Ben Cook

[kport]

Who knows?

It is interesting to observe the audience reactions to Michael in different countries. In Tampa, there was an audible gasp of air when Michael kisses Billy. I understand it was more palpable in Houston. In London, there would be no great reaction. Is Michael 'gay'? I think we forget that he comes from a dysfunctional family; he seems to have no parental care; he almost envies Billy for having a dad, even one who does not understand him. That is their common bond: family dysfunction set against a world of grinding poverty and little hope. Both boys discover they are 'different'. I think we read too much into the dressing up: some take it as proof that Michael is a 'poof', yet Michael's own dad (who we assume is heterosexual, at least enough to have a family) 'does it too'. The English have always liked dressing up; the Widow Twankie is a common panto character; a man dressed in preposterous drag. Or Alastair Sim in drag as the Headmistress of St Trinian's. The play turns the dress episode into a panto (the huge dancing dresses) right out of an end of the pier panto; the whole point being that Michael is telling Billy is it ok to be himself. Not gay; these are 12 years olds; just 'be yourself'.

I think the Michael portrayed in the film is far more vulnerable; the hurt in his eyes indicates a rough childhood; he does not make us laugh as in the play, but we feel sorry for him; perhaps his attraction to Billy is due to the fact that he can be himself to Billy, and only Billy, probably the only person in the world with whom he feels safe. That is neither 'gay', nor 'straight', but entirely human; a sign of human vulnerability and longing for acceptance; even love. But I hesitate to place an adult label on these boys; it is too soon. As for the kiss - visit many countries, and you will find it is not considered inappropriate between close friends, especially children of this age. Perhaps, to loosely paraphrase Simon in Lord of the Flies, these boys are not confused: it is we who are.

[tyty]

Welcome to the forum, tyty. I see you've been with us for a few months, but this is your first post.

In the interest of civil discussion, I am going to allow this post to remain; however, if an argument ensues or things get out of hand, I will lock this thread.

Just yesterday an announcement was posted asking members to review our Rules and Policies, and this is a good time to point out one rule in particular:

•Members may not make personal attacks on other members or their views in posts. Any vehement disagreement should be directed over PM. Personal attacks are never allowed, even over PM.

As I said, as long as things don't get out of hand, I will allow this to remain, as some other members might want to weigh in on the subject.

Thanks for the welcome! Rereading my post, I see that I certainly made an abrupt entrance! To put my reply in context: I work at my university's peer counseling and support center (where sexuality is a major issue) and I'm also a counselor for a national teen gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and questioning support and suicide hotline. So I'm admittedly sensitive to these types of issues, and when I read allthatsknown's comment, I felt I had to respond. I know I was forceful in my response, but I stand by everything I said. My intent--which I hope was clear--was not to criticize allthatsknown, but to question the meaning of the comment. With my jobs, especially the hotline, I know just how powerful seemingly innocent words can be.

Whoa! Didn't want to male this go outta hand, but what I was saying was strictly an opinion. Depending on the performance that day, and who is playing Michael, yes, I do think that Michael can be gay. At this particular performance, Ben made me think of a new layer of Michael thati have never seen before... I was making the point of saying that bens approach that day, to me, made me think Michael just wants attention, and maybe his Michael is gay, maybe his Michael isn't, doesn't matter to me. I felt a whole new layer of emotions for Michael that I have never felt before. Anyone who knows me knows I am not homophobic, so please don't go thinking I am. I have had a very tough life, and there were certain aspects of his Michael that i saw in myself and without getting too personal on this board, I tried to summize some of my own personal experiences with that comment you were referring to (too gay). I guess there really isn't a "too gay" spectrum, so I am very sorry about that comment. I was just trying to give the kid a compliment, and I guess you though (and maybe many others too), thought I was bashing and attacking every other michael, which I wasn't... Sorry again if I came off rather less than perfect in my thinking and feelings about a DIFFERENT OPINION AND IDEA of how Michael may be played.. Ben is indeed a truly wonderful Michael!

Just to clarify, the only part of your post that troubled me was, "And the way he plays him doesn't make him too gay (like some do)..." For me, that unambiguously came across as a value judgment; I can't imagine someone using the phrase "too gay" with anything but negative connotations.

I'm glad you clarified your intended meaning, which, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you appreciated how Ben's portrayal of Michael made his sexuality seem more ambiguous and how his actions could be driven by different motivations. And of course I have absolutely no problem with you preferring this different opinion and idea of how Michael can be played. But sexuality is a very sensitive topic, and the words we use to discuss it can have huge implications. That's what I was trying to point out.

I understand that you absolutely had no intention of being homophobic, criticizing any actors, or belittling anyone who seems obviously gay. But I've talked to countless kids on the hotline who feel completely devalued after hearing or reading similar types of comments, regardless of whether they were meant to be malicious.

But I think it's important to remember that this show attracts a lot of young people and a lot of people who feel like they're different from most other people...and a lot of people who are both. And if any of them came across your comment and interpreted it the same way I did, it could be extremely hurtful to them. Some people may think this is overly sensitive or that I'm exaggerating, but I hear about this stuff almost every day. It happens way too much for me to not say anything about it.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from, that I'm pointing out a problem with some of your words, and that I don't mean to criticize you as a person, make any speculation about your values, or imply any malicious intent.

Oh, and one last thing, I'd absolutely love to see Ben as Michael! I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I'll admit I'm more than a tad bit jealous

[tyty]

But "Expressing Yourself," which most people tend to focus on, isn't really about "gay" or "not gay," as I see it. Lots of people assume that cross dressing is strictly a gay thing, but in fact, from what I have learned from watching programs and reading articles on the subject from time to time, many cross-dressers are heterosexual, which may well explain why Michael says his dad "does it all the time." The number is really more about having a lot of flamboyant fun than it is about sexuality, incipient or otherwise.

This is very true, and it's something that most people get confused about. Sexual orientation and gender identity are completely different constructs. I'm sure everyone has heard someone promote the idea that gay men really want to be women and lesbians just want to be men. No. Gay and straight people are equally likely to be confused about their gender. And yes, there are lots of straight male cross-dressers.

I think we read too much into the dressing up: some take it as proof that Michael is a 'poof', yet Michael's own dad (who we assume is heterosexual, at least enough to have a family) 'does it too'. The English have always liked dressing up; the Widow Twankie is a common panto character; a man dressed in preposterous drag. Or Alastair Sim in drag as the Headmistress of St Trinian's. The play turns the dress episode into a panto (the huge dancing dresses) right out of an end of the pier panto; the whole point being that Michael is telling Billy is it ok to be himself. Not gay; these are 12 years olds; just 'be yourself'.

I completely agree that Michael wearing women's clothing tells us nothing definitive about his sexuality.

But I hesitate to place an adult label on these boys; it is too soon. As for the kiss - visit many countries, and you will find it is not considered inappropriate between close friends, especially children of this age. Perhaps, to loosely paraphrase Simon in Lord of the Flies, these boys are not confused: it is we who are.

I completely disagree with you about them being too young for an "adult label." They are not too young to recognize or label their sexuality, and the psychological research unequivocally backs me up. Regardless of how you interpret this specific character's sexuality, you must realize that someone of that age is not too young to know.

And yes, cross-cultural research shows that it's common for straight boys to kiss their friends in some countries and that's not interpreted as anything related to sexual orientation. But that's there. Those actions have completely different meanings in the US and UK, where they do suggest something about a person's sexuality, and kids Michael's age are well aware of that.

It's funny how people can be so willing to question someone about their same-sex attractions (How do you know you're gay? Maybe it's just a phase? You're just young, you don't know what you want yet!), but not at all about any other-sex attractions. Who a person is attracted to is determined before birth or, at the very latest, within the first few years of life. It's not changing. Depending on a person's environment, they may come to terms with their same-sex attractions at a very young age or it may be delayed well into adulthood, but the underlying sexual orientation is solidified by early childhood at the latest. Period.

It is interesting to observe the audience reactions to Michael in different countries. In Tampa, there was an audible gasp of air when Michael kisses Billy. I understand it was more palpable in Houston. In London, there would be no great reaction.

Or even within the same city with different audiences. On Broadway, I've heard reactions ranging from complete silence, to "awww," to laughter, to "ewww," to gasps! And I don't mean individual people, but the overall audience reaction.

[porschesrule]

To all who have posted on the subject of how Michael is interpreted by various actors who play the role (or who have played it in the past) and who have raised other issues such as homophobia, the message of "it's OK to be oneself, etc. etc.

I think this discussion is a very good example of how this Forum can be a great sounding board about such issues and I think this discussion, in particular, has been very civil and has raised food for thought about what Lee Hall intended in what he's written.

I laud all the partipants for their civility and well thought out posts.

[mrmikerocks]

I laud all the participants for their civility and well thought out posts.

I agree 100 percent.

[ERinVA]

And at this point, let's not forget the stellar Ben Cook!

[kport]

I hope to get to see the Broadway production in June - I may see Ben then - but in between I hope to catch several visits to see BETM in London, as well as the Billy Youth Theater.

[cincinnati]

Ben Cook was BRILLIANT this past week as Michael....simply BRILLIANT

[cws8998]

Goodness, I hope I won't jump into the caldron here trying to add my two cents worth, but here goes. I'll try to keep it as lighthearted as possible.
Personally, I celebrate the fact Michael is gay. Unless I completely miss my guess, wasn't that Michael's partner sitting next to him in the final scene of the 2000 film, and during Billy's debut in the Royal Ballet's Swan Lake? Would I be wrong in assuming Daldry's, John's, and Lee Hall's intent would be to project the authenticity of the movie to their musical stage version?
Our portrayal of Micheal in the film came across to me as being extremely vulnerable, almost to the extent of being disquieting. Until you've been there, those characteristic can be defining to the point of being painful beyond one's imagination. As an 11-12-14 year old, one can surely have a full interpretation and desire to be accepting of oneself, and be pressured internally to find an innocent form of expression, if for no other reason than to find a way to escape one's imaginary prison. Been there, done that..! Is it possible that's what we might be experiencing on stage?
Again, in my opinion, our stage version of Michael presents a sense of confidence [approaching Billy with his tender expression and innocent form of intimacy], and, to the extent of a celebrated expression of who he, in fact, wants to be ["Expressing yourself." "Buck all the trends...what the hell's wrong with expressing yourself...for wanting to be me."] All you have to experience is being a frightened, guilt ridden ["Is it sinful if you're blue..."] and lonely boy at that age, and vicariously rejoice in the interpretation Michael presents to us. It's an extraordinary breakout.
And, frankly, I see no reason to find any other reason as way to skirt around the sincerity of his representation. [Too gay...what's that? Can you be too straight...?] Such questions seem to me to be a bit silly in defining anyone, particularly our magnificent and robust Michael in Billy Elliot. Michael is an exquisite role model in the show and a perfect precursor, as I say, to the adult Michael I believe we saw in the film. Certainly, I would never attempt to find a mechanism by which to deny the fact that any kid at that age cannot have a full definition as to who they are. Sitting through more than three dozen performances of this show has found me in a state of wonderment, in that I was viewing a powerfully staged musical whereby a young lad can be glorified, if not honored, for expressing the integrity of being gay...of being who he really is. There is not a Michael I have seen any where who does not cause a welling up of emotion in my own heart because of his ability to represent a youngster of expressed courage. In fact, an expression of courage many of us failed to possess when we were his age, perhaps, because of our own fear of utter rejection.
Hopefully, I have not offended anyone, or the powers to be in writing this. Regards, to all. Colin

[kport]

Poor Ben Cook! This discussion emerged on his thread! Nothing personal, Ben!! It could have arisen within any 'Michael' thread!

Perhaps we should take a break from Ben's thread, and move these discussion to its own generic 'Michael' thread.

Just a suggestion.