Tootsie controversy - Page 5

[msmp]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 5:35am

magictodo123 said: "And the thing that gets my the most is that these people support Mrs. Doubtfire. I’ve read some takes that finds what he does extremely weird. He lies to his kids, one of his kids sees him going to the bathroom (scarring much?). You can say he “does it out of love” all you want, it doesn’t mean it’s odd that you have such a strong reaction to one show and not another prospective show. **


**This is only to the people on stan twitter who talk about both and support Mrs. Doubtfire"

Part of that, I think, is that the tryout for Mrs. Doubtfire hasn't been covered the same way or to the same degree because it was in production limbo for so long, and is only now being pitched for tryouts in Seattle (I believe).

With Tootsie, for instance, I only started seeing the really brutal and/or vicious takes once it transferred to New York (after the merch debacle which I will admit they handled poorly, and should have apologized for, not just made a merch swap without talking about it) and started to get Best Book and Best Actor buzz. That's also when the article (or op-ed, I'm not sure how AT categorized it) referenced earlier in the thread was published, and spread pretty fast on Twitter.

No one on Twitter really talked about these issues, or about the show at all, during the Chicago tryouts and it's not like the show was fundamentally different there. They didn't totally rewrite the book in six weeks.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 6:30am

msmp said: "magictodo123 said: "And the thing that gets my the most is that these people support Mrs. Doubtfire. I’ve read some takes that finds what he does extremely weird. He lies to his kids, one of his kids sees him going to the bathroom (scarring much?). You can say he “does it out of love” all you want, it doesn’t mean it’s odd that you have such a strong reaction to one show and not another prospective show. **


**This is only to the people on stan twitter who talk about both and support Mrs. Doubtfire"

Part of that, I think, is that the tryout forMrs. Doubtfirehasn't been covered the same way or to the same degree because it was in production limbo for so long, and is only now being pitched for tryouts in Seattle (I believe). 

You're right. I think it is only now being pitched, so people who had issues with Tootsie are going to be ON those writers to make sure they handle the material appropriately. 


WithTootsie,for instance, I only started seeing the really brutal and/or vicious takesonce it transferred to New York (after the merch debacle whichI will admit they handled poorly, and should have apologized for, not just made a merch swap without talking about it) and started to get Best Book and Best Actor buzz. That's also when the article (or op-ed, I'm not sure how AT categorized it)referenced earlier in the thread was published, and spread pretty fast on Twitter.

No one on Twitter really talked about these issues, or about the show at all, during the Chicago tryouts and it's not like the show was fundamentally different there. They didn't totally rewrite the book in six weeks."                                                                                                                                                     You're right about this, too. I don't remember hearing anything except that it was really funny, so I was curious.                                                                                                                                                                                                    The thing that really gets me about how I was treated it that if this were someone on stan twitter, people would have been a lot more....I don't want to say sympathetic but--understanding. They wouldn't have told them they were transphobic, they would have like linked articles and told them why the show is problematic. With me, they attacked me, didn't educate me, claimed to have educated me about why it's problematic...I just do not understand stan twitter and now I like being on BWW so much more because all of you are so much more mature and understanding and reasonable. These people will do anything to provoke someone! To attack them. To say they're wrong. but in the absolute rudest way. So thank you for understanding. 

Here's what happened:
I was going to rush Hadestown, but I had heard conflicting reports on how many tickets they gave out. I got there and there was a good group ahead of me. I didn't know how many tickets they needed, and it's not like the box office was open so I could ask how many tickets they had that day. I decided to wander through the theater district to see what I could rush, and landed on Tootsie. I had heard that the book was one of the funniest things, and my mom told me as long as I didn't post on social media, I should go ahead and see it. Unfortunately, I forgot about that. I ended up posting this long thread on twitter about how I ended up rushing Tootsie. All I said was that it was funny. I wrote how I wanted to see Beetlejuice, but I'd heard there was a lot of strobe and I have epilepsy. Even my friend who's not epileptic had a headache. I would have done Ain't Too Proud, but they only have student rush during the week and the lottery, and I wasn't about to rush a show and miss work. I realize I could have seen something else, but I didn't. After I wrote all of this, that's when the accusations of being transphobic started. The thing is, other than Santino, Sarah Stiles, and some of the other acting, nothing really stood out to me about the production. Was it a fun time? Absolutely. Would I see it again? No. The worst thing is that a friend of mine, who I had stood up for, who I made sure was okay after they were sent a threatening letter, they were absolutely silent about this. They didn't say anything to defend me. Throughout this whole thing, I was by myself, and not even being dramatic--I thought about hurting myself. I posted something about reusable straws and someone thought it appropriate to write something about not being transphobic before saving the environment or something like that. 

The thing is, I realize all of this could have been prevented, but I shouldn't have to tiptoe around for fear that stan twitter will attack. I had to deactivate my twitter account because it got to be too much. I'm sorry for the ramble. 

[LarryD2]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 8:19am

InTheBathroom1 said: "I implore all of you to read this article written by a non-cis theatre critic to better understand why this show is damaging and offensive to many trans people.

https://www.americantheatre.org/2019/05/07/the-gender-problem-tootsie-cant-dress-up/"

This is nothing more than an unknown wannabe critic stoking the flames of controversy to make a name for himself. Tale as old as time. That he managed to get a respected publication like American Theatre to pick up the story speaks poorly for them.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 8:38am

For ME the explanation is: it's funny because he IS CIS - if he were non-binary, it would be a very different story.   That being said, I think I can understand a little what the lgbtq+ comm might feel.   A LITTLE.

 

Strange how I adored the movie - but have absolutely no desire to see this.  (And the number on the Tonys didn't in anyway budge my thougts.)

 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 9:35am

This is RIDICULOUS. If there was a musical adaptation of Some Like it Hot would there be accusations that it's anti-trans? Would t-shirts with the phrase "Nobody's perfect" cause a social media firestorm? 

[magictodo123]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 9:52am

poisonivy2 said: "This is RIDICULOUS. If there was a musical adaptation of Some Like it Hot would there be accusations that it's anti-trans? Would t-shirts with the phrase "Nobody's perfect" cause a social media firestorm?"

Um...actually....on Playbills list of upcoming shows I think I saw Some Like It Hot on  there. I could be remembering wrong. I do agree that this is ridiculous and has gotten totally out of hand. 

[Observation]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 10:10am

I think it's important to always listen to the unheard voices, and in this case it is the trans community. I've listened, I've sat with it, I've played out scenarios in my head, I've talked about it, and unfortunately, I still am unsure what is transphobic about Tootsie. I haven't seen it in New York, I caught early previews in Chicago, but I don't remember there being comments about genitals in the show.  What I took away from the show is that we need to step it up in how we treat women and the opportunities that are generally given to men. (The irony is not lost on me that this entire production team is consisted of men... but that's a whole other topic.)

It does make me wonder, is Mrs. Doubtfire DOA? 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 10:38am

Has everyone read the article from American Theatre linked above? 

Probably, as it was previously posted and discussed in the Tootsie Reviews thread and has been shared on several Facebook threads as well.  Here was my response to the article filled with inaccuracies and false comparisons:

"Drag is not inherently transphobic, but the drag in Tootsie absolutely is. The point of drag is to queer gender and prove how socially constructed it is, to show that gender is a performance. Tootsie (mis)appropriates drag in ways that enforce ideas about binary gender by making jokes out of the dichotomy between Michael, the straight cisgender protagonist, and his drag persona, Dorothy. This frequently takes the the form of crude and transphobic bodily humor about genitals or gags about bras, wigs, and heels and how ridiculous it is that Michael would wear them."

The drag element in Tootsie is not that of the character's actions, but the audience's knowledge. Dorothy is neither drag nor trans because drag intentionally informs the participants, either directly or indirectly, that they are performing a different gender (and it's rare that I see a drag performer NOT make crude genital jokes of every kind). Michael is cis-gendered and trying to mask his gender as Dorothy. And the jokes aren't about how ridiculous it is that he "would" wear them, but how strange it is to either see him wearing these or how different it feels to Michael to be wearing them.

"Tootsie is by no means the first musical to play with the possibilities of drag. Kinky Boots, La Cage aux Folles, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Rent, and this season’s under-appreciated Head Over Heels all use drag, in both serious and comedic ways, to explore queer identity, marginalization, and the power of performance. Unlike the lead in Tootsie, the characters who do drag in those shows don’t constantly make jokes about their genitals, lie about their gender, or use drag to 'get ahead,' steal a job from a woman, and manipulate those around them."

False comparison because the characters mentioned above are drag personas/performers, but Michael/Dorothy is not. The difference is pretty obvious.

"Instead all of those musicals have drag performers fighting to perform, to be listened to, and to be taken seriously on their own terms. Lola, Zaza, the queens of Priscilla, Cleophila, and Angel are marginalized because of their queer identities and their choice to do drag, all of which reflects reality."

Rinse and repeat. Michael/Dorothy is not a queer character fighting to be accepted for their choice to do drag. It's like trying to compare these characters to any of the gender-masquerading characters of Shakespeare. You can't make orange juice out of apples and then admonish it for not being apple juice.

"The notion that Michael would get cast more easily and have more creative power as a woman than as a man isn’t just implausible; it’s also damaging, a further erasure of actual cis and trans women’s experience."

That's reductive and misleading. The director didn't like Dorothy at the audition and tries to dismiss her. It's the female producer who pulls the strings that overrides the director and listens to Dorothy. It's the help from that producer and the female lead of the show that allow Dorothy's voice to be heard and succeed. There is no message that the character's life is easier and better "as a woman".

"Michael is not openly a drag queen but is fully pretending to be a woman and 'getting away with it,' the show subtly reinforces the transphobic claim that trans people are liars, pretenders, or fakers."

The author now undermines all the drag comparisons noted before. The point about reinforcing transphobic stereotypes seems pretty debatable, but I can't speak for the trans community.

"Through all of this, there is never a discussion of Michael’s gender in relationship to his drag, although there certainly could have been."

And here starts the ruminations of changing the plot and characters to something different, not unlike the changing of Romeo & Juliet to "Juliet's Curse", but "they coulda done THIS" doesn't really support an argument. They could have made all the characters African-American trans-bisexuals and none of them in drag, but that's not what the show is, so where's the validity in what-iffing it?

"Head Over Heels ends with a character, who has done drag throughout, saying he wants to keep his drag persona around—that she is part of him now. In a slightly similar vein, Michael says, 'I am Dorothy. Dorothy is me,' but only as a justification for his ruse"

That's not why he says and it's not in a similar vein at all. The reasons those characters make those statements are entirely different. This is a misleading inaccuracy.

"he never entertains the idea that he might continue to do drag (in less problematic ways, ideally) or that maybe this experience has caused him to reconsider his own gender identity. Could Michael be a trans lesbian, or maybe a genderqueer pansexual? Perhaps, but this version of Tootsie makes no effort to explore these possibilities or talk about gender identity at all. Instead, Michael ends the show by bizarrely telling his love interest, 'I was a better man with you, as a woman, than I ever was with a woman, as a man. I just have to learn how to do it all without the dress.' But why without the dress?"

Rinse and repeat. Still what-iffing what isn't as a basis for proving something that may or may not be implied depending on how you choose to interpret (or misinterpret) a story and its characters.

"To make matters worse, the creative team, which is almost entirely male (and is exclusively cis), seems to think they can defuse the show’s (cis)sexism by dropping some self-aware critiques into the show."

Making assumptions on the very specific motives of the creative team doesn't help.

"it comes off as pandering, and can’t erase the transphobic binarism that is the source of most of the musical’s humor. These moments of wokeness are clearly performative; a glance through Robert Horn’s script shows him referring to 'Michael/Dorothy' with inconsistent pronouns." 

I'm confused. Do they mean parenthetical stage directions from literally reading a printed script? Because inconsistent pronouns have everything to do with the fact that Michael/Dorothy is not trans and the situation and characters that use them. 

"The writers of Tootsie clearly have a very limited, binary understanding of gender, and rather than work to expand it they seem to have gone out of their way not only to avoid addressing it but instead to make fun of it."

Again, this is another assumption based on a desire for Tootsie to be a completely different story.

"The creators aren’t the only ones who seem to think they’ve solved the show’s gender problems."

Another assumption leading to an opinion that muddies the topic.

"This moment feels like a perfect metaphor for the show itself: Tootsie engages with gender only in superficial ways, either to score points for being 'feminist,' or more frequently simply to make another transphobic dick joke."

I only remember maybe two jokes involving a penis. But as for gender and feminism, I left the show feeling that we're viewing these topics through the lens of Michael's journey. A farcical musical comedy in which the protagonist is not considered a hero. The jokes about his being in drag seemed to be specifically either about his discomfort being a cis-male not accustomed to wearing women's attire and digs from his roommate who consistently tells him he's doing the wrong thing.

Gender in 2019 isn’t what gender is in the world of Tootsie, which already makes the show dated.

Actually, it is.  Like 99% of the other shows, Tootsie's book does not discuss the spectrum of gender identity.  Neither does La Cage aux Folles, Hairspray, Matilda, Kinky Boots or nearly all the shows featuring a cross-dressing performer and/or cross-dressing character utilized in its plot.  

(Head Over Heels dealt with the nuance of gender brilliantly.)

A totally different show with a totally different character in a totally different story used for a totally different purpose?  Okay.

This is RIDICULOUS. If there was a musical adaptation of Some Like it Hot would there be accusations that it's anti-trans? Would t-shirts with the phrase "Nobody's perfect" cause a social media firestorm? 

I also have to wonder how La Cage would be received now.  The whole opening (as originally staged) of We Are What We Are winking at the audience about not being able to recognize the male characters from the female and then ending the first act with the gay cis male in drag singing I Am What I Am and pulling off the wig at the end of the number.  I've a feeling that because the character is effeminate and gay, there would be little pushback about any possible transphobic suggestion in that.  Sure, the message of the show is about queer acceptance (both internal and external) , love and self-confidence, but if we can try and force Tootsie to be about something it's not, surely we can do it with any show that features any actor in drag, right?  That's where we are right now in 2019.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 10:44am

I think many of the hot takes on Tootsie- including the American Theater magazine piece- are in remarkably bad faith, often misleading about what the show actually depicts, often full of willful misinterpretation, or frame the issue in ways that it was impossible for the show to ever actually succeed (the American Theater essay describes the voice-of-reason roommate character as "unrealistically woke"- a truly ironic complaint). 

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 10:48am

the American Theater essay describes the voice-of-reason roommate character as "unrealistically woke"- a truly ironic complaint

Seriously.  That comment revealed their opinion as a can't-win scenario that was about their bias, not the content of the show.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 10:55am

Mister Matt said: "the American Theater essay describes the voice-of-reason roommate character as "unrealistically woke"- a truly ironic complaint

Seriously. That comment revealed their opinion as a can't-win scenario that was about their bias, not the content of the show."

Talk about a "physician, heal thyself" moment.

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 11:53am

The character of Michael Dorsey is NEVER in drag at any point during the show. NEVER.

He's an actor - NOT a transvestite, NOT a trans woman, NOT Gay, not anyone who is actively part of the LGBTQ+ community. Neither is he masquerading as part of the community, nor making an effort to comment on the community, nor aspiring to be part of the community.

He's an actor. A very self-centered actor. He's in costume and make-up for a role.

He makes a very self-centered and ego-centric choice to play a character as a way to prove that he is hireable as an actor. He doesn't even make a thoughtful decision about choosing to create a female character. He impulsively jumps on the most opportune audition available at the moment.

The show has no connection to the trans or drag communities at all. Any "controversy" regarding drag, or the trans community is inappropriately forced.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 11:58am

The other argument- that it is unrealistic/problematic to depict women having an easier time getting work than men- also rings false. Michael doesn't pose as Dorothy because it's easier for women to get work- he poses as Dorothy because it's easier for anybody but him to get work. 

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 1:10pm

Kad said: "The other argument- that it is unrealistic/problematic to depict women having an easier time getting work than men- also rings false. Michael doesn't pose as Dorothy because it's easier for women to get work- he poses as Dorothy because it's easier for anybody but himto get work."

I actually disagree with this and think the point is that it's easier for women to get work, which is where the humor of the show is derived.  The joke is not that he's dressing up as a woman--the joke is that he's dressing up as a woman in a world in which the only way you can get ahead is by being a woman.  It's taking the unfortunately still true reality that it's much easier for men to get ahead (especially in their careers) and flipping it upside down by making it that the only way someone can get ahead is if they are a woman.  And that's what ultimately makes the show funny.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 1:26pm

Broadway61004 said: "Kad said: "The other argument- that it is unrealistic/problematic to depict women having an easier time getting work than men- also rings false. Michael doesn't pose as Dorothy because it's easier for women to get work- he poses as Dorothy because it's easier for anybody but himto get work."

I actually disagree with this and think the point is that it's easier for women to get work, which is where the humor of the show is derived. The joke is not that he's dressing up as a woman--the joke is that he's dressing up as a woman in a world in which the only way you can get ahead is by being a woman. It's taking the unfortunately still true reality that it's much easier for men to get ahead (especially in their careers) and flipping it upside down by making it that the only way someone can get ahead is if they are a woman. And that's what ultimately makes the show funny."

What? No.

[goldenstate5]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 1:54pm

The joke is pretty damn clear by the opening number: casting directors want somebody else, so Michael becomes somebody else. In his self-centered decision, he learns something very keen about the choices he made and seeing the world through another gender's eyes. Much of the humor of the show isn't derived by the fact he's actually a man, but that despite his initial success Michael still can't get what he wants, because of the lie that caused his success in the first place.

I think the trans community absolutely has a right to be upset over something they deem offensive because it's no secret the world has been terrible to them, but this is one controversy I'm not quite seeming to get. Have many of the anti-Tootsie stans seen the show or is this more of a spreading-fire-thru-speculation deal? I've been thinking of asking some of my trans friends for their earnest opinion on it, and they aren't ones who pass thing casually.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 2:16pm

goldenstate5 said: "The joke is pretty damn clear by the opening number: casting directors want somebody else, so Michael becomes somebody else. In his self-centered decision, he learns something very keen about the choices he made and seeing the world through another gender's eyes. Much of the humor of the show isn't derived by the fact he's actually a man, but that despite his initial success Michael still can't get what he wants, because of the lie that caused his success in the first place.

I think the trans community absolutely has a right to be upset over something they deem offensive because it's no secret the world has been terrible to them, but this is one controversy I'm not quite seeming to get. Have many of the anti-Tootsie stans seen the show or is this more of a spreading-fire-thru-speculation deal? I've been thinking of asking some of my trans friends for their earnest opinion on it, and they aren't ones who pass thing casually."

Some have seen it, and formed opinions about  it. Others just read what those people have said and refuse to “give money to a transphobic show”. 

[lemiz3001]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 2:24pm

Most people I have seen on twitter and facebook have not seen the show (and openly admit it), but are just rehashing and reposting the American Theatre Article.

It really bothers me how that article is taken as gospel and just being reposted agin and again, as there are trans people who disagree with it PLUS, as many mentioned before, it contains willful misinterpretations. The article is just a shortened version of what he wrote on out.com, which was even worse. When the author wrote that Michael singing "half cocked" in Unstoppable was offensive and transphobic he lost all credibility to me. I find it hard to believe anyone thought he actually meant he was "half cocked".

Christian Lewis (the author) legit wrote "F*&K you Santino" on Twitter after he won, which is really gross. 

[LarryD2]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 2:33pm

lemiz3001 said: "Christian Lewis (the author)legit wrote "F*&K you Santino" on Twitter after he won, which is really gross."

Yes, I just looked at his Twitter, where he also brags about booing Santino Fontana at the Drama Desk Awards. And it seems like he has one or two publications in reputable outlets, but otherwise self-publishes reviews on Medium. Unfortunately, this is what happens when professional criticism is devalued and eroded -- anyone with a modem and access to a blog can call himself a critic. Some can even land on a few press lists. Sad.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 2:33pm

The joke is not that he's dressing up as a woman--the joke is that he's dressing up as a woman in a world in which the only way you can get ahead is by being a woman. 

I can't for the life of me figure out how you arrived at that bizarre conclusion.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 3:44pm

"Strange how I adored the movie - but have absolutely no desire to see this.  (And the number on the Tonys didn't in anyway budge my thougts.)"

I totally agree with you. I found the number they did last Sunday fairly boring. I loved the movie and thought having Michael/Dorothy in a soap opera was much better than a Broadway show. From what I have read, the "reveal" was much better in the movie because it had more of an impact. The "reveal" being done on live TV with millions of viewers and in front of the director and producer of the soap opera was priceless. I also thought the relationship between Dorothy and Julie's father was a big part of the movie and that has been eliminated in the musical. 

[Pose2]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 3:52pm

 I still am unsure what is transphobic about Tootsie

There isn't anything transphobic about Tootsie.  People are enjoying the show, talking about it, and buying merch. And like most causes, this will die down soon, and they'll be something else for them to get wildly offended by. This is a non event. 

[SFFrontRow]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 4:04pm

lemiz3001 said: "Most people I have seen on twitter and facebook have not seen the show (and openly admit it), but are just rehashing and repostingthe American Theatre Article.

It really bothers me how that article is taken as gospel and just being reposted agin and again, as there are trans people who disagree with it PLUS, as many mentioned before, it contains willfulmisinterpretations. The article is just a shortened version of what he wrote on out.com, which was even worse. When the author wrote that Michael singing "half cocked" in Unstoppable was offensive and transphobic helost all credibility to me. I find it hard to believe anyone thought he actually meanthe was "half cocked".

Christian Lewis (the author)legit wrote "F*&K you Santino" on Twitter after he won, which is really gross."

I find that article ironic in that it mentions La Cage Aux Folles and ZsaZsa...

Let's see, the stepson is bringing home a bigoted future father-in-law. The only mother he has know his whole life is his father's long time partner, a gay cross dresser. But he is embarrassed by this and he has his father tell his partner of (at least 24 years) to get out of their home, invites and reinvites his biological mother (who has never met him and basically sold him off), and takes to changing the decor of his father's home to hide what his father is and make it look more straight.

Lots of positive messages there. So, why is was that not a controversy - if not the original in 1984 when we were fighting the AIDS epidemic (and our president had not yet actually said AIDS publicly), then why not one of the two revivals we had on Broadway? Maybe because Harvey Fierstein wrote the book and Jerry Herman wrote the music and they were BASING IT ON A PLAY and MOVIE.

And lets not forget the original star of that show in 1984, insisting on singing "I am what I am" at the Tony's dressed not as ZsaZsa but as a man in a tux for all the world to see he is what he is - A MAN!!!!

There were comments, but not outrage. How far back did that throw acceptance?

Does anyone really believe the Tootsie writers were phobic on purpose? If anything, maybe a little deaf - and touting the "updated for today's times" does ring a little hollow. But phobic, really?

Updated On: 6/11/19 at 04:04 PM

[msmp]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 6:08pm

@Mister Matt, that was a fantastic dissection of the American Theatre op-ed. Thank you for putting into words what I wasn't able to do the times I read it!

[InTheBathroom1]

Posted: 6/11/19 at 7:26pm

Obviously there’s going to be no convincing anybody on here. But actual trans people have seen the show and been offended by it and if you don’t want to listen to their concerns, you’re part of the problem. L thanks bye.