By Steven Suskin

Broadway Yearbook 2000-2001 is a correct and irreverent checklist of the theatrical 12 months. A shiny album of the yr at the nice White method, Broadway Yearbook offers readers front-row seats for the phenomenon of The manufacturers and the remainder of the season's hits and misses. Steven Suskin's acclaimed new theatre annual can provide a colourful, candid, and considerate account of each express to hit the forums: intriguing musicals comparable to the complete Monty and the revival of forty second road; fascinating new performs like facts and the story of the Allergist's spouse; and engaging disasters, together with Jane Eyre and the beleaguered Seussical. Broadway Yearbook tells us what the indicates have been truly like. it truly is an interpretive list, that includes not just dates and names but in addition the tales at the back of the records. each one access is followed via credit and forged lists, scorecards summarizing total severe reception for every convey, a precis of every show's monetary functionality, and copies of the illustrative application covers and identify pages. Appendices supply a roundup of the season's significant awards, memorable performances of the yr, obituaries, future leaders, indicates nonetheless operating from previous seasons, scheduled exhibits that by no means reached Broadway, and a entire index. Steven Suskin has supplied a different and distinctive list of the season's memorable moments and excessive issues (and low issues as well). Written from an insider's viewpoint, the publication is a professional, interesting, provocative, and pleasing. Broadway Yearbook brings the indicates of the 2000-2001 season again for an encore.

Show description

Read or Download Broadway Yearbook 2000-2001: A Relevant and Irreverent Record (Broadway Yearbook) PDF

Best theater books

Actor, Image and Action (2008)

The Actor, picture and motion is a 'new iteration' method of the craft of appearing; the 1st full-length research of actor education utilizing the insights of cognitive neuroscience. In an excellent reassessment of either the perform and conception of appearing, Rhonda Blair examines the physiological courting among physically motion and emotional adventure.

The Art of Theater (New Directions in Aesthetics)

The artwork of Theater argues for the popularity of theatrical functionality as an paintings shape self sustaining of dramatic writing. Identifies the weather that make a functionality a piece of paintings seems to be on the competing perspectives of the text-performance relationships a huge and unique contribution to the aesthetics and philosophy of theater

The Films of Jack Nicholson

VERY-GOOD TRADE-PAPERBACK

Additional resources for Broadway Yearbook 2000-2001: A Relevant and Irreverent Record (Broadway Yearbook)

Sample text

Once Williams and Miller and Albee stopped writing hits, they had difficulty finding Broadway productions. Simon got through his spotty The Dinner Party 41 stretches by using his own checkbook; the losses from his failures were far outstripped by the royalties and profits and road companies and motion picture versions of his hits. So everything Neil Simon ever wrote over the course of thirty-six years — or, rather, everything he considered The word from Washington indicated stageworthy — automatically came that this was the old Neil Simon to town.

But this seemed in keeping with Zaks’s direction. All in all, this Man Who Came to Dinner was intermittently comic but inconclusive, as if the plan had been to enhance the “funny” parts and rush through the others. Most of the play’s references were lost on the audience; even the Lizzie Borden business fell flat. ) There is no way — and no need — to educate the audience on such matters. I would have to believe, though, that it would have helped if the actors at least knew whom they were supposed to be playing.

Let it be noted that Vidal once attempted an updated version of the play, complete with Carter and Reagan references. ) Gray seemed way too young for this role. Stevenson — you remember that photo of him, with his shoe on his desk and a hole in his sole — was fifty-six when he ran for president. Humphrey was forty-nine when he battled Kennedy for the 1960 nomination. Gray, as it happens, was already fifty-nine when he took on the role, but I repeat: He looked way too young for an old-style politician, circa 1960.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.24 of 5 – based on 41 votes