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.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
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)
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)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
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........
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........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)