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.
Books
‘Mighty Real’ explores history of LGBTQ music
From Judas Priest to Whitney, something for every taste
‘Mighty Real: A History of LGBTQ Music, 1969-2000’
By Barry Walters
c.2026, Viking
$35/496 pages
Step, step, tap, back step.
Shimmy in a circle, left hand waving over your head, shake your tail feathers, repeat to the beat. Once there was a time when you could do any dance in your sleep, but it’s been a while. So read “Mighty Real” by Barry Walters, and see if your toes don’t tap.

Fifty-seven years after Stonewall, and here we are: LGBTQ musicians still face scrutiny for their sexuality because, says Walters, music isn’t created for gay listeners. No problem: LGBTQ artists and writers have often penned lyrics carefully in order to say what can’t be said, “coding” songs for gay audiences that straight (and ignorant) listeners can dance to and enjoy with apparent obliviousness.
Walters offers “just a few” examples.
Lou Reed sang about trans people in the late ‘60s and offered a rallying song for the Gay Liberation Front in 1972, the latter of which felt like a message to a then-11-year-old Walters. Janis Joplin claimed she was straight, but she had several girlfriends. Motown singers often offered sometimes-ambiguous lyrics.
John Lennon’s hand placement on the back cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band made Walters begin to understand that he was different from other boys.
David Bowie is on his list, of course, as is Bette Midler, Elton John, Donna Summer, and Queen. You’ll find Judas Priest here, Green Day, and punk music. The Village People are included in this book, also Grace Jones, Duran Duran, and Cher, Whitney, Melissa, Latifah, and the lyrics from several blockbuster movies.
Two of Prince’s band members were lesbians, and they heavily influenced his albums. Diana Ross’s “I’m Coming Out” cemented her position in LGBTQ culture, and Michael Jackson’s inclusion here takes much careful consideration.
Read about Olivia Newton-John and the B52s. And then there’s Sylvester, for whom Walters has a soft spot in his heart. Sylvester’s death still makes Walters cry.
In his preface, author and music writer Barry Walters points out that music is what you make it and that it’s interpreted differently by each individual. To that end, this book naturally consists of preferential history and personal opinions about singers, bands, albums, and songs.
Agree or disagree. That’s where much of the appeal lies in “Mighty Real.”
Here, Walters wraps his memories around his choices, giving readers room for their own views, memories, and list making. Music-loving readers might also be surprised to note who’s not on Walters’ list – there aren’t many country performers here, for example, and the overall list focuses entirely on music from roughly 1968 to the year 2000, mostly on the kinds of songs you’ll want at the club or party. Again, discuss, and curate your own playlist.
This is a hefty book, but the chapters are browse-able and generally short enough to read in under five minutes. It’s nostalgic, yet also serious in the history it presents. This is the kind of book you want to leave near your album collection, or wherever you get your tunes. But finding “Mighty Real” is your first step.
The Blade may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via this post.
The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington performed “Soul Divas” at the Lincoln Theatre over the weekend. The show featured songs popularized by Tina Turner, Aretha Franklin, Diana Ross, Gladys Knight, Whitney Houston and more.
(Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)


















































Theater
Timothy Nelson on the premiere of his opera ‘Song of Sakuntala’
Story of love, loss, redemption unfolds amid Indian classical music
‘The Song of Sakuntala’
IN Series
In Washington and Baltimore
Atlas Performing Arts Center, 1333 H St., N.E.
(Selected dates June 6-14)
Baltimore Theatre Project, 45 W. Preston St., Baltimore
(June 19-21)
$25-35
Inseries.org
As the artistic director of IN Series, Timothy Nelson rarely blows his own horn, but for the world premiere of his own opera “The Song of Sakuntala,” he’ll make an exception.
During a recent interview squeezed in between afternoon and evenings rehearsals, Nelson took time to talk about his opera (while nearby his “blessing of a husband” prepared a giant dinner for the entire cast and crew).
As smart and gracious as ever, Nelson explains that he wrote the opera a decade ago at a low point in his life: He was divorcing and wanted to immerse himself into something musical, all-consuming, a project tantamount to writing a thick novel.
At the time, Nelson’s mentor, the influential American stage and opera director Peter Sellers, pushed him to write again. Nelson recalls, “I hadn’t composed for some time. I wanted to see if I could do it, and I wanted to revisit Indian classical music.”
He adds, “There was never any anticipation of it being produced. It was a way of processing and dealing with life in a healthy way.”
Adapted from Kālidāsa’s 5th-century dramatic masterpiece, “The Song of Sakuntala” brings together Western baroque and Indian classical musical traditions into a story of “love, loss, memory, and redemption.” His libretto, a reflection of South Asian storytelling, includes the words of the great Indian poets Tagore, Naidu, and Vidyapati.
The story follows “a prince and a woman of the forest who fall in love and wed in secret. He departs, and she later seeks him out, only to have him deny all recognition of her. She disappears in sorrow; he spends the rest of his life searching. At the end, in the same forest where they first met, they find each other again and are transfigured.”
At 90 minutes, the uninterrupted piece features three singers (Aryssa Leigh Burrs, Teresa Ferrara, Marvin Wayne Allen) accompanied by an instrumental ensemble led by acclaimed sitarist Rajib Karmakar, who specializes in bridging Indian and Western classical traditions, and conducted by Nelson who also joins the music making on drone and harmonium.
Burrs plays the prince. Originally written for a countertenor, Nelson imagined a man singing the role but ultimately cast a woman to play the part.
Because the piece is “fiendishly difficult in almost unnecessary ways,” Nelson explains with a wicked chuckle, he knew that Burrs had the talent and sharp brain required for the role.
The prince is cruel without explanation. Despite that, 40-something Nelson admits to relating to the opera’s prince: “In midlife, you reflect on your mistakes. At least for now that’s how I feel. I might have felt different earlier and it could change later on.”
Nelson lived in India for nine months, backpacking and studying in different places, absorbing different musical styles and playing pieces as varied and complex as any Western music.
And while based in D.C., IN Series performs in both Washington and Baltimore using various borrowed venues. “The Song of Sakuntala” is playing at both the Atlas Performing Center in D.C. (6/6-6/14) and Baltimore’s beloved Baltimore Theatre Project (6/19-6/21) with its terrific acoustics.
In a past conversation, Nelson who lives in Adams Morgan, shared that all audiences bring something specific to the table. Baltimore tends to attract more risk taking while D.C. audiences often lean into the intellectual side of what the company does.
At the helm of IN Series for eight years, Nelson has relished reimagining opera and musical theater, but only recently did he decide to program his latest work. The way in which “The Song of Sakuntala” blends Western and non-Western music is very much a part of the IN Series music brand, so it seemed the perfect selection to close the season.
“I do this humbly with great hesitancy. And I know it feels a little unseemly to cheer on your own work, but I will say, it’s a piece that is successful in sitting in both places (Western and South Asia) and the Indian musicians on board are responding to it.”
-
Celebrity News5 days agoOutright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
-
Health5 days agoAIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
-
National5 days agoResults from key Tuesday primary races
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon4 days agoFederal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
