Jim Parsons has reportedly taken the old theatrical “break a leg” tradition a little too close for comfort.
During a matinee performance of The Boys in the Band revival on Broadway Saturday, the out Big Bang Theory star tripped on stage while walking out to take his bow.
“So…Jim Parsons tripped down a stair when they came out for their encore and couldn’t stand for his bow,” one Twitter user in attendance wrote, adding, “the poor thing limped off while everyone else took their bow. Yikes.”
So…Jim Parsons tripped down a stair when they came out for their encore and couldn't stand for his bow…the poor thing limped off while everyone else took their bow. Yikes.
— Ruth ?? (@bombusperplexus) May 12, 2018
Afterward, the show’s official Twitter account announced that because of the curtain call fall, the Saturday night performance was canceled.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In a since-deleted tweet, the account wrote: “Due to a minor injury of a cast member, the Sat evening performance has been canceled. Performances will resume Monday night. Please contact your point-of-purchase for refund and exchange information.”
Related: Jim Parsons to Stephen Colbert: “Are you feeling homophobic?”
The good news is the injury seems mild, but the last-minute cancellation didn’t go over well with some fans, particularly those from out of town who’d traveled to New York specifically to see the show.
One disappointed ticket holder wrote, “I’m sorry that hear that @jimparsonspriv got hurt and we wish him a speedy recovery. Came from FL just to see te (sic) show, so we can’t help to be disappointed. Get an understudy. Bazinga!”
I’m sorry that hear that @jimparsonspriv got hurt and we wish him a speedy recovery. Came from FL just to see te show, so we can’t help to be disappointed. Get an understudy. Bazinga!
— Mariano Morales (@nano3226) May 13, 2018
The Boys in the Band is a 1968 play by Mart Crowley that examines gay life pre-Stonewall. The revival cast includes Parsons, Andrew Rannells, Zachary Quinto, Michael Benjamin Washington and Matt Bomer.
DCguy
Weird,, are they the only Broadway show that doesn’t have understudys?
Juanjo
Truly, I have never heard of not having an understudy. We even did that in high school.
MacAdvisor
Yep, that was my first question: where was the understudy? This is the standard Broadway storyline: big star has an accident, can’t perform, understudy steps in, understudy is a huge hit, understudy becomes big star. See All About Eve or 42nd Street.
JackieOMG
In a revival whose cast includes TV and movie stars, many of those who attend are, in essence, star fuckers who want to say they saw so-and-so (in this case Parsons) and possibly got his autograph, so their interest in the show is secondary at best. The woman who tweeted the above may be an exception. Haven’t you ever been in the audience for a star vehicle when an understudy has been announced as a replacement? I’ve witnessed choruses of “boo”s and folks huffing off to the box office for a refund.
Terrycloth
Headline says cancelled..read on..for one night…and I fell for it. Click bait?
ProfessorMoriarty
Totally clckbait. And to echo the other commenters, why no understudy? This isn’t a one man show like “The boy from Oz” where Hugh Jackman WAS the centerpiece of the entire production. Very odd.
tdh1980
I just visited the official website for the production, and no understudy or swing is listed for any of the roles in the play, which is weird for a Broadway show.
mz.sam
I had planned on flying from the West Coast to see the play. Luckily, I cancelled due to scheduling conflicts….(whew!)
rymer69
Actors’ Equity policy is that all Equity members have understudies. Parsons is definitely a member of Equity, so there should be an understudy waiting for the call. Curious decision to cancel a performance thereby disappointing fans of all the various cast members (and possibly losing revenue depending on the refund policy) rather than calling in the understudy and only disappointing Parsons’ fans.
Greg
He’s just a fallen down drunk nellie queen.
paul dorian lord fredine
gee, i take it you’re not a fan, just a jackass.
Goosecurls
That’s clever Greg. Paraphrasing a line from the show!
Greg
Thank you Goosecurls. At least somebody got it.
paul dorian lord fredine: I’m turning on, and you’re just turning.
dwes09
On a related note, that play (the film actually) delayed my decision to come out for several years, so horrified was I by the stereotypical characters. It seemed to be entirely about pandering to the prevalent heterosexual notion that gay life was incredibly sad and unfulfilling. reveling in the same kind of attitudes towards gay people as the film cruising, from the same era did.
A cynical project intended to make box office rather than humanize advance the acceptance of gay folks.
Interesting that now with the religious right and the political right trying to re-marginalize gay people who don’t conform to their image of us the play is being revived. I wonder how many will leave the theater thinking “yes, that is what their sad lives must be like!” or “how honest and brave for homosexual actors to depict the reality of their perverse lives.”
Hogwasher
I agree with dwes, I saw the movie back in the day and it’s tragic depiction of gay life made me think this is what awaited me, mincing alcoholic fags with limp wrists {sorry} trying to be more flamboyant than the others. I was kind of shocked when I saw it was being revived. This play and the song Ballad Of The Sad Young Men should be swept into the dust bin of gay history.
fpcinnyc
That’s odd because Matt McGrath is listed as Jim Parson’s understudy. There are 4 actors who understudy all the roles. Maybe because it’s too early in the run for the understudies to have learned the whole show?
johnnymcmxxx
It’s a classic and ground breaking play from 1968. I’m not sure if you were alive at that time and living as an openly Gay man, but it references an era well and stereotypes are stereotypes because they are commonly prevalent characters in life. This play addresses these individuals and if you see nothing in any of the characters you recognize, then you have been a very lucky person. Some aspect of the characters in the play still exist today. Perhaps not in big cities but try growing up in a southern religious conservative household where the fear your family will disown you before you discount The Boys In The Band. In case you think your comments are revelatory, the same complaints were voiced back in 1968 too. I think that it was even mounted or filmed at all is the revelation. It was a very brave thing to do. The current production has not been updated to today. It still takes place in 1968 because it fits in that era only and honestly.
dwes09
If that is a reference to my post, I am 67 and was very much alive at the time the and later the film came out. I had already been surreptitiously attending gay liberation events, but was in the closet to all i knew. I met nobody who was like any of those characters in the film at any gay lib events. After coming out I certainly met people like the those in the film, but never met any gay people who thought much of it except as a sop to hetero stereotype. And stereotypes exist to denigrate and oppress, not because there is necessarily much truth to them. Their context and intent is important, and for a gay man to give them a nod (for money no less) was and is at least a bit shameful.
paul dorian lord fredine
you met nobody who fit into any stereotype? no butch/muscle boys? no fems? no ‘flamboyant sissies’? no leather daddies? no hustler types (will screw anything that walks if they get ‘taken care of’)? wow, you must have known very few people.
Greg
What’s more boring than a queen doing a Judy Garland imitation?
mcflyer54
I’m a 70 year old mid-westerner who saw the original off-Broadway play and the follow-up movie. Yes the characters are stereotypes but stereotypes are based on a certain level of reality. I personally knew gay men in the 70s that fit these stereotypes and never felt that the play was unfair in it’s portrayal of some gay men. I saw the revival on Thursday with my husband (a married gay couple – a possibly that was unheard of when the play written) and spoke with a young gay New York couple sitting next to us about their reaction to the play. The younger of the two said he found it totally relatable and found nothing objectionable or anything that he felt was unrealistic or dated (although the decor of the two story apartment set was truly a flashback to the era). And, by the way, the performances in the revival are excellent with Zachary Quinto’s performance, in my opinion, the best. And for those curious Parsons does NOT come off like his TV character Sheldon Cooper.
chris33133
I agree with dwes09. I didn’t like the movie one bit because it was based on a bunch of stereotypes of gay men from an era that defined gay men as, essentially, sick, perverted, unable to sustain real nonsexual friendships, and generally-unhappy with their lives. By focusing exclusively on these so-called friends over the course of their bickering, without any reference to the larger society’s oppression of them (goodness, you could be blackmailed for being a homosexual), the movie ended up normalizing the then-prevailing view of gay men as depraved. Thank goodness for Lance Loud whose stereotype-smashing coming out was televised and served as an in-your-face repudiation on how homosexuality was seen as a disease.
Hogwasher
He laughs out loud. Strange. Then makes a pointless comment.
nitejonboy
Limped off……hehe…….and yeah, get an understudy, you’re the friggin lead!!