Having sex with a child is rape of that child. I need not say why. The genders involved are of no consequence. I'm sure Jerry Sandusky had a sweet, good side as well.
1
He was a pompous, silver-tongued bore.
1
Ms. Gates you need to go back and watch the show again. It's seems obvious you were on your phone in the back of the theater literally "phoning it in". If you missed the poignancy of this incredible production perhaps you should seek a career in finance or even government.
3
George Rose was not the only rich Gay American having a relationship with poor boys from the Carribean during the 80's. Think Haiti. At 14 the kid was perfect. At 18 he was to old. Still, no one deserved his final fate. According to Wiki, the four killers were released after a brief time in jail with no trial. George is still buried on the island in an unmarked grave. Will no one claim the body?
Interesting sounding show, and actually I saw "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" with Mr. Rose as the MC, but I was 14 and really don't have a clear memory of it. This sounds sort of like a similar play that will one day be done about Bill Cosby.
At first, seems like a great guy, lots of talent, full of life. Turns out, apparently, that Mr. Rose indulged in sex with children, and that Mr. Cosby drugged women in order to rape them. Leaves one with a sense that whatever bad things happen to either man after that, they deserve them.
But it also brings up the question, can one appreciate the skilled entertainment of somebody and, at the same time, dislike them for their immoral acts? Sometimes yes, I think, I still like the works of Picasso and many movies of Sean Connery, and apparently they were both abusive misogynists.
At first, seems like a great guy, lots of talent, full of life. Turns out, apparently, that Mr. Rose indulged in sex with children, and that Mr. Cosby drugged women in order to rape them. Leaves one with a sense that whatever bad things happen to either man after that, they deserve them.
But it also brings up the question, can one appreciate the skilled entertainment of somebody and, at the same time, dislike them for their immoral acts? Sometimes yes, I think, I still like the works of Picasso and many movies of Sean Connery, and apparently they were both abusive misogynists.
Note too how some comments defended Mr. Rose against these allegations of use of child prostitutes. Some people also defend Roman Polanski. I myself made the mistake of defending Cosby initially. I think history tends to get less kind to such men.
Your point Mr. Stockhouse is so off the mark it should probably not even be noted.
You condem Rose, Cosby, Picasso and even Sean Connery of immoral acts and being "abusive misogynists" without firm fact just "apparently".
In any case, Rose and Cosby's cases are totally different. Never does GEORGIE accuse Mr. Rose of having sex with minors, just seeking their company. Although it DOES acknowledge in the culture and country were the relationship occurs it is accepted, never openly, as longstanding financial necessity for the families of these boys. Dixon, the playwright, makes that quite clear: Everybody, every age there was for sale in order to just survive and that Rose never used drugs himself or with any sexual partner of any age. We, the audience, only know he bought the child as his heir, gaving the boy's family a substantial amount of money. The family again did not kill Rose in savage way they did because of anything to do with Rose sexually molesting anyone, but that their gravy train may be ending. NO reason for them to beat Rose for hours, sexual molestor or not. NO one deserves that. Ever.
I'll leave Cosby to defend when that play is written. But I ask you this: "what did all those girls go to Hefner's parties for? Ice cream and cake?"
You condem Rose, Cosby, Picasso and even Sean Connery of immoral acts and being "abusive misogynists" without firm fact just "apparently".
In any case, Rose and Cosby's cases are totally different. Never does GEORGIE accuse Mr. Rose of having sex with minors, just seeking their company. Although it DOES acknowledge in the culture and country were the relationship occurs it is accepted, never openly, as longstanding financial necessity for the families of these boys. Dixon, the playwright, makes that quite clear: Everybody, every age there was for sale in order to just survive and that Rose never used drugs himself or with any sexual partner of any age. We, the audience, only know he bought the child as his heir, gaving the boy's family a substantial amount of money. The family again did not kill Rose in savage way they did because of anything to do with Rose sexually molesting anyone, but that their gravy train may be ending. NO reason for them to beat Rose for hours, sexual molestor or not. NO one deserves that. Ever.
I'll leave Cosby to defend when that play is written. But I ask you this: "what did all those girls go to Hefner's parties for? Ice cream and cake?"
Apparently their defense of Mr. Rose comes down to the fact that there were no videos of him molesting poor children. That says it all. Not about Mr. Rose but about the posters.
This is one of the most riveting and complex performances on the New York stage - EVER. Do not allow Ms. Gates' surface appraisal and suggested innuendo deter you from what is essential theatre for any one who cares about the kind of work that opens a vein and reveals the emotional truth inside. That's what Mr. Dixon is doing here. This play is about what happens when dreams are shattered, and how one recovers by honestly facing the disillusion and dares to dream again. It is honest, deeply moving, and often hilarious. GO SEE IT!
4
aren't we always left confused and disillusioned these days? Great people so flawed. No one gets away clean?
Just reading about this "show" makes you seriously wonder about the boundries
of Good Taste -not to mention True Friendship. And the phrase, "ANYTHING
for a buck!" also comes to mind. Let our Great Talents RIP.
of Good Taste -not to mention True Friendship. And the phrase, "ANYTHING
for a buck!" also comes to mind. Let our Great Talents RIP.
Steven - "Anything for a buck" hardly applies in this instance. The GEORGIE theatre seats about 100 so nobody's making any money off of this show at present. I'm assuming you didn't see it because your byline says Los Angeles? This play is not about betrayal of a friendship, or trafficking in a lurid fantasy to make money. This story is about coming to terms with oneself in the wake of shattered illusions. This play is about recovery, ultimstely, about Ed Dixon's recovery specifically, and the honesty and vulnerability of his writing and acting is a gift to us all. I suggest you see it when you can.
5
Ms. Gates, must say I am a bit surprised at your lack of journalistic skills. You should have researched the fact BEFORE writing this attempt at a review, that Mr. Rose was murdered not by the underage boy - but by the boy's father, and uncles. And not because of ANY sexual relationship between the boy and Rose, but because they feared Rose was tiring of the young man and would seek the company of a younger man than their son/nephew. A point made clear in the play. Times Editor: Charles Isherwood would never have made such a gaffe. You got rid of the wrong critic.
BTW, "Georgie" is a delightfully funny tribute to George Rose, his talents and the somber reality that the Auntie Mames off the world don't always have happy endings. Anyone who enjoys taking in the well honed acting of a life on stage, will thoroughly enjoy Mr.Dixon's tribute. GO.
BTW, "Georgie" is a delightfully funny tribute to George Rose, his talents and the somber reality that the Auntie Mames off the world don't always have happy endings. Anyone who enjoys taking in the well honed acting of a life on stage, will thoroughly enjoy Mr.Dixon's tribute. GO.
6
I didn't leave confused or disillusioned, nor did I feel it necessary for Gates to comment that some theater-industry folk question Mr. Dixon's account of Rose's predilection. This was a startling and thought-provoking evening of theater and I do believe the intention of the playwright was to illuminate that people are not always who they appear to be, and in the callowness of his youth it was easy to be flattered and seduced by the sheer charisma of someone like Rose, only years later to realize that Rose was a seriously disturbed man. But also, I think, as Dixon takes us back in time to the seventies and his particular trajectory as a gay man, a reminder that shame ingrained in his generation and the generation before. Dixon's honesty made this one of the most riveting evenings I have experienced in the theater and I left with the reminder that we all carry secrets that when revealed remind us of our base humanity. A lot to think about, to be sure and certainly more than disturbing. All that theater is meant to do. Umbrage is also taken with your headline "His Unhappy End." Rose was tortured and murdered, plain and simple.
5
Wow, this reviewer not only manages to spoil the devastating surprises this play has in store, she fails to even think about what they mean. The darkness of Rose's death isn't a flaw in the play, it's the core of it, and Dixon has made something richly ambivalent out of his struggle to understand his friend. Both the brilliant light and the sordid blindness existed in the same complicated man, and the play is about Dixon's coming to terms with both in order to move on.
2
I don't know what show Ms Gates saw, but I wasn't left "confused and disillusioned"--nor was anyone around me. I was left with the wonder of great artistry in acting and storytelling, and Mr. Dixon's recounting a friendship with a brilliant, flawed friend. The epilogue brings us back to the present with the additional perspective of a lifetime of experiences behind it. Not disillusioned in the least, but marveling at his having experienced all of this, and being able to recount it in such superb detail. Delightful and witty, dark and surprising, and ultimately uplifting and hopeful. GO SEE IT.
3
George Rose was also Captain Hook in "Peter Pan" with Sandy Duncan... he was a treat to see on stage!
1