While critics agree the show lacks audience appeal, they don’t agree on whether or not the show is racist.
Have you seen the show? What did you think?
…if your idea of funny is nasty camp, repetition and more repetition, relentless macho posturing, tuneless rock songs, maybe. But there is little if any redeeming story. The show exploits, imo, American history for – questionable – theatrical effect. Moreover, I found the show’s treatment of native Americans unfunny to an extreme.
...give Meerdink points for his sensitivity to the depiction of American Indians in “Bloody Bloody.” The play in New York was scabrous and has drawn protests for its treatment of Indians. Meerdink was clearly affected. The only character who approaches a degree of dimension and empathy is Christian Unser’s Black Fox, the Indian who routinely finds himself in the impossible position of defending the anger of his people and the rightness of his cause.
To be fair, it cannot be easy for the cast and crew to try to entertain an audience while they know protesters are assembled outside the theater. On opening night, they were protesting the show’s treatment of American Indians, which was addressed in an odd, post-curtain speech that sort of apologized for Jackson’s “horrendous and atrocious acts committed against American Indians” while failing to note that the show also decries those acts and that several of the elements of the “Bloody Bloody” script that drew the ire of protesters are from an earlier version of the script, not the one MMT is performing (a program insert also listed cultural and historical resources).
“Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” runs through June 29.