Jump to content

Smash: Glee + A Chorus Line - McPheever ÷ Spielberg = ?


  • Please log in to reply

7472 replies to this topic

#841

The Mee

The Mee

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 5:56 PM

Uma Thurman would be an awful Marilyn as well.
  • 0

#842

Rickster

Rickster

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 6:19 PM

I don't think the spoiler precludes the pregnancy storyline (not that I think there are high odds of it happening).

Uma's pregnancy is not part of her storyline, according to the spoiler.
  • 0

#843

Lulah

Lulah

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 7:26 PM

Re: the casting couch, whether Karen is justified in thinking that, etc., here's my take:

--Derek was all kinds of inappropriate for propositioning either of his two leading lady candidates, even if it wasn't part of the decision--how would *they* not know or worry that x decision would lead to y result? The casting couch is a reality as old as performing itself.

--All Karen knows is that she was neck-and-neck with Ivy for the role, and Ivy got it. She was willing to accept that it could be because of experience or rightness for the role, but when she sees them canoodling in rehearsal and hears that Ivy's bedding Derek, I think it's entirely reasonable that she at least consider that her refusal to sleep with Derek, and Ivy's willingness to do so, is what lost her the role and won it for Ivy.

--As a performer, it's much harder to know whether someone else is right for a role, or more right than you are. All Karen is thinking is that she's talented and that people (not just Derek) saw enough of something in her to keep calling her back. WE see that Ivy's better for the role, but to an actor who's just had an ego blow? Yeah, you're gonna jump to "she got it because she's sleeping with him, that bitch," regardless of how true that actually is.

--Karen doesn't know Ivy personally at all. I think Ivy is actually pretty naive when it comes to men, and she really likes Derek. But of course, her rival's going to look at this from the outside and see someone who's willing to do anything to get the part.

So, in summation, Karen is *emotionally* justified in thinking Ivy got it because she's sleeping with Derek. For her and her limited knowledge, the evidence is pointing in that direction. For us, we see that Karen's green and not in-the-know and not as right for the part. But in fairness, she was one of TWO (and only two) people seriously up for this role, and she knows that she had a chance to sleep with Derek and turned it down, and the chick that didn't, got the part. I'd say that's pretty justified.
  • 0

#844

Myos

Myos

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 7:34 PM

@lissamb: I totally agree with you. It'd be fascinating to have a double story: the making of a Broadway star (Ivy) and how a beginner gets started on Broadway (Karen).
Right now, the competition is too unequal.
I don't dislike Kat mcPhee and didn't even know her (never watched AI) but her character doesn't work. She's not written as naive, she's written as entitled (I won't repeat what you all have said upthread very eloquently). It's not a Team karen v. team Ivy for me, because it feels they're only competing in Karen's head and in Derek's twisted mind - my take on the preview is that Derek is using Karen to lower Ivy's self esteem and "play" with her a bit, like a cat with a mouse. After all, he's the Dark Lord.

However to her credit, when Karen said "what kind of class?" I understood what KIND, not "what class", i.e., are you taking jazz, tap, ballroom, aerobics, mime :p. I didn't think she'd be made to sound stupid - everyone knows about classes, even I, and I only know Kristin Chenoweth because of Glee. :p

In conclusion:
I assume they created that "competition" because they thought Katherine MacPhee would attract a younger audience but the show is too mature for teens so they should just shelve that idea and follow your idea LISSAMB!

@Eliza16: I assumed they were telling us Ellis is bi, because he seemed gay then was shown with a girlfriend, which indicates "bi" to me. I thought "cool, especially since they're not making it a big deal". Anybody else got that thought?

I too love Tom. :) I especially like his interactions with Julia.
But overall all the actors are good, now they need better (more consistent?) writers. :)

Edited by Myos, Feb 29, 2012 @ 7:41 PM.

  • 0

#845

Canadian Bakin

Canadian Bakin

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 7:44 PM

Lulah, I was coming here to post pretty much what you said. I think it's understandable that Karen would feel the way she does.

I also think Derek is up to something, but not sure what his end goal is - maybe playing them against each other to make Ivy tap into her 'vulnerable' side?

Also, jtenny123 and romantic idiot, I'm wondering if the past Tom and Derek have has something to do with a love triangle or something. Maybe Derek's bi.

Edited by Canadian Bakin, Feb 29, 2012 @ 8:17 PM.

  • 0

#846

TWoP Howard

TWoP Howard

    TWoP Moderator

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 8:11 PM

Just a reminder to the thread as a whole: on this site, standard written English is the style, which means that you should save the @ and the emoticons for a tweet or a text. I usually don’t warn people for it simply because I haven’t the time, but that doesn’t make it okay, either. Thanks.

#847

LeGrandElephant

LeGrandElephant

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 8:15 PM

To be clear, I'm not arguing that what we, the audience, have been shown indicates that there is sexual harassment or unfair casting practices going on for sure. I'm arguing against people in the thread who seemed to be saying that even if there IS such sexual harassment going on (or appears to be from Karen's point of view), Karen should totally be fine with it because she made her choice not to go along with it.

Someone came and tried to sell you the answers - you decided not to buy, you knew someone would. I'm going to assume that when you decided to stick to your principles, you decided to face the consequences :-) Of course, you could go and complain and have the test results invalidated, and I'll support you. But I'm not going to sit and listen to you whine about it, if you do nothing but whine about it. Or slam a door.


That seems like a pretty big change in position. Before it was Karen has no right to be upset about any of this. Now, its Karen should try to get Derek in trouble for what he's doing and get his casting choices invalidated because of it (even though that would most likely get Karen penalized more).

But in any case, I don't understand the idea that if someone decides to stick to their principles, and then other people cheat and get ahead of them, the principled person should "face the consequences". Usually that's a phrase we use when someone has done something wrong. You cheat, you face the consequences. You DON'T cheat, and you ideally don't get punished for that, but if you do, you have every right to be angry and try to find someone who will listen and be sympathetic. You also have a right to try to do something to change what happened and make it more fair, but its realistically a risk and I don't think you should be required to take such a risk in order to be "allowed" to feel angry.

Anyway, let's also remember we're not talking about being offered answers to a test, we're talking about being subtly pressured into sex with a superior, something that happens overwhelmingly more to women than to men. Some people in this thread seem to be arguing that if a woman is treated like that, she should just be totally fine with it, whether she wants to go along with it or not. And if not wanting to sleep with your boss results in being penalized in your job, well, you should be totally fine with that since you "chose" not to sleep with him (forget that you didn't choose to be put in such an unfair situation in the first place, or that you most likely wouldn't have been put in that situation if you were a man). Just deal with what the men want and don't complain.

Aren't the rules about this stuff different in showbiz though?

I mean, the actor's appearance factors a huge amount into whether or not they get the job. And the bottom line is that their looks do help determine what sells, especially for women (I'm not saying it's good, but that's my understanding of professional acting).

I'm not saying it's morally right for an actress or actor to sleep with the director to get a part, but I assumed it was part of the sleezier side of the biz that people either accept or choose to reject participating in.


Right, because men can't tell if women will be attractive while (fully clothed) on screen or on stage without having sex with them. That might just barely make sense if they were casting for a porn movie.

Perhaps "outcome" may be a more appropriate word choice. She knew shortly after walking into that apartment what Derek wanted. She also figured that by not giving in, it may affect his casting decision, with the outcome being her not getting the role.


Why does the fact that she "knew" what might happen mean she should be ok with it? I know about lots of unfair situations I might find myself in; does that mean they're all cool because I know about the possibilities?

I also think that even if Derek is being totally fair and neutral in his casting choices, he was still wrong to proposition either of his potential leads, because they can't know if he's going to be fair and neutral. If he is such a nice guy, he should feel bad at the thought that a woman might sleep with him out of unspoken job pressure and not because she wants to. That he doesn't seem to have thought of that makes me think he's not such a nice guy and he's fine with generally using his position to subtly pressure women into sex.

Edited by LeGrandElephant, Feb 29, 2012 @ 8:17 PM.

  • 0

#848

wilibald

wilibald

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 9:03 PM

I mean, the actor's appearance factors a huge amount into whether or not they get the job. And the bottom line is that their looks do help determine what sells, especially for women (I'm not saying it's good, but that's my understanding of professional acting).
I'm not saying it's morally right for an actress or actor to sleep with the director to get a part, but I assumed it was part of the sleezier side of the biz that people either accept or choose to reject participating in.

Right, because men can't tell if women will be attractive while (fully clothed) on screen or on stage without having sex with them. That might just barely make sense if they were casting for a porn movie.

I didn't take the comment about appearance being an important to mean sex. I think the original point of discussion was that actors and actress are constantly being told you're too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, too blonde, not blonde enough, etc. in the industry. Even at the amateur level, some of that is seen. I was disqualified for a role because I was too short to play opposite the female love interest for a character.

Some actors succumb to the pressure by altering their bodies, naturally or otherwise. Some do not. Some actresses, do play up sex appeal in hopes of winning roles... or at least getting the attention of directors / casting agents in an attempt to "get noticed" for future roles. Others do "sleep their way to the top" to get a powerful and influential person to be in their corner.

Unfortunately, show business is an industry where who you know sometimes matters more than talent. At this level, just about everyone who enters the door is talented. Your connections can help push you to the top of the list. The show illustrated this by having Tom go to bat for Ivy, who Derek initially didn't even really care to see at the initial auditions. But, because Tom championed her, she was given a shot.

Why does the fact that she "knew" what might happen mean she should be ok with it? I know about lots of unfair situations I might find myself in; does that mean they're all cool because I know about the possibilities?

I didn't mean to say she should accept it or that it is acceptable. I'm just saying that the character of Karen shouldn't have been so shocked that someone else (Ivy) said "yes" when she said "no". Especially in the entertainment industry.
  • 0

#849

LeGrandElephant

LeGrandElephant

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 9:30 PM

I didn't take the comment about appearance being an important to mean sex.


Well, the comment I was replying to specifically connected appearance being important to why people would have sex with the women they're considering casting. You even quoted it, so I'm not sure where the interpretation problem is there. In general appearance and sex don't have to be connected but in that comment they were, and I responded to that.

I didn't mean to say she should accept it or that it is acceptable. I'm just saying that the character of Karen shouldn't have been so shocked that someone else (Ivy) said "yes" when she said "no". Especially in the entertainment industry.


I don't think she's surprised, I think she's outraged.
  • 0

#850

Zuleikha

Zuleikha

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 10:26 PM

It's more of the Karen coming across as naive and entitled. I think outcome is a better word choice than consequences. What makes moral dilemmas dilemmas is that there is a potential negative outcome for making the morally "correct" choice. When Karen chose to reject Derek, she knew the potential outcome was that she would lose Derek's backing. In reality, she didn't and she hasn't--which Derek has demonstrated clearly to her--but okay, say she did. Getting mad at IVY doesn't accomplish anything (and Ivy was single, so it's not like Ivy was less virtuous than Karen... she was simply more available).

To me, Karen's irritation feels like a toddler whining about life not being fair. No, life isn't and it sucks. However, at some point, you also have to pick your battles and figure out when it's worth being upset about life being unfair and when you just have to roll with the punches, or you drive yourself insane while not changing anything.

In this case, Karen's negative outcome is that she was cast in her first role in a Broadway-bound production. Yes, a lead role is more prestigious than ensemble, but the ensemble really is a huge break and opportunity for her. Plus, both rehearsals that we saw emphasized that Karen is painfully green and has no clue what she's doing. She is so not ready to be Marilyn, and she should be realistic enough to be aware of that. However, she's using irritation at Ivy to deflect from awareness of her own failings (literally... Karen blamed Ivy for Karen's getting booted from numbers instead of acknowledging and CORRECTING the things Karen was doing wrong). Also, Karen is hypocritical to be mad at Ivy but not care at all about Derek.
  • 0

#851

LittleBunnyTutu

LittleBunnyTutu

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 10:33 PM

Ivy will find out she is pregnant with the director's baby and will have to drop out. She will decide to keep the baby but then realize she doesn't want to be a mom and then Grace and her husband will adopt the baby.

But...but...what about that poor baby in China? How ever would Grace's son, The Little Wooden Boy, cope with that news?

About Ellis, I'm not going to rewatch the pilot to find this info, but who hired him? I seem to remember Tom arriving at the apartment after his long flight and being introduced to Ellis and a bowl of macaroni and cheese by Julia/Grace herself. She was even the one who admonished Tom that Ellis was straight, when Tom gave him the hungry eye. If Ellis was never interviewed for the job by Tom himself, I don't understand why is so committed to keeping Ellis around. I would think Julia/Grace's discomfort with him would be apparent to Tom and I can't believe she hasn't told him about the disrespect Ellis showed her after the notebook incident. I know why the writers' are keeping him in, but I feel it's just another sloppy loose end that could have been revised before filming. Everything just seems all over the map, with no consistent logic guiding the plot.

Edited to clarify what I meant.

Edited by LittleBunnyTutu, Feb 29, 2012 @ 10:58 PM.

  • 0

#852

txhorns79

txhorns79

    Stalker

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 10:42 PM

(literally... Karen blamed Ivy for Karen's getting booted from numbers instead of acknowledging and CORRECTING the things Karen was doing wrong)

I think that would imply Ivy's problem with Karen really was all about Karen's performance, and was not about Karen, herself. I don't believe for a moment that if Karen had danced and sang perfectly, Ivy wouldn't have still made the same complaints to get Karen booted.

If Ellis was never interviewed for the job by Tom himself, I don't understand why he is so committed to him. I would think Julia/Grace's discomfort with him would be apparent to Tom and I can't believe she hasn't told him about the disrespect Ellis showed her after the notebook incident.

I think Ellis is probably just using Tom because he thinks Tom is connected to the point where he can advance Ellis' career. I do agree though that it is weird that Tom seems oblivious to Julia's issues with Ellis. I think in reality Julia would have just told Tom to fire Ellis and Tom would have done so because his relationship with Julia is more important than one with the assistant.
  • 0

#853

LittleBunnyTutu

LittleBunnyTutu

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 10:55 PM

I think Ellis is probably just using Tom because he thinks Tom is connected to the point where he can advance Ellis' career.

Oh, I totally get Ellis' motivation. But I was referring to Tom being so committed to Ellis, not the other way around. It seems odd, since it was implied that he didn't even actually hire Ellis. Or if he hired him, it must have been sight-unseen, which is even stranger, given how intimate this job is turning out to be. Does one really hire someone who is going to be a near-constant companion by looking at a resume' and telling an agency to "send 'im over"? He was already on the job when Tom was introduced to him.

Edited by LittleBunnyTutu, Feb 29, 2012 @ 10:55 PM.

  • 0

#854

CatsWithAxes

CatsWithAxes

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 11:09 PM

But what you said at first was that Karen should have known some other actress might be willing to sleep with Derek and get a leg up on her, and therefore Karen shouldn't mind.

I guess my gripe is, if Karen was going to mind, she should have minded back then, when the visit to Derek's apartment happened. If the situation was abhorrent to her, she could have made a stink - she certainly could have lodged a complaint against Derek with Actors' Equity, where it would at least be on file, if she felt she was being harassed - or she could have stopped going to the auditions and disengaged herself from the show. She did neither (and in fact still hasn't done anything besides bitch about it). She just kept going to the callbacks, and Derek didn't make any more advances, and lo and behold she made it all the way down to the wire in consideration for Marilyn. And though she didn't get that part, she was offered another good opportunity that she didn't have before, in her chosen field where she had no other offers - something she doesn't seem to appreciate much, even though she deigned to accept it.

I know a lot of this stuff has already been addressed in various posts, but I just have an objection to how dim Karen seems to be (which is of course a fault of the writing on the show). It seems to me that if Karen were at all bright, she would have realized that sex may have been a factor in play, but it was by no means the only factor - talent also was a major player. She chose how she handed the sex situation, knowing the possible outcome, and if she's not going to make a fuss about it, then yes, she should just accept that someone handled it differently - as someone said up thread, she should just own it. Her "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that sex is going on behind the scenes in this production!" attitude about Derek and Ivy isn't winning her any points with me (sorry but I just couldn't resist paraphrasing Claude Rains). She doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that Ivy really is the best person for the gig and that that's why she got the job - which is, in fact, the case.

And I really object to the idea that Karen's not getting the role of Marilyn is tantamount to her being punished for "doing right". IMO that is just laughably, ludicrously absurd. An insane number of actors miss out on parts and don't get hired every single day, sometimes for the most arbitrary reasons imaginable that have nothing to do with talent - it's the business. Conventional wisdom is that 95% of Actors' Equity members are unemployed as actors at any given time. Are they all being punished despite doing right, too? Karen didn't lose anything - the gig wasn't hers to begin with. She wasn't automatically entitled to it just because she's mega-talented (supposedly), and she wasn't automatically entitled to it just because she didn't sleep with Derek. It's her super-entitled attitude that really grates on me.

As far as the test analogy w/regard to Karen and Ivy, I'm not quite sure I understand how someone's grade can be bumped down from an A to a B by someone else's cheating. But if I'm guessing correctly, the argument is that the person who's not cheating should be able to get an A for knowing, say, only 80% of the material, if no one else does any better, but then the person who cheats comes along and ruins the curve by getting 95% of the material correct, thus setting the 'A' standard higher, which is "unfair"? If that's it, then sorry, no sympathy here. IMO if the non-cheater wants a A, he or she needs to earn it for real by learning all the material and getting 95% of the answers right. Not by doing less than the requisite amount of work or being under-prepared, and then just hoping that no one else does better, or cheats. I think grading on a curve is b.s., and an attitude of entitlement is no more attractive in school than it is in show biz.

Edited by CatsWithAxes, Mar 1, 2012 @ 4:18 AM.

  • 0

#855

Nell Huxleigh

Nell Huxleigh

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 11:20 PM

Ivy hasn't been shown to be off-base, though, so I think it is a very, very far leap to assume she would make up things just to get Karen booted.

I guess I can see the idea of Karen being way late on her anger. That's actually a pretty good point. She wasn't outraged at the director when she thought she was going to get the part. Maybe she was surprised he offered up the same proposition to someone else? Maybe not only does she thing she's too hot for the ensemble, but also too hot to be pulling the same men as Ivy.

And, from the previews, it seems like Derek is going to be blame free for pulling even more bullshit with no repercussions. I'm sure this will feed into Karen's belief that the part was rightfully hers and only Ivy's sluttiness came between her and her right. And, maybe I'll be surprised, but I think the show at some point changed course. I think the pilot and second episode had a different idea about Ivy than what I've seen in 3 and 4 (though there were earlier hints).

I still don't see why it was anyone's job except Karen's to get Karen up to speed. But, of course, on Smash nothing is ever really Karen's fault.
  • 1

#856

Zuleikha

Zuleikha

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 11:23 PM

I think that would imply Ivy's problem with Karen really was all about Karen's performance, and was not about Karen, herself. I don't believe for a moment that if Karen had danced and sang perfectly, Ivy wouldn't have still made the same complaints to get Karen booted.


Ivy never used Karen's name. Karen was booted rather than someone else because Derek and Tom were able to recognize that Karen was the problem. The show also supported this by having Karen receive the note about oversinging and the three ensemble members scold Karen about not appropriately backing up Ivy. Although Karen complained about the note in the conversation to Dev, she implicitly acknowledges its validity by arguing that she's supposed to project to the balcony rather than blend). She was shown to be wrong about this by the ensemble members, and she appeared to have accepted the lesson.

Meanwhile, the show gave us private moments with Ivy talking about Karen and none of those included any intention of getting Karen booted. Ivy probably could have ignored Karen's missteps and possibly did let her insecurity and rivalry cause her to play up the problem (not directly stated but implied by her friend critiquing her divaness and Ivy's reaction). But what the show gave us is that Karen really was screwing up, and Ivy's complaints were legitimate--however much Ivy may also personally dislike Karen's presence.

I do think that if Karen had blended appropriately, Ivy would have had no choice but to suck it up. Complaining inappropriately would only have made Ivy look bad, and who knows if Tom or Derek would have even picked up on Karen as Ivy's target? Ivy was able to take advantage of a real issue, but I don't think she could have manufactured it out of whole cloth. She just doesn't have that kind of influence. She also had nothing to do (as far as we saw) with the ensemble members being cliquish and making fun of Karen's Iowa background/thin resume.
  • 0

#857

Palomar

Palomar

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 29, 2012 @ 11:28 PM

The guy who plays Tom and Debra Messing are fantastic on this show. Annoying of me, because it's already been said, but god did I hate Debra on Will and Grace.


Actually Debra is playing close to the roll she played in Starter Wife (which I loved her in....never saw Will and Grace)....not as comedic of course.
  • 0

#858

LeGrandElephant

LeGrandElephant

    Couch Potato

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 12:38 AM

I guess my gripe is, if Karen was going to mind, she should have minded back then, when the visit to Derek's apartment happened.


Now, that's a good point. But I think she did mind right at first - she looked pretty panicky in the bathroom before deciding what to do about it. Maybe she didn't realize it would still be a problem later on. She doesn't seem that bright.

If the situation was abhorrent to her, she could have made a stink - she certainly could have lodged a complaint against Derek with Actors' Equity, where it would at least be on file, if she felt she was being harassed - or she could have stopped going to the auditions.


But, all those things would be more likely to hurt her, which is partly why these situations should be avoided in the first place. When you're the subordinate its hard to even file a complaint without having it hurt you in the end. That's why someone in charge should be extra sensitive to these issues and not put the moves on his subordinates, even if he intends to be nice about it.

And I really object to the idea seemingly being espoused here that Karen's not getting the role of Marilyn should be seen as being punished for "doing right".


I think that's reducing the complexity of the argument here by a lot. I, at least, am saying that to us, the audience, it does appear Ivy is the best person for the role regardless of sex. But, some people (maybe you? I've lost track) said that IF it seems to Karen that Ivy got the role due to sex, Karen should just suck it up and "face the consequences of her actions". And THAT is the attitude that was characterized as someone being punished for doing right.

I'm not quite sure I understand how someone's grade can be bumped down from an A to a B by someone else's cheating


If a class is graded on a strict curve (most classes aren't) it can be set up so that, say, only the top 5 people get A's, even if the 6th person has a 97%. In that case, someone cheating does bump down someone else's grade. In all of college I had one class that was literally graded like that, because the major was overly full and they were trying to limit the number of people allowed to go into that major. It isn't common for every class but it does happen. And anyway, the point was the analogy, not the specific details of how classes are graded. When one person gets a job, another person then doesn't get it, so IF one person does cheat and get ahead, it does hurt someone else.
  • 0

#859

CatsWithAxes

CatsWithAxes

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 1:38 AM

If the situation was abhorrent to her, she could have made a stink - she certainly could have lodged a complaint against Derek with Actors' Equity, where it would at least be on file, if she felt she was being harassed - or she could have stopped going to the auditions.

But, all those things would be more likely to hurt her, which is partly why these situations should be avoided in the first place. When you're the subordinate its hard to even file a complaint without having it hurt you in the end. That's why someone in charge should be extra sensitive to these issues and not put the moves on his subordinates, even if he intends to be nice about it.

I don't think filing a complaint with Actors' Equity would necessarily hurt her. The union is supposed to help actors with stuff like that - in fact on a Equity show I worked on last year we got written material on sexual harassment with our packets at the first meet and greet. Karen could even have approached an Equity rep and just talked about an audition she went on without giving them the name of the production or the director's name right away, just to find out what her options were in such a situation. And if she did get specific, maybe she would have found out that there were a bunch of such complaints against Derek already in the files - or if he's been primarily directing film, maybe SAG, which is a sister union of AEA, would have a complaint file on him. If he has a track record of this sort of thing, I think the unions could create some major problems for him, in terms of bad publicity at the very least - although then the question would be, why haven't they done that already? Personally I think it would be a long shot that there would be a record of complaints, but it's something Karen could have at least checked out, if she felt strongly enough about it. And if she decided to be the first to file a complaint, I think the union would take it seriously and protect her.

And for the record, I agree that sex at the very least muddies the waters in these types of situations, and is ill-advised, even if it's not actual harassment - it's "the appearance of impropriety", and all that. I'm not saying that what Derek did was either commendable or smart. But I still found Karen's reaction to Derek and Ivy being together to be rather childish.

If a class is graded on a strict curve (most classes aren't) it can be set up so that, say, only the top 5 people get A's, even if the 6th person has a 97%. In that case, someone cheating does bump down someone else's grade. In all of college I had one class that was literally graded like that, because the major was overly full and they were trying to limit the number of people allowed to go into that major. It isn't common for every class but it does happen. And anyway, the point was the analogy, not the specific details of how classes are graded. When one person gets a job, another person then doesn't get it, so IF one person does cheat and get ahead, it does hurt someone else.

Oh well then my understanding of what you meant was completely wrong - lol - but that system seems equally ridiculous. If you get a 97 you should get an A without question, regardless of how many other A's were given. I would be much more upset about the system itself than about the cheating, frankly, because you can be screwed even if no one cheats. But I wouldn't equate Ivy sleeping with Derek with the test cheating, anyway, because Ivy still landed the part of Marilyn due to her major theatrical talent and hard professional work - it's not as if she lacked the necessary skills and only got the gig through sex. She earned her 'A' academically, as it were, even if she did sleep with the professor.

Edited by CatsWithAxes, Mar 1, 2012 @ 3:05 AM.

  • 0

#860

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 1:45 AM

I didn't think she'd be made to sound stupid - everyone knows about classes, even I, and I only know Kristin Chenoweth because of Glee.

But the answer seemed to imply that Karen wasn't talking about jazz, tap etc. but that she didn't know she should be in dance class because she's so "fierce" and "watchable".

And THAT is the attitude that was characterized as someone being punished for doing right.

I don't think my point is coming across well here, so I'll try to clarify and this'll be the last I speak of it, but I believe in owning your actions and their outcomes. This is not a perfect world. All actions have reactings / outcomes / consequences. Doing good is not always rewarded (and IMO, doing good because it will be rewarded it just plain wrong). Karen, when she turned down Derek, did it (presumably) with full knowledge that the director is skeevy and if the other person doesn't turn Derek down then the other person might get a leg up. She chose to do it anyway, because she is "principled". I just don't want to here her whine about it now.

Similarly, I can see that Ivy is not being rewarded for doing something questionable. She might have gotten the part anyway (God I hope so), but now the win is tainted for her and it is feeding her (presumably already considerable) insecurities. Our lives are outcomes or consequences of our choices, good and bad. What I personally dislike is whining about it afterward.

And frankly, I'm all for Ivy using everything she has to get the part. After all, I can also see Karen getting into the ensemble, and getting the ensemble members to help her out by her super powers of looking sad and pathetic and whiny, which is also not the most professional of reasons to get a job.
  • 0

#861

CatsWithAxes

CatsWithAxes

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 2:13 AM

I believe in owning your actions and their outcomes. This is not a perfect world. All actions have reactings / outcomes / consequences. Doing good is not always rewarded (and IMO, doing good because it will be rewarded it just plain wrong). Karen, when she turned down Derek, did it (presumably) with full knowledge that the director is skeevy and if the other person doesn't turn Derek down then the other person might get a leg up. She chose to do it anyway, because she is "principled". I just don't want to here her whine about it now.

Similarly, I can see that Ivy is not being rewarded for doing something questionable. She might have gotten the part anyway (God I hope so), but now the win is tainted for her and it is feeding her (presumably already considerable) insecurities. Our lives are outcomes or consequences of our choices, good and bad. What I personally dislike is whining about it afterward.


I agree. Karen doesn't need to be "fine" with it, but if she's not going to do anything about it she should move on. Especially since her assessment of the situation isn't completely accurate anyway - although, as has been pointed out, we the viewers know more about that than she does. I just think that if she were smart she would be figuring things out more - I don't understand why this is only a problem for her now. I don't like that the writers are portraying her as kind of clueless. I actually liked the scene in Derek's apartment, because there she seemed to have some real savvy and handled the situation in a way that enabled her to make a strong impression while not giving up control at all, which was a nice surprise given what we'd seen of her up till then. I don't know what happened to that Karen, but I'd like her to come back now, please.

Edited by CatsWithAxes, Mar 1, 2012 @ 2:46 PM.

  • 0

#862

swansong

swansong

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 5:27 AM

I don't think my point is coming across well here, so I'll try to clarify and this'll be the last I speak of it, but I believe in owning your actions and their outcomes. This is not a perfect world. All actions have reactings / outcomes / consequences. Doing good is not always rewarded (and IMO, doing good because it will be rewarded it just plain wrong). Karen, when she turned down Derek, did it (presumably) with full knowledge that the director is skeevy and if the other person doesn't turn Derek down then the other person might get a leg up. She chose to do it anyway, because she is "principled". I just don't want to here her whine about it now.


Personally I don't think it's whining to be bothered if there's even a suggestion that one of your bosses may have given someone a job because they were willing to sleep with them. On this particular issue I don't think she needs to own anything since I don't think having to sleep with your boss should ever be a requirement for getting ahead or getting a part, even by implication. And while I think Ivy was an idiot to wait until after she'd slept with Derek before considering the implications I don't think she's wrong to worry about them now. Even with the barn door already open aspect to it I think she'd be dumber if she wasn't somewhat concerned about it.
  • 0

#863

txhorns79

txhorns79

    Stalker

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 6:33 AM

Ivy never used Karen's name. Karen was booted rather than someone else because Derek and Tom were able to recognize that Karen was the problem. The show also supported this by having Karen receive the note about oversinging and the three ensemble members scold Karen about not appropriately backing up Ivy. Although Karen complained about the note in the conversation to Dev, she implicitly acknowledges its validity by arguing that she's supposed to project to the balcony rather than blend).

I don't think that it would take much for the director/writers to connect Ivy's earlier complaint about Karen being there at lunch to her complaints later on. I think Ivy even smirked when Karen was booted the second time, which suggests to me her complaint was less Karen singing too loud and more Karen personally.
  • 0

#864

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 6:37 AM

I agree that it would have been fairly easy to deduce that Karen was the person Ivy was having difficulty with, especially because Karen herself was doing her best to push herself forward. But I don't think Ivy smirked at Karen being booted. Or at least, I didn't see it in her face. I have no doubt she was happy/relieved inside.
  • 1

#865

touchedbysun

touchedbysun

    Video Archivist

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 8:57 AM

However to her credit, when Karen said "what kind of class?" I understood what KIND, not "what class", i.e., are you taking jazz, tap, ballroom, aerobics, mime. I didn't think she'd be made to sound stupid - everyone knows about classes, even I, and I only know Kristin Chenoweth because of Glee.


And here is where folks who are really working in theater are separated from those who only know about it from what they learn from television: the correct syntax is "take class" as in, "where do you take class?" Not "what kind of class do you take" even though you answer where, what, and who. As in "modern, with Jawole Willa Jo Zollar at 651." People figure out how to speak/talk if they have ever taken a pro-level class on their way to Broadway.

It would be the same if someone responded to where do you live in the city by saying the Queens or the Brooklyn. It immediately shows that you are not from here because you don't yet have enough experience to "speak" like a near native. And it's important that you know the lingo of your workplace just like in any other workplace.

Karen was broadcasting that she did NOT have enough experience either to know what people were talking about or to realize that take class always refers to dance and that all actors & dancers take class which is part of doing business and costs an enormous amount that is covered by the individual on minimum wage jobs. When you first get here, it's one way to build community, to learn about projects/peoples you want to get involved with professionally, and to show off your stuff—because you never know what the person teaching the class might be working on now or down the road. And as long as you are here, you must build community—both of close confidants and friends but also of colleagues. For Karen to not do that suggests that she thinks she knows everything one needs to know without having to actually learn it—or earn it—and that she won't have anything to offer in exchange.

Edited by touchedbysun, Mar 1, 2012 @ 9:19 AM.

  • 0

#866

LeGrandElephant

LeGrandElephant

    Couch Potato

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 9:02 AM

Oh well then my understanding of what you meant was completely wrong - lol - but that system seems equally ridiculous. If you get a 97 you should get an A without question, regardless of how many other A's were given.


There are lots of situations where it makes sense that the top however many people get entrance into a program, a job, or a prize, or a scholarship, or a spot in a graduate school or a med school or whatever it is. This is not an unusual concept as an analogy. And my original point was that being told you should quietly "face the consequences" of not cheating is kind of weird and doesn't make sense, and the added sexist dimension here makes it even more irritating for me to hear. I would be incredibly pissed off it I thought I was passed over for a job because I didn't sleep with the boss, and I'd be even more insulted if someone told me I should just face the consequences of my choice. (If anything this conversation has put me more on Karen's side than I was before). I agree that as the audience in this case it isn't clear that's what happened, but from Karen's point of view it seems like it might be, and that's the whole idea behind avoiding even the appearance of these situations - because in these situations, these reactions are natural.

I think beyond that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I think I've made all my points and now we're just going in circles.
  • 0

#867

ams70

ams70

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 10:59 AM

Does anyone know the name of the actor who played Tom's lawyer guy date? He was all sorts of yum!
  • 0

#868

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 11:21 AM

Neal Bledsoe.

I was rewatching the episode and was struck anew by Ivy's talent. There persona that she was putting on (slightly flirty, more young innocent) during the rehearsals of the Wolf number was quite different from the performance (straight up sex bomb). She really can deliver on the acting front, can't she.

I suppose when Katharine McPhee takes over, we'll be lucky if we get one interpretation, much less two.

Oh, and looking for the credit for Neal, I realised "introducing" Katharine McPhee is billed higher than Christian Borle. It's Debra, Jack, Katharine, Christian, Hilty, Jaffrey, d'Arcy James, Cepero and Angelica Huston. McPhee has a kickass agent.
  • 0

#869

Zuleikha

Zuleikha

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 12:13 PM

I don't think that it would take much for the director/writers to connect Ivy's earlier complaint about Karen being there at lunch to her complaints later on.


I think it would take a leap. Ivy complained to Tom about not being told. She clearly wasn't happy, but it was as much about feeling personally betrayed that neither her lover/boyfriend nor her mentor/champion could be bothered to give her a head's up. IMHO, nothing about that conversation suggested a conspiracy to drive Karen out of the ensemble. Derek would have to have been psychic as he wasn't present.

But more importantly, Ivy simply doesn't have the kind of power Karen is suggesting. If Karen had been performing well, all Ivy throwing a diva fit about Karen's presence would have done is made Ivy look horrible. She would have been slowing down rehearsals and screwing up because of a personal issue. She's the one likely to be replaced in that scenario. Derek obviously doesn't care about catering to Ivy's insecurities. I think Tom is more sympathetic, but at the end of the day, even Tom cares less about Ivy feeling safe or comfortable as about the production going well.

Basically, if Ivy had the kind of clout to get people fired or booted unfairly from numbers, there would have been no auditions. Ivy would simply have been Marilyn.
  • 0

#870

romantic idiot

romantic idiot

    Stalker

Posted Mar 1, 2012 @ 12:57 PM

Exactly. I'm sure they would have been aware that Karen's presence could be problematic, but the very fact that she was there shows that Julia feeling sorry for the kid trumped any discomfort Ivy might have. But, I can understand why Karen would feel Ivy has the power, since she assumed that she wasn't doing anything wrong, so it was just Ivy throwing hissy fits to her.

Also, I'm amused by something here. This is the episode where Ivy's sleeping with Derek gets the spotlight. Karen is pissed off. Ivy herself is increasing insecure. It is probably no coincidence that the song they are doing is also about the casting couch scenario. What is the song saying - though? It's talking about trapping and domesticating the wolf, and getting the power back to the woman victimised in this scenario. Interesting, good fun and the show within the show being unintentionally meta (unless it's Julia and Tom being intentionally meta, after all they are just writing this). I'd like more of these deft touches, please.
  • 0