- Or should be rendered harmless by becoming the NAME of a band.
(Originally published on Theatrehead.com)
Those of us in the cultural elite have been sniffing our upturned noses for quite some time now at the movie industry since the collective decision was made by Hollywood executives in 1994 to never use an original idea again and just start recycling old movies into new ones with hot young starlets that are so skinny as to not have an ass.
Where was I?
Oh yes, new ideas. I�ve heard many of my colleagues complaining about the lack of originality in Hollywood lately. But lest we throw stones, I think we should clean up our own industry, because theater has been doing this for years (albeit mostly theater of the community variety). Now this would be understandable, because theater, unlike movies, has to be produced and mounted anew every time you want to see a show, as opposed to say, the movie �Psycho� which has been available on video since the eighties, deeming a new production utterly stupid and, if you�ll excuse the impolitic expression, really fucking retarded.
The problem, however, with the shows that keep being redone by community theaters or revived on Broadway is that they all suck. They�re not remounting great shows, they�re remounting lousy ones. Now, I feel that we should not only stop redoing the crappy shows, that�s obvious, but I think we should take the extra step of banning them. I say we immediately set up a commission to ensure that sucky shows are banned and never produced again.
I�ll start by nominating my list of shows that should go away forever...
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers � This show sucks. It�s the most misogynistic show I�ve ever seen. According to the script, the rape of the Sabine women in Roman folklore, was amusingly funny and possibly a good idea for gettin� women folk. I know the dance sequences are usually spectacular, but there are other shows with good choreography that DON�T encourage kidnapping and rape.
South Pacific - This show sucks. Besides that, it�s the SECOND most misogynist piece of crap that ever hit the stage. It was sexist in the fifties and time has not made it nostalgic, just depressing. Sure the coconut breasts are funny� well, actually, no they�re not.
Fiddler on the Roof � This show sucks. It�s too long and the politics that were once subtle are too heavy handed to have to endure the endless dirges and dream ballets. And the bottle dance is usually faked.
Rent � This show sucks. It was barely mediocre when it was called �Hair,� now it�s just plain bad.
Any show with a Plucky Narrator � �Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat�, �Sunday in the Park With George�, �Our Town�, the list goes on. Look, if the characters can�t convey what�s going on, get another playwright to fix the script or chuck it completely. The only show that has made acceptable use of a narrator is �Into the Woods� because they killed the son of a bitch off halfway through the show. Now that was entertaining.
Any show that has come to be known by an abbreviated name often uttered by bad actors and women who wear too much perfume. � �Phantom.� �Joseph.� �Les Mis.� Whether or not the shows suck is not really the point here (though they usually do). I just get annoyed hearing the abbreviated titles. It usually indicates that the intelligence of the person using the abbreviation is challenged to capacity by shows with one-word titles like �Oliver!� �Oklahoma!� �Grease!�
Okay, I gotta go. I got tickets for �Nunsense!�
-E.A.P