TABOO - What was wrong?- Page 2

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 4:27pm

"It was doomed, as soon as it became clear that the planned opening was the same week as Rosies' court case started."

I think that's the main answer right there. Yes, I fully agree with the book, the marketing and the seemling lack of direction (Jen Cody even said at one time Boy George was the director!), but all of those factors could have been easily had the press not made such a huge hoopla over Rosie's law suit and her official coming out. The show was put in a glassbox once that happened and the production never got the chance to tweak here, tighten here etc. because the press was throwing stones the entire time (one critic especially)

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 5:52pm

I remember I went to NYC that March and the show just closed that Febuary. I saw some girl in the musuem of art wearing a Taboo sweatshirt and leaned over to my friend and said "look, Taboo, aw" and the guy that was selling tickets said "IT was a great show, too bad it closed so soon." Sounded like ppl actually like it, its a shame. I really wanted to see this show. Wish they'd tour it or something, but I know they wont.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 7:16pm

I really do think it was marketing... Seeing all the ads I thought I was going to see this BIG GAY SHOW... and I was cool with that but didn't think it was going to be very accesible to like most people...when I went to see it there were these two old ladies that sat behind me... I mean OLD... and as I eased dropped on their conversation seemingly very conservative... and they LOVED the show... they sobbed at Il Adore... they laughed at all the jokes... true the book had holes and issues... but there are not many musicals that don't have holes and issues... except maybe Gyspsy, My Fair Lady, and Sweeny Todd... so... I really do think it was an inability to get people in the seats of a very enjoyable and accesible show...

kc

[jimmirae]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 7:53pm

The London "Taboo" was great, Broadway was Excellent. The biggest problem was the Plymouth, It was too big a house for "Taboo", I would have waited and put it into Studio 54 perhaps, something that felt more intimate. And yes, The Critics were indeed on crack, among other things. Boy George deserved that Tony and Rosie was simply a gem to have brought it to us, Nobody else would have done that so - "No Rosie, No Taboo" - And to all you Rosie bashers out there, Snap it now, She used her OWN Money! Nuff Said?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:38pm

Yeah, I think it was marketed at this over the top gay show, which of course isn't going to bring in most people. I know my dad would not set foot inside that theater because of boy george. What's wrong w/ the Plymouth? is it really that big? I mean BKYLN was in it and it survived longer.

[LC]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:54pm

Isn't it around a thousand seats? In London it played in a tiny 350 seater (thrust stage) 600ish would have been enough in NY. I agree Rosie should have waited for a more suitable venue. It wouldn't have clashed with the start of her court case either.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 9:07pm

I actually thought the show was a lot better in London. It was still terribly flawed mind you, but it was in a great, tiny theatre that was actually a nightclub (think CABARET at the Kit Kat Club) and I actually preferred the storyline focusing on the photographer entering the world of the New Romantics. It made the entire plot much more accessible being filtered through the eyes of an "every man."

Making the show about BOY GEORGE for Broadway was a mistake, in my opinion. It was the rise and fall of the collective world that was fascinating about the show in London, not just the rise and fall of one or two personalities. But that leads us to really what caused TABOO to fail on Broadway: Ego.

Boy George, and Rosie O'Donnell made terrible choices for the Broadway concept from rewriting the script (and thus making the existing songs not fit as well into the production) to micromanaging the direction, to casting GEORGE as the lead, to picking a bad theatre and to the marketing, which was disastrous. They should have been heavily promoting the show on a discount level (lottery, student rush etc) to young people and they refused to even put the show on TKTS during previews.

The show might have worked better in a smaller venue and with less "improvements" to the script -- but I think even the London production closed at a loss.

It was an expensive show to design and run and audiences just weren't that interested.
Updated On: 10/31/05 at 09:07 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 10:41pm

Yeah, I like the idea of the show in a night club too, that would be really interesting. And I like the idea of the photographer and what not, very interesting. I don't like the idea of this being a "boy george" musical. I mean Elton John writes musicals, but he doesn't have an 'elton john musical.' Everyone says this show was a hit in London, but it isn't still running. Did it make back its investment? The production itself might have superior, but I think the OBC is so much better. I like the arrangments and the order of the songs and everything much much better. Do you think Rosie is still working on this show, trying to rework it? I want the sheet music for this show, but alas I doubt it will be released, huh? Maybe this would work better Off-Broadway?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 10:46pm

I dont think the show is being retooled for another NYC run, though I would imagine eventually the regional rights will be available.

The Broadway cast recording is indeed superior, but the London recording was a studio set and sounds absolutely nothing like what was heard in the theatre.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 12:10am

I never saw the Broadway production, but I think I might have to agree with Michael Bennet. I watched the commercially produced version of the London show. I loved it, but I saw where it needed improvement. Unfortunately, that same release includes commentary by Boy George, and he proceeded to explain how all of the good parts that I thought could be fleshed out were cut from the Broadway production. Maybe I'm lazy or bitter, but I just didn't feel the need to follow it up on Broadway. I felt like Boy George was one of the least likeable characters in the London production, and it worked well that way. It was the photographer/mother storyline that had the most potential.

[EVGIRL]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 8:48pm

I agree with Michael Bennet as well. I think the whole idea of the Broadway production to juxtapose the lives of Leigh and George was inherently flawed. Because from what I've read, as people they didn't have much in common other than superficial things like they were both gay and liked going to nightclubs and didn't really spend much time together.

They lost a lot by taking out the photographer's family. Because part of the reason the characters dressed so outrageously and behaved the way they did, was because they were trying to form a new family as an escape from their dysfunctional real family. That was lost on Broadway.

As far as the marketing, it wasn't so much that it was marketed as a gay show, but because it was marketed to appeal to a very narrow segment of the gay community. From the marketing, it seemed to be about people who dress outrageously, wear strange make-up and go out to nightclubs every night. Not all gay people are into that. The marketing played down the universal emotional side of the story, in favor of the sensationalistic shocking side.

[got-a-light]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 8:53pm

i just have to say that i listen to my taboo cd almost more than any cd i have. i saw the show (NY and London)and really liked both (NY was better imo), but it definitely had its faults (mainly the book). But the music holds up so well. Really amazing stuff!

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 8:55pm

i LOVE taboo. i've seen both productions but like the London one better. i think the fault (one of the many) lies in the Book and also, like someone mentioned, the "so what" factor. these characters are not interesting and i didnt see any reason why i should like them.

i love taboo and will always but in both incarnations it had many flaws

[EVIE]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 10:14pm

I envy those of you that had the chance to see it. I went and bought the cast recordings of both the London and Broadway shows after reading some of your reviews and comments on previous posts. "Il Adore" has now become one of my favorites. I too wish I had seen it live.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:23am

"Il Adore" is a great number, and in the Broadway version Rosie put together a most wonderful Leigh Bowery montage that was projected on a scrim behind "Nicola Bowery" as she sang it, It was awesome! It ended with a photo of the real Leigh as a small boy. I do think that Boy George spent far too much time here stuck on himself during the run when he would have fared better shaking hands and kissing babies, and I believe Rosie wanted him to be more in touch with the audience but he chose to be aloof and a Diva in his own mind. George wrote a GREAT score but he has this "attitude" problem and comes off "Holier than Thou" and after a while it gets very old and unimpressive, He rarely came out to greet anyone and if you were lucky enough it certainly was FAST & CURT. It would have fared better as I stated before in a "Nightclub" setting a la 54 or otherwise and should have had discounts and cheaper prices offered as well.
It has a possibility of another run, But if so WILL be in an intimate setting and can do without the presence of BOY ALMIGHTY. I'm all too sure there are many more talented actors who can do Leigh more justice, But there was a very funny moment in the Broadway run at the end of "Karma Chameleon" where Boy (As Leigh) asks Euan (As BOY) "Who wrote this song, It's Terrible!" and that was a good laugh.
Oh yes, The "Ich Bin Kunst" number was getting WAY out of hand by the end of the run here as well and sadly ended up as the Boy George "You Have A Reading Coming To You" segment and, at times, was just plain bad, He came off as a bitter old fag - and I am gay myself so it was simply declasse on his part.
They also didn't give Charles Busch a chance for his full rewrite since anything good or new had to go through Boy and if he could not act it he axed it - so it was tough all around. I think Boy George thought it was all about his adoring fans coming to see him and that just wasn't the case - However, that being said, I loved it everytime I saw it and on the nights when Rosie or other celebs (Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, et al) were in attendance it was a lot of fun and they were very kind and grascious to everyone since George couldn't be bothered. I've seen George give the real Philip Sallon attitude and it was just plain rude. I just don't see the point when a bit of kindness goes such a long way, Like Dolly Parton always says "It don't cost you nothing to be nice!"

Updated On: 11/2/05 at 12:23 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 1:08am

I always wondered if he came out of the stage door. Can someone explain "IL Adore" That's italian, no? What does it mean? I hope this show is reworked and restaged. I just didn't see the point of having Leigh Bowery in the story. I think it just gave Boy George an excuse to be extravagant and weird. I hate every song he sings on the Cast Recording, esp the German one - what's the point of it? the character was just annoying.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 5:20am

"Il Adore" was a song of adoration for someone dying, In this case it was Leigh Bowery dying of aids and it is simply lovely. Boy G left through many different places during the run including out the front when everyone would go to the stage door. He also was notorius for making a mad dash to the car and that was that, like nobody was there. Most of the rest of the broadway cast would sign & chat but not Boy. He was better about it in London though and if you waited he would come out and be half decent, but he still seemed, hmm.... "Not Interested" I think I would call it. Just not very interested in anything unless you had something he wanted at that moment. He has a knack for ignoring people and he is very 2 faced in talking behind others backs while kissing their cheeks, He pulled that with Rosie big time. He seems very pampered and all I can say is I see a day coming for him sooner than he thinks when he will wish someone wanted him because when he turns around he will be all alone - and Garbo he is NOT. He almost seems a bit melancholy - but with a bad attitude. They must have never told him "Never believe your own PR" yet, He is very snobby at best. Leigh is the colorful part of the show, And sort of a villan at times, But the real GEM was Esparza as Philip Sallon, Just listen to "Petrified", and he sings that with a bloody mouth and in a big pink/fuschia froo-froo coat with such dignity! Now that's talent!

Updated On: 11/2/05 at 05:20 AM

[cabarethed]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 9:47am

Raul Esparza's the reason I went in the first place, and then I went back several more times because I enjoyed most everything else so much. Didn't care for the book or how they handled the Nicola and Big Sue characters, but the score was sublime, and the acting and costumes were wonderful. I miss it a lot.

[EVGIRL]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 11:27am

I agree with Jimmirae. People seem like they want to criticize Rosie non-stop, and she can be loud and overbearing, but what impresses me about her is she is genuinely interested in other people and appreciative of people who support her.
I also get the impression George is only interested in himself. I've never met him personally, so maybe I'm wrong. They are some people who are shy and uncomfortable in interacting with strangers, and thus come off as aloof. George doesn't strike me as that kind of person, though.
An example was in the Taboo forum they had a section where you could ask questions of Rosie and George. Rosie often answered fan's questions even when they were critical of her handling of things, but George never posted once in the forum where people were asking him questions.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 11:45am

I'm not sure Taboo would have ever been a success on Broadway. Both the London and Broadway productions were flawed, but more flawed musicals have had longer runs. I just think the subject and the story had a limited audience to begin with and there didn't seem much effort to broaden it for a lengthy commercial Broadway run. In a season that included Avenue Q, Wicked and Hugh Jackman in The Boy From Oz, Taboo had some serious competition and the negative publicity certainly didn't matters. I have nothing really against the show. I only saw the London production which was lively and interactive, yet completely unfocused. I had no idea who the show was about and the story sort of fizzled out into a rather sudden and perplexing ending that was neither effective nor memorable. Something about Buddhism and then everyone just walks on stage and stands there singing is all I remember. Most Americans have little knowledge of England's New Romantic movement in the 80s and the show did little to educate or enlighten.