This transcript was automatically generated and might contain errors.

[0:00] David Armstrong: Welcome to another episode of Broadway Nation, the podcast that tells the remarkable story of how immigrant, Jewish, queer, and black artists invented the Broadway musical and how they changed America in the process. I'm David Armstrong, and this is the third part of my conversation with Rob Schneider, the author of the recent book, Queer Musicals: Boy Meets Boy to Jagged Little Pill. And on this episode, we move into the 21st century with the musicals Fun Home, The Prom, and Jagged Little Pill. If you missed the first two episodes in this series, you may want to catch up on those before listening to this one. Broadway Nation is made possible in part through the generous support of our patron club members, such as longtime member Judy Hucka.

If you enjoy this podcast, your support will be greatly appreciated as a crucial part of keeping Broadway Nation rolling along, and there'll be information at the end of the episode about how you, too, can become a patron. Here we go. So, let's talk about Fun Home. We've had lesbian characters in a musical prior to this.

[1:10] Robert W. Schneider: Yes.

[1:11] David Armstrong: When was that?

[1:12] Robert W. Schneider: Falsettos. You had them in falsettos.

[1:14] David Armstrong: Right. The lesbians next door.

[1:16] Robert W. Schneider: Lesbians next door. You had them in Wild Party on the periphery. That's it. They're mostly on the periphery, or they're used as a punchline in the producers when he's like, here's Shirley Marco. It's my lighting designer. It's always pushed to the side. And one of the things I always found so fascinating was in film and TV, for a very long time, lesbians were looked at as more bisexual than anything. Lesbianism was a choice. I never really see that with gay, male gay characters, but tons of film and TV, if it's a lesbian character, it makes it feel like lesbianism is a choice. Fun Home was the first to be like, it's just like gayness and guys. It's the same thing. And to do it with such creativity and with such intelligence, it's a really good show. It's a really good show. I actually really liked Fun Home.

[2:04] David Armstrong: Absolutely. A terrific show. You talk about the various incarnations of it, and it had to change form several times, especially in the way it was staged.

[2:13] Robert W. Schneider: Yeah. You know, it's based on a graphic novel written by Alison Bechdel. She had a very interesting life. She was growing up in a small town in Pennsylvania. At the same time, she was discovering that she was gay. She started to put the pieces together that her father was also gay and he was having affairs with guys on the side. And she never had a chance to talk to him about this shared identity that they had. And he ended up taking his own life. You know, it's so funny as I work a lot in the town where the Bechdels grew up and they are like, no, he didn't take his own life. It was a car accident. They're very protective.

[2:46] David Armstrong: Wow.

[2:47] Robert W. Schneider: It's really fascinating. And so her graphic novel was about that, like what she wishes she could have told her father. When they started staging it, it was really a lot about her and everything had like a graphic novel, comic book feeling to it. And then as time went on, as they developed it, they realized it was more effective as a memory play and that the graphic novel wasn't as important anymore. It was just that happened to be her job, not the central idea or theme. And it ended up really beautiful. I think it's a beautiful show.

[3:14] David Armstrong: I thought it was interesting that she noted that she had almost nothing to do with the creation of the show and was sort of didn't want to have anything to do with it. But then what did she say once she saw it? I thought that was really interesting.

[3:25] Robert W. Schneider: She was like, this is what I was trying to articulate, that she felt she had done well in the graphic novel. But the musical, listen, the graphic novel is great. It's very intellectually stimulating. What the musical added was a heart. She loved her dad. She had great love for him. And I think you kind of see that in the graphic novel. But there's a difference between reading it and looking at that picture and seeing it three dimensional and hearing it. And that, I think, just elevated it. So I think this is a case where what's that thing they always say? You know, don't musicalize something unless it enhances the source material. This is one of those new to the source material. Yeah, exactly. And to me, this is one of them. There's a lot of musicals where that's not the case. But for me, this is one where you're like, yes, this is an improvement upon the source material or more effective than the source material.

[4:11] ♪ Musical number: "Ring of Keys" — performed by Sydney Lucas ♪

[5:11] David Armstrong: And you also say or quote somebody, I can't remember, that usually when leading characters are divided into three different actresses or three different actors at three different ages, the show doesn't work. And yet somehow this show makes that work.

[5:26] Robert W. Schneider: Yeah, because I think all three of them are so distinct. We have never seen this in a show before. There's young Alison, who was 11 or 12 and played by the great Sidney Lucas, who I still think should have won the Tony for her performance. She was so great. And you're watching, you know, sexuality develops, you know, a lot during puberty. That's not talked about in musicals. Usually when you meet a queer character, they're older realizing this was saying, look, if you're young and you're going through these feelings, they're valid, they're natural. Right. That's pretty important. Then you had the middle Alison who had accepted her sexuality but hadn't ever acted on it. And that's important. Like that first time.

And then you had older Alison, you know, looking back on all of this, who would become her own fully formed person. So all three, they all feel like three separate characters that are just sort of unified by the same name. And I think that's there are shows where you have seen multiple ages of a particular character. And I don't think it works because there's really no major differentiation. But what they did with each of these three is each three of them is going through a major life crisis, a major hurdle. And that becomes interesting. They just don't feel like three emotions. It's not like a prism where you turn it emotionally and you get a different side. These are three very distinct characters going through three very different conflicts. And that's incredible.

[6:39] David Armstrong: That's very interesting. So they each have their own story in a way.

[6:42] Robert W. Schneider: They each have their honestly, you could have taken any one of those three women's stories and written your own show about it. That's how powerful it is. There's a show that I am thinking of where there are multiple people playing the same character at different ages, and it's not effective because there's really no differentiation between them.

[6:56] David Armstrong: Other than age.

[7:02] Robert W. Schneider: Other than age. And you're like, well, then what's the point of this? But Fun Home, I think, really solved that.

[7:06] David Armstrong: That's very interesting. So now we have another lesbian musical or another musical with lesbian characters at the center of it, back to back in a way with a few years in between, but still The Prom. So talk a little bit about The Prom. It's interesting because this and Jagged Little Pill both are what appear to be gigantic hits and then sort of don't really follow that trajectory.

[7:29] Robert W. Schneider: Some of this has to do with COVID in both cases. Yeah. So The Prom really broke my heart because I saw it and I loved it and the audience around me loved it. And what made me sad was there really wasn't a lot of people in that audience with me when I saw it. Did you get to see it on Broadway?

[7:47] David Armstrong: I did. Yes, I did. I mean, it has its problems. Like every show has its problems. The big problem for me in The Prom is the lead character is the least interesting person on that stage. And it's not really a show about a lesbian. It's a show about campy Broadway celebrities. And I don't think they ever I think that balance is a little wonky. However, this was a show that suffered because of its marketing. They could not figure out how to market this show. And I think that also stemmed, though, from the beginning of what story are we telling? And I think because the story was a little confusing in terms of what its priorities were, I think marketing didn't know what to do with that either. And so at first they kind of ran away from the queerness.

Then they embraced it for a hot second. Then they ran away from it again. They didn't know what it was. And that makes me really sad, because what I think it is, is a really timely story for high schoolers that, you know, not everybody what I hate this term, but what they call them flyover states. But like if you're going to high school in New York or California, you're most likely in an area where people are a little bit more sophisticated. It's not for everybody. And I think a show like The Prom is so important because it shows people all across the country and all across the world. You're not different. You're not alone in this. And so for that, I wish it had a bigger life because I think it could have done a lot of good.

[9:00] David Armstrong: It's very interesting because I had somewhat the same reaction. I really loved the show when I saw it. And I think I saw it early in the run. But then I would talk to people who saw it later and they would just be very unenthusiastic about it. And I was sort of like, well, I really liked it. I mean, it worked for me. I agree.

[9:17] Robert W. Schneider: I'll never forget this. I remember I went in to see it for the first five minutes I had on, like, you know, my director hat or my dramaturgical hat. I'm like, that makes no sense. And what is this? And why is that? And then minute six, I lost it. And I just sat back and I smiled and I loved every second of it. What I think is interesting is the balance that you pointed out. And as you talk about in the book, the balance between the two stories was probably not successfully navigated, because I think that's why people had such diverse reactions to it. It's sort of which track did you buy into? And I agree with you, the young people's track was less interesting, which of course, then the creators are probably then leaning on the other track, which is inherently interesting and funny. But the story, the heart of the story is really in the other is with the two girls.

[10:03] David Armstrong: Yeah. And what's funny is, is that in the two girls, the girlfriend, Alyssa, she has the best song. She's the more interesting of the two. Emma is the girl's name. I wish that they would have focused it a little bit more. I think it just would have been more powerful.

[10:19] Robert W. Schneider: And one of the main reasons I wanted to include it in the book was, think to La Cage, where they were like, oh, no, no, no, we can't. The public has to know that these lead actors are straight. To the backlash of The Prom, where it was, how dare you cast a straight actor in a gay role? There are so many gay actors who could have played this role. And to me, in that, like, 40-year jump, is fantastic and fascinating. Unlike a lot of my students, I'm a believer in whoever's best for the role plays the role, regardless of sexuality. That's just me.

[10:48] David Armstrong: It's not just you, Rob.

[10:49] Robert W. Schneider: OK, great. Thank you. Thank you. I always say the same thing. I'm like, do you just not want the story told? Like, what's more important that the story is being told or the story is being told with the people that are accurately represented? Sure, that would be great. I'd rather the story told.

[11:05] David Armstrong: And what's so fascinating, you're talking about when they made the film version of it, and James Corden played the role. I'll call it the Nathan Lane role, because I.

[11:15] Robert W. Schneider: It is the Nathan Lane role.

[11:17] David Armstrong: No one will ever say this out loud, but those two characters are clearly based on Nathan Lane and Patti LuPone.

[11:24] Robert W. Schneider: Oh, of course.

[13:10] Robert W. Schneider: I'll tell you a very funny story. The couple of days after The Prom movie was released, I was interviewing Nathan Lane and I said, how are you doing today? He's like, I'm doing great. He's like, I got the best reviews of my life for a movie I wasn't in. Because everyone's like, that should be Nathan. And I'm going to be honest with you. I actually liked James Corden's performance. I was like, I don't know what the problem is.

[13:32] David Armstrong: I'm with you.

[13:32] Robert W. Schneider: And I was sort of flabbergasted by everyone's critique of it because he gave the same exact performance in every movie he's ever been in. So how could you say he was a gay stereotype? It's like, well, then he was a gay stereotype in Into the Woods as well. That's who he is. That's who he is every night on television. Yeah, I mean, would Nathan Lane have been great? Yes, because age wise, it would have made more sense and all that stuff. But who cares? James Corden was fabulous. I liked him. But that, to me, was just that backlash. It used to be, oh, God, we can never have a gay guy play a gay guy. We've got to have straight guys do it. Two, oh, my God, how dare you not put a gay guy? I don't know. And that's a 40-year jump. I think that's kind of cool.

[14:09] David Armstrong: Yeah, that is very interesting. I don't agree with it. But I think it's kind of cool that that discussion is happening.

[14:13] Robert W. Schneider: Well, and those same issues will figure in in a similar way into the last show you cover in your book, which is Jagged Little Pill.

[14:26] David Armstrong: Don't go away. Rob and I will be back with more Broadway Nation right after this quick break.

[15:00] David Armstrong: Hi, this is David Armstrong. And if you're enjoying this episode, I strongly suspect that you will want to read my new book, Broadway Nation, How Immigrant Jewish, Queer and Black Artist Invented the Broadway Musical. On sale now wherever books are sold. And I'm very happy to report that the early reviews have been terrific. The esteemed author Jeffrey Block says that Broadway Nation is a fascinating, comprehensive and timely gem of a book that more than lives up to its promise of delivering no less than five books in one. Kudos to David Armstrong. And Tony Award-winning lyricist David Zippel says that David Armstrong's insightful history of the evolution of the Broadway musical and its creators is captivating and comprehensive as well as indispensable.

The book is, of course, available on Amazon. But I recommend that you go to the publisher's website, Bloomsbury.com, where you will currently receive a 10% discount. Again, like the podcast that inspired it, the book is titled Broadway Nation, How Immigrant Jewish, Queer and Black Artist Invented the Broadway Musical. Now back to the show.

[16:08] Robert W. Schneider: Those same issues will figure in in a similar way into the last show you cover in your book, which is Jagged Little Pill. Again, a show which, as we talked about earlier, I loved. I thought should have won the Tony Award in that year and was incredibly successful in a genre that I generally don't like and think is very hard to do.

[16:32] David Armstrong: What I will say about that is Jagged Little Pill did probably the most difficult thing you can do, which is make a successful story using in a jukebox format, one that was really engaging and really multiple stories.

[16:47] Robert W. Schneider: Oh, every hot button issue was covered in that show. I remember seeing it in Boston when it was out of town, and I loved it. I loved it. I was like you, which was like, I think I knew two songs of hers going in. And I went with somebody who was much younger than me. And he had no he knew who Alanis Morissette was. And at the end, he couldn't believe it was a jukebox musical. He thought all the songs were written for it specifically. So I was like, this is a great testament to the power of Diablo Cody's book, which was so good. But to me on the backstage end of things, it's like a handbook on what not to do. You know, this show, this show opened a can of worms and that can is still open today. We're seeing it actually right now, I think, with the maybe happy ending casting controversy, you know?

[17:37] David Armstrong: Yeah, I think those producers, it was their first time navigating cancellation, and it was very heightened because of COVID. I think they always went down the wrong. They had two choices. And unfortunately, I think they always went down the wrong the wrong path. And now other shows, when they get into similar sticky situations, are able to look at what they did on Jagged Little Pill and go the opposite way. But I mean, this show brought up so many discussions about the industry, how it works. For our lovely listeners who were not aware, there's a character in the show in Boston. There were a couple of lines about her being non-binary. And when they took the show from Boston to New York, they were like, we're covering too many things.

We're going to get rid of things that really aren't essential to the plot. And one of the things they got rid of was the character was non-binary. So those three lines she had cut away wasn't an issue. The non-binary community went crazy. They were like, how dare you? You know, and what the producers, I think, should have said was, we think this is a really important issue that deserves its own story. And we don't have the time to tell it appropriately and effectively in this particular version. I don't think everyone would have been happy, but at least it made sense. What they said instead was, well, she was never non-binary. And in this day and age, as the kids say, did you keep the receipts?

So then they started printing all of the screenshots of conversations about how she's a non-binary character. And so then they were backed into a corner. Then it opened up another amazing conversation, which was, well, why don't we just keep the character non-binary and then get rid of the actor because she is binary? Then it's like, well, now we're stuck with two problems. Either one, she can sue for wrongful termination. I think people forget there's a business here. And she stopped being the show every night.

[19:31] ♪ Musical number: "You Oughta Know" — performed by Alanis Morissette ♪

[20:39] Rob Schneider: Listen, she did "You Oughta Know," and as soon as it was over, in the middle of the second act, she had a thunderous standing ovation. They were literally engraving her name on the Tony Award, which she indeed did win. And she won it. And she won it. In spite of all this controversy. So the idea that you're going to replace that actor when they're stopping the show and going to win the Tony Award. The one thing everybody knew about that show was, hey, Lauren Padden is going to win the Tony Award for this. That's the one thing everybody knew. So now you're telling us we have to get rid of her? And on top of that, I'm sure the authors and the producers are saying, well, we wrote the show in the first place, so now you're telling us that we can't write this character the way we want to write it?

That's the next big argument that comes out of it. At what point does it stop being the writers? She's not a real person. This is a character they created. You're talking about erasure. Who are you erasing? A fictional character that we wrote and we want to change it to a man or change it to a pumpkin. We get to do whatever we want to do. Or cut it all together. It's there. So now that brings up that discussion, which is, at what point does an author not own their material anymore? And then on top of all of this, which made me really annoyed, was the virtue signaling, because there were people. So "Jagged Little Pill" opened, had this controversy. It closed down when COVID was happening. We didn't get back to Broadway for like a year or something.

Was that right? There was no Broadway for a year. And when it came back, there were people in "Jagged Little Pill" who said, we are because our non-binary brothers and sisters are being maliciously maligned. We are not going to rejoin this production. They weren't rejoining the production because during the pandemic, one of them booked a television series. They weren't coming back anyway. And the other one was having a musical written for them. They weren't coming. So they used that as an excuse. And I'm like, what the what is this? So to me, "Jagged Little Pill," in terms of its story, isn't really that forward for queer. It's just not. It's everything around it. It's everything around it that has now created this huge conversation.

What stories can you tell? When can you tell them? Who can tell them? Who gets to be in them? Who gets to be in them? And that to me, I think is going to I think that's a conversation that it's going to be ongoing for us quite some time. And like I said, you know, you're seeing it on maybe "Happy Ending," where the producers bent over backwards to tell everybody our whole show is a our two leads are Asians, Asian-American, like that's the big thing. They're AAPI. That's it. That's it. And then new casting comes around and they put in someone who's not AAPI. And then suddenly, now what do we do? Yeah. The only thing I would question there would have another discussion about that show, which, of course, is a fantastic show.

Oh, yes. Is that Darren Criss does not. Unless you're told that he's Asian, you don't know he's Asian. But that was that was the thing. It was like, look what we've done. OK, great. Then if you're really proud of that, you have to stick with that. But then you can't go, well, now we're going to place a non-Asian actor in the role and not understand why people are angry at you. You know, you've made this whole big mcgilla out of it. And so I think that's something producers are going to be dealing with for quite some time, which is if you want to talk that talk, then you're going to have to walk that walk all the way through. But then on the flip side, the writers have casting approval. Are you telling the writers, I believe one of them is Asian, like you.

They don't get to have a say in the casting anymore. Helen Shen, Helen, who plays opposite him. That's his that's her boyfriend. That's her boyfriend. Exactly. I'm sure that was a big factor in why he was taking over, because, well, he's around all the time and everybody loves him and he's a great. He doesn't seem bothered. Yeah. And he's going to get to play opposite Helen, which would be then its own sort of story. The two, they're not husband and wife, but the partners are playing opposite each other on Broadway, which is usually a story people want to participate in. Oh, you could market the heck out of that. And the reason I want to include "Jagged Little Pill" was because it instigated all of these discussions.

Right. Who can tell the story, who can change the story, whose story is it? And it happened to be through a queer or non-binary character. And I think that's kind of interesting. Yeah, very interesting. And so looking back now, and I assume you finished this book more than a year ago. Yeah, last summer. Yeah. So as you've now are out talking about it and remembering what you wrote and looking at what you wrote, any reactions to that, any thoughts about it? Not necessarily things you would do differently, but is the conversation about it what you thought it would be? So far, I'm really happy with it because I'm getting a lot of emails and messages from people going, oh, I never thought of it that way before or I didn't realize, blah, blah, blah.

Or, oh, I didn't know what "Boy Meets Boy" was. Now I'm writing a whole paper on it or, you know, I'm trying to get a production of "Bear" going now. And that's what I want the book to do. I want people to appreciate the shoulders that we're standing on, much like I'm assuming, you know, same with your book. You know, you want you want people to appreciate, you know, we're not the first and we won't be the last. But there's a there's a rich history behind us that should be celebrated. And so far, so good on that end. I love notes. So if somebody reads the book and is like, I hated it. Amazing. Tell me why you hated it. And when I do the second edition, I'll try to fix it. Exactly. And how about you with your book?

Same thing. Same thing. I love hearing from people about it. My book is a lot longer than your book. So I think I hear from a lot of people. I'm still in the middle of it. Good, good. Which is good. But yes, I there's nothing. I assume most authors feel this way. There is great satisfaction from hearing people respond to the book, both positive and negative. Yes. Yes. And, you know, we do theater and you get the instant reaction. But like, you know, when did you finish your book a year ago, two years ago? About a year and a half ago now. Yeah. So, you know, this is something from a year and a half ago that you wrote in like in solitary confinement. You know what I mean? Like you're by yourself.

You don't know what they're going to like. You don't know what they're not going to enjoy. And then it just goes out there. And so to hear some sort of validation and I guess a positive or negative, that's great. Like I that makes me so happy because I mean, somebody is actually looking at the thing. Right. And read it thoroughly. I love the couple of reviews that I've gotten to come out. I've been very gratified when it's clear that they have invested the time in reading the book and reading it with carefully a careful reading of it to be on a show like this. And I've been on a couple of other programs where, you know, the questions are so deeply researched. You're like, oh, my God, somebody actually read this thing.

You know, you're like, oh, shoot. I hope I hope they liked it. I hope I didn't bore them. Well, I pride myself on actually reading all the books of the authors that I have on. Somebody told me the other day that Terry Gross only reads the first third of every book. And, you know, I understand the time constraints behind that, but I just wouldn't do that. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about it. And in fact, I want to read the book and I'm somewhat selective about what authors I choose to interview because I want to make sure I want to read the book they wrote. Well, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you taking time to read my book and to have me on and to talk about it. It's I mean, it's just been absolutely fantastic. And like I said, your book is really marvelous. And I'm so happy that we're coming out with these two things side by side. And I could not be in greater company. Like I said before, I'm so honored.

[28:27] David Armstrong: I feel exactly the same way. Rob Schneider, thank you so much for being on Broadway Nation today to talk about queer musicals.

[28:35] Rob Schneider: Thank you, David. My pleasure.

[29:28] David Armstrong: If you would like to delve even deeper into the world of Broadway musicals, I invite you to become a patron of Broadway Nation. For as little as seven dollars a month, you can receive access to a whole world of exclusive features, including new original episodes not available anywhere else, including a five-part series on the Broadway musicals that received the Pulitzer Prize for drama. And all patrons will receive on-air shout outs and acknowledgments in recognition of your vital support. To join, simply go to broadwaynationpodcast.supercast.tech. That's all one word, broadwaynationpodcast, s-u-p-e-r-c-a-s-t dot tech, or simply click the link in the show notes to this episode. Broadway Nation is written and produced by me, David Armstrong. Special thanks to Powell Smocks for his help with editing this episode, and to the entire team at the Broadway Podcast Network.