Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. | |
| Posted by: Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| I really wanna like it. But it is a WHINY, UNTALENTED piece of claptrap that keeps drifting into "A Chorus Line"(the spoken portions of "Everything was Beautiful at the Ballet"). I have never hated a show as much as this one--a middlebrow sob story about not very intelligent rich people, chanting platitudes they think are deep. AWFUL. | |
| reply to this message |
| I'm not on board with all y'all. I really liked this. | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 04:51 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 04:49 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| Who knows how much energy I have... I'm not sure if I have it in me for a full-throated defense of FALSETTOS, but this is a strong, original, moving musical. Bill Finn is a truth teller, first and foremost, and that continues to make MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS / FALSETTOLAND really stand out from the crowd, particularly the latter. We simply don't have a whole lot of musicals which aim to ruminate on something as generic and universal as 'love,' yet manage to do so with such a fresh, acerbic, pessimistic / optimistic voice. That was DEFINITELY true in 1982 / 1990. What should surprise many of us is that it's still true today. Radar123, those weren't platitudes. If anything, what FALSETTOS did so beautifully was shoot holes in the oh-so-limited platitudes that we'd been taught up to that point. We'd never had a musical that treated same sex relationships as ordinary. I think the writing style of FALSETTOS certainly isn't for everyone, but I find it original, fresh, insightful and telling. Mr. Finn's sweet and sour recipe -- bright and optimistic lyrics on top of cynical, even sad music -- feels like real life to me. More importantly, it's stunning to look back at the ways AIDS was ravaging the nation, and the NYC gay male community in particular, and see how Mr. Finn found the heart to write about it with such specificity and pathos without ever tipping toward maudlin. In this aspect, FALSETTOLAND was a stunning achievement. I'd never seen this show professionally staged before, so I had relatively basic expectations for this Lincoln Center cast. I do agree that Andrew Rannells was probably miscast, but my god, so many of these other players brought fantastic moments to the work. Christian Borle played it truthfully, more than anything. "What More Can i Say?" was wonderfully unfussy and sincere. Stephanie J. Block absolutely wowed me. She was stellar. I was floored by how well she managed to communicate the complexity of Trina's thinking / her evolution toward acceptance. And I thought Brandon Uranowitz was exceptional. And yes, "I'm Breaking Down" should have earned Ms. Block a Tony Award. I rewatched it ten times. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 05:16 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:15 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| I liked seeing it at the movies more than live onstage. Felt that way about Newsies too. For Falsettos, it was more moving and for Newsies, more exciting. To me. Also- are you putting down ACL?!? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Well, it is one of MY favorite musicals but ..... | |
| Posted by: jdm 07:55 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| did not liked this production on Broadway, and did not like it on PBS. I really only watched it to see Breaking Down because Block was out when I saw it. And she did do an amazing job with the song, as all the critics mentioned, so glad I tuned in for at least that. Jim |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. | |
| Posted by: JayBee 07:26 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| Radar123, agreed. When I saw it on Broadway, I lasted one excruciating act and then bolted the theater. Last night on PBS I tried again. Three minutes and I switch channels. Real dreck. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. | |
| Posted by: schauspieler 12:35 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - JayBee 07:26 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Funny, excruciating is how I described the first act as well, and I escaped at intermission with apologies to my theater date who wanted to stay. It was just unbearably phony: music, staging, acting, script. I didnt believe a single minute of it. But most people love it. Degustibus etc. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think it is brilliant. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 01:02 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| I think it is extraordinary. I did not like this production of it and feel it was not well acted. The cast of the original and the national touring company were in every case superior to this recent revival cast but even with my disappointment with this cast I was still moved and in awe of Finn's talent. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think it is brilliant. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: StormyEyed 11:49 am EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think it is brilliant. There I said it. - Circlevet 01:02 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I also struggled with Act 1. But I had a completely different view of Act 2, and I think it was James Lapine's book that made the difference. When I went back to see the show a second time, I intentionally arrived after intermission. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 07:16 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 07:12 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think it is brilliant. There I said it. - Circlevet 01:02 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| This production has its pleasures and rewards (see comments below). But it is one of the ugliest to look at for 2 hours That I've ever seen. For no particular reason. The design might have a hint of a metaphor at work within it. Puzzling lives breaking apart, reconfigured; we get it. In the first 4 minutes. But it's all about these actors huffing and puffing to make the damn thing come together in front of an ersatz-looking, generic New York skyline. Its limitations wear us out early, and the effort required by the actors -- who are already singing a helluva big sing -- seems punishing, needlessly. And why are the costumes, except for Rannels (mostly; not a fan of the slacks) so god-awful? Trina was wigged and dressed to look like a suburban matron. Nothing about the sloppy look -- and she was made to slip in and out of one unattractively tailored print after another -- served the character or explained why Mendel would be so drawn to her. The hair looked cheap, and sat so far down on her forehead, it had almost an SNL quality. Ugh. Block is a very attractive woman (google her photos), if more mature in presentation and demeanor than prior Trinas (not a problem, but not a help with these clothes); they seemed to want to sabotage her. I lived in Manhattan during that decade. This woman would not have looked so tastelessly dressed. But in truth, I thought Borle looked just as bad in act one, with that tightly fitting shirt. In profile, well, he looked like a mall rat daddy, circa 1982. Not NYC to me. I don't get such hideousness in design. Did the sketches look better? Did the wardrobe fittings not ring alarm bells? These people look like they're wearing stuff pulled for Encores. Except Encores would let its actors appear thus. I guess I didn't like the look. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:47 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Delvino 07:12 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't mind most of the costumes (though I was not a fan of the mock-"biblical times" stuff for "Four Jews" or the costumes for the title song), but visually what did annoy me were the gray modular things that made up the set. Just ugly. Maybe something more colorful would have helped. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 11:58 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:56 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chromolume 09:47 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I also hated those costumes for ''Four Jews'' and the title song. And I found David Rockwell's build-a-set scenic design so gray and grim. I'm usually a fan of Rockwell's work. I was so happy he won the Tony for his jewel-box set for ''She Loves Me'' (which just aired on PBS). I just wasn't thrilled with this one. And post-show, they did a 3-minute segment devoted to the actors chatting about the set. I wish that time could've been spent instead on addressing why a work set in 1979-1981, which deals with AIDS, is still relevant today. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| that biblical section... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:31 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - WaymanWong 11:56 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I HATE it. I think it ruins what was once a fast and weird and funny opening number, short and sweet. The biblical sections makes it like twice as long (at least, it felt like much more) and adds nothing, it just confuses things. One of the many rewrites done to the first half of the show to make it a full two act that to me made it worse. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: that biblical section... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:06 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: that biblical section... - Chazwaza 03:31 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed completely. The number as was in March Of The Falsettos was sufficient. I don't know for sure that the changes were made specifically to "pad" things for a longer show - but whatever the reasons, I agree it was an odd choice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 03:03 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - WaymanWong 11:56 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| And I found David Rockwell's build-a-set scenic design so gray and grim. And to be fair, it's Lapine's design really - the show has always been about a "modular" set to him, and I think his designers have had to just deal with that dictate. But from what I remember of the 1990's version, it was done more attractively that time. (Though, does anyone remember the awkward "tantrum" moment during the Chess Game where Marvin's throwing Whizzer out had a lot more to do with angrily rearranging the rolling furniture, lol? I though the moment with the suitcase this time around was much more effective.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: MarjorieMae 01:32 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - WaymanWong 11:56 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I'm usually a fan of Rockwell's work. I was so happy he won the Tony for his jewel-box set for ''She Loves Me'' (which just aired on PBS). Could someone, please, come up with a fresh metaphor for She Loves Me to replace jewel box. It's been done to death.😨 |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| jewel box | |
| Posted by: wisebear 02:19 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - MarjorieMae 01:32 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| But it's a phrase actually used in architecture and interior design, not just a tired cliche. Think of it as a descriptor, like belle-epoque or mid-century modern. Just a shorthand. It was used endlessly to describe the glorious set of Allergists's Wife years ago. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: jewel box | |
| Posted by: garyd 02:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: jewel box - wisebear 02:19 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| It it also an actual line in the play. it is how Lee describes the apt. I still love that set. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: MikeR 01:57 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - MarjorieMae 01:32 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Musical candy box. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And so functional, too! | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 04:17 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - MikeR 01:57 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Laura, happy it's only 93* | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 10:04 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chromolume 09:47 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I had seen and liked March of the Falsettos and, somewhat less, Falsettoland as individual musicals, so I was surprised by the at best lukewarm response most of my friends had to the Broadway version last year. It didn't grab me at all on camera. The opening looked like a musical version of the Heaven sequence in Perestroika. I'd say it was baffling, but it wasn't intriguing enough to baffle for long. I tuned it out. I slept through most of it. The end is still touching. I wonder if there is a built-in problem with a director revisiting a piece he has already directed. His/her main objective seems to be to do it differently, which might blind him/her to the fact that the goal should always be to do it well. Whatever the reason, I'm sure the show could have been shown to better advantage. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| James Lapine needs to stop being hired to direct shows he directed first | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:11 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - TheOtherOne 10:04 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| He made a big mess of the Into the Woods revival, and now this one. I don't understand why producers are on board for this. Especially shows he did such an incredible job directing the first time, he's not likely to top it, so why not give another director with a new vision for the material a chance? It seems like such a frustrating missed opportunity... made more frustrating because we not only miss another director's take, but we get his semi-new one that is always worse. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 11:11 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - TheOtherOne 10:04 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I, too, saw each part when it originally appeared. I’ve also seen at least one (probably more) production of the combined parts. Never liked the show much, though I found some of the music to be appealing. For some reason, this film version really clicked with me when I saw it last summer. I particularly liked Ms. Block’s performance, which I thought was not only exquisitely sung but also revelatory as a characterization. Mr. Rannels’ performance also resonated with me. I found myself enjoying the overall arc of the production for the first time. Watched it again last night - my feelings about it didn’t hold up on second viewing. But, I still enjoyed it quite a bit Bill, in San Diego |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 12:07 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - BillEadie 11:11 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Although I did not feel this production held a candle to the original cast I still found hearing the score again was rewarding. I saw the Lincoln Center version more than once on stage. I didn't have a problem with the set or costumes. I didn't find Rannells right as Whizzer, what was his appeal? And though Block played the part with conviction Barbara Walsh was so much better. I did like Borle, Uranowitz, Thoms and Wolfe. Perhaps if I hadn't seen the original I would have loved this version. I still am glad I saw it and that it was filmed and many more will see it on TV. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 02:38 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - lowwriter 12:07 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Whizzer is a jock. Aaron Tveit would have been ideal casting -- I think Telly Leung or Curtis Holbrook would have been good choices also. I wonder if any of them were considered. That said, I had previously only seen a small regional production of Falsettos in the Chicago area. I did enjoy the Broadway revival on my trip to New York last November. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Whizzer's self presentation | |
| Posted by: Delvino 06:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - BroadwayTonyJ 02:38 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| In the 80s, the Whizzer character was a certain type of Manhattan man. He always seemed coolly detached, classy, and aggressively masculine, perhaps in cliche terms. The jock thing, the snob attitude. Rannells is gifted, cute, and a wonderful triple threat. But that 80s almost hyper masculine NYC jock thing -- it's not really what he presents. This may have been a calculated attempt to unlock the character, to move away from that sort of niche type. I thought it interesting that Borle presented as straight, and Rannells a very comfortable gay man. It made the Borle Marvin coming out via this relationship very different than than the way it felt with Bogardus as Whizzer. Rupert and Bogardus were almost the reverse of what we saw last night. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Whizzer's self presentation | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 12:02 am EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: Whizzer's self presentation - Delvino 06:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Neither Rannels or Borle seemed to have an understanding of their characters (which ultimately must be laid at the foot of Lapine). Whizzer should be everything that Rannells was not---certainly not a big self-centered effeminate man. And Borle, who should have found the vulnerability of Marvin only found a mean and almost psychotic Marvin. Except for Betsy Wolfe I thought, of the many productions of this I have seen, this was the worst performed. I still think this is an extraordinary piece of theater but this production did not do it justice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Whizzer's self presentation | |
| Last Edit: CCentero 11:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: CCentero 11:19 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: Whizzer's self presentation - Delvino 06:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I honestly don't have any idea what Rannels was doing, period. Can he not ditch the "ironic Book Of Mormon/ animated movie" voice? I thought he was playing the pretty boy, posing and trying too hard in a way that Whizzer wouldn't. Thought Borle and Rannels had no chemistry, unlike Rupert and Bogardus, who you rooted for as a couple. He came off as silly and insincere around Jason, making their rapport inplausible. The sets and costumes? Were the real ones stolen? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 06:27 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - BroadwayTonyJ 02:38 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Whizzer is a jock. Well, he plays raquetball (but so does Marvin) and he likes baseball (but we have no evidence that he plays it, though he does coach Jason). I don't know if that qualifies him as a jock, or even a jock type. Were he a jock, I imagine that there might be a sports-playing reference somewhere in "The Games I Play" - but we only get a reference to canasta and that he bets on horses. ;-) I tend to think of him more as just the prototype of a young extremely appealing/attractive gay man. I hesitate to say he's a "pretty boy," (because I tend to think that implies some androgyny, which I don't think needs to be part of the character's look or style), but in a sense I think of that much more than "jock." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:28 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:17 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chromolume 06:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Funny, in all my life I've never heard the term "pretty boy" and understood it to specifically imply androgyny, and i don't use it that way. In the context I've heard it in it almost always means someone whose face is too pretty to be the way an average man's face looks, but that doesn't imply androgyny to me. Either way, I don't think Stephen Bogardus was a "pretty boy" when he played the role. Is that how people saw him? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:09 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chazwaza 03:17 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| I should have clarified, lol - I was describing the way I saw Rannells' take on the role. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 04:02 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chazwaza 03:17 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| No, that doesn't describe Bogardus at all, though he was a very attractive Whizzer. He was WASP-ish, and he was the better looking and more confident of the two so he had an upper hand that both turned on and frustrated Rupert's Marvin. They had terrific chemistry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Ann 04:41 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - TheOtherOne 04:02 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| I've always wondered what kind of Whizzer Bogardus was. I did not see the original and, for awhile, just knew of it vaguely - and I though for quite some time that Rupert must have played Whizzer (without knowing much about Bogardus). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: JohnDunlop 11:42 am EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chromolume 06:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| If Whizzer likes baseball and coaches Jason, it is almost certain that he once played baseball. Perhaps just Little League, or with others at school or his neighborhood, and the same would apply to basketball, football or tennis. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 11:02 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - TheOtherOne 10:04 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Hated the costumes. Hated the lighting. Really, really hated the cube thing and watching the poor actors sweat like stevedores shoving blocks around. And despite the postshow segment on the scenic design, I wasn't moved or suddenly breathless by the appearance of furniture near the end. I was just irked. I said to my daughter, "Oh, now we get chairs?" In the interview (wish I recorded it), I think Block said something like the cube goes away when "reality" comes in. Huh? It's still a brilliant work. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. | |
| Posted by: JAllenC3 11:34 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
| In reply to: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - Radar123 10:16 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| Well Jamie / Dana I'm sorry you feel that way. I for one love the show, and I'm thankful everyone gets to have their own opinions. Or maybe you just need to see a production of In My Life (if there ever is another one) to have Falsettos move up from the worst thing you've ever seen. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Falsettos is a GREAT show | |
| Posted by: summertheater 11:55 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Falsettos is an AWFUL SHOW. There. I said it. - JAllenC3 11:34 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| Was one of my favorite shows ever - it really touched me. The show ran just under 3 hours but it flew by (perhaps since I saw a matinee). Acting was impeccable, and these were certainly emotional & intelligent people. And the ushers and box office personnel at this theater were exceptionally kind & down-to-earth. Really made you feel welcome. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Falsettos is a GREAT show | |
| Last Edit: bmc 12:52 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: bmc 12:51 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Falsettos is a GREAT show - summertheater 11:55 pm EDT 10/27/17 | |
|
|
|
| Never saw the show, but I have the 'albums'. I especially enjoyed the original LP with Michael Rupert; I felt a little bit guilty about How much I enjoyed a song called four Jews in a Room bitching, until I read an Interview with William Finn; Turns out he wasn't Irish American after all, But was a nice Jewish man from NYC; I didn't feel guilty after that.(I had thought Finn was Irish because an epic Irish poem is The Cattle Raid of Cooley , led by the legendary Irishman Finn McCool. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.130256 seconds.