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.

A "Dead" Cat + Tristan und Albee

Do you hear that loud screeching coming from over from the Broadhurst Theatre on 44th Street? That's the sound of a "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" being skinned alive. You don't hear any screeching you say? Well, maybe the being skinned on stage was dead on arrival, and that was just the sound of the audience snoring. Tennessee Williams may be a brilliant playwright, and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" may be a brilliant play, but it's awfully hard to tell either of those things after sitting for three hours watching the current Broadway revival. The one saving grace of the production is Anika Noni Rose - and even she is merely very good, though not great, her performance probably only being memorable because of the mediocrity that surrounds her. And what a sad thing it is to see actors like James Earl Jones and Phylicia Rashad turn in such disappointing performances. Terrence Howard, the production's Brick, who is adequate but really just lacks that special spark (much like Jason Patric did in the last revival), I suppose we can forgive since he is making his Broadway debut. Phylicia Rashad, who was so wonderful two years in a row with "Raisin in the Sun" and then "Gem of the Ocean," just turns in a very ordinary performance as Big Mamma. She's not horrible (certainly not reaching the low of her performance in "Cymbeline"), but there's certainly nothing special going on there that any other actress could not equal if not surpass. James Earl Jones, however, has to be the biggest let down of the evening. First of all, though they refer to the fact that Big Daddy is celebrating his 65th birthday, Jones looks and acts more like he's celebrating his 85th. He mumbled or rushed through at least 1/3 of his lines, to the point where I would only get a general idea of what he was saying, because some things were simply impossible to understand. With the dim performances from Jones and Howard, I'm sure you can imagine that how the second act, which consists mostly of Big Daddy and Brick talking by themselves, was an seemingly interminable bore. As for the physical production, the set is pretty bland and cheap looking, and the lighting was surprisingly poor. I think audiences generally don't really notice lighting design, especially in plays where it's just supposed to look very natural. So I think the design here makes one appreciate how challenging it is to do really subtle designs, especially since the design here is so poor - with transitions happening far too abruptly. And don't get me started on how every time there was a big important speech, the stage would get very dark except for a spotlight on the actor reciting the monologue. This was probably more director Debbie Allen's fault than the lighting designer's (have either ever heard of something called subtlety?), but nonetheless it was extremely irritating. Also irritating, and rather confusing was what the purpose of a having a random guy playing a saxophone walk on stage and play a little live music as each act started. According to the Playbill, the sax music was all composed by Tex Allen (aka brother of Phylicia and Debbie), so I guess they figured if they had two siblings involved, why not randomly throw in the third so he wouldn't be left out? Very bizarre. I had other issues, like how some important scenes were played too much for comedy, to the play's detriment, but honestly, there's so much wrong here, that I don't really see the point in going on any further. This is the sort of wrongheaded production I would expect to see from the Roundabout - you know, great sounding cast (on paper), great classic play, and mysteriously inept production. This was probably the most disappointing play so far this season, just because it sounded so interesting... in theory.

While I'm on the subject of "entertainment" that is both very slow and very long, I went to see the screening of the La Scala production of "Tristan und Isolde" yesterday and Symphony Space. Four hours and forty five minutes (with two intermissions), that probably could have been far more interesting had it been half the length. I will say that I stayed to the bitter end, and to Wagner's credit he does save the best for the last - the "Liebestod" (the final, deservedly famous aria) was spectacular and I do think it is ever so much more exciting to watch after having sat there bored for so long. I was going to say that aria is like a drink of water after a long trek through the desert, but that seems a little too obvious a metaphor, so I'm going to go with the taste of food that you break fast with after Yom Kippur. Okay, there are a couple of interesting nuggets along the way, but nothing compares to the final overwhelming thrill of that last aria that just made me forget how bored I had been, as I sat for those few minutes totally enraptured. I'm seeing the Met's production (featuring Deborah Voigt, Ben Heppner, and interesting enough the same Brangane as the La Scala production, Michelle DeYoung, who was a highlight of the film), so maybe I'll get more out of it after hearing the score a second time, or from seeing it live (or both).

Oh, Saturday I went to see "Me, Myself & I" (the new Albee play) at the McCarter, and let me say it was a hoot. Definitely typical Albee, but just really funny - and I never had a chance to be bored because I never knew what was going to happen next. The basic premise is that there are two identical twins, named OTTO and otto, and OTTO decides he doesn't want to be a twin anymore (and that he's going to become Chinese). Very silly stuff, but really entertaining. It's supposed to come to New York in the fall, and I for one am anxiously awaiting the chance to see it again.

I'm sure I've seen other stuff that I've forgotten about, but those are my recent theatrical highlights (or is it lowlights), anyway.

The Sl-ugh Bearers of Kayrol Island

You have to wonder sometimes how theatres choose which shows to present. The Vineyard Theatre has an odd record of musicals, with "Avenue Q" and "[title of show]" being big hits (although "[title of show]" was already acclaimed from its previous runs, and "Avenue Q," if I recall already had great buzz from previous readings and from presentations of pieces of the show), and "Miracle Brothers" (the show about dolphins) being one of the worst musicals of that season. Well, their latest foray into musical theatre is "The Slug Bearers of Kayrol Island, or the Friends of Dr. Rushower." And let me just say, the show absolutely lives up to its dreadful title. This is just one of those shows that makes you shake your head in disbelief and wonder who could possibly have thought this was any good. Though the material is a big pile of sludge, there is one positive aspect of the production - the sets are fabulous. The libretto is based on a comic book/graphic novel, and so they project sometime animated, sometimes still, pieces of the artist's work on the back wall, and on two side panels. And so, like "Persepolis" (though the movie's script wasn't nearly as awful as this), it's a joy to watch the scene changes. And they even came up with cool uses, like actually having the projected drawing of the elevator door open and close. Also enjoyable is the drummer, who seemed to be having a much better time than I was. In fact, I was so bored near the end of the second act, that I just stopped paying attention to the actors, and just watched the drummer enthusiastically drum away. I was in the first row and he was right in my line of sight, so it was perfect. If only I had thought to watch him sooner, maybe I would have liked the show even more.
The absurd and pretty much incomprehensible is as follows: Most appliances (phones, blenders, toasters) have lead slugs in them that give them added weight to them so they feel more hefty and expensive. So the people of Kayrol aisle make these slugs, and in exchange are paid with some sort of date leaves. They are also slowly becoming asexual, only enjoying calling women up on the phone, though not so much interested in intercourse. So Dr. Rushower, I think, has something to do with the production of the slugs, though I'm not sure. He also has a daughter who's having trouble finding a husband. Then there's a man who thinks appliance instruction manuals are the highest form of poetry. So, he ends up meeting Dr. Rushower and his daughter, and the two of them eventually decide to go to Kayrol to bring this great appliance manual poetry to the residents. They are specifically told not to eat any food on the island or to drink "Kayrol Cola" (which is supposedly just dirty water and codeine). Well, that's the first act. The second act takes place mostly on the island, and if the first act was somewhat amusing if only when listening to the character played by the charming Bobby Steggert read his bizarre poetry, the second act, which I won't describe is totally dull, and makes even less sense than the first - especially because it ties up almost nothing in the end. We never what's causing all of the sexual mayhem with the Kayrol inhabitants, we never learn what is so dangerous about Kayrol food and drink, and Emmanual (the Steggert character) ends up pretty much where he started, making his character basically almost totally pointless and excisable.
The music - a sort of jazzy light rock score - is fine at the beginning, but eventually all of the songs just blended together and I couldn't really tell one from the other. The most enjoyable music is the play out music after the show has ended - and not just because the show was finally over - it made very nice relaxing background music, once the lyrics were removed.
I will say that I'm sort of curious to seek out the comic book that the show was based on, or maybe another one by the same artist, because I was very intrigued by the art, and because I'm hoping that the plot makes more sense in its original form.
One thing I gleaned from the show is that I should stay away from Kayrol Island (the place). I suggest you heed the musical's advice and also stay away (both from the place AND the musical).

On Springer, Leigh, Beckett, Snicket (and more)

Talk about random, here's the strange collections of shows I saw in the last week or so.

Tonight was "Jerry Springer: The Opera" - the first of a two night only concert staging of the opera, starring Harvey Keitel in the title role, David Bedella recreating his Olivier Award winning performance as Warm Up Guy/Satan, and with Emily Skinner, Max von Essen and Linda Balgord (among others) in featured parts. Considering the rather large cast required, and the controversial subject matter (more on that in a moment) I guess there's no real chance of this ever going to Broadway. But if it does, run don't walk to the box office with the inevitable discount in hand. Because it is absolutely brilliant... in the first act anyway. The second act takes on a slightly more serious tone (or maybe it just seemed that way because more of the jokes fell flat), which is actually fine, but no where near the awesome wonder that we witnessed before the intermission. The first act is basically just "The Jerry Springer" show set to music... well, to be more specific, "The Jerry Springer" show turned into an opera. And no, they don't mean "opera" like "Rent" is an opera - this isn't just a sung through musical - it's a real opera - the music would easily be at home in an opera house, though I can't imagine any opera house having the chutzpah to present it, what with them relying on donors for funding, and all. In the first act we get a man who has a fiancee... and who is also dating her best friend (played by Linda Balgord... in a green wig and bright pink tights) AND a "chick with a dick" (played by the extremely talented Max von Essen, whose voice I never knew had such a range) then we get a man who wants to be his girlfriend's baby (really a baby - he eventually takes off his clothes to reveal he's wearing a diaper); and then finally there's the misunderstood pole dancer (who gets probably the best song in the show, the extremely touching "I Just Wanna Dance") whose husband is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which eventually leads to the act one finale - a tap dancing line of Klansman (all of which is absolutely hilarious). Then in act two, Jerry goes to hell and Satan makes him do a show down there, with the guests being Jesus (played by Diaper Man, and who says he is "slightly gay"), Adam and Eve, Mary (who was "raped by G-d"), and finally the big man himself. And people wonder why this show gets protests (supposedly there were protests outside of Carnegie Hall tonight, though with the crowd outside of the theatre, and my rush to get in, I didn't actually notice them). As I said before, the first act is an absolute laugh riot. But I suppose once the opera-ized actual show was finished, they couldn't do just another show for the second act because that would have made it too much of a one-joke evening. So, while the second act solution they came up with isn't really the greatest, it was at least never actually boring.
I've had a dvd of the original London production sitting on my desk for a few years, so I'm going to have to see how it compares. My boss, who was also there tonight, and who saw it in London actually said that he thought this version was better than what he saw in London. So anyway, fingers crossed for a full production on Broadway (hey, "The Color Purple" is closing, and I bet "Jerry Springer" might be able to squeeze in there before "Shrek" officially grabs it), though my breath will not be held.

Sunday I went to the movies to see "Persepolis" which left me decidedly underwhelmed. The animation was definitely beautiful, but I found the screenplay to be extremely weak - the movie was just so slow (it felt about as long as "There Will Be Blood," which was really twice the length of this), and there was just too much voice over/narration for my taste, so that I never really cared about what happened to any of the characters - even the one whose story this was. As a visual work of art, the movie deserves acclaim, but as an overall film, I just don't get the hype.

Saturday night was "Happy Days" (the Beckett play, not the musical based on the TV show) starring the always brilliant Fiona Shaw. I can't say I've ever been a really big fan of the play, but if you have to listen to someone babble on for 100 minutes or so, you can't do much better than Fiona Shaw. I had seen the play a few years ago with Lea Delaria at "Classic Stage Co," and while I don't remember all that much about it, I'm pretty confident that Shaw makes a more compelling Winnie than Delaria. And I have to say her transformation in the second act (as a result of her now being buried up to her neck in sand instead of her waist, and all that takes away from her) was especially devastating to watch. It was almost sort of worth wading through act one, to see that second act transformation. If you get a chance to go (I think it only runs through Saturday), try to sit as close as possible for the best effect. I was in the first row, and well, that certainly helped.

Saturday afternoon, for added randomness was The Little Orchestra's performance of "The Composer is Dead," written and narrated by Lemony Snicket - well, actually as usual Mr. Snicket didn't show up , so his representative, Daniel Handler - who looks remarkably like Snicket showed up instead ;O) Anyway, the piece is really very very funny - and educational. It's apparently going to be released as a book with cd in early 2009, and I'm sure it will be worth buying. What happens is, a composer is found dead (to paraphrase Snicket, "I guess you could say he was decomposing" hyuck, hyuck, hyuck), and so a police officer goes to the orchestra to find out who killed him. And so he goes through each section of the orchestra (violins, violas, concertmaster, percussion, woodwinds, etc) and asks them about their alibis were for the previous evening. And so they say what they were doing (the violins were playing a waltz, for example) and then they demonstrate by playing. I can certainly see this as being useful for elementary school music classes. Though it is fun for children and adults alike... unless you listen to the whiny people who talked through almost the entire performance, and whined that since they mentioned composers like Mozart, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bach (etc) that the kids hadn't heard of, it wasn't appropriate for them. Them, I wanted to turn around and smack.

Friday night was the extremely enjoyable "Two Thousand Years," by Mike Leigh. It's basically a slice of life about a Jewish family in England, that talks about family life, and politics in Israel, and just being Jewish. I think this is one of those shows that you really have to be Jewish to understand. The first act is fine, but in the second act, around a third of the way in, a new character comes in who just turns the whole play up-side-down, and who is absolutely hilarious. For almost the entire time she was onstage, the audience (or, me and the people around me) were in stiches. The rest of the play, is still generally interesting, but that one character alone makes the entire play worthwhile. Oh, and I will say that the entire ensemble does an excellent job. Not a weak link in the cast.

Tuesday and Wednesday were two off-Broadway shows that I don't really care to say much about, because I didn't really care for them. Wednesday was Will Eno's "Oh, The Humanity," a collection of five bewildering short plays that I can't say I really understood. I really liked Eno's "Thom Pain (based on nothing)," but none of these short plays (well, except maybe the fourth one), really excited me.
Tuesday was the first preview (with all that implies) of "Hunting and Gathering" at Primary Stages. It starts off quite amusingly, with the characters talking about life in New York City - about the quirks of the different boroughs, and about the various states of apartment life (buying, rental, couch surfing, apartment sitting, etc). And the characters start off as sort of quirky and charming. Unfortunately, after a half hour or so, their charm wore of and their quirks became extremely irritating, and really I just wanted them to shut up already. This could have made for a fun short play, but it just rambled on for so long with nary a point (or much plot) in sight, that I left very unsatisfied. It was a first preview, so in theory there's hope for it. There are also theories that the universe was created by a flying cow princess named Petunia. I don't really think it's likely that the universe was created by Petunia the cow, and I don't think it's likely "Hunting and Gathering" will improve over the course of previews. But hey, you never know.

Week in Review

Okay, let's see if I can get back on track to do these weekly, instead of the sporadic monthly randomness.

SO, starting with this evening and going backwards...


Tonight I went to see what I think was the seventh preview performance of "Next to Normal" (it started previews... I think this past Wednesday). The buzz on the message boards, granted it seems mostly from people who saw it when it was called "Feeling Electric" and was presented at NYMF a few years ago, has been quite positive. On the other hand my boss saw it Thursday night, and like me had not seen it at NYMF, and thought it was "okay." I think I sort of see myself in both camps: I left the theatre on a high note, but I had a lot of problems with what went on onstage. The basic premise of the show, without giving anything important away, is that there is this mother who suffers from depression and has hallucinations, who has been on a cocktail of pills for something like sixteen years, and things just aren't really working. So, of course, her family is a little (?) screwed up. I'd say the show is mostly sung through. The rock score is by Tom Kitt (aka, composer of that Broadway hit "High Fidelity" which, credit where it's due, does make for a rather enjoyable cast recording, despite how awful the show as a whole is/was), with an unfortunate book and set of lyrics by the rather less talented Brian Yorkey. There were a few songs I liked, at least from the point of view of the music (there's no song list in the Playbill, so don't ask me to name them... not that that necessarily would have helped), but many of the others just sort of blended together and started sounding sort of generic and the same. The lyrics were on the whole pretty awful. Most of the rhymes seemed kind of forced - like one character would say some random line about remembering "her first tooth" and you knew they only threw that in there because they needed something to rhyme with "truth." And when the rhymes weren't being forced, there was usually a cliche in there to make me cringe (things along the lines of "this house is not a home"). As for the book, the first act seemed kind of slow. There were some interesting quirks along the way that did grab my interest, but it was something of a bumpy ride. I really enjoyed the beginning of the second act - things finally seemed to slow down and get interesting - but then somewhere maybe 2/3 through the act, I think they realized that the show couldn't be four hours long, so they'd better get up and resolve things, and characters suddenly seemed a little more willing to listen to each other for the sake of resolution, and some (like the daughter) seemed to suddenly become a whole lot more responsible and normal after just one talk with her mother? - then there was a really nice twist, and then the whole thing ended with one of those tacked on happy inspirational songs (sort of like "The Song of Purple Summer" in "Spring Awakening"). I think the last song was called "Into the Light," and it seemed just stuck on there so the audience would get all emotional and teary eyed, and they would have something to hum on the way out, and they would leave on a satisfied note, despite the unevenness of what they had just witnessed. And I'm kind of ashamed to admit that it sort of worked. Granted somewhere between leaving the theatre and getting onto the subway, the song morphed into "Bring Me To Light" from "Violet" - a song that, if I recall, serves the same purpose in that show - but that said, at least the show was able to leave a good taste the audiences mouths.
As for the performances, the cast is quite strong (with one exception), with the underrated Brian D'Arcy James (as the father) and the new to me Aaron Tveit (as the song) being particularly spectacular. Alice Ripley has the lead role of the mother and she definitely left me with very mixed feelings. I've always had a soft spot for her and Emily Skinner since "Side Show." But I can't help but think she may have been miscast in this. For most of the show, I enjoyed her performance, though her voice sounded kind of ragged (it seems like it's a really vocally punishing part, and I wonder whether she's survive the run), but I rationalized that the part is hard and it was a two show day. But then in the second act, there was a scene with the father and son together - and no Ripley, and I couldn't help think how much more enjoyable the show was when she wasn't on stage. When she was offstage, I didn't need to sit there and wonder whether her voice was going to hold out or rationalize away the fault, I could just sit back and enjoy the show. And really, I don't know that her acting was really up to snuff either. Granted it's only the seventh preview, but I don't know that I really every bought her as the mother.
As for the visual stuff, the lighting (by "Spring Awakening" lighting designer) Kevin Adam is excellent - he certainly is fond of those exposed light bulbs. The set - made up of black pipes fashioned into three-level scaffolding, and with some pictured panels, was initially exciting (like, when I first walked into the theatre I went "wow") but didn't really grow on me. And though there is very little choreography, the one big dance number - the first act finale, was really embarrassing - it looked almost like the actors just made up their own dances.
Anyway, back to the 'granted it's the seventh preview' note, it IS only the first week of previews, and I certainly hope they'll pull their act together in time for opening. It does concern me that they already had a run on NYMF and have already had a lot of time to fix things, so I wonder if this is as good as it will get (in which case, it's probably hopeless), but I think I'm going to try to see the show again closer to opening to see if things change. If I had really totally hated the show, or if was just 'eh' on the show, I wouldn't bother returning, but there was something interesting going on stage, so I want to see if the show jells over the course of previews. Should be interesting.

Onto the next show... this afternoon I saw "Crimes of the Heart." I see all of the Roundabout shows with a subscription, so I should really probably not see shows twice - or at least twice before I've gotten the obligatory subscription viewing out of the way. But I have little will power for such things. So I went this afternoon. I remember seeing a production of the play a long time ago - possibly when I was in elementary school - at the Airport Playhouse - I know it was a long time ago, because I think it was part of a subscription, and it's been a really long time since we've done that. Anyway, my memory of the show was that I really liked it, so I was actually looking forward to the Roundabout's production. Well, maybe my tastes have changed. The show is okay - like "Next to Normal," it does have an ending that was at least satisfying, but it mostly just seemed like really slow going. The guy next to me fell asleep and was snoring in the second act. It was kind of annoying, but I couldn't say I blamed him. Not that he really missed anything. There is some fine ensemble acting going on - and though there was an understudy on for Babe (normally played by Lily Rabe), the understudy was just as good as the regulars. Of course, the show just started previews on Friday, so that could be part of the reason - though I thought the others had played the role in the production at Williamstown that the Roundabout plucked for their season. I guess I'd say I liked the show, but it was just really slow.

Saturday night was "Come Back Little Sheba'' again. The show seems to really be splitting audiences. I enjoyment seems to depend on how you feel about a play written and set 58 years ago. Some people just don't seem to buy it, calling it dated and stale. That didn't really bother me at all, but then again I'm used to watching old black and white movies and reruns of "I Love Lucy," so such things generally don't occur to me. I still love the play, and the production still moved me, and that's all I have to say on that.

Friday night, I went to a reading of the first act of Stephen Schwartz's opera based on "A Seance on a Wet Afternoon." Schwartz is, of course, the composer of hit shows like "Wicked," "Pippin" and "Godspell," none of which I'd say I'm all that fond of, but anyway.... The opera didn't really sound much like his musicals. Maybe it's due to the fact that opera singers were performing instead of musical theatre folk, but it really sounded just like your typical modern American opera - except it was slightly more melodic than something like... say... "Margaret Garner." I won't say much since this was apparently the first time it was being presented anywhere, and was in fact Schwartz's first time hearing the score sung my professional singers. I will say, that I hope the opera comes to New York eventually - it doesn't premiere until Fall 2009 - and then in Santa Barbara, so I imagine I have some waiting to do. Lauren Flanagan played the lead role in the reading (the Kim Stanley role in the film), and I hope they keep her for the full production, because she was wonderful. Schwartz said after the presentation that he's maybe 1/3 of the way through the second act, and then he'll start orchestrating some time this summer. So there's definitely a long road ahead. Still, based on a first reading of the first act, I'd say this is something interesting to look out for.

Thursday night was "The Maddening Truth" and I think it was maybe the second preview (I don't know what it is about me and early previews). I found it to be pretty much a total bore. It was the second preview of a world premiere play, so there's alway hope for improvement, but unlike "Next to Normal," I have absolutely no desire to find out if things turn around.

Wednesday night was "The 39 Steps." I know the critics - Brantley especially - just loved it, but I think it just wasn't my type of humor. I even watched the movie the night before to prepare myself so I wouldn't miss jokes. And the movie seemed really lame and ripe for parody, so I was especially looking forward to it. But all that four actor playing hundreds of roles as a source of humor doesn't really do it for me. It was silly and slight and certainly painless (I'm not dreading going back to see it a second time with the subscription), but just not for me. I'd say - as a barometer - if you liked "Stones in his Pockets" (which I didn't) you'll probably like this, because if memory serves, it was a similar type of humor.

And I think that about catches me up.

'night all.

Ooh - one more non-theatre related item - on a more regular bloggy, random note. I went the Hershey store after "Crimes of the Heart" because I was having a craving for Good & Plenty and I was near by. And on my way to the checkout line I found a box of Hersey's Milk Chocolate Bar with Green Tea Creme, which I of course bought because I love green tea flavored sweets, and I love trying new candy. It's in a plain white box, the writing on the bars is all in some Asian language, and the back of the box (where they have nutritional info and ingredients) says the bars were manufactured in Dubai. Huh. Didn't know they made candy there. Anyway, the bars are really yummy - the chocolate tastes more like Nestle than the Hershey chocolate I'm used to, and the green tea creme is quite tasty as well. They're obscenely unhealthy of course (even with .1g of trans fat per serving), but what - candy is supposed to be healthy? Anyway, if you like green tea and you like chocolate, and you happen to be by the Hershey store in Times Square (the chances of anyone reading this satisfying all of those criterion and actually listening to me, a random blogger, is probably about as good as me winning the lottery, but I put it out there because "hey, you never know.")

Welcome Back, Little Sheba (plus thoughts on some long winded entertainments)

A few years ago, someone posted on some message board or other that "Come Back, Little Sheba" was going to be on tv that evening, and it was a must see, especially for Shirley Booth's Tony and Oscar winning performance in it. I admit to being a bit skeptical (there's was just something about that title that reeked of musty, dull old classic) but I set my Tivo anyway, and eventually sat down to watch it. And then I watched it a few more times, and then I bought the dvd and watched that a few more times. And since then I've been crossing my fingers for a live stage production to come along, and with each season that it didn't I just figured there wasn't anyone who was willing or capable of filling Booth's shoes (sort of like why we haven't had a Broadway revival of "Funny Girl.") Well, Manhattan Theatre Club finally announced a revival with... S. Epatha Merkerson. Not someone I'd have pictured in the role, though to be fair I didn't really have any idea who she was, since she's apparently most known for her role on "Law & Order," a show I've managed never to have ever watched. Anyway, even though I already have a ticket to see the show next week, I couldn't resist seeing it tonight (in what ended up being a first row seat - woo hoo). I resisted the urge to pop in the dvd before going tonight, so I could forget as much about the movie as I could (as if forgetting anything about the film were really possible). I am pleased to report, as perhaps not the most impartial juror because I was really rooting for this to be good, that the production is fantastic. Merkerson is no Shirley Booth (then again, who is?), but she most certainly makes the role her own, and I have to admit watching her kept me teary eyed through most of the second act. While Shirley Booth's Lola is sort of bubbly and feels instantly like your cooky best friend, Merkerson's Lola is a bit calmer, and if she isn't as instantly likeable as Booth, she definitely quietly grew on me, as her 'put on a happy face' demeanor was chipped away. Also particularly fantastic, is Kevin Anderson as Doc. His big scene in the second act - which I think, partially due to some creepy, cruel lines that I didn't remember from the film - was especially disturbing and devastating.
Anyway, this is a production that is well worth seeing.

Monday night, I went to see "Die Walkure" at the Met. I think I bought a ticket because Deborah Voigt was going to be doing Sieglinde. For whatever reason, I bought a ticket for the season premiere of the production, and then right after that I realized she wasn't going to start in the role until later in the run. I all turned out for the best, because Stephanie Blythe is only doing Fricka in the non-Voigt performances, and though it isn't the largest role, her scene with Wotan was the highlight of the evening. I can't remember ever seeing such sparks fly between the two characters before. The first two times I saw "Walkure" (this was my third) it was as part of the complete four-opera cycle, and maybe it had something to do with having been prepared by the "Das Rheingold," or knowing that this was just a small part of the story, but for whatever reason, I don't remember the opera seeming to be so damn long before. It just went on and on and on, and just when I thought an act might end, another scene came along. Oy. Maybe I just don't like "Walkure" as a stand alone opera. I have to say, Gottedamerung, though perhaps one of the least beloved, has always been my favorite of the cycle. And considering, that was the opera Wagner originally sat down to write (with Rheingold, Walkure, and Siegfried being, as I understand it, necessary explanations of the final story) I don't see why that one isn't performed by itself more often. If I recall, it has a synopsis of everything the audience missed at the beginning, anyway. Enough of that aside though. I will say that was enough beautiful music in there to keep me from total misery, and the ending is particularly satisfying, but though it's probably blasphemy, if you're not doing the whole cycle anyway, it wouldn't kill the music director to trim a bit here and there from the opera. (*now ducking the rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at me my Wagner worshipers*)

Also, too long, but ultimately satisfying, was "There Will Be Blood." I know it's being touted as the best movie in years, there was no reason it had to be two hours and forty minutes long. After the movie was over, I was talking about something that happened near the end of the movie with my parents, and my father reminded my mother and I of a scene that had happened at the beginning of the movie. And honestly, at that point, that scene had happened so long ago that I had totally forgotten it - I think my brain must have filed it as part of a different movie. I will say that Daniel Day Lewis is fantastic in his role (and I imagine deserves to sweep the acting awards), as is Paul Dano. The beginning of the movie is excellent, the middle section is interminable, and the final section is immensely satisfying - Is it worth the slog it takes to get there? Yeah, probably. Not that I go to that many movies, but my personal award for best direction would have to go to either Tim Burton for "Sweeney Todd" or Julian Schnabel for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" over Paul Thomas Anderson. But that's just me. I probably would have been happier if there had been an intermission (hey, if "Gone With The Wind" had one, why not this?), so maybe I'll enjoy the film more once it's on dvd, and I can pause and take breaks at my leisure.

And as usual, it's far too late for me to write anymore. Good night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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