. . . . . . . . . . . .

Tboy hangs with


Search Tboy

  •  
    tboy web

dc theaterfolk

Crass Commerce

theaterthinkers

Crass Commerce II

Crass Commerce III

Blogads

Crass Commerce IV

watch this

Technorati

SiteStats

« Today on YouTube ... | Main | Shameless Harry Potter nakedness »

Thursday, 01 February 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834524d3d69e200d8342f388a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gay critic critiques gay paper ('cause of gay actor):

» A small stage drama from BuggBlog
Theaterboy, aka Trey Graham, has launched a discussion of how gay critics should -- or shouldn’t -- include the sexual orientation of actors in reviews, and by extension about the general philosophy of gay press when covering the arts. He’s [Read More]

Comments

Kryztov Lindquist

Must be the week that was! … What with Equus in the news and now the just concern over being labeled by the Blade in reviews and interviews … my head is spinning with memories. Shortly after Equus closed ( some 24 years ago …Oi!!!) I was cast in another show at Source.
I recall that in 1983 or 4 while performing in Krieg, where I played a homosexual seminarian who had a very steamy sex scene (the first of its kind on a legitimate DC stage… to my knowledge) with a hustler in a sanitarium, the Blade asked for an interview. I was at first distressed to be labeled a “Gay actor” and expressed my dismay to Noel Gillespie who told me that the interview would not run if I objected to such. I did discuss gay issues etc. in the piece, not withstanding the imprimatur. It’s comforting to think that my decision to let it run was based on helping the show in spite of my bewilderment and discomfort. Perhaps a certain naiveté and callowness led me to believe that no great consequence would ensue and why not be myself for the reading audience... as I was to family and friends.
In subsequent years, I was sometimes “labeled” in reviews and definitely in subsequent interviews with the Blade about other roles. The policy seems to be outdated, unnecessary and potentially ghetto-izing. The respect and high regard I have for the Blade is not in question, though I question my own need back then to liberate myself from the personal/professional/public dichotomy, I doubt whether it is still serving a vital function in perpetuating a policy which delineates when it should embrace. There must be another way.
Having played all kinds of roles, the trade off sometimes can be iffy at best. When I was in LA for a couple of years recently, I was told by a highly regarded gay publicist(hopefully I qualify to make a point) that those pieces from the Blade should be taken out of my presentation book… you get my drift…I did not.
It is heartening to believe that we have come a long way and indeed we have, but some attitudes seem to die a hard, slow death. From within and without.
Chin up, Chest out, Courage…!! Still seeking answers from the young, the not so young and the venerable in the struggle. Uniqueness can be married to diversity without sacrificing individuality of purpose?
It would be interesting to hear the rationale in defense of that policy some 20 years hence. I am sure there are inner contradictions and conflicts above, but I will not subject you further to a battle of personal history, besides, I must prepare for an audition now.
Non, je ne regrette rien… well, perhaps this rambling. Pardon.

The comments to this entry are closed.