Louisville Reviews

User avatar
ERinVA
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17974
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:33 am
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by ERinVA »

So the fact that Michael dresses in women's clothing may or may not be related to his sexuality but the two are not inextricably linked. The only reason it's in there is because it plays well to a British audience, which might of course be confusing to different cultures.

Again, I readily concede that cross dresser =/= gay. Michael is both, however, and because he's played just for laughs in this story, it just felt to me that it was somewhat dismissive of the LGBTQ community
It's true that Michael is a comic character in the stage version, but I would not dismiss him as only that. While he puts on a lot of bravado, he does have real feelings, which he shows in the Winter Scene with Billy when he tells Billy he would miss him and trusts Billy enough to reveal his sexual orientation (and his crush) to him. I have always thought that the ending with "Love You Forever" theme playing as the curtain lowers with Michael sitting there alone on his bike is one of the most moving parts of the entire show. I can't help but think of poor little Michael left behind and all alone in a community of men that, while they might accept cross-dressing as a joke, and may have come a long way in accepting Billy's desire to dance, mainly out of respect for Jackie, are still not likely to welcome Michael as a gay person in their midst. Some Michaels that I have seen have played that final bit looking very forlorn indeed. Most nowadays seem to have been instructed to play the last few seconds more neutrally. I actually prefer the more emotional version.

By the way, welcome to the forum, Travis. :D
Ellen



"I don't want people who want to dance; I want people who have to dance.”
-George Balanchine 1904 -1983


To follow the forum's Twitter at http://twitter.com/BEForum, click on the direct link in Applies to All Forums above.
Todd
Dad
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Kansas City, USA

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by Todd »

ERinVA wrote: Some Michaels that I have seen have played that final bit looking very forlorn indeed. Most nowadays seem to have been instructed to play the last few seconds more neutrally. I actually prefer the more emotional version.
Yeah, I think I'm with you, Ellen. It would seem to make sense that Michael should be sad, for the very reasons you gave. For him to say, "See you Billy !" in an almost upbeat tone - as I've heard it done on occasion - seems a bit odd, given that his only friend is leaving him. I think Brad Kavanagh nailed it on the Original Cast Recording where he sounds like he's on the verge of tears when he says, "Yeah . . .see you Billy."
TravisSMcClain
Audience Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:36 am

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by TravisSMcClain »

ERinVA wrote:
So the fact that Michael dresses in women's clothing may or may not be related to his sexuality but the two are not inextricably linked. The only reason it's in there is because it plays well to a British audience, which might of course be confusing to different cultures.

Again, I readily concede that cross dresser =/= gay. Michael is both, however, and because he's played just for laughs in this story, it just felt to me that it was somewhat dismissive of the LGBTQ community
It's true that Michael is a comic character in the stage version, but I would not dismiss him as only that. While he puts on a lot of bravado, he does have real feelings, which he shows in the Winter Scene with Billy when he tells Billy he would miss him and trusts Billy enough to reveal his sexual orientation (and his crush) to him. I have always thought that the ending with "Love You Forever" theme playing as the curtain lowers with Michael sitting there alone on his bike is one of the most moving parts of the entire show. I can't help but think of poor little Michael left behind and all alone in a community of men that, while they might accept cross-dressing as a joke, and may have come a long way in accepting Billy's desire to dance, mainly out of respect for Jackie, are still not likely to welcome Michael as a gay person in their midst. Some Michaels that I have seen have played that final bit looking very forlorn indeed. Most nowadays seem to have been instructed to play the last few seconds more neutrally. I actually prefer the more emotional version.
Excellent points, all! I found two scenes (the coming out and the goodbye) to be the most moving of the entire production. I ended my review by making note of both scenes:
I will say, however, that next to the letter reading sequence, my favorite moment in the whole thing involves Michael. It's Christmastime and the boys are about to part ways after a community-wide party, when Michael places Billy's hands on his chest. When asked why he did that, Michael suggests that he's trying to warm Billy's hands before he goes. Then he leans in and kisses his friend on the cheek. There was a tenderness to it that I found genuinely touching. I was actually sad for Michael when Billy recoiled, falling back on the heteronormative/cissexual/cisgender theme of insisting that just because he's into ballet doesn't mean he's gay. At the end of the story, when Billy leaves town, he does make a point to kiss Michael on the cheek when they exchange goodbyes. That made me smile.
I did wonder what became of young Michael, and I share your skepticism that he was ever much more than the town's flamboyant novelty. Coming from the area that I do, even as a straight male I easily empathized with the kid being so incongruous with such a conservative community. The easiest way I can underscore this point is to note that I live in the congressional district that actually elected Rand Paul in 2010. I identified quickly with both Billy and Michael on that level, which I suspect accounts for some of my sensitivity to how Michael was portrayed.
By the way, welcome to the forum, Travis. :D
Thanks! It's refreshing to find a forum on the web that's so thoughtful and civil as this one appears to be.
User avatar
Rich B
Technical Advisor
Technical Advisor
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:22 am
Location: Virginia Beach, VA USA

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by Rich B »

TravisSMcClain wrote:My mistake; I misunderstood what the significance of the staff was. Still, it's nice to hear positive remarks about the facility!
Front of house staff - Ushers, ticket booth, concession people - those were the ones I meant.
TravisSMcClain wrote:Thanks! It's refreshing to find a forum on the web that's so thoughtful and civil as this one appears to be.
We try to be civil but we've had our moments. :lol:
User avatar
inspired
Tall Boy
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:04 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by inspired »

Todd wrote:
ERinVA wrote: Some Michaels that I have seen have played that final bit looking very forlorn indeed. Most nowadays seem to have been instructed to play the last few seconds more neutrally. I actually prefer the more emotional version.
Yeah, I think I'm with you, Ellen. It would seem to make sense that Michael should be sad, for the very reasons you gave. For him to say, "See you Billy !" in an almost upbeat tone - as I've heard it done on occasion - seems a bit odd, given that his only friend is leaving him. I think Brad Kavanagh nailed it on the Original Cast Recording where he sounds like he's on the verge of tears when he says, "Yeah . . .see you Billy."
I too much prefer a sad Michael at the end, seeing his only friend go off to do something he loves, while Michael is trapped in the same situation Billy was at the beginning of the show. The chipper, "See ya, Billy" robs the character of the depth we see in the Christmas scene. I really, really think Brad Kavanagh's take on it is spot on.
28 shows, 17 Billys, 11 cities
User avatar
Yorkie
Miner
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:21 pm
Location: God's own County

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by Yorkie »

ERinVA wrote:
It's true that Michael is a comic character in the stage version, but I would not dismiss him as only that. While he puts on a lot of bravado, he does have real feelings, which he shows in the Winter Scene with Billy when he tells Billy he would miss him and trusts Billy enough to reveal his sexual orientation (and his crush) to him. I have always thought that the ending with "Love You Forever" theme playing as the curtain lowers with Michael sitting there alone on his bike is one of the most moving parts of the entire show. I can't help but think of poor little Michael left behind and all alone in a community of men that, while they might accept cross-dressing as a joke, and may have come a long way in accepting Billy's desire to dance, mainly out of respect for Jackie, are still not likely to welcome Michael as a gay person in their midst. Some Michaels that I have seen have played that final bit looking very forlorn indeed. Most nowadays seem to have been instructed to play the last few seconds more neutrally. I actually prefer the more emotional version.
Have to agree 100% Ellen - that final scene, with a Michael crying at the loss of his friend, brings me closer to tears than the letter scene ever will. Connor Lawson of the recent London Michaels played that scene particularly well. Definitely not a comic moment. One of the criticisms that regularly appear about the play is the ending when compared to the film. For all I love the film, the ending to the show is far more profound and powerful to me.

Travis, hope our dissection of your review didn't cause offense but, well, we are kind of protective of our Billy.
MRS WILKINSON IS A RIGHT COW!
User avatar
Yorkie
Miner
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:21 pm
Location: God's own County

Re: Louisville reviews

Post by Yorkie »

TravisSMcClain wrote:
Yorkie wrote:I didn't think the blogger did a bad review to be honest - apart from mangling the concept of transvestism & transsexualism. To say he went in cold and with low expectations the show really won him over but he had questions about certain aspects of the show that were unfamiliar to him.
I've read back over what I wrote and I'm not sure I see the "mangling." If anything, I may have made it confusing as I tried to clarify the distinctions of gender identity and sexual orientation, specifically as I fear that the character of Michael muddies that for the lay audience with hetero/cis-normative views on such matters.
Hi Travis - just to clarify this is the 'mangling' I refer to:

He enthusiastically wears feminine clothing, even leading to an entire dance number that bizarrely culminates with backup dancers performing as anthropomorphic dresses. Michael's enthusiasms are played for laughs throughout the musical and it seemed unclear to me whether it was meant as an in-joke for the LGBTQ-friendly musical viewing demographic or if it was simply insensitive toward the transsexual community.Whether because that made my spider-sense tingle or because of the aforementioned issue I had with the actor's line delivery, I found little of the humor involving the character actually amusing.

I'm not entirely sure that Michael, at least to my mind, displays any belief that his physical gender is at odds with his psychological gender. A man dressing up in women's clothing doesn't mean that he believes himself to be a woman. He is of course a transvestite but that, as I'm sure you are perfectly well aware, is not the same thing.

Perhaps I just misunderstood the point you were trying to make but on reading the article I thought you were confusing the two quite separate issues because I couldn't for the life of me see how Michael was being insensitive to the transsexual community.

Thanks for taking time to write the article and for clarifying some aspects of your review
MRS WILKINSON IS A RIGHT COW!
TravisSMcClain
Audience Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:36 am

Re: Louisville reviews

Post by TravisSMcClain »

Yorkie wrote:
TravisSMcClain wrote:
Yorkie wrote:I didn't think the blogger did a bad review to be honest - apart from mangling the concept of transvestism & transsexualism. To say he went in cold and with low expectations the show really won him over but he had questions about certain aspects of the show that were unfamiliar to him.
I've read back over what I wrote and I'm not sure I see the "mangling." If anything, I may have made it confusing as I tried to clarify the distinctions of gender identity and sexual orientation, specifically as I fear that the character of Michael muddies that for the lay audience with hetero/cis-normative views on such matters.
Hi Travis - just to clarify this is the 'mangling' I refer to:

He enthusiastically wears feminine clothing, even leading to an entire dance number that bizarrely culminates with backup dancers performing as anthropomorphic dresses. Michael's enthusiasms are played for laughs throughout the musical and it seemed unclear to me whether it was meant as an in-joke for the LGBTQ-friendly musical viewing demographic or if it was simply insensitive toward the transsexual community.Whether because that made my spider-sense tingle or because of the aforementioned issue I had with the actor's line delivery, I found little of the humor involving the character actually amusing.

I'm not entirely sure that Michael, at least to my mind, displays any belief that his physical gender is at odds with his psychological gender. A man dressing up in women's clothing doesn't mean that he believes himself to be a woman. He is of course a transvestite but that, as I'm sure you are perfectly well aware, is not the same thing.

Perhaps I just misunderstood the point you were trying to make but on reading the article I thought you were confusing the two quite separate issues because I couldn't for the life of me see how Michael was being insensitive to the transsexual community.
Ah, I see. The "insensitivity" I questioned wasn't something that Michael as a character said or did, but rather one of the writers by creating him as a transvestite who eventually comes out as gay and seemed to conform to entirely too many behavioral cliches. Even Michael's coming out moment was presented as a very, "Duh, really?" moment where the joke was that it was so obvious to the other characters and to the audience all along. I know the Broadway audience is LGBTQ-friendly, which is why I found it so peculiar that this one character seemed so one-dimensional outside of the two specific poignant scenes already discussed.
Thanks for taking time to write the article and for clarifying some aspects of your review
Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts with me!
User avatar
ERinVA
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17974
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:33 am
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

Re: Louisville Reviews

Post by ERinVA »

Stephen Daldry, who directed the film and both the London and US productions and is a good friend of Lee Hall, the writer of both, has unequivocally identified himself as gay, and Elton John, who was the impetus behind turning the film into a stage musical, is also gay. I'm not sure whether Lee Hall identifies as straight or gay. He is married to a woman. But then, of course, so is Stephen Daldry. And Sir Elton, of course, is married to a man.

So the questions of straight/gay identity that run throughout both the film and the musical were generated by people who are very in tune with what is/is not acceptable to the LGBT community. I think it's a sign of being comfortable within the milieu of the LGBT community that none of these originators of the show felt that it was taboo to make jokes related to being gay. I don't think the story is as focused on the issue of gayness as it is on the issue of finding who you are and being true to what you find, whatever that may be.
Ellen



"I don't want people who want to dance; I want people who have to dance.”
-George Balanchine 1904 -1983


To follow the forum's Twitter at http://twitter.com/BEForum, click on the direct link in Applies to All Forums above.
Post Reply

Return to “Reviews - N. American/International Tour”