As some of you probably know I just got back from a conference in California where me and my co-author gave an hour-long (maybe an hour and a half, but who’s counting?) presentation on stereotypes in mass media, more specifically focusing on the presentation (or lack thereof) of homosexuality in musical theatre. We talked a little GLEE, a little APPLAUSE, some WICKED, and, my personal favorite, MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG. Overall the presentation went really well (for anyone who cares to know). We were by far the… um… most creative presentation in the group (it was an adult education conference), which brought a lot of interesting issues with it, the most difficult being the general lack of experience in theatre amongst the audience. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it was just something that me and my co-author, who have both been in theatre for a long time, had to take into account while presenting. I think there were a few things we assumed people knew that kind of went over their heads. If that was true, I’m very sorry, and I’d love to elaborate to the best of my ability here. But aside from that we had a pretty edgy topic, one with controversial discussions (one of which was so controversial that me and my co-author still haven’t come to an agreement about it, and I plan on talking about it in a later post, so stay tuned), a lot of bold demands for the future, and even a little live entertainment.

Now here I usually insert a witty youtube clip or colorful picture or something, and we go on our merry way debating rainbows and F-sharps, but I want to take a post and devote it to a bit of a darker topic this time. Going into this presentation I didn’t really know what to expect of myself or how people would perceive me or my work, but coming out of it I have a different perspective on my stance on one of the main issues we discussed, and I’d like to share it with all of you.

Many of you reading this probably have no idea what DOG SEES GOD is, aside from a palindrome. It’s a one-act play by Bert V. Royal, and it played for a while off-broadway. The show is considered a “parody” of the Peanuts characters created by Charles M. Schultz for copyright reasons. The plot focuses mainly on the trials and tribulations of CB, a modern-day high school version of Charlie Brown. Several characters make an appearance, such as Van (Linus), CB’s Sis (Sally), Matt (Pigpen), Beethoven (Schroeder), Van’s Sis (Lucy), Tricia (Peppermint Patty), and Marcy (Marcy). Snoopy and Woodstock are both mentioned, but neither make an actual appearance in the show, due to the fact that both have died days prior to the beginning of the first scene. The story begins with CB writing to his pen pal, describing how his dog got rabies, went mad and ate “the little yellow bird” who was always hanging around his red dog house. Snoopy is then put down, and the show begins with CB and CB’s Sis (who’s having an identity crisis and jumps between stereotypes every scene) giving Snoopy his funeral in the backyard. The rest of the show is similarly darkly sarcastic, yet bitterly funny and frighteningly pertinent to most audience member’s high school experience, in one way or another. The show is incredibly dark, and faces the harsh reality of the difficulties of coming to terms with who you are, despite the hardships of society’s status quo. If you ever have a chance to see this show, I highly recommend it. Despite the tough message at the heart of the show, it’s a witty and wildly entertaining script, emphasis on wild, and it’s the kind of show that everyone should see at least once. But don’t bring the kids.

Anyways, while we were talking about the effect of stereotypes and method acting on the actor during the presentation, my co-author asked me to share a story with the group. I was in this show not too long ago, and while it was definitely one of my favorites I’ve done thus far (for a different reason than other shows I would call my favorite) it was also one of the hardest. I played Matt (Pigpen) who is ultimately the bad guy of the show, which normally is actually a lot of fun because you get to throw shit around and do all the stuff mom never approved of. I’m really not an asshole off the stage, so I was kinda surprised when I got cast in this part. Not ungrateful in the least, but surprised. Matt is the stereotypical jock, but on steroids. Literally. The first thing I did in the show was walk on stage, do a line of coke, bump fists with CB and call him “muh niggah”. I’m white, by the way. I then proceeded to call his sister a lot of vile names and pretend to jack off on her, squirting her with a bottle of hand sanitizer, which I always carry with me due to my germ phobia. As the show goes on I reveal myself to be an egotistical ass who degrades women, gets stoned and drunk on a regular basis, assaults homosexuals and has orgies. Eventually I even break one character down so much that it ultimately leads to his suicide. Yeah… Matt is not a good guy… But he has a secret to hide, and he hides it well. In fact, it’s even hidden in the script pretty well, but a keen eye or ear will bring the backstory to the forefront.

So at the beginning of the rehearsal process I approached the character like I would any other. I though, cool, I’ll learn a few lines, have some fun with the stage combat stuff, act like an ass, it’ll be awesome. Generally I’m not a method actor, which is more or less (in a very, VERY sparknotes way of speaking…) finding something in your own life parallel to what your character is going through so you can feel and portray the same emotion. While yes, it is a great thing to bring part of yourself to the script and the character, there has to be a way for the character and the actor to separate from one another. And usually I do all of my parts as a “feel the moment’ kind of thing, which sounds hokey, but hey, it worked… But as we got further into the rehearsal process (which was a whopping 2 weeks, by the way… we had to put this show up fast) I began to get…emotional is a good word I guess, and I couldn’t figure out why. I’d had my lines memorized for a while, and I’d never had any problems with it before, so I couldn’t understand what was going on. Come tech week we’re pulling crazy long hours, and yeah, everyone’s emotions are high, anyone would expect that, but I was a wreck. I’m never the type to break during tech week, I’m generally very passive and keep most of my emotions to myself for posterity’s sake or whatever, but every night that week after my last scene where I smash a kid’s fingers in a piano repeatedly for being gay, I ran back stage, punched a wall and cried until bows. At the time I had no idea what was wrong with me. People kept asking me if I was ok, I got all these strange looks, I was embarrassed to go out to talk to people after the show, I just couldn’t pull it together. My funk started seeping into my personal life, and I began to hole myself up in my room. I skipped class for a few days, spent some long hours on the phone with my parents, and basically just felt like shit. The show was going great, people loved it, but I was starting to form this loathing towards myself, and it was spinning out of control. I still don’t completely know what happened, or why, but I have a much better sense of it now and can control it, or at least put it to good use. I won’t share with you my thoughts about that, because I mean… this is a public forum, I have to keep some of myself private, right?

But what I will say is that this is a perfect example of how theatre can monumentally impact a person’s life. I can’t speak for anyone else in the cast, but I know that this was a huge soul-searching project for me, and it was entirely due to this show. Mass media, entertainment especially, plays a huge role in our perception of who we are, how we think, and how we form our morals. And it doesn’t always work the way that we think it will. For example: every time I walked on for my last scene the audience gasped or “ooooh”ed or whatever, but there was always a verbal reaction to my presence on stage, because they knew what was going to happen. But, while I felt a sense of relief that people gasped because they got the message that what I was doing was wrong, maybe someone in the back row was gasping because they were thinking “This fag is about to get what he deserves.” It’s very possible that they interpreted the message of the show as such, and used it to enforce their morals that they had already formed, or, god forbid, had changed their morals to fit their perception of the show’s message.

Another example: Sometime during the run a faculty member at a neighboring college asked us if we would bring the show to their school for one night. He wanted to pay us for it, but we were a non-profit student organized group, so instead he donated 1000 dollars to our program and paid for all of our dinners, which was pretty awesome. But after the show that night (which was definitely one of our best, thanks to the most vocal crowd I’ve ever performed for, barring the group of 3-5 year olds watching BEAUTY AND THE  BEAST) there was a talk back, a kind of Q and A session for the audience to talk to the cast and crew of the show. I figured I would probably sit there for an hour and listen to giddy girls asking the guy who played CB “How did you memorize all those lines?” or “That was really funny when you said…” because generally that’s how these things go. The main character gets a lot of mundane questions that generally have nothing to do with the show, then we all pack up and go home. But much to my surprise, the vast majority of the questions were directed at me. And they were decent questions. With the exception of the first one. “Are you gay?” Which really should matter, and again I’m going to take this opportunity to stress my anonymity in this area because it’s a personal subject that concerns me and whomever I may be dating at the time. No one else. Then I got a stream of “Were you ok saying the stuff that you did?” (I say the word “faggot” and “cunt” and the like a lot in the show), and “Where did the anger of your character come from” and “How did you connect your own experiences to what your character was going through?” Keep in mind none of these kids were theatre students. I answered as best as I could, but to be honest I didn’t know a lot of the answers a the time. I still don’t. I said something about middle school and growing up as an outsider looking in at cliques and stuff like that, and what I said was true, but not all of it was at the heart of the matter. It wasn’t all the most true answer.

My point in saying all this is that acting is a very psychologically and emotionally taxing endeavor. It’s not for the weak of heart. As you can hopefully see from this very lengthy story, it’s pretty easy to get sucked in passed the point of no return. I mean look at my description of the show. Every time I talk about what the character does in the show, I say “I” or “Me” instead of “Him”. Obviously the effect of the character still hasn’t worn off. (For the record, I didn’t do that on purpose. I actually realized it after I finished writing this post and came back to comment on it.) Add to all that the pressure of fame, tabloids, and screaming fans watching every move you make, and it’s a surprise anyone who acts isn’t a sociopath. I’m not condoning drug use or anything like that, but I certainly understand the necessity of an escape when it comes to dealing with a role and life at the same time, especially when you lead a public one. I don’t live a public life and it almost got the better of me. I mean look at Heath Ledger, God rest him. Heath Ledger’s performance in THE DARK KNIGHT was nothing short of miraculous. He gave the world a performance that no one has ever seen before, and to be honest I’m not sure they ever will again. But it killed him. He went too far in. I heard that prior to shooting he locked himself in his hotel room with a bunch of old Batman comic books, (The good ones where the joker really is insane and terrifying) and a diary. He wrote in his diary about the Joker’s philosophy on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in the Joker’s voice, and looked down on the world from his window justifying the Joker’s point of view until he connected with it and in some ways agreed with it (I could be way off base, but this is what I heard). That’s a lot of dedication, you might say, and you’d be right, but look at the results it produced!

Ok, fine, the film was fantastic. Now look at the results it produced on Heath Ledger’s life. He had to start taking narcotics (legally prescribed, he wasn’t a junkie) because he was having crazy nightmares. I’m not sure if it was him or the tabloids, but someone said that the Joker was haunting him. And while that immediately brings up an image of this ghostly image of a cackling clown clawing at a screaming Heath Ledger, which is preposterous, its more real than you might think. Consider my story: I couldn’t get out of my slump after the show, and it very heavily affected my life. In some ways it still does. You could say that that role is haunting me too. Heath’s story is probably very similar. And while my escape is to mope around campus and talk to my family and friends, perhaps that wasn’t working for him, and he had to take some sleeping pills to get a little peace. It was a freak accident that his pills crossed in a weird way and he overdosed, but I strongly believe that if it weren’t for his incredible dedication and self-indulgence in that role he might still be alive today.

So here’s the bigger question: how does it connect to any of your lives? Here’s how: acting is what I do, and it’s what Heath Ledger did, but it may not be what you do. What you do is what you do, and I’m sure that you put your heart into whatever it is that you do, be it playing video games (which I could start an entire second blog on), running a corporate law firm, or just keeping yourself bathed and fed. But what you do and how you do it affects who you are as a person, and who you are as a person affects what you do and how you do it. They’re not separate at all, whether you want them to be or not. So take some time to step back and evaluate what you’re doing just to make sure you like how you’re doing it, or if you even like it at all. Because if you don’t, you could end up like me, or Mr. Ledger, which really would be a great tragedy if you’re a celebrity or not. So don’t get sucked in, take some time to think for yourself.

As always, please feel free to leave comments, ask questions, pose arguments, etc. P.S. Stay tuned for my next post on “America” from WEST SIDE STORY.

Ok, so this week’s episode was all about not giving up on your dreams, which is a great mantra to have, but one with some serious potential backfire. I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but Stephenson Billings, the guy who bashed GLEE a while back on his site (refer to the GLEEful Slander post from a few months ago for the article) actually has a valid point, and the writers of GLEE touched on that in a way. Stephenson Billings said (more or less) in his article that the kids on GLEE are too talented for the show’s demographic’s good. They jump around and belt out some crazy songs way above the performance level of any other high school student with no vocal experience, which is true. The show is meant to be larger than life, which is what makes it entertaining to watch. Also, the cast has the help of professional vocal coaches and the wonders of technology (especially in Finn’s case. No offense Cory Monteith, but it’s kind of apparent that you’re getting some help from a digital editing studio.) So yes, there is the potential that the show could be creating false expectations for teens who watch the show. And the writers hit on that in this episode. They start off with Neil Patrick Harris telling everyone in the glee club that they should abandon all hope of ever pursuing a career in showbiz. They then go on reveal that Matthew Morrison, NPH, and Idina Menzel all failed in show business and ended up in less-than-ideal positions. However, immediately afterwards they show Matt Morrison and NPH rocking out to Aerosmith’s “Dream On”, which by the way was AWESOME and amazing and possibly the best song on GLEE yet, but an awful choice for a LES MIS audition… And Idina follows up with an amazing and powerful “I Dreamed a Dream” duet with Lea Michele. All four of these actors have starred in extremely successful broadway shows, so obviously the performances on GLEE were near perfect with an extra kick of excitement. The writers are saying yeah, it’s hard to make it, but go for it anyways, because it’s the journey that counts, which I agree with 100%. BUT… when faced with failure most people tend not to focus on the good times.

And no matter who you are, if you’re going into showbiz, you will face failure at some point. As Robert Cohen puts it “The number of self-supporting career actors- those who can be said to make their living as actors for the last ten years in a row- is no more than 2,000 to 3,00 people… At any given time, fewer than 10-15% of the country’s professional actors are actually employed.” That comes straight from his book ACTING PROFESSIONALLY: RAW FACTS ABOUT CAREERS IN ACTING. So obviously there will be times when any struggling actor will be down on his or her luck. Some don’t make it through that and have to switch careers which, yeah that really sucks, but it’s a fact of the life that any actor has to accept when they sign up in the first place. And the only way to make it through is to keep your head high and keep your eye on the prize, which, as simple as that sounds, is one of the hardest things in the world to do. It’s not for the faint of heart. Trust me, I’m not even out of college and into the real world yet, and I know how tough that can be. If you think even for a second, “God, I suck,” or “That was like the worst audition in the history of auditions,” or even “That guy hit that note way better than I ever could,” you’re done. The key to showbiz is to accept your failures, learn from them, and promptly move on to nail the next audition. Anyone who can’t do that is unfortunately not going to make it.

It’s depressing, I know, but sadly true. And people in the real world love to tear these dreams down. My high school chorus teacher, a lovely, pleasant man, told our entire class, “No matter what you do there will always be someone who did it first, and someone who does it better than you.” And no, that’s not really taken out of context. He meant it exactly how it sounds. I realize that not everyone is quite a cynical as him, but most people will tell the aspiring actor similar things. And for the most part they’re right. But that shouldn’t stop anyone from dreaming, and doing everything in their power to achieve that dream.

Shows like GLEE inspire people to try to be the best they can. And I gotta ask, what is so wrong with that? Hope is a beautiful thing, and it brings the best out of people. Even if you don’t make it, even if you don’t get that one thing that you’ve been dreaming about your whole life, the things you did along the way to get you as close as you could possibly get are what make you who you are, what make you a better person, and that’s all that’s important. Here, think about this: A high school delinquent-type kid runs with a gang, steals, breaks laws, and generally has the wrong kind of attitude. If that’s all he thinks he can be, then that’s exactly where he’s going to stay. Odds are he’ll wind up spending some time in jail, possibly getting mixed up in some drugs or violence, and probably will have a shorter life expectancy for it. But along comes a teacher who believes he could go to college if he put his head in his schoolwork. That teacher tells him he could be great, he could be the next Einstein, or Dickens, or Neil Armstrong if he gets into college. If he decides to believe her, to have hope in his future, he’s got to spend less time in the gang and on the streets, and more time in the classroom and at home studying for the SATs and on college applications and raising his GPA. Will this kid become outrageously famous and be worshiped for years to come? Probably not, but at least he’ll have made something of his life. At least he’ll have tried. Even if he ends up working at a 7-Eleven because his GPA wasn’t high enough, at least he tried, and has the opportunity to keep trying through night school, online classes, or anything like that. Hope and determination can save lives, so why not tell kids that they can be anything they want to be if they put their minds to it? Even if it’s not true, it will bring out the best in them and show them who they can be, even if it’s not who they initially thought they wanted to be.

So yes, there is potential for backfire if these kids try to achieve their dreams and fail, but the benefit of the journey is so humongously great that it overshadows the risk a billion-fold. The world, especially its younger population, need shows like GLEE to keep pushing them to be the best they can be. They also need their peers, their mentors, their parents, and their community to reassure them. While I know that lying is generally a bad thing and usually is frowned upon, this is one case where I seriously encourage it. If someone asks you if they’re doing the right thing in pursuing a lofty goal, tell them they absolutely are whether you believe that or not. Because even if it all ends in tears (which, by the way, is a perfect time to pick them back up and tell them to try again), the smile they give you when you tell them you believe in them, and the smile they’ll have when they’re working their asses off will be more than worth it for both of you.

So last night I had the very awesome pleasure of seeing StarKid’s latest musical, A VERY POTTER SEQUEL, a day before it opened… which is today… I’ll be there today too, . not in the audience unfortunately. The show was very entertaining, but very…VERY long. Clocking in at a whopping 4 hours, A VERY POTTER SEQUEL offers everything any Darren Criss, Joey Richter, or Harry Potter fangirl could ever dream of… including a bit of nudity, so moms, keep an eye on your daughters… and I suppose some of your sons as well. This new plot, a complete reimagining of J.K. Rowling’s magical world of witches, goblins, and trolls, is a very humorous and slightly less innocent romp through parts of many of the books in the series. Most of the characters are along for the ride again, but quite a few only for a moment or two. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Snape, and Dumbledore are all back, but Ginny, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, and all of the Weasley brothers only make a small appearance, which is great for the time constraints, but limits the reworking of some of the jokes from the previous show. Don’t worry though, there are plenty of new laughs to be had… but they tend to keep coming back for encores… There are several jokes that unnecessarily pop up again and again in the show, hitting the audience over the head with the punchline. All of the jokes were funny the first time, some were funny the second time, but by the tenth time it’s time to let the joke go.

There has been quite a few new additions to the cast on and off the stage as well, all of which are very entertaining in their own right. There are a few spoilers I won’t reveal here but Nevil, Cho, Luna, and Draco are also major players, and all are excellent. Sadly, AJ Holmes and Carlos Valdez did not work on this show, but James Tolbert has joined on as choreographer (and is awesome, with one particularly impressive Quidditch sequence) and Darren Criss has taken over musical composition.

But enough of the review thing. The show was awesome, yeah, but it’s more than just a crude and witty, lovingly crafted farce. There is one prevalent theme throughout the show, which if you can catch it is great to see. The tried and true theme of “Embrace you uniqueness and love yourself” glows in the backdrop of this show, and considering the average demographic of this show is girls and boys aged 14-20, it’s a good one to have. Hermione’s song, “The Coolest Girl” is kind of the flag song of the show for this theme, and it’s a good role model for teens, especially in the world of MEAN GIRLS with cliques, clubs, and drunken parties fueled by raging hormones which, as over advertised as it is in the media today, is all too real for most teens. The show has it’s fair share of bad role models as well… the most obvious being Darren Criss himself, the lightning scarred “hero” who is kind of a douchebag in the show, and his equally douchey friend Ron. But by the end of the show wrongs are righted, Potter and Ron become lesser douchebags, and actually apologize, which doesn’t happen very often in real life. Look, no offense to any of these girls, but most of the girls who are in the StarKid fan clubs and write on their myspaces about how cute Darren is and scream and jump for autographs at every chance they get tend to be the bookish girls who are on the outside looking in when it comes to high school cliques. And I know that sentence basically goes against everything I write about, but it’s kinda true in this case, and it’s totally ok! Being bookish is a good thing! But the point I’m trying to make is that these girls deal with douchebags like the Harry and Ron in A VERY POTTER SEQUEL all the time in their daily lives, so hearing someone like that actually care enough to apologize to someone could be a hugely uplifting thing.

So A VERY POTTER SEQUEL opens today, and is a very limited engagement. It’s only running this weekend, and tickets have been sold out for like half a year, so I would say come see it for yourself, but it’s a little too late for that. Instead, wait for the youtube to come out. As is StarKid tradition, the entire show will be videotaped and posted on youtube in about a month, maybe less. I also heard a rumor about them maybe releasing a cast recording on iTunes, but J.K. Rowling might throw a fit over that (She kind of did over the last one…) so I’m not sure. But check it out anyways. And if you haven’t already seen the first one… where have you been? It was the number one youtube in Hong Kong and New Zealand, and was pretty high up on the American charts too…

http://www.annarbor.com/entertainment/potter-sequel-premiere/

This semester is coming to an end. I’ve already finished most of my finals and am moving on to bigger and better things for the summer, so I just wanted to take a quick retrospect on the semester. Just FYI, for anyone who may still be interested, I do plan on keeping this blog alive and thriving, so please keep looking for updates.

So… Recap: I’m Danny, I’m an MT (Musical theatre major, for anyone who didn’t read the last entry) at a college not on the east coast, I love it, but I know it’s not perfect. This blog was originally started as a project for my english class, but it’s grown on it’s own into something entirely different for me, so I’m going to keep on using it. I was mainly focusing on identity in relation to musical theatre with an emphasis on rhetorical writing, but now I think I’m going to open the boundaries up and basically write about whatever the heck I feel like. I still like the idea of identity and theatre, but I would like to write about more than just that as well. I’m all ears for suggestions though (still) so feel free to drop me a line if there’s something you want me to discuss.

When I first started writing this blog, it was mostly friendly stuff. You know, the “Hi, how ya doin’, this is me in a nutshell, this is my very polite and appropriate view on what we’re learning in class…” kinda stuff. But then I started picking up on things in the business (or closely related to it… or related to my life) that I really had a very strong opinion on. While maybe that wasn’t the best choice (I did get less comments after I started writing about stuff like that) it was one that was helpful to me and my writing, and through my writing I was offered the opportunity to assist in writing and presenting a paper on stereotypes in the media and individual and societal identity, largely in relation to LGBTQ stereotypes. I began using this blog as a spitball forum to try out a few ideas, and while I didn’t get a lot of feedback online (pleeeeeeeeease write back to me! I love it when you do!!!), I did get a few comments about it from people around campus, which was great, but not quite as in-depth as they would be if the same people had sat down to write out a full critique of my thoughts.

All in all I really have enjoyed this aspect of this class. It’s given me an informal place to get my thoughts out and write in a style I hardly here get to write in. I’ve learned a lot about myself and how I can better present my ideas in my writing. I really believe that the best way to learn rules is to set none and then let the students figure out what they can and can’t do, which is what a project like this does. I appreciate the freedom and audacity this exercise has presented me, and I think any teacher bold enough to try something like this absolutely should.

So, for my english class:

But for me:

I mean… No, this song isn’t the best EVER or anything, but it’s definitely not the worst. SPRING AWAKENING was a pretty popular show, it won 8 Tony’s including best musical and best original score, so obviously Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater did something right. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t usually freak out if someone says they don’t like musical theatre or anything like that, I honestly don’t care, music preference is a very personal thing. But the thing that’s bothering me is that it’s not just my professor that’s been saying stuff like this to me. I hear it from a lot of music performance majors, not just about SPRING AWAKENING, but about musical theatre majors in general.

I don’t know how it is at other colleges, but there is a general feeling of… well, hostility is not the right word, but something like that… from the music majors towards MT’s (musical theatre majors). To be honest I really can’t understand why. I can only speak for myself really, but I think most MT’s would agree with me that we really respect what the music majors do, so why can’t there be at least a cordial agreement to disagree? And I know that I can’t speak for all music majors either, I have a few friends in the music school who appreciate and even participate in the kind of stuff we do as well. But they’re a minority, and it’s sad to see.

The music major’s argument:

There’s a few things I have to grant the music majors. Some of their feelings towards the MT’s are warranted, like the fact that we can be a little… um… over-enthusiastic about things. Yeah, we’ve got a little extra pep in our step sometimes, and at 8 am on the bus when you haven’t even had your coffee yet, that can be a bit much. I mean, even our music is a little over exciting:

But at the same time, we can be sweet, soft, and sentimental:

(By the way, fun fact, about half of the original broadway cast of SPRING AWAKENING, who are performing in all of these clips, are now regulars on GLEE. I bet it won’t be long for the rest of them to at least make an appearance.)

Just because our music is more commercial than the kind of music that music majors work with doesn’t make it any less impressive. I mean… look at Stephen Sondheim (who, by the way, my professor said composed “simple” pieces…). Sondheim has produced some of the most intricate, complex, and frustratingly difficult pieces of music out there. While perhaps his songs may not require the same type of technique as THE MAGIC FLUTE or EUGENE ONEGIN, they are challenging and impressive in their own way, just as much so as any operatic piece, or any Mozart concerto.

My professor also commented that popular contemporary musical theatre is straying towards simplicity and dull music. Tell that to Adam Guettel, or Jason Robert Brown.

MT’s Argument:

Alright, I’m not saying we don’t appreciate what you guys do. Really, I think music majors are incredibly talented. I mean, none of us can do this:

or this:

But you guys can be a little stiff sometimes too… For example, I have never once said anything against a music major to their face or to anyone else (with the small exception of what I’m writing here), yet time and time again I get the hairy eyeball when I mention I’m and MT, and when I’m in a practice room I can hear people outside the door mocking the songs I’m singing. (I know those rooms are supposed to be sound-proof, but they’re really not…)

The point I’m trying to make is that music majors, as a unit (I know there are exceptions), make a conscious effort to distance themselves from MT’s. We’re already a relatively secluded major as it is, so what I don’t understand is why a major with so many things in common with ours would want to get as far away from us as possible. We should be working together to learn from each other. We do some of the same things… and both of our majors, due to their nature, are closed off from others. So why can’t we be our own branch together?

The only thing I can do is give you what I’ve got so far. Jane Lynch, the actress who plays Sue Sylvester, is an open, partnered lesbian. She’s actually engaged to be married to Dr. Lara Embry. Which I guess gives her credibility to star in a satirical commercial like this one. She’s been an advocate for homosexual acceptance her entire career (although not explicitly) performing and even writing for the LESBIANS IN THEATRE program at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center. She’s also starred in roles supporting homosexual lifestyles, such as her roles in  BEST IN SHOW and THE L WORD. Therefore I guess it’s acceptable for her to make fun of all the hardships of the lifestyle given she lives it rather publicly (although not as much so as other celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres or Rosie O’Donnell).

I can understand the argument that some people may not understand that this commercial is a satire, and I guess I have to consider it a possibility, which would be a problem if anyone took it seriously, but really…? I’m having a really hard time seeing how anyone would miss the massive amounts of sarcasm in not only the writing of that script, but also the delivery and Jane’s attack.

I can also understand the argument that some people refuse to take a commercial like this as a joke because they are whole-heartedly devoted to their beliefs. This one is a little more touchy. I’m talking about the kind of people who stand on street corners condemning everyone on the street because they’re using a cellphone, or the kind of people who egg high school kids at their prom because there’s a homosexual couple in the group. People like this:

(who by the way are not all as old as the people in this picture, there are some pretty young supporters too) might actually agree with Jane Lynch’s sarcastic comments. Sarcasm, satire, and the like are double-edged swords and have a nasty potential for biting you in the butt. This is a perfect example. While most people know that Jane Lynch and the writers of GLEE were kidding and trying to bring these issues to the front of their demographic’s minds, people like the people in the picture above may actually take heart and support from the new GLEE commercial. In their minds it may be an affirmation that they are doing the right thing in protesting against homosexuality (in this case… there are a multitude of other issues and hot topics these people protest against). And I, of course, have no right to say whether what they are doing is correct or incorrect on a moral, spiritual, or ethical level, but I do believe it is a social injustice for them to heckle people who are minding their own business, regardless of their age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

So while yes, I found the video funny, and yes I think it was effective in getting its point across to most people, and yes, I think more videos of this nature should be aired on national and international television, I also think that we as a society need to be careful how we present our arguments. Because although this video was funny, it could also be harmful to the people it’s trying to help. And again, a lot of this video went over my head. It’s very politically minded, and was very well thought out and carefully crafted, so I know I’m missing a lot of the stuff in here, but that’s just my interpretation of what’s going on. But I’d like to hear from you. What do you think about it?

Sorry this post is in a way a repeat, but it’s different in its own way. It incorporates aspects of what I was talking about in both of my previous posts, and is probably going to become the most crucial example in this presentation this summer. So, without further ado: Franklin Shepard Inc.

This is a song from Stephen Sondheim’s MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG, which too few people know about due to its very short stint on broadway. Despite it’s shortcomings in the box office, MERRILY is perhaps one of the most amazingly crafted musicals I’ve ever had the pleasure of participating in. It holds a very dear place in my heart, and will remain one of my favorite musicals, come what may. But now that all the mushy stuff’s out of the way, let’s rip it apart.

MERRILY is the story of three friends, Frank, Charlie, and Mary. Frank and Charlie met in college and instantly become great friends, as well as co-collaborators. They work together as a composer/lyricist team and try to make their name in NYC, with the help of Mary, an aspiring journalist and author. The interesting thing about this show is that chronologically it moves backwards, beginning at the end of the relationship, after the trio has split up due to numerous dramatic disagreements and disappointments, and ends at the beginning, when Frank and Charlie first decide to collaborate and meet Mary, all of them wide-eyed and optimistic youths. Somewhere in between the trio write a show, get it sponsored by a producer, cast Frank’s first wife in the leading role, then later cast Frank’s second wife in the leading role when the show moves to broadway, then Frank sells out to become a composer for movies while Charlie and Mary fade into the background.

There are a lot of romantic…um… complications in this show, so I’m going to try to give you a basic breakdown, but it’s probably going to be a little confusing, so try to keep up… Ok, at the beginning of the relationship Mary, Frank, and Charlie are all single. Mary secretly likes Frank, but can’t tell him (for reasons unknown). Frank begins to like Beth when they cast her as the lead in their revue, and eventually they get married. Mary is devastated, but says nothing and continues to adore Frank from afar. Frank and Beth have a child, Frankie (or Frank Jr.). When the show moves to broadway, Gussie (who is Joe’s wife, Joe is Frank and Charlie’s producer) is cast in the lead role, and Beth stays at home to take care of Frankie. Frank has an affair with Gussie, and eventually both Frank and Gussie divorce their spouses and marry each other. Somewhere in there Charlie gets married to Evelyn (who never appears on stage, with the exception of one cameo line in the last scene). At this time Frank sells out, becomes a corporate success, driving Charlie and Mary away from him with his work. Charlie and Frank have a huge fight after the interview (seen in the video above) and never speak to each other again. Mary holds on a little longer, but in the first scene of the show (the last part of the relationship) Frank cheats on Gussie with the lead actress of his newest movie, Gussie blinds her, breaks up with Frank, and Mary (who has now become obese and an alcoholic) finally gives up on Frank, leaving him entirely alone. Sounds really depressing, but like I said, this show is brilliantly crafted, and the ending is a happy one despite the dramatic end of the plot.

Ok, now that you have the basics, here’s the real story going on behind the text. Frank and Charlie are good friends. I mean REALLY good friends. Like, more than just friends friends. It’s not explicitly stated in the script, but it’s relatively obvious that Frank and Charlie have a romantic relationship, or want to, but can never actually engage in the romance. I mean… this all takes place in the 50′s-70′s… Homosexuality was still incredibly taboo and unaccepted. No one talked about it, and writing a show about it would be media suicide. Not that this show did much better… it ran only 16 performances on Broadway in ’81, but a show with homosexual content would never have even made it that far. So Charlie and Frank’s relationship had to stay under wraps. However, if you look very closely at the show, you can see that the show is discussing the effects of repression without really talking about it.

Take the video above for example. By this point, Frank has sold out completely and is focused solely on making as much money as possible, putting off Charlie as a result. He’s promised Charlie that they’re going to collaborate on a new musical for years and has repeatedly postponed the project or bailed on him for a better contract with another show or movie. Charlie has become so frustrated and hurt by Frank’s rejection that he decides to attack him on national television during an interview (which you see above). This alone could still conceivably just be a friendship, but based on the entire buildup that’s led to this point, it’s pretty apparent that there’s more to it than that.

Take a look at the song “Good Thing Going”. Pay very close attention to the lyrics.

This is sung by Charlie at a party for the duo to showcase this song (which they wrote together) to a bunch of important people who could potentially get them started on Broadway. It’s a reoccurring theme in the show, and reflects (or foreshadows, depending on how you look at the chronology of the plot) the ultimate end of their relationship. In a way it’s Charlie’s last soliloquy, it’s just presented before his dramatic exit. It comments on Charlie and Frank’s entire relationship. “It started quiet and slow with no surprise…We had some angry moments of course, but just a few, and only moments, no more, because we knew we had this good thing going…”

However, the most important lyric to look at comes very early in the song and slips by unnoticed usually. “But then one morning I woke to realize we had a good thing going.” In the progression of the song Charlie already said that they were friends, nothing unusual, or “no surprise”, but then he realized that it was more than that, “We had a good thing going.” He goes on to say they had “angry moments”, but no matter how many arguments they got into, it was ok because they had “this good thing going.”

Now here’s where the reeeeeeally interesting part comes in. The bridge comments on why the relationship can never work, or why, in Charlie’s mind (who wrote the lyrics by the way, Frank only wrote the music), they can’t be together. “And if I wanted too much, was that such a mistake at the time? You never wanted enough. Alright, tough. I don’t make that a crime.” Charlie wanted to have a real relationship with Frank, but Frank either has said that he doesn’t want a full, open relationship, or Charlie is afraid that he won’t so he doesn’t ask. Charlie is speaking defensively for himself “And if I wanted too much, was that such a mistake at the time?” He wanted a real relationship, which is too much for Frank to handle. Then he goes on to say “You never wanted enough” which either means Frank has already said no, or Charlie thinks that Frank will say no if he asks. Then comes the resolution “I don’t make that a crime.” Which means Charlie has forgiven Frank for not wanting to have the relationship, and still wants to be friends, or more, but doesn’t need the full relationship with Frank, he just wants to be with him in some way. This is emphasized by the replaying of the introduction of the song before the final verse, which implies that Charlie is back where he started. (I told you this show was brilliantly crafted. Sondheim, you are a genius!)

Charlie then goes into the final dissipation of the relationship. “And while it’s going along you take for granted some love will wear away. We took for granted a lot, but still I say we could’ve kept on growing, instead of just kept on. We had a good thing going…going…gone.” He’s saying that after the incident where either Frank said no or Charlie was too afraid to ask, the relationship became distant. “You take for granted some love will wear away.” He’s saying that back when he had the choice to make, he didn’t consider the consequences of his actions, and now their relationship is slowly drifting apart. “We took for granted a lot…” is him saying back when the relationship was good we made a lot of bad choices, which could possibly include starting whatever kind of relationship they did have, but then he says “but still I say it could’ve kept on growing, instead of just kept on.” meaning he wished that the relationship could’ve become what he’d hoped it would be, which it had the potential to. But instead they repressed themselves and just went through the motions. And then the “we had a good thing going…going…gone.” is, again, the image of the full arc of the relationship. It fits perfectly with the music too. The first going is a higher note, implying it was great while it lasted, then the second going is a bit lower, implying the relationship is breaking apart and Charlie is sad about that, and then the gone is on a lower note and held out, which means the relationship is done for good (gone being held signifies a long period of time) and Charlie is very upset about it.

That was really micro-speculative… let’s look at some bigger pictures. How about how symbolic it is that Charlie’s wife never appears on stage when she’s married to him. Kind of an out of sight, out of mind thing going on here. It could be symbolizing the fact that the more important events in Charlie’s life are when he’s with Frank, rather than his wife. Or it could be that he is afraid to be with his wife and Frank at the same time. Either way, it’s a very telling sign that Charlie’s wife is invisible most of the time. Almost as symbolic as the fact that Frank can’t stay in one relationship for too long. He has sexual relationships with many different women, despite the fact that he’s married to someone else. Perhaps this is because he feels guilty about settling down with the wrong person, or because he can’t find the right person. But through all his cahoots and affairs, Charlie is still there. Charlie and Mary are the only two consistent things in Frank’s life. Also, we should go back to consider why Mary never tells Frank she loves him. Perhaps she could see from the beginning that Charlie loved Frank as well, and couldn’t bear to step between them.

The single most telling factor in the entire show, in my opinion, is the piano riff that Frank plays every time he thinks of Charlie. It’s a very confused jumble of notes that don’t fit into any one particular key, but move in an upward progression. It sounds very perplexed, but happy nonetheless, which also symbolizes Frank’s feelings for Charlie. I tried really hard to find a youtube of the riff, or even the full song it goes into, but neither are online. I also tried to play it myself and record it on a digital file to put on here, but I couldn’t figure out how to do that, so as much as I wish I could show you all the riff, I can’t. I do have a fun fact for you though, to make up for it. Sondheim has one significant yet isolated riff in almost all of his shows. The most notable one is SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE (not my favorite show, but I gotta give credit where credit is due). There is a similar riff played every time George paints. I think that riff also goes into a song, the same way the “Growing Up” starts in MERRILY. So there ya go. Fun fact for the day.

Ok. So the main characters in the show are gay… so what? Again, it’s not so much that they’re gay as it is that their being hidden that’s important. The fact that these two characters never acknowledge or accept the fact that they’re gay, or even confront it, is the bigger issue. This sends the message to society that it’s not something you should confront, or that it should be hidden. However, because I’ve already hit on this point in my previous post, I would like to comment on the positive side of the message underneath this show. Frank’s relationship with Charlie ultimately reflects his relationships with every other woman he’s married and/or courted. This is a HUGE step in the right direction. Because both relationships are the same, presented in a sad but unfortunately common  way, it presents them as equal. Neither the male nor the females in Frank’s life win with him, so both are equally rejected and viewed the same in his eyes. He is equally upset that neither relationship works out. This is what the gay community (and every other minority for that matter) is striving for: being seen as equal in every way, for better or worse. The world needs more scenarios like this! Well… maybe not just like this, but scenarios where everyone is treated equally in the media. Theres a lot to figure out in this show, and it would really take some close examination to find it, but if you can find it, the message in this show is a brilliant one… one which the entire world needs to see.

As always, please feel free to leave some comments below. Also, if you have something particular you’d like me to look into for a topic for this blog, or you have a question you’d rather not post here, or just feel like chatting, feel free to send me an email at howardrival@comcast.net.

So, now that I’ve got my head in the game (ridiculous pun intended), let’s take a look at the characters in both RENT and HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL. I know that sounds grotesquely inappropriate to put those two shows together, but they both have similarly counterproductive messages hidden beneath the woodwork of their characters. And I know this is kind of a risk taking on either of these shows alone, let alone both at the same time, due to their wild success, whether it was deserved or not (yes, Zac Efron, we all know that wasn’t really you singing in the first movie… and the digital editing in the other movies wasn’t hidden very well). So if you might be offended by the coming content, please stop reading now, because I don’t wanna hurt anyone’s feelings (I’m a nice guy! Really! I swear!).

Let’s start with the much more obvious RENT. Before I say anything, I want to express my deepest respect for the show and it’s creators and cast. I really appreciate what the show is trying to do, and I think that RENT has, very deservedly, become one of the most iconic shows of the 90′s. However, through its message of diversity and acceptance (as well as awareness), the show provides inaccurate stereotypes as absolute truth.

Take Angel for example. Angel is your average gay latino crossdresser… well, there’s not a lot that’s average about that description, but that is what we’re meant to believe. She is a lovely young lady who is initially presented as a male with a curiously high-pitched voice in the first scene, and then appears next in full drag sporting a trendy wig, drumsticks, a very feminine Santa robe, and some glistening pumps, mostly for shock value. Now, I realize that yes, in some cases this is how people live their lives, and I am not saying anything against those people. I know a few drag queens and I think they are amazing people. But Angel is an extreme, and a very rare case. There is not a very large population of drag queens in America. I should also point out that not every crossdresser is gay, contrary to popular belief. The fact that a person dresses in the opposite gender’s clothing says nothing about their sexuality. Angel, however, is gay, and conforms to the stereotype preset for her. The opposite extreme presented for gay men in the show is Tom Collins. Collins is a very normal, cool, likeable guy, and in most productions of the show the audience has no clue that Collins is gay until he and Angel meet.

Collins is a much more accurate portrayal of the average gay man, or, as Sue Sylvester calls them, the “Sneaky Gays”:

(Another dissection of this video is soon to follow… stay tuned)

But the point here is that the show provides two extreme examples, and suggests that all gay men are either an Angel or a Collins. While this is a step in the right direction (the fact that there is an option at all other than a flaming, flamboyant, limp-wristed caricature which is so often depicted in movies and sitcoms), it’s still not good enough. There aren’t enough examples of everything in between in popular culture. It’s a nice outline to start from, but it’s still not sending the right message.

Another example is Maureen and Joanne. Again, the show presents both extremes of lesbian culture. You have Maureen, the latex clad sex addict who gets off on watching people fight for her (implying that she could never have a long-term functional relationship, which is reinforced by the fact that she and Joanne are constantly on and off, not to mention the fact that she broke up with Mark before the show began and constantly teases him, trying to draw him back in), and you have Joanne, the hard-working, no-nonsense lawyer who wears business suits (slacks, never a skirt) and takes on a more masculine role.

So while yes, both of these types of lesbians do exist, these two examples don’t encompass the entire spectrum of personalities and tendencies (or, god forbid, we call them habits and regard them as human beings). And while this is a good place to start (sort of… this one not so much… Maureen and Joanne are cold, bitchy, and ultimately a rather unflattering image of the stereotypical lesbian couple) it can’t really work until there are more mainstream examples of the entire spectrum of possibilities. RENT has been critiqued in academic literature for exactly this reason, by my co-author and others. There’s even a few entire doctoral dissertations based on this idea.

Now let’s take a look at HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL, particularly the character Ryan. But before we do, I need to make an important distinction. There are two versions of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL, the movie version, which most people who are reading this have probably seen or heard about, and the lesser known stage version. These two versions are VERY different, especially in regards to the point I’m trying to make, so unless I state otherwise, please assume I’m talking about the movie version. In the movie, Ryan is presented as a very stylish, slightly feminine character who excels in theatre, particularly dance.

If he was the only male character in the show, I would be perfectly fine with this. But because there is such a HUGE distinction between Troy, the masculine jock (and forefront romantic lead of the movie) and Ryan, the girly closet case, it creates a misleading undertone. The theme of the movie is that kids should “Break(ing) Free” because “We’re All in This Together”, which honestly would be “The Start of Something New” had the movie not subtextually contradicted their own message. By not giving Ryan a love interest (even though every single other character has a traditional heterosexual counterpart with whom they become romantically involved by the end of the movie) along with his trendy clothing, campy hats, campier dance moves, and feminine personality, it hints that he is a closeted homosexual, and implies that he should stay closeted in order to “Stick to the Status Quo” (honestly… I’m not making these song titles up…) By not resolving his conflict, the movie is saying “Yeah, everyone can be different and happy! We can all live in harmony… except that kid…”

Think I’m being a little hasty to peg Ryan as “the gay kid”? Well then let’s take this higher. The author of the script, David Simpatico, said in an interview, “In the movie, the character has a gay tint. But in the stage version, I wanted to more fully articulate that tint and say, hey, this kid is who he is. Yes, I consider him a young gay guy without ever having to say it. I’d rather say it with behavior and action. And we do.” And the stage version says it loud, Ryan’s gay and he’s proud! “Sure enough, Ryan’s locker in the stage version has pictures of men inside, not women like the other guys. And when the play’s leading hunk Troy Bolton (Zac Efron in the movies) brushes against Ryan at one point, the character literally swoons, leaving absolutely no doubt whom he finds attractive.” writes Brent Hartinger, author of the award-winning novel Geography Club and theatre aficionado.

The stage version is a little more like RENT. Yeah, the stereotype is inaccurate and possibly offensive, but hey, at least the character isn’t working against the population he’s supposed to be representing. The movie version of Ryan is suggesting to society that homosexuality should be hidden and not talked about, which is bad news for the gay community. Even more disturbing is the fact that this detrimental message, one which works towards repressing a minority, is being spoon fed to the youth of the world, on the Disney channel no less! And what’s worse, the company had a chance to correct their mistake (HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 2 and HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3) but they still kept the same subliminal message running in the undercurrent of the movies. I mean come on… Look, I’m not trying to say that Disney is a sadistic white supremacist organization hellbent on rubbing out all minorities for the sake of pure breeding like the Nazis did. That’s an extremely unfair judgement to make, and Disney really does have some great things going. My entire childhood and imagination is based on Disney classics, so what kind of hypocrite would I be to write that then hop into bed and pop WALL-E into the DVD player? I appreciate what Disney was trying to do, I really do. But Disney… You gotta go big or go home. This half-assed stuff in order to try to please everyone just doesn’t cut it. If you’ve got something to say, then say it, but otherwise you’re just hurting those you’re trying to help.

Anyways, my point is that yeah, some of these stereotypes are trying to make some headway in bringing society to a place where they can become comfortable enough with homosexuality and other minorities to at least coexist with them. But sometimes intent isn’t enough. I don’t have a fail-proof solution to this problem, because honestly the real solution would be for society to open their minds and just accept people for who they are without trying to push their own beliefs on others, but that’s a bit much to ask just on my word alone. Instead society has to be taught how to behave, the same way that a child has to be taught manners. By introducing normal characters in popular media vehicles like movies and plays who happen to be gay, and introducing a lot of them, not just here and there, people will slowly come to see them as a routine part of their lives and just accept that they exist. I mean, yeah, it would be great if everyone actually believed that being gay was morally acceptable, but let’s take one step at a time. The first step to love is acceptance, so let’s get that first.

Anyways, I wanted to let you all in on the latest scoop. As some of you might know, I was recently asked to co-author and present a dissection of popular media, specifically stage, television, and movie productions and their representation of the homosexual individual, culture, and stereotypes. Our proposal for the paper has already been accepted, so we’re pretty much set to go with this. The paper is due before April, and the presentation (which, unfortunately due to travel and time conflicts I may not be able to attend) will be in California in June.

I still think it’s kinda strange for me to be doing this paper, especially considering the presentation would be to a bunch of psychology and sociology professors at esteemed colleges, but I’m gonna do it anyways; my co-author can help keep me on the right track. He is a graduate student at another college, and has much more knowledge on theorists and the psych aspect as a whole. I’m bringing the first hand experience to the presentation and my knowledge of Goffman’s theories.

Basically what we’re looking at is how most same-sex relationships in the media are strictly non-sexual to save face for the public. Take WICKED for example. Glinda and Elphaba go through the basic arc of any love story. You know, boy meets girl, girl and boy dislike each other, something happens when they suddenly do like each other, they get together, they break up, then they get back together at the end. Watch any sappy romance movie (no offense meant, I happen to love some of those sappy romance movies) and you’ll see this basic arc, or something very similar to it. So the two leads of WICKED hate each other:

then they like each other:

They break up, with some pretty blatant double entendres if you ask me:

the only problem is there isn’t really a point when they get back together. That’s where the face-saving happens. There is a kind of final farewell though, right before Elphaba dies (with a twist at the end which I won’t spoil):

But there is a side plot with Fiero, the male love interest in both of the girl’s lives, which takes the attention away from the girls’ relationship with each other. The same can be said for MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG, which has the same arc but with men, and a girl to cover up the real relationship. But the point is that it’s a problem that playwrights feel that society can’t handle relationships like these without the disguise. Unfortunately they’re right; Movies, books, and play with same-sex relationships in the forefront are categorized as homoerotic fiction, or gay literature, and the majority of society never ventures into that section of Borders or Blockbuster. If either of these shows removed the side plots with the heterosexual love interests, the shows would not have been nearly as successful as they have been. By disguising these relationships in popular media, playwrights are reinforcing the notion that homosexual relationships are bad, or should be kept secret.

This brings up plenty of psychological factors for homosexuals, especially ones who are playing the parts, but I won’t get into that just yet. That’s more my co-writer’s job anyways. But I do plan on looking at some other examples and arguments about this topic in posts to come. Stay tuned.

The article I read said that everything could’ve been fixed by a slight change in everyone’s language. Instead of referring to ” the group and I” which separates one person and makes them seem like they’re placing themself above the group, rather talk about everything as a team. The rest of the group immediately became aggressive and started making similar statements to assert their own authority and right to be a part of the group. In one simple question about the groups goals, the boss completely offset the group dynamic and turned everyone against each other. New identities were very quickly assumed, and the group has already been doomed to a difficult and argumentative work process.

A director has the same power. By singling out leads to speak with them one on one, it makes the rest of the cast assume that the lead is more deserving of the attention, or more important. While this sort of interaction is necessary for the success of a show, the director can offset this unintentional (or intentional, who knows?) favoritism by taking time to single out individual ensemble members and praise them for their work from time to time. This will be especially effective if the director can do this with every member of the cast at least once in the rehearsal process. Doing so will lead to a tighter cast, happier cast members who will be more willing to work hard, and more respect for the director for not ignoring those who are usually ignored. It’s not something that would take a lot of extra time or effort, and the result will be well worth it.