Threaded Order Chronological Order
| I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: dramedy 08:57 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: THE PROM is superb - lordofspeech 08:44 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| If it was a gay couple instead of lesbians. I just felt that every time we got the the lesbian story it stalled the show a bit. I think the two ladies did a great job but both are rather bland. If a gay couple was the center, the flamboyant out gay vs closeted gay would have been more colorful—and I mean that in personality and clothing. But maybe that is explored already in Zana don’t and other shows. The drab serious lesbian context worked better in the serious fun home than prom. Yes I know that is blasphemous to state this so flame away. I’m in the Southern Hemisphere right now so won’t get too burned. |
|
| reply to this message |
| lesbians are gay (nm) | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:11 am EST 12/30/18 | |
| In reply to: I think I would have liked it more - dramedy 08:57 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Hfhjjhgb | |
| reply to this message |
| Common terminology is men are gay | |
| Posted by: dramedy 06:59 am EST 12/31/18 | |
| In reply to: lesbians are gay (nm) - KingSpeed 01:11 am EST 12/30/18 | |
|
|
|
| Women are lesbians and all are homosexual. LGBT stands for lesbian gay.... so even that distinguishes the two groups. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:12 pm EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: I think I would have liked it more - dramedy 08:57 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| This isn't blasphemous, it just expresses a very limited view of lesbians and gay men alike. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| But the lesbians are stereotyped in the show | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 07:00 am EST 12/31/18 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 06:57 am EST 12/31/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - Singapore/Fling 10:12 pm EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| The out butch lesbian that is big boned and wears a tux to prom and men’s clothes and the lipstick lesbian girlfriend wears dresses. I know several lesbian couples and none fit that stereotype. So the show is showing s stereotype. I’d rather have the gay-guy version. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But the lesbians are stereotyped in the show | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:31 am EST 12/31/18 | |
| In reply to: But the lesbians are stereotyped in the show - dramedy 06:57 am EST 12/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| "The out butch lesbian that is big boned and wears a tux to prom and men’s clothes and the lipstick lesbian girlfriend wears dresses. I know several lesbian couples and none fit that stereotype. So the show is showing s stereotype." First of all, I wouldn't describe that character as especially "big-boned" or "butch." But regardless, the fact that you don't happen to know any couples who fit that stereotype doesn't mean they don't exist. Are you suggesting that "lipstick" lesbians and "butch" lesbians can't be shown on stage (or screen, or whatever) because those characters then become "stereotypes?" "I’d rather have the gay-guy version." If the show did have two gay guys as the central couple, would you cry "stereotype" if one or both of them was somewhat effeminate or wanted to wear some traditionally female clothing or accessories to the prom? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| In was pointing out SFling statement | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:47 am EST 12/31/18 | |
| In reply to: re: But the lesbians are stereotyped in the show - Michael_Portantiere 11:31 am EST 12/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| That I had a limited view but in reality the lesbians fit a stereotype mold. I would have found the stereotype gay mold more in this show. I know fun home is autobiographical, but I don’t think it would work as a gay man in place of the lesbian lead. I can’t see many gay men getting excited about a bunch of keys. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: In was pointing out SFling statement | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 06:06 pm EST 12/31/18 | |
| In reply to: In was pointing out SFling statement - dramedy 11:47 am EST 12/31/18 | |
|
|
|
| Wow. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 09:06 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: I think I would have liked it more - dramedy 08:57 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I disagree. I think the lesbian couple added something special to the musical. I don’t think it slowed the show down at all. Without it The Prom would have been one long maddening exaggerated dance number. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 09:33 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - lowwriter 09:06 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| For me, THERES SOMETHING ABOUT JAMIE in the West End is the adult version of The Prom. Helped by being based on a true story. For me, THE PROM fell down for many reasons. The central character that Brooks A. plays seems like all the mincing prancing gay characters we saw in films in the 30's-60's. I thought this character cliche was dead. And I had no idea why Christopher Sieber or the big hopping Press Agent, or the blonde with long legs were doing in the show. Their characters, for me, just took up stage time - extra songs that go nowhere, etc, while their stories didnt seem, to me, to help the thrust of the show in any way. Why didnt the 'hot blonde' seem to attract the romantic attention of anyone? Why did the press agent have to be a caricature (of a type of p.a. I have never encountered on Broadway). I'd love to see Brooks and Chris Sieber in roles that require them to stretch a bit into new territory, rather than relying on basically the same stuff they did in the last show. NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they ahve done before - that kills your show. Unless it's a star who we come to see do their shtick. And in that case you have to be at the Nathan Lane or Carl Channing or Bette Midler or Ethel Merman or Hugh Jackman to get away with that. These performers are SO talented. I'd love to see them in a show hat expands what we have seen them do before. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:50 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - NewtonUK 09:33 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| "The central character that Brooks A. plays seems like all the mincing prancing gay characters we saw in films in the 30's-60's. I thought this character cliche was dead." First of all, the character is hugely exaggerated because this show is a very broadly humorous musical comedy. Most of the other characters, for example Beth Leavel's character, are similarly exaggerated (if not gay in that case). Also, in my opinion, there is no good reason why this "mincing, prancing" type of character should die, since there are people like that in real life (!) The only thing wrong with that type of character is when it's the ONLY kind of representation of a gay man that we see on stage, or if we see it too often. "And I had no idea why Christopher Sieber or the big hopping Press Agent, or the blonde with long legs were doing in the show. " I loved ALL of those characters, but also, to answer your question, they are there because one of the central jokes of the show is that a small army of social justice warrior theater people head to that small town to protest the cancellation of the prom in order to prevent the lesbians from attending. THE PROM wouldn't be nearly as funny if only one or two New York theater people traveled to Indiana for that purpose. "I'd love to see Brooks and Chris Sieber in roles that require them to stretch a bit into new territory, rather than relying on basically the same stuff they did in the last show. NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show. Sieber's last three Broadway roles were Georges in LA CAGE, Miss Trunchbull in MATILDA, and Charlemagne in PIPPIN, so I'd be interested if you could explain why you feel he's doing in THE PROM is "basically the same stuff" as he did in those shows. "Unless it's a star who we come to see do their shtick. And in that case you have to be at the Nathan Lane or Carl Channing or Bette Midler or Ethel Merman or Hugh Jackman to get away with that." I don't think this only applies to mega-stars with famous "shtick." Even among non-megastars, actors don't ALWAYS have to stretch in each new role, and smart producers realize that audiences want to see popular actors do what they are acknowledged for doing so well, so I think your whole premise here is flawed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: jconnors 11:05 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - NewtonUK 09:33 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| "NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show." Nonsense. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 11:38 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - jconnors 11:05 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| "NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show." I could not agree with this more, whether it's a play, musical, film or television show. I will add that I have not seen The Prom, I am simply agreeing with the statement that jconnors found to be nonsense. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:00 pm EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - TheOtherOne 11:38 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry, but "NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show" is indeed nonsense as a broad, flat-out statement. No, you wouldn't want an actor to TOTALLY pattern their performance of a new character in a new show after a previous performance in another show, but I don't think any decent actor would ever do that. On the other hand, audiences love certain actors for certain talents, abilities, and mannerisms, and they love seeing those things displayed in various shows. Of course, it's also GREAT to see an actor stretch and play a completely different kind of role than they have played before -- if the stretch is successful. Many actors do this all the time, and are often admiringly labeled "character actors" rather than stars with very strong, definable onstage personas. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.041321 seconds.