Mostly Legit

Be Like The Bluebird And Sing...

2010-04-12T22:02:00.003-04:00

...tweet tweet, tra-la, tra-la, tra-la.

Finally got around to starting a Twitter account. That doesn't necessarily mean this blog is totally dead. And doesn't mean I'll ever remember to tweet. But I put the link out there, should anyone care to find out.

http://twitter.com/cardamond

Actually, I had a truly horrid experience at "101 Dalmatians" over the weekend, so an entry for me to vent may be coming soon to a screen near you. Maybe.

How I Spent 2009

2009-12-31T02:06:00.002-05:00

Every December it seems like every puts out a best of list. And every December I grumble to myself about what bizarre choices they've made. Common sense would say I should just put together my own, but I never did because I always felt I couldn't remember well enough what I'd seen over the past year and I was always sure I'd forget something important from very early in the year. Until now (dun dun dun). My little pet project for 2009 which I miraculously stuck with for an entire year – amazing, I know - was to keep track of every single show I saw, and give each one a letter grade from A+ to F and a one sentence comment, with the ultimate purpose being the ability to come up with one of these year end lists. And so when people ask me just how many shows I see, I can give something a little more specific than “a lot.”

Well, I sat through a grand total of 228 shows in 2009. And here were the ten best and the ten worst, based on the ratings on my handy dandy spreadsheet – every single A+ plus a selection of A shows on the Best list, and every single F and a selection of D- shows on the Worst list. For completeness sake, I've stuck in the date I saw each show next to the title.

BEST

1. A Streetcar Named Desire (BAM) – 12/11/2009

The best production of the play I've seen (and I suspect I will ever see). A standing ovation for Cate Blanchett's Blanche seemed almost not good enough – we should have all just fallen to our knees and bowed to her brilliance.

2. Liza's At The Palace (Broadway) – 1/03/2009

I waited on line for something like 8 or 9 hours in the freezing cold lobby of the Palace Theatre to get front row rush seats. And it was worth every second.

3. Spring Awakening (West End) – 3/25/2009

Yes, I'm a bit of a “Spring Awakening” junkie, having seen the show 21 times – contributions from this year were the final two Broadway performances, the production in Vienna (in German) and in London, and the tour in Philadelphia. But the one that stuck out the most was the oh so young London cast that delivered a performance that was on par with the NY original (that being the highest praise one can give a production of "Spring Awakening").

4. Next To Normal (Broadway) – 5/22/2009

The best new musical of 2009. After a frankly lousy production off-Broadway at Second Stage, the creative team had the good fortune to be allowed to take the show to DC where they made all the necessary changes, and made a triumphant return to NY.

5. The Winter's Tale (BAM) – 2/21/2009

Part of Sam Mendes' Bridge Project, an absolutely joyous production of the play.

6. Exit The King (Broadway) – 4/24/2009

I know I'm in the vast minority on this, but the moment that clinched this for the list was the long scene in the second act where the Queen (Susan Sarandon) led the King (Geoffrey Rush) to death. Everyone seemed to think that it was long and boring and the one weak point in the otherwise fabulous play. Well it was kind of the opposite for me – that scene had me clutching my armrests and shaking. Obviously it touched a nerve.

7. Mary Stuart (Broadway) – 5/15/2009

Janet McTeer and Harriet Walter deliver a master class in acting.

8. The Late Christopher Bean (The Actors Company Theatre) - 12/07/2009

I had no expectations for this and kept putting it off and putting it off, until finally getting around to it the final week of its extended run. And darn if it wasn't funny and moving and wonderfully acted.

9. East 10th Street: Self Portrait with Empty House (Axis Theatre) – 2/26/2009

How have I missed Edgar Oliver all of these years? The East Village legend delivered a riveting account of his life in an apartment building on E 10th St. My only criticism was that I wanted it to be longer. But I won't hold that against him.

10. Viral (NY Fringe Festival) – 8/24/2009

It's plays like this that make suffering through garbage at the Fringe Festival worth it. Both disturbing and touching, with top-notch acting, I wonder why this hasn't been given a commercial production yet. Am I to understand that a play about people who are turned on by watching people commit suicide is not an audience-friendly topic?

WORST

1. Othello (Public Theater/NYU) – 9/12/2009

Pity the poor people who went to see this sold out before it started production that starred Philip Seymour Hoffman and John Ortiz, and was directed by Peter Sellars. It was incomprehensible. A crime against Shakespeare.

2. Hedda Gabler (Roundabout) – 2/14/2009

Roundabout, Roundabout, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. I like Mary-Louise Parker in theory, though she was ghastly in her last two theatre outings (the other being “Dead Man's Cell Phone”). Not blame for this travesty rests solely on her shoulders. The direction and the rest of the cast were also terrible.

3. The Philanthropist (Roundabout) – 6/06/2009

More theatrical horror from Roundabout. The first scene wasn't bad. At least until Matthew Broderick started talking. For some reason I didn't leave at intermission, though I sorely regretted that decision when Broderick started on his interminable second act monologue. This was the play that finally made me realize that Matthew Broderick has absolutely zero acting ability, and convinced me to try as hard as I can to never see another production with him in the cast.

4. Wildflower (Second Stage Uptown) – 7/13/2009

Another in a long line of plays about socially inept teenage boys. Except this was worse than the others with a jaw-dropping bad twist ending.

5. Desire Under the Elms (Broadway) – 5/09/2009

I have no idea if this play is actually good or not, but based on this production it seems like Eugene O'Neill's worst. With the entire cast delivering awful over-the-top performances, and a bizarre and hideous set, well the only question is how anyone who saw this production in Chicago thought it was worthy of transferring to Broadway?

6. The Soul of Shaolin (Broadway) – 1/13/2009

A boring display of martial arts, shoe-horned into a thin plot. I fled at intermission.

7. Shipwrecked: An Entertainment (Primary Stages) – 1/27/2009

This was one of those plays with those plays that tries to use a tiny budget to its advantage by having two actors play a whole pile of different characters, assuming the audience will ooh, ah and giggle over how hard the actors work. I was bored, not charmed.

8. The Wiz (Encores Summer Stars) – 6/15/2009

You know that saying about not working with children or animals? I enjoyed Nigel (the dog)'s performance as Toto. That was about it.

9. Coraline (MCC) – 5/13/2009

About the most pretentious musical you could imagine based on a Neil Gaiman novel. And this one had the added displeasure of having the supremely untalented David Greenspan giving the same exact performance he gives in every show he does – he's Off-Broadway's answer to Matthew Broderick, I suppose.

10. 9 to 5 (Broadway) – 4/13/2009

Shear torture. Dreadful music, boring story. I used to like the title song. Not so much anymore, now that it's connected in my head to this travesty.

And there you go. Happy New Year everyone.

Walking In "Memphis"

2009-09-24T23:47:00.000-04:00

I went to the second preview of "Memphis" tonight, and I have to say I'm a bit troubled by it. I went in with zero expectations. A show by Joe DiPietro (All Shook Up, I Love You You're Perfect Now Change) and David Bryan (of Bon Jovi and Toxic Avenger: The Musical) with no stars, and no discernible buzz, at the huge Shubert Theatre was a bit of a head scratcher. But I was curious enough to go, and go I did. And it absolutely blew away my zero expectations. The score is fantastic. It's a wonderful collection of toe-tapping, humumumumable melodies, with only one or two that screamed out "cut me." I can't wait for the cast recording. It's the most accessible and entertaining score I've heard since Alan Menken's "Sister Act" (my favorite pick-me-up cast recording at the moment). And the performers are all absolutely wonderful. Chad Kimball seemed to be a bit of a one-trick-pony after his acclaimed performance as Milky White in the Into The Woods revival, and lousy performances in every else since. Well, he's finally broken out of playing the cutesy type here, and he's pretty darn good. Even better is Montego Glover, who deserves at least a Tony nomination for her performance. Oh and the set and the lighting and the (most of) the choreography? All stellar.
The problem is - and what make the show a heartbreaker - is that the story has a big black hole in the middle. I found myself thinking a little of Pal Joey, in that the main character Huey, isn't particularly likable. He's not a nasty person like Joey Evans. He certainly always means well. He's just a loser. The story of "Memphis" is that this white screw-up high school dropout who can't read, decides he wants to bring black music to white folk (treading in similar paths as Dreamgirls or Hairspray, I suppose, in the whole trying to integrate via music vein). Thanks to luck, obnoxiousness, and so leaps of logic the audience is expected to accept, he becomes the number one DJ in Memphis and falls in love with a black singer. Act one charts his rise to fame, and act two his downfall. The problem is that the audience really has no reason to root for him. And because we never really have any reason to root for him, we don't really care when things fall apart in the end. He did nothing to earn his fame, so if it's taken away from him, so what? His girlfriend is really very sweet and likable, and we care about her and her inevitable broken heart to a certain extent, but it's not enough. Especially since the two frankly have absolutely no chemistry. So what ends up happening, especially in the second act, is that every time the cast starts to sing, the audience comes alive, and then when the songs stop and we have to listen to dialogue that moves this story along that we frankly don't care about, well... the thumbs switch from snapping to twiddling.
I mentioned above that I loved almost all the choreography. The one exception was the hopelessly cheesy dancing Sergio Trujillo came up with for the final song - the very worst place to let an audience down. It seemed like it was probably period inspired, but it to be it just seemed hopelessly dated and uninspired, and frankly very reminiscent of what he used in the finale of Jersey Boys. For Jersey Boys it worked. Here, not at all.
Memphis is such a frustrating show. I almost want to say I liked and recommend it despite its short comings, but the second act really has such problems, I'm torn. I'll be curious to see how this show ends up doing at the box office.

Boo-sca Alley

2009-09-21T23:16:00.001-04:00

It appears Peter Gelb made quite the boo-boo, when he hired Luc Bondy to direct a new production of Tosca at the Met. The new production opened the opera season tonight, and not since Mary Zimmerman's reviled La Sonnambula last season, has so much booing been heard in response to the creative team's curtain call. There were a couple of boos after the first act, a few more after the second, and by the time the curtain came down on act three, presumably in response to the pathetic staging of Tosca's jump that served as the icing on the mud pie, well it was pretty much unanimous throughout the audience.
And it's really too bad, because there was some fabulous singing in the production from Karita Mattila's Tosca and Marcelo Alvarez's Cavaradossi. And of course James Levine's Met orchestra was divine. I will say last minute replacement George Gagnidze's Scarpia was totally underwhelming, well acted perhaps, but very often drowned out by the orchestra. A beautiful voice can make one forget lousy acting (see: Marcelo Alvarez), but if we can't hear you, well most people aren't fans of mimes.
I don't consider myself one of those crazy traditionalists who thinks Zeffirelli's original production was the greatest thing since sliced bread - or since his Aida, anyway. Even though the sets throughout were absolutely hideous, there were a few well staged moments in this production that were downright disturbing that I never really felt while watching the old Met production. The character of Scarpia especially, I was never so creeped out by before. I think in the old Zef production, everyone was so busy looking at the pretty sets and listening to the beautiful music, the audience missed out a bit on just how disturbing the story really is, and how real these characters can be, when directed and staged properly. This production was such a mess that the thrilling moments were few and far between, but I did leave the first and second acts (the third was just a total travesty), but now more than ever I find myself really craving a really well thought out, probably somewhat barer staging of Tosca. And I still drool at the thought of the Bregenz production described in Variety.
I mean, I know the most important thing in an opera is the music, and this Tosca has that down pat. But when a director botches Tosca's final jump by having her run up stairs, taunt the guards to catch her and then push them down the stairs, then run behind a wall, AND THEN have a dummy just tilt on a ledge but not actually fall off because what was underneath was either supposed to be an abyss or a body of water - no one in the audience could quite figure that one out - but it was definitely was not a pit one could fall through - well, you got trouble. Perhaps the audience was expected to believe that Tosca didn't actually jump, and this was merely a set up for next season's world premiere, "Tosca 2: Tosca's Revenge." Except I have a suspicion that Tosca's Revenge may actually amount to a return to life for the old Zeffirelli production which presumably is sitting in mothballs somewhere in New Jersey, waiting for an outcome just like this to rear its opulent head once again. We can only pray.

Inferior Donuts

2009-09-17T00:01:00.001-04:00

If Tracy Letts had any good sense, he would have retired from playwriting after "August: Osage County." Instead, he gave us "Superior Donuts." And "September: Osage County" it is not. To put things in terms of Winnie the Pooh, if August was all hyper and bouncy and exciting like Tigger, Superior Donuts is sort of slow and sweet like Eeyore. Except everyone loves Eeyore, and as the woman sitting in the row in front of me, who left five minutes before the show ended as she stormed into the hallway, "This is the worst thing I've ever..." (and that's all we got before the door closed behind her). While I don't agree with her assessment, Superior Donuts is indeed far from a perfect play.
On the plus side, Michael McKean is fabulous as the immensely likable hippy owner of a donut shop in Chicago. It's so not a performance I would have expected from him, which made it all the better. The play is about the owner of the donut shop, and the feisty college drop-out who he is convinced to employ (by the boy himself). The scenes between the two really crackle, and make up the high points of the play. Unfortunately they're not always on stage together, and while McKean's character is just as entertaining when he is interacting with the other folks in the play, the boy's character in his one scene alone, while important to the story, is really very dull. And McKean doesn't escape unscathed either, because Letts took his character's backstory, chopped it up into manageable bits, and has him deliver them directly to the audience in between scenes. In response to that extremely lazy playwriting, I strongly suggest the audience take the opportunity to grab short naps in those sections of the play, because they seemed, quite frankly, to be almost entirely unnecessary.
Also unfortunate, are the final two scenes. Well actually to back up a little bit more, in what I guess was the antepenultimate scene, which is actually very emotional, the play is rudely interrupted a number of times by what I think must have been the crowd reaction to Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig exiting the stage door across the street from the Music Box, where Superior Donuts is playing. I was in the center of the rear mezzanine (which by the way are fine seats) and heard the screaming, so I can only imagine what those in the orchestra heard. I almost wish the producers would decide to change the start time of all the performances to 7pm, just to avoid that irritating distraction. Or they could cut McKean's monologues, thus shortening the play and avoiding the problem that way.
Anyway, so then we have the penultimate scene, which include an absolutely ridiculous (yes that term also comes from the woman who would later storm out, but this time she was right) fight scene that is not only very unconvincingly executed (chalk that up to this being the first preview), but also just didn't make sense period. I won't spoil the reason for the fight, but it was a jaw-dropper of absurdity. Then the final scene started out as emotional - and perhaps I felt this way because I was distracted by the walk-out - just devolved into sappy and dull.
It's too bad the final scenes were such a let down, because there IS a lot to enjoy in the play. I don't think I mentioned the other supporting actors, but I should say that there is absolutely not a weak link in the ensemble. The roles may not all be the juiciest, but they are all absolutely believably performed.
I hope Letts takes this preview period to continue making changes to the play (*cough* like rethinking the monologues *cough*). I read somewhere that he said he made a number of changes between the Chicago and NY runs, so hopefully some of the things that didn't work were just experiments that didn't work. Despite some serious moments, the play comes across a quite slight, which I thought was kind of a nice change of pace. It was sort of refreshing to see a play that didn't run the audience through the emotional ringer. It's not so bad to see something that's merely pleasant every now and then. That is unless you've payed $116.50 for it.

(This is a totally random aside, but when I typed those *cough*s in the last paragraph, I actually started coughing. That's never happened before. Craaaaazy.)

A Shakespearean Travesty and A Play That Ain't Too 'Broke'

2009-09-12T22:41:00.003-04:00

This is a public service announcement. If you were "lucky" enough to score tickets to the sold out production of Peter Sellars' "Othello," starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and John Ortiz at NYU (co-produced by the Public), I strongly urge you to scalp your tickets before the reviews come out. Because once word of mouth gets out, you're going to have a very expensive bookmark on your hands. The production is, as the angry woman in front of me said, "a travesty." Philip Seymour Hoffman and John Ortiz seemed to be acting in different plays: Hoffman's performance seemed to be in an over-the-top classical one, and was notable for its excessive screaming and lack of any sense of his character; Ortiz seemed to be in a third rate high school one, and listening to him recite Shakespeare made me appreciate how one of my high school English teachers insisted on playing professional recordings of Shakespeare plays for the class rather than have students attempt to recite them.
The set consists of a bed made out of television sets, showing random images, the meaning of which are known only the the director and designed. Director Sellars randomly combined characters to the point where even though I've seen both the original play (in an excellent production at BAM) and Verdi's opera version, I had only the faintest idea of what was going on onstage.
The entire play in this production apparently runs over four hours. I, along with the majority of the audience, escaped at the intermission which arrived after a grueling two hours and fifteen minutes.
I expect this production will transfer to Henry Miller's Theatre after its run downtown, as this production fits in quite nicely with the Roundabout's usual fare.

On a happier note, I was pleasantly surprised Friday night by "Broke-ology," which just began performances at the Mitzi E Newhouse. It's a bit slow, but the performances are absolutely wonderful, and the play is surprisingly heartbreaking (I was pretty close to shedding a tear of two). I can't remember the last time I saw four performers who had such beautiful chemistry together. I was especially moved by Wendell Pierce's performance as the father. He just exuded such warmth and joy. I defy you to not smile when watching him dance alone in his living room. I tell you it can't be done. For my taste, the play could definitely use some cutting, because despite the handful of scenes that are so good they make the production worthwhile, I did quite a bit of imaginary thumb twiddling. And though the staging was quite good from my seat in the center of the theatre, I couldn't help but think that the production looking like it was designed and staged for a standard proscenium stage, and the the thrust one they have at the Newhouse. Sort of like the fabulous Twelfth Night that was performed this summer as part of Shakespeare in the Park. I don't think the side seats would be considered obstructed view at all, but I did get the impression that the set was not designed just for the Newhouse - the production is a transfer from Williamstown, so I suppose that may be true - I don't know how the Nikos Theatre is set up, or what the set looked like when it was there. "Broke-ology" is by no means a must see, but you could certainly do worse (like seeing "Othello"). Oh, and they should totally sell mini versions of Stubby/Chauncey (the garden gnome from the play) in the gift shop. They would be huge sellers. So cute.

Bland Birdie

2009-09-10T23:35:00.003-04:00

In honor of the start of the new Broadway season (I'm not counting "Burn the Floor" because it's really better that way), I'm back from my unintentional hiatus (aka long bout of laziness). Yay?

Last month I waited more hours then I care to admit for $10 tickets to the first preview of the Roundabout's new production of "Bye Bye Birdie." Not because I like the show, but because I really wanted a free lunchbox. And to see the first public performance at the new Henry Miller's Theatre. As it turned out, I ended up just missing the cut off for the lunchboxes, but I instead got a reproduction of the original "Birdie" Playbill, which was signed by the Charles Strouse and Lee Adams, and which is so much cooler than a lunchbox. And considering the size and clutter level of my apartment, much more space efficient as well. Anyway, today was the day for the first preview, and so off I went.

The theatre itself is about on par with the other newly built Broadway theatres - the Minskoff, Marquis and Gershwin: comfortable seats, good sightlines, and utterly lacking in personality. So it's appropriate I guess that this production of "Bye Bye Birdie" should re-open in this new space: a classic show mounted in a modern, slick, and extremely bland new production. Pretty much everything wrong with the production could be summed up in the first two scenes. First we have Gina Gershon sing "An English Teacher." And she's off-key (a problem she continues having at random times throughout the show, as do other members of the cast). Her onstage companion is the bland John Stamos who try as he might, was really unable to convincingly make Albert the shy pushover he needs to be in the early scenes (this proves a problem in the dreary second act, when he finally stands up for himself, and the audience is not shocked at all). Then we move on to "The Telephone Hour" which was ruined... or rather, restaged by director/choreographer Robert Longbottom, I guess becuase he wanted to remove himself from the original as much as possible? It just seems like certain scenes are iconic, and if you can't improve on them - and here they most certainly do not - well, why not just go with the ol' if it ain't broke don't fix it adage.
The show continues in the dull path set by the first two scenes. Allie Trimm's Kim is so forgettable I can't remember anything that she did to complain about. Memorably bad however, is Nolan Gerard Funk (Birdie), who quite frankly can't sing, can't dance, can't act, and has absolutely no sex appeal. Pathetic.
The supporting cast is at least decent. Highlights were Matt Doyle's charming Hugo, and Jayne Houdyshell as Albert's mother. Houdyshell seemed to be holding back, but I think if she could really camp up her part and start doing some serious scenery chewing (though it's a lot of metal and projections, so maybe it would hurt her teeth), I think she could steal the show. Right now she's a little blah. But I think she at least shows room for improvement.
I'll cap my criticism there, because this was a first preview, and I am going back later in the run to see how the performances improve. More than other first nights I've been to, this very much felt like an unfinished product up on stage. Whether it can be pulled together in time for opening remains to be seen, but I have to say I'm a bit skeptical just because so much of it seems miscast, and unimaginatively directed/choreographed. And really, is it possible to make that second act entertaining? It takes soooo long for nothing to happen. Uch.

Oh one last thought, a spoiler I guess - the show did make me shed a few tears: when Stamos and Gershon sing "Rosie" at the end (a song with many references to roses), the panels at the back of the stage slowly started moving away and I said to myself 'if they project roses onto the screen on the back wall I'm going to cry.' They did. I did. Is it so much to ask the designers to show some self control?

Beg Your Parton, But Where Is This Evening's Entertainment?

2009-04-14T00:05:00.001-04:00

After seeing “Distracted” on Saturday nigh, my father asked me what I thought might happen if he had killed himself during the second act. And my reply was that it would be silly to waste a suicide on a play by Lisa Loomer. Might as well save it for Beckett, Pinter or Stoppard. Little did I know that I would have to console myself with that same sage advice during the second act of “9 to 5: The Musical,” just two nights later, as I strongly considered heading over the railing of the mezzanine to save myself from having to hear another one of Dolly Parton's hideous, excruciatingly bland, absolutely ghastly country songs. The thought first occurred to me during a particularly hideous duet between Andy Karl and Allison Janney. Not only was the song abysmal, Janney isn't exactly a singer, and she has absolutely no chemistry with Karl. It was at this point I wished I had had the forethought to grab some erasers from the supply closet at work, so I could stuff them in my ears. But who thought the show would be so bad? I figured it would just be some harmless fun, something mindlessly entertaining like “Hairspray” or “Mamma Mia.” Admittedly, having tried to watch the movie the musical is based on twice, and unable to stand more than twenty or thirty minutes either time, I am perhaps not the ideal audience for this show. But frankly, around the time of that duet in the second act, I actually didn't hate the story, and just kind of wished the singing would stop so there was some chance to restore function to my brain. The song that followed the hideous duet I believe was called “Get Out and Stay Out.” I'm guessing that was what it was called, since the song pretty much consisted of the lovely Stephanie J. Block belting out that line over and over again, to the melody of something that vaguely sounded like a reject from “Wicked.” I suppose it may turn into a convenient anthem for people who have suffered through the musical, since that was one of the less nasty things I wanted to shout while watching it. I was also tempted, after Allison Janney said something to the effect of “I can't take it anymore” during the final confrontation scene, to yell out “I can't either!” That, and also “Boo” a few times. But like a good little theatergoer, I kept my mouth shut, and expressed my dislike of the show with my lack of applause. It's really to bad people only find it acceptable to boo nowadays when at the opera. Broadway audiences really need to bring back the “boo.”
Of course just when to boo may me a touchy issue, because really the cast, and especially the three leading ladies are excellent. No, Allison Janney can't sing. But she is a fabulous actress. And Parton had enough good sense not to give her any songs with big notes (except for her dream sequence, but she's able to almost turn her lack of singing talent there to her comic advantage). All of the big belting is saved for Stephanie J. Block or Megan Hilty, both alumni of “Wicked,” and well versed in the “American Idol” style of singing that Broadway audiences apparently love nowadays. Poor Block just can't catch a break with her new musicals. First “The Boy From Oz,” then “The Pirate Queen,” and now this. Won't some talented composer please write a role for her that doesn't make audiences want to run from the theatre screaming? That is audiences who aren't teenage girls, who consider screaming a sign of extreme pleasure. For once I was actually kind of grateful any temporary deafness caused by the screaming behind me.
The set seems very technologically heavy, and a bit of a disaster waiting to happen. There's a big light wall at the back of the stage that handles all sort of crazy animation. I'm not a big fan of the computerized set, but this is probably the least offensive example of the form I've seen. There are also lots of trap doors, and a bit of flying, so it should be interesting to see how many problems occur during the run. If my experiences at “Priscilla” in London are any indication (more on that in my trip writeup in maybe a couple of days), things may get interesting.
The choreography reminded me a bit of Rob Ashford's work in “Cry Baby” and “The Wedding Singer.” Except this time it's by Andy Blankenbuehler. It had a bit of a been there, seen that feel.
I think that's enough vitriol spewn at this show for one night. I will say that the audience seemed to love it, though in my little group the opinions was split, with three yays (who found it entertaining) and three nays (who were varying levels of disappointed, with I suppose me being the most extreme). Leaving the theatre tonight, I was trying to decide if this is the worst Broadway musical I've seen this season. It's between this and “A Tale of Two Cities,” and I think I have to give “Two Cities” worst book, “9 to 5” worst score, and I'll have to think about which I overall disliked more. Right now I'm leaning towards “9 to 5.” I'll say this: I used to really like the title song. And now if I ever hear it again, I fear I may break out in a cold sweat.

On the plus side – not that I would wish one show to fail so another could succeed – but the total ineptitude of the “9 to 5” music would seem to be yet another step closer for “Next to Normal” to win Best Score.

Also on a positive note, I've seen two of the “Norman Conquests” so far: “Round and Round the Garden” and “Table Manners,” with the third (“Living Quarters”) hopefully happening on Saturday. I didn't like “Garden” at all when I saw it, finding it neither interesting nor at all funny. Even though the shows are advertised as stand alones, it really felt very unsatisfying. However after seeing “Table,” I not only had a workout laughing myself silly, but I gained a newfound appreciation for all that had bored me in “Garden.” There's a jokey note in the lobby from playwright Alan Ayckbourn that you shouldn't see any of the plays first, or any of them last. Well, I'm not sure about the second part of that, but I think there may be some truth to the first. Nonetheless, since I do think “Table Manners,” is the funnier of the two I've seen, I'd say if you're going to pick one to whet your appetite, that one gets my vote. We'll see how I feel after “Living Together” on Saturday. I do think seeing all three is most certainly a worthwhile experience, assuming one has the time and money, natch.

Phone Rings, Door Chimes, In Comes... well not "Happiness"

2009-02-28T00:44:00.005-05:00

I can't help but wonder just how long Susan Stroman is going to be able to ride on the coattails of 'The Producers." Looks at what she's directed since then: "Thou Shalt Not," "The Frogs," "Young Frankenstein," and now "Happiness." Yes, there's also "Contact" on her directing resume, but that's a ballet, despite what the Tony nomination committe may think. And along with her delightful "Double Feature" at NYC Ballet, I have no complaints about her direction of BALLET. Original musicals? Well I think her record speaks for itself.
Okay, so tonight was only the first preview of a world premiere musical. Had the creative team not heard of the out of town tryout? Or did all of the regional theatres look at the musical and just reject because it's not very good. Whatever the case, this show needs a lot of work. The score is full of mediocre songs. Not one came even close to being as good as songs like "Will You?" or "Around the World" or "Another Winter in a Summer Town" or even "Jerry Likes My Corn" from Frankel and Korie's last musical, "Grey Gardens." We do, however, get songs that sound a bit like those faux-period songs from the first act of "Grey Gardens" that Edie sings at the piano. You know... the songs that were so unmemorable that I can't even remember their names? Those songs.
John Weidman's book? Seemed a bit "The Story of My Life" meets "Company" to me. The basic idea, without giving away the twist, is that all of these people are stuck in a subway car, and one by one they relive their happiest moments. In song. Except for the one guy who hasn't had a happy moment yet. So you get the treacly "let's look back at the happy times of my youth" vibe from "Story of My Life" combined with that "Company"ish structure, where each character gets their one song, which the unhappy central male character observes, and then at the end (**Spoiler alert, I guess, though it seems kind of obvious**) he sings a song about how now realizes he wants to "Be(ing) Alive" or rejoin the human race "Before the Parade Passes By" (oops, not sure how Hello Dolly slipped in there). The problem with this structure is that each character only gets one song/scene to make the audience care about them, so that better be a damn fine song. And "damn fine" is not a phrase I'd use to describe the majority of the show. There are some other songs thrown in their that the crowd sings - I suppose to break up the monotony of it all - but I'm guessing those will be the first to hit the cutting room floor, considering the show is running an overlong two hours, sans intermission right now. I did kind of enjoy the opening number, but for whatever reason, it was orchestrated to prominantly feature a synthesizer, making the song sound very 1980s. I
The set is... serviceable. The subway car doesn't look much like a New York subway car (they could have at least gotten the seats right), but then again the show also has "New Yorkers" talking to each other on the train. Has John Weidman ever actually ridden on the subway before? Because if he did, I think he'd know that even when a train is stuck in a tunnel, New Yorkers do not talk to each other. They sit there in angry silence, and angrily look at their watches, while listening to iPods or reading books or newspapers. None of this chit chat nonsense. So I guess this show isn't much for realism. Call me a jaded NYer, but people singing instead of speaking I can accept via willing suspension of disbelief. But native New York strangers talking to each other? Not so much.
Back to the set, I'm guessing it's so minimalist because Lincoln Center spent so much money on the huge cast. And a very good, huge cast it indeed is. The only weak link was probably Sebastian Arcelus who I found a bit bland. Thank goodness Joanna Gleasona and Hunter Foster have returned to musical theatre after disappointing attempts at drama. And Hunter Foster gets what was probably the most interesting choreography of the night in his song about climbing the ladder of success... using literally a ladder.
The audience response at the end seemed fairly positive - then again audiences gave warm responses to the first previews of much unloved shows like "The Little Mermaid" and "The Story of My Life" too, so I don't know how much that counts.
I have a ticket to see the show again in two weeks, so hopefully that will be enough time to do at least some of the needed work on it. But if you're expecting another "Grey Gardens," well it's probably wise to lower your expectations just a smidge. Or forty.

Just so you don't think all I do is suffer, I did see two fantastic productions last week: one was "A Winter's Tale" at BAM, and the other way Edgar Oliver's solo play, "East 10th Street." Unfortunately I'm pretty sure "A Winter's Tale" is sold out, and "East 10th Street" closes (since it's now Saturday) tonight - why Brantley waited until the next to last weekend of its returns engagement to rave about it, I'm not sure I understand. I will be sure to point out return engagements of either of those.

If you have the time or interest, you can listen to Edgar Oliver read a story here. There's something strangely hypnotic about his voice...

"Variations" of a Lifetime Original Movie

2009-02-20T23:51:00.001-05:00

On paper, “33 Variations” sounds like a pretty good idea for a play: Beethoven was asked to write a variation on a waltz, and ended up writing not just one, but 33 variations on the theme. So a musicologist (played by Jane Fonda) goes to Bonn (home of the Beethoven archives) to try to figure out why. Only it turns out that there's not too much to tell about the writing of the variations. At least not enough to sustain a full length play. So playwright Moises Kaufman decided to give the musicologist ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). Now it's a race against time – will the musicologist figure out the secret behind Beethoven's obsession before she dies? Does anyone care? And as if in an effort to save the play from falling so low as to qualify as a Lifetime original movie, no one really seems terribly concerned that this woman is going to die. Her daughter gets one little outburst – not screaming or crying, just a bit of pouting – and other than that it seems like everyone has just accepted that she's going to die, and there's not point in worrying about what you can't control. Yeah, because that makes for exciting theatre. You know what also makes for exciting theatre? Conflict. There's lots of ground covered in the play – so much so that quite often characters just stand at the edge of the stage, tell us how they're feeling (note tell, not show) and fill us in on what's happening in their lives. So one speech may say “I was upset my mother was dying. So I went to visit her in Germany. She's had fourteen medical since I've been there. She can't feed herself anymore. And I've fallen in love with a nurse and we've moved in together. My mother made an important discovery today.” And then we get a few lines of dialogue, which feature the musicologist in her latest mobility enhancer (over the course of the second act she goes from cane, to walker, to wheelchair, to electric wheelchair, to bed – and as if to show us that she's really sick, during intermission they give her a much less flattering hairstyle. Because sick people shouldn't have good hair?). I will say that the first act is much bigger on the explanatory monologues than the second. Partly because of that, I suppose, the first act is extremely dry and choppy. It's made up of far too many short scenes, switching between mother in Bonn, daughter in New York and Beethoven in Vienna, far too often for comfort, making the audience (or at least me) feel like we're just being barraged with a whole pile of dry information about these characters that we have no reason at all to care about. The second act is a bit warmer, and does have some nice scenes – one where Beethoven walks us through the thought process behind one of the variations (while it's played in the background by a live pianist) was quite nice, though not as interesting it certainly thought it was – the combination of lighting and music and one man standing on stage declaiming just screamed “I am a brilliant scene. Come bow at my brilliance” and well, it didn't quite deserve to think so highly of itself. Still, even if we do start to care about the characters, the almost complete lack of conflict is still absolutely evident, and the play plods on to its inevitable conclusion. Why this needed to be two and a half hours, I'm not sure. I'm sure the fact that Kaufman both wrote and directed it had something to do with that. I have to assume that another directed would have done some happy hacking. It almost reminds me of Norma Desmond's “Salome” in “Sunset Boulevard,” and how she freaks out when Joe wants to cut scenes. Kaufman obviously loves to hear his writing recited out loud, hence not so much cutting. I did read somewhere that he was planning on cutting ten minutes or so between the first preview and opening night. Considering the play was two and a half, and I had read it was going to be two forty, I suppose that's already been done. Ah well.

The acting is all okay, but none of the actors blew me away... I was barely getting gentle breezes out of them. I mean, this isn't “Mourning Becomes Electra” where everyone was hideously miscast – they're all fine, and they play their parts well. It's just not really a play with showy roles. I suppose the closest thing to scenery chewing we get is Zach Grenier's Beethoven, but I can't say I was really overly impressed.

What I did love, was the set, lighting and projection design. I was a little skeptical at first, but as the play went on, I was really quite impressed by the look of the piece.

Really, this just felt to me like one of those plays that should have been produced at some place like Playwright Horizons or NYTW, gone through it's limited run with maybe faint praise, and then been forgotten about. Kind of like that dull dull play Itamar Moses wrote about Bach that they did at NYTW a few years ago. Not that this is quite as boring as that one, but it's not *that* much better either. I'll file this one under “big disappointments.”

The Story of "The Story Of My Life"

2009-02-03T23:02:00.000-05:00

I've been on something of a "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" kick lately, burning my way through the complete series set that I didn't open until a month ago, and has now consumed my life. And if that show has taught me nothing else, it's that just because you're dead, that doesn't mean you can't be killed again. The (dead) character Malcolm Gets plays in "The Story of My Life" is regrettably not a vampire, but I do believe that if Will Chase had driven a wooden stake through his heart in the first scene, the musical would have been much better for his trouble. Sure, it would take some 'willing suspension of disbelief' for a ghost to be killed with a stake, but if it was explained to the audience how unbearably irritating this character would become in just a short time, well I'm sure they could deal.
The basic premise of "The Story of My Life" is that this world famous author (played by Will Chase) is trying to write a eulogy for his dead bookseller best friend (played by Malcolm Gets), who haunts him because the famous author did such a crappy job writing a eulogy for the bookseller's dad, that he wants to be spared the same fate at his funeral. Oh, and the big revelation at the end (spoiler alert, spoiler alert) is that famous author's best friend inspired all of famous author's stories, and he only now realizes this now that his friend is dead and haunting him. This point is obvious basically from the second song (and is repeated over and over again is every other damn song), so that this is a big revelation after 90 minutes is indeed quite a bit annoying. And yet, as annoying as that revelation is, it is still not as annoying as Malcolm Gets' portrayal of the bookseller. I suspect that the blame lies more with Gets being miscast, than with the writing of the character. The problem is that the character of the bookseller is supposed to be this nice, likable loser. And Gets just fails miserably at this. The way he plays the part, it's like the guy never progressed past the age of five. This is fine when he's actually playing a little kid, but as Will Chase matures and eventually plays a believable adult, Gets still has this embarrassingly artificial kid persona. And so the whole time it's like he keeps poking Will Chase and saying "hey mister, hey mister, hey mister, hey mister" and it gets to the point where you just want to throw him out the window. It's just a really half-assed, dismal, completely unbelievable performance. And an even bigger disappointment, when you consider what a beautiful, adult, fully realized performance Will Chase gives. Chase, who granted did not impress me all that much in "Lennon" or "High Fidelity" and seemed a bit long in the tooth in the video cast of the final "Rent," finally lives up to his hype. It's a wonderful performance, that makes almost every song he sings (in the rather saggy final third, even he has trouble saving the show) into a thing of beauty, just as much as Gets ruins most everything he wraps his vocal chords around.
On the plus side (what? there's a plus side?) I do have to say that composer/lyricist Neil Bartram is one to keep an ear on. The music is happily tuneful, and there are more than a few songs that I would love to hear again on a cast recording. Nothing against the long contingent of composers who try (and generally fail) to follow in Sondheim's footsteps by writing not immediately melodic stuff, but it's nice every now and then to not get a headache trying to wrap one's brain around 90 minutes of dissonant chords. I look forward to hearing more of his stuff in the future.
The set is spare, but fine, and the lighting adequate. This isn't one of those stunning huge spectacles - it's an intimate, one set, two actor chamber piece, that (because off-Broadway is dead) wandered onto the Great White Way.
I should say that when the show first started - for the first ten mintues or so - I actually had high hopes for it. Things became a bit bumpier after that, what with an irritating plot device of having each scene start with a different story being pulled off of a shelf, and with... um... pretty much everything Malcolm Gets did, though as I said before Will Chase was able to save the show up to a point, after which I was grinding my teeth and looking at my watch in boredom. Still, the final song or two were admittedly kind of touching (in a kind of cheesy, sentimental, cliche way), and I did leave with a bit of a tear forming in my eye. So I guess having a good start and a good ending is a plus. In this economic climate, is anyone going to want to spent 50, let alone 110 bucks on a so-so musical? That waits to be seen, but I can't say I'm exactly holding my breath.

I'm Not Dead Yet (and Neither Is Musical Theatre)

2008-12-07T01:18:00.001-05:00

What does it take for me to finally get around to writing again? Apparently the four hour trip home on the Chinatown bus. Today was one of my meshugganah day trips to DC (because when it's $5 each way, DC suddenly becomes convenient) to see Jason Robert Brown's "novel symphony," The Trumpet of the Swan" (with Kathy Bates, no less), and the newly revised "Next to Normal."

Jason Robert Brown's shows and I haven't had the happiest history together. It usually goes something like I read about his new show and I'm excited, I see it and experience some level of dislike (from hating Parade and his contributions to Urban Cowboy to being lukewarm towards Last Five Years 13 @ Goodspeed), and then I get the cd of the show, and start loving it. Which I guess means that he needs to find better book-writers to work with. Anyway, FINALLY I actually liked an original production of a new Jason Robert Brown work. No, "The Trumpet of the Swan" is not a musical (though I got the feeling it would work quite well as one, should its creators be so inclined), it's a "novel symphony" - which in the case of this production means that the actors stand on the edge of the stage and speak their lines, and the orchestra in the background sets scenes, or provides background music - I think they meant it to be something like Peter and the Wolf. The work is based on EB White's short story(?) about a trumpet swan who doesn't have a voice so he uses a trumpet to communicate. The whole thing was conceived by Marsha Norman, who adapted the text for this work. It's one of those shows that's supposed to appeal to both adults and kids equally, and for once it actually seemed to be true. Usually I go to so called children's theatre figuring I still like that sort of thing, and end up being bored out of my mind. So here is, for once, a work that I thought really effectively spoke to my inner child. Then again, the children sitting near me all seemed to be bored or squirming, so maybe it's was a little over their heads? All I know is that I was completely entertained and charmed by it, and I would hope if it's not re-adapted into a full musical, an orchestra like the one that presented that Lemony Snicket symphony at Avery Fisher would also choose to do this show in NY. I would definitely see it again.

Now, "Next to Normal" was a musical I saw twice when it ran at Second Stage off-Broadway and was generally unsatisfied with for various reasons both time (I only went a second time because I had heard it had improved. It hadn't). So after realizing that the show wasn't really working, the creators (and I gather producers) agreed to take the show out of town and present it at Arena Stage, in a newly revised version. And surprise surprise, it seems like they finally got it right. The show seems quite a bit darker now than it was in NY, which is definitely a good thing. They cut the horrid final song in the first act, "Feeling Electric" (a song about shock therapy that felt totally out of sync with the rest of the music). And somehow, even though the show still has the annoying structure that they feel like they rush through tons of plot in the first act, and then slow down to a crawl in the second, I really never found myself being bored. I think they may have cut some of the spoken dialogue and increased the number of songs, and since Tom Kitt's score is such a pleasure to listen to (getting you to tap your toes even while the story just gets more and more depressing) that would definitely be a good thing. I'd venture to say it's the best rock score I've heard in a theatre in "Spring Awakening," except I think that may be cheating since it may be the only rock score I've heard since SA. But suffice it to say when this score is finally recorded, I can't wait to get my hands on it. I've even finally warmed up to Alice Ripley's performance, which had annoyed me in the NY run. Considering the departure of Rent, and (soon) Spring Awakening, this would seem to be the perfect time for a new rock musical to open on Broadway and fill the niche. I mean, we're getting a revival of "Hair" but that just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). I don't know that there's necessarily a market for an almost unbearably depressing musical about trying to cure a woman who's bipolar (my sister, who complains I only take her to depressing shows, said she was "traumatized"), but I really found the show to be really satisfying on all levels. Fingers crossed for another NY run, though I'm well aware that nothing is certain in today's economy. I just hope the creators don't screw it up again between now and (hopefully) NY.

Quickly (because my brain is starting to turn in for the night), I went to see Pal Joey on Friday and was not impressed. Matthew Risch is not at all convincing as Joey - he has the sliminess down pat, and he's a fine dancer, but he has absolutely no charisma or spark or really any charm about him, so that I did not find it at all believable that Vera and Linda would ever fall in love with him. Was Christian Hoff (who left due to an "injury") really that bad? Stockard Channing does a good job with "Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered," but is otherwise underwhelming as Vera, and seems to just kind of be walking through the role, sort of Stockard Channing playing Stockard Channing type feeling. Martha Plimpton it turns out has a fantastic singing voice. She totally overacts, but her musical numbers are all fantastic. I hope to see her in many more musicals to come (especially since she's never all that good in straight plays anyway, though her constant stream of work would seem to say that I'm in the minority there). Jenny Fellner (who plays Linda) was really the only one who really felt like she really knew what she was doing, nailing both the singing and the acting. The production is at least lovely to look at. The set is nice as long as you know what Chicago looks like - at first I was thinking the set was kind of ugly, until I thought back to all those overhead El tracks, and then it made sense. Otherwise the set could feasably look like a mishmash of leftovers from other Roundabout musicals (the tracks from Assassins, the sprial staircase from Nine, the table and chairs from Cabaret, and maybe some costumes from Follies?). The costumes are in general also really quite nice. Even the Graciela Daniele's choreography is surprisingly good. It's one of those shows that maybe if you were watching on mute would seem pretty good. Richard Greenberg's revised book adds a random unnecessary gay subplot, and maybe a weird moment of women's empowerment at the shop where she works? (Whether it was Greenberg's fault or not, said moment felt really out of sync with the vibe of the rest of the show, at least in terms of how the female characters are written). Complaints at all, the show's not a total bust, because you've still got that great Rodgers and Hart score to listen to. Not an entirely disastorous night, especially considering how awful Roundabout revivals can be, but still a big disappointment. Too bad they Risch and Channing can't "injure" themselves in the show. Surely there are two other actors out there who have the right spark for those roles.

And that's where I think I'll stop for the night. Two hours or so left til we hit NYC, I think. Oh boy.

What Was That Play Called Again? (Plus: When Hipsters Attack, and Earthly Delights)

2008-11-14T23:55:00.002-05:00

With apologies to Mr. Shakespeare... "What's in a name? That which we call a play by any other name would be as dull." Titles of plays always intrigue me. Often playwrights will pull a title from a line late in the play, and whatever line or speech that line is pulled from gets that extra burst of importance because it's a signal to the audience that's it's very very important to deciphering the play. After all, why else would the playwright have picked that name. Sometimes a title's meaning isn't revealed until the last line of the play like in "Sixteen Wounded." Other times the title's meaning isn't even actually a line in the play, but its meaning is explained in a program note, like in "Saturn Returns." And still other times, it's a phrase repeated so many times in the play, well... what else could the play be called? And hey, if that phrase is repeated every few minutes, the title will surely be pounded into the audiences' heads. Sort of like a really hummable title song in a musical. Or the play... Horton Foote's "Dividing The Estate," which about, well... you know. In the first act, it seems like barely a minute would go by without one of the characters asking about "dividing the estate." "Let's talk about dividing the estate." "We're not dividing the estate" "But we should really talk about dividing the estate." "The estate will not be divided." "I hate to bring this up, but you know we really should seriously think aboutu dividing the estate." That, in a nutshell, is the dialogue of the first act. The phrase drove me so batty that I tried to count the number of times it was said in the second act. I came up with 11 "dividing the estate"s and four times when those words were used in a slightly different manner (like "the estate should be divided"). I have a nagging suspicion that I may have missed one or two references in my count (I didn't have a pad and pen out, after all), but fifteen times over the course of around an hour for the second act comes to once every four minutes. Now I realize that the dividing of the estate is an important plot point, but well... there's such a thing as overkill.
As for the rest of the contents of the play, it's not bad, though it does really suffer with comparison to the play that's playing across the street, "August: Osage County." Both are large family dramas, and both have long scenes around a dinner table that are blocked so that large portions of the audience can't really see what's going on. Just saying. I actually quite liked the first act, in an old fashioned, sort of comfort-foodish way. Things get bogged down in the second act however, probably because Elizabeth Ashley's character disappears, and without the sassy matriarch on stage to keep everyone in line with her biting comments, well things spiral out of control - and not in a good way - and thing become sort of repetitive and dull, with nary an end in site. The play does eventually end (obviously), though at a rather arbitrary point, and I can't say I left all that satisfied. I want to say I didn't really see what the point of the play was, but I did get the general points - that people are greedy, money tears families apart, and the government estate taxes are ridiculous - but I think everyone already knows that. I think maybe the problem is that at some point (for me it was in the second act), you realize that these characters are kind of one-note and not really worth caring about. I mean, how long can you watch Penny Fuller sit around and be sweet and nice, and Hallie Foote bitch bitch bitch?
I guess half a good play - especially one featuring Elizabeth Ashely, and newly (re)written by 92-year-old Horton Foote - is nothing to turn one's nose too high up at. And considering it's the first new play on Broadway this season (not counting To Be Or Not To Be, which I guess is technically new, though it's just a "new" adaptation of a screenplay), and one of what looks likely to be a fairly small group, well... I guess we should support new dramas where we can. Just wish this one weren't so disappointing.

Oh, and filed under celebrity sighting - the Booth Theatre as abuzz tonight because the one and only Angela Lansbury was in the audience.

------------------

I will say, since I don't want to give the impression that I don't like anything I see nowadays, that I did see two excellent productions off-Broadway this week.

One was Danny Hoch's solo play, "Taking Over," about the gentrification of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. I would have loved to see this when it played in Brooklyn (Hoch took the show on a tour of the boroughs before landing at the Public), because I can only imagine that the Williamsburg crowd must have pelted him with tomatoes at his curtain call. Because basically this play is just one big fuck you to the hipsters who have taken over that area. And how absolutely refreshing to see a play that doesn't sugar coat its message, or try to preach to the choir, or say the (liberal) politically correct thing. This is one angry play, but the point of view is so distinct and uncompromised, that you can help but be kind of awed by his chutzpah, considering what a large percentage of his audience he's likely alienating. The play, in a nutshell, is about how gentrification has basically ruined Williamsburg... though it could just as easily be applied to many areas of New York City, where the crack dens have been replaced with Whole Foods. I would think this play would be most potent to New Yorkers, who see so called hipsters on their way to the L-train each and every day. I was trying to tell my father how when I'm on the subway going down to Union Square, I can always spot the hipsters who are going to transfer to the L, but he had no clue what a hipster was. Then again, this play was apparently well received in Berkley, CA (though, is that really so different from Williamsburg, I wonder?), and I think the downside of gentrification is a fairly universal thing. In the play, Hoch plays a whole series of characters - from a real estate developer and hipster selling vintage t-shirts on the street, to taxi dispatcher and an older black woman sitting on her stoop. The characters are all quite funny, but there's also something kind of disturbing about each of them, and the views they express. Certainly one could argue Starbucks, Whole Foods, art galleries and bike lanes are far preferable to the free roaming of druggies, common mugging and stabbing, and seedy bodegas with nary an organic vegetable or box of soy milk in site - but it's just so interesting to see play that's not trying to be fair and balanced, and not trying to pander to the "in" crowd. I'm usually wary of solo plays, and especially one on as seemingly dull a topic as gentrification, but this was one... well, I don't know if pleasant is the word for the play, but... was a satisfying surprise.

Also, surprisingly good was Martha Clarke's "The Garden of Earthly Delights." I'm not the world biggest dance fan, though I'm not one to shy away from a full length ballet or a particularly intriguing sounding piece at the Joyce or ABT or whatnot. But as for Ms. Clarke, well the only other work of hers I'd seen was "Belle Epoque," and I can't say I found that to be a particularly enriching experience. But "The Garden of Earthly Delights" (based on the Bosch painting) turns out to be a fairly exciting work. I'll admit there were times that I was bored, but it's only an hour long, so you know even if there are parts that are awful, it'll be over soon enough. And actually, the good parts far outweighed the bad. Highlights included some rather lovely flying effects (provided by Flying By Foy, no less), and an extremely amusing section where a harpy attacks the cellist(?). Oh, and there's also a scene that involves farting and a woman pooing potatoes - but those who like that more crude humor. Um, so we have pooing potatoes, a string instrument player being attacked and people flying... in nude body stockings. What's not to like? ;O) Gosh, I think I just made this sound like some awful tastles porno. There are other scenes that involve beautiful movement as well - the opening scene is especially lovely, though I found myself wondering whether the surely large chiropracter bill for the dancers was included in the budget. Yeah, so if you have an hour to spare one night, I would definitely recommend a visit to the Minetta Lane. And not that the cheapest ticket options (tdf, etc) give you a seating choice, but if you happen to, I'm pretty sure this show is best seen from the mezzanine. That's where I was sitting anyway, and I was very happy with the view, especially for the scenes that involved flying. And I tend to think that for dance, sitting farther away is useful for taking in the whole picture.

And that's all for now.

Bringing Ugly Back To Broadway

2008-11-11T00:01:00.002-05:00

When the tagline for your musical is "Bringing Ugly Back," you had better be darn sure that your show looks gorgeous or you're just asking for trouble. I don't think anyone's forgotten the "Dance of the Vampires" tagline that went something like "If you think Broadway musicals suck now - just you wait," and how true that turned out to be. Well, I went to "Shrek" tonight hoping that the piles of money Dreamworks has surely poured on the musical would at least mean it would look good. But really, fate is something that really should not be tempted, because boy is the show ugly. Not ugly in the wrongheaded overly pretnetious plexiglass way of "The Little Mermaid." Shrek: The Musical has almost the opposite problem. Instead of the show looking too artsy for its own good, it looks like the designs have a very commercial, overly literal feel to them, like they were plucked out of a theme park show. With the exception of Lord Farquaad, there seemed to me to be very little imagination or thinking outside of the box with the costume design. As for the set, well... it's just plain ugly. Because I enjoyed much of the material, I couldn't help but wish I could see the show as just a staged reading, a la Encores. Because I think there's a pretty good show in there, it's just a big overwhelmed by the underwhelming visuals.
Free from the influence of Tony Kushner, Jeanine Tesori's first post-"Caroline or Change" Broadway score is pretty catchy. The song I assume everyone will leave humming is "Big Bright Beautiful World," especially considering it's both the opening and closing number - with a few odd refrains also peppered throughout. David Lindsay-Abaire's book and lyrics are pretty amusing. The show felt a bit long overall (the little boy next to me was really squirming in the second act - the fact that the story turns more romantic and ballad heavier probably didn't help). In the second act, the fairy tale characters - who we haven't seen since the top of the first act, ranomdly return and sing this big song about being freaks. It came totally of out nowhere, and would be my chocie for first song to go.
The choreography is uneven - there are a couple of scenes where it is inspired, and others where I was left twiddling my thumbs. But far the highlight of the show - where everything - song, choreography, design, performance - melds into one blissful moment of showstopping hilarity, is "What's Up Duloc?" - the song that introduces us to the world of Duloc, realm of Lord Farquaad (if you remember from the movie, the little automated musical puppet show that Shrek and Donkey encounter when they first enter the kingdom - it's an extension of that). Really though, anytime Christophe Sieber's hilarious Farquaad was onstage, the show definitely picked up a notch - both because he's really very funny, and because the way they costume him to make him look short, is a source of endless and endlessly funny sight gags.
As for the rest of the cast, they're all fine. Brian D'Arcy James (Shrek) and Sutton Foster (Fiona) pretty much channel they're animated film counterparts (he has the Scottish accent, and she's just generic princess). The only actor who strays from his source voice-actor is Daniel Breaker, who bizarrely chooses to make Donkey rather flamboyant. It's different from Eddie Murphy, but I'm not sure if it really worked or not. I will say I preferred his songs to his book scenes, though.
Enough rambling now. Overall, I'd say the show is fine - not spectacular, but entertaining enough for what it is (a big commercial musical, based on a hit film). It's not The Lion King or Billy Elliot, but it's not Tarzan or The Little Mermaid either. It needs trimming and some other work (well, it needs a visual overall, but realistically that's never going to happen), and that's what previews are for. I'm curious to see how the show progresses when I see it again in January, if not sooner.
Let's say this for now for the current state of the show - at the curtain call, only a very small number of people gave the show a standing ovation. I'm as anti-standing as the next guy, but I think we all know that when a big tourist musical like "Shrek" isn't getting people to jump to their feet - especially with the economy the way it is - there's work to be done if this thing is going to survive.

That's all for now.

Oh, and really quickly - I went to see the new production of Faust at the Met on Friday. I didn't think it was possible, but it makes Tristan und Isolde look action-packed by comparison. Visual design was... interesting - makes me look forward to the Lepage Ring, anyway. And I left humming "Maria" from "West Side Story" (for some reason the music in the Marguerite scene just really sounded like the title name from the song).

Romantic Poetry Songlists

2008-10-29T23:29:00.002-04:00

Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd type up the songlists for the two different productions of "Romantic Poetry" that I've seen - the (cute, entertaining, charming) 2007 New York Stage & Film production, and the (horrid, putrid, dull) 2008 Manhattan Theatre Club one. So people can see how the songs and characters changed over the course of the (ill advised) rewrites.

ROMANTIC POETRY (2007 New York Stage & Film Production)
ACT ONE
Scene One - The Honeymoon
Romantic Poetry (Company)
Listen to Me (Connie, Fred)
The Five Towers (Fred)
Wildflowers (Connie, Fred)
For a Third Time - Part 1 (Connie, Fred)
Rhumba Woman - Part 1 (Connie, Fred)

Scene Two - Fishing
For a Third Time - Part 2 (Carl, Red)
Go Through the Motions (Carl, Red)
Get Up (Carl, Red, Company)

Scene Three - Lawyers Office
Wild Flowers - Reprise (Connie, Fred Company)
Rhumba Woman (Connie, Fred Company)
Wedding Song (Connie, Fred Company)
I'm Coming Back (Connie, Red Company)

ACT TWO
Scene One - The Patio
All Over Again (Company)
Cootie Bug (Arthur, Company)
In Dirty, Out Clean (Arthur, Company)
Easy (Arthur, Judy)
How Many Women? (Judy)
Crazy Lights (Judy)
You're My Only Guy (Judy)
All Over Again - Reprise (Arthur Judy)

Scene Two - The Fire Escape
New York Bird (Lily)
There's a Fire (Lily)
Through the Night (Cop, Mr. Brilla)
Crazy Lights - Reprise (Judy)
An Ordinary Man (Lily, Wally)

Scene Three - The Bar
I Am a Bartender (Mr. Brilla)
New York Bird - Reprise (Lily)
Outcast (Arthur, Lily)
Roses (Mr. Brilla)
Champagne (Arthur, Lily, Mr. Brilla)
Beauty (Company)
Walking Up the Stairs (Company)
Romantic Poetry (Company)

ROMANTIC POETRY (2008 Manhattan Theatre Club Production)
ACT ONE
Romantic Poetry (Company)
Connie My Bride (Connie & Fred)
Destiny (Mary & Frankie)
The Five Towns (Connie & Fred)
I Have No Words (Connie)
For a Third Time (Connie & Fred)
Rumba Woman (Company)
Go Through the Motions (Carl & Red)
Trouble (Mary & Frankie)
Wait a Minute (Connie, Fred, Red & Carl)
What About Love? (Connie)
I Have No Words - Reprise (Company)
Where is Our Real Love? (Fred)

ACT TWO
While You Were in the Lobby (Company)
So I Got Married/He's Rich/I'm Bored (Connie & Company of Crickets)
Crazy Lights (Connie & Fred)
Is Anybody Home?/There's a Fire (Frankie & Mary)
Through the Night (Red & Carl)
The Curse (Company)
Do You Think It's Easy? (Connie, Fred, Mary & Frankie)
An Ordinary Man (Frankie)
You're My Only Guy (Connie)
No One Listens to the Poor (Carl & Fred)
Give Me Love, or Let Me Wait (Fred, Carl & Mary)
Beauty (Company)
Walking Up The Stairs (Company)

Insipid Poetry

2008-10-29T23:13:00.001-04:00

You would think that with a musical with a title like "Romantic Poetry," Manhattan Theatre Club might have programmed the show to run around February so it open near Valentine's Day. And yet, surprisingly enough after having seen the musical in its current incarnation, October seems an extremely appropriate month for the show, because it turns out the musical is so horrifyingly bad, that it will likely rival many a haunted house for most frightening theatrical presentation of the Halloween season. A new musical by John Patrick Shanley and Henry Krieger - sounds good on paper, no? Well it turns out that those two were playing a little game of Trick or Treat with their audience, and instead of the expected treat, this is most definitely a trick. What makes the trick so very upsetting - to me anyway - is that I saw "Romantic Poetry" when it played at New York Stage & Film in the summer of 2007, and found it to be rather charming. I remember thinking to myself that it would make a cute and pleasant off-Broadway show. In that version, the show was made up of (if I'm recalling correctly) three separate short romantic musicals, with plots that somehow came together into a nice neat little bow at the end. Just to confirm that I'm not totally loony, I pulled out my program from that production, and based on the groupings in the song list, there seem to definitely be three separate sets of characters, whose songs do not overlap until the final scene. I'lll add, that comparing just the songs lists themselves, the songs seem to mostly different from the last production as well. From my memory of the 2007 production, it seems like Shanley took the characters from the second and third stories, and just shoehorned the characters from the first into the arcs of the now cut ones. So instead of have three separate set of characters, they just magically transform from one to the other, keeping the same names and story baggage. I'm sure I'm not explaining my point as well as I'd like, but let's say as little sense as that explanation made, is also as little sense as the newly reworked story makes. It's just a travesty.
Also worsened since the 2007 production is the set. Which is to say that the earlier production had a set, and this one... well doesn't. The set in this production looks makes the show look like something you'd expect to see on a prison barge... I mean cruise ship, or maybe onstage at the Goodman Theatre where Turn of the Century is playing, since they are similar in their minimalist ugliness, making do with minimal props, a couple of curtains, and a piano.
What else... the less said about the "poetry" of the title the better, because Shanley's lyrics are almost painfully bad. I would suggest not listening to the lyrics and just listening to the pretty melodies, except the melodies aren't much to listen to either. We get a stick to your brain title song, but that's about it.
The actors all try hard, I guess, but it's really a lost cause.
When "Romantic Poetry" was announced as part of the MTC season, I was really excited to see it. Even when it received unanimous pans in today's papers/websites I thought maybe the critics just were trying to take it too seriously. Well, they were all right. I almost fled at intermission, but not knowing that we were no longer getting three separate stories, I figured the second act would be totally different, and maybe better. It was actually worse. After about ten minutes of the second act, when I realized things weren't improving I was tempted to just get up and leave. Ah, if only I'd had an aisle seat. Instead I was trapped for a second hour of ghastly drivel. Do yourself a favor and stay away from this show. It may sound good on paper, it may have been good when produced up at NYS&F, but it is not worth suffering through in this production. Disappointing doesn't begin to describe the experience.

The NEW SONDHEIM MUSICAL formerly known as Wise Guys-Gold-Bounce

2008-10-28T22:06:00.004-04:00

I'm home from the first preview of Wise Guys... I mean Gold... I mean Bounce... oh right, I mean Road Show, the new Sondheim-Weidman musical. I hate to say because it's been kicking around for so many decades that it's probably futile at this point, but it needs work. It's not as bad as I feared, but neither is it as good as I was hoping. The main problem, I think, is that the lives of the Mizner brothers were a bit too action packed to make one cohesive musical. They were involved in wacky scheme after wacky scheme, and it's like no one wanted to cut any of the story, and so we end up with these long montage songs that pack a whole bunch of these schemes into one neat package. Which is fine, except they all just seem to get glossed over, and rather than getting the audience excited about how they did all of these things, it becomes more menotinous and boring, and I found I sort of stopped caring. Things finally settle down when the brothers get to Florida, and a real story starts to form, but at that point it was really too late. I wish they could have focused on just that part of their lives. The entire life story of the brothers could probably fill a dozen musicals - but we don't need a dozen, we need one. Apparently when the show was called Bounce, the first act was made up of the bulk of the crazy schemes, and the second act was Florida. And maybe a musical just about the Mizners in Florida would be just as dull. Apparently when the show was Bounce, the entire second act was about Florida. Now the show has been cut down to around an hour and forty-five minutes without intermission, and it's all just one fairly unfocused big mish-mosh.
Musically, the show isn't Sondheim's finest work. The song everyone will leave humming (I assume) is the song formerly known as Bounce, which has been given an entirely new set of lyrics - leaving us humming both because it's a very reptitive melody, and because it's repeated umpteen times throughout the show, between it's time served as both opening and closing number. Other than that, there's the song that sounds an awful lot like something from Assassins, there's some generic Sondheim-y sounding filler music, and there are couple of songs that actually do seem like standouts - there's a ballad the mother, and the last few songs in the show (heated stuff between the brothers), that I'd think would be worth at least a couple more listens again. Hopefully this version be recorded (and I imagine since it's a mostly new Sondheim score - mostly new since we already have a recording of the version called Bounce), I'd think some record label would jump at the chance just because. I know I'd buy it anyway.
Visually, the show definitely looks like a John Doyle musical (he also did the scenic design). No, the actors don't play musical intruments, but they all wear very pale make-up (like in Sweeney), the sparse set is made up of piles of drawers and trunks (meaning furniture, not clothing) and chests, and the actors are all, I'm pretty sure, on stage the entire time, watching the action (in fairly unattractive suits and dresses with architectural drawings on them).
That all said, I can't really say I was ever terribly bored during the show. Maybe it was just that it just kept up my excitement level because I kept hoping it would get better. And it does 'get better,' near the end of the show, when just when you didn't think it ever would, things finally do actually come together in as close to an emotionally satisfying ending as they could muster. This is probably the sort of show that if written by anyone other than his royal highness Stephen Sondheim, would be fairly quickly forgotten. But because it's HRH Sondheim, I, and I imagine most everyone else, will look for any small positive to cling to, because let's face it, this is a show that every musical theatre lover is rooting for. I'm going back at the end of previews to see this again, and I hope it improves. And you know, I suppose an okay show from Sondheim is probably better than a very good show from anyone else, but let's hope the 'wise guys' who are working on this show can 'bounce' back and 'strike gold' with this material. My fingers remain firmly crossed.

(And as a side note, imagine if Road Show, Minsky's and The Visit all made it to Broadway this season - we could have Sondheim, Charles Strouse and John Kander all competing for the Tony for best score. A boy can dream, can't he?)

I saw what feels like around four zillion other shows the past week or so (Equus, Steamers, The Language of Trees, Boys' Life, Farragut North, The Marvelous Wonderettes, Saturn Returns), but I think those will have to wait until my next entry, because I've gone on far too long.

EDIT (10/28/08, 10:14).
One more thing I forgot to mention about Road Show. Doyle has the characters throw piles of money in the air quite a lot. To the point where people in the front row probably could have used umbrellas. Every time another character would throw some more in the air, I couldn't help but chuckle as I watched the bills fall on the heads or laps or shoulders of audience members. A completely pointless anecdote, so I'm not sure why I felt the need to add it. But there you go.

Chicago: They Do Things They Don't Do On Broadway

2008-10-13T01:07:00.001-04:00

Hello from warm and sunny Chicago. Who’d have thunk there’d be a random heat wave for the three days I’m here (80 degrees in October?). According to the weatherperson temps will go back down to normal (around 60) when the rain comes on Tuesday - aka the day I leave for home. Aw shucks. Anyway, I’m not going to bore you with the details of the nitty and gritty of what I’ve done since I’m here, but I will bore you with some thoughts on the four show I’ve seen since over the last two days (only thing left is “The Pearl Fishers” at the Lyric Opera which I know no one cares about anyway).

TURN OF THE CENTURY. The new jukebox musical with a book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (the guys who wrote Jersey Boys) and directed by the one and only Tommy Tune. And it stars Jeff Daniels and Rachel York. Well, it sounded good on paper anyway. After seeing the show, I’d nickname is “TURN on a Dime” because boy oh boy does it look cheap. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but when I think Tommy Tune musical, I think big spectacle with big fabulous dance numbers. And this, well, is neither of those things. All I kept thinking while watching it was “Where’s the set?” For most of the show, the stage is pretty much completely bare with the exception of a piano, and every now and then maybe a curtain or a chaise or a table and some chairs. All of the “scenery” is created through projections - but not projections like say “The Woman in White” where it looks like we’re watching a supersized video game, circa 1990 - not this is more like three large windows for an office, or one small one for an apartment (one small window projected in a random spot high up on a huge otherwise blank wall - ooh boy). Maybe if the choreography had been more exciting, then the big dances could have filled the stage. Alas, no. Tune handed over the choreography duties to Noah Racey (best known for starring in “Never Gonna Dance“ on Broadway), who does not impress in his first big job in the role. The dancing all looks like lame ripoffs of stuff we’ve seen before. Presenting dances inspired by those of the period is one thing, but they need something to make them seem new and special and to make them pop. The songs are all ones we’ve heard many times before, but they’re given fresh new takes by the arranger, and that makes what could have been stale, sort of exciting and new. Speaking of stale, did I mention the Rickman and Elice’s book yet? The premise is that a pianist (who knows every melody every written) and a singer (who knows every lyric every written) are magically taken back in time (the reason for this is never really explained) from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 1899. They soon realize that all of the great songs they know - by the likes of Gershwin and Porter and Rodgers and Berlin - haven’t been written yet, so they can pass them off as their own and become rich and famous. Sounds like a decent enough concept. Unfortunately, once we get past the initial rise to fame and the resulting amusing medley of re-imagined famous songs (which I’m guessing takes a half hour or so - I couldn’t see my watch well enough in the dark), the next hour and a quarter are something of a stretch. There are a few amusing one liners, but as anyone who sat through Young Frankenstein: The Muscial will tell you, a bunch of one-liners do not an interesting musical make. Jeff Daniels and Rachel York are both fabulous, though I can’t say I really saw any sparks between them, considering we’re supposed to assume they’re going to eventually end up together. Enough dwelling on the negative. What was good? Well, the costumes are quite nice - maybe that’s where the budget went. And as I mentioned before, pretty much anytime there’s a song being sung, the show manages to be pretty entertaining - though I did keep imagining that if they just cut the entire book, the show would do quite well on the cruise ship circuit. There are I think two new songs in the show by Maury Yeston. One was a dreadful song sung I think in orange-face (I couldn’t tell if the actor had a bad fake tan, or they didn’t want to offend with blackface, so they made him orange), and the other is a typical Yeston ballad - perhaps not his finest work, but definitely distinctly his. So obviously this show needs a lot of work before it can even think of trying to come to New York. I have to say at this point I’m rather skeptical that it will ever come, but a major overhaul is definitely in order. Yes, that’s what out of town tryouts are for. So I guess we’ll see what happens.

EDWARD II. This was the last show I booked - and it was between this and the American premiere of “Dirty Dancing: Live on Stage.” I ended up choosing “Edward II” partly because I was intrigued that it was going to use ‘promenade staging’ (where there is no “stage” and there are no “seats” - the actors and audience all stand together on the set, and we watch as everything happens literally inches from us) and because it had a slightly higher profile than usual thanks to Jeffrey Carlson (of “The Goat,” “Taboo,” and a bunch of other major shows in NY) in the title role. Anyway, it turned out to be a good decision. The promenade staging seemed sort of in between a regular modern dress staging and something like Punchdrunk’s “Faust” in London where the audience wanders from room to room in a warehouse, hoping to catch enough scenes to be able to follow the story. Here, everything happens in one room, so there’s no chance of missing any of the story. Obviously Christopher Marlowe can be boring and dry in a traditional staging, but here director Sean Graney really managed to find a way to make Marlowe once again easily accessible and relevant and exciting. The play is apparently normally three hours long, but here (so the audience doesn’t keel over from exhaustion from standing for so long), it’s cut to 75 minutes. Which was really just the right length. The acting fabulous all around. I mean, when you have to act with audience members standing all around you, some literally inches away, there is really nowhere to hide. Any falseness will be immediately obvious. This is the sort of exciting and avant-garde theatre that’s missing from the NY theatre scene. Hopefully Graney will eventually be plucked by one of the more daring off or off-off-Broadway companies, so we can see this sort of stuff closer to home.

MANON. If this was playing at the Met, I would probably go see every performance. This is just absolutely spectacular. Natalie Dessay played the title role to perfection, and Jonas Kaufman was a marvelous Des Grieux - the acting, the chemistry, the singing - it just doesn’t get any better than this. I had somehow managed never to see this opera before (I checked and the Met last did it in 2005-06, with *cringe* Renee Fleming and before that in 2000/2001 with Ruth Ann Swenson), so I guess it just fell through the cracks in my schedule. Having seen the Puccini version of the opera last season (including that comically long death scene in the desert of Louisiana), there’s really no comparison with the beautiful, heartbreaking - but also quite funny - Massenet version. I can’t remember the last time I went to an opera where I didn’t know any of the music beforehand and actually left humming. Even the staging was magnificent. It’s a sort of a cross between a modern and a traditional staging - the actors all wear period costumes, but there’s a sort of an amphitheatre set up on stage, where at various times the chorus watches the action and boos the villain (when comically appropriate) or laughs at the comedy, etc. Yes, it’s a bit bare bones - there aren’t too many set pieces - just chairs or tables or a bathtub or a desk, but it was always enough to tell us where we were in each scenes, and unlike in “Turn of the Century,” the stage never felt bare or under-furnished or -financed. There were even inspired touches in the staging like having the chorus dance along with the overture. Not that there’s anything wrong with an overture sans visuals, but I’ll admit my mind has been known to wander during them. Not this time. The only flaw I found - and it was such a minor one - was that the random ballet thrown into the third act (to comply with the conventions at the time the opera was written, I gather), was kind of dull. But tis only a minor quibble. The acting and the singing were just so breathtaking and real, it was really overwhelming. Obviously neither Dessay nor Kaufmann is a teenager as the characters they play are, but they really managed to convey the appropriate innocence that that age would have given them. I can only hope and pray that Peter Gelb will get Dessay to do this in New York. According to the Met Futures page, the opera isn’t scheduled to return to the Met until 2011-12 season, and then in a new production with Anna Netrebko. Maybe Trebs can get pregnant around then, so she can be replaced in the roster by Dessay. That would be a doubly happy occasion, no? In the meanwhile, I’m going to order the dvd of this production when I get home (with Dessay and Rolando Villazon). I’m skeptical of dvds or opera, and whether Villazon could be as good as Kaufmann, but any chance to have a visual of Dessay doing the role can’t be bad. As soon as I got home from the opera on Saturday night, I downloaded a recording of (a different production) of the opera, which I’m listening to right now. Ah, bliss. This is definitely one of my new favorites.

KAFKA ON THE SHORE. The obligatory Steppenwolf production of the stay. I bought and read the book after I booked my ticket to see the play (highly recommended, by the way), and then I read the reviews. And they basically seemed to say that if you haven’t read the book, you’ll have no idea what’s going on. But if you have read it, well the play isn’t as good as the book. And I suspect both were true, leaving a sort of catch 22. As with any stage adaptation of a novel, there were huge chunks of the story cut out - including much of the character development. There were parts that worked (the parts where they sing the song “Kafka on the Shore” were particularly moving), but overall, I can’t say I was thrilled. Particularly uninspired was the costuming of the talking cats - they were going for the simple approach (as opposed to the relative realism in the musical “Cats”) - but I could imagine it being sometime confusing figuring out whether a cat or a human was speaking - to those who had not read the novel. And having the cats just dressed in what looked like ordinary street clothes, with the actors trying to give the characters more cat-like qualities via their physical and vocal inflections - while perhaps of some artistic merit, wasn’t all that effective, and seemed a bit… tacky. The staging was otherwise quite nice. The entire stage and set was painted blue, and there were various panels that would rise or split apart to give us the various scenes. Not necessarily the most inspired staging I’ve seen, but not offensive either. The whole thing was adapted and directed by Frank Galati (director of everyone but the NY Times’ favorite musical “The Visit,” along with “The Pirate Queen”and “Ragtime” on Broadway). Oh, I should mention that Francis Guinan was a highlight in the roles of Johnny Walker (in the first act) and Colonel Sanders (in the second). He seemed to be having quite a good time. The other acting was very good as well, but his scenes were definite highlights.

Okay, c’est tout for now.

Falling for the Fall Dramas

2008-10-09T23:07:00.001-04:00

‘Tis an excellent time for drama in New York. I went to see three plays in a row - one more depressing than the next, to the point where I was getting the feeling I was going to need to check myself into some sort of institution after so much misery in a row - but all three (mostly) brilliantly acted, and all three leaving me in quite a state when the curtain call finally rolled around.

First was FIFTY WORDS, the new play by Michael Weller, starring the always brilliant Elizabeth Marvel, and the usually brilliant Norbert Leo Butz (in the role I’ve seen him tackle that hasn’t been musical and/or comedic). The premise is that this young-ish couple is home alone for the first time since their son was born, because he is at his first sleep over. Things start off normal (and to be perfectly honest, dull) enough, but it doesn’t take too long for the contents of the fridge to start angrily flying, and for Marvel’s mascara to start running down her face. By the end, after a quick bow from the two totally drained actors, when the lights came up, I guess I stood up too quickly, and not realizing how emotionally involved I had been in the play, I was actually a bit dizzy and sort of stumbled into the seat next to me. A more sensible person may say that I lost my balance because I’m a klutz or I have a nasty cold, but I think it’s because this is one damn intense play.

Next up in my trip down misery lane was ALL MY SONS. I had seen the play a number of years ago at the Roundabout (at the old Laura Pels space), but I remembered exactly nothing about it other than that at the end of the first act a pilot crashed in a living room and made all the books fall off of the shelves. Despite the fact that a friend of my mother’s who also saw the play at the Roundabout also said it was the only thing she remembered about the play, it turns out we were both thinking about MISALLIANCE (which, according to the Times review I checked afterwards, had a young(er) Elizabeth Marvel in the role of that crashing pilot). Point being that I remembered absolutely nothing about that production. Still, I can fairly confidently say that it was nothing like the new Broadway revival, directed by Simon McBurney. This new production has the sort of daring director’s vision that one usually sees confined only to BAM (and their subsequent Broadway transfers). I’d venture to say McBurney’s take is bound to be controversial. The sparse but striking set, the OUR TOWN-esque introduction at the top of the play, and the actors sitting and watching the action from the somewhat visible wings may perhaps push the buttons of purists, but I’d venture to say the extensive use of underscoring to heighten (some may say cheapen) the intensity of many scenes, will definitely be a dividing factor in the enjoyment of the this production. There were times when I was a bit bothered by the music, but by the time the totally devastating scenes in the second act rolled along, I have to say I found it grew on me, and I not only didn’t mind it, but quite liked it. John Lithgow, Diane Wiest and Patrick Wilson all give what surely must be some of the finest performances of their careers - certainly the finest performances I’ve seen them give anyway. The big draw of this production is Katie Holmes, in her Broadway debut. The best I can say is she doesn’t embarrass herself. Some of her acting felt very stiff - like she was acting in a different production than the other actors, with some sort of alienation effect in place - but other times she was fine. She’s obviously not up to the level of her far more experienced co-stars (how could she be?), and considering how well the show is selling, if she’s what’s necessary to get butts into seats for one of Arthur Miller’s brilliant plays, I’d say it’s a worthy sacrifice. This is a challenging, unorthodox production, but one that is absolutely a must see.

A few blocks away, another British director is tackling a classic of a different sort, namely Chekhov’s THE SEAGULL. Ian Rickson’s approach is far more subtle, and by the book than McBurney’s, but it is no less powerful. I might have said that Rickson’s production is brilliant, but maybe that’s because it’s so safe. But having seen three other productions of the play in recent years (presented by the Royal Shakespeare Company, Classic Stage Company, and the McCarter), none of which were nearly as good as this one, I have to say that part of what makes this production so exquisite is that it makes it look so easy. Anyone can take a classic drama, stick actors in period costumes and sets, and have them recite lines, but it’s not so easy to assemble such a flawless cast, and get them to spin such a moving story. While ALL MY SONS is very in your face, like it just runs up to you and stabs you repeatedly with a switchblade, THE SEAGULL is more like a slow creeping virus that silently works its way under your skin, and before you know it your clutching your throat dying on the floor. Two different approaches, both with many pitfalls associated, and both when well done, a marvel to watch. I had seen THE SEAGULL in London, with most of the same cast (Konstantin, Arkadina, and Nina were at least the same), and the three of them are just as good, or maybe even better this time around. Peter Saarsgard is apparently controversial as Trigorin, but I don’t really see why everyone is so split about him. I thought he was the best I’d seen do the role so far, and had absolutely no complaints. Kristin Scott Thomas is of course brilliant in the showy role of diva Arkadina, and the girl who plays Nina (whose name I can’t remember, and since I don’t have my Playbill handy right now can’t name - though she deserves to be) really just breaks not just Konstantin’s but the entire audience’s hearts, in her big scene in the final act. It should be an interesting battle for best revival come Tony time between THE SEAGULL and ALL MY SONS. And I haven’t even got around to revisiting EQUUS yet (which I saw on the same trip as THE SEAGULL, last time I was in London).

In the category of a piece of slight entertainment that passes an evening well enough, is SPEED THE PLOW. It’s not one of Mamet’s finest plays, but it’s not horrible either. Still, I’m not really sure why it needed to be revived, other than that it conveniently uses the word “maverick” a few times, which got the audience really excited. Perhaps because he has the most stage experienced of the three actors in cast, Raul Esparza was by far the best of the cast. Of the other two, Jeremy Piven is fine - entertaining enough, anyway - and Kate Moss is kind of bland. It’s only the first week of previews, and I could tell some of the tight rhythm that Mamet requires hasn’t quite fallen into place yet. As I said before, it’s fine as an entertaining diversion, but I wouldn’t call this great, by any stretch.

With the Jewish holidays throwing giant wrenches into my schedule over the past two weeks, that’s been about it for me and theatre for the past two weeks. This weekend I’m off to Chicago (to cram in as much theatre as possible, what else?), and hopefully after that (minus a small diversion for Sukkot the next weekend) my regular theatregoing can get back to normal :O)

Finally, An Update

2008-09-25T23:53:00.001-04:00

I feel like it's been a long time since I've posted an update. Not for any particular lack of theatregoing, though.

THE TEMPEST. The annual Brian Kulick-helmed Shakespeare productions at Classic Stage Company seem to get worse every year. I had some glimmer of hope that this year's production would be an improvement since Michael Cumpsty wasn't in the cast. Except instead of Michael Cumpsty starring, we get someone who turns out to be even worse - Mandy Patinkin. I'm not really sure who thought Mandy Patinkin as Prospero in "The Tempest" was a good idea, other than Patinkin himself. His performance here is just about as over-the-top hammy as you'd expect. Last night I went to see "To Be Or Not To Be" where David Rasche plays a Polish actor who is a brilliant Hamlet only in his own head, though to everyone else he's just a big joke. Let's just say that if Patinkin had any sense of humor, it would have been quite the coup to get his to play that role. If you ever wanted to see an actor, past his prime, who has become a caricature of himself, this is surely the production to witness it. In the final speech of the play, he stands there, eyes closed, reciting the lines as intensely as he can possibly muster (and ooh boy, is that a lot), and it just comes across as so self indulgent. This is not to say that he ruins the production. At least he's amusing to watch. The rest of the cast is just dull. With the possible exception of Stark Sands and Elizabeth Waterston (as Ferdinand and Miranda) who are quite charming to watch and have lovely chemistry, the rest of the cast is fairly dull. Usually these lousy Kulick productions can at least be counted on for some intriguing staging, but I guess most of his budget must have gone to pay dear ol' Mandy, because the design is all very cheap looking. This is overall, a huge disappointment.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE. In what I guess was Manhattan Theatre Club's attempt to recreate the success the Roundabout had with their imported production of "The 39 Steps," they have opened their Biltmore... I mean Friedman Theatre season with a stage adaptation of a dusty old movie. Except this one has quite a few more than four actors. There was some hubub during rehearsals, with two actors dropping out, then some cancelled previews and a delayed opening night - none of which are good signs for a production. I don't know if everything has quite settled down yet backstage, but what is currently being presented is not really what I would call "good." There are a couple of chuckles every now and then, but it's certainly not what I would call hilarious. I've never seen the original film, but I think the stage script must be sticking fairly close to the screenplay, because there are an awful lot of very short scenes. One would think they could have had the good sense to combine some of the scenes, so the audience didn't have to watch the scene change curtain move across the stage every 10 seconds or so. It made the evening feel really very choppy. Oh, and while most of the play is (in theory) a comedy, bizarrely in the final few scenes, it suddenly turns totally serious. The play is about an acting troupe in Poland, around the time of the Nazi occupation. So while most of the play is silly stuff about running around and avoiding being killed, there are these random sections of dialogue about actors being rounded up and shipped to concentration camps, and a kid delivering a speech from "The Merchant of Venice," and an extremely bizarre song sung in Polish that has the cast huddling together hoping for a better tomorrow. I guess this is supposed to be a comedy with some sort of social conscience, but when so much of the play is fluff, is comes across as really jarring and out of place. As far as the acting goes, the cast is fine, though I wasn't really thrilled with anyone. I'm the sort who will see Jan Maxwell or Kristine Nielsen do anything (and I have the mental wounds from Maxwell's last few awful plays to prove it), but I can't say either of them really give their best performances here. Maxwell came across as perhaps too intelligent in the role of the actress cheating on her actor husband, and Nielsen is really just plain wasted in the role of, what I guess is best described as a maid. Overall, the show isn't horrible, but I would definitely wait a bit before venturing to see it. I already have plans to see it again in November, so maybe things will be more in sync by then.

SALOME. I still get chills thinking about Karita Mattila's brilliant Salome at the Met back in 2004(?). So when it was announced it was finally returning, even though I already had tickets to see it tomorrow night, I decided to grab a standing room ticket to the first night on Tuesday as well. Okay, maybe it's not as mind blowingly fantastic this time around. But even if I was squirming a bit more this time, by the time Salome finally gets her claws on on Jochanaan's severed head, and through to the end, ooh boy there were chills up my spine. Even if her performance did veer slightly toward the over-the-top at times, and even if the Dance of the Seven Veils was more amusing that erotic, this remains a jaw dropping performance, and definitely should not be missed. So what if it's merely fantastic instead of fan-friggin-tastic? It's still a spine tingling thrill, and I think I may even throw in a third viewing this time around, assuming I can get my schedule in order.

I think I'll stop there. I have chocolate honey (cup)cakes in the oven that are going to be done soon, and others that need icing, and midnight is approaching.

RENT - the way it was meant to be filmed

2008-09-18T23:50:00.001-04:00

As we've all witnessed time and time again, it's not easy to turn a stage musical into a successful film. A few years ago, Christopher Columbus made a pathetic attempt to turn "Rent" into a movie, and as anyone who saw it can attest to, was none too successful. In what seems to be a mea culpa on the part of Sony Pictures, we are getting - for four screenings only (Sept 24, 25, 27, 28) - "Rent: Filmed Live On Broadway," a film of the final performance of "Rent" on Broadway. I was invited to a screening of the new movie tonight at the Sony Screening Room, and let me say that Rentheads can all breathe a sigh of relief, because this new "Rent" wonderfully captures the spirit and energy of the stage musical. I could quibble about the times when I wished the camera would just keep still and not cut to a different angle every four seconds, or about how Will Chase struck me as a bit too old (and heavily made up) for Roger, or how well... they don't live up to my memories of the original cast. But those are really just minor faults. Considering how awful Broadway shows usually come across live on those Live From Lincoln Center and Great Performances small screen airings, this was a most pleasant surprise. The movie runs around 2 1/2 hours, including a ten minute intermission to rest your brain and relieve your bowels. If you are anything like me and were too lazy (and/or afraid) to see "Rent" one last time on Broadway, this "special event" movie is well worth seeing. I have to say I've been rather skeptical of this new fad of showing live theatre at the movies, and to be perfectly honest I doubt I would have bothered to see this otherwise, but having sat through it, I'll say I do think it is definitely worth bothering with. And think of it this way - if these screenings do well, that will likely tell Sony that the moviegoing public wants more Broadway at the movies. Any excuse to document a Broadway show for future generations makes me happy. Did I mentioned my fingers were crossed that this would eventually be released on dvd?

A Great Play Lurking In The "Shadows"

2008-09-04T00:11:00.002-04:00

This afternoon, when trying to decide whether to see anything tonight, I was going back and forth in my head as to whether I should see "King of Shadows." On the plus side, it's by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, a young playwright whose work I've enjoyed keeping my eye on. Of the plays of his I've seen, I've liked "The Mystery Plays," "Good Boys and True," "Based on a Totally True Story," and "Bloody Mary," (especially those last two), and only really disliked "Dark Matters." On the minus, it's being presented at Theatre for a New City, which being the theatre snob I am, is not what I would call a desirable venue (it being not near the subway, and not having - in recent years anyway - produced anything high profile enough to reach my radar). Also, after suffering through the terrible "Dark Matters" at the Rattlestick, my theatre snob instinct also wondered why this playwright who had previously had work produced at places like Second Stage and MTC, was having to resort to having a world premiere play produced by a theatre company I'd venture to say most people have never heard of (namely the "Working Theatre").
Okay, so maybe that theatre snob instinct needs to be lashed forty times with a wet noodle, or whatever your punishment of choice is, because by curiosity over seeing the new Aguirre-Sacasa play won out in the end (plus nothing better came along), and goodness gracious, I loved it. Like "Mystery Plays," "Dark Matters" and "Bloody Mary," this play takes a look at the more supernatural side of life. That the playwright works as a writer for Marvel Comics, comes as no surprise. According to a program note, this play was commissioned by California Shakespeare Theatre, and was the result of a combination of community service working with homeless gay, lesbian, transexual, or questioning youth in San Francisco, and the requirement that he use a Shakespeare play as a starting point (in this case, "A Midsummer Night's Dream"). And somehow he takes those two odd concepts and melds them into something that kind of reminded me of the work of Neil Gaiman. The play is a about a (female) grad student who is interviewing homeless young gay man in San Francisco, who claims he was stolen from his parents by The King of Shadows, and escaped from the King's realm into San Francisco. And now the King wants him back (cue ominous music). It sounds kind of corny, but I think it's a credit to both Mr. Aguirre-Sacasa, and the splendid cast and creative team, that everything works just beautifully, and even the most far fetched of situations somehow become believable and touching. I imagine the design budget wasn't very high (this is off-off Broadway after all), but I was really impressed by the simple but creative set design (two curving walls, out of which magically pop desks and couches and benches), and some really beautiful and eery lighting.
Chalk this one up high in the pleasant surprise category. This is one of those plays that I'm very excited to spread the good word about in all of those "What did you see last night" conversations. Have I got a recommendation for you....

On a separate note, for completions sake only, I should mention the last three Fringe shows I saw - Paper Dolls (meh), Be Brave Anna (ugh), and Thoroughly Stupid Things (quite good). I'm pretty sure all that Fringe-going added up to 30 productions (over the course of 31 performances - having seen "The Fabulous Kane Sisters" twice). I spent last week recovering from the marathon, and now hopefully things will pick up again post-Labor Day as the Fall season kicks into gear. The Fall season started on a high note with "The King of Shadows," let's hope things don't deteriorate too quickly now.

Oh, and this was apparently my 75th post. Weeee........

Another Musical About The French Revolution (or Die, Star Drops, Die!)

2008-08-20T23:54:00.002-04:00

I'm so tempted to start this with "It was the best of musicals, it was the worst of musicals," but I will resist the urge. If Jill Santoriello, composer/lyricist/book-writer of the new "A Tale of Two Cities" musical could manage to put off quoting those opening lines until the top of the second act, I can resist the obvious as well. Then again, not opening the musical with what must surely be some of the most famous opening lines ever written in the opening of a "Two Cities" inspired musical, may have been the only obvious thing Ms. Santoriello managed to avoid. While I think everyone was expecting this to be "Les Miz 2," I found it much more reminiscent of Frank Wildhorn's "The Scarlet Pimpernel" - with the title character missing, of course. Isn't that also a big musical about the same revolution (the French one), and the same two cities (London and France)? I'm not sure why, because the two songs most likely have absolutely nothing in common, but for some reason the bit of a song I have stuck in my head from "Tale of Two Cities" is the cheesy 'let's get the revolutionaries excited' song called "Until Tomorrow." And since the only part of that song that I can remember is the title phrase, when I hum it in my head, I sing most of the chorus of "Into the Fire" (from "Scarlet Pimpernel"), except when it reaches it's climax I substitute the words and melody from "Until Tomorrow." They really fit quite nicely together, especially considering I don't know and of the words to "Into the Fire."
Getting off of that bizarre and random tangent... yes, this is a big overblown 80s style pop opera. But I don't think that genre has to necessarily be bad. The one aspect of the show I quite liked was the music. Yes, it's really power ballad heavy. And I don't think I would be able to make it through a cast recording without falling into a coma. But in the context of the show, with extremely boring book scenes stuck in between the songs, and with a fantastic cast (especially James Barbour, whose voice is absolutely perfect for this sort of stuff), it comes across as pleasant and melodic and sort of pretty. The lyrics were decent enough - I wasn't offended by them too often anyway.
The big stumbling point for me was the book. There is just so much plot crammed in, and there are so many characters, that I really found it hard to care what was going on, or who was going to die, or who wanted revenge on who. What I think was supposed to be the comic relief of the show was this guy referred to a "The Resurrection Man" - he even gets this whole song about how he steals bodies from graves. But other than that one song, I'm not sure what he added to the story. His character could have easily been cut and nobody, other than Dickens die-hards who missed him from the source material, would have noticed. And considering his song wasn't actually funny, there wouldn't have even been any "comic relief" missing. I would say the most bizarre example of cramming too much story in, was this long ballad the lawyer character sings after the woman he apparently loved, even though he never spoke to her, or really expressed much interest in her at all before that scene, sings about how he's sad he's lost her to this other man. And over the course of this song, she gets married, hold an infant in her arms, and then this little girl runs on stage dancing around with a ribbon - apparently her daughter. All of this over the course of one ballad, about how this guys loves someone else's wife. I guess he stood there singing for around six years. That's one long song.
Speaking of long, the show runs a very long two hours and fifty minutes, and that was the main complaint I heard on my way out of the theatre. Perhaps if the show had used its extended running time to make us care about its characters, the audience wouldn't have minded so much.
A lot has been made about how fabulous the set is supposed to be. Or maybe all that hype was just in my head. Because I didn't think the set was all that wonderful. There are these sparse wooden structures, that when all put together form a circle, but otherwise serve as houses, inns, or whatever other indoor piece of scenery is needed. You know you're in Paris if there a red backdrop, and you're in London if it's a blue backdrop. It seemed a bit too sparse and simple for my tastes. Looking at the set, I couldn't help but be bothered about how the architecture of London and Paris just looked exactly the same.
The worst part of the show, as far as I'm concerned, was the staging of the final scene (this is your cue to tune out, if you don't want any aspect of the staging to be spoiled). I'm assuming everyone knows the story, and I'm not giving away the ending. Well, the lawyer walks up a set of stairs, against a black backdrop, and then the stairs move slowly towards the center of the stage so he's facing the audience, and the black backdrop and the podium he's standing on top of, are all filled with stars, and he recites his big "It's a far far better thing that I do speech..." in front of a star drop. I almost fell out of my chair, I was so shocked that they would resort to such a lame cliche for the finale.
As I mentioned briefly before, the show cast is really fantastic. My favorite was definitely James Barbour, who gets sappy power ballad after power ballad to remind us how much we've missed his fantastic voice on Broadway. Also quite good is Brandi Burkhardt, who plays the daughter of the doctor (who is also the woman the two men love) - she's apparently making her Broadway debut, but she has a lovely voice, and her acting is quite fine. Natalie Toro plays Madame Defarge, and though her voice is lovely, I found her Defarge came across as overly whiny and bratty, and I was rooting for her to get shot at the end (I was also rooting for her to get show at the end of the first act, or really any time there was a gun pointed in her general direction.) I mean, I know Defarge isn't supposed to be nice, but I think there's a difference between being nasty, and being a brat.
I think mostly because of the music - because it was both quite pretty (though a tad repetitive) and well sung - I liked the show more than it really deserves to be liked. The book is so poorly crafted, and the characters are so two-dimensional (I think the character I cared most about was the woman who got one scene at the end of the second act, to explain how scared she was of going to the guillotine), it really shouldn't work at all. But I guess there's some sort of base connection that all of the power ballads make, that surpass the obvious criticisms, that at least made the show not painful to sit through. It's not quite good enough for me to call it a guilty pleasure, but it's one of those shows that peeked over the line. I might consider seeing this again, if I can get a cheap ticket later in the run. The audience seemed to love it (standing ovation and all), and I think this could do well at the box office if it's able to tap into the crowd that's sad that "Les Miz" and/or Frank Wildhorn are currently missing from Broadway. The performance was being filmed (I'm guessing for a commercial), and at the end they were interviewing a woman standing at the front of the orchestra. I only caught the very end of it, but I got the impression she was one of those "It was so good I bought the mug" type, bridge & tunnel ladies who will be used on the commercials to tap into that crucial audience.
One last note - I booked by ticket on tdf, and they put me in the last row of the mezz (actually, it was sort of a half row crammed in behind what should have been the last row). Almost everyone back there (including me) moved up the completely empty mid-mezz center section, which was perfectly fine, but you should be forewarned, in case you're considering using tdf for this show. Not that it's really worth forty bucks, but that's a dead horse that's been well beaten already.

Fringe Festival: Day 12

2008-08-19T21:14:00.000-04:00

I guess the theme today is something involving surprises, good things, and small packages.

SCHÖNBERG. Looking at my Fringe schedule for something to see tonight, I found that there was nothing that had initially interested me playing, that I hadn't already seen. So I looked at what was playing at convenient times, at the theatres that I know offer comfortable viewing experiences. Well, the only thing that looked somewhat interesting was something called "Schönberg" - which was apparently a conversation between Arnold Schoenberg and Oscar Levant. I had seen a reading of a play (probably a play with music) about Levant a few years ago that I didn't much like, but I figured how bad could this be. Well, shock of shocks, this was one of the most interesting shows I've seen at the Fringe. I was sort of tired going in, and figured if it wasn't really good I was going to nod off, but I was really riveted. Maybe it did require a little effort on my part to keep my mind on the show, and not let it wander after hearing so much interesting philosophy. But there was time for that later. Who knew Arnold Schoenberg was so interesting? The obvious answer to that question is 'everyone but me.' Knowing him just as a composer of atonal music whose very name strikes fear in the hearts of most music lovers, I was shocked to find out what an interesting man he was. The play includes anecdotes about his opera "Moses und Aron," and how he started it before the war, writing about the folk and the fuhrer (referring to the Jewish people and Moses), but after Hitler took those names and re-purposed them for the his regime, he felt like his opera was dated even before it was finished, and that was part of why he never finished the third act for it (there are other reasons discussed for the incomplete opera as well). I mean, this show has everything - fascinating thoughts on war, religion, and music. The Fringe guide labels this as 90 minutes, but when we get to the inevitable "I met with Schoenberg one last time..." line from Levant, and I saw it was only around 53 minutes in, this both shocked me that time had flown by so fast, but also made me wonder if the last scenes was going to be kind of long. Turns out, the whole play is only around 55 minutes long. To be perfectly honest, I found the ending to be extremely unsatisfying. I guess it ended where the teacher-student relationship between Schoenberg and Levant actually did end, so I guess it was the only was to end it, but I was sort of sad to see the play end. I wanted more. The acting is excellent - Schoenberg is played by John Fisher (who also wrote the play, based on four books listed in the program - at least one of which I am going to have to seek out to read more on Mr. S), and Levant is played by Matt Weimer (who is just as annoying as the last guy I saw play Oscar Levant, but I guess that's the way he was - and I sort of got used to him this time, with the character of Schoenberg, being the total opposite of him personality-wise, and therefore a fine foil). This only runs for three more performances (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday), but I think it's well worth checking out. It's like a philosophy lecture made entertaining. It even made me pull out the cd of Schoenberg's "Verklarte Nacht" that I think I bought after seeing "Aunt Dan and Lemon," and listened to maybe once. I plan on putting it on after I post this. I'm assuming it won't be very good as background music.

Such a pleasant surprise. Something that could have been a tedious bore, was actually both entertaining educational. I feel smarter now!

Fringe Festival: Days 10-11

2008-08-18T23:48:00.001-04:00

It's the last week of "The Festival." This time next week I think I may be going through withdrawal.

THE GRECIAN FORMULA. I'd call this show mildly amusing. Certainly not the laugh riot the creators were likely aiming for, but I laughed enough. This is a comedy about the creation of drama in ancient Greece. The funniest parts of the show are the ones that refer to the current state of theatre (like when the seer starts channeling the musicals currently playing on Broadway), and the ruler organizing the first theatrical festival starts planning on premium seating, and theatre restoration charges. Another hilarious highlight, is one of the shows of the festival that combines "Death of a Salesman," "The Glass Menagerie," "Long Days Journey Into Night" and "August: Osage County" into one lump dysfunctional family drama. When the judges were picking the winning play at the end, I was sort of rooting for that one to win - even though we're supposed to be rooting for the mediocre "Orpheus and Eurydice" adaptation that we've been watching the creation of the entire time. That show's presentation - the longest of the ones we're shown, is really kind of flat, other than a positively hilarious gospel song they throw in at the end. One problem with the show as a whole, was that it seemed to drag on for too long after the "Orpheus" production was presented. Enough quibbles though, the show is pleasant and fun enough, especially for a Fringe show.

WALLS. A really awful premise made into a fine drama. The show is about a couple who discover a wall has popped up between them, dividing their home in two, and on the day of their anniversary. I'd think I'm sort of stating the obvious by revealing that the wall represents the problems in their marriage, and it only slowly comes down as they tell each other their deep dark secrets. Even if this sounds like a lame example of just taking a metaphor literally, thanks to two excellent performances from the actors playing the couple, and some quite fine playwriting, the show manages to really be fascinating to watch. And kudos to the set designer for figuring out an interesting way - especially on a Fringe budget - of finding a creative way to represent the wall and it's reaction to each revealed secret. A pleasant surprise.

USHER. "The Grecian Formula" ended up cutting its intermission due to an "emergency" that caused them to start ten minutes late, and as I was sitting there, I was thinking how amazed I was that I hadn't left any shows an intermission, at this year's Fringe, after having lost patience with no many last year. Well, that would all change with "Usher," a dreadful musical based on Edgar Allen Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher." The show felt like a college production of a moldy 80s pop-opera. Well, it is technically a college production - it's both written and performed by Yale students. The show was written as a senior project by an undergrad student, and I will say that someone so young could have written something like this is impressive. Not that it makes the show good, but that it's as accomplished as it is, is pretty surprising. The show sort of feels like a cross between the musicals of "Jane Eyre" (by Paul Gordon) and "The Secret Garden" (by Lucy Simon), except combining the worst aspects of each. The songs, while all fairly pretty and melodic, are just so repetitive. I felt like the choruses were just repeated over and over again, with the central melody and lyric of each song, just pounded into my head. And though admittedly I've never read "The Fall of the House of Usher," the show didn't really feel Poe like at all - it felt much more like a Charlotte Bronte soap opera, full of cheesy romance, and the voice of the mysterious woman hidden in the house. I found the show absolutely excruciating to sit through, and with the intermission coming at a random point in the story, leaving absolutely nothing in the story to entice an audience member to want to suffer through a second hour, I just left. I was especially annoyed, as I was debating between picking this show or "Krapp 39." "Krapp 39" had been getting rave reviews, and I knew nothing about "Usher" other than the music on the website that intrigued me. But I only had room in my schedule to pick one, and well, I obviously chose wrong. C'est la vie. I can always hope "Krapp 39" will be part of the Fringe Encores series.

THE GOLDEN AURORA. A play about a man who falls in love with a dog. And when I say "falls in love," I really mean love. Like he has sex with the dog. Bestiality is a touchy subject, and I think it takes a careful playwriting not to let it fall into unintentional camp. It's the difference between Albee's fabulous "The Goat or Who is Sylvia" and that awful play, "Prymate" that played on Broadway a few seasons ago. This show starts out promisingly enough, and I think if the playwright had perhaps stuck just to the subject of the man-dog romance, it might have worked. But instead, he gives all but one character really bizarre neuroses, so that the whole thing just turns into some sort of awful freak show, causing unintentional laughter from the audience, and expressions that likely resembled those of the audience for "Springtime for Hitler." In the plays defense, I was at least never bored when watching it. It was almost impossible to tear my eyes away, but more in the way of watching an oncoming train wreck than a fine drama. Not necessarily an awful idea, just a bit too wacky for an audience to stomach.

BLANCHE SURVIVES KATRINA IN A FEMA TRAILER NAMED DESIRE. There was lots of great buzz on this, so I had high hopes. I just didn't get the appeal at all. The people around me were laughing hysterically at every little thing, so maybe it's because I'm not a Southerner (I did hear a lot of non-native New Yorker accents around me), but I just didn't find this at all funny. The premise, as far as I could tell, was this guy goes to his wreck of a home in New Orleans, and every time he puts on a wig, he turns into Blanche DuBois (of "A Streetcar Named Desire"), and (s)he recounts the post-Katrina experience, through the eyes of Miss DuBois, from life in the Superdome, to a seedy motel, to working at a Popeyes in Phoenix. I just didn't find this at all amusing or intersting. As far as I'm concerned, Tennessee Williams should be rolling his grave.

THE LONGEST RUNNING JOKE OF THE 20TH CENTURY. This was a reminder that all Fringe shows don't get packed houses.I think everything else I'd seen at this year's festival, had been fairly crowded, if not close to sold out. But this one had I think around twelve people in the audience. Which I found kind of sad, because I sort of liked the show. I guess that's what happens when you don't have a cast of twenty, to bring all of their friends and family to see your show. This is a solo play about written by and starring a playwright who went from working at Eddie Bauer to a seventeen year job as a social worker, in a program what I guess was sort of a halfway-house type program mentally disturbed individuals. The premise is good, and the stories were interesting and sometimes moving, but I found it a bit to be just story after story, with not enough connective material in-between each. I mean, the stories of the patients were somewhat interesting, but after a while I started to wonder whether the play was ever going to come to a point, or if it was just a random selection of snapshots. I think the raw ideas for a good play are definitely there, but it could use some work. Also Stephen O'Rourke (the actor/playwright) is not really much of an actor, and future productions could probably benefit from either a more experienced actor performing the play, or perhaps some acting lessons for Mr.O'Rourke. The play may not be perfect, but I found quite a few of the stories to be really quite funny or touching, and if I read about a future revised production, I would certainly be curious to give it a second chance. This was certainly better than some of the other bigger buzz shows I've seen at this year's festival.

Fringe Festival: Days 7-9

2008-08-17T01:13:00.005-04:00

Long time, no Fringe update. But I'm back. And I haven't cut down on my Fringe going yet. Though I am going to cheat on the Festival twice next week - once for the second preview of "A Tale of Two Cities" and then later in the week for some or other else that I can't remember the name of.

Anyway...

THE FABULOUS KANE SISTERS IN 'BOX OFFICE POISON'. I went to see this a second time basically because I convinced my parents that they should see it (I don't think they'd forgiven me yet for the one I dragged them to last week) and I figured it couldn't hurt to go a second time. The show is still lives up to the "fabulous" of its title, though it wasn't quite as roll on the floor funny as the first time - partly I guess because I knew the jokes already, and partly because the audience wasn't quite as into it this time. My parents said they liked it, so I guess I'm in the clear now...

CREENA DEFOOUIE. (edit - 8/19/08) - An odd little show written by and starring a sister and brother team from the UK (she wrote the script and he wrote the music). I can't say I really liked it all that much, except for a couple of the scenes right at the end, which were admittedly quite funny. Apparently this has a bit of a cult following back in England, which I can certainly understand.

BOUND IN A NUTSHELL. This is Shakespeare's "Hamlet," re-set in a modern day prison, and hacked down to 90 minutes. This version of the play opens with Hamlet being interrogated for the murder of Polonius, and then later shows him in his cell, at the trial, and even talking to Ophelia, through a glass partition via phones. While I found the premise of the production interesting, I think it may be one of those ideas that worked better in theory than in practice. By cutting away so much of the play, the characters really felt very two-dimensional, and Hamlet especially just became increasingly annoying to the point where I was happy to see him finally die. The only character who really came to life for me was Monique Vukovic's beautifully fragile Ophelia, and considering the role was really rather small, I think it was due more to Ms. Vukovic than anything else. I had heard a lot of good buzz on this show, which is why I went, but I just felt it to be really unsatisfying. Very disappointing.

UNTITLED MASTERPIECE. Once again, let down by buzz. I think I was doing better on instinct than listening to reviews. This is a series of unfunny sketches about a man who has just graduated from college and must face the real world, with the scenes styled after various genres of television show (sitcom, game show, talk show, etc). Really not at all funny. This felt like an overlong Saturday Night Live skit gone terribly wrong.

ALL HAIL THE GREAT SERPENT! I don't know what to say about this one. It's a series of fairly offensive sketches, with a bit of one, and all of another really making me crack up. I'm sort of embarrassed to admit what made me laugh at this show, considering it was all in such poor taste, but it was the rubber dildo (once again used to the best of its comic potential by a Fringe production), along with a naked (and I'm talking he's only wearing one sock, naked) fat man onstage for an extended period of time, that made me crack up. The rest just really made be cringe without laughing (offensive or disgusting, just for the sake of it). I mean, do I really need to see grown men chew some spaghetti in marinara sauce and then stand over one of their colleagues and drop it in his mouth? I'm kind of laughing as I type that, but at the time, I think I was watching it I was getting slightly nauseous. I will say the woman taking flash photography with her disposable camera through much of the show (I'm guessing one of the actors' mothers) seemed to be having a grand ol time.

TINY FEATS OF COWARDICE. A woman stands on stage and whines -both in speech and in song - for 90 minutes about how she's afraid of everything. The show sort of felt like the result of a therapy session. Like she told her shrink she had stage fright, so the shrink tells her to write and perform a musical to conquer her fear. Does this make for good therapy? Perhaps. Does it make for good theatre? Not likely. There was one moving section about 9-11, but that's about it for interesting stuff.

THE AMISH PROJECT. Fabulous. A solo, documentary style play, written and performed by Jessica Dickey, about the shooting at the Amish schoolhouse that occurred in October 2006. The piece is presented as if based on interviews with those involved, though considering there are sections spoken by the shooter who committed suicide, as well as one of the girls who was murdered, I'm guessing this was historical fiction. Not that that takes away from the power of the production at all. Really moving, and absolutely riveting. I was almost sorry to see it end, because I wanted to see more. If I have any criticism, it's that every now and then I would have trouble differentiating between characters. But that's a minor quibble, and I'm sure with more practice from a longer run, could be improved up. This is definitely worth seeing.

UNDERWEAR: A SPACE MUSICAL. Typical fluff Fringe musical. Not as consistently entertaining as "Perez Hilton..." or "Love is Dead," two of the other big Fringe musical comedies which I really enjoyed, though I'll say this one probably had the strongest score of the three. The musical is set in the future, and a girl from the planet Ohio named Dorothy comes to Earth to work at an underwear factory where the evil owner has started production of mind-control underwear. I can't say the story made all that much sense. Dorothy (called "Dottie" for short) falls in love with an underwear model named Andi, and I found the scenes about their relationship to be quite entertaining, while the scenes between the evil head of the company and her models or her servant robot to be far less interesting. Still, I left happy and humming, and especially at the Fringe Festival, one doesn't really need to ask much more from a musical.

That's it till tomorrow. Actually, it's now technically really early Sunday morning, so that's all until later today. Eek.

Fringe Festival: Day 6

2008-08-13T23:20:00.001-04:00

Today's show, I'm sort of embarrassed to say was the one I was most looking forward to at this year's festival.

TIM GUNN'S PODCAST (A REALITY CHAMBER OPERA). This is one of those shows that you can tell from the title whether you'll like or not. If you're a "Project Runway" junkie - or at least watched season 3 of the show, then you'll probably enjoy this, at least to a certain extent. If you've never seen the show before, you'll be bored out of your mind. I am, I admit, a huge "Project Runway" fan, and I remember always being really excited during season 3, the day after the show would air, to get to work and download and listen to the new Tim Gunn podcast of the week. Sadly, Tim Gunn has since stopped podcasting, but we will always have the memories. And now, apparently, an opera. This show is pretty self explanatory - it's one of Tim Gunn's podcasts (specifically, the episode that challenge the contestants to design a dress for Miss USA to wear to the Miss Universe pageant), set to music - specifically opera. I can't say I really found the music really added anything to the text. For the first minute or so, it is of course hilarious, but the novelty soon wears off. After that, every now and then a particularly silly image would be made more amusing because it was because of the seriousness of the delivery (things like the a dress being compared to fudge or a yule log), but more often than not I the music really just slowed things down. I found I kind of missed the original delivery and wondered if it might not have been more entertaining if the show was instead something like "Gunn's Last Tape," with Tim Gunn sitting and listening to a recording of his podcast, a ala Beckett and "Krapp." The piece is performed by baritone John Schenkel (who looks nothing like Tim Gunn, although some of the movements were perhaps slightly reminiscent) and pianist Jeffrey Lependorf. It's playing at The Jazz Gallery, which technically is air conditioned (I think), but the air conditioner is so noisy, that it's turned off once the show begins, and we have to deal with just a ceiling fan, which doesn't help. The stage is only a few inches off the ground, and the seats are just folding chair set up on a flat floor, so the sightlines are unfortunately pretty poor. Especially when Schenkel sits in the chair, it's quite hard to see him, and that's unfortunate because his facial expressions definitely add to the humor of the piece. So overall, while the show may not have lived up to the comic brilliance I would have hoped, I'd say this is worth seeing for the diehard Tim Gunn/Project Runway fans. As a piece of musical theatre, it's really not all that interesting, but as an hour long trip down the memory lane... or rather memory runway, it's good enough.

I wonder if this show will inspire a musical version of Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse's "Lost" podcast at next year's festival. Presumably scored for voice and banjo.

Fringe Festival: Day 5

2008-08-12T22:37:00.000-04:00

Another day, another show at the Fringe.

THE ALICE COMPLEX. As far as I can tell, this is the starriest of the Fringe shows this year, featuring Tony-nominee Xanthe Elbrick (of "Coram Boy") and Lisa Banes (of about a zillion play, movies and television roles, very few of which I've seen). There's a reference to "Mrs. Dalloway" near the beginning of the play (luckily it's a quote from the first page of the novel, because that's about as far as I ever got through it), and that brought Michael Cunnigham's "The Hours" to mind, a novel (and movie) that seemed sort of similar in structure to this play. Instead flipping between scenes that in some way have to do with "Mrs Dalloway," the play flips between scenes that have to "The Alice Complex," which is both the name of the play within the play (which we see rehearsed, acted out, and referred to be disgruntled audience members who left before it was over), and also a feminist manifesto (the writer of which is the subject of the play within the play). For good measure, there's even a passage from "Alice in Wonderland" thrown in near the end. I can't say I found the play to be all that satisfying. The scenes from the play within the play tended to be the most interesting, with the other scenes I guess thrown in with the theory that they would make the play seem more intellectual and daring, though I personally found they just made it seem pretentious. The saving grace of the production, and really why I'd actually recommend seeing it, is for the fantastic performance from Lisa Banes. She's one of those actresses who's name vaguely rings a bell, but I would never have been able to pick her out of a lineup. Still, her performance is the kind that made me think that I wouldn't mind seeing her read from the phonebook (which may or may not be more exciting than "The Alice Complex). For some reason, her voice reminded me quite a bit of Kathleen Chalfant (another actress who's saved many an awful play). Anyway, I found whenever she would speak, I would be absolutely riveted to her. Xanthe Elbrick on the other hand, was okay, though not really up to the level of Banes. I think part of it may have been that her parts weren't nearly as interesting - Banes gets to play characters like the professor and playwright, while Elbrick plays mostly just whiny, annoying students. The entire play is thankfully only a little over an hour long, and I recommend checking it out for Banes alone. It may be extremely unsatisfying as a piece of drama, but it does feature what is surely some of the finest acting at this year's Fringe.

Fringe Festival: Day 4

2008-08-11T22:28:00.002-04:00

Just one show today. Thank goodness.

CHOOSE YOUR OWN PLAY. This show has the misfortune to have been assigned the CSV Center's Milagro Theatre. Which has no air conditioning. If you can stand the thought of baking for an hour and a half (including intermission), the show is cute enough - though maybe a little better in concept than execution. The concept is that the audience chooses what the main character - named "You" - does, with voting decided by which option gets the loudest yells and applause from the audience. Each time the little bell would chime to indicate it was time to vote, I would perk up and cross my fingers that my choice would win (which didn't happen as often as I would have liked). The problem I had was that while the voting was a lot of fun, there were long stretches when we had to watch the action play out with no voting to indicate which decisions "You" would make, and those tended to get a little boring, as they weren't quite as funny as they should have been. We get to see the play three times, and each time my audience (as I assume most audiences would) chose a different starting action (answer a phone, answer the door, or a surprise extra choice for the third time around), with the first time getting ending up with a trip to Booktopia with Waldo (of "Where's Waldo" fame), the second having us a crash a plane on a desert island with "Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown, and the third time taking us back in time to high school. There are apparently eighty different possible endings, and based on the credits in the program, it's possible to even get some songs in your story - though our audience didn't get any. The show isn't really entertaining enough to warrant a second visit to see what else can happen, and to be perfectly honest even just a third story started to try my increasingly overheated patience. If you can spare the time and the fifteen bucks - and maybe do 'hot yoga' and are therefore used to unpleasantly hot temperatures - it's probably worth seeing at least the first act, just for the novelty of it all.

Unfortunately, I will be crossing off the other shows on my 'to see' list that are playing at the CSV Milagro, just because I can't imagine sitting through another show in that space.

Fringe Festival: Day 3

2008-08-10T23:00:00.001-04:00

I only managed four shows today, before I felt like I was going to keel over and die. The fact that the last show I saw was my least favorite of the day probably didn't help matters. Anyway, here's my Day 3 roundup:

VELVET SCRATCH: VOYAGE TO NOWHERE. This one definitely goes into the category of "weird." I guess it's best described as a series of macabre tales, as seen through a Tim Burton-esque lens. When the audience enters, there are three women on stage (with one caught in a spider's web), all dressed in torn, dirty white dresses, and with heavy white makeup on, and fairly large black rings around their eyes... looking not dissimilar to Mrs. Lovett in the "Sweeney Todd" movie. So, over the course of an hour, one of the women narrates a slew of stories about how various women met untimely deaths and ended up in the underworld. The scenes are mostly acted out by the two other women (who have very little dialogue assigned to them), and all accompanied by a lone guitar player onstage. There are also songs thrown in every now and the then. The stories go something like... there was a girl who wanted to be a ballet dancer, but she couldn't fit her feet in her ballet shoes, so she cut her toes of, and bled to death. Or, there was a girl who liked to read, but one day while reaching for some high books, she fell off the ladder, broke her glasses which she needed to read, and drowned in her tears. The stories are of course more detailed, but that's the general gist. I'm glad the show was only an hour long, because I don't think I could have sat through much more of the show. But what there was was interesting enough, though I found I really had to concentrate, because it wasn't the most riveting stuff I've seen - though I did find my concentration was rewarded. Not the most amazing thing I've seen, but a nice change from the other goofy stuff I'd seen so far, for though there is a certain amount of pitch black humor in here, it is not at all what I would term "goofy.:

LOVE IS DEAD. A musical comedy about a mortician who talks to, and has sex with his corpses. I know it sounds bizarre, but it was really quite entertaining. Thankfully the sex with the corpses is only mentioned, never actually demonstrated, thought the dead people are all played by living actors, so I guess it wouldn't have been that disturbing anyway. The story in a nutshell is about how three women - a dead one, an obsessive compulsive one, and a DNA analyst who's investigating a series of murders - all fall in love with the mortician. The music is pleasant enough - not so melodic that you leave humming, but not atonal either. And the actors do a wonderful job of bringing their characters to life. My only quibble was that in some sections of the songs that required harmony, there were some frightening sounding notes hitting my ears, because certain singers' voices either weren't singing the right notes, or just didn't blend all that well together. But that really only caused me to cringe I think twice, so it wasn't too terrible. Anyway, I found this show to be quite entertaining - not blown away, but certainly an extremely enjoyable two hours or so.

GARGOYLE GARDEN. This is one of those shows that is so not being marketed properly. Based on its description, I figured it was going to be a happy little kiddy musical about a kid who hangs around with gargoyles - I was thinking like Quasimodo in the Disney version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," or maybe something a little more macabre. This one is labeled as Fringe Jr after all. And it's by the people who brought us "Minimum Wage," which I didn't see, but I assumed was your typical silly Fringe satire, I think of fast food workers. Anyway, "Gargoyle Garden" is not some happy silly little musical. This is a chamber opera that sounded like it wouldn't be out of place on the stage of City Opera (note, that is not necessarily a compliment, because the new American operas they present there are almost universally awful). And though it's less than an hour long, I don't know how many children could stand listening to something with such melody-free, and serious minded music for even that long. And to be perfectly honest, with the exception of a couple of silly lines referring to gargoyles pooing out pebbles, this could easily have been marketed solely to adults. I did note that there were very few children in the audience today, despite the "Fringe Jr" rating in the guide. That all said, I did begin to enjoy the show by the end, and I think this may be one of those pieces of music that is better enjoyed on multiple hearings. It's definitely not what I would call a particularly accessible piece of writing. Well, at least it's something unlike most of the other musicals at the Fringe. And though it takes a long time to warm up to, especially to get over the shock that it's almost entirely sung through, I will say that thanks to a particularly strong final few arias, I left fairly satisfied. I'd be curious to maybe get a hold of a cd of this to see if it's less painful on second listen.

TIME, ET AL. I was really looking forward to this, based on it being co-written by Gil Varod, of the hilarious Broadway Abridged blog, and the equally hilarious "Oedipus for Kids" that was presented at NYMF a year or two ago. Well, this time he's left the comedy behind for a serious minded, extremely depressing science fiction play. It's about a guy in the present day who starts corresponding with a girl from 1925 via her diary, and eventually falls in love with her, and tries to figure out how to meet her, and then to marry her. It's the sort of thing that might have made a fine short story, but as a full length play - I think it ran an hour and forty-five minutes, including intermission - it seemed interminable, especially in the second act. There are only three characters (the guy in present day, the gal in 1925, and the brother and roommate of the present day guy), and I can't say I really found any of them all that interesting. The first act details the meeting of the two lovers, and the second looks at their awful relationship, once they're together. It could probably use a bit of trimming, but it wasn't awful - though I was thinking the premise didn't seem all that original. In the second act, where we find out the pitfalls of permanently leaving your time to live in the future, just moves at a glacial pace, with scene after scene just showing us how miserable the couple is together. I found myself thinking this could have made a fairly decent play if it were a 45 minute one act. But there as just not enough interesting material to make for an compelling full length play. In the defense of the writers, this was the first performance of a new play, and I would think even by the second performance, they'll have made changes - well, one can only hope, anyway. Still, with so many other far more enjoyable Fringe shows out there, I really can't recommend seeing this.

For the rest of the week, I'm just planning on seeing one show a night, so hopefully that will allow me to recover in time for some more theatre marathons next weekend. I'm already getting burnt out and it's only the first weekend of the festival. Oy.

The Fringe Festival: Days 1 and 2

2008-08-10T00:55:00.002-04:00

Another year, another New York International Fringe Festival. After seeing so many shows last year that I was burned out on theatre for a while, I wasn't really thinking about this year's festival with all that much glee. In an attempt not to repeat last year's overdose, I told myself I would cut back this year. Unfortunately I have exactly no will power, and though I only saw one show on Friday (well, I saw something else at 4, but it wasn't a Fringe show, so I'm not counting it), I saw five today. So much for cutting back. The thing is, when I see a bad show, I find myself having to really drag myself to the next one, optimistic that it will be better. I think later in the festival, it becomes harder and harder to get excited after a stinker, as I increasingly lose patience and leave at intermission. Ah, but a great show is like a drug, and with the excited buzz it instills in me, I can't wait to see just one more. Such are ups and downs in the life of a festival goer.

Anywho, here are - in brief - my thoughts on the six shows I've seen so far, and whether or not I think they're worth bothering with.

Let's see if I get any hate mail this year from disgruntled Fringe folk, angry that I didn't like their play...

SANDY THE DANDY AND CHARLIE McGEE. It's not this show's fault, but it was really saddled with what is probably the worst venue for a Fringe show - The Deluxe at Spiegelworld. For seating, you can choose from either hard wooden chairs set up in rows on the floor (with no slope), or you can sit around the perimeter (the theatre is a round tent), in cushioned booths, most of which offer a rather unpleasant angle for your neck to see the stage from. On top of that, it is directly next door to another of the big Spiegeltent where "Absinthe" is playing, and which must surely be sponsored by a maker of hearing aides, because we could hear everything going on over there from our tent, so I can't imagine how much hearing loss was caused by sitting in the tent where the show was actually going on. Oh, and it's at the South Street Seaport, which is a bit of shlep from the closest subway, and not all that near any of the other Fringe theatres (the theatres at Pace are probably the closest, but still...). So what I mean to say was, conditions weren't really in the favor of the show. That said, the show was really awful, but I sort of have a soft spot for it anyway. I imagine it's like one of those shows that played in dirty bars in East Village back when it was still sketchy - like maybe when Charles Busch was getting his start. It's extremely campy, somewhat funny, but really too long and too big of a mess for its own good. Still, I think it's kind of the perfect show to play at the Fringe. It'll get its five night run, adventurous theatergoers will go, and get one of those "OMG, that was one of the strangest things I've ever seen" type experiences, and then move on. As much as I was looking at my watch every two minutes, it seemed to me to be exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see at a Fringe Festival, if I had never been before. It's written and performed by two the actors who protested the poor work conditions at the American Girl store's show - and it's a satire of the horrors of working there, and the bizarre little fans of the dolls. After the show was over, I thought to myself that it was the strangest thing I'd seen at the Fringe since the show i saw last year that ended with a guy in the panda suit trying to eat a hot dog. Really, there are just no words.

PEREZ HILTON SAVES THE UNIVERSE. This is one of those shows that got tons of pre-festival hype, because of its title, and which is usually a let down. But surprisingly, I found the show to be extremely entertaining. It has an amazing cast, most of who have appeared either on Broadway or in major off-Broadway or regional productions. And I though it wasn't necessarily laugh out loud funny, I almost always had a smile on my face, because it was just really entertaining. The music is very pleasant to listen to, and the story - though obviously ridiculous, never bored me - and considering my increasingly short attention span, I consider that impressive. The show is about celebrity blogger Perez Hilton on the day of Britney Spears' wake, and his very long day having to deal with evil terrorists plotting to bomb the secret event... and the completely insane Kathy Griffin. The show features hilariously impersonated celebrities including Zac Efron, Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Amy Winehouse, Jaleel White (aka the guy who played Urkel), and Paris Hilton - just to name a few. Definitely a pleasant surprise to start the day.

PAWNSHOP ACCORDIONS. I don't know why I picked this - I guess something about a mute accordion players being one of the characters intrigued me. Unfortunately, I found the play to just really dull and depressing. The performances were mostly quite good, but the script was just so long and slow. It's about a group of people who spend their days outside Port Authority (and I guess some who spend their nights there too), and a journalist who comes along to interview one of them. The show is peppered with bizarre dream sequences that didn't make all that much sense, and honestly, I didn't find the stories of the characters all that compelling.

TRIUMPH OF THE UNDERDOG. This will probably be my favorite sleeper of the festival - the show that I went to because it sounded sort of vaguely interesting, but which I totally loved - last year that show was the one about the guy who sits in his cubicle all day playing an online role playing game. This is another one of those extremely nerdy one man shows. It's billed as a lecture on the history of science fiction, and it's impact on today's world, and since the only bio in the program was for the guy giving the lecture - Peter Howell, I'll admit to thinking that the show was really being performed by Peter Howell, and it was a mix of a bit of his real life (which matches his bio in the program) and with a large dose of fantasy. I'm so gullible. It wasn't until later when I got to the subway that I realized that there is no Peter Howell, and he is played by Mitch Montgomery (who also co-wrote the play). D'oh. I just kind of figured he was a professor/wannabe actor (and you all know you've had professor like that) who was using his life as a jumping off point for an example of how he dreamed his life would be like. And it wasn't really until he started talking about his second book ("Anna Carona-na") that I even knew we were in the land of complete fiction, and not just a lecture with some special effects thrown in. That said, the description in the Fringe guide isn't very good: "Geeks! Dorks! Fanboys! Lend your pointed ears! Peter Howell's mind-bending lecture on the history of Science Fiction might save your life... literally. Can the washed-up author really prevent an astronomical catastrophe threating to annihilate the entire solar system?" Maybe in retrospect it makes sense, but when I was reading it when trying to decide what to see, I thought this was going to be a lecture about science fiction, and how it predicted global warming or something. Okay, so I'm not a careful reader AND I'm really gullible. All that said, if you have an inner nerd, this is definitely the show for you. It's not a dry lecture. And it's just totally awesome.

PIECES ON THE BOARD. This one was a bit uneven. The first act had just twist after twist flying fast and furious, and really made me feel like the I was watching a exciting fast game of chess played with humans. Unfortunately , things slow down, and the chess metaphor that may have been cute in the first act, really gets beaten to death. In the first act, we witness or learn about a series of murders. Then in the second act, we find out what happened before, during, and after all of the action in the first act. It's like the first act is just all action, and then the second act is all of the character development. Unfortunately the twists in the second act are much fewer, and so far apart, that I was able to figure out the big one coming near the end of the act before it was revealed (though based on the gasps of the audience, I guess I was in the minority on that one). I think the show has potential, but it needs some serious cutting in the overlong and drawn out second act.

THE FABULOUS KANE SISTERS IN "BOX OFFICE POISON." I don't think I've laughed that much at a show since probably "Boeing-Boeing." Just absolutely hilarious. Like "Sandy the Dandy..." this is high camp, but unlike that show this is very finely polished, and they've had the good fortune of being given the Cherry Lane Theatre, which is the absolutely perfect venue for it: the seats are comfortable, it's air-conditioned, and the beautiful exposed brick walls of the stage are perfect for it, since it all takes place backstage at a theatre. Without any scenery, it managers to look like a show that I could see audience paying full commercial off-Broadway bucks for. And not feeling cheated. They should thank their lucky stars for that theatre. Of course, eye candy alone does not a good show make (though did I mention that we also get both scantily clad men, and a woman with her breasts hanging out?), thanks to a script where it seemed like every sentence was either an especially biting and funny one-liner, or had a double (sexual) meaning - or both. Two of my favorite lines were - and I'm not going to get them quite right, and they're surely not as funny on paper, as on delivered by the fantastic cast, but... (this in reference to one of the characters being dim witted) "The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead," (and this being self explanatory I think), "I lost my virginity long ago, but I still have the box it came in." It's the sort of show where I'm sure everyone in the audience will go back and forth quoting their favorite lines all night after seeing the show. The story, ridiculous as it may be, is about a vaudeville house where the leading acts keep getting murdered, and the aged twin sister act (that used to work at Minsky's, but has long since been washed up), who are hired to work there. Oh, the sisters are named Lana and Nova Kane - to give you an example of the humor (Nova Kane... get it?). And of course, the characters of the sisters are played my men... one tall and thin, one short and plump, and yet no one can tell them apart.... It's the sort of stuff that in the wrong hands would just get a whole evening of groans - but somehow there is magic going on onstage, and every time I thought I would groan, I would fall out my seat laughing instead. Maybe it was because it was the end of a long day, and I was totally exhausted (not to mention the insane rush to get way across town from the Connelly to the Cherry Lane in under thirty minutes), but I found this to just be an absolute ridiculous joy.

Damp Hair and A Return Visit to [tos]

2008-08-03T01:12:00.001-04:00

After entering and losing the lottery for the Shakespeare in the Park production of "Hair" for two weeks straight, and with opening night and the extra attention the show would get from the reviews looming, I finally decided to take advantage of the moderate weather today and try my hand at the cancellation line. I got to the park at 6:15pm this afternoon, sat on jacket, read my book, and at 7:40 was rewarded for my trouble with a ticket. This was my first time actually waiting on line for a ticket (instead of "buying" one with a donation to the Public, or getting one through work), but based on my success today, I don't really know why anyone bothers to camp out all night for tickets. Now, I've never been a big "Hair" fan. I saw it when they did it at Encores, and didn't like it, and then I bought the highlights cd and cringed every time it came up in my parents' car's cd changer. But with buzz of the show eying Broadway, and the price being right, I figured why not. And my reaction to the show is still pretty much a shrug.

The first act, which seemed to just be one tuneful hit song after another, was fun enough as fluff. It's basically just hippies dancing around and singing happy songs, but I can dig that. I will say, I did get a bit tired of the seemingly never ending supply of list songs (like "Ain't got no home home, ain't got no shoes, ain't got no money, ain't got no class" or "I want it long, straight, curly, fuzzy, snaggy, shaggy, ratty, matty..."). My overall impression after the first act was that the show reminded me of "Cats" or "Mamma Mia!" - a show even someone who didn't speak English could watch and have fun, just listening to the melodies and watching the actors bop around.

Oh, one minor hitch in act one - the weather. Around the middle of the first act, I think when they were singing "Air," it started to rain. Wasn't too bad at first, but they made an announcement that the "tribe should return to their dressing rooms," and they pulled a clear plastic curtain around the band to keep them dry (they already had a roof). However, soon the drizzle turned to a torrential downpour, and I thanked my lucky stars that I threw an umbrella in my bag completely on a whim. About half the audience went outside to seek shelter, and the rest of us stuck it out in our seats - which turned out to be a good thing, because my butt kept my seat dry - the people who left had to contend with wet seats on their return. Anyway, the rain eventually let up, and I kid you not... two stagehands came out with these little red rags, and on their hands and knees started to mop up the grass (or rather astroturf) that covered the entire stage. I mean, surely there must have been a more efficient way to dry off the stage. Whatever. I say you've not had the complete Shakepeare in the Park experience until you've done it in the rain.

Anway, I returned from intermission, and was sort of looking forward to the second act. Maybe. Well, it started off okay, but not too deep in, Claude goes on a long drug trip, and for me anyway, the show never recovered from the increasingly tedious and boring set of scenes. It's made up of all of the show's non-hit songs, in quick succession, coupled with stale attempts at satire. It just seemed to go on and on, and when it finally ended, I was so bored out of my mind that even the peppy "Good Morning Starshine" or the not so peppy, but still tuneful "Let the Sun Shine In" could salvage the show for me. Because the show ends on a down note (on purpose), to get the audience leaving happy, they include a bizarre finale that involves the inviting the audience to storm the stage (which they do), and dance around and sing "Let The Sun Shine" in, while the rest of the audience stands and watches, and sings along while waving their arms in the air. I don't know... seeing all of these people stand on the stage in what becomes basically a mosh pit, and having everyone around me sing and waves their arms, all while I was standing there totally baffled - it struck me as kind of disturbing. Like "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" in "Cabaret," except with a more peaceful message. I guess that sort of large scale group-think mentality creeps me out.

As for the cast, I thought they did a fine job. The one weakish link was Jonathon Groff, who just seemed a bit bland as Claude. Like he was still playing Melchior. Will Swenson made for a good Berger, though, and the always dependable Meghan Lawrence made for some fine comic relief in her slew of roles.

I will say that buzz leaving the theatre was extremely positive, and both the young and older danced together on stage at the end, so I'm likely in the minority opinion on the production. Not like that hasn't happed before.

One last thing on the show.

Supposedly the reason for dusting "Hair" off some 40 years after it was written, is that it's just so fresh and relevant today because of Iraq, and how it's just as unpopular as Vietnam. Sorry, but I just don't see it. I mean, I see how both wars were unpopular, but without a draft dragging us young folk against our will out there, I don't see the connection there. Unless it's supposed to warn us that if we don't stop the war soon, this may happen to us too. But even that seems a bit of a stretch. "Hair," well, just seems like a museum piece to me - a half fun one - though unfortunately for me, the wrong half. Methinks it's really only relevant in the eyes of the aging hippies who were behind this revival - who want to bask in the nostalgia, and feel like they're doing something politically conscious. As a young person who is I guess supposed to get riled up by watching this, and want to run home and make anti-war posters, well, it just didn't do it for me. *Shrug*

On the other hand, a show that did speak to me was what I saw this afternoon - [title of show]. Fifth time seeing it, though only the second on Broadway. I was in the mezz this time, and with a crowd not made up of 95% [tossers] as it was at the first Broadway preview, so I was curious to see how it would play under "normal" circumstances. Well, even if every little joke didn't cause the audience to go into over-the-top hysterics to the point where the uninitiated couldn't hear the punchlines,the audience seemed to be genuinely enjoying it, and the reaction at the end was quite warm (full standing ovation in the orchestra, partial in the mezz - though we all know that standing o's mean nothing). As for being further away from the action in the mezz, as opposed to orchestra, I didn't really feel removed from the action at all by being up there. The Lyceum's not that large of a theatre, and the actors are well directed to take the folks up in the air into account, so I was quite satisfied with my seat - other than the leg room, but luckily the people next to me moved further up, so I had some stretch room. I loved the show just as much as I did other four times, and I look forward to seeing it again. Because I'm obsessed.

From Flambéed Flamingo to Perfect Charm

2008-07-31T22:29:00.001-04:00

The following are the last two lines in the bio of Luigi Creatore, playwright of Flamingo Court: "After retiring to Florida, Mr. Creatore wrote the Off-Broadway play The Man Who Shot Lincoln and began writing about the Florida scene for the Boca Raton Community Theater. Much of those works morphed into Flamingo Court." Cretore also mentions in his bio that he was born in 1921. A man in his 80s writes a couple of short plays for a community theater in Florida (one without a website apparently, because google-ing the phrases "Luigi Creatore" and "Boca Raton" turns up nothing other than references to the NY production of Flamingo Court), and someone thinks this should be given a first class off-Broadway production. Well, I'll give the producer credit for two this - first, at least this didn't end up on Broadway like "Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks" (which was Tennessee Williams compared to this...), and second, it's playing in the summer when a large part of it's audience is still in NY, and not south for the winter. I mean, I understand I'm not in the 70+ age demographic that this was written for, but even so, I think I can recognize good taste when I see it, and Flamingo Court is just plain embarrassing. The show consists of three short plays, all starring Anita Gillette and Jaimie Farr (there are also other supporting actors in the first and third), all taking place at the Flamingo Court retirement community in Florida. The first section is a "comedy" about a woman whose husband is bed-ridden, but still gets together with two friends - one is a female buddy, the other is a man who is so in love with her that he's thinking of poisoning her dying husband. Except what he doesn't know is that her husband actually died two years ago, and she's been lying about his condition all this time. Not that I didn't laugh in this part, but I was really embarrassed to be laughing because each guffaw was accompanied by a cringe. The second section is one of those plays that attempts to pluck your heartstrings, and Farr plays a man who has to put his wife in a nursing home because she's losing her memory. She doesn't want to go the home (obviously), and reminds him that he long ago would kill her to put her out of her misery. You don't want to know how it ends, but it's a jaw dropper - and not in a good way. Did I mention this scene takes place during a thunder storm? Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. The third and worst of all has Farr playing an old man repeatedly farts in a closet to spite his daughter (who thinks he's hidden some treasure in there), and Gillette playing a hooker is tight, shiny gold pants, a low cut neon pink top, and a long (purposefully) tacky long blond wig. I'm telling you I'm going to have nightmares tonight. I suspect the looks on the audience members' faces somewhat resembled those of the audience for "Springtime of Hitler" in The Producers. It's possible I laughed so hard I shed a tear of two, but any tears were tears of pain, not joy. I would almost say this would be something I would recommend for my grandmother to see, but I know she would hate the middle play because she hates watching sad, depressing stuff; and besides for that, I have to think she has some level of taste. I can see this maybe working as a lark at the Boca Raton Community Theater, but putting this on in NY for (I just checked) a top ticket price of $72.50 (not including premium seats), is just depressing. I don't think I mentioned it, but the actors are all absolutely game for everything they are asked to do, they all do a beautiful job with what they're given - and they seem like wwthey're having a good time up there, but I feel bad thinking how desperate for work they all must be to agree to do a play like Flamingo Court.

On the much happier side of the comedy coin, is Perfect Harmony, an delightful gem of a show playing at Theater Row, off-Broadway. It played at the Fringe Festival a few years ago, and my vague recollection is that the buzz was good, but that it was at the out of the way theatre on the Lower East Side that I was too lazy to go to. Well it's back, this time in a better location, and based on some renewed good buzz I took a chance and was totally charmed. It's about two competing a cappella groups in a high school - "The Ladies in Red" and the "A Cafellas." It's sort of like Spelling Bee, where each character has his or own endearing neurosis. The show also (obviously) includes a bunch of songs sung a cappella, most of them are pop songs sung a capella by the actors, as straight faced as possible, all of which are extremely amusing. I can't remember any exact examples - partly because they were all songs I recognized but didn't necessarily know the titles of, but mostly because this is one of those shows that's not necessarily all that memorable for it's content, but rather for the feeling it leaves after the show ends - it's like it went in one ear and out the other, but it dropped happy little drops of sunshine along its way across my brain. It's nice to go into a show with no expectations, and to just sit back, relax, and smile for 110 minutes or so. I think this extended through August 9th, and I'd say it's worth catching if you have the time.

Around the World in Nine Innings

2008-07-19T00:33:00.001-04:00

I'm just home from the 'Encores Summer Stars' production of "Damn Yankees," and I'm guessing the joyous production hasn't quite worn off yet, because I'm still smiling and humming, happy as can be. At the moment, the song stuck in my head is "Whatever Lola Wants," though earlier it was "Heart" and at intermission it was "Shoeless Joe From Hannibal, MO." Let's face it, practically every song in that show is an instantly hummable classic. I've always been a sucker for Golden Age musical comedy (like last week's "She Loves Me," for example), but I'll always hold a special place in my heart for "Damn Yankees," thanks to the revival with Victor Garber and Bebe Neuwirth that I saw in the 90's. I remember liking it so much that I made my parents take me a second time (along with a couple elementary school friends, as a birthday party), and not only was that my first (and I believe only) Broadway birthday party, I'm pretty sure it was the first Broadway show I ever liked so much that I had to see it again. I can't say I remember that revival all that much (the one memory that really sticks out was that they had shined pink lights on the curtain during the section of the overture that include "Heart"), though the soft spot it created is still alive and well. And so perhaps it's said soft spot, or perhaps it's just a damn fine show, but I really loved the new Encores production. There's a full orchestra, original Fosse choreography (as opposed to the lousy ripoffs attempted in the recent revivals of "The Pajama Game" and "Sweet Charity"), and what is at least on paper an A-list cast. I will say that while the supporting cast is uniformly fantastic (why is Randy Graff not a household name?), the three leads were not the perfection they should have been. Sean Hayes does a fine job as Applegate, but I don't think he quite milked the role for all of it's humorous possibilities. Jane Krakowski, while sexy as can be as Lola, seemed to lack a bit in the personality department - I don't know... she seemed slightly on the bland side, and didn't really capture the quirky goofiness that I think the role could use a bit of. When I got home, I immediately ran to my dvd of "Broadway: The Golden Age" (that's not true... actually I immediately ran to that "Broadway: The American Musical" documentary from PBS which didn't have what I was looking for...) to watch the clip of Gwen Verdon doing "Whatever Lola Wants," and while it's obviously not fair to compare, well... really you just can't. That said, when she was dancing, she absolutely commanded the audience's attention, as she also made the air conditioning system work extra hard to keep the theatre cool with all her sizzling sexuality. Cheyenne Jackson was probably the biggest disappointment for me. I've seen him four times (I think) now - All Shook Up, It's A Bird... It's A Plane... It's Superman, Xanadu, and this - and I think he just works better in the campier shows (Superman and Xanadu), where his stiff acting seems on purpose. As Joe Hardy, while his singing is really quite lovely, his acting was a bit too wooden (there's a bad pun to be made there about the reaction of many of the men in the audience to his performance, but I won't stoop so low). While in Superman and Xanadu being stiff was part of the fun, I think Joe Hardy was a bit out of his grasp. I mean, he's got the looks (overlooking the fact that the charcter *is* supposed to be 24, which he certainly is not), and he's got the voice (though it did have a sort of odd country twang every now and then that seemed a bit odd), but especially when next to the brilliantly Randy Graff, I felt like perhaps something was missing. Thankfully, this is a show that gives lot's of attention to it's supporting players, and the goofy trio of baseball players, the kooky housewives, and (Megan Lawrence as) the nosey reporter, all absolutely perk up the proceedings when they walk on stage - which is often.
All in all, the show remains - to me anyway - an irresistible gem. There's just nothing quite like a first rate production of an old fashioned musical comedy to lift your spirits.

Last night, I went to see "Around the World in 80 Days" at the Irish Rep. It's one of those ultra-low-budget versions, featuring five actors (plus two sound effects people at the back of the stage). I had rather low hopes, considering my dislike of "The 39 Steps," which was sort of the same concept. It turns out though, that I really had a lot of fun at "Around the World...." Probably most in the show's favor is that instead of parodying it's source material, this follows the story pretty faithfully, and the parts that made me laugh were all pretty much inherently part of the story. There were attempts at humor based on character doubling, and physical humor that didn't make me laugh, but really it's a good yarn despite, and the actors all do fine work. I've also always been intrigued by old fashioned sounds effects (the kind they used to use in live radio dramas... before computers), so in all honesty if they had just had the two folks doing their sound effects downstage center for two hours, I probably would have been happy. The way they do the sounds for the elephant ride, and for the big shootout, were two particularly amusing segments, that both deserve shoutouts (and not to be spoiled). I think the audience overall was more blown away by the production than I was. I found it to be a cute diversion for a summer's evening - and certainly a very pleasant surprise, considering I just went out of some vague curiosity and because I had nothing better to do. Nothing better for a show than low expectations.

And now I'm going to sit back, relax, and continue listening to the revival cast recording of "Damn Yankees" that I put on just before I started typing. Right now Bebe Neuwirth is singing about how "whatever Lola wants, Lola gets." Ah, bliss.

Romans and Greeks, Pageants and Perfume, and Two Solos

2008-07-16T22:20:00.002-04:00

Starting with tonight and moving backwards...

EH JOE
Liam Neeson sits on stage for 30 minutes and doesn't say a word. Curtain. I know - sounds like a riveting evening of theatre. Then again this is Beckett. If you want action, I hear there's a movie opening this weekend about a some sort of bat guy.... The "action" of "Eh, Joe" is as follows: Joe (played by Liam Neeson) walks over to a window, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to the door, looks out, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to a cupboard, looks in, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to the a bed, looks under it, and sits down on it. He then sits for 25 minutes. Presumably because the play was written for television, and because the director isn't totally sadistic, for the time Neeson sits on his bed, a closeup of his face is projected on a scrim in front of the stage, so we see his face blown up, next to the live Neeson. A mysterious voice (pre-recorded by Penelope Wilton), presumably the voice inside Joe's head, proceeds to drive Joe slowly mad. While the voice is speaking, Joe's eyes are open, when it stops, he closes his eyes. And during each of the non-speaking intervals, the camera zooms in closer to Joe's face. The thrilling climax (spoiler here, for the most exciting physical bit in the play) comes near the end, when Neeson, after sitting still for so long... get this... grabs his face. I know. Theatre doesn't get much more exciting than that. I read the script during my lunch hour today - not too hard since it's a whopping seven pages long, include a page and a half of stage directions - and that grabbing of the face was not in there. So this was particularly shocking. Then again, Neeson did blink while the voice was talking, and the stage directions specifically say that Joe is not to blink during that time. So obviously the director and Neeson decided it unnecessary to follow Beckett's strict orders. So we get blinking and face grabbing. All whining aside, I actually kind of enjoyed the play. If it had been any longer it may have been irritating, but 30 minutes is just about the right about of time to hear a woman's voice verbally prod a man, and to stare at his face in close-up. For a large chunk of the time, I wasn't all that impressed with Neeson's performance (Michael Gambon did this production in London, and somehow I think he may have been more interesting), but Neeson did sort of grow on me, as the subtle changes in his expression became more noticeable. And of course, the shock of the hands on the face made me jump a little, and the moments after that, as the hands slowly slid down the face, well... were sort of intriguing. This was only Neeson's first performance in the role, so I assume he'll improve over the short run. If you happen to be in the area anyway, and this happens to pop up on tdf again (which is how I saw it, a dollar a minute or so), this is actually kind of worth catching. And walking back after the 7 o'clock curtain at a rather leisurely pace, I made it to Times Square a few minutes before 8 o'clock. So I could have fairly easily made an 8 o'clock curtain of say... [title of show] (had they had a performance tonight), and I'm always a big fan of cramming in as much theatre into a day as is humanly possible.

JACKIE MASON. I couldn't resist. He claims his current engagement (which ends this weekend) at New World Stages will be his final in New York - and not that I believe him for a second, but I always enjoy his shows. The "new" show isn't his finest hour - much of the humor was less than fresh - I mean after the obviously new stuff about Obama and McCain, he moves on to Clinton and Monica... and then when he moves on to making fun of musicals, his targets are "Riverdance" and "Titanic." Which closed how many years ago? And of course, there's the inevitable section about how they should just install beds at the opera. The only things missing were the Ed Sullivan impression and burnt coffee at Starbucks. Then again, "Riverdance" and sleeping at the opera, stale as they were, were actually the sections that made me laugh the most. So maybe I shouldn't be complaining. This show may not be his best, but it's certainly not his worst ("Laughing Room Only" anyone?), and let's face it - Jackie Mason off his game a bit, is still far funnier than most of the people today who claim to be comedians.

THE BACCHAE. I'm not really a huge Greek tragedy fan, and this really wasn't on the short list of the ones I do like. But I was curious about Alan Cumming (as Dionysus), and I was offered a free ticket. And it was actually better than I was expecting. I had read in the reviews that the first half or so was the best part, and (I think it was Isherwood who said) people were disappointed when the fun ended. But to be perfectly honest, I found the second half (where the tragedy part of "Greek tragedy" kicks in) to be far more compelling. In the first half, we have a group of women in bright red dancing around and singing, with Cumming, in a bright and shiny gold dress, mostly in the lead every now and then. And that part felt a little forced to me. When the king's mother (played by the excellent Paola Dionisotti) finally arrives, and goes through from the joy of killing a lion to the horror of realizing she's slaughtered her son, that's what really interested me. Alan Cumming prancing around and playing the Emcee from "Cabaret" all over again, not so much. The whole thing overall seemed to drag on too long. But I'm glad I saw it. Might I as here, what's with all the abusive lighting design lately? Both "Bash'd" and this used with irrating frequency, bright lights shined directly in the audiences eyes. With "Bash'd," it was during a fight sequence, so I guess we were meant to feel the pain of the punches, but with this, first there's a fire (that is not only quite hot, even from the back of the orchestra, but also quite bright), and then repeated use of lights shined in our eyes for unnecessarily long periods of time to allow for actors walking on and off stage unseen. I mean, it's one thing for the guys getting naked in "The Full Monty," but for Dionysus walking on and stage... well, maybe this show was sponsored by some optometrists who will maybe get some business from the blinded audience members. End rant.

NERO. This was a workshop of Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater (of "Spring Awakening")'s new musical. It's still obviously under development, so I won't say too much, but let's just say it needs a lot of work. Like "Spring Awakening," the songs don't really advance the story - they're mostly either songs that express the inner feelings of the characters, or they're performed as part of a show within a show (Idina Menzel played a singer, and so she had quite a few pointless songs that she performed as part of her act). Nero (played by the endlessly amusing Jeffrey Carlson) is basically a whiny brat of a king who's pushed into power by his mother, and miserable as he is, he ends up killing all of the main characters by the end of the show (and anyone who he hasn't directly killed, is killed in a big final fire). Unfortunately, the book was somewhat lacking, so I didn't particularly care that anyone died. As for the lyrics, well... they're really very bizarre. In one song, I think it's called "Double Dip of Darkness" - a duet between Nero and his mother - part of the refrain is something like "Shut up my dear, and suck my rear" (I kid you not - imagine a grown son and his mother singing that line over and over again - oy). I've probably already said more than I should have. I'm sure the guy who made the pre-show announcement about not blogging and keeping the cozy work-in-progress environment would be very disappointed in me. That all said, based on the state it was in at the Sunday matinee I saw (probably already scrapped state, based on the pages and pages of notes Sater seemed to be taking) I don't see this as having anywhere near the appeal of "Spring Awakening" unless some major work is done on it. The music is pretty, but it's far too ballad heavy, and it's just doesn't have anything near as exciting as "The Bitch of Living" or "Totally Fucked" in SA. I get that this is a different type of musical - much more of a small chamber show, I'd guess - the sort of thing that I'd imagine playing out a limited run at the Public, and then being forgotten - so perhaps those types of songs aren't appropriate for the creators' vision of the show - but considering how completely insane the character of Nero is as written, surely they could give us something a little peppier. As someone who's seen "Spring Awakening" *cough*15times*cough*, I have high hopes that Sheik & Sater will do the work necessary to get this show into a more satisfying shape. And if not, they're supposedly working on a version of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Nightingale," so maybe that'll be better.

SHE LOVES ME. I went to see this up at Williamstown, and just had a huge smile on my face for almost the entire time. It's just a delightful confection of a show, given a beautiful production by Nicholas Martin. Brooks Ashamanskas and Kate Baldwin were wonderful as the leads in an especially strong ensemble. I had seen the show once before in a community theatre production (that I remember exactly nothing about), so I was especially happy to finally hear "Ice Cream" sung in context, after hearing the original Barbara Cook version so many times (and might I saw Baldwin did Cook proud, with her delightful rendition). This isn't the sort of show that will knock anyone's socks off as being just the most amazing show ever, but it is just so absolutely charming and sweet, well, I can't really imagine that anyone in that audience could not have had their day brightened by being in that theatre watching that show.

PAGEANT PLAY. I was going up to the Berkshires to see "She Loves Me," and needed something else to fill up an empty slot, and based solely on the fact that Jenn Harris (of "Modern Orthodox" and "Silence! The Musical") was in it, I picked it to see. The show, it turns out, was written by one of the co-writers of the hilarious "Fully Committed," and actually also stars the actor who created the role in that play - I don't know what I did with my program, so his name will have to remain unsaid. Anyway, "Pageant Play" is a four actor/seven(?) character comedy about the world of children's beauty pageants. For all haters of child actors, you will be glad to hear the children are all "played" by empty costumes... which is to say the parents just carry around the costumes the children would be wearing, which makes especially good sense since the children have no lines (because they have no say in anything, and the parents and coaches are so overbearing, of course). The whole thing is just a bunch of silly fun. The moments of greatest hilarity probably came when the coaches and parents were teaching the children to do their pageant dances (now wipe that counter, oh yeah, oh yeah, now show they how dirty the rag is, oh yeah, oh yeah, now carry a pizza... etc, etc). Seeing adults do those silly dances with those ridiculous explanations, just really tickled me the right way. I don't know that this play would play all that well in New York, but I imagine it will have a long life as a crowd pleasing, low budget community theatre staple.

Jeff, Hunter, Heidi, Susan and Larry ON BROADWAY

2008-07-06T01:26:00.000-04:00

Tonight was the first Broadway preview of [title of show] and to say it was [tos]ome would be a gross understatement. The sort of outpouring of love bestowed upon (stars) Jeff, Hunter, Heidi, Susan and (keyboardist) Larry in this show tonight, was the sort of thing I've only ever seen before at final performances at particularly special musicals (think final performance of "Light in the Piazza" or Lea Michele and Jonathan Groff's final "Spring Awakening"). The [tossers] (those being the members of the cult of [title of show]) were definitely out en masse tonight, and from the huge extended ovation that greeted Larry as he walked on stage, to the rousing standing ovation at the final curtain call (the second standing o of the evening), well, it was an absolutely mesmerizing evening. Pity though, the uninitiated who came to the show thinking it was just a regular performance. The people sitting to my left, and sitting behind me, were extremely confused, and none to happy about all of the insane cheering that greeted each song and the especially funny lines (of which there are many).
The question on most peoples minds is whether the show will work on Broadway. And honestly, I can't have no idea. I am so completely in love with the show - and have been since I first saw it at it's return NYMF engagement at Ars Nova (having missed it the first time around), and through to twice at the Vineyard - well, I don't think I can very well be objective about the show. Will people who don't get the many many obscure theatre references enjoy the show? Will those who haven't seen every hilarious episode of "The [title of show] Show" on Youtube fully appreciate its brilliance? Well, I haven't a clue. Based on my mother's recommendation (not mine), my aunt and uncle have tickets to see it next week. I'm curious to hear their reaction, since they are not the obvious audience for the show, though they are the type of people necessary for this show to have any sort of run. I mean [tossers] alone can sustain a musical for only so long.
In case you're curious, the show seems to be maybe 2/3 the same as it was in its Vineyard run. Short new bridges have been added to a few of the songs, and others have been tweaked to reflect some of the newer Broadway offerings like "Shrek" and "The Little Mermaid." And of course, the show now reflects what's happened since the Vineyard run, referencing things like that run, and also "The [title of show] Show" and Heidi's run in "The Little Mermaid." It was interesting, having seen the show three times before, and having listened to the cd who knows how many more times, to see how songs and scenes were rearranged and rewritten for this incarnation.
That a quirky little show with only four actors, four chairs (and Larry), has made it to Broadway is amazing enough in itself. But that the show and its cast are so incredibly lovable, makes tonight's triumph - hopefully the first in many triumphant nights for this little show that could - ever so sweet. After "Nine People's Favorite Thing" - the show's final song, the audience gave a long standing ovation, the likes of which are usually reserved for royalty like Patti LuPone (doing "Rose's Turn") and Juan Diego Florez (in "La Fille du Regiment"). That four actors, with far fewer Broadway credits, playing themselves could elicit that sort of reaction from an audience was really something to see. And seeing them all fighting back tears up there, still having to get through the last few lines of the show, well, I think there was nary a dry eye in the house (except for, you know, the couple of confused people sitting around me).
I wish this show the best in it's Broadway run. I don't know that [title of show] will have a long commercial run (I've said that about shows before, and am often wrong - Xanadu, anyone? - so let's hope that's true here), but I know I'm already trying to figure out when I can see this again, and let's just hope nine people each night tell nine people to see this show, and let its devoted audience grow from there. As for tonight's premiere, bravo to all involved.

Slim Theatrical Pickings Means Going To The Movies

2008-07-05T00:18:00.002-04:00

Taking advantage of my day off on July 4 to get around to updating...

LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES. I think I put off seeing this as long as possible because the buzz was so bad. And it wasn't as bad as I was exblopecting. I'd never seen any of the movies (wikipedia says there are 8 of them) - though the dvd of the Glen Close/John Malkovich version beckons from my shelf to be watched soon - so at least the story was new to me. I liked the first act quite a bit. From the moment he walks on stage, Ben Daniels is really mesmerizing. He's incredibally charming, and really very funny. Which of course is exactly what his character should be. His co-star, Laura Linney, on the other hand, falls a bit flat. She seemed to be a bit fo a sheep in wolf's clothing... in that she went through the motions of being icy and nasty, but I just never really believed her - I just don't think she's cut out for that type of role. The supporting cast - especially Kristine Nielsen and Sian Phillips as the older women (I think they're both aunts?) are defiitely a hoot, and I think part of the dreariness of the second act can be attributed to them being largely absent until the last scene. Why I think I was overall underwhelmed by the production was that the big confrontation scene between Daniels and Linney's characters - where they finally call each other out - just had no bite at all. The two really had no chemistry, and so there was none of that extending of sharp claws into each other that was really necessary for the play's climax to work. I will say that I liked the overall design of the production (set, costume, lighting, sound) very much. I don't want to say that Linney brought the entire production down - Daniels wasn't nearly as good in the second act either - and maybe it's just the script - but there was definitely some crucial ingredient missing.

SHANGHAI MOON - I went out to Sag Harbor to see the final weekend of Charles Busch's "Shanghai Moon," last weekend. Typical Charles Busch hilarity... at least in the second act. For some reason I couldn't keep my eyes open in the first, particularly embarrassing since I was in the first row center. But my parents who were next to me slept through more of it than I did, so maybe they took the focus away from me. It wasn't that the first act wasn't good... it was amusing enough - though maybe if it had had the bigger laughs that came in the second act, I would have been better equipped to fight it. Whatever. Charles Busch was a hoot as usual, as was Julie Halston (also, as usual).

SOME AMERICANS ABROAD. I've never been a fan of Richard Nelson's plays. The not-for-profits (especially Playwrights Horizons) seem to love his plays, though I've never been quite sure why because they're almost always awful. And for some reason he always directs them himself. Maybe if he let someone else direct once in a while, the director could get something decent together. Anyway, Second Stage is producing what I figured would be my chance to understand why people like Nelson's work - a classic(?) play of his from I think 1990, not directed by the playwright. So, one would assume, if someone felt the play was worth reviving, it must not be terrible. One would, however, have assumed wrong. This is typical boring Richard Nelson fare - in fact it may be even more boring than the other plays of his I've disliked. The first act is particularly terrible - the opening scene has a bunch of professors sitting around a restaurant table (nightmarish flashback to "Top Girls" when I first saw the scene - at least in this the actors don't all talk at the same time) and ramble on about this and that. None of it very interesting. The problem with the first act is that it's pretty much devoid of conflict. The only thing close is whether a professor will hold onto his job for another year, but there's really never any doubt to his fate, and he's not interesting enough for us to care about anyway. I was so bored, I almost left at intermission. But I didn't. And the second act was slightly better - at least it had a tad of suspense. Not enough to sustain the entire act, mind you, but it helped make it slightly more tolerable. Tom Cavanaguh (best known, I guess for playing "Ed") has what I suppose is the lead role, though he's really quite bland - he reminded me a bit of Bob Sagat in another Second Stage stinker called "Privilege" (I think). Apparently the opening night for the show was just postponed by around two weeks to give the actors more rehearsal time. So maybe it will improve things. I certainly have no interest in suffering through a second dull sitting.

BASH'D. I had seen this at the Fringe Festival last summer, mostly because everyone seemed to love it, and I remember being pretty underwhelmed. But since it's back in a commercial run this time (with a slightly fancier set, and slightly fancier costumes) at the Zipper Factory, I was willing to give it another try. And I still don't get all of the hype. Even at only 65 minutes (well, really 60 since it starts five minutes late), it felt a bit too long to me. The story is a lame cliche ridden tale of two gay men who meet, fall in love, and end up with a none to pleasant fate. If this had been performed as a straight play (no pun intended), it would have been snored off the stage (by the sleeping audience). What keeps the story sounding fresh is that it's all done in rap. Honestly, gay rap opera is not really something that particularly appeals to me - though in actuality it's not as bad as you'd imagine. For a while I was sort of enjoying myself. But the combination of a story performed in what seemed a bit like warp speed - not really leaving enough time for satisfactory character development - with that incessant rapping was just too much for me to take.

That's it (I think) for my playgoing, thanks to the extremely slim pickings. I did see three movies too however, to fill in the gaps.

WALL*E. Is this the most over-hyped movie of the summer? I usually love Pixar movies, and I appreciate them taking a chance with this, but gosh it's just so slow. When the movie opened with Michael Crawford singing "Out there, there's a world outside of Yonkers..." I think I almost fell out of my seat in joy (though strangely I was the only one in the theatre who seemed to be laughing). As you've probably read already, WALL*E is a robot whose only source of entertainment is a video of "Hello, Dolly!" And so he plays "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" and "It Only Takes A Moment" over and over again. And whenever the film features those Jerry Herman songs, I was very happy. It's the rest of the movie that's a bit problematic. The first half or so of the movie has almost no dialogue. Which was fine, I guess. I guess it's fun enough to watch a cute robot wander around a wasteland (though the annoying kids behind me did not shut up during this long sequence, asking their parents questions). Eventually the title robot finds humanity, and the movie sort of turns into a kiddie version of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Which is fine. I have nothing again a movie that's going to try to sell kids toys and video games yelling at people for polluting the environment, and just sitting on their butts all day playing with toys and video games. But there really just didn't seem to be enough story to warrant a full length movie here. If it had been one of those five minutes shorts they show before the regular features, or even a half hour special, it probably would have been great. But as a full length feature, it was really pushing it. It did make me want to run out and buy a dvd of "Hello Dolly," though.

Far more endearing in the adorable, cartoonish hero category, is KABLUEY. I randomly went to see "Kabluey" today because I thought the ad looked sort of cute, and there was a good review in the Times today. And I'm definitely glad I did, because it is really just the sort of funny and heartwarming movie that I was looking for. It's written, directed by, and stars Scott Prendergast, and also stars Lisa Kudrow (who I'd honestly never heard of - but everyone seemed very excited about her involvement - according to imdb she was one of the main characters on "Friends," which I've never seen an episode of, so I'm assuming that's where her popularity stems from). Anyway, the movie is about this sweet loser of a guy who moves in with his sister and her two obnoxious kids, because her husband is away in Iraq, and she needs to work and can't afford a babysitter. Eventually, this guy ends up getting a job that has him dressing up as this adorable blue company mascot, and handing out fliers for office space on a fairly deserted country road. It's strange, but just about every time they show Kabluey (that's the name of the mascot) do any little thing, the audience cracks up. Brilliant character design there. My only minor criticism with the movie was that the ending seemed just a tad unsatisfying. I mean, all the plotlines get wrapped up, but there was something off there. Right now this is only playing at one little movie theatre in New York, which means it's release is probably going to be fairly limited. But this is one to look out for, even if it's only accessible in it's eventual dvd release. Oh, and director/screenwriter/star Prendergrast did a surprise talkback after the movie to our paltry audience (paltry apparently because we were the few who were more interested in going to the movies than going to watch the July 4 fireworks), and he seemed just as nice in person as he does on screen. Just another reason to enjoy and support his movie.

And finally, last Tuesday at the last minute I was invited to see an advanced screening of the movie of MAMMA MIA! I have to say I really loved the movie, but in a very guilty pleasure sort of way. It very faithful to the stage show - meaning that none of it really makes any sense, but it's a lot fun anyway. And of course, in the movie you have the brilliant Meryl Streep (is it redundant to but "brilliant" before Meryl Streep, because isn't she always?) singing, and dancing, and having a grand time. The film is really very well cast, with all of the actors game for acting totally ridiculous on screen, and the only one who isn't really successful is Pierce Brosnan who try as he might, really just can't sing, meaning that when he has to sing his big serious song, as soon as he opens his mouth, the audience just cracks up. The film pretty much follows the highs and the lows that I felt in the stage musical - namely that it's most just a hoot, though the second act (when things turn serious) still drags, though it does of course recover in time for the ridiculous mega-mix ending (which, yes, the movie does randomly include at the end). Director Phyllida Lloyd seems to use every cinematic cliche in the book, from montages, to Meryl Streep jumping in slow motion on the bed, to a random scene at the end when water spurts out of the ground and everyone starts dancing around getting wet. But I mean, no one expects high art from a goofy ABBA jukebox musical. If you enjoyed the stage show, you definitely will not be disappointed. And if you hated the stage show, well... this probably isn't the movie for you. This is one of those movies where you just need to heed the collection box outside the theatre that says "Deposit brain here before entering." Personally, I can't wait to see it again.

Tomorrow I'm going to see the most anticipating theatrical even of the year... the first preview of [title of show] on Broadway. Very very very excited. It should be cramazing.

Escape From New York

2008-06-22T23:31:00.001-04:00

Summertime is here. The 07-08 theatrical season is over, and now it's the long wait til Fall for the new one to start. What's a determined theatregoer to do to quench his thirst for exciting new shows? Why escape to surrounding cities to catch the tail end of their Spring seasons of course... At least until summer stock starts up. So two weeks ago I caught the closing weekends of "A Seagull in the Hamptons" at the McCarter (Princeton, NJ), then ditto for "13" at Goodspeed (Chester, CT); then last week was "Our Town" at the Arden (Philly, PA), and this weekend was "The Visit" at the Signature (Arlington, VA). And looking ahead, there's the Charles Busch show in Sag Harbor next week, and the stuff in the Berkshires and Poughkeepsie two weeks after that.

Okay, so starting with "Our Town" (very briefly)... The gimmick that attracted me to the production was that the first act is performed in the regular Arden theatre, but then the second (the wedding act) is performed in a newly restored church next door, then back to the theatre for Act 3. Let's just say it was better in theory than execution. That middle act was in a very un-air conditioned Church, and it was so hot, I had trouble paying attention to the play. Plus, there seemed to be something off about the scenes preceeding the wedding - like the location made sense for the last few minutes of the act, but not so much the rest. Still, the third act back in the air conditioning was quite moving, and the first had enough running around with the Stage Manager (the character) up and down the aisles, and other such schtick to keepme interested. They're doing "Candide" there next season, and I think it should be interesting to see.

This week, while unable to leave NYC, I did manage to squeeze in some local type theatre.

"The Marriage of Bette & Boo." Strange. And depressing. I had honestly no idea what was going on in the first act. I just sat there totally baffled. Luckily, the second act was much clearer - I laughed quite a bit at many of the (intetionally) tasteless jokes, and was moved by the ending. I think this is probably one of those plays that you need to experience (either see or read) more than once to fully appreciate. I already have plans to see this again later in the run and am very much looking forward to a second viewing.

"Macbeth: 2008." This is one of those shows I'd been looking forward to seeing since it was first anounced. It's an adaptation of "Macbeth," in Polish (with only the most famous lines like the dagger speech and "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow") translated verbatim from the Shakespeare. Of course, I wasn't looking forward to the production because it was Shakespeare in Polish - I'm not that crazy - I wanted to see it because it's being performed across the street from St Ann's Warehouse, in an open air former tobacco factory, which allows the audience to be underneath the Brooklyn Bridge to the left, and have the Manhattan Bridge just to the right. An absolutely beautiful view. Because of the unique outdoor 'neath the noisy bridge setting, every audience member is provided with headphones, and all of the dialogue and sound effects are heard through them - the actors are not amplified at all, so you can't hear anything without them on. As for the production? And I thought "Bette & Boo" was weird. Depending on your tolerance for such things, this is either brilliant regietheater or Eurotrash - the terms mean the same thing, but well... you know. It has all of the things one has come to expect from such productions: Update of a classical piece to modern times? Check. Gratuitous nudity? Check. Tons of graphic violence? Check. Someone dressed as Elvis? Lady Macbeth peeing on the floor? Check and check. This made the recent Rupert Goold (starring Patrick Stewart) production look like a classical setting you'd see at the Old Globe. For my part, I found the production visually to be fascinating (it's set in a Muslim country... probably Iraq, and the first scene has Macbeth beheading two men praying. Then the witch (there's only one) comes out wearing a burka... from there it's just wackier and wackier with the burka eventually being removed to show the witch wearing a bright pink slip and having a shaved head), but really emotionally empty. This really felt like a case of style over substance. Still both because of the physical theatre, and the shear novelty of the staging, I do highly recommend trying to see this, even though the entire run sold out before it even started. There are rush tickets and cancellations, though.

"Some Kind of Bliss." Playing at 59E59's postage stamp sized Theater C, this is a 65 minute long, one woman play about a reporter who gets into trouble on her way to interview Lulu. Cute enough. Certainly the right length for this fairly slight story. Held my interest. Not a must see, but you could certainly do worse - though as far as the Brits Off Broadway fare goes, I preferred "Vincent River."

"A Perfect Couple." This is Brooke Berman's follow-up to "Hunting and Gathering." Didn't particularly like her first play, and after this one, I think maybe she's not a playwright whose work I enjoy. This one's about a couple of hip 40 year olds - you know, the type that drinks French press coffee and San Pellegrino, and lives somewhere like Park Slope... or in this case, in the country, near a train that runs every hour. In other words, not people I feel any connection with. So, the story goes that a woman finds a diary entry that her step-mother wrote, that says that her fiance who she dated for 15 years went up to this country house with the woman's best friend (and also friend of boyfriend/fiance) around ten years before, and the step-mother thought she saw some sort of a spark between the two. Not that she was awake all night because they were making such loud sex - only that there was a spark. And of course she totally flips out (yada yada yada). Now maybe it's because I'm not a woman, but this seemed like a really far-fetchedm over-the-top reaction. Add to that that I felt no connection to any of the characters, and I was very glad it was only 75 minutes long.

And that brings me to today, and the bus I'm taking back from DC, where I saw "The Visit" (well, it was in Arlington, but that's just a quick Metro and bus ride from DC). This was my first forray to the Signature, but now that I know the experience is so painless (even the long bus ride from NYC to DC isn't so bad), I'm very likely to return - especially when they premiere Michael John LaChiusa's new musical, "Giant," next year.

[NOTE: I’m finishing this from home. Left DC at 5:50pm – back in my apartment at 10:15pm. And all for $7 round trip ($1.50 there and $5.50 back). Amazing.]

Let me also say that the Signature is a really lovely theatre. First of all, it’s brand new, which is always nice. Secondly, when I got to the theatre before the show with time to kill, first I got upstairs to where the main lobby is, and they had a pianist playing this really pleasant lite jazz type music… which I soon realized was actually lite jazz versions of music by John Kander. Then when I further explored the lobby, I found in the “gallery” section, they had a tribute to (the dearly departed) Fred Ebb, including the type writer he wrote the lyrics to “The Visit” on, sheets of lyrics for the show up on the wall, as well as photos, awards, even a show pillow from “The Happy Time.” Really really nice stuff – and honestly, just reading the lyrics on the wall without even hearing the music, I was already in love with the show. And it hadn’t even started yet. OH, and (skipping ahead) at intermission… they sell warm cookies. Positively genius. NY concessions stands would make even more money than they already do if they could get audience warm cookies at intermission. Sooo yummy. Any theatre that sells warm cookies at intermission instantly has my heart forever. Even if they were responsible for the loathsome “Glory Days” (or as it’s now referred to… “Glory Day” – they were selling t-shirts from their run in the lobby and I was oh so tempted…).

Now I know it’s bad to go to see shows with high expectations, and maybe it’s because I had read so many positive reviews (excepting the *cough* Charles Isherwood NY Times pan *cough*), and this was a new Kander & Ebb musical starring THE Chita Rivera and THE George Hearn, and I had traveled four and a half hours plus just one way to be there and darn it I just had to love it – but I loved it. First of all, we all need to thank our lucky stars that Chita Rivera is still willing to not just appear in, but STAR, in a brand new musical. And she is absolutely ravishing. From the moment she first appears on stage, she has the audience tightly in her grip, and it is impossible to take your eyes off of her. The only unfortunate thing (and this has been mentioned by everyone) is that she plays a character with a wooden leg (as well as an ivory hand, and who knows what else), so she can’t really dance. I mean, if Chita Rivera’s going to be in a musical, you want to see her dance. She does get one sort of dance number (in which she dances as well as a character with one leg can be expected to), and indeed that number stops the show. And really let’s face it – would you rather have someone else do the show just because Chita Rivera’s talents aren’t fully utilized here? I mean that’s just ludicrous. Dancing or no dancing, her singing and her acting spine tinglingly brilliant here. And let’s not forget George Hearn who also does a fantastic job, in the less flamboyant, but no less important or easy to act role of the man who Claire (the Chita Rivera character) wants dead. On that note, I will say that “The Visit” is kind of odd source material for a musical, although if you think about the sources for Kander & Ebb’s other most famous musicals (Cabaret and Chicago), well perhaps it’s really not so odd at all. Gotta love a dark disturbing musical, that still manages to be at times quite funny (no one wrote lyrics quite like Ebb did), and also romantic and sad.
The music here is as wonderful as one would expect from John Kander. Even if this doesn’t make it to Broadway (more on that later), I would at least hope we could get a cd out of this. The big humumumumable melody in this show comes at the end of the first act, and I think it’s called “Yellow Shoes.” Granted, it does sound an awful lot like “Second Chance” from Kander & Ebb’s “Steel Pier,” but it’s still a fine song – managing to give the audience something to hum during the intermission, even while being totally disturbed by it.
If I may offer some minor criticism, while the first act was completely fantastic, I did find the second act lagged a bit in the middle. It seemed to sort of fall into this drippy sentimental territory - I first noticed my excitement dropping during a song George Hearn sings while riding in the car with his family for what he thinks will be the last time (I won’t say whether he’s right or not, lest I spoil the ending), and it continued through to what I suppose was Chita’s 11 o’clock number – I think it was called “Love Alone,” but it left me a bit cold. What ultimately saves the musical, not just at the end, but many times, is the brilliant work done by the chorus of townspeople, who are absolutely chilling in the scenes where they are all together. In retrospect, I think they reminded me a bit of the crowds in Britten’s “Peter Grimes” – just absolutely brilliantly creepy, but sending a shiver up your spine, and a tear from your eye.
I’d like to say it would be absolutely criminal if this didn’t make it to New York either on Broadway or off. Actually, I will say it – it would be absolutely criminal if this doesn’t make it to NY. But realistically, my new least favorite critic Charles Isherwood had the nerve to pretty much pan the show in the all important NY Times (can the character of Claire, the richest woman in the world, come to New York and give us tons of money in exchange for killing him?), and to be perfectly honest, how many dark serious new musicals are successful on Broadway? I suppose we can only hope and pray that one of the not-for-profits will pick this up for their upcoming season - it was previously announced for the Public around 2001-ish, although the Mitzi E Newhouse is sort of similar in shape to the Signature; ah, if only the Beaumont weren’t occupied by “South Pacific”… speaking of which, I felt like I was in New York, being in the audience of the show today. First I saw (TalkinBroadway.com’s NY critic) Matthew Murray, then Patrick Pacheco of NY1 and probably some other stuff, then I think Ted Sperling (playing hooky from “South Pacific” post Tonys?), and after the show, Stephen Flaherty. Considering I didn’t see any of them waiting to get the bus from Shirlington Village back to Pentagon to take the subway to Chinatown, those folks probably had more glamorous rides home. But let me say it was absolutely worth all of the time spent to get down there.
I remember my first experience with a musical version of “The Visit” was an operatic version that City Opera did I don’t know how many years ago, called “The Visit of the Old Lady.” And all I remember was that the logo had a woman in profile, carrying a wooden coffin, with a bird (I think it was a vulture) sitting on it. And because that logo was so bizarre and amusing to me, I made my mother buy us tickets to see it. And I have absolutely no recollection of anything about the opera other than that fantastic logo. I think I even have a t-shirt with it somewhere. I suppose that’s a totally random anecdote, but I’ll use it to say that while I remember nothing about the opera, I feel fairly certain I won’t forget Kander & Ebb (and bookwriter Terrence McNally)’s version of “The Visit” or Chita Rivera’s performance in it anytime soon.

I know I always seem to end these things this way, but now I am going to collapse because even more than usual, I am totally exhausted. Besides, since “The Visit” had its last performance tonight at 7pm, tomorrow begins the long days ahead of prayer to the theatre gods to let me see “The Visit” again. Closer to home this time.

(Oh gosh. I just remembered I forgot to mention the simple but fantastic set and not as simple but just as fantastic lighting. So much love to shower on “The Visit.” So tired.)

The Mufti Grind

2008-06-14T02:06:00.002-04:00

Just a quick update because it's late and I need to get up early tomorrow.

I went to see "Grind" at Musicals in Mufti tonight, and was really pleasantly surprised. It only runs through Sunday night, but it's well worth seeing if you have the time and inclination. I had tried to listen to the cd at work on Thursday and Friday, but couldn't really get into it. But as often happens with me, now that I've seen everything in context, I think I'm going to be listening to it quite often. The cast is uniformly excellent - with my surprise favorite being Joe Cassidy (who I'd never heard of before) who was really fantastic as the Irishman. His big song near the end of the second act was particularly gut wrenching and had me getting all teary eyed. Apparently there were a lot of problems with the original Broadway production of the show, having to do with an overly complicated book, and Ben Vereen using his clout to over-expand his supporting role (including a random Fosse dance number that had nothing to do with the show). Well, with this production there's a new book, that I assume is much clearer - I didn't have any big problems with it anyway - and very little dancing (it IS a Mufti staging, after all), and I really just found the whole thing to be totally enjoyable and moving. Of course after looking at the production shots from the Broadway staging in the lobby, now I want to see what the show's like with sets and costumes and all. Hopefully some rich person will see this version and put together a more complete production. I know - never gonna happen, but I can dream, can't I?

This is definitely up there with my favorite Mufti's I've seen. Thank goodness the York stills ticks to its mission of performing bonafide obscure musicals, as opposed to Encores which is doing "On The Town" as part of it's next season. Just saying....

A Weekend In The Country / Puttin' on the Brits

2008-06-11T22:56:00.004-04:00

How did I spend the weekend of the first big heat wave of 2008? By escaping New York of course. Half-baked plan that it was though, I escaped to two cities that were just as hot as NYC - Princeton, NJ and Chester, CT. Luckily both those cities require air-conditioned train rides, and both are home to air-conditioned theatres. Because there is no air conditioning in NY? Okay, actually those two side trips were planned long before the weathermen started playing the song "Heat Wave" along with their weather reports (though disappointingly not the Ethel Merman version).
The Saturday trip was to the McCarter to see "Seagull in the Hamptons," Emily Mann's update of Chekhov's "The Seagull." I'd seen three productions of the play in the past two years or so (Royal Court, Royal Shakespeare Company, Classic Stage Company), so I already knew the play well enough before going in. And this production is basically just the same story, with random points updated for no apparent reason other than to make it "hip." So Arkadina (now Maria) is compared to Meryl Streep and they talk about "The Devil Wears Prada." And Konstantin (now Alex) doesn't just tear up his play in frustration - he says he tore it up and then he deleted it. And instead of him going to another room to play the piano, he plays old records. Stuff like that that just seemed really just completely random - and really for me only served the purpose of pulling me out of the play every time one of those changes happened and set my mind on a side track of why those things needed to be changed. I dunno - I sort of though the play was relevant enough as it was before it was dragged into 2008. And I don't think it would have been that much of a stretch to just do the play in modern dress, but still use a traditional translation. All that whining aside, Mann didn't manage to ruin the play - I still found it quite moving. Standouts for me were Maria Tucci's Arkadina/Maria and Stark Sands' Konstanin/Alex. I should note that my sister, who had never seen the play before, was not at all bothered by the updating, and loved the whole thing. I suppose now I'll have to drag her to see the Kristin Scott Thomas production that's supposed to be transferring to Broadway from the Royal Court (one of the productions I saw when I was in London - and it was well deserving of its rave reviews - though it was my first time ever seeing the play performed, so I guess I'll see how it holds up as compared to the other staging I've seen since).

In Chester, CT I went to see Jason Robert Brown's new (Broadway bound) musical, "13." The show is fine - it's probably best described as "cute," but my big problem with it is that the whole thing really felt like a middle school or high school musical. It's performed entirely by teenagers (even the excellent band is all teens), and I think that's the big problem for me. I mean it's a cute enough idea, but is anyone (other than friends and family of the cast) going to want to pay $120 to see a bunch of teenagers sing and dance for two hours. Might as well just go to your local high school and pay a couple of bucks for their production of "Once Upon A Mattress" or "Grease." Then again, I may have had less to complain about if the material was better. It's never "bad" or "boring," but as my "Disney's High School Musical" loving friend (I - for the record - have not been able to make it all the way through that movie) pointed out, there's nothing exciting about it. All of the songs are nice, but there weren't really any show stoppers that got the audience really excited. The best song is the cute little song that gives the sidekicks a chance to ham it up, and that's fun enough, but the show really needs more big high energy exciting dance numbers. As it is now, I don't really know that this is even a musical that will appeal to the teeny bopper crowd. It seems to me, based on the popularity of "High School Musical" and "Wicked" among them, that they really crave American Idol style crazy belting and radio-friendly sounding music. And that's not what Jason Robert Brown writes. His music is much more old fashioned musical theatre, with maybe a light pop sound. The hardest rocking the score gets is the title song which, as my friend pointed out, sounds just like the title song from "Footloose."
Well, enough of knocking the musical. It still has time to improve before Broadway comes along. As I said, it's not that I didn't like it, it just doesn't say big professional Broadway musical to me. But I'll certainly go and see it once it hits the Jacobs in the Fall, and I'm definitely curious to see how it runs. Of course, it's going to be running across the street from the fabulous "Billy Elliot" - a show that also has quite a few of the kiddies in the cast, and which most definitely knows how to get an audience excited and cheering for more - kiddies in the cast and all.

I've also finally gotten around to checking out some of the offerings at the Brits Off-Broadway festival. Last season I was there all the time, seeing every one of the "Intimate Exchanges" plays. This season, nothing sounded quite as exciting as that.
Friday, I went to see the festival's first musical - "The Hired Man." Despire a tall Starbucks iced coffee before the show, I fell asleep in the first act, and honestly that combined with too much of the text, for my taste, being sung (I know an odd complaint for a musical) I was almost totally lost. I had read in some of the reviews that there was a good tear jerker of a song in the second act, so I stayed. And act two takes place in the future, so sleeping through act one was not a problem. And indeed I did enjoy act two quite a bit, even if there was an awful lot of plot crammed in there - honestly they could have scrapped the first act, and fleshed out the second into a full length work and it would have been fine (probably even better). I found I quite liked the music - it's very melodic and pretty. The story is incredibly depressing. There is just absolutely nothing happy at all. On the same note, I'm not really sure why anyone felt this should be a musical in the first place. Because the story didn't really seem to be crying out for song. It's mostly about war and the horrors of working in mines. Maybe it's because I'm not British, so I didn't have any real connection to the history of the events (the material is based on a true story), but it just seemed sort of odd to me. Um, yeah... so despite all that whining I just did, I would actually recommend the show, because it is quite well done, and because the score is really quite fine. I'm almost tempted to see the show again, to see if I can stay awake this time. But it's so depressing, and it's so long (I think it ran two hours and fifty minutes - though it felt a bit longer), that I don't think I can do it. But I do think I'll try and find a copy of a cast recording.

The other, equally depressing, Brits Off-Broadway offering I've seen is "Vincent River." I was so disturbed by it, that at one point I was thinking to myself that if it went on at the same pace much longer, I was going to have to run to the toilet after the show was over and throw up. But you know, graphic descriptions of brutally mutilated dead bodies can do that to a person. The play is a two-hander - there's a mother and the boy who found her son's dead body some 18 weeks earlier. I was actually attracted to the play because of Deborah Findlay (who plays the mother) - having seen her in both "The Cut" and "John Gabriel Borkman" at the Donmar in London. Afterwards though, I was far more impressed by the performance of the boy (well, teenager), played by Mark Field. Not that Findlay was bad - it's more a case of being very good versus fantastic - but Field gave a much more polished and emotionally wrenching performance. Which is probably to be expected, because on some quick google-ing Field played the same role in the recent London production, while this was only Findlay's second performance in the play. And I'm sure she will dig deeper into the character as the (three week-ish) run progresses. The play was perhaps a bit slow at times, but armed with a grande Starbucks iced coffee this time, and the fact that I was put in the first row (always a great help in helping me concentrate... unless the stage is neck achingly high), and was honestly riveted almost the entire time. Based on the snorts (or chuckles?) coming from the guy sitting next to me each time some new plot twist was revealed, I think perhaps he was less moved by the action of the play. I know I was definitely satisfied by the experience anyway, thoguh it took my entire subway ride home for me to shake off the creepy feeling it gave me. Ben Brantley was in the audience tonight, so I'm definitely curious to see what his reaction to the play was. Not that I agree with him all that often.

Shoot. It's late. And I need to watch the season finale of "Top Chef" that I've Tivo-ed, because I won't be able to go to work or access the internet at all tomorrow without it being spoiled. So, ta ta now.

Bizzaro LaBute and a Surprise Minnie/Merrily Mufti Treat

2008-06-01T23:31:00.000-04:00

Twas a rather strange day of theatergoing.

First up was "reasons to be pretty" - a sweet romantic drama that had me a bit misty eyed at the end, but that also left me feeling quite a few times with a nice warm and fuzzy feeling. It's one of those plays where the protagonist is just so nice and sweet that all of the women, and at least half the men just want to run up on stage during the curtain call and give him a hug... and perhaps propose marriage to him. That said the play did also leave me in something of a state of shock, because according to the Playbill, this play was by none other than Neil LaBute - he who only writes plays about how people are just all really crappy and then throws in some random twist ending just for the heck of it. This has got to me the most shocking turn around for a playwright since David Lindsay-Abaire went from whimsical plays like "Fuddy Meers" and "Wonder of the World" to the utterly devastating "Rabbit Hole." There's a line at the end of the final monologue of "reasons to be pretty" about how it's not that hard to be nice, but it really does a lot of good. And it was almost as if LaBute was apologizing for the nastiness of the rest of his plays - that we may be like the characters in "Shape of Things" and "Fat Pig" (the first two plays in his "trilogy"), but this is the salve for that evilness. I will say the play starts off in typical LaBute mode, with (the brilliant and intense as usual) Alison Pill screaming at her boyfriend (played by the oh so loveable Thomas Sadoski) and every other word out of her mouth is "fuck." And there is the typical LaBute character - an extremely obnoxious guy played by the irritating Pablo Schreiber. In the program note LaBute mentions that Greg (the nice guy) is the first "adult" he's written (as opposed to men who act like boys - like the Screiber character). The play is all about obsession with beauty (Greg's girlfriend freaks out when she finds out he told a friend that her face is plain and then breaks up with him - even though it was one mistaken line and they really did love each other; and then there's the guy who's in a relationship with a dumb blonde only because she's pretty, but he's a total loser) And I have to say the casting of Thomas Sadoski in the role of the nice guy was particularly good as far as the theme of the play goes because he's really not particularly attractive when he first walks on stage, but as the audience gets to know him and how nice and smart he is, and we really see what he's like inside, of course we grow to love him. And since one of the points of the play is that we really should look past surface beauty, well... this seemed to work very much in the play's favor. I have to say I'd never heard of Sadoski before (according to his bio I saw him in "Reckless" on Broadway, though the only thing I remember about that production was that it was weird and Mary-Louise Parker was in it), but his performance in this is really fantastic. I should mention this isn't a perfect play my any means - the scenes with Pablo Schreiber were more typical Neil LaBute stuff in that he was beyond irritating, and whenever he was onstage I couldn't wait for him to just go away so we could get back to the nice people. And also LaBute for some reason decided to give each character a confessional monologue, in which they just randomly step to the edge of the stage and talk to some offstage presence (the audience? an unseen character? Big Brother?), and though they were informative, and though the final one worked quite well (though it also served as an epilogue), I couldn't help think he could have come up with a more creative and dramatically interesting way to convey the information we get from those scenes. Still, considering I usually consider MCC's yearly Neil LaBute productions to be a low point of each season, to say I was pleasantly surprised by "reasons to be pretty" is quite the understatement.

My evening show was the Musicals in Mufti (aka off-Broadway Encores) production of "Minnie's Boys." The show is about the Marx Brothers, and is probably best known as the musical that gave the world the song "Mama a Rainbow." The show was fine and cute, though it's kind of obvious why it flopped (uneven score, choppy book). But the real highlight actually happened before the show even started. Apparently, a group of audience members were trapped in the elevator that goes down to the theatre (if you've ever been to the York, you know that's one unpleasant elevator - but it's better than taking the zillion flights of stairs down to the theatre... usually). So to keep the audience happy while we waited for the fire department to save our fellow audience members, cast member Jim Walton was sent over to the piano to entertain us. So he attempted a couple of Marx Bros tunes, and then sort of fumferred and asked for requests. And someone in the back yelled out "Anything from 'Merrily We Roll Along'." Yes, Jim Walton was Franklin Shepard in the original Broadway production of "Merrily." And so he graced us with his renditions of "Good Thing Going" and "Not A Day Goes By," and let me tell you, hearing him those songs live after hearing them so many times on the cd, was beyond thrilling. So thank you to those people who got stuck in elevator, for allowing the rest of us the chance to have the chance to have a most exciting evening.

Theatre of the Undead, and some Fresher (?) Fodder

2008-05-31T00:10:00.002-04:00

I may be in the minority in this (wouldn't surprise me there), but when a writer dusts off a historic figure and plops him or her down onto the and has said historical figure just stand there and recite his or her life story, well I'm sorry, but I just find that incredibly lazy and boring. I mean what exactly is supposed to be interesting and theatrical about that? I would say 'if I was interested in this person I would have pick up a biography and read it,' but I'm aware enough to know that there are people who wouldn't think of reading a biography (which can take an investment in time of days or weeks) when a play will generally be over and done with in 90 minutes (if we're lucky). But you know, there are a lot more interesting ways to bring history to life than throwing an impersonator on stage and having go "and then I did this" for 90 to 120 minutes. You'll get the history buffs, and the people who were interested in the subject that the character is going to talk about - but what about the innocent bystanders who don't necessarily care about hearing a dry life story, but care more about seeing theatre first, educational content second. Not too too long ago (I think it was weeks, but it could have been months) I went to see a play called "The Paris Commune" about some obscure little revolution in Paris. And the creators of that show had a whole slew of actors on stage, and found an interesting way to present the story on stage through historical records and song and dance or the period, and I found myself surprisingly interested. I'm not saying all history needs to be presented as musical theatre (though that doesn't hurt), but dressing Laurence Fishburne or Mercedes Ruhl up in a period costumes, and having them recite a short biography of Thurgood Marshall or Louise Nevelson, well... unless the writer found a really interesting angle, or a really colorful way to tell the story (Doug Wright's version of the life of Charlotte von Mahlsdorf in "I Am My Own Wife" comes to mind an example of a well made solo bio play), well then you're just going to end up preaching to the choir and the rest of the audience will either be bored to tears or fall asleep, depending on the amount of caffeine in their systems.
As you may or may not have already figured out, over the past week (a week ago Friday and tonight) I went to see "Occupant" and "Thurgood." "Occupant," a rare misstep from my favorite playwright Edward Albee, is technically a two person play, about sculptor Louise Nevelson. My feeling on there being two characters in the play is that Albee couldn't figure out how to keep Nevelson on stage by herself because she (in his version) doesn't really want to tell her life story, so he plops a journalist down on stage next to her to prod her along and force her to stay on stage and feed us our history lesson. One wonders whether it would have been better if she had poisoned the journalist before the show started, so she could stay in peace in her grave and the audience could be spared her life story. I saw the play back when it premiered in I think 2002, and remember finding the first act to be almost unbearably boring, but the second act - with its big set reveal and when Nevelson finally got around to being famous - to be rather more compelling. I also remember that I considering leaving that production at intermission, but before the show I had read an interview with Albee and he mentioned something about how New Yorkers are good theatregoers and they won't abandon a play at intermission, and not wanting to disappoint him (I have a vague recollection that he was also sitting near me at the performance), I stuck around and was glad I did. Well, "Occupant" is back at the Signature, and though Mercedes Ruhl is now masterfully tackling the lead role of Nevelson (last time it was the understudy for Anne Bancroft, whose name I don't remember), and despite Ruhl's excellent performance, "The Lecture" (as the exciting monologue in the second act is referred to), remains really the only thing that interested me in the play. It happens to be a rather exciting moment, and almost actually made the play worth sitting through - but honestly, there was so much dry slog to sit through, I can't really say I would recommend it - master class in acting from Ruhl and all aside.
Possibly even more boring than "Occupant," probably because I find politics particularly boring, is "Thurgood." Laurence Fishburne stands on stage with the thin concept that he's delivering a speech to Howard College, where he went to school (the audience knows this mostly because there's a big seal for the school on the top of the proscenium - and I think it may be mentioned in one line or so), and recites his life story. I credit a grande iced coffee from Starbucks with keeping me awake. The only reason I didn't force myself to sleep is that I figured if I did indeed fall asleep I would surely miss "the good part." There's a somewhat interesting section, around an hour and fifteen minutes in, when we hear the closing arguments (both sides) in the "Brown v The Board of Education" case. Other than that though, I really couldn't have been less interested in his life story. It's basically blah blah blah racism blah blah blah segregation blah blah blah law school blah blah blah winning court cases blah blah blah why we should all be liberals. The end. Cue the standing ovation from everyone around me who thought this was the most brilliant thing ever. And cue me applauding the fact that it's finally over. This play, especially, reminded me of another play that I was alone hating in the theatre - the Golda Meir snooze-fest "Golda's Balcony." I take a lot for me to find a political figure standing on stage droning on ad nauseum interesting. I go. I believe the hype and get excited that this will finally be the show to break the tide and change my mind. And I inevitably sit there twiddling my thumbs and try to not be too obvious when checking my watch to see how much more of this I'm going to have to sit through.

On the fresher side of things (not necessarily good, just newer) we have "Saved" and "Body Awareness."

"Saved" is a new musical based on a movie I admit I've never seen and hadn't even heard of until the musical was announced. It's supposed to be a satire, I think, about a Catholic school where the jock is gay, and one of the goody goody Christian gets into a bit of a not so goody goody Christian trouble at the end of the first act. The first act was completely underwhelming. It just came across as a toothless satire, blandly told through pleasant but unmemorable songs, and attempts at jokes that I really didn't find funny. I guess with the theory that it would make the show hip, there's lot's of text messaging between characters, and references to Facebook pages and iPhones. This all seemed really forced and unnecessary, with all it really accomplishing was allowing the show to be dated faster than usual. Luckily, in the second act the attempts at humor are abandoned, and the story turns fairly serious - and actually finally interesting and moving. We get a really entertaining dream sequence/dance number there (which finally allows the wheelchair bound but insanely talented dancer Curtis Holbrook a chance to dance), and finally gives the uber-talented Julia Murney her big power ballad solo. This is one case where I'd say the many merits of the second act actually make up for the many missteps of the first. I hope the writers do some major rewriting on whatever post-Playwrights Horizons productions come its way, because there's definitely half a great show in there - now they've got to do something to pep up the rest of it.

Far less promising, and really lacking any sort of redeeming value was the interminable "Body Awareness." I went to the first preview, so I'll chalk up the fact that of the four actors, only JoBeth Williams was able to create a character that felt like more than a two-dimensional bore. In an interview with the playwright (Annie Baker) this week's issue of Time Out NY that just happened to come in my mailbox just hours before the show, and that I just happened to read, she mentions how unlike the other playwrights of her generation (Sarah Ruhl, Adam Bock) she doesn't write quirky witty plays. In fact she says she doesn't like wit, because she feels like the characters speak like they would if they had two days to think up the perfect response to each line. She wants to be more real - still quirky, but more real. That's all paraphrased, but that was the drift of the article anyway. Now despite that I've never seen an Adam Bock play I've liked, and Sarah Ruhl is two (good) out of three for me, I tend to like weird witty quirky plays. Still, I'm willing to see what a play would sound like if the characters were all more realistic. The result? If I'd thought to bring a hammer in my backpack, pulling it out and banging it against my skull for ninety minutes would have been more enjoyable. I'm not saying that characters HAVE to be weird quirky and witty - not everything has to be a zany comedy. But at least make the characters interesting. And give us some reason to care about them. And don't make them so whiny and unlikeable. And Baker may have been trying to give us real people in realistic situations, but honestly three out of the four characters felt like two-dimensional cliches (the bitchy lesbian professor, the mentally handicapped kid who does something bad because he can't control himself, and the artsy 'love your body' photographer) - granted the fourth character is a generic caring mother, but there was at least something warm and loveable about her, which was certainly not true about any of the other characters. It was the first preview of a world premiere play, so I suppose it's possible that the play may improve over the course of previews. Maybe the actors will find a way to make their characters interesting or believable as real human beings (not impossible, I guess), and maybe the playwright will just re-write the whole darn thing and turn it into something brilliant (I'm skeptical). Honestly, if she's going for real and interesting drama - I had lunch Bryant Park one day last month and eavesdropped on a conversation going on next to me where this guy was talking about how his marriage was on the rocks and he installed all of these spy programs on his wife's computer to find out who she's emailing, what her password are, and what she's doing, because he thought she was having an affair (and though probably it makes me sound really rude and creepy for listening in, but I was eating and my book wouldn't stay open and I had nothing else to divert my attention). Now THAT - that totally unscripted real life conversation - THAT was real and far more interesting than anything I saw onstage at "Body Awareness."

Oh... darn it... I meant to throw in something about "Top Girls" in here too. But I think I've just run out of steam. Suffice it to say I found it to be a creaky, dated old museum piece... the sort of piece that museums keep in the back in deep storage and pull out every now and then for special exhibitions because they're not actually interesting otherwise. I will say I read about half the script before seeing it live, and I found it much less irritating to read than to see live - once I got used to the overlapping dialogue anyway. A pretentious bore. And I kept thinking each act (there were three) would be better than the last. I was wrong. It just got worse and worse. I was mighty jealous of all the smart people who escaped at each intermission. Between "Top Girls" and "Drunk Enough To Say I Love You" - those comprising an early example and a current example of the plays of Caryl Churchill, I can honestly say she's shot right up there near the top of my list of awful overrated playwrights.

And now I'm officially finished.

Good night.

If Nautical Nonsense Be Something You Wish...

2008-05-15T23:31:00.002-04:00

Well, the mainstream Broadway and off-Broadway venues may not be satisfying my craving for interesting new musicals, so thank goodness for kooky off-kilter theatres like the Kraine (home to "Hostage Song"), the Zipper Factory ("Inner Voices"), and now Ars Nova which is now home to "Jollyship The Whiz-Bang: A Pirate Puppet Rock Odyssey." Come to think of it, Ars Nova - which always seemed more like a venue for concerts than for theatre - has really been on a winning streak in my book, having also presented the extremely entertaining "Dixie's Tupperware Party" and "At Least It's Pink," as well as being a co-producer of "Form Up Here" (at MTC). I suppose I now should be kicking myself for not seeing "Boom" when it was there, because I probably would have liked it. Ah well. ANYWAY, I wasn't really sure whether I really wanted to see "Jollyship Whiz-Bang" - I listened to some of the music tracks on their myspace page, and sort of got the impression this wasn't going to be the show for me. But the allure of a pirate, puppet, rock musical was just too strong, and so I booked a ticket anyway. I can certainly understand that this show won't be to everyone's taste, but I have an extremely strange sense of humor, and this show was definitely right up my alley. I was trying to think of something to compare the show to, but I haven't been able to think of any one show that's similar - it has the rock band performs a musical sensibility of "Striking 12" (the Groovelily "Little Matchgirl" musical), the wacky humor of "The Forbidden Zone" (the bizarre Oingo Boingo movie musical, one of my favorite guilty pleasures), and the nautical nonsense of "Spongebob Squarepants." As far as the puppets go, they're more in the vein of something like Punch & Judy (though with mouths that open and close) than Sesame Street/Avenue Q. The story is basically that the completely insane Captain of Jollyship The Whiz-Bang (who reminded me a bit of the Flying Dutchman on "Spongebob") decides he is going to go find Party Island (where the booze is free, the girls are half price, and there are mountains of salt water taffy), and of course since no one actually knows where this place is, the journey doesn't go so well. There's of course many more silly details and goofy subplots, but that's the general idea. The music can probably best be described as loud. Some of the songs are sung by the puppets, but it seemed like more often the story would go aside and the band would just sing a song that I think was related to the story... it was sort of hard to tell because I had trouble understanding the lyrics. I, who know nothing about rock music, would found myself thinking it sounded like indie-rock, but I'm not sure why that term comes to mind because to be perfectly honest I have no idea what indie-rock is. But in the world in my head it sounds like the right term. I can't say there were really any melodies to be gleaned from the first hearing. But there was something sort of satisfying about earsplitting music that should probably one would probably be inclined to nod ones head rather than tap one's toes to, and those lyrics that I did make out were quite amusing. The whole thing runs something like two hours (including intermission), and I will say that I was a bit afraid that a show like this stretched out for so long might be a little too much of a good thing, and it might overstay its welcome. And indeed the second act did lag a little, though it did eventually recover and (no pun intended) smoothly sail to the end. This is really just a bizarre, scrappy little musical that fits perfectly into Ars Nova. I can't really imagine this working quite as well in a more formal venue - it's roughness was definitely part of the appeal... sort like that low-budget paper cut-out style of animation that "South Park" uses to such good effect.
There's really just something so inherently wonderful about the very idea of a puppet-pirate-rock musical. I mean, I like pirates, I like puppets, and I like (some) rock musicals. So how could they go wrong? Well... yes, there were many ways. So the fact that the show is just so damn entertaining made be a very happy boy.

Singing Heads

2008-05-14T00:37:00.000-04:00

I went to see what I think is the second preview of "Inner Voices: Solo Musicals" tonight. And if this is a barometer for the 2008-09 season of new musicals, then we can all do a happy dance because the dry spell of exciting new musicals seems to have finally ended. "Inner Voices" is made up of three one-woman musicals, the concept apparently being that if Alan Bennett could make an evening of three separate monologues with "Talking Heads," why shouldn't musical theatre attempt the same thing. Instead of finding one composer to write a whole slew of solo musicals, we here have three different works from three different writing teams. The first, and probably the one that sounds the best on paper is "Tres Ninas" (there's a tilde over that second n, but I'm not going to go through the extra effort of putting one in), and it's composed by Michel John LaChiusa (with book by Ellen Fitzhugh) and stars Victoria Clark. With Victoria Clark performing this, there was really no way it could actually be bad. She one's of those singing actresses that is just spins everything she touches into musical theatrical gold. Which is not to say that LaChiusa and Fitzhugh have given her garbage to work with. I've had a bit of a love/hate relationship for LaChiusa's work - I'm a fan of his "Marie Christine" (though that featured another of those magical women, Audra McDonald), "The Wild Party," and "Hello Again" (the latter of which I only know from the cast recording), I like parts of "See What I Wanna See" and "First Lady Suite," and I intensely dislike his "Little Fish" and "Bernarda Alba." Lately I'd been finding that he'd sort of fallen into that trap where all of his music was just sounding the same. Thankfully here, if I hadn't known he'd composed "Tres Ninas" I would have never guessed it was him. I found the music to be extremely accessible and fresh sounding. I found the three stories that make up the musical (about three girls - which I think is what the title means in Spanish) all held be interest, and they definitely had me tearing up a bit. All three had somewhat odd endings that left me sort of scratching my head, but I can't say that really bothered me all that much. And of course Victoria Clark's performance in the three roles, wearing nothing but a slip, and with only a couch, an ashtray, and some lights on the otherwise bare stage, was as spectacular as one would expect.
The second musical, "Alice Unwrapped," was from a composer I thought I didn't know - Jenny Giering, but after reading her bio after the show, it turns out I saw her show "The Mistress Cycle" (at NYMF), and I seem to remember liking that. Her book writer was Laura Harrington, and starring in this musical was Jennifer Damiano. When I read about this show, I knew Victoria Clark and Barbara Walsh (who performs the last), but didn't think I knew Damiano. Well, from the minute she walked on stage, I knew I had seen her somewhere before. It took me a few minutes, but I finally remembered I had seen her in "Next to Normal" off-Broadway. I'm going back and forth as to whether "Alice Unwrapped" or "Tres Ninas" was my favorite of the three. "Alice Unwrapped," is about a teenage girl whose father is in Iraq, and who tries to hold her emotionally crumbling family together as best she can, even though she's not really doing so well herself. This one is also a tear jerker (even moreso than the first). Again, the music was melodic and accessible, and Damiano's performance was really very impressive, considering she's a junior in high school (or so her bio says). I was mighty impressed.
With the first two being so strong, I suppose it was inevitable that I would be let down by the third, "A Thousand Words Come To Mind," by Michele Lowe and Scott Davenport Richards, and starring the wonderful Barbara Walsh. It's not that it was bad, but I found it both with the story (a woman's dying mother claims she was the inspiration for characters in the novels of Philip Roth, John Irving, and others), and the music less easily accessible than the first two. Honestly, if I hadn't read my program first, I would have thought this was the LaChiusa musical, because this was the sort of musical I would have more expected from him... a bit more cold and intellectual, with less instantly pleasant melodies. I mean, this one was fine - it has a nice twist ending, and Barbara Walsh did a fine job, but especially after the first two, I just wasn't all that thrilled.
I noticed two people left after the first musical (I think they were just there because there were Victoria Clark fans), and one after the second (he seemed to be having problems with his hearing aid). I will say I felt a bit like the first musical was so fcomplete that if that had been the whole show, I would have been able to leave satisfied. I suppose I would have been happier if the order was shuffled, with my least favorite either first and second, I would have been able to leave a bit happier. That said, two out of three ain't bad - and especially at a second preview, meaning there's always room for the third to improve should the writers see fit - and I certainly happier sitting through this hour and forty-five minutes of musical theatre than most anything new and musical I saw on or off Broadway last season. This runs through May 30th at the Zipper Factory, and tickets are only twenty bucks, so I'd say these are well worth bothering with, should you have the time and/or interest.

And now I've gone on WAY longer than I intended to. So good night.

50(plus)th Post

2008-05-14T00:09:00.003-04:00

Okay, this isn't technically my 50th post - it's my 52nd. But I told myself I'd give this blog a better name than "My Blog" if I got to 50 because that means I'm actually keeping up with updating it. So I'm re-naming it "Mostly Legit" ("legit" as in the 'the legimate theatre' - get it?) No, not the wittiest title, but a google blogsearch doesn't show anyone other blogs with that title, so that's what I'm using until I think of something better.

A Serious Case of the Sillies

2008-05-09T23:44:00.001-04:00

I would strongly recommend taking full advantage of the newly renovated restrooms at the Longacre Theatre so as to avoid peeing in your pants from laughing at the onstage antics at "Boeing-Boeing." I'd seen (and loved) the Matthew Warchus-helmed revival when I was in London last year, and I was obviously nervous about how it would play over here with a mostly American cast (the wonderfully hilarious Mark Rylance was the only cast member to cross the pond with it to Broadway), having slept through so many imports that were supposedly great in London and ruined here. Well, I'm pleased to report that all is well, and it's just as deliriously silly and side-splittingly funny as it was over there. If I had one minor quibble, it's that Christine Baranski isn't quite as good as Frances de la Tour was, partly because she insists on using a French accent that takes some time to get used to, and partly because the idea of Frances de la Tour playing a maid was just so inherently ridiculous that it just added a whole other level of amusement. Still, I did eventually warm up to Baranski, and the rest of the new cast is all absolutely splendid. If you're in the mood for evening of turn you brain off, totally ridiculous and endlessly amusing farce, well you couldn't do better than "Boeing-Boeing."

Also rather high up there on the silly scale is the Met's current revival of "La Fille du Regiment." There are unfortunately only two performances of it left, both are sold out, and I just noticed the incomparable Juan Diego Florez isn't doing the one on Monday, which means there's only really one chance left, because you don't want to miss him. I honestly don't think I've ever heard a mid-opera ovation as long and impassioned as the one following Florez's big first act aria. Honestly, I think the audience would still be applauding now, a week later, if it wasn't so tiring to keep clapping for so long. Which is not to ignore the also brilliant comic performance of Natalie Dessay, who once again this season (the first time was in "Lucia"), has proved what a great singing actress she is. I usually find I don't much care for comic operas - if I'm going to the opera I want to see misery and death (expressed in glorious song) - but resistance was really futile here. At one point early on in the first act, while the soldiers were marching around singing some silly song or other, I couldn't help but think that if Monty Python were going to put on an opera, it would be very much like this. This production was recorded for those HD movie theatre broadcasts, so that probably means it'll end up on PBS sometime later this year. But there's really no substitute for live and in person opera, so if you can beg, borrow or steal a ticket (or grab a cancellation or standing room one), it's well worth heading over to the Met on Friday to see the final performance. And even on Monday, when Barry Banks (who?) takes of the Juan Diego Florez role, well you still have the likes of Natalie Dessay, Felicty Palmer, and Marian Seldes (yes, that Marian Seldes) to keep you in opera heaven, so that worth trying to score a ticket to too, I suppose.

On the unsilly front, I went to see "Substitution" on Wednesday mostly because there was really nothing else I wanted to see, and I hadn't seen anything on Saturday, Sunday, Monday or Tuesday and I was going through withdrawal. It stars Jan Maxwell, who as usual is the saving grace of a lousy show ("as usual," referring to "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" and "Coram Boy"). The play is pretty dreary and unconvincing, but watching Jan Maxwell act is always such a treat that it was somewhat bearable. The story is basically that a mother lost her high school age son in a boat accident, and the boy's substitute teacher (who was somehow obsessed with this boy, even though he was just a substitute teacher...), falls in love with the mother. Then spliced in, there are snippets of a conversation between two students who are on the bus with the boy, and who were also involved in the boat accident. The student conversations seemed pointless and rather boring. The whole relationship between the mother and the substitute teacher was also not in the least bit convincing (they had absolutely no chemistry at all, and honestly their personalities were so different, the inevitable ending just seemed totally ridiculous). And then there's the fact that this guy was only a substitute teacher, which made his obsession with the dead boy ever so much more implausible. It was just overall a terribly unsatisfying play, with Jan Maxwell's devastating performance really its only saving grace. What I found particularly interesting about her performance, was that she starts out totally drained and emotionally raw, and get slowly happier (well, kind of) through the course of the play, which I imagine must be really hard to act. I don't want to think about how she prepares each night to bring herself to the point she's at when she first steps out on the stage. I guess one of these days Jan Maxwell will appear in a play equal to her talents. But when?

When 90 Minutes Feel Like "Days" (plus visits to The Heights, India, and Potatoland)

2008-04-24T22:56:00.004-04:00

After "Glory Days" was over, as I compared noted with my parents, all three of us seemed to have the same reaction: If I had been in an aisle seat, I would have walked out. Note that the show is ninety minutes long with NO INTERMISSION. Then came the, how long did it take before you started looking at your watch - for me it was forty-five minutes (followed by forty-six, forty seven, forty-eight, forty-nine, and fifty...), my mother was thirty, and I think my father slept through the whole thing. Really, I can't think of a nice thing to say about it. Well, okay - the four person cast does a decent job. None of them are spectacular, but consider the material they have to work with. It's strange - listening to the songs posted on the show's Myspace page made me sort of excited to see the musical - yes, they are a little Jonathon Larson-y sounding, but they seemed young and fun. But when sung in the context of the show, by characters that I found not remotely likable, they seemed to lose all of their charm. They also all started to sound the same. "Glory Days" is about four guys who were friends in high school, who then come together after their first year of college and find they don't like each other anymore. The thing is, they all come across as the jerky frat boy types - the sort of people I would avoid eye contact with in the hall and hope would ignore me - so I couldn't have been less interested in spending five, let alone ninety minutes with them. Four unlikeable guys who don't even like each other. What is supposed to be entertaining about this? Granted, sometimes people being mean to each other can be fun. But this doesn't come across as real mean - it's more like watching them stand facing each other, close their eyes and look away, and fake slap each other. I mean, the whole thing could have been told in about thirty seconds:

Guy A: Hi.
Guy B: Hi.
Guy C: Hi.
Guy D: Hi.

(pause)

Guy A: You suck.
Guy B: No you suck.
Guy C: No you suck.
Guy D: I'm gay.

(pause)

Guy A: Whatever - bye.
Guy B: Sh... bye.
Guy C: Bye.
Guy D: Bye.

The end.

As for the production values, well the set should be easy to replicate for community theatres. There's a wall of lights and bleachers. And that's it. Oh, and there are some exposed bulbs hanging down, so when they sing a song about "electric stars," they can turn on and the audience can literally see electric stars. The whole lighting design looks like some cheap Kevin Adams rip off. That anyone would have the nerve to charge $97.50 for a show with no set and no stars (not to mention no entertainment value) is mind boggling. And really, who is the target audience for this show? Being in my mid-20's, I would think I would be what would be considered the target age set for this show. But maybe it's not just 20-somethings, but frat boy 20-somethings. And doesn't that just put this musical in the same hole as "High Fidelity" - aka a musical whose target audience hates musicals? One of the main producers must have had his name removed from the Playbill - namely Max Bialystock. Because who else would have moved this to Broadway?

To end on a positive note, since the music was actually pretty good, at least outside of the context of the show, I look forward to see what composer/lyricist Nick Blaemire writes next. Hopefully something with a book that doesn't make "In My Life" look like "Gypsy."

On a happier note, I also went to see "In The Heights" this week. Compared to "Glory Days," it's "Gypsy," "Sunday in the Park..." and "Spring Awakening" (those being my three favorite currently running Broadway shows) all rolled into one, I actually found it more satisfying than I did off-Broadway. The book remains its weak point - it presents such a white-washed view of Washington Heights, with nothing of consequence really happening at all, it's more "Sesame Street" than "Avenue Q," and that should be the other way around. That said, the cast is so bursting with the energy that it's really impossible, I think, to dislike it. The music is for the most part extremely tuneful and entertaining (though I don't think it really warrants the 2-cd set that it's been given), even if there are some duds like that awful song they wrote for Priscilla Lopez (called "Enough" - coincidentally also what I wanted to yell out while she was singing it) only there because she was upset that she didn't have a song. The choreography is fun in small bursts, though when it steps center-stage, like in the overlong final song/scene in the first act, I found myself extremely bored. Then again, I'm usually not really a fan of long dance sequences. Flaws aside, the show is harmless fun - the best (and I guess only) good new Broadway musical of the season - and with the exception of the first act closer, the overlong Carnivale song in the second act, it was never really boring - even if nothing was really ever at stake plotwise. I had a surprisingly good time, and managed to enjoy the show - warts and all. I won't feel too bad about rooting for it come Tony time.

I also saw "Rafta, Rafta," the winner of this year's Olivier Award for Best Comedy, and which just started previews off-Broadway. I was pleasantly surprised by it. I found the first act a bit slow - it's starts out with the celebration after an Indian wedding (in Britain), and I felt sort of like an outsider watching other people have fun but not actually feeling a part of the action - but thing improved towards the end, and then the second act was much better. The show is about a young couple who get married, but they live with in the groom's parents' house, and so he has trouble keeping it up long enough to have sex with his wife, which obviously frustrates her. It's not all comedy - there are serious scenes too (call it a dramedy maybe). The best unintentional laugh (PLOT SPOILER here, if you care) was when after the couple does actually have successful intercourse near the end of the second act, the lights go out, and the guy behind me yells "Finally!" Then the lights come up again, and the parents are sitting in the kitchen, and the mother's line is something like "Did you hear something?" Biggest laugh of the night. It's my new favorite audience comment moment (the previous was at "New Century," when Mr. Charles is talking about how no one was surprised when Ian McKellen said he was gay, and the guy behind me yells out "Who's Ian McKellen?!") Anyway, I think this one's worthwhile. Oh, and the set is mighty impressive - especially for an off-Broadway production. At least twice the number of cast members as in "Glory Days," a better set, and all at a fraction of the price. Just saying.

And I suppose I need to throw in a mention for "Deep Trance Behavior in Potatoland," the latest of Richard Foreman play. This was my sixth Foreman play. As usually, I was pretty much totally baffled, but at least it was only a little over an hour long, and it was actually sort of amusing - in that it looks like your typical totally bizarre and over-the-top, low budget, avant-garde production. One of these days I'll understand his work. One of these days....

On Comedies and Plotless Bores

2008-04-16T00:22:00.001-04:00

The last four shows I've seen fit semi-neatly into two categories: the comedies and the plotless bores.

THE COMEDIES

I saw two "comedies" this week - one was "The New Century" and the other was "The Walworth Farce." The former is pretty much pure fun fluff, and the latter is Irish (needless to say it was one of the most bleak, disturbing and depressing things I've seen in a while). "The New Century" is a series of four short plays by Paul Rudnick, with the first three introducing the separate characters, and the fourth bringing them all together. I think this is one of those plays where you need to be a gay and/or Jewish New Yorker (or very much aware of those cultures) in order to get any of the humor. The four stories all have fairly thin, silly plots, but it's really those oh so hilarious one-liners that come fast and furious that make it so very entertaining worthwhile. At intermission and again after the play (and to be perfectly honest, even thinking about it now), we couldn't help going around and re-telling our favorite jokes like "In this house we use a toilet, not our friends from Tribeca" or "It's like if Patti LuPone was a store." Those are just paraphrases of the lines since I don't have a script in front of me, and honestly I they're probably not nearly as funny out of context and when just read on a screen as opposed to being recited by a master comic actress like, say, Linda Lavin, but trust me, when recited on stage those lines and ones like them had me falling out of my seat in laughter. I will say that all five of us in our group felt that the second play (about Mr. Charles - who was thrown out of NY for being "too gay" and then ended up having a cable access show in the middle of the night in Florida) was the weakest of the four. But even if that one seemed to be a bit stale, it had it's choice moments. Oh and I must say that I'm certain the cast, with my favorites being Linda Lavin and Jayne Houdyshell, had a good deal to do with making Rudnick's lines land as often as they did. Yes, the show is a silly piece of mindless entertainment, but what's so wrong with that? And not only did I love it, but my grandmother who usually sleeps through and hates most shows we take her too, both stayed awake the entire time and loved it. Now if that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what is.

In the category of the most certainly not a silly piece of fluff, is Enda Walsh's "The Walworth Farce" - which is your typical Irish comedy - meaning you may laugh a bit, but you completely totally and utterly depressed. It's the sort of thing that Martin McDonagh does so brillianty, and Walsh seems to be in very much the same league here, though I will say I was often very confused by the comic portions of the play. The basic premise is that there are these three men (an older father figure, and two grown "sons") who just stay in their apartment all day and perform the same farce. Every single day. For years and years. I suppose partly because there are so many characters in the play within the play, but only three actors to play all of them, I found it extremely difficult to follow the story that they were presenting. It was still fun and funny (for a time anyway) to watch their zany quick changes and bad acting (you can tell when a section is real vs part of the play-within, because the characters are all rotten actors, so when the dialogue sounds natural it's supposed to be real, versus the forced over-the-top stuff that's part of the "play"). I got the basic premise from the first act and was basically amused through, but it's the second act, where things just snowball and become increasingly disturbing and depressing, to the point where I was jaw-dropped in miserable shock for the last maybe ten minutes of the play, as I saw what I suppose was inevitable play out before me. The production, from the Druid Theatre Company (that also I think presented the premieres of Martin McDonagh's plays), plays for around a month or so (tonight was the first preview) at St. Ann's Warehouse, and I think is very much worth seeing. If you don't mind depressing Irish comedies. If it happens to pop up on tdf again, I think I may actually try to see it again - both because I really "enjoyed" it, and because I want to see if I can get a better handle on the stuff I missed the first time around.

And now on to the...

PLOTLESS BORES

Is it so much to ask for a show to tell a story? Maybe I'm lazy and I just like my theatre spoon-fed to me, but I don't see what's so wrong with shows telling stories that have a beginning, a middle, and an end. The first example of that this week was "God's Ear." I had absolutely no idea what was going on. Supposedly it was about a parents dealing with the death of a child. But it all sounded like repetitive gibberish to me. I think the play must be more interesting on the page, when it can be looked at as a long piece of poetry. But as a piece of theatre, I really just didn't get it at all. It's by a young writer named Jenny Schwartz, and while I applaud her for being what I would certainly call an original new voic for the theatre, it was just totally over my head, and not at all to my taste. The only entertainment I was able to glean from the experience came from the older couple in my row (the first row, no less): after around twenty-five minutes, the wife whispered to her husband that she couldn't take anymore and she was going to sit in the lobby; the husband stayed and kept watching the play and about five minutes later she came back and asked him why he hadn't left yet; he said he wanted to see if it would get better, she grunted and sat down again, and then five or ten minutes after that they finally both left. At least it wasn't a total loss :O)

And then there's "Satyagraha," an opera that makes "Tristan und Isolde" look action packed. I will say that the Met's new production (or, well, it's co-production with the ENO) is really marvelous. Does that make it worth sitting through all three hours and forty-five grueling minutes of the opera? I think not. I'm sort of hit or miss with Philip Glass, but even the minimalist music didn't bother me all that much. What really bored me to tears was the story, or lack of one. The opera is made up of random scenes from the life of Gandhi. For some bizarre reason, the designers chose to not provide met-titles for this production, and instead to just project the translations on the back wall of the stage. We get about one line every fifteen minutes. There's also an insert in the Playbill that I think may be the libretto. It's two pages long. Two pages for three hours and forty-five minutes of opera. So basically, I sat there the whole time, watching the actors go through motions that seemed to only vaguely resemble the scenes listed in the synopsis, and listen to people sing words I couldn't understand (either because they were in Sanskrit, or English with bad diction). I just don't understand how anyone could find this remotely entertaining as a musical drama, considering there isn't actually any "drama." In the last scene, Gandhi walks slowly towards the stage, singing the same line what seemed like forty times. Maybe if I knew what he was singing, I would have found this interesting. But listening to someone slowly walk towards the front of the stage singing the same line of what sounds like gibberish over and over again, and sorry but my limited attention span can only stand so much. As for the most entertaining moment of that evening... On the subway platform, after I think every opera I've been to at the Met, there's a single musician playing music from that's evening's opera. I had sort of forgotten about this, but when I got down to the platform I heard music playing, and a woman walking next to me said to her friend, "Oh god, the flutist is playing Philip Glass." At which point I could barely contain my laughter. That comment definitely made my night, even as I was considering asking if I could pay the guy playing the flute to STOP playing the music.

Okay - that was long, it's now very late, and so good night.

The Tuesday Night Catch Up

2008-04-09T00:12:00.000-04:00

Okay, here we go, starting with Friday...

Basically because I have no will power, when "The Country Girl" showed up on tdf, I was powerless to resist picking up a ticket. Especially since I just happened to have on plans for Friday night. This was, of course, before I read that at the first preview on Thursday night, the actors didn't know their lines yet. Cue plummeting expectations. I'm already had/have tickets to see the play again at the end of May, so it would probably be more fair to write about it in more detail then. At the second preview, there were only a few flubbed lines (nothing that seemed particularly out of the ordinary), but it was pretty obvious that the actors really hadn't found their parts yet - it seemed like they were basically just trying to get through the play without screwing up their lines. So they can really only improve as the run progresses since they've begun at basically rock bottom. That said, I can't say I'm really sure why anyone really felt the need to revive the play. It didn't really strike me as some long lost classic. Possibly due to the weak performances, the first act was pretty interminable, and the second act a little better. It was also really really warm in the theatre. The play's about an old alcoholic actor (played by Morgan Freeman) who's called in to take over a major role in a play. He can't remember lines very well, but thanks to support from his wife (Frances McDormand) and the director of the play (Peter Gallagher), he gets by. The play as a whole just struck me as kind of creaky. Maybe I'll think better of it next time. Oh, and the set (which I'm assuming will not change over the course of previews) was rather underwhelming. There seemed to be a turntable in the center of the stage that allowed everything to rotate for presumably quick set changes... except for some reason they felt the need to have this extremely long curtain move across the stage so the stagehands could set each scene unseen. I didn't really see the point, and I'm sure a less dreary solution could have been found. Also strange is that though the scene-change curtain looks exactly like the curtain that comes down at the beginning and end of each act, the regular curtain goes up and down, while the scene-change one goes side-to-side. Seemed like a strange waste of money to me.

Saturday afternoon was "A Catered Affair." This is basically the conversation that I had with my parents after the show:
--------
Mom: That was sad.
Me: Really sad.
Dad: Sad.

(pause)

Me: It was just so sad.
Mom: Wasn't it sad?
Dad: That was sad.

(pause)

Me: It was sad.
Mom: Is that all we can say? It was just really sad.
--------
This has got to be the most depressing musical of the season. I mean, yes there's a happy-ish ending, but it's sort of like putting on a little bandaid after being stabbed twelve times with a knife. It was too little too late. I don't necessarily mind a sad musical - there's something to be said for the catharsis from a real tear jerker. But I don't know... there was just something about the show that left me sort of empty inside. I enjoyed it (if that's the right word) while I was watching in, but when the lights came up at the end I couldn't really say I was satisfied by what I had seen. It's funny (well, not really) but when we were walking down to Penn Station after the show, we saw two people getting married on the marquee for the Hard Rock Cafe. And just seeing the bride and groom up there after having sat through the show just made me even more depressed. After sitting through a show that beats you over the head with how horrible these big catered affairs are, and then seeing one right after, it made me want to cry.

Part of the problem could be that the story is just very slight (a girl decides she's going to get married, the mother insists on a big catered affair, and that brings about nothing but disaster after disaster - and not happy goofy mishaps - very real, tearing family, friends and lives apart, disasters). It's just a really ordinary family in the 50s going from very ordinary situations. Maybe it was something how very ordinary and normal everything was that failed to truly grab me.

The performances are on a whole excellent. Faith Prince and Tom Wopart are fantastic as the parents of the bride. They give very quiet, but really devastating performances. For me, one of the big mistakes of the show, was Harvey Fierstein casting himself (or letting himself be cast - however that went, since he did write the book of the musical), because as we all know, he cannot sing. That's fine in a show like "Hairspray" because it's part of the fun. But in a serious, quiet chamber musical like this, it was honestly really painful to listen to him croak out his two songs (the first made me really want to cover my ears because he was pushing so hard, and it was obviously out of his two-not range; the second was a little quieter and since he didn't have to push as hard in that one, it was less unpleasant).

The music - this is a musical after all - is pretty and pleasant. The songs just sort of drift in and out over the course of the scenes. There aren't too many "songs" per se, there will just be scenes where one moment they're talking, and the next moment they're singing - and then back to speaking again. I can imagine people saying it's not really melodic, but maybe because I had listened to the music once or twice first (from a *cough*bootleg*cough*) I did leave humming one or two songs. I don't know that I would ever necessarily listen to a cast recording, but I think they work well in context, and it's a fine score from John Bucchino.

The set is very plain, which I think works because the show is so small. One odd thing though, was that at the end of the the show, after staring at basically just walls, fire escapes, a little bit of furniture, and lots of projections, suddenly they roll a car onto the stage. Maybe the set designer just had money left over in his budget, and felt the creative team felt this was an extremely important part of the show, but to me is seemed totally out of synch with the style of the rest of the staging. Like they needed something big and special to roll out at the finale to show the audiences why they paid so much for this little musical. But I really think it would have been less odd if they had found a simpler way to present it, with a projection on the wall or something.

In the end, I didn't enjoy the show as much as I would have liked to. I sat there the whole time really enjoying it, only being bored every now and then, but then when the lights came up at the end, I was just really depressed and unsatisfied. Maybe I need to go back and see the show again, to get a better handle on it.

And might I also point out that the ad campaign for the show is really terrible. Listening to people leaving, I think most audience members were expecting some kind of old fashioned musical comedy. I mean, it's four smiling happy people (including a bride and groom), and one guy off to the side just looking sort of gruff. Seemed like a happy romantic show, no? No.

So, then Saturday night I took the train out to Princeton to see "Arognautika," which is written and directed by Mary "Metamorphoses" Zimmerman. Well, you know what they say about lightning not striking twice. I had seen (and also disliked) that Da Vinci show that she did at Second Stage a season or two after hitting it big with "Metamorphoses," but I still had high hopes for this. It just really felt like childrens theatre for adults. Very very long (an excruciating two hours and forty minutes) children's theatre for adults. The acting, especially in the first act, was all the sort of over the top really showy irritating acting that you see in really bad kiddie theatre productions. You know what I mean - where they all talk slowly, and really loud and with too much expression? I found it really grated my nerves. They seemed to calm down in the second act, but it really didn't help. The whole thing was really pretentious, and just had none of that simple beauty of "Metamorphoses." If I hadn't shelpped all the way out to Princeton to see it, and I hadn't been with my sister (who loved it, but what does she know... she compared it to the Julie Taymor "Magic Flute" which she also loved and which I also detested), I would have seriously considered leaving at intermission. Just a really painful experience.

Tonight, I went to see a workshop production of "The Paris Commune" by the Civilians. I won't go into too much detail because it is a workshop, but I will say I really enjoyed most of it. It's about a minor revolution in France I think in 1871, in which Paris basically seceded, and for two months was it's own little communist state. It sounds really boring, I know, but the cast is very enthusiastic, and it includes a lot of peppy songs - there's even a history of the can-can thrown in to boot. Things went a little off-kilter and into that sort of overwrought over-the-top Les Miserables territory near the end when the French army finally got around to fighting back, but hopefully that's the sort of thing that the workshop is there to look at and fix. It runs through April 19 at the Public, and costs a whopping ten buck (I even paid full price for once), and I think it's really worth seeing - it's nice to see something that's both educational and entertaining (though it did sometimes feel like one of those educational shows that tours to different high schools, sponsored probably by the French Club). I definitely look forward to seeing this again in its next incarnation.

And now I'm all caught up. Gosh that was long.

On That Rodgers and Hammerstein Revival

2008-03-30T19:49:00.002-04:00

A quick note that if you've never seen "South Pacific" there are major plot spoilers included below.

------------------

I went to see "South Pacific" this afternoon, and it was an... interesting experience. I had never seen the show before in any form - either live or on film - though I did know all of those classic songs. And I think I can see why the show has not been revived on Broadway since it's original production in 1949. Time has not been kind to it. Or maybe it's that director Bartlett Sher has not been kind to it. More likely it's a combination of the two.

The first act clocks in at an hour and forty minutes. And after the thrilling overture during which the stage is pulled back to reveal the extremely large orchestra, well... I felt every minute of it. It just drags on and on. Maybe it's because I've heard all of the songs so many times before, but they each really seemed to stop the show cold. Usually after hearing an album time after time, it's illuminating to finally see the song in context. Not so here. Granted the show may be a bit creaky - it was written almost 60 years ago after all, but I think the staging was a big part of that too. The big production numbers like "Bloody Mary" or "There Is Nothing Like A Dame" seemed to fair all right, because they were more about the soldiers goofing off than really story telling. But with the love songs between Emile and Nellie, it seemed awfully odd to have them spend a large chunk of say, "Some Enchanted Evening," with them singing directly to the audience instead of facing and singing to each other. And one more quibble... is it really necessary to do what seemed like a medley of every song from the first act at the end of it? And we wonder why the first act is so long? Anyway, at the intermission I was really wondering whether this show is really just best done in concert form, so we get to hear all of the songs sung, but don't need to invest so much time in those dreary book scenes.

The second act started off at an equally underwhelming pace, with those Thanksgiving Follies just dragging on for what seemed like forever, and then "Happy Talk" which just seemed really bizarre and out of place (the book scenes with Bloody Mary made her seem like this really intelligent but somewhat bizarre looking islander, and then she just suddenly starts singing this random happy Rodgers and Hammerstein song to her daughter and her boyfriend, it just didn't work for me). Then we get "You Have To Be Carefully Taught" which sort of bumpily flows into "This Nearly Was Mine." I've read that Rodgers & Hammerstein had to really fight to keep "You Have To Be Carefully Taught In The Show," and I understand that it's an important song - but maybe it's an important song that they could have put somewhere else in the show - because we have Emile being upset about Nellie dumping him, then Cable singing this random song about prejudice, and THEN we get "This Nearly Was Mine." It just really felt like "This Nearly Was Mine" wanted to naturally flow from the conversation with Emile and Cable, without that other song interrupting everyone's train of thought. But then Paulo Szot sings "This Nearly Was Mine," and the grumbling in my head about the odd placement stopped and I started listening, and it seemed like time stood still while he was singing. That moment was the first time in the show that just absolutely totally worked - it was just him by himself singing to the audience - and it was simple, absolutely beautifully sung, and just really absolutely riveting. That song alone, provided enough energy for the show to smoothly sail home (no pun intended there). What I did notice, was after (the earth shattering, totally made the three hour show worth it) "This Nearly Was Mine" and the end of the show, there are almost no more songs. There's a moving short reprise of "Some Enchanted Evening" for Nellie, a really bizarre reprise of "Honey Bun" sung by the soldiers marching off to war that really really really should have been cut because it made no sense and really ruined a powerful moment, and then a little bit of "Dites Moi" at the very end. So what really surprised me was that the show really worked best when there were the fewest songs to interrupt. Just watching almost a play with its beautiful underscoring was really just extremely powerful. It almost made we wonder if the show would have been better (to the detriment of musical theatre in general - certainly all of those songs ending up in a trunk would have been a travesty) if the show had had only a fraction of the number of songs it ended up with.

So really what I came away with was that this is a mostly creaky, flawed musical, with fantastic music, but which when it finally gets down to business deep in the second act, can be really exciting and powerful. At least in this production. I can certainly imagine that another production that perhaps better knew what to do with the plethora of musical numbers could have created a better more cohesive whole. But as this is my one and only experience from the show, that is what I took away from it.

As for the performances, I thought the cast was pretty strong. I've only seen bits and pieces of Mary Martin's Nellie Forbush, but what I've seen made her seem far more interesting in the role of Kelli O'Hara. I think O'Hara was maybe missing some of the zaniness that the character requires. When (it looked like) she was looking into Emile's eyes when singing the end of "Some Enchanted Evening" in the first act, I really felt a sizzle, and her reprise of the song in the second act was moving as well. So I think she had the more serious part of the role down, but she was a bit lacking in the spunk department. As for Paulo Szot, I thought he was quite good. His voice was spectacular (especially in "This Nearly Was Mine"), and his acting was fine. I was rather disappointed in Matthew Morrison's Cable. His singing was fine, but he was just really bland and charmless. I was actually happy when he died in the second act, just so I wouldn't have to suffer through any more of his scenes. I then felt bad when Liat came and found out her love was dead, because I thought she was sweet. But they surely could have found someone more interesting for the role. I'm not going to go through the rest of the cast name by namer, but I really didn't have a problem with anyone else, it really a fairly strong ensemble.

Well, I think I've gone on for far too long now. So I'll leave you with a Youtube clip of Mary Martin and Ezio Pinza singing "Some Enchanted Evening." Notice had romantic it is when Emile sings the song while clutching Nellie instead of standing across the (crowded or empty) room from her:

An Exciting New Find (and other less exciting ones)

2008-03-29T23:21:00.002-04:00

Finally, after being disappointed in play after play this year, finally one has come along that I'm actually excited about. And to be perfectly honest, if you had asked me about what I was looking forward to in the new year, this wasn't even on my radar. Just this week I saw two extremely disappointing plays from young up and coming playwrights Adam Bock (Drunken City) and Itamar Moses (The Four of Us - more on that in a bit), and I suppose it's worth adding to that list Sarah Ruhl (whose Dead Man's Cell Phone was perhaps the biggest let down of all, a few weeks ago). Who would have thunk "From Up Here," a play by Liz Flahive (who?), would be better than those by such comparatively big names. Add to the shock that this was a last minute replacement for the highly anticipated "The Starry Messenger" by Kenneth Lonergan, that was supposed to star Matthew Broderick. I think most Manhattan Theatre Club subscribers are still grumbling about how a play that sounded like one of the hot tickets of the season was replaced by one by (as far as I can tell from her bio) a first time playwright, though granted starring Julie White (who, granted, is far more exciting than the always irritating Broderick). I went in knowing nothing about the plot of the play, nothing about the playwright, having read nothing on any of the message boards even though it started previews on Thursday (you know there would have been fifteen posts on "The Starry Messenger" after the first preview alone), and I can't remember the last time I was so genuinely pleasantly surprised.
The play is one of those quirky dysfunctional family affairs, with the main source of all of the conflict coming from the unstable high school-age son who was caught possibly preparing to shoot a bunch of his classmates one day. The other major characters are the mother who is a bit overwhelmed but tries hard, the step-dad who's really nice though the kids still hate him, the boy's sister who's also in high school, the kooky aunt who's in from a stint in the peace corps, and two classmates - one being a nerd who has a crush on the sister, and one who's a goody two-shoes smart kid. Put them all together in a bowl, stir well, and bake at 350 degrees for an hour and fifty minutes, and you basically have the play. I'm usually too lazy to pull out my Playbill to look up the names of actors I don't really know, but I'll make an exception here for Tobias Segal, who plays the son. He's full of quirks, but there was just something really endearing about him, and also strangely enough a lot in him in both the way the character was written and the way he was played that I found I could relate too (not that I'm on anti-depressants or that I ever considered killing classmates, but other things...).
I will say that my mother really didn't seem to like the play at all and my father didn't look too pleased either, so it maybe it has more of an appeal to the younger - I'm bad at gauging appeal but maybe the 18-29 crowd? - which I suppose the average MTC subscriber, or theatergoer for that matter, is not - I don't know for sure, but I will say I was personally An Exciting New Find (and other less exciting ones)really moved and entertained by the play, and there was just something about it that I found really easy to relate to. I'm very excited to see what Liz Flahive next has to offer.
Oh - and one more thing before I forget - I really liked the incidental music (mostly just background instrumental stuff for scene changes and whatnot), but when I looked in the Playbill afterwards I saw it was composed by Tom Kitt (of "High Fidelity" and "Next to Normal"). Was curious to see what he was going to do next, and while this obviously isn't a musical, it was an interesting surprise.

Other shows this week:

"The Four of Us" (at MTC's Stage II) by Itamar Moses. I found this to be rather dull. I'm glad I read the reviews first because they pointed out that this was based on the playwright's friendship with Jonathan Safran Foer (who I suppose is most famous for "Everything Is Illuminated," a book well worthy of its hype), so at least some scenes that probably would have been somewhat boring had a bit of that gossipy tell-all quality. Then again, I watched the whole play substituting the "real" names in my head, whether or not that was really the intention of the playwright. There is an amusing twist at the end that I enjoyed, but really, so much of the play was just so slow, that it really didn't make up for what had come before. It was definitely an interesting premise for play, just not executed as well as I would have liked.

"Juno" (at Encores). Well I can see why this show ran two weeks in its original run, and I don't think it was, as Joseph Stein insists, it was because the original was cast with two people who couldn't sing the score in the least roles. The first act is really really dull. The second was much better, with a really peculiar dream ballet focusing on a character with one arm (it was amazing to watch him dance with only one arm out for balance - I was really impressed), and the ending (it's based on "Juno and the Paycock," one of those typically really really depressing Irish plays) was quite moving. It's nice to see Encores do a musical for once that really fulfills what seems to have been its original purpose - presenting works that are in danger of never being seen again (unlike such recent choices as say... "Bye Bye Birdie" or "The Pajama Game"). I'm definitely glad I saw it, but I really have no desire to either pull out the cast recording to give it another shot, or really to ever see a production of it ever again.

I also saw "Cry-Baby" again - not on purpose, but because I already had tickets for Friday before I knew I would see an even earlier preview. I noticed they cut a couple of lines that didn't really make much sense the first time around, but overall it's the same underwhelming, unfunny, untuneful, generally unentertaining show it was the first time around. Whatever.

The (Mostly) Underwhelming

2008-03-25T22:29:00.000-04:00

Hasn't exactly been the greatest week of theatre for me...

Tonight was "Drunken City," which basically amounted to a what felt like a 90 minute episode of some lousy sitcom. It's about three female friends who go and get drunk in the city (hence the title) in the name of a bachelorette party. The playwright (Adam Bock) throws in a metaphor about the city being alive (the stage would tilt back and forth when things would go wrong, and I'm assuming that that had something to do with the living breathing city) and then the metaphor was continued with something about a pet dragon - the city and dragon stuff was all spouted by the Asian character (dragon? Asian girl? ooh yeah), and there's even a random song about the dragon at the end. The play actually starts out on what I thought was a fun note, but I guess you could say when the stage tilted the second or third time, my interest began to lose balance and I became increasingly bored. At least this was better than Bock's last "play," "The Receptionist," then again I think watching a puppy chase his tail for an hour would have been more entertaining than that waste of time (that is assuming that the puppy finally catches his tail at the end of that play, otherwise I suppose it would have been equally pointless...).

Last night was the surprisingly entertaining Australian comic/pianist Tim Minchin. He wasn't necessarily the funniest act I've ever seen, but he's an awfully talented composer and pianist, and even if I didn't necessarily find all of his songs hilarious, I found I was entertained enough just watching and listening while not paying attention to the lyrics. And I did find most of the show funny, even if not every joke struck my fancy. You can look him up easily enough on Youtube to see if he strikes your comic fancy, but I have to say he was a highlight of this less than exciting week.

Then, Sunday and Friday were parts one and two of my "Why it's a mistake to see Roundabout shows early in their runs (even on comps) when one already has tickets to see them later in their run with one's subscription." I had already seen, and not particularly cared for "Crimes of the Heart" and "The 39 Steps," but I already had tickets to see them this weekend with my subscription, so I was forced to give both a second chance. The first time I saw "Crimes," one of the actresses was out (I think it was Sarah Paulson), so at least I got to see her this time. Didn't really care for it the first time, didn't really care for it the second. My parents confirmed that they too remember enjoying the production of the play we saw all those years ago at the Airport Playhouse, and that none of us could fathom why because the play was so dull in this production. My mother said she thought there was more humor in that production. I dunno - maybe it's a lousy production, maybe the play is just really dated - but why this show won the Pulitzer for drama is far beyond me.
I didn't dislike "The 39 Steps" quite as much the second time, though I chalk that up to sitting in the first row orchestra this time, which usually helps. I still didn't find the show at all funny, but the movie wasn't so fresh in my mind this time, so the story was entertaining enough to watch. And when a dummy fell off the stage and hit me near the end of the show, well... at least that was a totally random and unique amusement.

Saturday was the Met's cursed production of "Tristan und Isolde." I had seen the La Scala production of the opera at Symphony Space a month or two ago, and I have to say there's no comparison to seeing it live. Opera at the movies is all well and good, but it just can't compare to the thrill of being in the same room with the orchestra and those voices. Yes it's very very long, and very very slow, but the music was beautiful enough to at least keep me awake for the whole five hours, even if my mind did wander. As for the performances, Deborah Voigt as Isolde was excellent (as usual) and Robert Dean Smith (I think that was his name) was a fine Tristan, even if his voice was at times totally drowned out by the lovely Voigt, or the orchestra. I don't think I need to see another production of the opera for another few years at least, but I'm definitely glad I went.

Thursday was a play called "Betrayed," that got excellent reviews from the critics, and was highly recommended by one of my uncles. That uncle is now on my list of people to never ever listen to show recommendations from ever again. It was agony to sit through. It was written by a journalist, and it was about the Iraqis who work for the Americans over there, and how poorly they're treated. There were I think two scenes that were well done and quite moving. But other than that, I was in pain. I think this is just a case of the playwright assuming the audience will inherently care about what happens because it's an important subject, so good craft need not apply. No denying the importance of the topic, but I don't need to sit there for close to two hours (no intermission) in a cramped seat, in a theatre with no air conditioning, and listen to these rather two-dimensional characters suffer. If I wanted to experience dry journalism, I would have read the article. If I'm going to invest two hours or more, I want well crafted, interesting drama. I felt similarly about "The Conscientious Objector" a few weeks ago - in that play the author assumed I cared about the relationship between President Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr during the Vietnam War. I was bored stiff (spent most of the first act staring at the abstract painting of an American flag on the back wall and looking for random pictures - one section, for example, looked like an evil bunny) and left that one at intermission.

Wednesday, was another political play (I usually try to avoid plays about politics because they do usually bore me, this was just an unhappy coincidence) - the second preview of "Something You Did." I went with two other people, and we all agreed it wasn't as bad as we were expecting (not sure if that's a compliment or not). While "Betrayed" was say 90% dry political rhetoric, this was only maybe 60%. The one scene wonder Adriane Lenox, who won a Tony for her ten minutes on stage in "Doubt," once again has exactly one scene to perform, and once again is makes a huge impact, being the highlight of the evening. This time instead of playing the mother of the unseen source of controversy (in "Doubt," that being a boy who may or may not have been molested by the priest), this time she's the daughter (of a man who was killed, and whose death may or may not have been the fault of an imprisoned political activist). Joanna Gleason gets the main role in the play - a woman who helped plant a bomb that killed a man, and who's been in prison for 30 years, and who is now up for parole. It may have been that it was only the second preview and she hadn't found the character yet, but I found her really rather unconvincing - I was never able to forget that I was watching Joanna Gleason playing a role - she just didn't lose herself in the part, and her character really didn't interest me until a somewhat moving monologue near the end. There are some other characters, two of which seem to be there just to recite dull political arguments. The play isn't awful, but it's not great either. Certainly not the worst play I saw that week, but I can't really say I liked it all that much. I guess it's a solid "okay."

And now I'm caught up and I can go turn my brain to mush by watching "Big Brother." Wee....

Crying About "Cry-Baby"

2008-03-18T23:42:00.001-04:00

Oh dear, it's been a month since I've updated....

Anyway...

I don't mean to be overly pessimistic or mean, but really - this has to be one of the worst seasons for new musicals in recent memory. Let's look at the list so far: Xanadu, Young Frankenstein, The Little Mermaid, Passing Strange, In The Heights, Cry-Baby, and the yet to start previews A Catered Affair. Of those I've seen (everything but A Catered Affair), there is only one (yes ONE) that I could with a straight face put in the category of "good" (In The Heights), and even that's not great (thanks to it's corny book), but so far it's the best of a really sorry lot. I had high hopes for Cry-Baby and A Catered Affair, but I went to the third preview of Cry-Baby tonight, and well, I guess all of my eggs of hope are going in A Catered Affair's basket.

Cry-Baby basically falls in the same category of Xanadu and Young Frankenstein - a tongue-in-cheek, campy, based on a movie, musical comedy. Like Xanadu, this is a show that seems to have tried to move into a theatre like the Variety Arts off-Broadway, discovered it had been turned into condos, and just kept walking up the street until it hit Broadway. And like Young Frankenstein, the creators seem to have missed the point of musical comedy - in order to be a successful musical, you don't just need any old music, you need tuneful, catchy songs with hopefully witty lyrics; and in order to be a successful musical COMEDY, you actually need material that's funny. You'd think this sort of thing would be common sense. But once again, we have a show with generic sounding, (this time 50's pop inspired), bland songs, and lines that I'm sure were supposed to be each and every one a gem, but instead of diamonds, we get something more akin to cubic zirconium. And for that matter, not only do the jokes all fall flat - both in the book and in the lyrics - but the book has trouble really making any sense. And that inept book is from the same writers who did so well adapting John Waters' Hairspray (Mark O'Donnell and Thomas Meehan). Maybe we just needed Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman to write the score, and Jack O'Brien to direct, and then we could have some sort of entertaining musical.

The cast is a pretty sorry lot. The ensemble is fine, Harriet Harris (who bewilderingly plays the grandmother, though she isn't nearly old enough for the part - maybe there was some sort of joke there that I totally missed?) tries her best with really rotten material (her big second act solo is particularly excruciating), but James Snyder, who is making his Broadway debut in the title role, walks around looking something like the living dead the entire time, and really just has no starry sparkle at all - he does a decent Elvis impression at the end, but that's about the only mark he makes. Honestly, anyone in the cast could be replaced - even at intermission - and I don't think anyone in the audience would notice. With the possible exception of Alli Mauzey's Lenora and Chester Gregory II's Dupree, who are particularly weird, they're really just a generic bunch of interchangeable pretty faces.

I will say, that while I found the first act to be torture, the second act was (probably due to my through the floor low expectations), intermittently tolerable. There's a peppy song in the jail, made actually sort of exciting thanks to Rob Ashford's excellent choreography (the choreography, by the way, was the only thing that was really exciting or noteworthy in the show), and the final scene was something close to entertaining, I think. The music started to get a little catchier, and the jokes a little funnier, but I think I was so desperate for something entertaining at that point, that I may have just given in to its mediocrity. But I guess when a show is so bad, what would normally be mediocre can be thought of as fun.

I don't think I mentioned the sets yet, but they are totally unremarkable. The only thing strange I noticed was there was one scene where one character is outside a wedding shop, and looking at a wedding dress, and another character comes up and asks if he is looking at wedding rings. And for some reason he says yes. When it is perfectly obvious that there is not a ring in sight in that window. It's a wedding dress. You'd think they could have filled the window with rings to suit the line, but that's the sort of lack of attention to detail... or any entertainment value for that matter, that this show severely lacks.

People are always complaining about all of the revivals (though I think Faith Prince said in an "A Catered Affair" interview (this is me paraphrasing) that why do people complain about revivals of musicals, when opera houses will do Puccini season after season, and there's nary a peep?), two of the (by far) best musicals on Broadway right now are revivals: "Sunday in the Park With George," and "Gypsy." Maybe if we could get some good new musicals on Broadway, we wouldn't need to pull out "Gypsy" again for it's fortieth revival in forty-one years.

I really really really hope "A Catered Affair" is good.

A "Dead" Cat + Tristan und Albee

2008-02-19T23:46:00.000-05:00

Do you hear that loud screeching coming from over from the Broadhurst Theatre on 44th Street? That's the sound of a "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" being skinned alive. You don't hear any screeching you say? Well, maybe the being skinned on stage was dead on arrival, and that was just the sound of the audience snoring. Tennessee Williams may be a brilliant playwright, and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" may be a brilliant play, but it's awfully hard to tell either of those things after sitting for three hours watching the current Broadway revival. The one saving grace of the production is Anika Noni Rose - and even she is merely very good, though not great, her performance probably only being memorable because of the mediocrity that surrounds her. And what a sad thing it is to see actors like James Earl Jones and Phylicia Rashad turn in such disappointing performances. Terrence Howard, the production's Brick, who is adequate but really just lacks that special spark (much like Jason Patric did in the last revival), I suppose we can forgive since he is making his Broadway debut. Phylicia Rashad, who was so wonderful two years in a row with "Raisin in the Sun" and then "Gem of the Ocean," just turns in a very ordinary performance as Big Mamma. She's not horrible (certainly not reaching the low of her performance in "Cymbeline"), but there's certainly nothing special going on there that any other actress could not equal if not surpass. James Earl Jones, however, has to be the biggest let down of the evening. First of all, though they refer to the fact that Big Daddy is celebrating his 65th birthday, Jones looks and acts more like he's celebrating his 85th. He mumbled or rushed through at least 1/3 of his lines, to the point where I would only get a general idea of what he was saying, because some things were simply impossible to understand. With the dim performances from Jones and Howard, I'm sure you can imagine that how the second act, which consists mostly of Big Daddy and Brick talking by themselves, was an seemingly interminable bore. As for the physical production, the set is pretty bland and cheap looking, and the lighting was surprisingly poor. I think audiences generally don't really notice lighting design, especially in plays where it's just supposed to look very natural. So I think the design here makes one appreciate how challenging it is to do really subtle designs, especially since the design here is so poor - with transitions happening far too abruptly. And don't get me started on how every time there was a big important speech, the stage would get very dark except for a spotlight on the actor reciting the monologue. This was probably more director Debbie Allen's fault than the lighting designer's (have either ever heard of something called subtlety?), but nonetheless it was extremely irritating. Also irritating, and rather confusing was what the purpose of a having a random guy playing a saxophone walk on stage and play a little live music as each act started. According to the Playbill, the sax music was all composed by Tex Allen (aka brother of Phylicia and Debbie), so I guess they figured if they had two siblings involved, why not randomly throw in the third so he wouldn't be left out? Very bizarre. I had other issues, like how some important scenes were played too much for comedy, to the play's detriment, but honestly, there's so much wrong here, that I don't really see the point in going on any further. This is the sort of wrongheaded production I would expect to see from the Roundabout - you know, great sounding cast (on paper), great classic play, and mysteriously inept production. This was probably the most disappointing play so far this season, just because it sounded so interesting... in theory.

While I'm on the subject of "entertainment" that is both very slow and very long, I went to see the screening of the La Scala production of "Tristan und Isolde" yesterday and Symphony Space. Four hours and forty five minutes (with two intermissions), that probably could have been far more interesting had it been half the length. I will say that I stayed to the bitter end, and to Wagner's credit he does save the best for the last - the "Liebestod" (the final, deservedly famous aria) was spectacular and I do think it is ever so much more exciting to watch after having sat there bored for so long. I was going to say that aria is like a drink of water after a long trek through the desert, but that seems a little too obvious a metaphor, so I'm going to go with the taste of food that you break fast with after Yom Kippur. Okay, there are a couple of interesting nuggets along the way, but nothing compares to the final overwhelming thrill of that last aria that just made me forget how bored I had been, as I sat for those few minutes totally enraptured. I'm seeing the Met's production (featuring Deborah Voigt, Ben Heppner, and interesting enough the same Brangane as the La Scala production, Michelle DeYoung, who was a highlight of the film), so maybe I'll get more out of it after hearing the score a second time, or from seeing it live (or both).

Oh, Saturday I went to see "Me, Myself & I" (the new Albee play) at the McCarter, and let me say it was a hoot. Definitely typical Albee, but just really funny - and I never had a chance to be bored because I never knew what was going to happen next. The basic premise is that there are two identical twins, named OTTO and otto, and OTTO decides he doesn't want to be a twin anymore (and that he's going to become Chinese). Very silly stuff, but really entertaining. It's supposed to come to New York in the fall, and I for one am anxiously awaiting the chance to see it again.

I'm sure I've seen other stuff that I've forgotten about, but those are my recent theatrical highlights (or is it lowlights), anyway.

The Sl-ugh Bearers of Kayrol Island

2008-01-30T23:25:00.000-05:00

You have to wonder sometimes how theatres choose which shows to present. The Vineyard Theatre has an odd record of musicals, with "Avenue Q" and "[title of show]" being big hits (although "[title of show]" was already acclaimed from its previous runs, and "Avenue Q," if I recall already had great buzz from previous readings and from presentations of pieces of the show), and "Miracle Brothers" (the show about dolphins) being one of the worst musicals of that season. Well, their latest foray into musical theatre is "The Slug Bearers of Kayrol Island, or the Friends of Dr. Rushower." And let me just say, the show absolutely lives up to its dreadful title. This is just one of those shows that makes you shake your head in disbelief and wonder who could possibly have thought this was any good. Though the material is a big pile of sludge, there is one positive aspect of the production - the sets are fabulous. The libretto is based on a comic book/graphic novel, and so they project sometime animated, sometimes still, pieces of the artist's work on the back wall, and on two side panels. And so, like "Persepolis" (though the movie's script wasn't nearly as awful as this), it's a joy to watch the scene changes. And they even came up with cool uses, like actually having the projected drawing of the elevator door open and close. Also enjoyable is the drummer, who seemed to be having a much better time than I was. In fact, I was so bored near the end of the second act, that I just stopped paying attention to the actors, and just watched the drummer enthusiastically drum away. I was in the first row and he was right in my line of sight, so it was perfect. If only I had thought to watch him sooner, maybe I would have liked the show even more.
The absurd and pretty much incomprehensible is as follows: Most appliances (phones, blenders, toasters) have lead slugs in them that give them added weight to them so they feel more hefty and expensive. So the people of Kayrol aisle make these slugs, and in exchange are paid with some sort of date leaves. They are also slowly becoming asexual, only enjoying calling women up on the phone, though not so much interested in intercourse. So Dr. Rushower, I think, has something to do with the production of the slugs, though I'm not sure. He also has a daughter who's having trouble finding a husband. Then there's a man who thinks appliance instruction manuals are the highest form of poetry. So, he ends up meeting Dr. Rushower and his daughter, and the two of them eventually decide to go to Kayrol to bring this great appliance manual poetry to the residents. They are specifically told not to eat any food on the island or to drink "Kayrol Cola" (which is supposedly just dirty water and codeine). Well, that's the first act. The second act takes place mostly on the island, and if the first act was somewhat amusing if only when listening to the character played by the charming Bobby Steggert read his bizarre poetry, the second act, which I won't describe is totally dull, and makes even less sense than the first - especially because it ties up almost nothing in the end. We never what's causing all of the sexual mayhem with the Kayrol inhabitants, we never learn what is so dangerous about Kayrol food and drink, and Emmanual (the Steggert character) ends up pretty much where he started, making his character basically almost totally pointless and excisable.
The music - a sort of jazzy light rock score - is fine at the beginning, but eventually all of the songs just blended together and I couldn't really tell one from the other. The most enjoyable music is the play out music after the show has ended - and not just because the show was finally over - it made very nice relaxing background music, once the lyrics were removed.
I will say that I'm sort of curious to seek out the comic book that the show was based on, or maybe another one by the same artist, because I was very intrigued by the art, and because I'm hoping that the plot makes more sense in its original form.
One thing I gleaned from the show is that I should stay away from Kayrol Island (the place). I suggest you heed the musical's advice and also stay away (both from the place AND the musical).

On Springer, Leigh, Beckett, Snicket (and more)

2008-01-29T23:40:00.001-05:00

Talk about random, here's the strange collections of shows I saw in the last week or so.

Tonight was "Jerry Springer: The Opera" - the first of a two night only concert staging of the opera, starring Harvey Keitel in the title role, David Bedella recreating his Olivier Award winning performance as Warm Up Guy/Satan, and with Emily Skinner, Max von Essen and Linda Balgord (among others) in featured parts. Considering the rather large cast required, and the controversial subject matter (more on that in a moment) I guess there's no real chance of this ever going to Broadway. But if it does, run don't walk to the box office with the inevitable discount in hand. Because it is absolutely brilliant... in the first act anyway. The second act takes on a slightly more serious tone (or maybe it just seemed that way because more of the jokes fell flat), which is actually fine, but no where near the awesome wonder that we witnessed before the intermission. The first act is basically just "The Jerry Springer" show set to music... well, to be more specific, "The Jerry Springer" show turned into an opera. And no, they don't mean "opera" like "Rent" is an opera - this isn't just a sung through musical - it's a real opera - the music would easily be at home in an opera house, though I can't imagine any opera house having the chutzpah to present it, what with them relying on donors for funding, and all. In the first act we get a man who has a fiancee... and who is also dating her best friend (played by Linda Balgord... in a green wig and bright pink tights) AND a "chick with a dick" (played by the extremely talented Max von Essen, whose voice I never knew had such a range) then we get a man who wants to be his girlfriend's baby (really a baby - he eventually takes off his clothes to reveal he's wearing a diaper); and then finally there's the misunderstood pole dancer (who gets probably the best song in the show, the extremely touching "I Just Wanna Dance") whose husband is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which eventually leads to the act one finale - a tap dancing line of Klansman (all of which is absolutely hilarious). Then in act two, Jerry goes to hell and Satan makes him do a show down there, with the guests being Jesus (played by Diaper Man, and who says he is "slightly gay"), Adam and Eve, Mary (who was "raped by G-d"), and finally the big man himself. And people wonder why this show gets protests (supposedly there were protests outside of Carnegie Hall tonight, though with the crowd outside of the theatre, and my rush to get in, I didn't actually notice them). As I said before, the first act is an absolute laugh riot. But I suppose once the opera-ized actual show was finished, they couldn't do just another show for the second act because that would have made it too much of a one-joke evening. So, while the second act solution they came up with isn't really the greatest, it was at least never actually boring.
I've had a dvd of the original London production sitting on my desk for a few years, so I'm going to have to see how it compares. My boss, who was also there tonight, and who saw it in London actually said that he thought this version was better than what he saw in London. So anyway, fingers crossed for a full production on Broadway (hey, "The Color Purple" is closing, and I bet "Jerry Springer" might be able to squeeze in there before "Shrek" officially grabs it), though my breath will not be held.

Sunday I went to the movies to see "Persepolis" which left me decidedly underwhelmed. The animation was definitely beautiful, but I found the screenplay to be extremely weak - the movie was just so slow (it felt about as long as "There Will Be Blood," which was really twice the length of this), and there was just too much voice over/narration for my taste, so that I never really cared about what happened to any of the characters - even the one whose story this was. As a visual work of art, the movie deserves acclaim, but as an overall film, I just don't get the hype.

Saturday night was "Happy Days" (the Beckett play, not the musical based on the TV show) starring the always brilliant Fiona Shaw. I can't say I've ever been a really big fan of the play, but if you have to listen to someone babble on for 100 minutes or so, you can't do much better than Fiona Shaw. I had seen the play a few years ago with Lea Delaria at "Classic Stage Co," and while I don't remember all that much about it, I'm pretty confident that Shaw makes a more compelling Winnie than Delaria. And I have to say her transformation in the second act (as a result of her now being buried up to her neck in sand instead of her waist, and all that takes away from her) was especially devastating to watch. It was almost sort of worth wading through act one, to see that second act transformation. If you get a chance to go (I think it only runs through Saturday), try to sit as close as possible for the best effect. I was in the first row, and well, that certainly helped.

Saturday afternoon, for added randomness was The Little Orchestra's performance of "The Composer is Dead," written and narrated by Lemony Snicket - well, actually as usual Mr. Snicket didn't show up , so his representative, Daniel Handler - who looks remarkably like Snicket showed up instead ;O) Anyway, the piece is really very very funny - and educational. It's apparently going to be released as a book with cd in early 2009, and I'm sure it will be worth buying. What happens is, a composer is found dead (to paraphrase Snicket, "I guess you could say he was decomposing" hyuck, hyuck, hyuck), and so a police officer goes to the orchestra to find out who killed him. And so he goes through each section of the orchestra (violins, violas, concertmaster, percussion, woodwinds, etc) and asks them about their alibis were for the previous evening. And so they say what they were doing (the violins were playing a waltz, for example) and then they demonstrate by playing. I can certainly see this as being useful for elementary school music classes. Though it is fun for children and adults alike... unless you listen to the whiny people who talked through almost the entire performance, and whined that since they mentioned composers like Mozart, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bach (etc) that the kids hadn't heard of, it wasn't appropriate for them. Them, I wanted to turn around and smack.

Friday night was the extremely enjoyable "Two Thousand Years," by Mike Leigh. It's basically a slice of life about a Jewish family in England, that talks about family life, and politics in Israel, and just being Jewish. I think this is one of those shows that you really have to be Jewish to understand. The first act is fine, but in the second act, around a third of the way in, a new character comes in who just turns the whole play up-side-down, and who is absolutely hilarious. For almost the entire time she was onstage, the audience (or, me and the people around me) were in stiches. The rest of the play, is still generally interesting, but that one character alone makes the entire play worthwhile. Oh, and I will say that the entire ensemble does an excellent job. Not a weak link in the cast.

Tuesday and Wednesday were two off-Broadway shows that I don't really care to say much about, because I didn't really care for them. Wednesday was Will Eno's "Oh, The Humanity," a collection of five bewildering short plays that I can't say I really understood. I really liked Eno's "Thom Pain (based on nothing)," but none of these short plays (well, except maybe the fourth one), really excited me.
Tuesday was the first preview (with all that implies) of "Hunting and Gathering" at Primary Stages. It starts off quite amusingly, with the characters talking about life in New York City - about the quirks of the different boroughs, and about the various states of apartment life (buying, rental, couch surfing, apartment sitting, etc). And the characters start off as sort of quirky and charming. Unfortunately, after a half hour or so, their charm wore of and their quirks became extremely irritating, and really I just wanted them to shut up already. This could have made for a fun short play, but it just rambled on for so long with nary a point (or much plot) in sight, that I left very unsatisfied. It was a first preview, so in theory there's hope for it. There are also theories that the universe was created by a flying cow princess named Petunia. I don't really think it's likely that the universe was created by Petunia the cow, and I don't think it's likely "Hunting and Gathering" will improve over the course of previews. But hey, you never know.

Week in Review

2008-01-20T23:01:00.000-05:00

Okay, let's see if I can get back on track to do these weekly, instead of the sporadic monthly randomness.

SO, starting with this evening and going backwards...

Tonight I went to see what I think was the seventh preview performance of "Next to Normal" (it started previews... I think this past Wednesday). The buzz on the message boards, granted it seems mostly from people who saw it when it was called "Feeling Electric" and was presented at NYMF a few years ago, has been quite positive. On the other hand my boss saw it Thursday night, and like me had not seen it at NYMF, and thought it was "okay." I think I sort of see myself in both camps: I left the theatre on a high note, but I had a lot of problems with what went on onstage. The basic premise of the show, without giving anything important away, is that there is this mother who suffers from depression and has hallucinations, who has been on a cocktail of pills for something like sixteen years, and things just aren't really working. So, of course, her family is a little (?) screwed up. I'd say the show is mostly sung through. The rock score is by Tom Kitt (aka, composer of that Broadway hit "High Fidelity" which, credit where it's due, does make for a rather enjoyable cast recording, despite how awful the show as a whole is/was), with an unfortunate book and set of lyrics by the rather less talented Brian Yorkey. There were a few songs I liked, at least from the point of view of the music (there's no song list in the Playbill, so don't ask me to name them... not that that necessarily would have helped), but many of the others just sort of blended together and started sounding sort of generic and the same. The lyrics were on the whole pretty awful. Most of the rhymes seemed kind of forced - like one character would say some random line about remembering "her first tooth" and you knew they only threw that in there because they needed something to rhyme with "truth." And when the rhymes weren't being forced, there was usually a cliche in there to make me cringe (things along the lines of "this house is not a home"). As for the book, the first act seemed kind of slow. There were some interesting quirks along the way that did grab my interest, but it was something of a bumpy ride. I really enjoyed the beginning of the second act - things finally seemed to slow down and get interesting - but then somewhere maybe 2/3 through the act, I think they realized that the show couldn't be four hours long, so they'd better get up and resolve things, and characters suddenly seemed a little more willing to listen to each other for the sake of resolution, and some (like the daughter) seemed to suddenly become a whole lot more responsible and normal after just one talk with her mother? - then there was a really nice twist, and then the whole thing ended with one of those tacked on happy inspirational songs (sort of like "The Song of Purple Summer" in "Spring Awakening"). I think the last song was called "Into the Light," and it seemed just stuck on there so the audience would get all emotional and teary eyed, and they would have something to hum on the way out, and they would leave on a satisfied note, despite the unevenness of what they had just witnessed. And I'm kind of ashamed to admit that it sort of worked. Granted somewhere between leaving the theatre and getting onto the subway, the song morphed into "Bring Me To Light" from "Violet" - a song that, if I recall, serves the same purpose in that show - but that said, at least the show was able to leave a good taste the audiences mouths.
As for the performances, the cast is quite strong (with one exception), with the underrated Brian D'Arcy James (as the father) and the new to me Aaron Tveit (as the song) being particularly spectacular. Alice Ripley has the lead role of the mother and she definitely left me with very mixed feelings. I've always had a soft spot for her and Emily Skinner since "Side Show." But I can't help but think she may have been miscast in this. For most of the show, I enjoyed her performance, though her voice sounded kind of ragged (it seems like it's a really vocally punishing part, and I wonder whether she's survive the run), but I rationalized that the part is hard and it was a two show day. But then in the second act, there was a scene with the father and son together - and no Ripley, and I couldn't help think how much more enjoyable the show was when she wasn't on stage. When she was offstage, I didn't need to sit there and wonder whether her voice was going to hold out or rationalize away the fault, I could just sit back and enjoy the show. And really, I don't know that her acting was really up to snuff either. Granted it's only the seventh preview, but I don't know that I really every bought her as the mother.
As for the visual stuff, the lighting (by "Spring Awakening" lighting designer) Kevin Adam is excellent - he certainly is fond of those exposed light bulbs. The set - made up of black pipes fashioned into three-level scaffolding, and with some pictured panels, was initially exciting (like, when I first walked into the theatre I went "wow") but didn't really grow on me. And though there is very little choreography, the one big dance number - the first act finale, was really embarrassing - it looked almost like the actors just made up their own dances.
Anyway, back to the 'granted it's the seventh preview' note, it IS only the first week of previews, and I certainly hope they'll pull their act together in time for opening. It does concern me that they already had a run on NYMF and have already had a lot of time to fix things, so I wonder if this is as good as it will get (in which case, it's probably hopeless), but I think I'm going to try to see the show again closer to opening to see if things change. If I had really totally hated the show, or if was just 'eh' on the show, I wouldn't bother returning, but there was something interesting going on stage, so I want to see if the show jells over the course of previews. Should be interesting.

Onto the next show... this afternoon I saw "Crimes of the Heart." I see all of the Roundabout shows with a subscription, so I should really probably not see shows twice - or at least twice before I've gotten the obligatory subscription viewing out of the way. But I have little will power for such things. So I went this afternoon. I remember seeing a production of the play a long time ago - possibly when I was in elementary school - at the Airport Playhouse - I know it was a long time ago, because I think it was part of a subscription, and it's been a really long time since we've done that. Anyway, my memory of the show was that I really liked it, so I was actually looking forward to the Roundabout's production. Well, maybe my tastes have changed. The show is okay - like "Next to Normal," it does have an ending that was at least satisfying, but it mostly just seemed like really slow going. The guy next to me fell asleep and was snoring in the second act. It was kind of annoying, but I couldn't say I blamed him. Not that he really missed anything. There is some fine ensemble acting going on - and though there was an understudy on for Babe (normally played by Lily Rabe), the understudy was just as good as the regulars. Of course, the show just started previews on Friday, so that could be part of the reason - though I thought the others had played the role in the production at Williamstown that the Roundabout plucked for their season. I guess I'd say I liked the show, but it was just really slow.

Saturday night was "Come Back Little Sheba'' again. The show seems to really be splitting audiences. I enjoyment seems to depend on how you feel about a play written and set 58 years ago. Some people just don't seem to buy it, calling it dated and stale. That didn't really bother me at all, but then again I'm used to watching old black and white movies and reruns of "I Love Lucy," so such things generally don't occur to me. I still love the play, and the production still moved me, and that's all I have to say on that.

Friday night, I went to a reading of the first act of Stephen Schwartz's opera based on "A Seance on a Wet Afternoon." Schwartz is, of course, the composer of hit shows like "Wicked," "Pippin" and "Godspell," none of which I'd say I'm all that fond of, but anyway.... The opera didn't really sound much like his musicals. Maybe it's due to the fact that opera singers were performing instead of musical theatre folk, but it really sounded just like your typical modern American opera - except it was slightly more melodic than something like... say... "Margaret Garner." I won't say much since this was apparently the first time it was being presented anywhere, and was in fact Schwartz's first time hearing the score sung my professional singers. I will say, that I hope the opera comes to New York eventually - it doesn't premiere until Fall 2009 - and then in Santa Barbara, so I imagine I have some waiting to do. Lauren Flanagan played the lead role in the reading (the Kim Stanley role in the film), and I hope they keep her for the full production, because she was wonderful. Schwartz said after the presentation that he's maybe 1/3 of the way through the second act, and then he'll start orchestrating some time this summer. So there's definitely a long road ahead. Still, based on a first reading of the first act, I'd say this is something interesting to look out for.

Thursday night was "The Maddening Truth" and I think it was maybe the second preview (I don't know what it is about me and early previews). I found it to be pretty much a total bore. It was the second preview of a world premiere play, so there's alway hope for improvement, but unlike "Next to Normal," I have absolutely no desire to find out if things turn around.

Wednesday night was "The 39 Steps." I know the critics - Brantley especially - just loved it, but I think it just wasn't my type of humor. I even watched the movie the night before to prepare myself so I wouldn't miss jokes. And the movie seemed really lame and ripe for parody, so I was especially looking forward to it. But all that four actor playing hundreds of roles as a source of humor doesn't really do it for me. It was silly and slight and certainly painless (I'm not dreading going back to see it a second time with the subscription), but just not for me. I'd say - as a barometer - if you liked "Stones in his Pockets" (which I didn't) you'll probably like this, because if memory serves, it was a similar type of humor.

And I think that about catches me up.

'night all.

Ooh - one more non-theatre related item - on a more regular bloggy, random note. I went the Hershey store after "Crimes of the Heart" because I was having a craving for Good & Plenty and I was near by. And on my way to the checkout line I found a box of Hersey's Milk Chocolate Bar with Green Tea Creme, which I of course bought because I love green tea flavored sweets, and I love trying new candy. It's in a plain white box, the writing on the bars is all in some Asian language, and the back of the box (where they have nutritional info and ingredients) says the bars were manufactured in Dubai. Huh. Didn't know they made candy there. Anyway, the bars are really yummy - the chocolate tastes more like Nestle than the Hershey chocolate I'm used to, and the green tea creme is quite tasty as well. They're obscenely unhealthy of course (even with .1g of trans fat per serving), but what - candy is supposed to be healthy? Anyway, if you like green tea and you like chocolate, and you happen to be by the Hershey store in Times Square (the chances of anyone reading this satisfying all of those criterion and actually listening to me, a random blogger, is probably about as good as me winning the lottery, but I put it out there because "hey, you never know.")

Welcome Back, Little Sheba (plus thoughts on some long winded entertainments)

2008-01-10T00:26:00.001-05:00

A few years ago, someone posted on some message board or other that "Come Back, Little Sheba" was going to be on tv that evening, and it was a must see, especially for Shirley Booth's Tony and Oscar winning performance in it. I admit to being a bit skeptical (there's was just something about that title that reeked of musty, dull old classic) but I set my Tivo anyway, and eventually sat down to watch it. And then I watched it a few more times, and then I bought the dvd and watched that a few more times. And since then I've been crossing my fingers for a live stage production to come along, and with each season that it didn't I just figured there wasn't anyone who was willing or capable of filling Booth's shoes (sort of like why we haven't had a Broadway revival of "Funny Girl.") Well, Manhattan Theatre Club finally announced a revival with... S. Epatha Merkerson. Not someone I'd have pictured in the role, though to be fair I didn't really have any idea who she was, since she's apparently most known for her role on "Law & Order," a show I've managed never to have ever watched. Anyway, even though I already have a ticket to see the show next week, I couldn't resist seeing it tonight (in what ended up being a first row seat - woo hoo). I resisted the urge to pop in the dvd before going tonight, so I could forget as much about the movie as I could (as if forgetting anything about the film were really possible). I am pleased to report, as perhaps not the most impartial juror because I was really rooting for this to be good, that the production is fantastic. Merkerson is no Shirley Booth (then again, who is?), but she most certainly makes the role her own, and I have to admit watching her kept me teary eyed through most of the second act. While Shirley Booth's Lola is sort of bubbly and feels instantly like your cooky best friend, Merkerson's Lola is a bit calmer, and if she isn't as instantly likeable as Booth, she definitely quietly grew on me, as her 'put on a happy face' demeanor was chipped away. Also particularly fantastic, is Kevin Anderson as Doc. His big scene in the second act - which I think, partially due to some creepy, cruel lines that I didn't remember from the film - was especially disturbing and devastating.
Anyway, this is a production that is well worth seeing.

Monday night, I went to see "Die Walkure" at the Met. I think I bought a ticket because Deborah Voigt was going to be doing Sieglinde. For whatever reason, I bought a ticket for the season premiere of the production, and then right after that I realized she wasn't going to start in the role until later in the run. I all turned out for the best, because Stephanie Blythe is only doing Fricka in the non-Voigt performances, and though it isn't the largest role, her scene with Wotan was the highlight of the evening. I can't remember ever seeing such sparks fly between the two characters before. The first two times I saw "Walkure" (this was my third) it was as part of the complete four-opera cycle, and maybe it had something to do with having been prepared by the "Das Rheingold," or knowing that this was just a small part of the story, but for whatever reason, I don't remember the opera seeming to be so damn long before. It just went on and on and on, and just when I thought an act might end, another scene came along. Oy. Maybe I just don't like "Walkure" as a stand alone opera. I have to say, Gottedamerung, though perhaps one of the least beloved, has always been my favorite of the cycle. And considering, that was the opera Wagner originally sat down to write (with Rheingold, Walkure, and Siegfried being, as I understand it, necessary explanations of the final story) I don't see why that one isn't performed by itself more often. If I recall, it has a synopsis of everything the audience missed at the beginning, anyway. Enough of that aside though. I will say that was enough beautiful music in there to keep me from total misery, and the ending is particularly satisfying, but though it's probably blasphemy, if you're not doing the whole cycle anyway, it wouldn't kill the music director to trim a bit here and there from the opera. (*now ducking the rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at me my Wagner worshipers*)

Also, too long, but ultimately satisfying, was "There Will Be Blood." I know it's being touted as the best movie in years, there was no reason it had to be two hours and forty minutes long. After the movie was over, I was talking about something that happened near the end of the movie with my parents, and my father reminded my mother and I of a scene that had happened at the beginning of the movie. And honestly, at that point, that scene had happened so long ago that I had totally forgotten it - I think my brain must have filed it as part of a different movie. I will say that Daniel Day Lewis is fantastic in his role (and I imagine deserves to sweep the acting awards), as is Paul Dano. The beginning of the movie is excellent, the middle section is interminable, and the final section is immensely satisfying - Is it worth the slog it takes to get there? Yeah, probably. Not that I go to that many movies, but my personal award for best direction would have to go to either Tim Burton for "Sweeney Todd" or Julian Schnabel for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" over Paul Thomas Anderson. But that's just me. I probably would have been happier if there had been an intermission (hey, if "Gone With The Wind" had one, why not this?), so maybe I'll enjoy the film more once it's on dvd, and I can pause and take breaks at my leisure.

And as usual, it's far too late for me to write anymore. Good night.

David Ives x 2, and Some Other Catching Up From This Lazy Boy

2007-12-28T23:24:00.000-05:00

I've been distracted/lazy lately (take your pick, though I think it's a combination of the two), though that doesn't mean I've been slouching on my theatregoing. So here's a quick roundup of everything I can remember seeing, hopefully not leaving anything important out:

David Ives seems to be an awfully busy playwright right around now. His adaptation of Mark Twain's "Is He Dead?" opened earlier this month, and then today was the first preview of his new play, "New Jerusalem."

First "New Jerusalem," because I just saw it and so it's freshest in my mind. "New Jerusalem" sits firmly in the category of 'educational theatre.' As far as I'm concerned, it's a very lively lecture on the philosophy of Baruch de Espinoza. Not that that's a bad thing. I went in knowing absolutely nothing about Espinoza, and I left having been very much entertained, and interested in learning more about him... though if the interview with Ives in the lobby is to believed (and I suspect it is), I probably wouldn't much enjoy slogging through Espinoza's writings. Thanks to clear and unpretentious writing from Ives, and a lively performance David Garrison in the role of Espinoza, I actually think I understood what was going on. The other characters, even though played by greats such as Richard Easton (who, since it was the first preview, was having some trouble with his lines in the first act) and Fyvush Finkel (!!!), seemed just sort of thrown into the mix because they were historically necessary (the play is set at the trial of Espinoza, where it was decided whether he would be excommunicated from the Jewish community), and because this had to be a play and not just a lecture on philosophy. They aren't given much interesting to do until the end, and really there isn't much of what I would call dramatic tension (even less if you read the previously mentioned interview pamphlet in the lobby, where the outcome of the trial is given away, for such non-history buffs as myself). There is one character - Espinoza's sister - played by Jenn Harris (who seemed to be channeling Jackie Hoffman), who I think must have just been thrown in for comic relief, because her schtick seemed totally out of place in what was otherwise a totally serious and perhaps stuffy drama. It was like she wandered in from another play. Those caveats aside, I was actually riveted much of the time, because Espinoza's philosophy is so interesting - and thankfully colorfully and interestingly presented. As a piece of drama, perhaps "New Jerusalem" isn't the greatest, but as a piece of educational entertainment it's a resounding success. It's like the audience is all a bunch of little kids, and Ives puts a piece of spinach (Espinoza's philosophy) on a spoon and moves it towards the audience saying "woosh.... open wide... here comes the plane in for a landing," and the audience obligingly opens and accepts it, and actually enjoys it. Go figure.

"Is He Dead?," on the other hand, requires so trickery on Ives' part in order to entertain the audience, because it is pure, delicious, tooth rotting, sugar rush inducing, junk food. It's really just a ridiculous hoot. The cast, led by the hilarious Norbert Leo Butz (who finally found a proper role for himself after impressing me in "Thou Shalt Not" and "Last Five Years," and then irritating me with his obnoxious characters in "Wicked" and "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels), is absolute perfection. The whole thing is just turn your brain off, sit back and relax, perfectly executed, stupid fun.

Less perfectly executed, but still fun to a degree is David Mamet's "November." I will note that I went to the first preview last week, and it's supposedly undergoing changes. I plan to go back sometime just before or after opening, so hopefully the kinks will be worked out, if that is possibly. The play - about a rather desperate president with pitiful ratings and very little time left in office (though it may sound like him, it really has nothing to do with Bush) - is just a bunch of silly fluff, at least in the first act. Mamet tries to get more serious in the second act, and things slogged down a bit, until a not all that satisfactory ending. Still, I did laugh quite a bit and I did enjoy myself. Anyone expecting some deep biting political satire will probably be rather disappointed. Anyway, I think there's promise there, but I reserve full judgment until I see it a second time.

Another play with a fun first act, and less satisfying second is David Henry Hwang's "Yellow Face." The first act was sort of fun, but the second, which turn serious, was absolutely interminable. It extended its run, but I think it still closes in two weeks or so. There are better options out there.

"August: Osage County" is as good as everything you've heard. Three and a half hours just fly by. I've seen it twice already, and could easily go back for a third helping. It's so funny, you almost forget how depressing the whole thing is... at least until the end. Terrific ensemble acting. A play that's longer than three hours than isn't a pretentious (Tom Stoppard) bore. I'd forgotten that was possible.

"The Homecoming" is just really bizarre. I'm not really a Pinter fan - he usually sits down there with Stoppard on my list of most overrated playwrights - though I think this is the closest I've come to actually enjoying one of his plays. I just sort of sat there jaw dropped for most of the second act. I don't know what to say. I'm still speechless all these weeks after seeing it. I will say that the acting - especially from Eve Best, who it's pretty much impossible to tear your eyes away from when she's onstage - is excellent. It's certainly a good season not just for plays on Broadway, but for extremely fine ensemble acting in plays on Broadway ("The Seafarer" also falls into this category. As does "Rock N Roll," though only for ensemble acting, not for being a good play).

I'm sure I'm leaving something out, but I think that covers pretty much everything important.

Oh. Maybe I should mention the movie of "Sweeney Todd"? I've been twice already - once to an opening night midnight screening, and then again during daylight hours. Hurrah for Tim Burton not just making a work of art, but one that's extremely faithful to its source material. All of that chatter about Pirelli rapping or "Epiphany" being cut turned out to be bunk. No, Johnny Depp and HB Cater aren't the world's greatest singers, but I though their singing worked well. Carter's voice especially needs to be heard along with the visuals - listening to her on the soundtrack I was cringing a bit, but seeing her whole performance on film, I found her wacky voice just added to the bizarreness of her Mrs. Lovett. Oh, and for the record, it's even better the second time :O)

NOW, I think I've covered everything important. And hopefully I'll remember what I missed between now and my next entry.

Nothing Interesting Here

2007-11-30T23:44:00.000-05:00

Was there some sort of 19 day Broadway stagehand strike that just ended? Funny, I hardly noticed. For the first two weekends of the strike, two shows I was scheduled to see (August: Osage County, and Is He Dead?) had cancelled performances, so I replaced them with two of my favorite new off-Broadway shows, The Piano Teacher and Make Me A Song. After that, all I had was Roundabout and Lincoln Center stuff, so I went right ahead with my Broadway-going, undeterred. There was a controversial article in the Times sometime during the strike, complaining about the mediocrity of the shows left to see on Broadway during that time. In a season that was supposed to celebrate the glorious return of the new drama, I was stuck with two mediocre revivals.

I had never seen "Pygmalion" before, though I've certainly seen the movie of "My Fair Lady" enough times. I think part of my dislike of "Pygmalion" may have come from the fact that I had been obsessed with "My Fair Lady" first. I know people always complain that adaptations are never as good as the original source material. But when you've seen the adaptation so many times, and then you read the original, it's possibly for the reverse to happen. I remember in fifth grade, I picked "The Phantom Tollbooth" to do for a book report, because I loved the movie. Well, I picked up the book and found that there were many thing in there that weren't in the movie. And there were also lines from the book that were taken verbatim and turned into song lyrics, so that I couldn't really read sections without singing. I think there may have been something to story about me skimming the night before the report was due, but that's not really relevant to my point. What I mean to say is that while George Bernard Shaw purists may have been blowing all sorts of gaskets when "My Fair Lady" premiered, well I can see why musical theater fans could be sort of blase towards the source material. We don't see Ascot, we don't see any of the training, we don't see the ball... basically all of the best parts are left out. And of course, there is the lack of music as well. I know it's blasphemy to not enjoy Shaw, but I don't know... it felt really choppy with those missing scenes, and I just found myself watching and replaying the musical in my head at the same time, and being irritated that Jefferson Mays is no Rex Harrison, and Claire Daines is no Audrey Hepburn (let alone Julie Andrews). I will say that I did thoroughly enjoy Boyd Gaines' Pickering, and Helen Carey's Mrs. Higgins. Whenever I was onstage, I think I was able to stop humming to myself. But otherwise I think I was kind of disappointed and bored. And the set was really very odd. I guess the designer wanted to keep the dimensions of the rooms the same as they would be in a London townhouse, but with the low ceilings, and walls not reaching the edge of the stage, it almost felt like the production had transferred from an off-Broadway theatre, because it didn't really make very good use of the size of the stage, except in the fancy-shmancy set changes. Overall, a disappointment.... I think I would have had more fun sitting at home and watching my dvd of "My Fair Lady." Or maybe even watching the old video of the play that my grandmother gave me a number of years ago and that I still haven't watched.

The next week was another case of previous experiences killing a production. A few months ago, I saw a production of "Cymbeline" at BAM... I think put on by Cheek by Jowl. Anyway, it was my first time seeing the play, and while it did seem like Shakespeare just took the highlights of each of his other plays and smushed them all together into a new one, I did really enjoy it, and didn't really see why it was so relegated to obscurity. Well, after seeing the Lincoln Center Production, now I see why. I found the whole endeavor mediocre in every way. I wasn't particularly thrilled about anyone in the cast, other than maybe Martha Plimpton. The usually excellent Phylicia Rashad gave probably the worst performance of the cast. Remember her Tony speech from "A Raisin in the Sun"? Well the way she acted in that, was how she acted as the Queen. Meaning basically, she wasn't acting... she was just playing herself. And absolutely dreadful performance, and especially disappoint after she was so good in "Raisin..." and "Gem of the Ocean." The set designer apparently spent his entire budget on the 'deus ex machina' in the second act. Most of the time we have to stare at an almost empty stage, with just a couple of unattractive door. Not that a bare stage is necessarily a bad thing - the BAM production was definitely sparse - but there's a way to do sparse that looks artsy and tasteful (the natural beauty of the Harvey, of course always helps), but this just looked cheap. And the aforementioned 'deus ex machina'? Well, the whole scene reeked of theme park entertainment. As soon as I heard the miking of the actors, I couldn't help but think it sounded exactly like the quality of the sounds from the haunted house in Disney World... or the talking gargoyles at the Jekyll and Hyde restaurant. If they ever build ShakespeareLand, that scene would fit in quite nicely. Even the costume were ugly. It was a traditional dress production, which is fine, but Michael Cerveris and Jonathan Cake were given costumes made with some of the ugliest black and gold floral fabric that I've ever seen. The costumes other costumes were fine, but just looking at those two outfits made me ill. Maybe I've been watching too much Project Runway. Anyway, maybe I was spoiled by that BAM production (which, to be perfectly honest, even though I loved, I don't remember getting great reviews), but really, there was just no comparison between the two.

Now don't think I'm only knocking Broadway. Off-Broadway hasn't been that much better (Piano Teacher, and Make Me A Song, excepted of course).
"Trumpery" is a new play at the Atlantic, about how Darwin and a man named Wallace both discovered natural selection at the same time. So I figured it be mostly from Wallace's point of few, since he's the one no one really knows about, and the play would be about how he had this theory, and then Darwin suddenly stole his thunder. Well, what's on stage isn't nearly as interesting as what I imagined. Basically, Darwin spent fifteen years working on "The Origin of Species." He gets a letter from his friend Wallace, that Wallace just came up with this great theory about natural selection and what not. So Darwin, feeling threatened, rushes his book to publication. But he feels really really guilty about doing that, because no one really cared about Wallace. Um... Darwin came up with the theory fifteen years before Wallace. What's the problem? It's not like Wallace had the theory, and Darwin stole it. Or they came up with it even at the same time. Clearly Darwin was first, and while yes, Wallace may have gotten to the press first if he hadn't corresponded with Darwin, I don't really see the problem. Apparently, the playwright seemed to think this was somehow interesting, though, and so we see Darwin wandering around with guilt for two hours. Darwin also gets two children: one is very sick and you can guess what happens to her; the other runs on stage at random times for no apparent reason. I groaned every time he walked on stage, though he least he broke up the non-action, I guess. Manoel Felciano (who plays Wallace) gets a nice long speech in the second act about his life as an explorer, and Michael Countryman does a nice job as Darwin, but really neither makes this very academic and dull production interesting. My aunt saw this and raved about it, but she's a retired science teacher, so I think that basically explains it.

Finally (yes, we're nearing the end of my ramblings), "The Receptionist," a performance notable only because sitting two rows ahead of me and across the aisle was Stephen Sondheim. I honestly, did not understand the play one bit. It started out as a rather amusing office comedy, but then it turned serious, and I honestly just didn't understand why anything happened or what the point of any of it was. I just made absolutely no sense. I'm sure Adam Bock, the playwright, had some very deeply buried and very pretentious hidden meaning in their somewhere, but I was just totally baffled. I just kept waiting for something in the way of explanation to come along, and it just never did. It was just all setup with no payoff. I will say that Jayne Houdyshell was wonderful in the title role, and I can't imagine how painful the show would have been without her. She's one of those "I would watch her read the phone book" type actresses. And since the script isn't really much deeper than a phone book, well this is pretty close. Oh, and here was a first for a play - someone actually boo-ed at the curtain call. I've heard boo-ing a-plenty at the opera, but never anything else. I'm not saying it deserved to be boo-ed, but I can't say I blamed him. If even 1% of the audience got anything out of the play, I'd be surprised. 70 minutes long, not boring, but not remotely satisfying, and totally baffling.

And I wonder why I keep wanting to revisit "Make Me A Song," "The Piano Teacher," and "Die Mommie Die" (actually, I've only seen "Die Mommie Die" once, but I think I may go again just to have a sure-fire escape from the mediocrity).

Loving Franz and Finn

2007-11-07T22:34:00.001-05:00

Isn't it amazing how some playwrights can create a completely compelling drama in half the time it takes Tom Stoppard to bore his audiences (and actually, a sixth of the time if you count "Coast of Utopia" as one play). Julia Cho's "The Piano Teacher" was only 90 minutes long, but it felt absolutely complete and satisfying. The success of the play belongs in no small part to an absolutely mesmerizing performance from Elizabeth Franz. The play has a total of three actors, but it's mostly a solo play with other actors, because not only is Franz onstage the whole time, but she is also speaking most of the time. Franz plays Mrs K, a retired piano teacher and a woman who you just want to run up on stage and hug. The setting is her living room, and since there Cho quickly disposes of any fourth wall, the audience might as well be sitting on her couch having a chat. This is one of those plays where it's best to go in not knowing too much, so I'll try to very briefly describe the plot. Basically, Mrs K sits reminisces about her old piano students, eventually decides to start contacting them. And of course the other two actors play former students. I'm probably making it sound like some happy-go-lucky piece of fluff, but it is of course, not. In fact I think I may have nightmares tonight... and not because I'm remembering all those time I didn't want to practice the piano. The play is genuinely disturbing. I will say that the play did take a while to really get going - it starts off charmingly enough, but there's only so long the audience can watch a kindly old woman chatter on before their attention starts to lag. Luckily it was such a joy to watch Franz, I just sat there in awe until the story really got going, which it eventually did. I can't say I totally understood everything that went on (I think I may have to go see this again), but I really was riveted almost the entire time. This would probably be worth seeing even if Mrs K was just sitting there reading the phone book, but it was nice to see that the play was pretty much able to live up to Elizabeth Franz's performance.

On another happy note, I also very much enjoyed "Make Me A Song," a revue of the music of William Finn. I knew I would probably enjoy it when I looked at the song list before the show, and I said to myself "Ooh, I like that song, and I like that song, and I like that song... I don't know that song, but I like that one and that one and that one..." and that went on down the entire song list. There were three songs in it that I had never heard of (because they were written by Finn for a special performance at Williams College, and as far as I know have never been recorded), but all the other I already knew and loved. So the performance would have had to be pretty lousy for me not to enjoy myself. Luckily, the four performers (five, if you include the pianist) did a wonderful job. There were perhaps a few times when the choreography or a performance would verge on being hokey, but those moments were few. If you either love the work of William Finn (especially "Elegies," "Falsettos" and the songs on "Infinite Joy") or aren't sure if you love him or not, this is certainly worth seeing.

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST: "The Little Mermaid" on Broadway

2007-11-04T00:21:00.000-04:00

I went to the first preview of "The Little Mermaid" tonight.

"The Little Mermaid" is a film beloved by children of all ages. And those classic songs: Under the Sea? Part of Your World? Everyone loves those songs. Why you could probably dress Ariel's friend Flounder in a baggy yellow shirt and shorts, make the set out of a couple of pieces of plexiglass, and even rewrite the ending that makes very little sense, but as long as you have those songs to give the audience as touchstones, and of course use at least one in the finale, the audience will love it. Well, they (Disney) did and they (the audience) do.
Let's start with the set and the costumes. They hired the set and costume designer who last worked on the critically reviled Kirov "Ring Cycle." Needless to say, their work here is on par with their "Ring" work. The mermaid have tails sticking out of their butts. Sebastian is wearing a red suit and top hat, with some red tubes sticking off. Flounder gets a baggy yellow shirt and baggy yellow shorts. The other aquatic life are dressed in unattractively colored spandex body suits, with lots of sparkles. The set looks like it was made entirely out of cheap plastic. The water is wavey plastic. There's a giant sculpture that looks remarkably like a giant bottle opener (you know, the kind with the arms that go up as the screw goes into the cork?), that opens up during musical numbers to turn into something that looks like a ride from Disneyland. It's all very sparse. Cheap looking. And sparse. And unattractive. The lighting, by Natasha Katz, is basically just random splashes of color. Ah, such creativity.
The "swimming" is accomplished by giving the actors heelys (sneakers with wheels in the heel). I can't say I really understand the concept. So basically, "swimming" involves walking fast enough to get some momentum, and then moving to roll on your heels. Uh huh.... Oh, and remember how the motto for this production was no water, no wires? Well, there's no water but, surprise surprise, there are in fact two scenes (Eric's drowning, and Ariel's transformation) that use wires for a swimming effect. And guess what? Those are only two times where I was actually impressed by the special effects. Oh, did I mention Ursula didn't get heelys? I guess Sherie Rene Scott doesn't roller skate too well. As punishment though, they took away her legs. So she walks by sort of waddling (except when she's rolled on and off stage on a platform), and to dance she just wiggles her hips and the tentacles on her dress jiggle.
Speaking of the dancing, Stephen Mears' choreography is uninspired. So uninspired that I have nothing else to say about it.
Alan Menken's new songs are fine. I didn't leave humming any of them, not that they had a fair chance against the classics, but I enjoyed listening to them, and I look forward to the new cast recording. I did have some minor problems with some of the lyrics for said new songs. In a melodically rather nice song in the second act, we get cringe inducing lines that go something like "I wish I could pull a cure out of thin water" or "I'd wave my claw and make this all go away." Maybe if the song was going for comedy I might not have cringed so much, but it was a serious song, and that sort of underwater cheese just didn't seem right for the moment.
As for the book, the show sticks pretty close to the movie, plotwise, until near the end. Instead of having Ursula come back to marry Prince Eric, we get a singing contest that's basically a singing version of Cinderella's Prince's search for the glass slipper: Eric hears a group of girls sings and hopes to hear Ariel's voice from one of them. When they all fail though...

(*BEGINNING OF (NEW) PLOT SPOILERS*) Ariel dances because as we learned in an earlier song, dancing is another form of communication, and so Ariel's dancing is just as good as if she had sung. Or some such drivel. Of course, the whole Ariel and Eric thing is too late, and Ariel is taken back to Ursula's lair, and things continue as in the movie. Now there was some backstory given in act one, that Poseiden gave Triton his trident, and Ursula a magic shell, and that's the source of their power. But if Ursula's shell breaks, she dies. So, as in the movie, Triton gives his soul for Ariel's. Then, somehow Eric's boat goes over Ursula's lair (because it's not deep in the ocean, but close to the surface where he can see???), and this distracts Ursula long enough for Ariel to grab the shell. Then eventually Ariel breaks the shell and Ursula dies. Now I had a number of problems with this. First, was how the boat got to the lair. But second... why, if Ursula had the Triton's trident, didn't that replace the power of the shell? I just didn't understand why Ursula still needed the shell after she had the trident. And of course, Doug Wright didn't care to explain it, none of the little girls in the audience cared because it was the end of the show and they were about to get another reprise of "Part of Your World," and so anyone who was trying to prick the surface of the story was left in the dark (*END OF SPOILERS*)

As for the performances, I was very impressed with everyone. Sierra Boggess has a lovely voice, and makes for a lovely Ariel. Sean Palmer does generic handsome prince quite well. And Sheri Rene Scott, who is totally different from the movie Ursula (Pat Caroll) was quite amusing in the part. And thankfully not anywhere near as scary as Pat Caroll otherwise I might have had nightmares.

Anyway, as you can see, the show is artistically on par with "Tarzan." The difference is that "The Little Mermaid" is a far far better movie than "Tarzan," with a much larger and more passionate fan base. So despite the fact that the show was visually hideous, and the ending mangled, the show includes great songs, and when Ariel and Eric walk out at the end, and the whole cast sings "Part of Your World," well even the most hard hearted person can't help but smile and get a little teary eyed. I mean, the fact of the matter is, Disney could have installed an ice rink on the stage of the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre, and presented "The Little Mermaid: On Ice (on Broadway)" and audiences would have been happy. I suppose they wanted to get another "Lion King" (kiddie show with snob appeal), but in that respect they failed. So in the end, despite the fact that the entire creative team should be blacklisted from the stage for this travesty, the show is still, against all odds, actually enjoyable. Despite the very bumpy ride, you still get well sung live renditions of beloved songs, interwoven into a sort of compelling story. Hey, here's an idea - just go to the show and sit there the whole time with your eyes closed. Then it'd be even better!
And so in the end, though Zambello et al tried to drown "The Little Mermaid" in their pretentious and awful production, the fact is that mermaids live under water and so you can't actually drown them. And so "The Little Mermaid" survives to entertain another day.

My prediction? Pans from the critics, no Tonys, and it'll run for years.

After which Disney can revive "Beauty and the Beast." Hey! There's my title. After all... the source material is a beauty, and the production is a beast!

On "Queen Margaret" (a play also more commonly known as "Richard III")

2007-11-03T17:58:00.000-04:00

"Richard III" is the third collaboration between actor Michael Cumpsty and director Brian Kulick at Classic Stage Company. Kulick also happens to be artistic director of CSC, and apparently he has a great fondness for Cumpty's Shakespeare performanes (even so much as to let him be co-director on this one), so I don't think it really matters whether the productions are any good, because until Kulick is booted from his post, I think we can safely assume we'll get a new CumptyKulick play each season. The first production they did, "Hamlet," was probably the most interesting. Not that it was necessarily great, but it had enough wacky interesting quirks (like starting the play with the audience standing on the stage) to get noticed. Cumpsty, was a bit too old for the title role, but he wasn't terrible. The productions, both in terms of creativity and in terms of Cumpsty's performances seem to be going steadily downhill. For "Richard III," the major set pieces were a mirrored wall, and eight chandeliers, each which would move up or down depending on the scene. This seemed to be an utter waste of effort, considering I don't think anyone would know where a scene took place if the upstage far-right chandelier was down halfway or the downstage middle-left one was touching the floor. They were very nice chandeliers, mind you, but seemed really kind of confusing and pointless. In what I suppose an effort to engage a rather bored audience near the end of the first act, one of the performers was apparently directed to run up the aisles and shake the hands of audience members. Many audience members were also given flags, and were encouraged to wave them in support of Richard. I found that rather schticky, though playing with the flag at least gave me something to do.
Cumpsty's Richard III was very very very unlikeable. Which I guess is supposed to be the point, but I just wanted to run up onstage myself to get over with the killing of him so I could go home. In, what I supposed was an effort to keep the length of the play down (it runs 2 hours, 40 minutes) without cutting too much, many of the actors would just race through their lines. Cumpsty especially seemed to like to blurt out his lines as quickly as possible... unless they were very important, in which case he took more care in reciting them. That's an interesting take on editing a play - leave all the lines in, but the ones that you would normally have cut, or that are technically necessary but don't have much impact on the plot, just race through.
The rest of the cast was fine, with Judith Roberts (Duchess of York) and Maria Tucci (Queen Elizabeth) being particularly good.
And then there was hurricane Robert Maxwell, whose Queen Margaret is absolutely spectacular. She only gets basically two scenes - one in the first act where she curses Richard, and one in the second where she chats with the other mourning mothers - but she creates so much electricity that it's a wonder the theatre didn't burn down. I almost wished she could have grabbed the executioners axe in her first scene, chopped off Richard's head, and done the rest of the play by herself. She was, in fact, the only performer to get exit applause after her scenes. I was almost going to leave at intermission because I thought her character had been killed (it had at least been mentioned), but I'm glad I stayed because she had another brilliant scene in act two. The production is almost worth seeing just for her performance.
I will say that while I was miserably bored by the first act, overall I did enjoy the second - probably mostly because all three of the mothers had big scenes that were able to divert my attention from the irritating title character. And, of course because (*spoiler*) whiney Richard's life is finally taken away.
I should point out that Cumpsty could improve since this production only began performances two days ago, but I have to say I am rather skeptical. Then again, this is probably worth seeing just to be electrified by Roberta Maxwell. I can't help but wonder though, how much better the production could have been without Cumpsty and Kulick's misguiding hands.

Stoppard Must Be Stopped (but yay for Charles Busch)

2007-11-03T01:02:00.000-04:00

In my bookshelf of plays, I have a volume so slim that it doesn't even have a spine to print its title on. The play is called "The Fifteen Minute Hamlet," and is indeed a condensed version of "Hamlet" that should, I supposed, take fifteen minutes to perform. It is followed by an encore... apparently a two minute version of Hamlet. Would you like to guess who wrote these oh so brief plays? Well, it was none other than Tom Stoppard. Tonight's performance of Stoppard's "Rock 'n' Roll" ran three hours and five minutes. His play before that was the nine hour snooze fest, "The Coast of Utopia." Does the idea that he wrote such a short play so shame him that he must make up for it by making his new works as long as possible? Does Mr. Stoppard have a fear of editors? Are his directors so enamored with his shelf of awards that they are afraid to cut one precious line from his plays? Well, I don't know the answer to those questions, but I do know one thing: "Rock 'n' Roll" is too darn long. Granted, the play would likely be AT LEAST a half hour shorter, had they cut the very long, very distracting, very boring scene changes. For some reason - I guess to rub in the fact that the play is indeed about rock n roll - at each scene change the curtain comes down, some random rock song is blasted at a volume so loud that it is certainly only meant to wake up theatergoers who would try to say 'Wake me when it's over,' and projected on the curtain - in a different kooky style each time (it's sort of like what a first-time Powerpoint presentation looks like when someone wants to use a different effect on each slide because it's JUST SO COOOOOL) - is every little detail of every song, like who wrote it, who sang it, who played each instrument, where it was recorded, and what label it was released on. Who wants to know this useless information? Certainly not me. But I guess it's true to Stoppard's style of throwing pretentious drivel into his plays that only those holding doctorate degrees in history or philosophy would possibly care about (or understand). Those hideous scene changes are used every few minutes in the first act, making the play feel very choppy. Luckily, there are fewer scene changes in the second. Still, there was a point, I guess around the three hour mark, when the curtain came down, they played a song, and I was certain the play was finally over. I kid you not, when I tell you that I almost burst into tears when the curtain went back up and the actors started on the next scene. I had actually been enjoying the play up to that point, but I had quite simply reached my breaking point and I couldn't take any more of the play. There were only two short scenes left to suffer through, but they absolutely ruined the play for me. Had it ended but five minutes earlier, I would probably say I liked though didn't love the show. I was so excited that while there was some political drivel that I didn't understand, I did think I understood most of what was going on, and was really enjoying Rufus Sewell's brilliant performance as Jan. Granted, I didn't really understand (or care) why Jan was so obsessed with rock n roll - it kind of just seemed like some device Stoppard was using to try to be hip - but the idea of struggling under an evil government's reign is easy enough to understand. And there were some interesting points made about politics in the 60s. HOWEVER, because of those last two scenes, I think I'm going to break out in a cold sweat next time I have to enter a theatre. I don't think I've ever been so happy to leave a theatre or so happy for a show to finally end. When the show didn't end when I thought it would, I think I had visions of sitting in the theatre until 4:30 the next morning, with the play still going on. "Rock 'n' Roll" may not have been nine hours long like "The Coast of Utopia," but it sure felt just as long. Is it so much to ask for 90 minutes no intermission?

On the subject of 90 minutes, no intermission, I went to see Charles Busch's absolutely delightful "Die, Mommie, Die!" the complete opposite of a Tom Stoppard play, if there ever were. 90 minutes of mindless campy fluff. The perfect anecdote to a Stoppard play if there ever were one, ah only if I had seen them in the opposite order. Busch plays diva Angela Arden, and of course one cannot takes one's eyes off of him when he is onstage. He is joined by the always hilarious Kristine Nielsen, who plays the maid, and a few other actors who do (purposeful) campy, over-the-top bad acting oh so well. The play isn't brilliant my any means, but it's a mighty entertaining was to pass an evening.

The Seafarer

2007-10-31T23:37:00.001-04:00

I can't say I had particularly high hopes for "The Seafarer." I've seen two of Conor McPherson's other plays: The Weir (which I don't remember much about other than the logo, though I vaguely recall liking it) and Shining City (which was felt like a boring hour and a half setup for a two second twist payoff at the end). But, well I actually enjoyed it, go figure. The first act was slow, and I was sort of indifferent towards it at intermission. But the second act, and the inevitable twist ending turned out to be worth waiting for. I looked at my watch when it was over and was shocked to see that it had been two hours and forty minutes long - it felt much shorter (and not just because I thought I had read somewhere that the whole play was two hours including intermission...). The all male cast makes a very strong ensemble. The basic premise is that the devil comes on Christmas Eve to play poker for a man's soul. And of course, this being an Irish play, there is much drinking through the evening. I would like to say more, but I think anything more would spoil the play. It's better to go in not knowing too much. I had a whole other paragraph I had typed out, but I deleted it to avoid spoiling the play as much as possible. But anyway, I would chalk this one up in the pleasant surprise category.

Catch Up Time

2007-10-27T23:54:00.001-04:00

Long time no update. I guess I've been lazy. So, starting with tonight and working (approximately) backwards:

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. In a word, disappointing. It's certainly no "Producers." It was really just felt very ordinary. My main issue is that it's just not that funny. I expected to be rolling in the aisles, and instead I chuckled every now and then. The songs, with the exception of "Puttin on the Ritz," which of course Mel didn't write, are pretty lousy. The story doesn't really lend itself to musicalization, so with so few obvious spots to put songs, it seems like he just looked for the funniest line in the scene and turned that into a song. So we're stuck with deadly songs on the topics of "Don't Touch Me" and "He Was My Brother" that just go on and on, aren't very funny, and don't do anything to further the plot. The best thing in the show is definitely the set. Big, creative, and fabulous. The performers all did a very good job, though I wasn't really blown away by anyone. Roger Bart (aka, Dr. Frankenstein) was out (rumor is it's a slipped disc in his back). His understudy was fine, except he's kind of young meaning that Megan Mullally, who plays Elizabeth the fiancee, looked like his mother. I don't know that Roger Bart is really that much older to make it a better pair, but the Mullally only really shined in her scenes with the Monster. The show is fine, certainly painless, but it certainly doesn't live up to it's must-see hype.

THE GLORIOUS ONES. Intermissions are good things. They allow the actors to rest, the audience to stretch their legs, and the theatre to sell merchandise and alcohol. So when a show doesn't have an intermission I get a little concerned. The official reason is usually that they don't want to put a break in the action. And every now and then that is true. More often though, I suspect it's so the audience doesn't leave. If there had been an intermission at "The Glorious Ones," I most certainly would have walked out. The first hour is absolutely excruciating. The show is about a commedia del arte troupe, and the first hour is just used to slowly introduce each character, and then to introduce the troupe. Granted, I am not a commedia fan - clowning, slapstick and all that stuff puts me to sleep. So I suppose if I had found the troupe's schtick funny I may have not been in so much pain. Instead I was bored to tears. Eventually they get around to introducing conflict and things get interesting. I wouldn't say this is one of Ahrens and Flaherty's better scores. There are a couple of good songs. The score is sort of a cross between "Ragtime" (especially that "Gliding" song) and "A Man of No Importance." In fact for a while the show just seemed like "A Man Of No Importance" set in Italy. Without the gay guy. And why oh why did they have to use once again one of those cheesy cliched epilogues - you know, the type why each character steps forward and says what happened to them after the main story ended? It's not creative, it's not dramatic, and it really just does more harm than good. Near the end, a stagehand comes out, picks up a bag (that I think represented commedia) and threw it in a trash can. That's a good recommendation for how to fix the show. Throw out most of the commedia stuff, and focus more on the relationships in the troupe. That's what I found interesting and moving. The show need a lot of work, and considering the state it's in after an out of town tryout in Pittsburgh, and the fact that it's opening pretty soon in New York, I feel pretty safe in saying there's no chance of an overhall. I thing I would be curious to listen to a cast recording though, for the few good songs.

CYRANO. A really beautiful production. I was definitely getting teary eyed in the final scene. Kevin Kline is fabulous. Jennifer Garner tried. She's not a great Roxanne, but she's not awful. The set design is really beautiful - sort of a traditional set with some deconstructed modern touches. The only other production of the play I've seen was the Frank Langella one that the Roundabout did a number of years ago, that I don't remember anything about. But I don't think it was anywhere near as good as this. I actually went to TKTS for tickets rather than buying the $20 last row mezz tickets, because I actually wanted to see, and I would say it was definitely worth the extra money. Finally David Levaux has redeemed himself. Of course, with the criticism of his "Fiddler" not being Jewish enough, I'm waiting for the critics to tear this apart for not being French enough. No French people in the cast? How dare they.

MACBETH. There was a mix of boos and bravos at the opening night of the Met's new production of Verdi's "Macbeth." I can't say I thought the director deserved to be booed, but bravos weren't in order either. I really liked the first act (or rather, the acts that led up to the intermission). Yes, the witches looked like dowdy housewives, and the set was a bit minimalist, but I thought it all worked. The lighting especially was really beautiful. And then I came back from intermission, and things went downhill. The special effects for the Act 3 witch scene were pretty lame. In the refugee chorus, the lighting designer for some inexplicable reason, had a spotlight going from face to face in the chorus for the entire time. It looked awful, and was very very distracting. There was a jeep onstage for on of the later scenes, and rather than roll it off stage, they just put it in the back and covered it with a black cloth. Was it that hard to get it offstage? Jeesh. And the sleepwalking scene? Well, it was strange. Lots of playing with a hanging light fixture. I do really love the opera, and this is certainly better than the lousy production I saw at the Royal Opera in London two or three years ago, but I was still kind of disappointed.

PETER AND JERRY. Well, I love Albee, so it's hard for me to criticize this. It's absolutely amazing that "The Zoo Story" was his first play, and it still absolutely holds up today, and still caused people in the audience to gasp at certain points, a whole 49 years after it was written. The first act, "Home Life," didn't really do much for me. It does definitely flesh out the character of Peter in "The Zoo Story," which was apparently Albee's intension in writing it, but I wouldn't say it stands up on it's own as a one-act, as "The Zoo Story" does. Dallas Roberts was a great Jerry. I still haven't gotten over his firing from the Jessica Lange revival of "The Glass Menagerie." I have no doubt that production would have been great with him in it (as opposed to the mediocrity we got with his replacement - Christian Slater).

THE FARNSWORTH INVENTION. An interesting problem here. After it ended, I really found I had enjoyed it - it felt both really entertaining and very educational - and it held my interest the entire time. Well, then I got home and went to Wikipedia and read the real story of Farnsworth v Sarnoff. And basically, Sorkin changed almost the entire story. Which leads me to wonder why he didn't just change the names, and write a work of fiction, rather than write a work of fiction disguised as history. I wonder if I went to see it again, knowing that there was almost nothing educational about it. I mean, I'll eat a vegetable and rationalize that I'm enjoying it because it's healthy, but if I learn it actually has no nutrients, well then what's the point? I mean, I guess the dialogue will still crackle, and the second act opener (which actually did happen) will still be a great scene, but I can't help but feel a little bit cheated.

SPAIN. This was really weird. Good weird in the first act, and bad weird - as in I had no idea what was going on anymore - in the second. It's about a Spanish conquistador who appears in a woman's apartment. The first act is pretty funny, but the metaphors get confusing and out of hand in the second, and I left totally unsatisfied, and not understanding anything I had just seen.

There's probably something or other I'm leaving out, but I think that's the major stuff.

Another Case of Tenor-itis for the Met's "Romeo et Juliette" + Disappointing Kiddie Theatre

2007-10-07T01:34:00.001-04:00

I went to see "Romeo et Juliette" at the Met tonight. This production really must be cursed - first Villazon dropped out as Romeo because he was sick, then Nathan Gunn dropped out as Murcutio because he too was sick, and tonight... at the last minute, Joseph Kaiser dropped out because he wasn't feeling well and Marcello Giordani (who sang the role of Edgardo in Lucia the night before) stepped in at the last minute to take over. Oy. It turned out he was excellent in the role. I thought Netrebko was wonderful as always - no she's not capable of playing young and innoncent but at least she sounded great , and that long aria just before she takes the potion was especially fabulous. Brilliant singing from the leads aside, whoever designed that set I think took the concept of "star crossed lovers" a bit too far - designing the whole thing around some sort of bizarre astrological clock was just totally wrongheaded. And let's face it, the set was just downright ugly. The only scene that was at all interesting from a visual point of view was the floating bed scene (a scene made extra by Netrebko's sexual antics upon said bed - I guess she figured as long as she's not doing the innocent thing, she might as well have as much fun as possible with her on-stage hubby...). Of course, any fond memories of that bed scene were semi-ruined it's follow up... namely when as Juliette runs toward the bed with a sheet about to jump on it, and it floats away out of her reach... and she just stands there with her arm in the air reaching for her bed as it floats off stage. That was good for an unintentional chuckle.... Also good for a chuckle was the poorly adapted final scene. The music and singing were gorgeous as always, but unlike in the Shakespeare, after Romeo drinks the poison, Juliette actually wakes up, they sing an excited duet about how they're going to run away together, until Romeo remembers that he took the poison, and so he sings some more before collapsing, at which point Juliette finds a dagger to stab herself with, at which point the not yet dead Romeo gets up again and sings some more before actually dying (there may have been some more singing from the stabbed Juliette too, I forget). I mean, I know it's opera and all, but this is the sort of drawn out death scene that gives opera a bad name.
Anyhoo, quibbles aside, as least there was beautiful music up on stage tonight. And I'm looking forward to seeing the production again in December. Roberto Alagna is rumored for Romeo, but with this production's track record, I don't have high hopes.

Oh, this afternoon I went to see "Wolves in the Walls" at the New Victory. I basically went because it's based on a (children's) book by Neil Gaiman, and it was created by Julian Crouch/Improbable (the team responsible for "Shockheaded Peter," which I did not like, a "Spirit," which I did). Well, all I can say was it was definitely children's theatre, and I don't think that's either party's strong suit. It was all pretty bland. The story went something like this: a little girl hears wolves in the walls of her house. she tells her brother, then she tells her mother, then she tells her father, and no one believes her. Well, there indeed were wolves in the walls. Yadayadayada. The best part was the little girl's pig puppet (which basically acted as a teddy bear) and I was fun to watch her and the wolves play with it. Other than that, it was pretty dull stuff. I usually enjoy children's entertainment (I still watch and enjoy far too many shows on Nickelodeon) but this was low level stuff even for me. One plus was that I got to see the inside of the New Victory Theatre for the first time, so that was exciting. According to the program, the theatre was originally opened by Oscar Hammerstein and was home at one point to the long running "Abie's Irish Rose." It was then bough by Minsky and turned into a burlesque house, then later turned into an XXX movie theatre, and finally into a children's theatre in 1995. So it was fun to think about the history of the space. But I don't really recommend seeing the show, unless you have a little kid to drag along.