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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing Interesting Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loving Franz and Finn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stoppard Must Be Stopped (but yay for Charles Busch)

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

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

The Seafarer

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

Catch Up Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ode to a Gangster

I went to see "A Bronx Tale" tonight, though to be perfectly honest the only reason I went was because it was on tdf. I had absolutely no interest in seeing it. Let's look at the z's I had against it: z1-It's a one man show. z2-It stars and is written by an apparently famous actor who I've never heard of, Chazz Palminteri. z3-It was made into an apparently famous movie starring said apparently famous actor, that I've never heard of, let alone seen. That makes zzz, and the very idea of the show put me to sleep.
Well, so much for low expectations - it was actually wonderful. The show runs around an hour and forty-five minutes. For the first hour and fifteen minutes or so, I was entertained enough - the show was a cute fluff-ish autobiographical story about a boy in the Bronx (hence the title) who witnesses a murder and then becomes friends with the gangster who did the murdering but who he didn't rat on. The acting up to the point is quite good - it's fascinating to watch Palminteri alternate between the roles of the wide eyed little boy and Sonny, the gangster he looks up to. But, you know, the story is merely pleasant, not exactly what I would call riveting. But then there is this scene where this tense boy ends up in a car with a couple of bombs in the back seat, and Palminteri starts shaking and you can see the sweat build on his face, and you can really see the fear in his eyes, and from that moment til the end, the show is just absolutely riveting. In the final scene, I was definitely getting teary eyed as the story came to close. Both the performance and the play were really just beautifully done.
I'm sort of curious to see the movie now - not enough to buy it, but I think I'll add it to my Tivo wishlist so it's recorded next time it's aired on TV. I can definitely see it fleshed out to include more actors - it may even be an overall stronger piece in a multi-actor form, but I Palminteri really gives a wonderful performance, and he certainly makes a strong argument for the art of the one man play. Unlike certain solo snoozefests (like "The Year of Magical Thinking") where the actor just sits there performs a live book on tape session, Palminteri actually gets up and moves and gives us a complete theatrical experience on a rather sparsely set stage (there are three set pieces - a bar, a stoop, and a lampost, and that's it).
Anyway, surprise surprise to me, I highly recommend seeing "A Bronx Tale." And hey, it's currently on tdf for next week, Oct 9-10-11.

M&M Awakening

I went to see "Spring Awakening" tonight. For the 13th time. I hadn't been since June, but the show is still in good shape. There were three non-original cast members in tonight (two official replacements, and one understudy). None were in particularly large roles, and while they took a while to get used to, they all did a fine job. Oh, and I spotted Michael Arden in the audience. *Start of sarcasm* Since he couldn't have just been going to see the show because he wanted to see it, I hearby start the (totally unfounded) rumor that he will take over when Jonathan Groff leaves the show. *end of sarcasm*

On my to the subway after the show, I stopped off at the Hershey store to see if they had any interesting new limited edition treats... because I love finding new candy. Nothing worth buying, so I headed over the M&M store and hit the mother load: five new limited edition flavors, unfortunately priced to put a big dent in my wallet at 1 bag for $6 or 3 for $15. So of course I bought six bags: two of the Mint Crisp (because I heart mint), then one each of the others.

In order of preference (from best to least best - because there was no "worst"), the flavors were:

MINT CRISP - Mmm... Chocolate mint with a crunch. These basically taste like those shiny, brightly colored balls of mint-chocolate you sometimes get when leaving restaurants. Except these have a delightful "crisp center" - so they have a nice added crunch. I'm not sorry I bought two bags of them.

CHERRY ALMONDINE - I'm a sucker for all things artifically cherry flavored. So these are almonds, wrapped in cherry flavored white chocolate. The almond and the cherry flavors make a slightly strange flavor combination at first, but then the artificial cherry goodness wins out on my tongue and I'm happy.

CREME D'ORANGE - Just oversized M&Ms with orange flavoring - well, technically milk chocolate surrounded by orange flavored white chocolate coating. Oh dear, these were originally in last place because when I first tasted them I thought they had a weird aftertaste. I've since changed my mind and so here they are at three. Orange M&Ms. Yum.

VANILLA CRISP - Another crispy one. Vanilla flavored milk chocolate wrapped around a crispy center. Sweet and vanilla and crunchy. The vanilla flavor seems maybe a little yogurty, in that these kind of remind me a little of yogurt covered raisins (which I admittedly haven't eaten in years because I hate raisins). Also very sweet, but easy to eat.

CAFE MOCHACCINO - Basically just coffee flavored over-sized M&Ms. I was expecting these to be sort of like chocolate espresso beans, but the coffee flavor is a bit sweet and a bit more artificial tasting. Still pretty yummy thought.

Okay, after tasting those five bags of M&Ms, I'm now sugared out for the night.

I don't know that I'd run back to buy more of these, considering the price, but if they were on sale I might consider them. I read on various candy blogs that Mars is going to be releasing the mint crisp M&Ms as a tie-in with the new Indiana Jones movie, so maybe when that happens I'll be able to buy more for less.

Now the big question is whether I keep these all to myself or I bring them to work tomorrow. I think I'm going to keep them all to myself. Bwahaha.

I just ate one last mint one to cleanse my palate after that last orange one, and that's it for the night, lest I get sick.

A Glorious Night at the Opera

I guess my clean slate from Yom Kippur must be working in my favor, because for the two days in a row afterwards, I've seen two spectacular productions in a row. Tonight was opening night at the Met - celebrated with their new production of "Lucia di Lammermoor," directed by Mary Zimmerman and starring Natalie Dessay. And every aspect of it is just absolutely brilliant. I think I saw the old Met production twice, and I don't remember really loving it either time. I mean, the Mad scene is always a showstopper, but the rest of it I think used to leave me a little cold. Well, not so in this new production that puts the THEATRE back into musical theatre. Thank goodness, this is not one of those bizarre anemic new productions that seem to en vogue nowadays. Visually at least, this is a fairly traditional looking production, with beautiful sets and gorgeous lighting. Thanks to Zimmerman's direction, there is very little of just plain old 'stand and sing' going on. I remember in the old Met production, at the end of Act II, all of the soloists would just stand at the edge of the stage and sing. Which was fine. But in this production, Zimmerman decides to make them sing while being posed for a wedding photo. A little gimmicky? Perhaps. But it's more fun to watch. I will say that the one time when Zimmerman's ADD staging may have gone a little too far was at the end of Act II, Scene I: she has the servants come on and start setting the stage for the second scene, while Lucia and Raimondo are still singing. The problem was that I was so interested in what the scene change that I forgot to pay attention to what they were singing. I was watching the servants fold some curtains, with some pretty music in the background, and then look down and see new Met titles to read. That was probably the only time it really bothered me, and the only quibble I had with the production. I'm certain purists would have many more complaints with Zimmerman's other daring departures, but I'm most certainly not a purist.
As for the performers, well Dessay was simply brilliant. Brilliant singing, brilliant acting. Just brilliant. The whole cast was really excellent, but my goodness that ovation after the Mad Scene just went on and on and on (as Lucia was slowly carried up the stairs...).
Ooh, and a special feature of this production is that the Met found someone to play a glass harmonica for the mad scene. It sounds sort of like a ghostly toy piano. Really chilling to listen to, and it added so much to the scene. I can't imagine a flute (apparently the usual substitute instrument) giving anywhere near the same effect.

Anyway, I think tickets are scarce for this production... and the reviews haven't even come out yet... so you may have to sell your second child (your first presumably already sold for a ticket to "Lear"), but it's worth it. First thing tomorrow, I'm going to figure go through and mark my calendar with dates that I can buy standing room to see this again.

What a way to start the season!

From the Ridiculous to the Sublime

As an offer of the proof that the quality of theatre is always a crapshoot: Look at the RSC's two productions currently running at BAM. Same director, same cast, two classic plays. One is misguided snooze, the other is a beg, borrow, cheat, steal, sell your first born for a ticket piece of brilliant theatre. The former is the "Seagull" that I previously talked about, the latter is the fab-fab-fab-fab-fabulous "King Lear" starring Ian McKellen. This is my fourth "King Lear" in three years or so (and if the play could take a break for a decade or two, I wouldn't complain) but it was by far the finest. There was not a weak link in the cast, and McKellen is... well, spectacular in the title role. I'm assuming "The Seagull" was an afterthought after "Lear" was cast, considering how perfect everyone was in their "Lear" roles and how imperfect most everyone was in their "Seagull" roles. Trevor Nunn does make some interesting choices that would probably bother Shakespeare purists (like a certain character receiving a hanging that may or may not be scripted, and the much publicized gratuitous(?) nudity from McKellen), but I am most certainly not a purist, and I loved every aspect of the staging. I am certainly one to take issue with shows that overstay their welcome (I recently saw "Stick Fly" at the McCarter and what might have made an enjoyable 90 minute play was stretched out to 2.5 long hours), though this ran close to four hours long, it was a pleasure to watch.
I don't know - I don't have anything critical to say here. The whole run is sold out and it looked like the cancellation line was starting early, but if you have the time to try for a ticket (I think it runs through Sept 30 at BAM, and before heading on to Minneapolis, LA and London), I think it's well worth your time.

Tomorrow is opening night at the Met. It's "Lucia" directed by Mary Zimmerman and starring Natalie Dessay. I have high hopes. Oh, and that reminds me - I'd better throw my "opera glasses" (aka binoculars) in my bag so I don't forget them tomorrow.

Dead Gull

In case you were concerned about what you were missing by not seeing one of the few performances of Ian McKellen is doing of Chekhov's "The Seagull," don't worry - you didn't miss anything. I imagine part of my disappointment was rooted in the fact that I saw that amazing (rumored to be Broadway bound) production with Kristin Scott Thomas at London's Royal Court Theatre in March, but this production was really just a snooze. It dragged on and on and ended up running close to 3 1/2 hours. McKellen and most of the supporting cast did a fine job, but the leads all seemed to just flounder. I really just didn't care at all about Konstantin and just couldn't wait for Konstantin to kill himself so the whole thing could be over - he was a bore to watch (no where near as interesting as Mackenzie Crook in that London production) and brought nothing interesting to the role.

I'm seeing McKellen's "King Lear" on Sunday. The reviews for that have been raves (as compared to the appropriately lousy reviews for "Seagull"), so I'm looking forward to it.

On a related note, is this the season of The Seagulls? We have this RSC production at BAM, then Classic Stage Co is doing a production in the Spring with Dianne Wiest, then there's the aforementioned rumored Broadway production with Kristin Scott Thomas, and the not so far away McCarter in Princeton is doing an adaptation by Emily Mann in May. How many productions of the play do we need? We may have had a plethora of high profile Lear's lately (Christopher Plummer, Alvin Epstein, Kevin Klein, Ian McKellen) but at least those were spread out over different seasons. Methinks producers need to start thinking outside of the box.

NYMF Days One and Two: I See London, I See Mullets

I will admit, "I See London, I See France (the underwear musical)" did not exactly get off to a good start. The opening number, which I assume was supposed to be funny, was met with totally blank stares from me and from what I could tell, most of the audience. I certainly didn't hear any laughter. Luckily, the show made a quick enough recovery with the very amusing "Smart Girls," and not to long after that an underwear model walked on stage... in his underwear, and all fears of a dull evening were happily giggled away. This show definitely falls solidly into the genre of mindlessly entertaining romantic musical comedy fluff. It reminded me a little of "I Love You Because," a show I had a big soft spot for and that played a far too short run off-Broadway couple of years ago. I will say that some of the book scenes did drag on for too long, but just when I was about to start deciding what I was going to buy at Whole Foods later that night, some fun song would come along and perk me right up again. Of course, because I was never bored long enough to make up a proper shopping list, I never did make it to Whole Foods, but I won't complain. I'd much rather watch an entertaining musical than go food shopping.
The musical score is pretty tuneful and fun - I was especially fond of the very amusing "Fluffy Rain" and the feel good title song that you leave the theatre humming (and also sort of makes you want to go straight to a travel agent to book your next vacation). I will say that when I listened to the four songs on the NYMF site this afternoon, I wasn't particularly impressed, but now having seen the show, I'm finding them much more enjoyable. I think I've played "I See London, I See France" at least five times already.
The cast all did a great job - with special notice going to the very talented and likeable Sandy Rustin, who played the lead role of Gina.
I could definitely see someone trying to produce this off-Broadway – probably at the cursed New World Stages. It would undoubtedly flop, as do all off-Broadway musicals nowadways. But think of the stunt casting potential for a commerical run – if porn star Ryan Idol can make his Broadway debut in “The Ritz,” whose to say other porn stars couldn’t be cast in the role of the underwear model? That should help get butts in seats...

Day Two brought “Bernice Bobs Her Mullet,” a musical probably most notable for marking the return to the stage of two very under-appreciated musical theatre actresses: Ann Morrison of the original cast of “Merrily We Roll Along” (Yes, she was just in “LoveMusik,” but I don’t think she actually had more than one or two lines in that – in this she’s a star) and Garrett Long, star of one of my favorite relatively unknown musicals “The Spitfire Grill.” The premise is cute enough - redneck mulleted hick goes to the big city to stay with her rich relatives; much bitchiness ensues - but even at only 90 minutes, the story seemed to be stretched too thin and I found myself losing interest around halfway through. I mean, there's one so much I can take of watching mean rich stuck-up white girls do their thing. I will say that I really enjoyed much of the score - there was some very catchy stuff in there, and though for some reason I left humming something from "Falsettos" (I forget exactly what song...), and I think I'll definitely keep a lookout for composer Joe Major's work in the future (his previous musical was "Poop the musical: The Life and Times of Thomas Crapper," which I seem to recall enjoying the musical clips from when they made the internet rounds a few years ago).

Fan Mail!!!

And I thought no one was ever going to read this stuff...

Well, I guess I should be checking the email address that I attached to this blog more often. Because when I checked it on a whim today, I found that a little less than a month ago, I was sent my very first piece of fan mail! What a wonder is this thing called the internet.

Well, it's not really fan mail in the traditional sense - more like a piece of hate mail. But hey, beggars can't be choosers. And so, for your reading pleasure (this assuming a second person stumbles upon this blog), the email:

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

From:	Juliet Schaefer-Jeske
To:	cardamond@aol.com
Subject:	Princess Sunshine's BITTER Pill of Truth Funhouse
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 7:16 pm

So are you a member of the press? Did we give you a press pass? I don't think so. I guess you can blog all you want to as my show says, blog, blog, blog.

I think it is HYSTERICAL that you called my show BITTER when the word BITTER is in the title of the show. And yes, it is not an Avenue Q style show, why would I write something that is already out there? I am a children's performer for a living, and well that was my source of the BITTERNESS! I am also 34 years old, the humor is a little better suited to an older crowd, you might be older than me I don't know. But I am completely surprised by the people with grey hair laughing their asses off at my show. Who knew?

Seriously your quote is funny. My Bitter show is too Bitter!

We have gotten 5 amazing reviews from actual members of the press. And we have sold out every single night except for my opening! I don't even know that many people in New York, so its not my friends trust me.

offoffonline.com
nytheatre.com
lively-arts.com
edgenewyork.com
A thing called Clownlink.com
We even got a mention as a MUST see on the local NPR station

Backstage didn't really like it, but he mis-quoted my show on top of it. So if I were you instead of investing all of this time and energy into a blog, go out and produce a show! Find out how NOT easy it is. So I am terribly sorry if you don't get my humor, but plenty of other people are getting my humor, and we even have an offer to extend, although I don't know how we will deal with union. I don't want to do any scab work, so it may not happen.

As for the theatre being hot, yes it is, but there is nothing we can do about it. They added an air conditioner but if you think its hot in the audience try wearing a wig cap, wig, and hat with a wool costume, when I do Katrina Kremlin I nearly faint.

If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. I do encourage everyone to put their own work out there, trust me it is NOT EASY!

Juliet Jeske
Princess Sunshine's BITTER Pill of Truth Funhouse!
------------------

Margaret Garner

I went to the New York Premiere of "Margaret Garner" tonight at City Opera. They're doing a season long promotion where every Monday at 10am they sell "front orchestra" tickets for the week for $25 each. And obviously I couldn't resists. I don't know if the seats will be the same for all of the production, but they have me first row orchestra, just off center (so I wasn't blocked by the conductor). I think I would only do this for operas in English (and actually, the only other opera I was planning on seeing there is "Vanessa" which IS in English, lucky me...) because otherwise you'll probably get a stiff neck from trying to look up at the supertitles. Of course when opera singers sing in English, it's a crap shoot whether you'll actually be able to understand what they say - I found I looked at the supertitles every now and then, but I was able to get enough of the gist of the words to figure out what was going on.
Enough of that, on to the opera. I have to say this is an opera that is well suited to first row viewing. The performers all sang AND acted beautifully throughout. Sitting in the heavens, you can't really tell what sort if anyone is acting, but up close there's no hiding. As for the music, surprise surprise - it's a modern opera with accessible, melodic, tonal music. I didn't think they wrote those anymore. In fact, I could almost imagine that if they cut down on the size of the chorus, and re-cast it with Broadway instead of opera singers, it could actually work on Broadway. When "An American Tragedy" premiered at the Met, the critics all complained that it was 'too Broadway.' I think that means it's too audience friendly and isn't only accessible to those with doctorates in Music. I expect similar criticism here.
The big downfall of the opera, is its absolutely abysmal libretto by Toni Morrison. Maybe this would have worked as a novel... oh wait, it did... "Beloved." Well, actually this was the true story that inspired "Beloved," but close enough. Basically, Margaret Garner was a slave who escaped and when she was re-captured, murdered her children so they wouldn't have to go back into slavery. Then she was prosecuted for theft, instead of murder because her children were considered property and not human. Sounds like juicy tear jerking material for an opera, no? Well, maybe in more capable hands, but this libretto has just far too many scenes that are either totally unnecessary (for example, the entire first act) or just drag on for far too long. And then there are the lyrics that I guess, because they are 'poetry,' don't need to make sense. Like in the trial scenes, when Margaret sings something like "You have no authority over me. You are you and I am me." (that's not exact, but it's pretty close). Um, that makes sense, how? It's strange, but the scenes that I would have though would have been the most interesting - the murder and the trial/hanging were some of the least interesting. Totally random scenes would be so well acted and musically gorgeous that they would be riveting, and others that should have easily worked, totally flopped. And then there was the whole ended, which was totally misconceived, not just from Ms. Morrison but from the creative team as well. Margaret Garner is about to be hanged, she steps away from the gallows to sing an aria, as she's singing the noose goes down through the floor, and the after she finishes singing, up pops a dummy Margaret Garner. Oh so corny, oh so unintentionally funny, and of so ill-conceived. I mean, I understand that they wanted her ghost to be able to walk through the crowd, but hanging dummies is not just a crime dummy-kind, but a crime against the audience. And then for some bizarre reason, the whole chorus - both whites and blacks - sing about how they're sad she's dead. Um... don't the whites not really care that she died other than that she was lost money? I don't buy it. The little things do count too, you know.
So basically, I would probably pick up a copy of the recording (preferably highlights) should it every be released because I really did like the music, but as an opera it really doesn't work. Then again, if you have free time and can snag a front row seat, there is some first-class acting going on onstage, and there are some really moving moments. But I know no one ever has any free time, so there you go.

Oh The Humanity!

I just reached Fringe show number 30 and I think this last one may have finally burned me out. "John Goldfarb Please Come Home" has a strong pedigree, with a book by William Peter Blatty, writer of "The Exorcist," and music by the composers of "The Song of Singapore." Well, Blatty must not have lost his touch for horror, because this was one of the most horrific musicals I have ever had the displeasure to sit through. It supposedly runs two hours, but I escaped after an hour and fifteen minuts, screaming for mercy. I think I was around number 10 from my side of the theatre, and someone else from the other side left at the same time I did. Thank goodness I chose a seat near the back of the theatre and that the Skirball Center is one of the few Fringe venues that doesn't require walking across the stage to escape (I think the two others are the Lucille Lortel and the Players Theatre). This is apparently based on a movie, which I guess must not be as ghastly as the musical if these people decided to adapt it for the stage (well, a quick look at IMDB says that Blatty wrote the screenplay too, so maybe it is just as bad...). The basic plot is that a female reporter goes to Saudi Arabia to do an expose on harems, the king's son is kicked out of Notre Dame but still wants to play football, and some loser army guy gets lost on the way to Russia and ends up as a football coach for the kings's new team. The book is full of unfunny lines like "I've grown accustomed to his fez" and "1: Are you Jewish? 2: Yes. Is that a problem? 1: No, just don't do it again." There is not one memorable song in the first hour and fifteen minutes - all the songs I heard were bland, tuneless and dull. The choreography was also really sub-par, making the all overly long dance numbers particularly snooze inducing.
Looking around at the audience while the show was going on, I saw quite a bit of slouching and squirming, so I don't think I was the only one in pain. I wonder how much longer most of those people lasted before reaching their breaking point. That's gotta be one long two hour, intermissionless show.

For what it's worth, the other show I saw tonight was "Bash'd," a gay rap opera. It came highly recommended, and tonight was an added performance, so I thought I'd check it out. The story was sort of sweet, but it was an hour long and really an hour of non-stop rapping is simply just more than I can take.

Yo Gabba Gabba!

Oh what a day. First "Rat King" now I just watched the episode of "Yo Gabba Gabba!" that I Tivo-ed. It's like thirty minutes of watching thirty minutes of Spongebob doing a happy dance. I feel like I just had a lobotomy. Why that show is on at 10:30am on Nick Jr instead of late night on Adult Swim, I'm not sure, but I totally just set up a season pass for it.

The Rat King

f you missed "In My Life," or better yet, if you missed "Carrie," well, you now have a chance to see a new musical that can take its place alongside the pantheon of the best bad musicals ever written: "The Rat King." Its mind boggling badness just really needs to be experienced. Usually one can tell if a musical is intended to be serious or tongue-in-cheek. Part of what was so special about "The Rat King" was that they really never let on with a wink-wink that this was a joke that everyone was in on. Part of me wonders how anyone could think seriously think this show had any merit. And part of me just wants to go see it again so I can revel in its delicious awfulness.
The show is about a man with three arms who somehow becomes the king of the rats, and who then falls in love with the daughter or a mad scientist. There are some scenes where all of the dialogue rhymes for no apparent reason. And there are songs, and oh what songs. The show is labeled a "rock opera" but it is most certainly not an "opera" since it is most certainly not through-composed.
The show starts off a bit slow I'll admit, but maybe around half way in the songs just get so bizarre that I felt like I was in the audience of "Springtime for Hitler." There's one (hilarious) song the daughter sings about her father lying bleeding on the stairs. In another, the father sings about cutting off the rat king's sexual organ (this, while the rat chorus stands in sexually suggestive positions).
Adding to the amusement factor, was the daughter had a really really terrible voice. She was pretty much flat the entire time. I'm not sure if this was on purpose or not (I think her character may have been a bit mentally unstable) and her father wasn't much more talented in the singing department. Strangely enough, the actor playing the Rat King was actually really talented. Go figure.

Oh, and here's an odd bit of a coincidence: After deciding I need to see this show again (to make sure it wasn't a dream), I looked at the schedule I had written out for this last week of the festival... and I had already (mistakenly) written in "The Rat King" for two performance. How oddly convenient.

My other show this evening was "Kiss and Make Up" - a rather mediocre musical with an insanely talented cast. The second act is better than the first, but I just couldn't help but sit there and wonder the whole time how they got that cast together for such limp material.

Fringe Update

I ended up not sticking with my Fringe plan yesterday (to see all five shows at the Connolly) mostly because the bathroom at the Connelly broke after the third show, I decided I really didn't care about the fourth show there, and the last one was going to get out too late.

The first two shows at the Connolly ("On Off Air" and "Night") were good but had sort of confusing endings, and the third ("Animals") was just plain lousy. Interesting though, was that one of the stars of "The Medicine Show" (his name is Ryan O'somethingorother) also starred in (and wrote, in fact) "Animals." Can you imagine working on TWO Fringe shows? Oy.

So then, after I found a working bathroom and had dinner, I decided to see "Pogo and Evie" at the (*warn glow and chorus of angels singing*) Skirball Center. It's written by the guy who wrote "Urban Cowboy." The book is a godawful mess - an oh so cliched mess about two people who meet and fall in love, but... *dun dun dun dun* their families hate each other. I'm sure you can imagine how it all turns out. The jokes are basically all clunkers. Particularly strange was that they made the black guy from New York have a Jewish mother for apparently the sole reason of letting him stick random Yiddish words in his sentences. Uh huh.... Oh, and for some bizarre reason, they randomly stuck an intermission in. Not after a big song, just after a not particularly important random scene. The show is only 90 minutes long (including that intermission) so I'm not really sure why it was there. The cast is very enthusiastic and likeable, and they're all very talented except for the man playing Evie's father, who can't act (I imagine he was originally just part of the band and they decided to give him some lines) and the woman playing Evie's best friend who couldn't sing - remember that karaoke scene in "My Best Friend's Wedding" where the blonde bride-to-be gets up and has everyone sticking their fingers in their ears? She sounded something like that. Luckily she had only one song to sing in - and it was a duet. Though that song probably would have been actually enjoyable had it not been so lopsided as far as talent went. But she was pretty and could act and dance, so I guess that's how she got the part.
The music doesn't actually further the plot (more like a play with music), but is pretty enjoyable country toe-tapping type fare. By far, the best part of the show is the big dance numbers, which were really just a ton of fun to watch. They almost made me want to take a dance class so I could join in on the hoedown. Almost.
So actually, though I was cringing half the time over the book, I actually did find the show enjoyable. Call it a guilty pleasure?
And of course, The Skirball Center is the Taj Mahal of Fringe venues - air conditioned, comfortable seats, big stage, and so many seats that I don't think even "Bukowsical" would have sold out there.

A Pox on the CSV Center

After seeing two good Fringe shows at the CSV center today ("Piaf" and "The Medicine Show") I made the dire mistake of pushing my luck and seeing a third show there. After seeing "not from canada" I don't believe I will ever be able to set foot in that complex again without breaking out into hives. Let me put it this way... the final moments of the play feature a guy in a giant panda suit sitting at a table trying to eat a hot dog. The panda tries to put it in his mouth, and then his eye, and then he just whimpers in defeat. Blackout. That show set a new low for badness in the theatre, and it is certainly one of the worst, if not THE worst show I have ever seen. You might want to see it just to see how bad bad theatre can be. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Really Quick Fringe Update

Okay, no energy to write reviews at the moment, but in case anyone stumbles onto this blog looked for Fringe recommendations, here you go:

Thumbs Up: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS (cute)

Wavering Thumb: PN1923.45 VOLUME 2 (a serious drama that was not at all what I was expecting. I guess I liked it, so possibly worth seeing - but there are better choices out there)

Thumbs Up: LOST: HOW A CERTAIN TV MEGA-HUNK STOLE MY IDENTITY (especially big thumbs up if you're a "Lost" fan, but I think I'd still recommend it even if you're not)

Thumbs Down: AN AIR BALLOON ACROSS ANTARCTICA (zzz...)

Thumbs Up: I DIG DOUG (hadn't planned on seeing this until I read all the hype. surprisingly enough, it actually was as funny as I had heard it would be)

The Fringe Festival: Days 2-3-4

First, a totally random celebrity siting: I was walking home from Fringe show #13 down 5th Ave and I passed Hunter and Susan from [title of show]. Maybe I should have asked them about the recent blog entry that claims the show is moving to Broadway. Not like we haven't heard that before. And not like my fingers aren't crossed. Anyway, I know no one cares about the siting, but I'm excited.

And now, even though my behind is terribly sore from the last show I saw (in an un-air conditioned theatre, with hard wooden seats), my days 2-3-4 Fringe Festival Roundup:

FARMTRUCKS. This show had a problem that I've had with many of the shows I've seen so far at the Festival - it's a good idea, that is initially very funny, but that fizzles out before the end. The premise of the crazy people who work at and visit Starbu... I mean Farmtrucks coffee shops is a very good one. And for the first two thirds or so, the show is really really funny. But at some point, I found the concept had just been milked dry, and I started to lose interest. There are only so many times I can laugh about the almighty district office, and the snooty workers at the rival franchise, and the competition for the number one shop. Things were pretty steady though, until the final section - namely the Barista Olympics, which wasn't particularly well executed. The section starts off with an overlong (and fairly random) musical number. And then we hear about the results of the competition, but we don't actually see any of it enacted. I think I would have liked that section to be a bit more like (forgive me for the comparison) the Fry Cook Games on "Spongebob Squarepants" - that, albeit obviously in cartoon form, was a well executed food Olympic parody. The writer of "Farmtrucks" would be well served to study the delightful yellow sponge. Anyway, I overall did really enjoy the show. Even with the weak ending, there was enough that was really funny and that had me chuckling when I reminisced about it to make me think this is definitely worth seeing.

DIRT. This is a solo play performed in English, but originally written in German. The original German title, according to the program, was "Dreck," and that about sums up my feelings on the play. Dreck. An Iraqi rambles either named Sad (short of Saddam) and or Ahmed, and somewhere around the age of 30, rambles on and on about... I think life in America. I kept waiting for there to be a point, but it just never came. The actor was pretty likeable, so it wasn't quite as painful as it could have been, but that's not saying much.

ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES. The Fringe guide classified this and "Farmtrucks" as "musicals. Farmtrucks had a handful of songs; this show had... I think two. The Fringe guide classification system is truly a mystery. That said, this show was a campy campy hoot. The plot, if I were to try to explain it, would sound like a generic lame murder mystery. But performed by an extremely talented cast - including a drag queen in the leading roll of the woman in the wheelchair, this was really hilarious.

BUKOWSICAL. This has commercial hit written all over it. Get your tickets while they last. The premise is that we are watching a backers audition for a musical about writer Charles Bukowski. The show is perfectly polished, with an extremely talented cast, tuneful hilarious songs, and loads of insider musical theatre references that theatre geeks just love. Not to give too much away, but my favorite section was in the middle, when the audience is randomly treated to a song from an all African-American musical version of Chekhov's "The Three Sisters" - set in the 1960s in a barbershop The song is called "Sistah Sistah Sistah" and it had me falling out of my chair laughing. When a show has a line like "I hope your musical is as successful as "Jane Eyre," well... it just can't be bad!

THE OTHER SIDE OF DARKNESS. The Fringe guide strikes again. Apparently, if there is at least one song in a show, it's a musical, and if there's at least one joke, it's a comedy. This one was labeled "Drama Comedy." After the first line, I wanted to leave. And I still had an hour to go. This is an extremely depressing soap opera, completely with drippy flowery language, and (unintentionally) over the top acting. If I had been closer to the door, I would have left before intermission. As it was, as soon as the lights were up, I grabbed my bag and ran to the door. Beware.

WILLIAMSBURG: THE MUSICAL. I was sold out of this one on Saturday night, but luckily Sunday at noon is a less popular time. Well, maybe not luckily. The show is pretty mediocre. Half of it consists of random musical numbers about how great a place Williamsburg is for hipsters. Those songs, while entertaining, seemed like they might have come from a real estate promotional event. The other half was a dreary mix of a story about an evil real estate agent (I guess that came from the desire to not make the show look to obviously like a commercial) and a really dull love story between a hipster and a Hassid. The girl who played the hipster in the romance, gave a particularly impressive performance, but not enough to make this show enjoyable. It was just a total mess, rarely funny, and not very enjoyable.

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. I was excited when I got my program for this, because I found out, to my surprise, that it was written and directed by Dan Fogler, and featured Sarah Saltzburg (Logainne Shwartzandgrubinierre in "Spelling Bee") as well as the original Brian in "Avenue Q." The show is an adaptation of Ionesco's "The Rhinoceros." It's not bad, but I found it far too long. This was another show where a good idea just went on too long. The entire cast was really very good, and the set - made of trunks (get it? Elephants? a set of "trunks"? ha ha) with multiple rolls of backdrops in each was quite creative. Enjoyable, but needs major cutting.

WINTER'S TALE PROJECT. Imagine if Andrew Lloyd Webber's cat wrote a musical of Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale." It might have sounded something like this. Really really awful. The whole thing is set to an 80s pop-rockish score that sounds like a bunch of ALW's reject songs. The lyrics are ghastly (lots of false rhymes). There is one song in the middle that the narrator sings about how random it is that there is a bear in the show. At that point, I wished a real bear would run on stage and slash my throat so I wouldn't have to sit through any more of this sad excuse for entertainment. Really awful.

GAMERS. A total total surprise, but one of my favorites. This is a solo show about a guy who is playing an online role playing game at work. This particular day, his group of characters is planning a major war on the elves to steal back their stolen relic. This, while he needs to deal with answering tech support questions (his job), as well as his cubicle neighbor, wife, mother, and worst of all... wife. Maybe it's just the part of me that's always enjoyed watching other people playing video games (of course here, there isn't actually a game to watch - it's all play-by-play commentary) but I was absolutely riveted and couldn't wait to hear what happened in the war. It's total fluff (duh), but I loved every minute of it. And get this - it was only 55 minutes long. Finally a show that knows how long it needs to be and doesn't try to be a full length play when it's not. I'm perfectly aware that my own particular quirks probably contributed to my extreme enjoyment of this, but there you go. AND, this was in the ghastly Independent Theatre on 8th Street - it had maybe 35 hard wooden seats, and fans instead of air conditioning. And I didn't even mind.

THE LADIES OF EOLA, HEIGHTS. Very much worthwhile. Three sisters (all played by drag queens) come together after the death of their father. And while home, they find out that their brother Jackson is now their sister June, who can only speak by lipsynching to appropriate songs from the stereo. Though the musical numbers are definitely the highlight (did I mention that she has a totally different costume each time she enters?), the whole show is really enjoyable. It starts out funny, then becomes a bit sad, and then finally had a very touching ending. So you laugh, you cry, you have a good time. I didn't really know what to expect from this, but I really enjoyed it, and definitely recommend it. You'll never think of the song "It's My Life" again in the same way again.

LOST IN HOLLYWOODLAND OR THE SLUGWOMAN FROM URANUS. Awful awful awful. At intermission, when the lights came up, no one in the audience uttered a word, but there was a mass exodus toward the stairs (at least half the audience) to escape. Part of the problem is that the show is plagued with performing in the Our Lady Of Pompeii Demo Hall (aka a musty church basement) and my chair was one of the most uncomfortable I have ever sat it. There were three types of chairs: the first three rows had cushioned chairs with no armrests, then a few rows of hard plastic chairs also with no armrests, and then finally cloth-covered chairs with armrests. I thought the cloth ones might have a little cushioning but no, the were hard as can be. Of course, if the show had been any good, I might not have mattered. But it was really lousy. A generic musical score, and the story was just some lame Faust rehash. The last musical number before intermission was about chicken croquettes. And that had been the best one so far. And you wonder why people were rushing to the door?

PRINCESS SUNSHINE'S BITTER PILL OF TRUTH FUNHOUSE. Eh. I thought this was going to be a sort of "Avenue Q"-like adult kiddie show. Which is was to an extent, but it was really very bitter and angry. And on top of that, I thought most of the jokes fell pretty flat (though the audience seemed to enjoy it). Also, this was once again in the Independent Theatre (home of "Gamers") but it seemed really warm and the chairs seemed extra hard this time. Maybe if it was in a less stuffy theatre I would have enjoyed it more. A good concept, but I guess my sense of humor was right for this show.

And now I'm all caught up. Whew. Tomorrow is the non-Fringe "Iphigenia 2.0" and then hopefully a Fringe show after that, if my butt isn't too too sore....

The Fringe Festival: Day 1

Today was the first day of The New York International Fringe Festival - a 17 day bonanza of low-low-budget theatre, most of which ranges from excruciatingly bad to mediocre, with a very small sample actually being enjoyable. Being a glutton for punishment, I plan on seeing as many shows as possible.

I only went to see one show tonight, but I am happy to report that it was a success. Perhaps this is a sign of good things to come from this year's festival. Tonight's show was "Show Choir: The Musical." Not without it's fair share of problems, I have to say that it was overall very enjoyable. The show is about, as you can probably guess, "the art of show choir." Act I traces the founding and rise to fame of The Symphonic Sensations - a high school show choir that grows into an international sensation. The first act is pretty much just fun, tongue-in-cheek fluff. I will say that I found the story was wearing a little thin by the end of the act (I think it was around an hour and a quarter) and at intermission I found myself wondering why the writers just didn't end the show there, because the silly story seemed to have run its course. But then there's Act II, which is a weird sort of a mess. In the second act, we see how the show choir members deal with their newfound fame (not well), and what that does to the choir. The second act really seemed to drag in the middle, the low point being one of those epilogue scenes where each character steps out and says what ended up happened to him/her... particularly strange because the show wasn't actually over when we were subjected to that scene. Luckily, things picked up near the end and the audience is able to leave satisfied and with a tune stuck in their heads. The whole story is set up as a kind of "Behind the Music" type-story (called "Beyond the Facade") which I can't say really made all that much sense.
The choreography is very impressive - definitely a hoot to watch (lots of show choir "jazz hands"). The cast is very enthusiastic and very very talented.
Considering it's part of the Fringe festival, I didn't really expect a polished, perfect show. So with my rather low expectations, for a show to leave me entertained with a tune stuck in my head, well that's good enough for me. I don't really see this as a breakout hit like "Urinetown" (and lets face it, isn't that really the only reason most anyone really goes to see anything the Fringe Festival?) but it's certainly a fun enough was to pass two and twenty minutes.

And now, back to circling interesting stuff in Fringe Guide - I'm only up to letter 'G'. Oy.

A Tale of Two Operas

It was the best of operas, it was the worst of operas; it was a time of beautiful music, it was a time of headache inducing screeching....

Over the past two weeks or so I went to see two operas. One was a 4-part, 20 hour epic from the 19th century, and the other a 40 minute sliver from the 21st. Well, as they say, they don't write em like they used to.
The first opera (or maybe set of operas) was the Kirov's production of Wagner's Ring Cycle. I don't think anything needs to be said about the brilliant music but on stage. I will say that both the orchestra (conducted by Valery Gergiev) and all of the singers sounded really marvelous. I had seen the Met's production a few years ago, and I think the Kirov's singer's may have actually been even better than the Met's - especially for the men, who I recall as being a bit weak. The oh so controversial sets from George Tsypin were... um... well, they sort of grew on me over the course of the operas. Some scenes worked well (the dancers who played the river Rhine, and the flaming around Brunhilde's rock were quite nice) and other parts were kind of embarrassing (the two giants were they giant rock-men who had arms that looks like the kind on those old plastic boxing figures where when one of the toys was hit the head would pop up, and the drag... well, wasn't - there were just some glowing green figures and a red section in the middle someone where the singer was hidden - I guess that was the heart). The costumes were also a mixed bag - Brunhilde looked a bit like Lily Munster, and the Valkyrie headdresses were just a bunch of black feathers. But some of the others, while not particularly remarkable, were at least not too offensive.

The second opera was the apparently new great masterpiece of the 21st century, George Benjamin's "Into the Little Hill," an adaptation of "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" with libretto by playwright Martin Crimp. Since the opera was so short, the creators decided to give the audience a taste of what was to come by presenting two of the composer's previous pieces (one was for two violins, the other for a viola). If you've ever heard a middle school student who just took up the violin, and is trying to practice, but just isn't very good - well that's about what the two pieces sounded like. I wonder a bit what the sheet music for the pieces looked like (of course, all three musicians happened to have their parts memorized) because I wonder whether the notes they were playing could actually be written on sheet music - I think they invented notes not normally designed to be heard by the human ear (I think I heard some dogs howling in the background though...). So that gave me a nice little headache leading up to the opera. Always the optimist, I figured maybe that was just some of his earlier work - surely the opera would offer a little bit of melody. Or not. I think had the libretto been read instead of sung, with the orchestral part serving as background music, I may have actually enjoyed it. I don't mean to say the two singers (one a soprano, the other a contralto) weren't talented - it's just that the music they were given to sing not only wasn't "pretty" - I can deal with ugly music if it serves a purpose, something like ugly music to fit an ugly story, but even when the mother was singing about how she missed her daughter, there was just nothing musically interesting for my brain to latch on to. It was really just too dense and pretentious for my taste. Thank goodness it was only 40 minutes long. I'm not damning all modern opera to the garbage heap, but I don't know what those British critics were thinking when raving and hoot and hollering over this.
Maybe I'm just lazy and I like my music easy and spoon fed, but I'll take good ol long-winded 'why say it in two minutes when you can take a half hour' Wagner, over one of 40 minute George Benjamin headache any day.