The following are the last two lines in the bio of Luigi Creatore, playwright of Flamingo Court: "After retiring to Florida, Mr. Creatore wrote the Off-Broadway play The Man Who Shot Lincoln and began writing about the Florida scene for the Boca Raton Community Theater. Much of those works morphed into Flamingo Court." Cretore also mentions in his bio that he was born in 1921. A man in his 80s writes a couple of short plays for a community theater in Florida (one without a website apparently, because google-ing the phrases "Luigi Creatore" and "Boca Raton" turns up nothing other than references to the NY production of Flamingo Court), and someone thinks this should be given a first class off-Broadway production. Well, I'll give the producer credit for two this - first, at least this didn't end up on Broadway like "Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks" (which was Tennessee Williams compared to this...), and second, it's playing in the summer when a large part of it's audience is still in NY, and not south for the winter. I mean, I understand I'm not in the 70+ age demographic that this was written for, but even so, I think I can recognize good taste when I see it, and Flamingo Court is just plain embarrassing. The show consists of three short plays, all starring Anita Gillette and Jaimie Farr (there are also other supporting actors in the first and third), all taking place at the Flamingo Court retirement community in Florida. The first section is a "comedy" about a woman whose husband is bed-ridden, but still gets together with two friends - one is a female buddy, the other is a man who is so in love with her that he's thinking of poisoning her dying husband. Except what he doesn't know is that her husband actually died two years ago, and she's been lying about his condition all this time. Not that I didn't laugh in this part, but I was really embarrassed to be laughing because each guffaw was accompanied by a cringe. The second section is one of those plays that attempts to pluck your heartstrings, and Farr plays a man who has to put his wife in a nursing home because she's losing her memory. She doesn't want to go the home (obviously), and reminds him that he long ago would kill her to put her out of her misery. You don't want to know how it ends, but it's a jaw dropper - and not in a good way. Did I mention this scene takes place during a thunder storm? Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. The third and worst of all has Farr playing an old man repeatedly farts in a closet to spite his daughter (who thinks he's hidden some treasure in there), and Gillette playing a hooker is tight, shiny gold pants, a low cut neon pink top, and a long (purposefully) tacky long blond wig. I'm telling you I'm going to have nightmares tonight. I suspect the looks on the audience members' faces somewhat resembled those of the audience for "Springtime of Hitler" in The Producers. It's possible I laughed so hard I shed a tear of two, but any tears were tears of pain, not joy. I would almost say this would be something I would recommend for my grandmother to see, but I know she would hate the middle play because she hates watching sad, depressing stuff; and besides for that, I have to think she has some level of taste. I can see this maybe working as a lark at the Boca Raton Community Theater, but putting this on in NY for (I just checked) a top ticket price of $72.50 (not including premium seats), is just depressing. I don't think I mentioned it, but the actors are all absolutely game for everything they are asked to do, they all do a beautiful job with what they're given - and they seem like wwthey're having a good time up there, but I feel bad thinking how desperate for work they all must be to agree to do a play like Flamingo Court.
On the much happier side of the comedy coin, is Perfect Harmony, an delightful gem of a show playing at Theater Row, off-Broadway. It played at the Fringe Festival a few years ago, and my vague recollection is that the buzz was good, but that it was at the out of the way theatre on the Lower East Side that I was too lazy to go to. Well it's back, this time in a better location, and based on some renewed good buzz I took a chance and was totally charmed. It's about two competing a cappella groups in a high school - "The Ladies in Red" and the "A Cafellas." It's sort of like Spelling Bee, where each character has his or own endearing neurosis. The show also (obviously) includes a bunch of songs sung a cappella, most of them are pop songs sung a capella by the actors, as straight faced as possible, all of which are extremely amusing. I can't remember any exact examples - partly because they were all songs I recognized but didn't necessarily know the titles of, but mostly because this is one of those shows that's not necessarily all that memorable for it's content, but rather for the feeling it leaves after the show ends - it's like it went in one ear and out the other, but it dropped happy little drops of sunshine along its way across my brain. It's nice to go into a show with no expectations, and to just sit back, relax, and smile for 110 minutes or so. I think this extended through August 9th, and I'd say it's worth catching if you have the time.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Around the World in Nine Innings
I'm just home from the 'Encores Summer Stars' production of "Damn Yankees," and I'm guessing the joyous production hasn't quite worn off yet, because I'm still smiling and humming, happy as can be. At the moment, the song stuck in my head is "Whatever Lola Wants," though earlier it was "Heart" and at intermission it was "Shoeless Joe From Hannibal, MO." Let's face it, practically every song in that show is an instantly hummable classic. I've always been a sucker for Golden Age musical comedy (like last week's "She Loves Me," for example), but I'll always hold a special place in my heart for "Damn Yankees," thanks to the revival with Victor Garber and Bebe Neuwirth that I saw in the 90's. I remember liking it so much that I made my parents take me a second time (along with a couple elementary school friends, as a birthday party), and not only was that my first (and I believe only) Broadway birthday party, I'm pretty sure it was the first Broadway show I ever liked so much that I had to see it again. I can't say I remember that revival all that much (the one memory that really sticks out was that they had shined pink lights on the curtain during the section of the overture that include "Heart"), though the soft spot it created is still alive and well. And so perhaps it's said soft spot, or perhaps it's just a damn fine show, but I really loved the new Encores production. There's a full orchestra, original Fosse choreography (as opposed to the lousy ripoffs attempted in the recent revivals of "The Pajama Game" and "Sweet Charity"), and what is at least on paper an A-list cast. I will say that while the supporting cast is uniformly fantastic (why is Randy Graff not a household name?), the three leads were not the perfection they should have been. Sean Hayes does a fine job as Applegate, but I don't think he quite milked the role for all of it's humorous possibilities. Jane Krakowski, while sexy as can be as Lola, seemed to lack a bit in the personality department - I don't know... she seemed slightly on the bland side, and didn't really capture the quirky goofiness that I think the role could use a bit of. When I got home, I immediately ran to my dvd of "Broadway: The Golden Age" (that's not true... actually I immediately ran to that "Broadway: The American Musical" documentary from PBS which didn't have what I was looking for...) to watch the clip of Gwen Verdon doing "Whatever Lola Wants," and while it's obviously not fair to compare, well... really you just can't. That said, when she was dancing, she absolutely commanded the audience's attention, as she also made the air conditioning system work extra hard to keep the theatre cool with all her sizzling sexuality. Cheyenne Jackson was probably the biggest disappointment for me. I've seen him four times (I think) now - All Shook Up, It's A Bird... It's A Plane... It's Superman, Xanadu, and this - and I think he just works better in the campier shows (Superman and Xanadu), where his stiff acting seems on purpose. As Joe Hardy, while his singing is really quite lovely, his acting was a bit too wooden (there's a bad pun to be made there about the reaction of many of the men in the audience to his performance, but I won't stoop so low). While in Superman and Xanadu being stiff was part of the fun, I think Joe Hardy was a bit out of his grasp. I mean, he's got the looks (overlooking the fact that the charcter *is* supposed to be 24, which he certainly is not), and he's got the voice (though it did have a sort of odd country twang every now and then that seemed a bit odd), but especially when next to the brilliantly Randy Graff, I felt like perhaps something was missing. Thankfully, this is a show that gives lot's of attention to it's supporting players, and the goofy trio of baseball players, the kooky housewives, and (Megan Lawrence as) the nosey reporter, all absolutely perk up the proceedings when they walk on stage - which is often.
All in all, the show remains - to me anyway - an irresistible gem. There's just nothing quite like a first rate production of an old fashioned musical comedy to lift your spirits.
Last night, I went to see "Around the World in 80 Days" at the Irish Rep. It's one of those ultra-low-budget versions, featuring five actors (plus two sound effects people at the back of the stage). I had rather low hopes, considering my dislike of "The 39 Steps," which was sort of the same concept. It turns out though, that I really had a lot of fun at "Around the World...." Probably most in the show's favor is that instead of parodying it's source material, this follows the story pretty faithfully, and the parts that made me laugh were all pretty much inherently part of the story. There were attempts at humor based on character doubling, and physical humor that didn't make me laugh, but really it's a good yarn despite, and the actors all do fine work. I've also always been intrigued by old fashioned sounds effects (the kind they used to use in live radio dramas... before computers), so in all honesty if they had just had the two folks doing their sound effects downstage center for two hours, I probably would have been happy. The way they do the sounds for the elephant ride, and for the big shootout, were two particularly amusing segments, that both deserve shoutouts (and not to be spoiled). I think the audience overall was more blown away by the production than I was. I found it to be a cute diversion for a summer's evening - and certainly a very pleasant surprise, considering I just went out of some vague curiosity and because I had nothing better to do. Nothing better for a show than low expectations.
And now I'm going to sit back, relax, and continue listening to the revival cast recording of "Damn Yankees" that I put on just before I started typing. Right now Bebe Neuwirth is singing about how "whatever Lola wants, Lola gets." Ah, bliss.
All in all, the show remains - to me anyway - an irresistible gem. There's just nothing quite like a first rate production of an old fashioned musical comedy to lift your spirits.
Last night, I went to see "Around the World in 80 Days" at the Irish Rep. It's one of those ultra-low-budget versions, featuring five actors (plus two sound effects people at the back of the stage). I had rather low hopes, considering my dislike of "The 39 Steps," which was sort of the same concept. It turns out though, that I really had a lot of fun at "Around the World...." Probably most in the show's favor is that instead of parodying it's source material, this follows the story pretty faithfully, and the parts that made me laugh were all pretty much inherently part of the story. There were attempts at humor based on character doubling, and physical humor that didn't make me laugh, but really it's a good yarn despite, and the actors all do fine work. I've also always been intrigued by old fashioned sounds effects (the kind they used to use in live radio dramas... before computers), so in all honesty if they had just had the two folks doing their sound effects downstage center for two hours, I probably would have been happy. The way they do the sounds for the elephant ride, and for the big shootout, were two particularly amusing segments, that both deserve shoutouts (and not to be spoiled). I think the audience overall was more blown away by the production than I was. I found it to be a cute diversion for a summer's evening - and certainly a very pleasant surprise, considering I just went out of some vague curiosity and because I had nothing better to do. Nothing better for a show than low expectations.
And now I'm going to sit back, relax, and continue listening to the revival cast recording of "Damn Yankees" that I put on just before I started typing. Right now Bebe Neuwirth is singing about how "whatever Lola wants, Lola gets." Ah, bliss.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Romans and Greeks, Pageants and Perfume, and Two Solos
Starting with tonight and moving backwards...
EH JOE
Liam Neeson sits on stage for 30 minutes and doesn't say a word. Curtain. I know - sounds like a riveting evening of theatre. Then again this is Beckett. If you want action, I hear there's a movie opening this weekend about a some sort of bat guy.... The "action" of "Eh, Joe" is as follows: Joe (played by Liam Neeson) walks over to a window, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to the door, looks out, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to a cupboard, looks in, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to the a bed, looks under it, and sits down on it. He then sits for 25 minutes. Presumably because the play was written for television, and because the director isn't totally sadistic, for the time Neeson sits on his bed, a closeup of his face is projected on a scrim in front of the stage, so we see his face blown up, next to the live Neeson. A mysterious voice (pre-recorded by Penelope Wilton), presumably the voice inside Joe's head, proceeds to drive Joe slowly mad. While the voice is speaking, Joe's eyes are open, when it stops, he closes his eyes. And during each of the non-speaking intervals, the camera zooms in closer to Joe's face. The thrilling climax (spoiler here, for the most exciting physical bit in the play) comes near the end, when Neeson, after sitting still for so long... get this... grabs his face. I know. Theatre doesn't get much more exciting than that. I read the script during my lunch hour today - not too hard since it's a whopping seven pages long, include a page and a half of stage directions - and that grabbing of the face was not in there. So this was particularly shocking. Then again, Neeson did blink while the voice was talking, and the stage directions specifically say that Joe is not to blink during that time. So obviously the director and Neeson decided it unnecessary to follow Beckett's strict orders. So we get blinking and face grabbing. All whining aside, I actually kind of enjoyed the play. If it had been any longer it may have been irritating, but 30 minutes is just about the right about of time to hear a woman's voice verbally prod a man, and to stare at his face in close-up. For a large chunk of the time, I wasn't all that impressed with Neeson's performance (Michael Gambon did this production in London, and somehow I think he may have been more interesting), but Neeson did sort of grow on me, as the subtle changes in his expression became more noticeable. And of course, the shock of the hands on the face made me jump a little, and the moments after that, as the hands slowly slid down the face, well... were sort of intriguing. This was only Neeson's first performance in the role, so I assume he'll improve over the short run. If you happen to be in the area anyway, and this happens to pop up on tdf again (which is how I saw it, a dollar a minute or so), this is actually kind of worth catching. And walking back after the 7 o'clock curtain at a rather leisurely pace, I made it to Times Square a few minutes before 8 o'clock. So I could have fairly easily made an 8 o'clock curtain of say... [title of show] (had they had a performance tonight), and I'm always a big fan of cramming in as much theatre into a day as is humanly possible.
JACKIE MASON. I couldn't resist. He claims his current engagement (which ends this weekend) at New World Stages will be his final in New York - and not that I believe him for a second, but I always enjoy his shows. The "new" show isn't his finest hour - much of the humor was less than fresh - I mean after the obviously new stuff about Obama and McCain, he moves on to Clinton and Monica... and then when he moves on to making fun of musicals, his targets are "Riverdance" and "Titanic." Which closed how many years ago? And of course, there's the inevitable section about how they should just install beds at the opera. The only things missing were the Ed Sullivan impression and burnt coffee at Starbucks. Then again, "Riverdance" and sleeping at the opera, stale as they were, were actually the sections that made me laugh the most. So maybe I shouldn't be complaining. This show may not be his best, but it's certainly not his worst ("Laughing Room Only" anyone?), and let's face it - Jackie Mason off his game a bit, is still far funnier than most of the people today who claim to be comedians.
THE BACCHAE. I'm not really a huge Greek tragedy fan, and this really wasn't on the short list of the ones I do like. But I was curious about Alan Cumming (as Dionysus), and I was offered a free ticket. And it was actually better than I was expecting. I had read in the reviews that the first half or so was the best part, and (I think it was Isherwood who said) people were disappointed when the fun ended. But to be perfectly honest, I found the second half (where the tragedy part of "Greek tragedy" kicks in) to be far more compelling. In the first half, we have a group of women in bright red dancing around and singing, with Cumming, in a bright and shiny gold dress, mostly in the lead every now and then. And that part felt a little forced to me. When the king's mother (played by the excellent Paola Dionisotti) finally arrives, and goes through from the joy of killing a lion to the horror of realizing she's slaughtered her son, that's what really interested me. Alan Cumming prancing around and playing the Emcee from "Cabaret" all over again, not so much. The whole thing overall seemed to drag on too long. But I'm glad I saw it. Might I as here, what's with all the abusive lighting design lately? Both "Bash'd" and this used with irrating frequency, bright lights shined directly in the audiences eyes. With "Bash'd," it was during a fight sequence, so I guess we were meant to feel the pain of the punches, but with this, first there's a fire (that is not only quite hot, even from the back of the orchestra, but also quite bright), and then repeated use of lights shined in our eyes for unnecessarily long periods of time to allow for actors walking on and off stage unseen. I mean, it's one thing for the guys getting naked in "The Full Monty," but for Dionysus walking on and stage... well, maybe this show was sponsored by some optometrists who will maybe get some business from the blinded audience members. End rant.
NERO. This was a workshop of Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater (of "Spring Awakening")'s new musical. It's still obviously under development, so I won't say too much, but let's just say it needs a lot of work. Like "Spring Awakening," the songs don't really advance the story - they're mostly either songs that express the inner feelings of the characters, or they're performed as part of a show within a show (Idina Menzel played a singer, and so she had quite a few pointless songs that she performed as part of her act). Nero (played by the endlessly amusing Jeffrey Carlson) is basically a whiny brat of a king who's pushed into power by his mother, and miserable as he is, he ends up killing all of the main characters by the end of the show (and anyone who he hasn't directly killed, is killed in a big final fire). Unfortunately, the book was somewhat lacking, so I didn't particularly care that anyone died. As for the lyrics, well... they're really very bizarre. In one song, I think it's called "Double Dip of Darkness" - a duet between Nero and his mother - part of the refrain is something like "Shut up my dear, and suck my rear" (I kid you not - imagine a grown son and his mother singing that line over and over again - oy). I've probably already said more than I should have. I'm sure the guy who made the pre-show announcement about not blogging and keeping the cozy work-in-progress environment would be very disappointed in me. That all said, based on the state it was in at the Sunday matinee I saw (probably already scrapped state, based on the pages and pages of notes Sater seemed to be taking) I don't see this as having anywhere near the appeal of "Spring Awakening" unless some major work is done on it. The music is pretty, but it's far too ballad heavy, and it's just doesn't have anything near as exciting as "The Bitch of Living" or "Totally Fucked" in SA. I get that this is a different type of musical - much more of a small chamber show, I'd guess - the sort of thing that I'd imagine playing out a limited run at the Public, and then being forgotten - so perhaps those types of songs aren't appropriate for the creators' vision of the show - but considering how completely insane the character of Nero is as written, surely they could give us something a little peppier. As someone who's seen "Spring Awakening" *cough*15times*cough*, I have high hopes that Sheik & Sater will do the work necessary to get this show into a more satisfying shape. And if not, they're supposedly working on a version of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Nightingale," so maybe that'll be better.
SHE LOVES ME. I went to see this up at Williamstown, and just had a huge smile on my face for almost the entire time. It's just a delightful confection of a show, given a beautiful production by Nicholas Martin. Brooks Ashamanskas and Kate Baldwin were wonderful as the leads in an especially strong ensemble. I had seen the show once before in a community theatre production (that I remember exactly nothing about), so I was especially happy to finally hear "Ice Cream" sung in context, after hearing the original Barbara Cook version so many times (and might I saw Baldwin did Cook proud, with her delightful rendition). This isn't the sort of show that will knock anyone's socks off as being just the most amazing show ever, but it is just so absolutely charming and sweet, well, I can't really imagine that anyone in that audience could not have had their day brightened by being in that theatre watching that show.
PAGEANT PLAY. I was going up to the Berkshires to see "She Loves Me," and needed something else to fill up an empty slot, and based solely on the fact that Jenn Harris (of "Modern Orthodox" and "Silence! The Musical") was in it, I picked it to see. The show, it turns out, was written by one of the co-writers of the hilarious "Fully Committed," and actually also stars the actor who created the role in that play - I don't know what I did with my program, so his name will have to remain unsaid. Anyway, "Pageant Play" is a four actor/seven(?) character comedy about the world of children's beauty pageants. For all haters of child actors, you will be glad to hear the children are all "played" by empty costumes... which is to say the parents just carry around the costumes the children would be wearing, which makes especially good sense since the children have no lines (because they have no say in anything, and the parents and coaches are so overbearing, of course). The whole thing is just a bunch of silly fun. The moments of greatest hilarity probably came when the coaches and parents were teaching the children to do their pageant dances (now wipe that counter, oh yeah, oh yeah, now show they how dirty the rag is, oh yeah, oh yeah, now carry a pizza... etc, etc). Seeing adults do those silly dances with those ridiculous explanations, just really tickled me the right way. I don't know that this play would play all that well in New York, but I imagine it will have a long life as a crowd pleasing, low budget community theatre staple.
EH JOE
Liam Neeson sits on stage for 30 minutes and doesn't say a word. Curtain. I know - sounds like a riveting evening of theatre. Then again this is Beckett. If you want action, I hear there's a movie opening this weekend about a some sort of bat guy.... The "action" of "Eh, Joe" is as follows: Joe (played by Liam Neeson) walks over to a window, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to the door, looks out, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to a cupboard, looks in, closes it, and pulls a curtain in front of it; he then walks over to the a bed, looks under it, and sits down on it. He then sits for 25 minutes. Presumably because the play was written for television, and because the director isn't totally sadistic, for the time Neeson sits on his bed, a closeup of his face is projected on a scrim in front of the stage, so we see his face blown up, next to the live Neeson. A mysterious voice (pre-recorded by Penelope Wilton), presumably the voice inside Joe's head, proceeds to drive Joe slowly mad. While the voice is speaking, Joe's eyes are open, when it stops, he closes his eyes. And during each of the non-speaking intervals, the camera zooms in closer to Joe's face. The thrilling climax (spoiler here, for the most exciting physical bit in the play) comes near the end, when Neeson, after sitting still for so long... get this... grabs his face. I know. Theatre doesn't get much more exciting than that. I read the script during my lunch hour today - not too hard since it's a whopping seven pages long, include a page and a half of stage directions - and that grabbing of the face was not in there. So this was particularly shocking. Then again, Neeson did blink while the voice was talking, and the stage directions specifically say that Joe is not to blink during that time. So obviously the director and Neeson decided it unnecessary to follow Beckett's strict orders. So we get blinking and face grabbing. All whining aside, I actually kind of enjoyed the play. If it had been any longer it may have been irritating, but 30 minutes is just about the right about of time to hear a woman's voice verbally prod a man, and to stare at his face in close-up. For a large chunk of the time, I wasn't all that impressed with Neeson's performance (Michael Gambon did this production in London, and somehow I think he may have been more interesting), but Neeson did sort of grow on me, as the subtle changes in his expression became more noticeable. And of course, the shock of the hands on the face made me jump a little, and the moments after that, as the hands slowly slid down the face, well... were sort of intriguing. This was only Neeson's first performance in the role, so I assume he'll improve over the short run. If you happen to be in the area anyway, and this happens to pop up on tdf again (which is how I saw it, a dollar a minute or so), this is actually kind of worth catching. And walking back after the 7 o'clock curtain at a rather leisurely pace, I made it to Times Square a few minutes before 8 o'clock. So I could have fairly easily made an 8 o'clock curtain of say... [title of show] (had they had a performance tonight), and I'm always a big fan of cramming in as much theatre into a day as is humanly possible.
JACKIE MASON. I couldn't resist. He claims his current engagement (which ends this weekend) at New World Stages will be his final in New York - and not that I believe him for a second, but I always enjoy his shows. The "new" show isn't his finest hour - much of the humor was less than fresh - I mean after the obviously new stuff about Obama and McCain, he moves on to Clinton and Monica... and then when he moves on to making fun of musicals, his targets are "Riverdance" and "Titanic." Which closed how many years ago? And of course, there's the inevitable section about how they should just install beds at the opera. The only things missing were the Ed Sullivan impression and burnt coffee at Starbucks. Then again, "Riverdance" and sleeping at the opera, stale as they were, were actually the sections that made me laugh the most. So maybe I shouldn't be complaining. This show may not be his best, but it's certainly not his worst ("Laughing Room Only" anyone?), and let's face it - Jackie Mason off his game a bit, is still far funnier than most of the people today who claim to be comedians.
THE BACCHAE. I'm not really a huge Greek tragedy fan, and this really wasn't on the short list of the ones I do like. But I was curious about Alan Cumming (as Dionysus), and I was offered a free ticket. And it was actually better than I was expecting. I had read in the reviews that the first half or so was the best part, and (I think it was Isherwood who said) people were disappointed when the fun ended. But to be perfectly honest, I found the second half (where the tragedy part of "Greek tragedy" kicks in) to be far more compelling. In the first half, we have a group of women in bright red dancing around and singing, with Cumming, in a bright and shiny gold dress, mostly in the lead every now and then. And that part felt a little forced to me. When the king's mother (played by the excellent Paola Dionisotti) finally arrives, and goes through from the joy of killing a lion to the horror of realizing she's slaughtered her son, that's what really interested me. Alan Cumming prancing around and playing the Emcee from "Cabaret" all over again, not so much. The whole thing overall seemed to drag on too long. But I'm glad I saw it. Might I as here, what's with all the abusive lighting design lately? Both "Bash'd" and this used with irrating frequency, bright lights shined directly in the audiences eyes. With "Bash'd," it was during a fight sequence, so I guess we were meant to feel the pain of the punches, but with this, first there's a fire (that is not only quite hot, even from the back of the orchestra, but also quite bright), and then repeated use of lights shined in our eyes for unnecessarily long periods of time to allow for actors walking on and off stage unseen. I mean, it's one thing for the guys getting naked in "The Full Monty," but for Dionysus walking on and stage... well, maybe this show was sponsored by some optometrists who will maybe get some business from the blinded audience members. End rant.
NERO. This was a workshop of Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater (of "Spring Awakening")'s new musical. It's still obviously under development, so I won't say too much, but let's just say it needs a lot of work. Like "Spring Awakening," the songs don't really advance the story - they're mostly either songs that express the inner feelings of the characters, or they're performed as part of a show within a show (Idina Menzel played a singer, and so she had quite a few pointless songs that she performed as part of her act). Nero (played by the endlessly amusing Jeffrey Carlson) is basically a whiny brat of a king who's pushed into power by his mother, and miserable as he is, he ends up killing all of the main characters by the end of the show (and anyone who he hasn't directly killed, is killed in a big final fire). Unfortunately, the book was somewhat lacking, so I didn't particularly care that anyone died. As for the lyrics, well... they're really very bizarre. In one song, I think it's called "Double Dip of Darkness" - a duet between Nero and his mother - part of the refrain is something like "Shut up my dear, and suck my rear" (I kid you not - imagine a grown son and his mother singing that line over and over again - oy). I've probably already said more than I should have. I'm sure the guy who made the pre-show announcement about not blogging and keeping the cozy work-in-progress environment would be very disappointed in me. That all said, based on the state it was in at the Sunday matinee I saw (probably already scrapped state, based on the pages and pages of notes Sater seemed to be taking) I don't see this as having anywhere near the appeal of "Spring Awakening" unless some major work is done on it. The music is pretty, but it's far too ballad heavy, and it's just doesn't have anything near as exciting as "The Bitch of Living" or "Totally Fucked" in SA. I get that this is a different type of musical - much more of a small chamber show, I'd guess - the sort of thing that I'd imagine playing out a limited run at the Public, and then being forgotten - so perhaps those types of songs aren't appropriate for the creators' vision of the show - but considering how completely insane the character of Nero is as written, surely they could give us something a little peppier. As someone who's seen "Spring Awakening" *cough*15times*cough*, I have high hopes that Sheik & Sater will do the work necessary to get this show into a more satisfying shape. And if not, they're supposedly working on a version of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Nightingale," so maybe that'll be better.
SHE LOVES ME. I went to see this up at Williamstown, and just had a huge smile on my face for almost the entire time. It's just a delightful confection of a show, given a beautiful production by Nicholas Martin. Brooks Ashamanskas and Kate Baldwin were wonderful as the leads in an especially strong ensemble. I had seen the show once before in a community theatre production (that I remember exactly nothing about), so I was especially happy to finally hear "Ice Cream" sung in context, after hearing the original Barbara Cook version so many times (and might I saw Baldwin did Cook proud, with her delightful rendition). This isn't the sort of show that will knock anyone's socks off as being just the most amazing show ever, but it is just so absolutely charming and sweet, well, I can't really imagine that anyone in that audience could not have had their day brightened by being in that theatre watching that show.
PAGEANT PLAY. I was going up to the Berkshires to see "She Loves Me," and needed something else to fill up an empty slot, and based solely on the fact that Jenn Harris (of "Modern Orthodox" and "Silence! The Musical") was in it, I picked it to see. The show, it turns out, was written by one of the co-writers of the hilarious "Fully Committed," and actually also stars the actor who created the role in that play - I don't know what I did with my program, so his name will have to remain unsaid. Anyway, "Pageant Play" is a four actor/seven(?) character comedy about the world of children's beauty pageants. For all haters of child actors, you will be glad to hear the children are all "played" by empty costumes... which is to say the parents just carry around the costumes the children would be wearing, which makes especially good sense since the children have no lines (because they have no say in anything, and the parents and coaches are so overbearing, of course). The whole thing is just a bunch of silly fun. The moments of greatest hilarity probably came when the coaches and parents were teaching the children to do their pageant dances (now wipe that counter, oh yeah, oh yeah, now show they how dirty the rag is, oh yeah, oh yeah, now carry a pizza... etc, etc). Seeing adults do those silly dances with those ridiculous explanations, just really tickled me the right way. I don't know that this play would play all that well in New York, but I imagine it will have a long life as a crowd pleasing, low budget community theatre staple.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Jeff, Hunter, Heidi, Susan and Larry ON BROADWAY
Tonight was the first Broadway preview of [title of show] and to say it was [tos]ome would be a gross understatement. The sort of outpouring of love bestowed upon (stars) Jeff, Hunter, Heidi, Susan and (keyboardist) Larry in this show tonight, was the sort of thing I've only ever seen before at final performances at particularly special musicals (think final performance of "Light in the Piazza" or Lea Michele and Jonathan Groff's final "Spring Awakening"). The [tossers] (those being the members of the cult of [title of show]) were definitely out en masse tonight, and from the huge extended ovation that greeted Larry as he walked on stage, to the rousing standing ovation at the final curtain call (the second standing o of the evening), well, it was an absolutely mesmerizing evening. Pity though, the uninitiated who came to the show thinking it was just a regular performance. The people sitting to my left, and sitting behind me, were extremely confused, and none to happy about all of the insane cheering that greeted each song and the especially funny lines (of which there are many).
The question on most peoples minds is whether the show will work on Broadway. And honestly, I can't have no idea. I am so completely in love with the show - and have been since I first saw it at it's return NYMF engagement at Ars Nova (having missed it the first time around), and through to twice at the Vineyard - well, I don't think I can very well be objective about the show. Will people who don't get the many many obscure theatre references enjoy the show? Will those who haven't seen every hilarious episode of "The [title of show] Show" on Youtube fully appreciate its brilliance? Well, I haven't a clue. Based on my mother's recommendation (not mine), my aunt and uncle have tickets to see it next week. I'm curious to hear their reaction, since they are not the obvious audience for the show, though they are the type of people necessary for this show to have any sort of run. I mean [tossers] alone can sustain a musical for only so long.
In case you're curious, the show seems to be maybe 2/3 the same as it was in its Vineyard run. Short new bridges have been added to a few of the songs, and others have been tweaked to reflect some of the newer Broadway offerings like "Shrek" and "The Little Mermaid." And of course, the show now reflects what's happened since the Vineyard run, referencing things like that run, and also "The [title of show] Show" and Heidi's run in "The Little Mermaid." It was interesting, having seen the show three times before, and having listened to the cd who knows how many more times, to see how songs and scenes were rearranged and rewritten for this incarnation.
That a quirky little show with only four actors, four chairs (and Larry), has made it to Broadway is amazing enough in itself. But that the show and its cast are so incredibly lovable, makes tonight's triumph - hopefully the first in many triumphant nights for this little show that could - ever so sweet. After "Nine People's Favorite Thing" - the show's final song, the audience gave a long standing ovation, the likes of which are usually reserved for royalty like Patti LuPone (doing "Rose's Turn") and Juan Diego Florez (in "La Fille du Regiment"). That four actors, with far fewer Broadway credits, playing themselves could elicit that sort of reaction from an audience was really something to see. And seeing them all fighting back tears up there, still having to get through the last few lines of the show, well, I think there was nary a dry eye in the house (except for, you know, the couple of confused people sitting around me).
I wish this show the best in it's Broadway run. I don't know that [title of show] will have a long commercial run (I've said that about shows before, and am often wrong - Xanadu, anyone? - so let's hope that's true here), but I know I'm already trying to figure out when I can see this again, and let's just hope nine people each night tell nine people to see this show, and let its devoted audience grow from there. As for tonight's premiere, bravo to all involved.
The question on most peoples minds is whether the show will work on Broadway. And honestly, I can't have no idea. I am so completely in love with the show - and have been since I first saw it at it's return NYMF engagement at Ars Nova (having missed it the first time around), and through to twice at the Vineyard - well, I don't think I can very well be objective about the show. Will people who don't get the many many obscure theatre references enjoy the show? Will those who haven't seen every hilarious episode of "The [title of show] Show" on Youtube fully appreciate its brilliance? Well, I haven't a clue. Based on my mother's recommendation (not mine), my aunt and uncle have tickets to see it next week. I'm curious to hear their reaction, since they are not the obvious audience for the show, though they are the type of people necessary for this show to have any sort of run. I mean [tossers] alone can sustain a musical for only so long.
In case you're curious, the show seems to be maybe 2/3 the same as it was in its Vineyard run. Short new bridges have been added to a few of the songs, and others have been tweaked to reflect some of the newer Broadway offerings like "Shrek" and "The Little Mermaid." And of course, the show now reflects what's happened since the Vineyard run, referencing things like that run, and also "The [title of show] Show" and Heidi's run in "The Little Mermaid." It was interesting, having seen the show three times before, and having listened to the cd who knows how many more times, to see how songs and scenes were rearranged and rewritten for this incarnation.
That a quirky little show with only four actors, four chairs (and Larry), has made it to Broadway is amazing enough in itself. But that the show and its cast are so incredibly lovable, makes tonight's triumph - hopefully the first in many triumphant nights for this little show that could - ever so sweet. After "Nine People's Favorite Thing" - the show's final song, the audience gave a long standing ovation, the likes of which are usually reserved for royalty like Patti LuPone (doing "Rose's Turn") and Juan Diego Florez (in "La Fille du Regiment"). That four actors, with far fewer Broadway credits, playing themselves could elicit that sort of reaction from an audience was really something to see. And seeing them all fighting back tears up there, still having to get through the last few lines of the show, well, I think there was nary a dry eye in the house (except for, you know, the couple of confused people sitting around me).
I wish this show the best in it's Broadway run. I don't know that [title of show] will have a long commercial run (I've said that about shows before, and am often wrong - Xanadu, anyone? - so let's hope that's true here), but I know I'm already trying to figure out when I can see this again, and let's just hope nine people each night tell nine people to see this show, and let its devoted audience grow from there. As for tonight's premiere, bravo to all involved.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Slim Theatrical Pickings Means Going To The Movies
Taking advantage of my day off on July 4 to get around to updating...
LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES. I think I put off seeing this as long as possible because the buzz was so bad. And it wasn't as bad as I was exblopecting. I'd never seen any of the movies (wikipedia says there are 8 of them) - though the dvd of the Glen Close/John Malkovich version beckons from my shelf to be watched soon - so at least the story was new to me. I liked the first act quite a bit. From the moment he walks on stage, Ben Daniels is really mesmerizing. He's incredibally charming, and really very funny. Which of course is exactly what his character should be. His co-star, Laura Linney, on the other hand, falls a bit flat. She seemed to be a bit fo a sheep in wolf's clothing... in that she went through the motions of being icy and nasty, but I just never really believed her - I just don't think she's cut out for that type of role. The supporting cast - especially Kristine Nielsen and Sian Phillips as the older women (I think they're both aunts?) are defiitely a hoot, and I think part of the dreariness of the second act can be attributed to them being largely absent until the last scene. Why I think I was overall underwhelmed by the production was that the big confrontation scene between Daniels and Linney's characters - where they finally call each other out - just had no bite at all. The two really had no chemistry, and so there was none of that extending of sharp claws into each other that was really necessary for the play's climax to work. I will say that I liked the overall design of the production (set, costume, lighting, sound) very much. I don't want to say that Linney brought the entire production down - Daniels wasn't nearly as good in the second act either - and maybe it's just the script - but there was definitely some crucial ingredient missing.
SHANGHAI MOON - I went out to Sag Harbor to see the final weekend of Charles Busch's "Shanghai Moon," last weekend. Typical Charles Busch hilarity... at least in the second act. For some reason I couldn't keep my eyes open in the first, particularly embarrassing since I was in the first row center. But my parents who were next to me slept through more of it than I did, so maybe they took the focus away from me. It wasn't that the first act wasn't good... it was amusing enough - though maybe if it had had the bigger laughs that came in the second act, I would have been better equipped to fight it. Whatever. Charles Busch was a hoot as usual, as was Julie Halston (also, as usual).
SOME AMERICANS ABROAD. I've never been a fan of Richard Nelson's plays. The not-for-profits (especially Playwrights Horizons) seem to love his plays, though I've never been quite sure why because they're almost always awful. And for some reason he always directs them himself. Maybe if he let someone else direct once in a while, the director could get something decent together. Anyway, Second Stage is producing what I figured would be my chance to understand why people like Nelson's work - a classic(?) play of his from I think 1990, not directed by the playwright. So, one would assume, if someone felt the play was worth reviving, it must not be terrible. One would, however, have assumed wrong. This is typical boring Richard Nelson fare - in fact it may be even more boring than the other plays of his I've disliked. The first act is particularly terrible - the opening scene has a bunch of professors sitting around a restaurant table (nightmarish flashback to "Top Girls" when I first saw the scene - at least in this the actors don't all talk at the same time) and ramble on about this and that. None of it very interesting. The problem with the first act is that it's pretty much devoid of conflict. The only thing close is whether a professor will hold onto his job for another year, but there's really never any doubt to his fate, and he's not interesting enough for us to care about anyway. I was so bored, I almost left at intermission. But I didn't. And the second act was slightly better - at least it had a tad of suspense. Not enough to sustain the entire act, mind you, but it helped make it slightly more tolerable. Tom Cavanaguh (best known, I guess for playing "Ed") has what I suppose is the lead role, though he's really quite bland - he reminded me a bit of Bob Sagat in another Second Stage stinker called "Privilege" (I think). Apparently the opening night for the show was just postponed by around two weeks to give the actors more rehearsal time. So maybe it will improve things. I certainly have no interest in suffering through a second dull sitting.
BASH'D. I had seen this at the Fringe Festival last summer, mostly because everyone seemed to love it, and I remember being pretty underwhelmed. But since it's back in a commercial run this time (with a slightly fancier set, and slightly fancier costumes) at the Zipper Factory, I was willing to give it another try. And I still don't get all of the hype. Even at only 65 minutes (well, really 60 since it starts five minutes late), it felt a bit too long to me. The story is a lame cliche ridden tale of two gay men who meet, fall in love, and end up with a none to pleasant fate. If this had been performed as a straight play (no pun intended), it would have been snored off the stage (by the sleeping audience). What keeps the story sounding fresh is that it's all done in rap. Honestly, gay rap opera is not really something that particularly appeals to me - though in actuality it's not as bad as you'd imagine. For a while I was sort of enjoying myself. But the combination of a story performed in what seemed a bit like warp speed - not really leaving enough time for satisfactory character development - with that incessant rapping was just too much for me to take.
That's it (I think) for my playgoing, thanks to the extremely slim pickings. I did see three movies too however, to fill in the gaps.
WALL*E. Is this the most over-hyped movie of the summer? I usually love Pixar movies, and I appreciate them taking a chance with this, but gosh it's just so slow. When the movie opened with Michael Crawford singing "Out there, there's a world outside of Yonkers..." I think I almost fell out of my seat in joy (though strangely I was the only one in the theatre who seemed to be laughing). As you've probably read already, WALL*E is a robot whose only source of entertainment is a video of "Hello, Dolly!" And so he plays "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" and "It Only Takes A Moment" over and over again. And whenever the film features those Jerry Herman songs, I was very happy. It's the rest of the movie that's a bit problematic. The first half or so of the movie has almost no dialogue. Which was fine, I guess. I guess it's fun enough to watch a cute robot wander around a wasteland (though the annoying kids behind me did not shut up during this long sequence, asking their parents questions). Eventually the title robot finds humanity, and the movie sort of turns into a kiddie version of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Which is fine. I have nothing again a movie that's going to try to sell kids toys and video games yelling at people for polluting the environment, and just sitting on their butts all day playing with toys and video games. But there really just didn't seem to be enough story to warrant a full length movie here. If it had been one of those five minutes shorts they show before the regular features, or even a half hour special, it probably would have been great. But as a full length feature, it was really pushing it. It did make me want to run out and buy a dvd of "Hello Dolly," though.
Far more endearing in the adorable, cartoonish hero category, is KABLUEY. I randomly went to see "Kabluey" today because I thought the ad looked sort of cute, and there was a good review in the Times today. And I'm definitely glad I did, because it is really just the sort of funny and heartwarming movie that I was looking for. It's written, directed by, and stars Scott Prendergast, and also stars Lisa Kudrow (who I'd honestly never heard of - but everyone seemed very excited about her involvement - according to imdb she was one of the main characters on "Friends," which I've never seen an episode of, so I'm assuming that's where her popularity stems from). Anyway, the movie is about this sweet loser of a guy who moves in with his sister and her two obnoxious kids, because her husband is away in Iraq, and she needs to work and can't afford a babysitter. Eventually, this guy ends up getting a job that has him dressing up as this adorable blue company mascot, and handing out fliers for office space on a fairly deserted country road. It's strange, but just about every time they show Kabluey (that's the name of the mascot) do any little thing, the audience cracks up. Brilliant character design there. My only minor criticism with the movie was that the ending seemed just a tad unsatisfying. I mean, all the plotlines get wrapped up, but there was something off there. Right now this is only playing at one little movie theatre in New York, which means it's release is probably going to be fairly limited. But this is one to look out for, even if it's only accessible in it's eventual dvd release. Oh, and director/screenwriter/star Prendergrast did a surprise talkback after the movie to our paltry audience (paltry apparently because we were the few who were more interested in going to the movies than going to watch the July 4 fireworks), and he seemed just as nice in person as he does on screen. Just another reason to enjoy and support his movie.
And finally, last Tuesday at the last minute I was invited to see an advanced screening of the movie of MAMMA MIA! I have to say I really loved the movie, but in a very guilty pleasure sort of way. It very faithful to the stage show - meaning that none of it really makes any sense, but it's a lot fun anyway. And of course, in the movie you have the brilliant Meryl Streep (is it redundant to but "brilliant" before Meryl Streep, because isn't she always?) singing, and dancing, and having a grand time. The film is really very well cast, with all of the actors game for acting totally ridiculous on screen, and the only one who isn't really successful is Pierce Brosnan who try as he might, really just can't sing, meaning that when he has to sing his big serious song, as soon as he opens his mouth, the audience just cracks up. The film pretty much follows the highs and the lows that I felt in the stage musical - namely that it's most just a hoot, though the second act (when things turn serious) still drags, though it does of course recover in time for the ridiculous mega-mix ending (which, yes, the movie does randomly include at the end). Director Phyllida Lloyd seems to use every cinematic cliche in the book, from montages, to Meryl Streep jumping in slow motion on the bed, to a random scene at the end when water spurts out of the ground and everyone starts dancing around getting wet. But I mean, no one expects high art from a goofy ABBA jukebox musical. If you enjoyed the stage show, you definitely will not be disappointed. And if you hated the stage show, well... this probably isn't the movie for you. This is one of those movies where you just need to heed the collection box outside the theatre that says "Deposit brain here before entering." Personally, I can't wait to see it again.
Tomorrow I'm going to see the most anticipating theatrical even of the year... the first preview of [title of show] on Broadway. Very very very excited. It should be cramazing.
LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES. I think I put off seeing this as long as possible because the buzz was so bad. And it wasn't as bad as I was exblopecting. I'd never seen any of the movies (wikipedia says there are 8 of them) - though the dvd of the Glen Close/John Malkovich version beckons from my shelf to be watched soon - so at least the story was new to me. I liked the first act quite a bit. From the moment he walks on stage, Ben Daniels is really mesmerizing. He's incredibally charming, and really very funny. Which of course is exactly what his character should be. His co-star, Laura Linney, on the other hand, falls a bit flat. She seemed to be a bit fo a sheep in wolf's clothing... in that she went through the motions of being icy and nasty, but I just never really believed her - I just don't think she's cut out for that type of role. The supporting cast - especially Kristine Nielsen and Sian Phillips as the older women (I think they're both aunts?) are defiitely a hoot, and I think part of the dreariness of the second act can be attributed to them being largely absent until the last scene. Why I think I was overall underwhelmed by the production was that the big confrontation scene between Daniels and Linney's characters - where they finally call each other out - just had no bite at all. The two really had no chemistry, and so there was none of that extending of sharp claws into each other that was really necessary for the play's climax to work. I will say that I liked the overall design of the production (set, costume, lighting, sound) very much. I don't want to say that Linney brought the entire production down - Daniels wasn't nearly as good in the second act either - and maybe it's just the script - but there was definitely some crucial ingredient missing.
SHANGHAI MOON - I went out to Sag Harbor to see the final weekend of Charles Busch's "Shanghai Moon," last weekend. Typical Charles Busch hilarity... at least in the second act. For some reason I couldn't keep my eyes open in the first, particularly embarrassing since I was in the first row center. But my parents who were next to me slept through more of it than I did, so maybe they took the focus away from me. It wasn't that the first act wasn't good... it was amusing enough - though maybe if it had had the bigger laughs that came in the second act, I would have been better equipped to fight it. Whatever. Charles Busch was a hoot as usual, as was Julie Halston (also, as usual).
SOME AMERICANS ABROAD. I've never been a fan of Richard Nelson's plays. The not-for-profits (especially Playwrights Horizons) seem to love his plays, though I've never been quite sure why because they're almost always awful. And for some reason he always directs them himself. Maybe if he let someone else direct once in a while, the director could get something decent together. Anyway, Second Stage is producing what I figured would be my chance to understand why people like Nelson's work - a classic(?) play of his from I think 1990, not directed by the playwright. So, one would assume, if someone felt the play was worth reviving, it must not be terrible. One would, however, have assumed wrong. This is typical boring Richard Nelson fare - in fact it may be even more boring than the other plays of his I've disliked. The first act is particularly terrible - the opening scene has a bunch of professors sitting around a restaurant table (nightmarish flashback to "Top Girls" when I first saw the scene - at least in this the actors don't all talk at the same time) and ramble on about this and that. None of it very interesting. The problem with the first act is that it's pretty much devoid of conflict. The only thing close is whether a professor will hold onto his job for another year, but there's really never any doubt to his fate, and he's not interesting enough for us to care about anyway. I was so bored, I almost left at intermission. But I didn't. And the second act was slightly better - at least it had a tad of suspense. Not enough to sustain the entire act, mind you, but it helped make it slightly more tolerable. Tom Cavanaguh (best known, I guess for playing "Ed") has what I suppose is the lead role, though he's really quite bland - he reminded me a bit of Bob Sagat in another Second Stage stinker called "Privilege" (I think). Apparently the opening night for the show was just postponed by around two weeks to give the actors more rehearsal time. So maybe it will improve things. I certainly have no interest in suffering through a second dull sitting.
BASH'D. I had seen this at the Fringe Festival last summer, mostly because everyone seemed to love it, and I remember being pretty underwhelmed. But since it's back in a commercial run this time (with a slightly fancier set, and slightly fancier costumes) at the Zipper Factory, I was willing to give it another try. And I still don't get all of the hype. Even at only 65 minutes (well, really 60 since it starts five minutes late), it felt a bit too long to me. The story is a lame cliche ridden tale of two gay men who meet, fall in love, and end up with a none to pleasant fate. If this had been performed as a straight play (no pun intended), it would have been snored off the stage (by the sleeping audience). What keeps the story sounding fresh is that it's all done in rap. Honestly, gay rap opera is not really something that particularly appeals to me - though in actuality it's not as bad as you'd imagine. For a while I was sort of enjoying myself. But the combination of a story performed in what seemed a bit like warp speed - not really leaving enough time for satisfactory character development - with that incessant rapping was just too much for me to take.
That's it (I think) for my playgoing, thanks to the extremely slim pickings. I did see three movies too however, to fill in the gaps.
WALL*E. Is this the most over-hyped movie of the summer? I usually love Pixar movies, and I appreciate them taking a chance with this, but gosh it's just so slow. When the movie opened with Michael Crawford singing "Out there, there's a world outside of Yonkers..." I think I almost fell out of my seat in joy (though strangely I was the only one in the theatre who seemed to be laughing). As you've probably read already, WALL*E is a robot whose only source of entertainment is a video of "Hello, Dolly!" And so he plays "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" and "It Only Takes A Moment" over and over again. And whenever the film features those Jerry Herman songs, I was very happy. It's the rest of the movie that's a bit problematic. The first half or so of the movie has almost no dialogue. Which was fine, I guess. I guess it's fun enough to watch a cute robot wander around a wasteland (though the annoying kids behind me did not shut up during this long sequence, asking their parents questions). Eventually the title robot finds humanity, and the movie sort of turns into a kiddie version of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Which is fine. I have nothing again a movie that's going to try to sell kids toys and video games yelling at people for polluting the environment, and just sitting on their butts all day playing with toys and video games. But there really just didn't seem to be enough story to warrant a full length movie here. If it had been one of those five minutes shorts they show before the regular features, or even a half hour special, it probably would have been great. But as a full length feature, it was really pushing it. It did make me want to run out and buy a dvd of "Hello Dolly," though.
Far more endearing in the adorable, cartoonish hero category, is KABLUEY. I randomly went to see "Kabluey" today because I thought the ad looked sort of cute, and there was a good review in the Times today. And I'm definitely glad I did, because it is really just the sort of funny and heartwarming movie that I was looking for. It's written, directed by, and stars Scott Prendergast, and also stars Lisa Kudrow (who I'd honestly never heard of - but everyone seemed very excited about her involvement - according to imdb she was one of the main characters on "Friends," which I've never seen an episode of, so I'm assuming that's where her popularity stems from). Anyway, the movie is about this sweet loser of a guy who moves in with his sister and her two obnoxious kids, because her husband is away in Iraq, and she needs to work and can't afford a babysitter. Eventually, this guy ends up getting a job that has him dressing up as this adorable blue company mascot, and handing out fliers for office space on a fairly deserted country road. It's strange, but just about every time they show Kabluey (that's the name of the mascot) do any little thing, the audience cracks up. Brilliant character design there. My only minor criticism with the movie was that the ending seemed just a tad unsatisfying. I mean, all the plotlines get wrapped up, but there was something off there. Right now this is only playing at one little movie theatre in New York, which means it's release is probably going to be fairly limited. But this is one to look out for, even if it's only accessible in it's eventual dvd release. Oh, and director/screenwriter/star Prendergrast did a surprise talkback after the movie to our paltry audience (paltry apparently because we were the few who were more interested in going to the movies than going to watch the July 4 fireworks), and he seemed just as nice in person as he does on screen. Just another reason to enjoy and support his movie.
And finally, last Tuesday at the last minute I was invited to see an advanced screening of the movie of MAMMA MIA! I have to say I really loved the movie, but in a very guilty pleasure sort of way. It very faithful to the stage show - meaning that none of it really makes any sense, but it's a lot fun anyway. And of course, in the movie you have the brilliant Meryl Streep (is it redundant to but "brilliant" before Meryl Streep, because isn't she always?) singing, and dancing, and having a grand time. The film is really very well cast, with all of the actors game for acting totally ridiculous on screen, and the only one who isn't really successful is Pierce Brosnan who try as he might, really just can't sing, meaning that when he has to sing his big serious song, as soon as he opens his mouth, the audience just cracks up. The film pretty much follows the highs and the lows that I felt in the stage musical - namely that it's most just a hoot, though the second act (when things turn serious) still drags, though it does of course recover in time for the ridiculous mega-mix ending (which, yes, the movie does randomly include at the end). Director Phyllida Lloyd seems to use every cinematic cliche in the book, from montages, to Meryl Streep jumping in slow motion on the bed, to a random scene at the end when water spurts out of the ground and everyone starts dancing around getting wet. But I mean, no one expects high art from a goofy ABBA jukebox musical. If you enjoyed the stage show, you definitely will not be disappointed. And if you hated the stage show, well... this probably isn't the movie for you. This is one of those movies where you just need to heed the collection box outside the theatre that says "Deposit brain here before entering." Personally, I can't wait to see it again.
Tomorrow I'm going to see the most anticipating theatrical even of the year... the first preview of [title of show] on Broadway. Very very very excited. It should be cramazing.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Escape From New York
Summertime is here. The 07-08 theatrical season is over, and now it's the long wait til Fall for the new one to start. What's a determined theatregoer to do to quench his thirst for exciting new shows? Why escape to surrounding cities to catch the tail end of their Spring seasons of course... At least until summer stock starts up. So two weeks ago I caught the closing weekends of "A Seagull in the Hamptons" at the McCarter (Princeton, NJ), then ditto for "13" at Goodspeed (Chester, CT); then last week was "Our Town" at the Arden (Philly, PA), and this weekend was "The Visit" at the Signature (Arlington, VA). And looking ahead, there's the Charles Busch show in Sag Harbor next week, and the stuff in the Berkshires and Poughkeepsie two weeks after that.
Okay, so starting with "Our Town" (very briefly)... The gimmick that attracted me to the production was that the first act is performed in the regular Arden theatre, but then the second (the wedding act) is performed in a newly restored church next door, then back to the theatre for Act 3. Let's just say it was better in theory than execution. That middle act was in a very un-air conditioned Church, and it was so hot, I had trouble paying attention to the play. Plus, there seemed to be something off about the scenes preceeding the wedding - like the location made sense for the last few minutes of the act, but not so much the rest. Still, the third act back in the air conditioning was quite moving, and the first had enough running around with the Stage Manager (the character) up and down the aisles, and other such schtick to keepme interested. They're doing "Candide" there next season, and I think it should be interesting to see.
This week, while unable to leave NYC, I did manage to squeeze in some local type theatre.
"The Marriage of Bette & Boo." Strange. And depressing. I had honestly no idea what was going on in the first act. I just sat there totally baffled. Luckily, the second act was much clearer - I laughed quite a bit at many of the (intetionally) tasteless jokes, and was moved by the ending. I think this is probably one of those plays that you need to experience (either see or read) more than once to fully appreciate. I already have plans to see this again later in the run and am very much looking forward to a second viewing.
"Macbeth: 2008." This is one of those shows I'd been looking forward to seeing since it was first anounced. It's an adaptation of "Macbeth," in Polish (with only the most famous lines like the dagger speech and "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow") translated verbatim from the Shakespeare. Of course, I wasn't looking forward to the production because it was Shakespeare in Polish - I'm not that crazy - I wanted to see it because it's being performed across the street from St Ann's Warehouse, in an open air former tobacco factory, which allows the audience to be underneath the Brooklyn Bridge to the left, and have the Manhattan Bridge just to the right. An absolutely beautiful view. Because of the unique outdoor 'neath the noisy bridge setting, every audience member is provided with headphones, and all of the dialogue and sound effects are heard through them - the actors are not amplified at all, so you can't hear anything without them on. As for the production? And I thought "Bette & Boo" was weird. Depending on your tolerance for such things, this is either brilliant regietheater or Eurotrash - the terms mean the same thing, but well... you know. It has all of the things one has come to expect from such productions: Update of a classical piece to modern times? Check. Gratuitous nudity? Check. Tons of graphic violence? Check. Someone dressed as Elvis? Lady Macbeth peeing on the floor? Check and check. This made the recent Rupert Goold (starring Patrick Stewart) production look like a classical setting you'd see at the Old Globe. For my part, I found the production visually to be fascinating (it's set in a Muslim country... probably Iraq, and the first scene has Macbeth beheading two men praying. Then the witch (there's only one) comes out wearing a burka... from there it's just wackier and wackier with the burka eventually being removed to show the witch wearing a bright pink slip and having a shaved head), but really emotionally empty. This really felt like a case of style over substance. Still both because of the physical theatre, and the shear novelty of the staging, I do highly recommend trying to see this, even though the entire run sold out before it even started. There are rush tickets and cancellations, though.
"Some Kind of Bliss." Playing at 59E59's postage stamp sized Theater C, this is a 65 minute long, one woman play about a reporter who gets into trouble on her way to interview Lulu. Cute enough. Certainly the right length for this fairly slight story. Held my interest. Not a must see, but you could certainly do worse - though as far as the Brits Off Broadway fare goes, I preferred "Vincent River."
"A Perfect Couple." This is Brooke Berman's follow-up to "Hunting and Gathering." Didn't particularly like her first play, and after this one, I think maybe she's not a playwright whose work I enjoy. This one's about a couple of hip 40 year olds - you know, the type that drinks French press coffee and San Pellegrino, and lives somewhere like Park Slope... or in this case, in the country, near a train that runs every hour. In other words, not people I feel any connection with. So, the story goes that a woman finds a diary entry that her step-mother wrote, that says that her fiance who she dated for 15 years went up to this country house with the woman's best friend (and also friend of boyfriend/fiance) around ten years before, and the step-mother thought she saw some sort of a spark between the two. Not that she was awake all night because they were making such loud sex - only that there was a spark. And of course she totally flips out (yada yada yada). Now maybe it's because I'm not a woman, but this seemed like a really far-fetchedm over-the-top reaction. Add to that that I felt no connection to any of the characters, and I was very glad it was only 75 minutes long.
And that brings me to today, and the bus I'm taking back from DC, where I saw "The Visit" (well, it was in Arlington, but that's just a quick Metro and bus ride from DC). This was my first forray to the Signature, but now that I know the experience is so painless (even the long bus ride from NYC to DC isn't so bad), I'm very likely to return - especially when they premiere Michael John LaChiusa's new musical, "Giant," next year.
[NOTE: I’m finishing this from home. Left DC at 5:50pm – back in my apartment at 10:15pm. And all for $7 round trip ($1.50 there and $5.50 back). Amazing.]
Let me also say that the Signature is a really lovely theatre. First of all, it’s brand new, which is always nice. Secondly, when I got to the theatre before the show with time to kill, first I got upstairs to where the main lobby is, and they had a pianist playing this really pleasant lite jazz type music… which I soon realized was actually lite jazz versions of music by John Kander. Then when I further explored the lobby, I found in the “gallery” section, they had a tribute to (the dearly departed) Fred Ebb, including the type writer he wrote the lyrics to “The Visit” on, sheets of lyrics for the show up on the wall, as well as photos, awards, even a show pillow from “The Happy Time.” Really really nice stuff – and honestly, just reading the lyrics on the wall without even hearing the music, I was already in love with the show. And it hadn’t even started yet. OH, and (skipping ahead) at intermission… they sell warm cookies. Positively genius. NY concessions stands would make even more money than they already do if they could get audience warm cookies at intermission. Sooo yummy. Any theatre that sells warm cookies at intermission instantly has my heart forever. Even if they were responsible for the loathsome “Glory Days” (or as it’s now referred to… “Glory Day” – they were selling t-shirts from their run in the lobby and I was oh so tempted…).
Now I know it’s bad to go to see shows with high expectations, and maybe it’s because I had read so many positive reviews (excepting the *cough* Charles Isherwood NY Times pan *cough*), and this was a new Kander & Ebb musical starring THE Chita Rivera and THE George Hearn, and I had traveled four and a half hours plus just one way to be there and darn it I just had to love it – but I loved it. First of all, we all need to thank our lucky stars that Chita Rivera is still willing to not just appear in, but STAR, in a brand new musical. And she is absolutely ravishing. From the moment she first appears on stage, she has the audience tightly in her grip, and it is impossible to take your eyes off of her. The only unfortunate thing (and this has been mentioned by everyone) is that she plays a character with a wooden leg (as well as an ivory hand, and who knows what else), so she can’t really dance. I mean, if Chita Rivera’s going to be in a musical, you want to see her dance. She does get one sort of dance number (in which she dances as well as a character with one leg can be expected to), and indeed that number stops the show. And really let’s face it – would you rather have someone else do the show just because Chita Rivera’s talents aren’t fully utilized here? I mean that’s just ludicrous. Dancing or no dancing, her singing and her acting spine tinglingly brilliant here. And let’s not forget George Hearn who also does a fantastic job, in the less flamboyant, but no less important or easy to act role of the man who Claire (the Chita Rivera character) wants dead. On that note, I will say that “The Visit” is kind of odd source material for a musical, although if you think about the sources for Kander & Ebb’s other most famous musicals (Cabaret and Chicago), well perhaps it’s really not so odd at all. Gotta love a dark disturbing musical, that still manages to be at times quite funny (no one wrote lyrics quite like Ebb did), and also romantic and sad.
The music here is as wonderful as one would expect from John Kander. Even if this doesn’t make it to Broadway (more on that later), I would at least hope we could get a cd out of this. The big humumumumable melody in this show comes at the end of the first act, and I think it’s called “Yellow Shoes.” Granted, it does sound an awful lot like “Second Chance” from Kander & Ebb’s “Steel Pier,” but it’s still a fine song – managing to give the audience something to hum during the intermission, even while being totally disturbed by it.
If I may offer some minor criticism, while the first act was completely fantastic, I did find the second act lagged a bit in the middle. It seemed to sort of fall into this drippy sentimental territory - I first noticed my excitement dropping during a song George Hearn sings while riding in the car with his family for what he thinks will be the last time (I won’t say whether he’s right or not, lest I spoil the ending), and it continued through to what I suppose was Chita’s 11 o’clock number – I think it was called “Love Alone,” but it left me a bit cold. What ultimately saves the musical, not just at the end, but many times, is the brilliant work done by the chorus of townspeople, who are absolutely chilling in the scenes where they are all together. In retrospect, I think they reminded me a bit of the crowds in Britten’s “Peter Grimes” – just absolutely brilliantly creepy, but sending a shiver up your spine, and a tear from your eye.
I’d like to say it would be absolutely criminal if this didn’t make it to New York either on Broadway or off. Actually, I will say it – it would be absolutely criminal if this doesn’t make it to NY. But realistically, my new least favorite critic Charles Isherwood had the nerve to pretty much pan the show in the all important NY Times (can the character of Claire, the richest woman in the world, come to New York and give us tons of money in exchange for killing him?), and to be perfectly honest, how many dark serious new musicals are successful on Broadway? I suppose we can only hope and pray that one of the not-for-profits will pick this up for their upcoming season - it was previously announced for the Public around 2001-ish, although the Mitzi E Newhouse is sort of similar in shape to the Signature; ah, if only the Beaumont weren’t occupied by “South Pacific”… speaking of which, I felt like I was in New York, being in the audience of the show today. First I saw (TalkinBroadway.com’s NY critic) Matthew Murray, then Patrick Pacheco of NY1 and probably some other stuff, then I think Ted Sperling (playing hooky from “South Pacific” post Tonys?), and after the show, Stephen Flaherty. Considering I didn’t see any of them waiting to get the bus from Shirlington Village back to Pentagon to take the subway to Chinatown, those folks probably had more glamorous rides home. But let me say it was absolutely worth all of the time spent to get down there.
I remember my first experience with a musical version of “The Visit” was an operatic version that City Opera did I don’t know how many years ago, called “The Visit of the Old Lady.” And all I remember was that the logo had a woman in profile, carrying a wooden coffin, with a bird (I think it was a vulture) sitting on it. And because that logo was so bizarre and amusing to me, I made my mother buy us tickets to see it. And I have absolutely no recollection of anything about the opera other than that fantastic logo. I think I even have a t-shirt with it somewhere. I suppose that’s a totally random anecdote, but I’ll use it to say that while I remember nothing about the opera, I feel fairly certain I won’t forget Kander & Ebb (and bookwriter Terrence McNally)’s version of “The Visit” or Chita Rivera’s performance in it anytime soon.
I know I always seem to end these things this way, but now I am going to collapse because even more than usual, I am totally exhausted. Besides, since “The Visit” had its last performance tonight at 7pm, tomorrow begins the long days ahead of prayer to the theatre gods to let me see “The Visit” again. Closer to home this time.
(Oh gosh. I just remembered I forgot to mention the simple but fantastic set and not as simple but just as fantastic lighting. So much love to shower on “The Visit.” So tired.)
Okay, so starting with "Our Town" (very briefly)... The gimmick that attracted me to the production was that the first act is performed in the regular Arden theatre, but then the second (the wedding act) is performed in a newly restored church next door, then back to the theatre for Act 3. Let's just say it was better in theory than execution. That middle act was in a very un-air conditioned Church, and it was so hot, I had trouble paying attention to the play. Plus, there seemed to be something off about the scenes preceeding the wedding - like the location made sense for the last few minutes of the act, but not so much the rest. Still, the third act back in the air conditioning was quite moving, and the first had enough running around with the Stage Manager (the character) up and down the aisles, and other such schtick to keepme interested. They're doing "Candide" there next season, and I think it should be interesting to see.
This week, while unable to leave NYC, I did manage to squeeze in some local type theatre.
"The Marriage of Bette & Boo." Strange. And depressing. I had honestly no idea what was going on in the first act. I just sat there totally baffled. Luckily, the second act was much clearer - I laughed quite a bit at many of the (intetionally) tasteless jokes, and was moved by the ending. I think this is probably one of those plays that you need to experience (either see or read) more than once to fully appreciate. I already have plans to see this again later in the run and am very much looking forward to a second viewing.
"Macbeth: 2008." This is one of those shows I'd been looking forward to seeing since it was first anounced. It's an adaptation of "Macbeth," in Polish (with only the most famous lines like the dagger speech and "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow") translated verbatim from the Shakespeare. Of course, I wasn't looking forward to the production because it was Shakespeare in Polish - I'm not that crazy - I wanted to see it because it's being performed across the street from St Ann's Warehouse, in an open air former tobacco factory, which allows the audience to be underneath the Brooklyn Bridge to the left, and have the Manhattan Bridge just to the right. An absolutely beautiful view. Because of the unique outdoor 'neath the noisy bridge setting, every audience member is provided with headphones, and all of the dialogue and sound effects are heard through them - the actors are not amplified at all, so you can't hear anything without them on. As for the production? And I thought "Bette & Boo" was weird. Depending on your tolerance for such things, this is either brilliant regietheater or Eurotrash - the terms mean the same thing, but well... you know. It has all of the things one has come to expect from such productions: Update of a classical piece to modern times? Check. Gratuitous nudity? Check. Tons of graphic violence? Check. Someone dressed as Elvis? Lady Macbeth peeing on the floor? Check and check. This made the recent Rupert Goold (starring Patrick Stewart) production look like a classical setting you'd see at the Old Globe. For my part, I found the production visually to be fascinating (it's set in a Muslim country... probably Iraq, and the first scene has Macbeth beheading two men praying. Then the witch (there's only one) comes out wearing a burka... from there it's just wackier and wackier with the burka eventually being removed to show the witch wearing a bright pink slip and having a shaved head), but really emotionally empty. This really felt like a case of style over substance. Still both because of the physical theatre, and the shear novelty of the staging, I do highly recommend trying to see this, even though the entire run sold out before it even started. There are rush tickets and cancellations, though.
"Some Kind of Bliss." Playing at 59E59's postage stamp sized Theater C, this is a 65 minute long, one woman play about a reporter who gets into trouble on her way to interview Lulu. Cute enough. Certainly the right length for this fairly slight story. Held my interest. Not a must see, but you could certainly do worse - though as far as the Brits Off Broadway fare goes, I preferred "Vincent River."
"A Perfect Couple." This is Brooke Berman's follow-up to "Hunting and Gathering." Didn't particularly like her first play, and after this one, I think maybe she's not a playwright whose work I enjoy. This one's about a couple of hip 40 year olds - you know, the type that drinks French press coffee and San Pellegrino, and lives somewhere like Park Slope... or in this case, in the country, near a train that runs every hour. In other words, not people I feel any connection with. So, the story goes that a woman finds a diary entry that her step-mother wrote, that says that her fiance who she dated for 15 years went up to this country house with the woman's best friend (and also friend of boyfriend/fiance) around ten years before, and the step-mother thought she saw some sort of a spark between the two. Not that she was awake all night because they were making such loud sex - only that there was a spark. And of course she totally flips out (yada yada yada). Now maybe it's because I'm not a woman, but this seemed like a really far-fetchedm over-the-top reaction. Add to that that I felt no connection to any of the characters, and I was very glad it was only 75 minutes long.
And that brings me to today, and the bus I'm taking back from DC, where I saw "The Visit" (well, it was in Arlington, but that's just a quick Metro and bus ride from DC). This was my first forray to the Signature, but now that I know the experience is so painless (even the long bus ride from NYC to DC isn't so bad), I'm very likely to return - especially when they premiere Michael John LaChiusa's new musical, "Giant," next year.
[NOTE: I’m finishing this from home. Left DC at 5:50pm – back in my apartment at 10:15pm. And all for $7 round trip ($1.50 there and $5.50 back). Amazing.]
Let me also say that the Signature is a really lovely theatre. First of all, it’s brand new, which is always nice. Secondly, when I got to the theatre before the show with time to kill, first I got upstairs to where the main lobby is, and they had a pianist playing this really pleasant lite jazz type music… which I soon realized was actually lite jazz versions of music by John Kander. Then when I further explored the lobby, I found in the “gallery” section, they had a tribute to (the dearly departed) Fred Ebb, including the type writer he wrote the lyrics to “The Visit” on, sheets of lyrics for the show up on the wall, as well as photos, awards, even a show pillow from “The Happy Time.” Really really nice stuff – and honestly, just reading the lyrics on the wall without even hearing the music, I was already in love with the show. And it hadn’t even started yet. OH, and (skipping ahead) at intermission… they sell warm cookies. Positively genius. NY concessions stands would make even more money than they already do if they could get audience warm cookies at intermission. Sooo yummy. Any theatre that sells warm cookies at intermission instantly has my heart forever. Even if they were responsible for the loathsome “Glory Days” (or as it’s now referred to… “Glory Day” – they were selling t-shirts from their run in the lobby and I was oh so tempted…).
Now I know it’s bad to go to see shows with high expectations, and maybe it’s because I had read so many positive reviews (excepting the *cough* Charles Isherwood NY Times pan *cough*), and this was a new Kander & Ebb musical starring THE Chita Rivera and THE George Hearn, and I had traveled four and a half hours plus just one way to be there and darn it I just had to love it – but I loved it. First of all, we all need to thank our lucky stars that Chita Rivera is still willing to not just appear in, but STAR, in a brand new musical. And she is absolutely ravishing. From the moment she first appears on stage, she has the audience tightly in her grip, and it is impossible to take your eyes off of her. The only unfortunate thing (and this has been mentioned by everyone) is that she plays a character with a wooden leg (as well as an ivory hand, and who knows what else), so she can’t really dance. I mean, if Chita Rivera’s going to be in a musical, you want to see her dance. She does get one sort of dance number (in which she dances as well as a character with one leg can be expected to), and indeed that number stops the show. And really let’s face it – would you rather have someone else do the show just because Chita Rivera’s talents aren’t fully utilized here? I mean that’s just ludicrous. Dancing or no dancing, her singing and her acting spine tinglingly brilliant here. And let’s not forget George Hearn who also does a fantastic job, in the less flamboyant, but no less important or easy to act role of the man who Claire (the Chita Rivera character) wants dead. On that note, I will say that “The Visit” is kind of odd source material for a musical, although if you think about the sources for Kander & Ebb’s other most famous musicals (Cabaret and Chicago), well perhaps it’s really not so odd at all. Gotta love a dark disturbing musical, that still manages to be at times quite funny (no one wrote lyrics quite like Ebb did), and also romantic and sad.
The music here is as wonderful as one would expect from John Kander. Even if this doesn’t make it to Broadway (more on that later), I would at least hope we could get a cd out of this. The big humumumumable melody in this show comes at the end of the first act, and I think it’s called “Yellow Shoes.” Granted, it does sound an awful lot like “Second Chance” from Kander & Ebb’s “Steel Pier,” but it’s still a fine song – managing to give the audience something to hum during the intermission, even while being totally disturbed by it.
If I may offer some minor criticism, while the first act was completely fantastic, I did find the second act lagged a bit in the middle. It seemed to sort of fall into this drippy sentimental territory - I first noticed my excitement dropping during a song George Hearn sings while riding in the car with his family for what he thinks will be the last time (I won’t say whether he’s right or not, lest I spoil the ending), and it continued through to what I suppose was Chita’s 11 o’clock number – I think it was called “Love Alone,” but it left me a bit cold. What ultimately saves the musical, not just at the end, but many times, is the brilliant work done by the chorus of townspeople, who are absolutely chilling in the scenes where they are all together. In retrospect, I think they reminded me a bit of the crowds in Britten’s “Peter Grimes” – just absolutely brilliantly creepy, but sending a shiver up your spine, and a tear from your eye.
I’d like to say it would be absolutely criminal if this didn’t make it to New York either on Broadway or off. Actually, I will say it – it would be absolutely criminal if this doesn’t make it to NY. But realistically, my new least favorite critic Charles Isherwood had the nerve to pretty much pan the show in the all important NY Times (can the character of Claire, the richest woman in the world, come to New York and give us tons of money in exchange for killing him?), and to be perfectly honest, how many dark serious new musicals are successful on Broadway? I suppose we can only hope and pray that one of the not-for-profits will pick this up for their upcoming season - it was previously announced for the Public around 2001-ish, although the Mitzi E Newhouse is sort of similar in shape to the Signature; ah, if only the Beaumont weren’t occupied by “South Pacific”… speaking of which, I felt like I was in New York, being in the audience of the show today. First I saw (TalkinBroadway.com’s NY critic) Matthew Murray, then Patrick Pacheco of NY1 and probably some other stuff, then I think Ted Sperling (playing hooky from “South Pacific” post Tonys?), and after the show, Stephen Flaherty. Considering I didn’t see any of them waiting to get the bus from Shirlington Village back to Pentagon to take the subway to Chinatown, those folks probably had more glamorous rides home. But let me say it was absolutely worth all of the time spent to get down there.
I remember my first experience with a musical version of “The Visit” was an operatic version that City Opera did I don’t know how many years ago, called “The Visit of the Old Lady.” And all I remember was that the logo had a woman in profile, carrying a wooden coffin, with a bird (I think it was a vulture) sitting on it. And because that logo was so bizarre and amusing to me, I made my mother buy us tickets to see it. And I have absolutely no recollection of anything about the opera other than that fantastic logo. I think I even have a t-shirt with it somewhere. I suppose that’s a totally random anecdote, but I’ll use it to say that while I remember nothing about the opera, I feel fairly certain I won’t forget Kander & Ebb (and bookwriter Terrence McNally)’s version of “The Visit” or Chita Rivera’s performance in it anytime soon.
I know I always seem to end these things this way, but now I am going to collapse because even more than usual, I am totally exhausted. Besides, since “The Visit” had its last performance tonight at 7pm, tomorrow begins the long days ahead of prayer to the theatre gods to let me see “The Visit” again. Closer to home this time.
(Oh gosh. I just remembered I forgot to mention the simple but fantastic set and not as simple but just as fantastic lighting. So much love to shower on “The Visit.” So tired.)
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Mufti Grind
Just a quick update because it's late and I need to get up early tomorrow.
I went to see "Grind" at Musicals in Mufti tonight, and was really pleasantly surprised. It only runs through Sunday night, but it's well worth seeing if you have the time and inclination. I had tried to listen to the cd at work on Thursday and Friday, but couldn't really get into it. But as often happens with me, now that I've seen everything in context, I think I'm going to be listening to it quite often. The cast is uniformly excellent - with my surprise favorite being Joe Cassidy (who I'd never heard of before) who was really fantastic as the Irishman. His big song near the end of the second act was particularly gut wrenching and had me getting all teary eyed. Apparently there were a lot of problems with the original Broadway production of the show, having to do with an overly complicated book, and Ben Vereen using his clout to over-expand his supporting role (including a random Fosse dance number that had nothing to do with the show). Well, with this production there's a new book, that I assume is much clearer - I didn't have any big problems with it anyway - and very little dancing (it IS a Mufti staging, after all), and I really just found the whole thing to be totally enjoyable and moving. Of course after looking at the production shots from the Broadway staging in the lobby, now I want to see what the show's like with sets and costumes and all. Hopefully some rich person will see this version and put together a more complete production. I know - never gonna happen, but I can dream, can't I?
This is definitely up there with my favorite Mufti's I've seen. Thank goodness the York stills ticks to its mission of performing bonafide obscure musicals, as opposed to Encores which is doing "On The Town" as part of it's next season. Just saying....
I went to see "Grind" at Musicals in Mufti tonight, and was really pleasantly surprised. It only runs through Sunday night, but it's well worth seeing if you have the time and inclination. I had tried to listen to the cd at work on Thursday and Friday, but couldn't really get into it. But as often happens with me, now that I've seen everything in context, I think I'm going to be listening to it quite often. The cast is uniformly excellent - with my surprise favorite being Joe Cassidy (who I'd never heard of before) who was really fantastic as the Irishman. His big song near the end of the second act was particularly gut wrenching and had me getting all teary eyed. Apparently there were a lot of problems with the original Broadway production of the show, having to do with an overly complicated book, and Ben Vereen using his clout to over-expand his supporting role (including a random Fosse dance number that had nothing to do with the show). Well, with this production there's a new book, that I assume is much clearer - I didn't have any big problems with it anyway - and very little dancing (it IS a Mufti staging, after all), and I really just found the whole thing to be totally enjoyable and moving. Of course after looking at the production shots from the Broadway staging in the lobby, now I want to see what the show's like with sets and costumes and all. Hopefully some rich person will see this version and put together a more complete production. I know - never gonna happen, but I can dream, can't I?
This is definitely up there with my favorite Mufti's I've seen. Thank goodness the York stills ticks to its mission of performing bonafide obscure musicals, as opposed to Encores which is doing "On The Town" as part of it's next season. Just saying....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)