Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?I'd like to see video of the complete performance, but there is this clip from a rehearsal:
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.
Brilliant. What a great realization of a great idea!
पोस्ट्स
१२६ टिप्पण्या:
I saw this yesterday. Tried to describe this video to two woman I know who both hate DT and voted for Hillary. Both just got mad at me. So much for building bridges.
It's definitely an interesting idea. I admit that I'm a little skeptical of the results, because they almost seem too great. People going in were obviously aware of the experiment, so one would expect that their own expectations would confirm the expected theory (that Clinton was great and we only hated her because she was a woman), whether it was actually true or not.
I don't know of any reason to doubt that the people doing this were honest in their assertion that they anticipated the opposite result from what they got, but it just does not match my general observations of how lefties would deal with this sort of thing.
It would be interesting to see it repeated with many different actors/actresses, with a scientific survey of the audience's reactions.
There is in fact something feminine about the way Trump talks and operates.
Lol. Looking at the photograph of the annotated script page, I see that "Ms. Trump" was scripted to do that sniffing thing that Trump did but blamed on bad microphones. Did she do it in performance? (Looks like our video is a rehearsal, no surprise.)
"the male Hillary was rather repulsive"
Not surprising since the actual Hillary was also repulsive.
Hagar said There is in fact something feminine about the way Trump talks and operates.
There really is; it's odd how well it works. I've heard people say that the reason that Elvis was so successful is that he could take the same rhythm and blues style that was being used by numerous black men of the time and sell it from a white man for a white audience. I wonder if you could make the same case for Trump's femininity?
I will have to look it up, but there was a blog post somewhere discussing the feminine characteristics of Trump and his manner of speaking. It might even have been here.
It's that thing he does with his thumb and forefinger.
And I will point out, there is no proof Hillary doesn't have a dick.
That was great! I liked Mrs. Trump, she easily trounced the male Hillary, but maybe I'm biased.
Next, they should have her re-enact the infamous Access Hollywood video of The Donald.
"I don't know of any reason to doubt that the people doing this were honest in their assertion that they anticipated the opposite result from what they got, but it just does not match my general observations of how lefties would deal with this sort of thing"
The middle-class Left loves to feign open-mindedness and will generally cite the feeblest examples as proof of their lack of extremism.
"I will have to look it up, but there was a blog post somewhere discussing the feminine characteristics of Trump and his manner of speaking. It might even have been here."
I remember that too. Likely either here, Instapundit, or both.
Here is what I learned: If the genders were reversed, Clinton loses to Trump by 50 points.
The female Trump comes off as energetic, not bullying, and the male Clinton comes off as a pedantic wimp.
Wow. I would have voted for Ms. Trump in a heartbeat. The male Clinton came across even worse than the loathsome real Clinton. It basically supports my current thoughts. Trump, keep doing what you are doing, but shut up.
Fascinating that so many viewers assumed that they had not been influenced by gender before. They just assumed that Trump voters were the ones letting gender sway them.
What an unusual way to help lefties experience the smell of their own shit.
" I admit that I'm a little skeptical of the results, because they almost seem too great. "
I saw this yesterday, and it does seem off to me too. Its smells like a "just so" story.
Granted its a story that conforms to rightist expectations - that is, that the audience of the usual suspects is so shallow and brainwashed that confounding their tribal-identity assumptions will make their heads explode.
A lot of them are that way, and I know that for a fact, but I don't think that was all that was going on here.
It had to be that so many of Hillary's supporters were blinded by their own sexist bias from seeing what a pain in the ass she was, and that only presenting her as a man could remove the scales from their eyes.
Trump's way of speaking and mannerisms really do come off well from a female speaker. At least, that's how it seems in the video.
Female pols, take note!
Fun idea and good clip - I wonder if the whole debate is that one sided when the genders are reversed. I wonder if it's just that the male actor is really annoying with a kind of lisp...although, Hillary has a really annoying voice too so I guess it works.
Also, picturing the Hillary voter with his head in his hands gives me a schadenboner.
I wonder how much of the difference on perception is due to the fact both candidates were horrible people. It would be interesting to try this experiment again but with two men debating and two women debating. It would be interesting to hold gender as a constant and observe the effect of vocabulary, tone, syntax, gestures, body language etc.
They should do it with Obama as a white guy-
What if Hillary had cheated on two husbands, had kids with three men, and bragged about groping men, while ladyfingers had stood by his wife? It's not just argument, it's how society allows them to conduct themselves.
Hillary makes an even worse man than she does a woman. Now what?
The principles and reconciliation do not change with sex changes.
Maybe this is just me, but the male Hillary came across as Gay, but the female Trump didn't come across as Lesbian. Maybe that was a result of the acting -- maybe the actor playing Ms. Trump was more nuanced than the actor playing Mr. Hillary -- but it could explain why the audience didn't find Mr. Hillary appealing. Perhaps they just weren't ready for the first Gay president. Did anyone else react that way to these performances?
Female Hillary. Male Hillary. Martian Hillary. Doesn't matter. They all are the worst.
They should have given the male Hillary a peg leg. That might have tipped the scales.
"while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she [said] was was true and factual"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
"and Trump's approach to communication was quite successful coming from a woman."
Try that w/ tweets. If any woman was that unhinged, hysterical and full of lies, they'd lock her up.
everything she was was true and factual
Even if "she said" is missing from that sentence, you can stop right there. My bullshit detector pegged out.
EsoxLucius - What if Hillary had cheated on two husbands, had kids with three men. . ..
That sounds like Angelina Jolie, whom a lot of really like!
Why assume we would all dislike B-Side Hillary more? Just the opposite; she sounds like a much more interesting and fun person? B-Side might even win the who would you want to be on an island with contest.
I've been wanting to do this for years. But in television sitcoms.
Reverse the roles of the husband and wife, reverse the lines.
Just watch as the female Ray Romano gets called an idiot, repeatedly, by his female husband.
I think it would open a lot of eyes if we changed the roles of the men and women in TV sitcoms.
Here is a hilarious analysis of Trump including wonderful GIFs "Why We Love Trump's Face" by Elspeth Reeve (Yes that Elspeth Reeve, married to Scott Beauchamp.)
https://newrepublic.com/article/122651/trumps-face?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=TNR%20Daily%20Newsletter
(Not sure posting links is allowed)
Should Trump start cross-dressing? Hillary already does.
Every so often, I imagine myself kicking Chuck square in the face. I find it cathartic.
How about this explanation: "Proving once again that a woman can get away with shit that a man should avoid like the plague."
Or this: "Hillary. Put a dick on her and she's even worse."
Or: "We all see our preconceptions, no matter what is actually going on."
Or: "I was misquoted."
Truth is, i have no idea just what to make of this, but it's interesting.
I want to see the whole thing too, with proper sound. Gotta say, the woman has the mannerisms of Trump down.
A very intelligent and observant friend of mine told me to watch Trump's and Hillary's hand-gestures during the debates. Trump's motions are more natural and congruent with the words and emphasis coming out of his mouth. Hillary's seem more like that of an arrhythmic person trying to keep up with the beat. Subconsciously the observer is more likely to believe what Trump is saying because there is harmony between his words and his movements, whereas with Hillary it seems like she's forcing one or the other.
"If any woman was that unhinged, hysterical and full of lies, they'd lock her up."
Oh come. My Facebook is filled with women who are much worse (On Facebook I watch, and say I know nothing, like Sergeant Schultz).
There is a great mania out there, and 3/4ths of the severely afflicted seem to be upper-middle-class women.
"What if Hillary had cheated on two husbands, had kids with three men, and bragged about groping men, while ladyfingers had stood by his wife? It's not just argument, it's how society allows them to conduct themselves."
Powerful people traditionally got a lot of leeway.
Consider Catherine of Russia, with a horde of acknowledged lovers. Heck, Queen Victoria probably had one or two, including a very large Scotsman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(servant)
Men? Women and women and women are normal.
Take all the chieftains who were womanizers out of US/European history and, well, there won't be a lot of names left to memorize.
Another interesting comparison would be to, say, give a Sarah Palin role, some speech, to a British actress to repeat in her native accent and idiom.
I'm convinced that the Palin episode was a case of open upper-class revulsion against the American peasantry. I was truly surprised at the time, it struck me deeply that there was such hate for, well, a people, in theory anyway the ur-variety of their own people.
I thought her country-frontier sound was charming. I was always a big fan of Westerns, Cowboy movies and the like.
Did the man Hillary do the shimmy?
For a good story of a woman with many lovers - who ran everything by managing her lovers, business and pleasure integrated more or less seamlessly -
Robert Massie - "Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman"
On Althouse Amazon portal, and available on Kindle.
BTW, do read everything by Robert Massie. You just have to.
I read this early this morning and found it fascinating. Now this is experimental theatre I can get behind. Someone will get in trouble for how it turned out, by which I mean attacked by crazed leftists. But this was a very interesting experiment and deserves more than the limited attention the media is giving it.
Two thumbs up!
Did the male Hillary have a seizure and have to be chucked into the back of a van like a side of beef?
I liked the audience reaction, especially the one guy who said that Ms. Trump had a coherent message, "like a hummable tune," whereas the Mr. Hillary came across like "someone who doesn't know the words trying to sing." I might have mangled it a bit. But you can find it if you read the blurb at Insty.
Darrell said...
Every so often, I imagine myself kicking Chuck square in the face. I find it cathartic.
3/7/17, 4:47 PM
On some other occasion, I might copy that comment and email it to Althouse. But she's on vacation. I'll let her or Laurence judge this for themselves at a time of their choosing. And thereafter decide how to deal with Darrell. It's her blog.
Sometimes I feel like slapping Chuck in the face with a fish.
Clinton was never likable enough, that was always social lie.
"lifelong republican" and "Anger Management Issues" Chuck: "On some other occasion, I might copy that comment and email it to Althouse. But she's on vacation. I'll let her or Laurence judge this for themselves at a time of their choosing. And thereafter decide how to deal with Darrell. It's her blog"
Careful what you ask for Ace. If Althouse decided to "deal" with those types of comments I'm afraid you would be easily swept up in that dragnet.
Carry on!
AReasonableMan: "Clinton was never likable enough, that was always social lie."
That was always an inconvenient truth that the left/"lifelong republicans" always squelched much to the dems disadvantage in the end.
Yup. I'm voting for the girl.
Meh. The male actor was a touch effeminate, something Hillary Clinton most certainly is not.
It might be easier to learn economics.
EsoxLucius, the problem wasn't that she stood by Bill, it was that she helped conduct the campaign to vilify the women he attacked. As for Trump having affairs, it's a lucky thing for him that the Clintons spent the better part of a decade trying to convince us that kind of thing is none of our business.
Secretary Gordon (the male Hillary) sounds just as uptight and condescending as she did. Good job by both of them.
tola'at sfarim said...
They should do it with Obama as a white guy
They have. He's called Justin Trudeau.
The male actor was a touch effeminate, something Hillary Clinton most certainly is not.
It's not effeminacy. It's prissiness, which Hillary has in great measure.
Actually not the first time someone has played with Trump's identity. Here's a brilliant dub job from early in the primaries with Trump as a British man:
https://youtu.be/qUGT30gGtiI
What strikes me is how fair this was. I couldn't detect that oh-so-familiar snark tone underlying virtually everything the media does on Trump. It's quite remarkable that evenhandedness is so shocking. But that's the biggest takeaway I got from.
"Oh come. My Facebook is filled with women who are much worse (On Facebook I watch, and say I know nothing, like Sergeant Schultz).
There is a great mania out there, and 3/4ths of the severely afflicted seem to be upper-middle-class women."
Sadly, that's not even slightly exaggerated. It's like they're acting out The Crucible on Facebook. Very weird.
AReasonableMan said...
tola'at sfarim said...
They should do it with Obama as a white guy
They have. He's called Justin Trudeau.
Damn. He is right. The left isn't very picky when it comes to mediocre minds.
I like the male Hillary. Trump is just nag, nag, nag.
AReasonableMan: "They have. He's called Justin Trudeau."
We can't laugh at our northern neighbors too much in this particular area.
Let's face it, had he not succumbed first to "Nature would not dare to kill me" syndrome followed by succumbing to VERY RAPID DECELERATION syndrome (upon impact), JFK Jr. might very well have become our President at some point.
I like the male Hillary. Trump is just nag, nag, nag.
That's because you're unable to deal with an assertive, empowered woman.
I remember the times when Chuck threatened Michael K, and me. Now he takes offense at imagination and hides beneath Ann's skirt. Sad. Meade would not be pleased.
ARM, that was legit funny.
"They have. He's called Justin Trudeau."
Nice hand, well played.
"Try that w/ tweets. If any woman was that unhinged, hysterical and full of lies, they'd lock her up."
Pelosi's in jail?
Who knew?
"I remember the times when Chuck threatened Michael K, and me."
I've taken my best shots at all you people that I can possibly conceive of, and nobody notices it so much as they would a damn flea or damn ant.
Chuck has given me more inspiration than I am worthy of at this point, but with practice of a determined focus to identify and conquer challenges preventing advancement using metrics recorded daily, I can someday rise to a level where I get me some real, genuine scorn that I will have earned and am deserving of.
"On some other occasion, I might copy that comment and email it to Althouse. But she's on vacation. I'll let her or Laurence judge this for themselves at a time of their choosing. And thereafter decide how to deal with Darrell. It's her blog."
I doubt she'll do a thing. Commenters have threatened to kill others on this blog and nothing was done in the past. Who knows maybe they've tightened up their standards intne past year or two.
Well, he diagnosed me as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous. I set a pretty high bar, Chuck insult-wise.
There was a good column by Maureen Dowd the other day on the role of likability in politics. You guys probably won't like it but she is a shrewd observer of personality politics. Howard Stern came close to the truth on Trump, he really really wants to be liked but lacks the natural grace required to be consistently likable.
A lot of people are finding this interesting. In some ways it is, but it's also a pretty stupid way to try and understand how we got GOP rule since it presupposes that the debates were the big thing, as opposed to the lives and broader histories and contexts which for a few hours manifested as three debates. For example, we don't see months of Ms. Trump demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, nor do we see Clinton buying out the entire Dem field before the primary even started, and saddling Dems with a choice between herself and the Republicans.
But again, a lot of people are watching this and going "wow!" A lot of people eat Peeps this time of year too, tho.
Watching this reminds me that watching Hillary reminded me of watching films of Thomas Dewey. He rambled on with occasional facts, occasional pretend facts, no humor, a sense of entitlement, and a feeling that he was speaking without passion or conviction in an effort simply to run out the clock. The words seem like that coming from either gender.
" but it's also a pretty stupid way to try and understand how we got GOP rule "
The point, as I understand it, is not really that debates were so significant, but that it got some people at least to really listen to both sides and perceive what other people saw. The debates just provided a lot of handy and representative material. Its not about the candidates, really, but about the filters of the audience. Switch the filters (gender) and the audience perception changes and the message is received in another way.
What the audience really thought about this, well, I don't entirely trust the piece.
Chuck: On some other occasion, I might copy that comment and email it to Althouse.
Snitches get stitches, rat boy.
ARM: They have. He's called Justin Trudeau.
Brilliant.
harrogate: "But again, a lot of people are watching this and going "wow!" A lot of people eat Peeps this time of year too, tho."
Jose Jimenez ("The Right Stuff"): "Oh, I hope not"
http://abc7chicago.com/food/new-peeps-flavored-oreos-reportedly-turning-peoples-poop-pink/1786781/
There are some days when ARM is simply en fuego.
" Switch the filters (gender) "
Well, perhaps the more important filters aren't gender at all, but the atmosphere of notoriety and pre-judgement, enmity or loyalty. These are two total strangers without baggage. Nobody there hated either of them going in.
Fine, buwaya, but as another commenter suggested upthread: make Ms. Trump the one with multiple divorces and children with multiple partners and see how *that* affects the "filter." Or if you like, see what happens to the filter when it's Mr. Clinton whose identity in the public eye has been largely shaped by decades of talk about how his wife fooled around on him time and time again and he stuck by her.
This thing doesn't capture much, and like some commenters of both political persuasions, I'm skeptical how authentic it is that audience goers reacted the way this story describes. Smell test and all.
Harrogate,
That's what I mean by filters. With Trump it's not just womanizing but a long career as a sort of carnival huckster. With Clinton it's not just her husband but also lots of political baggage.
That's a failure on the part of the audience in evaluating the argument presented, in a rigorous and proper manner. It's a built-in genetic fallacy, or ad hominem.
That's a good way of putting it. I think on balance we agree.
Trump was so masculine that he spent 50 years learning emotional sensitivity as a tool.
Meanwhile Rodham spent 50 years proving she was a heartless killer like she saw herself as a man.
I hope this is all part of the left coming to grips with why Hillary lost, now that Trump has ducked the whole Russian canard.
Maybe Chuck and the anti-Chuckists should start their own website so they can fling insults at each other without boring the fuck out of the rest of us. We get it, you don't like each other and hope the other dies in a fire. Now stfu
I prefer "NeverChucker".
Who killed Seth Rich?
Unknown: "Now stfu"
Persuasive.
chickelit: "I hope this is all part of the left coming to grips with why Hillary lost, now that Trump has ducked the whole Russian canard"
"ducked"
"canard"
Am I the only one suddenly hungry for French food?
buwaya: Another interesting comparison would be to, say, give a Sarah Palin role, some speech, to a British actress to repeat in her native accent and idiom.
Somewhere on YouTube, there are two or three videos with brief speeches or remarks by Trump, overdubbed by someone who says exactly the same words, but in an uppercrust British accent. Called "Classy Trump" or something like that. It's remarkable how much it changes how you hear what he says.
Made some Democrats think for a change. No wonder that guy had his head in his hands. It was a new experience. "No talking points from narrative central. What will we do?"
Commenters have threatened to kill others on this blog and nothing was done in the past.
Really? Do you have a link to such a comment? I've been reading this site for many years and never seen something like that.
Do you have a link to such a comment?
Inga/Unknown/Allie Oop doesn't need links or reality. I'm surprised she isn't inventing children again with inside info about FISA warrants. She never STFU.
"There is in fact something feminine about the way Trump talks and operates."
I agree. This is something Meade and I have talked about and I'm sure I've said it on the blog somewhere.
@Drago: Enjoy that fine French food with some Kalte Ente.
@The Godfather, yes. Re the male actor coming across as gay, the main collaborator on the project said this:
"I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things. Daryl [the actor playing Jonathan Gordon, the male Clinton] and I have talked about this multiple times since the performances. Never once in rehearsal did we say, “play this more feminine.” So I think it was mostly the smiling piece—so many women have told me that they’re taught to smile through things that are uncomfortable. It’s been really powerful to hear women talk about that, and a learning experience for me. I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!" The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke."
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
Looked like a debate between Fran Leibowitz and Adam Scott from "Parks and Recreation".
Althouse: "I agree. This is something Meade and I have talked about and I'm sure I've said it on the blog somewhere."
Yeah, but according to "Unknown" right next to where other commenters threatened...(cue music)...murder...
...by snide remark.
My wife thought the male Hillary should have been a stouter physical presence. She perceived him as (literally) a lightweight.
Angel-Dyne said...
Chuck: On some other occasion, I might copy that comment and email it to Althouse.
Snitches get stitches, rat boy.
3/7/17, 6:49 PM
Really! Chuck is always asking for proof of things he doesn't like. Well, when he wonders, "how can you call me a fag?" let him look to his own words as here.
Angel-Dyne said...
ARM: They have. He's called Justin Trudeau.
Brilliant.
3/7/17, 6:52 PM
Best thing ARM has ever said.
Guildofcannonballs said...
"I remember the times when Chuck threatened Michael K, and me."
I've taken my best shots at all you people that I can possibly conceive of, and nobody notices it so much as they would a damn flea or damn ant.
Well Guildy, you are always posting while drunk, or faking it, so nobody understands you, so you are ignored. Nobody can stop you doing your act, but that's why it's a problem. Admittedly, if you get mad enough, you can shed the litter of excess words and say something, but that's rare for you to do.
For the commentors who suspect the motives of the people who did this or the ones who wrote it up, or the way they frame it, I would just remind you this is not from Daily Caller or Breitbart, the link is to NYU's website and they are publicizing a newsworthy project by some of their faculty. On that basis, I tend to take the motives and general explanation at face value, always with the usual skepticism about anecdotes versus statistically valid samples and all. But this is not merely click bait for Trumpers or anti-Clinton people.
What a great idea! Thanks for making me aware of it.
I agree that DJT is not a masculine speaker. The secret to his success, perhaps.
Holy crap! I just watched it. It makes it amazingly clear that Trump is saying stuff that I had to studiously overlook his grating personality to hear.
Last thoughts:
The first thing people are surprised about upon first meeting The Donald is how he listens to them and responds to them with acceptance. That is the Venusian mode. AND IT TAKES EXTREME EFFORT TO DO.
But Hillary demands obedience using mean threats and power to smash any hint of disagreement with her. (Ask her Secret Service guys.) That is the Martian mode. AND IT IS EASY TO DO.
--“If it feels good, smear them” has been its de facto motto.--
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/splc_2_the_search_for_more_money_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4ajxeQT4k
What Bad Lieutenant said about Guidowhatever, even his hand is too long to read. I read the comments scrolling up, so I can't always see who is making them, but as soon as a recognize that I am reading one of his nonsense posts, I skip on. Which is why, when I do comment on them, it is generally the last couple sentences.
Which is a shame, because there is potential there. Lazlo has discipline, you can see it. He knows he is writing for an audience, his stuff is not just transcribed dream nonsense. Your posts are sort of like when you wake up from a dream, and it all makes sense for a minute, then all of the dream logic falls away and pretty soon, without the logical scaffolding, the whole dream fades away.
Bravo to NYU for an inspired idea. Why not re-enact Kennedy-Nixon, LBJ's "I will not seek, nor will I accept...," Reagan's "I'm paying for this microphone," Obama's "You're likable enough," the Candy Crowley interjection, Lloyd Bentsen v. Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin v. Biden?
Seriously. More and more over the years, we have been responding emotionally to candidates instead of listening to what they are saying. It would be illuminating to look back, reverse the emotional roles and see what is there to be found.
It might make us more discerning voters. It certainly couldn't hurt.
Nobody but a dictator can sell anything without listening. That's why Obama naturally used the power of the state to sell health insurance. Trump is a salesman.
I was watching Two Weeks Notice the other day, and Trump makes an appearance. I think the whole Hugh Grant character was sort of based on Trump, except he had a big W on his helicopters and planes, instead of a T.
Personally, I think the movie character that best portrays Trump is Rubber Duck from Convoy.
Notice how Trump went right for Hillary's jugular, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan.
I would love to see the part enacted where trump "stalks" Hillary around the stage. Some women wen't berserk with how 'predatory' it felt to them and how they became actually afraid he would assault her on stage.
I'm also wondering when feminists will blame the female trump's success on sexism or the patriarchy.
@Crazy Jane
More and more over the years, we have been responding emotionally to candidates instead of listening to what they are saying.
Is it more and more, or just how people and elections work?
I'm willing to bet for a lot of people in the audience, it was the first time they actually listened to Trump--be Trump male or female.
The "Why am I not 50 points ahead" speech is unlikely to be effected much by a change of gender. Broderick Crawford could have done it just as well.
Madison man: "I agree that DJT is not a masculine speaker. The secret to his success, perhaps."
In terms of mannerisms, Trump is the Anthony Newley of American politics.
One of the things I thought when I read about this was that this might be the kind of theatre which really illuminated some bit of the human condition through a fair use of reality. Other performances which did that for me include Charlie Victor Romeo (a theatrical recreation of six airplane crashes using cockpit voice recorder transcripts as the dialogue, now a documentary you can watch on Amazon Video) and the documentary Hoop Dreaams which follows two poor teens who dream to become professional basketball players through high school.
(Wow, go read the bit on the Wikipedia page on why Hoop Dreams didn't even get a nomination for the Best Documentary Oscar.)
I'm going to check out CVR on Amazon Video, I saw one of the Collective: Unconscious theatre presentations back in the early 2000s (pre-9/11/01).
Next, they should have her re-enact the infamous Access Hollywood video of The Donald.
Good golly, Miss Molly, the lesbians would love that!
Did Gordon collapse and get dragged into a van at any time during the video?
I actually love Ms. Trump. She's dogged and feisty!
I guess I'm pretty gender-blind. I thought the fake (male) Hillary was incredibly annoying - probably moreso than any of the other three. I don't remember that I liked the real (male) Trump that much better in the actual debates than Hillary, but he did get in some better one-liners and short, conclusive summaries. Perhaps I'm biased by the actual topics at play, where I had a clear preference and distrusted Hillary's take on them, as I'd come to loathe any obfuscator's take on them. But while I was concerned that this fake (female) Trump might have come across as "nagging", I think she just hit the points quickly and sharply and didn't drone on and on or fail to move off a point that wasn't working. This "male Trump" sounded like fucking Woody Allen, who as everyone knows is too neurotic to trust with anything.
One interesting thing I noticed: the male actor actually has a pleasant voice and good delivery, where Hillary has a grating voice and terrible delivery. So in the clip, he actually sounds like more of a robo-candidate than Hillary, because the stage direction is more obvious when he does it.
This is an interesting clip, because it's one of Trump's favorite themes, so Hillary had to have a canned answer ready. It's a bad answer -- I said I hoped the TPP would be a gold standard, but I don't support it now.
So what's the stage direction?
1) Smile when Trump attacks -- show he hasn't landed a blow.
2) Make a lame "We all know Donald lives in his own little world" joke. This is what a committee comes up with when they want to write a "there he goes again" line but doesn't know how.
3) Give the canned response
4) Talk about your book that's available in bookstores everywhere and try to move away from the subject.
Hillary is an awkward speaker with a hoarse voice, so she sounds insincere and fake. The male actor is glib and has a good voice, so he sounds like a corporate PR guy explaining away some poison spill in the third world.
Americans are the best TV watchers in the world! They hate corporate PR guys! Making Hillary a better speaker just highlights the other ways in which she was a terrible candidate.
I'll repeat what others have said -- this was a really interesting experiment. I don't know if it proves anything, but it's definitely food for thought.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा