Bravo Stephen Schwartz!

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:01pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/BWW-Exclusive-Stephen-Schwartz-Writes-About-Discrimination-in-North-Carolina-Will-Deny-Local-Show-Rights-20160331

What a great response to the North Carolina law overturning legal protections against LGBT discrimination! May other theatre-makers follow suit.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:21pm

I don't think this is the right way to go about things. He's hurting the theatres of North Carolina more so than the government of North Carolina.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:27pm

He is setting a precedence. If other people follow suit in whatever business they represent, there will be a lot of pressure on North Carolina (and other future states that may instate such legislation) to examine the ramifications of such policy.

Updated On: 3/31/16 at 07:27 PM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:29pm

He's hurting the people who most likely were against the passing of the bill, the theatres, more so than he's hurting the North Carolinian government. Do you think they care about the theatre?!

[Tag]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:33pm

Does this affect community theatres and schools?  Cause that would be pretty douchy of Schwartz, regardless of his intention.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:34pm

It is not about the theatre. It is about people in power denying North Carolina access to things the rest of the country has because of their discrimination policies and thereby putting pressure on the state.   This letter is an invitation for other people in power (whatever industry they are in) to take a stand.  It's not about denying the people of Raleigh the revival of THE BAKERS WIFE they've waited all their lives for. 

Updated On: 3/31/16 at 07:34 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:40pm

I think it's wonderful.  Is it unfortunate for some theaters? Yes, but it's about the greater good.  

 

I would like to know if this includes the current tour of Wicked. Do they have any upcoming stops in North Carolina? Will he and the producers cancel them? I think that'd send a really powerful message. 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:40pm

This is a perfect example of "awesome in principle, horrible in practice." I applaud his conviction but this is definitely the wrong way of going about things.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:42pm

I interpret this as any and all of his productions in the state, including the current tours of WICKED and PIPPIN.  

[Tag]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 7:46pm

According to those show's websites, there aren't any stops in North Carolina, so it won't hurt Mr. Schwartz's pocketbook.

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 8:11pm

I think it was great of him to take a stand. I hope other writers follow suit. 

Updated On: 3/31/16 at 08:11 PM

[JM226]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 8:43pm

Yeah. Because he can AFFORD to do this... Meanwhile, there are starving writers out there who depend on amateur rights to make a living. I'm all for free market influencing governmental policy but not at the expense of other innocent players. GREATER GOOD MY ASS. Would love to see if he would do this if we were talking about multiple states. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/31/16 at 9:38pm

I missed the part of his letter where he called for starving artists to join a bread line to feed themselves just to support his boycott of North Carolina theaters.  

And I frankly suspect, Schwartz could afford to never have a single song of his ever sung again in any of the 50 states and live quite comfortably.

[Enjolras77]

Posted: 4/1/16 at 2:56pm

I am an artist living in NC - Charlotte, specifically - and while I applaud Schwartz for taking a stand and for the intention behind his actions, part of me is saddened because it will negatively impact the city and artists who agree with him. The impetus behind the ridiculous HB2 was to rebuke the city of Charlotte for passing a law that allowed for greater inclusion and protection of LBGTQ individuals. It's sad that Charlotte will now bear punishment for the actions of the buffoons up in Raleigh. The NBA All-Star game, major corporations, and the majority of Broadway touring productions are in Charlotte - and this will cost the city income and cultural experiences. I do wish that instead of the sweeping generalizations of NC people would note that Charlotte in an effort to be MORE inclusive and forward-thinking is now being made to suffer. 

[Ranger Tom]

Posted: 4/1/16 at 9:10pm

Call_me_jorge said: "I don't think this is the right way to go about things. He's hurting the theatres of North Carolina more so than the government of North Carolina."

Thank you.  I think NC would be better educated with solid opportunities for theater and providing a message in programs/pre-performance recording/etc, vs. not letting them see Pippin or Godspell.  There are better ways to make them reexamine themselves than taking away their art.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 4/1/16 at 9:30pm

For all the theatres in North Carolina who use playbill should change to the pride week header

[Bob Smith2]

Posted: 4/2/16 at 3:40am

The only people affected are those who want to watch and perform Wicked. They tend not to be homophobes.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 4/3/16 at 8:31pm

^^^ But that isn't the point.

So North Carolinians won't see WICKED for awhile. Let them reflect on why every time their cousins in Virginia rave about the show.

Let theaters in Charlotte do productions of Restoration comedies and put notes in their programs saying they can't do more recent hits such as WICKED and PIPPIN because of the state's backward laws.

Mr. Schwartz has taken quite a bit of heat here in the past. I think that crap needs to stop now. He's on the side of the angels this month.

Updated On: 4/3/16 at 08:31 PM

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 12:39am

GavestonPS said: "^^^ But that isn't the point.
So North Carolinians won't see WICKED for awhile. Let them reflect on why every time their cousins in Virginia rave about the show."

Respectfully, I think Bob's point is valid. It seems much more likely that Stephen Schwartz' action would only punish those people of North Carolina who are most inclined to support his views.

RE: "Let them reflect on why every time their cousins in Virginia rave about the show," how likely is that to happen? If his ban were enacted in the Midwest, my reflection would be, "Good for him! Thank God I've already seen Wicked (...and Godspell, and Pippin, and even The Magic Show)."

Do his shows bring substantial revenue to the state of North Carolina in a way that the state's economy will be hurt by his absence? Do the people of North Carolina care enough about his works that his withholding will have a significant effect? Wouldn't they just see another show instead?

If a body wants to withhold goods or services to make a statement, they need to withhold something that's of significant value to the oppressor (i.e. the Obama administration is considering making the state ineligible for Federal aid). Instead, maybe Mr. Schwartz could spearhead a coalition of Broadway producers, artists, composers, etc. to financially support a state-wide "LGBT flu", where all LGBT employees don't show up for work for 48 hours.

Updated On: 4/4/16 at 12:39 AM

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 3:07am

This all seems odd to one who went to college in the 70s and 80s and should probably know better than to mingle in here at all. At that time it was thought that a woman, a straight woman, would gravely upset if a man entered a women's restroom and violated her privacy. And if there were something like a unisex restroom with urinals for men, if a man at the urinal exposed his genitals to a woman, she was just supposed to wilt with shock. If the ladies' room was in a deserted area at night, one could see why a lady would not welcome the company of a male, who could be transgender or just faking it, 

But it's OK now for unisex restrooms to exist and for private parts of either sex to go where they many? I could understand this, I guess, since it is over forty five years since 1970, and women commonly see men's private parts often, if not in real life, then in films and magazines. Yet indecent exposure is still a crime in very liberal New York. Not a serious crime, but one that carries a stiff fine and a possible short stay in prison for repeat offenders

And even now, a woman in that isolated restroom would feel legitimate fear if a man entered the restroom while she was in a compromising position.

The above should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the North Carolina law or the Schwartz retaliation.

Updated On: 4/4/16 at 03:07 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 6:47am

Oh, please.  Urinals are not IN uniex bathrooms (not any I've seen, anyway)

 

When a transgender woman goes to the bathroom, they use a stall. 

 

Unless YOU are the one peaking, how would you even know for sure that the person in the stall next to you has the same plumbing as do you??

I don't care who pees next to me.  

[JM226]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 8:15am

^^^ i haven't seen any proof to indicate the opposite (that there AREN'T urinals in unisex bathrooms). perhaps someone with an extensive background in transgender rights & policies can weigh in... 

 

P.S. i still think this is a terrible decision and only punishes those who already support a repeal of the law. dumb, dumb, dumb. 

[hankcolson]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 10:46am

As an artist of note, this is the most powerful tool they have to show support/opposition. It will bring attention to what's going on and get people talking. I applaud him. 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 10:57am

dramamama611 said: "Oh, please.  Urinals are not IN uniex bathrooms (not any I've seen, anyway)

When a transgender woman goes to the bathroom, they use a stall. 

Unless YOU are the one peaking, how would you even know for sure that the person in the stall next to you has the same plumbing as do you??

I don't care who pees next to me.  

The idea was that the same type of man who flashed women not in a restroom could use the restroom as a cover for flashing. "by accident." As I said, I don't see how women who grew up in this culture could be shocked anymore by exposure to male private parts.

As I also said, I should have stayed out of this.

 

"

 

[JM226]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:03am

this is the epitome of privilege. he can afford to revoke the rights and licenses of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of schools and theatre companies.  where was he when same-sex marriage was illegal and not recognized by the federal government? he was busy reaping the benefits and making millions while an entire class was unfairly discriminated. never heard or read about any suggestion of a nation-wide ban on his shows until equality and gay marriage was recognized/legalized/etc. 

 

what about the anti-LGBT legislation recently passed in Mississippi, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas and Texas?? why isn't he revoking rights and banning productions there, too?  it's easy to applaud someone when it doesn't directly impact you or only has the APPEARANCE of being a principled stand; the problem is that it's punishing innocent people who did not vote for those legislators enacting these laws.

 

this is not an effective protest and not at all consistent with his previous behavior, advocacy or involvement. this is a hollow, vapid, calculated "decision" crafted by Mr. Schwartz's very expensive army of publicists because he can afford to absorb the loss while other stakeholders of his theatrical properties (co-writers, estates, copyright holders, producers, etc.) may NOT have the same ability.