Thanks for your comment! For the NYTimes articles to which I refer, please see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/theater/23gaytheater.html and related links. I refer to the new plays in NYC that depict gay protagonists.

Some women identify as gay. Ask around.

The world of activism is quite diverse, and not all “activists” share the the same ideology. Indeed, the topic of how to negotiate identity of a group and within a group has been the struggle of many civil rights activist groups of the last century. I would encourage you to look into this topic further, and a historical survey might be helpful. Since you’re interested in identity politics, you might be thrilled by any Queer Theory class that any higher education institution has to offer, or the history of feminism.

Why assume a character isn’t heterosexual? To that I respond: Why assume that they are? Would more people be open, frank, and honest to themselves and others about the diversity of sexualities that exist on the planet if the tiny category of “heterosexuality” were not “the norm”? I’m not just talking about sexuality as it relates to gender, either.

A pop culture phenomenon is self-help guides to sex. Or seeking a “professional” remedy to one’s sex life, as I’m sure some have demonstrated on the Dr. Phil show. This wouldn’t be necessary if all heterosexual people had the same sexualities, if all women wanted the same things, and all men wanted the same things. How many people do you know who have suggested that their sexual desires were incompatible with those of their partner, despite the fact both members of the partnership were “heterosexual”? Every human being has a different sexuality than the person standing next to them…it’s just that a handful of sexualities get arbitrarily assigned a normal value while all others are grouped into a single abnormal/minority category.

Sexuality is a spectrum, not a label or a box. I agree that “heterosexuality” is currently the “default”, but as an example of how limiting our notions of sexual identity can be, the assumptions underlying the concept of “heterosexuality” don’t even begin to describe the range of sexual acts that “heterosexuals” engage in, the types of partners they seek, their relationships, or the nature of their attractions.

Even the OED doesn’t define “gay” as applying specifically to men. Sometimes it’s been used that way, but the fact that you’re trying to correct Brenda on this when talking about her identity is obnoxious.

This as you might say deductive reading relates to my answer to your interesting questions at the end. Activists for minority groups, if not the groups themselves, tend to emphasize the special distinctiveness of that group while lamenting that their group has not been integrated into “society”. These are inconsistent goals–or they would be if the activist genuinely wanted the group to be integrated and not just pandered to. Creating a distinct and visible homosexual culture (say by erecting a Women’s/Black/Gay-Lesbian Center) can suggest that anyone who is not identifiably in that culture is not a homosexual. Thus characters who do not metaphorically wear rainbows can reasonably be judged by the audience to be heterosexual.

An alternative argument for the same conclusion is that audiences, like scientists, need not complicate things beyond necessity. Most people are heterosexual; in this sense it is normal to be heterosexual (this is not equivalent to saying that it is good or moral to be heterosexual, whatever that would mean). So why assume that a character isn’t heterosexual unless there is some evidence?

If the NY Times says something’s a trend, then by golly it must be a trend.

Thanks for your comment and congratulations on a job well done last weekend! I completely agree that the existence of this scene is important, and so is the acknowledgment of sexual relationships among men.

That said, I sensed a discontinuity in the text between Robert’s dismissal of Peter and Peter’s feelings about his relationships with men in Sondheim’s work, based solely on the text. I thought this discontinuity could have been highlighted through a disjunct in characterization and blocking, rather than using Robert’s humor to relieve the audience of an “uncomfortable” topic. I thought the audience could have–and perhaps should have–remained uncomfortable, perhaps appalled, at Robert’s treatment of Peter and the lack of validation with which relationships between men are received.

To me, it was ultimately tragic that Peter and his sexuality are dismissed in such a way at the end, and this tragedy could have been placed in tension with Robert’s careless quip. This scene had the potential to simultaneously reflect the current state of affairs in social norms while depicting the unfair and arbitrary subordination in importance/visibility/recognition of “homosexual” experiences to “heterosexual” ones, a nuance which I felt could have been brought out more on the night that I saw the play.

Dear Jacob K,

I am reluctant to engage with your comment, because I think you should read more carefully that my analysis of the scene was not a personal attack, as you admit that your close friendship with members of the cast and crew seems to lead you to assume. I believe that your reaction to claims that I did not make was quite strong, and a few clarifications are in order. I did not purport to declare Dave Holtz insensitive. I simply described what I thought could have been more nuanced direction in a particular scene. I refer to a particular section of his work that I found problematic, not his character. I analyzed a single moment within a production that has already received wonderful reviews, and I prefaced my discussion with praise for the acting and musical talents of the cast. For an example of a wonderful review, you wouldn’t need to look any farther than the Prince.

I think it’s great that you found the scene funny, but I don’t think that all people who identify as gay share your opinion. I certainly don’t. It is unfair to universalize your sexual identity and experience, as it would have been unfair for me to universalize mine. While I think that one’s identity and experience can certainly color one’s interpretation of a scene, I do not believe that it should be used as a trump card.

On the topic of casting people who identify as homosexual in a play, you make a good point that the tensions between sexuality in “real life” and sexuality on the stage can be further explored. I avoided a discussion of the sexual identities of the actors that Holtz cast, because I did not think that it was particularly relevant to the depiction of this scene and didn’t feel that I had a right to speculate or know. (An example of such a mistake is your assumption that I’m not gay.) None of the cast members felt the need to announce their sexual identities in the context of the play, even though you may know them personally as openly gay. No one was wearing a rainbow, nor did anyone write it in their bio. The problematic aspects of this scene cannot simply be reduced to the presence or absence of “homosexuals”. I find that assertion incredibly rude.

I do believe that you are pointing to a contradiction that needs to be addressed: What does it mean when players who identify as gay act primarily as “heterosexuals” within a script? What does it mean when this always happens, when protagonists hardly ever identify as “homosexual”, and when relationships between members of the same gender are hardly acknowledged for that matter (a trend which is rapidly changing and has been followed by several NYTimes articles)? In being forced to act as heterosexuals nearly all the time, are they defaulting to heterosexuality for the work of art?

Best,
Brenda

This came my way, and I thought I’d respond…I’m playing Bobby in PUP’s Company, so I figured I might have some insight.

First off, I think you raise a really important point – the scene certainly trivializes the possibility of an intimate homosexual relationship between Robert and Peter. The intention of the scene, without a doubt, is to trivialize that possibility. But what you’re touching on is by no means a failure on Dave’s part to treat the subject matter sensitively.

For starters, the scene itself necessitates such a treatment, regardless of how the director chooses to handle it. The scene was added by Sondheim and Furth for a major 1995 revival, directly in response to theories among the public that the reason for Bobby’s inability to understand marriage is that he is gay. The writers’ intention is to dispel such a notion, and for me, to suggest that Bobby is gay would be a complete cop-out – much too easy an answer to the question of why Bobby is so unhappy. It’s deeper than that, and the purpose of the scene, in my eyes, is to show that Bobby’s profound unhappiness doesn’t come from a place of “my lifestyle isn’t accepted by my friends, so I can’t embrace it fully and be with someone on an intimate level,” but rather a place of “all of my friends have SOMEONE to share their lives with and for whatever reason I don’t find myself wanting that…what is my deficiency?”

Basically, I don’t believe the scene itself affords the opportunity for the two men to actually discuss homosexuality on the level you suggest. Bobby’s final line, in which he dismisses Peter’s implications as a big joke (even though they clearly aren’t), represents a desire to remove himself from an uncomfortable situation. I don’t see how the scene could result in “one of the most tender and serious moments of the entire production” when it ends this way.

Anyways, that’s my two cents. If you feel I’ve missed what you’re trying to say, please let me know…I really think this scene is important (despite what may seem at first glance like an invalidation of the homosexual lifestyle) because it adds another facet to Robert’s loneliness and helps to clarify the reason for his unhappiness.

I agree with you that the entire cast and crew of ‘Company’ deserve a round of applause for their hard work and dedication to this production. It is truly one of the best shows I have seen at Princeton and recommend everyone go and see it.

However, I strongly disagree with your criticisms regarding the scene between Peter and Robert and, more importantly, your somewhat personal attacks against Dave Holtz. Before you berate the director for inserting some “comic relief,” perhaps you should read the original script and staging for this particular scene. Holtz stayed true to the script and staging he was given and the actors involved were absolutely on point. As a gay man, I found this scene particularly funny and applauded the fact that it was even part of the production.

If Holtz actually had a problem with “homosexual experiences,” which I can assure you he does not, than he could have removed the scene all together. The fact that he left the script intact shows that Holtz recognized the importance of all of the featured relationships – be them friendly, romantic, heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual.

To be frank, I’m not quite sure what you expected from Holtz in this particular scene or the show in general. You would be hard-pressed to find a fellow audience member who thought that, in a scene lasting a total of 90 seconds, Holtz singlehandedly “illegitimized and invalidated homosexuality.”

Let’s all get off of our high horses for just a second and take a step back.

If anything, Holtz should be commended for casting openly gay actors to play heterosexual roles and enlisting the help of openly gay crew members to help produce the show. Had Holtz wanted to “illegitimized and invalidated homosexuality” he would have cast heterosexual actors to play heterosexual roles. End of story.

Your attacks are a slap in the face to the homosexual men and women who worked so hard on this show. Your angsty remarks have only worked to illegitimize the opinions you put forth. Next time you sit down to personally attack someone of such fine character as Dave Holtz, I hope that you take a second to think about the other members of the cast and crew you may be offending. It is you, Brenda Jin, who provided the ultimate sensitivity fail.

If you mean valid in a moral sense then they either are already or never will be. We know where you stand on that.

If you mean valid in the sense of being widely accepted in American society as equivalent, the answer is never.