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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's all for now.

Bringing Ugly Back To Broadway

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

That's all for now.

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

Romantic Poetry Songlists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insipid Poetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, c’est tout for now.

Falling for the Fall Dramas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, An Update

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

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

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

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

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

RENT - the way it was meant to be filmed

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

A Great Play Lurking In The "Shadows"

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe Festival: Day 12

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

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

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

Fringe Festival: Days 10-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe Festival: Days 7-9

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

Anyway...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe Festival: Day 6

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

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

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

Fringe Festival: Day 5

Another day, another show at the Fringe.

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

Fringe Festival: Day 4

Just one show today. Thank goodness.

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

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

Fringe Festival: Day 3

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

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

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

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

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

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