What does it take for me to finally get around to writing again? Apparently the four hour trip home on the Chinatown bus. Today was one of my meshugganah day trips to DC (because when it's $5 each way, DC suddenly becomes convenient) to see Jason Robert Brown's "novel symphony," The Trumpet of the Swan" (with Kathy Bates, no less), and the newly revised "Next to Normal."
Jason Robert Brown's shows and I haven't had the happiest history together. It usually goes something like I read about his new show and I'm excited, I see it and experience some level of dislike (from hating Parade and his contributions to Urban Cowboy to being lukewarm towards Last Five Years 13 @ Goodspeed), and then I get the cd of the show, and start loving it. Which I guess means that he needs to find better book-writers to work with. Anyway, FINALLY I actually liked an original production of a new Jason Robert Brown work. No, "The Trumpet of the Swan" is not a musical (though I got the feeling it would work quite well as one, should its creators be so inclined), it's a "novel symphony" - which in the case of this production means that the actors stand on the edge of the stage and speak their lines, and the orchestra in the background sets scenes, or provides background music - I think they meant it to be something like Peter and the Wolf. The work is based on EB White's short story(?) about a trumpet swan who doesn't have a voice so he uses a trumpet to communicate. The whole thing was conceived by Marsha Norman, who adapted the text for this work. It's one of those shows that's supposed to appeal to both adults and kids equally, and for once it actually seemed to be true. Usually I go to so called children's theatre figuring I still like that sort of thing, and end up being bored out of my mind. So here is, for once, a work that I thought really effectively spoke to my inner child. Then again, the children sitting near me all seemed to be bored or squirming, so maybe it's was a little over their heads? All I know is that I was completely entertained and charmed by it, and I would hope if it's not re-adapted into a full musical, an orchestra like the one that presented that Lemony Snicket symphony at Avery Fisher would also choose to do this show in NY. I would definitely see it again.
Now, "Next to Normal" was a musical I saw twice when it ran at Second Stage off-Broadway and was generally unsatisfied with for various reasons both time (I only went a second time because I had heard it had improved. It hadn't). So after realizing that the show wasn't really working, the creators (and I gather producers) agreed to take the show out of town and present it at Arena Stage, in a newly revised version. And surprise surprise, it seems like they finally got it right. The show seems quite a bit darker now than it was in NY, which is definitely a good thing. They cut the horrid final song in the first act, "Feeling Electric" (a song about shock therapy that felt totally out of sync with the rest of the music). And somehow, even though the show still has the annoying structure that they feel like they rush through tons of plot in the first act, and then slow down to a crawl in the second, I really never found myself being bored. I think they may have cut some of the spoken dialogue and increased the number of songs, and since Tom Kitt's score is such a pleasure to listen to (getting you to tap your toes even while the story just gets more and more depressing) that would definitely be a good thing. I'd venture to say it's the best rock score I've heard in a theatre in "Spring Awakening," except I think that may be cheating since it may be the only rock score I've heard since SA. But suffice it to say when this score is finally recorded, I can't wait to get my hands on it. I've even finally warmed up to Alice Ripley's performance, which had annoyed me in the NY run. Considering the departure of Rent, and (soon) Spring Awakening, this would seem to be the perfect time for a new rock musical to open on Broadway and fill the niche. I mean, we're getting a revival of "Hair" but that just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). I don't know that there's necessarily a market for an almost unbearably depressing musical about trying to cure a woman who's bipolar (my sister, who complains I only take her to depressing shows, said she was "traumatized"), but I really found the show to be really satisfying on all levels. Fingers crossed for another NY run, though I'm well aware that nothing is certain in today's economy. I just hope the creators don't screw it up again between now and (hopefully) NY.
Quickly (because my brain is starting to turn in for the night), I went to see Pal Joey on Friday and was not impressed. Matthew Risch is not at all convincing as Joey - he has the sliminess down pat, and he's a fine dancer, but he has absolutely no charisma or spark or really any charm about him, so that I did not find it at all believable that Vera and Linda would ever fall in love with him. Was Christian Hoff (who left due to an "injury") really that bad? Stockard Channing does a good job with "Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered," but is otherwise underwhelming as Vera, and seems to just kind of be walking through the role, sort of Stockard Channing playing Stockard Channing type feeling. Martha Plimpton it turns out has a fantastic singing voice. She totally overacts, but her musical numbers are all fantastic. I hope to see her in many more musicals to come (especially since she's never all that good in straight plays anyway, though her constant stream of work would seem to say that I'm in the minority there). Jenny Fellner (who plays Linda) was really the only one who really felt like she really knew what she was doing, nailing both the singing and the acting. The production is at least lovely to look at. The set is nice as long as you know what Chicago looks like - at first I was thinking the set was kind of ugly, until I thought back to all those overhead El tracks, and then it made sense. Otherwise the set could feasably look like a mishmash of leftovers from other Roundabout musicals (the tracks from Assassins, the sprial staircase from Nine, the table and chairs from Cabaret, and maybe some costumes from Follies?). The costumes are in general also really quite nice. Even the Graciela Daniele's choreography is surprisingly good. It's one of those shows that maybe if you were watching on mute would seem pretty good. Richard Greenberg's revised book adds a random unnecessary gay subplot, and maybe a weird moment of women's empowerment at the shop where she works? (Whether it was Greenberg's fault or not, said moment felt really out of sync with the vibe of the rest of the show, at least in terms of how the female characters are written). Complaints at all, the show's not a total bust, because you've still got that great Rodgers and Hart score to listen to. Not an entirely disastorous night, especially considering how awful Roundabout revivals can be, but still a big disappointment. Too bad they Risch and Channing can't "injure" themselves in the show. Surely there are two other actors out there who have the right spark for those roles.
And that's where I think I'll stop for the night. Two hours or so left til we hit NYC, I think. Oh boy.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
What Was That Play Called Again? (Plus: When Hipsters Attack, and Earthly Delights)
With apologies to Mr. Shakespeare... "What's in a name? That which we call a play by any other name would be as dull." Titles of plays always intrigue me. Often playwrights will pull a title from a line late in the play, and whatever line or speech that line is pulled from gets that extra burst of importance because it's a signal to the audience that's it's very very important to deciphering the play. After all, why else would the playwright have picked that name. Sometimes a title's meaning isn't revealed until the last line of the play like in "Sixteen Wounded." Other times the title's meaning isn't even actually a line in the play, but its meaning is explained in a program note, like in "Saturn Returns." And still other times, it's a phrase repeated so many times in the play, well... what else could the play be called? And hey, if that phrase is repeated every few minutes, the title will surely be pounded into the audiences' heads. Sort of like a really hummable title song in a musical. Or the play... Horton Foote's "Dividing The Estate," which about, well... you know. In the first act, it seems like barely a minute would go by without one of the characters asking about "dividing the estate." "Let's talk about dividing the estate." "We're not dividing the estate" "But we should really talk about dividing the estate." "The estate will not be divided." "I hate to bring this up, but you know we really should seriously think aboutu dividing the estate." That, in a nutshell, is the dialogue of the first act. The phrase drove me so batty that I tried to count the number of times it was said in the second act. I came up with 11 "dividing the estate"s and four times when those words were used in a slightly different manner (like "the estate should be divided"). I have a nagging suspicion that I may have missed one or two references in my count (I didn't have a pad and pen out, after all), but fifteen times over the course of around an hour for the second act comes to once every four minutes. Now I realize that the dividing of the estate is an important plot point, but well... there's such a thing as overkill.
As for the rest of the contents of the play, it's not bad, though it does really suffer with comparison to the play that's playing across the street, "August: Osage County." Both are large family dramas, and both have long scenes around a dinner table that are blocked so that large portions of the audience can't really see what's going on. Just saying. I actually quite liked the first act, in an old fashioned, sort of comfort-foodish way. Things get bogged down in the second act however, probably because Elizabeth Ashley's character disappears, and without the sassy matriarch on stage to keep everyone in line with her biting comments, well things spiral out of control - and not in a good way - and thing become sort of repetitive and dull, with nary an end in site. The play does eventually end (obviously), though at a rather arbitrary point, and I can't say I left all that satisfied. I want to say I didn't really see what the point of the play was, but I did get the general points - that people are greedy, money tears families apart, and the government estate taxes are ridiculous - but I think everyone already knows that. I think maybe the problem is that at some point (for me it was in the second act), you realize that these characters are kind of one-note and not really worth caring about. I mean, how long can you watch Penny Fuller sit around and be sweet and nice, and Hallie Foote bitch bitch bitch?
I guess half a good play - especially one featuring Elizabeth Ashely, and newly (re)written by 92-year-old Horton Foote - is nothing to turn one's nose too high up at. And considering it's the first new play on Broadway this season (not counting To Be Or Not To Be, which I guess is technically new, though it's just a "new" adaptation of a screenplay), and one of what looks likely to be a fairly small group, well... I guess we should support new dramas where we can. Just wish this one weren't so disappointing.
Oh, and filed under celebrity sighting - the Booth Theatre as abuzz tonight because the one and only Angela Lansbury was in the audience.
------------------
I will say, since I don't want to give the impression that I don't like anything I see nowadays, that I did see two excellent productions off-Broadway this week.
One was Danny Hoch's solo play, "Taking Over," about the gentrification of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. I would have loved to see this when it played in Brooklyn (Hoch took the show on a tour of the boroughs before landing at the Public), because I can only imagine that the Williamsburg crowd must have pelted him with tomatoes at his curtain call. Because basically this play is just one big fuck you to the hipsters who have taken over that area. And how absolutely refreshing to see a play that doesn't sugar coat its message, or try to preach to the choir, or say the (liberal) politically correct thing. This is one angry play, but the point of view is so distinct and uncompromised, that you can help but be kind of awed by his chutzpah, considering what a large percentage of his audience he's likely alienating. The play, in a nutshell, is about how gentrification has basically ruined Williamsburg... though it could just as easily be applied to many areas of New York City, where the crack dens have been replaced with Whole Foods. I would think this play would be most potent to New Yorkers, who see so called hipsters on their way to the L-train each and every day. I was trying to tell my father how when I'm on the subway going down to Union Square, I can always spot the hipsters who are going to transfer to the L, but he had no clue what a hipster was. Then again, this play was apparently well received in Berkley, CA (though, is that really so different from Williamsburg, I wonder?), and I think the downside of gentrification is a fairly universal thing. In the play, Hoch plays a whole series of characters - from a real estate developer and hipster selling vintage t-shirts on the street, to taxi dispatcher and an older black woman sitting on her stoop. The characters are all quite funny, but there's also something kind of disturbing about each of them, and the views they express. Certainly one could argue Starbucks, Whole Foods, art galleries and bike lanes are far preferable to the free roaming of druggies, common mugging and stabbing, and seedy bodegas with nary an organic vegetable or box of soy milk in site - but it's just so interesting to see play that's not trying to be fair and balanced, and not trying to pander to the "in" crowd. I'm usually wary of solo plays, and especially one on as seemingly dull a topic as gentrification, but this was one... well, I don't know if pleasant is the word for the play, but... was a satisfying surprise.
Also, surprisingly good was Martha Clarke's "The Garden of Earthly Delights." I'm not the world biggest dance fan, though I'm not one to shy away from a full length ballet or a particularly intriguing sounding piece at the Joyce or ABT or whatnot. But as for Ms. Clarke, well the only other work of hers I'd seen was "Belle Epoque," and I can't say I found that to be a particularly enriching experience. But "The Garden of Earthly Delights" (based on the Bosch painting) turns out to be a fairly exciting work. I'll admit there were times that I was bored, but it's only an hour long, so you know even if there are parts that are awful, it'll be over soon enough. And actually, the good parts far outweighed the bad. Highlights included some rather lovely flying effects (provided by Flying By Foy, no less), and an extremely amusing section where a harpy attacks the cellist(?). Oh, and there's also a scene that involves farting and a woman pooing potatoes - but those who like that more crude humor. Um, so we have pooing potatoes, a string instrument player being attacked and people flying... in nude body stockings. What's not to like? ;O) Gosh, I think I just made this sound like some awful tastles porno. There are other scenes that involve beautiful movement as well - the opening scene is especially lovely, though I found myself wondering whether the surely large chiropracter bill for the dancers was included in the budget. Yeah, so if you have an hour to spare one night, I would definitely recommend a visit to the Minetta Lane. And not that the cheapest ticket options (tdf, etc) give you a seating choice, but if you happen to, I'm pretty sure this show is best seen from the mezzanine. That's where I was sitting anyway, and I was very happy with the view, especially for the scenes that involved flying. And I tend to think that for dance, sitting farther away is useful for taking in the whole picture.
And that's all for now.
As for the rest of the contents of the play, it's not bad, though it does really suffer with comparison to the play that's playing across the street, "August: Osage County." Both are large family dramas, and both have long scenes around a dinner table that are blocked so that large portions of the audience can't really see what's going on. Just saying. I actually quite liked the first act, in an old fashioned, sort of comfort-foodish way. Things get bogged down in the second act however, probably because Elizabeth Ashley's character disappears, and without the sassy matriarch on stage to keep everyone in line with her biting comments, well things spiral out of control - and not in a good way - and thing become sort of repetitive and dull, with nary an end in site. The play does eventually end (obviously), though at a rather arbitrary point, and I can't say I left all that satisfied. I want to say I didn't really see what the point of the play was, but I did get the general points - that people are greedy, money tears families apart, and the government estate taxes are ridiculous - but I think everyone already knows that. I think maybe the problem is that at some point (for me it was in the second act), you realize that these characters are kind of one-note and not really worth caring about. I mean, how long can you watch Penny Fuller sit around and be sweet and nice, and Hallie Foote bitch bitch bitch?
I guess half a good play - especially one featuring Elizabeth Ashely, and newly (re)written by 92-year-old Horton Foote - is nothing to turn one's nose too high up at. And considering it's the first new play on Broadway this season (not counting To Be Or Not To Be, which I guess is technically new, though it's just a "new" adaptation of a screenplay), and one of what looks likely to be a fairly small group, well... I guess we should support new dramas where we can. Just wish this one weren't so disappointing.
Oh, and filed under celebrity sighting - the Booth Theatre as abuzz tonight because the one and only Angela Lansbury was in the audience.
------------------
I will say, since I don't want to give the impression that I don't like anything I see nowadays, that I did see two excellent productions off-Broadway this week.
One was Danny Hoch's solo play, "Taking Over," about the gentrification of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. I would have loved to see this when it played in Brooklyn (Hoch took the show on a tour of the boroughs before landing at the Public), because I can only imagine that the Williamsburg crowd must have pelted him with tomatoes at his curtain call. Because basically this play is just one big fuck you to the hipsters who have taken over that area. And how absolutely refreshing to see a play that doesn't sugar coat its message, or try to preach to the choir, or say the (liberal) politically correct thing. This is one angry play, but the point of view is so distinct and uncompromised, that you can help but be kind of awed by his chutzpah, considering what a large percentage of his audience he's likely alienating. The play, in a nutshell, is about how gentrification has basically ruined Williamsburg... though it could just as easily be applied to many areas of New York City, where the crack dens have been replaced with Whole Foods. I would think this play would be most potent to New Yorkers, who see so called hipsters on their way to the L-train each and every day. I was trying to tell my father how when I'm on the subway going down to Union Square, I can always spot the hipsters who are going to transfer to the L, but he had no clue what a hipster was. Then again, this play was apparently well received in Berkley, CA (though, is that really so different from Williamsburg, I wonder?), and I think the downside of gentrification is a fairly universal thing. In the play, Hoch plays a whole series of characters - from a real estate developer and hipster selling vintage t-shirts on the street, to taxi dispatcher and an older black woman sitting on her stoop. The characters are all quite funny, but there's also something kind of disturbing about each of them, and the views they express. Certainly one could argue Starbucks, Whole Foods, art galleries and bike lanes are far preferable to the free roaming of druggies, common mugging and stabbing, and seedy bodegas with nary an organic vegetable or box of soy milk in site - but it's just so interesting to see play that's not trying to be fair and balanced, and not trying to pander to the "in" crowd. I'm usually wary of solo plays, and especially one on as seemingly dull a topic as gentrification, but this was one... well, I don't know if pleasant is the word for the play, but... was a satisfying surprise.
Also, surprisingly good was Martha Clarke's "The Garden of Earthly Delights." I'm not the world biggest dance fan, though I'm not one to shy away from a full length ballet or a particularly intriguing sounding piece at the Joyce or ABT or whatnot. But as for Ms. Clarke, well the only other work of hers I'd seen was "Belle Epoque," and I can't say I found that to be a particularly enriching experience. But "The Garden of Earthly Delights" (based on the Bosch painting) turns out to be a fairly exciting work. I'll admit there were times that I was bored, but it's only an hour long, so you know even if there are parts that are awful, it'll be over soon enough. And actually, the good parts far outweighed the bad. Highlights included some rather lovely flying effects (provided by Flying By Foy, no less), and an extremely amusing section where a harpy attacks the cellist(?). Oh, and there's also a scene that involves farting and a woman pooing potatoes - but those who like that more crude humor. Um, so we have pooing potatoes, a string instrument player being attacked and people flying... in nude body stockings. What's not to like? ;O) Gosh, I think I just made this sound like some awful tastles porno. There are other scenes that involve beautiful movement as well - the opening scene is especially lovely, though I found myself wondering whether the surely large chiropracter bill for the dancers was included in the budget. Yeah, so if you have an hour to spare one night, I would definitely recommend a visit to the Minetta Lane. And not that the cheapest ticket options (tdf, etc) give you a seating choice, but if you happen to, I'm pretty sure this show is best seen from the mezzanine. That's where I was sitting anyway, and I was very happy with the view, especially for the scenes that involved flying. And I tend to think that for dance, sitting farther away is useful for taking in the whole picture.
And that's all for now.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Bringing Ugly Back To Broadway
When the tagline for your musical is "Bringing Ugly Back," you had better be darn sure that your show looks gorgeous or you're just asking for trouble. I don't think anyone's forgotten the "Dance of the Vampires" tagline that went something like "If you think Broadway musicals suck now - just you wait," and how true that turned out to be. Well, I went to "Shrek" tonight hoping that the piles of money Dreamworks has surely poured on the musical would at least mean it would look good. But really, fate is something that really should not be tempted, because boy is the show ugly. Not ugly in the wrongheaded overly pretnetious plexiglass way of "The Little Mermaid." Shrek: The Musical has almost the opposite problem. Instead of the show looking too artsy for its own good, it looks like the designs have a very commercial, overly literal feel to them, like they were plucked out of a theme park show. With the exception of Lord Farquaad, there seemed to me to be very little imagination or thinking outside of the box with the costume design. As for the set, well... it's just plain ugly. Because I enjoyed much of the material, I couldn't help but wish I could see the show as just a staged reading, a la Encores. Because I think there's a pretty good show in there, it's just a big overwhelmed by the underwhelming visuals.
Free from the influence of Tony Kushner, Jeanine Tesori's first post-"Caroline or Change" Broadway score is pretty catchy. The song I assume everyone will leave humming is "Big Bright Beautiful World," especially considering it's both the opening and closing number - with a few odd refrains also peppered throughout. David Lindsay-Abaire's book and lyrics are pretty amusing. The show felt a bit long overall (the little boy next to me was really squirming in the second act - the fact that the story turns more romantic and ballad heavier probably didn't help). In the second act, the fairy tale characters - who we haven't seen since the top of the first act, ranomdly return and sing this big song about being freaks. It came totally of out nowhere, and would be my chocie for first song to go.
The choreography is uneven - there are a couple of scenes where it is inspired, and others where I was left twiddling my thumbs. But far the highlight of the show - where everything - song, choreography, design, performance - melds into one blissful moment of showstopping hilarity, is "What's Up Duloc?" - the song that introduces us to the world of Duloc, realm of Lord Farquaad (if you remember from the movie, the little automated musical puppet show that Shrek and Donkey encounter when they first enter the kingdom - it's an extension of that). Really though, anytime Christophe Sieber's hilarious Farquaad was onstage, the show definitely picked up a notch - both because he's really very funny, and because the way they costume him to make him look short, is a source of endless and endlessly funny sight gags.
As for the rest of the cast, they're all fine. Brian D'Arcy James (Shrek) and Sutton Foster (Fiona) pretty much channel they're animated film counterparts (he has the Scottish accent, and she's just generic princess). The only actor who strays from his source voice-actor is Daniel Breaker, who bizarrely chooses to make Donkey rather flamboyant. It's different from Eddie Murphy, but I'm not sure if it really worked or not. I will say I preferred his songs to his book scenes, though.
Enough rambling now. Overall, I'd say the show is fine - not spectacular, but entertaining enough for what it is (a big commercial musical, based on a hit film). It's not The Lion King or Billy Elliot, but it's not Tarzan or The Little Mermaid either. It needs trimming and some other work (well, it needs a visual overall, but realistically that's never going to happen), and that's what previews are for. I'm curious to see how the show progresses when I see it again in January, if not sooner.
Let's say this for now for the current state of the show - at the curtain call, only a very small number of people gave the show a standing ovation. I'm as anti-standing as the next guy, but I think we all know that when a big tourist musical like "Shrek" isn't getting people to jump to their feet - especially with the economy the way it is - there's work to be done if this thing is going to survive.
That's all for now.
Oh, and really quickly - I went to see the new production of Faust at the Met on Friday. I didn't think it was possible, but it makes Tristan und Isolde look action-packed by comparison. Visual design was... interesting - makes me look forward to the Lepage Ring, anyway. And I left humming "Maria" from "West Side Story" (for some reason the music in the Marguerite scene just really sounded like the title name from the song).
Free from the influence of Tony Kushner, Jeanine Tesori's first post-"Caroline or Change" Broadway score is pretty catchy. The song I assume everyone will leave humming is "Big Bright Beautiful World," especially considering it's both the opening and closing number - with a few odd refrains also peppered throughout. David Lindsay-Abaire's book and lyrics are pretty amusing. The show felt a bit long overall (the little boy next to me was really squirming in the second act - the fact that the story turns more romantic and ballad heavier probably didn't help). In the second act, the fairy tale characters - who we haven't seen since the top of the first act, ranomdly return and sing this big song about being freaks. It came totally of out nowhere, and would be my chocie for first song to go.
The choreography is uneven - there are a couple of scenes where it is inspired, and others where I was left twiddling my thumbs. But far the highlight of the show - where everything - song, choreography, design, performance - melds into one blissful moment of showstopping hilarity, is "What's Up Duloc?" - the song that introduces us to the world of Duloc, realm of Lord Farquaad (if you remember from the movie, the little automated musical puppet show that Shrek and Donkey encounter when they first enter the kingdom - it's an extension of that). Really though, anytime Christophe Sieber's hilarious Farquaad was onstage, the show definitely picked up a notch - both because he's really very funny, and because the way they costume him to make him look short, is a source of endless and endlessly funny sight gags.
As for the rest of the cast, they're all fine. Brian D'Arcy James (Shrek) and Sutton Foster (Fiona) pretty much channel they're animated film counterparts (he has the Scottish accent, and she's just generic princess). The only actor who strays from his source voice-actor is Daniel Breaker, who bizarrely chooses to make Donkey rather flamboyant. It's different from Eddie Murphy, but I'm not sure if it really worked or not. I will say I preferred his songs to his book scenes, though.
Enough rambling now. Overall, I'd say the show is fine - not spectacular, but entertaining enough for what it is (a big commercial musical, based on a hit film). It's not The Lion King or Billy Elliot, but it's not Tarzan or The Little Mermaid either. It needs trimming and some other work (well, it needs a visual overall, but realistically that's never going to happen), and that's what previews are for. I'm curious to see how the show progresses when I see it again in January, if not sooner.
Let's say this for now for the current state of the show - at the curtain call, only a very small number of people gave the show a standing ovation. I'm as anti-standing as the next guy, but I think we all know that when a big tourist musical like "Shrek" isn't getting people to jump to their feet - especially with the economy the way it is - there's work to be done if this thing is going to survive.
That's all for now.
Oh, and really quickly - I went to see the new production of Faust at the Met on Friday. I didn't think it was possible, but it makes Tristan und Isolde look action-packed by comparison. Visual design was... interesting - makes me look forward to the Lepage Ring, anyway. And I left humming "Maria" from "West Side Story" (for some reason the music in the Marguerite scene just really sounded like the title name from the song).
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Romantic Poetry Songlists
Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd type up the songlists for the two different productions of "Romantic Poetry" that I've seen - the (cute, entertaining, charming) 2007 New York Stage & Film production, and the (horrid, putrid, dull) 2008 Manhattan Theatre Club one. So people can see how the songs and characters changed over the course of the (ill advised) rewrites.
ROMANTIC POETRY (2007 New York Stage & Film Production)
ACT ONE
Scene One - The Honeymoon
Romantic Poetry (Company)
Listen to Me (Connie, Fred)
The Five Towers (Fred)
Wildflowers (Connie, Fred)
For a Third Time - Part 1 (Connie, Fred)
Rhumba Woman - Part 1 (Connie, Fred)
Scene Two - Fishing
For a Third Time - Part 2 (Carl, Red)
Go Through the Motions (Carl, Red)
Get Up (Carl, Red, Company)
Scene Three - Lawyers Office
Wild Flowers - Reprise (Connie, Fred Company)
Rhumba Woman (Connie, Fred Company)
Wedding Song (Connie, Fred Company)
I'm Coming Back (Connie, Red Company)
ACT TWO
Scene One - The Patio
All Over Again (Company)
Cootie Bug (Arthur, Company)
In Dirty, Out Clean (Arthur, Company)
Easy (Arthur, Judy)
How Many Women? (Judy)
Crazy Lights (Judy)
You're My Only Guy (Judy)
All Over Again - Reprise (Arthur Judy)
Scene Two - The Fire Escape
New York Bird (Lily)
There's a Fire (Lily)
Through the Night (Cop, Mr. Brilla)
Crazy Lights - Reprise (Judy)
An Ordinary Man (Lily, Wally)
Scene Three - The Bar
I Am a Bartender (Mr. Brilla)
New York Bird - Reprise (Lily)
Outcast (Arthur, Lily)
Roses (Mr. Brilla)
Champagne (Arthur, Lily, Mr. Brilla)
Beauty (Company)
Walking Up the Stairs (Company)
Romantic Poetry (Company)
ROMANTIC POETRY (2008 Manhattan Theatre Club Production)
ACT ONE
Romantic Poetry (Company)
Connie My Bride (Connie & Fred)
Destiny (Mary & Frankie)
The Five Towns (Connie & Fred)
I Have No Words (Connie)
For a Third Time (Connie & Fred)
Rumba Woman (Company)
Go Through the Motions (Carl & Red)
Trouble (Mary & Frankie)
Wait a Minute (Connie, Fred, Red & Carl)
What About Love? (Connie)
I Have No Words - Reprise (Company)
Where is Our Real Love? (Fred)
ACT TWO
While You Were in the Lobby (Company)
So I Got Married/He's Rich/I'm Bored (Connie & Company of Crickets)
Crazy Lights (Connie & Fred)
Is Anybody Home?/There's a Fire (Frankie & Mary)
Through the Night (Red & Carl)
The Curse (Company)
Do You Think It's Easy? (Connie, Fred, Mary & Frankie)
An Ordinary Man (Frankie)
You're My Only Guy (Connie)
No One Listens to the Poor (Carl & Fred)
Give Me Love, or Let Me Wait (Fred, Carl & Mary)
Beauty (Company)
Walking Up The Stairs (Company)
ROMANTIC POETRY (2007 New York Stage & Film Production)
ACT ONE
Scene One - The Honeymoon
Romantic Poetry (Company)
Listen to Me (Connie, Fred)
The Five Towers (Fred)
Wildflowers (Connie, Fred)
For a Third Time - Part 1 (Connie, Fred)
Rhumba Woman - Part 1 (Connie, Fred)
Scene Two - Fishing
For a Third Time - Part 2 (Carl, Red)
Go Through the Motions (Carl, Red)
Get Up (Carl, Red, Company)
Scene Three - Lawyers Office
Wild Flowers - Reprise (Connie, Fred Company)
Rhumba Woman (Connie, Fred Company)
Wedding Song (Connie, Fred Company)
I'm Coming Back (Connie, Red Company)
ACT TWO
Scene One - The Patio
All Over Again (Company)
Cootie Bug (Arthur, Company)
In Dirty, Out Clean (Arthur, Company)
Easy (Arthur, Judy)
How Many Women? (Judy)
Crazy Lights (Judy)
You're My Only Guy (Judy)
All Over Again - Reprise (Arthur Judy)
Scene Two - The Fire Escape
New York Bird (Lily)
There's a Fire (Lily)
Through the Night (Cop, Mr. Brilla)
Crazy Lights - Reprise (Judy)
An Ordinary Man (Lily, Wally)
Scene Three - The Bar
I Am a Bartender (Mr. Brilla)
New York Bird - Reprise (Lily)
Outcast (Arthur, Lily)
Roses (Mr. Brilla)
Champagne (Arthur, Lily, Mr. Brilla)
Beauty (Company)
Walking Up the Stairs (Company)
Romantic Poetry (Company)
ROMANTIC POETRY (2008 Manhattan Theatre Club Production)
ACT ONE
Romantic Poetry (Company)
Connie My Bride (Connie & Fred)
Destiny (Mary & Frankie)
The Five Towns (Connie & Fred)
I Have No Words (Connie)
For a Third Time (Connie & Fred)
Rumba Woman (Company)
Go Through the Motions (Carl & Red)
Trouble (Mary & Frankie)
Wait a Minute (Connie, Fred, Red & Carl)
What About Love? (Connie)
I Have No Words - Reprise (Company)
Where is Our Real Love? (Fred)
ACT TWO
While You Were in the Lobby (Company)
So I Got Married/He's Rich/I'm Bored (Connie & Company of Crickets)
Crazy Lights (Connie & Fred)
Is Anybody Home?/There's a Fire (Frankie & Mary)
Through the Night (Red & Carl)
The Curse (Company)
Do You Think It's Easy? (Connie, Fred, Mary & Frankie)
An Ordinary Man (Frankie)
You're My Only Guy (Connie)
No One Listens to the Poor (Carl & Fred)
Give Me Love, or Let Me Wait (Fred, Carl & Mary)
Beauty (Company)
Walking Up The Stairs (Company)
Insipid Poetry
You would think that with a musical with a title like "Romantic Poetry," Manhattan Theatre Club might have programmed the show to run around February so it open near Valentine's Day. And yet, surprisingly enough after having seen the musical in its current incarnation, October seems an extremely appropriate month for the show, because it turns out the musical is so horrifyingly bad, that it will likely rival many a haunted house for most frightening theatrical presentation of the Halloween season. A new musical by John Patrick Shanley and Henry Krieger - sounds good on paper, no? Well it turns out that those two were playing a little game of Trick or Treat with their audience, and instead of the expected treat, this is most definitely a trick. What makes the trick so very upsetting - to me anyway - is that I saw "Romantic Poetry" when it played at New York Stage & Film in the summer of 2007, and found it to be rather charming. I remember thinking to myself that it would make a cute and pleasant off-Broadway show. In that version, the show was made up of (if I'm recalling correctly) three separate short romantic musicals, with plots that somehow came together into a nice neat little bow at the end. Just to confirm that I'm not totally loony, I pulled out my program from that production, and based on the groupings in the song list, there seem to definitely be three separate sets of characters, whose songs do not overlap until the final scene. I'lll add, that comparing just the songs lists themselves, the songs seem to mostly different from the last production as well. From my memory of the 2007 production, it seems like Shanley took the characters from the second and third stories, and just shoehorned the characters from the first into the arcs of the now cut ones. So instead of have three separate set of characters, they just magically transform from one to the other, keeping the same names and story baggage. I'm sure I'm not explaining my point as well as I'd like, but let's say as little sense as that explanation made, is also as little sense as the newly reworked story makes. It's just a travesty.
Also worsened since the 2007 production is the set. Which is to say that the earlier production had a set, and this one... well doesn't. The set in this production looks makes the show look like something you'd expect to see on a prison barge... I mean cruise ship, or maybe onstage at the Goodman Theatre where Turn of the Century is playing, since they are similar in their minimalist ugliness, making do with minimal props, a couple of curtains, and a piano.
What else... the less said about the "poetry" of the title the better, because Shanley's lyrics are almost painfully bad. I would suggest not listening to the lyrics and just listening to the pretty melodies, except the melodies aren't much to listen to either. We get a stick to your brain title song, but that's about it.
The actors all try hard, I guess, but it's really a lost cause.
When "Romantic Poetry" was announced as part of the MTC season, I was really excited to see it. Even when it received unanimous pans in today's papers/websites I thought maybe the critics just were trying to take it too seriously. Well, they were all right. I almost fled at intermission, but not knowing that we were no longer getting three separate stories, I figured the second act would be totally different, and maybe better. It was actually worse. After about ten minutes of the second act, when I realized things weren't improving I was tempted to just get up and leave. Ah, if only I'd had an aisle seat. Instead I was trapped for a second hour of ghastly drivel. Do yourself a favor and stay away from this show. It may sound good on paper, it may have been good when produced up at NYS&F, but it is not worth suffering through in this production. Disappointing doesn't begin to describe the experience.
Also worsened since the 2007 production is the set. Which is to say that the earlier production had a set, and this one... well doesn't. The set in this production looks makes the show look like something you'd expect to see on a prison barge... I mean cruise ship, or maybe onstage at the Goodman Theatre where Turn of the Century is playing, since they are similar in their minimalist ugliness, making do with minimal props, a couple of curtains, and a piano.
What else... the less said about the "poetry" of the title the better, because Shanley's lyrics are almost painfully bad. I would suggest not listening to the lyrics and just listening to the pretty melodies, except the melodies aren't much to listen to either. We get a stick to your brain title song, but that's about it.
The actors all try hard, I guess, but it's really a lost cause.
When "Romantic Poetry" was announced as part of the MTC season, I was really excited to see it. Even when it received unanimous pans in today's papers/websites I thought maybe the critics just were trying to take it too seriously. Well, they were all right. I almost fled at intermission, but not knowing that we were no longer getting three separate stories, I figured the second act would be totally different, and maybe better. It was actually worse. After about ten minutes of the second act, when I realized things weren't improving I was tempted to just get up and leave. Ah, if only I'd had an aisle seat. Instead I was trapped for a second hour of ghastly drivel. Do yourself a favor and stay away from this show. It may sound good on paper, it may have been good when produced up at NYS&F, but it is not worth suffering through in this production. Disappointing doesn't begin to describe the experience.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The NEW SONDHEIM MUSICAL formerly known as Wise Guys-Gold-Bounce
I'm home from the first preview of Wise Guys... I mean Gold... I mean Bounce... oh right, I mean Road Show, the new Sondheim-Weidman musical. I hate to say because it's been kicking around for so many decades that it's probably futile at this point, but it needs work. It's not as bad as I feared, but neither is it as good as I was hoping. The main problem, I think, is that the lives of the Mizner brothers were a bit too action packed to make one cohesive musical. They were involved in wacky scheme after wacky scheme, and it's like no one wanted to cut any of the story, and so we end up with these long montage songs that pack a whole bunch of these schemes into one neat package. Which is fine, except they all just seem to get glossed over, and rather than getting the audience excited about how they did all of these things, it becomes more menotinous and boring, and I found I sort of stopped caring. Things finally settle down when the brothers get to Florida, and a real story starts to form, but at that point it was really too late. I wish they could have focused on just that part of their lives. The entire life story of the brothers could probably fill a dozen musicals - but we don't need a dozen, we need one. Apparently when the show was called Bounce, the first act was made up of the bulk of the crazy schemes, and the second act was Florida. And maybe a musical just about the Mizners in Florida would be just as dull. Apparently when the show was Bounce, the entire second act was about Florida. Now the show has been cut down to around an hour and forty-five minutes without intermission, and it's all just one fairly unfocused big mish-mosh.
Musically, the show isn't Sondheim's finest work. The song everyone will leave humming (I assume) is the song formerly known as Bounce, which has been given an entirely new set of lyrics - leaving us humming both because it's a very reptitive melody, and because it's repeated umpteen times throughout the show, between it's time served as both opening and closing number. Other than that, there's the song that sounds an awful lot like something from Assassins, there's some generic Sondheim-y sounding filler music, and there are couple of songs that actually do seem like standouts - there's a ballad the mother, and the last few songs in the show (heated stuff between the brothers), that I'd think would be worth at least a couple more listens again. Hopefully this version be recorded (and I imagine since it's a mostly new Sondheim score - mostly new since we already have a recording of the version called Bounce), I'd think some record label would jump at the chance just because. I know I'd buy it anyway.
Visually, the show definitely looks like a John Doyle musical (he also did the scenic design). No, the actors don't play musical intruments, but they all wear very pale make-up (like in Sweeney), the sparse set is made up of piles of drawers and trunks (meaning furniture, not clothing) and chests, and the actors are all, I'm pretty sure, on stage the entire time, watching the action (in fairly unattractive suits and dresses with architectural drawings on them).
That all said, I can't really say I was ever terribly bored during the show. Maybe it was just that it just kept up my excitement level because I kept hoping it would get better. And it does 'get better,' near the end of the show, when just when you didn't think it ever would, things finally do actually come together in as close to an emotionally satisfying ending as they could muster. This is probably the sort of show that if written by anyone other than his royal highness Stephen Sondheim, would be fairly quickly forgotten. But because it's HRH Sondheim, I, and I imagine most everyone else, will look for any small positive to cling to, because let's face it, this is a show that every musical theatre lover is rooting for. I'm going back at the end of previews to see this again, and I hope it improves. And you know, I suppose an okay show from Sondheim is probably better than a very good show from anyone else, but let's hope the 'wise guys' who are working on this show can 'bounce' back and 'strike gold' with this material. My fingers remain firmly crossed.
(And as a side note, imagine if Road Show, Minsky's and The Visit all made it to Broadway this season - we could have Sondheim, Charles Strouse and John Kander all competing for the Tony for best score. A boy can dream, can't he?)
I saw what feels like around four zillion other shows the past week or so (Equus, Steamers, The Language of Trees, Boys' Life, Farragut North, The Marvelous Wonderettes, Saturn Returns), but I think those will have to wait until my next entry, because I've gone on far too long.
EDIT (10/28/08, 10:14).
One more thing I forgot to mention about Road Show. Doyle has the characters throw piles of money in the air quite a lot. To the point where people in the front row probably could have used umbrellas. Every time another character would throw some more in the air, I couldn't help but chuckle as I watched the bills fall on the heads or laps or shoulders of audience members. A completely pointless anecdote, so I'm not sure why I felt the need to add it. But there you go.
Musically, the show isn't Sondheim's finest work. The song everyone will leave humming (I assume) is the song formerly known as Bounce, which has been given an entirely new set of lyrics - leaving us humming both because it's a very reptitive melody, and because it's repeated umpteen times throughout the show, between it's time served as both opening and closing number. Other than that, there's the song that sounds an awful lot like something from Assassins, there's some generic Sondheim-y sounding filler music, and there are couple of songs that actually do seem like standouts - there's a ballad the mother, and the last few songs in the show (heated stuff between the brothers), that I'd think would be worth at least a couple more listens again. Hopefully this version be recorded (and I imagine since it's a mostly new Sondheim score - mostly new since we already have a recording of the version called Bounce), I'd think some record label would jump at the chance just because. I know I'd buy it anyway.
Visually, the show definitely looks like a John Doyle musical (he also did the scenic design). No, the actors don't play musical intruments, but they all wear very pale make-up (like in Sweeney), the sparse set is made up of piles of drawers and trunks (meaning furniture, not clothing) and chests, and the actors are all, I'm pretty sure, on stage the entire time, watching the action (in fairly unattractive suits and dresses with architectural drawings on them).
That all said, I can't really say I was ever terribly bored during the show. Maybe it was just that it just kept up my excitement level because I kept hoping it would get better. And it does 'get better,' near the end of the show, when just when you didn't think it ever would, things finally do actually come together in as close to an emotionally satisfying ending as they could muster. This is probably the sort of show that if written by anyone other than his royal highness Stephen Sondheim, would be fairly quickly forgotten. But because it's HRH Sondheim, I, and I imagine most everyone else, will look for any small positive to cling to, because let's face it, this is a show that every musical theatre lover is rooting for. I'm going back at the end of previews to see this again, and I hope it improves. And you know, I suppose an okay show from Sondheim is probably better than a very good show from anyone else, but let's hope the 'wise guys' who are working on this show can 'bounce' back and 'strike gold' with this material. My fingers remain firmly crossed.
(And as a side note, imagine if Road Show, Minsky's and The Visit all made it to Broadway this season - we could have Sondheim, Charles Strouse and John Kander all competing for the Tony for best score. A boy can dream, can't he?)
I saw what feels like around four zillion other shows the past week or so (Equus, Steamers, The Language of Trees, Boys' Life, Farragut North, The Marvelous Wonderettes, Saturn Returns), but I think those will have to wait until my next entry, because I've gone on far too long.
EDIT (10/28/08, 10:14).
One more thing I forgot to mention about Road Show. Doyle has the characters throw piles of money in the air quite a lot. To the point where people in the front row probably could have used umbrellas. Every time another character would throw some more in the air, I couldn't help but chuckle as I watched the bills fall on the heads or laps or shoulders of audience members. A completely pointless anecdote, so I'm not sure why I felt the need to add it. But there you go.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Chicago: They Do Things They Don't Do On Broadway
Hello from warm and sunny Chicago. Who’d have thunk there’d be a random heat wave for the three days I’m here (80 degrees in October?). According to the weatherperson temps will go back down to normal (around 60) when the rain comes on Tuesday - aka the day I leave for home. Aw shucks. Anyway, I’m not going to bore you with the details of the nitty and gritty of what I’ve done since I’m here, but I will bore you with some thoughts on the four show I’ve seen since over the last two days (only thing left is “The Pearl Fishers” at the Lyric Opera which I know no one cares about anyway).
TURN OF THE CENTURY. The new jukebox musical with a book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (the guys who wrote Jersey Boys) and directed by the one and only Tommy Tune. And it stars Jeff Daniels and Rachel York. Well, it sounded good on paper anyway. After seeing the show, I’d nickname is “TURN on a Dime” because boy oh boy does it look cheap. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but when I think Tommy Tune musical, I think big spectacle with big fabulous dance numbers. And this, well, is neither of those things. All I kept thinking while watching it was “Where’s the set?” For most of the show, the stage is pretty much completely bare with the exception of a piano, and every now and then maybe a curtain or a chaise or a table and some chairs. All of the “scenery” is created through projections - but not projections like say “The Woman in White” where it looks like we’re watching a supersized video game, circa 1990 - not this is more like three large windows for an office, or one small one for an apartment (one small window projected in a random spot high up on a huge otherwise blank wall - ooh boy). Maybe if the choreography had been more exciting, then the big dances could have filled the stage. Alas, no. Tune handed over the choreography duties to Noah Racey (best known for starring in “Never Gonna Dance“ on Broadway), who does not impress in his first big job in the role. The dancing all looks like lame ripoffs of stuff we’ve seen before. Presenting dances inspired by those of the period is one thing, but they need something to make them seem new and special and to make them pop. The songs are all ones we’ve heard many times before, but they’re given fresh new takes by the arranger, and that makes what could have been stale, sort of exciting and new. Speaking of stale, did I mention the Rickman and Elice’s book yet? The premise is that a pianist (who knows every melody every written) and a singer (who knows every lyric every written) are magically taken back in time (the reason for this is never really explained) from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 1899. They soon realize that all of the great songs they know - by the likes of Gershwin and Porter and Rodgers and Berlin - haven’t been written yet, so they can pass them off as their own and become rich and famous. Sounds like a decent enough concept. Unfortunately, once we get past the initial rise to fame and the resulting amusing medley of re-imagined famous songs (which I’m guessing takes a half hour or so - I couldn’t see my watch well enough in the dark), the next hour and a quarter are something of a stretch. There are a few amusing one liners, but as anyone who sat through Young Frankenstein: The Muscial will tell you, a bunch of one-liners do not an interesting musical make. Jeff Daniels and Rachel York are both fabulous, though I can’t say I really saw any sparks between them, considering we’re supposed to assume they’re going to eventually end up together. Enough dwelling on the negative. What was good? Well, the costumes are quite nice - maybe that’s where the budget went. And as I mentioned before, pretty much anytime there’s a song being sung, the show manages to be pretty entertaining - though I did keep imagining that if they just cut the entire book, the show would do quite well on the cruise ship circuit. There are I think two new songs in the show by Maury Yeston. One was a dreadful song sung I think in orange-face (I couldn’t tell if the actor had a bad fake tan, or they didn’t want to offend with blackface, so they made him orange), and the other is a typical Yeston ballad - perhaps not his finest work, but definitely distinctly his. So obviously this show needs a lot of work before it can even think of trying to come to New York. I have to say at this point I’m rather skeptical that it will ever come, but a major overhaul is definitely in order. Yes, that’s what out of town tryouts are for. So I guess we’ll see what happens.
EDWARD II. This was the last show I booked - and it was between this and the American premiere of “Dirty Dancing: Live on Stage.” I ended up choosing “Edward II” partly because I was intrigued that it was going to use ‘promenade staging’ (where there is no “stage” and there are no “seats” - the actors and audience all stand together on the set, and we watch as everything happens literally inches from us) and because it had a slightly higher profile than usual thanks to Jeffrey Carlson (of “The Goat,” “Taboo,” and a bunch of other major shows in NY) in the title role. Anyway, it turned out to be a good decision. The promenade staging seemed sort of in between a regular modern dress staging and something like Punchdrunk’s “Faust” in London where the audience wanders from room to room in a warehouse, hoping to catch enough scenes to be able to follow the story. Here, everything happens in one room, so there’s no chance of missing any of the story. Obviously Christopher Marlowe can be boring and dry in a traditional staging, but here director Sean Graney really managed to find a way to make Marlowe once again easily accessible and relevant and exciting. The play is apparently normally three hours long, but here (so the audience doesn’t keel over from exhaustion from standing for so long), it’s cut to 75 minutes. Which was really just the right length. The acting fabulous all around. I mean, when you have to act with audience members standing all around you, some literally inches away, there is really nowhere to hide. Any falseness will be immediately obvious. This is the sort of exciting and avant-garde theatre that’s missing from the NY theatre scene. Hopefully Graney will eventually be plucked by one of the more daring off or off-off-Broadway companies, so we can see this sort of stuff closer to home.
MANON. If this was playing at the Met, I would probably go see every performance. This is just absolutely spectacular. Natalie Dessay played the title role to perfection, and Jonas Kaufman was a marvelous Des Grieux - the acting, the chemistry, the singing - it just doesn’t get any better than this. I had somehow managed never to see this opera before (I checked and the Met last did it in 2005-06, with *cringe* Renee Fleming and before that in 2000/2001 with Ruth Ann Swenson), so I guess it just fell through the cracks in my schedule. Having seen the Puccini version of the opera last season (including that comically long death scene in the desert of Louisiana), there’s really no comparison with the beautiful, heartbreaking - but also quite funny - Massenet version. I can’t remember the last time I went to an opera where I didn’t know any of the music beforehand and actually left humming. Even the staging was magnificent. It’s a sort of a cross between a modern and a traditional staging - the actors all wear period costumes, but there’s a sort of an amphitheatre set up on stage, where at various times the chorus watches the action and boos the villain (when comically appropriate) or laughs at the comedy, etc. Yes, it’s a bit bare bones - there aren’t too many set pieces - just chairs or tables or a bathtub or a desk, but it was always enough to tell us where we were in each scenes, and unlike in “Turn of the Century,” the stage never felt bare or under-furnished or -financed. There were even inspired touches in the staging like having the chorus dance along with the overture. Not that there’s anything wrong with an overture sans visuals, but I’ll admit my mind has been known to wander during them. Not this time. The only flaw I found - and it was such a minor one - was that the random ballet thrown into the third act (to comply with the conventions at the time the opera was written, I gather), was kind of dull. But tis only a minor quibble. The acting and the singing were just so breathtaking and real, it was really overwhelming. Obviously neither Dessay nor Kaufmann is a teenager as the characters they play are, but they really managed to convey the appropriate innocence that that age would have given them. I can only hope and pray that Peter Gelb will get Dessay to do this in New York. According to the Met Futures page, the opera isn’t scheduled to return to the Met until 2011-12 season, and then in a new production with Anna Netrebko. Maybe Trebs can get pregnant around then, so she can be replaced in the roster by Dessay. That would be a doubly happy occasion, no? In the meanwhile, I’m going to order the dvd of this production when I get home (with Dessay and Rolando Villazon). I’m skeptical of dvds or opera, and whether Villazon could be as good as Kaufmann, but any chance to have a visual of Dessay doing the role can’t be bad. As soon as I got home from the opera on Saturday night, I downloaded a recording of (a different production) of the opera, which I’m listening to right now. Ah, bliss. This is definitely one of my new favorites.
KAFKA ON THE SHORE. The obligatory Steppenwolf production of the stay. I bought and read the book after I booked my ticket to see the play (highly recommended, by the way), and then I read the reviews. And they basically seemed to say that if you haven’t read the book, you’ll have no idea what’s going on. But if you have read it, well the play isn’t as good as the book. And I suspect both were true, leaving a sort of catch 22. As with any stage adaptation of a novel, there were huge chunks of the story cut out - including much of the character development. There were parts that worked (the parts where they sing the song “Kafka on the Shore” were particularly moving), but overall, I can’t say I was thrilled. Particularly uninspired was the costuming of the talking cats - they were going for the simple approach (as opposed to the relative realism in the musical “Cats”) - but I could imagine it being sometime confusing figuring out whether a cat or a human was speaking - to those who had not read the novel. And having the cats just dressed in what looked like ordinary street clothes, with the actors trying to give the characters more cat-like qualities via their physical and vocal inflections - while perhaps of some artistic merit, wasn’t all that effective, and seemed a bit… tacky. The staging was otherwise quite nice. The entire stage and set was painted blue, and there were various panels that would rise or split apart to give us the various scenes. Not necessarily the most inspired staging I’ve seen, but not offensive either. The whole thing was adapted and directed by Frank Galati (director of everyone but the NY Times’ favorite musical “The Visit,” along with “The Pirate Queen”and “Ragtime” on Broadway). Oh, I should mention that Francis Guinan was a highlight in the roles of Johnny Walker (in the first act) and Colonel Sanders (in the second). He seemed to be having quite a good time. The other acting was very good as well, but his scenes were definite highlights.
Okay, c’est tout for now.
TURN OF THE CENTURY. The new jukebox musical with a book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (the guys who wrote Jersey Boys) and directed by the one and only Tommy Tune. And it stars Jeff Daniels and Rachel York. Well, it sounded good on paper anyway. After seeing the show, I’d nickname is “TURN on a Dime” because boy oh boy does it look cheap. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but when I think Tommy Tune musical, I think big spectacle with big fabulous dance numbers. And this, well, is neither of those things. All I kept thinking while watching it was “Where’s the set?” For most of the show, the stage is pretty much completely bare with the exception of a piano, and every now and then maybe a curtain or a chaise or a table and some chairs. All of the “scenery” is created through projections - but not projections like say “The Woman in White” where it looks like we’re watching a supersized video game, circa 1990 - not this is more like three large windows for an office, or one small one for an apartment (one small window projected in a random spot high up on a huge otherwise blank wall - ooh boy). Maybe if the choreography had been more exciting, then the big dances could have filled the stage. Alas, no. Tune handed over the choreography duties to Noah Racey (best known for starring in “Never Gonna Dance“ on Broadway), who does not impress in his first big job in the role. The dancing all looks like lame ripoffs of stuff we’ve seen before. Presenting dances inspired by those of the period is one thing, but they need something to make them seem new and special and to make them pop. The songs are all ones we’ve heard many times before, but they’re given fresh new takes by the arranger, and that makes what could have been stale, sort of exciting and new. Speaking of stale, did I mention the Rickman and Elice’s book yet? The premise is that a pianist (who knows every melody every written) and a singer (who knows every lyric every written) are magically taken back in time (the reason for this is never really explained) from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 1899. They soon realize that all of the great songs they know - by the likes of Gershwin and Porter and Rodgers and Berlin - haven’t been written yet, so they can pass them off as their own and become rich and famous. Sounds like a decent enough concept. Unfortunately, once we get past the initial rise to fame and the resulting amusing medley of re-imagined famous songs (which I’m guessing takes a half hour or so - I couldn’t see my watch well enough in the dark), the next hour and a quarter are something of a stretch. There are a few amusing one liners, but as anyone who sat through Young Frankenstein: The Muscial will tell you, a bunch of one-liners do not an interesting musical make. Jeff Daniels and Rachel York are both fabulous, though I can’t say I really saw any sparks between them, considering we’re supposed to assume they’re going to eventually end up together. Enough dwelling on the negative. What was good? Well, the costumes are quite nice - maybe that’s where the budget went. And as I mentioned before, pretty much anytime there’s a song being sung, the show manages to be pretty entertaining - though I did keep imagining that if they just cut the entire book, the show would do quite well on the cruise ship circuit. There are I think two new songs in the show by Maury Yeston. One was a dreadful song sung I think in orange-face (I couldn’t tell if the actor had a bad fake tan, or they didn’t want to offend with blackface, so they made him orange), and the other is a typical Yeston ballad - perhaps not his finest work, but definitely distinctly his. So obviously this show needs a lot of work before it can even think of trying to come to New York. I have to say at this point I’m rather skeptical that it will ever come, but a major overhaul is definitely in order. Yes, that’s what out of town tryouts are for. So I guess we’ll see what happens.
EDWARD II. This was the last show I booked - and it was between this and the American premiere of “Dirty Dancing: Live on Stage.” I ended up choosing “Edward II” partly because I was intrigued that it was going to use ‘promenade staging’ (where there is no “stage” and there are no “seats” - the actors and audience all stand together on the set, and we watch as everything happens literally inches from us) and because it had a slightly higher profile than usual thanks to Jeffrey Carlson (of “The Goat,” “Taboo,” and a bunch of other major shows in NY) in the title role. Anyway, it turned out to be a good decision. The promenade staging seemed sort of in between a regular modern dress staging and something like Punchdrunk’s “Faust” in London where the audience wanders from room to room in a warehouse, hoping to catch enough scenes to be able to follow the story. Here, everything happens in one room, so there’s no chance of missing any of the story. Obviously Christopher Marlowe can be boring and dry in a traditional staging, but here director Sean Graney really managed to find a way to make Marlowe once again easily accessible and relevant and exciting. The play is apparently normally three hours long, but here (so the audience doesn’t keel over from exhaustion from standing for so long), it’s cut to 75 minutes. Which was really just the right length. The acting fabulous all around. I mean, when you have to act with audience members standing all around you, some literally inches away, there is really nowhere to hide. Any falseness will be immediately obvious. This is the sort of exciting and avant-garde theatre that’s missing from the NY theatre scene. Hopefully Graney will eventually be plucked by one of the more daring off or off-off-Broadway companies, so we can see this sort of stuff closer to home.
MANON. If this was playing at the Met, I would probably go see every performance. This is just absolutely spectacular. Natalie Dessay played the title role to perfection, and Jonas Kaufman was a marvelous Des Grieux - the acting, the chemistry, the singing - it just doesn’t get any better than this. I had somehow managed never to see this opera before (I checked and the Met last did it in 2005-06, with *cringe* Renee Fleming and before that in 2000/2001 with Ruth Ann Swenson), so I guess it just fell through the cracks in my schedule. Having seen the Puccini version of the opera last season (including that comically long death scene in the desert of Louisiana), there’s really no comparison with the beautiful, heartbreaking - but also quite funny - Massenet version. I can’t remember the last time I went to an opera where I didn’t know any of the music beforehand and actually left humming. Even the staging was magnificent. It’s a sort of a cross between a modern and a traditional staging - the actors all wear period costumes, but there’s a sort of an amphitheatre set up on stage, where at various times the chorus watches the action and boos the villain (when comically appropriate) or laughs at the comedy, etc. Yes, it’s a bit bare bones - there aren’t too many set pieces - just chairs or tables or a bathtub or a desk, but it was always enough to tell us where we were in each scenes, and unlike in “Turn of the Century,” the stage never felt bare or under-furnished or -financed. There were even inspired touches in the staging like having the chorus dance along with the overture. Not that there’s anything wrong with an overture sans visuals, but I’ll admit my mind has been known to wander during them. Not this time. The only flaw I found - and it was such a minor one - was that the random ballet thrown into the third act (to comply with the conventions at the time the opera was written, I gather), was kind of dull. But tis only a minor quibble. The acting and the singing were just so breathtaking and real, it was really overwhelming. Obviously neither Dessay nor Kaufmann is a teenager as the characters they play are, but they really managed to convey the appropriate innocence that that age would have given them. I can only hope and pray that Peter Gelb will get Dessay to do this in New York. According to the Met Futures page, the opera isn’t scheduled to return to the Met until 2011-12 season, and then in a new production with Anna Netrebko. Maybe Trebs can get pregnant around then, so she can be replaced in the roster by Dessay. That would be a doubly happy occasion, no? In the meanwhile, I’m going to order the dvd of this production when I get home (with Dessay and Rolando Villazon). I’m skeptical of dvds or opera, and whether Villazon could be as good as Kaufmann, but any chance to have a visual of Dessay doing the role can’t be bad. As soon as I got home from the opera on Saturday night, I downloaded a recording of (a different production) of the opera, which I’m listening to right now. Ah, bliss. This is definitely one of my new favorites.
KAFKA ON THE SHORE. The obligatory Steppenwolf production of the stay. I bought and read the book after I booked my ticket to see the play (highly recommended, by the way), and then I read the reviews. And they basically seemed to say that if you haven’t read the book, you’ll have no idea what’s going on. But if you have read it, well the play isn’t as good as the book. And I suspect both were true, leaving a sort of catch 22. As with any stage adaptation of a novel, there were huge chunks of the story cut out - including much of the character development. There were parts that worked (the parts where they sing the song “Kafka on the Shore” were particularly moving), but overall, I can’t say I was thrilled. Particularly uninspired was the costuming of the talking cats - they were going for the simple approach (as opposed to the relative realism in the musical “Cats”) - but I could imagine it being sometime confusing figuring out whether a cat or a human was speaking - to those who had not read the novel. And having the cats just dressed in what looked like ordinary street clothes, with the actors trying to give the characters more cat-like qualities via their physical and vocal inflections - while perhaps of some artistic merit, wasn’t all that effective, and seemed a bit… tacky. The staging was otherwise quite nice. The entire stage and set was painted blue, and there were various panels that would rise or split apart to give us the various scenes. Not necessarily the most inspired staging I’ve seen, but not offensive either. The whole thing was adapted and directed by Frank Galati (director of everyone but the NY Times’ favorite musical “The Visit,” along with “The Pirate Queen”and “Ragtime” on Broadway). Oh, I should mention that Francis Guinan was a highlight in the roles of Johnny Walker (in the first act) and Colonel Sanders (in the second). He seemed to be having quite a good time. The other acting was very good as well, but his scenes were definite highlights.
Okay, c’est tout for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)