In the end, after several posts and a large number of comments about this incident, I am convinced that, more than anything, it shows how little the American public, even well-educated, culturally-engaged members of the public, and even participants in the entertainment profession understand and respect the importance of live theater.
This, at least, is no surprise. The New York Times recently reported that a survey had revealed that symphony orchestras no longer are viable without charity: fewer and fewer, mostly aging, patrons bother to attend concerts any more. Live theater is heading down the same path, probably irreversibly. Theater will never hit rock bottom, of course; it will always be possible to put on a show like Judy and Mickey, and live theater can exist as long as there is a single talented performer, a street corner, and a crowd. But theater is dying as something relevant to society, and that is a tragedy. Each generation goes to live theater events less and less. I have not seen the up-dated figures, but in the Nineties a study showed that Americans under 30 were more likely to have called a phone psychic at least once in the past year than to have attended a single live theater performance in their entire existence on earth.
The role of theater in society has been extolled by Aristotle and social critics through the centuries as a unique and important community activity in which citizens of all social strata engage in the ancient ritual of sitting together in a darkened theater, and not only experience the events being portrayed on stage but experience it communally, hearing and feeling the reaction of others. Now that social force has receded to the vanishing point. A vacuum has taken its place. Movies seldom explore serious issues any more, and younger audiences have increasingly retreated to watching films online, and often alone. The potentially life-altering experience that is being lost is hard to describe when someone hasn’t experienced it. The power of the medium to communicate ideas and concepts vividly and to change minds and lives is unmatched, and unmatchable. I have seen it. I have experienced it. I have even helped make it happen.
The department store mogul Bernard Gimbel attended an early performance of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” on Broadway in 1949. The plight of Willy Loman, an aging traveling salesman being pressured out of the only employment he had ever known, so shattered Gimbel’s world view that he couldn’t sleep. The next day, he called his managers together and told them and all of his stores that no over-age employee was to be fired. Alfred C. Fuller of the Fuller Brush company asked Miller to dinner to seek his guidance on how to keep his Fuller Brush salesmen from quitting. That’s power. That’s wonderful. We should want influential people, elected officials, business owners, policy-makers, bankers, investors and corporate executives to see that kind of theater. In today’s New York Times, Ben Brantley, the Times drama critic, explains…
Theater, as the ancient and exalted public forum …exists to challenge complacency, to make us uncomfortable with our assumptions. It is a place where conversations of momentous moral, philosophical and political significance can and should be initiated. Such exchanges have been started by dramatists as different as Sophocles, Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, Vaclav Havel, David Hare, Tony Kushner and…Albee. And even when the plays were written decades, if not centuries, ago, the dialogues they began have in many cases never ceased to reverberate.*
Miller was a very political playwright. He would have been horrified, however, if his cast of “Death of a Salesman” or “The Crucible” had refused to let his words and ideas percolate within every audience member’s brain and conscience, and insisted on a post-performance, grandstanding display of righteousness aimed at a individual audience member. Would Bernard Gimbel have been more or less moved to change his attitudes toward aging employees if a self-important actor had commanded him to, in front a thousand audience members?
Mostly, however, such unethical conduct from a cast and the threat of the same in other productions can have no other result but to keep the people we most want to see thoughtful and provocative shows surrounded by their community and the people they serve from going to the theater. Most of them don’t go already, like the rest of the population. By indulging its cast’s urge to grandstand, “Hamilton,” the first culturally significant Broadway hit since “Angels in America,” undermines its art, its medium, its power and its purpose.
“Hamilton” is doing that already, to its disgrace, by further pushing live theater into the elite, dead-end niche of cultural irrelevancy already occupied by opera, ballet, and concerts. Its ticket prices are pure gouging, grotesquely hypocritical for a company made up primarily of dreamy eyed young leftists, and an author and producers who have are already rich beyond their wildest dreams. One can’t hear Hamilton’s songs on commercial radio, and if you did, you wouldn’t understand them out of context. The show may run on Broadway for years, with touring companies charging similarly impossible ticket prices, but it won’t become a regular staple of college and community theater repertoires: it’s too difficult, and requires an all-minority cast. That means that it is probably an artistic dead end.
“Hamilton” could get young people excited about live theater again, if its ticket prices weren’t so unconscionable and they could afford to see it. The show could make white, insulated, conservative policy makers re-think their assumptions, if they didn’t fear a personal assault from the stage.
Instead, the production has chosen to jettison its once-in-a-generation opportunity so it can indulge its sense of self-importance and engage in just one more high-profile liberal tantrum over losing an election, and in so doing, slam another nail into live theater’s coffin.
_______________
* Lest I be accused of misleading readers, Brantley also mounts a weird and weak defense of the “Hamilton”/Pence episode. He writes,
Thinking more rationally, I believe it can also be argued that a great work of art — a distinction for which “Hamilton” easily qualifies — should be sufficient unto itself. Though Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Tony Award-laden show has been embraced as Broadway’s favorite feel-good musical of the moment, this portrait of a revolution is in itself revolutionary, with the provocation and defiance that such a characterization suggests….The very presence of Mr. Pence — whose views on immigration, like those of Mr. Trump, are anything but celebratory — at this particular show (one previously embraced by the Obamas and Clintons) would seem to signal that an unspoken debate was going on that night. In that case, wasn’t Mr. Dixon belaboring the obvious in delivering the statement prepared by him and his associates (including Mr. Miranda)? Was what he said a condescending equivalent of supertitles for the inferentially challenged?…If someone were to single me out for a direct plea from the stage in a large theater, I would no doubt want to run home, dive into bed and bury myself under the covers.
All correct, Then he defaults to defending the cast, because, as far as I can figure out, he didn’t like Donald Trump’s tweets AFTER the episode, so this, he thinks, retroactively justified the cast’s attack on Pence. I think he felt obligated to side with his New York City, left wing, Trump-hating theater community, even though he knew they were wrong. He flunked his integrity test.
Ethics Alarms 
I wasn’t aware this had even taken place as I was busy this weekend stage managing our community theater’s production of Disney’s “Little Mermaid” – to sold out houses, no less. It warmed my heart to see so many families enjoying themselves, little children sitting in their seats, their feet dangling, not touching the floor, wide eyed and in awe. It gives me hope when I see children being exposed to live theater. Who knows what the experience might spark in them. Then I heard about the “Hamilton” incident and my heart sank. And frankly, I was mortified.
For what it’s worth I’ve never called a phone psychic.
Aristotle?
He and Jack went to school together.
Hmm. Must be a dead white guy. Greek too, huh?
Jack,
“‘Hamilton’ could get young people excited about live theater again, if its ticket prices weren’t so unconscionable and they could afford to see it. The show could make white, insulated, conservative policy makers re-think their assumptions, if they didn’t fear a personal assault from the stage.”
Your ignorance of youth culture is, once again, palpable. It already has! I don’t know many under age 25 who can’t recite most of the lyrics front and back, nor do I know many who aren’t interested in seeing it live eventually. So, whether they can currently afford tickets is irrelevant (the MAJORITY of musical productions are prohibitively expensive to young millenials and twentysomethings — who has $150 of disposable income?) It’s a cultural phenomenon through it’s music and message alone. Whether they’ve seen it live or not doesn’t matter. Hell, Les Miserables was my all-time favorite musical by the time I was 5 and yet it wasn’t until I was 13 that I first saw it performed on-stage. The ticket prices may be for elitists, but the show itself is a pop-culture hit.
What’s more, although it might set the wrong sort or precedent, the incident has only INCREASED youth interest in the play. The timing was wrong and, I couldn’t agree more that this incident was over the top and indefensible, but you’re one of the few turned off by it.
-Neil
I have people that age in my house every day. According to my son, 22 and from a theater family, as well as an eclectic music nut, you’re full of crap. Not one of the 30 or so people his age or older (but under 30) know any Hamilton lyrics, much less all of them. How about not starting out a comment by completely making stuff up?
Oh, they’re interested in seeing it, are they? How will they do that, exactly, when the ticket prices are at least twice what you paid for Les Miz (also pompous crap, by the way), and they have to get to the performance?
It’s an elitist pop culture hit. Are there performances from it on TV every week, or even month? No. There were of previous Broadway shows like West Side Story, when TV had variety shows. I’ve seen the stats about Millennials in NYC going to see Hamilton on ticket discounts…that because Broadway is there, in their back yard. I used to be able to take the family to New York and see shows: now that’s out of the question. The average ticket buyer is over 40, white, and relatively wealthy. Regional theaters that do musicals need heavy subsidizing. I go to all kinds of shows, and the audiences are OLD, and getting older.
I don’t know how you have the guts to argue that if you want wider distribution and exposure of a show that has alreday turned a profit, you don’t charge almost 1 thousand bucks for a top ticket. But you do…
Jack, you are wrong. You are looking in the wrong areas. Go on youtube and google “Hamilton parodies.” You will get back several million hits on that. There are numerous pop culture references to the show, where it is assumed that the audience knows what they are talking about.
I happened to be playing the soundtrack in the car at the drive thru, and the window person could not stop gushing about the show, and how he wanted to see it when it came to DC next year. He only let me go when another car (finally!) drove up behind me. It has definitely percolated throughout the culture.
I teach eighth grade in a small West coast town, hardly a bastion of liberal elites, and I’ve got at least a couple students in each of my classes who listen to the play frequently. They’re outnumbered by the kids who’ve never heard of it, but for a new Broadway musical, I consider the percentage of students who know it pretty high.
I think this incident drew more attention to the play and does show the importance of live theater. I know that could be read as a moral luck argument, but I’ve made plenty of others why I think this wasn’t unethical by now.
And if Joe McCarthy himself were in the audience at an early staging of “The Crucible” I’d find such a post-show message completely appropriate.
I can go on Youtube and see all sorts of parodies. It’s a cult hit, just like “Wicked.” There are are obvious cultural pockets where it is known and popular, and many, many more where it is trivia. Almost all Broadway shows have contemporary references now, because they can’t get an audience legitimately based on ideas and content.
Through May, 384,000 people had seen Hamilton live, and if you don’t see a live show live, you really know nothing about it. Meanwhile, “Fantastic Beasts”, opened this weekend and sold about 5 million tickets. How great a pop influence can “Hamilton” be?
97,000 New Yorkers have seen Hamilton, or 1.1% of New York City’s 8.5 million people. 72% of New Yorkers who go to Broadway shows are white.
The average household income for American theatergoers last year was $205,366, four times the United States average and in the top five percent nationally. Showgoers from New York City had an average income of $175,200, over three times the city average and in the top ten percent for New York. 77.5% of the Broadway audience has at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 29.3% of American adults.45.2% have advanced degrees, compared to 11.6% of American adults.
Through May, 384,000 people had seen Hamilton live, and if you don’t see a live show live, you really know nothing about it.
This is wildly snobby, and in reference to this particular show, factually untrue. Most Hamilton superfans have never seen the show live. But they’ve listened to the cast album, which has the entire narrative, and contains the entire show minus the visuals. To say that the majority of Hamilton fans, who have only experienced the show in this manner, “know nothing about it” is absurd.
It is snobby to point out the fact that the live theater experience and a show intended to be performed live cannot be appreciated or understood if it has not been seen as it was devised and intended? Gee, I’m sorry if reality offends you. One also cannot appreciate pro baseball without seeing games in person in a crowd, and human beings are not fully understood from photographs. Since I’ve directed more full stage productions than I can count, and since I know as a director and a performer that the live audience is as important to the show as the cast, my statement isn’t “snobby” but what is known as “informed”{ and also “true.” If live theater could be appreciated when it wasn’t live, we wouldn’t need life theater, would we?
“It is snobby to point out the fact that the live theater experience and a show intended to be performed live cannot be appreciated or understood if it has not been seen as it was devised and intended?”
Yes. Perhaps those of us who haven’t seen “Hamilton” live can’t appreciate the show in the same exact way someone who has can…but to say they can’t appreciate the show at all, or that they “don’t know anything about it,” is simply false. I haven’t seen the show live yet. Challenge me to “Hamilton” trivia; you will lose.
I’m thinking of teaching the cast album and lyrics as a piece of literature next year, at the same time my students study the Revolutionary War in their history classes. If I do this we will analyze the themes, characters and historical allusions in great detail, so that we’re done students will understand the show on a deeper level than some rich theatergoer who saw it once because it was en vogue and then never listened to or thought about it again. They won’t need to have actually seen the show to understand or appreciate it.
Seeing the show live is one way–perhaps even the best way–to understand and appreciate it. It isn’t the only way, and thinking that it is is simply a result of your own bias.
“One also cannot appreciate pro baseball without seeing games in person in a crowd”
Of course they can. Perhaps not on the same level. But they can still appreciate it. Someone who watches every game of the season on TV but has never been able to attend a game in person obviously still appreciates it, and to say they “know nothing about it” would be absurd.
Jack,
It IS snobby, because the music was meant to be heard with or without the cast there to perform it. Lots of young people have heard of the play, listened to the music, and want to see it live. Just because they haven’t, doesn’t mean they can’t still be “fans” (just as I was a “fan” of Les Miserables a decade before I’d seen it). Not to mention the hundreds or thousands of others that have seen bootlegged copies.
Do I agree the ticket prices are outrageous? Yes. But so are ALL Broadway tickets to those below a certain age and income level. I looked at the tickets for your last show before it closed — also not affordable to the average 20-something.
“If live theater could be appreciated when it wasn’t live, we wouldn’t need life theater, would we?”
Then why do soundtracks sell out faster than seats sometimes? Seeing it live gives one the FULL experience, to be sure, but it’s pure elitism to assume that you can’t glean and enjoy a lot without the live element. In fact, if the musical in question can ONLY be enjoyed live, I’d argue it’s the result of weak writing,
Again, your understanding of what today’s youth are into or how they experience it goes beyond simple ignorance and treads into sheer naivete.
Happy Thanksgiving, Methuselah.
-Neil
PBS just covered Hamilton Jack.
Why did they cover this guy?
Ah that backfired. Damn google search.
Ahh, a punctuation joke. Now if I did that, Other Bill would be calling me an elitist! [insert smiley face]
I saw it. Now there’s a forum for millennials…
Oh Sparty. Don’t tell me you really just said that something that’s covered by PBS is irrefutably part of the mass consciousness. Please. Please.
Did I say that? I don’t think so. But, I can tell you that I was raised on public programming. We couldn’t afford the theater or concerts, plus we lived too far away from these venues even if we did have money. It was especially relevant growing up with 5 channels instead of hundreds.
Yes, years ago public television provided a useful service. But I think in the last ten or fifteen years PBS and NPR have devolved into parodies of themselves and have become elitist, predictably lefty and Democrat Party. Who needs a government sponsored network to show BBC pablum when you can see it on cable direct from the BBC? These days, if something’s on PBS, it just means coastal lefties think it’s peachy keen.
My entire redneck, pro-Trump family thinks that Downton Abbey is the best show to have ever aired on TV.
And yes, we coastal lefties think it’s peachy keen as well. But see how PBS has brought us all together?
Obviously you don’t understand how popular PBS news is with Millenials …
The stations’ demographics do not support that contention. You really think millennials groove on Antique Roadshow and Downton Abbey? Mrs. Fisher Mysteries? Concerts of ancient folksingers with ever audience member over 60? Ken Burns documentaries about the Dust Bowl and Prohibition?
Millennial women fucking love Downton Abbey. The others, not so much.
Point taken.
Are you kidding? College kids have a whole drinking game surrounding Antiques Roadshow!
They also LOVE Downton Abbey and have Downton Abbey cosplay parties.
Through May, 384,000 people had seen Hamilton live, and if you don’t see a live show live, you really know nothing about it.
Have you listened to the Hamilton soundtrack yet Jack? It is a musical that is about 95% sung through, so you are hearing the entire musical (with the exception of a few deliberately withheld spoilers) when you listen to it. I think that is part of the appeal. You can listen to it for free on Youtube- ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUSRfoOcUe4avCXPg6tPgdZzu–hBXUYx ), Amazon( if you are an Amazon Prime member), or Spotify.
Hamilton has been on the Billboard Top 100 chart since it debuted, and is the best selling Broadway album since 1963.
I can go on Youtube and see all sorts of parodies. It’s a cult hit, just like “Wicked.” There are obvious cultural pockets where it is known and popular, and many, many more where it is trivia.
But it is mostly young people making these parodies, and there are millions of them out there. Since you have a twitter account, you can also look up the Hamilton/Game of Thrones crossovers, the Hamilton/Star wars crossovers, etc. It is definitely the young people creating those.
I’ve never seen the show. (I won’t, either, unless I can get a reasonably priced ticket to a professional production.) It’s obviously the most groundbreaking musical since “A Chorus Line,” but I don’t really enjoy the music. Still brilliant though. And a dead end.
Can’t argue with the numbers. If they haven’t seen it, they haven’t seen it.
“You are wrong” because look at YouTube, and I Met a Guy One Time? Do you know how confirmation bias works? You get to tell someone they’re wrong when you have data, not anecdotal stories. Both sides of any debate always have anecdotes.
All true. He’s still wrong though. 🙂
Les Miserables is “pompous crap?” That’s a new one. I’m kind of surprised to hear you say that. Do you say that because you just don’t think the music is that good, or because you think (and I would agree with you on this) that the story is ridiculously melodramatic and overblown? If the latter, are modern through-composed musicals like LM, Ragtime, et al, just not your thing?
I love Les Mis and I know every word and note by heart.
Steve-O-in-NJ said, “Les Miserables is “pompous crap?” That’s a new one.”
I agree that “Les Miserables is “pompous crap” “, the only reason I sat through the entire show was because so many of my theatrical friends said it was a fabulous show so it had to get better in Act II right? WrongI The only thing I really liked is how smoothly the turntable functioned but I really hated the way it was used in the show, it didn’t do a damn thing to add to the relevance of the show or the scenes, it only acted as a distraction; it’s nothing but a technological gimmick. At least the gimmick’s that I’ve built for shows added to the content and were “required” as part of the story line, Les Miserables would be better without the turntable, but probably not enough for me to like it onstage.
P.S. I walked out of a professional performance of West Side Story at intermission (a show that like) and never came back, the Tony and Maria were terribly mismatched (maybe one was an understudy but it wasn’t noted in the program), the show was BORING, absolutely no energy coming off the stage, and no one on stage was having fun! They must have all had the flu.
No, no show HAS to get better in Act II, and I have to say Act I is probably better. I did see the whole show…once and that was plenty. My main issue with shows like it is the overblown, two-dimensional, and cartoonish nature of both the characters and the story, carried by Puccini-level unsubtle music. The original novel contains a fairly detailed examination of the question of law and grace, the musical is purely about the sentiments of leave poor Jean Valjean alone and get the young lovers together.
Steve-O-in-NJ said, “No, no show HAS to get better in Act II”
I know that; the only reason I said that was because my theatrical friends said the show was fabulous and what I saw in Act I wasn’t fabulous by any stretch of the imagination so Act II HAD to be better and really fabulous in some way. I didn’t value those friends opinion on shows as highly after I saw that show.
Different strokes for different folks; that one just didn’t float by boat.
One can’t hear Hamilton’s songs on commercial radio, and if you did, you wouldn’t understand them out of context. The show may run on Broadway for years, with touring companies charging similarly impossible ticket prices, but it won’t become a regular staple of college and community theater repertoires: it’s too difficult, and requires an all-minority cast. That means that it is probably an artistic dead end.
Hamilton was the number #1 selling Rap Album for several months. Its success even convinced the Grammys to air one of the numbers from the show live, and broadcast the acceptance speech for Best Cast Album, something it had not done in decades. As I’m sure most people who bought the album have not seen the show in person, many of it’s songs are perfectly comprehensible without having seen the show. If not, there is another Hamilton album, with the songs remixed, with commercial artists like Kelly Clarkson, Sia, Busta Rhymes, and those songs from the show are getting commercial airplay.
I don’t think Hamilton *requires* an all-minority cast, but I think it puts a lot of things into a deeper context if some of the roles are played by minorities. The Broadway show itself does not have an all-minority cast, fwiw.
I think once schools are able to perform Hamilton, it will become wildly popular, up there with The Crucible, Grease, and Our Town. You don’t need elaborate sets, the singing is very achievable, and everyone thinks they can rap (even if they can’t), four separate women leads, with the added bonus that cross-casting is highly encouraged, and music already for that purpose, and people feel it’s *educational*. Yeah, they will be doing that play pretty much forever.
I don’t have the statistics for theater in general, but for Broadway, there has been a pretty big resurgence in attendance over the last few years. What has driven the resurgence is up for debate.
NEW YORK (AP) — Broadway’s revenue and attendance figures both hit record highs for the third season in a row, fed largely by premium prices and a steady stream of more shows.
The Broadway League said Tuesday that box offices reported a record total gross of $1.36 billion — up from $1.27 billion from the previous season. The trade association for theater owners, operators and producers said attendance was up 7.3 percent to 13.1 million.
The numbers were boosted by steadily increasing ticket prices, high demand from tourists swelling Times Square, reconfigured seating in some theaters, easier tools to buy tickets and the use of premium-priced seating, in which some tickets are snapped up for very high amounts.
https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/broadways-box-office-attendance-figures-hit-records-201803492.html?ref=gs
I defended Hamilton casting requirements of an all minority cast. According to the author, it requires an all-minority cast.
Almost certainly not, because the Broadway show, that the writer starred in and produced, is not all-minority. Two leads, in the show I saw at least, were white, as well as a goodly portion of the chorus.
I think the writer’s vision for some of the lead roles was for them to be minorities, but whether he would make that a stringent requirement for every production, especially the amateur ones, is pretty doubtful.
Boy, that’s excelling in cherry-picking. Okay, about 95% of the cast is non-white as written, and is incomprehensible if not played by minority actors, since that’s the point of the show and the concept. “Porgy and Bess” won’t allow casting white actors in any roles written for blacks. There are many, many examples.
I think allowances can be made for a student-led production. I’ve seen plenty of fan videos where the leads are played by white kids, and they’re fine.
In my town a few years ago, the current high school theater director decided to do a production of “Hairspray.” The problem? My town has about a 1% black population. And none of them were in the play. A play about segregation between whites and blacks with 95% Hispanic actors playing whites and blacks. It was dreadful. But there are few direct references to race in “Hamilton.” Having a majority minority cast makes the text more meaningful, but isn’t a necessity, at least not at the student level.
Not only was it dreadful, it was a licensing violation.
I wasn’t aware of that, but I was aware that she broke the licensing requirement that Edna be played by a man.
When high schools start performing the show it will look like this.
Heh.
My local high school is 95% Hispanic, so they’ll make this one work. (“West Side Story” and “Hairspray” were unfortunate disasters.)
West Side Story could have easily been fixed if they just made them rival Hispanic groups . In my neighborhood the El Salvadorians and The Mexicans don’t get along at all.
I don’t know. In my neck of the woods Mexicans and Salvadorans intermarry (probably not gang members). “West Side Story” is pretty dated in LA since that white guys frequently marry Hispanic women and vise versa. I guess the white aryan brotherhood and Mexican gangs don’t get along well but you could hardly make a sympathetic musical about those groups.
“A play about segregation between whites and blacks with 95% Hispanic actors playing whites and blacks.”
I bet make-up designed to make the Hispanics in black roles look black and Hispanics in white roles look white would’ve helped things considerably…
Oh wait. That’s not allowed.
Or is it only not allowed for white people?
I forget standard anymore in these shifting sands.
It wouldn’t have helped anything. It would have been distracting, precisely because of the connotations with blackface we have in American society. And that would have been as true with Hispanic actors as with white actors.
Boy, that’s excelling in cherry-picking. Okay, about 95% of the cast is non-white as written, and is incomprehensible if not played by minority actors, since that’s the point of the show and the concept.
I would estimate about a third of the cast overall is white. It is definitely not incomprehensible if the cast is white, just corny. Textually and lyrically, there is nothing to indicate the cast is minorities, in fact the opposite. The real George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton et al were white. While I think the cadence and timing of some of the lyrics might be difficult for someone who is not intimately familiar with AAVE, someone like Eminem could probably do pretty well (some of the songs reference his songs, in fact).
“Porgy and Bess” won’t allow casting white actors in any roles written for blacks. There are many, many examples.
Yes, “Porgy and Bess” probably should not be racially cross-cast, along with many other productions. That is the entire point of that particular show. It remains to be seen, and I think it actually highly doubtful, that the creators will restrict amateur productions Hamilton in the same way.
Having the #1 rap album is not meaningful the way it was even 10 years ago. We live in a decade where Weird Al Yankovich and LaCrae (a Christian rapper) each had a turn as the #1 album in the WORLD, of any genre.
Most music fans, especially fans of rock, just download everything illegally or otherwise get it for free now, leaving niche projects to share the top of the charts with pop music of the Katy Perry vein that appeals to tweens who haven’t figured out how to use Pirate Bay. Not happy about this, just saying.
I decided I needs me some more class, so I went down to the Thee-ater downtown last week and watched the show. (Didn’t hurt that work sprung for the tickets).
The show was “Mom’s The Word”, and it was… uplifting. And entertaining. I was in my chair, and all of a sudden the room went dark and everyone was clapping, I look at my watch and holy shit, two hours had passed. I will never hear the name “Jeremiah” again without thinking BOTH about the bullfrog (obviously) and the actress with a towel on her head. I spent the entire drive home picking apart the production, thinking about examples of the mothers in my life… I realised as I pulled into my driveway that I’ve probably never enjoyed something so stereotypically homosexual in my life. I don’t care… I think I’ll go back sometime.
Only tangentially related to this… But I figured I’d share.