Some times you'll see a production, and you'll enjoy it, and you'll say "I'd like to see that again". That was the case when I first saw Billy Elliot back in January of 2009 with the original Tony Award winning Broadway cast. Three years after it opened, and two months before Billy does his last fuete on Broadway, I took in the production again. I'm happy to say that the production is not showing it's age one bit.
Often over time, a show can grow tired, and seem illustrious. That is not the case with Billy Elliot. The production is just as vibrant and full of energy as the first time I saw it. The current cast is just as buoyant as the original, though there are now five (5!) boys alternating the role of Billy as opposed to three. The Billy I saw was a wonderful dancer, and an adequate singer, as most Billys' are.
Emily Skinner was out when I saw the show (some things never change), so I cannot evaluate her performance, however her understudy, Donna Marie Asbury was fantastic. The rest of the supporting cast is also doing a helluva job. The choreography is absolutely astounding as always.
While sitting in the theater, I started to wonder to myself "Why the heck is this show closing?" the answer is - I have no idea. They are not the sell out show they once were (the show is regularly available on TKTS) however they have long recouped their original investment and have still been doing healthy box office numbers. The show does have a large cast of nearly 50 including swings and alternates, plus the orchestra. I'm sure it's an expensive show to run week to week, but I can't imagine that they're not making their nut.
Either way, Billy Elliot IS closing on January 8th 2012, so if you haven't seen it, you really really should.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Follies
It doesn't happen very often. I can count the number of times it has happened to me on one hand. There is a rare phenomenon in the theater, where you walk in, sit down, and the orchestra starts playing, and the walls of the theater completely melt away. The ceiling ceases to exist, the fourth wall goes down and you feel as though you are sitting up front, out of site, watching something transpire in real time. I had just such an experience while seeing the current revival of Stephen Sondheim and James Goldman's classic back stage musical Follies, now on offer at The Marquis Theater on Broadway.
Follies takes place in an old run down theater, slated to be turned into a parking lot the next day. The cast members from the 30 years closed Wiesmann Follies have gathered for what will be their first and last reunion to celebrate the good times, and catch up on the in between. There is a central quartet of lovers, two married couples who have not seen each other since they left the Follies, and the ghosts of their younger selves still haunt the theater and their minds.
The book and the score are absolutely fantastic. This is one of Steven Sondheim's most complex and intricate works, and each song, each melody, fits perfectly into James Goldman's superb book. The book and the score are not only strong on their own, they compliment each other perfectly.
It's a little bit early to be talking about Tony Award nominations, but I'd say there are six or seven to be had from the cast alone. Bernadette Peters is heartrending as Sally Durant Plummer. Her renditions of In Buddy's Eyes and Losing my mind are spine tingling. Jan Maxwell as Phyllis Rogers Stone is a complete revelation. Ron Raine's performance as Ben Stone is deep, complex, and completely on the mark. While Danny Burstein as Buddy Plummer is everything the character ought to be and more.
The supporting cast is one heck of a bracing system. Elaine Page as Carlotta Campion, Terri White as Stella Deems, and Jane Houdyshell as Hattie Walker are particularly fabulous. The "Mirror Number" titled who's that girl brought the house to a full stop of outrageous applause, and Ms. Paige's I'm still here, emitted shouts of Brava and more than a few whistles.
All of my readers know that I've seen a lot of Broadway shows, this has made it to the top of my list as THE BEST production of ANY show I have ever seen in my lifetime. It is absolutely tremendous and should never close in my opinion, unfortunately it's a limited engagement through January 22nd only so - don't waste a single moment, go buy tickets to what will be one of the most entertaining and meaningful experiences of your entire life!
Follies takes place in an old run down theater, slated to be turned into a parking lot the next day. The cast members from the 30 years closed Wiesmann Follies have gathered for what will be their first and last reunion to celebrate the good times, and catch up on the in between. There is a central quartet of lovers, two married couples who have not seen each other since they left the Follies, and the ghosts of their younger selves still haunt the theater and their minds.
The book and the score are absolutely fantastic. This is one of Steven Sondheim's most complex and intricate works, and each song, each melody, fits perfectly into James Goldman's superb book. The book and the score are not only strong on their own, they compliment each other perfectly.
It's a little bit early to be talking about Tony Award nominations, but I'd say there are six or seven to be had from the cast alone. Bernadette Peters is heartrending as Sally Durant Plummer. Her renditions of In Buddy's Eyes and Losing my mind are spine tingling. Jan Maxwell as Phyllis Rogers Stone is a complete revelation. Ron Raine's performance as Ben Stone is deep, complex, and completely on the mark. While Danny Burstein as Buddy Plummer is everything the character ought to be and more.
The supporting cast is one heck of a bracing system. Elaine Page as Carlotta Campion, Terri White as Stella Deems, and Jane Houdyshell as Hattie Walker are particularly fabulous. The "Mirror Number" titled who's that girl brought the house to a full stop of outrageous applause, and Ms. Paige's I'm still here, emitted shouts of Brava and more than a few whistles.
All of my readers know that I've seen a lot of Broadway shows, this has made it to the top of my list as THE BEST production of ANY show I have ever seen in my lifetime. It is absolutely tremendous and should never close in my opinion, unfortunately it's a limited engagement through January 22nd only so - don't waste a single moment, go buy tickets to what will be one of the most entertaining and meaningful experiences of your entire life!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Man and Boy
When I first read the premise of Roundabout Theater Company's new production of Terrence Rattigans Man and Boy I must admit that I had very little interest in seeing it. In fact, I would say that I was not at all looking forward to it. I'm glad to say that I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is an enjoyable and thought producing piece of American Theater.
The play centers on a young man who is trying to escape the shadow of his successful though morally ambiguous father. Though the play was written and produced in the early 60's, it resonates quite well with modern audiences. There are themes of big business, financial disparity, and beyond all that, at it's heart, it's about a father and a son.
Frank Langella is giving a wonderful performance as Gregor Antoneskew. Adam Driver, while not quite evenly matching Mr. Langella, is doing quite well also. The supporting cast tends to be hit or miss, but each person is effective in their own way. The set, lighting, and costumes are all functional though none too impressive considering the entire play takes place in a small basement apartment in Greenwich Village.
The issue at the heart of the play is what makes it so interesting. You have a parent who is not entirely morally correct, and he knows it. He has a son, and like all sons he thinks that his father is perfect, a hero. Father, knowing this, and also knowing that he cannot possibly live up to his sons expectations that he is in fact a good and decent man, resolves to drive his son away, which in itself can be seen as act of decency.
Man and Boy plays at The American Airlines Theater from now until November 27th. You can get tickets on the day of performance for $25 or in advance for $22 by joining the Roundabout theaters hiptix program. It's a good night out at the theater.
The play centers on a young man who is trying to escape the shadow of his successful though morally ambiguous father. Though the play was written and produced in the early 60's, it resonates quite well with modern audiences. There are themes of big business, financial disparity, and beyond all that, at it's heart, it's about a father and a son.
Frank Langella is giving a wonderful performance as Gregor Antoneskew. Adam Driver, while not quite evenly matching Mr. Langella, is doing quite well also. The supporting cast tends to be hit or miss, but each person is effective in their own way. The set, lighting, and costumes are all functional though none too impressive considering the entire play takes place in a small basement apartment in Greenwich Village.
The issue at the heart of the play is what makes it so interesting. You have a parent who is not entirely morally correct, and he knows it. He has a son, and like all sons he thinks that his father is perfect, a hero. Father, knowing this, and also knowing that he cannot possibly live up to his sons expectations that he is in fact a good and decent man, resolves to drive his son away, which in itself can be seen as act of decency.
Man and Boy plays at The American Airlines Theater from now until November 27th. You can get tickets on the day of performance for $25 or in advance for $22 by joining the Roundabout theaters hiptix program. It's a good night out at the theater.
Friday, September 30, 2011
How to Succeed in Business WIthout Really Trying
How to apply for a job? How to advance from the mail room? How to look cute in a three button suit? These important questions and more are being pondered and answered over at The Al Hershfield theater where Daniel Radcliffe and John Larauquette are starring in a revival of Frank Loessers perennial classic 60's musical.
This show has been around for decades, but if you are not familiar, it concerns a young up and comer J. Pierpont Finch, (thats F-I-N-C-H Finch) and his meteoric if problematic rise to the top of the World Wide Wicket Company. Along the way comedy, music, and sex ensue, and a good time is had by all.
The score to How to succeed is filled with golden eggs. Right from the opening notes of the overture your smile starts beaming because you know that you're in for a grand old time at the theater. Rob Ashford has smartly directed the piece, though he has definitely over choreographed it. Most of the funny comic numbers have been turned into dance numbers. Most of it works, and the show Succeeds, over all.
Daniel Radcliffe is absolutely charming as Finch. His singing voice is nothing to swoon over, but he adequately sings the score. His comic timing is decent though admittedly not perfect. In the end, he is so damn adorable you can't help but root for him. Rose Hemingway sings beautifully as Rosemary, however, her characterization is misdirected in my opinion.
John Larauquette as J.P. Bigley is ridiculously funny. His performance is genuine and realistic, which is what drives the comedy. Also, he is not afraid to be a clown. Tammy Blanchard is giving an laugh out loud performance as Hedy Larue. She isn't a singer, but it doesn't matter for this role. All the other main actors were out the night I saw this, and I did not enjoy any of the understudies performances so I'm not going to comment on them.
Overall it's a fantastic production, and if you're in town and have are looking for something everyone in your party will enjoy, bring them to How to Succeed. Everyone will thoroughly enjoy themselves!
This show has been around for decades, but if you are not familiar, it concerns a young up and comer J. Pierpont Finch, (thats F-I-N-C-H Finch) and his meteoric if problematic rise to the top of the World Wide Wicket Company. Along the way comedy, music, and sex ensue, and a good time is had by all.
The score to How to succeed is filled with golden eggs. Right from the opening notes of the overture your smile starts beaming because you know that you're in for a grand old time at the theater. Rob Ashford has smartly directed the piece, though he has definitely over choreographed it. Most of the funny comic numbers have been turned into dance numbers. Most of it works, and the show Succeeds, over all.
Daniel Radcliffe is absolutely charming as Finch. His singing voice is nothing to swoon over, but he adequately sings the score. His comic timing is decent though admittedly not perfect. In the end, he is so damn adorable you can't help but root for him. Rose Hemingway sings beautifully as Rosemary, however, her characterization is misdirected in my opinion.
John Larauquette as J.P. Bigley is ridiculously funny. His performance is genuine and realistic, which is what drives the comedy. Also, he is not afraid to be a clown. Tammy Blanchard is giving an laugh out loud performance as Hedy Larue. She isn't a singer, but it doesn't matter for this role. All the other main actors were out the night I saw this, and I did not enjoy any of the understudies performances so I'm not going to comment on them.
Overall it's a fantastic production, and if you're in town and have are looking for something everyone in your party will enjoy, bring them to How to Succeed. Everyone will thoroughly enjoy themselves!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Anything Goes
The S.S. American has set sail on Broadway once more with Captain Sutton Foster in the role of Reno Sweeney and despite what you're told at It's a Small World, this is the happiest cruise that ever sailed. What makes it the happiest cruise begins with those toe tapping songs by Cole Porter. These are some of the most tuneful catchy songs that were ever created for the Broadway stage. The lyrics are so clever and witty and the melodies just soar.
As Reno Sweeney Sutton Foster is a complete revelation. There is a reason that she won a Tony Award for her performance. Her Reno is much different than say, Patti LuPone or Ethel Merman, but it's a whole and complete character. From the way she walks and talks to the way she sings, Sutton Foster is all Reno.
The supporting cast is quite wonderful as well. Colin Donnel as Billy Crocker is handsome, playful, and funny. His voice suits the character well and his renditions of Delovely and Easy to love will make you melt. Adam Godley turns in a surprisingly hysterical performance as Lord Evelyn Oakley. As hope Harcourt Laura Osnes is everything you would want in a leading soprano without being the slightest bit bland or boring, Kelly Bishop (Tony winning Sheila from A Chorus Line) is extremely funny as Evangeline and her scenes with John McMartin as Elisha Whitney are comedic gold. Jessica Stone is highly effective as lovable vamp Erma and her Buddy Beware in act I is sexy and funny.
That brings us to Joel Grey as Moonface Martin. I'm not going to say that what he does in the role doesn't work for the character because it does. It's a completely valid portrayal of the character, I just didn't care for it. Joel Grey is an undeniably talented individual and a legend of Broadway theater. In addition to dropping a few lines (I'm sure hardly anyone noticed, it wasn't as bad as Elaine Stritch), It's very hard to believe that this diminutive soft spoken elderly man is public enemy number anything.
Sutton Foster is undeniably the star of the show, her co-star, is Kathleen Marshall's Tony winning Choreography. It is absolutely jaw dropping. The title song, which closes Act I, is even better on stage that it appears on TV. Reno's Act II number Blow, Gabriel Blow, is always a crowd pleaser, but in this case it is a genuine show stopper (2 full minutes of applause the performance I saw, which in a theater is a long time). The big group numbers are exquisitely choreographed, but it's the small character driven numbers where Ms. Marshall's artistry truly shines. She is able to create character specific choreography that is appropriate for both the moment, and also the style of song and the period in which it's written. Billy and Hope perform a lovely sort of fox trot during Delovely, while Lord Evelyn and Sweeney Tango during Gypsy in Me.
Overall this revival of Anything Goes is a wonderful diamond in a sea of Broadway rhinestones. It is fun, care free, and will make you smile from the moment the overture starts until you set your head against the pillow that evening. Tickets are currently on sale through January 8th of 2012. If you get to the box office by 9:30 am on the day of the performance you want to see you can get a rush seat for $30 max two per person. It's worth the effort, and the money!
As Reno Sweeney Sutton Foster is a complete revelation. There is a reason that she won a Tony Award for her performance. Her Reno is much different than say, Patti LuPone or Ethel Merman, but it's a whole and complete character. From the way she walks and talks to the way she sings, Sutton Foster is all Reno.
The supporting cast is quite wonderful as well. Colin Donnel as Billy Crocker is handsome, playful, and funny. His voice suits the character well and his renditions of Delovely and Easy to love will make you melt. Adam Godley turns in a surprisingly hysterical performance as Lord Evelyn Oakley. As hope Harcourt Laura Osnes is everything you would want in a leading soprano without being the slightest bit bland or boring, Kelly Bishop (Tony winning Sheila from A Chorus Line) is extremely funny as Evangeline and her scenes with John McMartin as Elisha Whitney are comedic gold. Jessica Stone is highly effective as lovable vamp Erma and her Buddy Beware in act I is sexy and funny.
That brings us to Joel Grey as Moonface Martin. I'm not going to say that what he does in the role doesn't work for the character because it does. It's a completely valid portrayal of the character, I just didn't care for it. Joel Grey is an undeniably talented individual and a legend of Broadway theater. In addition to dropping a few lines (I'm sure hardly anyone noticed, it wasn't as bad as Elaine Stritch), It's very hard to believe that this diminutive soft spoken elderly man is public enemy number anything.
Sutton Foster is undeniably the star of the show, her co-star, is Kathleen Marshall's Tony winning Choreography. It is absolutely jaw dropping. The title song, which closes Act I, is even better on stage that it appears on TV. Reno's Act II number Blow, Gabriel Blow, is always a crowd pleaser, but in this case it is a genuine show stopper (2 full minutes of applause the performance I saw, which in a theater is a long time). The big group numbers are exquisitely choreographed, but it's the small character driven numbers where Ms. Marshall's artistry truly shines. She is able to create character specific choreography that is appropriate for both the moment, and also the style of song and the period in which it's written. Billy and Hope perform a lovely sort of fox trot during Delovely, while Lord Evelyn and Sweeney Tango during Gypsy in Me.
Overall this revival of Anything Goes is a wonderful diamond in a sea of Broadway rhinestones. It is fun, care free, and will make you smile from the moment the overture starts until you set your head against the pillow that evening. Tickets are currently on sale through January 8th of 2012. If you get to the box office by 9:30 am on the day of the performance you want to see you can get a rush seat for $30 max two per person. It's worth the effort, and the money!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Hair
It's the summer of love on Broadway! At least it has been since the beginning of July, and will continue to be until the 10th of September. The national touring company of the recent Broadway revival of Hair has let it's luscious locks down at The St. James theater.
This was the third time I saw this particular production, and each time with a different cast. Even after being nearly four years old, the production still holds up extremely well. Our country is still embroiled in two wars, albeit wars that are supposedly close to their end. Hair is a period piece that makes you think about the world as we know it today. It's not just a musical, it's a movement.
Diane Paulus's stunning direction and Carole Armitages magnetic choreography are woven together to create a beautiful tapestry of theatrical art. Equally ensconced in this tapestry are the wonderful costumes, set, and lighting design. And let's not forget all that long beautiful hair! There are a few wigs, but most of the cast is sporting their own shining, steaming, gleaming hair.
The staging that is being seen on Broadway now is not exactly the same as what was seen at The Hershfeld theater. It has been slightly altered for middle America. The act I finale in particular has been toned down just in the slightest bit. It's still the act I finale of Hair it's just not quite as in your face as it was in New York. There have also been a few changes to the book. A bit more of the original libretto that had been previously cut has be re-instated.
The Tribe that has taken over The St. James is absolutely a complete joy to watch. Steel Burkhart as Berger (though perhaps a little too old) and Paris Remilard bring their own spin to the two lead male roles. Paris Remilard in particular is able to inhabit both Claude's innate sense of pleasure and also his sense of morality. The juxtaposition is fantastic to watch. The women don't fare quite as well as the men, but I doubt that you would find much fault if any.
The Broadway stop over is almost ready to move along, so if you're in New York you have one more week. This production is still scheduled to make several more stops across the USA before packing it in altogether though, so look for it coming to a theater near you!
This was the third time I saw this particular production, and each time with a different cast. Even after being nearly four years old, the production still holds up extremely well. Our country is still embroiled in two wars, albeit wars that are supposedly close to their end. Hair is a period piece that makes you think about the world as we know it today. It's not just a musical, it's a movement.
Diane Paulus's stunning direction and Carole Armitages magnetic choreography are woven together to create a beautiful tapestry of theatrical art. Equally ensconced in this tapestry are the wonderful costumes, set, and lighting design. And let's not forget all that long beautiful hair! There are a few wigs, but most of the cast is sporting their own shining, steaming, gleaming hair.
The staging that is being seen on Broadway now is not exactly the same as what was seen at The Hershfeld theater. It has been slightly altered for middle America. The act I finale in particular has been toned down just in the slightest bit. It's still the act I finale of Hair it's just not quite as in your face as it was in New York. There have also been a few changes to the book. A bit more of the original libretto that had been previously cut has be re-instated.
The Tribe that has taken over The St. James is absolutely a complete joy to watch. Steel Burkhart as Berger (though perhaps a little too old) and Paris Remilard bring their own spin to the two lead male roles. Paris Remilard in particular is able to inhabit both Claude's innate sense of pleasure and also his sense of morality. The juxtaposition is fantastic to watch. The women don't fare quite as well as the men, but I doubt that you would find much fault if any.
The Broadway stop over is almost ready to move along, so if you're in New York you have one more week. This production is still scheduled to make several more stops across the USA before packing it in altogether though, so look for it coming to a theater near you!
Friday, September 2, 2011
Death Takes a Holiday
What would happen is death walked among us in human form? What would he be like? Would the rules of life and death still apply? All of these questions and more are answered in Maury Yestons delightful new musical being presented off-Broadway until Sunday, Sept. 4th.
Death Takes a Holiday is based on an Italian play Alberto Cosella that was subsequently rewritten for the American stage by Walter Ferris. I'm not sure if the adaptation we're seeing is based upon the original Italian or it's American counterpart, or perhaps bits of both.
The story concerns a well to do family living in northern Italy in 1927. Their son Roberto was killed during the war. Their daughter Grazia, we learn, has just been engaged. A near tragic car accident brings death into their midst and forever changes the course of their lives.
Death is a very sweet and lovely musical. It's one of the best musical theater scores to come around in quite a while. The melodies are at times buoyant and up beat, and at other times luscious and sweeping. The book is equally well crafted by Thomas Mehan and Peter Stone. It is sweet and sentimental and also witty and fresh.
The first act of Death Takes a Holiday is too long. It runs just over 90 minutes, which isn't really that long for a musical, however, it FEELS long, which means I lost interest. Part of this may have been because other than a few notable exceptions, most of the performances are extremely bland and uninteresting. Particularly Jill Paice in the lead female role of Grazia. Her singing voice is lovely, and if I were listening to the cast recording I may not find a single fault. In performance, however, she comes off as completely fake and unbelievable.
The exception to this rule of spice less acting is Kevin Earley who plays Death. Mr. Earley was the understudy when the show opened, and took over almost immediately after opening for an ailing and never to return Julian Ovendon. You would never know it from his performance. For someone who is playing Death Kevin Early is teeming with life and vivacity, which is entirely appropriate since it's the first time Death has experienced any of the sensations he is being faced with.
The second act of Death Takes a Holiday is much more enjoyable as a whole. The music is fantastic, the story moves along nicely, and comes to a rich and satisfying climax. There are a few places to tighten up the script, there seems to be an endless flip flopping on the part of Death towards the end that makes the final moments not as strong as they could be. Overall it's a wonderful new musical that very well may make it to Broadway someday, though hopefully with a new director and a few new cast members.
Death Takes a Holiday is based on an Italian play Alberto Cosella that was subsequently rewritten for the American stage by Walter Ferris. I'm not sure if the adaptation we're seeing is based upon the original Italian or it's American counterpart, or perhaps bits of both.
The story concerns a well to do family living in northern Italy in 1927. Their son Roberto was killed during the war. Their daughter Grazia, we learn, has just been engaged. A near tragic car accident brings death into their midst and forever changes the course of their lives.
Death is a very sweet and lovely musical. It's one of the best musical theater scores to come around in quite a while. The melodies are at times buoyant and up beat, and at other times luscious and sweeping. The book is equally well crafted by Thomas Mehan and Peter Stone. It is sweet and sentimental and also witty and fresh.
The first act of Death Takes a Holiday is too long. It runs just over 90 minutes, which isn't really that long for a musical, however, it FEELS long, which means I lost interest. Part of this may have been because other than a few notable exceptions, most of the performances are extremely bland and uninteresting. Particularly Jill Paice in the lead female role of Grazia. Her singing voice is lovely, and if I were listening to the cast recording I may not find a single fault. In performance, however, she comes off as completely fake and unbelievable.
The exception to this rule of spice less acting is Kevin Earley who plays Death. Mr. Earley was the understudy when the show opened, and took over almost immediately after opening for an ailing and never to return Julian Ovendon. You would never know it from his performance. For someone who is playing Death Kevin Early is teeming with life and vivacity, which is entirely appropriate since it's the first time Death has experienced any of the sensations he is being faced with.
The second act of Death Takes a Holiday is much more enjoyable as a whole. The music is fantastic, the story moves along nicely, and comes to a rich and satisfying climax. There are a few places to tighten up the script, there seems to be an endless flip flopping on the part of Death towards the end that makes the final moments not as strong as they could be. Overall it's a wonderful new musical that very well may make it to Broadway someday, though hopefully with a new director and a few new cast members.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Catch me if you can
What did I do the night before Hurricane Irene? I took in a Broadway show of course. I've been putting this one off as long as humanely possible, because everything I've seen about this show has made me not want to see it. The clips and song performances have been terrible or mediocre at best. Word of mouth has been the same. So, needless to say I went in with the absolute lowest of expectations.
I can now say that Catch me if you can is one of the worst 5 Broadway Musicals I have ever seen. Let's start with what is good though. The music is actually pretty good. By music, I mean the the notes without words (The lyrics are laughable). Marc Shaiman is an extremely talented composer and he has written some wonderfully tuneful melodies for this show.
The next best thing about Catch me if you can is Terrence McNallys book. It's no Master Class or Kiss of the spider woman that is for sure, but he did the best he could with what was available to him. You can tell that some of the songs were written before the book, and he was basically told "ok make these fit into the scene" and he did what he could.
Norbert Leo Butz is doing the same thing with Agent Carl Hanratty (played memorably on film by Tom Hanks). Norbert doesn't completely erase the memory of Tom Hanks performance, but he does succeed in making you accept him in the role. Also, he does very well with his material, adding a bit of fine acting to some terrible songs.
Tom Wopat and Kerry Butler also shine as Frank Sr. and Brenda, respectively. The rest of the supporting cast is doing their best. Where Catch me if you can fails miserably is with Frank William Abignale Jr. which is pretty disappointing considering the entire show is about him.
From the very beginning Frank Jr. is portrayed as a thieving, conniving, womanizing playboy who just did all this for kicks and pussy, pardon my language. This makes the character exceptionally unlikeable. It does not help that his songs are the worst in the show, and that he is constantly surrounded by a bevy of long legged show girls who do not add to the plot in any way. There is very little vulnerability written into the character, which makes him seem inhuman. On top of that, as played by Aaron Tveit, the character is extremely one dimensional.
Unfortunately this musical is based on very familiar source material. Whereas the film presented the story of a kid whose family was so torn apart that he ran away from it, and entered into a life of crime at first out of necessity, and continued because he was convinced it was the only way to save the family he held so dear, which eventually led to his capture, the musical sacrifices all of this human drama and family relationship for catchy tunes that do not fit into the story or advance the plot in any way.
The most enjoyable moment of the show comes late in act II when Brenda is given a wonderful solo, which is preceded and followed by two very well written scenes, and the one and only good song given to Frank Jr. This 20 minutes of good musical theater comes 2 hours in and 20 minutes before the curtain comes down.
Catch me if you can is closing Sunday Sept 4th at The Neil Simon Theater. The same day as Master Class. The play Master Class is for more enjoyable, and far more musical than Catch me if you can. Don't waste your money on Catch me.
I can now say that Catch me if you can is one of the worst 5 Broadway Musicals I have ever seen. Let's start with what is good though. The music is actually pretty good. By music, I mean the the notes without words (The lyrics are laughable). Marc Shaiman is an extremely talented composer and he has written some wonderfully tuneful melodies for this show.
The next best thing about Catch me if you can is Terrence McNallys book. It's no Master Class or Kiss of the spider woman that is for sure, but he did the best he could with what was available to him. You can tell that some of the songs were written before the book, and he was basically told "ok make these fit into the scene" and he did what he could.
Norbert Leo Butz is doing the same thing with Agent Carl Hanratty (played memorably on film by Tom Hanks). Norbert doesn't completely erase the memory of Tom Hanks performance, but he does succeed in making you accept him in the role. Also, he does very well with his material, adding a bit of fine acting to some terrible songs.
Tom Wopat and Kerry Butler also shine as Frank Sr. and Brenda, respectively. The rest of the supporting cast is doing their best. Where Catch me if you can fails miserably is with Frank William Abignale Jr. which is pretty disappointing considering the entire show is about him.
From the very beginning Frank Jr. is portrayed as a thieving, conniving, womanizing playboy who just did all this for kicks and pussy, pardon my language. This makes the character exceptionally unlikeable. It does not help that his songs are the worst in the show, and that he is constantly surrounded by a bevy of long legged show girls who do not add to the plot in any way. There is very little vulnerability written into the character, which makes him seem inhuman. On top of that, as played by Aaron Tveit, the character is extremely one dimensional.
Unfortunately this musical is based on very familiar source material. Whereas the film presented the story of a kid whose family was so torn apart that he ran away from it, and entered into a life of crime at first out of necessity, and continued because he was convinced it was the only way to save the family he held so dear, which eventually led to his capture, the musical sacrifices all of this human drama and family relationship for catchy tunes that do not fit into the story or advance the plot in any way.
The most enjoyable moment of the show comes late in act II when Brenda is given a wonderful solo, which is preceded and followed by two very well written scenes, and the one and only good song given to Frank Jr. This 20 minutes of good musical theater comes 2 hours in and 20 minutes before the curtain comes down.
Catch me if you can is closing Sunday Sept 4th at The Neil Simon Theater. The same day as Master Class. The play Master Class is for more enjoyable, and far more musical than Catch me if you can. Don't waste your money on Catch me.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Master Class
Maria Callas was a larger than life performer and a larger than life person in her real life. Her talent is considered by many to be unparalleled and her story is a matter of intrigue for opera buffs and regular people alike. Terrence McNally has crafted a masterpiece of a play that gives a shadow of what this woman must have been like, and what made her Maria Callas. Master Class is currently in revival at The Friedman Theater on Broadway under the auspices of Manhattan Theater Club. Tyne Daly is the current link in the chain of wonderful actresses who have played this role in this play.
Ms. Daly commands the stage completely as anyone playing Maria Callas must hope to do. Her Bravura is completely natural. There is absolutely nothing put upon about it. Not only is she over the top in every way that she should be, but she is also at times extremely funny, tender, warm, and vulnerable. Tyne Daly is giving a master class in acting in a play that happens to be titled Master Class.
Her supporting cast suits her just fine. All three students due what their characters are intended to do. The tenor has the strongest voice of all three students, and when he sings it is truly magnificent. Sierra Boggess is recreating the role that won Audra McDonald her second of four Tony Awards. I didn't see miss McDonald in the role, but she must have given a mighty fine performance to have won a Tony for such a small role. Miss. Boggess does fine in the part, but no better then fine.
Overall this is a stunning play that is receiving a first rate Broadway revival with a tremendous star in the role. It only plays until Sept 4th, 2011 so I URGE you to see it if you are in the New York area. You will be completely mesmerized from start to finish.
Ms. Daly commands the stage completely as anyone playing Maria Callas must hope to do. Her Bravura is completely natural. There is absolutely nothing put upon about it. Not only is she over the top in every way that she should be, but she is also at times extremely funny, tender, warm, and vulnerable. Tyne Daly is giving a master class in acting in a play that happens to be titled Master Class.
Her supporting cast suits her just fine. All three students due what their characters are intended to do. The tenor has the strongest voice of all three students, and when he sings it is truly magnificent. Sierra Boggess is recreating the role that won Audra McDonald her second of four Tony Awards. I didn't see miss McDonald in the role, but she must have given a mighty fine performance to have won a Tony for such a small role. Miss. Boggess does fine in the part, but no better then fine.
Overall this is a stunning play that is receiving a first rate Broadway revival with a tremendous star in the role. It only plays until Sept 4th, 2011 so I URGE you to see it if you are in the New York area. You will be completely mesmerized from start to finish.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
All New People
In the opening moments of Zach Braff's (yes that Zach Braff) new dark comedy, Charlie is about to hang himself to the sounds of Celtic rock music. He is suddenly interrupted (rudely, divinely?) by Emma, a real estate agent who is set to show the beach house that Charlie has chosen for his final act to clients who have not yet arrived. From here we begin a journey that brings us to destinations both funny and tragic.
The play shifts it's moods quickly being insanely funny at one moment and incredibly dark and serious the next. Actually, even the comedy is mostly dark and quirky. Two other characters enter the mix, a former drama teacher/drug dealer turned firefighter/drug dealer named Myron and an Escort named Kim. Each of these characters serves a purpose, for the most part, and also bring a bit of brevity to the situation at hand (Charlies impending suicide).
All New People has a double meaning. At first one believes that it refers to the fact that these complete strangers have entered Charlies life at the moment when he had intended to end it. Late in the second half of the intermissionless play however, a small, almost lost moment occurs that sheds a different light.
Braffs text is very good. He has crafted a very interesting story, and drawn characters that are real and three dimensional. The play is a little bit uneven and could use with a some tightening here and there. The play utilizes a device of showing flashbacks on a screen while the actors freeze. Some of these things are very funny, but they slow the action of the play and none of the information that is revealed in the flashbacks is of any importance to the action, and if it is, it is repeated anyhow for the benefit of the other characters who don't know what happened in the flashback, rendering them a waste of time.
The actors populating All New People are quite good for the most part. Justin Bartha tends to get a bit manic to the point of being unbelievable, but he is most effective when he calms down and allows Charlie to be amused by his surroundings. As Emma, Krysten Ritter is at first a bit phony and hard to understand, but as the play warms up so does she. Though she has difficulty selling an abrupt shift toward the end of the play.
David Wilson Barnes does the best at showcasing his characters changes in disposition. He has the ability to portray Myron's arrogance as well as his underlying vulnerability and need for love and acceptance by those around him. As Kim Anna Camp has the most difficult job because her character has the least substance of all four in the play. She does tremendously well at giver Kim a lack of intelligence but at the same time making her sweet, naive, and ultimately very believable. Hers are some of the funniest lines of the play.
All New People closes at Second Stage theater on Sunday August 14th, 2011, but I'm sure it will be a very popular piece in regional theaters. There is also the distinct possibility that it could resurface on Broadway in the coming season, as there are many houses open. Either way, if you can get to second stage by Sunday, or if you find it playing at a theater near you, check it out. You will have a good time.
The play shifts it's moods quickly being insanely funny at one moment and incredibly dark and serious the next. Actually, even the comedy is mostly dark and quirky. Two other characters enter the mix, a former drama teacher/drug dealer turned firefighter/drug dealer named Myron and an Escort named Kim. Each of these characters serves a purpose, for the most part, and also bring a bit of brevity to the situation at hand (Charlies impending suicide).
All New People has a double meaning. At first one believes that it refers to the fact that these complete strangers have entered Charlies life at the moment when he had intended to end it. Late in the second half of the intermissionless play however, a small, almost lost moment occurs that sheds a different light.
Braffs text is very good. He has crafted a very interesting story, and drawn characters that are real and three dimensional. The play is a little bit uneven and could use with a some tightening here and there. The play utilizes a device of showing flashbacks on a screen while the actors freeze. Some of these things are very funny, but they slow the action of the play and none of the information that is revealed in the flashbacks is of any importance to the action, and if it is, it is repeated anyhow for the benefit of the other characters who don't know what happened in the flashback, rendering them a waste of time.
The actors populating All New People are quite good for the most part. Justin Bartha tends to get a bit manic to the point of being unbelievable, but he is most effective when he calms down and allows Charlie to be amused by his surroundings. As Emma, Krysten Ritter is at first a bit phony and hard to understand, but as the play warms up so does she. Though she has difficulty selling an abrupt shift toward the end of the play.
David Wilson Barnes does the best at showcasing his characters changes in disposition. He has the ability to portray Myron's arrogance as well as his underlying vulnerability and need for love and acceptance by those around him. As Kim Anna Camp has the most difficult job because her character has the least substance of all four in the play. She does tremendously well at giver Kim a lack of intelligence but at the same time making her sweet, naive, and ultimately very believable. Hers are some of the funniest lines of the play.
All New People closes at Second Stage theater on Sunday August 14th, 2011, but I'm sure it will be a very popular piece in regional theaters. There is also the distinct possibility that it could resurface on Broadway in the coming season, as there are many houses open. Either way, if you can get to second stage by Sunday, or if you find it playing at a theater near you, check it out. You will have a good time.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Priscilla Queen of the Desert
There have been many films translated to the stage over the years with varying degrees of success. The Producers, Hairspray, Thoroughly Modern Millie, Spamalot, were all hits while Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Crybaby, Urban Cowboy, High Fidelity to name a few didn't cut the muster. Similarly, there have been many Jukebox musicals over the years, Jersey Boys, and Mamma Mia! being the only two notable success stories, Baby, It's you!, Good Vibrations, All Shook Up, Come Fly Away, Ring of Fire, In My Life, Lennon, and the list goes on, didn't make it.
And now we have Priscilla Queen of the Desert, which is both based on a film (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) AND a Jukebox musical. I'm happy to say that this "Genre splicing" show is, for the most part, a great success!
The story concerns three Drag Queens, or rather two Drag Queens and one Transsexual, who go on a bus trip across Australia from Sydney to Alice Springs to perform at the casino there. Along the way they encounter all manner of locals and all many different forms of Adventure; Comedy, and Disco ensues.
Let's start with the music. It's wonderful. The song choices are all the most toe tapping tunes from the 70's and 80's. It's impossible to not hum along if not sing along to the score because it's just too damn catchy. Not to mention that each number is a complete visual and aural spectacle! I tell you, you haven't seen anything until you've seen Drag Queens dressed as cup-cakes singing and dancing to MacArthur Park.
The songs aren't always perfectly fit into the story, but once again, you are so distracted by the spectacle that you don't really care. It's not until you've left the theater and the sugar coma wears off that you realise you've had desert for dinner.
The cast is wonderful. The ensemble of both men and women (my Grandmother kept leaning over to ask which was which) sings and dances up a storm. The Three Divas shake the rafters with their voices as they descend and ascend from them. Nick Adams was out at the performance I saw, but Will Swenson and Tony Sheldon are an absolute joy to watch and have such great chemistry together.
The sets, costumes, and lighting are fantastic. Every time a new costume comes out, it's like being at a dinner party where each course is even more decadent than the last. The choreography is also enjoyable. Not every member of the cast is a diva dancer, but the choreography is so lively that you would never guess it.
In terms of book, there isn't much of one. What is there is pretty well written. It's been a long time since I've seen the source material, but I did notice some things were missing (such as Bernadette's explanation of certain life choices) that I missed. Also, the film uses a unique sort of flash back story telling process that isn't really possible on stage, but most of the information revealed about the characters in those moments has been lost.
Like any musical, Priscilla has her faults. She is not perfect, but she is still utterly fabulous~! I would recommend this show to anyone who wants to go to the theater and have a wonderful time. I wouldn't bring children under 13 because the F word quota is a little high for the under 13's in my opinion. There is also some sexual humor as well. It's all in good clean fun though! And as the song says, Girls just wanna have fun! And at Priscilla Queen of the Desert they certainly will!
And now we have Priscilla Queen of the Desert, which is both based on a film (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) AND a Jukebox musical. I'm happy to say that this "Genre splicing" show is, for the most part, a great success!
The story concerns three Drag Queens, or rather two Drag Queens and one Transsexual, who go on a bus trip across Australia from Sydney to Alice Springs to perform at the casino there. Along the way they encounter all manner of locals and all many different forms of Adventure; Comedy, and Disco ensues.
Let's start with the music. It's wonderful. The song choices are all the most toe tapping tunes from the 70's and 80's. It's impossible to not hum along if not sing along to the score because it's just too damn catchy. Not to mention that each number is a complete visual and aural spectacle! I tell you, you haven't seen anything until you've seen Drag Queens dressed as cup-cakes singing and dancing to MacArthur Park.
The songs aren't always perfectly fit into the story, but once again, you are so distracted by the spectacle that you don't really care. It's not until you've left the theater and the sugar coma wears off that you realise you've had desert for dinner.
The cast is wonderful. The ensemble of both men and women (my Grandmother kept leaning over to ask which was which) sings and dances up a storm. The Three Divas shake the rafters with their voices as they descend and ascend from them. Nick Adams was out at the performance I saw, but Will Swenson and Tony Sheldon are an absolute joy to watch and have such great chemistry together.
The sets, costumes, and lighting are fantastic. Every time a new costume comes out, it's like being at a dinner party where each course is even more decadent than the last. The choreography is also enjoyable. Not every member of the cast is a diva dancer, but the choreography is so lively that you would never guess it.
In terms of book, there isn't much of one. What is there is pretty well written. It's been a long time since I've seen the source material, but I did notice some things were missing (such as Bernadette's explanation of certain life choices) that I missed. Also, the film uses a unique sort of flash back story telling process that isn't really possible on stage, but most of the information revealed about the characters in those moments has been lost.
Like any musical, Priscilla has her faults. She is not perfect, but she is still utterly fabulous~! I would recommend this show to anyone who wants to go to the theater and have a wonderful time. I wouldn't bring children under 13 because the F word quota is a little high for the under 13's in my opinion. There is also some sexual humor as well. It's all in good clean fun though! And as the song says, Girls just wanna have fun! And at Priscilla Queen of the Desert they certainly will!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Shakespeare in The Park
Last year with The Merchant of Venice, and The Winters Tale a tradition was reborn at The Public Theaters annual Shakespeare in the Park. That tradition was repertory theater. With a few notable exceptions, last summer, one company of actors performed two of Shakespeare's plays in repertory at The Delacorte Theater in Central Park.
This new again tradition lived on this summer with The Public Theaters productions of Measure for Measure and All's Well That Ends Well. Like Merchant and Winters. These two plays were paired together because the offer an audience an enhanced experience being performed together, and so I've chosen to right about them together so that the intent of each is not lost.
Measure for Measure concerns a politician who is combating the moral corruption of his constituents while simultaneously being embroiled in his own sexual scandal. Given recent headlines this theme seems quite timely. There are subplots and minor characters, but that is the main storyline.
Director David Esbjornson has kept the action of the play in the Renaissance period which is when it was originally set. This staging begins with The Duke having what appears to be a horrid nightmare complete with black devils and dismembered bodies. The devils were very effective in giving The Duke reason to abdicate his throne to Antonio, and suggesting a slight mental imbalance from which he must recover. The devils continue to be seen throughout the first act and then disappear in the second act altogether. This makes their use confusing because once they are divorced from the The Dukes mind their practical application is lost.
Measure presents plot problems early on that Modern audiences will not except, and Mr. Esbjornson has attempted to rectify those problems through clarity of action, and imposing silent staging upon the text. This works quite well for the most part. There are still problems, but you forgive them. This is as wonderful a production of Measure as you are like to find. The performances from all are wonderful.
All's Well That Ends Well is a tale of love unrequited, a woman scorned, and a wanton youth reigned in. I found this text to be a bit more problematic because neither of the main characters is written to be particularly likable. Annie Parisse fixed this quite well in making her portrayal of Helena extremely likable. Andre Holland as Bertram, unfortunately, does not make you feel an ounce of Sympathy for the character, and perhaps with was a joint decision with director Daniel Sullivan to throw all of the sympathy in Helena's court.
What you end up with though, is an unbalanced production. What you have is a play that asks you not to take sides, and a production that demands it. This juxtaposition is interesting and effective. Helena traps Bertram into a marriage in which he does not want to be in. Up to this point Bertram has done absolutely nothing to gain the audiences derision, so we do feel bad. We feel bad for both parties though, we feel sorry for Helena being in love with a man who does not return her affections, and also for the fact that she must force him to marry her. We feel sorry for Bertram to be forced into a marriage with a woman he does not love, this sorrow is quickly usurped, however, by Bertram's subsequent actions.
I find this all to be very interesting, because if the genders were reversed, and it was a woman forced into a marriage with a man she did not love, and she behaved similarly (to a point) would our feelings be the same? Would we feel as badly for the man who lost his wife as we do for the woman who lost her husband? It's an interesting question. There are many wonderful performances in this play as well. The aforementioned Annie Parisse as well as Tonya Pinkins as the countess.
Now for the true examination, these plays couples together achieve an interesting study of Shakespeare's work. You have two plays that are considered by many to be two if his worst plays. Each has their own set of problems, but they are similar in their structure. Neither is easily classified as either a comedy or a tragedy. They don't quite "fit" into any category. They both end in weddings and contain no deaths, so technically that categorized them as "comedies" in the cannon. However, all of the weddings are unhappy, or at the very least bittersweet. And the action that leads up to these marriages are certainly tinged with unfunny drama.
Not only are they similar in structure, but they both operate the same device of a "bed trick". That is, a man believes he is going to bed with one woman, but that woman has reached an agreement with another to slip out of bed so that the other woman can trick said man into sleeping with her. These are two of the most interesting, and problematic of each play. It's difficult for modern audiences to believe (as I'm sure it has always been), that even in the throws of passion a man would not be able to tell the difference between two women. I would also gather that this is also seen as being a bit demeaning to women, that they are viewed as sex objects and one is just as good as the next.
Shakespeare in the Park ends on Sunday. If you live in or around NYC and have the chance to get to the park to see one or either production I highly recommend it. You will witness two of Shakespeare's masterpieces and be treated to something that will surely entertain you, and may perhaps, as it did for me, leave you with much to think about!
This new again tradition lived on this summer with The Public Theaters productions of Measure for Measure and All's Well That Ends Well. Like Merchant and Winters. These two plays were paired together because the offer an audience an enhanced experience being performed together, and so I've chosen to right about them together so that the intent of each is not lost.
Measure for Measure concerns a politician who is combating the moral corruption of his constituents while simultaneously being embroiled in his own sexual scandal. Given recent headlines this theme seems quite timely. There are subplots and minor characters, but that is the main storyline.
Director David Esbjornson has kept the action of the play in the Renaissance period which is when it was originally set. This staging begins with The Duke having what appears to be a horrid nightmare complete with black devils and dismembered bodies. The devils were very effective in giving The Duke reason to abdicate his throne to Antonio, and suggesting a slight mental imbalance from which he must recover. The devils continue to be seen throughout the first act and then disappear in the second act altogether. This makes their use confusing because once they are divorced from the The Dukes mind their practical application is lost.
Measure presents plot problems early on that Modern audiences will not except, and Mr. Esbjornson has attempted to rectify those problems through clarity of action, and imposing silent staging upon the text. This works quite well for the most part. There are still problems, but you forgive them. This is as wonderful a production of Measure as you are like to find. The performances from all are wonderful.
All's Well That Ends Well is a tale of love unrequited, a woman scorned, and a wanton youth reigned in. I found this text to be a bit more problematic because neither of the main characters is written to be particularly likable. Annie Parisse fixed this quite well in making her portrayal of Helena extremely likable. Andre Holland as Bertram, unfortunately, does not make you feel an ounce of Sympathy for the character, and perhaps with was a joint decision with director Daniel Sullivan to throw all of the sympathy in Helena's court.
What you end up with though, is an unbalanced production. What you have is a play that asks you not to take sides, and a production that demands it. This juxtaposition is interesting and effective. Helena traps Bertram into a marriage in which he does not want to be in. Up to this point Bertram has done absolutely nothing to gain the audiences derision, so we do feel bad. We feel bad for both parties though, we feel sorry for Helena being in love with a man who does not return her affections, and also for the fact that she must force him to marry her. We feel sorry for Bertram to be forced into a marriage with a woman he does not love, this sorrow is quickly usurped, however, by Bertram's subsequent actions.
I find this all to be very interesting, because if the genders were reversed, and it was a woman forced into a marriage with a man she did not love, and she behaved similarly (to a point) would our feelings be the same? Would we feel as badly for the man who lost his wife as we do for the woman who lost her husband? It's an interesting question. There are many wonderful performances in this play as well. The aforementioned Annie Parisse as well as Tonya Pinkins as the countess.
Now for the true examination, these plays couples together achieve an interesting study of Shakespeare's work. You have two plays that are considered by many to be two if his worst plays. Each has their own set of problems, but they are similar in their structure. Neither is easily classified as either a comedy or a tragedy. They don't quite "fit" into any category. They both end in weddings and contain no deaths, so technically that categorized them as "comedies" in the cannon. However, all of the weddings are unhappy, or at the very least bittersweet. And the action that leads up to these marriages are certainly tinged with unfunny drama.
Not only are they similar in structure, but they both operate the same device of a "bed trick". That is, a man believes he is going to bed with one woman, but that woman has reached an agreement with another to slip out of bed so that the other woman can trick said man into sleeping with her. These are two of the most interesting, and problematic of each play. It's difficult for modern audiences to believe (as I'm sure it has always been), that even in the throws of passion a man would not be able to tell the difference between two women. I would also gather that this is also seen as being a bit demeaning to women, that they are viewed as sex objects and one is just as good as the next.
Shakespeare in the Park ends on Sunday. If you live in or around NYC and have the chance to get to the park to see one or either production I highly recommend it. You will witness two of Shakespeare's masterpieces and be treated to something that will surely entertain you, and may perhaps, as it did for me, leave you with much to think about!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Jerusalem
Two time Tony award winner Mark Rylance is shaking the foundation of The Music Box theater with his powerful performance in Jez Butterworths brilliant play Jerusalem. An iconic performance is being delivered on those boards folks, the likes of which people will talk about for years to come. Mr. Rylance place Johnny "Rooster" Byron, and these two names will be come as synonymous with each other as Ethyl Merman and Mama Rose, Carol Channing and Dolly Levi, and Patti Lupone and Evita.
On it's surface the play is about a hollow shell of man who deals drugs, drinks to much and lives in a trailer in the woods being evicted from his property, and the self destruction that leads up to and follows that point. Beneath that surface Jerusalem is about so much more that I doubt one can understand it fully in only one viewing of the play.
Jerusalem is a play that takes place in the present, but calls for the days of yore. Characters in the play are very often waxing nostalgic over the way things used to be. While the play takes place in Britain and is very much about the decline of English society, it's underlying themes are universal and can be applied to any nation rich in history, culture, and nature.
The set design reinforces this longing for days gone by. The show curtain is St. Georges cross, which was the flag of medieval England. Johnny's trailer is adorned with a sign that reads "Waterloo". Johnny himself is like a modern day Robin Hood, protecting his "Sherwood forest".
There is very little time left for New York audiences to take in this true masterpiece. The show closes it's (extended) limited engagement on August 21st. There are many ways to get tickets without forking over an arm and a leg. If you arrive at the box office an hour before it opens they give out tickets for $36.50 to the first 15 or so people in line. There are also discounts available on www.broadwaybox.com make a point to see this play, you will not be disappointed.
On it's surface the play is about a hollow shell of man who deals drugs, drinks to much and lives in a trailer in the woods being evicted from his property, and the self destruction that leads up to and follows that point. Beneath that surface Jerusalem is about so much more that I doubt one can understand it fully in only one viewing of the play.
Jerusalem is a play that takes place in the present, but calls for the days of yore. Characters in the play are very often waxing nostalgic over the way things used to be. While the play takes place in Britain and is very much about the decline of English society, it's underlying themes are universal and can be applied to any nation rich in history, culture, and nature.
The set design reinforces this longing for days gone by. The show curtain is St. Georges cross, which was the flag of medieval England. Johnny's trailer is adorned with a sign that reads "Waterloo". Johnny himself is like a modern day Robin Hood, protecting his "Sherwood forest".
There is very little time left for New York audiences to take in this true masterpiece. The show closes it's (extended) limited engagement on August 21st. There are many ways to get tickets without forking over an arm and a leg. If you arrive at the box office an hour before it opens they give out tickets for $36.50 to the first 15 or so people in line. There are also discounts available on www.broadwaybox.com make a point to see this play, you will not be disappointed.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Les Miserables
It has been called "The World's Most Popular Musical", by some, including it's advertisers. The original production has closed on Broadway, and a short lived Broadway revival has already come and gone, but the original staging is still going strong over on London's West End, and that is where I took the play in.
My husband, Matthew has never really been a fan of Les Miserables, or Les Miz, as the common folk call it, or Miz as we lazy theater folk call it. He had never seen the show and had only heard the cast recordings. I say "recordings" because I've forced him to listen to The Original London Cast recording, The Original Broadway Cast recording, The complete Symphonic Recording, and the 10th anniversary cast recording. He would always remark "I prefer Miss Saigon".
When we first realized that we'd be going to London, and seeing a show, I asked him what he'd like to see, and strangely enough he said that he'd very much like to see Les Miz, because he never had, and he feels like it's one of those things one ought to see. I agreed and we set out to get tickets. You would think a show that been playing on the West End, or anyplace for that matter, for over 25 years wouldn't be too difficult to secure a seat for, but you would be mistaken. The entire show was sold out for over a week. This was apparently due to the return of a favorite UK star, Alfie Boe (sp?)
Matt and I decided, against my better judgement, that we would take two standing room tickets. In the US standing room is usually at the back of the Orchestra (they call the Orchestra level The Stalls in the UK, makes me feel a bit like a horse, but I digress) These tickets, however, were for the very back of the upper level. So up we trudged to the rear of The Balcony, which really wasn't terribly far away, but it was far enough, and there we stood. For THREE (3) hours!
25 years later the original staging of Les Miserables is still very powerful. The last time I saw Les miserables I saw it from the Front Row of The colonial Theater in Boston, and I was 12 years old. As a 26 year old viewing it from the last possible row of The Queens Theater in London I had come full circle. It was well worth the stand.
It is difficult to keep this show fresh after so many years, but most of the cast does remarkably well. The famed and Favorite UK star that had packed in the crowds was ironically out at the performance we took in, but his Understudy was unfathomably good, in fact I didn't realize it was the understudy until intermission. Javert, Thenadier (both Messrs, and Mdm) were superb, as was Fantine if just a little bit "stagey". Cossette (both small and tall) were also quite good as was the rest of the cast.
The only week link in the production was the young woman who played Eponine. Her voice was breathy and shrill. It was not pleasant to listen to. Also, the character of Eponine is underwritten in the script. The actress really isn't given much to work with as far as text is concerned. This makes it imperative for the actress playing the role to be able to deliver MORE than what is on the page. Otherwise we wont feel for her as we ought to feel for her. This young woman was not able to do that. Nor did she possess a voice that made you wish she had more to sing.
Other than that minor disappointment (which to me was a bit more than just minor, but once again I digress) it was an excellent night out and well worth standing for three hours. For those of you who have only ever seen Les Miserables on tour before, you may be surprised to see that there are some subtle differences. There is a little bit more music, a little bit more dialogue, and the staging is just the slightest bit altered.
The only other thing that was lacking in this production was The Orchestration. It was reported on a number of years ago when the production moved from The Palace Theater to the Queens Theater that the orchestra would be diminished. This has hurt the music tremendously in my opinion. So much more of the music is done on an electronic synthesizer, and it hurts the sound in my opinion. Especially since every recording in existence has done away with the synth almost entirely in favor of a richer orchestral sound.
In February of 2012 Tom Hooper will begin production a film version of this now classic Musical starring Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. No other casting has been announced at this time, but so far, so good. It will be interesting to see how this incredibly theatrical (and 80's pop infused) score translates to modern film.
My husband, Matthew has never really been a fan of Les Miserables, or Les Miz, as the common folk call it, or Miz as we lazy theater folk call it. He had never seen the show and had only heard the cast recordings. I say "recordings" because I've forced him to listen to The Original London Cast recording, The Original Broadway Cast recording, The complete Symphonic Recording, and the 10th anniversary cast recording. He would always remark "I prefer Miss Saigon".
When we first realized that we'd be going to London, and seeing a show, I asked him what he'd like to see, and strangely enough he said that he'd very much like to see Les Miz, because he never had, and he feels like it's one of those things one ought to see. I agreed and we set out to get tickets. You would think a show that been playing on the West End, or anyplace for that matter, for over 25 years wouldn't be too difficult to secure a seat for, but you would be mistaken. The entire show was sold out for over a week. This was apparently due to the return of a favorite UK star, Alfie Boe (sp?)
Matt and I decided, against my better judgement, that we would take two standing room tickets. In the US standing room is usually at the back of the Orchestra (they call the Orchestra level The Stalls in the UK, makes me feel a bit like a horse, but I digress) These tickets, however, were for the very back of the upper level. So up we trudged to the rear of The Balcony, which really wasn't terribly far away, but it was far enough, and there we stood. For THREE (3) hours!
25 years later the original staging of Les Miserables is still very powerful. The last time I saw Les miserables I saw it from the Front Row of The colonial Theater in Boston, and I was 12 years old. As a 26 year old viewing it from the last possible row of The Queens Theater in London I had come full circle. It was well worth the stand.
It is difficult to keep this show fresh after so many years, but most of the cast does remarkably well. The famed and Favorite UK star that had packed in the crowds was ironically out at the performance we took in, but his Understudy was unfathomably good, in fact I didn't realize it was the understudy until intermission. Javert, Thenadier (both Messrs, and Mdm) were superb, as was Fantine if just a little bit "stagey". Cossette (both small and tall) were also quite good as was the rest of the cast.
The only week link in the production was the young woman who played Eponine. Her voice was breathy and shrill. It was not pleasant to listen to. Also, the character of Eponine is underwritten in the script. The actress really isn't given much to work with as far as text is concerned. This makes it imperative for the actress playing the role to be able to deliver MORE than what is on the page. Otherwise we wont feel for her as we ought to feel for her. This young woman was not able to do that. Nor did she possess a voice that made you wish she had more to sing.
Other than that minor disappointment (which to me was a bit more than just minor, but once again I digress) it was an excellent night out and well worth standing for three hours. For those of you who have only ever seen Les Miserables on tour before, you may be surprised to see that there are some subtle differences. There is a little bit more music, a little bit more dialogue, and the staging is just the slightest bit altered.
The only other thing that was lacking in this production was The Orchestration. It was reported on a number of years ago when the production moved from The Palace Theater to the Queens Theater that the orchestra would be diminished. This has hurt the music tremendously in my opinion. So much more of the music is done on an electronic synthesizer, and it hurts the sound in my opinion. Especially since every recording in existence has done away with the synth almost entirely in favor of a richer orchestral sound.
In February of 2012 Tom Hooper will begin production a film version of this now classic Musical starring Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. No other casting has been announced at this time, but so far, so good. It will be interesting to see how this incredibly theatrical (and 80's pop infused) score translates to modern film.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Love Never Dies
Well loyal readers it has been a very long time since my last update. You must forgive me because I got married :-). June 26th was the big day, and the week before the wedding I did not see any shows. Nor did I take anything in the week following. It was not until my honeymoon when we visited London's West End that I was able to take in another show.
The show is question is a sequel to the largest commercial theatrical success of all time, The Phantom of The Opera. For decades now, people have wondered what became of the Phantom after that last moment. Where did he go? What did he do? The film version gave a small bit of closure to this point, but largely there were still questions unanswered. Those questions, along with a whole bunch that nobody even cared to ask, are answered in this new production.
Last year a cast recording was released that reflected the score at that time. It should be noted that that recording has been rendered obsolete. Many changes have been made to the score since that time. What is track 7 on that recording, is now the first song in the show. That song "Till I hear you sing" is the absolute most thrilling song in the production. In fact, the first 20-30 minutes are actually very entertaining. The dialogue through out could be improved, and I'm sure it will be by the time the next production in Australia opens (that production, it should also be noted, has a new director, choreographer, set, lighting, and costume designer).
After the first half an hour unfortunately, things start to unravel. It becomes "Phantom of the soap opera". The story becomes convoluted to the point of silliness. Also, the score reverts back to 80's pop synths and electric guitar riffs. There is very little to remember of about the score from that point on.
The biggest fault, in my opinion, is that the character of The Phantom loses everything that made him appealing in the first musical. All of his talent and mystery is stripped away, and he becomes just a man in a mask. There is nothing even the least bit haunting about him. He is humanized in a way that he should not be. However, in all this humanization, nobody refers to him by his real name. They instead call him "The Master" or refer to him with pronouns. For those who have read the original novel, you will know that "The Opera Ghost" as he is called, does in fact have a birth name.
My hope is that the new creative team will steer this show in the right direction. There is actually great potential for a substantial musical. There needs to be some serious editing, and in my opinion some songs need to be cut and some songs need to be added to heighten the drama. If things things happen, and it's possible that they could, than this could be a highly entertaining and artistically successful show.
The show is question is a sequel to the largest commercial theatrical success of all time, The Phantom of The Opera. For decades now, people have wondered what became of the Phantom after that last moment. Where did he go? What did he do? The film version gave a small bit of closure to this point, but largely there were still questions unanswered. Those questions, along with a whole bunch that nobody even cared to ask, are answered in this new production.
Last year a cast recording was released that reflected the score at that time. It should be noted that that recording has been rendered obsolete. Many changes have been made to the score since that time. What is track 7 on that recording, is now the first song in the show. That song "Till I hear you sing" is the absolute most thrilling song in the production. In fact, the first 20-30 minutes are actually very entertaining. The dialogue through out could be improved, and I'm sure it will be by the time the next production in Australia opens (that production, it should also be noted, has a new director, choreographer, set, lighting, and costume designer).
After the first half an hour unfortunately, things start to unravel. It becomes "Phantom of the soap opera". The story becomes convoluted to the point of silliness. Also, the score reverts back to 80's pop synths and electric guitar riffs. There is very little to remember of about the score from that point on.
The biggest fault, in my opinion, is that the character of The Phantom loses everything that made him appealing in the first musical. All of his talent and mystery is stripped away, and he becomes just a man in a mask. There is nothing even the least bit haunting about him. He is humanized in a way that he should not be. However, in all this humanization, nobody refers to him by his real name. They instead call him "The Master" or refer to him with pronouns. For those who have read the original novel, you will know that "The Opera Ghost" as he is called, does in fact have a birth name.
My hope is that the new creative team will steer this show in the right direction. There is actually great potential for a substantial musical. There needs to be some serious editing, and in my opinion some songs need to be cut and some songs need to be added to heighten the drama. If things things happen, and it's possible that they could, than this could be a highly entertaining and artistically successful show.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Spiderman: Turn off the Dark
Why anyone thought to call Spider man: Turn off the Dark a new musical is as great a puzzlement as one can find. It is not a musical. It is a two and half hour long theme park stunt show that happens to have singing and dancing in it. What is happening on stage every night at The Foxwoods Theater is admittedly visually stunning. Creatively speaking, it's stunning in a different way.
The show begins somewhat promising. The first 15 minutes are quite good. The visuals seem to be coming from an organic and specific place driven by plot, story and character development. After that initial first 15 minutes it's all down hill from there. There is a 5 minute song and dance number called "bullying by numbers" in which high school kids who look as though they've repeated senior year 8 times beat up Peter Parker for the entire number.
It's hard to say which is worse, the book, or the music. It's almost as if they are competing to see which can be more cringe inducing. The songs, admittedly, are not all bad. There are some very interesting melodies at work. Unfortunately the lyrics don't make sense, have no sense of plot or character development, and are some times even laughable. Most of the songs do not serve the story, but rather slow it down.
There are a few notable exceptions with the songs, the book however, is all bad. The dialogue is shoddy at best. It's embarrassing some of the things these people are forced to say. Not only that, but so much of it doesn't make any sense. Songs and battles come out of no where. It's hard to imagine that twelve weeks ago this was actually worse.
Patrick Pages deserves kudos as Norman Osborne/The Green Goblin. He sells that crap like it's Sondheim. His portrayal of Norman Osborne is as real and emotional as you're going to get in what is essentially a circus. Jennifer Damiano has a pleasing voice, but unfortunately gets bogged down by the material. She is unable to "rise above" the crap dialogue and deliver a commanding performance.
The biggest disappointment is Reeve Carney as Peter Parker. This is not the face of Peter Parker. This is the face of Peter Parker if Peter Parker were tall, blond, sexy, and joined an Emo Rock band. Not only does he not look the part, he cannot act, and sings just like Bono, which is not appropriate for Broadway, nor is it pleasant to listen to for two and a half hours.
Visually, it's a masterpiece, and there is nothing in the world to parallel what is happening on that stage. The Act II battle between The Green Goblin and Spider man is absolutely jaw dropping. The rest of the show is just plain boring. If this had been a 45 minute theme park show with a few hummable tunes and spectacular effects, I'd be humming a different tune, so to speak.
The team that was brought in when Julie Taymore was ousted had a lot of work to do, and they did the best that they could in 8 weeks. Perhaps the show will live on in either a touring company, Vegas edition, or London production that will offer them the chance to make further tweaks to the book and the score.
In closing, I advise knowing what you are getting yourself into before you see this show. It's a lot of money to be spending on a night out if you aren't prepared for what you're in for. Also, if you have a chance to listen to the score (I use that term loosely) before you attend you should do so, as some of the lyrics are difficult to understand in the theater.
The show begins somewhat promising. The first 15 minutes are quite good. The visuals seem to be coming from an organic and specific place driven by plot, story and character development. After that initial first 15 minutes it's all down hill from there. There is a 5 minute song and dance number called "bullying by numbers" in which high school kids who look as though they've repeated senior year 8 times beat up Peter Parker for the entire number.
It's hard to say which is worse, the book, or the music. It's almost as if they are competing to see which can be more cringe inducing. The songs, admittedly, are not all bad. There are some very interesting melodies at work. Unfortunately the lyrics don't make sense, have no sense of plot or character development, and are some times even laughable. Most of the songs do not serve the story, but rather slow it down.
There are a few notable exceptions with the songs, the book however, is all bad. The dialogue is shoddy at best. It's embarrassing some of the things these people are forced to say. Not only that, but so much of it doesn't make any sense. Songs and battles come out of no where. It's hard to imagine that twelve weeks ago this was actually worse.
Patrick Pages deserves kudos as Norman Osborne/The Green Goblin. He sells that crap like it's Sondheim. His portrayal of Norman Osborne is as real and emotional as you're going to get in what is essentially a circus. Jennifer Damiano has a pleasing voice, but unfortunately gets bogged down by the material. She is unable to "rise above" the crap dialogue and deliver a commanding performance.
The biggest disappointment is Reeve Carney as Peter Parker. This is not the face of Peter Parker. This is the face of Peter Parker if Peter Parker were tall, blond, sexy, and joined an Emo Rock band. Not only does he not look the part, he cannot act, and sings just like Bono, which is not appropriate for Broadway, nor is it pleasant to listen to for two and a half hours.
Visually, it's a masterpiece, and there is nothing in the world to parallel what is happening on that stage. The Act II battle between The Green Goblin and Spider man is absolutely jaw dropping. The rest of the show is just plain boring. If this had been a 45 minute theme park show with a few hummable tunes and spectacular effects, I'd be humming a different tune, so to speak.
The team that was brought in when Julie Taymore was ousted had a lot of work to do, and they did the best that they could in 8 weeks. Perhaps the show will live on in either a touring company, Vegas edition, or London production that will offer them the chance to make further tweaks to the book and the score.
In closing, I advise knowing what you are getting yourself into before you see this show. It's a lot of money to be spending on a night out if you aren't prepared for what you're in for. Also, if you have a chance to listen to the score (I use that term loosely) before you attend you should do so, as some of the lyrics are difficult to understand in the theater.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Tony Time
Mien Dammen und Herren, ma dames et mesuers, ladies and gentlemen, it's Broadways biggest night! The 2011 Tony Awards ceremony is this evening (June 12th) on CBS! This will be the 16th year in a row that I have watched The Tony Awards, and it never ceases to be like Christmas morning to me.
Some people hate awards shows. I'm not one of those people. Nor am I one of those who likes to see who people are wearing and all of that gossipy type stuff. I enjoy most awards shows, but Tony and I have a special bond. It's because I feel a certain connection with the shows that are nominated. I feel like these shows are my friends. Some of them are my enemies. When my friends win I like to cheer for them. When my enemies win I like to tell my friends it's alright because they're prettier. Either way, I enjoy watching what happens. So, what will happen tonight?
If The Book of Mormon does not win in nearly every category that it is nominated for I will be surprised. My take on things is below.
Best musical: The Book of Mormon (and it should)
Best Play: War Horse (Jerusalem should)
Best book: The Book of Mormon (and it probably should)
Best original score: The Book of Mormon (The Scottsboro Boys should)
Best revival of a play: The Normal Heart (and it most definitely should)
Best Revival of a musical: Anything Goes (and it should)
Leading Actor in a play: This is where things get interesting. It will probably go to Mark Rylance for Jerusalem, but COULD go to either Bobby Cannavale or Joe Mantello. Brian Bedford and Al Pacino are in the wrong category simply because they are big stars and therefore have no chance of winning.
Lead Actress in a play: Francis McDormand hands down.
Leading Actor in a musical: This is also interesting. Some people are predicting a split vote between Andrew Rannels and Josh Gad for The Book of Mormon putting one of the other guys on top. I think Andrew Rannels will squeak by with a win, but seriously, as long as Norbert Leo Butz (as talented as he most def is) does not win for that piece of poo Catch me if you can I will be happy.
Leading Actress in a musical: I think it's gonna be Sutton Foster, but it COULD be Patina Miller. Both got excellent reviews.
Featured Actress in a play: Ellen Barkin for the The Normal Heart will probably win. This is the category I am most torn up about who I think SHOULD win. Judith Light elevated Lombardi to a place it wouldn't have been brought to without her, and Edie Falco in The House of Blue Leaves just melted your face off with acting power.
Featured Actor in a musical: Probably go to Rory O'malley for The Book of Mormon but could also go to John Larroquette for How to Succeed. I think one of the Scottsboro boys should win.
Featured Actress in a musical: Nikki M. James could win just for being in The Book of Mormon. I would LOVE to see Tammy Blanchard win, or Laura Benanti.
Scenic design of a play: War horse
Scenic design of a musical: The book of Mormon
Costume design of a play: The Importance of Being Earnest
Costume design of a musical: Priscilla Queen of the desert
Lighting of a play: War horse (Bengal Tiger SHOULD win)
Lighting of a musical: The Book of Mormon
Sound design of a play: War horse
Sound design of a musical: The book of Mormon
Direction of a play. Joel Grey and George C. Wolfe for The Normal Heart
Best direction of a musical: Casey Nicholaw and Trey Parker for The Book of Mormon
Best Choreography: Kathleen marshal should win for Anything goes but it could go to Casey Nicholaw for The book of Mormon. I'd also be thrilled if Susan Stroman won for The Scottsboro boys because it was the best choreography of her career thus far (even better than The Producers).
Orchestrations will probably go to the book of Mormon.
Well there you have it folks! It's 7:55 pm and it's time for me to grab a drink, use the rest room and park my butt in front of the TV! Enjoy the show!
Some people hate awards shows. I'm not one of those people. Nor am I one of those who likes to see who people are wearing and all of that gossipy type stuff. I enjoy most awards shows, but Tony and I have a special bond. It's because I feel a certain connection with the shows that are nominated. I feel like these shows are my friends. Some of them are my enemies. When my friends win I like to cheer for them. When my enemies win I like to tell my friends it's alright because they're prettier. Either way, I enjoy watching what happens. So, what will happen tonight?
If The Book of Mormon does not win in nearly every category that it is nominated for I will be surprised. My take on things is below.
Best musical: The Book of Mormon (and it should)
Best Play: War Horse (Jerusalem should)
Best book: The Book of Mormon (and it probably should)
Best original score: The Book of Mormon (The Scottsboro Boys should)
Best revival of a play: The Normal Heart (and it most definitely should)
Best Revival of a musical: Anything Goes (and it should)
Leading Actor in a play: This is where things get interesting. It will probably go to Mark Rylance for Jerusalem, but COULD go to either Bobby Cannavale or Joe Mantello. Brian Bedford and Al Pacino are in the wrong category simply because they are big stars and therefore have no chance of winning.
Lead Actress in a play: Francis McDormand hands down.
Leading Actor in a musical: This is also interesting. Some people are predicting a split vote between Andrew Rannels and Josh Gad for The Book of Mormon putting one of the other guys on top. I think Andrew Rannels will squeak by with a win, but seriously, as long as Norbert Leo Butz (as talented as he most def is) does not win for that piece of poo Catch me if you can I will be happy.
Leading Actress in a musical: I think it's gonna be Sutton Foster, but it COULD be Patina Miller. Both got excellent reviews.
Featured Actress in a play: Ellen Barkin for the The Normal Heart will probably win. This is the category I am most torn up about who I think SHOULD win. Judith Light elevated Lombardi to a place it wouldn't have been brought to without her, and Edie Falco in The House of Blue Leaves just melted your face off with acting power.
Featured Actor in a musical: Probably go to Rory O'malley for The Book of Mormon but could also go to John Larroquette for How to Succeed. I think one of the Scottsboro boys should win.
Featured Actress in a musical: Nikki M. James could win just for being in The Book of Mormon. I would LOVE to see Tammy Blanchard win, or Laura Benanti.
Scenic design of a play: War horse
Scenic design of a musical: The book of Mormon
Costume design of a play: The Importance of Being Earnest
Costume design of a musical: Priscilla Queen of the desert
Lighting of a play: War horse (Bengal Tiger SHOULD win)
Lighting of a musical: The Book of Mormon
Sound design of a play: War horse
Sound design of a musical: The book of Mormon
Direction of a play. Joel Grey and George C. Wolfe for The Normal Heart
Best direction of a musical: Casey Nicholaw and Trey Parker for The Book of Mormon
Best Choreography: Kathleen marshal should win for Anything goes but it could go to Casey Nicholaw for The book of Mormon. I'd also be thrilled if Susan Stroman won for The Scottsboro boys because it was the best choreography of her career thus far (even better than The Producers).
Orchestrations will probably go to the book of Mormon.
Well there you have it folks! It's 7:55 pm and it's time for me to grab a drink, use the rest room and park my butt in front of the TV! Enjoy the show!
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The House of Blue Leaves
John Guares The House of Blue Leave is an excellent play about how celebrity has completely engulfed our culture and tainted those of us who do not have it into believing that we are entitled to it. The production currently on display over at The Walter Kerr theater does not do well in conveying this or any other theme of the play.
The production starts awkwardly, with struggling songwriter and Zoo keeper Artie Shaugnessy (Ben Stiller) playing the piano at an amateur night. Director David Cromer chose to stage the first ten minutes with Stiller having his back to the audience. There is nothing wrong with this in theory, but Stiller is not commanding enough onstage to pull this off.
There are wonderfully written pages of dialogue in this script, and the characters are comedic gold. Most of the cast unfortunately never gets past what lies beneath the surface. Jennifer Jason Leigh is fine as Bunny Flingus, (Artie's mistress and neighbor) and nails all the jokes convincingly, but you can't help but feel that there is more to be had from that performance.
The brightest spot on the stage is Edie Falco as Artie's wife, Bananas Shaughnessy. You see not a single trace of Edie Falco, Carmella Soprano, or Nurse Jackie on that stage. Through all her success as a television actress, we have forgotten that Edie Falco is a New York actor who trained for, and starred in the theater before she was plucked up by Hollywood. She still has the acting chops that she first displayed in the original 1998 production of Side Man.
As Artie's Schizophrenic and mildly Agoraphobic wife she hits more emotional notes than the New York Philharmonic. It's very easy to play crazy as crazy, but Ms. Falco comes from a place of genuine specificity. You never doubt that what you are seeing comes from a truly grounded place. You are watching a masterful performance by a true artist.
Ben Stiller is disappointing from beginning to end. If Edie Falco is a symphony, Ben Stiller is Hot Crossed Buns. There is very little depth to his performance. And because of his casting, and the way he has chosen to deliver certain moments, the audience is laughing when they aught to be listening.
The set design by Scott Pask, costumes by Tom Watson, and the lighting and wig design are spot on. The tepid performances and bland direction make this rich, and satisfying entree merely an appetizer.
The production starts awkwardly, with struggling songwriter and Zoo keeper Artie Shaugnessy (Ben Stiller) playing the piano at an amateur night. Director David Cromer chose to stage the first ten minutes with Stiller having his back to the audience. There is nothing wrong with this in theory, but Stiller is not commanding enough onstage to pull this off.
There are wonderfully written pages of dialogue in this script, and the characters are comedic gold. Most of the cast unfortunately never gets past what lies beneath the surface. Jennifer Jason Leigh is fine as Bunny Flingus, (Artie's mistress and neighbor) and nails all the jokes convincingly, but you can't help but feel that there is more to be had from that performance.
The brightest spot on the stage is Edie Falco as Artie's wife, Bananas Shaughnessy. You see not a single trace of Edie Falco, Carmella Soprano, or Nurse Jackie on that stage. Through all her success as a television actress, we have forgotten that Edie Falco is a New York actor who trained for, and starred in the theater before she was plucked up by Hollywood. She still has the acting chops that she first displayed in the original 1998 production of Side Man.
As Artie's Schizophrenic and mildly Agoraphobic wife she hits more emotional notes than the New York Philharmonic. It's very easy to play crazy as crazy, but Ms. Falco comes from a place of genuine specificity. You never doubt that what you are seeing comes from a truly grounded place. You are watching a masterful performance by a true artist.
Ben Stiller is disappointing from beginning to end. If Edie Falco is a symphony, Ben Stiller is Hot Crossed Buns. There is very little depth to his performance. And because of his casting, and the way he has chosen to deliver certain moments, the audience is laughing when they aught to be listening.
The set design by Scott Pask, costumes by Tom Watson, and the lighting and wig design are spot on. The tepid performances and bland direction make this rich, and satisfying entree merely an appetizer.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Motherfucker With the Hat
Relationships are difficult things. They challenge us all through our lives. At the very top of Stephen Adly Guirgis new play we meet Veronica, who has a somewhat troubled relationship with her mother as we can tell from the phone conversation we are privy too. This shows us the type of home Veronica comes from, and gives insight into what the rest of the play will be like.
The true troubled relationship at the center of the play is between Veronica and Jackie, a former drug user/dealer and Alcoholic who has only recently been released from prison and is trying to get back on his feat, when he finds a mans hat on his table, and his bed smells like Aqua-velva and dick.
Who IS the Motherfucker with the hat? Is motherfucker one word or two? It would be cheating to tell you. All I can and will say is that the play is very funny from beginning to end. I found the play to be emotionally satisfying as well as very well written.
The set design is very good, and so is the costume and lighting design. I found the acting performances and the direction to be a tad misguided. There is a huge scream fest right at the beginning of the play, and it never backs down from there. Because the actors are beginning at such fever pitch they have no place to go but down.
Bobby Cannavale is excellent as Jackie. He gives him the right amount of Machismo but also keeps him vulnerable, and therefore likable. We never stop rooting for Jackie to do the right thing. Elizabeth Rodriguez is excellent as Veronica, though I wish she had been directed not to scream so much. Yul Vasquez steals every scene he is in, and Annabelle Scciora is wonderful in her supporting role. In his Broadway debut Chris Rock is not at all a disappointment. He does not really offer much in the way of a deep, layered, meaningful performance, but he is able to deliver both the comedy and the more serious tones convincingly.
Overall the play is very good, and has a serious chance of taking home the prize for best new play at this years Tony Awards. I think Yul Vasquez at the very least, as well as Bobby Cannavale have a tremendous chance of also winning in their respective categories as Best Featured Actor and Best Actor. If you are in New York and you have a chance, check it out. There are not very many plays of this caliber on the boards these days.
The true troubled relationship at the center of the play is between Veronica and Jackie, a former drug user/dealer and Alcoholic who has only recently been released from prison and is trying to get back on his feat, when he finds a mans hat on his table, and his bed smells like Aqua-velva and dick.
Who IS the Motherfucker with the hat? Is motherfucker one word or two? It would be cheating to tell you. All I can and will say is that the play is very funny from beginning to end. I found the play to be emotionally satisfying as well as very well written.
The set design is very good, and so is the costume and lighting design. I found the acting performances and the direction to be a tad misguided. There is a huge scream fest right at the beginning of the play, and it never backs down from there. Because the actors are beginning at such fever pitch they have no place to go but down.
Bobby Cannavale is excellent as Jackie. He gives him the right amount of Machismo but also keeps him vulnerable, and therefore likable. We never stop rooting for Jackie to do the right thing. Elizabeth Rodriguez is excellent as Veronica, though I wish she had been directed not to scream so much. Yul Vasquez steals every scene he is in, and Annabelle Scciora is wonderful in her supporting role. In his Broadway debut Chris Rock is not at all a disappointment. He does not really offer much in the way of a deep, layered, meaningful performance, but he is able to deliver both the comedy and the more serious tones convincingly.
Overall the play is very good, and has a serious chance of taking home the prize for best new play at this years Tony Awards. I think Yul Vasquez at the very least, as well as Bobby Cannavale have a tremendous chance of also winning in their respective categories as Best Featured Actor and Best Actor. If you are in New York and you have a chance, check it out. There are not very many plays of this caliber on the boards these days.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Bengal Tiger at The Bagdad Zoo
War has often been theme for media. I'm sure we could spend hours thinking of the various titles of books, movies, TV shows, plays, even paintings or art installations that use war as a theme, setting, or back drop. It's not very often that we get these pieces of art while we are still embroiled in the war on which we are presented with.
Rajiv Josephs new play Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo is set in Iraq in 2003, not long after the US first invaded and ousted Saddam Hussein from his tyrannical role as leader. Joseph uses this setting to discuss universal themes like sin and redemption, and the never ending cycle of violence that has already begun before the curtain rises and will continue after it falls.
Robin Williams as The tiger dies in the very first scene, after eating the hand of an American soldier named Tom (Glenn Davis), and being shot by another soldier, Kev (Brad Fleischer). As the one who killed him, Kev is the only person who seems able to hear the ghost of this talking tiger, which starts driving him insane.
The story of the soldiers intersects with that of Musa (Arian Moayed), an Iraqi translator assisting the American military forces. The gold-plated gun that killed the tiger originally belonged to Uday Hussein (Hrach Titizian), one of Saddam Hussein's sons, and Musa's former employer.
The first act is difficult to follow because there are good portions of the script that are entirely in Arabic with no translation. This is not an easy play to watch. That doesn't mean that it isn't good, because it is, it just isn't easily accessible.
Musa was a gardener at the Hussein mansion, creating large topiaries shaped as various animals. The decaying remnants of this garden, hauntingly realized by scenic designer Derek McLane, capture the attention of the tiger, and it becomes a symbol of a lost paradise, abandoned by its creator and falling into ruin, just as God seems to have likewise gone missing and let the world descend into chaos.
This is the type of play that doesn't really sink it while you are watching it. It's not until the play is over and you are able to reflect that the magnitude of what you have seen really hits you. It's probably more poignant upon second viewing. Though I suppose there are some that will connect to it right away and not need that second helping.
The biggest problem that I had with the play is that none of the characters are particularly likable. There is the character of Musa, who is extremely likable, and the tiger. The tiger doesn't really get much interaction his is mostly monologues performed out at the audience. They are poetic and meaningful and often humorous monologues, but it does get a bit tedious.
If you can make it through Act I Act II is much better. Everything comes together in a very satisfying albeit difficult ending. The play challenges us to see what it is the rest of the world sees. It asks us to examine our beliefs, and challenges us to look within at the cycle we are all a part of.
Rajiv Josephs new play Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo is set in Iraq in 2003, not long after the US first invaded and ousted Saddam Hussein from his tyrannical role as leader. Joseph uses this setting to discuss universal themes like sin and redemption, and the never ending cycle of violence that has already begun before the curtain rises and will continue after it falls.
Robin Williams as The tiger dies in the very first scene, after eating the hand of an American soldier named Tom (Glenn Davis), and being shot by another soldier, Kev (Brad Fleischer). As the one who killed him, Kev is the only person who seems able to hear the ghost of this talking tiger, which starts driving him insane.
The story of the soldiers intersects with that of Musa (Arian Moayed), an Iraqi translator assisting the American military forces. The gold-plated gun that killed the tiger originally belonged to Uday Hussein (Hrach Titizian), one of Saddam Hussein's sons, and Musa's former employer.
The first act is difficult to follow because there are good portions of the script that are entirely in Arabic with no translation. This is not an easy play to watch. That doesn't mean that it isn't good, because it is, it just isn't easily accessible.
Musa was a gardener at the Hussein mansion, creating large topiaries shaped as various animals. The decaying remnants of this garden, hauntingly realized by scenic designer Derek McLane, capture the attention of the tiger, and it becomes a symbol of a lost paradise, abandoned by its creator and falling into ruin, just as God seems to have likewise gone missing and let the world descend into chaos.
This is the type of play that doesn't really sink it while you are watching it. It's not until the play is over and you are able to reflect that the magnitude of what you have seen really hits you. It's probably more poignant upon second viewing. Though I suppose there are some that will connect to it right away and not need that second helping.
The biggest problem that I had with the play is that none of the characters are particularly likable. There is the character of Musa, who is extremely likable, and the tiger. The tiger doesn't really get much interaction his is mostly monologues performed out at the audience. They are poetic and meaningful and often humorous monologues, but it does get a bit tedious.
If you can make it through Act I Act II is much better. Everything comes together in a very satisfying albeit difficult ending. The play challenges us to see what it is the rest of the world sees. It asks us to examine our beliefs, and challenges us to look within at the cycle we are all a part of.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
By The Way, Meet Vera Stark
The Golden Age of Hollywood is alive on stage over at Second Stage Theater. Lynn Nottage (who won a Pulitzer last year for her play Ruined which played at MTC) has put together a well written, though at times uneven study of African American actresses in the early days of cinema.
The first act is a perfect representation of what it was like for young black women fighting for screen time to say things like "Yes'm" and "no'm". Vera is an aspiring young fire cracker, who in today's Hollywood would have been cast in a picture immediately, has trouble playing even a maid in 1933. A "gone with the wind" type southern epic is being made at the studio, and every black woman in town is clamoring to play one of the slaves. There is a humorous exchange about this in the second scene.
While act I is a perfect, and comedic, outlook on what things were like, and the degradation women of color were put through in order to find work on the screen, act II takes place simultaneously in 2003, and in 1973. An expert panel is discussing some newly rediscovered footage from a 1973 TV interview at an symposium titled "Finding Vera Stark". This is where problems begin.
The play doesn't adequately draw enough parallels between the first and second act. Even though that character of Vera Stark is in front of us, albeit forty years after she first graced the scene in the aforementioned southern epic, we only get small hints of the struggle that she must have gone through in those subsequent years.
A large majority of praise must be heaped upon Sanaa Lathan who plays Vera Stark. It is through her performance alone that we can understand the struggle and the pain and heartbreak that Vera has gone through. We can see that she both loves the applause of the audience, and loathes them for what they made her do. The supporting cast is fantastic. Each person is giving a truly top notch performance. The second act does need some stronger connectivity to Act I but other than that, definitely worth checking out.
The first act is a perfect representation of what it was like for young black women fighting for screen time to say things like "Yes'm" and "no'm". Vera is an aspiring young fire cracker, who in today's Hollywood would have been cast in a picture immediately, has trouble playing even a maid in 1933. A "gone with the wind" type southern epic is being made at the studio, and every black woman in town is clamoring to play one of the slaves. There is a humorous exchange about this in the second scene.
While act I is a perfect, and comedic, outlook on what things were like, and the degradation women of color were put through in order to find work on the screen, act II takes place simultaneously in 2003, and in 1973. An expert panel is discussing some newly rediscovered footage from a 1973 TV interview at an symposium titled "Finding Vera Stark". This is where problems begin.
The play doesn't adequately draw enough parallels between the first and second act. Even though that character of Vera Stark is in front of us, albeit forty years after she first graced the scene in the aforementioned southern epic, we only get small hints of the struggle that she must have gone through in those subsequent years.
A large majority of praise must be heaped upon Sanaa Lathan who plays Vera Stark. It is through her performance alone that we can understand the struggle and the pain and heartbreak that Vera has gone through. We can see that she both loves the applause of the audience, and loathes them for what they made her do. The supporting cast is fantastic. Each person is giving a truly top notch performance. The second act does need some stronger connectivity to Act I but other than that, definitely worth checking out.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Wonderland
There are some stories that are never going to get old. Alice in Wonderland is one of them. Unfortunately, unlike other classic stories (Peter Pan, Cinderella, The Wizard of Oz, just to name a few) there is no definitive stage adaptation. There have been people who have tried with varying degrees of success. Add the folks of Wonderland into the pile of those that made a near valiant effort, but didn't quite make it through the looking glass.
It's tough not to compare this Alice to other Alice's past. I will say that, while it does cut many of Lewis Carroll's characters, they do capture the essence of the original story pretty well. Though this Alice is not the Alice we grew up with. In fact it begins with a young girl texting and listening to her Grandmother read her Alice in Wonderland.
Chloe, the girl in question, has just moved into a new dwelling place as a result of her parents "Marital Problems". We don't hear much about these problems, what they are, how they came about, we just have to trust that they are there, which is fine in a sense, except that it's important for us to know as to how these characters are relating to each other.
The story pushes onward introducing us to Alice, who is a teacher who longs to be a writer, and apparently has very little time for her family, which may or may not be part of the marital problems, though we get the feeling from the way Alice speaks of her husband that it's all his fault. Alice bumps her head taking the service elevator (why is she taking the service elevator and not the regular people elevator? I couldn't tell you, and neither do the book writers), and falls asleep after a confrontation with her daughter and mother in law. Why is her mother in law at the house that she just moved into to get away from her son? Another interesting and unanswered question. Nevertheless, Alice falls asleep and who should appear but the white rabbit, leading Alice back to the service elevator in question, and incidentally on to Wonderland.
The rest of the story is filled with the same time of poor book writing, bad jokes, and underdeveloped characters. The music is quite good, very catchy, but the lyrics are mostly terrible. The sad thing is that it could have been quite good if there was somebody on board who new how to structure a musical.
Performances are mostly good. Janet Dacal is endearing and likable as Alice. Carly Rose Sonnenclar is adorable and never precocious as Chloe. Karen Mason and Kate Shindle do their best to make crap sparkle. Darren Ritchie does what is needed as The White Knight, and you just spend the whole time feeling sorry for Jose Llanna.
The set and costumes are lovely, so the projections get to be a bit trippy at times, and there are some very poorly staged moments, like the act I finale for instance. Wonderland is closing on Sunday May 15th. It is a wasted opportunity because there IS something there, it's just not quite fully developed yet.
It's tough not to compare this Alice to other Alice's past. I will say that, while it does cut many of Lewis Carroll's characters, they do capture the essence of the original story pretty well. Though this Alice is not the Alice we grew up with. In fact it begins with a young girl texting and listening to her Grandmother read her Alice in Wonderland.
Chloe, the girl in question, has just moved into a new dwelling place as a result of her parents "Marital Problems". We don't hear much about these problems, what they are, how they came about, we just have to trust that they are there, which is fine in a sense, except that it's important for us to know as to how these characters are relating to each other.
The story pushes onward introducing us to Alice, who is a teacher who longs to be a writer, and apparently has very little time for her family, which may or may not be part of the marital problems, though we get the feeling from the way Alice speaks of her husband that it's all his fault. Alice bumps her head taking the service elevator (why is she taking the service elevator and not the regular people elevator? I couldn't tell you, and neither do the book writers), and falls asleep after a confrontation with her daughter and mother in law. Why is her mother in law at the house that she just moved into to get away from her son? Another interesting and unanswered question. Nevertheless, Alice falls asleep and who should appear but the white rabbit, leading Alice back to the service elevator in question, and incidentally on to Wonderland.
The rest of the story is filled with the same time of poor book writing, bad jokes, and underdeveloped characters. The music is quite good, very catchy, but the lyrics are mostly terrible. The sad thing is that it could have been quite good if there was somebody on board who new how to structure a musical.
Performances are mostly good. Janet Dacal is endearing and likable as Alice. Carly Rose Sonnenclar is adorable and never precocious as Chloe. Karen Mason and Kate Shindle do their best to make crap sparkle. Darren Ritchie does what is needed as The White Knight, and you just spend the whole time feeling sorry for Jose Llanna.
The set and costumes are lovely, so the projections get to be a bit trippy at times, and there are some very poorly staged moments, like the act I finale for instance. Wonderland is closing on Sunday May 15th. It is a wasted opportunity because there IS something there, it's just not quite fully developed yet.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
The Normal Heart
There is room for all kinds of theater on Broadway. There are fun and campy musicals that make us feel great like Mamma Mia! and Priscilla Queen of the Desert. There are plays that make us laugh like Born Yesterday and Good People. There are dramas that make us think, and cry like Times Stand Still and War Horse. Every so often a work comes along that has the power to make you laugh, cry, think, and more importantly change your guts.
Larry Kramers The Normal Heart is more than just a beautiful play, it is a call to arms. We are 30 years into the HIV/AIDS plague and we are no closer to ending it than when we began. So many of the issues that are at the core of this play, are still prevalent issues in our society more than 20 years after it was written and first presented off-Broadway.
There have been 35 million deaths from HIV/AIDS. 75 million people have been diagnosed with this disease. We as a civilization have become desensitized and complacent. We still live in a country where gay people are afraid to come out of the closet. There are still more than 20 states where you can be fired from your job, denied housing. or lose your benefits because you are gay. Where it is perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for being gay. Gay men and women can still not marry each other. All these things help propagate HIV/AIDS.
People who are not free to be with whom it is they want to be with, very often choose to live a life "normalcy". While living this lie, they continue to engage in sexual behaviors on the side with the people they would rather be intimate with, but are afraid or unable to do so with for fear of losing their loved ones, job, health insurance, housing. etc. They are then bringing this disease home with them, and then to their next elicit encounter.
Our culture has become completely sexualized. So many of our young people think that they can go out and have sex with whomever they want, and they are not going to get infected with anything. We as an American People need to stand up and fight.
Take away peoples fear. If people are not afraid to be openly who they are, and what they are, we can see this disease start to be eradicated. If we allow people who love each other to marry, and build their family unite freely and openly, we can see this disease start to decline.f
If we continue to allow things to progress as they are there is no telling how many more people will die. There is no telling how many more, perhaps worse, will have to "live" with this terrible disease. There are things that can be done. Pharmaceutical companies can be lobbied to lower the cost of meds, giving access to those who cannot afford the astronomical prices. The government can be lobbied into making it illegal for anyone to lose any job, any housing, any medical or other benefit for being homosexual. The Government can be lobbied to allow us to marry one another, to give us legal validation that our love, our family unit, our support of one another is just as important, profound, and worthy of protection as the heterosexual population.
This, like the play, has not been much of a review. The Normal Heart is the most important show playing on Broadway right now. It the duty of every living person to see it, and to do something. Make no excuse. I challenge you all to see this play, and NOT be affected to do something.
Larry Kramers The Normal Heart is more than just a beautiful play, it is a call to arms. We are 30 years into the HIV/AIDS plague and we are no closer to ending it than when we began. So many of the issues that are at the core of this play, are still prevalent issues in our society more than 20 years after it was written and first presented off-Broadway.
There have been 35 million deaths from HIV/AIDS. 75 million people have been diagnosed with this disease. We as a civilization have become desensitized and complacent. We still live in a country where gay people are afraid to come out of the closet. There are still more than 20 states where you can be fired from your job, denied housing. or lose your benefits because you are gay. Where it is perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for being gay. Gay men and women can still not marry each other. All these things help propagate HIV/AIDS.
People who are not free to be with whom it is they want to be with, very often choose to live a life "normalcy". While living this lie, they continue to engage in sexual behaviors on the side with the people they would rather be intimate with, but are afraid or unable to do so with for fear of losing their loved ones, job, health insurance, housing. etc. They are then bringing this disease home with them, and then to their next elicit encounter.
Our culture has become completely sexualized. So many of our young people think that they can go out and have sex with whomever they want, and they are not going to get infected with anything. We as an American People need to stand up and fight.
Take away peoples fear. If people are not afraid to be openly who they are, and what they are, we can see this disease start to be eradicated. If we allow people who love each other to marry, and build their family unite freely and openly, we can see this disease start to decline.f
If we continue to allow things to progress as they are there is no telling how many more people will die. There is no telling how many more, perhaps worse, will have to "live" with this terrible disease. There are things that can be done. Pharmaceutical companies can be lobbied to lower the cost of meds, giving access to those who cannot afford the astronomical prices. The government can be lobbied into making it illegal for anyone to lose any job, any housing, any medical or other benefit for being homosexual. The Government can be lobbied to allow us to marry one another, to give us legal validation that our love, our family unit, our support of one another is just as important, profound, and worthy of protection as the heterosexual population.
This, like the play, has not been much of a review. The Normal Heart is the most important show playing on Broadway right now. It the duty of every living person to see it, and to do something. Make no excuse. I challenge you all to see this play, and NOT be affected to do something.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The People in the Picture
There have been many pieces of theater, and in fact many other forms of media as well, that have told the stories of the atrocities of The Holocaust. The latest of these artful endeavors is the new musical The People in the Picture currently being presented on Broadway by The Roundabout Theater company.
The story revolves around Bubbi, who takes care of her Grand daughter (or is it the other way around?), and Bubbi's troubled relationship with her daughter Red. The action takes place is 1977, but frequently flashes back to Poland from 1938-1947. Donna Murphy plays Bubbi, and her younger self, Reisal.
People starts with great promise, with a toe tapping opening number that introduces the characters, establishes relationships, and sets the tone for the first act. Toward the middle of the first act things start to go a bit awry. The character of Red is sorely underwritten, and deserves to be fleshed out a bit more. We learn that there is a secret to be told, and as the action goes back and forth we start to form a picture of our own of what that secret may be.
Act I is for the most part very upbeat, with some very catchy songs and witty dialogue. Act II opens in the Warsaw Ghetto and gets very dark, very fast. There is very little transition into this darkness, and Act I and act II don't quite flow together naturally. Everything in Act II is much tighter, and fits together much more naturally than in Act I. The play has a very satisfying ending however, which marked with the great beginning, end of Act I, and all of Act II makes you forgive them their minor faults.
The star of the show is Donna Murphy, who was recently Tony nominated for this performance. Her work is exquisite. With no make up, and very little costume change she completely transforms and transfers between there two women, and they do almost seem like two different women. On a lesser actress they might appear more so, but Ms. Murphy not only shows the differences between her younger and older selves, but also lets you see the similarities, and the journey of how she became who she is.
The People in the Picture is not a great musical. It does what great musicals do though. It tells you a wonderful story. It delivers excellent choreography and has you humming when you leave the theater, and perhaps even opens your heart a little. It is definitely worth a trip to the theater! Playing through June 19th only so don't delay!
The story revolves around Bubbi, who takes care of her Grand daughter (or is it the other way around?), and Bubbi's troubled relationship with her daughter Red. The action takes place is 1977, but frequently flashes back to Poland from 1938-1947. Donna Murphy plays Bubbi, and her younger self, Reisal.
People starts with great promise, with a toe tapping opening number that introduces the characters, establishes relationships, and sets the tone for the first act. Toward the middle of the first act things start to go a bit awry. The character of Red is sorely underwritten, and deserves to be fleshed out a bit more. We learn that there is a secret to be told, and as the action goes back and forth we start to form a picture of our own of what that secret may be.
Act I is for the most part very upbeat, with some very catchy songs and witty dialogue. Act II opens in the Warsaw Ghetto and gets very dark, very fast. There is very little transition into this darkness, and Act I and act II don't quite flow together naturally. Everything in Act II is much tighter, and fits together much more naturally than in Act I. The play has a very satisfying ending however, which marked with the great beginning, end of Act I, and all of Act II makes you forgive them their minor faults.
The star of the show is Donna Murphy, who was recently Tony nominated for this performance. Her work is exquisite. With no make up, and very little costume change she completely transforms and transfers between there two women, and they do almost seem like two different women. On a lesser actress they might appear more so, but Ms. Murphy not only shows the differences between her younger and older selves, but also lets you see the similarities, and the journey of how she became who she is.
The People in the Picture is not a great musical. It does what great musicals do though. It tells you a wonderful story. It delivers excellent choreography and has you humming when you leave the theater, and perhaps even opens your heart a little. It is definitely worth a trip to the theater! Playing through June 19th only so don't delay!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tony Awards Predictions
Tomorrow is the big day! The 2011 Tony Award nominations will be announced live at 8:30 am eastern time by Tony Award winners Matthew Broderick and Anika Noni Rose. So, on this nomination eve, as expected I'm sure, I figured I would offer up my predictions and opinions :-).
Let's begin with the design awards. On the play front, there are several plays with fantastic designs, I'd say both War Horse and Brief Encounter are shoe ins, at least War Horse. I'd also say that The Importance of Being Earnest, Good People, and The Pee Wee Herman Show have good chances of being nominated.
As far as musicals go, The Book of Mormon will most likely be nominated for every award is eligible to be nominated for Producers style. Other shows that are sure to get design award nominations include Priscilla, Wonderland, Catch me if you can, Anything goes, How to succeed, and baby it's you. The design for a musical nominations will probably be used to spread a little love to the shows that aren't getting nominated for performance or best new or revived play/musical awards.
Best director of a play nominees are sure to include Emma Rice for her brilliant Brief Encounter, Joel Grey and George C. Wolfe, for the much lauded revival of The Normal Heart, Moises Kaufman for Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo, the last slot could go to David Levoiux for Arcadia, Brian Bedford for The Importance of Being Earnest, and Daniel Sullivan for The Merchant of Venice.
Best Choreography: There are some new faces in the mix, but for the most part the heavy contenders already have tony awards. The most likely are Kathleen Marshal for Anything Goes, Rob Ashford for How to Succeed. Jerry Mitchel will also probably be nominated for Catch me if you can. The last two spots will probably go to either Sister Act, Priscilla, or Baby it's you. I can't see Wonderland, The People in the picture, or any of the already closed musicals (Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Women on the verge, or The Scottsboro boys) getting nominations. The only exception may prove (and deserves to be) Susan Stroman who has done some of the best work of her career for The Scottsboro boys.
Best Director of a musical will probably follow suit with choreographer. Rob Ashford and Kathleen Marshal will probably score nods, along with Jerry Zaks for Sister Act. The other nominations could go to Priscilla, The People in the picture, or The Scottsboro boys. Baby it's you, Wonderland, and Catch me if you can are unlikely to score nominations.
The featured actor and actress categories are harder to pin down because they are far more expansive. Also, some performers who characters are technically featured roles have been bumped up to leading status because of who is playing them.
I think that featured actor in a play will see nominations go to The Pittman Painters, Arcadia, A free man of color, Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo, The mother fucker with the hat, The house of Blue Leaves, and The Normal Heart.
Featured Actress in a play nominees are easier, because there are always fewer stand outs. This year, Judith Light for Lombardi, and Estelle Parsons for Good People are sure to be nominated. Arcadia will also see some of it's women nominated, as well as Brief Encounter. Edie Falco stands a good chance of being nominated for The House of Blue Leaves.
Featured Actor in a musical will probably see nominations go to Nick Adams for Priscilla, John Laraquette for How to Succeed. The other slots could really go anyplace. None of the featured male performances are really garnering much attention. Tom Wopat could get a nom for Catch me if you can, as well as Chester Gregory for Sister Act, many of the men from The Scottsboro Boys deserve to be nominated, but it will be tough for them since the show closed so early.
Featured Actress in a musical is just as hard to narrow down this year. Victoria Clark is sure to get a nom for playing Mother Superior in Sister Act, Laura Osnes for Anything Goes, Rose Hemingway for How to Succeed. The other slots could be filled by one of The Shirelles from Baby, it's you, one of the nuns from Sister Act, or perhaps Kerry Butler from Catch me if you can, or Karen Mason from Wonderland or Nicole Parker from The People in the picture. Don't count out Laura Benanti or Patti Lupone for Women on the Verge either.
The leading Actor in a play category is the toughest to call because there were some fantastic performances from men this season. The ones who deserve to be nominated are Dan Lauria for Lombardi, Brian Bedford for The Importance of Being Earnest, Bobby Canavale for The Mother Fucker with the hat, Santina Fontana for The Importance of Being Earnest, James Earl Jones for Driving Miss Daisey, Joe Mantello for The Normal Heart, Al Pacino for The Merchant of Venice, Mark Rylance for Jerusalem, and Robin Williams for Bengal Tiger at The Baghdad Zoo. Obviously that's too many to ACTUALLY be nominated. I'd say Robin Williams, Al Pacino, Brian Bedford, Joe Mantello, are sure to be nominated, and the last slot will go to either James Earl Jones or Dan Lauria.
Leading Actress in a play has only seven eligible women. This makes it pretty easy to predict. Nina Arianda for Born Yesterday, Frances McDormand for Good People, Vanessa Redgrave for Driving Miss Daisy, Lilly Rabe for The Merchant of Venice. The last slot could go to Kathleen Turner for High, or Hanna Yeland for Brief Encounter.
Leading Actor in a musical has more choices, but few standouts, so they will probably go to Daniel Radcliffe for How to Succeed, Tony Sheldon for Priscilla, Andrew Rannels for The Book of Mormon, Norbert Leo Buttz for Catch me if you can, and either Will Swenson for Priscilla, Josh Gad for The book of Mormon, or Collin Donnell for Anything Goes.
Leading Actress in a musical is the easiest to call. Donna Murphy, Sutton Foster, Patina Miller, the last slot will probably go to Beth Leavel, but could possibly go to Janet Dacal if they want to give Wonderland a sympathy nomination. My money is on Miss Leavel though, who elevates Baby its you, from its bargain basement roots.
Best revival of play: Earnest, Merchant of Venice, Normal Heart, Arcadia
Revival of a musical only has two choices, and they will both be nominated.
Best new play. There are 14 new plays to choose from, however only 8 with a serious chance of being nominated. The definites are War Horse and Bengal Tiger, the other two slots could go to Good People, The Motherfucker with the hat, Jerusalem, or Ghetto Klown. John Leguizamos previous Broadway offerings have been nominated for Tonys before.
Best New Musical has 12 choices but only 7 that have real chances of being nominated. The Book of Mormon, Sister Act, Priscilla, are sure to be nominated, with the last going to either The People in the picture, Catch me if you can, or, if there is Justice in the world of Musical Theater, The Scottsboro boys.
Welll folks, there you have it! Tomorrow at 8:30 am we will see for sure who gets nominated and who gets snubbed.
Let's begin with the design awards. On the play front, there are several plays with fantastic designs, I'd say both War Horse and Brief Encounter are shoe ins, at least War Horse. I'd also say that The Importance of Being Earnest, Good People, and The Pee Wee Herman Show have good chances of being nominated.
As far as musicals go, The Book of Mormon will most likely be nominated for every award is eligible to be nominated for Producers style. Other shows that are sure to get design award nominations include Priscilla, Wonderland, Catch me if you can, Anything goes, How to succeed, and baby it's you. The design for a musical nominations will probably be used to spread a little love to the shows that aren't getting nominated for performance or best new or revived play/musical awards.
Best director of a play nominees are sure to include Emma Rice for her brilliant Brief Encounter, Joel Grey and George C. Wolfe, for the much lauded revival of The Normal Heart, Moises Kaufman for Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo, the last slot could go to David Levoiux for Arcadia, Brian Bedford for The Importance of Being Earnest, and Daniel Sullivan for The Merchant of Venice.
Best Choreography: There are some new faces in the mix, but for the most part the heavy contenders already have tony awards. The most likely are Kathleen Marshal for Anything Goes, Rob Ashford for How to Succeed. Jerry Mitchel will also probably be nominated for Catch me if you can. The last two spots will probably go to either Sister Act, Priscilla, or Baby it's you. I can't see Wonderland, The People in the picture, or any of the already closed musicals (Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Women on the verge, or The Scottsboro boys) getting nominations. The only exception may prove (and deserves to be) Susan Stroman who has done some of the best work of her career for The Scottsboro boys.
Best Director of a musical will probably follow suit with choreographer. Rob Ashford and Kathleen Marshal will probably score nods, along with Jerry Zaks for Sister Act. The other nominations could go to Priscilla, The People in the picture, or The Scottsboro boys. Baby it's you, Wonderland, and Catch me if you can are unlikely to score nominations.
The featured actor and actress categories are harder to pin down because they are far more expansive. Also, some performers who characters are technically featured roles have been bumped up to leading status because of who is playing them.
I think that featured actor in a play will see nominations go to The Pittman Painters, Arcadia, A free man of color, Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo, The mother fucker with the hat, The house of Blue Leaves, and The Normal Heart.
Featured Actress in a play nominees are easier, because there are always fewer stand outs. This year, Judith Light for Lombardi, and Estelle Parsons for Good People are sure to be nominated. Arcadia will also see some of it's women nominated, as well as Brief Encounter. Edie Falco stands a good chance of being nominated for The House of Blue Leaves.
Featured Actor in a musical will probably see nominations go to Nick Adams for Priscilla, John Laraquette for How to Succeed. The other slots could really go anyplace. None of the featured male performances are really garnering much attention. Tom Wopat could get a nom for Catch me if you can, as well as Chester Gregory for Sister Act, many of the men from The Scottsboro Boys deserve to be nominated, but it will be tough for them since the show closed so early.
Featured Actress in a musical is just as hard to narrow down this year. Victoria Clark is sure to get a nom for playing Mother Superior in Sister Act, Laura Osnes for Anything Goes, Rose Hemingway for How to Succeed. The other slots could be filled by one of The Shirelles from Baby, it's you, one of the nuns from Sister Act, or perhaps Kerry Butler from Catch me if you can, or Karen Mason from Wonderland or Nicole Parker from The People in the picture. Don't count out Laura Benanti or Patti Lupone for Women on the Verge either.
The leading Actor in a play category is the toughest to call because there were some fantastic performances from men this season. The ones who deserve to be nominated are Dan Lauria for Lombardi, Brian Bedford for The Importance of Being Earnest, Bobby Canavale for The Mother Fucker with the hat, Santina Fontana for The Importance of Being Earnest, James Earl Jones for Driving Miss Daisey, Joe Mantello for The Normal Heart, Al Pacino for The Merchant of Venice, Mark Rylance for Jerusalem, and Robin Williams for Bengal Tiger at The Baghdad Zoo. Obviously that's too many to ACTUALLY be nominated. I'd say Robin Williams, Al Pacino, Brian Bedford, Joe Mantello, are sure to be nominated, and the last slot will go to either James Earl Jones or Dan Lauria.
Leading Actress in a play has only seven eligible women. This makes it pretty easy to predict. Nina Arianda for Born Yesterday, Frances McDormand for Good People, Vanessa Redgrave for Driving Miss Daisy, Lilly Rabe for The Merchant of Venice. The last slot could go to Kathleen Turner for High, or Hanna Yeland for Brief Encounter.
Leading Actor in a musical has more choices, but few standouts, so they will probably go to Daniel Radcliffe for How to Succeed, Tony Sheldon for Priscilla, Andrew Rannels for The Book of Mormon, Norbert Leo Buttz for Catch me if you can, and either Will Swenson for Priscilla, Josh Gad for The book of Mormon, or Collin Donnell for Anything Goes.
Leading Actress in a musical is the easiest to call. Donna Murphy, Sutton Foster, Patina Miller, the last slot will probably go to Beth Leavel, but could possibly go to Janet Dacal if they want to give Wonderland a sympathy nomination. My money is on Miss Leavel though, who elevates Baby its you, from its bargain basement roots.
Best revival of play: Earnest, Merchant of Venice, Normal Heart, Arcadia
Revival of a musical only has two choices, and they will both be nominated.
Best new play. There are 14 new plays to choose from, however only 8 with a serious chance of being nominated. The definites are War Horse and Bengal Tiger, the other two slots could go to Good People, The Motherfucker with the hat, Jerusalem, or Ghetto Klown. John Leguizamos previous Broadway offerings have been nominated for Tonys before.
Best New Musical has 12 choices but only 7 that have real chances of being nominated. The Book of Mormon, Sister Act, Priscilla, are sure to be nominated, with the last going to either The People in the picture, Catch me if you can, or, if there is Justice in the world of Musical Theater, The Scottsboro boys.
Welll folks, there you have it! Tomorrow at 8:30 am we will see for sure who gets nominated and who gets snubbed.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Lombardi!
I am not what one would call a sports fan. Let's face it, I am about as far removed from being a sports fan as Sarah Palin is from joining PETA. When it was announced last spring that the NFL would be producing a play on Broadway about late Green Bay Packers Coach Vince Lombardi, I was less than enthused.
Last evening I took in the play, after much putting off. I am glad to say that I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Rather than being a play about football, or the ins and outs of football, or a particular team, Lombardi! attempts to reveal the man behind the coach. This is achieved by creating a fictional character of a reporter who is sent from New York City by "Look" magazine to do a story about Vince Lombardi.
This device is not always effective. There are some very well written and compelling scenes in the play. Where things slow down is when the reporter delivers one of his "between the scenes" monologues. These monologues read like play by plays of what you missed during the commercial break. Rather than show you through scenes what happens, or trusting that you can get from point A to point B, the author has filled in the gaps with monologues that tell you what happened between scenes that he didn't think was important enough to show you acted out fully, but is important enough that you need to be told that it happened. Other than this minor annoyance, it's a wonderful play.
Dan Lauria is utterly convincing as coach Lombardi. He gives the myth a truly human form. His performance is not to be missed. The highlight of the evening, however, is Judith Light as Marie Lombardi. Her performance is astounding. She is a delight from beginning to end. Her comic timing and delivery is unparalleled. Not only does she elicit laughs, she gives the woman depth, and allows us to see through the slightest body language how much she loves her husband, and how much she had to put up with because of that love.
The rest of the cast turn in very good performance as well. It's a very short play, a bit over 90 minutes long. It's definitely one of the better new plays that I've seen on Broadway this season. Judith Light is certain to be nominated for a Tony award and has a very strong chance of winning. Dan Lauria deserves to be nominated, but may be passed over for more high profile performances. Tickets are currently on sale through June 19th, don't miss it!
Last evening I took in the play, after much putting off. I am glad to say that I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Rather than being a play about football, or the ins and outs of football, or a particular team, Lombardi! attempts to reveal the man behind the coach. This is achieved by creating a fictional character of a reporter who is sent from New York City by "Look" magazine to do a story about Vince Lombardi.
This device is not always effective. There are some very well written and compelling scenes in the play. Where things slow down is when the reporter delivers one of his "between the scenes" monologues. These monologues read like play by plays of what you missed during the commercial break. Rather than show you through scenes what happens, or trusting that you can get from point A to point B, the author has filled in the gaps with monologues that tell you what happened between scenes that he didn't think was important enough to show you acted out fully, but is important enough that you need to be told that it happened. Other than this minor annoyance, it's a wonderful play.
Dan Lauria is utterly convincing as coach Lombardi. He gives the myth a truly human form. His performance is not to be missed. The highlight of the evening, however, is Judith Light as Marie Lombardi. Her performance is astounding. She is a delight from beginning to end. Her comic timing and delivery is unparalleled. Not only does she elicit laughs, she gives the woman depth, and allows us to see through the slightest body language how much she loves her husband, and how much she had to put up with because of that love.
The rest of the cast turn in very good performance as well. It's a very short play, a bit over 90 minutes long. It's definitely one of the better new plays that I've seen on Broadway this season. Judith Light is certain to be nominated for a Tony award and has a very strong chance of winning. Dan Lauria deserves to be nominated, but may be passed over for more high profile performances. Tickets are currently on sale through June 19th, don't miss it!
Friday, April 29, 2011
Baby, It's You!
Baby, it's you! Is a musical that purports to tell the story of Florence Greenberg, the woman who discovered the Shirelles and pioneered scepter records paving the way for women in the music business. This is not the case. It is a musical that uses the story of Florence Greenberg to showcase Motown hits from the late 50's and early 60's.
The music is wonderful. There are all the hits of The Shirelles you would expect (except for Will you still love me tomorrow for which the producers could not secure rights), unfortunately they are not surrounded by a book that flows naturally, or tells a compelling story.
Ms. Greenbergs story IS compelling, and the show is at times maddening in the way that it completely glosses over important moments in her life and career, and turns supporting characters such as her husband Bernie, and her blind son (who wrote the song Dedicated to the one I love), into cartoonish caricatures. See if her husband doesn't remind you of Snidely Whiplash.
The show is two and a half hours long. The first act is better than the second, and neither act ends with satisfaction. The first act ends extremely awkwardly, with Ms. Greenberg turning to the audience as if to sing, but instead the curtain falls. The second act is nearly unbearable. The book takes a vacation for nearly 25 minutes while song after song plays without rhyme or reason.
The cast is exceptionally talented. The girls who play The Shirelles all do each song justice. There is no question that the show is resting on the very talented shoulders of Beth Leavel, who elevates the more than lack luster material to a place of mediocrity. This is the only reason, if there ever was one, to see Baby, It's you!.
Florence Greenberg and the story of her journey from Suburban New Jersey housewife to music industry Mogul is definitely worthy of a Broadway musical. I hope someday somebody writes one.
The music is wonderful. There are all the hits of The Shirelles you would expect (except for Will you still love me tomorrow for which the producers could not secure rights), unfortunately they are not surrounded by a book that flows naturally, or tells a compelling story.
Ms. Greenbergs story IS compelling, and the show is at times maddening in the way that it completely glosses over important moments in her life and career, and turns supporting characters such as her husband Bernie, and her blind son (who wrote the song Dedicated to the one I love), into cartoonish caricatures. See if her husband doesn't remind you of Snidely Whiplash.
The show is two and a half hours long. The first act is better than the second, and neither act ends with satisfaction. The first act ends extremely awkwardly, with Ms. Greenberg turning to the audience as if to sing, but instead the curtain falls. The second act is nearly unbearable. The book takes a vacation for nearly 25 minutes while song after song plays without rhyme or reason.
The cast is exceptionally talented. The girls who play The Shirelles all do each song justice. There is no question that the show is resting on the very talented shoulders of Beth Leavel, who elevates the more than lack luster material to a place of mediocrity. This is the only reason, if there ever was one, to see Baby, It's you!.
Florence Greenberg and the story of her journey from Suburban New Jersey housewife to music industry Mogul is definitely worthy of a Broadway musical. I hope someday somebody writes one.
Monday, April 25, 2011
High
The last show I saw this past week, and subsequently the best (though that's like whether you'd rather drink water from the toilette or eat out of the garbage) was High. This play by Matthew Lombardo starred Kathleen Turner as a nun who helps Catholics fight addiction. When she is brought the case of a 19 year old boy who is the heaviest drug user the religious rehab center has ever had, it rocks both of their worlds. Sounds good no? Well, it was alright.
It starts out quite strong actually. Kathleen Turner exudes charm, wit, and gravitas as Sister Jamie, and her opening monologue is great, though not because it is well written. It's wonderful because SHE is wonderful and is elevating the material to a higher place, (nice pun, eh?). The writing throughout the first act is uneven. There are moments that are quite exciting, but the play over all follows the formula of every drug rehab story out there. The kid does drugs cuz he had a nasty child hood. The nun is able to help him because she too is an addict, and therefore they have a connection that will allow them to help each other.
There are very few surprises through the play. Most everything is predictable before it gets revealed. The second act is nearly unbearable. It all becomes too much. The kids tragic story becomes ridiculously tragic, and Sister Jamie's reasons for becoming an Alcoholic, being homeless, and then becoming a nun are also ridiculously tragic, too much so. The act I nude scene was one of the best moments of the show, but only because the kid has an expectedly huge penis. (huge!)
Kathleen Turner comes out on top however. She gives a Tony worthy performance as Sister Jamie. She luxuriates every word she has been given to say. Her portrayal is genuine and honest, and also very, very funny. Her deep, sultry voice only adds to the voracity of the character. One of my favorite lines from the show is when the boy says "Shouldn't I be speaking to another dude" and Sister Jamie Replies "That is usually the case, so that patients do not act on any feelings they might develop for their sponsors, however, seeing as you are an active homosexual and I am a nun, I don't see us fucking anytime soon". Yes, Sister Jamie has a cursing problem. When she got sober her sponsor agreed that it was better to "fight the addiction that was killing her, rather than the one that was impolite parlor conversation".
This play probably could have benefited from another set of eyes. The second act is really where all the trouble lies. There is just too much going on and the ending is highly unsatisfying. Also the boy playing the drug addict is giving a very one dimensional performance. It's all moot because it closed after only 8 performances. Was it really that bad to have only played a week? No, it deserved to run longer, however, it's playing in a season filled with plays that are exceptional, both new and revived. Good People, Arcadia, The Importance of Being Earnest, to name a few. High just didn't pass the bar.
It starts out quite strong actually. Kathleen Turner exudes charm, wit, and gravitas as Sister Jamie, and her opening monologue is great, though not because it is well written. It's wonderful because SHE is wonderful and is elevating the material to a higher place, (nice pun, eh?). The writing throughout the first act is uneven. There are moments that are quite exciting, but the play over all follows the formula of every drug rehab story out there. The kid does drugs cuz he had a nasty child hood. The nun is able to help him because she too is an addict, and therefore they have a connection that will allow them to help each other.
There are very few surprises through the play. Most everything is predictable before it gets revealed. The second act is nearly unbearable. It all becomes too much. The kids tragic story becomes ridiculously tragic, and Sister Jamie's reasons for becoming an Alcoholic, being homeless, and then becoming a nun are also ridiculously tragic, too much so. The act I nude scene was one of the best moments of the show, but only because the kid has an expectedly huge penis. (huge!)
Kathleen Turner comes out on top however. She gives a Tony worthy performance as Sister Jamie. She luxuriates every word she has been given to say. Her portrayal is genuine and honest, and also very, very funny. Her deep, sultry voice only adds to the voracity of the character. One of my favorite lines from the show is when the boy says "Shouldn't I be speaking to another dude" and Sister Jamie Replies "That is usually the case, so that patients do not act on any feelings they might develop for their sponsors, however, seeing as you are an active homosexual and I am a nun, I don't see us fucking anytime soon". Yes, Sister Jamie has a cursing problem. When she got sober her sponsor agreed that it was better to "fight the addiction that was killing her, rather than the one that was impolite parlor conversation".
This play probably could have benefited from another set of eyes. The second act is really where all the trouble lies. There is just too much going on and the ending is highly unsatisfying. Also the boy playing the drug addict is giving a very one dimensional performance. It's all moot because it closed after only 8 performances. Was it really that bad to have only played a week? No, it deserved to run longer, however, it's playing in a season filled with plays that are exceptional, both new and revived. Good People, Arcadia, The Importance of Being Earnest, to name a few. High just didn't pass the bar.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Cactus Flower
Yes, Dear Readers, I know. It has been more than two weeks since my last offering. I've been a slacker since April 7th, but I made up for it this week by seeing three shows! I'm not going to write about them in chronological order, however, because two of them have closed already, and one is still in previews.
The first production that I am going to discuss, which consequently was the second production I took in this holy week, is the off Broadway revival of Abe Burrows hit comedy Cactus Flower. This was recently modernized and made into a film called "Just Go with it" with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Anniston.
Plot wise it's pretty simple. A man pretends to be married so he doesn't have to get married. He meets a girl he wants to marry, which complicates things because he's married already, or so she thinks, comedy ensues. Or at least it's supposed to.
Don't get me wrong. The play itself is very funny. There are some fantastic bits of dialogue. The problem with the current production is that aside from it's leading lady, (Jenni Barber) the show is completely without a soul. It takes place in the rollicking free love sixties, but much of the humor is out dated. This is fine, except that the cast doesn't handle it well. You can almost see them grimace every time an old style "yuck yuck" joke is played.
The only one who comes out on top is the previously mentioned Jenni Barber who completely and unabashedly commits to her role as naive, charming, and sweet Toni. Maxwell Caulfield is fine as the married but not really dentist Julian, and is devilishly handsome, but has no chemistry with either of his leading ladies.
Over all the entire production seems completely staged and forced. The set design and the music that plays during the set changes were quite enjoyable. I completely understand why this show is closing. The supporting cast is fine, but nothing special. I don't even remember their real names, or their characters names, which shows what an impression they made.
It's easy to see why this play was a hit for so long in it's original run, and why the film version earned Goldie Hawn an Academy Award, however, this particular Cactus Flower fails to blossom.
The first production that I am going to discuss, which consequently was the second production I took in this holy week, is the off Broadway revival of Abe Burrows hit comedy Cactus Flower. This was recently modernized and made into a film called "Just Go with it" with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Anniston.
Plot wise it's pretty simple. A man pretends to be married so he doesn't have to get married. He meets a girl he wants to marry, which complicates things because he's married already, or so she thinks, comedy ensues. Or at least it's supposed to.
Don't get me wrong. The play itself is very funny. There are some fantastic bits of dialogue. The problem with the current production is that aside from it's leading lady, (Jenni Barber) the show is completely without a soul. It takes place in the rollicking free love sixties, but much of the humor is out dated. This is fine, except that the cast doesn't handle it well. You can almost see them grimace every time an old style "yuck yuck" joke is played.
The only one who comes out on top is the previously mentioned Jenni Barber who completely and unabashedly commits to her role as naive, charming, and sweet Toni. Maxwell Caulfield is fine as the married but not really dentist Julian, and is devilishly handsome, but has no chemistry with either of his leading ladies.
Over all the entire production seems completely staged and forced. The set design and the music that plays during the set changes were quite enjoyable. I completely understand why this show is closing. The supporting cast is fine, but nothing special. I don't even remember their real names, or their characters names, which shows what an impression they made.
It's easy to see why this play was a hit for so long in it's original run, and why the film version earned Goldie Hawn an Academy Award, however, this particular Cactus Flower fails to blossom.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The New York Philharmonic's COMPANY
There are very few things that succeed at being about nothing, and simultaneously being about everything. Stephen Sondheim's groundbreaking musical Company is one of those things. The original Broadway production ran for over 700 performances on Broadway at The Alvin Theater (now The Neil Simon). It at once fascinated and confused audiences with it's non linear story telling and seemingly contradictory themes.
The New York Phil is currently offering Company as a four performance concert one of which has already passed, so I suggest you hurry to getting your tickets, if there are even any available. This concert was absolutely superb. From start to finish, I was beaming inside and out.
For starters, it is being done as a period piece, which makes for a wonderful sight. The costumes and both set reflect the period (1970's), and inform the action of the piece. Lonny Price has expertly directed this concert adaptation. The choreography by Josh Rodes is absolutely stellar.
The cast are all quite adept at handling their roles, especially with what I'm sure has been very little rehearsal time. Neil Patrick Harris is a very aloof Bobby. It works well for him and I very much liked him in the role. His singing voice isn't quite as powerful as Bobby's past, which is a theme for the evening.
Vocally speaking most everyone was up to handling the score. Stephen Colbert and John Cryer are not among those many, though they were perfectly passable. Their acting more than made up for the speak singing of sorry grateful.
The females however, lead the charge. Patti Lupone was unstoppable as Joanne, (her Ladies who lunch was to die for). Anika Noni Rose drew great (and worthy) applause for Another Hundred People, and Katie Finneran was both human, and hysterical as Amy. Martha Plimpton and Kristina Hendricks were also superb in their roles. Martha Plimpton and Stephen Colbert have a particularly amusing dance break in the act two opener.
There is talk of this concert being taped for PBS or possible release in movie theaters. I hope for the sake of Posterity, and for all those out there who are not able to experience this that it is. It was truly fantastic.
The New York Phil is currently offering Company as a four performance concert one of which has already passed, so I suggest you hurry to getting your tickets, if there are even any available. This concert was absolutely superb. From start to finish, I was beaming inside and out.
For starters, it is being done as a period piece, which makes for a wonderful sight. The costumes and both set reflect the period (1970's), and inform the action of the piece. Lonny Price has expertly directed this concert adaptation. The choreography by Josh Rodes is absolutely stellar.
The cast are all quite adept at handling their roles, especially with what I'm sure has been very little rehearsal time. Neil Patrick Harris is a very aloof Bobby. It works well for him and I very much liked him in the role. His singing voice isn't quite as powerful as Bobby's past, which is a theme for the evening.
Vocally speaking most everyone was up to handling the score. Stephen Colbert and John Cryer are not among those many, though they were perfectly passable. Their acting more than made up for the speak singing of sorry grateful.
The females however, lead the charge. Patti Lupone was unstoppable as Joanne, (her Ladies who lunch was to die for). Anika Noni Rose drew great (and worthy) applause for Another Hundred People, and Katie Finneran was both human, and hysterical as Amy. Martha Plimpton and Kristina Hendricks were also superb in their roles. Martha Plimpton and Stephen Colbert have a particularly amusing dance break in the act two opener.
There is talk of this concert being taped for PBS or possible release in movie theaters. I hope for the sake of Posterity, and for all those out there who are not able to experience this that it is. It was truly fantastic.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
That Championship Season
I usually write very formal reviews of shows. This is not going to be one of those reviews. Let me start off by saying that in 1974 when That Championship Season was originally produced, it was probably very enjoyable. That is unfortunately no longer the case.
Let's start with the play itself. It's about 5 men who meet every year to celebrate a high school basketball championship they won when they were in high school. They see each other all the time in their every day lives, but for one night a year they meet and relive the glory days. On this particular reunion drama along with a slight bit of comedy ensues.
The play is about the demise of society. It's about the dissension of the country, of politics, of moral standards. These characters are offhandedly racist, anti Semitic, and homophobic. There's even a line about somebody being a communist, and how great Joe McCarthy was. The author, and the play, are not these things. It's mostly a big eff you to middle America. All of the references are dated, and I can't understand why anybody thought to revive this.
As far as Performances go, they are mostly fine. Jason Patric (who is the authors son) starts off fine, but ends up sounding like William Shatner. Brian Cox over acts as the coach but is nonetheless mesmerizing. Chris Noth and Jim Gaffigan are fine. Keifer Sutherland is impeccable as James. He is understated in a way you don't expect.
Over all it's fine. It's nothing special. There are some good moments in the script, but it's mostly a history lesson nobody needs to learn.
Let's start with the play itself. It's about 5 men who meet every year to celebrate a high school basketball championship they won when they were in high school. They see each other all the time in their every day lives, but for one night a year they meet and relive the glory days. On this particular reunion drama along with a slight bit of comedy ensues.
The play is about the demise of society. It's about the dissension of the country, of politics, of moral standards. These characters are offhandedly racist, anti Semitic, and homophobic. There's even a line about somebody being a communist, and how great Joe McCarthy was. The author, and the play, are not these things. It's mostly a big eff you to middle America. All of the references are dated, and I can't understand why anybody thought to revive this.
As far as Performances go, they are mostly fine. Jason Patric (who is the authors son) starts off fine, but ends up sounding like William Shatner. Brian Cox over acts as the coach but is nonetheless mesmerizing. Chris Noth and Jim Gaffigan are fine. Keifer Sutherland is impeccable as James. He is understated in a way you don't expect.
Over all it's fine. It's nothing special. There are some good moments in the script, but it's mostly a history lesson nobody needs to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)