Patti LuPone Reprimanded By 500+ Broadway Artists In An Open Letter

[Lil1th 392]

5 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Yeah, Hollywood do just be casting Italian people as Jews for some reason (see: Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino)

And Jews as Italian people (thinking of bea arthur and estelle getty on golden girls lol)  

[Roughhouse Dandy 10,829]

2 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I totally get that, but in all fairness, I have also seen people calling her racist for it which I think is unfounded.

There are definitely people from outside the industry (mostly Twitter people) calling her racist and I don't necessarily agree with them. The only public figure who really has is Sis Thee Doll and she has every right to for reasons I can't get into  We need to just let that queen do her thing, trust me.  Those voices don't really hold power so I'm not adding them to this equation when there are now public statements by public figures out. 

2 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I also don’t really think blowing this particular instance out of proportion (as many have) necessarily achieves that end.

Heard. I personally do think this may help progress things. The hardest thing about activism in entertainment is that if a few people speak out to get a discussion of change started, those people can be buried and blacklisted. If there's an open letter signed by people you can't do that to, it gives tacit permission to speak on it with less fear of that happening. 

2 hours ago, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

Is good to see that "progressive activists" continue cannibalizing each other, while the actual far right continues to solidify and win over the youth, and the elections . I'm sorry but I can't with these people's priorities. 

The cannibalism you're talking about is very real amd damaging, but this isn't that. This is about theatre and the industry and it is these people's careers, passions, and homes being affected by bigotry. They're right to speak out when a notable figure in their ranks is doing damage. 

Edited Saturday at 02:24 AM by Roughhouse Dandy

[Lil1th 392]

It's Patti Lupone, that's what she does, it's not really racist if she says this stuff about everyone else too.

Maybe we could worry about the giant orange tictac and company ruining the US instead of pointless drama???   

[salty like sodium 1,491]

5 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Ngl claiming that her effectively saying Audra McDonald isn’t vocally right for Mama Rose in Gypsy (which I think is pretty objectively true) is a microaggression is wild and claiming that she’s specifically targeting Lewis and McDonald because they’re women of color doesn’t really add up when you consider that LuPone has said much worse things about white women . Is it ungracious? Absolutely. Is it rude? Assuredly. Is it racist? Probably not. 

I don't think people fully realise the full extent of racial microaggressions and how ingrained in society they can be. Just as an example, calling someone "camp" is actually a form of homophobia, just like calling someone "sassy" is also homophobia and/or racism (depending on the target of the comment).

[Ladle Ghoulash 21,391]

2 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

I don't think people fully realise the full extent of racial microaggressions and how ingrained in society they can be. Just as an example, calling someone "camp" is actually a form of homophobia, just like calling someone "sassy" is also homophobia and/or racism (depending on the target of the comment).

I understand the concept of micro aggressions, I just don’t fully agree that there are any particularly present here, given that Patti didn’t single out Lewis or McDonald on the basis of any kind of racial trope or dynamic and treated them, ostensibly, as she would’ve treated anyone else in a similar context. 

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,245]

5 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

The cannibalism youre talking about it real, but this isn't that. This is about theatre and the industry and it is these people's careers, passions, and homes being affected by bigotry. They're right to speak out when a notable figure in their ranks is doing damage. 

But she isn't . I will agree that Patti is rude, she has always been. 

And I can sympathize with any public figure drawing their boundary, and not willing to entertain LuPone's... unkind manners. I can totally see that, and it's valid. 

But this does not seem to be the case of "the industry trying to prioritize kindness". This woman has talked TRASH about Madonna and Kim Kardashian, nobody interpreted that she was "causing damage" by negatively criticizing two women in the industry. It was universally agreed upon, that those were just her opinions on those two individuals, she was entitled to them, and that was it. 

If the moment she behaves the same way towards a black actress, it automatically becomes unacceptable, and 500+ actors demand LuPone to be ostracized from the industry forever... . It does feel performative, to me. 

And it does not reads as "we should champion kindness to build a stronger, safer community for everyone". It reads as "you can openly criticize or disrespect everyone you please in the industry, unless it's a black person, in which case it's hate-speech and we want you out". 

I don't think it's wrong to stand up for Kecia Lewis, if you believe she was being unfairly disrespected. Patti LuPone does run her mouth a lot, eventually someone won't take it lightly, it is what it is, she's an adult woman, she can face the consequences of her actions. But to frame this as a racial issue, in my opinion, is irresponsible, and it is the kind of attitude that has favored the rise of extreme conservative spaces. 

Two things can be true at the same time: is it a fact that black actors in general, face more prejudice in the entertainment industry, and have been historically disrespected and treated unfairly? yes, very much so; and it is wrong. But it is also true that having a disagreement with a black colleague does not equal a racially motivated attack on their identity. 

I was not there, so I'm not gonna break my hip here defending LuPone. Maybe she was engaging in micro-aggressions towards a black cast. But as of now, based on what both parties have expressed, this seems like an exaggeration to me. 

And the open letter comes across as ridiculous and performative, TO ME. Specially during the current climate, with actual nazism on the rise, and mainstream artists releasing songs praising Hitler on the chorus. I would believe there are FAR more concerning matters than Patti LuPone complaining that a neighbor cast was loud, but whatever. 

If more people come forward with believable claims against LuPone, I probably will give credit to the narrative that she's racially insensitive. But as of now, this whole thing feels stupid. 

[salty like sodium 1,491]

17 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I understand the concept of micro aggressions, I just don’t fully agree that there are any particularly present here, given that Patti didn’t single out Lewis or McDonald on the basis of any kind of racial trope or dynamic and treated them, ostensibly, as she would’ve treated anyone else in a similar context. 

The dispute with Lewis originated because she complained that the Alicia Keys-penned show "Hell's Kitchen" in the theatre next to hers was "too loud". Lewis took offense at that because it was yet another example of a white person determining how loud black people were allowed to be, and then when asked about that Lupone said that Lewis had no legs to stand on when criticising her because she was not seasoned enough and didn't know "what the f*ck" she was talking about.

When researching what Lewis originally had to say, Lupone's comments fail to address the critique of her microagressions and just show her doubling down in an effort to try to discredit a Black woman's valid feedback to her original comments. See Lewis's OG response below:

Spoiler

“I want to explain what a microaggression is,” Lewis added. “These are subtle, unintentional comments or actions that convey stereotypes, biases or negative assumptions about someone based on their race. Microaggressions can seem harmless or minor, but can accumulate and cause significant stress or discomfort for the recipient. Examples include calling a Black show loud in a way that dismisses it.”

She continued: “In our industry, language holds power and shapes perception, often in ways that we may not immediately realize. Referring to a predominantly Black Broadway show as loud can unintentionally reinforce harmful stereotypes, and it also feels dismissive of the artistry and the voices that are being celebrated on stage. Comments like these can be seen as racial microaggressions, which have a real impact on both artists and audiences.”

She makes a valid point and for Lupone to respond by saying "that b*tch has no idea what the f*ck she's talking about" is dismissive, patronizing and condescending. Add that to the fact she then targets another black woman and there you go.

Btw I have no horse in this race I don't even know who any of these people are lol.

Edited Saturday at 02:42 AM by salty like sodium

[Ladle Ghoulash 21,391]

6 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

The dispute with Lewis originated because she complained that the Alicia Keys-penned show "Hell's Kitchen" in the theatre next to hers was "too loud". Lewis took offense at that because it was yet another example of a white person determining how loud black people were allowed to be, and then when asked about that Lupone said that Lewis had no legs to stand on when criticising her because she was not seasoned enough and didn't know "what the f*ck" she was talking about.

When researching what Lewis originally had to say, Lupone's comments fail to address the critique of her microagressions and just show her doubling down in an effort to try to discredit a Black woman's valid feedback to her original comments. See Lewis's OG response below:

  Reveal hidden contents

“I want to explain what a microaggression is,” Lewis added. “These are subtle, unintentional comments or actions that convey stereotypes, biases or negative assumptions about someone based on their race. Microaggressions can seem harmless or minor, but can accumulate and cause significant stress or discomfort for the recipient. Examples include calling a Black show loud in a way that dismisses it.”

She continued: “In our industry, language holds power and shapes perception, often in ways that we may not immediately realize. Referring to a predominantly Black Broadway show as loud can unintentionally reinforce harmful stereotypes, and it also feels dismissive of the artistry and the voices that are being celebrated on stage. Comments like these can be seen as racial microaggressions, which have a real impact on both artists and audiences.”

She makes a valid point and for Lupone to respond by saying "that b*tch has no idea what the f*ck she's talking about" is dismissive, patronizing and condescending. Add that to the fact she then targets another black woman and there you go.

Btw I have no horse in this race I don't even know who any of these people are lol.

I understand the nature of the dispute as well and I don’t really think a complaint about being “too loud” feels targeted enough to be a microaggression and I genuinely think LuPone would’ve said that to anyone (in that same way that Patti absolutely would attempt to discredit anyone she got into a public feud with). I’m not saying I think she wasn’t being rude, I’m just saying I don’t believe it’s racially motivated. 

Edited Saturday at 02:46 AM by Ladle Ghoulash

[salty like sodium 1,491]

3 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I understand the nature of the dispute as well and I don’t really think a complaint about being “too loud” feels targeted enough to be a microaggression and I genuinely think LuPone would’ve said that to anyone (in that same way that Patti absolutely would attempt to discredit anyone she got into a public feud with). I’m not saying I think she wasn’t being rude, I’m just saying I don’t believe it’s racially motivated. 

I don't think it's so much the original intent, I think it's more so that in 2025 it's considered inappropriate to try to silence/police tone/loudness of marginalised communities. For her to do that, then when confronted, double down and also attack the person who calls her out is disingenuous and doesn't discredit the accusation. Her response was basically "yeah but I would say that about any show and it's fine for me to do that" which doesn't really change the fact that telling Black People they're too loud ties directly into America's colonial slave-trading history and is something that people should be more mindful of. So in that sense, yes, her refusal to acknowledge that it was inappropriate, own up for it, and apologise for it results in it being an act of agression imo.

[Ladle Ghoulash 21,391]

14 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

I don't think it's so much the original intent, I think it's more so that in 2025 it's considered inappropriate to try to silence/police tone/loudness of marginalised communities. For her to do that, then when confronted, double down and also attack the person who calls her out is disingenuous and doesn't discredit the accusation. Her response was basically "yeah but I would say that about any show and it's fine for me to do that" which doesn't really change the fact that telling Black People they're too loud ties directly into America's colonial slave-trading history and is something that people should be more mindful of. So in that sense, yes, her refusal to acknowledge that it was inappropriate, own up for it, and apologise for it results in it being an act of agression imo.

See, I just don’t see any reason she should apologize for being accused of racism when there’s no indication that was her intent. I also don’t see the value in creating a double standard for social conduct based on identity. Saying “you’re being too loud” is such a common complaint in theater contexts that tying it directly to the legacy of slavery feels like a stretch—one that risks undermining more serious instances of racial harm.

 

The framework you’re proposing seems to suggest that whenever a white person has a tense or critical exchange with a person of color, the white person is presumptively in the wrong and should apologize solely because the situation could be construed as racist—regardless of actual evidence or context. That logic is both unsustainable and unfair, and ultimately stifles honest engagement across lines of difference. 
 

I agree that doubling down and being rude is not the way to handle it, but acting as if her initial comment was substantially racist enough to warrant an apology on that basis I think is a stretch. 

Edited Saturday at 03:05 AM by Ladle Ghoulash

[salty like sodium 1,491]

3 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

See, I just don’t see any reason she should apologize for being accused of racism when there’s no indication that was her intent. I also don’t see the value in creating a double standard for social conduct based on identity. Saying “you’re being too loud” is such a common complaint in theater contexts that tying it directly to the legacy of slavery feels like a stretch—one that risks undermining more serious instances of racial harm.

The framework you’re proposing seems to suggest that whenever a white person has a tense or critical exchange with a person of color, the white person is presumptively in the wrong and should apologize solely because the situation could be construed as racist—regardless of actual evidence or context. That logic is both unsustainable and unfair, and ultimately stifles honest engagement across lines of difference. 

I agree that doubling down and being rude is not the way to handle it, but acting as if her initial comment was substantially racist enough to warrant an apology on that basis I think is a stretch. 

That's literally the entire point you're missing out on. The entire foundation of microagressions is that they are usually not intentional. So whether she intended to do a microaggression or not is completely irrelevant to whether she did do one or not.

And you're also twisting my words. All I'm saying is that when you're being accused of behaviours that fall under racial microagressions and instead of having a dialogue and conversation with the person accusing you, you double down, it does not discredit their claims and it just makes you look even worse.

[Ladle Ghoulash 21,391]

1 minute ago, salty like sodium said:

That's literally the entire point you're missing out on. The entire foundation of microagressions is that they are usually not intentional. So whether she intended to do a microaggression or not is completely irrelevant to whether she did do one or not.

And you're also twisting my words. All I'm saying is that when you're being accused of behaviours that fall under racial microagressions and instead of having a dialogue and conversation with the person accusing you, you double down, it does not discredit their claims and it just makes you look even worse.

No, I’m not “missing out on it”—I’m disagreeing with the premise that something is intrinsically racist just because it can be interpreted that way, especially when there’s no clear context or evidence to support that reading. I understand that microaggressions are often unintentional, but that doesn’t mean intent is irrelevant across the board, especially when serious moral judgments are being made about someone’s character.

 

And to your second point, I’ve already acknowledged that doubling down rudely isn’t helpful—but you’re the one who made the leap from “you’re being too loud” to invoking chattel slavery. That’s the kind of symbolic inflation that makes genuine conversations about harm harder, not easier.
 

Happy to agree to disagree on this one and move on, tbh. 

[salty like sodium 1,491]

10 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

No, I’m not “missing out on it”—I’m disagreeing with the premise that something is intrinsically racist just because it can be interpreted that way, especially when there’s no clear context or evidence to support that reading. I understand that microaggressions are often unintentional, but that doesn’t mean intent is irrelevant across the board, especially when serious moral judgments are being made about someone’s character.

 

And to your second point, I’ve already acknowledged that doubling down rudely isn’t helpful—but you’re the one who made the leap from “you’re being too loud” to invoking chattel slavery. That’s the kind of symbolic inflation that makes genuine conversations about harm harder, not easier.
 

Happy to agree to disagree on this one and move on, tbh. 

but that's not the premise. the premise is that you can be racist without intending to - and that when a marginalised group tells you that your behaviour is offensive to them when you are part of an oppressive majority, it is your civic duty to at least hear them out and have a conversation with them where you don't attack or belittle them for expressing that opinion. failure to do so just enforces and perpetuates oppression and silencing, which is therefore a form of racial microagression.

Edited Saturday at 03:23 AM by salty like sodium

[Wolf Boy 3,205]

This is a whole lot of nothing lol.

 

Theatre people giving us theatrics. 

[Ilia Malinin 1,478]

me coming back to this thread: