To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
I have read all three of the major papers’ reviews of the recent Pet Shop Boys concert and, although yours came closest to the mark, have found them all, to varying degrees, inadequate. The one huge omission that all three reviewers make is that they never mention the two words which most accurately describe what the Pet Shop Boys and their shows are all about: “gay” and “camp.” Yes, that awful “G” word raising its ugly head again. Which is not to say that straight audience and press members were not invited (but why is it impossible for the straight press to use the word gay?). Of course they were invited (how could we have kept them away; although I did notice a number of straight couples who “couldn’t take the heat” and left before the first half was over). But, when at least two-thirds of the audience attending were gay men and women (which was obvious if one was out in the lobby at intermission), when everyone of any import involved with the show is gay or at least expressed in the show a very gay sensibility, when the show raged with camp and homoeroticism (no, Chris was not stripping for the female members of the audience) from the first note to the last, then it behooves a reviewer, whether he is straight or gay, to mention these facts. Of course it was “more theater than rock concert.” Of course it was “devoid of . . . false emotion, thrusting hips, and wailing screams.” Of course there was a “luscious, detailed” (and I might add, very witty) program. And of course, Neil and Chris changed costumes dozens of times. They were dead serious about it all and having a wonderful time, too. The show was all the things you mentioned in your review and much more simply because it was gay. You’re not going to see another show much like it anytime soon, either. Not until the next gay band comes through town (and they are few and far between; our loss).
Chicago
