My roommate years and years ago was in the original cast here in Los Angeles. I think that was the last time I went to see a show just because a friend was in it. UNCOMFORTABLE.
Wasn't it though? I also had a close friend in the original production in L.A. He and I had been to the gym together countless times, but I didn't sit and watch him in the showers.
^Yeah, I'm pretty sure the material came after the concept. It wasn't "these songs suck let's add nudity" it was more "our company is nearly broke lets do a show with a bunch of naked guys." It worked.
neal, I only saw it that once many years ago, but judging by the DVD, yes, the nudity is largely a gimmick (except for a couple of songs/scenes where it is part of the context, such as a locker room scene), and, yes, most of the material is substandard.
In the DVD extras, the creator of the show says he was thinking about new shows to put up at the Celebration, a gay theater in Los Angeles, when it occurred to him that the two things gay men like are "musicals and nudity". Voila!
There are three or four decent theater songs and, when I checked the credits, I discovered they were all by the same writer. (Like revues of old, the songs and skits were written by various people.)
There were numerous points where I wished they would put their clothes back on. It's amazing how a flaccid penis resists attempts to make it sway in time to music.
(ETA now that I've read the posts before mine, I see we are using "gimmick" in two different ways. Yes, the others are correct that "nudity" is the theme of the show and the skits deal with occasions where nudity occurs: locker room, porn star, naked maid service, a bris, etc. In that sense, I suppose nudity isn't a gimmick, it's the theme.
But I meant it was a "gimmick" in the sense that I don't feel there was any organic need among the authors to address the subjects dramatized. As others have said, nudity was just an excuse to sell tickets.)
I think there are several attractive men in the DVD cast, but there's something about the show that is the opposite of erotic to me. I know the old adage that it's not what you show, it's what you don't show, but I haven't found that to be true in other cases.
^I agree that it's not entirely meant to be erotic or sexy. The novelty of the nudity wears off pretty quickly. After that it's just about how well they sing or how cute, clever or funny they can be.
But that's what's weird, uncageg: one would think "Naked Maid", "Nothing' But the Radio On" and "Perky Little Porn Star" might be contexts that call for eroticism, but as staged, they do not.
The gym scene is about (potential) public humiliation. I think it's the best song/skit in the show, but personally I find humiliation the opposite of sexy.
CATSNY, also on the DVD extras (it must seem I've watched it more than I have), the creator said he wanted to "get the nudity out of the way" at the top of the show, which is why the opening number is done with the entire cast naked.
Yet, he also says the purpose of the nudity was to entice gay men into buying tickets.
So he wanted to titillate, but not titillate. To me, this is consistent with the thought that went into the entire piece.
I've seen several friends in it and was relieved each time to find that they fully acquitted themselves in it. I have one friend whose mother went to see him in it. She said she had seen every other show he'd ever done, she wasn't going to miss this just because he was naked.
The material is not as bad as you would imagine and not as good as "Oh, Calcutta"--the 1960s revue put together by Sir Kenneth Tynan that previously used the same "gimmick," except with a co-ed cast.
I'm sad to see this production go. Made great friends and family there. Tho, I think the producers stopped caring long ago, the cast was always happy to be there. The show is a celebration of nudity and the male body the nudity is not just a gimmick to glaze over the material. (See something before you comment on it)
And, yes the producers of the PTown NBS have picked up the rights to put it into their rotation of NEWSICAL at T.Row. But, they have hit some snags: Equity regulations on a new production too soon and they desire to use caned music, among other things.
I thought the movie version was awful but enjoyed the stage show the three times my partner and I saw it. It's hit and miss by nature, but I always loved "Kris, Look What You've Missed."
And it seemed for a year or two after seeing it, I kept seeing the ssame actor from it (I think his first name is Patrick) every single time I was in NYC...in theatre lottery lines, stores, on the street. Just coincidental, but the frequency freaked me out.
I thought the movie cast was okay, except for the tall red head who got his song taken away from him. The problem was mostly with the film quality. I get that it's low budget, but there are shots that are poorly lit, and times when the vocals were either recorded live and you couldn't hear them or just poorly mixed in the studio.
joined:5/13/04
joined:
5/13/04
Posted: 1/28/12 at 9:45am