Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: A question if you have seen KINGS at the Public | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 02:56 pm EST 02/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: A question if you have seen KINGS at the Public - AC126748 02:31 pm EST 02/12/18 | |
|
|
|
| Of course we can. And if one of the two lobbyists had been gay, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. But making them both gay - without them being in a relationship or otherwise connected - now, yes, a point is being made. Just as if they had both been African American, or Latino, or ... you name it. They are representing 'lobbyists' as a class, and there is no diversity. So one has to assume a point is being made. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: A question if you have seen KINGS at the Public | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:44 pm EST 02/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: A question if you have seen KINGS at the Public - NewtonUK 02:56 pm EST 02/12/18 | |
|
|
|
| I have not seen the show yet so I can offer only a possible guess. There is a long history of gays (once closeted but an open secret, now more out in the open) who labored for causes and politicians that were not just conservative but squarely inconsistent with their own orientation. There was a "thing" referred to as the Lavender Bund in the last quarter of the last century. Nowadays, there are out gays (Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, Peter Thiel, etc) who (for whatever reason) support extremely conservative Republican politicians and causes. Again, I don't know, but perhaps the point is to use this as a vehicle for depicting the abject amorality of those functioning in the revolving door of Congressional staff and lobbyists? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: A question if you have seen KINGS at the Public | |
| Posted by: AC126748 03:02 pm EST 02/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: A question if you have seen KINGS at the Public - NewtonUK 02:56 pm EST 02/12/18 | |
|
|
|
| But making them both gay - without them being in a relationship or otherwise connected - now, yes, a point is being made. Just as if they had both been African American, or Latino, or ... you name it. They are representing 'lobbyists' as a class, and there is no diversity. So one has to assume a point is being made. You're essentially saying that if a play includes more than one character who isn't a straight white male, the playwright is undoubtedly trying to make some statement. I profoundly disagree. Unless the point is that they're both gay and it doesn't matter. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.010728 seconds.