Arts & Entertainment
Should gays boot the ‘Roseanne’ reboot?
Transient urban gays should give back to home communities

The original cast of ‘Roseanne’ includes lesbian actress Sara Gilbert (first from left in back row). She both reprises her role as Darlene and is executive producing the eight-episode arc. (Photo courtesy ABC)
The twang of a harmonica, the blare of a saxophone, that grating laugh.
Last week, ABC continued the pop culture wave of ‘90s nostalgia by airing the premiere of its much buzzed-about “Roseanne” revival. The original was never afraid to take an unflinching and unapologetic look at working-class life in America or serve as a showcase for its brash and controversial star, Roseanne Barr. True to form, “Roseanne’s” reboot debut proved the show would be just as bracing and willing to tackle controversial issues head-on through its distinct blend of biting humor and tough love.
It’s off to a gangbusters start with its first new episode in 20 years on March 27 drawing 25 million viewers and a massive 73 rating among adults 18-49. With 6.6 million viewers watching it later, it set a time-shifting record, the Hollywood Reporter notes. Another 4.3 million watched an encore broadcast Sunday night. Hulu and ABC streaming will only add to those numbers. It has the best numbers of a any “new” show since the 2014 premiere of “how to Get Away with Murder.” It’s already been renewed for a second season.
Reassuringly, the revival begins with Roseanne and husband Dan waking up in their old bed. Roseanne says she thought he’d died (cue Dan’s deadpan reply, “Why does everyone always think I’m dead?”), expediently erasing the divisive last season, which revealed the show was a story written by Roseanne, Dan had died and the family never won the lottery (don’t ask).
The rest of the Connor family is reintroduced, including Aunt Jackie, whose conflict with big sister Roseanne anchors the premiere. The two have barely spoken since the 2016 election. Roseanne is pro-Trump (mirroring the actor’s real-life support of the president), and Jackie, sporting a Nasty Woman shirt that would have looked appropriate on her 20 years ago, is ardently not.
Much has been made of Roseanne incorporating its star’s pro-Trump views and I was admittedly hesitant about watching the show and possibly liking it. Would my viewership (and potential enjoyment) tacitly endorse Roseanne’s views and those of her pro-Trump fans? Roseanne has rightfully been praised as a realistic depiction of working-class life in America, and although I may disagree with its star and vast numbers of the show’s viewers, there is no escaping the fact that Trump struck a chord with them for a reason that should not be ignored.
Roseanne saying she voted for Trump because “he talked about jobs” may have been played for a laugh, but she was speaking for a lot of people like the Connors. Although a sitcom isn’t going to resolve the political rift in the country, it can promote real discourse. The tension between Roseanne and Jackie was effective because not only was it true to the characters, it was also real. You could see families like this having these kinds of conversations and therein lies the strength of this show for much of its audience: relatability.
“Roseanne” also focused on middle daughter Darlene’s 9-year-old son, Mark, a happy boy who enjoys doing things like wearing skirts and painting his nails. Darlene supports his self-expression and doesn’t want the family to make him feel self-conscious because of it. Although they don’t understand why a boy would “dress like a girl,” the family embraces Mark. When Dan affirms that Mark shouldn’t go school like that, it isn’t because he’s ashamed, but because he fears Mark will be bullied.
I didn’t expect the show to deal with gender identity and expression so matter-of-factly. That Mark was portrayed as a fully formed person rather than a stereotype, and that the family rallied around him, was an explicit argument that we can all get behind: we should be proud of who we are and able to express that fully without fear of judgment or reprisal.
Mark puts an exclamation point on this idea (and shows that he truly is a Connor) by asserting that he’s going to keep dressing like he wants because he’s not ashamed of who he is. When Dan says, “That’s one tough kid,” how could you not stand up and cheer? I doubt the average Trump supporter is ready to acknowledge (let alone accept) gender non-conformance, but I’m grateful that a show aimed at them is saying it should be celebrated instead of feared.
I understand the concerns over normalizing Trump and certain segments of his base, because a show like “Roseanne” could potentially justify their views. Indeed, this has been a sticking point for many potential fans, especially gays. I’ve heard valid arguments that say the dichotomy of the show’s central character supporting Trump (who curries favor with hate groups) while sticking up for her gender non-conforming grandson is offensive at best, dangerous at worst, because this kind of line straddling could allow and encourage such attitudes to persist.
Nuances like these should not be compartmentalized and “Roseanne” would do well to address this potentially negative duality in future episodes. Although there are no easy answers to these questions, the “resist,” anti-Trump, left-leaning crowd ignores the Roseannes of the world at its own peril. If this show can bridge some divides, provide a glimpse into what “middle America” thinks while also demonstrating that the rest of us aren’t the demons we’re made out to be by many on team Trump, then maybe there’s room for an actual conversation. The jury won’t be in anytime soon, but maybe a show like “Roseanne” can counter or even diffuse the hornet nests of social media and angry op-eds cannot which, let’s face it, mostly just preach to their respective choirs.
At its core, “Roseanne” is a show about family, and while there’s certainly room for improvement (more Jackie!), this is a family worth spending some more time with.
Movies
‘The Stranger’ queers an existentialist classic
‘Gay male gaze’ anchors film’s visual aesthetic
When Albert Camus published “L’etranger” (“The Stranger”) in 1942, he was living in Nazi-occupied France, so it’s no surprise that it became one of the most celebrated “existential” novels of all time. A fascist regime is great for inspiring thoughts of an indifferent and meaningless universe.
It wasn’t his first experience with authoritarianism. Born to a working-class white European family in then-French Algeria, he grew up observing the harsh treatment of the native North Africans by the colonists who governed them. It was this personal history, amplified by the spread of European fascism, that found its voice in “The Stranger.” Short, terse, and shrouded in a cloak of ennui, it was his first novel – novella, really – but its impact was seismic.
Naturally, its influence has run through the world of cinema, and, it has been translated to the screen three times — most recently by French filmmaker François Ozon, whose screen version won acclaim at last year’s Venice Film Festival, and is now available for on-demand streaming in the U.S.
Ozon’s vision is captured in gleaming black-and-white, blending the luster of modern-day faux-vintage fashion photography with the nostalgic flavor of classic era “arthouse” and European cinema, and it maintains a largely faithful connection to Camus’s novel, at least in terms of plot. It’s the story of Meursault (Benjamin Voisin), a French settler living in the capital city of Algiers, who receives word that his mother has died. He takes time off from work, traveling to the nursing home – where he had sent her three years before – in order to attend her funeral, but remains seemingly emotionless throughout, prompting members of the staff and other residents to mark his apparent lack of customary grief.
When he returns to Algiers, he encounters Marie (Rebecca Marder), a former co-worker, and after spending the day together, the two become romantically involved. Their relationship continues over the next few weeks, while they also associate with Meursault’s neighbor Raymond (Pierre Lottin) – a suspected pimp who, after beating his Arab mistress, is being followed and harassed by her brother (Abderrahmane Dehkani) and his friends. After a skirmish with the Arabs, Meursault encounters the brother alone during a walk on the beach, and shoots the young man dead with a pistol given to him for protection by Raymond. On trial for murder, he offers no defense and expresses no remorse. He is convicted and sentenced to death, facing it all with emotional detachment, and seeming to find liberation from the recognition that none of it matters, anyway.
Though it’s a tale that includes romance, murder, and courtroom drama, it feels like a story in which nothing really happens – which is, of course, the perfect effect to emphasize the point of Camus’s philosophical viewpoint; but while that might satisfy the kind of viewers who might be drawn to any film of a Camus novel, Ozon’s movie probably won’t hold much appeal for audiences seeking action, suspense, feel-good sentiment, or easy answers to the moral dilemmas that come hand-in-hand with being alive. Camus was interested in the opposite effect, a confrontation with existence which leaves no room for comfortable denials, and Ozon’s inflection on the original’s themes makes no effort to soften the blow.
What it does, however, is introduce – without having to adjust the narrative provided by Camus – an element of queerness that lends the whole story a new layer of subtext through what can only be described as the “gay male gaze” that anchors the film’s visual aesthetic.
It’s in the way the camera – aimed by Ozon and cinematographer Manu Dacosse – remains fixated on its star, the exquisitely beautiful Voisin, lingering on his face, his frame, or his body in swim trunks. There’s a sensuality in the way the director shows us female beauty, too, but it’s never framed as the “object” of desire; and in the narrative’s key scene – the killing by the sea – there’s an inescapable element of repressed homoeroticism, born perhaps by associations with mid-20th-century queer aesthetic of writers like Jean Genet or artists like George Quaintance, or pretentiously artsy commercials for high-end men’s cologne, or just from real-life memories of cruising on the beach. On the surface, Meursault gives no sign of queerness; but the emphasis that Ozon brings to the story – almost purely through visual suggestion – lends the character, already an outsider to the world of “normal” human experience in the first place, an even deeper sense of “otherness.”
As to that, Voisin’s performance is effective for reasons beyond his model-esque physical perfection; there’s a vast inner life happening under that pretty face, and the actor conveys it with a “less-is-more” approach that aligns perfectly with the character’s dissociation from conventional humanity. He’s compelling enough to engage us, and intelligent enough in his expression of Camus’ ideas to help us grasp them even as he makes us feel them – and frankly, that’s saying a lot.
The rest of the cast is effective, as well, though most of them serve primarily as a foil to reflect Voisin and his character. Marder brings a relatably savvy-yet-romantic presence as Marie, and Lottin gives Raymond a kind of louche charisma that evokes a certain brand of appealing-but-toxic masculinity. Swann Arlaud also stands out as the prison priest who attempts to convert Meursault on the eve of his execution, bearing the full brunt of Camus’ existentialist arguments in a scene that somehow taps into transgressive homoerotic fantasies even as its characters discuss impending death.
Camus, for his part, did not see himself as an existentialist; instead, he embraced and promoted a viewpoint in which human life is defined by its relationship with what he called “The Absurd” – the gap between reality and our assumed expectations about it, where our circumstances and behavior become obviously ridiculous – and believed that, in a meaningless universe, we are free to find our own meaning. An essay he published around the same time (“The Myth of Sisyphus”) posited that finding happiness in the struggle was perhaps the most logical response to facing an unfeeling world, and the Absurdist movement he helped to define used humor – albeit often the dark and sardonic variety – as a means to expose the madness of trying to impose sense on a nonsensical world. In the end, his writings reveal him as a deeply humanistic thinker, whose acceptance of objective reality served only to deepen his dedication to the ideal of a better mankind.
Whether or not any of that comes across in Ozon’s artful film, which emphasizes the immediacy of experience – the beach, the sea, the sun, the visceral responses we get from sex or violence – over the intellectual arguments that Camus would elucidate throughout his life, probably depends on one’s own grasp of Existentialist thinking and its offshoots. In any case, while Ozon’s “The Stranger” might fall short in the challenge to convey its philosophical arguments, it more than succeeds as a stylish piece of international art cinema, and it just might – hopefully – inspire audiences to go on a deeper dive into the mind of Albert Camus.
And even if it doesn’t, it’s still pretty to look at.
Theater
Cedric Neal on his juicy narrator role in ‘Pippin’
A rash of terrific reviews for a part he’s longed to play
‘Pippin’
Through July 26
Signature Theatre
4200 Campbell Ave.
Arlington, Va.
$47-$153
Sigtheatre.org
As Leading Player in Signature Theatre’s revival of “Pippin,” Cedric Neal portrays the manipulative narrator who guides the title character, a young medieval prince, on a quest for meaning. Neal is also receiving a rash of terrific reviews for a part he’s longed to play for some time.
Recently, after the first “Pippin” preview performance, Neal shared his thoughts. “Last night was exciting, mystic and exotic. It was magical. Words are overused, but it was all those things.”
With a powerful, rich tenor voice, Neal is best known as a charismatic West End and Broadway star (“Back to the Future,” “Hadestown,” “Guys & Dolls”) as well as for his memorable semifinalist win on the “The Voice UK” in 2019.
And now Stephen Shwartz’s “Pippin” marks Neal’s second show at Signature Theatre, a place he dearly loves. His first was as Jimmy Early in “Dreamgirls” in 2012, a raucous role that won him a Helen Hayes Award. During that production, Neal forged deep friendships with actor Nova Y. Payton and director Matthew Gardiner. What’s more, while rehearsing the show, he met his husband.
“He likes to say we met on Match.com but I remember it differently,” says Neal. “It was something called Adam4Adam. It might have been a hookup, but instead we met for coffee in Shirlington Village where we talked and talked for hours. Two years later we married.”
BLADE: Your triumphant return to town sounds pretty great.
NEAL: I’m having the time of my life. Takes me a half hour to come down after the show ends. It’s explosive.
BLADE: Is Leading Player a part you’ve wanted to do?
NEAL: Very much, and just this way. Rather than leaning on its circus troupe aspect, our director Matthew [Gardiner] explores the darkness of the story and the risk of falling prey to cultish ideology.
BLADE: Just how nefarious is Leading Player?
NEAL: I’m not judging my character. I believe at some point that Leading Player has good intentions. Somewhere along the line, ego becomes involved. The promise becomes warped.
BLADE: When doing “Pippin,” is it possible to separate the iconic Bob Fosse choreography and Ben Vereens’s sexy portrayal of Leading Player from the original production?
NEAL: Not entirely, but in our production Matthew [Gardiner] and Rachel Leigh Dolan have meticulously honored the choreography and storytelling of Fosse’s work without it being a carbon copy. I think it’s amazing.
BLADE: Was your participation in the “The Voice UK” a strategic career move?
NEAL: It was. At the time, I had just gotten a BIG NO on a West End show where the casting director told me the part should have been mine but using a then-unknown American would have created an uproar.
Then when “Voice UK” scouted me, my agent said this would be the perfect opportunity to boost my profile. Ultimately, I was given a global scale opportunity to go onstage and sing as Cedric.
BLADE: Your thrilling, original rendition of Stevie Wonder’s “Higher Ground” made the audience and judges like Jennifer Holliday and Sir Tom Jones just go crazy (in a good way). In musical theater, do you make beloved, well-known songs like “Join Us” and “Glory” in “Pippin,” your own in that same way?
NEAL: I couldn’t always, but I can now. When I talk to younger performers, I tell them about the song in “Gypsy” where the experienced strippers talk about getting a gimmick if you want to be a star.
I come from a gospel, R&B, and serious classical background and have always retained my gospel, soulful flair on things. When I entered the world of musical theater, I’d put my twist on a song and the musical director would ask that I tone it down.
Ten years into my career, I became known for putting my flair on musicals, and that became my gimmick. To “Cedricfy” a song is a legitimate term in musical theater. And you’ll see me bring that to “Pippin.”
BLADE: Reading about you, it seems you’ve made bold choices and surround yourself with supportive friends and family, blood and chosen.
NEAL: Yes, and it’s not an accident. I come from a bloodline of revolutionaries and pioneers whose shoulders I stand on. My ancestors are all fighters and refuse to let their fight be in vain. Also, I will always step up to the plate and represent all the marginalized communities that I’m a part of: Black, gay, biracial relationships, liberals.
BLADE: Are you and your husband still living in the windmill?
NEAL: We left the windmill but we’re still in the U.K. Try to imagine our story: A Black boy from the hood in Dallas, Texas, meets a fifth-generation cattle rancher from Alberta, Canada, and they move to the UK, adopt a labradoodle, and live in an actual windmill. Isn’t that the gayest shit you’ve ever heard?
BLADE: It’s like a fairytale.
NEAL: It was. It still is.
Out & About
‘How to Survive a Plague’ screens June 5
Commemorating 45th anniversary of first report of AIDS
June 5 marks the 45th anniversary of the first report of AIDS. To commemorate the occasion, Whitman-Walker Health is sponsoring a screening of the film “How to Survive a Plague” on June 5 at 5:30 p.m. at GWU Lisner Auditorium (730 21st St., N.W.).
The screening is free and you can register on Eventbrite. Other partners involved in the screening are the Center for Black Equity, Food & Friends, HIPS, and Us Helping Us.
After the film, attendees will head to Dupont Circle for a candlelight vigil at sunset.
The film reflects on lessons from the community-led response to the plague while honoring those lost to HIV and AIDS. It tells the story of activism and innovation about AIDS survival. Culled from a trove of archival footage, the film is epic and intimate, tracking a small group of people, most of them HIV-positive, in their nine-year-long battle to save their own lives, according to a statement from Whitman-Walker.
-
2026 Midterm Elections3 days agoBree Fram’s congressional campaign ends but her fight continues
-
Celebrity News3 days agoPeppermint made her mark on ‘Drag Race.’ Now, her advocacy is front and center
-
Opinions3 days agoWhy this Black Pride, I ranked Janeese Lewis George #1 for D.C. mayor
-
a&e features3 days agoFrom Media Matters to massive queer ragers: the rise of Tara Dikhof
