I went to see "Gypsy," starring Patti LuPone tonight.
Wow.
As much hype as was surrounding this production, the show tonight absolutely met and surpassed my expectations. LuPone was brilliant (she received an well deserved standing ovation after her "Rose's Turn") as was to be expected. What I didn't expect, was that the supporting cast was amazing as well. Boyd Gaines, especially, was perfection - his Herbie was so nice and sweet, you couldn't help for love him - and then of course when he is crushed and has his explosion at the end, well the audience is crushed as well. The three strippers (Nancy Opel, Alison Fraser, Marilyn Caskey) were a real hoot, and got every possible laugh out of "You Gotta Have A Gimmick" as I think humanly possible. I was especially fond of Electra (Marilyn Caskey)'s spacey performance. Laura Benanti does an excellent job - it's rather shocking to see her so plain in her early Louise scenes, though that of course makes her transformation into Gypsy Rose Lee and her "I'm beautiful" moment all the more thrilling. She even almost makes "Little Lamb" (aka "Baby Louise Had A Farm, E-I-E-I-O) tolerable.
To answer those lingering questions:
-The show has both a set and full costumes. The orchestra is onstage, but is usually hidden by the curtain (except for certain choice moments). The actors don't use scripts at all - though there were a few flubbed lines, which is to be expected at a first preview.
-There are no good seats in the Gallery at City Center. At "Follies" (my first time in the Gallery instead of the dreadful mid or rear-mezz) I was in the first row and had a horizontal bar right across the center of the stage. So this time, I picked the second row. And I still had a horizontal bar right across the center of the stage. Of course, the show was so good, I didn't really mind. I guess the front Gallery is still preferable to the rear mezz (the gallery has a bar in the way, the poorly sloped rear mezz has heads in the way) but I really really really hate City Center.
Nothing much else to say. Arthur Laurents directed the show brilliantly (not that I expected any less, considering he did write the book for it...). One interesting tidbit that I learned (or more likely... knew and had forgotten) - John Kander (yes, THAT John Kander) did the original dance arrangements for "Gypsy."
Anyway, if you don't already have tickets to see this, well what were you waiting for? Go now now now. I already have a tickets to see this again, but I think I may buy a third one just because it's THAT GOOD... or rather THAT GREAT.
I feel like I should write about the other things I've seen over the past week or two, but "Gypsy" was just so good that they seem so paltry. Maybe I'll put them in another entry.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
My Thoughts on Neil LaBute and other recent theatre
I think we all have some playwright that, despite the constant productions of his or her work, we just don't get. For me, that playwright is Neil LaBute. MCC produced a new play of his every season for the past five seasons and the Public had him on their roster for the past two seasons. And not only do all of his plays get produced, but for some reason his plays attract stars like flies caught on a strip of sticky paper. So someone tell me what I am missing? Each of his plays that I've seen is basically the same - we get a picture of a man doing some loathsome act (in "Mercy Seat" it was a man trying to decided whether he survived on 9-11 or whether to stay with his mistress; in "Fat Pig," it's a man trying to deal with the fact that he's dating a fat woman), and then we get some random tacked on twist ending, stuck on there just for the sake of having a twist ending. His plays just seem designed to offend his audience as much as possible - these characters rarely have any redeeming values - and really, if the plays ever really have a point (other than "Men suck"), well, they're lost on me.
Anyway, the LaBute play I saw this evening was his pedophile play: "In a Dark Dark House." I probably would have liked the play a little less if I hadn't already seen David Harrower's "Blackbird," a far better and far more chilling play on a similar subject matter - they're both about pedophiles, but LaBute's pedophile play has the obligatory ludicrous series of plot twists in the third scene. The first two scenes were fine - not particularly interesting, but not terrible - that was basically the "Blackbird"-lite part of the play. Then we get the third and final scene, and it's basically a 'and then I did this, and if you think that's shocking, well I also did this, and if you think that's shocking, well I also did this' (and so on and so on) - it's just one pointless added layer after the other. And then, so the audience doesn't leave flush the play from their memories as soon as they leave the theatre, he gives us a final encounter that's just ambiguous enough to have the audience scratching their heads and wondering what we just missed and why there is this hugging and crying going on. And so the play ends and everyone turns to the person next to them and they say "Did you understand the ending," and they bandy about theories about what happened, and so the play lives on in the memories of the audience. (For my part, based on eavesdropping on people around me and then pondering to myself on my way home I think I figured out what happened at the end - but I can't really say I understand why what happened happened).
So... while "In a Dark Dark House" is the first play in a while that had me leave the theatre actually thinking about the play and what happened in it, and I can't say I necessarily disliked the play, because it did hold my interest - in the end it was just typical LaBute with everything I've come to expect from one of his plays. I notice, shockingly enough that MCC is not producing one of his plays next season. Not that I really ever like MCC's non-LaBute offerings, but I can't help but breathe a sigh of relief.
As for other theatre...
I went to see "110 in the Shade" again. I have to say I enjoyed it even more the second time. I recall merely liking it the first time, but I really loved it this second time. If you haven't seen it yet, go. And if you have, why not see it again?
The sole reason I went to see "The Fabulous Life of a Size Zero" was because it's playing at the DR2 which is close to my apartment. That probably wasn't a very good reason to see a show, but I was feeling lazy that day. "The Fabulous Life of a Size Zero" was a fitting punishment for my laziness. It was truly dreadful. The first half was passable fluff entertainment, but it's charm soon wore off, especially when it started to get serious and it just became a bore and a chore to sit through - all the way to its jaw-droppingly bizarre and awful ending.
I have to say that I was really moved by Sarah Ruhl's "eurydice." I can imagine people finding it dense or pretentious - it's definitely not an easy listening-type drama, with much of the dialogue verging on a sort of poetry, but I found it really fascinating and will admit to being surprisingly teary-eyed at the end. It's one of those really avant-garde productions: there is a Greek chorus of stones (yes, stones) and the lord of the Underworld is a child riding around on a bicycle. Oh, and the set is really beautiful. Anyway, I recommend seeing it, though I admit it's not for everyone (the always amusing John Simon said "I have never had a worse time than during these 90 interminable, intermissionless minutes of a play that, were it a lamp post, dogs would shun.").
Anyway, the LaBute play I saw this evening was his pedophile play: "In a Dark Dark House." I probably would have liked the play a little less if I hadn't already seen David Harrower's "Blackbird," a far better and far more chilling play on a similar subject matter - they're both about pedophiles, but LaBute's pedophile play has the obligatory ludicrous series of plot twists in the third scene. The first two scenes were fine - not particularly interesting, but not terrible - that was basically the "Blackbird"-lite part of the play. Then we get the third and final scene, and it's basically a 'and then I did this, and if you think that's shocking, well I also did this, and if you think that's shocking, well I also did this' (and so on and so on) - it's just one pointless added layer after the other. And then, so the audience doesn't leave flush the play from their memories as soon as they leave the theatre, he gives us a final encounter that's just ambiguous enough to have the audience scratching their heads and wondering what we just missed and why there is this hugging and crying going on. And so the play ends and everyone turns to the person next to them and they say "Did you understand the ending," and they bandy about theories about what happened, and so the play lives on in the memories of the audience. (For my part, based on eavesdropping on people around me and then pondering to myself on my way home I think I figured out what happened at the end - but I can't really say I understand why what happened happened).
So... while "In a Dark Dark House" is the first play in a while that had me leave the theatre actually thinking about the play and what happened in it, and I can't say I necessarily disliked the play, because it did hold my interest - in the end it was just typical LaBute with everything I've come to expect from one of his plays. I notice, shockingly enough that MCC is not producing one of his plays next season. Not that I really ever like MCC's non-LaBute offerings, but I can't help but breathe a sigh of relief.
As for other theatre...
I went to see "110 in the Shade" again. I have to say I enjoyed it even more the second time. I recall merely liking it the first time, but I really loved it this second time. If you haven't seen it yet, go. And if you have, why not see it again?
The sole reason I went to see "The Fabulous Life of a Size Zero" was because it's playing at the DR2 which is close to my apartment. That probably wasn't a very good reason to see a show, but I was feeling lazy that day. "The Fabulous Life of a Size Zero" was a fitting punishment for my laziness. It was truly dreadful. The first half was passable fluff entertainment, but it's charm soon wore off, especially when it started to get serious and it just became a bore and a chore to sit through - all the way to its jaw-droppingly bizarre and awful ending.
I have to say that I was really moved by Sarah Ruhl's "eurydice." I can imagine people finding it dense or pretentious - it's definitely not an easy listening-type drama, with much of the dialogue verging on a sort of poetry, but I found it really fascinating and will admit to being surprisingly teary-eyed at the end. It's one of those really avant-garde productions: there is a Greek chorus of stones (yes, stones) and the lord of the Underworld is a child riding around on a bicycle. Oh, and the set is really beautiful. Anyway, I recommend seeing it, though I admit it's not for everyone (the always amusing John Simon said "I have never had a worse time than during these 90 interminable, intermissionless minutes of a play that, were it a lamp post, dogs would shun.").
Monday, June 11, 2007
Tony Gossip and (Finally) a Catch-Up
I think it's been a long time since my last update. Despite the fact that I'm exhausted from yesterday's Tony Day (and by Tony day, I am of course referring to the Antoinette Perry Awards that were held yesterday. The only Soprano I saw on television was Audra McDonald...), I just put some chocolate chip cookie dough in the fridge to chill for an hour, and I'm feeling a certain burst of inspiration.
So, yesterday I sat through the Tony's twice... and neither time was in my living room. In the morning, thanks to some friendly co-workers, I was able to get a ticket to the Tony dress rehearsal. Basically, the run through the entire show (musical numbers, awards, presenters, "winners," and all) to hopefully work out the kinks. The front section of the orchestra has photos of all of the nominees taped to their assigned seats, and when a "for this rehearsal only" winner is called by the presenter, a goofy production assistant runs up on stage all excited and gives a fake speech. I have to say, some of those fake speeches were more entertaining than some of the real ones last night.
Among the interesting tidbits:
-Donny Osmond said he couldn't read the teleprompter, so he'd just memorize his lines
-Audra McDonald stopped the rehearsal in the middle of "Raunchy" because she couldn't hear the orchestra through her earpiece
-That opening number from "A Chorus Line" outside Radio City with Marvin Hamlisch on the roof? All pre-taped (did you have any doubt?)
And then that evening, I went up to the Rainbow Room to watch the winners talk to the press.
-Bill T. Jones was asked about what was up with the strange arm movements in "Spring Awakening." His explanation was that it all starts with Wendla exploring her sexuality in the opening number, and that sexual awakening is "a virus," that spreads to the Melchior and the other boys. So when the boys are exploring themselves, they're supposed to be recreating what she did, doing it very delicately, in a very feminine manner. (Sort of makes sense now that he said it. I'm going to have to see it again now, to see how it works in that light).
-A very teary-eyed emotional David Hyde Pierce said he never knew how much the Tony meant to him until he won it. He also said he was very upset that he forgot to thank Rob Ashford for his brilliant choreography, and that that was the key to his performance.
-Tom Stoppard said that the next production of his snooze fest (my term, not his) "The Coast of Utopia" will be in Russia, in Russian. The problem is that they've been rehearsing it for a year and a half, and now two of the women are pregnant so the production is on hold for the moment. As he said, that's what happens when you rehearse for a year and a half....
-John Gallagher, Jr. said he's only 22. A Tony at 22? I guess I've got some catching up to do....
And that's the end of my Tony gossip. Though did you see Raul Esparza's expression when they announced David Hyde Pierce's name? All of the other losers had happy shocked looks on their faces, while he looked perfectly livid.
----------------
As for real theatre, I've seen three of Alan Ayckbourn's "Intimate Exchanges" and each one has been great so far. In case you're out of the loop, "Intimate Exchanges" is a series of sixteen plays, all starting with a decision of a woman whether to smoke or not smoke. And basically from the one decision, the play continues to split until it has sixteen possible conclusions. There are eight different titles to choose from - the title scenes being the first scene of the second acts. So if you were to see all eight plays (the conclusions are all five to ten minute scenes, so they're not really considered major determining factors), you would see each first act twice, but totally different second acts. As I said, I've seen three so far - and two had the same first act (though there is a bit of a change at the end of the act to set up the different act two). All of the roles (there are maybe 8 - 10) are played by two extremely talented actors - Bill Champion and Claudia Elmhirst. What I've found from the three I've seen so far, is that the first acts are all mildly amusing setups, the first scene of the second act (which makes up the bulk of the act) is hysterically funny, and the final short scene, which takes place five years after the preceding scene, is really sad - basically, we watch these people go through their goofy lives, but in the end at least one of them ends up with a sad and pathetic life thanks to the decisions made earlier in the plays. Of the three I've seen so far: "Affairs in a Tent," "Events on a Garden Terrace," and "A One Man Protest," my favorite has been "Affairs in a Tent," in which a tea party goes very very wrong thanks to not so great skills of the "master baker" (the what? oh, master BAKER...). I'm still giggling about the jokes in that one. It's absolutely roll in the aisles, laugh till it hurts funny. The others didn't quite live up to that level, but they were still enjoyable.
I have tickets to see four more, and I have to say I am definitely looking forward to them, and definitely suggest checking these out if you have the time/inclination. They run through July 1.
I also went to see the Roundabout's production of "Old Aquaintance." It's not bad as far as light, painless summer entertainment goes, but I think they were hoping for another "The Constant Wife," but this script just isn't as good. The performances are all pretty bland, with the notable exception of Harriet Harris, who leaves big gashes in the sets with all of the scenery chewing she does - she is an absolute hoot, however, and any scene she is in is instantly a joy to watch. Unfortunately, the very bland her co-star Margaret Colin gets far more stage time - I'm not sure if it's her performance or the role, but she really just did nothing for me.
All in all, it's not painful to sit through - thanks totally to Harriet Harris, but I have to think there were better scripts out there than this one for a light summer comedy.
Oh, I also went to see "Rabbit" - part of the Brits Off Broadway festival that "Intimate Exchanges" is part of. The dialogue is really well well written, but the plot and the structure of the play were rather poor. Most of the play is just a bunch of witty, acid tongued friends talking and drinking at a party. For some reason though, the playwright decided to also randomly throw in flashback scenes between the party's host and her dying father. Those scenes were really clunky, and didn't really seem to flow very well - it was like the playwright thought we needed a break from the party, so she would just throw in some random other scenes whenever she felt like it. Still, it was apparently the playwright (Nina Raine)'s first play, so I think I'll look forward to her next one, should it also cross the pond.
If I've seen anything else, it didn't register, so there's your update. And I think it's almost been an hour so I should probably go now and preheat the oven for my cookies.
So, yesterday I sat through the Tony's twice... and neither time was in my living room. In the morning, thanks to some friendly co-workers, I was able to get a ticket to the Tony dress rehearsal. Basically, the run through the entire show (musical numbers, awards, presenters, "winners," and all) to hopefully work out the kinks. The front section of the orchestra has photos of all of the nominees taped to their assigned seats, and when a "for this rehearsal only" winner is called by the presenter, a goofy production assistant runs up on stage all excited and gives a fake speech. I have to say, some of those fake speeches were more entertaining than some of the real ones last night.
Among the interesting tidbits:
-Donny Osmond said he couldn't read the teleprompter, so he'd just memorize his lines
-Audra McDonald stopped the rehearsal in the middle of "Raunchy" because she couldn't hear the orchestra through her earpiece
-That opening number from "A Chorus Line" outside Radio City with Marvin Hamlisch on the roof? All pre-taped (did you have any doubt?)
And then that evening, I went up to the Rainbow Room to watch the winners talk to the press.
-Bill T. Jones was asked about what was up with the strange arm movements in "Spring Awakening." His explanation was that it all starts with Wendla exploring her sexuality in the opening number, and that sexual awakening is "a virus," that spreads to the Melchior and the other boys. So when the boys are exploring themselves, they're supposed to be recreating what she did, doing it very delicately, in a very feminine manner. (Sort of makes sense now that he said it. I'm going to have to see it again now, to see how it works in that light).
-A very teary-eyed emotional David Hyde Pierce said he never knew how much the Tony meant to him until he won it. He also said he was very upset that he forgot to thank Rob Ashford for his brilliant choreography, and that that was the key to his performance.
-Tom Stoppard said that the next production of his snooze fest (my term, not his) "The Coast of Utopia" will be in Russia, in Russian. The problem is that they've been rehearsing it for a year and a half, and now two of the women are pregnant so the production is on hold for the moment. As he said, that's what happens when you rehearse for a year and a half....
-John Gallagher, Jr. said he's only 22. A Tony at 22? I guess I've got some catching up to do....
And that's the end of my Tony gossip. Though did you see Raul Esparza's expression when they announced David Hyde Pierce's name? All of the other losers had happy shocked looks on their faces, while he looked perfectly livid.
----------------
As for real theatre, I've seen three of Alan Ayckbourn's "Intimate Exchanges" and each one has been great so far. In case you're out of the loop, "Intimate Exchanges" is a series of sixteen plays, all starting with a decision of a woman whether to smoke or not smoke. And basically from the one decision, the play continues to split until it has sixteen possible conclusions. There are eight different titles to choose from - the title scenes being the first scene of the second acts. So if you were to see all eight plays (the conclusions are all five to ten minute scenes, so they're not really considered major determining factors), you would see each first act twice, but totally different second acts. As I said, I've seen three so far - and two had the same first act (though there is a bit of a change at the end of the act to set up the different act two). All of the roles (there are maybe 8 - 10) are played by two extremely talented actors - Bill Champion and Claudia Elmhirst. What I've found from the three I've seen so far, is that the first acts are all mildly amusing setups, the first scene of the second act (which makes up the bulk of the act) is hysterically funny, and the final short scene, which takes place five years after the preceding scene, is really sad - basically, we watch these people go through their goofy lives, but in the end at least one of them ends up with a sad and pathetic life thanks to the decisions made earlier in the plays. Of the three I've seen so far: "Affairs in a Tent," "Events on a Garden Terrace," and "A One Man Protest," my favorite has been "Affairs in a Tent," in which a tea party goes very very wrong thanks to not so great skills of the "master baker" (the what? oh, master BAKER...). I'm still giggling about the jokes in that one. It's absolutely roll in the aisles, laugh till it hurts funny. The others didn't quite live up to that level, but they were still enjoyable.
I have tickets to see four more, and I have to say I am definitely looking forward to them, and definitely suggest checking these out if you have the time/inclination. They run through July 1.
I also went to see the Roundabout's production of "Old Aquaintance." It's not bad as far as light, painless summer entertainment goes, but I think they were hoping for another "The Constant Wife," but this script just isn't as good. The performances are all pretty bland, with the notable exception of Harriet Harris, who leaves big gashes in the sets with all of the scenery chewing she does - she is an absolute hoot, however, and any scene she is in is instantly a joy to watch. Unfortunately, the very bland her co-star Margaret Colin gets far more stage time - I'm not sure if it's her performance or the role, but she really just did nothing for me.
All in all, it's not painful to sit through - thanks totally to Harriet Harris, but I have to think there were better scripts out there than this one for a light summer comedy.
Oh, I also went to see "Rabbit" - part of the Brits Off Broadway festival that "Intimate Exchanges" is part of. The dialogue is really well well written, but the plot and the structure of the play were rather poor. Most of the play is just a bunch of witty, acid tongued friends talking and drinking at a party. For some reason though, the playwright decided to also randomly throw in flashback scenes between the party's host and her dying father. Those scenes were really clunky, and didn't really seem to flow very well - it was like the playwright thought we needed a break from the party, so she would just throw in some random other scenes whenever she felt like it. Still, it was apparently the playwright (Nina Raine)'s first play, so I think I'll look forward to her next one, should it also cross the pond.
If I've seen anything else, it didn't register, so there's your update. And I think it's almost been an hour so I should probably go now and preheat the oven for my cookies.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Xana-don't, and two other new musicals
Long time no update...
I went to the first preview of "Xanadu" last night. I think it's taken 24 hours for me to process what I saw (that, and the whopper of a "Lost" season finale last night that left me so dazed that I couldn't do anything else for the rest of the evening).
Despite the awfulness of its source material, I think "Xanadu" could have been a fun musical. I mean on paper you have the songs from the movie (after all, the musical numbers are what make the movie worth watching), a new script by Douglas Carter Beane (after all, the film's screenplay is what makes the movie so painful to sit through), and a cast including everyone's favorite musical comediennes Jackie Hoffman and Mary Testa. So where does the end product go wrong? Where to start?
My main problem with the stage production was its obvious cheapness. I guess I should have been worried when I heard not only that this big musical was going into the tiny Helen Hayes Theatre, but that they were going to be putting seats on the stage. The excuse was supposedly that the whole theatre was going to be used, so stage seats wouldn't distract. The real reason for the stage seats (other than more moolah for the producers)? To make the playing area smaller so hopefully no one would notice how sparse everything looked, and to hopefully let the paltry cast of 10 hard working actors fill the stage. The set consists of a giant mirror (so we can see the floor of the stage), a couple of tacky white brick boxes for the on-stage audience to sit in, and a couple of Greek columns. Later on in the show, we get a couple of disco balls and a shiny "Xanadu" sign thrown in. The whole thing - from the small cast, to cheap set, to the tacky costumes looks like some low-budget off-Broadway musical. How this made it to Broadway, complete with $110 tickets is beyond me. I just don't understand how you can take source material made so entertaining by its lavish gaudiness, do it on the cheap and hope it all looks all right.
The new book by Douglas Carter Beane is full of winks to the audience, saying "Yes, we know this stinks. Isn't that great?" Well, the jokes are very hit or miss, and honestly the new story is full of gaping holes. Camp is all well and good, but would it hurt to camp up a story that made sense?
As for the cast, well they really work very hard. And all but Tony Roberts are really very talented. Why Tony Roberts (who obviously cannot dance) was cast in a role originated by dance legend Gene Kelly is beyond me. I mean, he tries to do the moves with the rest of the cast, but it's really pathetic.
So in the end, if you can ignore the bad sets and mediocre script, and try to focus on the fun silly songs and silly choreography, it is possible to have a somewhat enjoyable time at "Xanadu." If this were at an off-Broadway theatre I would probably be much more forgiving. But to do a show like this on Broadway, well it really is insulting to the audience.
I'm going back to see this again after is opens, so we'll see how things progress after the show gets on it's feet. I remain somewhat skeptical, but at least it's not painful to sit through. Nonetheless, it's probably cheaper and more enjoyable to pick up a copy of the dvd and just watch the musical numbers in the comfort of your living room.
And since I'm in writing mode, a quick recap of two other new musicals.
"10 Million Miles" is the new Patty Griffin musical at the Atlantic Theatre (original home of my beloved "Spring Awakening") and directed by Michael Mayer (director of my beloved "Spring Awakening"). So of course, hopes were high.
Now, I don't know anything about Patty Griffin, so I went into the show with an open mind. I figured if pop singer who I knew nothing about Duncan Sheik can write a good musical, why not folk singer who I know nothing about Patty Griffin?
Well, the show started and the first song was pretty entertaining. And second song, while sounding an awful lot like the first, and while having only a little bit to do with the scene, was also not bad. The third song, also sounding rather similar and still only having a little to do with the scene, was not so enjoyable. And so it went down hill from there. Along the way there was one (yes, one) song that was actually plot specific. The rest all just sounded like songs that would be played in the background of the film version while the audience watched some montage.
I learned afterwards that there's a dirty little secret about this musical that the Atlantic doesn't want you to know. It's not in any of the advance material I read, but watching the show, well... they just can't hide it. You see, "10 Million Miles" is (*cue thunder and lightning*) a jukebox musical. (Run! Run! Don't you see the fire pouring down from the sky?). Now there isn't anything inherently wrong with a jukebox musical (see: "Jersey Boys"). But there is a reason that people usually don't much care for them. And that reason is that songs shoehorned into a book generally don't make that much sense there, and so character development is hindered, audience don't much care for the characters on stage, and the whole thing tanks more or less.
Well, book writer Keith Bunin apparently didn't worry too much about whether the audience cared about the characters, because the was he wrote them, they're just not very likable. The show starts out with two people going on a road trip. I don't think you need me to tell you anything else about it, you can easily fill the rest in on your own. The writing fairly cliche-ridden, disappointing coming from the promising playwright who wrote the very enjoyable "The Busy World Is Hushed" last season.
The cast of four is very talented. The set is serviceable - it's basically a truck that turns and has lots of parts that fold out to create different scenes. Eh.
Full disclaimer: I went to the first weekend of previews for "10 Million Miles" so it's always possible that it's improved since then. I somehow doubt it.
Since I went to see "In The Heights" last week, it has announced that it will be moving to Broadway. Uh huh.... The musical and lyrics and fairly strong (though there was a bit too much rapping for my taste - the last number especially just sounded like lyrics that the composer didn't get around to writing a melody for), but the book is a mess - too many characters with rather uninteresting stories - and it's all so bland and G-rated wholesome - this supposedly edgy musical felt awfully tame and a bit too family friendly. Anyway, hopefully something can be done about the book before the Broadway run, but since the show isn't selling that well off-Broadway (I saw it on tdf) I don't really see it selling well at a much larger theatre on Broadway. We'll see. It certainly has promise - Lin-Manuel Miranda is definitely an exciting new voice for the musical theatre. I look forward to hearing the cast recording.
That's all for now. Bed time :O)
I went to the first preview of "Xanadu" last night. I think it's taken 24 hours for me to process what I saw (that, and the whopper of a "Lost" season finale last night that left me so dazed that I couldn't do anything else for the rest of the evening).
Despite the awfulness of its source material, I think "Xanadu" could have been a fun musical. I mean on paper you have the songs from the movie (after all, the musical numbers are what make the movie worth watching), a new script by Douglas Carter Beane (after all, the film's screenplay is what makes the movie so painful to sit through), and a cast including everyone's favorite musical comediennes Jackie Hoffman and Mary Testa. So where does the end product go wrong? Where to start?
My main problem with the stage production was its obvious cheapness. I guess I should have been worried when I heard not only that this big musical was going into the tiny Helen Hayes Theatre, but that they were going to be putting seats on the stage. The excuse was supposedly that the whole theatre was going to be used, so stage seats wouldn't distract. The real reason for the stage seats (other than more moolah for the producers)? To make the playing area smaller so hopefully no one would notice how sparse everything looked, and to hopefully let the paltry cast of 10 hard working actors fill the stage. The set consists of a giant mirror (so we can see the floor of the stage), a couple of tacky white brick boxes for the on-stage audience to sit in, and a couple of Greek columns. Later on in the show, we get a couple of disco balls and a shiny "Xanadu" sign thrown in. The whole thing - from the small cast, to cheap set, to the tacky costumes looks like some low-budget off-Broadway musical. How this made it to Broadway, complete with $110 tickets is beyond me. I just don't understand how you can take source material made so entertaining by its lavish gaudiness, do it on the cheap and hope it all looks all right.
The new book by Douglas Carter Beane is full of winks to the audience, saying "Yes, we know this stinks. Isn't that great?" Well, the jokes are very hit or miss, and honestly the new story is full of gaping holes. Camp is all well and good, but would it hurt to camp up a story that made sense?
As for the cast, well they really work very hard. And all but Tony Roberts are really very talented. Why Tony Roberts (who obviously cannot dance) was cast in a role originated by dance legend Gene Kelly is beyond me. I mean, he tries to do the moves with the rest of the cast, but it's really pathetic.
So in the end, if you can ignore the bad sets and mediocre script, and try to focus on the fun silly songs and silly choreography, it is possible to have a somewhat enjoyable time at "Xanadu." If this were at an off-Broadway theatre I would probably be much more forgiving. But to do a show like this on Broadway, well it really is insulting to the audience.
I'm going back to see this again after is opens, so we'll see how things progress after the show gets on it's feet. I remain somewhat skeptical, but at least it's not painful to sit through. Nonetheless, it's probably cheaper and more enjoyable to pick up a copy of the dvd and just watch the musical numbers in the comfort of your living room.
And since I'm in writing mode, a quick recap of two other new musicals.
"10 Million Miles" is the new Patty Griffin musical at the Atlantic Theatre (original home of my beloved "Spring Awakening") and directed by Michael Mayer (director of my beloved "Spring Awakening"). So of course, hopes were high.
Now, I don't know anything about Patty Griffin, so I went into the show with an open mind. I figured if pop singer who I knew nothing about Duncan Sheik can write a good musical, why not folk singer who I know nothing about Patty Griffin?
Well, the show started and the first song was pretty entertaining. And second song, while sounding an awful lot like the first, and while having only a little bit to do with the scene, was also not bad. The third song, also sounding rather similar and still only having a little to do with the scene, was not so enjoyable. And so it went down hill from there. Along the way there was one (yes, one) song that was actually plot specific. The rest all just sounded like songs that would be played in the background of the film version while the audience watched some montage.
I learned afterwards that there's a dirty little secret about this musical that the Atlantic doesn't want you to know. It's not in any of the advance material I read, but watching the show, well... they just can't hide it. You see, "10 Million Miles" is (*cue thunder and lightning*) a jukebox musical. (Run! Run! Don't you see the fire pouring down from the sky?). Now there isn't anything inherently wrong with a jukebox musical (see: "Jersey Boys"). But there is a reason that people usually don't much care for them. And that reason is that songs shoehorned into a book generally don't make that much sense there, and so character development is hindered, audience don't much care for the characters on stage, and the whole thing tanks more or less.
Well, book writer Keith Bunin apparently didn't worry too much about whether the audience cared about the characters, because the was he wrote them, they're just not very likable. The show starts out with two people going on a road trip. I don't think you need me to tell you anything else about it, you can easily fill the rest in on your own. The writing fairly cliche-ridden, disappointing coming from the promising playwright who wrote the very enjoyable "The Busy World Is Hushed" last season.
The cast of four is very talented. The set is serviceable - it's basically a truck that turns and has lots of parts that fold out to create different scenes. Eh.
Full disclaimer: I went to the first weekend of previews for "10 Million Miles" so it's always possible that it's improved since then. I somehow doubt it.
Since I went to see "In The Heights" last week, it has announced that it will be moving to Broadway. Uh huh.... The musical and lyrics and fairly strong (though there was a bit too much rapping for my taste - the last number especially just sounded like lyrics that the composer didn't get around to writing a melody for), but the book is a mess - too many characters with rather uninteresting stories - and it's all so bland and G-rated wholesome - this supposedly edgy musical felt awfully tame and a bit too family friendly. Anyway, hopefully something can be done about the book before the Broadway run, but since the show isn't selling that well off-Broadway (I saw it on tdf) I don't really see it selling well at a much larger theatre on Broadway. We'll see. It certainly has promise - Lin-Manuel Miranda is definitely an exciting new voice for the musical theatre. I look forward to hearing the cast recording.
That's all for now. Bed time :O)
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Gaslight
"Gaslight" was always one of those movies I meant to watch but somehow never got around to. I have a vague recollection of Tivo-ing it once a few years ago, watching a few minutes of it, falling asleep, and then never finishing it. Well, a Tivo auto-record wishlist has been once again set up, so the next time it's on, I will be sure to watch it.
The reason behind my newfound re-interest in the movie is that I just returned home from the first preview of the Irish Rep's production of the play that the film was based on - a play originally titled "Angel Street," and conveniently re-titled for this production, presumably because the film's title is better known, therefore theoretically resulting in stronger ticket sales.
Well, one thing about going to live theatre is that even if you dose off for a bit, you don't really have the option of pressing stop or delete - you're stuck there until intermission. All that worked to my advantage, because even if I did nod off a bit in the first act (not because the production was bad, but simply because I was really tired), I was awake to watch enough of the show to pique my interest and make we want to stay for the whole thing.
The production values for the production are excellent - the costumes are lovely and the set definitely fills the tiny little stage and makes it look as lush as possible. The acting is all around quite good, especially for a first preview. One of the reasons that I dragged myself to the show was the name Brian Murray, an actor who never disappoints - and certainly didn't let me down this time. He is delightful in the role of the detective.
As for the play itself, I found it to be very entertaining. A nice light thriller that is well suited to the warmer months when people don't really want to use their brains too much. I guess it could be said that the production wasn't really menacing enough - I don't know if I was ever really frightened, which I probably should have been - but I was rarely bored, and overall definitely entertained. Not a must see, but worth seeing if you have some free time.
The reason behind my newfound re-interest in the movie is that I just returned home from the first preview of the Irish Rep's production of the play that the film was based on - a play originally titled "Angel Street," and conveniently re-titled for this production, presumably because the film's title is better known, therefore theoretically resulting in stronger ticket sales.
Well, one thing about going to live theatre is that even if you dose off for a bit, you don't really have the option of pressing stop or delete - you're stuck there until intermission. All that worked to my advantage, because even if I did nod off a bit in the first act (not because the production was bad, but simply because I was really tired), I was awake to watch enough of the show to pique my interest and make we want to stay for the whole thing.
The production values for the production are excellent - the costumes are lovely and the set definitely fills the tiny little stage and makes it look as lush as possible. The acting is all around quite good, especially for a first preview. One of the reasons that I dragged myself to the show was the name Brian Murray, an actor who never disappoints - and certainly didn't let me down this time. He is delightful in the role of the detective.
As for the play itself, I found it to be very entertaining. A nice light thriller that is well suited to the warmer months when people don't really want to use their brains too much. I guess it could be said that the production wasn't really menacing enough - I don't know if I was ever really frightened, which I probably should have been - but I was rarely bored, and overall definitely entertained. Not a must see, but worth seeing if you have some free time.
Monday, May 7, 2007
It's History! Live On Stage! Oh Joy...
When I am sitting in a darkened theatre and an actor playing a dead president walks onstage, I usually let out a groan and try to comfort myself with the knowledge that I won't be awake for too much longer. I generally find that playwrights who tackle subjects of the not too far past tend to assume that audiences will automatically connect with the subject on stage because a) they lived through the events being re-created, or b) they are young history/politic buffs who just love this sort of thing. I fall into neither of those categories, and therefore have had to suffer while watching such snoozefests as "Nixon's Nixon" (a conversation between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger on the eve of the resignation), "Golda's Balcony" (Golda Meir rambling about Israeli politics) and "The Accomlices" (evil FDR and American Government v The Jews). Why everyone was raving about those dry readings from history textbooks disguised as "drama" was totally lost on me.
So, I'm sure you can imagine how much I was looking forward to "Frost/Nixon" - what promised to be an oh so lively discussion between a talk show host I'd never heard of and a president I don't care much about.
Well, leave it to Brit Peter Morgan, the writer who made Queen Elizabeth interesting in "The Queen," to breathe life into American politics. And, in fact, just as Helen Mirren's brilliant acting made "The Queen"s a can't miss event, so does Frank Langella's Richard Nixon make "Frost/Nixon" a must-see.
Based on the little I knew about him, the basic image of Nixon that I had in my head was a man with pointy horns sticking out of his head, dancing around in flames, with his arms up in that signature pose. Well, Frank Langella totally erased that image from my head because get this - he actually makes Nixon into an extremely likeable and extremely sympathetic figure. I left the play basically wondering why everyone hates him so much. Sure, there was that little Watergate thing, but that seems like a bit of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Maybe it's because "Frost/Nixon" was written for a British audience who presumably know less about American history than Americans (ha... Americans knowing about American history... ha ha) but, he thankfully takes the time to explain all of the background information behind Nixon and his resignation, and everything leading up to the interview with David Frost - who we all learn all about. And he somehow manages to do this without making it feel like we're stuck in history class listening to a textbook. The play manages to be constantly riveting, leaving the audience wondering what is going to happen next - even if in the back of out minds we really do know all along.
Michael Sheen (aka Tony Blair in "The Queen") makes a very likeable David Frost. And Frank Langella, well... he is nothing short of brilliant as Nixon. His performance alone would make this play a must see. The fact that there is a compelling script and wonderful supporting performances is really icing on tasty tasty cake.
For some reason "Frost/Nixon" doesn't seem to be getting as much hype as I'd expect. I'm not sure why - maybe it's that the snob audience is still sleeping at the Hotel Beaumont (home to "Coast of Utopia") but "Frost/Nixon" is totally entertaining and the best drama of the 2006-07 Broadway season.
On Saturday, I finally went to see "No Child..." - Nilaja Sun's solo play about being a teaching artist in a school in the Bronx. I've been wanting to see it for a while and now since it's closing at the beginning of June, I finally went (with a tdf ticket). And I have to say that the show is indeed well worth seeing. The basic story is that Sun, through a government grant, is assigned to a nightmarish class in an inner city school and tries to get them to study and perform a play. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to figure out what happens. The play is funny and moving. Sun plays all of the roles including the narrating janitor, herself, and her entire class plus its teachers, the school principal, the school security guard, and a couple more characters. The play has been hyped a lot, and though I wasn't really looking forward to it, despite said hype (mostly because I never looking forward to solo plays), I thought this was well worth seeing. Well acted, well written, etc. Oh, and it's only 65 minutes long (well, with starting five minutes late, it's more like 70) - though to be perfectly honest, this was one of those rare instances where I wouldn't have minded if it was a bit longer. I didn't really want it to end.
So, I'm sure you can imagine how much I was looking forward to "Frost/Nixon" - what promised to be an oh so lively discussion between a talk show host I'd never heard of and a president I don't care much about.
Well, leave it to Brit Peter Morgan, the writer who made Queen Elizabeth interesting in "The Queen," to breathe life into American politics. And, in fact, just as Helen Mirren's brilliant acting made "The Queen"s a can't miss event, so does Frank Langella's Richard Nixon make "Frost/Nixon" a must-see.
Based on the little I knew about him, the basic image of Nixon that I had in my head was a man with pointy horns sticking out of his head, dancing around in flames, with his arms up in that signature pose. Well, Frank Langella totally erased that image from my head because get this - he actually makes Nixon into an extremely likeable and extremely sympathetic figure. I left the play basically wondering why everyone hates him so much. Sure, there was that little Watergate thing, but that seems like a bit of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Maybe it's because "Frost/Nixon" was written for a British audience who presumably know less about American history than Americans (ha... Americans knowing about American history... ha ha) but, he thankfully takes the time to explain all of the background information behind Nixon and his resignation, and everything leading up to the interview with David Frost - who we all learn all about. And he somehow manages to do this without making it feel like we're stuck in history class listening to a textbook. The play manages to be constantly riveting, leaving the audience wondering what is going to happen next - even if in the back of out minds we really do know all along.
Michael Sheen (aka Tony Blair in "The Queen") makes a very likeable David Frost. And Frank Langella, well... he is nothing short of brilliant as Nixon. His performance alone would make this play a must see. The fact that there is a compelling script and wonderful supporting performances is really icing on tasty tasty cake.
For some reason "Frost/Nixon" doesn't seem to be getting as much hype as I'd expect. I'm not sure why - maybe it's that the snob audience is still sleeping at the Hotel Beaumont (home to "Coast of Utopia") but "Frost/Nixon" is totally entertaining and the best drama of the 2006-07 Broadway season.
On Saturday, I finally went to see "No Child..." - Nilaja Sun's solo play about being a teaching artist in a school in the Bronx. I've been wanting to see it for a while and now since it's closing at the beginning of June, I finally went (with a tdf ticket). And I have to say that the show is indeed well worth seeing. The basic story is that Sun, through a government grant, is assigned to a nightmarish class in an inner city school and tries to get them to study and perform a play. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to figure out what happens. The play is funny and moving. Sun plays all of the roles including the narrating janitor, herself, and her entire class plus its teachers, the school principal, the school security guard, and a couple more characters. The play has been hyped a lot, and though I wasn't really looking forward to it, despite said hype (mostly because I never looking forward to solo plays), I thought this was well worth seeing. Well acted, well written, etc. Oh, and it's only 65 minutes long (well, with starting five minutes late, it's more like 70) - though to be perfectly honest, this was one of those rare instances where I wouldn't have minded if it was a bit longer. I didn't really want it to end.
OMIGOD! It's A Musical!
(Written by me on April 28 - pre-the birth of this blog)
--------------------------
OMIGOD YOU GUYS!!! "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is like totally on Broadway now. It is so totally the best new musical ever since like "Wicked." It is like so good I so need to see it like forty more times.
(*muffled fighting sounds*)
Ouch! Out of my head! I apologize for that. I think I may have been momentarily possessed by some mysterious force. Such is the brainwashing power of "Legally Blonde" the new musical that opens on Broadway on Sunday. Try as you might, you just can't resist this musical's earnest sugary charms. It's like a big pink ball of cotton candy. You know it just colored spun sugar stuck on a lousy paper cone, but how can you resist its allure? And so you buy it and you eat it and your hands get sticky and your tongue turns pink, but do you really care? No. Because you are now on a sugar high and you're bouncing down the street happy as can be. Yeah, well that's sort of like "Legally Blonde: The Musical" - the show manages to be more than the sum of it's kind of mediocre parts.
For example, the score by Laurence O'Keefe and Nell Benjamin? Not one of Broadway's finer moments. There are a few songs like "Omigod You Guys" and "So Much Better" that take one line of melody and repeat it so many times that the audience has it stuck in their heads for weeks to come. And there may be one or two, probably sung by Orfeh, that could generally be called almost good. But the rest of the score is surprisingly mediocre. It's certainly nowhere in the same league as O'Keefe's "Bat Boy: The Musical," even if he did copy himself a number of time for this score. The fact that "Legally Blonde" leading lady Laura Bell Bundy's voice often sounds reminiscent of "Bat Boy" leading lady Kerry Butler's voice doesn't help matters.
Speaking of Laura Bell Bundy, well... she's no Kristin Chenoweth. Chenoweth is the gold standard for the perky blonde role, and all the other blonde girls out there? Well, they just have live in her shadow. And so even though Chenoweth never actually played the role on Broadway (though she apparently did in developmental readings), it's oh so easy to imagine how brilliant she'd be playing the same character she always plays. Bundy is fine - she certainly works hard enough, and she even does finally win her audience over in the end, but she just has a certain aura of generic around her. Which I guess is actually a good thing for the producers of the show, because she will definitely be easy to replace. Just look at the list of ladies who've played Glinda in "Wicked" and you've got yourself tried and true replacements for Elle in "Legally Blonde."
Now, I would say the biggest disappointment for me was with David Rockwell's sets. Showing such promise with his marvelous creative designs for "Hairspray" and "All Shook Up," these are really bland. And flat. One particularly embarassing set piece - the storefront for the salon, which was just a flat piece that was lowered down on wires, actually swayed back and forth whenever someone went in or out of the door. Would it have killed them to somehow secure it the ground? It was just really embarassing. Very "tour" friendly perhaps, but certainly not impressive to look at.
So where does the show go right? Well, it has a first rate supporting cast. The biggest standouts for me were Chico and Chloe, who played Bruiser and Rugus... Elle and Paulette's dogs. Say what you will, but any time those dogs stepped paw on stage, all eyes (and awwwws) were on them. As far as humans go, the star was definitely Orfeh (who plays Paulette - hairstylist and friend to Elle), who stole the show whenever she was on stage (with only humans, anyway). I don't know if it was just that she had the best material or if it was that she just knew best what to do with it, but she easily stole the show from Bundy. Other notable humans were Christian Borle (charming as always, as the "nice" lawyer/boyfriend) and Andy Karl (an amusing UPS man and Irish step dancer).
Other than that, I'm not really sure what happens, but somehow when all of that ordinary sugar is plugged into that magical cotton candy making machine, something happens that science just can't explain, and a fun show pops out. Somehow, somewhere in the second act, the show changes from being "Okay" (said with a sigh) to "Cute!" (said with a smile). And we stop caring that the music is kind of bland and annoying. And we start to forget that Kristin Chenoweth isn't playing Elle and Laura Bell Bundy starts to seem pretty funny and appealing. And somehow we sort actually get involved in the story and start caring about what happens to these characters. And the jokes start to actually seem funny. The sugar rush somehow kicks in, the brain turns off, and the show just becomes mindless happy fun.
So no, "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is not OMIGOD like the best musical ever ever ever, just like cotton candy is not the best candy ever ever ever... well... maybe the latter part of the statment isn't exactly true... (mmm... cotton candy...), but it manages to mindlessly entertain its audience and puts smiles on our faces.
And unlike "The Wedding Singer" which did pretty much the same thing, and somehow flopped, this one is pretty much tailer made for the teenage girl audience...
OMIGOD did you see the yoga pants in the gift shop? I like totally need a pair.
(*bang* "Oh Mrs. Lovett? How about serving fresh pink meat pies this evening?")
...and will probably run forever.
--------------------------
OMIGOD YOU GUYS!!! "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is like totally on Broadway now. It is so totally the best new musical ever since like "Wicked." It is like so good I so need to see it like forty more times.
(*muffled fighting sounds*)
Ouch! Out of my head! I apologize for that. I think I may have been momentarily possessed by some mysterious force. Such is the brainwashing power of "Legally Blonde" the new musical that opens on Broadway on Sunday. Try as you might, you just can't resist this musical's earnest sugary charms. It's like a big pink ball of cotton candy. You know it just colored spun sugar stuck on a lousy paper cone, but how can you resist its allure? And so you buy it and you eat it and your hands get sticky and your tongue turns pink, but do you really care? No. Because you are now on a sugar high and you're bouncing down the street happy as can be. Yeah, well that's sort of like "Legally Blonde: The Musical" - the show manages to be more than the sum of it's kind of mediocre parts.
For example, the score by Laurence O'Keefe and Nell Benjamin? Not one of Broadway's finer moments. There are a few songs like "Omigod You Guys" and "So Much Better" that take one line of melody and repeat it so many times that the audience has it stuck in their heads for weeks to come. And there may be one or two, probably sung by Orfeh, that could generally be called almost good. But the rest of the score is surprisingly mediocre. It's certainly nowhere in the same league as O'Keefe's "Bat Boy: The Musical," even if he did copy himself a number of time for this score. The fact that "Legally Blonde" leading lady Laura Bell Bundy's voice often sounds reminiscent of "Bat Boy" leading lady Kerry Butler's voice doesn't help matters.
Speaking of Laura Bell Bundy, well... she's no Kristin Chenoweth. Chenoweth is the gold standard for the perky blonde role, and all the other blonde girls out there? Well, they just have live in her shadow. And so even though Chenoweth never actually played the role on Broadway (though she apparently did in developmental readings), it's oh so easy to imagine how brilliant she'd be playing the same character she always plays. Bundy is fine - she certainly works hard enough, and she even does finally win her audience over in the end, but she just has a certain aura of generic around her. Which I guess is actually a good thing for the producers of the show, because she will definitely be easy to replace. Just look at the list of ladies who've played Glinda in "Wicked" and you've got yourself tried and true replacements for Elle in "Legally Blonde."
Now, I would say the biggest disappointment for me was with David Rockwell's sets. Showing such promise with his marvelous creative designs for "Hairspray" and "All Shook Up," these are really bland. And flat. One particularly embarassing set piece - the storefront for the salon, which was just a flat piece that was lowered down on wires, actually swayed back and forth whenever someone went in or out of the door. Would it have killed them to somehow secure it the ground? It was just really embarassing. Very "tour" friendly perhaps, but certainly not impressive to look at.
So where does the show go right? Well, it has a first rate supporting cast. The biggest standouts for me were Chico and Chloe, who played Bruiser and Rugus... Elle and Paulette's dogs. Say what you will, but any time those dogs stepped paw on stage, all eyes (and awwwws) were on them. As far as humans go, the star was definitely Orfeh (who plays Paulette - hairstylist and friend to Elle), who stole the show whenever she was on stage (with only humans, anyway). I don't know if it was just that she had the best material or if it was that she just knew best what to do with it, but she easily stole the show from Bundy. Other notable humans were Christian Borle (charming as always, as the "nice" lawyer/boyfriend) and Andy Karl (an amusing UPS man and Irish step dancer).
Other than that, I'm not really sure what happens, but somehow when all of that ordinary sugar is plugged into that magical cotton candy making machine, something happens that science just can't explain, and a fun show pops out. Somehow, somewhere in the second act, the show changes from being "Okay" (said with a sigh) to "Cute!" (said with a smile). And we stop caring that the music is kind of bland and annoying. And we start to forget that Kristin Chenoweth isn't playing Elle and Laura Bell Bundy starts to seem pretty funny and appealing. And somehow we sort actually get involved in the story and start caring about what happens to these characters. And the jokes start to actually seem funny. The sugar rush somehow kicks in, the brain turns off, and the show just becomes mindless happy fun.
So no, "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is not OMIGOD like the best musical ever ever ever, just like cotton candy is not the best candy ever ever ever... well... maybe the latter part of the statment isn't exactly true... (mmm... cotton candy...), but it manages to mindlessly entertain its audience and puts smiles on our faces.
And unlike "The Wedding Singer" which did pretty much the same thing, and somehow flopped, this one is pretty much tailer made for the teenage girl audience...
OMIGOD did you see the yoga pants in the gift shop? I like totally need a pair.
(*bang* "Oh Mrs. Lovett? How about serving fresh pink meat pies this evening?")
...and will probably run forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)