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.