From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:24:21 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <CORWIN+.92Nov11162956@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
> In article <1drjnnINNm7g@mizar.usc.edu>
> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> > CMU's role is to turn out polished, professional actors. [...]
>
> OK, let's start from this.  I will define what you wrote above as
> "refining their talent".  This is CMU's job.  The problem is that at
> CMU, the person's progress along these lines is not the only criterion
> on which they are judged.  I have already posted that a current
> student of Drama has been told, "Your acting work is fine, you're
> picking up the technique, but you look effeminate onstage and we can't
> have that." 

It is a student actor's job to look and effeminate when a 
role calls for it, or to look and act butch when appropriate, 
or to look and act insane, or to look and act old, or to look
and act fat, or to look and act sick, or to look and act
young, or to....  

> How does one "look effeminate"? 

Take a peek at one of my .gifs from the archive.

> Is this an appropriate
> comment to be made repeatedly throughout the year? 

If it's a problem, yes.

> Can one person's
> opinion of what is effeminate differ from another?

But of course.  Look, almost everything about acting
is subjective.  A friend of mine was Sigourney Weaver's 
acting teacher at Yale.  He thought she stank as an actor 
but that she was so much fun to be around and to watch, 
and had such drive, that it didn't matter much.  Other
students who were better actors than Weaver but who lacked 
that certain something received lower grades from him than
she did.  And you have to remember, as Jess does not, that
we're talking about an acting program, not the real world.
Lots of artists in all media who succeed brilliantly in the 
real world wouldn't last a semester in school.

> I will tell you that Drama claims students are not cut if they
> demonstrate "maturity and talent."  How is someone's "effeminate"
> manner related to maturity and talent? (as I told Steve Dyer,
> overweight women were also cut.  How does someone's weight relate to
> their maturity and talent?)

I can envision cases where a student's refusal to work
on his effeminate behavior *on stage in scenes where it's
inappropriate* would be a convincing demonstration of his
immaturity.  As for weight, you have to keep in mind that
acting programs such as CMU's try to produce actors capable
of tackling any role.  There's a push to get all actors to
conform to a, well, neutral look.

> >I don't see that students are being forced to deny their
> >sexuality.  I see them as being forced to train their
> >bodies and voices.
>
> But the student above is doing fine on those criteria.  I want to know
> how the subjective comment about their being effeminate (not something
> which can be measured objectively) is appropriate.

Please let me know one thing about acting that can be
measured objectively.  OK, I can think of a couple: the
ability to memorize lines and blocking.  In what *objective*
manner can you measure student x's performance of Masha in
"Three Sisters" against student y's performance of the
same part?

> >>"One of the first things you hear is if they can tell you are gay
> >>onstage you're in big trouble.  I've seen kids here who are tortured
> >>about it."  This is what a current told Stantin in his article [...]
>
> >Yeah, so what?  I'm sure the department would single out
> >students who speak non-standard English, too.  And rightly so.
>
> You are making several assumptions which I believe to be false.  The
> first one is that these students are flaming queens onstage and can't
> act. 

The assumption I'm making is based on what you've 
posted -- that they read "gay" or act in an "effeminate" 
manner on stage in parts where that's inappropriate.
Again, this is *school*.  If Jackson Pollack were to
have handed in one of his action paintings in a life 
drawing class, he would have failed.  Would that mean
that Pollack was a bad artist?

[...]
> I do not accept the assumption that all the gay men admitted to Drama
> in 1979 (and cut in 1981) were without talent and behaved like flaming
> queens. 

Well, the evidence you've produced seems to support 
the contention that the gay men who were cut did behave 
like flaming queens.

> We also seem to be arguing about different things.  You are arguing
> that individual cases may be correct.  I am arguing that CMU Drama has
> a history of discrimination against a class of people. 

What I am arguing is that CMU Drama wants students who
are capable of playing the widest possible variety of
roles.  So, yes, CMU Drama discriminates against people
whose mannerisms or physical appearance severely limits
the kinds of roles they can play.

> There is a
> difference, and I think that is where we are failing to communicate.
> Unless you believe that the 1981 incident known as Bloody Monday is
> indicative that gay men make bad actors, which i don't think you do
> believe.

No, I most certainly don't mean to imply that gay men
make bad actors.

> You are also not responding to points that students live in fear that
> if they are found out to be gay (by attending cmuOUT, or appearing gay
> onstage), they will be cut from the program.  Is this fear
> appropriate?

If a student reads gay onstage in a role where that is
inappropriate, then of course that's something the student
has to work on.  From the information you've provided,
though, there's nothing to indicate that a gay male student's 
sexual orientation per se or his behavior out of class or
offstage is an issue.

> Let me tell you something else about Drama.  There is only one openly
> gay faculty member, and several that are in the closet.  The open
> faculty member was hired this year.  After this person was hired,
> someone else on faculty questioned his/her capability to do the job
> because "he is gay."

I find that *very* difficult to believe.

> My initial article was about an article published by a reputable trade
> publication.  The sources were verified.  You may accept that
> individual cases in the article were exagerated and did not
> demonstrate homophobia (I disagree),

I don't think the cases you mentioned were exaggerated.
Of course it demonstrates homophobia, but that's one of
the brute facts of life about acting schools.  If you
can't help but appear gay in every scene you do, you won't
do well.

> but the point I am trying to make
> is that there is an atmosphere in CMU's drama department which is
> hostile to gays (and lesbians).

I understand what you're trying to say, but you have to
keep in mind that CMU's drama department is not interested
in helping its students work out their sexual identities.

> There, that response is a little less defensive I think :-)

Yes, it was.

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss