Dated plot point? (spoiler)
A big part of the plot in this film revolves around Elliot's reluctance to play Richard III in a "flamboyant" manner, as recommended by his director. Elliott believes all along that the performance will result in disaster, and it does.
I believe that if Elliott played Richard III in this "fabulous" manner today, every publication in town would call his performance "groundbreaking," "edgy," and inevitably, "courageous." NPR would do daily upbeat profiles on the show and its star. Elliott would eventually win a Tony and be protected against bad reviews for the rest of his life. After all, even the worst actors seem to get a free pass from critics if they have played a homosexual at some point in their career. (*cough* Keanu Reaves.)
So my question is, would Elliott still get the same negative reaction now that he did in 1977?