The Addams Family

        It's very difficult to walk into the Lunt-Fontanne Theater without having preconceived notions about what a musical based on Charles Addams beloved cartoon family of creepy, kooky, and altogether ooky Addams'. This makes things difficult on the creative team, as well as the actors onstage. How often do things really meet our expectations?

     In this particular case, I had been forewarned by several people, as well as practically every critic in town, that I was to be greatly disappointed. There is also the fact the The Addams Family was one of only two musicals that opened on Broadway last season with original music, and had the biggest stars, and did not receive a Tony nomination for Best new musical. Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwirth, undoubtedly two of Broadways best talents, were also over looked. Needless to say, going in, things did not look good.

    I am happy to report that it's not as bad as everyone says that it is. The book is actually very funny. It's not all good, but for the most part there are some good little one liners that are very appropriate for each character who says them. There are a few social references that in my opinion should have been cut from the script, but other than that, it's not bad.

  The plot is generic, Wednesday meets a boy and falls in love, the parents meet, they don't like each other, and the kids have to help everyone to get along, it's very "La Cage Aux Addams". only instead of transvestite homosexuals you have a goth family obsessed with death and implements of persuasion. This is actually the first disappointment. For such a quirky bunch of characters, you would hope that the creators could come up with a bit more interesting of a story. But we'll forgive them that and move on.

    The score, unfortunately, is where the problem lies. It sounds very little what a musical with this type of macabre, murky, bizarre, characters should sound like. The opening number "When you're an Addams" is melodically the best song in the show. It perfectly sets the tone for what the entire musical should not only sound like, but also feel like. It's too bad that this tone was not kept throughout the show. The rest of the score is filled with forgettable songs with even more forgettable lyrics. There are songs that are good, however, they don't belong in this show, being sung by these characters.

     Nathan Lane is the highlight of the show. He perfectly nails every bit of what Gomez should be. He is not the Gomez of Raul Julia, who was teeming with a raw Latin sexuality. Lane instead embodies the Gomez of Charles Addams original cartoon drawings, which was short, stubby, and strangely sexy. Bebe Neuwirth equally matches him in her stunning portrayal of Morticia. Neither of them, however, is given very good material to work with. Both of them do their best at elevating the material and making terrible songs better than they are.

   The supporting cast are all fine. Wednesday, Pugsly, Grandma, and Lurch are all played nearly perfectly. The new characters of the Beineke family are wonderfully portrayed by Carolee Carmello, and Terrence Mann, however they too suffer from being given material that is far below what they deserve. In act II they sing a duet about a squid. The set and costume design are absolutely stunning. There is also some very clever puppetry used, which I'll not spoil for those who have not seen the show.

    The one thing about this musical that is the most disappointing, and sends the entire Addams universe out of whack, is that the characters are altogether too self aware. Part of the charm of The Addams family is that they have no idea that they are not normal. When you inject that bit of self awareness into the picture, and make them fully in tune with the fact that they are the weird ones, and the way they live their lives is unconventional, it takes away from the characters.

    All in all it's not a terrible show. I would not see it with out Nathan Lane or Bebe Neuwirth, but if you get the chance to see it before they leave, you will at least laugh at their performances. Otherwise, you may feel as though you're being tortured, which I guess is appropriate after all.

Oscar Blog!

    I was debating on whether or not I would do this, because thus far I've only really talked about theater, or theater related films. However, seeing as the Academy Awards are tomorrow night, and my loyal subjects have been asking me what I think, I figured I would oblige and write a little something about this years contenders.

    I'm not going to write about what I think WILL win, I'm going to tell you all what I have seen, and what I think SHOULD win, or what I would be happy to see win. I'm going to skip over the categories nobody cares about (sound editing, costume design, etc) I'm sorry if you are one of those few people who actually DOES care about said categories - but I really don't care. On to the meat and potatoes!

   Best animated film should hands down go to Toy Story 3. It was every bit as profound and moving as some of the live action films it's competing against in the best picture category. It truly was the best animated movie of the year in my opinion.

  Performance by an actress in a supporting role. The performances that I have seen are Amy Adams, Melissa Leo, and Helena Bonmham Carter. All three women are first rate actresses. The award should go to Melissa Leo however because she nailed every nuance of her character perfectly. She even managed to give a convincing Bostonian accent. Seeing as the film takes place in Lowell, and The Queen grew up only a stones throw away, I am very aware of what that accent should have sounded like, and she nailed it better than any actress I've seen in any other movie.

   Performance by an actor in a supporting role. I've seen the nominated performances of Christian Bale, Jeremy Renner, and Geoffrey Rush. Geoffrey Rush gave an astonishing performance in The Kings Speech, but Christian Bales portrayal of a man struggling with demons both physical and mental gives him the edge in my opinion. He is both goofy, as as well as raw and desperate. His accent is also completely on point, which is an even bigger achievement considering that he is British

 Best director. The movies I've seen in this category are Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan, David O Russel's The Fighter, Tom Hooper's The Kings Speech, and David Finchers Social Network. All of these films are true works of art that are superbly directed. In my opinion this is one of the tougher categories. Darren Aronofsky has created a visual opus with Black Swan. Tom Hooper painted a masterpiece with The Kings Speech, David Fincher expertly wove a tapestry with The Social Network, and David O. Russel told the story of the fighter with a raw grit and reality that was both enjoyable and some times disturbing to watch. My pick for this category is Darren Aronoksy. His work in Black Swan is part of what made the movie so good in the first place.

 Best Actress. The only performance that I've seen is Natalie Portmans in Black Swan. This is pretty much a two horse race between her and Annette Benning. They are both deserving of Oscars and I'll be pleased  no matter which of them wins.

   Best Actor. The only two performances I've seen are Jessie Eisenberg in The Social Network and Colin Firth in The Kings Speech. Quite frankly, I can't believe that Jessie Eisenberg was even NOMINATED to begin with considering he is playing the same character that he played in Zombie land, and Adventure land. Just because Mark Zuckerberg is a real person? That spot should have gone to Mark Wahlberg for The Fighter. But I digress, Colin Firth should win.

  Best Picture. I've been struggling with this one for a while now. For those of you who don't know this, the way Best Pictures is determined works likes this. Each voter puts the 10 best picture noms in order of 1-10. All the number ones are tallies, the two with the lowest votes are eliminated and if you picked a movie that was eliminated your number 2 choice is used, and so on and so forth until they have a winner. There are other website that explain this system better than I just did and if you are interested you may go find one. I am going to now rank the pest picture noms I have seen in the order in which I would put them if my vote counted, which it does not.

1) The Kings Speech
2) The Fighter
3) The Social Network
4) Black Swan
5) Toy Story 3
6) Inception

I did not see Winters Bone, True Grit, or 127 hours.

 Ok there you have it! There are other categories that are of interest, screen play and such, but quite frankly it's late and I'm tired. So, happy Oscar viewing!

How old is too old?

    Several new projects have been announced over the last few weeks, and many of The Queens loyal subjects have asked me to comment on them. First off, we have a film remake of the classic musical Gypsy starring Barbara Streisand as Mama Rose.

   The big question of course, is she too old? The short answer - yes! This will be Grandmama Rose! Ten years ago she could have been a grand Mama Rose, but at the age of 70 she is just too old. Can she still sing the score? Yes of course she can. Will anyone buy her having a daughter ages 8-20? I sincerely doubt that. Though being too old didn't stop her from making Yentle, but that's another story.

   There is also a case to be made for the "Do we really need ANOTHER Gypsy?" camp. The short answer - no. We've had too many over the course of it's life. Don't get me wrong. I love Gypsy and I think it's one of the finest musicals ever written. It's not without it's problems, but what show isn't? The problem is that We've just had a stellar revival of the show on Broadway starting Patti LuPone. This came right on the heels of a less than stellar revival only five years previous starring Bernadette Peters in an interesting, albeit misguided performance. Not to mention that Gypsy was made as a TV movie in the mid 90's starring Bette Midler to great acclaim. Is the world ready for ANOTHER Gypsy or are we burned out?

  The bottom line is this. People have been clamoring for decades, DECADES, for Babs to play Mamma Rose. She is already too old, and if they delay filming another second she will only become even more so. There are legions of fans who have wanted her to play this role for so long that it just has to happen. If it's going to happen, than it has to happen soon or they'll have to digitally remove the wrinkles Benjamin Button style. This film will have a CGI budget to rival any Harry Potter film. Hopefully she wont also direct.

 This brings us to our second are you too old project of the week, Cathy Rigby, who I saw in her farewell tour of Peter Pan in 2005, has decided that she was only joking, and will play Peter Pan once more after all which might as well be billed as her "Final Farewell, unless she should change her mind again" tour.

  The big question - Is she too old? The only answer? YES! Cathy Rigby stop playing Peter Pan! You can't play the boy who won't grow old when you are a member of AA RP! It's just not right! Do other things! Play Roxie Hart in Chicago and be fabulous! Do a revival of Sweet Charity and blow us away. Stop playing little boys! It's a bit creepy!

   In all seriousness, I have seen her play the role of Peter Pan twice. Ms. Rigby brought a true boyishness and sense of playfulness to the role that few, even Mary Martin in her Tony winning portrayal have been able to do. Her skills as a gymnast also brought a carefree athleticism to the role that was also refreshing. It's not that she isn't good at it, she's just too old.

    Also, the same tour has been going around for almost 20 years now. The show itself could use some new life blood. It's a very good production, with excellent sets, costumes, and choreography (The original Jerome Robbins staging is not used). There is just no real reason for this to be happening.

Tune in next week dear Readers when the Queen will give his two cents about the new film version of Rock of Ages, as well as the rumored film remake of Annie starring Willow Smith. Ta till then!

Million Dollar Quartet

      On December 4th, 1965 Carl Perkins was at Sun Records for a recording session. Playing the piano on at that session was a young musician named Jerry Lee Louis. On that same night, Sun Records former star player Elvis Presley dropped by for a visit with a gal pal of his, and current Sun Records superstar Johnny Cash stopped in to say hey as well. They played music. They sang together. Somebody thought this would be great idea for a musical.

    There isn't anything to be said about the story at hand, because there isn't one. Characters speak to each other, but they don't speak about anything. There are a few book scenes that tell of how each Sun Records star came to be found by Sam Phillips, founder of Sun Records, and of how each of them also came to leave the man that gave them their respective golden opportunities. These scenes are awkwardly placed, poorly, written, and poorly acted.

   The gentlemen playing each of these superstars are all talented singers and instrumentalists. Only Levi Kreiss as Jerry Lee Louis makes you forget that you are watching a man give a performance as a legend of rock N roll. His buoyant energy transcends the material he has been given to work with.

   Nobody can argue that the music isn't good. These are all solid gold hits. Fans of these artists and of this music will probably enjoy the show more than I did for this reason. While I have an appreciation for the music, and do enjoy some of the songs in the show, for the most part you feel like you've been duped into paying Broadway ticket prices to watch a tribute band.

     It's truly disheartening when a show like this, that has no value what so ever as a piece of theater can run for over a year on Broadway, when shows with meaningful messages, truly gripping stories, and fantastic music can only manage a few short months. The best thing I can say about Million Dollar Quartet is that it was better than Urban Cowboy: The Musical  but if they put THAT on the posters they'd never sell tickets.

Lost in the Stars, Encores!

   When Kurt Weil and Maxwell Anderson set out to musicalize the epic novel Cry, The Beloved Country, they strived to tell a musical tragedy, well, that is exactly what they got, though not in the way they intended. The story at hand is quite a story, and longs to be told through music. There is very little good to be had from debating the faults of a 60 year old piece of musical theater, but none the less I'm going to do it anyway.

    I'm going to skip the background info on Weil and Anderson and assume you all know how to use Wikipidia and can find said information on your own if you desire it. I'm also going to assume that if you're reading this that you have at least a passing understanding of who Kurt Weil is, and if you don't, shame on you.

   Early on in the creative process of Lost in the Stars Weil decided that he wanted the entire score to be sung by an ominous choral body that commented on the action of the story through it's music, rather than through characters expressing themselves through music as was the typical musical convention. Some where along the line this plan was scrapped, and songs were added for characters to sing to express their feelings and thoughts, and to further the story along. What we end up with is essentially two separate scores. One is a magnificent choral oratorio, and the other is expressive character driven musical theater songs.

    This, in my opinion, is not the main problem. There are three main problems, one is that the book, which is actually not a bad book, doesn't do well at connecting one song to the next. There are fantastic scenes between characters, but the songs seem to come out of no where, with no organic purpose. This is especially prevalent in the character songs. There is a song late in Act one called "who'll buy" that is a fantastic song, but serves no purpose other than to lighten the mood, and is sung by a character that we've never seen before, and never see again. Meanwhile, the central character of Absolon sings not one note.

   Which leads to the second problem, which is that there are characters who have songs that shouldn't, and characters that don't have songs that should. I've already spoken of one of these instances, the other is with the character of the nephew. He has an adorable character number in the second act, and I wouldn't take issue with him having such a great song, if other characters that deserved great songs also had them.
  
  The third problem, and behind the poor connectivity the most jarring, is that there are many moments that SCREAM for songs that don't get them. The two most obvious are in act II. Absolon is on trial for his life, and the judge asks "Do you have anything to say", Absolon replies "I have only to say this:" and he replies with two short sentences, when he should be replying with a spine tingling plea for his life, a plea for forgiveness, for his soul,  set to music. The other occurs just two scenes later when Absolon's father, who is a minister, is telling his parish he has lost his faith in God. A parishioner asks "What does a man do when he has lost his faith?". One would think this the perfect opportunity for a soaring ballad about the difficulties of keeping ones faith in the face of adversity, however we have no such satisfaction. 

   Overall, I think it's a fantastic score. The book is what it is, which is a drama that fights against being surrounded by all this music.

  Now, speaking specifically about this particular production, it is not quite excellent, but it is very good. Chuck Cooper gives a powerful performance as Steven, who is the shows leading role. His vocals, which are usually wonderful to listen to, are here just alright. He doesn't quite have the power in his upper register that the score requires. His acting choices are genuine and suit the piece perfectly however.

   His supporting cast is quite good. Notably Daniel Breaker as Absolon, and Shirley Boone as Irina. Jeffrey Gumbs as the nephew of Stephen is also charming. The set design is functional, as this is a city centers Encores! concert adaptation. The costumes are effective and evocative of the time and place, which is 1949 in South Africa.

  There is most definitely a powerful story on display that is timeless. There is also the framework of an equally timeless musical. Perhaps some day a smart producer or director will be given the go ahead to rework what is there into something that breathes a bit more organically, and delivers on the promise of the source material. Until then, one can be satisfied listening to the original cast recording, and the many subsequent recordings of the title tune, which does have the power to set it's listener to sobbing, just not over at City Centers.