‘Necronomicon’: Dead on arrival

“Consider your privileges revoked, Mr. Lovecraft!”

Continuing in our series this month of scary movies featuring librarians, next up is 1993’s Necronomicon: Book of the Dead (aka Necronomicon, aka H.P. Lovecraft’s Necronomicon, Book of the Dead). The film is comprised of three segments, (Part 1, The Drowned, based on Lovecraft’s short story “The Rats in the Walls”; Part 2:  The Cold, based on the story “Cool Air”; Part 3: Whispers, based on the story “The Whisperer in Darkness”) plus a “wraparound” entitled The Library, which serves as a framing device for the other stories.

One of the directors, Shûsuke Kaneko, didn’t speak English during the time he was filming his segment, Part 2, although the entire cast is American. I’m not sure what the other directors’ excuses are. 😉

*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

The Library wraparound story is set in 1932 and stars Jeffrey Combs as the author H. P. Lovecraft, who pulls up in a taxi in front of an imposing building that houses a monastery library (see below).

Library scene in Necronomicon
Library scene in Necronomicon

The small bronze sign above the doorbell reads, “By appointment only.” Not sure if Lovecraft has an appointment, but he is apparently well-known by the librarian monks (played by Tony Azito as the Librarian, and Juan Fernandez as the attendant monk and library assistant).

Librarian:  Mr. Lovecraft, always a treat. And how can we indulge you this time?

Lovecraft:  Actually, I’m here because a new story of mine demands a bit of fact-checking.

Librarian:  Fact-checking? We were under the impression you dealt in fiction.

Lovecraft:  My work is wrongly construed as fiction by the lesser minded. In fact, I take great pride in presenting fictional possibilities. It is my duty, after all, as a human being to enlighten the darkest depths of experience, to expose certain secrets unjustly hoarded by others.

Librarian:  We shall see.

There is NOTHING subtle in this movie — from the makeup to the costumes to the “acting” to the “writing” (quotations marks intended) — so why would the librarian character be any different? Check out these facial expressions from the librarian monk:

Collage of monk librarian's facial expressions in Necronomicon
Collage of monk librarian’s facial expressions in Necronomicon

After signing in, we next spy the librarian on a library ladder. Obviously up to something, Lovecraft nervously directs the librarian to the alchemical encyclopedia on the top shelf (of course). While the librarian is busy reaching for the volume, Lovecraft manages to unhook the librarian’s keys from his waist sash without him noticing the sound of jangling keys or the sudden missing weight. Yeah. Right.

Library ladder alert!
Library ladder alert!

When you get massive eye-rolling from not only a main character (ahem, librarian monk) AND the audience within the first five minutes, you know it’s going to be a bad time. And the librarian monk tries to give Lovecraft a bad time with his next comment.

Please try to remember that if you leave this area unattended for any reason whatsoever, we shall be forced to revoke your privileges.

Does this stern warning work? Yeah. Right.

The very next shot shows him scurrying downstairs — although his furtive act is actually seen by the librarian assistant monk. Lovecraft approaches a secret archives room with a safe along the back wall, which DA-DA-DUMMMM, reveals the Necronomicon, the book of the dead. Cracking it open, Lovecraft disturbs some kind of force, causing the two librarian monks to look up (see below). Knowing what he’s up to, do the two librarian monks actually follow through on their threat to “revoke his privileges”? Of course not! There wouldn’t be a plot (such as it is).

Two monk librarians
Two monk librarians

I won’t go into the plots of the three story segments, but I will reveal that they’re all (sort of) set in the future. Or possibly alternate futures. Whatever. It doesn’t matter. Inbetween the stories, we are treated to an ever-increasing sense of unease through the library wraparound scenes, as the wall safe opens up more portal doors as more pages are turned. The librarians’ actions also (finally) escalate:

  • After the first story segment, the two librarian monks pick up Lovecraft’s hat in the main hall and casually ask, “Will he truly be brainless enough to try?” Response:  “Of course. He’s human.”
  • After the second segment, the librarian monk then tries to open up the door leading to the archives room, but finds the handle locked.
  • And finally, after the third story, the librarian monk shouts to Lovecraft through the iron bars. After Lovecraft reveals that he dropped the keys, the librarian begins to reveal his true self: “You impetuous little fool! Do you know what you’ve done?! Put it back. Put the book back!”

Too late! As the safe opens and an alien creature comes hurtling down the portal, the librarian monk squeezes through the bars and grabs Lovecraft. More threats and cheesy lines:

The secrets of the Necrominocon do not come cheap. This is going to cost you your life! Consider your privileges revoked, Mr. Lovecraft!

Perhaps balking at this ultra-cheesy line, Lovecraft unhinges the librarian’s jaws and pulls off his face, revealing the librarian as an alien! LIBRARIAN MONK ALIEN … LIBRARIAN MONK ALIEN … that phrase just kept spooling through my head … in all caps … LIBRARIAN MONK ALIEN.

Library fight in Necronomicon
Face…
Library fight in Necronomicon
… off!

Does Lovecraft get away? Of course! The alien creature grabs the LIBRARIAN MONK ALIEN instead and heads back down the wormhole portal, leaving this mess behind:

Librarian skin in Necronomicon
Idea for a Halloween costume?

The Necromonicon closes, and Lovecraft runs away as the librarian monk assistant shouts, “You don’t know what you’ve done! You’ll pay!” The movie ends on a closeup of the Necronomicon that he stole from the library.

Book thief in Necronomicon
Book thief!

Afterwards, my husband’s summation? “We’ve definitely seen worse.” As I pointed out, that’s not really a compliment. 😉

And in a film that supposedly celebrates Lovecraft’s craft, the character himself comes off rather poorly. We learn that (a) he’s a thief; (b) he’s smug about said thievery and escape; (c) he’s a plagiarist, as he was just copying the stories from the Necronomicon; and (d) he doesn’t care about the damage he caused — and presumably will continue causing — by opening up this book of the dead. The LIBRARIAN MONK ALIENS don’t come off well in this film, but Lovecraft comes off worse. It’s never a good time when you can’t root for a single character!

Sam is so well-versed in my reel librarian research that we also enjoyed a lively discussion of what character types the LIBRARIAN MONK ALIENS fulfilled:

  • Comic Relief? It’s sad when the bad acting and writing in a would-be horror film could count as comic relief, but that wasn’t the intention, I’m sure.
  • Liberated Librarian? No way.
  • Librarian as Failure? One could argue this considering the failure of the librarians to protect the book they were supposed to protect. Ultimately, however, one should assume these monks chose to live their lives in the library and wanted to protect the book of the dead, even though they were horribly inept at doing so.
  • Information Provider? I say yes, as the main librarian’s actions in the beginning of the film (signing in a library patron, climbing the library ladder, helping Lovecraft find a specific book) are used to establish the setting as a library, and his own role recognizable as a librarian, even while dressed in monk robes.
  • Anti-Social Librarian? Bingo! Hoarding knowledge; never seen outside the library; poor social skills; seems to dislike people; dressed conservatively; and elitist? Checkmark on all accounts.

So there you have it. Two anti-social and information-providing librarians in this Class III film. And one more time…

LIBRARIAN MONK ALIEN.

That is all.


Sources used:


  • Necronomicon: Book of the Dead. Dir. Christophe Gans, Shûsuke Kaneko, and Brian Yuzna. Perf. Jeffrey Combs, Tony Azito, Bruce Payne. Turner Home Entertainment, 1993.

Out of the habit

Reel librarians who echo religious figures

Continuing the theme of deeper representation (click here and here), some reel librarians cinematically echo religious figures, such as the nun or monk. This correlation is most obvious in the film The Name of the Rose (1986), in which the librarians are LITERALLY monks, but less direct examples also exist. Reel depictions of nuns and monks tend to go medieval on us, focusing on celibacy (or at the very least, self-restraint of the “sins of the flesh”), hidden or conservative views, and power over knowledge (or access to that knowledge), usually of a secret or mystical nature.

Note:  I am NOT passing judgment on clergy folk, librarians, or those who are both, mmmkay? So don’t shoot the messenger. Or friendly librarian blogger. 🙂

The above qualities are most widely seen in the Spinster Librarian or the Anti-Social Librarian character types. Philadelphia (1993), In the Name of the Father (1993), and Sophie’s Choice (1982) all include librarians who hoard knowledge, although that knowledge is of a secular, not mystical, nature. Hidden views? Look no further than Soylent Green (1973) or Homicide (1991).

Citizen Kane (1941) features the strongest modern image of the librarian as representative of the nun/monk figure (although Lindgren in 2011’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo comes a close second). Miss Anderson (Georgia Backus) appears as an undesirable — and therefore undoubtedly single — woman unwilling, or at the very least reluctant, to share information from the library with a reporter. Her severe suit and helmet of hair (perfectly silhouetted in the clip below) function as a modern update of the nun robes and habit. She embodies the hoarding of knowledge; the conservative dress and demeanor — wearing both as a costume or uniform; as well as the stripped-away sexuality (in her case, celibacy probably is self-imposed). Unwilling to yield to prying eyes or questions that might upset the world she controls, Miss Anderson cinematically represents the image of the (stereotypical) nun in a secular society.

Citizen.Kane.(1941).WMV” video uploaded by deanxavier is licensed under a Standard YouTube license

Sources used:


  • Citizen Kane. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, Ruth Warrick, Alan Ladd. RKO, 1941.
  • The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Rooney Mara, Daniel Craig, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård. Columbia, 2011.
  • Homicide. Dir. David Mamet. Perf. Joe Mantegna, William H. Macy and Vincent Guastaferro. Triumph Releasing Corp., 1991.
  • In the Name of the Father. Dir. Jim Sheridan. Perf. Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson, Pete Postelthwaite. Universal, 1993.
  • The Name of the Rose. Dir. Jean-Jacques Annaud. Perf. Sean Connery, Christian Slater, F. Murray Abraham, Ron Perlman. 20th Century Fox, 1986.
  • Philadelphia. Dir. Jonathan Demme. Perf. Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jason Robards, Joanne Woodward, Antonio Banderas, Mary Steenburgen. TriStar, 1993.
  • Sophie’s Choice. Dir. Alan J. Pakula. Perf. Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Peter MacNicol. Universal, 1982.
  • Soylent Green. Dir. Richard Fleischer. Perf. Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young, Edward G. Robinson, Brock Peters, Joseph Cotton. MGM, 1973.

Between perfect order and perfect chaos

Why are reel librarians so often portrayed with anal-retentive qualities?

Does “anal-retentive” have a hyphen? (Yes, usually, but it depends — probably on whether you’re British or American, as the Oxford English Dictionary does not include a hyphen, whilst Merriam Webster does, see below). But that’s not the point… or is it? 😉

Merriam Webster's definition of "anal-retentive"
Merriam Webster’s definition of “anal-retentive”

Having watched this week the most recent David Cronenberg film, A Dangerous Method (2011) — all about Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Sabina Spielrein, and the early years of establishing psychology as a science — it felt like a good time to explore more into why reel librarians are so often portrayed with anal-retentive qualities.

I’ve touched on this subject before, including this post about Myers-Briggs types of real librarians, the librarian as nightmare image, as well as in my explorations of the Spinster Librarian and Anti-Social Librarian character types. And please note that I’m talking here about broader archetypes and stereotypical characteristics; I’m not making a critical judgment on the profession in general or commenting on any specific person.

There are many kinds of onscreen tension lurking behind the cinematic portrayals of librarians (power struggles, battle for knowledge vs. battle between the sexes, etc.). One such tension is anal-retentiveness, a trait that shows up quite often in film portrayals of librarians, usually in smaller roles. Examples of anal-retentive behavior include loudly shushing any noisemakers in a library (City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly’s Gold, 1994, see below); expressing anxiety when a book is late or damaged (as parodied in UHF, 1989); and showing reluctance to check any books out, thereby hoarding knowledge (for a most extreme example, see The Name of the Rose, 1986).

Shushing Lady in City Slickers II
Shushing Lady in City Slickers II

Poor social skills also show up in conjunction with these characteristics, which seem to be rooted in the conflict or tension between order and chaos. In their 1997 article “Power, Knowledge, and Fear:  Feminism, Foucault, and the Stereotype of the Female Librarian,” the Radfords have noted that libraries, and thus librarians, are “structured by the values of order, control, and suppression” (p. 255). Studying cataloging and organizational systems is standard practice for librarians, and shelving, carding, and stamping materials become essential in any well-organized library (see my post on library qualifications and job duties). It is this want — this need — of an organized system of resources that makes it easy, or at least manageable, for any user to find a resource he/she wants in a library’s system.

Mary (Parker Posey) in Party Girl (1995) throws a funny light on the serious business of shelving when she yells at a patron for randomly shelving a book.  “Let’s put the book any damn place we want!”

The librarian is also charged with compiling the most complete collection he/she possibly can — whether that means digital or print resources — that reflects the community that library serves. But that collection can NEVER be complete, because users continuously check out those materials — thereby “disrupting” that so-called perfect harmony of the complete and ordered collection. Thus, cinematically, the librarian often displays characteristics of an uptight, sheltered, and, at times, almost manic personality in order to eliminate, sometimes at all costs, the potential disruption of stability. In The Name of the Rose (1986), abbey librarian Malachia strives to hoard the books in the abbey’s library. However, “it is this knowledge, rather than the texts themselves, that is so fanatically protected by the monks” (Radford and Radford, p. 257), leading to murder, arson, and chaos — or freedom, depending on whether you root for Malachia or not.

This tension between order and chaos felt by librarians (who want to protect the materials and their organizational order) and the users (who strive for knowledge by borrowing or accessing those materials) finds itself depicted in many screen portrayals of librarians. This tension is not gender-driven, however; both male and female librarians are depicted onscreen as people who are “obsessed with the order that rationality demands of them” (Radford and Radford, p. 261). Among others, Miss Anderson in Citizen Kane (1941), the librarian played by John Rothman in Sophie’s Choice (1982), and Elvia Allman in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) all exhibit the hypertension caused (or created?) by the inherent conflict between perfect order and perfect chaos.

What do you think? If you’re a fellow librarian, have you been able to find a personal balance between order and chaos? Or, like the question about the hypen in “anal-rententive” that started us off, does it even matter in the end? (Hee hee.) 😉

And now for something not-so-completely-different… the patented shushing super power from the librarian action figure.

Librarian Action Figure from Archie McPhee” video uploaded by Archie McPhee is licensed under a Standard YouTube license

Sources used:


  • Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Dir. Blake Edwards. Perf. Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard, Mickey Rooney, Patricia Neal. Paramount, 1961.
  • Citizen Kane. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, Ruth Warrick, Alan Ladd. RKO, 1941.
  • City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly’s Gold. Dir. Paul Weiland. Perf. Billy Crystal, Daniel Stern, Jon Lovitz, Jack Palance. Castle Rock Entertainment/Warner Home Video, 1994.
  • The Name of the Rose. Dir. Jean-Jacques Annaud. Perf. Sean Connery, Christian Slater, F. Murray Abraham, Ron Perlman. 20th Century Fox, 1986.
  • Party Girl. Dir. Daisy von Scherler Mayer. Perf. Parker Posey, Sasha von Scherler, Guillermo Diaz, Liev Schreiber. First Look, 1995.
  • Radford, Marie L., and Gary P. Radford. “Power, Knowledge, and Fear: Feminism, Foucault, and the Stereotype of the Female Librarian.” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 67.3 (July 1997): 250-266.
  • Sophie’s Choice. Dir. Alan J. Pakula. Perf. Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Peter MacNicol. Universal, 1982.
  • UHF. Dir. Jay Levey. Perf. Weird Al Yankovic, Victoria Jackson, Kevin McCarthy, Michael Richards. Orion, 1989.

The Anti-Social Librarian

Exploring the Anti-Social Librarian character type

Continuing our series of reel librarian character types (click here, here, here, here, and here), this week we’re shining the spotlight on the Anti-Social Librarian, aka “The Male Librarian with No Life Outside the Library.” That was the moniker I used in my undergraduate thesis (more on that here) — and my talent for awkward titles is well-documented. While the previous name was an apt description, I decided to simplify it.

This character type may seem more like a variation on the Librarian as Failure type. Both are awkward in social situations, and minor roles usually used to contrast with other reel librarians or major characters in the film (see Off Beat, 1986; Goodbye, Columbus, 1969; Prick Up Your Ears, 1987; and Fast and Loose, 1939) . However, I set the Anti-Social Librarian apart because there are a few characteristics that apply to this type of male librarian and not necessarily to the male librarians who fit the “loser” mold.

Essentially, this is the male equivalent of the Spinster Librarian:  conservative library workers who hoard knowledge and focus on rules. There are also physical similarities between the two (see above). They do NOT like people and display extremely elitist attitudes, resulting in those strict rules. In this category, the reel librarians are almost never seen outside the library — or at least, never in any sense of home or social setting — because they are seen as literal extensions, or representations, of the library. It comes as no surprise that whenever an Anti-Social Librarian shows up in a film, an unflattering light is cast on libraries in general. Instead of places of knowledge and access to information, libraries are depicted as places blocked off with barriers and secrets.

Most Anti-Social Librarians do not have important roles in these films, which helps to cement stereotypical traits of personality (anal retentive, unfriendly) and physical appearance (conservative clothing, unattractive). These types don’t like the public, and the very idea of the public using their libraries can send them into a panic, as in Goodbye, Columbus (1969). In that film, Neil’s co-workers include two Anti-Social Librarians, who seek to prohibit an African-American boy from visiting the library.

John McKee (Bill Derringer):  What’d you let him in for?

Neil Klugman (Richard Benjamin):  It’s a public library.

John: You know where I found him yesterday? In the stacks looking at the nudes. He was hiding there all morning. [Note: The boy is actually interested in art books]

Neil:  Did you throw him out?

John: Of course I threw him out.

John Rothman (he also stars in my “Repeat Offenders” post) has made his mark in playing this type of male librarian, appearing in two films as an Anti-Social Librarian. First, in Sophie’s Choice (1982), he has a memorable scene as the uncaring library clerk who ridicules Polish immigrant Sophie (Meryl Streep), who mistakenly asks for information on “Emil Dickens” when she means “Emily Dickinson.” He has no concept of polite behavior; he shouts, argues, ridicules, and basically causes an already emotionally and physically frail women to fall down on the floor in a faint. His oily hair, glasses, and bow tie complete his image of anal retentiveness. It is important that he remains behind his high desk; he cannot be removed from that desk, or his image as the snooty, unbending keeper of privileged knowledge would be diluted.

Research scene” video uploaded by SoFewChoices is licensed under a Standard YouTube license

In a more modern perspective, Rothman played a library administrator in Ghostbusters (1984). His job — again, never seen outside library doors — centers on protecting the library’s reputation. He seems totally oblivious that a poor librarian (Alice Drummond) was scared out of her wits by a ghost. He is concerned only with how people will regard the library, and by association, himself.

A film set in the fourteenth century, The Name of the Rose (1986), features one of the strangest male librarians in reel history, Malachia (played by Volker Prechtel). A monk with an enormous nose and ears and tufts of red-orange hair, he is depicted as strange and rude, with no social skills whatsoever. His name — derived from Malachi, a minor prophet from the Bible, whose name means “my messenger” — reflects his ties to the library, or at least how he perceives the purpose of his life’s vocation. Malachia works to isolate the library from any prying eyes. Only three monks in the monastery know the key to the library’s peculiar system of cataloging books, explaining how Malachia (who is referred to as the “head librarian”) helps hoards knowledge and limits physical access to any books deemed unsuitable.

Here’s what happens when William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his sidekick, Adso of Melk (Christian Slater), encounter Malachia outside the library door:

William:  I was just looking for your assistant, Brother Berengar. Is he here?

Malachia:  No.

William:  Oh. I see. Do you know where we might find him?

Malachia:  No.

William:  Is he perhaps upstairs in the library?

Malachia:  No.

William:  I am most curious to see the library for myself. May I do so?

Malachia:  NO! [moves to physically block door to library]

William:  Why not?

Malachia:  It is a strict rule of the abbot, that no one is permitted to enter the abbey library, other than myself and my assistant.

Of course, William and Adso find a way into the library later. Take a peek for yourself, in the clip below:

The Name of the Rose – Labyrinth Library Part (1986)” video uploaded by Tenuun Batzorig is licensed under a Standard YouTube license

Next Friday, we’ll take a look at the Comic Relief librarians… so you’d better start saving up your laughs now, okay? 😉

‘Debbie Does’ a play

A closer look at the librarian in “Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical”

During my research of librarian films, I have come across two erotic films, Debbie Does Dallas (1978) and Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Comedy (1976) that reportedly include librarian characters. I haven’t seen either film yet, and I don’t intend to include straight-to-video adult films that include librarians on this site — that’s a whole other subset of Naughty Librarians that I won’t get into. But these two films were both highly successful at the time and considered classics of their kind, produced during the so-called “Golden Age of Porn” where adult films became more mainstream. Just telling it as it is, folks.

The plot of Debbie Does Dallas is quite simple:  a group of cheerleaders try to earn enough money to send Debbie to try out for the “Texas Cowgirls” squad (obviously a riff off the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders). How do they earn that money? There’s a reason it’s called the oldest profession in the world, of course. 😉

As I detailed in a earlier post about how I find new titles to watch, I routinely check my Master List against various sources. And imagine my surprise when I found a copy of Debbie Does Dallas in my local community college consortium — not the film, alas, but the play! I had no idea that the film had been adapted for the stage, but indeed, Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical was created in 2001 by Susan L. Schwartz for the New York International Fringe Festival. It was adapted by Erica Schmidt, with original musical numbers by Andrew Sherman.

Debbie Does Dallas the Musical
Debbie Does Dallas the Musical

And indeed, there is a librarian in the play, a Mr. Biddle. Here’s how he’s described in the script notes:

Mr. Biddle works at the high-school library. He is repressed and reserved. Biddle is of a forgotten generation in his principles and etiquette. (He is a male character in a porno and he does not want sex.) He is smart, rash, quick to anger and passionate about poetry.

From that description, I immediately thought Anti-Social Librarian, the male equivalent of the Spinster Librarian. This type of reel librarian tends to hoard knowledge, exhibits poor social skills, dislikes people, and focuses on rules. Makes sense, right?

Mr. Biddle is definitely a minor character, turning up in only a few scenes. In Scene 8, “Girls Get Jobs,” the poet cheerleader Donna asks if she can work at the library. He is reluctant, but is convinced by Donna’s scintillating argument:  “I could help by watching books and stamping and stuff.” (Sigh.) His response?  “Oh, ok.” (Double sigh.)

His biggest and final scene comes in Scene 20, “The Library.” Mr. Biddle catches Donna and her boyfriend Tim fooling around. Angry, he shouts, “You know the rules here. How could you so wantonly break them?” Afraid he will tell her parents, she allows him to spank her (see right). And then he asks her to spank him:  “I always wanted to be bent over and spanked by a cheerleader ’cause I’m a bad and nasty boy.” Donna readily agrees, calling him “Bad Biddle.” This sets him back $105.

And with that, he also serves as a Naughty Librarian — the males of this type, unlike the female Naughty Librarians, are generally unattractive (check) and interested in deviant or unusual sexual acts (check).

So is the play successful? The scenes are extremely short, with repeated occurrences of inane dialogue. I lost count of how many times I read, “Oh, ok” and “Ok, bye.” The sex acts are hinted at or simulated or played with bananas (not kidding, see below). In truth, I rolled my eyes at the self-described tone of the play, as set out in the introductory notes:

The style of this piece is: rodeo-porno-football-circus. Every performer must be willing to go over the top and yet NOT BE CAMPY. The performances are meant to be big in size but never winking at the audience.

Does Mr. Biddle’s character in the play mimic his reel counterpart? Apparently so, as according to Frank Vigorito’s review from the 2001 New York International Fringe Festival, “Debbie’s plot and script are word-for-word faithful to the original 1978 film.” And the scenes feel so short because of the removal of the sex scenes, so scenes “seemingly occur about every 30 seconds.” I agree with Vigorito’s final verdict:

Essentially, the play moves from one pointless scene of dialogue to the next, with the audience left waiting for something to look forward to, but that moment never arrives, unless you consider the final curtain.


Sources used:


  • Schwartz, Susan L. Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical, 2002.
  • Vigorito, Frank. “Blown Opportunity.” Off Off Off Theater, 14 August 2001.