Too controversial. Broadway producers wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It would get a lot of attention and probably good reviews with the right cast and production, but the backlash would be nuts.
The show (and especially its score) is amazing. The London production was broadcast on BBC and distributed on DVD (PAL only) and I think it can be viewed in its entirety on that site. If you haven't seen or heard the entire show (especially the second act), then I can understand why you'd ask this question. Book of Mormon is a Disney cartoon by comparison. And though it created quite a stir in London, from both the West End production and the BBC broadcast, it still managed to win Best Musical.
Probably because it's awful. I don't have any problem with profanity in a show, but tap dancing KKK members and an intentionally horrendous treatment of religious themes plus its blatant misogyny made this a theatre night that the creators of the show should be ashamed of.
It was horrible. I saw this in London and was appalled at how juvenile and poorly written it was. I didn't think the score was even listenable. I remember only the lyric referring to lesbians and chocolate.
Sorry guys, I'm with Artc3 and MJohnson on this one. Deplorable piece of amateur trash.
Similarities with Book of Mormon are overwhelming in retrospect-- including an extended sequence in Hell they both share. The world of Jerry Springer guests is a world I wanted to spend as little time in as possible to start with. Then came the amateur lyrics in song after song. Most of all it felt (much like my response to "Mormon") like a show written for the benefit of people who hate musicals, who find the idea of folks singing and dancing innately laughable. I was so relieved when it was finally over. (P.S. My good friends who saw the show with me just loved it to pieces -- so there ya go.)
joined:5/2/08
Posted: 9/5/14 at 03:21pm