Christian Group Attacks Brooklyn Monologist

Yeah, I mean, look at these two pictures. Notice any similarities? Yep, two guys standing there with microphones. You'd think that everyone would have realized by now that Iggy Pop is a total rip-off of Frank Sinatra but most people don't notice these things, which is probably why Mike Daisey thought he could get away with stealing Spalding Gray's trademark tendency to get thirsty when talking for long periods of time. And as hard as this must be, I'm sure that Mike is relieved now that the secret is out. It must have been hard living a lie for so long.

>It's odd that the gentleman who poured water on his script was drinking the same brand of bottled water as the crew used to replenish MD's water after the event.>

Not odd at all. In fact, I would assume that the cast and crew would be drinking the same stuff that's for sale in the lobby.

I certainly don't follow famdoc's logic that because MD does a monologue at a table with a glass of water, that he's ripping off Spalding Gray. Gray may have been the most famous monologist, but he's far from the only one to sit at a desk.

Do you complain that the actors in Sweeney Todd are ripping off Hello Dolly because the actors burst into song on stage?

I'm also puzzled by this: "you knew there were school groups in the audience, so their exodus was understandable."

I certainly don't assume that school groups are going to rudely storm out of the theatre. Understandable? Not in the least.

It's rude to walk out of a theatre and cause a disruption. Sure, they had the right, but it's still rude.

But pouring water on the notes is more than disruptive. It's vandalism.

It's not a violation of free speech, but do we condemn only those activities that rise to the level of constitutional violations? I don't think so.

This was an immature effort to stifle artistic expression (be it content or language), apparently by a bunch of immature teenagers. The irony is rich. Behaving offensively to protest what they see as offensive behavior.

famdoc,

so anyone giving a performance seated behind a desk is "ripping off" spalding gray? yikes! i feel sad for any performer subject to your provincial gaze, but mor importantly, so what?

On the Spalding rip-off possibility: I think it's a little backwards that Gray is remembered for sitting with notes and drinking water. You may as well say he invented tables and monologues. What distinguishes Mike Daisy is very specifically the things that make him different from a Spalding Gray -- the content, his own character, the extemporaneous style -- despite the fact that they both drink water on stage. Gray did not invent _those_ things.

- the water was the same brand because the guy used Mike's water bottle.

Free speech: I think the point here is not so much that protest is ok for some and not others, but specifically that these people walked out (and one of them destroyed Daisy's notes) _because_ they felt he shouldn't be speaking those things in public. So in that sense, it is directed at his freedom to speak certain words.

If they didn't like the political content of his speech, or the message, I think that would be different. But what helps the "free speech" argument here is that they were objecting, apparently, to the "language."

I don't think it's a case of free speech being suppressed -- more a case of free speech being protested. And the real issue is how appropriate a forum this was for their protest. But I think it's fair for MD to react, on at least one level, to an attack on his freedom to say those things out loud.

How does MD know that they were members of a Christian group?

Also, it's odd that the gentleman who poured water on his script was drinking the same brand of bottled water as the crew used to replenish MD's water after the event.

Still, I hope the kerfluffle brings MD some positive publicity. At least that way, there's some benefit from the event.

--Joe

Note to md:

Glad you responded to my comments. I'll take a look at your wikipedia entry. I offered my observation of the similarities between your staging and Spalding Gray's. Almost identical. I offered the possibility (indeed, the likelihood) that it's a tribute to Gray's genius as a monologist. It can, however, be viewed as a rip-off. Imagine two guitarists, two painters, two photographers or two artists of any type, presenting their art in precisely the same physical manner. I agree that SG's monologues were "locks," ie, scripted, with small variations from night to night.

I reiterate my respect for the poise you showed following the event. Upon further thought (and consideration of the comments of others), you knew there were school groups in the audience, so their exodus was understandable.

I'm sure if they had spray-painted him with graffiti, Jake would have defended the whole thing as art.

To the people who claim that we either have to support free speech in this instance and what happened with the minuteman, or let both be condemned, I offer a distinction: The event at Columbia was meant to be politically and socially controversial -- the organizers and attendees expected the event to be charged, filled with people from different sides, and disruptions were expected. Contrast this to a art performance piece that is not meant to be controversial, politically charged, or even political at all. There was certainly no expectation that the audience would be angered, but rather they would sit and enjoy / laugh at the performance.

To those who think they know the law, and that the right to free speech should not be subject to distinction: What is a right but what is granted by the law? The first amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech, but does not prevent private parties, such as Harvard and Columbia from doing so. Some of you might respond, that no matter what the text actually is or what the law says, the protection should extend to private parties. In this case, I contend that the right to free speech of different parties collide. Can Mike Daisy be said to exercise free speech, if everywhere he goes to speak to others, a chorus of protesters scream and drown out his voice? The point of speech is to communicate to others, not just to talk to oneself as an institutionalized patient. If Mike Daisy, and Minuteman, for that matter, have no forum from which to spread ideas, then the freedom of speech is dead. So the distinction based on the expectation of the type audience is actually necessary to have a meaningful concept of free speech.

Here's what I'm guessing happened -- someone please tell me if I'm wrong.

Someone looking to take a group of high school kids to a play saw a good write-up on this show, or heard Mike Daisey on NPR. Having seen the show at the Public Theater this winter, there is nothing in the write-up to indicate the show might contain language, or be political in any way, or anything else that might draw a protest. Actually, it sounds like something kids might find very interesting.

My recollection is that the part in the clip before the walk out is pretty early in the show. If I was an adult chaperone for a school trip, I might have been concerned about the content of the rest of the show based on the Paris Hilton bit. Can't be too careful in today's litigious society.

Point is, even though I really liked the show and found Mike Daisey to be very very talented, I can understand where others might disagree and decide to leave.

The actions of the guy who poured water on the script were inexcusable. But, this doesn't seem like it was planned or some kind of a Christian crusade against indecency. Sometimes rude assholes are just rude assholes.

Of course, since it was apparently a "Christian" group composed of young people, the behavior en masse was pretty much required. Heaven forbid a few of them who might enjoy such jokes in their private time stay and look bad to their peers.

Ultimately it was ridiculously rude and stupid behavior on the part of the group. Who is the jackass who bought the block of tickets? Rather than taking it out on Mike, they should be mad at whoever chose the inappropriate show. (While it is tempting to think that it was a planned protest, it would have to be the most expensive and futile thing they could have done. Looks more like spontaneous, self-righteous stupidity to me.)

look, this is pretty simple. If they did not like the show, they have every right to leave.

BUT.. Pouring water on his paperwork was WAY BEYOND RUDE!

Ok, he did get the money from the sales of 87 tickets. Good point. And, a lot of free advertising for his show. But, I bet these folks knew about whatever it was they were protesting, when they bought the tickets...wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper, to just not buy the tickets and go in the first place? Maybe use the pulpit in thier church, to denounce this performance and get the word out that way? Couldn't they have figured out some better way to put that money to use? I dunno...maybe give it to a homeless shelter, send some kids who can't afford it, to summer camp, start up a community garden, put on thier own all purpose unoffensive show...

Don't go and pour water on their Bible...go to thier services, and in the middle of the sermon, just get up and leave. Make sure to call a reporter first...I want to see this on Gothamist!

I don't understand. People paid for this and walked out. It was just ONE guy out of the 87 that left that did something. Everyone else just left pretty quietly I think. it was just the mass exit that made that noise.

Interesting conversation. I think I can illuminate a few points.

* The reason the destroying of the note matters, from my point of view, is that I'm an extemporaneous monologuist--I don't work from a script of any kind. I hone and refine the outline over years, and while photocopies exist as backups, it really isn't replaceable, and I will have to begin again.

* While I have a lot of respect for Mr. Gray's work, I've been a monologuist for ten years and produced at major theaters across the country. Working extemporaneously I never "lock" a production, as Mr. Gray did--so while you are certainly welcome to view me as a "rip-off", you should know that my work and Mr. Gray's varies in some extremely primal areas that may not be immediately apparent. Check my Wikipedia entry, if you care to, while you're divining my pedigree.

* I never claimed what happened was "worse" than anyone else's tragedy--that's a stupid game. I posted about what it was like for me on my own site, and posted the video of the event. Draw your own conclusions.

md

Bob, shut up.

Once again, shouldn't this be on Bostonist??

Some random thoughts

--Performers run the risk of being heckled, having their performances interrupted by cell phones, coughing, deaths on stage or in the theater. Rude, poorly times, but not illegal.

--The water on the script was destruction of personal property. Illegal.

--Yes, this guy will benefit from the publicity and the poise he demonstrated following the event. Good for him.

--He is really a direct rip-off of Spalding Gray, right down to the glass of water, the notes and the desk. Let the audience decide whether the rip-off is good (a tribute to a great monologist) or bad (lacking originality). Just look at the photo of Spalding Gray in his Wikipedia listing.

Sorry there are no Gray clips on youtube.

I thought this show was in Boston?

yea what's the big deal? standard rude protest crap. destruction versus disruption? you are an idiot subway boy.

To SUBWAYblogger: flattery will get you nowhere.

They weren't that destructive, he had a copy of his notes, and his NOTES aren't the art, I'm under the impression the art is his performance. Look what they did was pretty screwed yup. And all I'm suggesting is that this is an interesting comparison to other protests that I have more sympathy for. Never a bad thing to shake up/question your views on GOOD, BAD, RIGHT, WRONG.

Anyways, seems I've hit a nerve, or is SUBWAYblogger always so poorly tempered? You should try walking or riding a bike...the subway can be stressful.

People pay for this? fascinating...however, at least he'll get the revenue from the 87 tickets. Real tough guy ranting at the remaining group after the others left...

You have to be kidding - they weren't destructive. He can easily write up a few more pieces of paper? Puh-leez.

Let's put it this way - they didn't prevent him from speaking like the MinuteMan event. They simply walked out. There is a big difference. And no one attempted to physically attack him, like the MinuteMan event.

Sorry, the Columbia debacle was still worse.

I don't know what monologist is but I know it's gay.

Frankly I can't imagine eighty seven members of a christian group protesting a show in NYC like this - either this was a stunt by the show itself or it was an improv anywhere type of event - c'mon christian extremists in NYC??

I have no idea who that guy is, but I can't imagine anyone handling the situation with more poise. And, now I know who he is. "Protest"= Publicity!

Sidenote: I was interrupted with 30 seconds of video left. Gothamist--the automatic updates--you're KILLING me.

find out what church they go to and we can pour the holy water over the bible at their services tomorrow...

Response to rtd above:

Oh shut the hell up. It would be one thing if they just got up and left. Perfectly within their right to do so as a form of protest.

But they crossed the line when they destroyed his work by pouring water on it. They could have had the same impact by just getting up and leaving.

"...but when a performance is interrupted by the right using the same tactics..." Ignorant ass. It's not at all the same thing. Being disruptive is not the same thing as being destructive.

That's a criminal act. I hope those Christians get prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

FYI, I can't see the video. There's a big blank space there.

I'm no sympathizer with the Christian Right but interesting how we on the left utilize certain tactics like disrupting a performance, speech, etc and call it free speech, but when a performance is interrupted by the right using the same tactics, we say it's an affront to free speech. We can't have it both ways people...I would say while frustrating and plain "not nice" or rude, what this group did was no less a practice of free speech than what Columbia students did to the minutemen (an action I fully supported).

My own political views are FAR to the left, so consider this an internal critique. No need to give the O'Reilly types easy fodder.

Oh, and I LOVE spell check on blogs!