"The Season" thoughts

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.

Updated On: 12/13/15 at 06:30 AM

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.

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.

"accurately reflected the PROGRESSIVE view "

absolutely not true...

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,

Updated On: 12/14/15 at 02:12 AM

"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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Updated On: 12/14/15 at 02:13 PM

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.

Updated On: 12/14/15 at 02:36 PM