Tales of the City, as always late to the party

Does no one know what happened in move from PBS to Showtime?

The new Mouse is fucking awful and Mona lifeless, but I like the old lady at the whorehouse.

There was a several year delay in filming "More Tales" and a move to Showtime (when PBS buckled to protests about the gay content.) I imagine that delay made it even harder to get all the cast to return. But the story goes that Chloe Webb demanded too much money to come back as Mona. She's also reportedly hard to work with so maybe they didn't fight too much to get her back.

Depending on what you believe, Marcus D'Amico ("Mouse") either turned down Armistead Maupin's advances and was recast, or refused to come out of the closet publicly and Armistead didn't want a closeted man in the part. (Does that mean Paul Hopkins is openly gay?) As much as I loved Chloe as Mona, to me losing D'Amico as Mouse was the greater loss. He was so adorable in the original series and Hopkins was just nothing like him in the sequels.

You are correct R2. The later mouse was lifeless in every way.

Whip Hubley was a nice addition.

I had no idea it was years between the filming. Laura Linney looked exactly the same.

I do love the Mother Mucka actress as the grandma.

I only saw the one from PBS. Where do you get the others? And at what point (book) did the change happen?

I don't know what you mean by at what point book?

I got the whole thing via torrents.

I thought Paul Hopkins looked the part of Mouse much more than Marcus d'Amico did (and Hopkins is also more handsome), but D'Amico was much better in the part.

D'Amico is pretty unstable, from everything I've heard.

I found a fairly recent pic of Marcus. I guess he lives in Worchester now.

The PBS "Tales" was from 1993 and "More Tales" didn't come along until 1998. I think everyone involved wanted to continue the series on PBS but there were a lot of complaints about the gay content being publicly funded. It seems like it went back and forth for awhile and finally PBS said they just couldn't afford to do it - financially and politically.

Aside from the recasts, I never thought the Showtime versions managed to capture the look and feel of 70s San Francisco the way the original did. Watching the first series, it almost felt like it had actually been made in the 70s. The Barbary Lane house in the sequels was obviously a set (it was in the original too, but it didn't look so much like one) and the costuming, hair and makeup just didn't seem as authentic.

Why would you say he looked the part?

Are you basing it on descriptions in the book?

I thought he looked (and acted) like a walking stereotype.

I had no idea it was filmed in the 90's. It looked very 80's to me.

[quote]Why would you say he looked the part? Are you basing it on descriptions in the book?

Yes.

[quote]I thought he looked (and acted) like a walking stereotype.

I can't speak for his acting, which I was not complimenting (read my post again); but there was a set look for gay men in San Francisco in the late 70s that many gay men tried to adapt for themselves: the so-called clone look.

Marcus and Chloe are both NUTS.

Look where Laura Linney's career is, look at theirs.

Mystery solved.

[quote]I don't know what you mean by at what point book?

These miniseries are based on a series of novels.

The posted to whom you're replying is asking what point in the book series corresponds to the point in the miniseries at which the actors were recast.

[Wouldn't it have been the transition from the novel Tales Of The City to the novel More Tales Of The City?]

I was shocked when I listened to the commentary by Maupin and others on the first TALES OF THE CITY to discover that they give away Mrs. Madrigal's secret on the commentary for the very first episode. I had already figured it out by that point since I had watched all six episodes, but I was taken aback with how flagrantly they were talking about it since it isn't made totally clear to the audience what she is all about until the sequel.

Too bad the 2nd Mouse just isn't very good. Does anyone else feel like Colin Ferguson (Burke) would have made a better Mouse than Hopkins? I do. I haven't watched FURTHER TALES yet, but I have the DVDs so perhaps I will give it a try this weekend.

I am so sorry that Marcus wouldn't put out for Maupin. If he had e could have had him as mouse in the later years. He was the best. Too bad Marcus wasn't a chubby chaser.

Laura Linney should be thankful she was not a boy, imagine what Maupin could have done with her! They are close friends still, I understand. I hear Maupin drives her crazy with proposals for new projects she doesns't want to do.

The second Mouse was much more a clone than Marcus was. Marcus was more of a pretty boy. A stashe would have helped.

Funny that Marcus is starting to look like Maupin judging by r7's link. All he needs is the mustache.

The bland recasting of "Mouse" and "Mona," along with the cheap production values that none of the flavor or vitality of the original, killed "More Tales" and "Further Tales" for me.

The cruise ship is reminding me of The Love Boat.

I will watch because the musical lacked so much of the story that I want to know. There are scenes that are really hard.

This one could use a re-make with a GREAT cast. Though who could replace Olympia Dukakis I don't know.

Marcus D'Amico was simply awful in As Time Goes By!

Are we talking the tv show?

I never saw him in it.

I finally saw Part 3. The one with all the dick shots including the beautiful Billy Campbell.

What happened to Mona?

Was she in the book Further Tales.

She was never mentioned, not even once in the final movie. It was a good romp with Jim Jones etc. I still hated the uber gay Michael but over all it worked.

But Mona...the daughter of Mrs. Madrigal...where was she?

No one missed me?

Paul,

Who did you play?

Laura (that "Miss Laura Linney" to you people) and I are very, very, very close.

Why, she often answers the phone when I call. Particularly when I borrow a phone.

What's the deal with the next book, BABYCAKES? Worth reading? I've heard that if they do another film they are going to skip over the next two novels after FURTHER TALES and do MICHAEL TOLLIVER LIVES. I hope it happens soon.

As long as they re-cast Michael. The guy in the sequels was horrible. He played gay, but beyond that no character at all.

Paul Gross played Brian.

I actually liked the second Brian better, though I did wonder why the original did not come back.

Anyone read the book and know what happened to Mona?

r34%0D %0D Brian!!

My husband and I lived in SF during that time. I agree that the first series really captured the atmosphere and feel of SF at the time. Watching it was transporting. It was strange watching the events of your life on TV. We lived near that part of town. We attended a couple of the End Up dance contests. It was a great era in SF.

Frankly, the books become less potent (and yet more anoyingly outrageous) with each succeeding volume so it didn't surprise me that the miniseries would naturally suffer the same issues. And Mona kind of disappears until the Mother Mucca story line.%0D %0D Paul Gross was simply gross as Brian. Not remotely sexy and hunky enough, not even heterosexual enough in spite of Gross' actual sexuality. He must have been cast partially for being Canadian, as the series was filmed in Toronto. Thomas Jane would have been perfect!%0D %0D The musical is awful. Too relentlessly "it's the 1970s and everything is grotesque!" for these effortlessly written little stories. Judy Kaye is lovely and gracious but has none of the earthiness and mystery required of Mrs. Madrigal. I kept wondering what Maupin made of it all.%0D %0D Surprisingly, younger people even in San Francisco are fairly unaware of the books at this point. When I spoke of going to see the musical I got lots of blank stares.%0D %0D %0D %0D

I believe the first Tales was filmed in San Francisco and LA. The second one was filmed in Montreal and the third was done in Vancouver. Toronto didn't enter the picture at all R32.

That photo of Marcus is over 2 years old. Did he just give up acting?

So...those of you who read Further Tales was Mona in the book?

Was she mentioned?

What happened to her?

Showtime had no interest in doing the rest of the Tales series from "Babycakes" on -- the brought in Beane, Rudnick, Kushner, Black -- and all said the same thing, completely undramatic and uninteresting.

I mean a fox running around London?

Really?

No, most of the first Tales was filmed in Toronto.

R37...You are thinking of Queer as Folk.

I was so dissapointed in the "Tales of the City" musical. It sucked so badly I would have slapped it if it had been a date. The books are so much better. Please don't waste your time on the stage production. It made me sad.

R36, the fox part was odd but fun

Thinking of Paul Gross got me thinking about the bit where he shags the older waitress after having shagged her daughter. Why do the mother and daughter share a wig?

R36, urban foxes are quite common in London.

Mona wasn't in "Further Tales" much if at all (it's been awhile since I read the series.) She has a bigger part in "Babycakes" when Michael meets up with her in London, where she's now living as a lesbian and seems like a different character.

You should read the rest of the series, but be aware that the books get progressively darker and more serious. Most disappointing is Mrs. Madrigal all but disappears from the story. (Though she and Michael share a wonderful moment in "Babycakes" that will probably have you in tears.) It's not unusual for people to come and go in life but she was so much the heart of those first two books you really miss her in the later novels. (I haven't read either "Michael Tolliver Lives" or "Maryann in Autumn" so I don't know if Mrs. Madrigal has a larger part in those.)

The fox never made the films.

R35 - Mona marries an Englishman and dies of cancer (it is mentioned in either "Michael Tolliver Lives" or "Mary Ann In Autumn")

Babycakes rocks -- in an early chapter, we see a mopey Mona languishing in Seattle. After the joy of finding her mother and grandmother in "Further Tales," she turned Mopey Mona when she decided to leave San Francisco because the 70s had ended and so had her "half-assed" foray back into heterosexuality with Brian. Seattle, she thought, would keep up the macrame traditions that SF was quickly losing to Reaganomics and its local practitioners, but even the slower moving air of Seattle was not enough to bring Mona out of her Mopeyness. She found herself in a dumpy apartment unable to pay her bills on her wage as a copy center worker, so a friendly co-worker (with nice teeth) put her in touch with a broker of sorts, and Mona was on her way to London.

She had to dye her hair and dress in a un-Mona-like way, but she wasn't a different character. She didn't lose touch with her father/mother/Mrs Madrigal out of picque, but shame. She had been a high paid copywriter up until the mid-70s and never could get her feet back under her after she lost that job. That's what led her to the desert in book two (More Tales) and to Seattle in "Babycakes." And she finally found out what she wanted when she went to the UK.

The BF and I saw it last weekend....meh. Good tunes but really cheap production. One funny thing is that Armistead Maupin was in the Lobby following the show signing programs and shaking hands and this was at a Saturday matinee weeks after the premiere. We had a good laugh about his apparent attention-whore-deficit...poor little one-trick-pony.

I think Matt Bomer would make a great Mouse if they ever film "Michael Tolliver Lives."

I don't know what a Matt Boner is but anyone would be better than the uber in the last series.

Thanks for the details, r46. Like I said it's been awhile since I read the series and I'd forgotten quite a bit. %0D %0D Since she was absent for "Further Tales" and became 'Mopey Mona' as you call her in "Babycakes" - that's why she almost seemed like a different character to me. But like I said, Maupin was taking all the characters in a darker direction - probably to reflect the darkness of the 80s/Reagan era - so I guess 'Mopey Mona' is probably a logical progression.

I was in college when it aired on PBS. The bathhouse scene was shocking on many levels. I found the books in my local library and it helped begin my coming out process.%0D %0D I loved Marcus as Mouse - agree that he didn't resemble the descriptions in the book - but he was good. I didn't like the replacement.%0D %0D Babycakes is one of my favorites in the series.

to the op who saw the show, is this a good assessment of it? (found in another thread) There are eight words to describe the multitude of problems of TALES OF THE CITY: THE MUSICAL. And those words are: Jeff Whitty, Scissor Sisters, Jason Moore, Armistead Maupin.

Spoilers abound so read at your own peril.

I will confess I am a TALES junkie- going all the way back to having read the original columns (which I still have Xeroxes of) when I lived on Telegraph Hill as they originally appeared. I was very nervous about the first TALES mini-series- I worried it would never do justice to Armistead%E2%80%99s enduring time capsule with the timeless thread of the search for belonging and finding home that goes back at least to THE WIZARD OF OZ r. The mini-series was perfection- dead on casting, attention to detail and honest performances that did not rely on surface jokes doing the work. I was excited about the musical and left feeling I had run into an old love who had undergone horrible and unnecessary plastic surgery. If I squinted hard enough I could see the traces of a former love but it wasn%E2%80%99t the same and it wasn%E2%80%99t right and I was vaguely embarrassed at what had become of it.

Mr. Whitty had his work cut out for him- reducing so many threads into a coherent whole. Somewhere along the way he decided to %E2%80%9Cimprove%E2%80%9D the story and dialogue with additions that stick out like a pair of Payless shoes with vintage couture. Some story lines have been dropped and others inserted from the second book. Any time there is a chance to go for something emotional to involve the audience with the characters, he runs the other way and opts for cheap and obvious sitcomy laughs.

Characters do things without motivation- perhaps this is the result of much cutting and pasting and stitching as they tried to create a musical. All conflict between Mouse and Dr. Jon seems it could be cribbed from a Finn and Rachel scene in GLEE. Brian%E2%80%99s sexual exploits are missing. Mother Mucca is brought in- presumably to tie up the family reunion toward the end of the show- but the scene where Anna and Mrs. Madrigal are reunited has zero impact and is laughably tied together with all the depth of the denouement of a COSBY SHOW episode with a hug. Really? Mother Mucca sees her son for the first time in years- as a woman! - and 5 lines of dialogue is all it takes to make it work and all to be resolved happily ever after.

There are a smattering of lines from the characters as a prologue- I would say someone was cribbing from KENNEDY%E2%80%99S CHILDREN but that would imply the collaborators knew theatre.

The decision was made to move up Michael%E2%80%99s coming out letter to his mother brought on by Anita Bryant. This happened historically in 1977- yet it has been moved up to the fall of 1976. Dr. Jon has been made an African American- presumably to add some %E2%80%9Ccolor%E2%80%9D to the proceedings with the deletion of the whole D%E2%80%99Orothea storyline- which frankly had a better pay off for Mona%E2%80%A6not to mention its loss led to the deletion of one my favorite lines from the book %E2%80%9CShe%E2%80%99s in Oakland. With her parents. Having a white Christmas.%E2%80%9D Jon being black is not addressed- and really- would the A- Gays not only have a black friend (when much was made in the book of them having a black butler and the fact one of them prowled the streets looking for black tricks) but also have as one of their fraternity an Asian? In the book a comment is made that one of the A Gays is a %E2%80%9Crice queen%E2%80%9D- good for sex but nothing else. Jeff Whitty may have read the books but did he understand them?

Having Mary Ann end up with Brian at the end is as trite as everyone pairing up at the end of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta. And toward the end of the final %E2%80%9CKum Bah Ya%E2%80%9D number- a line is hastily thrown in to let the audience know Edgar has died- shoddy storytelling and a way to bring down an audience all in one badly constructed piece of %E2%80%9Cwriting%E2%80%9D.

Connie is shown as a Scientologist at the top of Act Two and then appears later as Brian%E2%80%99s date for Christmas- really? And does it show growth for Brian to be hitting on Mary Ann while Connie

One of the problems with the show is that there is no throughline- and it should be Mary Ann%E2%80%99s story. The columns/novels/mini-series all began with Mary Ann%E2%80%99s arrival- she is the Dorothy arriving in the California Oz and all the characters are met initially through her eyes and through her interactions with them. That is not the case here- after establishing her as the protagonist, she fades into the background and her interactions with the majority of the characters is never established. More shoddy storytelling from Mr. Whitty.

Now- about that score. The music is not bad in places. The lyrics are horribly bad throughout- who knew a show could make Frank Wildhorn%E2%80%99s shows appear to have lyrics by Shakespeare? Mary Ann has a big eleven o%E2%80%99clock number called %E2%80%9CPaper Faces%E2%80%9D- she sings that phrase over a dozen times with no variations on the delivery. Betsy Wolfe has a spectacular voice and the crowd reacts appreciatively- it%E2%80%99s just a shame the lyrics show no growth and give her nothing to play. Similarly, the wonderful Mary Birdsong has a big song for Mona called %E2%80%9CSeeds and Stems%E2%80%9D- the music sounds right but after 4 lines the audience knows all it%E2%80%99s going to glean as the song goes on and on. Mrs. Madrigal throws a huge party for Mary Ann and she and her dozens of guests sing a song called %E2%80%9CAtlantis%E2%80%9D- imagine if John Denver had been asked to write a song for HAIR 2 and told it should serve the same function as %E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s Today%E2%80%9D from MAME. There is a horrid number called %E2%80%9CMary Ann%E2%80%9D toward the end of the first act -it would seem the Scissor Sisters decided the show needed a Jerry Herman-esque title song. It is dramatically inept and jarringly out of style with the era and the characters singing it. DeDe%E2%80%99s %E2%80%9CPlus One%E2%80%9D has a great joke as a button- but sadly, it makes DeDe one dimensional and a joke as well.

Michael%E2%80%99s %E2%80%9CDear Mama%E2%80%9D song is horrific. Instead of reworking Maupin%E2%80%99s exquisite and iconic coming out letter into a lyric that rhymes, it has been shoved into a %E2%80%9Cmelody%E2%80%9D that meanders as words awkwardly lie on top of the music in a jarringly bad setting. Yes, audience members sniffle because of the power of the original words but the music does not add anything and what could/should be a transcendent moment is missed. Again, the power of Maupin%E2%80%99s storytelling is thwarted by the ineptitude of his creative team.

Two songs stop the show- one sung by the A Gays and one sung by Mother Mucca and her girls. They are funny but do not advance the story or let us know anything about the characters we should know- yes, they get laughs. But so do fart jokes or pratfalls. The 9-10 minutes spent on these songs could be better used to help us connect to the core characters. Brian, anyone? More on that later. The A Gays are basically a gay minstrel show and if a straight production team had written it, people would be up in arms. It is offensive and trading in on every stereotype about gay men that make fly over states wary of either coast, it is a crowd pleaser but leaves an unpleasant after taste. Ha ha ha- those silly queens are planning for a retirement- when ha ha ha- the joke%E2%80%99s on them since the AIDS crisis will wipe them all out. Ha ha ha the creators seem to be saying. It%E2%80%99s a horrid misstep- like having Hoke do a Step and Fetchit routing from a minstrel show in DRIVING MISS DAISY. Had it appeared in THE PRODUCERS, it might work because no one is safe from mockery in that universe but here, in Maupin%E2%80%99s world it is jarringly out of place. The piece is %E2%80%9Ctone%E2%80%9D dead in so many ways.

Ms. Wolfe is a fantastic vocalist- with luck and given good material in future shows, she could be her generation%E2%80%99s Patti LuPone or Liz Callaway or Idina Menzel. But would Mary Ann, the sheltered little bourgeois Future Homemaker of America, really sound like a Motown diva when she first arrives in San Francisco? She is belting in the stratosphere and riffing like an American Idol contestant before she has %E2%80%9Cfound her voice%E2%80%9D? Where is the development? The growth? The character arc? Shouldn't she sound like Karen Carpenter or Helen Reddy at that point? And that lead

The direction (or lack thereof) that is this show%E2%80%99s biggest problem. Mr. Moore had the good fortune to be attached to AVENUE Q- one of the most surefire ideas ever for a musical. Anyone could have directed it and it would have been a hit. Subsequently, he managed on Broadway to kill a fool-proof property like STEEL MAGNOLIAS and was so inept in his work on SHREK: THE MUSICAL that he was replaced. He was replaced on THE BOOK OF MORMON, which is probably the best thing that ever happened to that show- check out the many thanks given to Casey Nickolaw at the Tonys- they were smart to jettison Mr. Moore (and if Broadway rumors are to be believed he was responsible for the demise of the original run of LES MIS because of his myriad of poor casting choices while working as resident director there).

Stylistically, this show is a mess. TOTC resembles an episode of THE LOVE BOAT, another 70s staple (and NOT in a good way). The acting styles are wildly inconsistent- from the genuine %E2%80%9Cgee shucks%E2%80%9D Acting 101 manner of Betsy Wolfe to the cartoony portrayal of DeDe and others to Judy Kaye%E2%80%99s stentorian Greer Garson-ish Mrs. Madrigal to Wesley Taylor%E2%80%99s low key (and mopey and defeated Mouse- where is the innocent optimism Marcus D%E2%80%99Amico brought to the first mini-series?) to the WHAT'S HAPPENING portrayal of Jon Fielding. Only Mary Birdsong as Mona and Richard Poe as Edgar Halcyon truly inhabit their characters. Diane J. Findlay gives a lesson in show biz know how as Mother Mucca- but she is all surface and not given the chance to show the softer side of this crusty old Madam. Frannie Halcyon is played for laughs- which takes away the emotional crisis that leads Edgar to take a chance on life. Dancing bellhops as Mary Ann and Beauchamp check into a motel in Mendocino? Seriously? Moore shows no faith in the material and proves he was a one trick pony, lucky enough to be attached to a project he couldn%E2%80%99t destroy and a %E2%80%9Cdirector%E2%80%9D who will continue to ruin show after show till people wise up to the fact: The emperor has no shows.

And that leads to the last name on the list, which is the most heartbreaking: Armistead Maupin himself. Maupin%E2%80%99s works are magical- he%E2%80%99s not the greatest writer (and the less said about the ghastly MARY ANN IN AUTUMN the better.) He truly broke ground- at least in the United States- in presenting gays, lesbians, transsexuals and everyone else as people- flawed and ordinary people whose worth was not determined by their sexuality or gender.

He can be rather disingenuous at times. He loves to be quoted saying Hollywood had courted him about making the original TALES columns into a movie and that a %E2%80%9CHollywood Exec%E2%80%9D suggested making the gay gynecologist (Dr. Jon Fielding) a serial killer. What he left out of that story is that the original newspaper editions of TALES had a serial killer- %E2%80%9CThe Tinker Bell.%E2%80%9D He was trying to paint homophobia where it did not exist.

Tellingly, he recently posted on Facebook that his %E2%80%9Cdream of an out Mouse had come true". The entire production team- Whitty, Moore, The Scissor Sisters- are all gay men. Handsome youngish gay men from the circuit scene. It would be fair to say that they were all so enthusiastically embraced by Maupin and each other for that reason alone- they%E2%80%99re gay.

Before people start shrieking that THIS observation is homophobic (at least I did not suggest one of them is a serial killer), read on. The beauty of the original presentation of TALES in the paper and in novel form and on television was that they all included everyone- everyone was welcome to the table if they were not evil. This musical barely touches on heterosexuality (Brian barely registers), bisexuality (Mona is just a drug addled hippie, Beauchamp barely registers and he's bisexual anyway), and the loving relationship so movingly portrayed by Dukakis and Moffet in the mini-series is a blink and you%E2%80%99ll miss it subplot. Norman Neal Williams is shoe horned in quickly and his dirty little secret is laughably revealed. Maupin captured love in all sexualities- the creators of the musical do no. They are the equ

They are the equivalent of the musical's A Gays- seemingly in their world all that matters is a shiny and attractive surface, bitchy quippery and the ability to mock anyone not of their "station"- and that is why this musical is a resounding failure from an artistic standpoint.

Each subsequent mini-series became less effective and the musical is following in their downward trajectory. The original drew such crazy reactions for depicting people of every sexuality as nothing out of the ordinary that it seemed Armistead and crew decided to keep pushing the envelope to be more and more outrageous- to the detriment of the pieces. Armistead seems to be stuck in a world where being gay was exotic- today gay people can be as totally boring and pedestrian as their hetero neighbors (or people in Marin..or Paoli%E2%80%99s). That is not to say the world is warm and welcoming- while New York gave gay rights a major step forward, red and rural states like Tennessee are moving backward and Michelle Bachmann makes Anita Bryant look like a fag hag. The thing about TALES (in novel and televised form) was that it showed an inclusive world where love and families of any configuration based on love and respect were what should be the norm.

The show has been wildly successful in San Francisco because it celebrates (in theory) the city. I know the producers and %E2%80%9Ccreatives%E2%80%9D and cast will have a rude awakening when they go elsewhere with it. They think they have a hit but the SF audiences support is no different than one of the parents on Toddlers and Tiaras telling their baby Jon Benets that they are the PRETTIEST in the WORLD and going to be A STAR! There is no way for San Franciscans to be objective of the magic city in which we live. I had hoped this show would be like Rice-A-Roni, a San Francisco treat. Instead, it%E2%80%99s not unlike the Obama presidency- a disappointment on every level despite hopes for something wonderful. I'm proud to claim San Francisco as "Nobody's City But My Own"; however, the musical? Not even close.

Christ, who wrote that mess of a review? I hope it was a blogger and not a professional critic.

Laura Linney is a dear, dear friend of mine.

She says hello to me at events.

She is such a sweetheart.

I'm very dear to her.

OP here and yes that review is accurate and still does not capture how bad the show is.

The 'story' is not told in the musical. The writers instead rely on the memory of the tv series to fill in ALL the blanks.

For instance Madrigal sings a big song about Atlantis to great applause, but without the speech telling us why she considers SF to be like Atlantis the song is fucking meaningless.

Still the San Franciscans applauded wildly.

I think it was like a Liza Minnelli concert. Few locals saw the mess onstage, instead they saw the memory of what they loved and they embraced the memory, unable to see the corpse.

And the wigs!!!! Oh, my eyes....

The Caftans!!!! Oh, my eyes!!!!

[quote] (Does that mean Paul Hopkins is openly gay?

No, it doesn't. I read an on set interview with him and Billy Campbell back when they were filming More Tales of the City. Paul's conversation was frat boy locker room stuff about women. The interviewer was hanging around with them for a while on set to get material for the article and Paul's discussion gambits were stuff like telling Campbell about the bullet-like nipples on a girl he recently banged and asking whether Billy had ever banged a chick with tits like that.

One thing for sure Paul Hopkins is openly a really bad actor and a terrible casting choice for the role.

I'll never forget being in Jr. High, racing to the front door every morning before school to beat my parents to the section of the SF Chronicle that contained Tales of the City. We lived in the East Bay burbs. It was my first encounter with seeing homosexuality portrayed in any sort of media. Then I'd get to discuss that day's column with a hot friend in Electronics class! Finally stopped reading the columns at some point in the late 70's when Maupin started getting way too "out there," by which time I was openly gay and living in the City, anyway.

The PBS series brilliantly captured the feeling of 1970's SF and accurately portrayed the characters as I remembered them. It was surreal to bump into a brutally handsome (but sadly, straight) Brian S. from 8th grade electronics class at a garage sale down the street right when the PBS series came out.

I will be skipping the musical.

Hilarious observation and comment, r47! More reason to skip the show.

It should be pointed out the original miniseries was largely a British production that PBS picked up (and I believe did help finance). Not that that automatically affects quality by any means, but... I also think, casting issues aside, and direction aside, the later books which get more and more outrageous are harder to adapt. For some reason it seems hard to have a canibalistic cult on screen and find the right tone for the piece... I seem to remember Further Tales actually added and changed a bunch of story (like including Mona--I assume with Maupin's approval), but I also remember being pretty disappointed with it in way too many ways (the 3 hour time limit didn't help). %0D %0D

I also feel I have to defend the musical. It's definitely a flawed piece, and it sounds like not much has been changed since I saw the second preview back in May, when I was visiting San Francisco with some friends (none of them had even heard of Tales before--I'm 30 and discovered it as a teen flipping channels past PBS and prob seeing two guys kissing). They all loved it, I knew the source material so was more mixed, but largely I think it has a ton of potential, and I would recommend it.%0D %0D Keep in mind it's the first production--there's a reason the creators have no immediate plans to bring it to Broadway, it still needs at least another production, probably outside of San Francisco to try to iron out some of the kinks. That said, I definitely thought it was in better shape than when I saw the Catch Me If You Can out of town try out in Seattle 2 years back. (Faint praise? I don't know...)

%0D I feel like I came into the show from the opposite perspective of that super long, super critical post--I was amazed about what they DID manage to include. I thought the direction was solid (but could be improved), I loved nearly the whole cast (maybe I was sitting far enough back not to notice Pam Myers mugging in the chorus). I was impressed with the music, and having listened to it much more since (*coff coff*) I actually think many of the lyrics are pretty surprisingly great, though there are some definite rough parts. Then again, Mary Ann is one of the songs I like the best (but to say it doesn't advance the show, just makes me wonder if you were so horrified by the show at that point you quit paying attention). %0D %0D In the program Armistad claims that he always wanted the first two books to be combined and published together and liked how some elements of book 2 were added. Of course, I kinda do agree with you (again to a lesser degree) that it's hard to take Armistad's opinion completely at face value. %0D %0D Apparantly D'or *was* in the early workshops. She was the character from the first book I missed the most. However, I think your comments about John being played by a black man are pretty off. Maybe I just viewed it as colour blind casting (which the directors have said it was--apparently he came in close to oipening to replace another actor who dropped out). %0D

%0D I do, as I said in my initial review, think, as much as audiences love them, the whorehouse number and the A Gays number really stop the show cold and it could be time devoted to more story. I also thought Act II was a mess, as you say Mary Ann gets lost focus wise, and the Norman plot (one I admit I never really bought in the books or miniseries either--interesting if it wasn't in the columns as you say) is horribly shoved in, with a climax that you didn't know whether to laugh or what. But it's quickly followed by Paper Faces (which I thought DOES have a great build--it was a fave), which helps kinda save the moment. %0D %0D I don't think Mary Ann is paired up with Brian at the end, though they're clearly friends -- however I saw the second preview, so this all could have been changed. I do agree that Jeff's approach to the libretto is more sitcom-y, it worked for me, but it did lose some of what I love about the originals. %0D %0D Anyway, I still think it has great potential, and an often fabulous score (but I liked that Mouse's letter didn't have new lyrics *shrug*) which I hope gets a pro recording at any rate. I do think, with some revisions, mainly in Act II it has potential. (for the record, the friend I saw it with, as I said in my thread, who's had never been to San Fran before--I had once previously--nor read the books or watched the series, loved it. Not that that means anything, I know, but). %0D

%0D I did honestly like reading such a differing opinion, and one that has some valid points, so I don't want to turn this into an argument. I do get the impression that unless they made a 6 hour musical, the poster wouldn't even be partially pleased, and maybe that's unfair -- but I know how some things get so built up and beloved in our heads that any changes or adaptations are hard to take. But I also see it as quite a seperate thing from the books, and one that had enough in it for me to rally enjoy. (OK the wigs were awful, and some of the costumes seemed off to me but to complain about it being cheap seems odd, this isn't a big commercial Broadway production--it's a still expensive production being done by a not for profit regional theatre).%0D %0D It's not Sondheim, but it's not Carrie the Musical either. As a fan of the books, I think it got enough right to do them proud, and I hope it has the chance to grow and improve.%0D %0D (BTW Isherwood in the New york Times gave the most fair review I think, and he did point out that you never feel like you get to know anyone too closely - although I did enjoy it more than he)%0D

theater.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/theater/reviews/armistead-maupins-tales-of-the-city-the-musical-review.html%0D %0D Link to review. There are some clips on youtube as well like here www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVTxMvC4gXs

"( coff*) I actually think many of the lyrics are pretty surprisingly great"

Honey, you can't even spell the word cough, so clever lyric would sail over your dizzy little head.

Lyrics

Sent from my Newton

As someone who did not know the stories and had not see the series or read the books I thought the musical was a fucking mess.

I had NO idea what was going on for most of it. Badly done. It needs a story line.

All that chat West Coast has wildly divergent opinions on this show. Only one rave.

The problem is, I think many fans would be equally upset if it was streamlined to a traditional 2 storyline musical theatre format. Maybe it's simply impossible to adapt into anything by a longer miniseries format. Plot heavy works are hard to adapt to musical theatre anyway. Still, I did enjoy it--it's a mess, but I found it an appealing one, particularly Act I.%0D %0D And *coff* is a trendy tweet term, I thought? Sigh, always out of the loop.

Eric Henwood Greer=Jason Moore

LOL I did see him lurking around the bar at the end of the show while waiting for my friend to use the bathroom.%0D %0D Reading the threads mentioned on ATC it is pretty interesting how divided people are (I mean from those who think it has potential to those who think it's crap). I was amused by the person who thought it had a hard rock score, though...

R75 you saw who lurking?

We are not getting which post you might be referring to.

Just watched episode 5 of More Tales of the City%E2%80%94is there a more perfect ass and body than Colin Ferguson's in that scene where he's prolongedly drying his hair at the bathroom mirror while Mary Anne is on the phone?

"... people even in San Francisco are fairly unaware of the books at this point. When I spoke of going to see the musical I got lots of blank stares."

That happens a lot here.

"The San Franciscans jumped to applause."

That, too; for anything.

I just saw that Chloe Webb played William H Macy's ex-wife in a couple episodes of Shameless US. Did anyone see her in the role? Thoughts?

I loved the books, I loved the mini-series, and I LOVED the musical. I asked Armistead if he had plotted out character arcs, and he said no, he was often just cramming words on the typewriter to meet deadlines. Also, it has been publicly theorized that Mouse IS Armistead, and has there been a denial from Armistead? Remember how few mainstream portrayals of us appeared before TALES...

No, r79, there isn't.

Paul gross I loved your Brian. You were complicated, a real pig to women most of the time, but you also had another, more human side. For instance, the night Mary Ann is so shaken by Vincent's suicide. You listened and just in General were there for her, seemingly w/o expecting a reward. Also, when you and Mouse were hanging out together, you made a great, hilarious and very human pair of sidekicks.

Typos courtesy of iPad, dammit. Btw, why didn't you return?

Lynn Duvall

Chloe Webb was a kick in the pants as Mona. She nailed the cynical, free-spirited romantic with that great dry sense of humor. (Writing about Tales only here, of course.) But it's easy to understand why she didn't come back. First, I was surprised to hear Alistair Reid, in the commentary included in the 25th. Anniversary edition (can you believe it?), say that she slowed down the production by continually demanding that more scenes be written for her! Many more. Reid then was forced to stop the show, take Webb aside, listen to her every time and then explain as patiently as he was able that the series was not about Mona. Poor guy. He even makes a comment to the affect that it was "quite annoying" or something similar.

Apparently, she also demanded a lot more money to come back for "More Tales" and "Further Tales," which no one else did as far as I've read and watched panel discussions. Maupin believed she thought she was on her way to the level of stardom and acclaim that Laura Linney achieved, which basically consisted of a pretty brief role in "China Beach." I remembered her as much, much heavier but believable as the character she played. That's the only impression I was left with. Webb did work in a small number of 'other productions, but "Tales" was by far her finest hour, sadly for her.

In a photo gallery of current heads s hots, everyone else looks older because they are, 25 years older. But, probably in hopes of getting more parts, Webb has the tight, shiny face that comes after at least 2 face lifts. Her eyes are where her eyebrows once were. You've all seen similar photos --and much worse -- I'm sure. So, that's the name of that tune. Still, I doubt anybody can touch her portrayal of Mona Ramsey.

One last brief comment from me, aside from the fact that it was great fun reading so many varies voices weighing in on one of my longtime favorite series: To the person who called Maupin "a poor, little one trick pony," umm, I disagree strongly, having read his three most recent books. But, even if your characterization was true: What a fantabulous trick it was! And know what? My spell-check auto filled fantabulous -- twice!

Happy trails, Lynn Duvall

I just saw the first episode today coincidentally too. I'd already seen it, was just going through video files deciding what to delete. I decided to keep Tales, but I won't watch the remaining episodes this year, I did find it a tad boring. Then I watched Gods and Monsters for the first time and it blew me away, it was everything I hoped it'd be.

I liked book Brian and thought Paul Gross did a decent film Brian.

All the sex that book Brian sought was just because he was sad about the 60s ending and his political place in them, and as seen later with "Mopey Mona" was having trouble getting his feet back under him.

PS -- nothing illustrated book Brian's inability to get his feet back under him than his relationship with Maryanne

I'm rewatching this on Acorn TV and it still holds up beautifully—as was mentioned upthread, it really does feel like it was not only set but shot and produced in the '70s.

It's a shame that Marcus D'Amico and Chloe Webb went and fucked up a good thing. That said, I plan to watch the sequels in order.