Sexism in theatre? Gershon & "Shriners Ballet"
So, the backstory: There is currently a Bye Bye Birdie revival on Broadway, starring (among other people) Gina Gershon. Now, in Birdie as traditionally performed, there is a number called the "Shriners Ballet". This is it:
[In the video, Chita Rivera as 'Rose' interrupts a Shriners meeting and dances suggestively/flirtatiously. For the last minute or so of the video, however, the situation is reversed, so the (male) Shriners appear to be acting aggressively toward Rose, who is resisting (whether or not her resistance is sincere or flirtatious is ambiguous in this recording)]
So, in the current production, this number is no longer part of the show. In interviews, Gershon has said because "It seemed a little too gang rape-y." [Via.]
And you know what? I think this is a reasonable concern. I do! The second part of the number shows a whole lot of men asserting power over a lone woman, in a context that has been established as quite clearly sexual. Don't get me wrong--as a dance, it's brilliant. And Rivera performs it wonderfully. But the power dynamic in it is a bit 'ugh'. As it isn't A HUGELY INTEGRAL PLOT POINT, its being cut doesn't harm the structure of the show, and quite possibly avoids triggering audience members who have survived sexual assault and wouldn't be expecting to be reminded of that in a "family-friendly" show.
However, most theatre people don't seem to take this stance. Their main argument seems to be "but it's been performed that way forever!" [And even the 'unbiased' news source that originally quoted Gershon takes this stance--see "where this number has been performed for nearly 50 years" {the entire article is actually pretty failtastic}]. Look, don't get me wrong--it's a very well-choreographed number, and requires a considerable amount of skill from the dancer. But "gang-rapey" is a valid concern to raise with it, and I feel like removing it from the show is a perfectly reasonable decision.
See where I said it requires skill from the dancer? That's where the other tactic from those opposed to its removal comes in to play. See, a whole lot of people are saying "I bet it was taken out because Gershon couldn't dance it". And it's true; Gina Gershon is not the strongest musical theatre actress. She's a good actress generally, but her voice has a narrow range and she is not a trained dancer.
But that does not invalidate her concerns with the number. It doesn't! It is possible that she could have difficulty dancing it, but also find it objectionable on ideological grounds. That's a valid stance! It's possible [though unlikely] that she is in fact quite capable of dancing it, but doesn't feel comfortable with the scene it portrays! ONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OTHER.
I don't have a neat conclusion. It just really bothers me that Gershon's objection to the dance--which is a wholly valid concern; it can be read as "gang-rapey"--is being wholly dismissed. Being dismissed, what's more, in the form of a personal attack. "Oh, she's just saying it because she can't dance it". She might not be able to dance it. She might be able to. But either way, she (and, ultimately, the director, who made the decision to cut it) is still allowed to find it ideologically unsavoury. And to gloss over the very real issues that can be raised by this dance strikes me as unfair and, frankly, sexist.
Click to view[In the video, Chita Rivera as 'Rose' interrupts a Shriners meeting and dances suggestively/flirtatiously. For the last minute or so of the video, however, the situation is reversed, so the (male) Shriners appear to be acting aggressively toward Rose, who is resisting (whether or not her resistance is sincere or flirtatious is ambiguous in this recording)]
So, in the current production, this number is no longer part of the show. In interviews, Gershon has said because "It seemed a little too gang rape-y." [Via.]
And you know what? I think this is a reasonable concern. I do! The second part of the number shows a whole lot of men asserting power over a lone woman, in a context that has been established as quite clearly sexual. Don't get me wrong--as a dance, it's brilliant. And Rivera performs it wonderfully. But the power dynamic in it is a bit 'ugh'. As it isn't A HUGELY INTEGRAL PLOT POINT, its being cut doesn't harm the structure of the show, and quite possibly avoids triggering audience members who have survived sexual assault and wouldn't be expecting to be reminded of that in a "family-friendly" show.
However, most theatre people don't seem to take this stance. Their main argument seems to be "but it's been performed that way forever!" [And even the 'unbiased' news source that originally quoted Gershon takes this stance--see "where this number has been performed for nearly 50 years" {the entire article is actually pretty failtastic}]. Look, don't get me wrong--it's a very well-choreographed number, and requires a considerable amount of skill from the dancer. But "gang-rapey" is a valid concern to raise with it, and I feel like removing it from the show is a perfectly reasonable decision.
See where I said it requires skill from the dancer? That's where the other tactic from those opposed to its removal comes in to play. See, a whole lot of people are saying "I bet it was taken out because Gershon couldn't dance it". And it's true; Gina Gershon is not the strongest musical theatre actress. She's a good actress generally, but her voice has a narrow range and she is not a trained dancer.
But that does not invalidate her concerns with the number. It doesn't! It is possible that she could have difficulty dancing it, but also find it objectionable on ideological grounds. That's a valid stance! It's possible [though unlikely] that she is in fact quite capable of dancing it, but doesn't feel comfortable with the scene it portrays! ONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OTHER.
I don't have a neat conclusion. It just really bothers me that Gershon's objection to the dance--which is a wholly valid concern; it can be read as "gang-rapey"--is being wholly dismissed. Being dismissed, what's more, in the form of a personal attack. "Oh, she's just saying it because she can't dance it". She might not be able to dance it. She might be able to. But either way, she (and, ultimately, the director, who made the decision to cut it) is still allowed to find it ideologically unsavoury. And to gloss over the very real issues that can be raised by this dance strikes me as unfair and, frankly, sexist.