Brilliant "The Kid"

[bob h2]

Posted: 5/9/10 at 7:20am

I thought this musical by Dan Savage about the tribulations of child adoption by him and his boyfriend was wonderful. I'm guessing we will see it move to Broadway eventually and become a huge hit.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/9/10 at 9:06am

Can't tell you how much we love when a new poster joins just to sing the praises of a show.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/9/10 at 12:35pm

Unfortunately, I do not think it will transfer to Broadway. I just can't see this playing well to a Broadway audience, and it would disappear in a huge theater.

I loved the show. I just don't see a Broadway transfer happening.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/9/10 at 8:06pm

The musical is not by Dan Savage. Get a clue.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/9/10 at 8:11pm

You can't blame him for not knowing how to shill. It's an art.

[mc1227]

Posted: 5/9/10 at 9:49pm

I loved this show when I saw it a couple of weeks ago. It was very clever and well done. However, I agree with the other post that states it would be lost in a bigger theater. Part of it's charm is that it plays to a small crowd which allows the emotion and humor to land solidly. I highly recommend it!

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 3:30am

Like it quite a bit, but it's not great. Very clever, funny, but some air leaks out of it in the second act when the humor lessens a bit and the serious/emotional elements don't resonate quite as well as they should. And the final song and screen-video-projection-thing is AWFUL. That said, I'd totally recommend it, I enjoyed it a lot, but it would never transfer to Broadway (and I can't imagine the creative team have any illusions that it would).

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 9:59am

I err on the side of MiracleElixir, but I personally thought the show wasn't very good at all. I found the score to be pretty elementary and unoriginal, and the book to be sloppy. To have Sieber narrate directly to the audience was a cheap cop out and totally unnecessary, and I found the humor to be along pretty predictable lines.

Did nobody else find this show to be as hopelessly pedestrian as I did?

[Insider2]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 10:14am

That's right, you pompous, snarky, bitchy, psychics. It will never transfer to Broadway. No possible way. Doesn't belong there. Just like Everyday Rapture, Yank, title of show, Next Fall, and Next to Normal will never transfer....

oh, wait.....

[BroadwayBound115]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 10:46am

How would this work in one of the smaller houses? I don't think it would get lost terribly. I think as long as they kept it in a small, intimate house, it would be fine.

[Lefou]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 10:51am

Does anyone know if The Kid has a rush policy of any kind?

[newintown]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 11:11am

The opposite of pompous, snarky, bitchy psychics would be indiscriminate, naive, chirpy Pollyannas?

Some things transfer, some don't. I wouldn't put money into The Kid, but I bet there are people who would.

But as far as just expressing an opinion (which is what this place is about) I found it pedestrian, too, as noted above. But then, Dan Savage's narcissistic self-promotion annoys me, and I'm not interested in the topic of having/getting children. If the score had been more than just OK, if he script had been wittier or better focused, I might have responded with some enthusiasm. Or not.

[Holbee]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 12:21pm

I don't know how the reviews will treat it, but I found the story original (how I loved that they were NOT the perfect gay couple to adopt, very boy/daddy couple, not the ideal TV Movie gay adopting couple) and the treatment of the teenage mother. But the score, though nice, was completely forgettable. Not one great number. Which is a shame as the subject matter and book are pretty interesting.

[hockeynut2]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 12:33pm

Here's Richard Seff's very positive review on DC Theatre Scene.
Richard Seff reviews THE KID

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 3:00pm

I am 100% with scaryclowns on this. I loved the cast (one of the strongest ensembles on the boards now) and think the idea lends itself to something great, but the execution and score was surprising mundane and predictable. I went in with high hopes, and was very dissapointed.

Like Holbee, I like the idea that they are not the picture-perfect gay couple, and I love the sex-positive elements (as you would expect from a sex-columnist). Unfortunately, the script opted for cartoonty-sitcom shtick to delineate their relationship, and their contant bickering quickly got tiresome.

** SPOILER ****

I was totally mystifed by the fact that the audience has no idea why Dan wants to adopt....or how he and his partner came to the decision. A great opportunity left unexplored.

Dan gives a reason, but IMHO it's pretty callous.

Updated On: 5/10/10 at 03:00 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 3:28pm

That's right, you pompous, snarky, bitchy, psychics. It will never transfer to Broadway. No possible way. Doesn't belong there. Just like Everyday Rapture, Yank, title of show, Next Fall, and Next to Normal will never transfer....

oh, wait.....

EVERYDAY RAPTURE is a nonprofit production, [title of show] did not work in fact, NEXT FALL is making rather pathetic grosses and will probably close very soon if it doesn't get a bump from the Tonys, and we have yet to see how YANK fares. It's true that NEXT TO NORMAL is doing well, but you got one out of five.

I know you are not speaking only to me, but I never said that it does not belong on Broadway and will never transfer. I said that it is my opinion that it wouldn't work and that I do not believe a transfer will happen.

I loved the show and I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong. But based on what I saw at the Acorn, I don't think that will happen.

[YeahBaby]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 12:32am

Brantley kills Da Kid.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 1:19am

"That's right, you pompous, snarky, bitchy, psychics."

I'd call shill, but they've been around since '05. Instead, I'll just enjoy the verbiage. Pompous, snarky, bitchy, psychics. (Is that penultimate comma correct? It seems out of place. It's late, and I can't be sure.) Pompous, snarky, bitchy psychics. (Yes, that looks better.)

I'm not entirely certain about the order, though. Perhaps, "pompous, bitchy, snarky psychics"? Or "bitchy, snarky, pompous psychics"? "Snarky, bitchy, pompous psychics"? As psychics, are we more bitchy, snarky, or pompous? Which adjective would best be linked directly to the plural noun "psychics"? I like the flow of "pompous psychics", so I'm going to stick with that.

For my money, I feel that "bitchy, snarky, pompous psychics" has the best bang for the buck. Does anyone disagree? It's open to discussion. I don't have my Strunk & White handy, and it has been a while since I've had to put these rules into practical use. Perhaps someone has some more recent "hands-on" experience with the finer points of grammar. Anyone?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 2:35am

"[title of show] did not work in fact"

An arguable point, Yero. While it wasn't a hit on Broadway, it has launched the careers of Bowen and Bell, and as a result of [tos] playing on Broadway, productions of it are all over the US, soon to be in Australia if it hasn't happened already. Again, arguably, none of that would have happened if it hadn't made Broadway.

If The Kid wants to make the move and can manage it, I think it should.

"Pompous, snarky, bitchy, psychics. (Is that penultimate comma correct? It seems out of place. It's late, and I can't be sure.) Pompous, snarky, bitchy psychics. (Yes, that looks better.) "

It does look better, and I think it's correct, but the penultimate comma would be the one after "snarky", which is correct. The one after "bitchy" is the ultimate comma, and looks incorrect. 'Penultimate' means next to last. No judgement here, though.
Updated On: 5/11/10 at 02:35 AM