 15, 2004
Fair enough, in which case I guess your comments about them are not so applicable? This is kinda like complaining that black and white photography is so drab and colorless. If you go the TVM for keen acting and not for the stories, you're missing the point. You also don't go to Shakespeare for the special effects. TVM is basically a spoken word act as much as it is "theater," and the audience experience is every bit as important as the production values that go into the stage performance. If the audience can't relate, the show has failed. In that sense, it is a community event as much as a play, and in any case it isn't about wowing theater critics. If some community of people thinks their local production sucks and doesn't relate to them, they're right to do something about it.
posted by scarabic at 12:23 PM on December 15, 2004
I had a college professor who used to say, "you know what's wrong with your generation? You all played t-ball."
LOL...Lordy, that hits it right on the head. Everyone bats, everyone runs, there is no score and no-one loses.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:27 PM on December 15, 2004
LOL...Lordy, that hits it right on the head. Everyone bats, everyone runs, there is no score and no-one loses.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:27 PM on December 15, 2004
Mean Mr Bucket:
I hear you, but remember there are certain people who have a genetic proclivity to weight gain and its near impossible for them to shed their obesity, regardless of their vaginas. (Wait: what were we talking about again?)
posted by buddhanarchist at 12:27 PM on December 15, 2004
I hear you, but remember there are certain people who have a genetic proclivity to weight gain and its near impossible for them to shed their obesity, regardless of their vaginas. (Wait: what were we talking about again?)
posted by buddhanarchist at 12:27 PM on December 15, 2004
"It's really too much to bear or care about any more."
"The world is not a self-esteem store, children."
"Since then feminism has become a whine fest for people who feel marginalized, and so we have no equal work for equal pay, equal rights amendment, etc."
These conclusions seem a little flimsy seeing as how you have one source to draw these conclusions from.
And that one source only quotes three people. You don't have enough evidence to reach any conclusion about what ANY community thinks from that small of a sample.
I think people are seeing what they want to see about this. It's like the McDonalds "coffee case", where people were just waiting to complain about lawsuits being out of hand, without thinking about whether this paticular case has any merits.
posted by Critical_Beatdown at 12:35 PM on December 15, 2004
"The world is not a self-esteem store, children."
"Since then feminism has become a whine fest for people who feel marginalized, and so we have no equal work for equal pay, equal rights amendment, etc."
These conclusions seem a little flimsy seeing as how you have one source to draw these conclusions from.
And that one source only quotes three people. You don't have enough evidence to reach any conclusion about what ANY community thinks from that small of a sample.
I think people are seeing what they want to see about this. It's like the McDonalds "coffee case", where people were just waiting to complain about lawsuits being out of hand, without thinking about whether this paticular case has any merits.
posted by Critical_Beatdown at 12:35 PM on December 15, 2004
Even spoken word acts require talent. Thinking more about this, TVM is fundamentally a political ritual, occupying the territory less of other plays, or even that of other political plays, than, say, a passion or mystery play. Comparisons between this production to a Christmas pageant are more accurate than even at first glance.
I feel the same way about most protest rallies in the First World - it's not about convincing others or even necessarily elucidating beliefs, so much as it is a perfomance by and for the group protesting.
This is not necessarily a bad thing - neither is it necessarily a good thing, however.
Scarabic also brings up a good point about those groups protesting being the community that production of TVM is meant to represent.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:38 PM on December 15, 2004
I feel the same way about most protest rallies in the First World - it's not about convincing others or even necessarily elucidating beliefs, so much as it is a perfomance by and for the group protesting.
This is not necessarily a bad thing - neither is it necessarily a good thing, however.
Scarabic also brings up a good point about those groups protesting being the community that production of TVM is meant to represent.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:38 PM on December 15, 2004
Senior Sarah Blustein, who attended the forum and also protested the production during the weekend, said she tried out for the play and was called back but decided not to participate.
posted by pzarquon at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by pzarquon at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2004
I am excessively diverted by these wymyn'ses assumption that because people share a certain external trait they automatically are a community and have identical interests and demands. Groupthink, ahoy!
posted by gsh at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by gsh at 12:39 PM on December 15, 2004
Senior Sarah Blustein, who attended the forum and also protested the production during the weekend, said she tried out for the play and was called back but decided not to participate.
Just as we'll all project onto this incident whatever we want to believe, it appears as if some of those involved were able to engineer the incident into what they themselves were projecting.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:44 PM on December 15, 2004
Just as we'll all project onto this incident whatever we want to believe, it appears as if some of those involved were able to engineer the incident into what they themselves were projecting.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:44 PM on December 15, 2004
There is no genetic "fat" necessity. Stop eating. No one in the world will be fat on a 1500 calorie diet.
The conclusion I drew wasn't based on this sample. It was based on experiences with this kind of community. This is an example of the problem, not evidence of the problem. If you don't concede that feminism has fallen down and can't get up, then that's a different conversation.
If you can't handle a hot beverage, it's your own fault.
posted by ewkpates at 12:47 PM on December 15, 2004
The conclusion I drew wasn't based on this sample. It was based on experiences with this kind of community. This is an example of the problem, not evidence of the problem. If you don't concede that feminism has fallen down and can't get up, then that's a different conversation.
If you can't handle a hot beverage, it's your own fault.
posted by ewkpates at 12:47 PM on December 15, 2004
Can I point out that a production that features a "white" actress talking about how, "as a black woman," she feels such-and-such, and a slim actress talking about how people perceive her some way because she's "fat" is very likely to be a POORLY CAST PRODUCTION?
You can...but there's also a good counter-argument that it isn't. When I was studying Beckett at university, we put on a production of Waiting for Godot with Vladimir and Estragon played by women. In spite of the fact that much of their dialogue is explicitly connected to their gender, and that Beckett said clearly that the parts could not be played by women.
It's an artistic re-interpretation of the text. I don't see why TVM couldn't take the same approach. (After all, it's a play. It's acting. Actors don't have to have gone through every experience that their character has gone through).
A few people have mentioned that, as the play is basically women reading off cue cards, acting ability isn't so important. I'd suggest that even in such a case, some people are going to be much better performers than others. And that good art is much more effective at communicating a message than bad art.
posted by Infinite Jest at 12:48 PM on December 15, 2004
You can...but there's also a good counter-argument that it isn't. When I was studying Beckett at university, we put on a production of Waiting for Godot with Vladimir and Estragon played by women. In spite of the fact that much of their dialogue is explicitly connected to their gender, and that Beckett said clearly that the parts could not be played by women.
It's an artistic re-interpretation of the text. I don't see why TVM couldn't take the same approach. (After all, it's a play. It's acting. Actors don't have to have gone through every experience that their character has gone through).
A few people have mentioned that, as the play is basically women reading off cue cards, acting ability isn't so important. I'd suggest that even in such a case, some people are going to be much better performers than others. And that good art is much more effective at communicating a message than bad art.
posted by Infinite Jest at 12:48 PM on December 15, 2004
I say we all write The Asshole Monologes and dedicate it to this bunch.
You tempt me so with such a project, good jonmc. ;)
posted by Potloaf at 12:52 PM on December 15, 2004
You tempt me so with such a project, good jonmc. ;)
posted by Potloaf at 12:52 PM on December 15, 2004
If you can't handle a hot beverage, it's your own fault.
Oh, yeah, no doubt. I once saw a comic by the usually much better Tom Tomorrow in which he ridiculed those ridiculing the coffee case, but it only made everything seem that much more inane.
That's right - not just the coffee case. EVERYTHING IS NOW INANE.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:53 PM on December 15, 2004
Oh, yeah, no doubt. I once saw a comic by the usually much better Tom Tomorrow in which he ridiculed those ridiculing the coffee case, but it only made everything seem that much more inane.
That's right - not just the coffee case. EVERYTHING IS NOW INANE.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:53 PM on December 15, 2004
I agree that the appropriate response to a poorly-cast campus production of a play is to express one's disappointment and encourage the organization producing the same play in future to do a better job of casting next time, not to have a whole political foofaraw about it.
However, we're talking about a campus production of The Vagina Monologues here. If people were staging a play for its astonishing artistic depth and quality, they wouldn't choose The Vagina Monologues--what makes TVM interesting to those people who find it interesting is the feel-good sociopolitical content (and, to be fair, Ensler's occasional felicity of dialogue).
I do think this seems to have been astonishingly poorly handled--I can imagine someone saying, "Because of the controversy about last year's production, we're planning to stage the play this year with campus activists and community leaders, rather than actors, in the roles, which will be an interesting experiment in theater for all of us."
There is certainly a long tradition of that kind of thing, not only with The Vagina Monologues--from the Gridiron Club to the "mayor conducts the "Stars and Stripes Forever" at the Fourth of July Concert" and it hasn't stopped the earth from turning on its axis.
And, really, listen to yourselves, people. "This shows how feminism has failed?" My buttocks! It shows how a bunch of college students are confused and self-absorbed. Wow! News flash!
People get stuff wrong all the time. I'm no great fan of identity politics myself, but this pile-on is ridiculous. College students may perceive feminism or ethnic pride in a shallow, ridiculous way; college students also often perceive social conservatism, atonality, Expressionism, "school spirit", patriotism, and lots of other social movements in a shallow, ridiculous way. It's part of being a kid.
And, to jonmc--Al Pacino is always terrible as a Latino. There's cross-ethnic casting that works, and then there's the bizarro "he's dark, he can play someone 'ethnic'" impulse that led to Warner Oland as Charlie Chan, and the hundreds of Jewish actors in red foundation who make early cowboys-and-Indians epics so risible today.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:56 PM on December 15, 2004
However, we're talking about a campus production of The Vagina Monologues here. If people were staging a play for its astonishing artistic depth and quality, they wouldn't choose The Vagina Monologues--what makes TVM interesting to those people who find it interesting is the feel-good sociopolitical content (and, to be fair, Ensler's occasional felicity of dialogue).
I do think this seems to have been astonishingly poorly handled--I can imagine someone saying, "Because of the controversy about last year's production, we're planning to stage the play this year with campus activists and community leaders, rather than actors, in the roles, which will be an interesting experiment in theater for all of us."
There is certainly a long tradition of that kind of thing, not only with The Vagina Monologues--from the Gridiron Club to the "mayor conducts the "Stars and Stripes Forever" at the Fourth of July Concert" and it hasn't stopped the earth from turning on its axis.
And, really, listen to yourselves, people. "This shows how feminism has failed?" My buttocks! It shows how a bunch of college students are confused and self-absorbed. Wow! News flash!
People get stuff wrong all the time. I'm no great fan of identity politics myself, but this pile-on is ridiculous. College students may perceive feminism or ethnic pride in a shallow, ridiculous way; college students also often perceive social conservatism, atonality, Expressionism, "school spirit", patriotism, and lots of other social movements in a shallow, ridiculous way. It's part of being a kid.
And, to jonmc--Al Pacino is always terrible as a Latino. There's cross-ethnic casting that works, and then there's the bizarro "he's dark, he can play someone 'ethnic'" impulse that led to Warner Oland as Charlie Chan, and the hundreds of Jewish actors in red foundation who make early cowboys-and-Indians epics so risible today.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:56 PM on December 15, 2004
Infinite Jest, I agree that casting against type can be fascinating, and I would love to see Waiting For Godot performed by women.
However, it doesn't seem like the production was purposefully casting against type, but rather that it assumed that "actresses" = "slim white women with traditionally 'feminine' self-presentations" and then assigned all of the parts to women meeting that description regardless of the content.
Of course I am drawing this conclusion based on very little data, which is why I said "is likely to be" rather than "is definitely". But I don't get a sense, from the coverage, that the director(s) of last year's production were trying to do anything interesting with casting.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:00 PM on December 15, 2004
However, it doesn't seem like the production was purposefully casting against type, but rather that it assumed that "actresses" = "slim white women with traditionally 'feminine' self-presentations" and then assigned all of the parts to women meeting that description regardless of the content.
Of course I am drawing this conclusion based on very little data, which is why I said "is likely to be" rather than "is definitely". But I don't get a sense, from the coverage, that the director(s) of last year's production were trying to do anything interesting with casting.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:00 PM on December 15, 2004
TVM is basically a spoken word act as much as it is "theater," and the audience experience is every bit as important as the production values that go into the stage performance.
You really don't want me getting started on "spoken word pieces", especially "spoken word poetry." :)
Like I said though, if it's not an audition-centric piece to begin with, then their casting criteria is up to them. From my perspective though, filling roles alphabetically makes as much sense to me as "community-based" casting does. All I know is that I vote financially for which productions I support with my ticket purchase, and I personally wouldn't ever buy a ticket to a production that's more about "inclusion" and "safety spaces" for a cast than it is about putting on a show for the audience. Good for any of you willing to spend money to make other people feel better about themselves in this way, however, but me? I pay to go to the threater for good drama.
Guess that makes me an art snob. Drats.
Say, how's that film festival organizing going, scarabic? Haven't heard any news from you about it for a while now.
P.S. Quick plug for Bright River. Some guy named Kid Beyond or something is performing in it, I think.
posted by DaShiv at 1:01 PM on December 15, 2004
You really don't want me getting started on "spoken word pieces", especially "spoken word poetry." :)
Like I said though, if it's not an audition-centric piece to begin with, then their casting criteria is up to them. From my perspective though, filling roles alphabetically makes as much sense to me as "community-based" casting does. All I know is that I vote financially for which productions I support with my ticket purchase, and I personally wouldn't ever buy a ticket to a production that's more about "inclusion" and "safety spaces" for a cast than it is about putting on a show for the audience. Good for any of you willing to spend money to make other people feel better about themselves in this way, however, but me? I pay to go to the threater for good drama.
Guess that makes me an art snob. Drats.
Say, how's that film festival organizing going, scarabic? Haven't heard any news from you about it for a while now.
P.S. Quick plug for Bright River. Some guy named Kid Beyond or something is performing in it, I think.
posted by DaShiv at 1:01 PM on December 15, 2004
And, to jonmc--Al Pacino is always terrible as a Latino.
All bad "Latino" performances pale is comparison to Rod Steiger in The Specialist.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:04 PM on December 15, 2004
All bad "Latino" performances pale is comparison to Rod Steiger in The Specialist.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:04 PM on December 15, 2004
in comparison. Duh.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:05 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:05 PM on December 15, 2004
About a year ago, I saw a dreadful knock off of TVM. I reacted to it in an obnoxious way and wrote an evening of meaningful monologues (self link and, what's worth, a series of LJ entries). They ended up being produced in Perth, Australia. One of my monologues, clearly written for a man, was performed by a woman. Theatre rocks.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:05 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:05 PM on December 15, 2004
And, to jonmc--Al Pacino is always terrible as a Latino.
Oh, Sidhedevvil, you gonna die, big-time!!
I agree that he crossed over into Charo territory in Scarface, but in Carlito's Way he was simply playing a guy from East Harlem, which is what Pacino was, so it worked out fine there.
All bad "Latino" performances pale is comparison to Rod Steiger in The Specialist.
You've obviously never seen Robby Benson in Walk Proud.
posted by jonmc at 1:08 PM on December 15, 2004
Oh, Sidhedevvil, you gonna die, big-time!!
I agree that he crossed over into Charo territory in Scarface, but in Carlito's Way he was simply playing a guy from East Harlem, which is what Pacino was, so it worked out fine there.
All bad "Latino" performances pale is comparison to Rod Steiger in The Specialist.
You've obviously never seen Robby Benson in Walk Proud.
posted by jonmc at 1:08 PM on December 15, 2004
I guess I should have said "Al Pacino is always terrible when he's self-consciously playing a Latino". I agree he was great in Carlito's Way.
In the annals of "weird Latino casting" I always like Charlton Heston in Touch of Evil. Because it takes place in that alternate-universe Mexico inhabited by Charlton Heston and Marlene Dietrich.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:14 PM on December 15, 2004
In the annals of "weird Latino casting" I always like Charlton Heston in Touch of Evil. Because it takes place in that alternate-universe Mexico inhabited by Charlton Heston and Marlene Dietrich.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:14 PM on December 15, 2004
And I would love to see an all-male production of The Vagina Monologues. I think that would rock.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:15 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:15 PM on December 15, 2004
I remember when it was Vagina that was offensive.
Thank goodness we're over that, at least.
posted by agregoli at 1:16 PM on December 15, 2004
Thank goodness we're over that, at least.
posted by agregoli at 1:16 PM on December 15, 2004
It's meant, IMHO, to be inclusive. If U of O purposely cast a homogenous group, then they need to be tapped on the shoulder (or whacked in the head with a brick, whatever) and figure out a way to open up the auditions/sign ups.
I was part of a VM production in college. It was all-volunteer - we had a huge meeting, people signed up, and the director divided the parts out. We were fairly diverse based simply on women's self-selection to be a part of the play. It was good. It wasn't great, but it was good. And we didn't have pissed off "queer Jewish feminists" beating down our doors. For us, the point was to have fun and raise money for charity, and the fact that it wasn't a bad production didn't hurt any. I may be tooting my own horn here, but that seems like the better, preferable outcome -- and it's probably a good idea to try to reach a better, preferable outcome.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2004
I was part of a VM production in college. It was all-volunteer - we had a huge meeting, people signed up, and the director divided the parts out. We were fairly diverse based simply on women's self-selection to be a part of the play. It was good. It wasn't great, but it was good. And we didn't have pissed off "queer Jewish feminists" beating down our doors. For us, the point was to have fun and raise money for charity, and the fact that it wasn't a bad production didn't hurt any. I may be tooting my own horn here, but that seems like the better, preferable outcome -- and it's probably a good idea to try to reach a better, preferable outcome.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2004
I say we all write The Asshole Monologes
Ah, we do it every day here. Anyone want to have the boyzone conversation? :)
DaShiv - the Arab Film Festival went well, even though it's *primary* mission was to include the works and perspectives of a certain demographic class - Arabs. Even though you're an art snob, you might have found it interesting. We did put a lot of work into finding quality movies that would entertain and inform our audiences. But our main mission was to open a channel for seldom-seen Arab-related films. Sometimes something different is just as entertaining as something polished. If you've never seen TVM, you might consider taking it in sometime as an alternative to seeing Much Ado for the 5th time, if you know what I mean.
A show can serve a social ideal but still pursue high production values. What the plantiffs (lack of a better word) in this case seem to be arguing is that it pursued certain production values to the *exclusion* of the social role. That's a valid criticism if it's true.
Naturally, a lot of people in this thread seem to lean in the direction that the plaintiffs want to pursue the social ideal to the exclusion of all production values. That's leaping to a conclusion which isn't necessarily warranted by anything in the article. They might have put on just as good a show, if not better.
posted by scarabic at 1:29 PM on December 15, 2004
Ah, we do it every day here. Anyone want to have the boyzone conversation? :)
DaShiv - the Arab Film Festival went well, even though it's *primary* mission was to include the works and perspectives of a certain demographic class - Arabs. Even though you're an art snob, you might have found it interesting. We did put a lot of work into finding quality movies that would entertain and inform our audiences. But our main mission was to open a channel for seldom-seen Arab-related films. Sometimes something different is just as entertaining as something polished. If you've never seen TVM, you might consider taking it in sometime as an alternative to seeing Much Ado for the 5th time, if you know what I mean.
A show can serve a social ideal but still pursue high production values. What the plantiffs (lack of a better word) in this case seem to be arguing is that it pursued certain production values to the *exclusion* of the social role. That's a valid criticism if it's true.
Naturally, a lot of people in this thread seem to lean in the direction that the plaintiffs want to pursue the social ideal to the exclusion of all production values. That's leaping to a conclusion which isn't necessarily warranted by anything in the article. They might have put on just as good a show, if not better.
posted by scarabic at 1:29 PM on December 15, 2004
I have nothing. Sorry. Anything I type would just be piling on.
I think jonmc and xmutex and Scarabic pretty much took care of the whole thing with the first 3 posts.
Good job.
posted by a3matrix at 1:30 PM on December 15, 2004
I think jonmc and xmutex and Scarabic pretty much took care of the whole thing with the first 3 posts.
Good job.
posted by a3matrix at 1:30 PM on December 15, 2004
You've obviously never seen Robby Benson in Walk Proud.
All right, Rod Steiger and Eric Roberts in The Specialist.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:32 PM on December 15, 2004
All right, Rod Steiger and Eric Roberts in The Specialist.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:32 PM on December 15, 2004
sidhedevil: Yes-- I was serious about an all male TVM: and also was wondering if they could actually wrap their heads around the idea: as a means of getting some perspective...
posted by buddhanarchist at 1:34 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by buddhanarchist at 1:34 PM on December 15, 2004
An all male Vagina Monologues is not one I would go to - negates the entire production for me. Men talking about their vaginas? Wha?
posted by agregoli at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by agregoli at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2004
This reads like something they cut from the "P.C.U." script cause it was too far-fetched.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. Come on, people, let the theater people have their play; its not a soapbox for your cause.
"These, Tom, are the Causeheads. They find a world-threatening issue and stick with it for about a week."
posted by mrbill at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2004
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. Come on, people, let the theater people have their play; its not a soapbox for your cause.
"These, Tom, are the Causeheads. They find a world-threatening issue and stick with it for about a week."
posted by mrbill at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2004
Nothing beats Sean Connery as an Arab.
Ellen DeGeneres as a straight woman?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:40 PM on December 15, 2004
Ellen DeGeneres as a straight woman?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:40 PM on December 15, 2004
Ellen DeGeneres as a straight woman?
It's called Mr Wrong.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:42 PM on December 15, 2004
It's called Mr Wrong.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:42 PM on December 15, 2004
And the loopy far-left finally collapses in upon itself in a horrible tangle of logical absurdities.
No, actually, it's a bunch of whiny college students that are so wrapped up in their own personal dramas that they've lost all sense of perspective.
posted by bshort at 1:42 PM on December 15, 2004
No, actually, it's a bunch of whiny college students that are so wrapped up in their own personal dramas that they've lost all sense of perspective.
posted by bshort at 1:42 PM on December 15, 2004
Hey, sticherbeast - always nice to see that fellow playwrights are still walking to and fro across the earth, and up and down upon it ... got any productions coming up?
I agree with those who think way too much is being made of this - both on the campus and here in metafilter.
Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in seeing a show where the casting is based primarily on factors other than acting talent, and yes that includes the Vagina Monolgues, and yes I've seen the show and am very familiar with it (bearing in mind that it is admittedly not my favorite play.) But if someone wants to cast that way, I don't think it's a big deal or anything.
Having cast shows on college campuses as a director, I think the most likely reason that they cast slim white women in all the roles the last time is that they either didn't have anyone else audition, or the few people who weren't slim white women who did audition were pretty awful. Which is probably why the article mentions that the first plan was to increase "outreach" - e.g., getting more people to audition, which I think would probably have been the best way to handle this.
I've sometimes done colorblind casting in both directions (white person in a black role, asian person in a white role, female in male role, etc.), and in all cases it was solely because that was the best person for the part. Colorblind casting is supposed to mean if you have someone incredibly good, you shouldn't necessarily let the traditional view of the play force you into a lesser production by shutting them out of the part. (The other view of colorblind casting - not really at issue with the production in question, but I'll mention it since it's been brought up - that you should cast someone not as good specifically *because* they're nontraditional for the part - is obviously not "colorblind", and is, in my opinion, frustratingly stupid. But that's pretty much irrelevant to this particular discussion, since the argument is over tradtional/unskilled vs. nontraditional/skilled, rather than traditional/skilled vs. nontraditional/unskilled.)
Anyway, although I think colorblind and genderblind casting can be very appropriate and a great (and, yes, equalizing) idea, there are plays for which colorblind or genderblind casting tends to diminish the work - for example when the whole *point* is that certain characters are colored, or women, or what have you. I was appalled to see a production of "Finian's Rainbow" once (a musical largely about southern racism) in which the entire chorus was white. The show simply made no sense that way - the point was gone.
I can see the argument that colorblind casting diminishes The Vagina Monologues in that way - certainly genderblind casting, jokes in this thread aside, would undercut the point of the work. I tend to think the answer to that is either 1) don't do the play if you can't get appropriate and talented actors, or 2) make sure you have some appropriate and talented actors auditioning if you're definitely going to do the play.
But if the producers decide to err on the side of "appropriateness for the role" rather than talent, that's their right and their decision. They won't be the first or the last to make such a choice, including some very famous artists who liked to work with amateurs (such as Sergei Eisenstein.) And there's no reason it has to be a bad production if they do it that way. But I doubt I'd go see their production - not my thing. On the other hand, there are probably a fair number of people who would, and would enjoy it, so I can't argue it's a bad decision - just one that isn't to my particular tastes.
This has been a bit rambling, probably because my real reaction is along the lines of, "Whatever."
posted by kyrademon at 1:44 PM on December 15, 2004
I agree with those who think way too much is being made of this - both on the campus and here in metafilter.
Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in seeing a show where the casting is based primarily on factors other than acting talent, and yes that includes the Vagina Monolgues, and yes I've seen the show and am very familiar with it (bearing in mind that it is admittedly not my favorite play.) But if someone wants to cast that way, I don't think it's a big deal or anything.
Having cast shows on college campuses as a director, I think the most likely reason that they cast slim white women in all the roles the last time is that they either didn't have anyone else audition, or the few people who weren't slim white women who did audition were pretty awful. Which is probably why the article mentions that the first plan was to increase "outreach" - e.g., getting more people to audition, which I think would probably have been the best way to handle this.
I've sometimes done colorblind casting in both directions (white person in a black role, asian person in a white role, female in male role, etc.), and in all cases it was solely because that was the best person for the part. Colorblind casting is supposed to mean if you have someone incredibly good, you shouldn't necessarily let the traditional view of the play force you into a lesser production by shutting them out of the part. (The other view of colorblind casting - not really at issue with the production in question, but I'll mention it since it's been brought up - that you should cast someone not as good specifically *because* they're nontraditional for the part - is obviously not "colorblind", and is, in my opinion, frustratingly stupid. But that's pretty much irrelevant to this particular discussion, since the argument is over tradtional/unskilled vs. nontraditional/skilled, rather than traditional/skilled vs. nontraditional/unskilled.)
Anyway, although I think colorblind and genderblind casting can be very appropriate and a great (and, yes, equalizing) idea, there are plays for which colorblind or genderblind casting tends to diminish the work - for example when the whole *point* is that certain characters are colored, or women, or what have you. I was appalled to see a production of "Finian's Rainbow" once (a musical largely about southern racism) in which the entire chorus was white. The show simply made no sense that way - the point was gone.
I can see the argument that colorblind casting diminishes The Vagina Monologues in that way - certainly genderblind casting, jokes in this thread aside, would undercut the point of the work. I tend to think the answer to that is either 1) don't do the play if you can't get appropriate and talented actors, or 2) make sure you have some appropriate and talented actors auditioning if you're definitely going to do the play.
But if the producers decide to err on the side of "appropriateness for the role" rather than talent, that's their right and their decision. They won't be the first or the last to make such a choice, including some very famous artists who liked to work with amateurs (such as Sergei Eisenstein.) And there's no reason it has to be a bad production if they do it that way. But I doubt I'd go see their production - not my thing. On the other hand, there are probably a fair number of people who would, and would enjoy it, so I can't argue it's a bad decision - just one that isn't to my particular tastes.
This has been a bit rambling, probably because my real reaction is along the lines of, "Whatever."
posted by kyrademon at 1:44 PM on December 15, 2004
[OT]
As long as we're on the subject of Carlito's Way and Latino portrayals, acouple weeks ago I was channel surfing and I stumbled across Carlito's Way broadcast in Spanish on Telemundo. It was at the scene where Sean Penn's charachter is coked up and tries to bait an Italian mobster into fighting him by calling him a "fuckin' wop." In the Spanish version he calls him a "pinche spaghetti." WTF? The next day I asked three different Puerto Rican co-workers if this was an ethnic slur I needed to watch out for. Turns out my fears were unsubstantiated.
[/OT]
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on December 15, 2004
As long as we're on the subject of Carlito's Way and Latino portrayals, acouple weeks ago I was channel surfing and I stumbled across Carlito's Way broadcast in Spanish on Telemundo. It was at the scene where Sean Penn's charachter is coked up and tries to bait an Italian mobster into fighting him by calling him a "fuckin' wop." In the Spanish version he calls him a "pinche spaghetti." WTF? The next day I asked three different Puerto Rican co-workers if this was an ethnic slur I needed to watch out for. Turns out my fears were unsubstantiated.
[/OT]
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on December 15, 2004
But it WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE "the theater people's" play--it was a production of the University "Women's Center". The Vagina Monologues works much better as a "soapbox for your cause" than it does as a great work of theater.
pardonyou?, Rock Hudson was always incredibly convincing as a straight man, though. I think it's just that DeGeneres isn't really an actor (very few stand-up comedians are, after all.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:45 PM on December 15, 2004
pardonyou?, Rock Hudson was always incredibly convincing as a straight man, though. I think it's just that DeGeneres isn't really an actor (very few stand-up comedians are, after all.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:45 PM on December 15, 2004
Come on, people, let the theater people have their play; its not a soapbox for your cause.
Except that it's not being produced by the theater people: it's being put on by the Women's Center, not the Drama Department. It's pretty much meant to be a soapbox.
It shows how a bunch of college students are confused and self-absorbed.... College students may perceive feminism or ethnic pride in a shallow, ridiculous way; college students also often perceive social conservatism, atonality, Expressionism, "school spirit", patriotism, and lots of other social movements in a shallow, ridiculous way. It's part of being a kid.
Bravo, Sidhedevil! You nailed it. People, let the kids have their fun! If you can't be an obnoxious anti-sizism activist during your college years, when can you be an obnoxious anti-sizism activist?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:49 PM on December 15, 2004
Except that it's not being produced by the theater people: it's being put on by the Women's Center, not the Drama Department. It's pretty much meant to be a soapbox.
It shows how a bunch of college students are confused and self-absorbed.... College students may perceive feminism or ethnic pride in a shallow, ridiculous way; college students also often perceive social conservatism, atonality, Expressionism, "school spirit", patriotism, and lots of other social movements in a shallow, ridiculous way. It's part of being a kid.
Bravo, Sidhedevil! You nailed it. People, let the kids have their fun! If you can't be an obnoxious anti-sizism activist during your college years, when can you be an obnoxious anti-sizism activist?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:49 PM on December 15, 2004
I was quite serious about wanting to see an all-male production of The Vagina Monologues. I wouldn't want to see a "genderblind" production of TVM, but I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to see an all-male production.
kyrademon, I agree with you that a production featuring "campus community leaders" instead of actors is probably not going to be a great evening of theater from the technical perspective. However, if students at the University of Oregon, Eugene are looking to the University Women's Center rather than to the drama department for great evenings of theater, they're in trouble.
And I really doubt that the only women on the campus who are good actors are slim and white. That just doesn't seem, statistically, to be possible. It is possible that the drama department tends so strongly to cast slim, white women (and possibly men, too) that other women are discouraged from even auditioning for things. In which case, it's certainly interesting for the Women's Center to try to mix things up with other performers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:50 PM on December 15, 2004
kyrademon, I agree with you that a production featuring "campus community leaders" instead of actors is probably not going to be a great evening of theater from the technical perspective. However, if students at the University of Oregon, Eugene are looking to the University Women's Center rather than to the drama department for great evenings of theater, they're in trouble.
And I really doubt that the only women on the campus who are good actors are slim and white. That just doesn't seem, statistically, to be possible. It is possible that the drama department tends so strongly to cast slim, white women (and possibly men, too) that other women are discouraged from even auditioning for things. In which case, it's certainly interesting for the Women's Center to try to mix things up with other performers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:50 PM on December 15, 2004
This black woman performing as an Italian man works quite well.
posted by gwint at 1:51 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by gwint at 1:51 PM on December 15, 2004
While I wouldn't see an all-male TVM myself, there's some interest to the idea. An all-male production of TVM would theoretically place the whole production into a critical place where the audience would have to connect with the monologues not on the literal level of women talking about their vaginas, but on the level of what the monologues say and mean, and in seeing men deliver the monologues, it could color the sociopolitical aspects in an interesting fashion. If you're a woman watching the show, seeing a man talk about his vagina - obviously a fiction - it might make you think more about how this story could relate to you, or other women, as opposed to the man delivering the speech.
Brecht would approve. I dunno. It isn't something I would pursue myself, but it's something to think about.
On a semi-related note, Spike Lee's "A Huey Newton Story" featured a white man's self-acted one-man show in which he plays Huey P. Newton, and it was fantastic.
(Oh, and kyrademon: theater high-five! I have stuff coming around soon, but I'll pimp myself out elsewhere...:))
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:52 PM on December 15, 2004
Brecht would approve. I dunno. It isn't something I would pursue myself, but it's something to think about.
On a semi-related note, Spike Lee's "A Huey Newton Story" featured a white man's self-acted one-man show in which he plays Huey P. Newton, and it was fantastic.
(Oh, and kyrademon: theater high-five! I have stuff coming around soon, but I'll pimp myself out elsewhere...:))
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:52 PM on December 15, 2004
pardonyou?, Rock Hudson was always incredibly convincing as a straight man, though. I think it's just that DeGeneres isn't really an actor (very few stand-up comedians are, after all.)
Sidhedevil, you're right of course. And no doubt there are currently a goodly number of closeted or semi-closeted gay/lesbian actors convincingly playing straight roles. I was just trying to be funny.
It's called Mr Wrong.
True, but because the guy was a cad, not because Ellen's character was supposed to be gay.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:52 PM on December 15, 2004
Sidhedevil, you're right of course. And no doubt there are currently a goodly number of closeted or semi-closeted gay/lesbian actors convincingly playing straight roles. I was just trying to be funny.
It's called Mr Wrong.
True, but because the guy was a cad, not because Ellen's character was supposed to be gay.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:52 PM on December 15, 2004
TVM is basically a spoken word act as much as it is "theater," and the audience experience is every bit as important as the production values that go into the stage performance.
But, you know what, a shittily read monologue isn't going to connect to one goddam person, either.
Having sat through enough shitty acting while getting a theatre degree, I know pretty much firsthand that an audience will not "get" something from an "actor" who doesn't have stage presence. And that's not something you can acquire in two rehearsals.
Trying to rebill this as "performance art" doesn't change this one bit. 99% of performance art is unbearable to sit through, not because of its content, but simply because the "performer" cannot "act".
posted by Human Stain at 1:56 PM on December 15, 2004
But, you know what, a shittily read monologue isn't going to connect to one goddam person, either.
Having sat through enough shitty acting while getting a theatre degree, I know pretty much firsthand that an audience will not "get" something from an "actor" who doesn't have stage presence. And that's not something you can acquire in two rehearsals.
Trying to rebill this as "performance art" doesn't change this one bit. 99% of performance art is unbearable to sit through, not because of its content, but simply because the "performer" cannot "act".
posted by Human Stain at 1:56 PM on December 15, 2004
True, but because the guy was a cad, not because Ellen's character was supposed to be gay.
I was just trying to be funny.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:58 PM on December 15, 2004
I was just trying to be funny.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:58 PM on December 15, 2004
An all-male Vagina Monologues might be an interesting thought experiment, but mostly for the actors involved. I don't think I know a single woman who would enjoy such an event. The Vagina Monologues (while not the best production ever) is a celebration of the experience of being a woman - I sure wouldn't want to watch a man imagining what it would be like to be a woman - it's not the point of the plays. There are enough male-dominated expressions out there. But to each their own. Stage one, see if people want to see it.
Just attending the Vagina Monologues as a male should get the intended thought processes going.
If you're a woman watching the show, seeing a man talk about his vagina - obviously a fiction - it might make you think more about how this story could relate to you, or other women, as opposed to the man delivering the speech.
Woman to woman, I'm already applying the individual monologues as how they relate to me - I have a vagina, after all.
posted by agregoli at 2:02 PM on December 15, 2004
Just attending the Vagina Monologues as a male should get the intended thought processes going.
If you're a woman watching the show, seeing a man talk about his vagina - obviously a fiction - it might make you think more about how this story could relate to you, or other women, as opposed to the man delivering the speech.
Woman to woman, I'm already applying the individual monologues as how they relate to me - I have a vagina, after all.
posted by agregoli at 2:02 PM on December 15, 2004
Sidhedevil, I pretty much agree with you - I think if a Women's Center wants to do this as a social commentary/gathering more than as a piece of theater, that's entirely their right and perfectly appropriate for what they're about. It just isn't my personal thing (does this mean I have to turn in my political queer theater card now? ;) )
And I did indeed mean that frequently on college campuses, slim white women are the only women who bother to show up to auditions - not that the only good actresses on the campus were slim and white. It's a problem I've been very frustrated by in the past trying to cast shows at colleges, and I'm always glad to see more outreach efforts. I just wouldn't pick casting by nomination as necessarily the way to go if I were doing it.
posted by kyrademon at 2:02 PM on December 15, 2004
And I did indeed mean that frequently on college campuses, slim white women are the only women who bother to show up to auditions - not that the only good actresses on the campus were slim and white. It's a problem I've been very frustrated by in the past trying to cast shows at colleges, and I'm always glad to see more outreach efforts. I just wouldn't pick casting by nomination as necessarily the way to go if I were doing it.
posted by kyrademon at 2:02 PM on December 15, 2004
When I was studying Beckett at university, we put on a production of Waiting for Godot with Vladimir and Estragon played by women. In spite of the fact that much of their dialogue is explicitly connected to their gender, and that Beckett said clearly that the parts could not be played by women.
Not to be a pedant, but you're lucky that the estate of Beckett didn't know/find out about it, or you would mostly likely have been shut down.
I'd be interested to hear what Ensler would think about the idea of an all-male VM. I'm not sure I get what, exactly, it would accomplish. (I read what you wrote about the idea Stitcherbeast, and I'm not sure that I can even parse it correctly.) My knee-jerk reaction is that it doesn't make sense to me to take a play that has been so significant to so many women (and is still very important, as the articles and outrage testify) and remove women from it.
Oh, and Stitcherbeast, kyrademon - another playwright here. One more and we have enough to play euchre.
posted by papercake at 2:03 PM on December 15, 2004
Not to be a pedant, but you're lucky that the estate of Beckett didn't know/find out about it, or you would mostly likely have been shut down.
I'd be interested to hear what Ensler would think about the idea of an all-male VM. I'm not sure I get what, exactly, it would accomplish. (I read what you wrote about the idea Stitcherbeast, and I'm not sure that I can even parse it correctly.) My knee-jerk reaction is that it doesn't make sense to me to take a play that has been so significant to so many women (and is still very important, as the articles and outrage testify) and remove women from it.
Oh, and Stitcherbeast, kyrademon - another playwright here. One more and we have enough to play euchre.
posted by papercake at 2:03 PM on December 15, 2004
And I would love to see an all-male production of The Vagina Monologues. I think that would rock.
My former roommate told me she was in an all-female production of Glengarry Glen Ross in college.
You can quote Brecht all you want, but that's going to suck.
posted by Human Stain at 2:04 PM on December 15, 2004
My former roommate told me she was in an all-female production of Glengarry Glen Ross in college.
You can quote Brecht all you want, but that's going to suck.
posted by Human Stain at 2:04 PM on December 15, 2004
Why? Kind of seems like Glengarry Glen Ross would easily transfer to an all-woman cast, if I'm remembering it correctly.
posted by agregoli at 2:05 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by agregoli at 2:05 PM on December 15, 2004
Well, I'm a woman, and what I would think was interesting about seeing an all-male performance of The Vagina Monologues would be seeing men onstage talk about vaginas (or vulvas, mostly--one of the things that bugs me about The Vagina Monologues is that very few of them are about the actual vagina) in a way that was not sexualized or dismissive.
I, personally, would find something strangely appealing in seeing a male actor talk about "how much I love my cunt". I just think it would provide a little friction/energy along the lines of the Brechtian "distance effect".
I'm a playwright (though more often a librettist), but since I am so lucky in love, I hate to play cards.
And I saw a FANTASTIC all-female production of Glengarry Glen Ross once. So there. They didn't make the characters female--they were male characters portrayed by female actors. It was interesting.
I also recently saw this play, which completely "worked" despite being countercast for gender and race.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:11 PM on December 15, 2004
I, personally, would find something strangely appealing in seeing a male actor talk about "how much I love my cunt". I just think it would provide a little friction/energy along the lines of the Brechtian "distance effect".
I'm a playwright (though more often a librettist), but since I am so lucky in love, I hate to play cards.
And I saw a FANTASTIC all-female production of Glengarry Glen Ross once. So there. They didn't make the characters female--they were male characters portrayed by female actors. It was interesting.
I also recently saw this play, which completely "worked" despite being countercast for gender and race.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:11 PM on December 15, 2004
Why? Kind of seems like Glengarry Glen Ross would easily transfer to an all-woman cast, if I'm remembering it correctly.
Except that the entire point of the play would be lost.
You know, besides that, I guess there's no reason it would suck.
posted by Human Stain at 2:12 PM on December 15, 2004
Except that the entire point of the play would be lost.
You know, besides that, I guess there's no reason it would suck.
posted by Human Stain at 2:12 PM on December 15, 2004
Moss: What's your name?Obviously a good female actor could pull this off metaphorically, but there would be a certain resonance missing.
Blake: FUCK YOU, that's my name!! You know why, Mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name!! (to Levene) And your name is "you're wanting." And you can't play in a man's game. You can't close them. (at a near whisper) And you go home and tell your wife your troubles. (to everyone again) Because only one thing counts in this life! Get them to sign on the line which is dotted! You hear me, you fucking faggots?
(Blake flips over a blackboard which has two sets of letters on it: ABC, and AIDA.)
Blake: A-B-C. A-always, B-be, C-closing. Always be closing! Always be closing!! A-I-D-A. Attention, interest, decision, action. Attention -- do I have your attention? Interest -- are you interested? I know you are because it's fuck or walk. You close or you hit the bricks! Decision -- have you made your decision for Christ?!! And action. A-I-D-A; get out there!! You got the prospects comin' in; you think they came in to get out of the rain? Guy doesn't walk on the lot unless he wants to buy. Sitting out there waiting to give you their money! Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it? (to Moss) What's the problem pal? You. Moss.
Moss: You're such a hero, you're so rich. Why you coming down here and waste your time on a bunch of bums?
(Blake sits and takes off his gold watch)
Blake: You see this watch? You see this watch?
Moss: Yeah.
Blake: That watch cost more than your car. I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see, pal, that's who I am. And you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!! (to everyone) You wanna work here? Close!! (to Aaronow) You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you cocksucker? You can't take this -- how can you take the abuse you get on a sit?! You don't like it -- leave. I can go out there tonight with the materials you got, make myself fifteen thousand dollars! Tonight! In two hours! Can you? Can you? Go and do likewise! A-I-D-A!! Get mad! You sons of bitches! Get mad!! You know what it takes to sell real estate?
(He pulls something out of his briefcase)
Blake: It takes brass balls to sell real estate.
(He's holding two brass balls on string, over the appropriate "area"--he puts them away after a pause)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:14 PM on December 15, 2004
Ah, forgot about the balls part. Still, the entire play is men arguing in an office - seems like it would translate well using female characters. Balls is often used metaphorically as well, but as far as men having vaginas? Eh.
The entire point of GGR isn't male centric, is it? I mean, I guess it could be viewed as male postering, but woman could accomplish the same thing. I always just saw it as a sales environment, a bully one at that. Women could do the same thing.
But again, to each their own. If you can't picture it, you can't picture it.
posted by agregoli at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2004
The entire point of GGR isn't male centric, is it? I mean, I guess it could be viewed as male postering, but woman could accomplish the same thing. I always just saw it as a sales environment, a bully one at that. Women could do the same thing.
But again, to each their own. If you can't picture it, you can't picture it.
posted by agregoli at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2004
re: the coffee case...
it's clear that it's never a prerequisite to know whereof one speaks here on mefi, but come the fuck on... that case was decided by a jury. the woman in question got THIRD DEGREE BURNS on her thighs from the coffee. would you ever have the expectation that a cup of coffee you've been served is so hot it'd give you third degree burns?
this was the argument on which the case turned.
mcdonald's used to keep their coffee unreasonably hot -- 195 degrees, for reasons of flavor. as a result of the lawsuit, they no longer do so.
but hey, don't let me interrupt your ignorant scoffing.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2004
it's clear that it's never a prerequisite to know whereof one speaks here on mefi, but come the fuck on... that case was decided by a jury. the woman in question got THIRD DEGREE BURNS on her thighs from the coffee. would you ever have the expectation that a cup of coffee you've been served is so hot it'd give you third degree burns?
this was the argument on which the case turned.
mcdonald's used to keep their coffee unreasonably hot -- 195 degrees, for reasons of flavor. as a result of the lawsuit, they no longer do so.
but hey, don't let me interrupt your ignorant scoffing.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2004
As Armitage Shanks shows us, yes, a woman could read those words. I have no doubts she could read them convincingly.
However, the entire audience would be wrapped up in watching "chicks act like dicks" rather than experiencing the undertones and dynamic of male interaction and brutality that, personally, I think Mamet was trying to achieve.
But, hey, why look for a third dimension in art?
posted by Human Stain at 2:20 PM on December 15, 2004
However, the entire audience would be wrapped up in watching "chicks act like dicks" rather than experiencing the undertones and dynamic of male interaction and brutality that, personally, I think Mamet was trying to achieve.
But, hey, why look for a third dimension in art?
posted by Human Stain at 2:20 PM on December 15, 2004
Hey, why be condescending when I'm honestly trying to discuss things?
posted by agregoli at 2:21 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by agregoli at 2:21 PM on December 15, 2004
However, the entire audience would be wrapped up in watching "chicks act like dicks" rather than experiencing the undertones and dynamic of male interaction and brutality that, personally, I think Mamet was trying to achieve.
Also, honestly, you don't think the audience watching an all-male production of the VM would have the same problem? Bizarre argument.
posted by agregoli at 2:24 PM on December 15, 2004
Also, honestly, you don't think the audience watching an all-male production of the VM would have the same problem? Bizarre argument.
posted by agregoli at 2:24 PM on December 15, 2004
Ah, forgot about the balls part.
It's not so much the balls part as lines like "Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!!" I think this plays into the tensions in men's self-image/self-worth in a way that doesn't translate directly for women. In general. YMMV. Etc.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:24 PM on December 15, 2004
It's not so much the balls part as lines like "Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!!" I think this plays into the tensions in men's self-image/self-worth in a way that doesn't translate directly for women. In general. YMMV. Etc.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:24 PM on December 15, 2004
No, in fact, the "chicks act like dicks" effect went away very quickly, and after about three minutes it was just like every other performance of Glengarry Glen Ross.
And, obviously, nobody appreciated Romeo and Juliet for the first eighty years it was performed in England, because all the audience could do was laugh and point at the men playing women. Just as they do in Japanese kabuki today.
Cut audiences some slack, Human Stain!
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:25 PM on December 15, 2004
And, obviously, nobody appreciated Romeo and Juliet for the first eighty years it was performed in England, because all the audience could do was laugh and point at the men playing women. Just as they do in Japanese kabuki today.
Cut audiences some slack, Human Stain!
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:25 PM on December 15, 2004
Look, you can't rewrite Glengarry Glen Ross so that the characters are women.
However, it really does work fine when the actors portraying the male characters are female.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2004
However, it really does work fine when the actors portraying the male characters are female.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2004
I tend to look at gender-blind casting the same way I do about putting nudity on stage: is there a point? is the point important enough to warrant the amount of distraction that it's going to cause? Sometimes, it is.
I'm not sure what an all-female GGR would accomplish. I've always felt GGR, on one level, was a play about masculinity and accepting (or not) the power that comes with it (good and bad). Which, I suppose, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a worthwhile exercise to produce with all women, but it makes me scratch my head wondering why you would do it. Now that we've discussed it, I'd probably go see it, if it was being done well.
Now I'm going to have to read GGR again tonight.
posted by papercake at 2:32 PM on December 15, 2004
I'm not sure what an all-female GGR would accomplish. I've always felt GGR, on one level, was a play about masculinity and accepting (or not) the power that comes with it (good and bad). Which, I suppose, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a worthwhile exercise to produce with all women, but it makes me scratch my head wondering why you would do it. Now that we've discussed it, I'd probably go see it, if it was being done well.
Now I'm going to have to read GGR again tonight.
posted by papercake at 2:32 PM on December 15, 2004
UO alumni can immediately recognize this stuff for the annual school ritual that it is. I'd actually be a little worried if I *didn't* hear some kind of absurd radically liberal news coming out of that school. Eugene has people from all parts of the political spectrum (it hosts an annual logging convention), but the school's trademark is vocal, active left-leaning hippie kids. I think it adds character, and it certainly doesn't do anything to diminish the academics. It often made for great entertainment as I made my way to class.
posted by mullingitover at 2:33 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by mullingitover at 2:33 PM on December 15, 2004
Hat Maui said:
re: the coffee case...
hey, don't let me interrupt your ignorant scoffing.
Uh...only two people have mentioned the McDonald's coffee case. One was agreeing with you, and one was neutral. I dunno who you think is scoffing...
Other folks said:
Look, you can't rewrite Glengarry Glen Ross so that the characters are women.
This isn't an argument point, but a legitimate question: why not? For example, "Nice person? I don't give a shit. Good mother? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!!"
I tend to look at gender-blind casting the same way I do about putting nudity on stage: is there a point?
Oh, great, thanks for implanting the idea. Now I've got this image of an all male, all nude performance of The Vagina Dialogues.
posted by Bugbread at 2:36 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
re: the coffee case...
hey, don't let me interrupt your ignorant scoffing.
Uh...only two people have mentioned the McDonald's coffee case. One was agreeing with you, and one was neutral. I dunno who you think is scoffing...
Other folks said:
Look, you can't rewrite Glengarry Glen Ross so that the characters are women.
This isn't an argument point, but a legitimate question: why not? For example, "Nice person? I don't give a shit. Good mother? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!!"
I tend to look at gender-blind casting the same way I do about putting nudity on stage: is there a point?
Oh, great, thanks for implanting the idea. Now I've got this image of an all male, all nude performance of The Vagina Dialogues.
posted by Bugbread at 2:36 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I realize that was condescending...
Again, many, many years of bad theatre have made me a bit reactionary on this topic.
Good art is extremely hard to find. Bad art and needless adaptation of good art (just because!) seems much more the norm.
Glengarry Glen Ross is an extremely well written play, with a lot of depth of character and meaning. It is also not produced very often (especially compared to, say, A Christmas Carol or Annie or something), so when the opportunity arises, I feel the director owes it to the audience to show a work of art, not directorial masturbation. A couple of years ago, I directed Sam Shepard's Curse of the Starving Class and I did an extremely bad job. I feel pretty bad about that, because majority of the people who would have seen it will probably never get the opportunity to see it again, nor will they probably want to.
TVM is a little different in this regard, since it gets done so much (to death, really), that possibly it could use for some "artistic license".
posted by Human Stain at 2:36 PM on December 15, 2004
Again, many, many years of bad theatre have made me a bit reactionary on this topic.
Good art is extremely hard to find. Bad art and needless adaptation of good art (just because!) seems much more the norm.
Glengarry Glen Ross is an extremely well written play, with a lot of depth of character and meaning. It is also not produced very often (especially compared to, say, A Christmas Carol or Annie or something), so when the opportunity arises, I feel the director owes it to the audience to show a work of art, not directorial masturbation. A couple of years ago, I directed Sam Shepard's Curse of the Starving Class and I did an extremely bad job. I feel pretty bad about that, because majority of the people who would have seen it will probably never get the opportunity to see it again, nor will they probably want to.
TVM is a little different in this regard, since it gets done so much (to death, really), that possibly it could use for some "artistic license".
posted by Human Stain at 2:36 PM on December 15, 2004
agregoli: Your reasons are essentially my reasons why I wouldn't be too interested in seeing such a production, excepting that I'm a man, or something. At any rate, I think cross-casting TVM wouldn't work because it's too easy - TVM is so obviously about female experience that flip-flopping it might barely even register as a difference. Or, you would get one reaction to it, and then not deviate from your position for the entire night. It's not very clever as far as outré productions go, and it doesn't illustrate the text very much beyond what it ordinarily does.
As for Glengarry Glen Ross, that could work so long as the women are playing the male characters, as Sidhedevil saw it. It would not work if the characters themselves became women, because the power dynamics and dialog are so clearly male. It's not that women cannot be under pressure or become office bullies or do the hard-sell, but that particular play as written by Mamet is about men, not women.
(Another male specific scene: the homoerotic undercurrent between Ricky Roma and his mark.)
Anyhoo, while Glengarry Glen Ross is blatantly about men, since it's neither literally about penises nor a touchstone about male rights (or however else you would work it to make it a counterpart to TVM), it would be able to play off of cross-casting in a way that TVM would not. It wouldn't be a surefire success, but with work and thought I can easily see that working.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:37 PM on December 15, 2004
As for Glengarry Glen Ross, that could work so long as the women are playing the male characters, as Sidhedevil saw it. It would not work if the characters themselves became women, because the power dynamics and dialog are so clearly male. It's not that women cannot be under pressure or become office bullies or do the hard-sell, but that particular play as written by Mamet is about men, not women.
(Another male specific scene: the homoerotic undercurrent between Ricky Roma and his mark.)
Anyhoo, while Glengarry Glen Ross is blatantly about men, since it's neither literally about penises nor a touchstone about male rights (or however else you would work it to make it a counterpart to TVM), it would be able to play off of cross-casting in a way that TVM would not. It wouldn't be a surefire success, but with work and thought I can easily see that working.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:37 PM on December 15, 2004
Also, honestly, you don't think the audience watching an all-male production of the VM would have the same problem? Bizarre argument.
Uh, I think that's exactly what I'm saying.
posted by Human Stain at 2:37 PM on December 15, 2004
Uh, I think that's exactly what I'm saying.
posted by Human Stain at 2:37 PM on December 15, 2004
I'm all for "artistic license," but like you, I'm not wanting to negate the performance for the sake of it. An all-male cast of TVM would do that, in my opinion.
posted by agregoli at 2:38 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by agregoli at 2:38 PM on December 15, 2004
Sorry, I confused you with the other poster. We are in agreement!
posted by agregoli at 2:39 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by agregoli at 2:39 PM on December 15, 2004
I'm disappointed to hear that the VMs are usually put on so poorly. Reading from cards? Is that really standard?
I've seen them done three times at Wesleyan U. and once at a very small women's college--and each of those times they were done as well as a typical production at those schools. I don't know anything about how production was done at the vsw college, but at Wes there are auditions followed by something like six weeks of rehearsal, writing personal essays about vaginas, etc. The VMs have their artistic limitations, but it's possible to get an entertaining and moving show out of them (I don't cry easily at plays, and every time there's been at least one mono that made me teary).
The political atmosphere at Wes is very similar to U of Oregon's. A couple years ago, the student director responded to concerns about the fact that the show reinforces the idea that vagina=woman by asking transgender students to write reflections which were then incorporated into a mono(?)logue performed by three of the actors. The women are routinely novices with a few experienced actors thrown in, the directors always find a mix of races, shapes, and sexualities, and the show is still well-acted. It's entirely possible, and the VMs really accomplish their political goals better when the producers take enough care to make them good.
posted by hippugeek at 2:40 PM on December 15, 2004
I've seen them done three times at Wesleyan U. and once at a very small women's college--and each of those times they were done as well as a typical production at those schools. I don't know anything about how production was done at the vsw college, but at Wes there are auditions followed by something like six weeks of rehearsal, writing personal essays about vaginas, etc. The VMs have their artistic limitations, but it's possible to get an entertaining and moving show out of them (I don't cry easily at plays, and every time there's been at least one mono that made me teary).
The political atmosphere at Wes is very similar to U of Oregon's. A couple years ago, the student director responded to concerns about the fact that the show reinforces the idea that vagina=woman by asking transgender students to write reflections which were then incorporated into a mono(?)logue performed by three of the actors. The women are routinely novices with a few experienced actors thrown in, the directors always find a mix of races, shapes, and sexualities, and the show is still well-acted. It's entirely possible, and the VMs really accomplish their political goals better when the producers take enough care to make them good.
posted by hippugeek at 2:40 PM on December 15, 2004
And, obviously, nobody appreciated Romeo and Juliet for the first eighty years it was performed in England, because all the audience could do was laugh and point at the men playing women. Just as they do in Japanese kabuki today.
And this has nothing to do with what I was saying.
An all-male TVM is an obvious distraction from the message that original text is trying to convey. As would be an all-female GGR.
I can play Black Sabbath songs on a calliope, too, but it sort of changes the message of the original work.
On preview: glad we cleared that up, agregoli
posted by Human Stain at 2:43 PM on December 15, 2004
And this has nothing to do with what I was saying.
An all-male TVM is an obvious distraction from the message that original text is trying to convey. As would be an all-female GGR.
I can play Black Sabbath songs on a calliope, too, but it sort of changes the message of the original work.
On preview: glad we cleared that up, agregoli
posted by Human Stain at 2:43 PM on December 15, 2004
I can play Black Sabbath songs on a calliope
Prove it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:45 PM on December 15, 2004
Prove it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:45 PM on December 15, 2004
Meet me at the merry-go-round.
posted by Human Stain at 2:46 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by Human Stain at 2:46 PM on December 15, 2004
Glengarry Glen Ross is an extremely well written play... It is also not produced very often..., so when the opportunity arises, I feel the director owes it to the audience to show a work of art, not directorial masturbation.
So cross-gender casting = directorial masturbation? You can't conceive that a female actor could do a good job with this (or any?) male role? I'd for damn sure rather see a group of good women actors tear into those parts than a lackluster bunch of men. (I used to have a parallel argument with an opera-loving friend who thought it was directorial masturbation to cast black singers in "white" parts. I know, I know, that's not at all the same thing. Not at all.)
posted by languagehat at 2:50 PM on December 15, 2004
So cross-gender casting = directorial masturbation? You can't conceive that a female actor could do a good job with this (or any?) male role? I'd for damn sure rather see a group of good women actors tear into those parts than a lackluster bunch of men. (I used to have a parallel argument with an opera-loving friend who thought it was directorial masturbation to cast black singers in "white" parts. I know, I know, that's not at all the same thing. Not at all.)
posted by languagehat at 2:50 PM on December 15, 2004
For example, "Nice person? I don't give a shit. Good mother? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!!"
But that's exactly it. At the risk of deconstructing it to death...
When men are playing those roles and I hear the phrase "good father" in that context, the word that pops into my head is "provider", and that's what makes "go home and play with your kids" so cruel. Because it would be a fine thing to go home and play with your kids (certainly a better thing than working for this asshole), and yet you can't escape the implication of failure.
If women were playing those roles and I heard the phrase "good mother", then despite the context, the word that would pop into my head is "nurturer", and "go home and play with your kids" doesn't have the same sting.
I think GGR plays into ordinary men's fear of failure in a very specific way that doesn't cut as deep for ordinary women. Yet, anyway. (And I'm saying all that despite having no time for those gender stereotypes in my own life. Go figure.)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2004
But that's exactly it. At the risk of deconstructing it to death...
When men are playing those roles and I hear the phrase "good father" in that context, the word that pops into my head is "provider", and that's what makes "go home and play with your kids" so cruel. Because it would be a fine thing to go home and play with your kids (certainly a better thing than working for this asshole), and yet you can't escape the implication of failure.
If women were playing those roles and I heard the phrase "good mother", then despite the context, the word that would pop into my head is "nurturer", and "go home and play with your kids" doesn't have the same sting.
I think GGR plays into ordinary men's fear of failure in a very specific way that doesn't cut as deep for ordinary women. Yet, anyway. (And I'm saying all that despite having no time for those gender stereotypes in my own life. Go figure.)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2004
Wow this thread is quite the boyzone. Let's all be outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art. And heaven forbid any annoying Minority Groups have a problem. Is MeFi always this reactionary and elitist?
This play is all about politics. It does away with a lot of the usual dramatic conventions and demands in order to let the impact of what's being said shine through. A big part of that impact is the way it tries to show the commonalities between the experiences of women from various backgrounds.
This commonality is something that white middle-class feminists usually take for granted, even as they imagine that it is their experience that everyone shares. This play should be a forum for really exploring differences between women and figuring out how they still share something - i.e. whether the label "women" denotes a group that has interests in common or not.
If these issues are papered over and white middle-class thin women are attempting to speak for others, it seems like that misses the point of the play. Of course you can not include everyone in a production, but you can make a good-faith effort to be inclusive, which seems to have been lacking in this case.
posted by mai at 2:54 PM on December 15, 2004
This play is all about politics. It does away with a lot of the usual dramatic conventions and demands in order to let the impact of what's being said shine through. A big part of that impact is the way it tries to show the commonalities between the experiences of women from various backgrounds.
This commonality is something that white middle-class feminists usually take for granted, even as they imagine that it is their experience that everyone shares. This play should be a forum for really exploring differences between women and figuring out how they still share something - i.e. whether the label "women" denotes a group that has interests in common or not.
If these issues are papered over and white middle-class thin women are attempting to speak for others, it seems like that misses the point of the play. Of course you can not include everyone in a production, but you can make a good-faith effort to be inclusive, which seems to have been lacking in this case.
posted by mai at 2:54 PM on December 15, 2004
I don't think that GGR would work if the characters were rewritten as women, because I see the play as about (among other things) how men are injured by the stereotypes US society has created around men, work, and "masculinity".
But I do think it works when the male characters are played by female actors. Just as I think that Bach's Goldberg Variations works when it's played on a piano instead of the harpsichord for which it was written.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:58 PM on December 15, 2004
But I do think it works when the male characters are played by female actors. Just as I think that Bach's Goldberg Variations works when it's played on a piano instead of the harpsichord for which it was written.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:58 PM on December 15, 2004
mai, yes, there are people on MeFi who will always be delighted to castigate the University of Oregon Women's Center for not being a haven of great theatrical art.
Because, apparently, if a group that is not devoted to drama decides to put on a show with people who are not actors, the entire edifice of Western civilization as we know it will crumble.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:00 PM on December 15, 2004
Because, apparently, if a group that is not devoted to drama decides to put on a show with people who are not actors, the entire edifice of Western civilization as we know it will crumble.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:00 PM on December 15, 2004
A show can serve a social ideal but still pursue high production values. What the plantiffs (lack of a better word) in this case seem to be arguing is that it pursued certain production values to the *exclusion* of the social role. That's a valid criticism if it's true.
Well, for instance, I wouldn't go to see a symphony comprised of "community leaders" rather than one assembled via auditions. It could turn out to be good, sure, and Sidhedevil has made a compelling case for why this could be true for the case of VM (and the UofO casting snafus sound akin to having your first chair bassoonist play the viola de gamba), but I don't think it's far-fetched to defer to a staging process that places competance and talent first and foremost when it comes to a performance artform. If the whole event is just about social causes and politics--well, it's clear that I'm not the intended audience. And consensus about VM in this thread seem to agree.
Community is fine and great, and I don't have anything negative to say about it. However, it's not a currency system that I buy into, especially when it comes to art--I'm more partial to individualistic "academic" art than, say, communal Burning Man art. But the two don't have to be mutually exclusive: just because I don't particularly support notions of community doesn't mean that I'm compelled to denigrate the notion, or forbidden to invest much of my time, money, and personal efforts into putting together a community event. :) I am large, I contain multitudes.
And I'm sorry to hear that I've missed the Arab Film Festival, scarabic. Mind you, it's not because I'm particularly interested in the "perspectives of a certain demographic class", whether those are of Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, or heterosexual male agnostics in their mid-20's on MetaFilter. Rather, it's because I think filmmakers of that particular background could harbor aesthetic visions that could really open new doors for me toward examining the world differently, particularly since I've had virtually no exposure to them thus far. I'm less convinced that this would be the case when it comes to The Vagina Monologues.
posted by DaShiv at 3:03 PM on December 15, 2004
Well, for instance, I wouldn't go to see a symphony comprised of "community leaders" rather than one assembled via auditions. It could turn out to be good, sure, and Sidhedevil has made a compelling case for why this could be true for the case of VM (and the UofO casting snafus sound akin to having your first chair bassoonist play the viola de gamba), but I don't think it's far-fetched to defer to a staging process that places competance and talent first and foremost when it comes to a performance artform. If the whole event is just about social causes and politics--well, it's clear that I'm not the intended audience. And consensus about VM in this thread seem to agree.
Community is fine and great, and I don't have anything negative to say about it. However, it's not a currency system that I buy into, especially when it comes to art--I'm more partial to individualistic "academic" art than, say, communal Burning Man art. But the two don't have to be mutually exclusive: just because I don't particularly support notions of community doesn't mean that I'm compelled to denigrate the notion, or forbidden to invest much of my time, money, and personal efforts into putting together a community event. :) I am large, I contain multitudes.
And I'm sorry to hear that I've missed the Arab Film Festival, scarabic. Mind you, it's not because I'm particularly interested in the "perspectives of a certain demographic class", whether those are of Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, or heterosexual male agnostics in their mid-20's on MetaFilter. Rather, it's because I think filmmakers of that particular background could harbor aesthetic visions that could really open new doors for me toward examining the world differently, particularly since I've had virtually no exposure to them thus far. I'm less convinced that this would be the case when it comes to The Vagina Monologues.
posted by DaShiv at 3:03 PM on December 15, 2004
A big part of that impact is the way it tries to show the commonalities between the experiences of women from various backgrounds.
...as originally interpreted through the dramatic stylings of one rich New Yorker. Give me a break.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:03 PM on December 15, 2004
...as originally interpreted through the dramatic stylings of one rich New Yorker. Give me a break.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:03 PM on December 15, 2004
When men are playing those roles and I hear the phrase "good father" in that context, the word that pops into my head is "provider", and that's what makes "go home and play with your kids" so cruel. Because it would be a fine thing to go home and play with your kids (certainly a better thing than working for this asshole), and yet you can't escape the implication of failure.
Ok. Good answer. Thanks.
Wow this thread is quite the boyzone. Let's all be outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art. And heaven forbid any annoying Minority Groups have a problem. Is MeFi always this reactionary and elitist?
Er...Well, yes, to some degree, but I don't really think that in the second half of the thread your invective is very justified. There is a bit of misunderstanding early on that this is a theatrical performance being put on by the school theatre, hence the calls for acting ability to triumph political considerations. Once it was made clear that it's the Women's Center, not the Drama Department, that's putting on the play, most objections pretty much disappeared.
Still, yeah, generally I'd say most people at Metafilter value the artistic aspects of art over the political considerations, and you'd be hard pressed to convince most people otherwise (I myself tend to think of artistic properties being of primary importance in art, and political properties far, far lower in priority).
On preview: What DaShiv said.
posted by Bugbread at 3:08 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
Ok. Good answer. Thanks.
Wow this thread is quite the boyzone. Let's all be outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art. And heaven forbid any annoying Minority Groups have a problem. Is MeFi always this reactionary and elitist?
Er...Well, yes, to some degree, but I don't really think that in the second half of the thread your invective is very justified. There is a bit of misunderstanding early on that this is a theatrical performance being put on by the school theatre, hence the calls for acting ability to triumph political considerations. Once it was made clear that it's the Women's Center, not the Drama Department, that's putting on the play, most objections pretty much disappeared.
Still, yeah, generally I'd say most people at Metafilter value the artistic aspects of art over the political considerations, and you'd be hard pressed to convince most people otherwise (I myself tend to think of artistic properties being of primary importance in art, and political properties far, far lower in priority).
On preview: What DaShiv said.
posted by Bugbread at 3:08 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
>>> TVM is basically a spoken word act...
> But, you know what, a shittily read monologue isn't going to connect to one goddam person, either.
Argh. Why, when I say "spoken word" do you immediately jump to "shittily read monologue? Put aside the cliche about how bad *all* spoken word is for a moment. It's a format. You guys are as bad as a bunch of gun-nut rednecks who think all poetry is unchained faggotry. They're pretty sure they know what they're talking about too.
My only point is that letting the drama geeks run it might not be the best idea, because theater isn't necessarily the appropriate format. Allowing considerations besides acting talent doesn't mean automatically choosing the *worst* possible actors. Sheezus people.
Q: What's black and white and black and white and black and white?
A1: A nun falling down the stairs.
A2: Your brain fumbling with a concept.
posted by scarabic at 3:31 PM on December 15, 2004
> But, you know what, a shittily read monologue isn't going to connect to one goddam person, either.
Argh. Why, when I say "spoken word" do you immediately jump to "shittily read monologue? Put aside the cliche about how bad *all* spoken word is for a moment. It's a format. You guys are as bad as a bunch of gun-nut rednecks who think all poetry is unchained faggotry. They're pretty sure they know what they're talking about too.
My only point is that letting the drama geeks run it might not be the best idea, because theater isn't necessarily the appropriate format. Allowing considerations besides acting talent doesn't mean automatically choosing the *worst* possible actors. Sheezus people.
Q: What's black and white and black and white and black and white?
A1: A nun falling down the stairs.
A2: Your brain fumbling with a concept.
posted by scarabic at 3:31 PM on December 15, 2004
meh ... think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion.
Personally I'd like them to bring back Shakespeare's, 'Much Ado About Nothing' and have it acted by an all male cast as it was done in Shakespeare's time :)
posted by squeak at 3:32 PM on December 15, 2004
Personally I'd like them to bring back Shakespeare's, 'Much Ado About Nothing' and have it acted by an all male cast as it was done in Shakespeare's time :)
posted by squeak at 3:32 PM on December 15, 2004
Argh. Why, when I say "spoken word" do you immediately jump to "shittily read monologue?
Er, I think that conclusion wasn't from you mentioning "spoken word", but from the following comment:
"It is a series of monologues, which the actors read from index cards."
Which states that it is a "read monologue", combined with the parent post pointing out that they may do away with auditions and instead pick people based on their positions / nominations (which makes it likely that their reading will be shitty).
The easily drawn conclusion, even by people with a deep love of spoken word, is that it may become just "shittily read monologues". Your whole "gun-nut rednecks who think all poetry is unchained faggotry" comment seems a bit off-the-mark.
posted by Bugbread at 3:39 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
Er, I think that conclusion wasn't from you mentioning "spoken word", but from the following comment:
"It is a series of monologues, which the actors read from index cards."
Which states that it is a "read monologue", combined with the parent post pointing out that they may do away with auditions and instead pick people based on their positions / nominations (which makes it likely that their reading will be shitty).
The easily drawn conclusion, even by people with a deep love of spoken word, is that it may become just "shittily read monologues". Your whole "gun-nut rednecks who think all poetry is unchained faggotry" comment seems a bit off-the-mark.
posted by Bugbread at 3:39 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
This play is all about politics. It does away with a lot of the usual dramatic conventions and demands in order to let the impact of what's being said shine through. A big part of that impact is the way it tries to show the commonalities between the experiences of women from various backgrounds.
Point taken. And you and Sidhedevil and others make some good points that the casting was misrepresentative (and maybe deliberately so, though it's hard to tell from the information presented).
Even so (Human Stain said this well) if the play is performed badly, it's not going to connect with anyone.
On preview: Scarabic, to my mind the issue is that they're doing away with auditions, not that it's spoken-word per se.
posted by Infinite Jest at 3:43 PM on December 15, 2004
Point taken. And you and Sidhedevil and others make some good points that the casting was misrepresentative (and maybe deliberately so, though it's hard to tell from the information presented).
Even so (Human Stain said this well) if the play is performed badly, it's not going to connect with anyone.
On preview: Scarabic, to my mind the issue is that they're doing away with auditions, not that it's spoken-word per se.
posted by Infinite Jest at 3:43 PM on December 15, 2004
Because, apparently, if a group that is not devoted to drama decides to put on a show with people who are not actors, the entire edifice of Western civilization as we know it will crumble.
There's a vast gulf between "it's not for me" and "you are forbidden to do this as it will cause the downfall of all of Western civilization." Where you choose to place these various "this sucks" and "this sounds like the making of a bad production" responses on that continuum is up to you.
Hey lookit, the UofO Women's Center is harboring Weapons of Mass Dramatization! We must invade it immediately to bring about regime change and to defend Western civilization! :)
Wow this thread is quite the boyzone. Let's all be outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art. And heaven forbid any annoying Minority Groups have a problem. Is MeFi always this reactionary and elitist?
In what way is "boyzone" and "outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art" related? There are some rather sexist conclusions one could infer from what you've said, particularly considering the untold number of female artists over the millennia who have strived (alongside the male artists) for "Good Art." How is advocating for "Good Art" a boyzone issue?
posted by DaShiv at 3:49 PM on December 15, 2004
There's a vast gulf between "it's not for me" and "you are forbidden to do this as it will cause the downfall of all of Western civilization." Where you choose to place these various "this sucks" and "this sounds like the making of a bad production" responses on that continuum is up to you.
Hey lookit, the UofO Women's Center is harboring Weapons of Mass Dramatization! We must invade it immediately to bring about regime change and to defend Western civilization! :)
Wow this thread is quite the boyzone. Let's all be outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art. And heaven forbid any annoying Minority Groups have a problem. Is MeFi always this reactionary and elitist?
In what way is "boyzone" and "outraged at the way Mediocrity is being allowed to Triumph over Good Art" related? There are some rather sexist conclusions one could infer from what you've said, particularly considering the untold number of female artists over the millennia who have strived (alongside the male artists) for "Good Art." How is advocating for "Good Art" a boyzone issue?
posted by DaShiv at 3:49 PM on December 15, 2004
DaShiv - you're so convinced it will be bad, because of the conditions under which it's produced, that you will, in fact, never find out. I really can't invest time talking you out of this prejudice. We've been debating this most of the day, and what you personally are interested in seeing or not seeing isn't something I can debate with you. You keep saying "but I'm not interested in seeing that." OK. That fact doesn't inform me in any way, and it isn't something I will try to change with debate.
Personally, I'd get a kick out of going to see a musical performance made up of my local government. I might learn something about them, and I might see hear something different than the symphony (which I also enjoy). Different is good, or so I think, anyway. I gather various inspiration from lots of different things, including high art, but you seem pretty sold on the concept of looking for art only in a narrow waveband labelled "objective quality," so I guess here we part ways.
[shrugs]
posted by scarabic at 3:53 PM on December 15, 2004
Personally, I'd get a kick out of going to see a musical performance made up of my local government. I might learn something about them, and I might see hear something different than the symphony (which I also enjoy). Different is good, or so I think, anyway. I gather various inspiration from lots of different things, including high art, but you seem pretty sold on the concept of looking for art only in a narrow waveband labelled "objective quality," so I guess here we part ways.
[shrugs]
posted by scarabic at 3:53 PM on December 15, 2004
FWIW - I think an auditions process is probably a good idea. I thought that the issue was about selections criteria of those auditions. I am not a huge fan of "democratized" art, in which the masses vote people into roles in plays. But I do think it's possible for a bunch of sheltered drama geeks to fuck up a production of TVM by casting too much within their own little circle of thespian wannabes. I thought that was the allegation. The solution is a separate matter, which the "plaintiffs" may very well fuck up in turn. I guess we'll see next year?
posted by scarabic at 3:59 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by scarabic at 3:59 PM on December 15, 2004
I'd just like to say, as I leave the computer for the day, that when I originally posted this I felt that the protestors were being rather ridiculous, I've since come around to essentially what Sidhedevil's been saying - among others, but she's nailed it by and large.
The Vagina Monologues very much are not for me - and I mean that for reasons well beyond my not having a vagina - but I see now how this performance was not fulfilling its purpose within what really was its community, centering around the Women's Studies Dept. at U of O. The director was making a mistake in trying to cast the performance as "good theater," because it's something else - a highly specialized performance, and it's not meant for someone to just stroll past, see the ad, and think, "hey, I'd like to see a play. Here's one!"
(Also: drama geeks can be horrible.)
That said, they'd be much better served in working with a director to select community figures for the non-actor roles, as opposed to letting the groups themselves nominate. There's most definitely a way to make the piece both representative of the community and also an invigorating night of monologues.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:01 PM on December 15, 2004
The Vagina Monologues very much are not for me - and I mean that for reasons well beyond my not having a vagina - but I see now how this performance was not fulfilling its purpose within what really was its community, centering around the Women's Studies Dept. at U of O. The director was making a mistake in trying to cast the performance as "good theater," because it's something else - a highly specialized performance, and it's not meant for someone to just stroll past, see the ad, and think, "hey, I'd like to see a play. Here's one!"
(Also: drama geeks can be horrible.)
That said, they'd be much better served in working with a director to select community figures for the non-actor roles, as opposed to letting the groups themselves nominate. There's most definitely a way to make the piece both representative of the community and also an invigorating night of monologues.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:01 PM on December 15, 2004
Scarabic: From what I can tell, DaShiv isn't trying to debate anything with you. He's saying, "I'm not interested in seeing that", you're saying "I am", and that's that. It seems like y'all are peacefully getting along with your differing opinions, but in this last post it reads like you're drawing a conclusion from DaShiv's post that I'm not seeing. DaShiv? What's the word on this?
posted by Bugbread at 4:05 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
posted by Bugbread at 4:05 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
Some of the questions here are -
The Vagina Monologues is a play which is (among other things) designed for the women in the audience to feel a strong sense of identification with the women onstage. Do the women in the audience get that connection more strongly through the skilled interpretation of the role (acting ability), or the direct presumption of a certain degree of shared experience with the actor in the roll (social identification)?
(My opinion: there are valid arguments to be made on both sides. Last time, they went to one extreme, and at least some of the target audience felt alienated. This time, they may be going to the other extreme, which might turn off a different portion of their target audience. Actors who are both strong and role-traditional might be the ideal in this case, but practically you've got to deal with what you have available. They've made their decision and they'll see how it works.)
If an actor has a strong emotional connection to their role, can this sometimes make up for a gap in acting experience in their performance?
(My opinion: Yes, which is why I'm perfectly willing to believe this could end up being a fine performance.)
Can presentational plays or blatantly political plays work well without the rehearsal and strong acting traditional plays generally require?
(My opinion: No, which is why I'm perfectly willing to believe this could end up being a lousy performance.)
Is it appropriate to use non-traditional casting to put majority actors into minority roles, rather than the other way round?
(My opinion: Sometimes, but it's a justifiably sticky area, and I feel especially uncomfortable when I'm doing because of who happened to audition rather than as an artistic choice. So I understand why the producers of the show reacted this way to the protest - they were probably feeling uneasy about doing it in the first place.)
Should an audience have the same expectations for a sociopolitical play put on by a sociopolitical organization for sociopolitical reasons that they would of a show (of any kind) put on by a theatrical organization?
(My opinion: Probably not, but I personally tend not to enjoy shows that lack a certain level of artistic merit, and, as a periodic practitioner of queer/political/niche theater, I worry that it lowers some people's expectations of the quality of queer/political/niche theater to the point that they don't come to shows which they would enjoy.)
In general, will a show suck if the casting undermines its basic purpose?
(My opinion: Depends. It can, but it won't necessarily do so. A heck of a lot depends on the specific play, the quality of the acting, and the artistic choices made. I think people should always have a valid reason for doing it, though - although the practical constraints of auditions may sometimes make it more of a necessity than a choice.)
Will the production of TVM in question suck?
(My opinion: I have no idea, actually, and won't judge it 'til I see it, which I won't since I live nowhere near there.)
Whether or not the production sucks, is nomination a sucky way to cast it?
(My opinion: I'm ... not sure. I instinctively don't like it and distrust it in terms of it resulting in the best production possible, but if it actually ends up working that'd be hard to argue with.)
posted by kyrademon at 4:08 PM on December 15, 2004
The Vagina Monologues is a play which is (among other things) designed for the women in the audience to feel a strong sense of identification with the women onstage. Do the women in the audience get that connection more strongly through the skilled interpretation of the role (acting ability), or the direct presumption of a certain degree of shared experience with the actor in the roll (social identification)?
(My opinion: there are valid arguments to be made on both sides. Last time, they went to one extreme, and at least some of the target audience felt alienated. This time, they may be going to the other extreme, which might turn off a different portion of their target audience. Actors who are both strong and role-traditional might be the ideal in this case, but practically you've got to deal with what you have available. They've made their decision and they'll see how it works.)
If an actor has a strong emotional connection to their role, can this sometimes make up for a gap in acting experience in their performance?
(My opinion: Yes, which is why I'm perfectly willing to believe this could end up being a fine performance.)
Can presentational plays or blatantly political plays work well without the rehearsal and strong acting traditional plays generally require?
(My opinion: No, which is why I'm perfectly willing to believe this could end up being a lousy performance.)
Is it appropriate to use non-traditional casting to put majority actors into minority roles, rather than the other way round?
(My opinion: Sometimes, but it's a justifiably sticky area, and I feel especially uncomfortable when I'm doing because of who happened to audition rather than as an artistic choice. So I understand why the producers of the show reacted this way to the protest - they were probably feeling uneasy about doing it in the first place.)
Should an audience have the same expectations for a sociopolitical play put on by a sociopolitical organization for sociopolitical reasons that they would of a show (of any kind) put on by a theatrical organization?
(My opinion: Probably not, but I personally tend not to enjoy shows that lack a certain level of artistic merit, and, as a periodic practitioner of queer/political/niche theater, I worry that it lowers some people's expectations of the quality of queer/political/niche theater to the point that they don't come to shows which they would enjoy.)
In general, will a show suck if the casting undermines its basic purpose?
(My opinion: Depends. It can, but it won't necessarily do so. A heck of a lot depends on the specific play, the quality of the acting, and the artistic choices made. I think people should always have a valid reason for doing it, though - although the practical constraints of auditions may sometimes make it more of a necessity than a choice.)
Will the production of TVM in question suck?
(My opinion: I have no idea, actually, and won't judge it 'til I see it, which I won't since I live nowhere near there.)
Whether or not the production sucks, is nomination a sucky way to cast it?
(My opinion: I'm ... not sure. I instinctively don't like it and distrust it in terms of it resulting in the best production possible, but if it actually ends up working that'd be hard to argue with.)
posted by kyrademon at 4:08 PM on December 15, 2004
One final thought: for this production of TMV, it going to be in some ways less or how "good" it was in terms of theater than the fact that they are putting it on. It's a whole process - not just in the watching.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:17 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:17 PM on December 15, 2004
We've kinda been all over the map with this discussion. What is art? Is affirmative action right? To back away from all the rest of it for a moment, I would just like to say that no, I don't believe all art needs to be demographically inclusive, nor sensitive to all groups' feelings or whatever.
Sepcifically, though, as Sidhedevil has best said it, TVM's format and content specifically does call for diversity.
1) The whole reason the show uses multiple monologues with different characters is to show that all women have something in common. The point of the show is to shake up all the variables, change the setting, the age/race/orientation of the speaker, and find that lo and behold, some things are shared amongst all. This effect is built into the format of the show, and casting should reflect it. If you don't build the opportunity for some cross-demographic contrasts into your casting, then your show has less potential to bond audience members across the different categories, less potential to surface what is woman, separate from what is white, what is straight, what is young, what is old.
Again, this point is very specific to TVM and I wouldn't attempt to apply it everywhere. But as I understand the show, it's key to the whole point to make connections between different kinds of women. Without... uh... different kinds of women... in the production... that's harder.
2) A lesser point, but this is a campus production. If you've ever been to a little league game, you know that even the bad players get a chance to bat. The game is its own end. Winning isn't everything. In the same spirit, college productions are just as much for the students who perform them as the audience that pays to see them. If part of the student body feels systematically excluded from the privelege, then they are within their rights to raise it as an issue. I'm not saying they deserve a blank check, but it is a worthwile consideration.
So: should University of Oregon rethink? Obviously they have. The people complaining are clearly radicalized, and yes, that's lame. If the casting director did a bad job, maybe she needs to be replaced. But you don't necessarily have to have a revolution in casting philosophy and go with a voting/nomination system. Lots of radicalized types these days think that putting everything to a vote is the way to go. A similar movement is happening in Burning Man right now and I think it's ill-conceived overall.
Bugbread: I'm *definitely* not debating anything with you. Bob and I are buddies and don't need moderation. Thank you.
posted by scarabic at 4:53 PM on December 15, 2004
Sepcifically, though, as Sidhedevil has best said it, TVM's format and content specifically does call for diversity.
1) The whole reason the show uses multiple monologues with different characters is to show that all women have something in common. The point of the show is to shake up all the variables, change the setting, the age/race/orientation of the speaker, and find that lo and behold, some things are shared amongst all. This effect is built into the format of the show, and casting should reflect it. If you don't build the opportunity for some cross-demographic contrasts into your casting, then your show has less potential to bond audience members across the different categories, less potential to surface what is woman, separate from what is white, what is straight, what is young, what is old.
Again, this point is very specific to TVM and I wouldn't attempt to apply it everywhere. But as I understand the show, it's key to the whole point to make connections between different kinds of women. Without... uh... different kinds of women... in the production... that's harder.
2) A lesser point, but this is a campus production. If you've ever been to a little league game, you know that even the bad players get a chance to bat. The game is its own end. Winning isn't everything. In the same spirit, college productions are just as much for the students who perform them as the audience that pays to see them. If part of the student body feels systematically excluded from the privelege, then they are within their rights to raise it as an issue. I'm not saying they deserve a blank check, but it is a worthwile consideration.
So: should University of Oregon rethink? Obviously they have. The people complaining are clearly radicalized, and yes, that's lame. If the casting director did a bad job, maybe she needs to be replaced. But you don't necessarily have to have a revolution in casting philosophy and go with a voting/nomination system. Lots of radicalized types these days think that putting everything to a vote is the way to go. A similar movement is happening in Burning Man right now and I think it's ill-conceived overall.
Bugbread: I'm *definitely* not debating anything with you. Bob and I are buddies and don't need moderation. Thank you.
posted by scarabic at 4:53 PM on December 15, 2004
Bugbread: I'm *definitely* not debating anything with you. Bob and I are buddies and don't need moderation. Thank you.
Well, that'll teach him to try to be helpful! Fuck you, n00b, you don't even know us! You know, I'm starting to see why some people talk about a tight little MeFi ingroup. Would it have been too traumatic to assume good intentions on bugbread's part? He seems to be a thoughtful, nice guy in general.
posted by languagehat at 5:05 PM on December 15, 2004
Well, that'll teach him to try to be helpful! Fuck you, n00b, you don't even know us! You know, I'm starting to see why some people talk about a tight little MeFi ingroup. Would it have been too traumatic to assume good intentions on bugbread's part? He seems to be a thoughtful, nice guy in general.
posted by languagehat at 5:05 PM on December 15, 2004
I'm not trying to convince anyone (least of all you, scarabic) that "high art" is the only way to go, but that rather that high art tradition exemplifies exactly why the curatorial process is valuable to art. Editors are valuable, curators are valuable, auditions are valuable, but IMO "community representation" is not--unless a community event is the goal, in which case "community representation" obviously becomes valuable. I've been whacked with the blunt 90% end of Sturgeon's Law often enough while editing poetry publications that I've come to appreciate having this process (as well as having seen first-hand what happens when politics about "representation" erodes into the quality of the final result), and surely scarabic, you also feel that your participation in helping to select films for the film festival was a valuable contribution. bugbread has mentioned that an open, unauditioned production of VM by a women's center will emphasize the community aspect of the event, which is why I concluded it (and similar productions) wouldn't be the sort of thing for me--not because they're bad, but because I already know what my biases are (and auditions are one of them). It's not meant to be a dismissal in any way.
FWIW - I think an auditions process is probably a good idea. I thought that the issue was about selections criteria of those auditions. I am not a huge fan of "democratized" art, in which the masses vote people into roles in plays.
We already see eye to eye on this issue then. :)
Personally, I'd get a kick out of going to see a musical performance made up of my local government. I might learn something about them, and I might see hear something different than the symphony (which I also enjoy).
Which is why I said regarding "community art" and "high art" that "the two don't have to be mutually exclusive." :)
There's no reason you shouldn't go see such a performance--but I find that community events tend to be most meaningful for one with significant investment in that community, and rather hit-or-miss otherwise. You're probably right in that I'm a bit harsh in declaring I'd never, ever go see such a thing, but the preference (or bias, if you prefer) is clearly there. It's not so much about being "objective" about art so much as recognizing that one's "subjectivity" about art can often be predicted in prescribed ways, such as which community one has self-subscribed to. I'm sure that a community production of VM will be very meaningful to the UofO crowd, but if I were to see VM I'd probably prefer to see one put on by an experienced cast in a major city. This says nothing about which performance will be "better" or which one I'd ultimately "connect" with more deeply, only which one I'd prefer to see. Of course if time and resources were unlimited, many would choose to see both.
It sounds like I'm inadvertantly pushing some of your buttons, scarabic--which is not at all my intent--and I'd like to try to figure out what those buttons are. I take it that "thespian wannabe drama geeks" is one of them, and thus you're valiantly defending the right of certain women to prevent having their production hijacked by such interests. :) (I don't have enough information to speculate as to whether this is the case here but it's a plausible scenario to me.) Of course, I'd be happy to talk via email if you still have any beef about anything I've said.
I think bugbread means well, A. :)
posted by DaShiv at 5:08 PM on December 15, 2004
FWIW - I think an auditions process is probably a good idea. I thought that the issue was about selections criteria of those auditions. I am not a huge fan of "democratized" art, in which the masses vote people into roles in plays.
We already see eye to eye on this issue then. :)
Personally, I'd get a kick out of going to see a musical performance made up of my local government. I might learn something about them, and I might see hear something different than the symphony (which I also enjoy).
Which is why I said regarding "community art" and "high art" that "the two don't have to be mutually exclusive." :)
There's no reason you shouldn't go see such a performance--but I find that community events tend to be most meaningful for one with significant investment in that community, and rather hit-or-miss otherwise. You're probably right in that I'm a bit harsh in declaring I'd never, ever go see such a thing, but the preference (or bias, if you prefer) is clearly there. It's not so much about being "objective" about art so much as recognizing that one's "subjectivity" about art can often be predicted in prescribed ways, such as which community one has self-subscribed to. I'm sure that a community production of VM will be very meaningful to the UofO crowd, but if I were to see VM I'd probably prefer to see one put on by an experienced cast in a major city. This says nothing about which performance will be "better" or which one I'd ultimately "connect" with more deeply, only which one I'd prefer to see. Of course if time and resources were unlimited, many would choose to see both.
It sounds like I'm inadvertantly pushing some of your buttons, scarabic--which is not at all my intent--and I'd like to try to figure out what those buttons are. I take it that "thespian wannabe drama geeks" is one of them, and thus you're valiantly defending the right of certain women to prevent having their production hijacked by such interests. :) (I don't have enough information to speculate as to whether this is the case here but it's a plausible scenario to me.) Of course, I'd be happy to talk via email if you still have any beef about anything I've said.
I think bugbread means well, A. :)
posted by DaShiv at 5:08 PM on December 15, 2004
Fuck you all.
This thread is just a series of well-beaten strawmen punctuated by well-meaning posts which fall on deaf ears. Sidhedevil and Scarabic might be the only people in this thread with a clue. The rest is useless.
I wish I could shit in all of your hearts.
posted by Coda at 5:35 PM on December 15, 2004
This thread is just a series of well-beaten strawmen punctuated by well-meaning posts which fall on deaf ears. Sidhedevil and Scarabic might be the only people in this thread with a clue. The rest is useless.
I wish I could shit in all of your hearts.
posted by Coda at 5:35 PM on December 15, 2004
It struck me as a pretty polite discussion on both sides until you weighed in, Coda, with people reading what each other had to say and a couple, like Sticherbeast, modifying there positions based on what others had to say. By the time I made my first post, I'd already calmed down and wrote something less heated and one-sided than my initial response, just from reading the posts to that point.
So, screw you.
posted by kyrademon at 5:43 PM on December 15, 2004
So, screw you.
posted by kyrademon at 5:43 PM on December 15, 2004
NTM, comments like Coda's reveal the spoiled attention seeking child at the heart of most so-called free thinkers.
posted by jonmc at 5:45 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by jonmc at 5:45 PM on December 15, 2004
TVM as performed by Crypto-Fascist Hippies?
GGR as perfromed by spoiled attention seeking children?
posted by buddhanarchist at 5:55 PM on December 15, 2004
GGR as perfromed by spoiled attention seeking children?
posted by buddhanarchist at 5:55 PM on December 15, 2004
Perhaps.
Hey, does anybody remember that James Bond parody episode of the Flinstones when Fred and Barney get captured by "Madame Yes" who keeps calling them "You Stoopid Good Lookings" in that European accent?
Whenever me and my best freind would get involved in some drunken escapade she'd greet us at the door with "You Stoopid Good Lookings!"
That was cool.
posted by jonmc at 6:02 PM on December 15, 2004
Hey, does anybody remember that James Bond parody episode of the Flinstones when Fred and Barney get captured by "Madame Yes" who keeps calling them "You Stoopid Good Lookings" in that European accent?
Whenever me and my best freind would get involved in some drunken escapade she'd greet us at the door with "You Stoopid Good Lookings!"
That was cool.
posted by jonmc at 6:02 PM on December 15, 2004
No button-pushing, DaShiv, I think we are on the same page here.
Editors are valuable, curators are valuable, auditions are valuable, but IMO "community representation" is not--unless a community event is the goal, in which case "community representation" obviously becomes valuable.
I think that this is one of those cases where community event is the goal. That's all. As you say, it's not such a black and white distinction. Yes, I did play the role of editor for the AFF, but I was selected to do so because I'm a member of the local Arab community. There's interpaly there, a balance of community interests and the concept of meeting high artistic standards. In this University of Oregon case, it simply seems that they may have over-tipped the balance between the curatorial process and effecting a meaningful experience for the local folks at the show. An extreme example of the same mistake would be flying in a broadway director and cast to perform a small town's Xmas play. High art isn't the point, there.
And I can, of course, easily imagine the reverse mistake: pandering to politically correct interests with no concern for quality, until the show is a stinkbomb so pungent that it does a disservice to the material and the community. That's no good, either. Balance, eh?
Thanks, Coda, but I'll pass on that endorsement.
posted by scarabic at 6:04 PM on December 15, 2004
Editors are valuable, curators are valuable, auditions are valuable, but IMO "community representation" is not--unless a community event is the goal, in which case "community representation" obviously becomes valuable.
I think that this is one of those cases where community event is the goal. That's all. As you say, it's not such a black and white distinction. Yes, I did play the role of editor for the AFF, but I was selected to do so because I'm a member of the local Arab community. There's interpaly there, a balance of community interests and the concept of meeting high artistic standards. In this University of Oregon case, it simply seems that they may have over-tipped the balance between the curatorial process and effecting a meaningful experience for the local folks at the show. An extreme example of the same mistake would be flying in a broadway director and cast to perform a small town's Xmas play. High art isn't the point, there.
And I can, of course, easily imagine the reverse mistake: pandering to politically correct interests with no concern for quality, until the show is a stinkbomb so pungent that it does a disservice to the material and the community. That's no good, either. Balance, eh?
Thanks, Coda, but I'll pass on that endorsement.
posted by scarabic at 6:04 PM on December 15, 2004
I think this issue is less about artistic integrity and more about the prevailing culture and climate in the University community in Eugene. Speaking as a graduate of the U of O, I can say that it felt to me like a community full of people who were just desperate to be oppressed so they could publicly vent their outrage.
If they had rejected auditioners on the basis of their lack of ethnicity, girth or sexual preference, we'd be reading about that protest instead, and we'd probably be having similar arguments, with the current players swapping roles.
The Women's Studies Center made a mistake that they probably should have foreseen. They set up for TVM like it was a play, and they did it in the traditional way one does that sort of thing. They held auditions and assigned parts based on the performances of the candidates who showed up and expressed an interest in performing. From the link, it's obvious to me that they've learned from their mistake. TVM isn't a play, it's a political statement, and any future productions will treat it as such.
I go to sleep confident that someone in Eugene will be outraged by that.
posted by FYKshun at 6:27 PM on December 15, 2004
If they had rejected auditioners on the basis of their lack of ethnicity, girth or sexual preference, we'd be reading about that protest instead, and we'd probably be having similar arguments, with the current players swapping roles.
The Women's Studies Center made a mistake that they probably should have foreseen. They set up for TVM like it was a play, and they did it in the traditional way one does that sort of thing. They held auditions and assigned parts based on the performances of the candidates who showed up and expressed an interest in performing. From the link, it's obvious to me that they've learned from their mistake. TVM isn't a play, it's a political statement, and any future productions will treat it as such.
I go to sleep confident that someone in Eugene will be outraged by that.
posted by FYKshun at 6:27 PM on December 15, 2004
Forget Glengarry Glen Ross, I want to see an all-female performance of this.
posted by Oriole Adams at 7:46 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by Oriole Adams at 7:46 PM on December 15, 2004
We should catch a show together one of these days, scarabic, so that we can bicker in person about whether or not it was any good.
:)
posted by DaShiv at 8:31 PM on December 15, 2004
:)
posted by DaShiv at 8:31 PM on December 15, 2004
[puts on his best DaShiv voice]
"Well, yes and no..."
;)
You shoulda come to Rocky Horror last month with CTP and me. Now that is the ultimate in a community wallowing in its own radical values at the expense of artistic quality. We had a very good time, though the critics have largely ignored the event
[crosses eyes, strangles self]
posted by scarabic at 8:56 PM on December 15, 2004
"Well, yes and no..."
;)
You shoulda come to Rocky Horror last month with CTP and me. Now that is the ultimate in a community wallowing in its own radical values at the expense of artistic quality. We had a very good time, though the critics have largely ignored the event
[crosses eyes, strangles self]
posted by scarabic at 8:56 PM on December 15, 2004
Oriole Adams, I have to admit that, after I saw Puppetry of the Penis, I amused Mr. Sidhedevil for several weeks by impromptu performances of "Ventriloquism of the Vulva!"
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:08 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:08 PM on December 15, 2004 [1 favorite]
"Ventriloquism of the Vulva!"
Now there's a college production I'd pay to see.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:26 PM on December 15, 2004
Now there's a college production I'd pay to see.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:26 PM on December 15, 2004
Go soak your head, you crypto-fascist hippie.
posted by jonmc at 5:38 PM PST on December 15
Awesome.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:36 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by jonmc at 5:38 PM PST on December 15
Awesome.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:36 PM on December 15, 2004
Sidhedevil owes me a new keyboard....
/wiping up snorked diet cola...
posted by Oriole Adams at 10:08 PM on December 15, 2004
/wiping up snorked diet cola...
posted by Oriole Adams at 10:08 PM on December 15, 2004
scarabic: I've actually been to Rocky Horror before, waaaaay back in high school. One of my earliest "it's okay to be a freak" experiences prior to Berkeley, Burning Man, etc.
Oh yeah, I vaguely remember there being a movie at Rocky Horror or something, somewhere among the singing, the chanting of lines, the play-acting in the aisles, the people making out everywhere, and lots of random chaos. In fact, I don't even remember the plot of the movie, thanks to a very (ahem) chemical-modified recollection of the whole evening.
Forget about art, I don't think the experience was about any movie to begin with. :)
posted by DaShiv at 11:15 PM on December 15, 2004
Oh yeah, I vaguely remember there being a movie at Rocky Horror or something, somewhere among the singing, the chanting of lines, the play-acting in the aisles, the people making out everywhere, and lots of random chaos. In fact, I don't even remember the plot of the movie, thanks to a very (ahem) chemical-modified recollection of the whole evening.
Forget about art, I don't think the experience was about any movie to begin with. :)
posted by DaShiv at 11:15 PM on December 15, 2004
The only time I enjoyed any part of The Vagina Monologues was when Tim Allen performed it.
posted by AccordionGuy at 11:47 PM on December 15, 2004
posted by AccordionGuy at 11:47 PM on December 15, 2004
I can kinda see that. His entire face looks like a rather aroused vagina most of the time.
posted by scarabic at 3:57 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by scarabic at 3:57 PM on December 16, 2004
...which brings to mind Keith Carradine's short monologue as "Wild Bill Hickock" to "Jack McCall" in the third episode of Deadwood. That scene, which is undeniably dramatically powerful, is a very good demonstration of what TVM is answering.
Reading this entire thread, I'm pretty ambivalent. I've only seen the HBO production of TVM, but I found it excellent and moving and important. It's not just "performance art" in the sense that its concept, the context, and its mere existence comprise the bulk of its value; but, rather, my experience of it was that it succeeds dramatically at expressing the political message that its concept, its context, and its existence signify. As such, I think it's legitimate drama, art, and should be staged as such (as hippugeek describes the Wesleyan productions).
I think the best art is "important" and I wholeheartedly embrace the political context in which TVM is intended to exist. But making it nothing more a political statement, a community event, is diminishing, in my opinion, of its essential value and thus ultimately counterproductive to its political aims.
I recoil from the campus essentialist identity politics on parade in this story—but that's old news, as said above. It's the way college students are, God love 'em. When you've watched a vitriolic, angry argument between two people-of-color women feminists over which is the primary (and far more politically important and relevant) "identity"— being a person-of-color or being a woman—you despair that these things are rarely about what they're supposedly about. You learn to shrug it off. Bloody internecine battles are the rule, not the exception.
But I'll grant that so much of TVM is so tied to the political and social context in which it exists that it seems willfully wrongheaded to fail to make the cast diverse. So much of the history of feminism has been that of privileged white women that the now-dominant (and certainly TVM's) aim to emphasize the inclusivity of being a woman is something that cannot be overlooked.
I want to repeat, though, my strong advocacy for The Vagina Monologues as legitimate drama, real art. If it arguably fails in this regard (and I don't think it does, but hypothetically) is not something that should be excused because "it's not that sort of thing". If not, it should be. Nothing political worth saying in an artistic context isn't worth saying well in an artistic context.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:03 PM on December 17, 2004
Reading this entire thread, I'm pretty ambivalent. I've only seen the HBO production of TVM, but I found it excellent and moving and important. It's not just "performance art" in the sense that its concept, the context, and its mere existence comprise the bulk of its value; but, rather, my experience of it was that it succeeds dramatically at expressing the political message that its concept, its context, and its existence signify. As such, I think it's legitimate drama, art, and should be staged as such (as hippugeek describes the Wesleyan productions).
I think the best art is "important" and I wholeheartedly embrace the political context in which TVM is intended to exist. But making it nothing more a political statement, a community event, is diminishing, in my opinion, of its essential value and thus ultimately counterproductive to its political aims.
I recoil from the campus essentialist identity politics on parade in this story—but that's old news, as said above. It's the way college students are, God love 'em. When you've watched a vitriolic, angry argument between two people-of-color women feminists over which is the primary (and far more politically important and relevant) "identity"— being a person-of-color or being a woman—you despair that these things are rarely about what they're supposedly about. You learn to shrug it off. Bloody internecine battles are the rule, not the exception.
But I'll grant that so much of TVM is so tied to the political and social context in which it exists that it seems willfully wrongheaded to fail to make the cast diverse. So much of the history of feminism has been that of privileged white women that the now-dominant (and certainly TVM's) aim to emphasize the inclusivity of being a woman is something that cannot be overlooked.
I want to repeat, though, my strong advocacy for The Vagina Monologues as legitimate drama, real art. If it arguably fails in this regard (and I don't think it does, but hypothetically) is not something that should be excused because "it's not that sort of thing". If not, it should be. Nothing political worth saying in an artistic context isn't worth saying well in an artistic context.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:03 PM on December 17, 2004
« Older How did Adriana's top end up as a skirt? | What do you want to do with your life? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by xmutex at 10:48 AM on December 15, 2004