OK, I'm just going to be "That Person," but I really liked this. I thought it was funny, and it brings up some points that actually allowed the desegregation in the U.S. decades ago, the economy. I get that you all are pissed because it is too little too late, and I fucking hate the timing on this too, but at least something is being done. Unfortunately a lot of times people don't work toward something until it's taken away. It's a sad fact, but its true. A lot of activists have been saying that maybe this is just the right kick in the pants that people needed to see to make them recognize that gay rights is not something that will always be protected.
In short, this musical was funny and it's better late than never.
I am going to start my own country--Homoslavia. I will rule this country absolutely and allow a few token straights to hold symbolic positions in my cabinet and/or to complete necessary drudge work. I envision Donald Trump with a shaved head and a sweaty brow, mopping the floor with his wiglet. Anyone associated with past tokenism such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or annoying 2008 semi-closeted behavior a la Kevin Spacey will be sentenced to life in an underground chamber with no internet, cocaine or mirrors in front of my mansion facing beautiful Louise Fitzhugh Square.
@forwardmotion: Where do I fit in? I figure I'd be in same place there in ten years as I'll be in here: drinking High Life in my underwear while sitting in a kiddie pool.
Sanctimonius? A rather ironic description Richard since Gawker has exactly three posts on Prop 8. All after the fact. You should have left this one to your more clever brothers at Defamer.
@Midge Well, to be fair, we had two pre-election posts about it here and here. But you are right, we left it mostly to our sisters in California, Defamer.
Plus, we're not congratulating ourselves about anything.
@Richard: For those of us that are directly affected by the passing of Prop 8 this is no laughing matter. And for all of you that think it doesn't matter to you, just wait for the religious right and their moral-guiding machine to come after your rights.
The battle is far from over. No On 8 made some mistakes and I think this video makes a valiant attempt to address them. I believe that the absence of celebrity outcry before the election was intentional. It only invites ridicule and derision on the internet and distracts from the issue at hand. The fact that these "richies" actually took some of their valuable time out to create this is makes it all the more admirable and hardly ego-driven.
For all you knee-jerk commentators that complain it's not funny, I agree. But who cares? That's not really the point. This isn't some lame SNL skit that deserves ridicule. Get your heads out of the comment sandbox for a minute and ponder how this affects all of us, not just your snark-rating in the bowels of Gawker.
@Midge: Huhm. Okay. I'm interested in this because here you say:
I believe that the absence of celebrity outcry before the election was intentional.
This seems like you're saying that there are good, effective ways to support No on Prop 8, and to fight against the religious right and their evilness. And I agree with that, in principle.
But here you say:
complain it's not funny, I agree. But who cares? That's not really the point. This isn't some lame SNL skit that deserves ridicule.
And that seems like you're saying that we should support any effort on anyone's behalf, even if it's terrible. I guess, more precisely: what's changed? Why were celebrity voices detrimental before, and valuable now? Why were we worried about doing things pre-vote that looked ridiculous, but now we're supposed to pretend that nothing is ridiculous?
Also, I'm curious about this one:
The fact that these "richies" actually took some of their valuable time out to create this is makes it all the more admirable and hardly ego-driven.
How valuable is their time? I was under the impression that the point of being a rich celebrity was that you got to have more leisure than everyone else.
Moreover, aren't "ego-driven" ventures ones that pay you in self-satisfaction? Doesn't something in which you're sacrificing your valuable time (presuming that this was the case), indicate that you're getting a reward in some way other than monetary gain? In that case, something like this would seem like it was more ego-driven, rather than less.
@braak: All valid points. I'm not a writer. I design buildings for the govenment. I'm terrible at articulating my thoughts. Especially emotional ones. It's the message that's important, not the package that it comes in.
@Midge: I wish it were. History has shown us nothing if not the fact that a shiny package can sell any kind of crap--and poor packaging can cause even good ideas to be overlooked.
Kazzah will eventually be Mrs Thom Yorke. He just doesn't know it yet. was starred
Kazzah will eventually be Mrs Thom Yorke. He just doesn't know it yet. was unstarred
Good job, guys. Way to show that theater is the campy, useless, shriveled appendix--inflamed and pustulant with smarm and self-congratulation--of the arts.
@braak: I don't really know how something can be both shriveled and inflamed and full of pus. Maybe like a rotten raisin, or something? Maybe it's shriveled and crispy on the outside, but inside it's red and gooey? I don't know what the hell I'm talking about because I'M TOO ANGRY.
@braak: As Boleslavski said in Acting, when his student is complaining about the poor quality of 'talkies' (and I'm wildly paraphrasing): 'So bad art exists. Let it exist! In a hundred years, all of the bad art will be forgotten, and the good will continue to exist'. The theatre is not at some putrid bursting-point. There has always been bad theatre, and there will always be bad theatre. The point is to occasionally trip and fall into the good stuff.
@katastic: Feh. This is poor science. They still teach The London Merchant in schools. (Well, graduate schools. In theater programs.) Many schools are taking Shakespeare of the reading lists. Most of the Greeks are already gone. How long does it take, with no one teaching it, to forget Euripides?
How many times do you need to see something like that putrid version of The Nation Theater of Scotland's Bacchae before you think that the medium and the plays themselves aren't worth crap?
Good art doesn't just happen. It is the product of socio-cultural conditions that both make it possible and demand its existence. Even if rejecting bad art is ultimately fruitless, complacency is worse.
@braak: Don't "poor science" me, braak. "How long, with no one teaching it, to forget Euripides?" only works as a hysterical statement about the Death Of Theatre if you completely ignore historical context. Yes, the dearth of a good theatrical education in our schools is a bad thing. Yes, commercial theatre is often flaccid and badly done. Euripides, however, is still around after thousands of years- surviving periods of vast illiteracy and obscurity. I don't think a thirty-year span of poor public education is going to kill him, or the theatre. Yes, it's a BAD thing, but it's hardly the beast slouching towards Bethelehem. We're in a cycle of mediocrity, not end-days. The very fact that we, as two publicly-educated people (albeit both followed with specialized educations) can reference classical playwrights says something about the continuity of these playwrights, no?
And yes, I agree with engineering socio-economic/ cultural conditions in such a way that good art is easy to produce. Wasn't it you, however, who were saying to me that if McCain/ Palin had won, at least protest art would thrive? Socio-economic/ cultural conditions cannot KILL good art- they simply provide obstacles. Are these obstacles bad? Should we oppose them? Yes- but they're not KILLING theatre; in fact, they provide grist for the mill of "oppositional" art.
@katastic: Euripides is a convenient example because he's on the way out. We've only got the three Greek tragedians; are we meant to believe that none of the others were good engouh to survive?
Moreover, I actually don't care if the principle of theater literacy is cyclical, because it does not interest me in the slightest that, if we enter a period of lousy art, a good period is going to follow in a hundred years. I am concerned that my era, the one that I'm stuck living in, produces quality art.
And, necessarily this means calling out shitty art when I see it. You cannot accept that there is good art without also acknowledging that there is shitty art. So, what does it mean to "let there be bad art"? It's not like I'm trying to shut the plays down. It's not even like I'm trying to stop people from writing them. I am just encouraging people to think that it's shitty.
Isn't that right? Isn't that exactly what has to happen for us to live in a culture that starts to appreciate worthwhile art? That we also live in a culture that starts to think that some of it is shitty.
You respond to me like I'm arguing that there's some kind of theater apocalypse happening, that I'm complaining that theater is going to die, or I don't know, the eschaton is immanent. But that's not really what I'm talking about: what I'm talking about is that the bulk of American theater is shitty, and I would prefer it if people would stop fucking contributing to that.
I just like to pretend that celebreties don't actually exist outside of their shows/movies and the gossip column. I find it much easier to deal with them that way.
12/03/08
In short, this musical was funny and it's better late than never.
12/03/08
"A homosexual is someone who, in 15 years of trying, can’t get a pissant anti-discrimination bill through City Council."
— Character of Roy Cohn in Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, Pt. I
12/03/08
12/03/08
[en.wikipedia.org]
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
Plus, we're not congratulating ourselves about anything.
12/03/08
The battle is far from over. No On 8 made some mistakes and I think this video makes a valiant attempt to address them. I believe that the absence of celebrity outcry before the election was intentional. It only invites ridicule and derision on the internet and distracts from the issue at hand. The fact that these "richies" actually took some of their valuable time out to create this is makes it all the more admirable and hardly ego-driven.
For all you knee-jerk commentators that complain it's not funny, I agree. But who cares? That's not really the point. This isn't some lame SNL skit that deserves ridicule. Get your heads out of the comment sandbox for a minute and ponder how this affects all of us, not just your snark-rating in the bowels of Gawker.
12/03/08
I believe that the absence of celebrity outcry before the election was intentional.
This seems like you're saying that there are good, effective ways to support No on Prop 8, and to fight against the religious right and their evilness. And I agree with that, in principle.
But here you say:
complain it's not funny, I agree. But who cares? That's not really the point. This isn't some lame SNL skit that deserves ridicule.
And that seems like you're saying that we should support any effort on anyone's behalf, even if it's terrible. I guess, more precisely: what's changed? Why were celebrity voices detrimental before, and valuable now? Why were we worried about doing things pre-vote that looked ridiculous, but now we're supposed to pretend that nothing is ridiculous?
Also, I'm curious about this one:
The fact that these "richies" actually took some of their valuable time out to create this is makes it all the more admirable and hardly ego-driven.
How valuable is their time? I was under the impression that the point of being a rich celebrity was that you got to have more leisure than everyone else.
Moreover, aren't "ego-driven" ventures ones that pay you in self-satisfaction? Doesn't something in which you're sacrificing your valuable time (presuming that this was the case), indicate that you're getting a reward in some way other than monetary gain? In that case, something like this would seem like it was more ego-driven, rather than less.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
PS Yes on the Emerging NPH Snark-Meme.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
'So bad art exists. Let it exist! In a hundred years, all of the bad art will be forgotten, and the good will continue to exist'.
The theatre is not at some putrid bursting-point. There has always been bad theatre, and there will always be bad theatre. The point is to occasionally trip and fall into the good stuff.
12/03/08
How many times do you need to see something like that putrid version of The Nation Theater of Scotland's Bacchae before you think that the medium and the plays themselves aren't worth crap?
Good art doesn't just happen. It is the product of socio-cultural conditions that both make it possible and demand its existence. Even if rejecting bad art is ultimately fruitless, complacency is worse.
12/03/08
And yes, I agree with engineering socio-economic/ cultural conditions in such a way that good art is easy to produce. Wasn't it you, however, who were saying to me that if McCain/ Palin had won, at least protest art would thrive? Socio-economic/ cultural conditions cannot KILL good art- they simply provide obstacles. Are these obstacles bad? Should we oppose them? Yes- but they're not KILLING theatre; in fact, they provide grist for the mill of "oppositional" art.
And yes, I do not like The London Merchant.
12/03/08
Moreover, I actually don't care if the principle of theater literacy is cyclical, because it does not interest me in the slightest that, if we enter a period of lousy art, a good period is going to follow in a hundred years. I am concerned that my era, the one that I'm stuck living in, produces quality art.
And, necessarily this means calling out shitty art when I see it. You cannot accept that there is good art without also acknowledging that there is shitty art. So, what does it mean to "let there be bad art"? It's not like I'm trying to shut the plays down. It's not even like I'm trying to stop people from writing them. I am just encouraging people to think that it's shitty.
Isn't that right? Isn't that exactly what has to happen for us to live in a culture that starts to appreciate worthwhile art? That we also live in a culture that starts to think that some of it is shitty.
You respond to me like I'm arguing that there's some kind of theater apocalypse happening, that I'm complaining that theater is going to die, or I don't know, the eschaton is immanent. But that's not really what I'm talking about: what I'm talking about is that the bulk of American theater is shitty, and I would prefer it if people would stop fucking contributing to that.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08