TABOO-Looking back, what went wrong

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 11:58am

I was just watching a dvd of the show from London and One from Broadway and it still make me mad to this day.

Im from the UK so i was lucky enough to see Taboo at the Venue in the West End and what an amazing show it was.
The critics loved and audiences couldn't get enough, when i heard that it was being transfered to Broadway i though "oh god no" and sadly my thought proved right.

Many UK shows have to be changed to adapt for a US audience and thats fine BUT HOW MUCH DID THEY CHANGE!!!

I was at an audition this week with someone who was in Taboo London and he was telling me that everyone was very nervous about the show going to Broadway as so many changes were being demanded by an American producer.

Petal had to be dropped, why?-Because American audiences would find him Vulgar.

The scene where Phillip talked to the audience had to go, why? because they feared American's would sue if he insulted anyone.

Drugs references had to be toned down, why?-because Americans would not stand for it and so on and so on

WHY TAKE IT TO AMERICA THEN.AND WHY PRESUME THAT AMERICAN'S WONT GET IT BECAUSE IM SURE YOU WOULD HAVE

The Broadway version was far to OTT , the theatre was to big, Any realism went out of the window, some of the songs were given a hideous Broadway make-over and the story became unbalanced.

The 2 central characters of Billy and Kim were dropped as was Josie and her Husband.

Songs written for billy to sing in the london version(Safe in the City) were uncomfortably given to the new character of Nicola to sing(or screech) on Broadway.

They did make some good changes for Broadway(the ending being one, loved the Broadway finale song) but in general they just seemed to suck the life out of it and try and stretch it in to a big budget Broadway show when in reality it would have worked better off Broadway.

Ive never seen a show go through so many changes transferring from Broadway to London and vice versa ,how could they let that happen?

The London one worked(hence its success ) why change something that works?

For those who saw Taboo Broadway and London ,what are your thoughts

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:05pm

The script was poorly rewritten for American audiences.

In London the musical played an actual club venue; and the show by nature was less effective in a conventional theatre.

For NYC, the show's emphasis was unwisely turned towards Boy George's story rather than the photographer (outsider) entering the club world.

The show was poorly marketed, with no type of discounts being offered during previews -- very dumb decision.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:08pm

I didn't realize they didn't do discounts grrr

I agree about the emphasis being put to much on Boy George , the show was supposed to be about the New romantics.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:19pm

I'm not familiar with the London version, but the main problem that I had with the Broadway version is that there's just not enough connecting the Boy George/Leigh Bowery storylines to justify having both of them. It was almost as though the other subplot was included only so that a) Boy George could have a part, and b) there could be a poignant ending.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:37pm

The London version had both Boy George And Leigh Bowery in but they were balanced out well.

The Broadway one seemed to focus more on Boy George's character in act 1 and more on Leigh Bowery's in act 2.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:47pm

What went wrong? Rosie O'Donnell was producer. She is a know it all and can't be told anything.

When your house is running at 30% and less, you turn tickets over to the papering services, ESPECIALLY during previews. You do this for two reasons: 1) so your actors will have someone to perform for. Believe it or not, actors can actually see that there's nobody in the audience and it affects their morale. 2) Papering the house gets butts in seats and gets people talking about the show.

I don't think Rosie had a sense of who her audience was. A tv commercial was made and run frequently, but it was run during Fox News. Broadway has a huge family tourist, Middle-America business right now. None of these people were interested in the show.

She might have succeeded with the "Rent" model. Open the show off-Broadway on a smaller scale, build an audience and then move it to Broadway.

ETA: The show was running during the Christmas season, the most profitable time for Broadway. If the show isn't pulling them in at Christmas, forget about it.

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 12:47 PM

[JBSinger]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:49pm

1) it should have been Off-Bway in some "clubish" atmosphere.
2) audiences were expecting more Culture Club songs. The performance i saw (one of the final 2), the audience would freak out as soon as they heard the familiar opening vamps.
3) Agreed, book rewrite did not work
4) Song assignments didn't seem to make any sense. Yes, people got their big moments, but I didn't feel that many of them moved the plot at all.
5) even though sad things were happening to Leigh Bowery, his character was so unlikeable, I don't think we cared. I know I didn't.
my 2 cents.

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 12:52pm

I always wanted to know what went wrong. Beacause the cd is very good.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 1:09pm

Thats what is heart breaking THE MUSIC WAS AMAZING

I think people here in the UK were shocked when it sank on Broadway as it had being so highly praised here.

I don't think Rosie can take all the blame as Boy George could have spoke up at anytime.

Whats interesting is if you listen to the commentary on the UK dvd boy George talks about his fears for the Broadway version and they all came true .

It was more suited as an Off Broadway show what could have later transfered but to put it straight in to a huge venue is madness

By the way did this version have a try -out before it went to broadway?

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 1:26pm

I disagree with the comment that it should have been more about the romantics. You need some kind of main character to care about, and I thought that, ultimately, George is a more interesting character than Marcus (whatever the photographer's name was in the London show). I don't know, I really did love the Broadway version, and I know it needed work. But still, I think it was just a case of the speed they tried to produce it, the venue they tried to use (would have done MUCH better at Circle in the Square, or something like it) and I do believe that the harsh criticism had an affect. Just my opinion, but I would love to see some sort of revival (on or off-broadway) at some point, with some nice changes.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:02pm

Every time the cast stopped singing, that is where it went wrong.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:06pm

The whole point of taboo was to be a musical about the new romantic era THAT WAS TABOO.

Of course they needed central characters but it was very much an ensemble piece unlike what crash landed on Broadway.

The London Production followed a group of charachters

Billy-aspiring photographer who is pulled in to the world of Taboo and falls for Kim but uses Leigh and George

Kim-A young woman who lives with george and wants to be involved in fahion ,her parents abandoned her at 16

George O dowed

Leigh Bowery

Phillip Salon

Steve Strange

Petal

Josie-Billys mum who leaves her abusive husband and sets up a business with Kim

etc etc

It vwas more interesting with more people to focus on

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:10pm

It was a mess, but it was a beautiful disaster.

Many people prefer the UK version, though I saw much more potential with the Broadway material. The re-writes for the score were vast, vast improvements.

songanddanceman: I don't think you should presume to know WHY things were changed. I highly doubt that they removed Philip's interactions with the audience because they thought the audience would sue. That's the most absurd thing. And, for your information, Sallon DID speak to the audience, so really, what are you talking about?

Second, the character of Petal was dropped because it was foolish and stupid. Not because it was too VULGAR.

I just think it's silly that you are claiming things that really have no bearing. They might be your hunches, but that doesn't mean that it's what's so.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:23pm

sorry to burst your bubble munkstrap but that came from boy georges own mouth that American audiences could sue if they were insulted in the theater(he did many interviews about it over here after the show bombed there)

He was also advised to take petal out as American audiences would find it vulgar ,so im not presuming to know anything.

The score was not improved for Broadway(give me a freak sounds like its a bloody circus song)

Taboo worked because of the fact it was a small intimate show that worked in a small club like venue what included the audience in the action.

Also i never said they were hunches i said i had heard from a cast member i auditioned with

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 02:23 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:25pm

Did I miss something? Are both productions out on DVD or were you able to see them through a theatre library?

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:26pm

London is

Broadway is on a certain format we cant talk about

[Dark_Angel]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:29pm

This show had so much potential but by the time it crossed the pond all the guts were sucked out of it. It was homogenized, pasteurized and wrapped up in a pretty little bow so Mom and Pop Suburb taking the kiddies to a night out at the thee-ay-ter could relate or at the very least not be so offended.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:33pm

Dark Angel, you are me hero...your icon is perfect.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 2:42pm

"It was homogenized, pasteurized and wrapped up in a pretty little bow so Mom and Pop Suburb taking the kiddies to a night out at the thee-ay-ter could relate or at the very least not be so offended."

Which is stupid beyond belief because those people never would have seen it even cleaned up. I feel sorry for Charles Busch because I'm sure he was under a lot of pressure to go against his talent and make it work for the tourists.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:04pm

Who was the character of Petal and why was it Stupid/Vulgar?

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:07pm

saw the show in London and ADORED it. Saw it on broadway and liked it, but it did seem too glossy.

It's a shame Taboo was up for Best Score in such a powerhouse year, because it could have easily won the next year, or the year before.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:19pm

The show may heave been cleaned up to appeal to tourists, but the advertising certainly wasn't. The billboards made it look like an absolute freak show about drugged-up, gay sex in dirty bathrooms. Boy George's appearances in full Bowery make-up did nothing but turn off squeamish potential audiences. Such a shame, really, because the material, particularly the score, is quite good, and there was some incredible talent involved in the cast.

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:35pm

I am an avid Boy George fan, but how much does he know about the business of theatre? I would bet my Cast recording that you cannot sue for seeing something vulgar in the theatre... otherwise Cabaret, Avenue Q, and Spring Awakening probably would have suffered a HUGE amount... I love those shows, but one cannot contest that they could be considered (by some) "vulgar".

As for Taboo, a HUGE problem that many of the people who I know that saw it here in the U.S. was that the story-line was too separated. They felt that Leigh Bowery's story was entirely unnecessary, and they felt there were too many characters trying to do too many things at once- the show lacked direction. Whether these points are well-founded or not, it is undeniable that American audiences (as a whole) crave a character that they can feel for, hope for, and identify with. A professor of mine, who I'm particularly fond of, defines a good show as one where "A character that the audience cares about faces an obstacle/challenge, succeeds or fails, and is changed". I agree with that statement, and George's story would have reflected that perfectly, as well as told the story of the romantics, if they had focused on his life more than his relationship with Marcus (Billy, whoever...) and had a nice supporting ensemble. If you read "Take it Like a Man", there's more than enough story there... This is all my opinion, I'm NOT declaring it as fact, but I think the production would have benefitted a lot with these changes.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:59pm

I have no exposure to the London version, but I did see it on Broadway. I LOVED the score. I thought the performances were beautiful. I think the piece had great potential, but, yes, the book was in need of more development. The story needed more balance between Boy George and Leigh Bowery.

I consider it an unfinished piece and I think one day, Rosie (or someone else if she decides to release the work) should revive the piece Off-Broadway (after revisions). And, the show would be fun in an environmental setting--an 80s club.

[MrBundles]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 5:06pm

I'm really glad I got my hands on a copy of the 3-DVD version when I was in London...on sale from Dress Circle!