Somehow, I happen to have come across two interestingly interconnected articles at the same time.
Frank's Wild Lunch points to this AfterEllen article on lesbians in theater while Playgoer comments on this article that claims that gay men are abandoning Broadway.
Together, these two pieces raise all sorts of questions about LGBT-identified authors and audiences and the economics of theater in general. For example, the After Ellen article points out that theater can be a much cheaper to make than film, but the Variety article focuses on the fact that an audience can go to a movie or watch TV for a few bucks, but Broadway costs a fortune. The Variety article mourns a perceived loss of the blind allegience of a gay (male) audience because of the proliferation of other gay (male) stories out there, while the After Ellen article celebrates the possibility for telling new and different stories in the theater and encourages lesbians to attend performances (blindly?).
I think it's fascinating that of all the lesbian playwrights mentioned in the After Ellen article, Carolyn Gage and Lisa Kron are the only ones whose work I actually know. And, I had no idea that The Little Dog Laughed dealt with gay issues even though I did know that it had good buzz and impressive acting. So, obviously I need to read the NY reviews more carefully, but still, this isn't a very good sign.
Basically, I think both articles are interesting but a little misguided, but the Variety article suggesting that the gay (male) audience (it really could care less about lesbians and might not realize they exist) is abandoning Broadway is making crazy unfounded generalizations phrased as questions. I honestly don't believe that the gays are abandoning Broadway, but I also think we might have higher standards than we may have had in the past. I mean, honestly, The Boys in the Band is awfully painful from today's perspective, but it was a huge step when it first hit Broadway. According to the article, gay audiences turned out for Little Dog Laughed when it was off Broadway (and more affordable), so it sounds to me like the gay audience are still ahead of the curve, willing to go to Off Broadway shows and beyond to see what they want rather than waiting for the show to appear in the mainstream venue for megabucks. Similarly, I'm not seeing an explosion of lesbian theater in on or off Broadway. The final argument of the After Ellen article is to go see interesting lesbian theater wherever it's happening, which I, of course, support wholeheartedly, but the rest of the article doesn't really have a lot to say. And for any lesbians out there rocking small theaters, good for you, and of course I do try to attend all the local queer performance I can.
Also, what mainstream television representations are we seeing that are satisfying our need to see gay people in the theater, anyway? Are Will and Grace reruns and the receptionist on Ugly Betty really all the gay characters I need in my life? While I'm quite happy drooling over Starbuck on Battlestar, that's not the same as actual depictions of actual lesbians, which are still pretty few and far between. "Homophilic" programming on Bravo, Showtime and HBO aren't exactly the self-representation and intelligent cultural criticism offered by, say, Angels in America or the work of lesbian performance artists at the WOW Cafe in the '80s. If I stay home and watch TV instead of going to the theater, it's because I'm tired and lazy and broke, but not because TV is filling all of my identificatory needs.
In the meantime, I'm currently planning my own trip to New York, and I'm not sure I will end up seeing anything on Broadway. Of course, I'll be there for research purposes so will be spending most of my time in the NY Public Library and attending one dissertation-relevant Off Broadway musical. And I think we're going to Evil Dead for some hopefully campy fun. But I'm poor, and I have friends with whom I will be attending parties, lectures, and clubs, and I'm not sure how much disposable time and money I will have to spend on theater tix, whether or not the shows are gay. So I think of this as another casualty of high Broadway ticket prices. A Broadway-loving out of town visitor who can't afford to attend the theater doesn't do anyone much good.
2024 holiday movies
-
They're baaaaaack! The roundup of new streaming holiday movies has become
one of my favorite assignments. And this year, I even got to do a video
supplem...
1 week ago
3 comments:
Something's been bugging me about this article that I haven't quite been able to articulate yet, but I think I finally sorted it all out:
The piece contains a tacit assumption that only gay audiences go to see gay subject matter on stage. So, if a gay-themed piece of entertainment fails, it has to be because of the lack of a gay audience, therefore, the gay market isn't sizable or reliable enough and we shouldn't produce gay work if we want to make any money.
It's an assumption that reinforces a negative idea about the potential for acceptance of gay subject matter in the mainstream, and it effectively ghettoizes all gay-themed work.
It's also an idiotic assumption; I might be ambivalent about Brokeback Mountain's politics, but it grossed over 80-million dollars. That wasn't all gay money.
Oh, and that was just domestic! $178 million worldwide!
Good point! I thought of it as a weird slippage between the Broadway audience and gay men, assuming that gay men made up the majority of most Broadway audiences, which is also a pretty idiotic assumption.
Post a Comment