28 review for Not in Front of the Audience: Homosexuality on Stage

1. 

   5 out of 5

   Leigh – Nov 22, 2007

   Useful as a basic survey of major modern gay plays, but terribly written. Please, get proofread before you publish.

2. 

   5 out of 5

   Luke Devenish – Jan 28, 2016

   I well suspected this book would prove enlightening, but the surprise was that it was also highly entertaining. Thoroughly enjoyed this.

3. 

   5 out of 5

   James – Apr 21, 2019

   This just about begins to scratch the surface of the topic. It is hampered by the author's frankly abysmal prose, the errors which litter its pages (he gets people's names and dates of plays wrong), and the entirely partial and haphazard choice of plays. It purports to be an overview of homosexuality on the mainstream London and New York stage over the course of about 70 years, but is actually only about representation of gay men - lesbians hardly feature. It may be argued (although de Jongh doe This just about begins to scratch the surface of the topic. It is hampered by the author's frankly abysmal prose, the errors which litter its pages (he gets people's names and dates of plays wrong), and the entirely partial and haphazard choice of plays. It purports to be an overview of homosexuality on the mainstream London and New York stage over the course of about 70 years, but is actually only about representation of gay men - lesbians hardly feature. It may be argued (although de Jongh doesn't bother) that very few plays dealt with lesbianism in this period, but that hardly excuses the author not even mentioning in passing Frank Marcus's The Killing of Sister George. There is a vague, and vaguely interesting, sense of narrative structure to the book's overview of representation - from stereotypical portraits of effeminate and predatory homosexuals to post-liberation assertions of gay identity. It ends on a downer, with Section 28 and the AIDS epidemic, but de Jongh entirely fails to predict that not only would Western liberal society have a complete volte face around homosexuality within the next couple of decades, but that theatre would more produce increasing numbers of gay plays in the 1990s and beyond. One could also take issue with the author's arbitrary insistence of seeing the play's discussed in terms of their contribution to the representation of gay men and their usefulness to an identity politics viewpoint. It is a specious way of reading drama, and quite falls apart as de Jongh attempts to come to terms with such sophisticated writers as Tennessee Williams and Joe Orton. It's a starting point, I suppose, in terms of its subject. But it is so poorly written, researched, fact-checked, and argued that it ought to have been superseded by now. It certainly does not deserve its reputation as a key text.

4. 

   5 out of 5

   Walter –

5. 

   5 out of 5

   Maria Mahoney –

6. 

   4 out of 5

   Steve –

7. 

   5 out of 5

   Ezra Maloney –

8. 

   4 out of 5

   Richard Findlay –

9. 

   5 out of 5

   Christian –

10. 

    4 out of 5

    Little Bab –

11. 

    5 out of 5

    Antoinette Maria –

12. 

    4 out of 5

    Gary –

13. 

    5 out of 5

    Paul –

14. 

    5 out of 5

    Leah –

15. 

    5 out of 5

    Teodelina –

16. 

    4 out of 5

    C. Todd White –

17. 

    5 out of 5

    Elsa –

18. 

    4 out of 5

    Kevin –

19. 

    4 out of 5

    Bookend McGee –

20. 

    5 out of 5

    Daniel –

21. 

    5 out of 5

    Hazal Ilbay –

22. 

    4 out of 5

    Eleanor Affleck –

23. 

    4 out of 5

    Eeva –

24. 

    4 out of 5

    Kate Mulley –

25. 

    5 out of 5

    Chris Lilly –

26. 

    5 out of 5

    Erik –

27. 

    5 out of 5

    Lorenzo –

28. 

    4 out of 5

    Kirsten –