Phone Rings, Door Chimes, In Comes... well not "Happiness"

I can't help but wonder just how long Susan Stroman is going to be able to ride on the coattails of 'The Producers." Looks at what she's directed since then: "Thou Shalt Not," "The Frogs," "Young Frankenstein," and now "Happiness." Yes, there's also "Contact" on her directing resume, but that's a ballet, despite what the Tony nomination committe may think. And along with her delightful "Double Feature" at NYC Ballet, I have no complaints about her direction of BALLET. Original musicals? Well I think her record speaks for itself.
Okay, so tonight was only the first preview of a world premiere musical. Had the creative team not heard of the out of town tryout? Or did all of the regional theatres look at the musical and just reject because it's not very good. Whatever the case, this show needs a lot of work. The score is full of mediocre songs. Not one came even close to being as good as songs like "Will You?" or "Around the World" or "Another Winter in a Summer Town" or even "Jerry Likes My Corn" from Frankel and Korie's last musical, "Grey Gardens." We do, however, get songs that sound a bit like those faux-period songs from the first act of "Grey Gardens" that Edie sings at the piano. You know... the songs that were so unmemorable that I can't even remember their names? Those songs.
John Weidman's book? Seemed a bit "The Story of My Life" meets "Company" to me. The basic idea, without giving away the twist, is that all of these people are stuck in a subway car, and one by one they relive their happiest moments. In song. Except for the one guy who hasn't had a happy moment yet. So you get the treacly "let's look back at the happy times of my youth" vibe from "Story of My Life" combined with that "Company"ish structure, where each character gets their one song, which the unhappy central male character observes, and then at the end (**Spoiler alert, I guess, though it seems kind of obvious**) he sings a song about how now realizes he wants to "Be(ing) Alive" or rejoin the human race "Before the Parade Passes By" (oops, not sure how Hello Dolly slipped in there). The problem with this structure is that each character only gets one song/scene to make the audience care about them, so that better be a damn fine song. And "damn fine" is not a phrase I'd use to describe the majority of the show. There are some other songs thrown in their that the crowd sings - I suppose to break up the monotony of it all - but I'm guessing those will be the first to hit the cutting room floor, considering the show is running an overlong two hours, sans intermission right now. I did kind of enjoy the opening number, but for whatever reason, it was orchestrated to prominantly feature a synthesizer, making the song sound very 1980s. I
The set is... serviceable. The subway car doesn't look much like a New York subway car (they could have at least gotten the seats right), but then again the show also has "New Yorkers" talking to each other on the train. Has John Weidman ever actually ridden on the subway before? Because if he did, I think he'd know that even when a train is stuck in a tunnel, New Yorkers do not talk to each other. They sit there in angry silence, and angrily look at their watches, while listening to iPods or reading books or newspapers. None of this chit chat nonsense. So I guess this show isn't much for realism. Call me a jaded NYer, but people singing instead of speaking I can accept via willing suspension of disbelief. But native New York strangers talking to each other? Not so much.
Back to the set, I'm guessing it's so minimalist because Lincoln Center spent so much money on the huge cast. And a very good, huge cast it indeed is. The only weak link was probably Sebastian Arcelus who I found a bit bland. Thank goodness Joanna Gleasona and Hunter Foster have returned to musical theatre after disappointing attempts at drama. And Hunter Foster gets what was probably the most interesting choreography of the night in his song about climbing the ladder of success... using literally a ladder.
The audience response at the end seemed fairly positive - then again audiences gave warm responses to the first previews of much unloved shows like "The Little Mermaid" and "The Story of My Life" too, so I don't know how much that counts.
I have a ticket to see the show again in two weeks, so hopefully that will be enough time to do at least some of the needed work on it. But if you're expecting another "Grey Gardens," well it's probably wise to lower your expectations just a smidge. Or forty.

Just so you don't think all I do is suffer, I did see two fantastic productions last week: one was "A Winter's Tale" at BAM, and the other way Edgar Oliver's solo play, "East 10th Street." Unfortunately I'm pretty sure "A Winter's Tale" is sold out, and "East 10th Street" closes (since it's now Saturday) tonight - why Brantley waited until the next to last weekend of its returns engagement to rave about it, I'm not sure I understand. I will be sure to point out return engagements of either of those.

If you have the time or interest, you can listen to Edgar Oliver read a story here. There's something strangely hypnotic about his voice...

"Variations" of a Lifetime Original Movie

On paper, “33 Variations” sounds like a pretty good idea for a play: Beethoven was asked to write a variation on a waltz, and ended up writing not just one, but 33 variations on the theme. So a musicologist (played by Jane Fonda) goes to Bonn (home of the Beethoven archives) to try to figure out why. Only it turns out that there's not too much to tell about the writing of the variations. At least not enough to sustain a full length play. So playwright Moises Kaufman decided to give the musicologist ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). Now it's a race against time – will the musicologist figure out the secret behind Beethoven's obsession before she dies? Does anyone care? And as if in an effort to save the play from falling so low as to qualify as a Lifetime original movie, no one really seems terribly concerned that this woman is going to die. Her daughter gets one little outburst – not screaming or crying, just a bit of pouting – and other than that it seems like everyone has just accepted that she's going to die, and there's not point in worrying about what you can't control. Yeah, because that makes for exciting theatre. You know what also makes for exciting theatre? Conflict. There's lots of ground covered in the play – so much so that quite often characters just stand at the edge of the stage, tell us how they're feeling (note tell, not show) and fill us in on what's happening in their lives. So one speech may say “I was upset my mother was dying. So I went to visit her in Germany. She's had fourteen medical since I've been there. She can't feed herself anymore. And I've fallen in love with a nurse and we've moved in together. My mother made an important discovery today.” And then we get a few lines of dialogue, which feature the musicologist in her latest mobility enhancer (over the course of the second act she goes from cane, to walker, to wheelchair, to electric wheelchair, to bed – and as if to show us that she's really sick, during intermission they give her a much less flattering hairstyle. Because sick people shouldn't have good hair?). I will say that the first act is much bigger on the explanatory monologues than the second. Partly because of that, I suppose, the first act is extremely dry and choppy. It's made up of far too many short scenes, switching between mother in Bonn, daughter in New York and Beethoven in Vienna, far too often for comfort, making the audience (or at least me) feel like we're just being barraged with a whole pile of dry information about these characters that we have no reason at all to care about. The second act is a bit warmer, and does have some nice scenes – one where Beethoven walks us through the thought process behind one of the variations (while it's played in the background by a live pianist) was quite nice, though not as interesting it certainly thought it was – the combination of lighting and music and one man standing on stage declaiming just screamed “I am a brilliant scene. Come bow at my brilliance” and well, it didn't quite deserve to think so highly of itself. Still, even if we do start to care about the characters, the almost complete lack of conflict is still absolutely evident, and the play plods on to its inevitable conclusion. Why this needed to be two and a half hours, I'm not sure. I'm sure the fact that Kaufman both wrote and directed it had something to do with that. I have to assume that another directed would have done some happy hacking. It almost reminds me of Norma Desmond's “Salome” in “Sunset Boulevard,” and how she freaks out when Joe wants to cut scenes. Kaufman obviously loves to hear his writing recited out loud, hence not so much cutting. I did read somewhere that he was planning on cutting ten minutes or so between the first preview and opening night. Considering the play was two and a half, and I had read it was going to be two forty, I suppose that's already been done. Ah well.

The acting is all okay, but none of the actors blew me away... I was barely getting gentle breezes out of them. I mean, this isn't “Mourning Becomes Electra” where everyone was hideously miscast – they're all fine, and they play their parts well. It's just not really a play with showy roles. I suppose the closest thing to scenery chewing we get is Zach Grenier's Beethoven, but I can't say I was really overly impressed.

What I did love, was the set, lighting and projection design. I was a little skeptical at first, but as the play went on, I was really quite impressed by the look of the piece.

Really, this just felt to me like one of those plays that should have been produced at some place like Playwright Horizons or NYTW, gone through it's limited run with maybe faint praise, and then been forgotten about. Kind of like that dull dull play Itamar Moses wrote about Bach that they did at NYTW a few years ago. Not that this is quite as boring as that one, but it's not *that* much better either. I'll file this one under “big disappointments.”

The Story of "The Story Of My Life"

I've been on something of a "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" kick lately, burning my way through the complete series set that I didn't open until a month ago, and has now consumed my life. And if that show has taught me nothing else, it's that just because you're dead, that doesn't mean you can't be killed again. The (dead) character Malcolm Gets plays in "The Story of My Life" is regrettably not a vampire, but I do believe that if Will Chase had driven a wooden stake through his heart in the first scene, the musical would have been much better for his trouble. Sure, it would take some 'willing suspension of disbelief' for a ghost to be killed with a stake, but if it was explained to the audience how unbearably irritating this character would become in just a short time, well I'm sure they could deal.
The basic premise of "The Story of My Life" is that this world famous author (played by Will Chase) is trying to write a eulogy for his dead bookseller best friend (played by Malcolm Gets), who haunts him because the famous author did such a crappy job writing a eulogy for the bookseller's dad, that he wants to be spared the same fate at his funeral. Oh, and the big revelation at the end (spoiler alert, spoiler alert) is that famous author's best friend inspired all of famous author's stories, and he only now realizes this now that his friend is dead and haunting him. This point is obvious basically from the second song (and is repeated over and over again is every other damn song), so that this is a big revelation after 90 minutes is indeed quite a bit annoying. And yet, as annoying as that revelation is, it is still not as annoying as Malcolm Gets' portrayal of the bookseller. I suspect that the blame lies more with Gets being miscast, than with the writing of the character. The problem is that the character of the bookseller is supposed to be this nice, likable loser. And Gets just fails miserably at this. The way he plays the part, it's like the guy never progressed past the age of five. This is fine when he's actually playing a little kid, but as Will Chase matures and eventually plays a believable adult, Gets still has this embarrassingly artificial kid persona. And so the whole time it's like he keeps poking Will Chase and saying "hey mister, hey mister, hey mister, hey mister" and it gets to the point where you just want to throw him out the window. It's just a really half-assed, dismal, completely unbelievable performance. And an even bigger disappointment, when you consider what a beautiful, adult, fully realized performance Will Chase gives. Chase, who granted did not impress me all that much in "Lennon" or "High Fidelity" and seemed a bit long in the tooth in the video cast of the final "Rent," finally lives up to his hype. It's a wonderful performance, that makes almost every song he sings (in the rather saggy final third, even he has trouble saving the show) into a thing of beauty, just as much as Gets ruins most everything he wraps his vocal chords around.
On the plus side (what? there's a plus side?) I do have to say that composer/lyricist Neil Bartram is one to keep an ear on. The music is happily tuneful, and there are more than a few songs that I would love to hear again on a cast recording. Nothing against the long contingent of composers who try (and generally fail) to follow in Sondheim's footsteps by writing not immediately melodic stuff, but it's nice every now and then to not get a headache trying to wrap one's brain around 90 minutes of dissonant chords. I look forward to hearing more of his stuff in the future.
The set is spare, but fine, and the lighting adequate. This isn't one of those stunning huge spectacles - it's an intimate, one set, two actor chamber piece, that (because off-Broadway is dead) wandered onto the Great White Way.
I should say that when the show first started - for the first ten mintues or so - I actually had high hopes for it. Things became a bit bumpier after that, what with an irritating plot device of having each scene start with a different story being pulled off of a shelf, and with... um... pretty much everything Malcolm Gets did, though as I said before Will Chase was able to save the show up to a point, after which I was grinding my teeth and looking at my watch in boredom. Still, the final song or two were admittedly kind of touching (in a kind of cheesy, sentimental, cliche way), and I did leave with a bit of a tear forming in my eye. So I guess having a good start and a good ending is a plus. In this economic climate, is anyone going to want to spent 50, let alone 110 bucks on a so-so musical? That waits to be seen, but I can't say I'm exactly holding my breath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's all for now.

Bringing Ugly Back To Broadway

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

That's all for now.

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

Romantic Poetry Songlists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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