The Incident at the Theatre
Meet Mike Daisey. This New-York based actor and writer (and blogger) is not particularly well-known to British or Irish audiences. He's not terribly well-known to most Americans. But that's about to change. 
On April 19th, was performing his monologue "" at the , when eighty-seven members of the audience staged a walk-out. One member of the group, who identified themselves to staff as "a Christian group", poured water over Mike Daisey's set and artwork as he passed the stage, in what the actor later described as "an anti-baptism". It subsequently emerged that the group was from a high school with teachers in charge who appear to have been concerned about "inappropriate language" in the monologue.
Mike's blog account of the "incident at the theatre" -- an event that will probably make him famous across America or, at the very least, inspire a new theatrical monologue -- is . You can also read extraordinary account of what happened when the actor tracked down the person who threw water over his artwork -- and how Mike, a self-professed "liberal atheist", forgives the protestor.
Inevitably, The Incident at the Theatre has found its way onto YouTube. Mike's material includes some adult themes and language which some people may find offensive. If you are likely to be offended at such material, it would be wise not to click on the link below.
I've already been in touch with Mike Daisey and hopefully we can hear him soon on Sunday Sequence. Those staging this walk-out have unwittingly given Mike Daisey a much wider audience than he would otherwise have enjoyed. That, of course, is often what happens when an attempt is made to stifle an artist's freedom.
Many thanks to Neil Glover for sending me links to this remarkable story.
Comments
WOW! That video is amazing. Those protestors are complete idiots. I'm extremely impressed by Mike Daisey, whose decency is extraordinary. What a guy!!
Those "Christians" teachers should be ashamed of themselves. The play's "language" is advertised for what it is. They apparently phoned the theatre in advance to check the language issue and still brought their group to the theatre. The man who threw the water should be prosecuted. It's a disgrace that such small-minded people should be teachers. What kind of values are they passing on to young people?
Thanks for posting the story, I hope Mike Daisey becames rich and famous. He deserves nothing but success.
Astounding video. It was absolutely their right to walk out of a performance they found offensive. But:
1) It was a high school group, meaning that one or two teachers found it offensive, not the entire group. Eighty-seven people left as a group, but the percentage of those who were actually offended is probably much lower.
2) What the guy referred to as "Dave" did is called vandalism and harrassment. He's lucky that Daisey is too decent a guy to sue his ass.
3) They should have checked to find out what kind of a show it was going to be before buying their tickets. If they did, as Daisey claims, and knew well in advance, this was repulsive behaviour.
4) I'm not really sure what they were offended about in the first place. Was it the spine-chilling 'F' word? Or a discussion about sexual relations? In any case, aren't they all virtually adults? Dealing with adult themes is what adults do in art. They'd best get used to it if they wish to be proper functioning adults. :-)
When I first saw this video I wondered if this was a coordinated protest. Did this group buy tickets planning all along to make a scene? I'm still not sure about that.
That glass of water was very deceptive it looked more like a bucket of water as those stage hands were real drama queens. Talk about putting a show on they were the real stars they were swimming in it.
That was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. It looks like it was probably staged that way, sort of something you'd see on the old Smothers Brothers show or on Laugh In or maybe on Saturday Night Live. The problem is you can only do this schtick one time, if you try it again the audience will know for sure it wasn't a spontaneous walk out.
OK, let's suspend disbelief and assume for a moment that this was actually a surprise protest by the audience. What a long way down American protests have come since the heady days of the 1960s such as the street riots in 1968 in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention where thousands of ant-war protestors were fighting with the police in the streets, the protestors throwing bags of urine at the cops and the cops returning fire with tear gas grenades. So they interrupted his "masterpiece" in a 60 second public demonstration of their displeasure and spilled a bottle of water on his "art work." Hmmm, that ranks right up there with the assassination of Lincoln at Ford's theater for disturbances to the performing arts. I wonder if it will be written up in the history books :-)
Reflecting on it a little more, I can sympathize with the protestors. Most people would probably assume that they were protesting his use of obscene language. I'd protest over how boring and unimaginative the whole thing was. And I'll bet they didn't even demand their money back.
Anyone got anymore information about the high school here? Or the teachers?
Have they been interviewed online?
I'm fed up reading stories about christians behaving like idiots. If I'd paid money to go to that theatre to see Mike D i'd have been furious with those people. In the circumstances, Mike was extremely restrained. He's a brilliant writer and performer, with commentary that is laced with insight and great humour. I'd elect him president! On second thoughts, he's probably overqualified.
John says these nuts had a right to do what they did. What about my right as a paying member of the audience to watch the performance uninterupted? I'm sorry. They just DON'T have a right to cause this kind of commotion in a theatre. They're obviously too intellectually challenged to appreciate good theatre of the kind Mike is offering. Why should we say they've a right to disrupt a theatre like this?
The theatre confirms that the teachers in question actually called before the show to find out if the material was "clean" (a ridiculous word for an educator to use). Then they went anyway? everyone who know's Mike's material knows what's on the menu. Another high school group was at the theatre and they stayed all the way through and loved the show. The teachers who did this deserve to be named and their schools should apologise publicly for their behavior. I wouldn't fire the teachers; I'd just tell jokes about them.
Why do christians behave like this? We even have one here, BILLY, commenting to the effect that the staff at the theatre are overplaying their response. Don't you people care that these kinds of attitudes just alienate people from your faith? For God's sake ...
"..a brilliant writer and performer"
Things kind of slow and dead up there in Maine Kenny? I know. I've been to Kennebunkport, Kennebunk, and Kennebunk Beach myself, is that where you're from? Kind of like the mythical Cabot Cove where Jesica Fletcher (Angela Landsbury) lives in Murder She Wrote. I don't think Mike Daisey is headed for The Great White Way anytime soon, not if the kind of material he had before Noah's flood and the Exodus was any indication of his talents.
As for sueing, I don't think so. Not if none of the other patrons didn't demand and get their money back. As for the damage to his "art work" I think a fair minded judge on a good day might award him five or ten dollars.
Kenny- If you didn't notice, I agreed with you. But to say they don't have a right to walk out is to say you'd arrest them for doing so. Is that what you're advocating? If not, then you agree with me. Of course they have a right to leave at any time; but having a right doesn't make it the right thing to do, and I agree that they're arrogant, rude idiots for doing so.
Mark- I've come to expect this kind of ridiculous remark from you and am in the process of learning to ignore it, as so many other regulars here have done. Meantime, you say: "Hmmm, that ranks right up there with the assassination of Lincoln at Ford's theater for disturbances to the performing arts...."- nobody even suggested that it's in the same category except you, looking for an opportunity to bring your great sense of sarcasm to bear on the topic. Left, once again, with the impression that you don't actually have a point to make and are simply engaging in clumsy, annoying, masturbatory polemics, forgive me if I don't notice in future. :-)
Good to see Mike exhibiting good old fashioned forgiveness! we could certainly do with more of it in the world.
But are we implying or assuming from this that most Christians or indeed people of faith are of the same mind and attitude as these people?
I am 110% happy for this story to have run, but where are the opposite and equal stories featuring secularists, agnostics and humanists?
sincerely
PB
Did Peter Tatchell have the right to interrupt a church service?
PB
Typical fundamentalist behaviour ie., irrational and stupid in the extreme.
It appears that the teachers did know the content of the show and went along to be deliberately offended.
I don't know about anyone else but when I go to the cinema/theatre etc I check to see what it's about, read the reviews etc, that's sensible but them fundies just love to be offended.
Like the fact that he forgave his attacker and ironies and ironies it took an atheist to show Christ-like qualities.
Tis good indeed PB to see some forgiveness!
"But are we implying or assuming from this that most Christians or indeed people of faith are of the same mind and attitude as these people?"
Not at all, and looking through the postings on this thread I don't see it. PB it's always the fundies muck things up for everyone.
"I am 110% happy for this story to have run, but where are the opposite and equal stories featuring secularists, agnostics and humanists?"
Oh where is this!?
"Did Peter Tatchell have the right to interrupt a church service?"
No he didn't, he's a nasty, fundamentalist idiot.
regards
DD
This guy Mike Daisey is small time. The guy you really want to interview is Bill Maher. He is a well known American TV personality who is launching a war on religion, god, and Christianity.
If you can get an interview with him, that would be a real coup.
John Wright;
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
Markado,
We may live in Northern Ireland but we DO know who Bill Maher is. His show's now cancelled but we got it here on cable. I'd rather hear an interview with Mike. When Bill Maher get's picketted by christians, will should interview him too!
Dave DV- Bill Maher's show is now on HBO in the States who are partners of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ for some content. The show is called Real Time, and - for those Brits who like Bill Maher - I'm happy to report you can see Real Time as a free podcast on .
dave dv
I should not be so surprised that you get American cable channels in NI or anywhere else I suppose. We now have radio telescopes which can transmit and receive messages a third of the way across the galaxy so I guess NI is within range. However, I must have overestimated the time delay due to the distance. I didn't think our signal had reached that far out yet:-)
This is the way to give people publicity.
DD
Where are they, well Peter Tatchell would be a case in point.
my point is that SS and W&T major on taking some silly behaviour by some people of faith and "accidentally" presenting it as the norm.
Strawman propaganda.
You will note that Will acknowledges the info was posted in to him by an individual. axe to grind??
DD are you saying that athiests agnostics and humanists never do silly or wrong things in the name of their beliefs?
Columbine would hardly be a fair standard to judge all athiests by would it?
PB
John Wright
The debate on this thread is closing soon if you wish to make a swan song.
/blogs/ni/2007/04/humanists_send_dawkins_to_stor.html
PB
DD
Where are they, well Peter Tatchell would be a case in point.
my point is that SS and W&T major on taking some silly behaviour by some people of faith and "accidentally" presenting it as the norm.
Strawman propaganda.
You will note that Will acknowledges the info was posted in to him by an individual. axe to grind??
DD are you saying that athiests agnostics and humanists never do silly or wrong things in the name of their beliefs?
I know some kids in Columbine were asked to recant belief in God before they were shot. But I wouldn judge all secularists by this event.
PB
PB, you are totally paranoid. I know the individual who posted the details to Will. you say he has an anti-Christian axe to grind. Neal Glover is in fact The Rev Neal Glover and he's a very committed Christian! There goes another one of Pb's conspiracy theories!
Anon
I asked if Neil Glover MIGHT have an axe to grind I didnt say he did.
I would have to say that for any Christian to publicly hold any other Christians up to ridicule does not seem very biblical to me.
As I understand it, biblical discipline is normally done in private and without sensationalism.
You havent offered a shred of evidence to show that he doesnt have an axe to grind.
But more to the point, I dont see you offering any argument to counter my assertion of strawman propaganda.
This is exactly the tactic used by Dawkins and for which he is widely discredited.
sincerely
PB
PB- You don't have a leg to stand on in this case, I'm afraid.
You say: "I asked if Neil Glover MIGHT have an axe to grind I didnt say he did."
True, but you clearly suspected that that would be the only reason for someone to want to post the links to this story to W&T. Will you now say that you were wrong to be suspicious?
You go on: "I would have to say that for any Christian to publicly hold any other Christians up to ridicule does not seem very biblical to me."
So you're objecting to the world seeing the truth about the behaviour of some of your fellow Christians? Will you admit that truth-seeking and truth-telling is not, therefore, one of your objectives? And not only do you presume to suggest that the link was offered with the intent of an axe to grind, but even after you're told that the link was offered by a fellow Christian and a minister of religion, you presume to regard it as an action intended to provoke "ridicule"! This certainly is a leap in logic.
"As I understand it, biblical discipline is normally done in private and without sensationalism."
This wasn't discipline, it was journalism.
"You havent offered a shred of evidence to show that he doesnt have an axe to grind."
Bizarre, PB. Now it's up to everyone else to prove why your little theory is wrong? How about you prove that it's right? I think the burden of proof lands squarely on your shoulders, particularly with regard to your patently vicious allegation.
In post #3, I offered four criticisms of the group who walked out of Daisey's performance. Would you like to refute any of them?
Nobody is judging all Christians by this event. These individuals do themselves no favors and they are bringing Christianiy into disrepute by their behaviour.
No idea who PB is. He's making things worse by trying to defend this ridiculous protest. I say that as a Christian.
I think it is right that Christians, including the vicar mentioned, should raise this issue and take a stand against this bizarre behaviour. To do otherwise would risk giving the impression that all Christians are with these protesters. We are not. I applaud Mike Daisey's behaviour under this kind of attack.
PB
Do people here present this as the norm for Christian behaviour? sorry don't see it! and if they did I would speak out. So no "Straw man".
"You will note that Will acknowledges the info was posted in to him by an individual. axe to grind??"
Goodness you paranoid!
"DD are you saying that atheists agnostics and humanists never do silly or wrong things in the name of their beliefs?"
Never said any such thing!?
"I know some kids in Columbine were asked to recant belief in God before they were shot. But I wouldn't judge all secularists by this event."
Of course and I am glad that you wouldn't! but fail to see what that has to do with the subject in question. It would be like me judging all Christians on the behaviour of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Ted Swaggart etc that would be stupid and untrue and I have never done it and every time that you have tried to insinuate it I have let you know in no un0certain terms that you are wrong! As I have said before PB I do very much dislike being misrepresented.
DD
#25
stick around for a bit Claire , and I think you'll realise that your first impressions of pb were fairly accurate :)
Dylan Dog, you said
"As I have said before PB I do very much dislike being misrepresented."
I second that! I've had statements falsely attributed to me by pb too. Not a very fair way of conducting a discussion and therefore rather annoying. I think Amenhotep and John Wright would also concur.
Falsely attributing statements to people is pb's new trademark it seems. I'm glad he has let go of his former favourite thing (half-evolved feather nagging), but I'm not sure that what we get in return for it is an improvement.
Agree 100% Peter!
DD
Claire Greenstock, I agree nobody should judge all Christians by this event. There is far more to judge them by like crusades, inquisitions, just to mention a few. On the other hand, they have and do serve a purpose in the world. In the early days they were lion food and in recent centuries their missionaries were excellent meals for cannibals. Today, their folly is fodder for comedy writers.
So these are the individuals who are bringing Christianity into disrepute by their behaviour? Hmm, and here I thought is was people like paedophile priests and their bishops who moved them from parish to parish so they wouldn't get caught by the police or strung up like meat by their congregations once their sexual abuse of their children had been discovered or maybe the Vatican who helped German Nazis escape to South America after Germany lost WWII. Glad you straightened that out.
Hello Mark,
I would like to add to your examples the attempts to demolish parts of eduction. Think the creationism that funda-mental christians tried to push into science class rooms in the US in the 1980s or the recent follow-up attempt (Intelligent Design, not limited to the US unfortunately). While maybe not as damaging to a child as sexual abuse by a clergy man, it does affect a vastly greater number of children.
Mark #30- "...their missionaries were excellent meals for cannibals..."
I like this Mark so much better than the Mark of #9. Glad to see you back on your game: that was truly funny.
(blog server trouble, apologies if this one appears multiple times)
Hello Mark,
I would like to add to your examples the attempts to demolish parts of eduction. Think the creationism that funda-mental christians tried to push into science class rooms in the US in the 1980s or the recent follow-up attempt (Intelligent Design, not limited to the US unfortunately). While maybe not as damaging to a child as sexual abuse by a clegy man, it does affect a vastly greater number of children.
Peter Klaver #31
You are of course correct and it's not just a matter of denying children the right to a good education. I think it was in the presentation by Dr. Miller which William Crawley referenced at around the time of the Dawkins McIntosh debate, the failure of America to educate its children properly in science puts the future pre-eminance of the US in technology and therefore its national security at risk. Religion's attack on the teaching of real science by insisting on substituting its own junk science is just one more of its crimes.
there are two "mark"s writing now. Can one of them change his name. One is fond of bizarre reasoning and the other is fond of intelligent wit. I like to read the latter and skip the former, so would the witty mark please rename for the sake of his fans!
My son was there
One thing most people are missing. It seems to me, Mr Mike Daisey, knew before he posted on youtube, who this group were and came from. In the info area of the clip It states 87 members of a Christian group. why?
I talk to him about this in messages ,he said he had posted before he knew who they were. It does not look that way to me . The one that puts the clips on youtube, are able to pull their clips, and repost, They can remove comments and block viewers from making a comment. Which he did to me.
Day of walk out 4-19-07
Talked with Cindy L. from the school and the man the poured water David 4-20-07 acording to news papers and his site.
Youtube shows posted 4-21-07.
Why? After reading much about Mr. Daisey and hid followers. I think I have the answer.
Seems as he forgave 1 and punished 86 others lets not count the other 11 adults just the 75 kids that were 14-17 years of age.
He heard there cries with their comments .
They were high school kids from s. California .there for choral competition.
To date 5-4-02 more info are shows Christian ,still. He said 4-21-07 is a repost .but he did not amend info
Jim- Your post is incoherent. I've no idea what you are claiming or why. Could you explain a little better what exactly you're alleging against Mike Daisey and the grounds on which you're doing so? Thanks.
freddie; you are right and it's a real problem. I've tried to run the other one off for half a lifetime but I can't seem to get rid of him. Do you suggest a psychiatrist or should I just head straight to an exorcist? Terrible isn't he? You never know what he's apt to say next.
Jim; if those innocent children of tender years who have been so sheltered in good Christian homes in California have braved the streets and theaters of off off Broadway...then it's about time they learned what the earthier side of life in all about. As somone who was born and grew up on the streets of New York City, I find it hard to believe that there is anything in this show that any high school kid in America hasn't seen or heard somewhere else a million times before. But if they haven't, then they should blame the people who organized the trip and arranged the intinnerary, not the people who put on the show. Even in midtown on 8th avenue and 34th street you'll see big billboards on theather marquis saying "XXX Adult shows, live sex acts on stage." Welcome to The Big Apple where eating organically grown alfalfa sprouts is prohibited by law and bars are required to close up at 6am for an hour so the proprietor can sweep the place out. Funny though, these people are from California, not Montana or Iowa. You'd think this was nothing for them. After all, I marked 2006 as a red letter year on my calendar, it was the first time I'd seen photographs and video of Paris Hilton with her clothes...on!