Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 17:18:51 GMT -5
Really? You want me to prove there was mass outrage from Trump supporters over this performance? I thought the outrage was pretty well spread across the interwebs today, but if you want cites, I'll give you cites. You can skim down the page of tweets for #Shakespeareinthepark, if you like -- twitter.com/search?q=%23ShakespeareinthePark&src=tyah -- where you'll find about a zillion beauties like these: There are, seriously, thousands of these, and not only under this hashtag, but also under other hashtags and on the Bank of America and Delta pages, etc. Life is too short to post them all -- look yourself under the Shakespeareinthepark hashtage (and there are others), or you can trust me. Thousands of them. Your own article notes that Delta airlines pulled its financial support from Shakespeare in the Park. Other sponsors, such as Bank of America, have followed suit. www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/arts/delta-airline-trump-public-theater-julius-caesar.html?_r=0 (bolding mine) I could cite a bunch more articles talking about the shitstorm from Trump supporters and the resulting corporate support pullout -- e.g., www.yahoo.com/news/advertisers-fleeing-apos-shakespeare-park-214600530.html www.yahoo.com/news/us-sponsors-ditch-trump-style-julius-caesar-ny-153221972.html www.yahoo.com/news/apos-julius-caesar-apos-theater-203241083.html ... I mean, how many do you want? ETA: our wee little neighborhood online rag even did a story on it (and no, I didn't write it) -- www.westsiderag.com/2017/06/11/shakespeare-in-the-parks-trump-like-caesar-sparks-controversy-delta-pulls-sponsorship Notice that even here in NYC, commenters said things like:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 18:16:53 GMT -5
So. I hope I have sufficiently established that there was a brouhaha around this production of Julius Caesar with a Trump look-alike. I cannot, of course, prove the negative -- that there was not a comparable brouhaha of outrage surrounding the Obama production (or the Clinton, W, Reagan, or Lincoln productions).
However, you are very welcome to prove me wrong. It is possible there was a similar twitterstorm, boycotts, etc., about those productions and I missed them.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 12, 2017 18:29:32 GMT -5
I understand. This is simply the extension of the "safe space" policy to the sitting President. Even conservatives are apparently buying into the concept these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 18:32:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 18:57:55 GMT -5
Really? You want me to prove there was mass outrage from Trump supporters over this performance? Go back and look at the course of this conversation. I never said I was outraged. I never said there was or wasn't any outrage, in general. I quoted from a piece that noted Delta was pulling funding because of the production in question. All I opined beyond that was that I thought this kind of production was "cheap and un-clever." Your first post suggested there was outrage over this. Your second post built on that: I don't monitor twitter, and I'm not required to. So yeah, you should have provided some evidence for the outrage from the get-go--per the rules of the board--since there was none. Because frankly, without such evidence the only person here not liking the production so far is me. And I self describe as conservative. So the logical conclusion is that you were talking about me being outraged. But I'm not. Again, the subject matter reminded me of this thread, so that's why I posted. And I did offer my two cents, which hasn't changed. That said, I find the outrage over this--now that I see it--to be mostly ill-informed and/or manufactured. Like most internet outrage, regardless of the "side." But that doesn't mean I think the play is a clever reboot. Because I don't. And it doesn't mean I really care about Delta and others pulling funding. Because I don't. It's their call and I'm sure they made it via a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that won't work out for them.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 12, 2017 19:27:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 12, 2017 19:32:24 GMT -5
Mom? Dad? Please stop fighting. Also Dad, Mom is always right and you're a poopyhead. ETA: seriously though, this play was fine, imo. Apparently from Cass's links, it's practically a tradition. Criticizing it now if you've never criticized it before kinda makes you a poopyhead. (Sorry Dad. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 19:44:20 GMT -5
The problem with companies responding to a one-sided political twitter-outrage fest is that what they gain from one side they are likely to lose from the other. Taking aside the possibility that a company's owners might feel so strongly themselves that it's worth losing customers to them, I'd submit that it is probably worth their while to respond to a political backlash if either: (a) the product that company sells is much more popular with one side of the political fence than the other, so placating that side is more lucrative than failing to do so, or (b) whatever the issue is so icky it has in fact generated some outrage on both sides of the fence, even if one side is much angrier. E.g., I'd argue that Bill O'Reilly finally reached the point that Fox would have looked like shit if they didn't fire him. Here, I'm not so sure Delta and Bank of America are going to be gainers by their bowing to the brouhaha. Initially, it's possible that only a comparative handful of Shakespeare geeks realized how common this sort of production is, that past leaders have been portrayed in the Caesar role, including Obama and Clinton, and that Julius Caesar is in fact not a pro-assassination play. Therefore, today, outrage on the right was high, and the left was like "well, it's kinda like the Kathy Griffin thing, right? OK, tacky, I guess." But by tomorrow, English lit geeks like me will have made sure the left side of the twitterverse is well aware of everything I was harping on in this thread, and I would be willing to bet money we'll be coming out with pressure on the other side. I think that especially likely because Trump has cut funding for the arts, which means productions like these are going to depend more on support from corporate sponsors -- at least if they are going to be able to provide free tickets for the non-wealthy. If ever there was a call to the left... Maybe if people were exposed to more Shakespeare (e.g., in free performances such as this one), more people would know that the play does not advocate assassinating one's leader -- quite the reverse. ETA: And no, Rob, of course you are not obligated to monitor the twitterverse. But from what I saw, this story was all over pretty much every news source today, and since you'd actually raised the subject and cited an article, I assumed you must be aware of the massive outragefest. To note -- since the outrage was pretty much entirely on the conservative side, conservative sources were making the most of it. More liberal papers tended to mention that other leaders had been portrayed as Caesar. Conservative sources tended to omit that. Heh. Fox did at least one piece that initially buried the fact that it was a production of a Shakespeare play at the end of the article, highlighting instead that a play was featuring the assassination of Trump, giving the impression (to those who don't bother reading to the end) that it was a new play about massacring Trump. They've since corrected it to move the mention of Julius Caesar to the beginning. insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/11/donald-trump-julius-caesar-stabbed-death-women-minorities-shakespeare-central-park?vid=autoIt starts with this paragraph, guaranteed to raise outrage among Trump supporters: Now, the second paragraph mentions that the "New York City play" is Julius Ceasar. But that point was originally buried at the end. Note that at the end of the edited article, they've tucked this:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 19:45:03 GMT -5
Mom? Dad? Please stop fighting. Also Dad, Mom is always right and you're a poopyhead. *gives Christine extra scoop of ice cream* ETA: To be fair, I think Rob does object whether it is Obama or Trump portrayed as Caesar, so he is not being inconsistent. He couldn't object to a past performance he didn't know about. Whereas I do not object either way, nor if it is any other leader, not given the context and history of the play. of course, though, Mom IS always right.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 20:40:50 GMT -5
ETA: seriously though, this play was fine, imo. Apparently from Cass's links, it's practically a tradition. Criticizing it now if you've never criticized it before kinda makes you a poopyhead. (Sorry Dad. ) Ah, but I always criticize this kind of stuff--"art" that presents the killing/assassination of current politicos--regardless of the side. Of course, the board's history doesn't go back all that far, so it's tough to prove the point. But as I said, I thought I remembered an Obama version--I actually searched for it, but I guess I didn't use the right terms--and I didn't think much of that one, either. I also didn't like the movie about killing Bush, the poem about killing Obama (and I thought the poet should have been charged, in fact), or the hanging of the empty chair (which was clever, imo, but still wrong-headed and racist). And again, I'm not saying this play is so wrong that it needs to be shut down or the like. I'm just saying that I think making Caesar into Trump is cheap, is not clever. Same goes for making Caesar into whomever was the current President in past versions. Just because something is a tradition, it doesn't follow that it can't be criticized.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 12, 2017 20:45:31 GMT -5
Poopyhead!
Just kidding. I take your point.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 20:52:13 GMT -5
ETA: And no, Rob, of course you are not obligated to monitor the twitterverse. But from what I saw, this story was all over pretty much every news source today, and since you'd actually raised the subject and cited an article, I assumed you must be aware of the massive outragefest. To note -- since the outrage was pretty much entirely on the conservative side, conservative sources were making the most of it. More liberal papers tended to mention that other leaders had been portrayed as Caesar. Conservative sources tended to omit that. To be clear on this--since it is a general issue for the board--I saw the story I cited, nothing more. I think it was at RCP. And in general, I go to RCP, the BBC, and CNN in the early hours of the day to see what's up. There was just the one story that I saw. And as far as I knew, there was a tweet from Trump's son thanking Delta for their decision and not much else. So again, evidence is required to support claims. After all, if I had said "liberals were going batshit when it was Obama who was Caesar" (assuming I was trying to make it about political "sides," which I never was), you would have rightly asked for evidence of that, right? Goose, gander, mom, dad.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 12, 2017 21:03:41 GMT -5
Ah, but I always criticize this kind of stuff--"art" that presents the killing/assassination of current politicos--regardless of the side. Of course, the board's history doesn't go back all that far, so it's tough to prove the point. But as I said, I thought I remembered an Obama version--I actually searched for it, but I guess I didn't use the right terms--and I didn't think much of that one, either. I also didn't like the movie about killing Bush, the poem about killing Obama (and I thought the poet should have been charged, in fact), or the hanging of the empty chair (which was clever, imo, but still wrong-headed and racist). And again, I'm not saying this play is so wrong that it needs to be shut down or the like. I'm just saying that I think making Caesar into Trump is cheap, is not clever. Same goes for making Caesar into whomever was the current President in past versions. Just because something is a tradition, it doesn't follow that it can't be criticized. I don't mind the general public criticizing it -- everyone is entitled to their opinion. But Delta and BOA and whoever else pulling their support--in essence, their funding for the arts--for political reasons doesn't sit well. I'd like to think I would say the same thing about them if they'd pulled funding when it was Obama, though I'll admit I might have needed Cass's argument to get me there. ETA: I'm not just trying to get more ice cream, I swear.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 13, 2017 6:27:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 13, 2017 8:12:23 GMT -5
|
|