After Proposition 8 passed in California, there was some fuss about whether the Sundance Film Festival should continue to be held in Utah (you know, because of those easily scapegoated Mormons). In the end, not only did the Festival stay where it was, but some participants seemed to get a bit of a thrill out of the location (profanity in article):

[John] Cooper said . . . "I didn’t want to leave here because I like the subversive nature of it. Personally, I like coming here to Utah.”

[B. Ruby] Rich also said the fact that the festival occurs in Utah has an “extra subversive aspect to it,” and the fact that the world media being here “meant that you could make a really big difference.”

Hanging out with the family values crowd has become "subversive"? Given the artistic community's love of rebellion and going against the grain, this could be a very good thing.

Comments

[Andy]

My take on the article is that the folks quoted want Sundance to stay in Utah to help the gay movement forward there, that is the subvert the conservative state.

[Steve (SBK)]

Aren't those subversive comments meaning that it's 'extra effective' because it's 'showing a rebel lifestyle' in a perceived 'traditional/conservative' city? i.e. it's not extra subversive to be 'traditional', it's extra subversive to be offensive to those who are 'traditional'.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

You may both be right. The comments were a little ambiguous, especially Cooper's. Still, influence can work both ways!

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Then again, when Alexandra Pelosi is telling the "Washington Post" that "liberals are so intolerant" that she can understand why they're resented, maybe I'm on to something after all. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012300879_4.html?hpid=artslot