As a white boy growing up in the far suburbs of Boston, MA my experience with 90's gangsta rap was limited. I had certainly heard of Tupac Shakur, but I'd never been exposed to him or his music. Full disclosure: I've never had much of an affinity for hip hop music of any kind, least of all rap. While it's certainly not perfect, the new musical Holler if Ya Hear Me closing tomorrow at The Palace Theater made me a Tupac fan.
The story is an original tale about a man released from prison back into the world in which he'd been trying to escape from his whole life. He reconnects with old friends, old enemies, and family. He's still on the streets struggling to make a living for himself and to get out of the ghetto. It's a familiar story, but it's never been told on Broadway before like this.
Let's just get it out in the open right now: The book is bad. The story itself is not what isn't good about this piece. Some of called it "familiar" and "Cliche". To everyday Broadway audiences it might be. To this shows intended audience, it's a slice of what they deal with every day. That being said - the book is bad. The dialogue is ham hocked and poorly constructed. Held up against the poetic and prophetic lyrics of Tupac Shakur, the book seems like it was written by a high school student.
The music is what makes this piece shine. It is some of the most wonderful and powerful music ever performed on a Broadway stage. Kenny Leon and Wayne Cilento have given smart and effective direction and choreography, respectively. The set, and lighting were also beautifully constructed. The costumes rang more 90's to me than contemporary, but it's been a while since I went walking in a mid-western predominantly black neighborhood so I could be wrong about that.
The cast is phenomenal Saul Williams, Christopher Jackson, and Saycon Sengbloh lead a cast of dynamic and talented young singers and dancers in relaying this epic music. Even this fantastic performances can only do so much in elevating the written material they are given to work with. The book has zero character development. The supremely talented asset, Tonya Pinkins, is great in every scene she is in, however she is wasted and hardly appears in the show.
While all of the musical numbers are staged brilliantly, they don't always make sense, fit the scenes they are in, and sometimes the lyrics to the songs are in direct contradiction to what the character singing just said in the previous scene. Many of the songs seen shoe-horned into moments that don't quite fit, or, have had ridiculous dialogue written for the specific purpose of including certain songs and not to tell the story.
Everyone else has said it, so I might as well say it to: This show would have benefited tremendously by an out of town try out. The book would have (probably, hopefully) gotten better, and the story elements would have tightened up.
What really drove this show into the ground though is an inability on the part of the producers to bring young black people into the theater. Broadway audiences are predominantly white. Broadway tickets are expensive. Though this show did make an effort to make tickets a but more affordable than is usual for a big Broadway show.
I do hope that Holler resurfaces someplace else with a stronger book. All the elements are there to make a truly fantastic and powerful Broadway musical that could define a generation. It all just needs a little more time in the oven.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Sunday, November 3, 2013
A Tale of two plays
I know, I know, it's been a very long time since my last blog entry. In fairness, I hadn't been to the theater in a while! The last time I wrote was about The Nance (which I ended up seeing again WITH Nathan Lane and LOVED). Since that time I have seen Pippin (for a second time), and the two plays about which I'm writing now.
I have never written a blog entry about two shows at the same time before. The reason that I'm doing it now will hopefully be revealed by the time I'm done. The two plays in question are The Winslow Boy by British Play write Terrence Rattigan and The Snow Geese by American play write Sharr White.
Both plays take place during WWI, though at different times, and both are about well to do families who are plunged into economic despair due to one reason or another - mostly of their own doing. The difference is that Mr. Rattigan wrote his play in 1947 and Mr. White wrote his circa 2013. You'd think that Mr. White's play would be the more relevant, and you'd be wrong!
Currently having it's debut at Manhattan Theater Clubs Friedman Theater on Broadway, Sharr Whites The Snow Geese has all the makings of a wonderful play. Mr. White wrote last seasons The Other Place which I raved about in a previous blog entry. Geese also marks the Broadway return of Mary-Louise Parker who has not graced the stage since the Roundabouts ill fated revival of Hedda Gabler.It is the first time that she has appeared on Broadway in a new play since the MTC production of Proof for which she won a Tony award.
Parker plays Elizabeth, a young widow named Elizabeth who has lost her husband very suddenly and unexpectedly to what sounds like a heart attack. Elizabeth has two young sons aged 22 and 18, the oldest of which is leaving soon to fight in France. Both sons have been raised very differently, and for different purposes. Also a part of the ensemble are Broadway heavy weights (and two of my personal favorites) Victoria Clark and Danny Burstein. Ms. Clark plays Elizabeths older sister and Mr. Burstein her German husband. There is also the small (but pivotal) role of the maid Viktorya.
There are problems with the script from the very beginning. The main problem being that the story doesn't seem to present itself until almost two thirds of the way through the first act, and when it finally does it's not all that interesting a story. The idea was to present tale of a family who lived well, and then was thrown into economic crisis very suddenly and how it affected each member of the family. It's a fine idea but the execution is very poor.
The relationships between characters are not clearly defined and neither are their motivations. There are scenes in the play that are very well written, and very enjoyable to watch. When the play ends though, there is no satisfaction. Something about the entire thing seems wasted. I think that perhaps if the play had been done regionally before being presented on Broadway it might have been in a better place.
Let us now turn our attention to the older of the bunch, Terrence Rattigan's The Winslow Boy. This play is currently being revived over The American Airlines Theater by Roundabout. This is certainly an old fashioned play. It's warms up slowly, and simmers before it boils. Though when it boils, watch out, it gets quite hot!
Starring Roger Rees and Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio, I thoroughly enjoyed this play from start to finish. This play also takes place circa WWI. It concerns a young boy at the royal naval school who is expelled unfairly, and the father who launches a years long legal crusade to save his sons good reputation.
Like The Snow Geese, The Winslow Boy tells of two sons who have been raised very differently and with different purposes. It also tells of a family plunged into economic crisis and paints for us a picture of how these events affect each member of the house hold. The difference between the two is that The Winslow Boy does it with a complete picture.
The story is clear from the beginning. While things certainly do get a bit out of focus towards the end of the first act, the writing is so clear and the character relationships and motivations are all there in the writing. Each time a character says or does something it makes sense, even if we don't agree with the choice. Not to mention that the entire cast are giving fantastic performances. Admittedly, the writing style of The Winslow Boy is old fashioned, and some may even find it boring. This is where the performances of this fine company of actors elevate the material to a higher plane.
While I certainly believe that all plays should be seen, if you have to choose between the two, I'd say go for The Winslow Boy. Both plays are currently playing on Broadway through the beginning of December. I promise to write again soon! Thanks for reading!
I have never written a blog entry about two shows at the same time before. The reason that I'm doing it now will hopefully be revealed by the time I'm done. The two plays in question are The Winslow Boy by British Play write Terrence Rattigan and The Snow Geese by American play write Sharr White.
Both plays take place during WWI, though at different times, and both are about well to do families who are plunged into economic despair due to one reason or another - mostly of their own doing. The difference is that Mr. Rattigan wrote his play in 1947 and Mr. White wrote his circa 2013. You'd think that Mr. White's play would be the more relevant, and you'd be wrong!
Currently having it's debut at Manhattan Theater Clubs Friedman Theater on Broadway, Sharr Whites The Snow Geese has all the makings of a wonderful play. Mr. White wrote last seasons The Other Place which I raved about in a previous blog entry. Geese also marks the Broadway return of Mary-Louise Parker who has not graced the stage since the Roundabouts ill fated revival of Hedda Gabler.It is the first time that she has appeared on Broadway in a new play since the MTC production of Proof for which she won a Tony award.
Parker plays Elizabeth, a young widow named Elizabeth who has lost her husband very suddenly and unexpectedly to what sounds like a heart attack. Elizabeth has two young sons aged 22 and 18, the oldest of which is leaving soon to fight in France. Both sons have been raised very differently, and for different purposes. Also a part of the ensemble are Broadway heavy weights (and two of my personal favorites) Victoria Clark and Danny Burstein. Ms. Clark plays Elizabeths older sister and Mr. Burstein her German husband. There is also the small (but pivotal) role of the maid Viktorya.
There are problems with the script from the very beginning. The main problem being that the story doesn't seem to present itself until almost two thirds of the way through the first act, and when it finally does it's not all that interesting a story. The idea was to present tale of a family who lived well, and then was thrown into economic crisis very suddenly and how it affected each member of the family. It's a fine idea but the execution is very poor.
The relationships between characters are not clearly defined and neither are their motivations. There are scenes in the play that are very well written, and very enjoyable to watch. When the play ends though, there is no satisfaction. Something about the entire thing seems wasted. I think that perhaps if the play had been done regionally before being presented on Broadway it might have been in a better place.
Let us now turn our attention to the older of the bunch, Terrence Rattigan's The Winslow Boy. This play is currently being revived over The American Airlines Theater by Roundabout. This is certainly an old fashioned play. It's warms up slowly, and simmers before it boils. Though when it boils, watch out, it gets quite hot!
Starring Roger Rees and Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio, I thoroughly enjoyed this play from start to finish. This play also takes place circa WWI. It concerns a young boy at the royal naval school who is expelled unfairly, and the father who launches a years long legal crusade to save his sons good reputation.
Like The Snow Geese, The Winslow Boy tells of two sons who have been raised very differently and with different purposes. It also tells of a family plunged into economic crisis and paints for us a picture of how these events affect each member of the house hold. The difference between the two is that The Winslow Boy does it with a complete picture.
The story is clear from the beginning. While things certainly do get a bit out of focus towards the end of the first act, the writing is so clear and the character relationships and motivations are all there in the writing. Each time a character says or does something it makes sense, even if we don't agree with the choice. Not to mention that the entire cast are giving fantastic performances. Admittedly, the writing style of The Winslow Boy is old fashioned, and some may even find it boring. This is where the performances of this fine company of actors elevate the material to a higher plane.
While I certainly believe that all plays should be seen, if you have to choose between the two, I'd say go for The Winslow Boy. Both plays are currently playing on Broadway through the beginning of December. I promise to write again soon! Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
The Nance, or, how I didn't see Nathan Lane twice.
William Shakespeare says in Hamlet that "The play is the thing". After my personal experiences this past weekend I can say that I both agree and disagree with the bards sentiment. Lincoln Center theater has a wonderful program for theater goers under the age of 30 called LincTix, in which patrons under 30 may purchase tickets (in advance and online) to all of Lincoln Center Theater's productions on or off-Broadway for only $30. www.linctix.org if you're interested, I highly recommend it.
Through this program I ordered my tickets to see The Nance Douglas Carter Beans new Comedy starring Nathan Lane for this past Saturday afternoon. Now, to be fair, this play is advertised as NATHAN LANE in The Nance. The show has been playing for three months now, and every person I've talked to about the play says that Nathan Lane is wonderful in the lead role. Hell, he even got a Tony nomination for his performance.
Needless to say I was a bit disappointed to arrive at the Lyceum Theater to discover that he was not appearing int the Sat. Mat. There was a long line of people exchanging tickets. We were all told that Mr. Lane WOULD be appearing in that evenings performance. I decided to try my luck and hopped in the exchange line. Sure enough I was able to change my tickets for that evenings performance. I set myself off to other destinations for the remainder of the afternoon.
Upon returning to The Lyceum for the 8 pm performance, we were again dismayed to learn that Nathan Lane would in fact NOT be appearing in that evenings performance either. We were already seated when we made this discovery, and decided that though we were disappointed we would try to enjoy the understudy, whom I had seen in other things and knew to be a fine actor in his own right.
Now, about the play. In case you were wondering, in the world of 1930's burlesque a Nance was a very popular character. The Nance was a stereotypically camp homosexual man, most times played by a straight male performer to be overtly effeminate. In his new play, Douglas Carter Beane tells the story of Chauncey Miles, a headline Nance performer in New York City's Burlesque scene, who also happens to be a real life homosexual. Integrating burlesque sketches into the drama, Beane weaves the tapestry of a gay man living and working in the secretive and dangerous world of New York in the 1930's.
The play itself is well written for the most part. The Character of Chauncey Miles has some very choice scenes and monologues, as do the supporting players. There are problems and inconsistencies in the script however, that do make some things confusing. It does raise some interesting points, though it feels too much like a period piece and lacks much of any relationship to current events. It doesn't feel as relevant as it should.
Stephen Derosa did his best (and it was quite good) in the role of Chauncey. The trouble, of course, is that the entire time I was imagining how much funnier it would have been if Nathan Lane had done whatever he did. This play was written with Nathan Lane in mind, and it shows in the text. This will make it difficult for any actor that comes after him.
Johnny Orsini is delightful as the is he or isn't he young Ned. Ned's relationship with Chauncey is one of those inconsistent moments in the script, though both actors do the best they can of selling it. Lewis J. Stadlen stands out as the top banana and "straight man" to Chauncey's Nance persona. Cady Huffman, Andrea Burns, and Jenni Barber each turn in excellent performances as a trio of burlesque strippers.
Jack O'Brien has done his usual great work directing the piece. The set and costume design by John Lee Beatty and Ann Roth, respectively, is what really makes the show feel true. They have both created a world that lives and breathes and feels like the gritty New York of the 30's. The Nance is performed with a live band who accompanies the burlesque sketches. The movement for these scenes is impeccably done by Joey Pizzi.
Overall I would recommend the play. I think that the writing is solid even if the structure is a bit off. It's also possible that the playwright will make some changes before the play is published or produced elsewhere. Douglas Carter Beane is one of my absolute favorite people writing for the American Theater today. If you get the chance to see The Nance before it closes on Sunday, August 11th, you should definitely do so - even if Nathan Lane is out.
Through this program I ordered my tickets to see The Nance Douglas Carter Beans new Comedy starring Nathan Lane for this past Saturday afternoon. Now, to be fair, this play is advertised as NATHAN LANE in The Nance. The show has been playing for three months now, and every person I've talked to about the play says that Nathan Lane is wonderful in the lead role. Hell, he even got a Tony nomination for his performance.
Needless to say I was a bit disappointed to arrive at the Lyceum Theater to discover that he was not appearing int the Sat. Mat. There was a long line of people exchanging tickets. We were all told that Mr. Lane WOULD be appearing in that evenings performance. I decided to try my luck and hopped in the exchange line. Sure enough I was able to change my tickets for that evenings performance. I set myself off to other destinations for the remainder of the afternoon.
Upon returning to The Lyceum for the 8 pm performance, we were again dismayed to learn that Nathan Lane would in fact NOT be appearing in that evenings performance either. We were already seated when we made this discovery, and decided that though we were disappointed we would try to enjoy the understudy, whom I had seen in other things and knew to be a fine actor in his own right.
Now, about the play. In case you were wondering, in the world of 1930's burlesque a Nance was a very popular character. The Nance was a stereotypically camp homosexual man, most times played by a straight male performer to be overtly effeminate. In his new play, Douglas Carter Beane tells the story of Chauncey Miles, a headline Nance performer in New York City's Burlesque scene, who also happens to be a real life homosexual. Integrating burlesque sketches into the drama, Beane weaves the tapestry of a gay man living and working in the secretive and dangerous world of New York in the 1930's.
The play itself is well written for the most part. The Character of Chauncey Miles has some very choice scenes and monologues, as do the supporting players. There are problems and inconsistencies in the script however, that do make some things confusing. It does raise some interesting points, though it feels too much like a period piece and lacks much of any relationship to current events. It doesn't feel as relevant as it should.
Stephen Derosa did his best (and it was quite good) in the role of Chauncey. The trouble, of course, is that the entire time I was imagining how much funnier it would have been if Nathan Lane had done whatever he did. This play was written with Nathan Lane in mind, and it shows in the text. This will make it difficult for any actor that comes after him.
Johnny Orsini is delightful as the is he or isn't he young Ned. Ned's relationship with Chauncey is one of those inconsistent moments in the script, though both actors do the best they can of selling it. Lewis J. Stadlen stands out as the top banana and "straight man" to Chauncey's Nance persona. Cady Huffman, Andrea Burns, and Jenni Barber each turn in excellent performances as a trio of burlesque strippers.
Jack O'Brien has done his usual great work directing the piece. The set and costume design by John Lee Beatty and Ann Roth, respectively, is what really makes the show feel true. They have both created a world that lives and breathes and feels like the gritty New York of the 30's. The Nance is performed with a live band who accompanies the burlesque sketches. The movement for these scenes is impeccably done by Joey Pizzi.
Overall I would recommend the play. I think that the writing is solid even if the structure is a bit off. It's also possible that the playwright will make some changes before the play is published or produced elsewhere. Douglas Carter Beane is one of my absolute favorite people writing for the American Theater today. If you get the chance to see The Nance before it closes on Sunday, August 11th, you should definitely do so - even if Nathan Lane is out.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Ann
I was doing really well for a while in writing blogs about shows before the closed. This weeks entry I'm afraid is back to my old habits. I actually saw this show in time to write about it before it closed, but for some reason...yeah.
Holland Taylor was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Actress in a play for her work in the solo show (which she also wrote) Ann about the late Gov. Ann Richards. In case you (like me) know nothing about Ann Richards, she is the second female Gov. of Texas. She is also one of the only Democrats in the past 100 years to have held the post.
There are three "acts" in this two act play. The first is that in which Ann addresses the audience directly and tells of the time before she was Governor of Texas. This includes background on her parents, her childhood, her marriage, and her first forays into politics. This is all very interesting. Truth be told, you could have had a 90-100 minute play using just this one section of the play and it would have been a fascinating evening of theater.
The second part of Ann deals with her time in office as Governor. This is where the play drags a little bit. Since this is a one woman show, we are only given one sided phone conversations and brief exchanges with Ann's off-stage personal secretary Nancy Kohler (voiced by the always effervescent Julie White). This is to show us what Ann was like as Governor, and what it was like FOR her as a female in what was considered to be a mans game (at the time).
Some of what is in this section is interesting. Unfortunately, due to the structure, after a few one sided phone calls it becomes tedious. Holland Taylor is always wonderful in the role, but the writing isn't interesting enough to hold our attention. If Nancy Kohler had been a physical presence instead of a disembodied voice it may have broken up some of the monotony of the phone calls a little better.
The third section of the play deals with Ann's life after Gov. and her eventual death. This third section is too long. In fact the play feels like it had already ended. Though I will say that her final speech at the end of the third section of the play is the most beautifully written section of the entire evening.
Ann Richards was certainly a fascinating woman, and a wonderful choice of subject for a play. I'm not sure if she is being best served in this particular one actor version. I think if perhaps the play had been edited down to be 10 minutes shorter in each act, especially the phone conversations, than it would have flowed better and been more riveting. The first and last 20-25 minutes are excellent, it's the middle that muddles things.
Ann was written by Holland Taylor and directed by Benjamin Endsley Klein. Scenic Design by Michael Fagin, Costume design by Julie Weiss, and lighting design by Matthew Richards (no relation). Ann closed on Broadway at The Vivian Beaumont Theater on June 30th, 2013 after 19 previews and 132 regular performances.
Holland Taylor was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Actress in a play for her work in the solo show (which she also wrote) Ann about the late Gov. Ann Richards. In case you (like me) know nothing about Ann Richards, she is the second female Gov. of Texas. She is also one of the only Democrats in the past 100 years to have held the post.
There are three "acts" in this two act play. The first is that in which Ann addresses the audience directly and tells of the time before she was Governor of Texas. This includes background on her parents, her childhood, her marriage, and her first forays into politics. This is all very interesting. Truth be told, you could have had a 90-100 minute play using just this one section of the play and it would have been a fascinating evening of theater.
The second part of Ann deals with her time in office as Governor. This is where the play drags a little bit. Since this is a one woman show, we are only given one sided phone conversations and brief exchanges with Ann's off-stage personal secretary Nancy Kohler (voiced by the always effervescent Julie White). This is to show us what Ann was like as Governor, and what it was like FOR her as a female in what was considered to be a mans game (at the time).
Some of what is in this section is interesting. Unfortunately, due to the structure, after a few one sided phone calls it becomes tedious. Holland Taylor is always wonderful in the role, but the writing isn't interesting enough to hold our attention. If Nancy Kohler had been a physical presence instead of a disembodied voice it may have broken up some of the monotony of the phone calls a little better.
The third section of the play deals with Ann's life after Gov. and her eventual death. This third section is too long. In fact the play feels like it had already ended. Though I will say that her final speech at the end of the third section of the play is the most beautifully written section of the entire evening.
Ann Richards was certainly a fascinating woman, and a wonderful choice of subject for a play. I'm not sure if she is being best served in this particular one actor version. I think if perhaps the play had been edited down to be 10 minutes shorter in each act, especially the phone conversations, than it would have flowed better and been more riveting. The first and last 20-25 minutes are excellent, it's the middle that muddles things.
Ann was written by Holland Taylor and directed by Benjamin Endsley Klein. Scenic Design by Michael Fagin, Costume design by Julie Weiss, and lighting design by Matthew Richards (no relation). Ann closed on Broadway at The Vivian Beaumont Theater on June 30th, 2013 after 19 previews and 132 regular performances.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Once
When fan favorite Newsies was beat out by Once at the 2012 Tony Awards ceremony for Best Musical, I have to admit that I was one of those people crying foul. At the time, I had only seen Newsies, but based on what I'd seen from Once I could not fathom how it could have beaten out those heart rending street urchins singing and dancing their brains out every night. Just two weeks ago I saw Once for the first time, and now I can safely say that Newsies should have won Best Musical.
The above paragraph probably makes it sound as though I didn't like Once. I actually loved it. I thought that it was wonderful. The book by Enda Walsh based on the screenplay by John Carney is superb. It's filled with heart, soul, humor, and everything else you could want from a play. The music by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova (who also starred in the film, and whose story this is based on) are also quite good.
So, why do I feel as though Once should not have been named Best Musical? I don't think that Once should have ever been called a musical. It's a play that is about musicians, so they sing to one another, but it's not a musical. There is not one song in the Once that is not being performed in the context of the play. There is no moment where the characters break from speech to song and sing to further the story. There is no orchestra, all of the actors also play instruments. The music is, of course, integral to the story, and I would even venture to say that it is a character unto itself. I would not classify Once as a musical though.
Now that we've gotten that bit out of the way, let's talk about the show. When you enter the Theater, you are instantly transported to an Irish Pub. There is a working bar on stage, and patrons of the theater are invited up (in small controlled groups) to make their beverage purchases and be entertained by the "pub musicians" playing old Irish standards before the show begins.
The audience is eventually herded to their seats and the play begins with the entrance of "guy". Through the course of the rest of the play, we are guided through "guys" journey of meeting "girl", and how they both teach each other to love again. It's the same story as the Academy Award winning film of the same name, so if you've seen the movie you're in the know. The music is also the same. There is only one song in the stage version that is not in the movie.
I did not have the pleasure of seeing original cast members Steve Kazee (who won a Tony) and Cristin Milioti (who is now Mom on TV's HIMYM). Replacements, Arthur Darvill (Dr. Who), and Joanna Christie were both excellent. Arthur Darvill is sweet, likable, and endearing in the role of guy. He brings a humor to the role which is good, because otherwise many of his lines would be quite depressing. There is humor already written into the role of Girl, but Joanna Christie has great comic timing. Her chemistry with Arthur Darvill is also palpable. My one gripe is that her Check accent isn't that great and her British accent often bleeds through. Both are adept at playing their instruments, though Christie is a better singer than Darvill is. Though his voice is perfectly suited to the singer/songwriter vibe of the character.
The supporting cast is absolutely brilliant. Not only are they playing their characters to near perfection, but they also play all of the music in the show. Most of them are playing two or three instruments a piece. It's quite impressive. Anne L. Nathan, David Patrick Kelley, and Paul Witty are particular standouts.
Scenic Design by Bob Crowley is simple and effective. The entire show is done in an Irish Pub, and other locations are merely suggested by the addition of a table and chairs or a desk. It is the perfect use of objects and imagination. His costume designs also complement each character. Natasha Katz lighting is as beautiful as it always is. John Tiffany's direction coupled with Steven Hoggett's movement are stunning.
Once is sure to run for quite some time. There is a national tour beginning in the fall, though I don't know how such a small and intimate story will play in huge touring houses. The London Production is also set to begin performances soon. Either way, see this show and you'll be the better for it. Once continues on Broadway at The Bernard B. Jacobs Theater.
The above paragraph probably makes it sound as though I didn't like Once. I actually loved it. I thought that it was wonderful. The book by Enda Walsh based on the screenplay by John Carney is superb. It's filled with heart, soul, humor, and everything else you could want from a play. The music by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova (who also starred in the film, and whose story this is based on) are also quite good.
So, why do I feel as though Once should not have been named Best Musical? I don't think that Once should have ever been called a musical. It's a play that is about musicians, so they sing to one another, but it's not a musical. There is not one song in the Once that is not being performed in the context of the play. There is no moment where the characters break from speech to song and sing to further the story. There is no orchestra, all of the actors also play instruments. The music is, of course, integral to the story, and I would even venture to say that it is a character unto itself. I would not classify Once as a musical though.
Now that we've gotten that bit out of the way, let's talk about the show. When you enter the Theater, you are instantly transported to an Irish Pub. There is a working bar on stage, and patrons of the theater are invited up (in small controlled groups) to make their beverage purchases and be entertained by the "pub musicians" playing old Irish standards before the show begins.
The audience is eventually herded to their seats and the play begins with the entrance of "guy". Through the course of the rest of the play, we are guided through "guys" journey of meeting "girl", and how they both teach each other to love again. It's the same story as the Academy Award winning film of the same name, so if you've seen the movie you're in the know. The music is also the same. There is only one song in the stage version that is not in the movie.
I did not have the pleasure of seeing original cast members Steve Kazee (who won a Tony) and Cristin Milioti (who is now Mom on TV's HIMYM). Replacements, Arthur Darvill (Dr. Who), and Joanna Christie were both excellent. Arthur Darvill is sweet, likable, and endearing in the role of guy. He brings a humor to the role which is good, because otherwise many of his lines would be quite depressing. There is humor already written into the role of Girl, but Joanna Christie has great comic timing. Her chemistry with Arthur Darvill is also palpable. My one gripe is that her Check accent isn't that great and her British accent often bleeds through. Both are adept at playing their instruments, though Christie is a better singer than Darvill is. Though his voice is perfectly suited to the singer/songwriter vibe of the character.
The supporting cast is absolutely brilliant. Not only are they playing their characters to near perfection, but they also play all of the music in the show. Most of them are playing two or three instruments a piece. It's quite impressive. Anne L. Nathan, David Patrick Kelley, and Paul Witty are particular standouts.
Scenic Design by Bob Crowley is simple and effective. The entire show is done in an Irish Pub, and other locations are merely suggested by the addition of a table and chairs or a desk. It is the perfect use of objects and imagination. His costume designs also complement each character. Natasha Katz lighting is as beautiful as it always is. John Tiffany's direction coupled with Steven Hoggett's movement are stunning.
Once is sure to run for quite some time. There is a national tour beginning in the fall, though I don't know how such a small and intimate story will play in huge touring houses. The London Production is also set to begin performances soon. Either way, see this show and you'll be the better for it. Once continues on Broadway at The Bernard B. Jacobs Theater.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
I'll Eat You Last: A Chat with Sue Mengers
The day the Tony award nominations came out, there was a large public outcry (well, large in the theater community) about performances and shows that got snubbed. One of the first names on the list of "should have been's" was Bette Midler for her portrayal of the late Hollywood Mega agent Sue Mengers.
At the time of the nominations I had not yet seen the play, and could not fairly judge whether or not she deserved to be nominated. Now that I have seen the play, and 3 out the 5 performances that were nominated, I can safely say I agree with the dive miss M's lack of a nomination.
How can I arrive to that conclusion without having seen all of the performances that were nominated? I'll tell you. Of the three performances that I did see, I would not have replaced any of those nominations based on what I saw. In addition, there were other performances that were NOT nominated that if the performances I had NOT seen were NOT nominated that I would fill those slot's with before I would have nominated Bette Midler.
Perhaps I should have prefaced this blog entry with the fact that I LOVE BETTE MIDLER! I've seen her in concert, her Cd's were some of the first that I ever owned as a young gay. Her performance in the TV movie version of Gypsy is gold to me. Hocus Pocus changed my life. Beaches makes me teary eyed every time I see it, and I was one of the few people who knew exactly what Jennifer Lawrence was doing in her acceptance speech. I LOVE Bette!
Nor is she giving a bad performance in this play. First let's talk about John Logan's script. John Logan won a Tony award for writing Red. I thought that was a very poorly written play. John Logan writes very captivating film scripts. He wrote the screen play for SKYFALL among many other things. I"LL EAT YOU LAST is a 90 minute inside conversation. If you're a person who knows or has an interest in the Hollywood heyday of the 70's and 80's than you probably enjoyed or would enjoy this play very much. If the names and movies being mentioned to you are as unfamiliar as the period table of elements is to a 6 year old, than you're probably not having as good a time.
This is where Bette Midler shines. She makes the play accessible to all people regardless of their being in the know. She makes you feel like you're a part of it all. The play runs at 90 minutes. The wonderful thing about it is that just as it's starting to feel tedious, it's over. It knows exactly when to call it quits. Bette keeps things going at break neck speed. Occasionally pausing for dramatic affect, or rather comedic affect, or to light up a cigarette, or a joint.
The reason Bette didn't get a Tony award nomination is because she is giving the kind of performance that you expect to see from Bette Midler. She is playing a persona rather than a person. Now, there are some very interesting scenes of Sue Mengers talking about moving to the USA and learning how to speak English. Bette actually surprises here with her depth and understanding, though the depth isn't more than a few feet deep. For the most part, the performance is kept at a decibel of 7-8 out of 10.
Scott Pask has designed the set to be exactly what you might think the California living room of a Hollywood agent might look like. How accurate a depiction of Sue Mengers actual living room it is I couldn't tell you, but it works very well for the play. Ann Roth has outfitted the Davine Bette or rather, Sue, in a very hippie style caftan dress. It's long, flowing, and could double as pajamas. The lighting by Hugh Vanstone is functional, and there really isn't much going on in the way of special lighting effects.
Overall this is not a play that I would expect to see done very much regionally, and certainly not in community theaters or colleges. I would imagine that it has very little appeal outside of New York and L.A. Sue Mengers was a very interesting woman, and her story is quite rare given the time period and the fact that she was a woman. For that, the play, or at least the subject, is worth celebrating.
I'll Eat you Last: A Chat with Sue Mengers continues at The Booth Theater through Sunday June 30th. If you arrive at the theater 2 hours before the box office opens you have a very good chance of receiving a same day rush ticket for $35.
At the time of the nominations I had not yet seen the play, and could not fairly judge whether or not she deserved to be nominated. Now that I have seen the play, and 3 out the 5 performances that were nominated, I can safely say I agree with the dive miss M's lack of a nomination.
How can I arrive to that conclusion without having seen all of the performances that were nominated? I'll tell you. Of the three performances that I did see, I would not have replaced any of those nominations based on what I saw. In addition, there were other performances that were NOT nominated that if the performances I had NOT seen were NOT nominated that I would fill those slot's with before I would have nominated Bette Midler.
Perhaps I should have prefaced this blog entry with the fact that I LOVE BETTE MIDLER! I've seen her in concert, her Cd's were some of the first that I ever owned as a young gay. Her performance in the TV movie version of Gypsy is gold to me. Hocus Pocus changed my life. Beaches makes me teary eyed every time I see it, and I was one of the few people who knew exactly what Jennifer Lawrence was doing in her acceptance speech. I LOVE Bette!
Nor is she giving a bad performance in this play. First let's talk about John Logan's script. John Logan won a Tony award for writing Red. I thought that was a very poorly written play. John Logan writes very captivating film scripts. He wrote the screen play for SKYFALL among many other things. I"LL EAT YOU LAST is a 90 minute inside conversation. If you're a person who knows or has an interest in the Hollywood heyday of the 70's and 80's than you probably enjoyed or would enjoy this play very much. If the names and movies being mentioned to you are as unfamiliar as the period table of elements is to a 6 year old, than you're probably not having as good a time.
This is where Bette Midler shines. She makes the play accessible to all people regardless of their being in the know. She makes you feel like you're a part of it all. The play runs at 90 minutes. The wonderful thing about it is that just as it's starting to feel tedious, it's over. It knows exactly when to call it quits. Bette keeps things going at break neck speed. Occasionally pausing for dramatic affect, or rather comedic affect, or to light up a cigarette, or a joint.
The reason Bette didn't get a Tony award nomination is because she is giving the kind of performance that you expect to see from Bette Midler. She is playing a persona rather than a person. Now, there are some very interesting scenes of Sue Mengers talking about moving to the USA and learning how to speak English. Bette actually surprises here with her depth and understanding, though the depth isn't more than a few feet deep. For the most part, the performance is kept at a decibel of 7-8 out of 10.
Scott Pask has designed the set to be exactly what you might think the California living room of a Hollywood agent might look like. How accurate a depiction of Sue Mengers actual living room it is I couldn't tell you, but it works very well for the play. Ann Roth has outfitted the Davine Bette or rather, Sue, in a very hippie style caftan dress. It's long, flowing, and could double as pajamas. The lighting by Hugh Vanstone is functional, and there really isn't much going on in the way of special lighting effects.
Overall this is not a play that I would expect to see done very much regionally, and certainly not in community theaters or colleges. I would imagine that it has very little appeal outside of New York and L.A. Sue Mengers was a very interesting woman, and her story is quite rare given the time period and the fact that she was a woman. For that, the play, or at least the subject, is worth celebrating.
I'll Eat you Last: A Chat with Sue Mengers continues at The Booth Theater through Sunday June 30th. If you arrive at the theater 2 hours before the box office opens you have a very good chance of receiving a same day rush ticket for $35.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Nice Work if you can get it.
One of these days I will be able to start writing blogs about shows right after they open instead of right before they close. Today is not that day, and next *spoiler alert* next Wednesdays blog wont be either! At least today I'm writing about a show that is still open! Until Saturday June 15th that is.
Nice Work if you can get it is subtitled, "The New Gershwin Musical". Which is not really the truth. It's a new reworking of an old Gershwin musical. Nice Work is loosely based on the 1926 musical Oh, Kay! which had an original book by Guy Bolton and P.G. Wodehouse. Both of those gentlemen are given credit in the Nice Work playbill. The new book is by Joe DePietro.
The only songs from the original Oh, Kay! That is used in Nice Work if you can get it are Do, do, do, and Someone to watch over me. Every other song has been interpolated from other Gershwin musicals. Taking place in prohibition era New York, the story follows that of Jimmy Winter (Matthew Broderick) a rich long island playboy who is about to be married for the 4th time. The night before the wedding Jimmy meets a lady bootlegger named Billie Bendix (Jessie Mueller). In a drunken stupor he tells her of his swanky Long Island beach house that he hardly ever uses. Billie, being a bootlegger, thinks this would be a swell place to hide her hooch until the heat dies down. Of course, Jimmy shows up with his new bride and hi jinx ensue.
The music is Gershwin so you can't go wrong there. Each song has been (almost) perfectly worked into the book by Joe DiPietro. Things are locked into place, but you can tell some of the pieces of the puzzle don't quite belong where they are. The book is funny, but it's a particular kind of funny. If you enjoy big brash screwball comedies with corny jokes this is the show for you. There are a few genuine belly laughs in the book. Judy Kaye plays a Duchess so set on ridding the USA of "demon rum" that she has founded an organization called "The Society of Dry Women".
The sets and costumes are lavish. Derek McLane has given us the kid of sets you don't see in Broadway musicals very often anymore. They are stylistic rather than realistic, and beautiful to look at. In one of the last shows he designed before he died, Martin Paklidinaz has given us a luscious wardrobe that perfectly evokes the period, while simultaneously poking a little fun at each character. The wedding dress worn by Eileen Evergreen (Jennifer Laura Thompson) at the end of the show is "Delicious".
Kathleen Marshal is always on top of her game as a director and choreographer. She sometimes has the tendency to add dance sequences where there needn't be any. This show is no exception to that rule, but the dancing is always so good that you don't really mind. The only complaint about that is it makes the show run a bit longer than it needs to.
Matthew Broderick is back in a musical for the first time since The Producers. He has a sweet and lovely voice, and he's a fine actor, but he's miscast in this role. Everyone knows that Matthew Broderick has a youthfulness about him that doesn't seem to ever go away, but the man is over 50. While Matthew certainly doesn't look 50, he does look about 45, which is about ten years too old to sell this character. It would also have helped if he could dance a little better.
Jessie Mueller has taken over the role of Billie Bendix from Kelly O'Hara. Jessie Mueller is a joy to watch in everything she does and Nice Work is no exception. She makes a full meal out of every Gershwin tune she sings. Her characterization is perfect, her comic timing is impeccable. She is younger than Kelly, and so makes Matthew Broderick look even older by comparison, and there isn't much romantic chemistry between the two of them, which is unfortunate.
In two Tony award winning featured actor performances, Judy Kaye as Duchess Estonia Dulworth and Michael McGrath as Cookie McGee steal nearly every scene they are in. It's easy to see why the pair of them went home with the gold last year. Jennifer Laura Thompson (who was my favorite Glinda in Wicked), Robyn Hurder, and and Chris Sullivan also shine in supporting roles.
It's a shame that ticket sales for this show haven't been higher. I'm sure the producers tried without success to find a suitable replacement for Matthew Broderick. I guess John Stamos wasn't interested. If you get to see this show before it closes on Saturday, you should have a good time. If you can't see it on Broadway, I'm sure it will become a popular title among regional and community theaters. When it closes, Nice Work if you can get it will have played 27 previews and 478 regular performances at The Imperial Theater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)