Tina: I did respond to the issues, in some detail. Please read more carefully. And I'm not uncomfortable with any dirty laundry -- there is no dirty laundry, that's my point. Yes, toward the end there I took some cheap shots at Annette, and I should not have done so, I am sorry I did. But she was saying some pretty ugly things about a community of which I am a part -- am I not entitled to respond in kind?
I find it amusing that you charge me with ad hominem attacks in defense of Annette, whose post was bile start to finish. You apply a rather inconsistent standard.
The assumption -- and by "sounds like," I thought I had made it clear I was aware that I was making an assumption -- that Annette was talking about Jobsite was logical, based on the fact that she was describing a company she had followed for some time and described them as "kids," which fits only the perception of Jobsite, and because that specific charge is commonly made against Jobsite. I did also address the issue more broadly, saying the charges Annette made applied to most small theaters (you really must read more carefully), but you are absolutely right, I do not know with certainty she was describing Jobsite, and if she was not, I surely regret having assumed so.
A shill? Because he is associated with the company he loses his right to express an opinion?
Mark gave his opinion, that's his job. Shawn takes issue with the ideas underlying a part of that opinion, and it's his right to express that.
It's healthy for artists to receive considered criticism and analysis, it's healthy for them to articulate a counteropinion, and it's healthy for the critic -- and readers -- to hear it. Everybody is doing exactly what they should be doing.
Except you. You are being snide and unproductive, and quite transparently have a chip on your shoulder. You should go away.
Oh, and "troubled kids"? Shawn is a successful producer and film director, and nowhere near a kid anymore. You don't know what -- or whom -- you are talking about.
Annette: It sounds like your complaint is mostly leveled against Jobsite. It's one I have heard before, and it's bogus. I have been in a handful of Jobsite productions over the years, but I am not part of the organization, not one of "the kids." Almost every Jobsite show I have been in has had one or more cast members in it who were completely new to Jobsite. In the last one, the leading lady was new to Jobsite -- I'm sure some of the regular Jobsite women who might have wanted that role would be amused to hear about how it's always the same people getting the good parts.
Some of us who work sporadically at Jobsite go years between roles, Jobsite can hardly be accused of showing us too often. Yes, there are people who are sort of regulars, because they have a history with the company and the company knows they're good and they are reliable, and why not? That's true of every small theatre in the universe -- look around, it's how it's done. In every endeavor, people gravitate toward working again with people they have had positive experiences with -- but there is always new blood, if not in every show, surely multiple times in every season, and at every theater in town. Yes, some people play similar sorts of roles in multiple plays (though perhaps not as invariably as you suppose), because that's what they are physically suited to, and do well, and why not? Sorry for you that you have not been among the new blood. I don't know anything about you, but you might consider that there are other possible reasons you have not been cast, and work toward addressing those deficiencies, instead of writing it all off to the supposed "semi-autism" (gawd) of the director.
Based on some of your other patently baseless charges ("lefty, lesbo-centric theater"... what the hell are you talking about?), I wonder if you have a reputation for being an unpleasant person to be around. Maybe that's why nobody casts you. Ensemble spirit is an important factor in the success of a show, and a wise director avoids casting poisonous people who might cast a pall over the process. I have no way of knowing whether that's the case with you. But you might give it some thought. You should get some coaching on your auditioning skills, practice being nice to people, and see if things improve for you. Refraining from labeling directors retarded in print under your own name would be an excellent start.
And yes, MT is correct, Jim and Alvin and I are all dead sexy.
Honestly I never gave it any thought... I've only been to the Indy once or twice and always late at night, so I just never associated it with food... But I'm not sure how that's relevant, I wasn't making any comparisons, I used to take my daughter to Cappy's because she likes pizza. I don't "draw a line" anywhere... Just never happened to think about taking my daughter to the Indy.
Perhaps what you're getting at is that what Scooter's really doing, by inches, is rebranding his place from a neighborhood pizza joint, where one might naturally assume kids were welcome, to a bar, where kids are not welcome. I suspect that's correct. If you're saying, "Well, ya know, Cappy's is really a bar, people shouldn't be taking kids there anyway," I say everything about the place says daytime pizza joint -- except the nasty sign up front.
What's REALLY weird is when I did not understand your question and asked for clarification, someone "disliked" that. Huh?
Joel: The other locations do not have the sign, or the attitude. They ARE kid-friendly. Only Scooter seems to be afflicted with such monsters that he feels the need to scare off families. This is part of what makes his whole tale so suspect. Surely there were not hundreds of bad kids busting his fountains... Why could he not have booted the few kids that caused the trouble and welcomed the rest? This is the part those of you who think he's a hero don't seem to get... CL jokes about the idea that he "hates kids," but he does seem to think that ALL kids are the same as those who troubled him.
I guess it's splitting hairs, since both have food and alcohol, but I think of Cappy's as a pizza joint and of The Indy as a bar. I take my children to pizza joints, I don't take them to bars, that seems reasonable to me. Would love to know what your point is.
No. Why do you ask?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation