The Fringe Festival: Days 1 and 2

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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.