"The Season" thoughts
"The Season" thoughts
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/25/11
"The Season" thoughts#1
Posted: 12/13/15 at 6:30am
I just finished reading “The Season” by William Goldman. For years, I’ve heard references to it and finally, after finishing re-reading “Anything Was Possible” about the birth of Follies, I followed the iBooks suggestion and decided what the hell…
What a read. What a record. My head is still trying to reconcile how much has totally changed from 1967 and how much hasn’t. I’m sure there has been such a discussion in the past, but my search has only uncovered references to the book (and some fascinating old threads about things only tangentially related). So I beg the patience of those who have been through these threads before, and I look forward to the opinions and related stories about the book. (Perhaps it’ll become an evergreen topic like “Follies” and who should star in the a “Mame” revival)
My thoughts in no specific order…
WHAT IS SO RIGHT
I loved his analysis that everything comes down to who has “the muscle.” It should be so obvious, but when looking at past failures, there are so many explanations of flops that look so much simpler through that lens.
Likewise his overview of the major parties in a production – the producer, director, cast, writers and creatives, and the “Theatre Party Ladies” and brokers. Many of his observations still hold true (although the specifics of things like theater groups and booking services have changed). It was interesting to see the start of the influence of non-profits with the transfer of “Hair”
His reports of the personalities and specifics of Broadway at the time are delightful and enrich stories I’ve read elsewhere.
WHAT IS SO WRONG
First off (and to be frank, what first made me want to SHOUT IN CAPS because he made me so pissed!) – his twisted view of the gay world and how he thinks it has distorted drama, yet is essential to theatre. From his treatment of the fans of Judy in his opening, through his dismissal of Albee and further into the depths of his own issues in his discussion of how the homosexuals have ruined the depictions of heterosexual relationships. I know the period it was written – over a year before Stonewall, six years before the APA delisted homosexuality as an illness. I ascribe him no animosity for his BS – so I tried real hard not to be offended. But gawd, it IS offensive.
I found his dismissal of American playwrights surprising and off-base. Perhaps he was simply writing at the cusp of Mamet, Durang, et al, but even from the plays he lists – a large number of them were not imports.
Not wrong, but another example of “on the cusp” is his lament about the future of musical talents. (Although “Hair” opened that year, “Company” was two years away and “A Chorus Line” seven)
HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED
One of the most surprising things about “The Season” was The Season. From a current perspective, it was simply bizarre to read how Summer was pretty much thrown away and January-March was a peak time. I knew that curtain times had changed (and continue to) but was unaware that the standard 8 performance week as we know it now, was different back then. Of course, the ticket prices sound absurd these days.
Certainly, his talk of “ice” and booking agents reflected a very different time. Yet, the “Theatre Party Ladies” are pretty much the same thing as group sales, and although I’m absolutely certain the current systems are much less corrupt, I’m not sure they’re more honest.
His discussion of the sex romp comedy was quaint. Yeah, those types of comedies were a product of the period and are dead (or treated as a period piece like the “Boeing Boeing” revival).
I don’t know if the era of the producer is gone. Certainly, the specifics of financing and control are more complex, and there is an ever-growing role of corporate money and development. Yes, there are no more David Merricks around, and Hal Prince isn’t the powerhouse producer these days – but creatures like Merrick, Belasco, and Hammerstein are rare – and I wonder if some of the current producers aren’t the equal to some of the others in personal vision, chutzpa, and ability to select, develop and manage a show (although the specifics have shanged)
HOW THINGS HAVEN’T
As mentioned in the opening, his view of the major parties involved in a production and the concept of “who has the muscle” certainly rings true today. Of course, a major new factor is the growth of non-profits.
Most interesting was that after the season was all and done, people were both lamenting how poor it was, yet due to increasing ticket prices, they set all-time records. Through this “lackluster” season, there were two solid hits, that are still with us (Hair & Plaza Suite), a handful of others that recouped but were never seen again, and a majority of flops. Also bolstering ticket sales were a number of long-running musical hits that looked like they'd run for years (although one was an all-black revisal). Sounds sorta' familiar.
I wonder what it would be like for someone to write a book (or blog series) on a current season.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/25/11
more "The Season" thoughts#2
Posted: 12/13/15 at 7:05am
One more - I loved his discussion of "snob hit." Although the criteria may have changed somewhat to reflect different literary fashions, it still rings true.
Updated On: 12/13/15 at 07:05 AMBroadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
more #3
Posted: 12/13/15 at 1:42pm
I despised that book when it first came out, and haven't read it since. Smug, smart-assed, nasty, homophobic, filled with ugly innuendo.
The shows that season were far better than the person assessing them.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
more #4
Posted: 12/13/15 at 5:51pm
Get a grip After
Goldman's book was a forerunner of all.Broadway books. While Goldman was sort of like a critic the way he turned a phrase the book was a great look at 1 season of shows on Broadway. I saw a lot of them.I agreed with his assessment on some and disagreed on others.I have not read it in awhile so I cannot attest to some of the verbiage used. For that matter, H G Wells was a great novelist but may have been anti Semitic as well. Read The Invisible Man for proof.Smug and nasty describes some critics today and some BWW posters unfortunately. It is an imperfect world.
"Snob hit"? I can think of a few right off the bat
From what I remember of it, this is a Broadway that no longer exists on many levels. May have to reread it in total now. I have been guilty of cherry picking thru it, from time to time, to get to a show I remember . One chapter "Washing Garbage" dealt with the Steve Lawrence / Edie Gorme musical " Golden Rainbow"
more #5
Posted: 12/13/15 at 6:45pm
The book is interesting as long as you maintain a healthy dose of skepticism (as you do) about his "facts" not to mention his biases (both the theatrical ones and the truly offensive ones) and abide my standard mantra that there are no rules. Those who treat it as gospel of any sort are making a big mistake.
Things of course change and things of course don't. There were always good flops and bad successes; there were always good producers and lousy ones. And nothing discombobulates preachers more than great things that lay bare the folly of their dicta.
more #6
Posted: 12/14/15 at 12:21am
I think THE SEASON is one of the handful of great books about Broadway, and to fulminate about Goldman's attitudes toward gay people as a way of discrediting the book is short-sighted, to say the least, One of the interesting things about the chapter on homosexuals -- Goldman doesn't use the word gay -- is that it so accurately reflected the PROGRESSIVE view of straight people in 1968 on the subject. That's all they knew. We need to remember that. This is another case of someone writing within the social norms of his time, and now being criticized for not being ahead of his time.
The details of Broadway have changed massively since then, of course. But there's a lot that still rings true in the book, and it's still a wildly entertaining read. If you remember that it was the late '60s.
more #7
Posted: 12/14/15 at 12:39am
"accurately reflected the PROGRESSIVE view "
absolutely not true...
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
more #8
Posted: 12/14/15 at 2:12am
"This is another case of someone writing within the social norms of his time, and now being criticized for not being ahead of his time. "
The whole thing was glaringly offensive even then: the superiority, the mockery, the innuendo. Just awful!
more #9
Posted: 12/14/15 at 2:12am
After Eight said: "I despised that book when it first came out, and haven't read it since. Smug, smart-assed, nasty, homophobic, filled with ugly innuendo."
You could have just looked in the mirror to see all that, After Eight,
more #10
Posted: 12/14/15 at 3:36am
I surprisingly agree with After Eight, I'm currently reading it and am on the fourth chapter and I'm surprised by how homophobic some parts are.
more #11
Posted: 12/14/15 at 9:00am
"accurately reflected the PROGRESSIVE view "
absolutely not true...
Can you show me any evidence that it's not true? Any words of criticism written or spoken by a mainstream straight person in 1968 that contradict Goldman's point of view? I'd love to see them.
more #12
Posted: 12/14/15 at 9:28am
The thing I like best about "The Season" is Goldman's clear-eyed and unsentimental analysis of how commercial theatre actually works.
Anyone who has ever been behind the scenes on a commercial production knows the idiocy and brutality that goes on; there are often a lot of Lina Lamonts ("Sounds good and loud. I liked it!"
with questionable taste who think that the schlock they respond to will be a hit with everyone, and a few more skeptical people who know enough to keep their mouth shut and cash their paychecks (as long as they keep from bouncing).
more #13
Posted: 12/14/15 at 9:44am
Brilliant book. I haven't read every book about the theater, but I bet this one comes darn close to being definitive. Every chapter is riveting. If a person who claims to love the theater hasn't read it, I have one thing to say: Shame on you!
more #14
Posted: 12/14/15 at 10:37am
yfs said: "Can you show me any evidence that it's not true? Any words of criticism written or spoken by a mainstream straight person in 1968 that contradict Goldman's point of view? I'd love to see them. "
You've craftily substituted "mainstream" for "progressive," but I won't let you sneak that by. Goldman was writing within and about the theatre community which was teeming with known homosexuals at that time (and long before) and who were not subjected to the sort of pathological bigotry evinced by Goldman. Those straight people who were producing, working on and attending the plays of homosexuals in the 1960s were not doing so encumbered by Goldman's pathology. In the broader sense, straight progressives were introducing legislation to repeal anti-sodomy laws in this period. Yes, mainstream views on homosexuality had not evolved-they had not really until the present decade, but that is not what you said.
more #15
Posted: 12/14/15 at 10:44am
I don't know, Hogan - were the gay men of the theatre world of the 60s not experiencing "pathological bigotry" on a regular basis? Most of them felt the need to stay deep in the closet, marry women, and produce offspring (Leonard Bernstein, Hal Prince, Mike Nichols, Anthony Perkins, etc.), and those who didn't go so far at least made it a point to appear in public accompanied by a woman of sufficient loveliness and femininity as to lead strangers to wonder if they were "an item" (Sondheim, Laurents, Tennessee Williams, etc.).
It was, in general, a far from bigotry-free era. Goldman makes no bones about his distaste for homosexuality, but he seems to be less rotten than those who made it a point to brutalize any gays they found.
more #16
Posted: 12/14/15 at 11:15am
newintown said: "I don't know, Hogan - were the gay men of the theatre world of the 60s not experiencing "pathological bigotry" on a regular basis? ...It was, in general, a far from bigotry-free era. "
Not from "progressives" (in or out of the theatre) which was my point. I seriously doubt that anyone they worked with was led astray by the presence of beards, even though the general public may have been.
more #17
Posted: 12/14/15 at 11:24am
I guess it all hinges on how one defines "progressive." The left - socialists, communists - certainly made no bones about their distaste for the gays. I wouldn't be surprised if there were producers, writers, directors, actors, all of whom would have been described at the time as open-minded and well-adjusted, who preferred to work with heterosexuals, if given the chance.
However, if by "progressive," we only mean accepting/embracing gays and lesbians, it's a different matter.
It was a long time ago, and we might be advised to beware thinking we know how people were merely from watching films of the era and relying upon our young and distant memories.
Broadway Star Joined: 7/21/04
more #18
Posted: 12/14/15 at 12:35pm
Absolutely my favorite book about theatre. It makes me want to see every one of the shows, even the awful ones. Especially the awful ones - "The Freaking Out Of Stephanie Blake", "Leda Had A Little Swan", "Golden Rainbow", etc.
As far as the take on homosexuality, what I come away with (as a gay man) is that he wants more openness and he wants gay playwrights to be able to write openly about gay issues, and that having to masquerade as straight relationships is not letting certain playwrights reach their potential, particularly Albee. In particular his take on "Staircase" not succeeding I think is illustrative - the problem was that they went out of their way to assure audiences that the actors, writer and director were all straight men and that attitude took away what was edgy about it and neutered the piece. He has great things to say about "Boys In The Band" and what its success implies for the future of gay plays.
It's the Pinter chapter and his citing of the play "Bench" and its review by Kenneth Tynan that I question his methods a bit. He makes "Joe Egg" sound absolutely transcendent and I even don't disagree with his take on "Hair", much as I adore that show almost religiously.
But it's a must-read for anybody serious about how Broadway works as an industry. Some of the methods have changed but the end result is the same.
more #19
Posted: 12/14/15 at 12:41pm
Since I wrote the word "progressive" first, and then added the word "mainstream" (it was not an attempt to substitute one for the other) let me clear about at least what I meant. I meant progressive thinkers not in the arts or theater business, but merely left-of-center people in the mainstream world. I was raised in it. My parents supported Stevenson and Abe Ribicoff, and simultaneously warned me to be careful of men who were "fairies" and would be naturally inclined to prey on male children. They told me with great assurance that gay men had overly strong mothers and weak fathers, and that it wasn't their fault, but they were sick. In their concerned way they promoted an entire mythology based on nothing. As did everyone around me. So Goldman's book, which I read at 18, was no different in it's blind misunderstanding of sexual identity than anyone else around me -- all of them concerned progressives of one kind or another, but none of them with real experience of gay people -- or at least not people they knew were gay, because almost everyone was in the closet. And that was my only point. Goldman was writing from a mainstream progressive point of view and was, in his way (especially in his chapter on Albee) saying "let them come out and say what they mean." And in that sense he was right, because that's what we are privileged to have in ANGELS IN AMERICA, which speaks its name loudly and proudly. Almost no one was doing that in 1968.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
more #20
Posted: 12/14/15 at 12:50pm
Golden Rainbow had potential. It is a musical version of the movie "A Hole In The Head".The score is very good .It was written by the same guy who wrote Bajour Walter Marks. Steve Lawrence plays the Sinatra part. OK he can sing and act fairly well but he is no Sinatra.They cut the heart out of it by cutting the Edward G Robinson part and giving it to Gorme.It sort of encompassed the Eleanor Parker part as well. Once it did that, it did not have a prayer.
The opening number can be seen on you tube - 24 Hours A Day. Gorme got tired of performing one number during its run so it was cut .The phony breakups between the stars did not help. It was a vanity project for both from the start
The CD is available on Amazon.
more #21
Posted: 12/14/15 at 1:12pm
that may be but i seriously doubt that the majority of the people working on, say, Virginia Woolf, harbored the sort of feeling that Goldman (among others-Simon, Gottfried etc) expressed. What we say today was no less true: haters gonna hate.
I am too young by a decade at least to have first hand knowledge, but perhaps someone can chime in. I have read extensively about Albee who was no closet case and who seemed to suffer only at the hands of the well-known bigots. That's not to say (at all) that everything was roses, or that there were not attitudes borne of prevailing norms, but that's quite different than the bile that Goldman, Simon, Gottfried and others wrote and in Simon's case continues to write.
These haters are no different than those who wrote about Jews, as an example. But no one would say that the country was filled with nothing but Father Coughlin. Shamefully, Goldman was a Father Coughlin to his "other."
more #22
Posted: 12/14/15 at 1:32pm
Obama was opposed to gay marriage until a few years ago. Things change. I assume Goldman has changed since the 60s as well. (Like Obama, Hillary, etc.) It's a great book.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/25/11
The book's gay stuff#23
Posted: 12/14/15 at 2:13pm
As I mentioned in my OP, I'm very conscious of the era. (Although I was in 8th grade at the time in Grand Rapids Michigan.) Especially since I've recently reviewed old news reports from the era (A Life magazine story from a couple of years later that I remember reading and re-reading dozens of times while it was in our house, as well as a lengthy Time article and a CBS News special from the time).
It's because of the times I can overlook his wording ["Homosexual" and "negro"] and understand where many of his absurd conclusions come from. I suspect that Goldman might have described himself as "progressive." That certainly doesn't make his views, conclusions and retelling progressive. Or even okay. Perhaps of their time but still hateful, absurdly wrong and offensive.
Knowing all this, I'm able to simply overlook and ignore all his conclusions and arguments on these issues. His head is up his ass. That wasn't an unusual position for the time on gay topics. Doesn't make it right, though. Also doesn't mean that I need to give it any credence.
Read, wince, go to next chapter.
"The Season"#24
Posted: 12/14/15 at 2:22pm
Mr Roxy said: "Golden Rainbow had potential. It is a musical version of the movie "A Hole In The Head".The score is very good .It was written by the same guy who wrote Bajour Walter Marks. Steve Lawrence plays the Sinatra part. OK he can sing and act fairly well but he is no Sinatra.They cut the heart out of it by cutting the Edward G Robinson part and giving it to Gorme.It sort of encompassed the Eleanor Parker part as well. Once it did that, it did not have a prayer.
The opening number can be seen on you tube - 24 Hours A Day. Gorme got tired of performing one number during its run so it was cut .The phony breakups between the stars did not help. It was a vanity project for both from the start
The CD is available on Amazon.
I'm a bit confused at your post Mr. Roxy was Edward G. Robinson's part re-written for Eydie or was his character eliminated altogether and a new one written for Ms. Gorme to play.
"I Gotta Be Me" is the only song that I am even familiar with from this score and seeing as "Bajour" wasn't necessarily a smash hit, this one seems to be two failed shows in a row for Walter Marks.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
The Season#25
Posted: 12/14/15 at 2:36pm
Gorme's part was new & was never any part of the source material. Robinson was a cantankerous old jewish grandfather & Gorme was a fashion maven NY type - totally different. Eleanor Parker's role was totally cut as well. The dynamic of the story was totally changed when this happened.2 roles cut and 1 substituted. Is it any wonder it flopped?The reviews were brutal. Steve & Edie kept it running on their name and it had a big advance. It also had a really long preview period.
Marks did 2 Broadway scores. Bajour ran 6 months & Golden a little over a year. Bajour was the more tuneful of the 2.
Videos
