Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of "Prince Faggot"- Page 3

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 6/18/25 at 9:16pm

Congratulations to Prince Faggot for it's critical and box office success!  It's always inspiring to see people respond to an off-Broadway show that isn't reaching for low hanging fruit (no pun intended).  Hats off to Playwrights Horizons, Soho Rep, and everyone else who doesn't think that art is meant to be baby-proofed.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/18/25 at 9:49pm

I mean, a photo of Prince George as a very young child posing in a way that could be interpreted as effeminate became an extremely widespread meme. The joke was at his expense and became a major way this child was seen in popular culture for a while. Are some of you totally unaware of this? 

And you're jumping down the throat of TotallyEffed for using the word "accused"? Maybe that's not the best word choice, but everything else TotallyEffed described is what actually happened: the world was laughing at a very famous kid because he seemed gay.  It is literally what inspired this play that it kind of seems like only a couple of people on this thread have actually seen. 

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 09:49 PM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/18/25 at 10:03pm

Thank you, Kad. I genuinely have no idea how my words have been interpreted as homophobic. What word would be more palatable? Suggested to be gay?Assumed to be gay? None of them are harsh enough because when you're 11 years old and being bullied for "seeming gay," it absolutely feels like an accusation. I would know, I lived it.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/18/25 at 10:25pm

I don't have a problem with the conceit of the play- I think basically everything is fair game in art- but I also totally understand why some people may have an aversion to the idea of a piece of art depicting a speculative adult version of a real, living child having graphic, kinky, drug-fueled sex, regardless of the fictional version's sexuality. But nobody on this thread is trying to censor it, just voicing their distaste toward the idea. And it is, objectively, a deliberately provocative idea. 

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 10:25 PM

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 6/18/25 at 11:05pm

For a British take, here's the Telegraph, which is less a review than a discussion of it in the context of other depictions of the royals, and basically comes down to how dumb and obsessed Americans are (even if Tannahill is Canadian...). The commenters, however, are as appalled as the pearl-clutchers here.

The off-Broadway play imagining Prince George as gay

A controversial new romp shows the future king dabbling in drugs and bondage. And it’s part of a very peculiar, very American trend

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/prince-george-broadway-play/

"Are all of these depictions a grave insult to the institution? Not really. When the material is this navel-gazing, fluffy or downright dumb, it’s hard to take it seriously. If anything, it’s an odd compliment: a sign that the Americans still can’t get enough of our royals, even if they have to view them through a fictionalised, flamboyantly queer modern lens to justify their enduring obsession."

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 11:05 PM

[getatme]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 12:38am

That Telegraph article is shockingly homophobic.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 12:57am

Not so shocking. It's a conservative rag. 🤷‍♂️

[kdogg36]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 11:26am

MemorableUserName said: "The commenters, however, areas appalled as the pearl-clutchers here."

I haven't seen any pearl-clutching on this thread. I've just seen people discussing the appropriateness of a play's deliberately provocative title (and to some extent the content). I haven't seen the play yet and don't have much of an opinion about the title, but surely people can argue both sides of this issue without being "pearl-clutchers." 

[TheatreAddict]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 11:56am

I'm a little reluctant to step into this quicksand of a thread, but I do have thoughts, so here I go.

I saw the show. I think it's more than a bit of a mess and far from perfect, but I also found it absolutely thrilling and in many ways brilliant. The ideas were extremely thought-provoking (I'm still thinking about it a couple of weeks later), and the production (acting, direction, design) was superb.

I think the arguments in this thread doubting that we would be outraged if George were portrayed as a straight King who was depicted having sex are spot on, and that speaks to the double standard we still have in our society.

We sexualize children as heteronormative all the time, and this is a point that the play explicitly makes in its prologue. The play ponders (based on a photo of him at the age of four) whether Prince George may grow to identify as gay, and it suggests that our sexual identity begins to form when we are very young, before we begin to be aware of sexual desire or even what sex is. That is certainly my experience as a gay man looking back at my childhood.

But we live in a homophobic world, and while few people would be outraged by a speculative depiction of the adult George as a straight man, there are obviously many people who feel protective toward the child who might suffer ridicule because he is depicted as a gay man.

The British Monarchy has a long history of people who are born into The Firm, and who come to resent the scrutiny and responsibility that entails. I have great empathy for what Harry and Meghan have gone through, and I respect their decision to step away from it all. I similarly have empathy for the young Prince George, who didn't ask to be born into this family or the responsibility of being heir to the throne, but who already has such scrutiny on him as a child.

But part of what signals warning bells is that the outrage is primarily that George is depicted as gay, which should be seen as a neutral (rather than negative) trait, and there is very little being said about the fact that he is depicted as a drug addict and a narcissistic asshole, which are objectively negative traits. So I think this points to the homophobia (whether conscious or not) of those criticizing the depiction of his sexual identity rather than his character. 

The play is deliberately provocative, but the content and ideas are deeper than the shock value of the premise. It made me question a lot of the thorny issues that have been discussed on this board, and that's part of why I think it's great, if imperfect, theatre. And why, despite the tricky moral questions about whether it should even exist, I'm glad it's there.

Updated On: 6/19/25 at 11:56 AM

[MrWilliams1987]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 12:50pm

Well, I just went I thought of this new play, Prince F*****, because it is better than Kinky Boots. But, come on, this is 2025. Prince F***** is undeniably good, I guess.

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 1:02pm

Children- prince or not- are not fair game.

[RUkiddingme]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 1:03pm

TheatreAddict said: "I'm a little reluctant to step into this quicksand of a thread, but I do have thoughts, so here I go.

I saw the show. I think it's more than a bit of a mess and far from perfect, but I also found it absolutely thrilling and in many ways brilliant. The ideas were extremely thought-provoking (I'm still thinking about it a couple of weeks later), and the production (acting, direction, design) was superb.

I think the arguments in this thread doubting that we would be outraged if George wereportrayed as a straight King who was depicted having sex are spot on, and that speaks to the double standard we still have in our society.

Wesexualize children as heteronormative all the time, and this is a point that the play explicitly makes in its prologue. The play ponders (based on a photo of him at the age of four) whether Prince George may grow to identify as gay, and it suggests that our sexual identity begins to form when we are very young, before we begin to be aware of sexual desire or even what sex is. That is certainly my experience as a gay man looking back at my childhood.

But we live in a homophobic world, and while few people would be outraged by a speculative depiction of the adult George as a straight man, there are obviously many people who feel protective toward the child who might suffer ridicule because he is depicted as a gay man.

The British Monarchy has a long history of people who are born into The Firm, andwho come to resent the scrutiny and responsibility that entails. I have great empathy for what Harry and Meghan have gone through, and I respect their decision to step away from it all. I similarly have empathy for the young Prince George, who didn't ask to be born into this family or the responsibility of being heir to the throne, but who already has such scrutiny on him as a child.

But part of what signals warning bells is that the outrage is primarily that George is depicted as gay, whichshouldbe seen as a neutral (rather than negative) trait, and there is very little being said about the fact that he is depicted as a drug addict and a narcissistic asshole, which are objectively negative traits. So I think this points to the homophobia (whether conscious or not) of those criticizing the depiction of his sexual identity rather than his character.

The play is deliberately provocative, but the content and ideas are deeper than the shock value of the premise. It made me question a lot of the thorny issues that have been discussed on this board, and that's part of why I think it's great, if imperfect, theatre. And why, despite the tricky moral questions about whether it should even exist, I'm glad it's there."

Best post ever!   I wish everyone here would just see the show and form their opinions afterwards.  Calling this show a mess and thrilling at the same time is a huge reason it's so worth seeing!  And THEN discussing!

[JSquared2]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 1:07pm

BWAY Baby2 said: "Children- prince or not- are not fair game."

 

I gather you have not been following this thread?

[commopics]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 2:17pm

I’m all for provocation, but I’m with Rentaholic on this. And yes I’ve seen the show. It’s one thing to address an issue but another to resolve it. 

[1 Minute Critic]

Posted: 6/19/25 at 10:22pm

 

1 Minute Critic -  Prince Faggot is for grown-ups, and not just because of the full-frontal. Playwright Jordan Tannahill dismantles and pieces back together our ideas on sexuality, race, privilege, and culture in a way that asks us to question our belief systems and how they came to be. Collectively, they reveal the harsh reality of our centuries-old tradition of marginalization.

“There are some kinds of queerness that will never really be allowed in through the front door,” George’s ex-boyfriend explains to the future king amid a torrential London downpour. Substitute “queer” for Black or trans and Tannahill’s words hit that much harder. Except, as Prince Faggot proves, for one significant detail: the doors of creative expression—particularly in live theater—can never really be locked. 

“There are some kinds of queerness that will never really be allowed in through the front door,” George’s ex-boyfriend explains to the future king amid a torrential London downpour. Substitute “queer” for Black or trans and Tannahill’s words hit that much harder. Except, as Prince Faggot proves, for one significant detail: the doors of creative expression—particularly in live theater—can never really be locked. Full review at 1minutecritic.com