Taboo - 10 Years Later — Page 2

The issue with Taboo was Michael Riedel. His coverage of the show in The Post was unfair and malicious. (He is a nasty piece of work.)

The show was wonderful. I agree that it might have been served by a club space and with today's focus on immersive theater, that would have been a great way to stage this show, but Boy George's score and Charles Busch's book worked wonderfully on the Broadway stage.

I disagree that the subject was esoteric and/or that Leigh Bowery was unknown. Who cares? There are tons of shows based on historical figures with people unknown.

We were all robbed when Taboo wasn't allow the chance to find its audience. As stated above, I blame Mr. Riedel.

"The issue with Taboo was Michael Riedel."

No, the issue was that the show was playing to less than 30% capacity and Rosie O'Donnell as producer refused to release tickets to the papering services and TKTS. There's a point where you have respect for your actors and fill the house any way that you can.

---

But, Jane, isn't saying that like saying that Rent is about sex and drugs and leaving it at that? I think that's a description that's asking people, particularly conservative theatergoers, to turn themselves off to the idea. Not saying those aren't all elements (of course they are!), but that feels like a description that might be followed by an unspoken, "Oh, you wouldn't like it." The key to opening up a niche show is looking at the bigger picture.

I don't think it will ever find a HUGE audience or be any kind of blockbuster, but I think it could find a decent one.

---

I think it IS esoteric (and that's part of what I like about it) but not so esoteric that opening it up is impossible. Ultimately the score is accessible, and sure, it's about very specific things, but there's also a lot of accessibility within those things. I think to universally assume a show is "too" esoteric is (a) to shortchange it, and (b) to condemn it to fail before you even try. You know?

The only reason I brought Rent up was because what you said reminded me of being young and having to explain to my parents, who thought I was too young for Rent, that it wasn't about sex/drugs/death; yes, it was "about" AIDS, yes, there were drugs -- but it's about love, community, art, etc. etc. Not because I think Rent and Taboo are all that similar, or because I think their ending up on Broadway were similar scenarios.

I also don't think what happened with Taboo's failure to succeed was *entirely* due to its subject matter, at all. It was a perfect storm of messy circumstances, and a show that needed a lot more work than it got on top of that. If all of the politics and publicity issues hadn't been there, who knows if it would have fared better. You could say no publicity is bad publicity, or you could say maybe it would have.

Ultimately I think we are saying two different things and potentially not meaning to. I am not saying Taboo would have been an easy (or even plausible) show to make a hit in terms of raking in hoards of tourists and getting it to run for ten years. By any means. I'm just saying it's not as niche-y as boiling it down to drug use and drag queens, and that -- call me idealist -- sometimes people can surprise you. I've seen that from looking at audiences, too.

---

Updated On: 6/11/13 at 05:16 PM

I meant in general. Which is why I said "a show," and not "as happened with Taboo."

It was AFTER the fact that everyone was trying to figure out what happened and postulated that it may have been too esoteric.

It's hard to say those judgments were only passed after the fact when the community was doing its post mortem and to figure out what went wrong, since those judgments are made every day on a smaller scale when theatergoers are deciding (not to) buy tickets. People were judging it based on any one of a million things way before the retrospective "what happened?"

I remember the buildup before it opened -- of course there were high hopes. But like I've been saying, I think there was a LOT more going against it than just its subject matter. But at this point I am just repeating myself. :)

---

Updated On: 6/11/13 at 05:33 PM

While I thought the story was a bit of a mess, I loved the score and the cast was so immensely talented. I sat second row center and Raul's Petrified was astonishing. I also thought Euan and Jeffrey Carlson were brilliant. It's a shame Euan was competing with Hugh Jackman that year. His performance was deserving of a Tony.

---

It was just before it's time. The original "Rocky Horror Show" played a whopping performances and has gone on to play all over the world. As evidenced in "ShowBusiness: The Road to Broadway", it was a bitch of a winter and theatergoer dollars were being spent on familiars known as Oz and a parody Sesame Street. The show should have opened in summer like "Hairspary" where it could have been promoted more effectively and should have been in Studio 54 which would have been dark by then. But I have no doubt, "Taboo" will live again and be appreciated for itself.

correction...

The original "Rocky Horror Show" played a whopping 45 performances and has gone on to play all over the world.

Headband had to repeat the same thing twice because nobody is paying him any attention, bless.

---

TABOO remains one of the best scores written in the 21st century.

Riedel's coverage of the show and all the other bad press it received is a reason to say why people may have been turned off to the show without giving it a chance, but that is not why it closed.

It was poorly produced. Rosie O'Donnell was distracted by her magazine courtroom battle. Boy George was needy. There was no hero to sweep in and rescue the show. It also didn't help that you had huge box office draws with THE BOY FROM OZ, WICKED, AVENUE Q, and even CAROLINE OR CHANGE which drew in the "artistic" crowd and the theatre-going crowd.

If it opened in any other season, it may have had a chance.

So much of having a successful show is out of your control. There is no way they could have predicted that there would be a perfect storm of hit-shows and courtroom drama with Rosie.

I would LOVE if they brought back the show. Even for a one-night-only concert at Joe's Pub.

---

Also please remember its just the US production that was not successful, it had a good run in London and great reviews, it had a successful tour and it's recent revival extended multiple times. The 2 London productions though were very site specific. If they did the same Off Broadway I don't see why the show could not be a success.

Leigh Bowery was not the issue, I said the fact he was only really covered in depth in act 2 was a problem, it suddenly wanted you to care about someone you had barely met. I disagree that the mother charachrer in the UK version helped the show, I found her story awful (and Indipendent Woman was a dreadful song), Kim and Billy were bland as well, I thought getting rid of Kim and switching billy to Marcus on Broadway as well as adding in Nicola was a great move.

---

I missed this show when it was around. The negative publicity and that somewhat horrific logo turned me off, but then after hearing the cast recording I could kick myself. There is no way a bad show could come about with that score, and I have since become a huge Esparza fan as well.
I would love to see Taboo have another go, perhaps with Roundabout at Studio 54.