4 ms·

So he "saves the play" by threatening physical violence against girls in the audience who laughed at the wrong time. I'm having a hard time interpreting this as

So he "saves the play" by threatening physical violence against girls in the audience who laughed at the wrong time. I'm having a hard time interpreting this as a fine moment for this fine actor.

macintux 8y ago
It’s an interesting dilemma. Yes, your description is accurate and sounds terrible, but at the same time the play embraced that audience interaction (witness the actress lunging at the front row, and the frequent lines addressed towards the audience). That, and James Earl Jones presumably had brief moments to improvise a response (and may well have not known he was “threatening” teenagers) and was behaving in character. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it’s not an easy situation to classify one way or another.
- hirundo 8y ago
  Next you'll tell me that people who sit in the front row of a Gallagher performance deserve to be splattered with watermelon.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    They kinda do - I mean thats the whole point of a Gallagher performance, isn't it?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - aaaaaaass 8y ago
      woosh
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    If you buy the ticket to a Gallagher show, pay extra for front row seats, and are handed a cagoul... yes. That is literally the point, just like people in the front row of a comedy set with Frankie Boyle, or in the front row of a Sea World show. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
ken 8y ago
He's an actor on stage, and saying a line in character. It may have shocked them for a moment, but nobody who's been in a theatre before should believe that he's actually threatening violence. When a character holding a rifle prop points the barrel out into the house, do you think the audience believes their lives are actually being threatened?
- macintux 8y ago
  There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior. If he had, say, climbed off stage and walked towards them menacingly, that too would be acceptable as part of the scripted play yet more disturbing if done impromptu as a response to the audience members’ behavior. I think what he did is fine, but I don’t think your analogy is a strong one. Edit: minor wording
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior. And both are OK if that someone is behaving like a jerk. Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > Beyond some point even actual violence is OK. For behaving like a jerk? That's bonkers.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Really? I'm pretty sure most resort to actual violence after the jerkish behavior extends a threshold. Where do you cut the "jerk behavior" threshold? Someone skipping a queue? Smoking in a closed office? It could get way worse... How about someone hitting badly on your wife with you and your kids present and no taking no for an answer (and them knowing it you're married?)
bradknowles 8y ago
It’s a play where they break the fourth wall many times, and address the audience directly. There’s even a scene where one of the characters starts blaming all their troubles on white people, then picks out a white member of the audience and lunges at them as if to try to kill them — but the other actors hold her back. I don’t have a problem with the way James Earl Jones handled that situation. The description sounded totally in character. I’m more curious about what they would have done if it was NAACP night at the theater, and there wasn’t a white person in the house. And I’m reminded that I want to go see Spamalot again, and this time make sure that I get the seat D1.

So he "saves the play" by threatening physical violence against girls in the audience who laughed at the wrong time. I'm having a hard time interpreting this as a fine moment for this fine actor.

macintux 8y ago

It’s an interesting dilemma. Yes, your description is accurate and sounds terrible, but at the same time the play embraced that audience interaction (witness the actress lunging at the front row, and the frequent lines addressed towards the audience). That, and James Earl Jones presumably had brief moments to improvise a response (and may well have not known he was “threatening” teenagers) and was behaving in character. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it’s not an easy situation to classify one way or another.

hirundo 8y ago
Next you'll tell me that people who sit in the front row of a Gallagher performance deserve to be splattered with watermelon.
- Aloha 8y ago
  They kinda do - I mean thats the whole point of a Gallagher performance, isn't it?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaaaaaass 8y ago
    woosh
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  If you buy the ticket to a Gallagher show, pay extra for front row seats, and are handed a cagoul... yes. That is literally the point, just like people in the front row of a comedy set with Frankie Boyle, or in the front row of a Sea World show. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

ken 8y ago

He's an actor on stage, and saying a line in character. It may have shocked them for a moment, but nobody who's been in a theatre before should believe that he's actually threatening violence. When a character holding a rifle prop points the barrel out into the house, do you think the audience believes their lives are actually being threatened?

macintux 8y ago
There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior. If he had, say, climbed off stage and walked towards them menacingly, that too would be acceptable as part of the scripted play yet more disturbing if done impromptu as a response to the audience members’ behavior. I think what he did is fine, but I don’t think your analogy is a strong one. Edit: minor wording
- coldtea 8y ago
  >There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior. And both are OK if that someone is behaving like a jerk. Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > Beyond some point even actual violence is OK. For behaving like a jerk? That's bonkers.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Really? I'm pretty sure most resort to actual violence after the jerkish behavior extends a threshold. Where do you cut the "jerk behavior" threshold? Someone skipping a queue? Smoking in a closed office? It could get way worse... How about someone hitting badly on your wife with you and your kids present and no taking no for an answer (and them knowing it you're married?)

bradknowles 8y ago

It’s a play where they break the fourth wall many times, and address the audience directly. There’s even a scene where one of the characters starts blaming all their troubles on white people, then picks out a white member of the audience and lunges at them as if to try to kill them — but the other actors hold her back. I don’t have a problem with the way James Earl Jones handled that situation. The description sounded totally in character. I’m more curious about what they would have done if it was NAACP night at the theater, and there wasn’t a white person in the house. And I’m reminded that I want to go see Spamalot again, and this time make sure that I get the seat D1.