Synopsis of Taboo- Page 2

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 4/2/05 at 9:57pm

I LOVE the opening number.....I wanted to use that to audition for cabaret with.....

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/2/05 at 10:00pm

Yes, ASSASSINS is an ensemble piece...that's why he won best supporting actor. I didn't care for O'Hare, I thought he was unnecessarily over the top and too (forgive me) feminine.

While Raul sounded amazing singing "Petrified," nothign can top the emotion and brilliance that Cerveris had in ASSASSINS. And, in my opinion, Esparza is FAR better than Paul Baker any day.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 4/2/05 at 10:03pm

acting wise, yes. i dunno- i just thought Paul did a better Petrified but Raul was a better Phillip.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 4/2/05 at 11:32pm

I much prefer Raul's Phillip over Paul Baker's. And as far as the Tony goes, I was mad as hell when Raul lost, but, Michael's performance in Assassins was way more complex than Raul Esprarza's in Taboo. Michael deserved that Tony award.

[EVGIRL]

Posted: 4/2/05 at 11:50pm

The main problem with the book of Taboo was they were confused about whether they wanted to tell a true autobiographical story of Boy George and Leigh Bowery or whether they wanted it to be a fictional methaphorical story of the 80's club scene. They chose to combine the two which confused people. The London book was less confusing because it chose to do the fictional angle.
There was no such person as Marcus. George's real life boyfriend was the drummer in his band, but he did not sell the drug story to the tabloids; that was done by George's brother.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/2/05 at 11:53pm

I think what it really comes down to is that people aren't going to pay $100 to see a musical about Boy George. If they make the story "fictional" about a made up character, that might be more appealing than a real life story about Boy George. Many people didn't even care for George when he was big in the 80's, they certainly don't want to pay to see a show about him on Broadway.

[EVGIRL]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 1:40pm

When I said fictional in talking about the London show, I did mean that Boy George as a character wasn't in it. It did include real aspects of his life such as the drug problem, but interwove that with a fictional straight boy who comes to London and his parents. Boy George wasn't the main character, though like he was on Broadway.
I don't know about people not paying to see a story about Boy George. How many people knew or were interested in Peter Allen, yet they went to see the Boy from Oz? If Taboo had a better book with better reviews and mabye a more bankable star, it might have drawn standard theatre audience, regardless of the subject of the story. But I agree, there were not enough purely Boy George fans to support the musical.

[FosseBoi]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 2:11pm

Hun, Hugh Jackman is the reasson ppl saw The Boy From Oz.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 3:06pm

If "Boy George" as a character didn't exist in the London production, then who did Euan Morton play so brilliantly that he was transferred to the Broadway production?