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).