Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Everybody Loves Bartlett


I SO cannot wait to see this production. Can. Not. Wait.

Posted by Michigan Matt | April 8, 2008 12:23 PM

wow...didn't know Rajkhet Dirzhud-Rashid was writing over at Modern Fabulosity.


Posted by michael strangeways | April 8, 2008 12:39 PM

It wasn't John Lahr getting swoony in the New York Times, it was Ben Brantley.

Posted by Roscoe | April 8, 2008 12:39 PM

As I see it, the challenge of a revival lies in reproducing something in a such way that it emits a vibe of newness. And unlike the original 1949 production of SP, everyone walks into this one knowing what to expect.

SP is supposed to be jarring and the shaking commences in the form of social commentary. The original audience experienced that; this new audience cannot. It's far too jaded by assassinations, Selma, unpopular wars, Watergate, gay lib, and the women's movement to be shocked by and re-educated about biracial children or interracial marriage.

The best that this new audience can hope for is a refreshing take on a wonderful R&H period piece. It appears that's what they're getting.

That said - is there anything better than Rodgers and Hart/Hammerstein?

Posted by Bauhaus | April 8, 2008 12:52 PM

Thanks, Roscoe. That's what I get for a bad cut and paste job without previewing my post.

Posted by Brendan Kiley | April 8, 2008 12:56 PM

So, uh, is our boy Bart going to ever produce a full-on play at Intiman again? Because the one-man show Namaste Man is not going to cut it.

Posted by Greg | April 8, 2008 1:34 PM

Dare I say what so many think: Broadway-style musicals are insipid, emotionally vacant, and uncompelling as art. And I say that as a gay man.

Posted by Simac | April 8, 2008 1:44 PM

I would like to see the modern take of the show. I find it a little too stand there and sing then let's talk to consider it a great musical. Maybe I need to see this production to change my mind.

Loved Kelly O'Hara's interview on NPR, when she said that the naked prejudice she has to portray on stage makes her want to take a shower.

Good stuff

Posted by Clearlyhere | April 8, 2008 2:28 PM

@7 - I had no idea there was even one other fag who felt the way I do. I about threw up when a friend dragged me to 42nd Street a few years ago. I'd rather be fileted alive. It is disheartening to look at the listings for New York, and even worse, London, and see that it's mostly revival musical SHIT. There was a time you could go see great actors ripping each other to pieces on stage, now that's entertainment

Posted by halle fucking lujah | April 8, 2008 3:32 PM

What? No scene where, for no reason whatsoever the sea-bees push a large deep-freeze across the stage?

Sounds to me like ole Bart is slipping...

Posted by Joe Adcock's Opposing Adjectives | April 8, 2008 8:40 PM

OK - let's put the show tunes thing to rest. All gay men aren't into Broadway. And to believe that they are is to call attention to oneself as being limited. But like Mel Brooks said in "To Be or Not To Be" when a Nazi told him of the plan to rid the Polish theater of gypsies and fags, "What?" he said, "Without gypsies and fags, there is no theater!"

Many gay men can survive quite well without musicals, but no musical can survive without gay men.

Posted by Bauhaus | April 8, 2008 8:53 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).