tracker
My Shows
News on your favorite shows, specials & more!
Home For You Chat My Shows (beta) Register/Login Games Grosses

Taboo!

MTVMANN Profile Photo
MTVMANN
#1Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 7:12pm

I've been watching the 2004 documentary "Show Business" and it includes footage on Taboo.

It got me interested in the score again, and I still feel it is one of the best scores I've heard for a musical in recent years.

However...I never saw the show. Why wasn't it a bigger hit?

Also, why is the show not performed regionally? I have a feeling it would do so well regionally.

Steel Pier Fan
#2Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 7:59pm

I think because it's kinda creepy looking and the show is weird. That is my opinion but I don't think it is a bad show. Also Boy George doesn't really have a great reputation nowadays. But I don't think the rights were ever released.

Brick
#2Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 8:24pm

Last I heard Rosie still controlled the rights, but I would imagine they would have lapsed by now. As far as I know, though, the rights are not available.

I am actually very fond of the score and think they simply needed a tryout to help focus the book.

CapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
#3Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 8:25pm

The show is not done regionally because the rights are not available. Boy George won't allow anyone else to do his show.

And it's a shame, because it really is one of the best scores of recent memory. That year, score should have gone to TABOO over the others (which were all GREAT! What an amazing year of original scores!)


"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

songanddanceman2 Profile Photo
songanddanceman2
#4Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 9:37pm

lol at the the person saying the show is creepy. It's not creepy at all.

It's not Boy George who does not allow the show to be done


Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna

Steel Pier Fan
#5Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 9:51pm

I just found it creepy. I know it is silly. :P

sally1112 Profile Photo
sally1112
#6Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 10:55pm

I saw it and loved it! I think it was a classic case of not having the tourist appeal that a show needs to survive.

hollisst
#7Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 11:23pm

The reviewers (and by that I mean Riedel) were writing about the fights between Rosie & Raul & all the behind the scene problems before it even started previews. They made it out to be a complete train wreck so people didn't want to see it. (this was before Spiderman & the morbid curiosity due to injuries). There was also a Rosie backlash at that time & the show was tied too closely to her to overcome it. I thought it lacked focus, especially in the 2nd act, but I loved it. The score was fabulous and the costumes were great. I still listen to the cast recording.

backwoodsbarbie Profile Photo
backwoodsbarbie
#8Taboo!
Posted: 6/9/11 at 11:55pm

"Hold up your head, never be afraid to shine. Viva la difference in my body and my mind."

That is my fondest memory of Taboo!


http://backstagebarbie.blogspot.com

luvtheEmcee Profile Photo
luvtheEmcee
#9Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 12:13am

The show was a hot freaking mess. A lovable, beautiful mess, but a mess nonetheless. It could have been so much more, definitely a big missed opportunity. (I loved it.)


A work of art is an invitation to love.

#10Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 12:15am

I know the show was quite different (and a much smaller production) but the UK original is on DVD and is fascinating to watch. A lot of it is very good--I'd love to track down the Broadway one to compare. It sounds like a number of the changes were good but (and this may be completely wrong of me) they made the show almost too big.

(Wasn't it a minor success in England? Of course the production was so intimate, I doubt it would cost all that much to regroup--with the cast talking to the audience at intermission, etc. I know it's often talked about with the British pet Shop Boys musical that came out around the same time--Closer to Heaven which had a rather too cliched Jonathan Harvey book, but has a great score, but never got beyond it's rather tacky, tiny original production. Of course Taboo used well known Boy George hits as well as new songs, and the PSB scored Closer to Heaven with original songs save for one bside). Updated On: 6/10/11 at 12:15 AM

Okayfine
#11Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 12:26am

luvtheemcee put it best: "The show was a hot freaking mess. A lovable, beautiful mess, but a mess nonetheless."

I, too, love the music & there were MOMENTS of splendor in the show, but it was, overall, a hot mess. George was hopeless as an actor, the show moved along like a scratched record: sort of jumping a bit & then running smoothly & than jumping again. The cast was often frustrated & the backstage tension was tough, which VERY frequently was visible on stage.

Also, the message was often hard to swallow for people who don't live that sort of wild-and-crazy lifestyle. You could watch it & say, "Wow, what a wacky & fun character", but that doesn't mean it MOVES you. If it doesn't move you, you don't have much by way of theatre. Shame. There was potential.

#12Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 12:34am

Ahem. For a minute I thought someone was calling me.
But let me chime in on this one.


Taboo deserved best score that year over them all. Including Caroline or Change (sorry Jordan).

Michael Riedel almost singlehandedly destroyed Taboo every day on the Post before ever giving it a chance to even open. I blame him for its demise.
Swirled with Rosie's Publishing lawsuit at the same time---it was just another thorn to deal with.

The show's problem was that it was 2 stories running parallel. Too much of a book--too little time to tell both stories. UK's version is smaller, better, faster, easier to understand.

Boy George was FUN as Leigh Bowery.
Raul Esparza, Jeffrey Carlson and Euan Morton gave amazing performances.
Sarah Uriarte Berry and Liz McCartney were stellar.

The ensemble consisted of Jennifer COdy and Curtis Holbrook...need I say more?

It was fun, energetic...and one of the more in your face...shameless shows on Broadway that year. The show celebrated 'it gets better' before it became trendy to do so. it was bold, brazen and soooooooo much fun.

The book...was a bit much of a mess yes.
but poignant when it needed to be.
AIDS, 80's, Outrageous costumes and fashion, Raul singing 'Petrified'
liz McCartney singing 'Talk AMongst Yourselves'...Jeffrey Carlson as Marilyn.......perfection.

if the show were open today---I think it would do well.....
it was just the wrong time. dead of winter didn't help either.

The show was never creepy.... it was full of life and one of the most energetic ensembles at that time.

The rights are not available...but it would do very well if it were.

theeatah Profile Photo
theeatah
#13Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 12:11pm

As one of the TV reviewers said at the time, the show should probably have been done off-Broadway.

The Broadway production had some good changes (more focus on George etc.) but they also got rid of some of the stuff that really worked in London.

Take "Safe In The City", for example. In London, the song comes after a fight between Billy and his abusive layabout father. Lyrics like "you crush my spirit", "I'll screw my head off and lay it at your feet" and "If I stay here, I'll be nothing, I'll be no one" make sense in this context. The lyrics resonate. In the Broadway version, there's little/no conflict. Nicola's mother is sweet and indulgent (her father isn't shown). The most Nicola's escaping is bourgeois couch potato boredom.

Also, despite Liz McCartney's wonderful performance, "Talk Amongst Yourselves" isn't half as poignant in its Broadway incarnation. In London, we see a woman in late middle age whose marriage has dwindled to nothing. Her son, perhaps her only comfort, has left. We see the "living disgrace" of her husband, asleep in front of the telly. The Broadway version is lightweight in comparison. We see a relatively young woman have a tiff with her best friend/crush. Then, alone in her flat, she sings this song.

Brick
#14Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 12:27pm

As I said, i feel it needed some more time and work to hone the book, which featured many character and had difficulty establishing the conflict for each in a satisfying way.

It differs a lot from the London version: the story was a fictionalized narrative of a small-town boy moving to the big city to meet all these famous people and their vibrant club scene; the Broadway version was the story of those people and their scene.

Busch did an admirable job, but it was both underfed and unfocused, as I find books often are in their first production when following so many plot threads.

songanddanceman2 Profile Photo
songanddanceman2
#15Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 1:09pm

I thought Busch did a great job on the book but to many people were demanding to many things and changing everything. I watched it many times in London at the Venue and the show was fun (ran about a year). I actually really liked the Broadway one though


Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna

Steel Pier Fan
#16Taboo!
Posted: 6/10/11 at 2:20pm

Sorry, I don't find the show creepy. It's Boy George who is creepy.

MTVMANN Profile Photo
MTVMANN
#17Taboo!
Posted: 6/20/11 at 5:26pm

Anyone care to explain the character of Phillip Sallon to me?

luvtheEmcee Profile Photo
luvtheEmcee
#18Taboo!
Posted: 6/20/11 at 6:09pm

Philip is a real (and fascinating) person:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1432&bih=672&q=philip+sallon&aq=0&aqi=g1g-s1g8&aql=&oq=Philip+Sallon

You might also be interested in checking out Boy George's Take It Like a Man.


A work of art is an invitation to love.


Videos