Slog - Comments on The Tony Awards 2008, or Enough with the Goddamned Shakespeare Already

Comment by UNPAID BLOGGER

UNPAID BLOGGER — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:49:52 -0800

Wait, aren't you one of the straight ones? I thought you weren't supposed to give a rat's ass about the Tony's...

Comment by Rachael F.

Rachael F. — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:54:42 -0800

I'm just excited about Passing Strange getting nominated. I hope it comes here to Seattle.

Comment by city limits

city limits — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:58:01 -0800

The regional award isn't based on any kind of merit. They look around to see who hasn't won it yet and hand it over to them. Besides, Chicago Shakes has a huge ferris wheel outside its door. That's reason enough.

Comment by Ryno

Ryno — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:13:53 -0800

It's nice that you've done some background by reading the profile, but branding the theater as "just Shakespeare" is pretty lame. Chicago Shakes has a lot more to offer than the bard. I saw an amazing production of Pacific Overtures there in high school. It's one of the more reliable houses in the country's most vibrant theater community.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:19:28 -0800

Shakespeare isn't threatening to NEA types because they can't understand a word of it. Tennessee Williams was a pervert who hated America, as are literally all American playwrights -- Communist bums to a man. They're not going to vote for an American play unless they revive Gone With The Wind. Oh, crap, they just did. Look for it at next year's Tonys.

Comment by RHETT ORACLE

RHETT ORACLE — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:33:47 -0800

Should any literary type out there wish to understand the definition of "glittering generality", you need go no further than this:

Tennessee Williams was a pervert who hated America...

Unless I wouldn't recognize sarcasm coming at me like a streetcar named Desire.

Comment by worms

worms — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:58:48 -0800

"they don�t just put on a Tragedy, a Comedy and a History/Problem Play each year for the blue-hairs"?

Go fuck yourself. This is William Shakespeare you're talking about. Any production, even when people just stand on a stage and read his words, has merit, and you have no business referring to any audience who wants to see his work as blue-hairs. If people can make it fresh, so much the better, but don't be arrogant.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:02:39 -0800

RHETT, that streetcar stopped right in front of your house, but you weren't at the stop. Of course it was sarcasm.

Comment by michael strangeways

michael strangeways — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:06:40 -0800

8 inches!

No wonder there's so many queens in the theatre...

Comment by natopotato

natopotato — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:07:12 -0800

Chi Res is correct: ChiShakes is definitely *not* yo momma's Shakespeare company...

ps: Yo momma!

Comment by michael strangeways

michael strangeways — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:09:27 -0800

But seriously...that meat inspired Henry IV production sounds pretty fucking cool. Chicago theatre rocks!

Seattle theatre is a bit...flaccid right now.

Comment by Bill

Bill — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:47:04 -0800

@ 7: No, fuck you. The beginning of this was Kiley's assertion/assumption that regional Shakespeare is somehow unworthy of a Tony award--because of the purported wishy-washyness of such an award, since Shakespeare is supposedly middle of the road and safe. My comment about not just putting on safe Shakespeare for blue hairs is a knock on that assumption, not on Shakespeare or blue hairs (in fact, I subscribe to the Saturday matinee series, where I bring down the average age of the audience by about six years) so I know from blue hairs. And plenty of regional Shakespeare is shite.

Comment by RHETT ORACLE

RHETT ORACLE — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:58:50 -0800

Thanks, Fnarf - I missed the chasm you opened in front me where the Metro called Summit stops. Which precludes me from ranting about Edward Albee (communist, gay, old) and his great play "Sylvia" wherein a husband finally confides to his wife and son that he is schtupping a goat! But why are people gleeful about "Young Frankenstein's" poor showing? What was not to like?

Comment by adam_on_alki

adam_on_alki — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:11:15 -0800

OK, Brendan, seriously, you are a major cunt. I usually like you and your writing and opinions, but you never gave "Young Frankenstein" a chance and you are now totally shitting all over it. Fuck you douche-bag. That was one of if not THE greatest performances I have ever seen live.

Comment by PopTart

PopTart — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:51:25 -0800

@14, Wow, seriously? Young Frankenstein here in Seattle was one of the greatest performances you have ever seen?

Well, call me a cunt too then, because I thought it was one of the worst musicals I've ever seen and I totally agree with Brendan. And it definitely did not need a zillion Tony nominations, I think the 3 it got was generous.

Comment by COMTE

COMTE — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:38:42 -0800

Eh, "Young Frankenstein" was okay - unlike some truly execreble pieces of shite *cough!* Wedding Singer *cough!* Princesses *cough!* Lone Star Love *cough!* we've seen around her lately. It certainly wasn't a "Hunchback", that's for sure

Comment by Julie

Julie — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:39:10 -0800

I'm really surprised that you wrote this about Chicago Shakes without apparently doing any research whatsoever on them, other than reading Barbara Gaines profile. No need for me to go on about this, since others have already said it, but, you may want to actually have some clue what you're talking about before disparaging what is a pretty excellent company.

I'm a 20-something in Chicago and I can't tell you how often I hear "Did you see X at Chicago Shakes? It was phenomenal." Now, Steppenwolf... there's a company that does too much pandering to the blue hairs (for my liking anyways).