OT: TV's Danny Pintauro heads up NYC "Queer Carol"
SourceW
Dickens holiday classic
SourceWorks Theatre (Mark Cannistraro, Artistic Director) is pleased to
announce the NYC Premiere of "A QUEER CAROL" a new play by JOE GODFREY that
resets the Dickens classic to a group of gay men in contemporary Manhattan.
Featuring television's DANNY PINTAURO, best known for his starring role on
ABC-TV's "Who's The Boss," and directed by SourceWorks Artistic Director MARK
CANNISTRARO, the production opens on December 6th and runs Wednesdays at 7:00
and Thursdays & Fridays at 7:30 through December 21st at The Duplex Cabaret
Theatre, 61 Christopher Street. Tickets are $15 (plus a two drink minimum) and
are available through Smarttix at (212) 206-1515 or via the internet at
www.smarttix.com.
This contemporary spin on the timeless holiday tale casts the famous characters
in a new light. Ebenezer "Ben" Scrooge is a wealthy and prominent interior
designer who spends his days decorating the Upper East Side homes of the rich
and famous. Assisting Scrooge is none other than the put-upon young Bob
Cratchit, who must contend with both his employer's abuses and the care of his
partner Tim, an East Village office temp struggling with HIV. When Scrooge
huffily dismisses a fundraiser collecting for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights
AIDS, it sets a chain of ghostly visitations into motion, including appearances
from the very dead-and very buff--Jake Marley as well as the Ghosts Of
Christmas Past (who bears a striking resemblance to Marilyn Monroe), Present
and Future.
DANNY PINTAURO is best known for his role as the irrepressible Jonathan Bower
on ABC-TV's "Who's The Boss" with Judith Light and Tony Danza. In 1997, Mr.
Pintauro made national headlines when he was "outed" as a gay man in the pages
of the National Enquirer. His previous film credits include Stephen King's
"Cujo" and "The Benniker Gang" with Andrew McCarthy, and his theatre credits
include Paula Vogel's "Hot N' Throbbing" at Arena Stage, "Gross Indecency" at
the Charlotte Rep, as well as his critically acclaimed solo turn in "The
Velocity Of Gary (Not His Real Name)" for SourceWorks Theatre. Last year, the
SourceWorks production of "Gary" with Mr. Pintauro played the New Conservatory
Theatre in San Francisco, where it shattered box office records and became the
most popular solo show in the theatre's history.
Other members of the cast include VIRGINIA BAETA, HENRY DAVID CLARKE , SEAN
BENNETT GEOGHAN, NATHAN JOHNSON, J.D. LYNCH, CYNTHIA PIERCE and YAAKOV
SULLIVAN.
Why a gay version of "A Chirstmas Carol?" According to the playwright, "I have
always thought that a contemporary spin on this wonderful story would be
appropriate for the gay and lesbian community. We have our Cratchits, our
Tims, our Fezziwigs, and certainly our own Scrooges! And we've had our own
hardships to endure. Second chances? Self-examination? Focusing on what's
really important in life - family, friends, community? These things apply to
all of us, particularly after the horrors of September 11th."
Playwright JOE GODFREY's "Bed And Breakfast" was featured in last year's Key
West Theatre Festival and has also received productions in Provincetown and
Lexington, KY. This past June, Mr. Godfrey had the pleasure of seeing three of
his plays produced at venues around the country: his award-winning play, "The
Call Back", first produced by Manhattan Punch Line Theatre, at the Repertory
Theatre of New Britain (CT); his comedy, "Communications," was mounted by The
Gallery Players in Brooklyn; and his newest play, "Flight," opened Native
Aliens' one-act festival at the John Houseman. Additionally his work has been
published in the New York Times, The Washingtonian, Harpers, and CT's
Litchfield County Times, where he is a regular contributor.
Director MARK CANNISTRARO's previous credits include the NYC and SF productions
of "THE VELOCITY OF GARY (NOT HIS REAL NAME)," the critically acclaimed gay
musical revue "FAIRY TALES," which won three Back Stage Bistro Awards
(including Outstanding Direction) and then played off-Broadway's WPA Theatre;
and most recently, "HOMOSEXUAL ACTS," a suite of short plays by both new and
established playwrights.
Tim Gowen
<sou...@aol.com> writes
>TV's Danny Pintauro heads up "A QUEER CAROL," contemporary gay version
>of Dickens holiday classic
I'd like to both applaud modern theatre, the re-working of classics, and
experimentation whilst simultaneously sending a big "Wha--?" across the
Atlantic.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Matthew Winn
wrote:
Why does anyone feel the need for a gay version of a story which never
makes any great issue about any character's sexuality? Whatever next?
A gay version of CATS?
Matthew
Biff McKeldin
CATS isn't the "Carol" my dear. In case you haven't noticed (though perhaps
it's endemic to America and doesn't happen in the U.K.) there has been a spate
of "Carol" reinterpretations going on for some time now: American "Carols,"
black "Carols," female "Carols," corporate "Carols," comedic "Carols," the list
is endless (and what is the Grinch, if not a Seussian "Carol?"). Dickens' tale
lends itself to this type of reinterpretation as Eliot's cycle of poems does
not.
I wish good luck to all the versions. As long as I have my copy of Dickens'
original (with well reproduced John Leech illustrations) and Brian
Desmond-Hurst's film version (with Alistair Sim), I'm all set for Christmas.
And the latest rock musical adaptation set in a world of leprechauns isn't going
to phase me.
Biff
Stephen R. and F. Rhonda
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Chappy Chanukah Y'all! "They tried to kill us, they didn't succeed,
lets eat!".
-- Theodore Bikel on TV's "A Taste of Chanukah".
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Parterrebox
makes any great issue about any character's sexuality?
One might say the same thing about making Scrooge American, or black, or young,
or female. It seems fairly obvious that this version of the tale is being
marketed to a gay niche audience, so it makes sense to make the character one
with whom they can identify.
Why have Pearl Bailey play Dolly Levi, anyway?
Tim Gowen
<mcke...@yahoo.com> writes
>CATS isn't the "Carol" my dear. In case you haven't noticed (though perhaps
>it's endemic to America and doesn't happen in the U.K.) there has been a spate
>of "Carol" reinterpretations going on for some time now: American "Carols,"
>black "Carols," female "Carols," corporate "Carols," comedic "Carols," the list
>is endless (and what is the Grinch, if not a Seussian "Carol?"). Dickens' tale
>lends itself to this type of reinterpretation as Eliot's cycle of poems does
>not.
>
>I wish good luck to all the versions. As long as I have my copy of Dickens'
>original (with well reproduced John Leech illustrations) and Brian
>Desmond-Hurst's film version (with Alistair Sim), I'm all set for Christmas.
>And the latest rock musical adaptation set in a world of leprechauns isn't going
>to phase me.
I agree with you Biff, but the original story is about issues which are
still relevant today (poverty, work, disability, urban decay), so there
is no need to re-interpret it in order to make a point about another
issue, no matter how tragic it may be. New writing should bring that to
people's attention, because otherwise it's just a gimmicky take on a
traditional story which I believe lessens the impact. JMHO.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
SourceW
>still relevant today (poverty, work, disability, urban decay), so there
>is no need to re-interpret it in order to make a point about another
>issue, no matter how tragic it may be.
Well, first off, it could be argued that Dickens' original "Christmas Carol"
(and all of the various adaptations for the various mediums that have followed)
is ultimately about redemption, second chances and becoming a better human
being. Suggesting that it's simply about the societal problems you mentioned is
sort of a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, IMHO.
Secondly, while it's true that those problems exist now just as they did back
when Dickens penned his story, I firmly disagree with the notion that
reinterpreting them is somehow "gimmicky." Actually, I think modernizing them
for today's audiences is a smart thing to do. In my mind, no art should be
looked on as a sacred, untouchable museum piece that can't be reimagined or
reinterpreted for a new generation.
Mark Cannistraro
SourceWorks Theatre
NYC, NY
Matthew Winn
> > Why does anyone feel the need for a gay version of a story which never
> > makes any great issue about any character's sexuality?
>
> One might say the same thing about making Scrooge American, or black, or young,
> or female.
And I would, if the justification for the change was that perfectly
good writing was deemed irrelevant to some section of a modern
audience.
> It seems fairly obvious that this version of the tale is being
> marketed to a gay niche audience, so it makes sense to make the character one
> with whom they can identify.
The themes of the story are universal, which is why it is as powerful
today as when it was written. Is it really the case that a gay
audience can't identify with the characters in A Christmas Carol just
because those characters are not explicitly gay? Doesn't making the
characters' sexuality an issue simply detract from the other issues
covered?
Aw, hell. If you can't beat 'em join 'em. I'm off to write a bestial
version of Les Miserables, in which Cosette will be a sheep. It may
even be an improvement.
Matthew
Matthew Murray
> Secondly, while it's true that those problems exist now just as they did back
> when Dickens penned his story, I firmly disagree with the notion that
> reinterpreting them is somehow "gimmicky." Actually, I think modernizing them
> for today's audiences is a smart thing to do. In my mind, no art should be
> looked on as a sacred, untouchable museum piece that can't be reimagined or
> reinterpreted for a new generation.
Oh God, here we go again.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
KAR
"Matthew Winn" <mat...@mwinn.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cu2p1uk4tbe871n7e...@4ax.com...
A little judgment added here on your part, it seems, that an adaptation of
this material in which characters are defined as gay is necessarily about
their sexual practices; and I guess your unfortunate (and hopefully
unintentional) analog between homosexuality and bestiality is being played
in another thread I'm not participating in. As I understand it, from press
releases only, Tiny Tim (in the Dickens a character who represents innocent
suffering and the life-changing difference between selfish thought and
charitable acts that Scrooge makes) is being portrayed in this version as an
AIDS affected life-partner of the Bob Cratchett character. Marley is being
played as a former lover of Scrooge's. While I think THIS version of the
text seems heavy handed and specific in its attempt at appeal to a gay
audience rather than appeal universally to all audiences, I certainly think
the Tim choice is an interesting one while the Marley one seems rather
counter-productive in its use of the Marley character as Dickens envisioned
him (emphasis on "seems" as I have no idea if they've somehow made this work
somehow; it would have no appeal to me ["preaching to the choir theatre"
rarely appeals to me], but more power to it if it hits its mark with its
intended audience).
Dickens was a social reformer and as such, is easily adaptable for a
contemporary audience by placing the STORY in a context in which it might
find a new or reconsidered audience when the same issues are being
considered. While this requires careful consideration by its adapters, it is
hardly unprecedented and therefore of the same level of legitimate debate as
the unprecedented revision to Flower Drum Song which raised the temperature
here. Adapting great literature or using it as a source of inspiration in
other contexts is done constantly and in radical departures ("Thou Shalt
Not," as an example of an allegedly bad reconsideration of a great novel;
"West Side Story," as an example of a successful reconsideration of a great
play ) in the panoply of the arts, much of Kurasawa's work is non-literal
adaptation of Shakespeare (which would be a whole subcategory in musical,
with a large sub-sub on Shaw), conversely "The Magnificent Seven" an
adaptation of Kurasawa.
The BBC is currently involved in a futuristic adaptation of "A Tale of Two
Cities," tentatively scheduled for their annual Dickens slot, which was
originally sold to the Sci-Fi network as a near-future corollary in which
the two cities were NY and LA and then reconceived for a distant future.
Dickens' novel used the French Revolution as a context by which Dickens
could address his concerns about his contemporary London; as such, Dickens
was writing a corollary as well.
>
> Matthew
>
Parterrebox
> I'm off to write a bestial version of Les Miserables
You know, oddly enough, over the years I have head once or twice before this
charming idea of yours, that homosexuality and bestiality are parallel types of
human behavior. And over that time I have developed a standard response to
that suggestion.
I hope you get killed in a terrorist attack and the next time your family sees
you they are looking at a handful of ashes, you fucking asshole.
There, that's better.
Parterrebox
contemporary audience by placing the STORY in a context in which it might
find a new or reconsidered audience when the same issues are being
considered
Yes, thank you. Dickens didn't set A CHRISTMAS CAROL in some "once upon a
time" period neverland but rather in his contemporary London, with strong
emphasis on the most pressing and controversial social issues of the time. His
intention could hardly have been to create merely a quaint little adorable
fable, but rather a melodramatic story leavened with elements of fantasy/horror
and naturalistic detail. As such, for a modern adaptation of A CHRISTMAS CAROL
to be faithful to the spirit of the original, the venue and sociological
details should be updated.
Oh, by the way, there *are* faithful period versions of the piece readily
available for the viewing. It's not like "Queer Carol" has blocked any other
productions of the story. So the complaints about desecration of a work ring
particularly false in this context.
Parterrebox
> Oh God, here we go again.
Did I just hear someone say, "Bah, Humbug?"
Matthew Murray
Oh no, perhaps you misunderstood me. I was just railing against
the possibility of a bad retelling, that's all.
It seems clear to me that you need a completely British team to
deal with the work, since no one else can possibly understand the themes
unless they're British. But since Dickens's original story was so
disrespectful to the people it chronicles (what did Dickens truly know
about any of those people?), I think it's clear that we need a creative
team who can really make the work meaningful. I think you know who I'm
talking about: Phyllida Lloyd and Catherine Johnson, of course. In their
updated and powerful new version, the three ghosts travel to Ireland to
meet up with Scrooge and decide which one gets to haunt him.
Stephen R. and F. Rhonda
Tim Gowen
<parte...@aol.com> writes
>Yes, thank you. Dickens didn't set A CHRISTMAS CAROL in some "once upon a
>time" period neverland but rather in his contemporary London, with strong
>emphasis on the most pressing and controversial social issues of the time.
And my point was that those social issues are still relevant, and so a
reworking of Dickens for a contemporary setting in a different city and
with a different set of social problems. Almost exactly a year ago I
read a medical journal paper called "The Ghost of Christmas Past: health
effects of poverty in London in 1896 and 1991" by Danny Dorling, Richard
Mitchell, Mary Shaw, Scott Orford, and George Davey Smith. (Find it on
www.bmj.com).
At this time of year our thoughts go out to so many causes, and the
description of this particular re-working with its stereotypical
characters just sounded a little risible and self-parodying to me.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Tim Gowen
<parte...@aol.com> writes
>I hope you get killed in a terrorist attack and the next time your family sees
>you they are looking at a handful of ashes, you fucking asshole.
"God bless us, every one!"
(Tiny) Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Matthew Winn
I put that section in a separate paragraph specifically to distance it
from the earlier discussion. That final section was not a comment on
homosexuality; it was a comment on the stupidity of changing a story
simply because it didn't explicitly include a given minority, and I
made a deliberate point of selecting a radically different minority
that no rational person would equate with homosexuality so it would
be clear that I wasn't drawing a parallel between the two. I figured
that only a fool would think otherwise; evidently I was right.
I know a few gay people, a fair number of straight ones, and a large
number whose sexual preference I don't know because it makes no
difference to me. I have never equated homosexuality with any sort of
perversion because I don't consider it one. You'd know that, had you
bothered to check through past posts to look for evidence of this
anti-gay attitude you imagine me to have. You'd have looked in vain.
Considering recent events, and bearing in mind that I live in a
country which has been under constant attack from terrorists for as
long as I've been alive, I find it appalling that you should respond
in such a manner. If you have any integrity at all your apology will
be as public as your criticism, both for misrepresenting my words and
for wishing for my death. But I'm not holding out much hope.
Matthew
Arthur B. Hind
Re: OT: TV's Danny Pintauro heads up NYC "Queer Carol"
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2001, 7:00pm (EST+5)
From: parte...@aol.com (Parterrebox)
I'm off to write a bestial version of Les Miserables
You know, oddly enough, over the years I have head once or twice before
this charming idea of yours, that homosexuality and bestiality are
parallel types of human behavior. And over that time I have developed a
standard response to that suggestion.
I hope you get killed in a terrorist attack and the next time your
family sees you they are looking at a handful of ashes, you fucking
asshole.
There, that's better.
I'm sure you don't mean that. I'm only guessing, but might you be a
Holiday Depressive? There's good counseling available for that, you
know.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For a good time, call (or e-mail) Arthur in the afternoon!
Stephen Farrow
>I hope you get killed in a terrorist attack and the next time your family sees
>you they are looking at a handful of ashes, you fucking asshole.
>
>There, that's better.
No, that's not better. That's completely out of line, you fucking asshole.
Matthew lives - as I have done for most of my life - in a country where the
threat of terrorist attack is a constant fact of life. Most of us have in some
way been touched by terrorism. I'm typing this on the outskirts of a city that,
a few years ago, was decimated by a terrorist attack - a city, moreover, which
has still not been completely rebuilt since that attack. Thousands of people
have been killed in this country. Thousands more have been injured. Invoking
terrorism in the context of insulting a poster in a newsgroup can only be the
work of a truly sick and disgusting mind. Some things are just beyond the pale.
There, that's better.
Stephen
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working knowledge of
Latin..."
Stephen Farrow
Murray says...
>
>On 16 Dec 2001, Parterrebox wrote:
>
>> Matthew A. Murray:
>>
>> > Oh God, here we go again.
>>
>> Did I just hear someone say, "Bah, Humbug?"
>
> Oh no, perhaps you misunderstood me. I was just railing against
>the possibility of a bad retelling, that's all.
> It seems clear to me that you need a completely British team to
>deal with the work, since no one else can possibly understand the themes
>unless they're British. But since Dickens's original story was so
>disrespectful to the people it chronicles (what did Dickens truly know
>about any of those people?), I think it's clear that we need a creative
>team who can really make the work meaningful. I think you know who I'm
>talking about: Phyllida Lloyd and Catherine Johnson, of course. In their
>updated and powerful new version, the three ghosts travel to Ireland to
>meet up with Scrooge and decide which one gets to haunt him.
And they'll tell the story, of course, using pop hits from that epic band Bucks
Fizz, Britain's early-80s Eurovision Song Contest winners (and, musically,
basically a generic, poor-man's ABBA). That scene you mention with the ghosts
will of course be dramatised using their classic Eurovision-winning song 'Making
Your Mind Up'.
Stephen
(who honestly thought he'd repressed Bucks Fizz)
>
>----------------------------
>Matthew A. Murray
>matthe...@mindspring.com
>http://www.matthewmurray.net
>----------------------------
>
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working knowledge of
Latin..."
Biff McKeldin
>
>
>Well, first off, it could be argued that Dickens' original "Christmas Carol"
>(and all of the various adaptations for the various mediums that have followed)
>is ultimately about redemption, second chances and becoming a better human
>being. Suggesting that it's simply about the societal problems you mentioned is
>sort of a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, IMHO.
>
>Secondly, while it's true that those problems exist now just as they did back
>when Dickens penned his story, I firmly disagree with the notion that
>reinterpreting them is somehow "gimmicky." Actually, I think modernizing them
>for today's audiences is a smart thing to do. In my mind, no art should be
>looked on as a sacred, untouchable museum piece that can't be reimagined or
>reinterpreted for a new generation.
Valid. But reinterpretations should make the piece new a la IT'S A WONDERFUL
LIFE and HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS -- both of which owe a great deal to the
"Carol" while still being original works in their own right.
Biff
Parterrebox
threat of terrorist attack is a constant fact of life. Most of us have in some
way been touched by terrorism.
And that accident of geography grants him the right to say homosexuals are the
equals of people who fuck animals? What stone tablet was special right carved
on?
If you don't care to hear angry responses, probably it's best to avoid
deliberately provocative speech.
By the way, thousands upon thousands of people in *this* country are attacked,
some of them killed, by people who spout filth like that "bestiality" line.
Invoking bestiality in the context of pooh-poohing an off-Broadway show is, in
my opinion, the work of a truly sick and disgusting mind.
Oh, but you live under the threat of terrorism: that makes you special. You
get to insult people with impunity.
Go fuck yourself. Or is that too "sensitive" a suggestion for you too?
Matthew Winn
> > Matthew lives - as I have done for most of my life - in a country where the
> > threat of terrorist attack is a constant fact of life. Most of us have in some
> > way been touched by terrorism.
>
> And that accident of geography grants him the right to say homosexuals are the
> equals of people who fuck animals?
I didn't say that, you moron.
I threw in that "bestial version of Les Miserables" line as a light-
hearted way to end an otherwise overly serious post. I had no idea
that anyone could take that as meaning that I equated bestiality and
homosexuality. In fact until I read your response I'd never heard
anyone make that comparison. I wanted to end by showing how the
creation of a special version of a show could be taken to extremes,
and after a couple of false starts I finally settled on something
which I thought couldn't possibly be linked to homosexuality;
something which was so unlikely to apply to anyone here that it
couldn't cause offence.
I'm sure most people knew exactly what I meant, because most people
don't equate homosexuality with bestiality. You're the person who's
inventing a connection where there wasn't one. Now that may be
because you happen to meet the sort of bigots who do make that sort of
assertion, which would explain your response; if that is indeed the
case then I apologise for the misunderstanding. But I have never met
such people and I had no idea that such people even existed, and you
should have considered that possibility before taking me to task over
my innocent little paragraph and responding in such a manner.
Matthew
Stephen R. and F. Rhonda
before this charming idea>>
Okay, more or less Freudian than "sow?"
I know, it's all this talk of Murray.
parterre box
> I'm sure most people knew exactly what I meant, because most people
> don't equate homosexuality with bestiality. You're the person who's
> inventing a connection where there wasn't one. Now that may be
> because you happen to meet the sort of bigots who do make that sort of
> assertion, which would explain your response; if that is indeed the
> case then I apologise for the misunderstanding. But I have never met
> such people and I had no idea that such people even existed, and you
> should have considered that possibility before taking me to task over
> my innocent little paragraph and responding in such a manner.
If you have not heard that "assertion," then you must not have been
living in a cave for the past few decades; it's a slander on the gay
community used about as frequently as "homosexual men recruit
underaged boys into the lifestyle."
It was an insensitive and thoughtless and ugly thing to say, period.
It had nothing to to do with the subject at hand. And I don't believe
your weak and disingenuous attempt to feign ignorance.
Or, let's put it this way: if you know so blasted little about the
public perception of homosexuals, what the fuck business have you to
comment on a production obviously devised for a gay audience?
Stephen Farrow
>
>> Matthew lives - as I have done for most of my life - in a country where the
>threat of terrorist attack is a constant fact of life. Most of us have in some
>way been touched by terrorism.
>
>And that accident of geography grants him the right to say homosexuals are the
>equals of people who fuck animals? What stone tablet was special right carved
>on?
That's not what he said and you know it. HOWEVER - even if he *had*, a response
which states that you hope someone will be killed by terrorists is beneath
contempt.
>If you don't care to hear angry responses, probably it's best to avoid
>deliberately provocative speech.
Likewise.
>
>By the way, thousands upon thousands of people in *this* country are attacked,
>some of them killed, by people who spout filth like that "bestiality" line.
>Invoking bestiality in the context of pooh-poohing an off-Broadway show is, in
>my opinion, the work of a truly sick and disgusting mind.
And *my* opinion is that your response to Matthew's post - which didn't say
anything close to what you appear to think it did - is at best hypersensitive,
and at worse warped.
>
>Oh, but you live under the threat of terrorism: that makes you special. You
>get to insult people with impunity.
You live under the threat of terrorism as well, and that doesn't appear to make
you so fucking special, does it? To address a wider issue for a moment, one of
the more salutary things about the events of the past few months is that they
have brought home that nobody, anywhere, is entirely safe. This is a
threatening, dangerous world that we've found ourselves living in. Some of us
already knew that - and I don't mean that in any way smugly; it's tragic and
indefensible that there's no safe place left... but there's no safe place left,
and that's what we have to deal with. In that context - in *any* context, but
especially in that one - your response to Matthew was vile.
parterre box
> At this time of year our thoughts go out to so many causes, and the
> description of this particular re-working with its stereotypical
> characters just sounded a little risible and self-parodying to me.
Well, very likely. But there's a difference between saying "this
sounds like a lousy idea artistically" and "I oppose this adaptation
on the grounds that it caters to a PC-coddled minority."
As it turns out, early reports of "Queer Carol" say it is basically a
"Movie of the Week" type of touchy-feely soap opera. And it's
certainly legitimate to dislike the piece on those grounds. But
suddenly to say, after black Scrooges and female Scrooges and yuppie
Scrooges and all the rest, "a gay Scrooge is a desecration of a great
story" just sounds like bigotry to me.
Matthew Winn
wrote:
> Matthew Winn wrote
>
> > I'm sure most people knew exactly what I meant, because most people
> > don't equate homosexuality with bestiality. You're the person who's
> > inventing a connection where there wasn't one. Now that may be
> > because you happen to meet the sort of bigots who do make that sort of
> > assertion, which would explain your response; if that is indeed the
> > case then I apologise for the misunderstanding. But I have never met
> > such people and I had no idea that such people even existed, and you
> > should have considered that possibility before taking me to task over
> > my innocent little paragraph and responding in such a manner.
>
> If you have not heard that "assertion," then you must not have been
> living in a cave for the past few decades; it's a slander on the gay
> community used about as frequently as "homosexual men recruit
> underaged boys into the lifestyle."
We live in different countries. Does it not occur to you that my
experience may be different from yours? I've heard the latter
assertion, never the former, and then only from extreme bigots who
generally disapprove of anyone who lives a life even slightly
different from their own. Perhaps I just live in a more tolerant
society than you, an impression which is borne out by your response.
> It was an insensitive and thoughtless and ugly thing to say, period.
You misinterpreted it as insensitive and thoughtless. As I've already
explained, a lot of thought went into it: I made a point of choosing
an example which I believed could not cause offence and chose that
example because, in my experience of culture over here, the parallel
you assume doesn't exist. (In fact over here bestiality is so closely
associated with humour that the mere mention of it can be taken to
signify that the writer is being jocular.) Why can't you believe or
accept that? The entire world doesn't match up with your experience
of your corner of it, and if something you read in an international
forum seems offensive you should always pause and consider whether
you've correctly understood the writer's words, and not just fly off
the handle and assume that the writer set out to offend you.
> It had nothing to to do with the subject at hand.
It had everything to do with the subject at hand, which was the way in
which a story was altered to include a group of people who had no real
reason to feel excluded by the original in the first place. The show
in question may have been a gay version of A Christmas Carol, but the
discussion--or at least my part of it--was more general than that, so
I illustrated the point by using a different group unrelated to the
first. Unrelated, that is, except in your reasoning.
> And I don't believe
> your weak and disingenuous attempt to feign ignorance.
Who is more likely to know what I meant to say: me or you? I've told
you the truth; whether you choose to believe me is up to you. If you
wish to make a fool of yourself by insisting that you can't possibly
have misinterpreted my words and that you know my mind better than I
do, so be it.
You've been told you that you made a mistake, and not just by me. If
my words were as offensive as you claim then don't you think that more
people might have stepped in to attack me? If I've committed such an
offence in the eyes of the gay community, why aren't they standing up
for themselves? I'm sure they don't need you to speak out on their
behalf. Could it be, perhaps, that they understand better than you do
that I meant no offence?
If I have indeed inadvertently offended any of the other people on
RATM then I apologise unreservedly to them. That was never my aim,
as I'm sure they're aware. But I make no apology to you, and if you
had any integrity at all you would already have offered an apology of
your own.
Matthew
Parterrebox
<rant snipped>
>I made a point of choosing
>an example which I believed could not cause offence and chose that
>example because, in my experience of culture over here, the parallel
>you assume doesn't exist.
Gee, and you just *assumed* that your cultural mindset was identical to that of
your audience -- 90% of whom are American. How insular is that?
> The entire world doesn't match up with your experience of your corner of it
Follow your own advice.
Stephen Farrow
>
>Matthew Winn:
>
><rant snipped>
>
>>I made a point of choosing
>>an example which I believed could not cause offence and chose that
>>example because, in my experience of culture over here, the parallel
>>you assume doesn't exist.
>
>Gee, and you just *assumed* that your cultural mindset was identical to that of
>your audience -- 90% of whom are American. How insular is that?
How insular is it that *you* seem to assume that non-Americans on an
INTERNATIONAL UNMODERATED NEWSGROUP should adapt to what you posit is an
American cultural mindset?
Parterrebox
INTERNATIONAL UNMODERATED NEWSGROUP should adapt to what you posit is an
American cultural mindset?
I realize I'm asking for the moon here, not to have my relationship with my
boyfriend casually equated to fucking a dog simply in order to make a cheap
point in a silly slanging match. At *best*, what MW wrote was tactless and
crude. He could have used gender, race, national origin, or religion for his
example, but instead insisted on defining if by what Scrooge fucks, as if what
one fucks is all there is to being gay.
Rather than seek any special treatment here, I'll stop asking for apologies.
Instead, I'll simply reserve the right to call anyone I disagree with
"dogfucker."
Parterrebox
Sunday Herald - 13 February 2000
The Section 28 debate in the Scottish parliament lived up to its advance
billing....There had been precious little political correctness in the Lords
debate, in which anti-gay prejudice was only too apparent. Lord Ferrers
compared homo sexuality to "paedo philia, necrophilia and bestiality".
=================
The Guardian- 25 July 1998
Hopes of preventing the issue of homosexuality from splitting the Lambeth
Conference of 735 Anglican bishops were in tatters Wednesday after an alliance
of African and evangelical bishops forced organizers to cancel a presentation
by lesbian and gay Christians....
"One African bishop said, 'If we are going to talk to lesbians and gays, why
don't we discuss bestiality and child abuse?' " said one of the section
participants, the veteran gay rights campaigner, the Rt. Rev Jack Spong, Bishop
of Newark, New Jersey.
=================
So I think it's apparent that the comparison of homosexuality with bestiality
is hardly unique to the United States; it crops up in Britain as well. Now, is
Mr. Winn going to be so disingenuous as to claim he *never* has heard of this
smear before?
Disgusting, the whole mess, and I'm sorry I ever bothered to respond to the
foul-mouthed dogfucker.
Stephen Farrow
>
>> How insular is it that *you* seem to assume that non-Americans on an
>INTERNATIONAL UNMODERATED NEWSGROUP should adapt to what you posit is an
>American cultural mindset?
>
>I realize I'm asking for the moon here, not to have my relationship with my
>boyfriend casually equated to fucking a dog simply in order to make a cheap
>point in a silly slanging match. At *best*, what MW wrote was tactless and
>crude. He could have used gender, race, national origin, or religion for his
>example, but instead insisted on defining if by what Scrooge fucks, as if what
>one fucks is all there is to being gay.
OK - do you not see that what you wrote in response was at least as tactless and
crude, and probably worse? Last time I checked, you were the only person around
here to wish an unpleasantly violent death on another poster. It seems to me
that that action, which was disgusting in the extreme, pretty much totally
removes your right to bitch about anyone else's behaviour.
Parterrebox
> Last time I checked, you were the only person around here to wish an
unpleasantly violent death on another poster
Last time I checked, you were the only one who insisted hysterically on taking
that literally, even going so far as to scold a New Yorker that he knows
nothing about terrorism.
The guy made a rude obscene crack then refused to apologize for it, lying
openly that he didn't know what he wrote was offensive. He's a liar and a thug
who deserves to have people angry at him.
Fine lot of homophobes here, and all this comes crawling out from under a rock
simply because someone *dared* to defile the sacred text of A CHRISTMAS CAROL..
Matthew Winn
> Two examples, found on the Web:
Oh dear. You manage to find two examples from the web, and infer from
this that I must have seen them and been aware of them? It's not
enough to show that there are people with this attitude; you also have
to demonstrate that I knew of them.
> Sunday Herald - 13 February 2000
>
> The Section 28 debate in the Scottish parliament lived up to its advance
> billing....There had been precious little political correctness in the Lords
> debate, in which anti-gay prejudice was only too apparent. Lord Ferrers
> compared homo sexuality to "paedo philia, necrophilia and bestiality".
Some background here. Section 28 was an almost universally loathed
piece of misguided legislation based around the bizarre idea that if
homosexuality was promoted in schools the children would somehow catch
it, as if it were a disease or absorbable by osmosis. (By "promoted"
its supporters meant "mentioned", and it wasn't just a matter of sex
education. Works of art which mentioned homosexuality were banned, as
was reference to the sexuality of openly gay figures. It called for a
blanket suppression of the mere existence of homosexuality, and the
attitude of Section 28's backers was that even the awareness that
homosexuality exists would encourage people to try it, although for
some reason it never occurred to them that _they_ were aware of it but
didn't try it.) Section 28 was widely ridiculed and it wasn't too
long before most people, myself included, had lost interest. I'd
already learned all I had to know from the theatrical trade press and
I'd already decided that it should be opposed, so why would I listen
to a bunch of bigots trying to defend the indefensible? I already
knew that teaching children about homosexuality wouldn't lead them to
try it out, so what would I gain by listening to unscientific crap
claiming the opposite? All I cared about was seeing Section 28
withdrawn, so it was the arguments in opposition to it that I read in
order to see how the fight was progressing.
> The Guardian- 25 July 1998
>
> Hopes of preventing the issue of homosexuality from splitting the Lambeth
> Conference of 735 Anglican bishops were in tatters Wednesday after an alliance
> of African and evangelical bishops forced organizers to cancel a presentation
> by lesbian and gay Christians....
>
> "One African bishop said, 'If we are going to talk to lesbians and gays, why
> don't we discuss bestiality and child abuse?' " said one of the section
> participants, the veteran gay rights campaigner, the Rt. Rev Jack Spong, Bishop
> of Newark, New Jersey.
The Anglican church has many such discussions; some of the extremist
sections of it are as vehement a bastion of white heterosexual male
dominance as you could ever seek to find. Nobody pays much attention
to them: the rest of the church just gets on with the business of
worship and lets the nutters mouth off at each other: the idiots can
talk to each other while the real believers talk to God, whose opinion
they consider more important. The hierarchy of the church is of no
interest to me anyway, so why would you expect me to have an interest
in a group of churchmen who are trying to hold on to their positions
of power by maintaining a policy of exclusion?
> So I think it's apparent that the comparison of homosexuality with bestiality
> is hardly unique to the United States; it crops up in Britain as well. Now, is
> Mr. Winn going to be so disingenuous as to claim he *never* has heard of this
> smear before?
I have never heard it before. I've heard plenty of other attacks, but
as someone with a number of gay friends and acquaintances I don't make
a point of listening to the bigotry which comes from those with an
irrational hatred of people who are important to me. Why would I want
to seek out people who would only annoy and upset me, knowing that I
could never convince them of their error? I prefer to stick with more
tolerant people; it's better for my blood pressure. And I say again:
the people I tend to hang around with just don't go in for that sort
of insult. If I were gay my experience may have been different, but
I'm not, and if any of my gay friends have been insulted in this way
they haven't made a point of telling me about it.
> Disgusting, the whole mess, and I'm sorry I ever bothered to respond to the
> foul-mouthed dogfucker.
Ah, yes, of course. I'm expected to know everything that goes on in
the whole world before I'm allowed to say anything. So far the only
people you've come up with who think there's a link between bestiality
and homosexuality are a crazy bishop, a cracked politician (the Lords
are notorious for being out of touch with reality), and yourself. I'm
beginning to wonder what your agenda is, that you feel this need to
prove that I'm a bigot when all the evidence says otherwise.
The truth (assuming you know the meaning of the word "truth") is that
I didn't know anyone would be offended. I was actually extremely
upset by your response; I lost a lot of sleep over it and, as a check
of article timestamps will show, I made a point of getting up early
the following morning to check for responses so I could try to get
your misunderstanding cleared up as quickly as possible. All I've
asked in return is that you accept the possibility that you made a
mistake, but it seems your arrogance leaves no room for any such
doubt.
Matthew
Matthew Winn
> Matthew Winn:
> <rant snipped>
I notice you failed to explain why you think you know my mind better
than I do, and you're also unable to account for the fact that, if my
comments were so offensive, so few people have attacked me for them.
Still, no matter.
> >I made a point of choosing
> >an example which I believed could not cause offence and chose that
> >example because, in my experience of culture over here, the parallel
> >you assume doesn't exist.
>
> Gee, and you just *assumed* that your cultural mindset was identical to that of
> your audience -- 90% of whom are American. How insular is that?
The fact that 90% of the audience American is irrelevant, unless
you're trying to fall back on the tired old "it's an American group
so you have to understand our culture to play" argument. It's not
possible for the writer of a post to know in advance the cultural
mindset of the entire international audience. On the other hand it
is possible for the reader of a post to stop and think "Perhaps he
didn't mean what I thought he meant" before going crazy at some
imagined insult.
Let's face it: you're becoming irrational here. If, as you say, I
knew that my post would be insulting, then why would I have posted it
unless I intended to cause offence? And if I _did_ intend to cause
offence, why would I have spent so much of my time trying to convince
you that I didn't? That I (a) made the original post, and (b) tried
to apologise for any insult I may have inadvertently offered, only
makes sense if I'm telling the truth: that I wasn't aware my post
would offend anyone until you went ballistic.
> I realize I'm asking for the moon here, not to have my relationship with my
> boyfriend casually equated to fucking a dog simply in order to make a cheap
> point in a silly slanging match. At *best*, what MW wrote was tactless and
> crude. He could have used gender, race, national origin, or religion for his
> example, but instead insisted on defining if by what Scrooge fucks, as if what
> one fucks is all there is to being gay.
Once more: I used an analogy which I believed couldn't be connected
with homosexuality. Read that sentence over and over again until you
get it. Had I used gender, race, national origin or religion for my
example I most certainly would have offended someone, or are you
claiming that it's OK to offend those groups? Instead of risking
that, I chose an example which it's reasonable to expect couldn't be
tied to any other group.
> The guy made a rude obscene crack
As I've said, to most people it's not obscene. Over here it certainly
isn't: it's a joke.
> then refused to apologize for it,
I have apologised several times for any offence I may have
inadvertently caused.
> lying
> openly that he didn't know what he wrote was offensive. He's a liar and a thug
> who deserves to have people angry at him.
Why don't you provide some evidence that I'm lying, instead of just
making unsubstantiated claims? Your entire argument has been based
on "I think it's insulting, therefore he must know it's insulting,
therefore he's lying, therefore he deserves all he gets". You're
obviously convinced that there can be no doubt that I knew exactly
how insulted you'd be by my comments, so present the evidence to the
rest of the group and let everyone judge for themselves.
Matthew
Parterrebox
posted it unless I intended to cause offence? And if I _did_ intend to cause
offence, why would I have spent so much of my time trying to convince you that
I didn't?
Well, let's look at it this way. Why would a terrorist plant a bomb and then,
once he's caught and arrested, deny he did any such thing? Because he thought
he would get away with it.
> Had I used gender, race, national origin or religion for my example I most
certainly would have offended someone, or are you
claiming that it's OK to offend those groups? Instead of risking that, I chose
an example which it's reasonable to expect couldn't be tied to any other group.
I have already shown in a thread entitled "Bestiality" that it was *not*
reasonable to expect any such thing. Even if you were utterly blind to the
political climate in the US (which is after all where the "Queer Carol" is
being performed), I have shown that the identical smear is part of British
discourse. Are you claiming ignorance of that as well. And if so, don't you
think you should be a little more careful about dipping your oar in to a
discussion of gay issues when you are (by your own admission) pig-ignorant on
the subject?
Parterrebox
> Oh dear. You manage to find two examples from the web, and infer from
this that I must have seen them and been aware of them? It's not enough to
show that there are people with this attitude; you also have to demonstrate
that I knew of them
This isn't a court of law. You made the claim that no reasonable person could
possibly draw an offensive inference in your casual comparison of homosexuality
and bestiality, based on the notion that this smear was unique to American
discourse. I have now shown that in fact the identical smear appears in
British discourse.
Should I have the burden of proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you
*know* the word "cocksucker" is an insult before I have the privilege of being
offended by your use of it?
Your claim of ignorance is laughable. If in fact you know so little about the
subject, why did you choose to shoot off your mouth in the first place?
You're caught, and all the squirming you do won't help you.
> So far the only people you've come up with who think there's a link between
bestiality and homosexuality are a crazy bishop, a cracked politician (the
Lords
are notorious for being out of touch with reality), and yourself
Try here: http://www.google.com/search?q=homosexual+bestial returns over 8,000
online examples. Pretty funny you would call someone *else* "out of touch with
reality" when you yourself claim ignorance of one of the most vile and vicious
smears used against gay people -- and then see clear to barge into a discussion
of subjects (American culture, gay-themed theater) about which you admittedly
know very little.
You disgust me.
Matthew Winn
> Winn:
>
> > Oh dear. You manage to find two examples from the web, and infer from
> > this that I must have seen them and been aware of them? It's not enough to
> > show that there are people with this attitude; you also have to demonstrate
> > that I knew of them
>
> This isn't a court of law. You made the claim that no reasonable person could
> possibly draw an offensive inference in your casual comparison of homosexuality
> and bestiality, based on the notion that this smear was unique to American
> discourse. I have now shown that in fact the identical smear appears in
> British discourse.
I said that (with the unstated implication: as far as I was aware) it
wasn't used in Britain. I stand corrected. That doesn't mean that
I've heard it. As a rule I don't pay attention to what homophobes
are saying because I know from past experience that it's all crap.
You yourself said that you'd only heard this comparison mentioned once
or twice. How can you now claim that it's impossible for anyone to be
unaware of it? Or was that "once or twice" a lie?
> Your claim of ignorance is laughable. If in fact you know so little about the
> subject, why did you choose to shoot off your mouth in the first place?
Are you now claiming that there's no middle ground between being an
all-knowing expert and being completely ignorant? You don't know
about my culture, so by your own argument you have no right to "shoot
your mouth off" either. And let's face it: your claim that I know so
little about the subject is based on the fact that I don't know every
single insult which is used against gay people. That's a little
lacking as proof of total ignorance.
> You're caught, and all the squirming you do won't help you.
Your belief is that I knowingly posted something which was insulting
to the gay community. You've failed to explain why I should then
spend hours of my time trying to make it clear that I intended no
insult. You can't explain why, if I intended to be insulting, I
should then apologise. You can't come up with other examples of my
supposed homophobia. You can't demonstrate that I knew of this insult
in advance: the best you've managed to do is show that there are a few
people here who have used that insult, but you can't explain why that
means I must heard them. You can't come up with any defence for
having wished me dead. You can't explain how you can be so certain
you know what I'm thinking better than I do. You can't explain why
there's no possibility you've made a mistake. In fact you can't do
a great deal of anything apart from act with the sort of arrogant
intolerance you claim to find so detestable in others. You've kept
resorting to insult rather than arguments, to rhetoric rather than
evidence, and you claim _I'm_ squirming?
The correct way for you to have handled this would have been to
say "I'm sorry, but I find that offensive because over here this
comparison is used to insult gays". Then I'd have apologised,
explained that no comparison or insult was intended, and we'd have
moved on. Instead you assumed that I must have intended an insult,
responded by hoping I was killed by a terrorist attack, accused me of
homophobia, and then refused to even consider the possibility that
your initial assumptions were wrong.
So tell me: what do I have to do to convince you that I'm telling
the truth? Or are you so certain of your own infallibility that the
possibility that you may have made a mistake can't be considered?
Matthew
Matthew Winn
> > If, as you say, I knew that my post would be insulting, then why would I have
> > posted it unless I intended to cause offence? And if I _did_ intend to cause
> > offence, why would I have spent so much of my time trying to convince you that
> > I didn't?
>
> Well, let's look at it this way. Why would a terrorist plant a bomb and then,
> once he's caught and arrested, deny he did any such thing? Because he thought
> he would get away with it.
That's hardly a valid comparison. Anyone who commits a crime will
spend some time planning how to conceal their involvement, and it's
on that basis that they claim innocence. As you say, "he thought he
would get away with it". I posted a message and attached my name to
it. If I had, as you claim, been aware that my article would cause
offence then don't you think that posting it in a public and archived
forum and signing my own name to it is not exactly the best way to
start covering my tracks? It would be as if your supposed terrorist
had called the police in advance and told them who he was and where
he'd be waiting to see the effects of his attack.
> > Instead of risking that, I chose
> > an example which it's reasonable to expect couldn't be tied to any other group.
>
> I have already shown in a thread entitled "Bestiality" that it was *not*
> reasonable to expect any such thing. Even if you were utterly blind to the
> political climate in the US (which is after all where the "Queer Carol" is
> being performed), I have shown that the identical smear is part of British
> discourse. Are you claiming ignorance of that as well.
Yes, I am. I had never heard that comment before. I admit that I'm
not the person most likely to be up to date on current attacks on
homosexuality, but there's a good reason for that. I'm not gay, so
I'm not on the receiving end of those attacks myself. The gay people
I know don't spend their time with me discussing the intimate details
of the ways in which they're attacked; I guess it's too private a
matter for them. And I don't listen to what the homophobes are saying
because I know their arguments are crap, in much the same way as, had
I been alive during the second world war, I wouldn't have listened to
German propaganda. I already know where I stand; why listen to things
which will only anger me? I know in general terms that homophobia
exists and has enough organisation to get things like Section 28
discussed, but I don't have detailed knowledge of every argument the
homophobes use and it's unreasonable for you to expect me to have that
knowledge.
In your original post you said:
You know, oddly enough, over the years I have heard once or
twice before this charming idea of yours, that homosexuality
and bestiality are parallel types of human behavior.
If it's something you've heard only once or twice before over a period
of years it can hardly be considered a widely held belief. If you, as
a self-designated expert, have heard this so infrequently, then it
should be no great stretch to accept that I may never have heard it at
all.
> And if so, don't you
> think you should be a little more careful about dipping your oar in to a
> discussion of gay issues when you are (by your own admission) pig-ignorant on
> the subject?
I wouldn't say pig-ignorant. It's not a black-and-white issue: there
are positions intermediate between being an authority on the matter
and being utterly ignorant. What I wanted to know in my original post
was this: what is it about the gay community that its members feel
they need their own version of A Christmas Carol? If the original
story had focussed specifically on issues only of interest to
heterosexuals then I could have understood the need for a new version,
but I can't see anything in ACC which excludes gay people, so I'd
hoped someone could say what they felt was lacking in the original
which this new version provides.
So rather than attacking me for my honest mistake, why don't we get
this thread back on topic? You're clearly in favour of this new
production so explain: what is wrong with the old version, that it
merits revision? I'd always thought of A Christmas Carol as being a
fairly universal story. (Part of the reason I'm suspicious of new
versions is that I saw a dreadful one just a couple of months ago.
It had been set in modern times, but instead of making the story more
relevant to a modern audience it had simply divorced it from the
issues which were so important to Dickens, and to me it just felt
like a betrayal of the author's motives.)
Matthew
Bill
gay version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL was produced not so much that it is
relevant, but because it's easy.
The story and characters have become so ingrained through so many years
and countless versions and variations, that anyone and his mother could
adapt it. As has been pointed out, we've had numerous musical versions;
we've seen it set in modern times, black versions, cartoon versions,
etc.
I know the argument is to present relevance to a specific audience
through a familiar story; but as the targeted audience is adult, and
more than likely not struggling with questions of acceptance, then
..... Why? Why not write a fresh, new, original play in which the
author's voice can be heard in a new way?
I love A CHRISTMAS CAROL, but from decades of variation after variation,
plus repeated readings and viewings, I've grown very tired of it. I'm
even more tired of writers who are unable or unwilling to attempt
something new.
Drumm
Parterrebox
> If it's something you've heard only once or twice before
I was being ironic: one hears this smear practically daily.
Parterrebox
production so explain: what is wrong with the old version, that it
merits revision?
No, not in favor of *this* new production, but, yes, in favor of the idea of
taking a stale and overdone period piece and finding a new angle on it. It goes
to author's intention: Dickens surely didn't want his story to be a cosy and
saccharine greeting card; he intended to disturb his audience, to shock them
into reconsidering their opinions about the social issues involved and to see
themselves as possible candidates for Scrooge-like redemption. As such, the
details of his story were based in realism. To Dickens' readers, the hoop
skirts and cravats and quill pens and plum puddings and all that were not
quaint and adorable and "period." But in a modern performance of the piece,
all that charming Victorian bric-a-brac has the effect of making the story less
contemporary. This is particularly true for most Americans who are at best hazy
about the manners and mores of Victorian London: it all just seems "long ago
and far away," no matter how archeologically accurate the portrayal. (Of
course this "romanticizing" effect is also true of other works originally meant
as contemporary and now done as period pieces: THE SEAGULL, for example, was
written for an audience who would recognize Mme. Arkadina and Trigorin just as
naturally and matter-of-factly as real people as a modern Broadway audience
does when they see the characters of, say, PROOF or TALE OF THE ALLERGISTS"
WIFE. The people depicted in THE SEAGULL are not supposed to be exotics from
another century and another continent. This same problem makes COMPANY more and
more difficult to revive since the book scens are so severely dates; eventually
program notes will have to include a glossary so that audiences will understand
why "my service will explain.")
So one way to restore a work like CHRISTMAS CAROL is to adapt the detail so it
is more familiar to the specific targeted audience while maintaining the basic
stem of the story. This has been going on for decades now in dozens upon dozens
of adaptations, some successful, others not. The reports of A QUEER CAROL seem
to indicate that this adaptation is probably far too sweet and unchallenging,
which is where it goes wrong. But that's a question of tone, not details of
setting and characters' sexual orientation.
Now, why a gay Scrooge? My first answer would be "why not?" The second answer
would be that the adapters of this piece are very obviously targeting the
heart-strings of their potential audience, trying to persuade them to be
generous to gay-targeted charities.
But finally, I go back to "why not?" The original piece is available for
performance in its full Victorian splendor at all times; there is a lavish
traditional CAROL performed yearly in New York City. So why not try it a
different way? Or rather, if there are female and African-American and
modern-dress TV executive Scrooges, why draw the line at a gay Scrooge?
Matthew Winn
> > You're clearly in favour of this new
> production so explain: what is wrong with the old version, that it
> merits revision?
>
> No, not in favor of *this* new production, but, yes, in favor of the idea of
> taking a stale and overdone period piece and finding a new angle on it. It goes
> to author's intention: Dickens surely didn't want his story to be a cosy and
> saccharine greeting card; he intended to disturb his audience, to shock them
> into reconsidering their opinions about the social issues involved and to see
> themselves as possible candidates for Scrooge-like redemption. As such, the
> details of his story were based in realism. To Dickens' readers, the hoop
> skirts and cravats and quill pens and plum puddings and all that were not
> quaint and adorable and "period." But in a modern performance of the piece,
> all that charming Victorian bric-a-brac has the effect of making the story less
> contemporary. This is particularly true for most Americans who are at best hazy
> about the manners and mores of Victorian London: it all just seems "long ago
> and far away," no matter how archeologically accurate the portrayal.
You're probably right there: one thing I haven't been taking into
account is that this is an _American_ production. To me the world in
which Dickens lived isn't so far away. I've been to some of the
places he mentioned, and in some parts of London it's still possible
to walk down narrow gas-lit streets which have changed little in
appearance since the late 19th century. I've read plenty of books
about life in London during the last few hundred years. It's all
familiar to me, and I find many aspects of that world easy to relate
to. Where Dickens refers to real locations and buildings I even have
books of engravings and photographs so I can see what those places
looked like. For that reason I don't find the Victorian age distant
and remote: in my imagination I can go there in an instant. The only
part of his world I can't experience directly is the appalling working
conditions and poverty the original inhabitants of those places had to
endure.
> So one way to restore a work like CHRISTMAS CAROL is to adapt the detail so it
> is more familiar to the specific targeted audience while maintaining the basic
> stem of the story. This has been going on for decades now in dozens upon dozens
> of adaptations, some successful, others not. The reports of A QUEER CAROL seem
> to indicate that this adaptation is probably far too sweet and unchallenging,
> which is where it goes wrong. But that's a question of tone, not details of
> setting and characters' sexual orientation.
I don't object to a revision of a story if it's done properly and
completely. I rebelled against the idea of A QUEER CAROL because it
sounded similar in style to a "modernised Dickens" production I saw
recently which had been transplanted to modern times without correctly
revising the issues raised by the story. The show I saw had a Tiny
Tim who was in need of vital medical care living in a British society
where the state provides essential medical care for all. In such a
setting his problems just wouldn't have arisen, and there was no sense
of desperation in his situation. The whole show was riddled with
similar Dickensian issues which would have been believable if they'd
remained in their original context, but when pasted on to a modern
background they felt dated and irrelevant. Almost all of Dickens'
work is based on his early experiences of poverty, so moving his
stories to a modern world where such poverty no longer exists requires
a complete alteration of most of each tale. All too often those
making the changes lack the courage or the talent to go far enough.
As I discovered, it's difficult to maintain any sort of belief in a
story when there's Victorian values in one scene and a microwave and
TV in the next.
If someone wants to take a story I love and bring it up to date by
writing a completely new version loosely based on the original then I
have no problem. I love shows like WEST SIDE STORY and KISS ME, KATE,
for example. It's when a story is taken and slightly altered without
truly creating something new that I become nervous and disapproving
about the adaption, and from the description I heard it sounded as
though this was a fiddle-with-the-details production rather than
anything genuinely new.
Of course the only way I can judge for sure is to see the show, but
unless it comes to London that's not going to happen.
> Now, why a gay Scrooge? My first answer would be "why not?" The second answer
> would be that the adapters of this piece are very obviously targeting the
> heart-strings of their potential audience, trying to persuade them to be
> generous to gay-targeted charities.
>
> But finally, I go back to "why not?" The original piece is available for
> performance in its full Victorian splendor at all times; there is a lavish
> traditional CAROL performed yearly in New York City. So why not try it a
> different way? Or rather, if there are female and African-American and
> modern-dress TV executive Scrooges, why draw the line at a gay Scrooge?
I guess I can't argue with that.
Matthew
Biff McKeldin
>
>No, not in favor of *this* new production, but, yes, in favor of the idea of
>taking a stale and overdone period piece and finding a new angle on it. It goes
>to author's intention: Dickens surely didn't want his story to be a cosy and
>saccharine greeting card; he intended to disturb his audience, to shock them
>into reconsidering their opinions about the social issues involved and to see
>themselves as possible candidates for Scrooge-like redemption. As such, the
>details of his story were based in realism. To Dickens' readers, the hoop
>skirts and cravats and quill pens and plum puddings and all that were not
>quaint and adorable and "period." But in a modern performance of the piece,
>all that charming Victorian bric-a-brac has the effect of making the story less
>contemporary. This is particularly true for most Americans who are at best hazy
>about the manners and mores of Victorian London: it all just seems "long ago
>and far away," no matter how archeologically accurate the portrayal.
>So one way to restore a work like CHRISTMAS CAROL is to adapt the detail so it
>is more familiar to the specific targeted audience while maintaining the basic
>stem of the story.
While I agree with everything you've said here, I still say the best way to
avoid the cheap Christmas card sentimentality of the piece and to "restore" the
"Carol" is through direction. Certainly most of the "modern" adaptations I've
seen are far guiltier of schmaltz than the "faithful" versions (I admit to
steering very far away from the Madison Sqaure Garden kiddie show that's been
playing every Christmas for a few years now). Again to cite the 1951 British
film version is to cite a remarkably unsentimental and (reasonably) faithful
adaptation (ditto the even more astringent 1984 Gerorge C. Scott version); and
currently on Broadway we have Patrick Stewart's one-man reading/dramatization of
the piece. This is hardly steeped in the Victorian bric-a-brac of a cozy
"Carol."
>This has been going on for decades now in dozens upon dozens
>of adaptations, some successful, others not.
Which are the successful ones? This is the crux of my problem with A QUEER
CAROL -- I've yet to see one "modern" take on A CHRISTMAS CAROL that is any good
(other than the completely reinvented ones like the *original* HOW THE GRINCH
STOLE CHRISTMAS). I'll readily admit that most of the so-called faithful
adaptations suffer from the "ye merry olde England" schmaltz that you've alluded
to, but I haven't seen one modern take that hasn't been equally schmaltzy in its
own way, and as I've already pointed out there have been a couple of "faitful"
versions that didn't fetishize (sp?) the Victorian period.
>The reports of A QUEER CAROL seem
>to indicate that this adaptation is probably far too sweet and unchallenging,
>which is where it goes wrong. But that's a question of tone, not details of
>setting and characters' sexual orientation.
>
>Now, why a gay Scrooge? My first answer would be "why not?" The second answer
>would be that the adapters of this piece are very obviously targeting the
>heart-strings of their potential audience, trying to persuade them to be
>generous to gay-targeted charities.
This makes A QUEER CAROL a noble project (and I confess I'm embarrassed that I
didn't look at it in this light before -- internalized homophobia? where's my
shrink when I need her), but not necessarily an artistically necessary one.
>But finally, I go back to "why not?" The original piece is available for
>performance in its full Victorian splendor at all times; there is a lavish
>traditional CAROL performed yearly in New York City.
Oh no -- to a Dickensian the Madison Square Garden "for tykes" version is hardly
traditional. I haven't seen it (or even heard the score) but the way it's
advertised represents all that's wrong with contemporary views of Dickens (all
spun saccharine and no grit). I can only hope the product that is hawked each
year at Madison Square Garden is nothing like its media ads. However
unnecessary from an artistic perspective I may believe A QUEER CAROL to be, I'd
*much* rather take it in than the Madison Square Garden version.
Biff
Loire21
wrote:
> fetishize (sp?)
Word not found in Webster's.
>Oh no -- to a Dickensian the Madison Square Garden "for tykes" version is
>hardly
>traditional. I haven't seen it (or even heard the score)
If you're going to pass judgment, perhaps you should.
Stephen & Rhonda N.
Re: OT: TV's Danny Pintauro heads up NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Thu, Dec 27, 2001, 4:25pm (EST+5)
From: loi...@aol.com (Loire21) << the Madison Square Garden "for tykes"
version is hardly traditional. I haven't seen it (or even heard the
score) >>>
If you're going to pass judgment, perhaps you should.
Yes, and it's quite a decent version apart from its venue.
Biff McKeldin
I was passing judgment on the way it is advertised. The ads are why I don't
want to see it -- I thought I had made that clear.
Biff
Stephen Farrow
>
>Stephen Farrow:
>
>> Last time I checked, you were the only person around here to wish an
>unpleasantly violent death on another poster
>
>Last time I checked, you were the only one who insisted hysterically on taking
>that literally, even going so far as to scold a New Yorker that he knows
>nothing about terrorism.
Rather inventive reading of what I wrote you've got there. I simply pointed out
that people in other places are just as likely to find your comparison
offensive, as I do. But thank you for your aplogy elsewhere.