Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of "Prince Faggot"- Page 3
Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of "Prince Faggot"
verywellthensigh
Broadway Star Joined: 6/14/22
#50Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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.
#51Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 6/18/25 at 09:49 PM
#52Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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.
#53Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 6/18/25 at 10:25 PM
MemorableUserName
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/27/19
#54Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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."
getatme
Broadway Star Joined: 6/14/11
#55Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/19/25 at 12:38am
That Telegraph article is shockingly homophobic.
MemorableUserName
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/27/19
#56Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/19/25 at 12:57am
Not so shocking. It's a conservative rag. 🤷♂️
#57Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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
Swing Joined: 5/31/09
#58Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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.
#59Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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
Broadway Star Joined: 11/10/14
#60Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/19/25 at 1:02pm
Children- prince or not- are not fair game.
RUkiddingme
Broadway Star Joined: 12/9/11
#61Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/23/17
#62Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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
Swing Joined: 5/10/22
#63Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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
Chorus Member Joined: 2/24/25
#64Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
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
#65Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/23/25 at 6:32pm
I thought the director had quite a flair for staging and it elevated the quality of the production. The two lead actors lacked a bit of chemistry (I thought it might have been purposeful at first) but part of that had to do with the dialogue which felt at times like it was coming from a writer rather than the characters. The first half had momentum but I found my mind slowly going elsewhere in the second hour. Rachael Crowl was excellent; very natural. Loved her! The cast for the most part was solid. I would have preferred it if Mihir Kumar had been a bit more conversational, working with stillness and focus while he was in character. He had a tendency to bob his head back and forth while talking which made him seem like he was reciting lines. The actors spoke as themselves and then went in and out of playing characters. Mihir was better as himself. The convention of actors presenting a play was not necessarily new but I will say in this case it had a freshness to it. I also applaud the use of the upstage right and left doors that served as dressing rooms as well as other rooms when lights shifted. I had never seen that done before, and it was quite effective. The set design integrated itself effectively with the natural surroundings. I predict that gay theater companies in cities across the United States will be picking up this play and doing it at some point.
#66Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/23/25 at 7:29pm
I saw that Madonna attended the show the other day and posted a photo of herself with the cast - that’s got to be exceptionally cool for them.
#67Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/23/25 at 9:43pm
Jordan Catalano said: "I saw that Madonna attended the show the other day and posted a photo of herself with the cast - that’s got to be exceptionally cool for them."
OMG! They must have been in heaven!
#68Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/23/25 at 9:56pm
Jordan Catalano said: "I saw that Madonna attended the show the other day and posted a photo of herself with the cast - that’s got to be exceptionally cool for them."
After my initial surprise, it occurred to me she is friends with Jeremy O Harris and he is not only friends with Jordan, but was going to produce this play on Bway in 2023. I would imagine it’s possible he told her she’d like it.
#69Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/24/25 at 2:29am
Maybe my opinion would change if I can see the show - I can't. But I find the title and premise to be completely vulgar and tasteless. Call me old fashioned but 'faggot' is a highly provocative and triggering word for me because I associate it with homophobia and being bullied - as Prince George WAS bullied in a shocking way as mentioned in this thread from that image/images. I'm never going to 'reclaim' the word or whatever people do these days, I don't want to see the word ever again.
I don't like the idea that you would portray a real life person like this who is still a child - it would be different if they made it completely fictional with no association to a real person. Why make it about a real person?
I don't often play into negative stereotypes about American culture because I typically love it, but to me this is vulgar, low class and uncultured. I'm sure it's entertaining. If this ever makes it to London at least please change the title. 
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Updated On: 6/24/25 at 02:29 AM
#70Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/24/25 at 2:52am
binau said: "Maybe my opinion would change if I can see the show - I can't. But I find the title and premise to be completely vulgar and tasteless. Call me old fashioned but 'faggot' is a highly provocative and triggering word for me because I associate it with homophobia and being bullied - as Prince George WAS bullied in a shocking way as mentioned in this thread from thatimage/images. I'm never going to 'reclaim' the word or whatever people do these days, I don't want to see the word ever again.
I don't like the idea that you would portray a real life person like this who is still a child- it would be different if they made it completely fictionalwith no association to a real person. Why make it about a real person?
I don't often play into negative stereotypes about American culture because I typically love it, but to me this is vulgar, low class and uncultured. I'm sure it's entertaining. If this ever makes it to London at least please change the title.
"
Except the playwright is Canadian.
#71Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/24/25 at 2:58am
It doesn't have to literally be about the nationality of the artists, the point is this kind of shocking vulgarity is on a New York stage so it is part of the American culture - and we could change the title to North American more broadly if you like. They wouldn't have been brave enough to start this in London at the Donmar, that's for sure (not that the Donmar would likely ever have presented it). Not with this title.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Updated On: 6/24/25 at 02:58 AM
#72Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/24/25 at 4:20am
binau said: "It doesn't have to literally be about the nationality of the artists, the point is this kind of shocking vulgarity is on a New York stage so it is part of the American culture - and we could change the title to North American more broadly if you like. They wouldn't have been brave enough to start this in London at the Donmar, that's for sure (not that the Donmar would likely ever have presented it). Not with this title."
K...cuz we hold the monopoly on shock-value and vulgarity. Titles aside, Europe (since we're now talking regionally, per your request) has had many productions -- opera, dance, theatre -- that would never, ever be seen this side of the Atlantic.
All this to say, I think it's a weak, reductive argument to damn this production based on titles and location -- or to say that shock and provocation are the hallmarks of "ugly Americans".
#73Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/24/25 at 5:05am
You used “reductive” to pay homage to Queen Madge, didn’t you? ;)
#74Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of
Posted: 6/24/25 at 5:10am
I don’t think you can suddenly pretend that it is unfair to reduce the show by its title when it’s doing exactly what the artists are intending it to do. It is intentionally provocative and shocking. That is the point of it. It’s designed to an elicit a reaction, and well yes I’m giving you my honest reaction.
I think it’s homophobic, offensive to British culture, vulgar and low class.
How would Americans feel if Europeans wrote sexualised plays about Obama’s children with an offensive title such as ‘first slags’ or something. They would be outraged and so they should.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Updated On: 6/24/25 at 05:10 AM
Videos