Lip Sync Smack Down a Gay Smack in the Face
I must admit I had no idea what to expect for the Lip Sync Smack Down Cabaret event Thursday night at The Gladstone Ballroom. But I certainly didn't think it was an exclusively gay performance night.
Billed as "A Lipsync Cabaret Funrazor (sic) Event in support of the upcoming 7a*11d International Festival of Performance Art," the evening sounded like a fun-for-all event, kind of like last month's Canadian Air Guitar Championships. Perhaps without the contest aspect.
Creating an event like this is fine, but to not promote it as an over-the-top gay night left me wondering if I had misread the press release. Unless you knew all the performers listed on the bill, it was hard to make that connection.
Now don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against gay people, honest. Some of my best friends are gay.
Kudos to the organizers for creating an entertaining fundraiser. But if they were trying to appeal to a mixed crowd, they failed terribly.
What turned me off was the overly crass repartee of the host Keith Cole, whose banter between acts included asking which girls in the audience can eat themselves out.
While this may be fair game in a gay bar, I found it offensive. Have you ever heard a host for any show ask the same, or ask which guys in the audience, for that matter, if they can auto-fellate?
Cole (pictured above) invited the subject up on stage, where he continued to embarrass her, much to the shock and delight of the audience. Not that she wasn't game. But still, there's a time and a place for everything.
Among the entertaining performers was Shane MacKinnon (top photo in story) doing a fey version of Tiny Tim's Tiptoe Through The Tulips and Allyson Mitchell (pictured below) whose fabulous outfit was a throwback to those ceramic Holly Hobby-style dolls.
At intermission I took a breather and strolled down to the nearby Drake Hotel underground, where Ebony Bones was set to entertain.
We were treated to a lively set full of colourful costumes and music that rocked the place.
Almost everyone was dancing by the end of their all-too-short set that didn't get started until about 1:15 a.m. I left with my ears ringing and my heart pounding. Now that was more like it.
Photos by Roger Cullman.
Comments (109)
Two Things:
1. "The regular folk may find it offensive."- I'm assuming by "regular" you mean "straight", which implies there is something irregular about queer sexuality. Some of the "irregular folk" may find that offensive.
2."Some of the best gays are my friends."- Do you mean some of your best friends are gay?
"the regular folk may find it offensive"
Wow, this was a mess of a blog post.
Summary: Rogers didn't find the gays entertaining, so he strolled elsewhere to have a down-to-earth-ISH good time.
And I'm sure the last two photos completely represent *everyone's* idea of 'regular'!
Publisher's note - I have made some edits to the post. Personally, I'm not sure why Roger would be so offended - but I wasn't there so I'm not going to try to defend or explain this post.
"Now don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against gay people, honest."
That was a stupid thing to say. It sounds sarcastic, and coupled with the rest of the post it looks like an outright lie.
As for not knowing what to expect, you linked to an article on Keith Cole, the MC, wherein they mention in the second sentence that he urinated on the stage of a previous event. Presumably if you're volunteering to cover events you likely have at least a moderate interest in the content of said events. If not, leave it to another writer. Maybe one that doesn't sound like a homophobic prick, and doesn't have to say shit along the lines of I LOVE THE GAYS PLEASE BELIEVE ME!
10001 reasons why I love Keith Cole...be glad he didn't pee on you whiny bitch. God you would of creamed your conservative panties if you saw awhile ago as 'Peppermint Highway'...... or the time when he punched a hole in the roof of Lub....., or the other time when etc. etc. etc....he is an amazing host, loosen your virgin ass a little fuckface.
ronotoe 
on August 25, 2008 10:30 PM
well then...let us imagine for a second some promo material that reads: please note this event is going to be an 'over-the-top gay night'.
now say it out loud. a couple of times.
yeah - sounds pretty dang stupid, doesn't it?
Wow, reading some of the comments, Tim I think you made the right call in editing the post. Roger, that was a highly offensive comment. I'd raise just a bit of a stink if someone were to segregate me as "irregular" or whatever you're implying by that statement.
Normally I wouldn't comment on a writer's style here, but given how pissed off this post made me when I read it, I feel this is worth noting -- this is another post in a long, long series of Rogerisms where he personally felt the venue or event wasn't interesting and made some totally subjective/ignorant remarks. Roger didn't like the event, left and went to something totally unrelated that appealed more to his 'sensitibilities.'
Why the hell should I or anyone else care, honestly? You guys all know I'm all for blogging, freedom of expression and what not, but there comes a point when the content just becomes irrelevant.
Roger! I've told you several times before but I guess it hasn't sunk in. You need to stop writing articles! It is just not your thing. Take pictures, edit, do whatever else you do, but please stop posting your "insights" into Toronto events. Its not good for those who read it, its certainly not any good for those you report on and its sure as hell not doing you any good at all... (ask one of the friends who you REALLY trust to tell you the truth on that one).
your photos are overexposed. more importantly, how do you not know who keith cole is? are you new in town? he is very well known for exactly that kind of over-the-top hosting duties, like it or not. a simple google search pre-attendance might have helped. hopefully the better bloggers at blogTO can help with a few search engine skills.
Now don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against (BLANK) people, honest. Some of my best friends are (BLANK).
*you can fill out the blank sections with any word that represents a certain group of people (try minority groups such as black, middle easter, Chinese etc,)
This line helps you win your arguments almost all the time.
Roger, considering you're (or were) in school for photojournalism, you'd think the first thing they'd teach you would be to do a little homework on your assignment. Baffling. I popped over from RSS to comment on the "regular people" remark, but it looks like others have already said plenty enough.
What I meant by "regular folk" was the regular Gladstone crowd. This wasn't held at Buddies. And it certainly wasn't billed as a queer show.
Just because Keith Cole spouted urine on stage before, it doesn't mean that I should expect him to spout vulgarities. Especially at The Gladstone, where people's sensibilities are far more conservative. I was more taken aback with the show than offended personally.
Cole was definitely playing to a queer audience, not a mixed crowd. His delivery and engagement with the audience was directed towards the queer community. That's all fine and dandy, but I felt excluded from the repartee as a result.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but going into a show billed as this one was (to raise funds for a performance artist's group) there was no indication that this would turn out to be such a raunchy show.
I'm all for titillating experiences and over-the-top performances. But when it comes at the expense of my enjoyment of the overall show, there's nothing much there to keep me involved.
I really enjoyed the Shane MacKinnon and Allyson Mitchell pieces, as well as the performance piece done by Andrew Paterson. And seeing Andrew Harwood's getup as a psychic reader was a treat. However, all this was overshadowed by the host's formulaic stage antics.
@Munzz. Just about everyone has heard that line before. I thought that, by twisting it around a bit, it would be obvious that this was not how I really felt. I guess irony is dead. :)
BlogTO, please don't publish any more tasteless reviews like this. While it is understandable that someone would feel offended when being unexpectedly exposed to unwanted overt sexuality, this review reflects poorly on the standards of this blog. The author could have simply written that the event was poorly marketed; comments about the offense taken, having gay friends, or the crassness of gay bars, are not necessary, useful, nor interesting.
Publisher's note (again) - Just so everyone is clear on a few things.
1. The decision to publish this post was Roger's and Roger's alone. Roger is a long-time contributor to this site and overall his posts have been some of our best and most popular. As such, he has earned the right to publish posts without them being screened by an editor first. This post was not seen by anyone other than Roger before it was published. The first time I read it was when it was already on the site and as noted in the third comment above I made the decision at that time to edit the post, but not to remove it.
2. Why was this post not removed? While I personally do not sympathize with the point of view of this post, it is not my role as the Publisher of this site to censor the opinions of those who contribute to it. Further, I was not at the event and had not talked to Roger and therefore did not feel it was appropriate to remove it without hearing Roger's side of the story.
3. Now what? Well, now I have Roger's side of the story but I still don't buy his arguments. While the Gladstone's crowd may have been "conservative" ten years ago, it certainly isn't any more. The Gladstone is one of the most progressive venues in the city and has helped shaped the neighbourhood's identity as the "Queer West Village".
http://gaywest.905host.net/files/queerwestvillage.php
Overall, this isn't a post on the site that I'm particularly proud of or that I think represents the views of many of the site's other contributors but at this point it now has a life of its own and will remain on the site as a forum for the author and those who read it to discuss and debate its merits.
That line about friends should be changed back to its original form as it was intentional and just looks bad now (worse depending on your opinion).
what an uptight, uninformed prick. OMG, GAYS AT THE GLADSTONE!!! Dude, wake up...the Gladstone is pretty much the queerest place west of the village.
Roger Rabbit,
Have you ever been to the Gladstone Hotel before? Are you confused by St. Leonards Motel where you and your usual crack smoking review friends hung out before it's demise?
Who knew straight boys were such delicate little flowers?Man up, Roger!
The Gladstone has been pretty queer every time I've been there. I can't imagine why Roger would expect it to be straight dude central. Has he even been there before?
"Creating an event like this is fine, but to not promote it as an over-the-top gay night left me wondering if I had misread the press release."
TRANSLATION = Someone should have told me gays were gonna be there! I wouldn't have come within twenty miles of the place.
"it is not my role as the Publisher of this site to censor the opinions of those who contribute to it."
So if someone posted something racist, that would be OK too?
@Tripper - that wouldn't be ok. My take on this is that Roger's comments aren't homophobic but are rather just his impression of an event that, according to his tastes, was a bit over the top, crass and unexpected.
Tripper:
Because saying something racist would be just that much worse then saying something bigoted, homophobic, sexist or....?
There's a lot wrong with the article, but at no point does it try to incite hate (to anyone other then the author), which is pretty much the only reason I would expect the publisher to get involved.
It may not incite hate but I found Roger's article offensive and a teensy little bit homophobic. That's all I'm saying.
"Just about everyone has heard that line before. I thought that, by twisting it around a bit, it would be obvious that this was not how I really felt. I guess irony is dead. :)"
@Roger: so how did you twist that line?
and also when you say it's "obvious that this was not how I really felt", does that mean that what you really meant was the exact oppositie. in which case it would be:
"I have everything against gay people, none of my best friends are gay"
Tim's comments were helpful in explaining how this post happened, but I'm afraid Roger has lost whatever credibility as a writer he may have had (@ Adam's comments about previous writing that I too have noticed) and still threaten BlogTO's reputation.
To not understand that the Gladstone is an extremely Queer place is the kind of out-of-touch "journalism" you expect from, say, Time magazine, or some other antiquated conservative organ, not a blog like BlogTO that is supposed to be "in touch" with exactly this kind of contemporary scene. If he hasn't picked up on the Gladstone's (very central to West Queer West) sensibility yet, how can I trust he has the perspective to write about anything? There are regular Queer events at this venue. That's what you have to ask, Tim.
This post wasn't inciting hate, surely, but it is impossibly stupid. What if he went to a music night at the Gladstone and it was all hip hop. Not Hey Ya hip hop that Roger might find normal or have expected, but deep ass hip hop with kids from Flemo Park doing their thing. What if he was shocked this was at the Gladstone and suggested it was "Too Black" or "over the top black". That isn't hate either, but I bet the post would be more than edited and maybe taken down. That's not censorship, that's keep bad writers from writing on your blog.
Blogs are great because they allow individual voices, but a bad writer can easily take down the cred of the other writers, so other BlogTO writers should think about what having Roger on staff does to how their writing is viewed, and the blog as a whole, and lobby internally for his removal.
Lol...
Offensive? It's offensive watching an emasculated fat man dance around in a thong. Ignorance is bliss though, isn't it...
I don't know why anybody would post an article or review of an event they attended, people just shit all over them, picking every little thing apart.
i went to the show to support 7a*11d and some artists that i know and was hoping to see some interesting performance pieces. i ended up leaving because i just wasn't comfortable with the mc's banter with the crowd. i am a lesbian and i found the comments in poor taste. just because you're dressed in drag it does not give you licence to discuss my bedroom habits.
oh, and not everyone is familiar with keith. i recognized his face from clubs on church but please, that's like saying, ?you're from toronto? do you know bill smith?'
i did not see any signs stating nudity and strong language; which there was quite a bit of. i would expect that type of performance at buddies but nowhere in the press release or on the website did i get the impression that this would be a queer evening.
in short, just because i'm a dyke doesn't mean i am going to enjoy listening to some jacked up drag queen yabber on and try to be as offensive as possible. i went to see art not crap.
Wow, all these hateful comments by people who weren't even at the event. Reminds me of those schools that ban books without having read them.
I'm gonna stick to my guns that is no better to say something was 'too gay' then it is to say something was 'too black'. They are both comments that show ignorance. It's no less ridiculous to be homophobic than racist (and I fucking DARE you to say otherwise because that makes you too stupid to bother to explaining my point of view to).
Tim and other Publishers/Editors face decisions like this all the time. Censorship vs. freedom of speech (even speeches that display ignorance, mean spiritedness, or poor grammar) has always been a hot topic, and as "media" is put more into the hands of the people, a larger diversity of opinions will be presented. It's up to the reader to think critically about what they are reading and what truths, lies, or hidden messages are behind that text.
I have more respect for an editor who leaves the choice up to me.
"oh, and not everyone is familiar with keith. i recognized his face from clubs on church but please, that's like saying, ?you're from toronto? do you know bill smith?"
Unless Bill Smith was a renowned Dora Award-nominated performance artist about whom there has been tons and tons of press over the years, and the occasional bit of outrage and controversy. Not to mention that little stint on Canada's Worst Handyman. Otherwise, I see your point.
@ tripper.
what are the dora awards? seriously i don't get out much. who is dora and what's it about?
sorry sweetie, but again, just because i live in toronto doesn't mean i know every fag and dyke.
Read all about the Dora Awards and Dora Mavor Moore here: http://www.tapa.ca/doras/
You don't have to know everyone in Toronto. But Keith Cole is infamous in theater circles.
loosen your virgin ass a little fuckface.
Posted by: JESUSCHRIST at August 25, 2008 10:00 PM
^^ .. I'm sure Christ would not approve of this comment. If you want to spew profanities, can you please not include our Lord's name into it !?!? Thx for your future consideration, I hope you are prepared to repent at the pearly gates.. God Bless!!
@ tripper.
thanks for the info. i will check it out.
and even if he is infamous, i didn't know him. but i sure do now and will stay very far away.
if his only schtick it to be offensive that is an old old gag and perhaps he should get some new material. regardless, i did not have a good time being insulted so i left. plain and simple.
"What turned me off was the overly crass repartee of the host Keith Cole, whose banter between acts included asking which girls in the audience can eat themselves out. While this may be fair game in a gay bar, I found it offensive."
So, just to recap, Keith Cole asking that question of a few dozen people is crass and offensive, but reporting it on the web to thousands isn't? Dude.
Also, Roger, please endeavour to warn me of any event which is over-the-top straight, so that my delicate queer sensibilities can be protected.
i don't know about you but Ebony Bones kinda looks like the demented offspring of The Village People and Gwar... definitely not regular folk.
this post is colossally stupid, ignorant, and embarassing. It's a good example (among many others) why BlogTO needs some semblance of editorial direction (and not the egotistical finger wagging of Jerrold, either). The fact that overcompensating Roger still doesn't seem to believe he was being a douche just underscores why he shouldn't be writing about topics that (a) make him feel icky, or (b) he knows little about. That goes for his other stuff too.
BlogTO is really falling apart these days. Unless you care about shows that already happened that you weren't at, or what random shifty restaurant closed. This takes the cake. Roger's article read like it belonged on some blowhard right wing blog, and yes, it comes across as homophobic. Even the title of the article is reminiscent of the whole "why do they have to shove it down our throats?" ol' standby.
It was gayer than you even describe! It was super gay and I'm offended that you didn't mention me. I'm big-ass gay and my Joni Mitchell rocked...anyway, you're not going to stop anyone from having a good time or much garner much attention....I wouldn't have written anything if it weren't for shameless self promotion...it would be good to see a real macho version of Tip Toe through the Tulips though because it's such a macho song....maybe a whole night of flower tunes...You Don't Send Me Flowers" is so full of testosterone that I've grown hair on my chest just typing this! The easily offended are the most boring!
Kate,
What's your point exactly? Do me a favour - look up the word 'community' while you're in line to get into the Drake patio . "I don't know him," "I don't know the Dora awards," blah, blah, blah - it's like you're proud of your ignorance of active members of the art community (and, sadly, of Google) and want everyone to pat your dear little head for it.
"i did not see any signs stating nudity and strong language."
Nor did they indicate 'Adults only' but that was implied. Perhaps you'd like an Ontario Film Review Board type rating system for art events in Toronto? Cause that's what you and Roger seem to be whining about - you went for the R-rating and were shocked by the 'XXX'. I believe you'd get a lot of support for that kind of rating system from Julian Fantino. He finds these kinds of events just as offensive as you both do and he's just as ignorant of the community from which they spring from (though I'm sure he uses Google - bless his suburban heart).
I support Tim's decision not to censor this review but I'm now curious to see what events he sends Roger to cover in the future. I hear they decided against casting Keith Cole in the Sound of Music (though I'd personally love to see that) so maybe that would be more to his liking.
Finally, let's be clear about something. 'Queer' also means 'sex positive' (read: not uptight) so we're not just talking about sodomites, muff-divers or the trans-community. Anyone is welcome who has a progressive view of these issues.
"there's a time and a place for everything."
Amen.
(see Roger, irony isn't dead, it's just kind of limp and lifeless when you attempt to wield it)
"What turned me off was the overly crass repartee of the host Keith Cole, whose banter between acts included asking which girls in the audience can eat themselves out. While this may be fair game in a gay bar, I found it offensive."
I'm pretty surprised by how careless the wording in this post is, attributing all kinds of behaviour to gayness. "Offensive" sexual banter is, apparently, something exclusive to gays; nope, not ever would this question or its ilk be asked at say, a wet t-shirt contest or in your friendly neighbourhood strip bar for straight men. Or hell, any late-night comedy club (maybe even during ladies' night -- women's comedy isn't necessarily all tampons and toilet seats left up).
It's OK not to find something to your taste, but pigeonholing certain things to sexual orientation is just really lazy.
I guess the most pressing question here is how many gay bars Roger's been to. I'm curious, since he seems to know a lot about what goes on in them.
Editor's note: I've just returned from vacation and am just catching up on this article and the ensuing fallout now. I'd like to thank Tim (the publisher of blogTO) for handling this all very well in my absence. Under the circumstances, I wholely support his decisions to leave this article public and leave further explanation up to Roger, the author of the post.
Our readers' opinions are greatly valued and your feedback is always desired, and implemented whenever possible. We can only encourage your continued feedback (positive and negative) and support. Please feel free to write to editors [[at]] blogto [[dot]] com at any time.
This is worse journalism than the . Kanye West after-party post (only because you didn't call it 'too black')
and
I don't get why we need the pun Queer West -- isn't "Queen" saying the same thing?
oh, and
this event looks like it was offensively straight (but also unintentionally gay)
Wow...
WOW WOW WOW
Hi my name is Roger Cullman and I'm an arts journalist who rather than discuss the merit of an artistic show decided to spend more time talking about how "gay" it was and how crass it seemed as if only queer people engage in filthy humor or cabaret. "Some of my best friends are gay... lord, where are you from 1950?"
Good thing I love BlogTO and am a former writer or I'd be throwing up such a stink.
It's actually so foolish of a post that it saddens me slightly to read it on here.
Keith Cole rocks!! If you don't know who he is you shouldn't be writing for anyone let alone Blog TO. Hey Roger, get you head out of your ass. No one cares what you think.
I get it Roger.
And I get what you're saying. If it was billed differently, and was an unexpected surprise (in a negative sense) you have every right to your opinion, regardless of whether it offends or not. People are entitled to their opinion. There's nothing offensive about this article and if anyone has their tightie whities in a knot, its those reacting so harshly. Chill people. Chill.
"...the subject up on stage, where he continued to embarrass her..." One - You could have at least got her name, and Two - she was NOT embarrassed. 'The subject' came back to do an opening number duet with Keith Cole (DORA NOMINATED 07/08) , oh wait you left to go to the drake..and she did a fucking great job...anyway as Keith said
'If you wanted the girl next door - You should go next door'
Wow, all these hateful comments by people who weren't even at the event. Reminds me of those schools that ban books without having read them.
No, Roger, the comments have nothing to do with whether or not we were there. Most of the disgust is not about the event itself, but the way you've poorly worded your article to differentiate gays from "regular people" as well as your other various comments. How can you not see that this was blatantly uncalled for?
I went to the Sound of Music. Now, some of my best friends are straight, but I was petty offended (as it was not the place or time) for it to be an all-white, all-straight cast. I should have been prepared for that type of content.
wow, this article is homophobic and completely lacking any real artistic analysis. To deride something as too gay is akin to complaining that it was too feminine, too black, too asian.
Perhaps the author if this should stick to the world of things that are too straight, too masculine, too White, and too normal.
"If it was billed differently" - Grant Ramsay
Being a performer in the show in question, I am curious as to how to bill a show that included people in the Arts community.
Welcome to Lipsync Smackdown!
A show that includes; male, female, trans, white, black, south asian, polish, *see appendix A.1 for a full list.
As well as the words; A, the, penis, vagina, laugh **see Appendix B.1 for a full list of possible words.
Please be advised that you could indeed; laugh, cry, sleep, shout, punch a drunk **see appendix C.1 for a full list of possible emotions and actions that may or may not be undertaken by you or a member of the audience during the course of the night.
etc., etc.,
btw what's an "over-the-top gay" night?
I mean, I've had a few "under-the-bottom gay" nights but I'm sure Roger wouldn't like those either.
After reading it again what really bothers me is the blatant use of the word gay as a pejorative. Even organizations like the Conservative Party have learned to use code to mask their homophobic agendas. Roger could have easily stuck to phrases like "mixed crowd" or "fun-for-all" and left the homophobia equivocal but instead he has to go and say "exclusively gay", "gay bar" or "over-the-top gay" and thus leaves little argument for his review being anything but emphatically homophobic (I support the editors keeping this up but don't fool yourselves into thinking that this isn't homophobic - it's a textbook example - he didn't leave the bar because the beer was warm, he left because he found it too gay).
I'm left wondering why Roger thinks it's ok to post opinions like this on a public blog (and on this one in particular). I'm glad I live in a city where I can shrug off Roger's antediluvian attitudes as pretty harmless (and even pathetically uptight) but I'd like him to tell us why he thought it was ok to characterize something pejoratively as "too gay"?
Also I'd like to know from the editors if they'd accept a review of a Caribana event that disparaged it an "over-the-top black" event - or 'Taste of the Danforth' as "exclusively Greek." I'd like an answer so that your decision to leave the post up can have some editorial support and not just seem like an crass opportunity to get some hits from a controversial post.
Roger
I'm so glad that you managed to enjoy the event for what it was, an event made up of volunteer performers to help raise money for 7a*11d. There, not because their contributions needed to be labelled based on their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc...
It's too bad Roger's homophobia took centre stage and not the hard work of all of the performers.
It was a great night, made better with your departure. I'm comforted in knowing you decided to take your opinions to the epicentre of the Queen West gentrification program.
Enjoy your Carlsberg years, you twat!
@UnionStayshyn - I think it's safe to say that if this post passed by myself or the editor (Jerrold) before it was published it would have been rejected and NOT published on the site. As such, we would also reject a Caribana article if the author described the event as too black.
Unfortunately, as I noted above, this post was not seen by anyone other than Roger before it was published and therefore I felt the most appropriate action was to edit it and then let the discussion play out.
Now too gay MAY have been if I (the fat naked hairy vagina on stage) would have rubbed my vagina juice all over another woman's face...actually, nahhhhh,.
there was an article about fat and ugly before on blogto, but it was deleted by Tim.. so I wonder why this article was treated differently...
I never said the show was "too gay." I merely suggested that the tone and content of the night was inappropriate to what I had expected to experience.
Had this event taken place at Buddies, this wouldn't have been my perception. No matter how liberal you think Queen West has become, I was still taken aback by the overly crass and vulgar dialogue of the host in a place like The Gladstone.
Granted, my language describing the show wasn't the most carefully worded. MEA CULPA. I'm sorry if I gave any of you the impression that I'm homophobic.
Had the press release been more upfront about its explicit nature of the show or the show's host, I would've gone in knowing full well what I'd be in for. And I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more. :)
So how do you create a successful arts fundraiser that appeals to a mixed crowd? There's many ways to go about it. Other arts groups in this city have done so successfully for years without appealing to our most base sexual proclivities. If you want be inclusive of the entire Toronto arts community, why cater exclusively to the queer crowd? That's the impression I got from the show and the host in particular.
It's great to see such a supportive queer culture in Toronto. I guess this is the other side of the coin to what I reported on just a few weeks ago at the Summerworks Phelps protest.
Greg J. Smith on August 26, 2008 8:52 PM
Wow. I find the *edited* version of this post in bad taste. I think Roger should be sentenced to covering Pride for a decade for the above review.
@Jack - You have a long memory. That was, what, 3 years ago? Unfortunately, I can't remember the circumstances surrounding the "fat and ugly" post anymore.
@Roger - Mea culpa!? Why not Mea maxima culpa. Such a strong statement would have better highlighted your rather sarcastic 'apology' for your rather homophobic review *so* much better...
-------------------------------------------
loosen your virgin ass a little fuckface.
Posted by: JESUSCHRIST at August 25, 2008 10:00 PM
^^ ---------------------------------------------
.. I'm sure Christ would not approve of this comment. If you want to spew profanities, can you please not include our Lord's name into it !?!? Thx for your future consideration, I hope you are prepared to repent at the pearly gates.. God Bless!!
-----------------------------
um don't you mean your lord's name Fuckface? I have nothing to do with your religion.... God Bless!
---------------------------------------
Keith Cole for president......................
Roger,
By the sounds of your post - you still don't get it. What a pathetic MEA CULPA. Regardless, I personally believe that while your post and the language in it is homophobic I don't think it would be fair of me to conclude that you're homophobic. Too many people fling that accusation around and it's lost it's power and relevance. You should be able to believe whatever crazy BS you want but it becomes a problem when you start writing posts like the one above in a public forum (particularly when you can't see why the language you've used is a problem to not only queers and the queer-positive but to the health of the larger community). We should be encouraging debate and criticism but you didn't do that - you attacked using weak labels and without a proper context or understanding of the people and community this event serves.
I don't think you're homophobic - just a really shitty writer.
Roger,
By the sounds of your post - you still don't get it. What a pathetic MEA CULPA. Regardless, I personally believe that while your post and the language in it is homophobic I don't think it would be fair of me to conclude that you're homophobic. Too many people fling that accusation around and it's lost its power and relevance. You should be able to believe whatever crazy BS you want but it becomes a problem when you start writing posts like the one above in a public forum (particularly when you can't see why the language you've used is a problem to not only queers and the queer-positive but to the health of the larger community). We should be encouraging debate and criticism but you didn't do that - you attacked using weak labels and without a proper context or understanding of the people and community this event serves.
I don't think you're homophobic - just a really shitty writer.
(this is a better version - looks like we all need a good editor)
It was billed as a "A Lipsync Cabaret Funrazor" and you didn't think it might be a little queer?
Cabaret! Totally gay!
And can't something be offensive and queer without one thing having anything to do with the other?
Wow, this debate lasted for awhile before degrading to empty insults!
I'm glad incendiary posts are left up so that everyone can voice their opinion and debate the issues... do you really want a censored blogTO? Not me.
@Another Long Time Reader-"I'm afraid Roger has lost whatever credibility as a writer he may have had (@ Adam's comments about previous writing that I too have noticed) and still threaten BlogTO's reputation."
Personally my expectation of BlogTO's journalism (as for most online media) is not high on skill or social responsibility. However, i do come interested in seeing what identifiable people's opinions are of local happenings that lack coverage otherwise.
I think that Roger was doing just that- providing us with his opinion of an event while explaining a bit about why he formulated that opinion. I appreciate Roger sharing where he was coming from as an individual- from which his impressions of the night were influenced.
I don't find that Roger was expressing hateful or homophobic opinions. Perhaps he unfortunately suggested that to some people but if you want BlogTO writers to be immaculate in their word selection, you can expect a lot fewer posters and consequently many less events covered. In fact if posters only wrote about what they are knowledgeable of or interested in small events like this often would not be covered at all, ie. not get publicity like this.
Also @UnionStayshyn- someone who is gay has every right to be "uptight" about sexuality and still have their sexual orientation taken seriously without being excluded by the gay community
All minority groups have their issues, but personally i'm getting a little irritated with insulting bitchy rudeness being excused because 'it is part of our culture'.
@cherrytreegirl -- No, there are some very good writers here, Rogers is not one of them. BlogTO, and many blogs in general, have writing as good as the "mainstream" media, and I would posit better because it's more in touch at times. This was none of that.
The "bitchy rudeness" as you call it is called "camp" and it has a long long tradition. But with your last paragraph, I see why you don't mind Roger's post.
Tim, I'm curious as to why you would have chosen not to publish this post had you seen it, yet have chosen not to deleted the post after you saw it.
Can you expand on that?
Yesterday I was defending you, and editors in general, for promoting free speech over censorship when it came to touchy issues... But now I kinda feel the need to take that back.
According to this notion of camp, "Camp-style performances may allow certain prejudices to be perpetuated by thinly veiling them as irony."
When I called out Keith Cole on his over-the-top pretentiousness, I am the one being singled out for being prejudice and even being labeled as homophobic. I know camp. Camp can be fun and can poke fun. But where do you draw the line?
When camp devolves into bitchy rudeness, I lose interest. That's why I left at intermission and never looked back.
This is what I meant by a time and place for everything. Cole's brand of campiness, humour or whatever you wish to call it, just doesn't appeal to me. Not as a host for an otherwise well-put together show that was supposed to be inclusive of the entire arts community.
My issue with Roger and his article has nothing to do with his writing or his word selection. It has everything to do with his overall attitude towards the event, the people that took part in it, and his uptight fratboyesque reaction to it all. THAT is what I find homophobic, not his unfortunate use of some worn-out cliches, however ironic his intention was.
Rogers's repeated insistence on a more detailed press release spelling out the precise nature of event making all the difference is laughable. What he really wanted was a warning.
I find it rather fitting that Roger bailed early and found safety and refuge at The Drake, that beacon of gentrification and mediocrity. I'm sure it's more his speed.
Jack, I had no problem with the artists/performers at the event other than the host, whose brand or style of delivery was more off-putting than welcoming. It's a pity that I missed the second half of the performance, as there appears to be some great talent there that I would have otherwise stuck around to enjoy.
As for worn-out clichés, Keith Cole takes the cake.
@Heather - The reason is because the way it was written. It's not a censorship issue in that we don't want to acknowledge Roger's opinion, but rather how that opinion was expressed. I think what a lot of people have been reacting to is how Roger worded this post. I believe he didn't really recognize how the way he worded the post would be interpreted (or mis-interpreted) by others. So we would have been a good check for him and pointed out parts of the post that should be re-written for clarity purposes.
I also think we would have provided some perspective to him and challenged his views that this sort of event was inappropriate for the Gladstone.
@Roger> Had you got into a discussion of camp, or simply reviewed Keith Cole's performance on it's own merits (maybe it was, in fact, bad) nobody would be upset. But you didn't do that at all and you're demonstrating a lack of ability/perspective/writing chops to review such things.
As for your thoughts on camp, always go to Sontag:
http://interglacial.com/~sburke/pub/prose/Susan_Sontag_-_Notes_on_Camp.html
Thanks for the clarification Tim.
Except I'm not really understanding yet. It's not a censorship issue, except you don't like the wording he used and would have had him change it. I'm still viewing that as censorship.
If you had a chance to review the post, said your bit to Roger, and he didn't want to change it - would you have allowed it to go through? Fair enough if that's a question that's kinda impossible to answer. 'What ifs' often are.
On a side note:
The only change I noticed in the wording of the article was the switch of 'some of the best gays are my friends' to 'some of my best friends are gay' - which actually really changes the connotation of that sentence... I've been curious if that was Roger's edit or someone else's?
@Heather - There were a number of other edits made to revise/remove wording that was, let's say, unclear and perhaps ill-advised. Other edits could have been made, certainly.
I'm not sure what else I can say to clear things up. Most publications have editors that will revise articles before they are published in order to try to improve the quality of the writing, but without changing what the author intended to communicate.
"the switch of 'some of the best gays are my friends' to 'some of my best friends are gay' - which actually really changes the connotation of that sentence"
Heather, you're right. I wish that sentence was kept in its original form. The only way I intentionally use a cliché is when I alter it to hopefully transform its meaning.
Perhaps this time it backfired. :)
The change of the 'some of the best gays are my friends'
was a huge mistake. I took it as a tongue-in-cheek reference and it actually worked. I think Tim just took it as a grammatical error. Ooops. But that's not the issue here.
I'm gay. I'm not a fan of Keith Cole. I didn't know who he was before this post, nor should I have. I'm not a fan of cabaret at all.
Yet Roger summed it all up as 'just too GAY' and had to get out of there. That's where I take offense. Period.
@Asiak: I'm glad my tongue-in-cheek reference wasn't totally lost on you. :)
Like you, I'm not a fan of Keith Cole, nor did I know much about him before this show.
While I do appreciate a good cabaret, Cole's stage act was unappealing to me, and I found his language and crassness inappropriate. Perhaps because I'm straight. Does that make me homophobic?
This is why I left; not because I thought it was "just too GAY" (your words, not mine). Too over-the-top, perhaps, for a show billed simply as a performance art fundraiser that supposedly is catering to the arts community at large.
"I think what a lot of people have been reacting to is how Roger worded this post. I believe he didn't really recognize how the way he worded the post would be interpreted (or mis-interpreted) by others."
I completely disagree with this assumption about the comments above. It is not the wording of the post that is upsetting to me, but rather:
(1) Roger believes that gay-culture is for irregular crowds and has no place out side at the 'regular' Gladstone, and by implication Queen West. This not only stereotypes a group of people but is also intentionally marginalizing people to be themselves in one neighborhood.
(2) That blogTO, which many consider a safe space for alternative reporting and reviews, participates in stereotyping and marginalizing by giving space to writers who are 'uncomfortable' with the culture of some communities.
With freedom of speech comes great responsibility. If it is blogTO's intent to leave this article up as homage to destructive 'othering' of a community, that is your call. But perhaps this will give the blog a chance to establish some, you know, standards? Drafting an editorial policy that includes an anti-oppression statement? That blogTO will not publish articles that target and harm groups of people?
Roger:
Disliking his crass act doesn't have anything to do with being straight or gay. Some would enjoy it, some wouldn't.
But in your words "if they were trying to appeal to a mixed crowd, they failed terribly" is equal to saying that it is 'too gay'. That's the way I read it, as most people have, and the way I believe you intended.
@JHA - I agree with what you're saying but the difference is that I'm not sure your assumptions are valid. My assumption is that point #1 is NOT true - that Roger doesn't believe this but it is how his post came across. I guess that's what's up for debate though. Only Roger can clarify this.
#2 obviously is a derivative of #1. It's not the site's intention to engage in stereotyping or marginalizing anyone.
There were also some straight(ish) Moms (Johanna Householder and Elle MacLaghlin) on stage on Thursday night who rocked out with their cocks out!! (For the people counting orientations.) I thought they were great, provocative and wonderfully entertaining! If an event and fund-raiser has created this much discussion as well as raised money for a not-for-profit festival, then it was a success. Wow, a lot of queer people are generous with their time, talent and money to support such a great international and inclusive festival.
How can you live in Toronto and even think the way that way ? We have the third largest gay populous, per capita, in the world? If you lived in San Francisco, then you would expect queer people to participate in everything right - well it's the same here.
As for the respondents who are "gay" & "lez" and afraid that the show was "too gay" ? I suspect that you are simply homophobic, self-hating as well as conservative and I wonder why you would be attending a fundraiser for performance art anyways?? Not that you are unwelcome, but Christ open your minds. I think Keith Cole questions sexually conservative folks' values in all the spectrum of sexuality. That is why he is so well loved and, yes hated. People that question societal norms are sometimes not liked. There are generations of younger people that do not know the difference between what is conservative and what is not.
I love that Roger went to the Drake, LOL, to get his fill of straight camp during the break, where it might be ok to stare at the ladies. I am not sorry the queers who participated at 7A 11D negated your privilege in society for one evening and raised much-needed funds at the same time. Performance art, and all art, should make people question things and at the very least make them think about things differently.
Now here is the challenge Roger - next year I would love to see you on stage risking yourself in front of a crowd performing a lip synch to help raise funds for 7A 11D bring the straight male camp - bring it on! Easier blogged than done! And us queers will invade the belovedly straight (?)(half those guys look like bears to me? ? ya can never tell these days!) Canadian Air Guitar Championships next year, which is at the heart of straight male camp! As much as I support my queer peeps - I am also all about exchange.
Madame Zsa Zsa, The $2 Psychic, This was a free reading, the next one will be $3.
@JHA: So what you're saying is that, by recognizing the show as unappealing to a mixed crowd, I've pidgeonholed and marginalized gay culture? I think that's a bit of a stretch. If anything, Keith Cole's act alienated a gay-culture loving, queer-positive straight guy.
I have gone to gay bars and I have attended pride day for the past 12 years. I have attended the Inside Out Film Festival and other cultural activities in Toronto.
I was merely stating that the sort of behaviour and language exhibited by Cole at The Gladstone that night was over-the-top gay and that it probably didn't appeal to the general Queen Street West crowd. Perhaps that was a bit of a stretch too, but that's the impression I got.
I'd be interested to hear from other straight guys what they think of Cole's schtick as an arts event host.
"I'd be interested to hear from other straight guys what they think of Cole's schtick as an arts event host."
WOW!
Dude you keep digging yourself a bigger hole. The issue ISN'T YOU BEING STRAIGHT OR KEITH BEING GAY!! That kind of thinking is EXACTLY what makes your post homophobic in the first place.
I'm done. Ignorance is depressing.
Roger, Roger, Roger. You don't even mention Keith Cole until six paragraphs into your article. Prior to that you described it as "an exclusively gay performance night" and "an over-the-top gay night" for which you wish you had received some warning.
Then you go on to say "I've got nothing against gay people, honest. Some of my best friends are gay" in what was apparently a rather clumsy attempt at ironic humour.
Clearly, your discomfort at this event was not due to Ketih Cole alone, as you now claim. It was just too gay for you and it made you uncomfortable for whatever reason. So uncomfortable in fact, that you had to leave.
You said so. It's all right there in your article.
Now, about Keith Cole ... if you found his act offensive, fair enough. Lots of people do. But that's the point. His work tends toward the transgressive and he often INTENDS to offend and shock in order to make a broader statement.
"I'd be interested to hear from other straight guys what they think of Cole's schtick as an arts event host"
Why? Do you think that will give your argument more merit?
@ UnionStayshyn: I think sexual orientation is very much at issue here. A straight guy wouldn't normally enter a gay bar. Or if he does, he'd likely have an idea what he's getting into. Going to an arts fundraiser, one doesn't normally expect to be hit over the head by a crass, offensive drag queen.
@tripper: My discomfort at the event was very much due to Keith Cole's act. I found most of the performances worthy of appreciation. I have no problem attending cultural events where there is gay content. Cole ruined it for me.
I was going to weigh in with some thoughts, but with roger's last comment -- I'm with the other fellow above-> You keep digging deeper, you don't get the bigger picture, don't understand Queen West or Toronto. This kind of review might fly in the Sun, but not BlogTO. Let people who know how to review this stuff do it.
Roger, stop. You're missing the point, and by resisting the entirely valid criticism, you're making it worse for yourself by reinforcing what you're being criticized for.
No Roger, don't stop. I'd like to know what your idea of a mixed crowd is? As per - "But if they were trying to appeal to a mixed crowd, they failed terribly."
And you might want to remove the picture of Keith Cole from your Flikr site, the one you took of him at the 2008 Dora Mavor Moore Awards. It doesn't seem right(but it's okay he's going to make it anyway, pack you bags....) If you had of stayed you'd get the joke Just in case you don't remember - pink slip dress - in heals & hair Keith's 6'5" (at least). So I sorta want to call bullshit on you, that you were unaware of what you were entering into when Keith Cole's name was on the press release as the Smack Down host.
1. Queen West is famous for being an edgy artsy place. To be surprised by a provocative performance at a licenced (ie adults-only) event at the Gladstone is to be surprised by Mickey Mouse at Disney World.
2. Of the straight-dominated venues in Toronto, from poolhalls to strip clubs to Entertainment District clubs, none I've ever been in (except for the swingers clubs, God bless their hearts) post warnings about overt straight sexuality, homophobia and heterosexism and I've walked into mucho de all of the above many, many times. I got over it. That's what a gay person faces every day.
3. Blogto has no such warning either, but I've come to expect the above and don't expect it, when it occurs, to be removed. That's life. To be seriously engaged in the world is to be open to offence and annoyance.
4. Keith Cole's schtick is to shock and provoke people. He's famous for it--national TV!--and that's why people book him. I've seen him dozens of times and am constantly appalled and grossed out. But I think there's something interesting going on there, so I go back. To think that he's awful is a valid point of view but if you want to express that point of view the least you can do is
a) Stay for the whole show
b) Think about it a little, just a little
c) Don't make Keith Cole=gay people/gay event equations because Keith Cole is very, very special
To have failed to do those three things is not to be a bad person. It's hard work letting art take you outside of your narrow point of view. But for a journalist to not bother, and, after all these comments, to cling to his original point of view, is not very journalistic at all.
Gay Day at Wonderland's coming up! I wonder if Keith Cole will be there!
You people are all crazy. I'm gay and have been gay all my life, I've been offended by Fred Phelps and Will Smith and Mary Cheney, but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever about this article.
If I didn't like 'American Pie' because it was "too straight", that's my opinion and it's okay to say so. If Roger didn't like this show becaue it's "too gay", that's his opinion, and it's okay to say that, too.
Roger doesn't see the world the same way as I do, or as most of you do. So what?
@MAs: "I sorta want to call bullshit on you, that you were unaware of what you were entering into when Keith Cole's name was on the press release as the Smack Down host."
Cole didn't do his schtick at the Dora Awards this year. When I saw him at the reception prior to the Dora's he was just a pretty face to me. And he's still just a pretty face. But with attitude.
Had I known how atrocious his hosting was, perhaps I'd have not shown up to the fundraiser altogether. Or at least I'd have gone in knowing what I was in for.
True, I could have done more research on him prior to attending. Lesson learned. :)
What I find the most interesting about this entire dialogue, is that no one (alright there are hints of it) is talking about what it means to play to the lowest common (conservative since this seemed to be the issue) denominator when it comes to art and performance, what we lose when we censor, second guess, or play it safe. Many great works would NEVER have seen the light of day if this was the way art is created. I am not saying the evening was great art, but consider what is being asked when discussing offense etc.
As a reviewer, it is one's responsibility to asses the merit of the work. It should not be based on opinion, but on skill and talent without the "do I like it" filter. It honestly doesn't matter whether the reviewer liked it or not, but whether or not the work is good. A lost art I think.
Bah!
You can't say 'I didn't like it, it wasn't clear enough that it was for gays'. If you don't like a comedy night/performance, tough, but it's not because it was gay you didn't like it, it's because you just didn't like it.
"...whose banter between acts included asking which girls in the audience can eat themselves out.
While this may be fair game in a gay bar, I found it offensive."
Ever heard of Ford Fairlane? Crass doesn't equal gay, so the fact you found it offensive cannot be used as evidence of it's excessive gayness for a 'mixed audience', but simply that it was too crass for your tastes. This casual equation that you're makning is ridiculously offensive - dare I say it, crass. It would be equally stupid to say 'Too many fart jokes. They didn't tell me it was going to be STRAIGHT humour!!'
calling someone homophobic for not liking a gay event is like calling someone racist for not liking a hip-hop show.
the only pigeonholing happening here is that by those who are offended by roger's post for being homophobic. if you associate homophobia with not liking an "over-the-top" gay event, then you must be associating homosexuality with said "over-the-topness."
if you do not wish homosexuality to be exclusively associated with that, then do not treat it as such.
Who Roger didn't like was Keith Cole (who is a very acquired taste under the best of circumstances), but the article came across as blaming it on teh ghey rather than Keith Cole. The language he used in writing this post is questionable, and is a bit typical of what is sometimes known as gay panic. I find the headline of the post even more disconcerting--why is it a "gay smack in the face" rather than just the proverbial "smack in the face?" Broken down to its essence, the article (especially as it was originally published) basically complains about excessive gayness, when it really should have been about not getting the Keith Cole schtick. Although I'd argue that if a reviewer is too delicate to deal with the crassness Keith Cole (which is fine), it was the wrong writer to review the show.
Just noticed that Roger posted a story about the CNE. Guess I have to take that as a vote of confidence from the editors in Roger's abilities as a contributor. This means I will not continue to support this website as, even after writing some despicably ignorant comments under his homophobic review, BlogTO believes Roger should continue to contribute (nor did they think to properly address it).
"calling someone homophobic for not liking a gay event is like calling someone racist for not liking a hip-hop show. "
If someone had called it, "over-the-top Black" - not only would the review be immediately removed but the author would have been sacked. The language was only "questionable" because using 'gay' as a pejorative is still seen as acceptable to some people (Dear hipsters: drop the Vice magazine/post-identity bullshit, your boring is showing)
The editors failed to properly address the problems with this post and that itself speaks volumes (hilariously, the guy from Torontoist did their job for them)
I'm actually left wondering if the MSM is behind BlogTO in an attempt to make bloggers look like irresponsible idiots.
(on a side note: I'd like to welcome Roger into the queer community as his CNE post is clearly the work of a foot fetishist)
@UnionStayshyn: So you're saying that being a foot fetishist is an exclusively queer thing? Not that you would stereotype. :P
Dear Roger,
I don't think you understand art, performance art, questioning society, gay people, politics nor should you really write about the things of which you have no knowledge, empathy nor understanding, as clearly demonstrated by your opinions in this blog entry.
Your inherently conservative views on the world are better suited to Fox News than blogTO, perhaps you are positioning yourself for a writing job with the Toronto Sun?
There were straight men in the audience, who vote liberal, ndp and other, who I know personally, that enjoyed the show tremendously. I think that perhaps your personal conservative politics may have made you feel alienated? Are you sure you're not actually Michael Coren?
Thank you tho, for giving this event much needed publicity and debate.You have given it a life that would not exist without your rancour and right wing political, social and sexual values.
Marsha
Mdme Zsa Zsa the $2 Psychic
PS Easier blogged than done - next year - you on stage at 7A 11D - bring it on!
"Your inherently conservative views on the world are better suited to Fox News than blogTO,"
Marsha,
Given the editors lack of real response to the post and the fact that Roger is still contributing, I'd say that your comparison isn't fair to Fox News. And by the looks of the lack of comments on any given BlogTO post - I'd say I overdid it ever giving a shit what was written here.
Roger, if you think this was "over the top gay", you should see just how "over the top straight" every other fucking event is. This is a horrible review, regardless.
LOL, poor Roger.
There IS a certain culture associated with gay bars and similar establishments. It is a culture that involves considerable amount of sexual vulgarity and crassness. It is my understanding (obvious from the context of the post) that in his remarks Roger was referring to that culture, which can indeed make "regular folks", including plenty of gay people, uncomfortable, since this culture in no way represents all gays, and probably not even the majority (I know cause some of my best friends are gay! :-)))
But of course the comments were predictable knee jerks. Omigod, gay-bashing, yadayadayada!
I rally don't have much to say that anyone else hasn't already. If you find an event too raunchy for your liking, isn't enough to just say that. Why make special reference to the "gay" componant?
and a couple of other things...
I know plenty of straight guys who have attempted, some with success, of auto-fellating.
If the girl on stage was game, why are you saying he was embarassing her?
and whether Cullman is homophobic or not (it sure seems that he is) that "some of my best friends are gay" line is the mantra of the homophobic. Just so you know Roger.