Why A Same-Sex I Do! I Do! Is Important, and Why It Works by Jack Marshall- Page 2

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 4:36pm

"There are four actors who switch in and out of the roles of the (original) couple"

That's even worse. If the authors wanted that, they would have written it into the script. The beauty of "I Do I Do" is that you watch the same two actors age over the course of 40 years.

I agree with PalJoey's point. Write your own damn story and leave the stories already written as they are.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 5:45pm

Should we re-do I AND ALBERT as THE QUEEN AND I?

To be fair, nothing could make that show any worse.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 5:46pm

Ah, but directors know more than writers. Didn't you know that? They tell us all often enough.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 6:10pm

I don't have intellectual arguments to justify my opinion; I only know that I would enjoy watching gay versions of mainstream shows. I have fun imagining how the subtext of popular songs change when sung in a gay context. I too would enjoy hearing a bitter queen (I'd cast Paul Lynde in an alternate universe) signing about the "ladies who lunch". Or imagine a romantic leading man (Cheyenne Jackson would do nicely) singing the Funny Girl soundtrack:

What's the difference if I say
I'll go away
When I know I'll come back on my knees someday . . .

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 8:00pm

I'm not saying there isn't a show somewhere that could make it work, but taking FUNNY GIRL (BOY?) as you do in your example, even if you make the character somebody other than Fanny Brice, it makes no sense that a male star's wife would consider his success emasculating. Gender roles aren't infinitely interchangeable.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 8:34pm

Wait... You mean NONE of the men are singing "Flaming Agnes"? What sort of gay theatre is THAT?????

Updated On: 7/26/13 at 08:34 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 9:07pm

> it makes no sense that a male character's wife would find his success emasculating

Gaveston: it's 9p on a Friday ... i'll admit I've had some wine ... but your last post confuses me. If the point of this thread is the "re-imagining" of the pillars canon through same-sex lenses, why would a male character have a wife? and if you meant husband, why would it be hard to envision that the power balance in some gay relationships is such that the success of one partner would be threatening to the other?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 9:21pm

whatever2, I'm on PDT, so I can't even blame wine. You make an excellent point.

But I doubt we'd have the same sympathy for the husband of a male star who felt overshadowed. Because he's male, we expect him to make his own way.

A STAR IS BORN might work, if only because the Norman Main character is in steep decline. His response to his partner's success isn't so clearly based in gender roles (though certainly that was part of the subtext of previous versions).

Thank you for catching my error.

Updated On: 7/26/13 at 09:21 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 9:30pm

so, apparently, wine is the key to clear thinking.

there definitely are gay relationships with that kind of power imbalance, but that's a sub-genre within the sub-genre -- overall I totally take your point.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 9:38pm

Has Song and Dance ever been performed by a man? With some re-writes of course, I think it could be quite amazing with someone like John Barrowman or Raul Esparza.

And although it might sound odd, I could really see ITW with a gay couple. The child would seem even more significant to them, and Moments In The Woods would be sensational. The concept of course is not perfect, but it does sound interesting.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 11:00pm

Actually, I'm quite surprised no one has yet mentioned the old urban legend of an all-male WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF.
What a dump.

Updated On: 7/26/13 at 11:00 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 11:12pm

This thread is a dump.

This idea is a dump.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 7/26/13 at 11:18pm

"He tries to put on his lipstick, but he can't. And he gets it all over his face. BUT, he decides to go to Chicago anyway!"

An all-gay CHICAGO, anyone?

Updated On: 7/26/13 at 11:18 PM

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 11:48am

I saw the show yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. The staging is very simple: most of the props are mimed, there are no set changes, the set consisted of a few platforms and the walls were framed marriage portraits. The switching of genders is done very well, sometimes in the middle of scenes, but nothing jarring. It really brought life to this aging piece. I'm not one for reimagining shows in general, but this had a deep impact on me. If you are in the DC area I would highly recommend it

And for the record, for those screaming about the writers, they both backed this production and gave them their support.

PalJoey, I love your posts, but I would suggest you actually see something before passing judgement. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot where I was.







Updated On: 8/10/13 at 11:48 AM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:04pm

What is this big deal with turning old shows gay???

I agree with Namo And PJ that if we want gay musicals, we should write gay musicals. I don't need a Gay RENT, or a Gay WICKED.

Why do we want to be like everyone else?! We used to be different and I like it that way.

Besides, I Do, I Do is perfectly fine the way it was originally written. There is NO need to add anything to that script.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:08pm

They didn't turn it into a "Gay" Musical - read the article.
Also, since the writers gave the theatre and this production their full support, I guess they are wrong too. I'm sure you know better than them.

Updated On: 8/10/13 at 12:08 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:11pm

"read the article. "

Read my post.


I didn't say they turned I Do, I Do gay, I just asked why so many want to see shows turned gay, instead of just writing ones of our own.

I only said that I think the script for I Do, I Do is fine the way it is and doesn't need anything added to it.

"Also, since the writers gave the theatre and this production their full support, I guess they are wrong too. I'm sure you know better than them. "


Why so snotty??

Updated On: 8/10/13 at 12:11 PM

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:23pm

I'm not snotty, I just find it interesting that people are giving definitive impressions of a piece they haven't seen. It was still a story about one couple and a marriage. The book was unchanged, the music was all there, there was just the additional message that marriage and love is the same, whether straight, gay or lesbian. Maybe because last month I married my partner of 28 years this message meant a lot to me. The director was not doing this just to be different. The love he had for the piece was evident in the staging. In the end I think this had a greater impact on me than this show ever has had.

It was interesting that the audience was made up of mostly elderly straight couples and they loved it.

Updated On: 8/10/13 at 12:23 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:28pm

Yes, your comment to me was that I must know more than the writers, and it came across as snotty,

And I only said the script doesn't need anything added to it. I don't need to see the production to say that.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:45pm

I think it was amazing how the show stayed faithful to the original concept, which was to show the story of a marriage, while adding a new layer of depth and meaning. Obviously the authors thought so too. It's not they are making any money from this small production, they could easily have said no.