I think it was one of Donald Trump's sons the person who promoted a boycott. It's very worrying but I can't avoid thinking this kind of reactions began with liberal kids on Internet bullying people in an effort to censoring all the nasty things in the world!
Apparently just a few years ago (when people were much less...sensible) there was an Obama-like Julius Caesar and I clearly remember an indie/B-movie about a fictional George Bush Jr. assassination.
It's so pathetic! The Trumps should be flattered that they are comparing the horrible Donald with Julius Caesar!
Game of Thrones had a decapitated Bush Jr rubberhead and I remember some shock, but no boycotts or whatever.
Everyone is very sensitive these days. I don't consider the act of withdrawing support "worrisome" per se, but rather frustrating. It's like the far-right and far-left are trying to outdo each other in taking offense. It's more annoying with the right-wingers though cause they are imitating liberals all the while acting like the worst of them, and they don't even get the irony...
I think it's worrying because these people actually have some power (one of the person who instigated it was Trump's son) contrary to the Tumblr activists. Anyway I hope this show to the extreme left how "problematic" is censoring and they learn to respect free speech again but who knows? One of the problems with extremists is that they are sure the other side is stupid or ignorant. And this is particularly truth in the left: they are always sure the right is stupid. I mean I don't doubt Trump or some members of his family felt genuinely offended and reacted in a irrational way (like most kids on left social media do!) but I don't believe everyone in his circle are like that and I can see some of them using the polemic to silence critics (like some leaders in the extreme left do): we are the victims and if someone criticize me or make fun of me and my cause then that person is responsible for the violence other person exercised against people like me. Words equaling physical violence.
Seriously this administration is making Bush Jr. looking like a free speech hero! I wouldn't haven't believe something like this would happen at the time! It's crazy!
Well, I was just re-reading some material for Rogue Male and realised that there is some connection between this current play and the original book Rogue Male by G. Household. The book came out in May of 1939 when Hitler, as Chancellor of German (since 1933), was a duly elected official and war had not yet been declared against that county (not until September 3rd of 1939). Even though Household didn't name the dictator in the book it was fairly obvious who it might be (only two choices really and Hitler was one of them).
So it was rather a sticky wicket to be making the hero of the story an assassin of a then presiding elected leader.
My personal feeling is that artists should be allowed to make their statements and time and the public will decide as to the fate of the story. But of course today with places on social media whipping up hatred without any time for thoughtful discussion it is different than in the days of 1939 and Household's book. Household wanted to be topical and contemporary on a subject that he sent strongly about and which the backward glance of history has proven him to be on the side of the angels.
Can you imagine a book like that coming out in today's hyper-environment of social media?
I come from a long background of personal liberalism and even radical (in some quarters) advocacy so I don't feel appalled at the thought of a madman (be it historical, symbolic, or one hidden behind the cloak of democracy) being taken to task by creative minds who have something to say. I feel very uncomfortable about stifling artistic thoughts whether we agree with them or not. There are avenues to resist any lies or vile ideas that we are opposed to within the confines of civil discourse (and I don't include the shouting down, piling on or bullying on places like Tumblr in my definition of civil discourse).
I think the play and the author of the work is genuine (not some phony mouthpiece of someone with a greater agenda) and should be considered to be artistic expression. If you don't like what the playwright has to say on stage, don't support it. Write your own play that supports Trump (won't be me going to that one!). If you do go see it or write about your support of it. People can call for a boycott but if no one responds to it then who has egg on their face? If money is withdrawn then hopefully alternative support can be found from those who champion artistic freedom.
I know I wouldn't feel to inclined to support corporations that don't support ideas that I feel aligned with. There are consequences for those corporations too hopefully.
As for those liberal kids on Tumblr... they are myopic in their vision. They can't differentiate between disagreeing and opposing someone, and bullying others for having differences of opinions. They seem very rude and immature - and I have to believe that not all of them are "kids". The tactics on Tumblr seem to stem from the arrogance of the "exceptionalism" philosophy taken to its natural conclusion.
Sgev, that is an interesting point about the "censoring" of all the nasty things in the world. It is like to them the whole world HAS to agree with them and everything always has to be presented in an ideal world. Very strange concept. I have actually seen folks comment that they don't like their fav actor to portray a villain because then they are put in a bad light (some BC fans didn't want him to portray Edison b/c they didn't think Edison was a good man). Or the character can't have any shadows on their personality - like everything has to be brought to a "kittens and rainbows" conclusion with no ambiguity! Real life isn't like that and I kind of admire authors/creatives who depict the ambiguity of life sometimes (with the fullness of a character as well). Can't an assassin be a good person as well in some regards? Hopefully Rogue Male will address some of those thoughts.
"You're going into the water... short-arse!" - Sherlock
TBF there are recent examples of fiction being extremely cruel with public characters something without deserving: South Park and Team America hate against all kind of celebrities just because they are celebrities but also the decapitated bloody head of George Bush in The Game of Thrones mentioned by IGS, there was a movie about his fictional murder and some people on Twitter have mentioned that this play has had Obama, Bush Jr. and Lincoln versions. Being offended by fictional nasty things it's a very recent phenomenon that began with social media storms on Internet. It's just shameful that the leader of the free world is now behaving like this but sadly not surprising. I mean I can understand why people said Katy Griffith's photo was of bad taste. It was! I'm not a fan but she shouldn't haven't lost her job. South Park killed the Queen (actually she committed suicide!) . That was also in bad taste. Actually the complete series is wonderful in bad taste. Even The Simpsons killed Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in one episode! And no one lost a job. I think it's very worrisome when this happens with satirists. Talented or not! But it's so normalized nowadays (thanks to the liberals!) that the furor against her firing wasn't so big as it should.
Maybe the dictator in Rogue Male could wear a blond hairpiece and having a Central European wife! It would be hyperbole to comparing him to Hitler, of course, but they will have A LOT of free publicity. I just hope they wouldn't banned it in the USA because then I would be really worry. Althougt if I were one of the producers I would be worry about a character so ridiculous and unrealistic.
I am no fan of Kathy G. either (from a loooooong time ago) and also think what she did was in very poor taste (when has she ever done anything tasteful???) but the death threats against and firing her seemed like Tumblr madness instead of a measured response. I think the world has lost the capacity for satire actually. Satirists have always outraged and shocked. That's the nature of their job. They are kind of like the "King's Foole" - it is a tricky balance and sometimes, as in any occupation, you miscalculate and make a mistake. You do things that are offensive (to some) - nature of the beast in that business.
In today's world it seems like there is very little room for thoughtful measured responses. It's all B/W, adore it or hate it, everyone is either an angel or demon. And if you fall out of favour, then EVERYTHING about you is suspect! You are "problematic" and no one is allowed room for even one misstep. Perfection is demanded of every celebrity. Context is nothing. I just don't know why that is either. Context is everything to me.
It's like when BC said "coloured" when talking to Travis Smiley. One word, one misstep and it was jumped on by SJW on Tumblr and taken completely out of context (as to what he was saying at the time) and he was called a racist. An if anyone had stopped for one minute and taken a look at his track record of all he had to say on the subject of race, who he considers his friends and what he had to say on the subject of diversity in the acting world, then it would have been clear that he is as far from a racist as anyone could get. But none of that mattered to those who wanted to mount their high horses and make his misspoken word a banner for their social campaigns. Very sad.
And even after he apologised in a most unequivocal and heartfelt way it seems like the mistake has continued to be a scarlet letter on him (on sites like YFIP) and the apology (and his track record of supporting diversity and minorities) is ignored.
Sometimes people seem to revel in finding fault in others so they don't have to ever examine themselves.
"You're going into the water... short-arse!" - Sherlock
Post by coolclearwaters on Jun 17, 2017 19:42:13 GMT
Honestly, I’ve got to weigh in here. This attack on freedom of expression is not something that the Right has “learned” from the Left! They have been at it for decades, if not centuries. The complaints are usually religious-based – protests against Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ come to mind, but often aimed at art that challenges the status quo. Fox News’ whole reason for existing seems to be to stoke the Right’s delusions of victimization. Their logo should be a special snowflake. How much time have they devoted to the preposterous “War on Christmas”? (If there ever was a war, Christmas won decades ago and it was a massacre! You would have to live in a deep, dark hole to avoid Christmas. I love Christmas, btw.)
But, as far as censorship goes, the government, corporate sponsors, and wealthy backers are the only ones who have the actual power to stop a theatrical production. I don’t go to Tumblr, but whining will only get you so far. Social media has added a new component and made it easier to harass people, so artists and their fans need to develop strategies for dealing with it.
I’m not sure I would even call them the Left, but I know many some young control freaks are throwing their weight around on College campuses – making ridiculous demands about trigger warnings, safe places, pronouns, and cultural appropriation. It’s infuriating and embarrassing. Adults need to stand up to them and tell them to go to their room!
As for this play, I’ve been following the controversy in the press. The Artistic Director of the Public Theater, the president of Actor’s Equity, and others have had some very interesting things to say. For instance, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar doesn’t advocate assassinating a dictator. In fact, it shows the violent chaos that can follow such an act. Gaddafi comes to mind rather than Trump, btw. Also, Delta Airlines actually sponsored a theatrical season in Minneapolis which included a production of Julius Caesar in 2012 with an Obama-like Caesar.
Censorship of theater goes all the way back to Lysistrata, which was banned in Roman times and in the United States form 1873 until 1930! Prior to and during the Revolutionary War, many States outlawed the performance of any play!
I don't think people needed to see his friends or his past/future actions just the context of what he was saying. He was talking about the UK entertainment industry ignoring and provoking minorities to emigrate. That's why people who were actually listening "defended" him: Jeffrey Wright, Ama Asante, David Oyelowo, etc. They knew what he was saying even if he committed an error in the way he saying it. Some of them actually lived what he said.
The people who still angry with him for the term and completely ignore the context is because are more worry to win "woke" points than to expose unfairness.
I saw a ridiculous Twitter storm a few days: Elizabeth Banks accused Steven Spielberg of NEVER have a female protagonist in his movies. That sounds WOKE, right? She attacking a powerful white man and it doesn't matter that technically it's false: WRONG! That is racist! Because he directed The Color Purple and it has a female protagonist so that obviously means Banks believe black woman aren't real woman so she is a racist! She had to do a public apology!
The thing is I think those people who criticized her were unfair but also that she was unfair to criticize Spielberg. First, I also screamed to my IPad about The Color Purple when I read the quote (that shows how progressive and a hero of our times I'm! But I didn't tweeted iit because I tend not to like lynchings!) and there is also The BGF and The Sugarland Express so it's not a NEVER, NEVER. She was exaggerating but she had a point in that he very rarely do movies with female protagonist. The thing is he doesn't have to! That's not how art work. You don't tell anyone about what or who they have to write/direct. The problem is not Spielberg as director but that there are a very small number of female directors in Hollywood. Why not talk more about it and criticize and trying to change the system instead of attack a director by name just because he does movie about the themes he cares. That wasn't very nice of her! And "nice" is the word because it wasn't a major sin at all! Just her being slightly unfair to a very powerful man (it wouldn't affect him at all) and not being nice! It was silly but she has the right to express it. Then the Twitter mob went crazy and in a very unfair way decided that she doesn't consider that black women are human beings at all instead of thinking that she just like hyperbole and/or ignore Spielberg's filmography! Oh well! People can say any silly things any more without being accused of something! Not even when accusing other people of something!