Post: #1

How Broadway spreads Marxism and dangerous lies: a review of the musical Waitress.

No one ever trashes this play so I hope - complete with spoilers - to give it an ass kicking worse than has ever been done in writing before. I want to review this play to expose the specific techniques used by Broadway to spread SJWism, and hopefully identify the fraud so that it can be seen elsewhere in entertainment and media.

Waitress seems innocent enough. The professional reviews and promotional material would have you believe it is the story of a struggling working woman and how she rises above a verbally abusive husband and economic hardship. Let's take a closer look. The plot is going to give us all we need to know.

The story opens with the character Jenna (played by a truly mezmorizing actress, the beautiful Betsy Wolfe.)



She makes delicious pies of all varieties that are universally loved. She works in a resturant that serves her pies and coffee, and she is also loved as a server. The setting is a non-descript "Southern" town because for the first 15 minutes of the play the cast all do fake Southern accents before they forget they were supposed to. (I say this in jest, actually the play is very well acted and sung and this is part of the danger.)

At some point we meet Jenna husband, this rough and tumble - like to drink on Tuesdays working guy. The story intentionally paints him as abusive as he takes her tips every night, and gets a little loud with his wife. Back to him later, but you get the picture. The perfect baking hard working woman and the rough around the edges man.



Whenver you have a doubt about a piece look at the plot. I may be skipping a few things but Jenna is at work on day and they find out she is pregnant. Here is where the hamsterism of this story really starts to take hold. The play spends a great deal of time explaining that this was an accident that she the wife got drunk and accidentally let her husband fuck her, something that hasn't happened in a while. So despite there being a context of a marriage that she freely chose you the dear viewer has been convinced this is an "accident." This should tip you off that you are going to need sympathy for her later, if she should do something vicious you can remember that she is the victim of an accident.

Into the story walks the gynecologist. The lanky yet polished, highly educated but unable to speak to a pretty girl character is "smitten" by the girl and her pie. She does indeed give him free pie - both kinds. She seduces this married doctor and has an ongoing affair right on the exam table. (She is still the innocent little pie bater girl in the story however.) Here is the doc.



Moving along and skipping the less important parts of the story we get to the day of the birth of her daughter. Its a busy day for the new mother, she breaks off the affair and sends the new Father packing damning him to never see her or his daughter again. He had just found and taken a stash of cash in the sofa that she has hidden to go to a pie baking contest and broke his guitar in protest of her non disclosure. The audience literally roars to their feet at her dumping the moron. But it is the audience that are the morons who have fallen for this emotional trick and suddenly glorify the mother in her total dismissal of the father, without thinking of the consequences.

How will she live? Well that's easy, the owner of the pie shop gifts her the shop as a way of celebrating her decision to dump the dad. How convenient for her. This is the second provider to come along. Here at RVF we have heard the story of women who get pregnant form a loser and then look for providers to raise another mans baby... Nothing new. Dump the Dad and get free stuff. Now where would they get such an idea?

What does it mean and how is it Marxist propaganda? By painting the characters in the way they do a. the men are either assholes or cuck providers and b. women have zero responsibility and the main character who is a despicable and unthinkably bad woman is upheld as a hero. The play literally glorifies single motherhood and spreads a lie that this is a highly desirable thing. The daughter is literally lifted up as a God at the end of the play. She gets dick from a married successful man WHILE pregnant with her husbands child, and gets provided for by an old capitalist at no charge and having demonstrated no value to the world except that she can bake. The play doesn't come right out and say it but what they mean is that the means of production should be given to the women workers.

And all the while the lefttard actors and audience eat this up and dangerously go about hamstering for the god of single motherhood and the idea that men's capital should be given or stolen for women.

You could not ask for a more perfectly written, beautifully delivered, appeal to pure evil than that which is served up in Waitress.

Post: #2

More please.

G

Post: #3

WB Jenna and not provide

Post: #4

(11-03-2017 04:14 AM)TigOlBitties Wrote:  WB Jenna and not provide

And most importantly...wear a condom.

Post: #5

No thanks, Jenna. I've had enough of your "pie".

Post: #6

^couldnt have dreamed up that gif

Post: #7

Great analysis. If the writing were tightened up, I'd say it belongs on Return of Kings.

Post: #8

Would give Jenna a creampie.

Post: #9

(11-04-2017 12:58 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Would give Jenna a creampie.

too late

Post: #10

Nice write-up. I worked for decades as an arts and entertainment writer and one reason I left the field was that I started seeing plays like this through the Red Pill lens. Editors don't want that. But once you look at life this way, there is no turning back.

Let me add my two cents to this thread.

"Waitress" is a play based on a 2007 film written by screenwriter-actress Adrienne Shelley -- whose real name was Adrienne Levine. I say "was" because she was murdered in 2006, before the film opened. An illegal immigrant killed her and accounts vary as to his motive (some say it was revenge because she told him to quiet down his music).

I agree that Shelley/Levine's play has its deep roots in cultural Marxism, but would add that its "mindset" is more the product of the most sour, wretched fruit to ever fall from the Marxist tree: The anti-(white) male American feminism of the early 1970s.

And, in my opinion, that offshoot of Marxism was far, far worse than the real thing. How so?

Because where Marxists at least celebrated the lower-class working men who built cities and manned factories, the mindless, spoiled 1970s-era American feminists trashed all men -- upper AND lower class. Unlike real Marxists, these women didn't seem to realize they were working in the very buildings built by men, on roads paved by men, in a city built by men, etc.

I had quite a few Marxist friends in college. I didn't agree with most of what they believed, but I think their motives were noble in some ways because they wanted to empower the type of man who is portrayed as an abuser in the play "Waitress."

Feminists, on the other hand, were fueled entirely by resentment and hatred of men and generally didn't have the grasp of history and economics that Marxists did. You could reason with Marxists over beers and burgers. Good luck trying to use "reason" on a feminist.

The original film "Waitress" came from the same genre of movies that gave us everything from "Thelma and Louise" to "First Wives Club" to "The Color Purple" (where black men got eviscerated instead of white men). These films won awards as did the play. The people who run the show want this stuff.

Funny enough, playwright Shelley/Levine herself married a rich, powerful man who made it possible for her to do her writing. She was married to Andy Ostroy, the chairman and CEO of the marketing firm Belardi/Ostroy.

This is a pattern with these types of feminists. The mindset seems to be "Happy marriage for me, but not for thee." They themselves marry and live comfortably, yet champion single motherhood and paint all OTHER men as evil -- especially lower-class workers (one of whom, ironically, killed the playwright).

Besides the class issue, religion factors into this. A lot of anti-male rhetoric that comes from minority/Jewish women is actually anti-Christian resentment dressed up in pesudo-intellectual clothes. It's a way to misrepresent the builders of our society as destroyers and "oppressors."

There's a lot more there, but I won't get deeper into it. But when viewing plays or movies or when reading articles, always be sure to think "WHO is telling me this -- and why?" Usually there is an agenda there that the general public doesn't get to see, but that we should be seeing...and publicizing on this board.

Post: #11

(11-06-2017 10:44 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Nice write-up. I worked for decades as an arts and entertainment writer and one reason I left the field was that I started seeing plays like this through the Red Pill lens. Editors don't want that. But once you look at life this way, there is no turning back.

Let me add my two cents to this thread.

"Waitress" is a play based on a 2007 film written by screenwriter-actress Adrienne Shelley -- whose real name was Adrienne Levine. I say "was" because she was murdered in 2006, before the film opened. An illegal immigrant killed her and accounts vary as to his motive (some say it was revenge because she told him to quiet down his music).

I agree that Shelley/Levine's play has its deep roots in cultural Marxism, but would add that its "mindset" is more the product of the most sour, wretched fruit to ever fall from the Marxist tree: The anti-(white) male American feminism of the early 1970s.

And, in my opinion, that offshoot of Marxism was far, far worse than the real thing. How so?

Because where Marxists at least celebrated the lower-class working men who built cities and manned factories, the mindless, spoiled 1970s-era American feminists trashed all men -- upper AND lower class. Unlike real Marxists, these women didn't seem to realize they were working in the very buildings built by men, on roads paved by men, in a city built by men, etc.

I had quite a few Marxist friends in college. I didn't agree with most of what they believed, but I think their motives were noble in some ways because they wanted to empower the type of man who is portrayed as an abuser in the play "Waitress."

Feminists, on the other hand, were fueled entirely by resentment and hatred of men and generally didn't have the grasp of history and economics that Marxists did. You could reason with Marxists over beers and burgers. Good luck trying to use "reason" on a feminist.

The original film "Waitress" came from the same genre of movies that gave us everything from "Thelma and Louise" to "First Wives Club" to "The Color Purple" (where black men got eviscerated instead of white men). These films won awards as did the play. The people who run the show want this stuff.

Funny enough, playwright Shelley/Levine herself married a rich, powerful man who made it possible for her to do her writing. She was married to Andy Ostroy, the chairman and CEO of the marketing firm Belardi/Ostroy.

This is a pattern with these types of feminists. The mindset seems to be "Happy marriage for me, but not for thee." They themselves marry and live comfortably, yet champion single motherhood and paint all OTHER men as evil -- especially lower-class workers (one of whom, ironically, killed the playwright).

Besides the class issue, religion factors into this. A lot of anti-male rhetoric that comes from minority/Jewish women is actually anti-Christian resentment dressed up in pesudo-intellectual clothes. It's a way to misrepresent the builders of our society as destroyers and "oppressors."

There's a lot more there, but I won't get deeper into it. But when viewing plays or movies or when reading articles, always be sure to think "WHO is telling me this -- and why?" Usually there is an agenda there that the general public doesn't get to see, but that we should be seeing...and publicizing on this board.

Welcome back bro

Post: #12

(11-06-2017 10:44 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Nice write-up. I worked for decades as an arts and entertainment writer and one reason I left the field was that I started seeing plays like this through the Red Pill lens. Editors don't want that. But once you look at life this way, there is no turning back.

Let me add my two cents to this thread.

"Waitress" is a play based on a 2007 film written by screenwriter-actress Adrienne Shelley -- whose real name was Adrienne Levine. I say "was" because she was murdered in 2006, before the film opened. An illegal immigrant killed her and accounts vary as to his motive (some say it was revenge because she told him to quiet down his music).

I agree that Shelley/Levine's play has its deep roots in cultural Marxism, but would add that its "mindset" is more the product of the most sour, wretched fruit to ever fall from the Marxist tree: The anti-(white) male American feminism of the early 1970s.

And, in my opinion, that offshoot of Marxism was far, far worse than the real thing. How so?

Because where Marxists at least celebrated the lower-class working men who built cities and manned factories, the mindless, spoiled 1970s-era American feminists trashed all men -- upper AND lower class. Unlike real Marxists, these women didn't seem to realize they were working in the very buildings built by men, on roads paved by men, in a city built by men, etc.

I had quite a few Marxist friends in college. I didn't agree with most of what they believed, but I think their motives were noble in some ways because they wanted to empower the type of man who is portrayed as an abuser in the play "Waitress."

Feminists, on the other hand, were fueled entirely by resentment and hatred of men and generally didn't have the grasp of history and economics that Marxists did. You could reason with Marxists over beers and burgers. Good luck trying to use "reason" on a feminist.

The original film "Waitress" came from the same genre of movies that gave us everything from "Thelma and Louise" to "First Wives Club" to "The Color Purple" (where black men got eviscerated instead of white men). These films won awards as did the play. The people who run the show want this stuff.

Funny enough, playwright Shelley/Levine herself married a rich, powerful man who made it possible for her to do her writing. She was married to Andy Ostroy, the chairman and CEO of the marketing firm Belardi/Ostroy.

This is a pattern with these types of feminists. The mindset seems to be "Happy marriage for me, but not for thee." They themselves marry and live comfortably, yet champion single motherhood and paint all OTHER men as evil -- especially lower-class workers (one of whom, ironically, killed the playwright).

Besides the class issue, religion factors into this. A lot of anti-male rhetoric that comes from minority/Jewish women is actually anti-Christian resentment dressed up in pesudo-intellectual clothes. It's a way to misrepresent the builders of our society as destroyers and "oppressors."

There's a lot more there, but I won't get deeper into it. But when viewing plays or movies or when reading articles, always be sure to think "WHO is telling me this -- and why?" Usually there is an agenda there that the general public doesn't get to see, but that we should be seeing...and publicizing on this board.

Fascinating. I knew none of the background of this story before or after watching it, but I knew I was watching a steaming pile of Marxist garbage.

There is another part of the play where they try to take a pot shot and make fun of two characters (who have little to do with the plot) who are war reinactors, one man and one woman, betsy ross patriots. She tries to make fun of them but this part of the play is not well done. They come off as admirable - and they are the only characters who aren't cheating on each other, but clearly you can see the attempt here in trying to pass the writers elitist leftist bullshit.

Post: #13

(11-03-2017 12:42 AM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  

The (((nose))) knows.

Can I sue them for cultural appropriation?

Post: #14

WB.

Post: #15

(11-10-2017 01:08 PM)germanico Wrote:  WB.

About that there is no question.

Post: #16

(11-06-2017 10:44 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Nice write-up. I worked for decades as an arts and entertainment writer and one reason I left the field was that I started seeing plays like this through the Red Pill lens. Editors don't want that. But once you look at life this way, there is no turning back.

Let me add my two cents to this thread.

"Waitress" is a play based on a 2007 film written by screenwriter-actress Adrienne Shelley -- whose real name was Adrienne Levine. I say "was" because she was murdered in 2006, before the film opened. An illegal immigrant killed her and accounts vary as to his motive (some say it was revenge because she told him to quiet down his music).

I agree that Shelley/Levine's play has its deep roots in cultural Marxism, but would add that its "mindset" is more the product of the most sour, wretched fruit to ever fall from the Marxist tree: The anti-(white) male American feminism of the early 1970s.

And, in my opinion, that offshoot of Marxism was far, far worse than the real thing. How so?

Because where Marxists at least celebrated the lower-class working men who built cities and manned factories, the mindless, spoiled 1970s-era American feminists trashed all men -- upper AND lower class. Unlike real Marxists, these women didn't seem to realize they were working in the very buildings built by men, on roads paved by men, in a city built by men, etc.

I had quite a few Marxist friends in college. I didn't agree with most of what they believed, but I think their motives were noble in some ways because they wanted to empower the type of man who is portrayed as an abuser in the play "Waitress."

Feminists, on the other hand, were fueled entirely by resentment and hatred of men and generally didn't have the grasp of history and economics that Marxists did. You could reason with Marxists over beers and burgers. Good luck trying to use "reason" on a feminist.

The original film "Waitress" came from the same genre of movies that gave us everything from "Thelma and Louise" to "First Wives Club" to "The Color Purple" (where black men got eviscerated instead of white men). These films won awards as did the play. The people who run the show want this stuff.

Funny enough, playwright Shelley/Levine herself married a rich, powerful man who made it possible for her to do her writing. She was married to Andy Ostroy, the chairman and CEO of the marketing firm Belardi/Ostroy.

This is a pattern with these types of feminists. The mindset seems to be "Happy marriage for me, but not for thee." They themselves marry and live comfortably, yet champion single motherhood and paint all OTHER men as evil -- especially lower-class workers (one of whom, ironically, killed the playwright).

Besides the class issue, religion factors into this. A lot of anti-male rhetoric that comes from minority/Jewish women is actually anti-Christian resentment dressed up in pesudo-intellectual clothes. It's a way to misrepresent the builders of our society as destroyers and "oppressors."

There's a lot more there, but I won't get deeper into it. But when viewing plays or movies or when reading articles, always be sure to think "WHO is telling me this -- and why?" Usually there is an agenda there that the general public doesn't get to see, but that we should be seeing...and publicizing on this board.

As a little time has passed your analysis makes more and more sense.

Post: #17

WNB, that nose and the chin ...jeez you guys are thirsty. Typical soyface on the doc.

Post: #18

(11-03-2017 12:42 AM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  How Broadway spreads Marxism and dangerous lies: a review of the musical Waitress.

No one ever trashes this play so I hope - complete with spoilers - to give it an ass kicking worse than has ever been done in writing before. I want to review this play to expose the specific techniques used by Broadway to spread SJWism, and hopefully identify the fraud so that it can be seen elsewhere in entertainment and media.

Waitress seems innocent enough. The professional reviews and promotional material would have you believe it is the story of a struggling working woman and how she rises above a verbally abusive husband and economic hardship. Let's take a closer look. The plot is going to give us all we need to know.

The story opens with the character Jenna (played by a truly mezmorizing actress, the beautiful Betsy Wolfe.)



She makes delicious pies of all varieties that are universally loved. She works in a resturant that serves her pies and coffee, and she is also loved as a server. The setting is a non-descript "Southern" town because for the first 15 minutes of the play the cast all do fake Southern accents before they forget they were supposed to. (I say this in jest, actually the play is very well acted and sung and this is part of the danger.)

At some point we meet Jenna husband, this rough and tumble - like to drink on Tuesdays working guy. The story intentionally paints him as abusive as he takes her tips every night, and gets a little loud with his wife. Back to him later, but you get the picture. The perfect baking hard working woman and the rough around the edges man.



Whenver you have a doubt about a piece look at the plot. I may be skipping a few things but Jenna is at work on day and they find out she is pregnant. Here is where the hamsterism of this story really starts to take hold. The play spends a great deal of time explaining that this was an accident that she the wife got drunk and accidentally let her husband fuck her, something that hasn't happened in a while. So despite there being a context of a marriage that she freely chose you the dear viewer has been convinced this is an "accident." This should tip you off that you are going to need sympathy for her later, if she should do something vicious you can remember that she is the victim of an accident.

Into the story walks the gynecologist. The lanky yet polished, highly educated but unable to speak to a pretty girl character is "smitten" by the girl and her pie. She does indeed give him free pie - both kinds. She seduces this married doctor and has an ongoing affair right on the exam table. (She is still the innocent little pie bater girl in the story however.) Here is the doc.



Moving along and skipping the less important parts of the story we get to the day of the birth of her daughter. Its a busy day for the new mother, she breaks off the affair and sends the new Father packing damning him to never see her or his daughter again. He had just found and taken a stash of cash in the sofa that she has hidden to go to a pie baking contest and broke his guitar in protest of her non disclosure. The audience literally roars to their feet at her dumping the moron. But it is the audience that are the morons who have fallen for this emotional trick and suddenly glorify the mother in her total dismissal of the father, without thinking of the consequences.

How will she live? Well that's easy, the owner of the pie shop gifts her the shop as a way of celebrating her decision to dump the dad. How convenient for her. This is the second provider to come along. Here at RVF we have heard the story of women who get pregnant form a loser and then look for providers to raise another mans baby... Nothing new. Dump the Dad and get free stuff. Now where would they get such an idea?

What does it mean and how is it Marxist propaganda? By painting the characters in the way they do a. the men are either assholes or cuck providers and b. women have zero responsibility and the main character who is a despicable and unthinkably bad woman is upheld as a hero. The play literally glorifies single motherhood and spreads a lie that this is a highly desirable thing. The daughter is literally lifted up as a God at the end of the play. She gets dick from a married successful man WHILE pregnant with her husbands child, and gets provided for by an old capitalist at no charge and having demonstrated no value to the world except that she can bake. The play doesn't come right out and say it but what they mean is that the means of production should be given to the women workers.

And all the while the lefttard actors and audience eat this up and dangerously go about hamstering for the god of single motherhood and the idea that men's capital should be given or stolen for women.

You could not ask for a more perfectly written, beautifully delivered, appeal to pure evil than that which is served up in Waitress.

Play is now a movie. I hereby award it the "Birth of a Nation" award for trying to make craptacular values and behavior appear acceptable.

Post: #19

Since writing this (out of genuine disgust at what I had seen) I have now recognized the same anti-man anti-white anti-gentile theme in a lot of movies.