Changes to BE NYC to remove profanity

[Yorkie]

It looks as though I went to bed having opened a few cans of worms! Some observations-

No worms on my part, I love the debate my friend - this is what t'interweb is made for!

-A vicar at the pub with friends and in mufti, who uses colo(u)ful language that causes no harm, is being human. Those in the UK may have seen a brilliant tv show called 'Rev'. That portrays a normal human being trying to be a reverend. I believe we are not meant to be perfect. In fact, no one is, so it is wrong to expect perfection in anyone, whether they are a public or a private figure.

Not seen that show but I'll look it up. I think there is a major stumbling block between the UK/USA - we can't believe you take religion so seriously and you can't believe we can live decently without it

-even if theaters in the Amercan hinterland do not possess some sort of projection facility, this can be easily solved either by the Tour having its own LCD projector and a screen, or hiring said equipment locally when needed. When a concert pianist in on tour, it is written into the contract with the venue that a newly tuned concert Steinway or Yamaha grand piano will be provided by the venue.

100% agree. in this day and age it is hard to conceive it would be a major problem to hook up a digital projector and a scrim

-by noticeably adapting BETM on Tour, the company may please those who may not come anyway (which is pointless) while displeasing those who will come (which is futile). No one will come just because the play excises every use of profanity; those with such sensitivities probably won't be interested in a musical which has as its subject children and gender identity, or ballet, or dance for boys. At Tampa a gentleman made a quiet protest outside each performance because he believed the play promotes themes antithetical to his religious beliefs, which is his right. I did not see anyone turn away; those in agreement with him probably did not come anyway; his presence did not affect the play.

I observed only three cases in which people expressed any concern about the musical: one mother asked Griffin Birney's mom whether she was comfortable with her son being exposed to profanity. The second came when Michael kissed Billy; there was an audible inhalation of breath from the Tampa crowd, which was not repeated in the same event in the final seconds of the play; the third - and most awkward moment - was at the start when Small Boy is doing press ups and shouting 'Jeeeee-sus'. In a venue such as Tampa, had I been the producer I would have changed that for something equally humorous but inoffensive. The crowd loved the same little boy's 'fat bastard' comment, so mild profanity is ok.

And here is the problem - the tour version was softened massively and it still failed/flopped/disappointed at the box office. I have never heard of issues in London due to moral or religious objections (the kiss has attracted laughs, aawww's, wolf whistles and the odd yuck from kids under 8) but the profanity is an issue for some. Earlier this month a mum and group of girls taking up half of row 'B' left after 10 minutes of the show. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I find the most offensive part of the show (and I'm not offended at all but you know what I mean) when the audience laugh at Scottish dancers 'package' (we would call it a lunchbox in the UK ). Why would the bulge in a man's tights be so worthy of a fits of giggling? I always find that bizarre (same as laughing when the strike is over and Tony says to Billy that they can't all be f'ing dancers). But if we take out all the details that might offend this group or that group there wouldn't be much of a show left.

To sum up: some tweaks here or there will not go amiss provided the same message is presented. Judging by Forum comments, there seems to be a number of tweaks in existence already. Shakepeare does not work if Americanized; I have taught Shakepeare to Americans who get it, given time (it is more accessible as a play than as a book). BETM can be mildly tweaked without materially changing its brilliance or its message. That is the answer.

But who decides what tweaks are mild and won't affect the show? So far the criticisms I have read on reviews of the tour have been:

Accents
British History
British terms and references
Socialism
Profanity
Taking the Lords name in vain
Cross dressing
Homosexuality
A kiss
The show is too long
Smoking
Chairs, too many God-damn chairs

Have I missed anything? Do we change all those things to make people happy? If we don't change them all which ones is it ok to change and why those and not the others? Is it still really the same show if remove them?

Truth is I'm glad I don't have any involvement in making these decisions (and as accessmenj so sagely pointed out above) show business is about money, not art..........

[kport]

Great comments, Yorkie. I agree that these discussions/debates keep the brain cells functioning - well, in part at least!

Bottom line: the debate is about placing bums on seats, not about what makes a good or bad play. Here are my conclusions:

-If the producers want a family friendly - watered down schools' performance, create a scaled back version for matinees, and advertise these as PG/family friendly events. Follow the sort of textual changes seen in the Billy Theatre productions. They work well for schools and youth groups and have the producers' blessing. Offer cast call backs and other such things to make it kid/family friendly.

-gave special pricing for these matinees, to entice lots of kids, school groups and families, just as Thorpe Park offers family ticket packages. Pack 'em in.

-Keep the authentic non-expurgated play for the evenings. In fact, ramp it up to the at least Broadway if not London edginess so the adults can enjoy the real thing.

-at the more mature performances, do consider a means to educate Americans about the historical background behind the 1984 through an introductory newsreel that introduces the flavo(u)r of 1984 Durham colliery village and the huge social struggle underway then in the UK. Don't be afraid of being edgy. This story is real, and should not be watered down into a Disney fiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O76fVD7Haow

[BEtourfan]

Though it may be fair to say that expenses exceeded revenues on the Tour, I don't believe it's accurate to state that the Tour "failed/flopped/disappointed at the box office." Clearly, if expenses had been less, they would have been covered by box office revenues and even resulted in a meaningful profit.

[kport]

Though it may be fair to say that expenses exceeded revenues on the Tour, I don't believe it's accurate to state that the Tour "failed/flopped/disappointed at the box office." Clearly, if expenses had been less, they would have been covered by box office revenues and even resulted in a meaningful profit.

Sometimes, a minimal 'loss leader' such as the Tour enhances the profitability of the franchise. Sometimes. I am sure they would like to see the Tour produce at least a modest profit.

[Todd]

A vicar at the pub with friends and in mufti, who uses colo(u)ful language that causes no harm, is being human. . . . . .I believe we are not meant to be perfect. In fact, no one is, so it is wrong to expect perfection in anyone, whether they are a public or a private figure.

Very true, none of us is perfect. But I do think people of certain occupations or social standing have higher expectations put on them than "regular" folks. A good example is the furor caused by Bill Clinton's extra-marital affair when he was president. Would an ordinary working stiff face the same sort of vilification for doing the same thing he did ? Certainly not. But that's because his behavior was expected to be beyond reproach what with his high profile job as a leader - who's expected to set a good example. Even someone like me - a school teacher - is held to a higher standard of behavior in public than people of other occupations, due to the responsibilities I have to hopefully set a positive example for the young people I work with.

-If the producers want a family friendly - watered down schools' performance, create a scaled back version for matinees, and advertise these as PG/family friendly events. Follow the sort of textual changes seen in the Billy Theatre productions. They work well for schools and youth groups and have the producers' blessing. Offer cast call backs and other such things to make it kid/family friendly.

I like this idea ! I suppose the only stumbling block might be from the cast members who would probably not be too excited about having to essentially rehearse two different shows. Given the amount of extra rehearsal they do already - due to the different Billys - I can see where they might draw a line in the sand on this one. But from an audience perspective, being able to choose a "cleaner, family-friendly" version or the "un-cut" original London version would be a great option to have.

[ERinVA]

The Telegraph weighs in on changes to the Broadway show:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/thea ... alect.html

"Something like 10 pages of new dialogue are going into the show,” says one respected theatre critic. “'Bangers’ will become 'sausages’, 'crikey’ will become 'you’re kidding’.”

Frankly, I think this is a bunch of hooey!

First, who is this "respected theatre critic"?
Second, how would a critic know what's being rewritten anyway?
Third, no version of the show that I have seen on either side of the Atlantic uses "bangers" or "crikey" in the dialog.

As I said, "Hooey!"

This Telegraph article now worked its way as gospel into a blog by a recent journalism graduate. I have responded to her blog post.

http://londonfestivalfringe.com/general/post/?p=12138

[LiamM]

A reaction to profanity in the show: I had convinced a friend of mine to bring his wife and children, ages 13 and 15, to the Toronto production. The family are big theatre fans, often found at the Shaw or Stratford festivals. I ran into him recently and asked him what he thought. The first thing out of his mouth was that he didn't like the swearing. He said, "swearing isn't part of my life" and so every time it happens, he finds it jarring. It took so much away for him that the rest of the show didn't make up for it. I suppose it is like having someone constantly kicking your seat or elbowing you.

This is interesting for me. I too hardly every swear (except when quoting the show!). But I don't find it jarring to hear authentic swearing in a show. I even enjoyed the film In the Loop, in which one character is funny mostly because of how often and creatively he swears, all while playing an authentic character. The swearing doesn't take me out of the story. My friend acknowledged that the swearing helped to make it authentic, but it bothered him anyway. (On a side note, there is much swearing in the TV show The Yard, in which Julian Elia plays a minor role, but that swearing does bother me because the dialog does not sound authentic. The swearing is thrown in apparently haphazardly in an attempt to create middle school dialog.)

This seems to match up with various reviews and blogs that I have read. The people who don't like the show almost always bring up the swearing. Perhaps for some people it colors their perception of everything else that happens.

I wonder which words in particular are bothering people. UK words like bloody or git are rarely used in North America. They might be able to make authentic dialog which avoids using words which offend people here. Some focus group research could lead to some interesting results.

[CJ-Rochester]

I think 'bloody' is a good choice, as in "Bloody great Christmas this has been." While it might be considered strong language in the UK, in the US the word offends almost no one. We would consider it mildly fierce at best. In addition using this word makes the whole thing 'sound' more British to American audiences.

[Yorkie]

I wonder which words in particular are bothering people. UK words like bloody or git are rarely used in North America. They might be able to make authentic dialog which avoids using words which offend people here. Some focus group research could lead to some interesting results.

Sorry Liam but the use of 'bloody' and 'git' wouldn't be authentic dialogue in Billy's world - it would actually be the diametric opposite. I understand the point you are making of course; removing the profanity to make the show acceptable for a (large?) proportion of the North American theatre going public.

Bloody wouldn't be considered strong language in the UK by most people, although an Aussie tourism advert did get banned a few years ago for asking 'where the bloody hell are you?' - nobody quite knows why though as much, much worse gets shown on t.v......... Guess we have are own moral guardians here in the UK as well

[StevenKing]

Im certain George calls small boy a git and i THINK bloody is used too...in usa of course.