On That Rodgers and Hammerstein Revival

A quick note that if you've never seen "South Pacific" there are major plot spoilers included below.

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

I went to see "South Pacific" this afternoon, and it was an... interesting experience. I had never seen the show before in any form - either live or on film - though I did know all of those classic songs. And I think I can see why the show has not been revived on Broadway since it's original production in 1949. Time has not been kind to it. Or maybe it's that director Bartlett Sher has not been kind to it. More likely it's a combination of the two.

The first act clocks in at an hour and forty minutes. And after the thrilling overture during which the stage is pulled back to reveal the extremely large orchestra, well... I felt every minute of it. It just drags on and on. Maybe it's because I've heard all of the songs so many times before, but they each really seemed to stop the show cold. Usually after hearing an album time after time, it's illuminating to finally see the song in context. Not so here. Granted the show may be a bit creaky - it was written almost 60 years ago after all, but I think the staging was a big part of that too. The big production numbers like "Bloody Mary" or "There Is Nothing Like A Dame" seemed to fair all right, because they were more about the soldiers goofing off than really story telling. But with the love songs between Emile and Nellie, it seemed awfully odd to have them spend a large chunk of say, "Some Enchanted Evening," with them singing directly to the audience instead of facing and singing to each other. And one more quibble... is it really necessary to do what seemed like a medley of every song from the first act at the end of it? And we wonder why the first act is so long? Anyway, at the intermission I was really wondering whether this show is really just best done in concert form, so we get to hear all of the songs sung, but don't need to invest so much time in those dreary book scenes.

The second act started off at an equally underwhelming pace, with those Thanksgiving Follies just dragging on for what seemed like forever, and then "Happy Talk" which just seemed really bizarre and out of place (the book scenes with Bloody Mary made her seem like this really intelligent but somewhat bizarre looking islander, and then she just suddenly starts singing this random happy Rodgers and Hammerstein song to her daughter and her boyfriend, it just didn't work for me). Then we get "You Have To Be Carefully Taught" which sort of bumpily flows into "This Nearly Was Mine." I've read that Rodgers & Hammerstein had to really fight to keep "You Have To Be Carefully Taught In The Show," and I understand that it's an important song - but maybe it's an important song that they could have put somewhere else in the show - because we have Emile being upset about Nellie dumping him, then Cable singing this random song about prejudice, and THEN we get "This Nearly Was Mine." It just really felt like "This Nearly Was Mine" wanted to naturally flow from the conversation with Emile and Cable, without that other song interrupting everyone's train of thought. But then Paulo Szot sings "This Nearly Was Mine," and the grumbling in my head about the odd placement stopped and I started listening, and it seemed like time stood still while he was singing. That moment was the first time in the show that just absolutely totally worked - it was just him by himself singing to the audience - and it was simple, absolutely beautifully sung, and just really absolutely riveting. That song alone, provided enough energy for the show to smoothly sail home (no pun intended there). What I did notice, was after (the earth shattering, totally made the three hour show worth it) "This Nearly Was Mine" and the end of the show, there are almost no more songs. There's a moving short reprise of "Some Enchanted Evening" for Nellie, a really bizarre reprise of "Honey Bun" sung by the soldiers marching off to war that really really really should have been cut because it made no sense and really ruined a powerful moment, and then a little bit of "Dites Moi" at the very end. So what really surprised me was that the show really worked best when there were the fewest songs to interrupt. Just watching almost a play with its beautiful underscoring was really just extremely powerful. It almost made we wonder if the show would have been better (to the detriment of musical theatre in general - certainly all of those songs ending up in a trunk would have been a travesty) if the show had had only a fraction of the number of songs it ended up with.

So really what I came away with was that this is a mostly creaky, flawed musical, with fantastic music, but which when it finally gets down to business deep in the second act, can be really exciting and powerful. At least in this production. I can certainly imagine that another production that perhaps better knew what to do with the plethora of musical numbers could have created a better more cohesive whole. But as this is my one and only experience from the show, that is what I took away from it.

As for the performances, I thought the cast was pretty strong. I've only seen bits and pieces of Mary Martin's Nellie Forbush, but what I've seen made her seem far more interesting in the role of Kelli O'Hara. I think O'Hara was maybe missing some of the zaniness that the character requires. When (it looked like) she was looking into Emile's eyes when singing the end of "Some Enchanted Evening" in the first act, I really felt a sizzle, and her reprise of the song in the second act was moving as well. So I think she had the more serious part of the role down, but she was a bit lacking in the spunk department. As for Paulo Szot, I thought he was quite good. His voice was spectacular (especially in "This Nearly Was Mine"), and his acting was fine. I was rather disappointed in Matthew Morrison's Cable. His singing was fine, but he was just really bland and charmless. I was actually happy when he died in the second act, just so I wouldn't have to suffer through any more of his scenes. I then felt bad when Liat came and found out her love was dead, because I thought she was sweet. But they surely could have found someone more interesting for the role. I'm not going to go through the rest of the cast name by namer, but I really didn't have a problem with anyone else, it really a fairly strong ensemble.

Well, I think I've gone on for far too long now. So I'll leave you with a Youtube clip of Mary Martin and Ezio Pinza singing "Some Enchanted Evening." Notice had romantic it is when Emile sings the song while clutching Nellie instead of standing across the (crowded or empty) room from her:

An Exciting New Find (and other less exciting ones)

Finally, after being disappointed in play after play this year, finally one has come along that I'm actually excited about. And to be perfectly honest, if you had asked me about what I was looking forward to in the new year, this wasn't even on my radar. Just this week I saw two extremely disappointing plays from young up and coming playwrights Adam Bock (Drunken City) and Itamar Moses (The Four of Us - more on that in a bit), and I suppose it's worth adding to that list Sarah Ruhl (whose Dead Man's Cell Phone was perhaps the biggest let down of all, a few weeks ago). Who would have thunk "From Up Here," a play by Liz Flahive (who?), would be better than those by such comparatively big names. Add to the shock that this was a last minute replacement for the highly anticipated "The Starry Messenger" by Kenneth Lonergan, that was supposed to star Matthew Broderick. I think most Manhattan Theatre Club subscribers are still grumbling about how a play that sounded like one of the hot tickets of the season was replaced by one by (as far as I can tell from her bio) a first time playwright, though granted starring Julie White (who, granted, is far more exciting than the always irritating Broderick). I went in knowing nothing about the plot of the play, nothing about the playwright, having read nothing on any of the message boards even though it started previews on Thursday (you know there would have been fifteen posts on "The Starry Messenger" after the first preview alone), and I can't remember the last time I was so genuinely pleasantly surprised.
The play is one of those quirky dysfunctional family affairs, with the main source of all of the conflict coming from the unstable high school-age son who was caught possibly preparing to shoot a bunch of his classmates one day. The other major characters are the mother who is a bit overwhelmed but tries hard, the step-dad who's really nice though the kids still hate him, the boy's sister who's also in high school, the kooky aunt who's in from a stint in the peace corps, and two classmates - one being a nerd who has a crush on the sister, and one who's a goody two-shoes smart kid. Put them all together in a bowl, stir well, and bake at 350 degrees for an hour and fifty minutes, and you basically have the play. I'm usually too lazy to pull out my Playbill to look up the names of actors I don't really know, but I'll make an exception here for Tobias Segal, who plays the son. He's full of quirks, but there was just something really endearing about him, and also strangely enough a lot in him in both the way the character was written and the way he was played that I found I could relate too (not that I'm on anti-depressants or that I ever considered killing classmates, but other things...).
I will say that my mother really didn't seem to like the play at all and my father didn't look too pleased either, so it maybe it has more of an appeal to the younger - I'm bad at gauging appeal but maybe the 18-29 crowd? - which I suppose the average MTC subscriber, or theatergoer for that matter, is not - I don't know for sure, but I will say I was personally An Exciting New Find (and other less exciting ones)really moved and entertained by the play, and there was just something about it that I found really easy to relate to. I'm very excited to see what Liz Flahive next has to offer.
Oh - and one more thing before I forget - I really liked the incidental music (mostly just background instrumental stuff for scene changes and whatnot), but when I looked in the Playbill afterwards I saw it was composed by Tom Kitt (of "High Fidelity" and "Next to Normal"). Was curious to see what he was going to do next, and while this obviously isn't a musical, it was an interesting surprise.

Other shows this week:

"The Four of Us" (at MTC's Stage II) by Itamar Moses. I found this to be rather dull. I'm glad I read the reviews first because they pointed out that this was based on the playwright's friendship with Jonathan Safran Foer (who I suppose is most famous for "Everything Is Illuminated," a book well worthy of its hype), so at least some scenes that probably would have been somewhat boring had a bit of that gossipy tell-all quality. Then again, I watched the whole play substituting the "real" names in my head, whether or not that was really the intention of the playwright. There is an amusing twist at the end that I enjoyed, but really, so much of the play was just so slow, that it really didn't make up for what had come before. It was definitely an interesting premise for play, just not executed as well as I would have liked.

"Juno" (at Encores). Well I can see why this show ran two weeks in its original run, and I don't think it was, as Joseph Stein insists, it was because the original was cast with two people who couldn't sing the score in the least roles. The first act is really really dull. The second was much better, with a really peculiar dream ballet focusing on a character with one arm (it was amazing to watch him dance with only one arm out for balance - I was really impressed), and the ending (it's based on "Juno and the Paycock," one of those typically really really depressing Irish plays) was quite moving. It's nice to see Encores do a musical for once that really fulfills what seems to have been its original purpose - presenting works that are in danger of never being seen again (unlike such recent choices as say... "Bye Bye Birdie" or "The Pajama Game"). I'm definitely glad I saw it, but I really have no desire to either pull out the cast recording to give it another shot, or really to ever see a production of it ever again.

I also saw "Cry-Baby" again - not on purpose, but because I already had tickets for Friday before I knew I would see an even earlier preview. I noticed they cut a couple of lines that didn't really make much sense the first time around, but overall it's the same underwhelming, unfunny, untuneful, generally unentertaining show it was the first time around. Whatever.

The (Mostly) Underwhelming

Hasn't exactly been the greatest week of theatre for me...

Tonight was "Drunken City," which basically amounted to a what felt like a 90 minute episode of some lousy sitcom. It's about three female friends who go and get drunk in the city (hence the title) in the name of a bachelorette party. The playwright (Adam Bock) throws in a metaphor about the city being alive (the stage would tilt back and forth when things would go wrong, and I'm assuming that that had something to do with the living breathing city) and then the metaphor was continued with something about a pet dragon - the city and dragon stuff was all spouted by the Asian character (dragon? Asian girl? ooh yeah), and there's even a random song about the dragon at the end. The play actually starts out on what I thought was a fun note, but I guess you could say when the stage tilted the second or third time, my interest began to lose balance and I became increasingly bored. At least this was better than Bock's last "play," "The Receptionist," then again I think watching a puppy chase his tail for an hour would have been more entertaining than that waste of time (that is assuming that the puppy finally catches his tail at the end of that play, otherwise I suppose it would have been equally pointless...).

Last night was the surprisingly entertaining Australian comic/pianist Tim Minchin. He wasn't necessarily the funniest act I've ever seen, but he's an awfully talented composer and pianist, and even if I didn't necessarily find all of his songs hilarious, I found I was entertained enough just watching and listening while not paying attention to the lyrics. And I did find most of the show funny, even if not every joke struck my fancy. You can look him up easily enough on Youtube to see if he strikes your comic fancy, but I have to say he was a highlight of this less than exciting week.

Then, Sunday and Friday were parts one and two of my "Why it's a mistake to see Roundabout shows early in their runs (even on comps) when one already has tickets to see them later in their run with one's subscription." I had already seen, and not particularly cared for "Crimes of the Heart" and "The 39 Steps," but I already had tickets to see them this weekend with my subscription, so I was forced to give both a second chance. The first time I saw "Crimes," one of the actresses was out (I think it was Sarah Paulson), so at least I got to see her this time. Didn't really care for it the first time, didn't really care for it the second. My parents confirmed that they too remember enjoying the production of the play we saw all those years ago at the Airport Playhouse, and that none of us could fathom why because the play was so dull in this production. My mother said she thought there was more humor in that production. I dunno - maybe it's a lousy production, maybe the play is just really dated - but why this show won the Pulitzer for drama is far beyond me.
I didn't dislike "The 39 Steps" quite as much the second time, though I chalk that up to sitting in the first row orchestra this time, which usually helps. I still didn't find the show at all funny, but the movie wasn't so fresh in my mind this time, so the story was entertaining enough to watch. And when a dummy fell off the stage and hit me near the end of the show, well... at least that was a totally random and unique amusement.

Saturday was the Met's cursed production of "Tristan und Isolde." I had seen the La Scala production of the opera at Symphony Space a month or two ago, and I have to say there's no comparison to seeing it live. Opera at the movies is all well and good, but it just can't compare to the thrill of being in the same room with the orchestra and those voices. Yes it's very very long, and very very slow, but the music was beautiful enough to at least keep me awake for the whole five hours, even if my mind did wander. As for the performances, Deborah Voigt as Isolde was excellent (as usual) and Robert Dean Smith (I think that was his name) was a fine Tristan, even if his voice was at times totally drowned out by the lovely Voigt, or the orchestra. I don't think I need to see another production of the opera for another few years at least, but I'm definitely glad I went.

Thursday was a play called "Betrayed," that got excellent reviews from the critics, and was highly recommended by one of my uncles. That uncle is now on my list of people to never ever listen to show recommendations from ever again. It was agony to sit through. It was written by a journalist, and it was about the Iraqis who work for the Americans over there, and how poorly they're treated. There were I think two scenes that were well done and quite moving. But other than that, I was in pain. I think this is just a case of the playwright assuming the audience will inherently care about what happens because it's an important subject, so good craft need not apply. No denying the importance of the topic, but I don't need to sit there for close to two hours (no intermission) in a cramped seat, in a theatre with no air conditioning, and listen to these rather two-dimensional characters suffer. If I wanted to experience dry journalism, I would have read the article. If I'm going to invest two hours or more, I want well crafted, interesting drama. I felt similarly about "The Conscientious Objector" a few weeks ago - in that play the author assumed I cared about the relationship between President Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr during the Vietnam War. I was bored stiff (spent most of the first act staring at the abstract painting of an American flag on the back wall and looking for random pictures - one section, for example, looked like an evil bunny) and left that one at intermission.

Wednesday, was another political play (I usually try to avoid plays about politics because they do usually bore me, this was just an unhappy coincidence) - the second preview of "Something You Did." I went with two other people, and we all agreed it wasn't as bad as we were expecting (not sure if that's a compliment or not). While "Betrayed" was say 90% dry political rhetoric, this was only maybe 60%. The one scene wonder Adriane Lenox, who won a Tony for her ten minutes on stage in "Doubt," once again has exactly one scene to perform, and once again is makes a huge impact, being the highlight of the evening. This time instead of playing the mother of the unseen source of controversy (in "Doubt," that being a boy who may or may not have been molested by the priest), this time she's the daughter (of a man who was killed, and whose death may or may not have been the fault of an imprisoned political activist). Joanna Gleason gets the main role in the play - a woman who helped plant a bomb that killed a man, and who's been in prison for 30 years, and who is now up for parole. It may have been that it was only the second preview and she hadn't found the character yet, but I found her really rather unconvincing - I was never able to forget that I was watching Joanna Gleason playing a role - she just didn't lose herself in the part, and her character really didn't interest me until a somewhat moving monologue near the end. There are some other characters, two of which seem to be there just to recite dull political arguments. The play isn't awful, but it's not great either. Certainly not the worst play I saw that week, but I can't really say I liked it all that much. I guess it's a solid "okay."

And now I'm caught up and I can go turn my brain to mush by watching "Big Brother." Wee....

Crying About "Cry-Baby"

Oh dear, it's been a month since I've updated....

Anyway...

I don't mean to be overly pessimistic or mean, but really - this has to be one of the worst seasons for new musicals in recent memory. Let's look at the list so far: Xanadu, Young Frankenstein, The Little Mermaid, Passing Strange, In The Heights, Cry-Baby, and the yet to start previews A Catered Affair. Of those I've seen (everything but A Catered Affair), there is only one (yes ONE) that I could with a straight face put in the category of "good" (In The Heights), and even that's not great (thanks to it's corny book), but so far it's the best of a really sorry lot. I had high hopes for Cry-Baby and A Catered Affair, but I went to the third preview of Cry-Baby tonight, and well, I guess all of my eggs of hope are going in A Catered Affair's basket.

Cry-Baby basically falls in the same category of Xanadu and Young Frankenstein - a tongue-in-cheek, campy, based on a movie, musical comedy. Like Xanadu, this is a show that seems to have tried to move into a theatre like the Variety Arts off-Broadway, discovered it had been turned into condos, and just kept walking up the street until it hit Broadway. And like Young Frankenstein, the creators seem to have missed the point of musical comedy - in order to be a successful musical, you don't just need any old music, you need tuneful, catchy songs with hopefully witty lyrics; and in order to be a successful musical COMEDY, you actually need material that's funny. You'd think this sort of thing would be common sense. But once again, we have a show with generic sounding, (this time 50's pop inspired), bland songs, and lines that I'm sure were supposed to be each and every one a gem, but instead of diamonds, we get something more akin to cubic zirconium. And for that matter, not only do the jokes all fall flat - both in the book and in the lyrics - but the book has trouble really making any sense. And that inept book is from the same writers who did so well adapting John Waters' Hairspray (Mark O'Donnell and Thomas Meehan). Maybe we just needed Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman to write the score, and Jack O'Brien to direct, and then we could have some sort of entertaining musical.

The cast is a pretty sorry lot. The ensemble is fine, Harriet Harris (who bewilderingly plays the grandmother, though she isn't nearly old enough for the part - maybe there was some sort of joke there that I totally missed?) tries her best with really rotten material (her big second act solo is particularly excruciating), but James Snyder, who is making his Broadway debut in the title role, walks around looking something like the living dead the entire time, and really just has no starry sparkle at all - he does a decent Elvis impression at the end, but that's about the only mark he makes. Honestly, anyone in the cast could be replaced - even at intermission - and I don't think anyone in the audience would notice. With the possible exception of Alli Mauzey's Lenora and Chester Gregory II's Dupree, who are particularly weird, they're really just a generic bunch of interchangeable pretty faces.

I will say, that while I found the first act to be torture, the second act was (probably due to my through the floor low expectations), intermittently tolerable. There's a peppy song in the jail, made actually sort of exciting thanks to Rob Ashford's excellent choreography (the choreography, by the way, was the only thing that was really exciting or noteworthy in the show), and the final scene was something close to entertaining, I think. The music started to get a little catchier, and the jokes a little funnier, but I think I was so desperate for something entertaining at that point, that I may have just given in to its mediocrity. But I guess when a show is so bad, what would normally be mediocre can be thought of as fun.

I don't think I mentioned the sets yet, but they are totally unremarkable. The only thing strange I noticed was there was one scene where one character is outside a wedding shop, and looking at a wedding dress, and another character comes up and asks if he is looking at wedding rings. And for some reason he says yes. When it is perfectly obvious that there is not a ring in sight in that window. It's a wedding dress. You'd think they could have filled the window with rings to suit the line, but that's the sort of lack of attention to detail... or any entertainment value for that matter, that this show severely lacks.

People are always complaining about all of the revivals (though I think Faith Prince said in an "A Catered Affair" interview (this is me paraphrasing) that why do people complain about revivals of musicals, when opera houses will do Puccini season after season, and there's nary a peep?), two of the (by far) best musicals on Broadway right now are revivals: "Sunday in the Park With George," and "Gypsy." Maybe if we could get some good new musicals on Broadway, we wouldn't need to pull out "Gypsy" again for it's fortieth revival in forty-one years.

I really really really hope "A Catered Affair" is good.