Clifford Odets is one of America's greatest playwrights, and perhaps one of the most under appreciated as well. The average American has probably never even heard of Odets the way they have say, Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams. This Broadway season we were lucky enough to have two different Odets plays produced on Broadway. Unfortunately, they were the two with almost identical plots and thematic elements.
The first of these revivals was one of Odets earliest plays, Golden Boy which you can read about in my blog post. The other is the show that I'm about to talk about, The Roundabout Theater Company revival of The Big Knife.
The Big Knife tells the store of Charlie Castle, a 1940's Humphrey Bogart style tough guy film star who's got a dirty little secret. The secret is being kept by Studio head Marcus Hoff, Castles wife Marion, and a few close confidants. When Charlie and Marion's marriage hits the skids, Charlie is left with a tough choice, leave pictures behind - or face the possibility of Hoff going public if he doesn't resign with the studio. It may seem flimsy in description, but it's really a story about the price of fame, and the choices and compromises we make along the way to achieving our dreams.
To say that The Big Knife is not one of Odets best is not fair to the author. The structure, and the written dialogue are beautiful and at times even poetic - but not to the point of being flowery. There are scenes in The Big Knife which are magnificent and breath taking to watch. It is unfortunate that the basic outline of the story and it's thematic elements are almost identical to Golden Boy, but the man is dead and the plays were written over 50 years ago, so what are you going to do about it?
Reviewers, main stem reviewers anyhow, did not much take to this particular revival of The Big Knife. Perhaps in part to the high bar set earlier this season by that other previously mentioned Odets revival. Bobby Cannavale is well cast, physically, in the lead role of Charlie Castle. Cannavale is exhibiting his usual charm and magnetism in the role, but there seems to be some what of an emotional disconnect. One could argue that he is building to the explosive end of the play, but we are getting too much aloof, and not enough of a man who trying desperately to hold everything together.
While I was in the theater, I very much adored the performance of Marin Ireland as Charlie's Long Suffering wife, Marion Castle. Upon further reflection, however, I grew more frustrated with it. If this were a modern drama, I probably wouldn't have any problem with the way the character was portrayed. But despite her spot on period costumes from the ever so talented Catherine Zuber, there is not much about Miss Ireland's portrayal of a suffering 40's era housewife that is accurate. Furthermore, she doesn't do much in the way of adding chemistry to her onstage relationship with her husband. That is not to say that there are not moments that are astounding - the final scene in the play between husband and wife is absolutely on point, but it's the performance as a whole that I'm talking about.
The worst scene in this production is that which is between Charlie Castle, and a small contract studio player who is keeping is secret. The young up and comer is played by Rachel Brosnehan, and it's everything about her performance which drags the scene down. Immediately upon entering she strikes a note of a young Lena Lemont from singing in the rain. The type of character that is portrayed in such a way as to make the audience realize through her the tone of her voice that she isn't that smart, and has loose morals. The end of the scene doesn't come fast enough.
One bright spot in this production is Richard Kind. Usually type cast into playing large comedic parts, Kind gets to show his acting chops with great bravura and force. He is playing the role of studio head Marcus Hoff. Hoff is the type of man who comes off as everybody's friend, but if you cross him, whoa to you. Kind is striking every note on the scale, rather than playing just the surface of the character. He is very likely to go home with the gold come Tony night.
The rest of the supporting cast is very good. Chip Zien perfectly nails the character of Charlie's agent Nat Danzinger. Reg Rogers is also very good as Charlie's friend and Marcus Hoff's lackey, Smiley Coy, which is a perfect name for that character. Ana Reader, Joey Slotnick, and Billy Eugene Jones also hold their weight.
The Big Knife is one of the only plays that gives us an inside look at what The Hollywood Studio system was really like. It not only shows us how it affected actors and their choices of roles, social lives, and salaries, it gives us a good picture of how it affected everyone from their family's to agents to press agents to servants. The Big Knife will close on Broadway at The American Airlines Theater on June 2, 2013 after 29 previews and 56 regular performances.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Jekyll and Hyde, or The worst production of a mediocre musical I've ever seen.
I've seen a lot of musicals. I've seen a lot of shows in general. There are plenty of people who have seen more shows than I have - but still, I've seen a lot of shows. Those who know me personally know that I usually have strong opinions, and they are also usually right on the money when it comes to what's happening on stage. This revival of Jekyll and Hyde is the worst production of a show I have ever seen.
Jekyll and Hyde has been around for a while. The flaws in the material are well known. The book is terrible and at times even laughable. The score, while powerful, doesn't sound anything like what a musical that takes place in Victorian England should sound. I have always considered Jekyll and Hyde to be a guilty pleasure.
For those who are unfamiliar, Jekyll and Hyde is an adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson story about a well intentioned Doctor who creates a potion that brings out an alternate and evil personality. The musical borrows heavily from the film adaptation and adds female characters for romantic effect, as well as a back story involving a mentally ill father in order to give a stronger justification for Dr. Jekyll's actions. The book and lyrics are by Leslie Bricusse, with music by Frank Wildhorn.
The trouble with this particular production begins with the book scenes. The book scenes have been trimmed down to get to the songs faster. The dialogue is being rushed through as quickly as possible. Everyone is doing laughable British accents. It brings to mind Waiting for Guffman. It also seems that director Jeff Calhoun as given everyone the note "That was great, try it again, but this time read the line a bit sexier". It's absolutely ridiculous.
The staging of the musical numbers is not much better. Jekyll and Hyde is one of those shows that walks a fine line between serious theater and camp. The best productions walk that line, and the worst fall over. The trouble is, no matter which side you fall over on, you end up in disaster. This production is taking itself far too seriously, and as a result looks incredibly campy, but you get the feeling that it's not on purpose.
Set and Costume designs are not helping matters. Tobin Ost has designed a set that looks like a cross between a Theme Park stunt show and a Las Vegas Spectacular. His costumes look like the type that come in a bag at Halloween time and have names like "Naughty Nurse" and "Busty Victorian debutante". The lighting design by Jeff Croiter is fine and doing it's job justly.
Now we come to the performances. Vocally speaking, the score sounds wonderful. Constantine Maroulis and Deborah Cox are displaying some fine vocal pyrotechnics. The highlight of the evening is Ms. Cox performance of A New Life. Not only is it the best sounding song in the score, but it's also the best acted and well staged. The acting is just plain awful all around. I'm not sure if perhaps so much time on the road before coming into New York made everyone complacent, or if perhaps there weren't enough (or any) brush up rehearsals before opening in New York, but the results are just plain terrible. I had the pleasure of seeing Deborah Cox in Aida and she was wonderful. Constantine was nominated for a Tony for Rock of Ages. This was just a mess.
The question that needs to be asked is, how many tens of millions of dollars to people have to lose before they stop investing in Frank Wildhorn musicals? He has had 7 musicals produced on Broadway in the past 15 years and not one of them has made any money. In fact all of them have lost money, a grand total of nearly 80 million. Attention producers, I think your money could be better spent elsewhere!
Jekyll and Hyde has been around for a while. The flaws in the material are well known. The book is terrible and at times even laughable. The score, while powerful, doesn't sound anything like what a musical that takes place in Victorian England should sound. I have always considered Jekyll and Hyde to be a guilty pleasure.
For those who are unfamiliar, Jekyll and Hyde is an adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson story about a well intentioned Doctor who creates a potion that brings out an alternate and evil personality. The musical borrows heavily from the film adaptation and adds female characters for romantic effect, as well as a back story involving a mentally ill father in order to give a stronger justification for Dr. Jekyll's actions. The book and lyrics are by Leslie Bricusse, with music by Frank Wildhorn.
The trouble with this particular production begins with the book scenes. The book scenes have been trimmed down to get to the songs faster. The dialogue is being rushed through as quickly as possible. Everyone is doing laughable British accents. It brings to mind Waiting for Guffman. It also seems that director Jeff Calhoun as given everyone the note "That was great, try it again, but this time read the line a bit sexier". It's absolutely ridiculous.
The staging of the musical numbers is not much better. Jekyll and Hyde is one of those shows that walks a fine line between serious theater and camp. The best productions walk that line, and the worst fall over. The trouble is, no matter which side you fall over on, you end up in disaster. This production is taking itself far too seriously, and as a result looks incredibly campy, but you get the feeling that it's not on purpose.
Set and Costume designs are not helping matters. Tobin Ost has designed a set that looks like a cross between a Theme Park stunt show and a Las Vegas Spectacular. His costumes look like the type that come in a bag at Halloween time and have names like "Naughty Nurse" and "Busty Victorian debutante". The lighting design by Jeff Croiter is fine and doing it's job justly.
Now we come to the performances. Vocally speaking, the score sounds wonderful. Constantine Maroulis and Deborah Cox are displaying some fine vocal pyrotechnics. The highlight of the evening is Ms. Cox performance of A New Life. Not only is it the best sounding song in the score, but it's also the best acted and well staged. The acting is just plain awful all around. I'm not sure if perhaps so much time on the road before coming into New York made everyone complacent, or if perhaps there weren't enough (or any) brush up rehearsals before opening in New York, but the results are just plain terrible. I had the pleasure of seeing Deborah Cox in Aida and she was wonderful. Constantine was nominated for a Tony for Rock of Ages. This was just a mess.
The question that needs to be asked is, how many tens of millions of dollars to people have to lose before they stop investing in Frank Wildhorn musicals? He has had 7 musicals produced on Broadway in the past 15 years and not one of them has made any money. In fact all of them have lost money, a grand total of nearly 80 million. Attention producers, I think your money could be better spent elsewhere!
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Orphans
This seems to be the season for long awaited Broadway returns. We have a stunning revival of Pippin hitting the great white way for the first time in 30 years. There have numerous stars returning for the first time in quite a spell, among them Cicely Tyson, Bette Midler, and Al Pacino. In Lyle Kessler's 1980's drama Orphans Alex Baldwin returns to Broadway for the first time since appearing in The Roundabout Theater companies revival of The Twentieth Century in 2004.
For those who are unfamiliar, Orphans follows the story of two orphaned brothers. Treat, the older brother, supports his handicapped younger brother Phillip by going out and robbing people on the street. One night he meets an rich older man named Harold at a bar, and brings him home intent on holding him for ransom. Here is where the plot gets a little cattywampus. Harold, the rich older man, rather than being angry at being kidnapped, offers Treat a job working as his bodyguard. Harold becomes intent on becoming a father figure to these two orphaned young men.
There is some excellent writing in the play. Even if the scenario seems a bit far fetched, some of the passages of dialogue, particularly between the two brothers, and also between damaged Philip and Harold are quite moving. Alec Baldwin comes off most of the time as a bit too much of Jack Donaghy, or perhaps there was just too much of him in that role to begin with. Ben Foster is making a strong Broadway debut as Treat, but it is Tom Sturridge who steals every moment of the play as the sweet natured Phillip.
The true problem with this revival is that it lacks any real emotional teeth. Most of the audiences is laughing through the entire play instead of being truly moved by it. This is to do with Alec Baldwins hammy line delivery as well as Daniel Sullivan's sloppy direction. For the record, this is the second revival this season that Mr, Sullivan has poorly directed. Perhaps he is over extending himself?
John Lee Beaty's set design, Jess Goldsteins's costumes, and Pat Collin's lighting all do their jobs effectively, though it's difficult to tell what specific decade we're in. If not for Harold stating they are in the 20th century it could have easily taken place in present day. Hopefully Alec Baldwins next Broadway outing will allow him to shed the skin of Jack Donaghy, or at least play a role in which he can make it work for him.
Orphans will close on Broadway Sunday May 19th, at The Shoenfeld theater after 27 previews and 29 regular performances.
For those who are unfamiliar, Orphans follows the story of two orphaned brothers. Treat, the older brother, supports his handicapped younger brother Phillip by going out and robbing people on the street. One night he meets an rich older man named Harold at a bar, and brings him home intent on holding him for ransom. Here is where the plot gets a little cattywampus. Harold, the rich older man, rather than being angry at being kidnapped, offers Treat a job working as his bodyguard. Harold becomes intent on becoming a father figure to these two orphaned young men.
There is some excellent writing in the play. Even if the scenario seems a bit far fetched, some of the passages of dialogue, particularly between the two brothers, and also between damaged Philip and Harold are quite moving. Alec Baldwin comes off most of the time as a bit too much of Jack Donaghy, or perhaps there was just too much of him in that role to begin with. Ben Foster is making a strong Broadway debut as Treat, but it is Tom Sturridge who steals every moment of the play as the sweet natured Phillip.
The true problem with this revival is that it lacks any real emotional teeth. Most of the audiences is laughing through the entire play instead of being truly moved by it. This is to do with Alec Baldwins hammy line delivery as well as Daniel Sullivan's sloppy direction. For the record, this is the second revival this season that Mr, Sullivan has poorly directed. Perhaps he is over extending himself?
John Lee Beaty's set design, Jess Goldsteins's costumes, and Pat Collin's lighting all do their jobs effectively, though it's difficult to tell what specific decade we're in. If not for Harold stating they are in the 20th century it could have easily taken place in present day. Hopefully Alec Baldwins next Broadway outing will allow him to shed the skin of Jack Donaghy, or at least play a role in which he can make it work for him.
Orphans will close on Broadway Sunday May 19th, at The Shoenfeld theater after 27 previews and 29 regular performances.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Lucky Guy
When it was first announced that Tom Hanks would be making his Broadway debut in a new play, I cannot deny that I was excited. How could I not be? Hollywood does not make celebrities anymore, not the way that it used to, but Tom Hanks is one of the few remaining true Hollywood stars. It's not often that I get star struck for the sake of celebrity alone, but Tom Hanks is an exception to that rule.
The time has come, and Mr. Hanks has now made his debut. I waited in line for over an hour to receive a ticket to stand in the back of the theater (the show is sold out nearly every night). Tom Hanks was as wonderful on stage as he is on screen. He is warm and charismatic, even when playing a character with few endearing qualities (as he happens to be doing in Lucky Guy).
All that being said, the entire experience was a bit disappointing. Lucky Guy is the final work of Nora Ephron, the beloved and revered film and play writer. Ms. Ephron was a fine lady, and much has been expostulated about her and her work on screen and off so I wont go into all of that here. The play is not exceptionally good. It's not bad, it's just not anything special.
The story concerns Mike McAlary (pronounced MACaLary), and his rise to fame in the New York tabloid news paper business in the 80's and 90's. McAlary was a real person who lived and breathed, and much of what we see has been reconstructed from interviews and biographies and the like. Some of it is fiction from Nora Ephron's own time spent as a journalist during that period.
More than the story of Mike McAlary, Nora Ephron is telling the story of the demise of News Paper journalism. She is using this story as a history lesson to show how new papers are no longer a relevant source of first hand news (and a little bit of why that is). It's not that this isn't an interesting subject matter, or that the play is not well written. The problem that I had with it is that it isn't much of a play at all.
Ms. Ephron has opted for long monologues that tell you what happened rather than show you what happened. A lot of the characters are under served and a lot of fine actors under utilized (Mr. Hanks included) as a result.
Courtney B. Vance comes off the best as he gets to deliver most of the monologues as Hap Hairston, McAlary's friend and sometimes boss. Maura Tierney is terribly underused as Mike McAlary's long suffering wife. There are many opportunities missed in that particular relationship.
The play covers a long expanse of time, almost 10 or 15 years to be exact, perhaps even 20. I can understand the need for some expository monologues so as to catch the audience up on what happened in the mean time. Some other people may not have minded all of the monologues but it has always been my preference to see things happen than to hear about them.
George C. Wolfe keeps things moving at a clip and has very smartly directed the piece. All of the acting performances are great - you only wish, as I said previously, that some of them had more stage time. The set and lighting design are both great, though nothing particularly wonderful.
Lucky Guy has been nominated for 6 Tony awards. It has extended it's run at The Broadhurst Theater twice. Depending on the actors filming schedules and how it does at The Tony's on June 9th, you might expect it to extend for a third and final time. The show is currently scheduled to conclude it's run on July 3rd, 2013.
The time has come, and Mr. Hanks has now made his debut. I waited in line for over an hour to receive a ticket to stand in the back of the theater (the show is sold out nearly every night). Tom Hanks was as wonderful on stage as he is on screen. He is warm and charismatic, even when playing a character with few endearing qualities (as he happens to be doing in Lucky Guy).
All that being said, the entire experience was a bit disappointing. Lucky Guy is the final work of Nora Ephron, the beloved and revered film and play writer. Ms. Ephron was a fine lady, and much has been expostulated about her and her work on screen and off so I wont go into all of that here. The play is not exceptionally good. It's not bad, it's just not anything special.
The story concerns Mike McAlary (pronounced MACaLary), and his rise to fame in the New York tabloid news paper business in the 80's and 90's. McAlary was a real person who lived and breathed, and much of what we see has been reconstructed from interviews and biographies and the like. Some of it is fiction from Nora Ephron's own time spent as a journalist during that period.
More than the story of Mike McAlary, Nora Ephron is telling the story of the demise of News Paper journalism. She is using this story as a history lesson to show how new papers are no longer a relevant source of first hand news (and a little bit of why that is). It's not that this isn't an interesting subject matter, or that the play is not well written. The problem that I had with it is that it isn't much of a play at all.
Ms. Ephron has opted for long monologues that tell you what happened rather than show you what happened. A lot of the characters are under served and a lot of fine actors under utilized (Mr. Hanks included) as a result.
Courtney B. Vance comes off the best as he gets to deliver most of the monologues as Hap Hairston, McAlary's friend and sometimes boss. Maura Tierney is terribly underused as Mike McAlary's long suffering wife. There are many opportunities missed in that particular relationship.
The play covers a long expanse of time, almost 10 or 15 years to be exact, perhaps even 20. I can understand the need for some expository monologues so as to catch the audience up on what happened in the mean time. Some other people may not have minded all of the monologues but it has always been my preference to see things happen than to hear about them.
George C. Wolfe keeps things moving at a clip and has very smartly directed the piece. All of the acting performances are great - you only wish, as I said previously, that some of them had more stage time. The set and lighting design are both great, though nothing particularly wonderful.
Lucky Guy has been nominated for 6 Tony awards. It has extended it's run at The Broadhurst Theater twice. Depending on the actors filming schedules and how it does at The Tony's on June 9th, you might expect it to extend for a third and final time. The show is currently scheduled to conclude it's run on July 3rd, 2013.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Hands on a Hardbody review
Every year there are more and more musicals based on films. This season there was even a play based on a Hollywood classic. Usually these musicals are based on familiar titles of the silver screen designed to get audiences pay top dollar to see what they know from screen on stage. Hands on a Hardbody however, used a slightly different model.
It's true that the Amanda Green and Trey Anastasio tuner is based on a film, but not a Hollywood blockbuster. It instead uses an award winning documentary film of the same name. The film follows a group of 24 contestants in an endurance and sleep deprivation contest in which the last person to let go of a brand spanking new Nissan Hardbody truck wins.
With a book by Tony and Pulitzer prize winner Doug Wright, Hands on a Hardbody pares the contestants down from 24 to 10. Though the characters have been combined into more simple archetypes, the basic story remains the same. These 10 contestants must keep at least one hand on the truck at all times or they will be disqualified.
One might not think that a musical in which 10 pf the main characters are quite literally affixed to a truck would be terribly exciting. If you were under this impression you would be terribly wrong! Doug wright has taken the basic story of the film and woven it into a story that has wit, charm, and heart. The competition aspect of the story also serves to keep things exciting.
Not only is the book exceptionally good (it should have been nominated for a Tony Award) the music is also wonderful. There are very few "stand out" song or "show stoppers", however, the score perfectly fits each moment, each character, and each level of the competition. The direction by Neil Pepe is fluid and smart. The musical staging by Sergio Trujillo is clever and entertaining. The hardbody of the title becomes a character without even speaking due to the inventiveness of the staging.
In addition to the material, every role was perfectly cast. A lot of people complained that some of the vocals weren't pleasant to listen to. I would say that this is true. The creatives decided to cast people who looked and sounded like these real people probably would. Dale Soules gravelly voice is essential to her character of Janis Curtis. Tony nominated Keala Settle has the most show stopping number in the musical, and the largest voice of the bunch. It's a shame that the musical didn't get a nomination for Best Musical because now America will never be able to see the brilliance of "Joy of the Lord".
Hands on a Hardbody closed on Broadway at The Brooks Atkinson Theater after 38 previews and 38 regular performances. Unlike other flops, this show did not close because it was not of good quality. It closed because it just failed to find it's audience. Perhaps the show would have done better to do another out of town, or to open off Broadway and try to make a transfer on positive press. It's pointless to speculate what might have been. What I DO know is that this show will probably have a strong life at colleges and universities across the country because of it's small set requirements and the ensemble cast. If this show comes to a theater near you, go, and enjoy yourself!
It's true that the Amanda Green and Trey Anastasio tuner is based on a film, but not a Hollywood blockbuster. It instead uses an award winning documentary film of the same name. The film follows a group of 24 contestants in an endurance and sleep deprivation contest in which the last person to let go of a brand spanking new Nissan Hardbody truck wins.
With a book by Tony and Pulitzer prize winner Doug Wright, Hands on a Hardbody pares the contestants down from 24 to 10. Though the characters have been combined into more simple archetypes, the basic story remains the same. These 10 contestants must keep at least one hand on the truck at all times or they will be disqualified.
One might not think that a musical in which 10 pf the main characters are quite literally affixed to a truck would be terribly exciting. If you were under this impression you would be terribly wrong! Doug wright has taken the basic story of the film and woven it into a story that has wit, charm, and heart. The competition aspect of the story also serves to keep things exciting.
Not only is the book exceptionally good (it should have been nominated for a Tony Award) the music is also wonderful. There are very few "stand out" song or "show stoppers", however, the score perfectly fits each moment, each character, and each level of the competition. The direction by Neil Pepe is fluid and smart. The musical staging by Sergio Trujillo is clever and entertaining. The hardbody of the title becomes a character without even speaking due to the inventiveness of the staging.
In addition to the material, every role was perfectly cast. A lot of people complained that some of the vocals weren't pleasant to listen to. I would say that this is true. The creatives decided to cast people who looked and sounded like these real people probably would. Dale Soules gravelly voice is essential to her character of Janis Curtis. Tony nominated Keala Settle has the most show stopping number in the musical, and the largest voice of the bunch. It's a shame that the musical didn't get a nomination for Best Musical because now America will never be able to see the brilliance of "Joy of the Lord".
Hands on a Hardbody closed on Broadway at The Brooks Atkinson Theater after 38 previews and 38 regular performances. Unlike other flops, this show did not close because it was not of good quality. It closed because it just failed to find it's audience. Perhaps the show would have done better to do another out of town, or to open off Broadway and try to make a transfer on positive press. It's pointless to speculate what might have been. What I DO know is that this show will probably have a strong life at colleges and universities across the country because of it's small set requirements and the ensemble cast. If this show comes to a theater near you, go, and enjoy yourself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)