# Broadway reviews



## telracs

If anyone objects, I will take this down, but for those interested in my musical reviews....


"Turn off the Dark"? When I first heard this title (about 2 years ago, now, I believe), I wondered what it meant. As the show got closer and closer to reality, I continued to wonder. And now, after seeing the show, I'm still wondering. I THINK it has something to do with Arachne's being condemned to live in the darkness and her hope that Peter Parker will set her free. Or maybe not. I'm not sure about much about this show. And I felt like the creators weren't too sure either. That they weren't sure what story they wanted to tell or exactly how they wanted to tell it. The show changes styles multiple times throughout the first act, and the tone of the first and second act are so completely different that I felt I was watching 2 different shows. 

Even the beginning of the show confused me. We start with Spidey standing on a bridge as Mary Jane hangs from a rope. A big cardboard cut out of the Green Goblin cuts the rope, MJ falls and we go black. Enter 4 teens (3 male, 1 female), who discuss what happened next. But then they decide to go back to the beginning and discuss the origin of Spidey. Our lone female drags a huge book out of her bag, and starts talking about Arachne. Who is Arachne, you ask? She's a character from Greek mythology who was turned into a spider by the gods after being a better weaver than Athena. The musical's version of the story has Arachne hanging herself, but instead being turned into a spider and condemned to the above mentioned eternal darkness. The Arachne scene was enjoyable, and used a nice flying effect (more on those later), but I was wondering what the point was. Oh, then I got what I think was the point. We cut from Arachne's transformation to a Queens High School {note to the set designer, NYC high schools have HS numbers, not PS numbers) where one Peter Parker is giving a talk on the Greek myth. The show goes on to tell the origin story of Spiderman (with some annoying changes to the "normal" version, including Arachne's creating his suit), and his nemesis, Norman Osborne (a geneticist who becomes transformed into the Green Goblin). Act one ends with Spidey, the Green Goblin and MJ falling from the Chrysler Building. Well, that would have made a great ending in my opinion. Nice story line. Spidey gets bit, learns responsibility and saves MJ from the Goblin. But no, we have a second act. Act two starts with the Geek chorus discussing villains and wastes more time with a catwalk number showcasing the villians. Peter tries to balance crime fighting and real life, but turns his back on his Spidey powers after finding himself unable to live a normal life. This irritates Arachne to the point that she plunges the world into a blackout and resurrects some of the villains that Spidey vanquished. Or maybe not. Ultimately, Peter confronts Arachne (in a scene ripped right from Phantom of the Opera), and rescues Mary Jane. And everyone lives happily ever after. Except Arachne, who is now really dead, and the Green Goblin who went splat and Peter's Uncle Ben, hit by a car, and MJ's first boyfriend who just vanished midway through Act 1 and J. Jonah Jameson, who just is not a happy person. 

The show is a musical, so it might be helpful to discuss the music. Well, the music is nice and has a good rock beat to it, but for the most part is forgettable. As to the lyrics, most of them were unintelligible. In my opinion, the sets were the best part of the show. There were a number of large set pieces in act one, and good use of video projection screens in act two. Reeve Carney as Spiderman was okay, but the padding on his suit was pretty obvious. Also, I felt his voice was very strained and not pleasant. Jennifer Damiano as Mary Jane was okay, but just that. Patrick Page was fun as Norman/Green Goblin and Micheal Mulhern was appropriately snarky as Jameson. Best of the lot was T.V. Carpio as Arachne, she was fun to watch. 

Now to the flying effects. Let me say, that spectacle for spectacle's sake does not impress me. And after a while, the flying effects of this show just bored me. I watched the on-stage guitar player (and don't ask me why there was a guitar and bass player stage left) more than the flying. My biggest problem with the flying effect was that it looked like they were staging Superman, not Spiderman. All he would do was lift his arm and off he'd go. No jump, no nothing. Just up he goes. Fortunately, there were no incidents at this performance, although one of the aerialists did have trouble on a landing. 

All in all, I'm not sorry I went, but am a bit sorry that I paid full price for these tickets. Especially since when I bought the tickets they were for post opening, but are now still preview.


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks

At least Spiderman didn't fall from the rafters and have to have back surgery after your performance.  I think after all the calamities this show has had, they wouldn't dare say "break a leg" before a performance.


----------



## BTackitt

Oh Scarlet I'm glad you posted this. I don't see why you couldn't, we talk about movies all the time, why not Broadway shows?

I like your review, maybe you should send it in to a paper there in NYC. It's got a nice balance.


----------



## telracs

BTackitt said:


> Oh Scarlet I'm glad you posted this. I don't see why you couldn't, we talk about movies all the time, why not Broadway shows?
> 
> I like your review, maybe you should send it in to a paper there in NYC. It's got a nice balance.


Thanks. All the NY papers have their own critics. None of whom have actually been allowed to write reviews about the show yet, because it's not yet "frozen", they are still making changes.


----------



## telracs

I changed this thread title to a more generic one instead of starting a new thread for each review.  So, here's a new review...

In 1984 Harvey Fierstein won the Tony award for Best Book of a musical for La Cage Aux Folles.  Twenty-seven years later, he's stepped into the role of Zaza/Albin and made it his own.  

When the latest La Cage revival started last year, I had no desire to see it.  I'd seen it in 2005, and felt that it was too soon for another revival.  Also, I wasn't interested in seeing Kelsey Grammer or Douglas Hodge in it.  But when the announcement came that Harvey was going to be playing Albin, I had to go. Jeffrey Tambor was scheduled to play Georges, but he only managed 5 performances before leaving due to health reasons.  So, Chris Hoch, who I'd seen and liked in Dracula, was playing Georges when I saw it.  And he did a wonderful job.  He and Harvey had an incredible chemistry and were totally believable as a couple of longstanding going through a rough patch.

Most of the acting was on par with Harvey and Chris, especially Wilson Jermaine Heredia as Jacob, the pair's faithful "butler".  I felt that A.J. Shively was a bit weak as Jean-Michelle, and found the understudy playing Jacqueline to be boring.  And while the men playing the Caglles were great dancers,  I didn't believe that any of them were drag queens, their body type was wrong.  This could have been easily handled by costuming, so I don't understand the decision to have their very masculine upper bodies showing so much.  

This current production  of La Cage plays up the night club aspect of the show, with table seating in the front of the orchestra section (where the orchestra pit normally would be), and the musicians visible on either side of the stage.  This visibility leads to a few funny bits due to the presence of an accordion player where none should really be.  

All in all, the show was fun and with the news that Chris Seiber is coming in to play Georges, I might just have to see it again.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

I've never seen a Broadway show, but keep giving the inside scoop to those who aren't geographically challenged!


----------



## telracs

Anything Goes 3-13-11

"In olden days, a glimpse of stocking, was looked on as something shocking..."

I've been singing this song for the past few days. And I'll probably be singing it for a while longer, since I walked out of "Anything Goes" today with a smile on my lips and a spring in my step.

This show is a great example of old-fashioned Broadway musicals. Gorgeous songs, big long dance numbers, and terrific acting. The story and characters are a bit cliched, but with a cast led by Sutton Foster, those quibbles are happily overlooked.

Foster plays Reno Sweeney, a "nightclub evangelist" off on a sea voyage to England. I never quite understood this character. Is she a nightclub performer (as evidenced by her costuming and behavior) or is she meant to be a con-woman using evangelizing as her con or is she truly an evangelist? Which ever she is, Sutton is incredible. She looks great in the 1930's era costuming, has a powerful voice and even after tapping for 5 minutes in the Act One Finale of the title song, doesn't lose her breath. Colin Donnell is nice looking, nice sounding and moves well as Billy Crocker, and while he has a decent chemistry with Laura Osnes who plays his love interest, I felt he was a bit stiff in his scenes with others. Joel Grey is wonderful as Moon-face Martin, moving like a man half is age and holding his own with Foster in "Friendship." However, his solo song, "Be like the bluebird" goes on a bit long and has a weird blue spotlight effect that detracts from the number. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, with incredible ensemble dancing in the production numbers.

The show takes place (except for the first scene) on board an ocean liner and the three tier set is quite attractive. However, the first thing that came into my mind when I saw it was a Bon Voyage scene from the recent "Young Frankenstein" musical. But I got past that pretty quick and enjoyed the set. One quibble, though. Although the sky changed color above the set, the clouds never moved. And the sun and the moon were always in the same spots on the backdrop.

I knew most of the songs from the show, but had never heard them in context. And while I knew the basic storyline, I had no clue as to the ending, so it was a pleasant surprise.

Another pleasant surprise was the way the day started. I was sitting outside the theater waiting for the doors to open, when I was treated to a group of middle school students performing "Blow Gabriel Blow" and "Anything Goes" in the alleyway next to the theater. And gotta tell you, while the cast on stage may have more experience, those kids were darn good too.


----------



## Jeff

Great review, Scarlet. 

I'm not quite old enough to have seen Anything Goes at the Alvin Theater in 1934 but my grandmother had a set of 78 RPM records of the score in a big padded binder that I listened to as a child. Great music, although I never became a fan of Ethel Merman.


----------



## telracs

thanks Jeff.  Occasionally, I have to prove that I can write, not just proof....


----------



## spotsmom

Curious to know if you saw "Race" with James Spader and Richard Thomas.  I believe it's closed (or at least they left).  I love James Spader, but was surprised to see that he left after only being in it 7 or 8 months.


----------



## Philip Chen

Great reviews.  If you like, I will start a new forum called "Show Reviews" on IAF and create a sub-forum for "Scarlet's Reviews".


----------



## crebel

Great review, Scarlet.  Keep them coming.


----------



## telracs

Philip Chen said:


> Great reviews. If you like, I will start a new forum called "Show Reviews" on IAF and create a sub-forum for "Scarlet's Reviews".


Cool.....


----------



## julieannfelicity

Excellent reviews and thank you for sharing. I wasn't really interested in seeing the Spiderman musical, and now grateful I still haven't. It doesn't sound that thrilling. 

I still want to see Wicked and the Phantom on Broadway though (I saw the Phantom when they came to Boston)!


----------



## 4Katie

DS and my almost-DIL just saw Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, and loved it.


----------



## Christine Merrill

Thank you!

I am a theater geek, but only get to Broadway every hundred years so so.

Not quite true.  I saw The Addams Family last year, and liked, but did not love it.  Liked quite a bit, actually.  but it was not life changing.  Clearly it is a vehicle for the talent, which is better than the show.

I'm going to be there in June and had already decided not to see Spiderman because it would probably be hard to get the extremely expensive tickets, and it did not seem to be living up to the Hype.

But have you seen The Book of Mormon?  I am very curious.


----------



## telracs

julieannfelicity said:


> I still want to see Wicked and the Phantom on Broadway though (I saw the Phantom when they came to Boston)!


I keep telling you that it's just a 5 hour train ride from Boston to NYC and you should plan a theater weekend!



Christine Merrill said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I am a theater geek, but only get to Broadway every hundred years so so.
> 
> Not quite true. I saw The Addams Family last year, and liked, but did not love it. Liked quite a bit, actually. but it was not life changing. Clearly it is a vehicle for the talent, which is better than the show.
> 
> I'm going to be there in June and had already decided not to see Spiderman because it would probably be hard to get the extremely expensive tickets, and it did not seem to be living up to the Hype.
> 
> But have you seen The Book of Mormon? I am very curious.


Book of Mormon is on the calendar for March 10th. My niece saw it Saturday and LOVED it.



4Katie said:


> DS and my almost-DIL just saw Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, and loved it.


How to Succeed is in the calendar for April 24th.


----------



## caseyf6

So jealous...

The closest we have come was when they made "Rent" into one of those theater shows (they tape it on stage, then play it in select theaters).  It was amazing.  We've seen some touring shows (Wicked, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, Lion King) but it's not the same.

Thank you for the reviews.  If I lived only 5 hours away, we'd have a LOT of theatre weekends.


----------



## julieannfelicity

Oh that's another show I want to see; Rent!

I wish I had the $ to go on weekend theater trips, I'd be there every weekend! Scarlet, once things are straightened out, we'll definitely have to plan something fun!


----------



## telracs

julieannfelicity said:


> Oh that's another show I want to see; Rent!
> 
> I wish I had the $ to go on weekend theater trips, I'd be there every weekend! Scarlet, once things are straightened out, we'll definitely have to plan something fun!


Well, Rent closed on Broadway a couple of years ago. But it is coming back into an off-Broadway theater this summer...


----------



## telracs

Arcadia 3-16-11

There's something special about seeing a play for the first time. Knowing nothing about what is going to happen, having the surprises and intricate plot details unwind before you. Experiencing the wonderfully crafted words and exploring the complex characters with no preconceived notions. How I love those times. And how I wish I could remember the feeling I had the first time I saw Tom Stoppard's Arcadia. How I wish I could recapture the sense of wonder that I must have felt May 10th, 1995 when I first saw Arcadia. But unfortunately I can't, because time moves on and I know the plot of the play and the surprises can no longer surprise. Now, all the joy has to come from how the play unfolds and how the actors perform.

Part of what makes going into show knowing nothing these days difficult if not impossible is the existence of the Internet. From the first rehearsal to the final performance of closing night, there are always people posting their opinions about a show and pointing out difficulties they had with the show. Sometimes I agree with those posts and sometimes not, but the fact that they exist cannot help but color my perceptions. One of the common complaints about this production is that people have been finding the actors difficult to understand. Fortunately, I was able to understand everything that was being said, but I wonder if that was due to my familiarity with the text rather than the work of the actors.

Arcadia takes place in a country house in England in the early 1800's and the present. The current day plot line revolves around two rival researchers (Hannah Jarvis and Bernard Nightingale ) exploring events of two hundred years ago while the 1809 story line shows the events as they really happened. This is one of the things that I love about the play, the way it shows the interconnection of events and how perception and truth can differ. But this is only one of the layers of this dense concoction. Thomasina Coverly (age 13 in the first act of the play, age 16 in the second), is an 1800's math prodigy, bewildering her tutor, Septimus Hodge. Their conversation ranges from Fermat's last theorem to Lord Byron to the waltz. The mathemetical inclinication of the Coverly family is seen in the present day section in the person of Valentine Coverly, who while seeming a bit flippant is in fact a dedicated mathematician who finally realizes what Thomasina was trying to do. It is heavy stuff, but Stoppard peppers it with enough personality that the words themselves never get in the way of the core of the play.

But while the words are wonderful, the acting in this production leaves a bit to be desired, and the enunciation of the actors even more. Tom Riley as Septimus Hodge scores highest in my estimation, playing both the humor and the drama well. And he was understandable for the bulk of the play. This is also true of the supporting actors in the 1800's section, David Turner as a poet Ezra Chater, Byron Jennings as the Coverly's landscape gardener, Edward James Hyland as butler Jellaby and Glenn Flesher as Captain Brice. Margaret Colin as Lady Croom carries herself well, but I had difficulty hearing her. Worst among this lot is Bel Powley as Thomasina. She sounded like she was yelling, not projecting, but even with that attempt at volume, she was often incomprehensible. And I never really accepted her as a 13 year old, she seemed too old from the beginning.

Of the current day section actors, it is the women who come off best. Lia Williams as Hannah Jarvis nails the role and Grace Gummer is quite enjoyable as Chloe Coverly. Raul Esparza is fun as Valentine Coverly, but his accent seemed to veer from upper class English to American as the night went on. I was disappointed in Billy Crudup, who I remember enjoying as Septimus way back when. His Bernard went beyond irritating to downright grating and I felt he was overacting the role. Noah Robbins in the dual role of Gus and Augustus Coverly (the only actor spanning both time periods) acts quite well, but is ill served by the UGLY costume he is saddled with in the Regency period.

Another problem I had with this production was what seemed like a lack of faith in the text. Jokes that were downplayed in the original are overplayed here, even to the point of contradicting stage directions in the original version of the script.

The set is functional rather than pretty, and some people have commented that the set itself is contributing to the sound issue. I was a bit disappointed by the view through the rear windows of the set, instead of giving some kind of hint of the parklands that the house is said to be set in, it look like a blank wall. The costumes fit the time periods well (except for Gus's as mentioned above), with Margaret Colin's wardrobe being especially stunning.

I think that I was lucky to remember as much as I did of the play, because from conversations I overheard at intermission, information that was important to the ultimate payoff of the play went over the heads of some of the audience members.

The show is only playing a limited engagement, but I hope that the actors settle into their roles a bit more and that someone teaches Bel Powley how to how to project correctly before she ruins her voice.


----------



## Brianna Lee McKenzie

Scarlet, what great reviews!  They make me want to go see a play all the more but I live more than five hours away.  Maybe someday...


----------



## telracs

thanks all.  no review this week, we didn't go to a show, we had a veggie cook off today.


----------



## crebel

scarlet said:


> we had a veggie cook off today.


Are you going to give us your review of kale?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Are you going to give us your review of kale?


maybe...


----------



## cmg.sweet

scarlet said:


> I changed this thread title to a more generic one instead of starting a new thread for each review. So, here's a new review...
> 
> In 1984 Harvey Fierstein won the Tony award for Best Book of a musical for La Cage Aux Folles. Twenty-seven years later, he's stepped into the role of Zaza/Albin and made it his own.
> 
> When the latest La Cage revival started last year, I had no desire to see it. I'd seen it in 2005, and felt that it was too soon for another revival. Also, I wasn't interested in seeing Kelsey Grammer or Douglas Hodge in it. But when the announcement came that Harvey was going to be playing Albin, I had to go. Jeffrey Tambor was scheduled to play Georges, but he only managed 5 performances before leaving due to health reasons. So, Chris Hoch, who I'd seen and liked in Dracula, was playing Georges when I saw it. And he did a wonderful job. He and Harvey had an incredible chemistry and were totally believable as a couple of longstanding going through a rough patch.
> 
> Most of the acting was on par with Harvey and Chris, especially Wilson Jermaine Heredia as Jacob, the pair's faithful "butler". I felt that A.J. Shively was a bit weak as Jean-Michelle, and found the understudy playing Jacqueline to be boring. And while the men playing the Caglles were great dancers, I didn't believe that any of them were drag queens, their body type was wrong. This could have been easily handled by costuming, so I don't understand the decision to have their very masculine upper bodies showing so much.
> 
> This current production of La Cage plays up the night club aspect of the show, with table seating in the front of the orchestra section (where the orchestra pit normally would be), and the musicians visible on either side of the stage. This visibility leads to a few funny bits due to the presence of an accordion player where none should really be.
> 
> All in all, the show was fun and with the news that Chris Seiber is coming in to play Georges, I might just have to see it again.


I saw it with Grammer and Hodge (my first Broadway show) and loved it...but I would've been even happier to see Harvey in it. I bet he is amazing in this role.


----------



## cmg.sweet

4Katie said:


> DS and my almost-DIL just saw Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, and loved it.


I'm going to be seeing that in May, and House of Blue Leaves with Eddie Falco and Ben Stiller, and a play with Eve Plum (can't remember the name of this one off hand). I can't wait!


----------



## cmg.sweet

Christine Merrill said:


> But have you seen The Book of Mormon? I am very curious.


I want to go see this. Avenue Q was hilarious so I'm hoping this will be even better with the South Park talent teaming up with one of the guys from Avenue Q.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Are you going to give us your review of kale?


So, kale. A simple innocuous green that makes an interesting centerpiece at a vegan cooking event. In an interesting twist of life, I am the only carnivore in a family of vegetarians. Makes life fun, gotta tell you. Last year my niece discovered this event called veggie conquest. People sign up to be chefs and a week before the event they are given the "secret ingredient" to make appetizers. For 80 or so people, plus the judges. Last year, the secret ingredient was basil, which led to some yummy pesto stuff. This year, kale. I have to say that all the chefs were creative in their use of this green. The competing appetizers were:

Quinoa kale croquettes (my personal favorite)
Balsamic Kale Quiche with carmalized shallots. (he used phyllo dough for the base which was good, but the quiche was a bit oily for my tast)
Kale Brown Rice Cake with Scallion Miso Cream and Basil oil accent. (I found this one a bit bitter tasting, but it was the overall winner)
Kale Summer Rolls with Peanut Sauce. (i prefer spring rolls to summer and these were a bit difficult to eat, but the peanut sauce was good)
Mushroom and Kale Bisque (this might have worked if served hot, but cold, it was pretty yucky)
Kale Tapas (this was flatbread with Kale and a kale infused hummus. a bit odd).

After the tasting of the appetizer, there was a vegan buffet. It was a bit dessert heavy, with vegan cupcakes, three flavors ofbrownies and a nut brittle, and vegan ice cream. There was also yummy vegan chili and a variety of salads.

One of the contestants was late, and not allowed to compete, but she served her entry, Kale flatbread pizzetas as part of the buffet and they were quite good. She also won one of the door prizes, so that was nice.

We had a good time, and it's always fun to hang out with my sister and her off-spring and I even picked up some vegan chocolate!


----------



## telracs

cmg.sweet said:


> and a play with Eve Plum (can't remember the name of this one off hand). I can't wait!


Miss Abigail's Guide to Dating, Mating and Marriage


----------



## cmg.sweet

scarlet said:


> Miss Abigail's Guide to Dating, Mating and Marriage


That's it! We got tickets from the producer as a thank you for something...I hope it is funny.


----------



## telracs

Priscilla Queen of the Desert

It's a bad sign when I'm watching a musical and wonder why a song is playing. And why none of the three leads is in the act 2 opening number. 

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert is juke box musical utilizing songs from the 1970s and 1980s. The show tells the story of 2 drag queens and a transsexual traveling from Sydney Australia to Alice Springs and their adventures on the title character Priscilla, their bus. Will Swenson plays Tick (aka Mitzi) who leads the merry band across the country in order to help out the wife the others do not know he has. Will plays the conflicted Tick quite well, however, he was not in the best voice today. Nick Adams plays Adam/Felicia, the youngest and most reckless of the trio. I found his character abrasive and unsympathetic, but boy, can he move. Tony Sheldon plays Bernadette and of the three, is the most believable. He moves like a woman, sounds like a woman and sings wonderfully. 

The costumes are over the top, but work well for the drag queen mentality of the show. The scenery varies from gorgeous to minimalistic. The opening number features a wonderful light model of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and later on there is another light sculpture of the Eiffel Tower, but for much of the show, the set merely consists of the bus against a plain background, with a white crystal ball moon.

This plain background works well against the gorgeousness that is Priscilla. The bus has been outfitted with LED lights and she goes from pink to green to rainbow and even shows a bubble bath.

The ensemble of the show is excellent, especially C. David Johnson as Bob, the mechanic who helps rescue Priscilla. Jacqueline Arnold, Anastacia McCleskey and Ashley Spencer, as the high flying Divas, who do a wonderful job with the songs they are given, but honestly, I found them a bit distracting. Why not just have the leads sing the songs? Why are some songs sung by the leads, others by the ensemble and some by the Divas?
I think it's another bad sign if I'm analyzing this show this much. The worst part of the day was that I kept hearing some kind of hum during the dialogue scenes. 

Oh, you're curious about that Act 2 opening song? It was "Thank G-d I'm a Country Boy." Performed by the ensemble. No leads in sight. And even more annoying, the cast goes out and pulls people from the audience up to the stage to perform with them. Why? I still don't know. 

Of the new shows this season, this would be my second recommendation. I'd still recommend Anything Goes before this.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

I've been on a culture kick lately (yes, I do get more high-brow than just Looney Tunes and I Love Lucy), and was listening to a show about opera on NPR while driving recently.  They interviewed a leading man who said that he liked to alternate shows where he was out front and really carried the whole show (modest, isn't he?) with ones where he wasn't quite so in-your-face out front all the time.  Maybe all three leads were in one of those phases for this show....


----------



## telracs

The Hooded Claw said:


> I've been on a culture kick lately (yes, I do get more high-brow than just Looney Tunes and I Love Lucy), and was listening to a show about opera on NPR while driving recently. They interviewed a leading man who said that he liked to alternate shows where he was out front and really carried the whole show (modest, isn't he?) with ones where he wasn't quite so in-your-face out front all the time. Maybe all three leads were in one of those phases for this show....


Um, no, this didn't strike me as the actors' choice, but rather bad writing. The scene made no sense and didn't really seem to have a purpose in the show.


----------



## telracs

Book of Mormon 4-10-11

A few random thoughts/comments: 
1) I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormons), although I have spent time in the company of Mormons. 
2) I don't agree with Mormon theology or many of their social and political agenda items. However, 
3) I don't understand why it is okay to make fun of Mormons. 
4) I am a prude and don't find cursing or sexually explicit jokes all that amusing. 
5) While I enjoyed the musical aspects of the South Park movie, I found other aspects of it painfully unfunny. And I have never made it through an entire South Park episode. 
6) Because of number 5, I went into Book of Mormon with major trepidations.

Sometimes when you go into a show with low expectations you are pleasantly surprised. And for the first few minutes of Book of Mormon, I was. The prologue was an amusing, if heavy-handed, depiction of the story that Mormons believe about the creation of the actual Book of Mormon. This went into a song that was hysterical regarding Mormon propensity for door to door evangelizing, and for a while, I had hopes that this tone would continue. Unfortunately, once the main characters were introduced, my hopes started to sink. They didn't feel like people to me, but stock stereotypes. There was the good looking over-achiever who believed that he was going to get what he wanted just because of who he was and the awkward, geeky, chubby kid who could not connect with his peers and who, of course, somehow gets paired with this wonderboy on the two year mission that is the coming of age of every young Mormon. The pair is played by Andrew Rannells (the pretty boy Elder Price) and Josh Gad (Elder Cunningham). Someone described Elder Cunningham as the "Jack Black" character, a description I found quite apt. This odd couple gets send to Uganda for their two year mission. Once there, things go all wrong. They are completely unprepared for the "reality" of Africa. I put "reality" in quotes, because again, I felt the African setting and characters were not based in reality, but in stereotype (and the running joke of Elder Cunningham misprouncing Nikki M. James character's name did not strike me as funny at all).

Spoilers below....

In typical comedy fashion, the golden boy falls, and the odd ball triumphs. But the odd ball triumphs by re-writing portions of the Book that he has been sent to teach. (A book that he admits he has never read. Which was another point that jolted me out of the show. A Mormon on mission who has never read the Book, who does not know the basics of Mormon theology? Somehow, I find that hard to accept.) Part of the golden boy's fall includes him going to the local war lord and attempting to convert him (with a quite amusing song). However, the warlord is not receptive and to put it bluntly, the Book of Mormon ends up as a rectal blockage. Now, would our writers have dared do that with a Bible? Would the audience have found it amusing?

Our missionary pair are not alone in Uganda. They are supported by a dozen other missionaries, all of whom dance quite well, but again, they don't seem real, they seem like stock characters (the repressed gay mission leader is especially overdrawn). The African characters also seem like something from a cookie cutter; the local farmer with the naive daughter, the overbearing warlord and his goons, etc. They are originally hesitant about the Mormon boys, and openly contemptuous of missionaries of all kinds, but eventually the are won over by Elder Cunningham's unique brand of Mormonism. To the point that they produce a play for a visiting Mormon dignitary. One that looks more like a spoof of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" than anything like the Mormon story.

End spoilers.

Now, don't let it be said that I disliked everything about this show. While I found Josh Gad's character annoying, his sincerity in the role was heartening. And Andrew Rannell's singing is enjoyable. The supporting cast also do well with what they are given, the dancing is energetic and the music itself upbeat. The scenery and costumes perfectly do their job, especially the replica of the Salt Lake Temple with its statue of the angel Moroni.

I am in the minority in regarding my feelings about this show. Most of the rest of my family loved it, and the review and on-line buzz has all been positive. But no matter how many people loved it, it was not my kind of show and while I wish the show well, I'm going to be wary of recommending it.


----------



## cmg.sweet

Thanks for the review.  Hubby and I ended up not getting tickets for that show for our trip next month and I was kinda let down that we weren't going to see it, but after reading your review I'm pretty sure I would have ended up disappointed.  Now I'm glad we spent that money on front row Addams Family seats instead.


----------



## telracs

cmg.sweet said:


> Thanks for the review. Hubby and I ended up not getting tickets for that show for our trip next month and I was kinda let down that we weren't going to see it, but after reading your review I'm pretty sure I would have ended up disappointed. Now I'm glad we spent that money on front row Addams Family seats instead.


I'm curious as to what you think about Addams Family. It's a different cast from when I saw it, and so I want to hear how you felt. And if you're interested in my review of it, I can dig it out.


----------



## telracs

Catch Me If You Can 4-17-11

This year is a big one for movie to musical adaptations (Priscilla, Sister Act and Catch Me if You Can). Priscilla and Sister Act were music heavy movies while Catch Me if You Can was a non-musical drama. Priscilla has reused most of the songs used in the film (with some changes for American versus Australian audiences), but Sister Act has apparently gone with an entirely new score. Catch Me if You Can has gone in a completely different direction, framing the story of forger/con man Frank Abagnale, Jr. as a 1960's style variety show. This fortunate fall-outs of this device are a whole host of spectacular productions numbers, incredible light effects of the on-stage orchestra stand and gorgeous costumes. However, it had the detrimental effect of distancing me from the story. All the pretty costumes and sparkly lights made me question how much of this "true" story was really fact.

Aaron Tveit is appropriately charming as Frank, with a wonderful singing voice and great dance moves. However, Frank is supposed to be 16 to 18 during the action of the show, and Aaron definitely looks older. He is on stage almost the whole show, narrating the action and taking the lead in most songs. Due to a misstep early in the show, his mic pack seemed to be dislodged and there was a bit of annoying noise coming over the sound system for a while when he sang.

Because the character of Frank Jr. is on stage so much, I felt that some other actors were short-changed. Kerry Butler plays Brenda Strong, Frank's love interest, but she is almost completely absent during Act 1. During Act 2, she has some strong scenes, and one big solo number, but I felt it was too little too late. Tom Wopat and Rachel De Benedict play Frank's parents, and both were enjoyable. Wopat was in good voice today and De Benedict moves well, although she was saddled with a French accent that was a bit grating. The ensemble was wonderful and it was nice to see such a large cast on stage.

The most impressive was Norbert Leo Butz. Aaron Tveit might have been playing the chameleon, but it is Butz who is one. I have seen him in six shows, and in each of them, he has seemed like a different person. Here he plays FBI agent Carl Hanratty, and he almost stops the show with his big number in Act 1. [random trivia- both Butz and Tveit played Fiyero in Wicked.] In fact, during some scenes where both of the leads were on-stage, even though Tveit was the one singing or talking, I was watching Butz.

The show wraps itself up nicely, but a bit too neatly. At the end, I was still wondering how much of the story was true, but even if it was all contrived, I still enjoyed it. 


Spoiler



oh, almost forgot. there was one joke in the show that I seemed to have gotten a few minutes before everyone else. Frank Abagnale Jr. is cornered in his hotel room by FBI agent Hanratty and introduces himself as Barry Allen, Secret Service. I immediately laughed, but no one else seemed to get the joke until one of the other FBI agents points out that Barry Allen is the alter ego of the Flash.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

I enjoyed the movie of Catch Me, but can't imagine it as a musical!

Glad all those years of reading comic books are finally paying off....


----------



## telracs

The Hooded Claw said:


> I enjoyed the movie of Catch Me, but can't imagine it as a musical!
> 
> Glad all those years of reading comic books are finally paying off....


Not comic books, boss, 1980's TV crush.


----------



## Christine Merrill

Thanks for these reviews!  I am living vicariously.

A general question:

When I see a show, I tend to divide my needs into spectacle vs. music.

I was planning on seeing the book of Mormon.  And am betting I'd put that in the sing along category.

I am tempted by Priscilla, since I know I'd like the costumes.  But I just wrote a book with the soundtrack from that movie playing in the background.  I am all discoed out.

Where do you put Catch Me if You Can.  Is it 'singable?'  Will I run out and buy the soundtrack?


----------



## telracs

Christine Merrill said:


> Thanks for these reviews! I am living vicariously.
> 
> A general question:
> 
> When I see a show, I tend to divide my needs into spectacle vs. music.
> 
> I was planning on seeing the book of Mormon. And am betting I'd put that in the sing along category.
> 
> I am tempted by Priscilla, since I know I'd like the costumes. But I just wrote a book with the soundtrack from that movie playing in the background. I am all discoed out.
> 
> Where do you put Catch Me if You Can. Is it 'singable?' Will I run out and buy the soundtrack?


Christine, I don't really think I understand your distinction. Most musicals are a combo of spectacle (big dance numbers, flashy costumes) and music. For instance, both Phantom of the Opera and Wicked are big spectacle and good music. I don't think anyone is really going to sing along to Book of Mormon, and actually, I hope the audience enjoys it but doesn't sing along at the theater.


----------



## Christine Merrill

scarlet said:


> Christine, I don't really think I understand your distinction. Most musicals are a combo of spectacle (big dance numbers, flashy costumes) and music. For instance, both Phantom of the Opera and Wicked are big spectacle and good music. I don't think anyone is really going to sing along to Book of Mormon, and actually, I hope the audience enjoys it but doesn't sing along at the theater.


Don't worry. I only sing along at my desk 

There are some shows I consider singable. Like Avenue Q. Catchy. Not really art. Puppets? Cool. Set? Static. 
The classics, of course. Oklahoma, you can come away humming the tunes. Set? Minimal. Costumes? Boring.
I wouldn't have gone to American Idiot, expecting to be wowed by the set.

But something like Le Miz: the music is complicated. Great, but not easy. The revolve and the set are what I want to see for that. You are lucky to see things in New York. I get down to Chicago and the production is almost as good. But if I go to a touring show in Wisconsin, I might get a dumbed down version of the bigger shows. I've heard that "Into the Woods" was much better in New York, for example. I guess, really, these shows are the complete package. Spectacle and music.

I think of something like Priscilla as a show I'd go to for the spectacle. You can probably put anyone in those costumes, and I'll be happy. And I'd say the music on that is nothing special. The book might be ok, but if I've already seen the movie, I'm not sure I care. If I went, it would be to see the drag costumes.

And I doubt I'd run out and get the Spiderman soundtrack. If I went to that, I'd be there for the flying (and to see if anyone fell. Which is creepy, and why I wouldn't want to go).

I guess, what I'm asking is did you come away from Catch Me wanting to buy the album? Are the sets the sort of thing that will be doable on a bus and truck tour of the Midwest?

I probably have a warped view of everything. I used to work in a regional rep theater doing costumes. I obsess on the technical details, and am willing to put up with a sucky show if the costumes and sets are dazzling.


----------



## telracs

Christine Merrill said:


> Don't worry. I only sing along at my desk


Good girl



Christine Merrill said:


> There are some shows I consider singable. Like Avenue Q. Catchy. Not really art. Puppets? Cool. Set? Static.
> The classics, of course. Oklahoma, you can come away humming the tunes. Set? Minimal. Costumes? Boring.
> I wouldn't have gone to American Idiot, expecting to be wowed by the set.
> 
> But something like Le Miz: the music is complicated. Great, but not easy. The revolve and the set are what I want to see for that. You are lucky to see things in New York. I get down to Chicago and the production is almost as good. But if I go to a touring show in Wisconsin, I might get a dumbed down version of the bigger shows. I've heard that "Into the Woods" was much better in New York, for example. I guess, really, these shows are the complete package. Spectacle and music.
> 
> I think of something like Priscilla as a show I'd go to for the spectacle. You can probably put anyone in those costumes, and I'll be happy. And I'd say the music on that is nothing special. The book might be ok, but if I've already seen the movie, I'm not sure I care. If I went, it would be to see the drag costumes.
> 
> And I doubt I'd run out and get the Spiderman soundtrack. If I went to that, I'd be there for the flying (and to see if anyone fell. Which is creepy, and why I wouldn't want to go).
> 
> I guess, what I'm asking is did you come away from Catch Me wanting to buy the album? Are the sets the sort of thing that will be doable on a bus and truck tour of the Midwest?


I'm the wrong person to ask about buying a cast recording, since I buy just about everything that is recorded. I actually WANT a Spiderman OCR, even though I didn't like the show. Regarding Catch Me If You Can, my suggestion is check out the website, they have some songs there you can listen to.



Christine Merrill said:


> I probably have a warped view of everything. I used to work in a regional rep theater doing costumes. I obsess on the technical details, and am willing to put up with a sucky show if the costumes and sets are dazzling.


My friend, I have to be careful not to get too technical when I post reviews. For example, not many people would understand that I want to sit in the mezzanine because I get a better sense of the lighting effects on the stage from that perspective. Or be able to see why I was distracted by the buzz from Aaron Tviet's mike pack after he almost took a tumble. Or get the relevance of the annoying pinspot on the girl playing Elphaba this week.


----------



## cmg.sweet

My favorite seats are generally front row mezzanine since you get a better big picture view of the stage and all the lights and full group movement...like seeing the whole cast dancing in West Side Story instead of just those who are most in my line of sight from the orchestra seats.    Of course some shows we just go with the best seats that are in the price range we are willing to pay.


----------



## telracs

Wicked 4*20*11

When Steph announced she was going to be spending some time in NY, my mind of course turned to THEATER! So, after a bit of debating, we decided to get tickets for the Wednesday matinee of Wicked, and invited my sister to join us. Now, this was Steph's first time seeing it, Nancy's second or third, and my 8th (that counts one time in Melbourne, Australia). Seeing a show multiple times has its benefits and its drawbacks. The benefit is, you know the story, you know when intermission is (helps getting to the ladies' room quickly), and you know what you like about it. The drawback? A new cast can sometimes be a bit of a disappointment when you compare them to the original. And that was my problem with this cast of Wicked. As mentioned, I've seen the show several times. Most of those were early in the run, with the original cast. And that is a tough act to follow. This cast was serviceable, but not great. [oh, wait, interjection.... for those of you who don't know the show, it is the story of the two girls who grow up to be Glinda the Good, and Elphaba, the green "wicked" witch of the west. It is based on Gregory Mcguire's book, but is VERY different from it.]

Laura Woyasz played Galinda/Glinda. She seemed to be attempting to recreate Kristin Chenoweth's Glinda, but was trying to hard. The silly blonde things that came effortlessly to Chenoweth don't work with her and instead of being funny, they made me cringe. Teal Wicks' Elphaba was more vulnerable than Idina Menzel's had been, and I kept expecting Idina's characterizations, and was jolted when they didn't happen. Richard H. Blake as Fiyero (the girls' love interest) seemed a bit restrained, but I enjoyed him and he played well opposite Teal Wicks. Kathy Fitzgerald as Madame Morrible was a bit more subdued than Carole Shelley had been, but I liked her. The most enjoyable person for me was Etai Benshlomo as the Munchkin Boq. Because I was not as engaged in the acting as I should have been, I was fixating on the lighting at some points. And wondering if I was the only one who thought it was obvious. And hoping that Teal Wicks didn't end up in the orchestra pit because she couldn't see the edge of the stage due to a HUGE amount of fog on the stage. 
The weirdest part of the show came at the end. When the cast came out to take their bows, Richard H. Blake looked almost bored. But the moment he started doing the speech for BC/EFA collection, he was back on! It was incredible to watch.


----------



## julieannfelicity

^ Sigh ... Someday I will see Wicked ...


----------



## telracs

julieannfelicity said:


> ^ Sigh ... Someday I will see Wicked ...


I keep telling you to come to NY. And isn't it playing Boston again at some point?


----------



## Ann in Arlington

We've got tickets to a performance at the Kennedy Center this summer. . . .


----------



## Steph H

Wicked was awesome.  Scarlet may not have liked it as much due to the different cast, but it being my first time seeing it, I really enjoyed it.


----------



## julieannfelicity

scarlet said:


> I keep telling you to come to NY. And isn't it playing Boston again at some point?


I did a google search and didn't see anything; fingers crossed maybe this summer something will come along and since it's my 30th birthday in July I can weasle my hubby to take me!


----------



## telracs

julieannfelicity said:


> I did a google search and didn't see anything; fingers crossed maybe this summer something will come along and since it's my 30th birthday in July I can weasle my hubby to take me!


weasel hubby into a long weekend in NYC!


----------



## crebel

Looking forward to the review of "How to Suceed in Business".

Love the new avatar, Scarliranah!


----------



## telracs

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

If you say the name Daniel Radcliffe to people, most would instantly answer "Harry Potter." But let me go on the record now and say that he is much more than that. And let me also state that he was NOT the reason I went to see the show. My sister and I were interested in the show, not just the boy wizard.

Stepping into a role played originally by Robert Morse in the 1960s and then Matthew Broderick and John Stamos in the 1990s, Radcliffe makes you forget that boy wizard fairly quickly. First off, there's the voice. Radcliffe does an excellent American accent and has very nice singing voice. Secondly, there's appearance. Hair slicked back, parted on the opposite side, dressed in business-wear, and most importantly, sans glasses, he looks very different from his movie role. Finally, there's movement. I doubt anyone would think that Harry Potter can dance. But Radcliffe can. He holds his own in a crowd of Broadway veteran dancers, executing Rob Ashford's choreography as if he's been doing it for years. However all is not perfect. He is shorter than most of the men on stage and looks like a little boy dressing up in his father's suit [this may also be due to bad costuming, or possibly intentional]. The height difference between him and John Larroquette's J.B. Biggley is used to comic effect in the showstopping "Grand Ole Ivy" number. Radcliffe leapfrogs over Larroquette in the extended dance bridge of the number, but Larroquette simply lifts his leg over Radcliffe with no effort. Also, he, along with other actors, seems to be rushing his lines. A few times I felt that if I didn't know the show already, I'd be missing things.

While Radcliffe is the star of the show, for me, the best person on stage was Christopher Hanke playing Bud Frump. His take on the role was different than had been done previously and was quite enjoyable. Rose Hemingway as Rosemary was sweet and she had a nice voice and decent chemistry with Radcliffe. I was a bit disappointed in Mary Faber's Smitty, she lacked the bite that Victoria Clarke had brought to the role in the last revival. Rob Bartlett in the dual role of Mr. Twimble/Wally Womper was enjoyable, although I felt he swallowed some of the best lines in "Company Way." Least enjoyable for me was Tammy Blanchard as Hedy LaRue. I didn't think she was all that sexy looking that these men would fall all over her.

The show was directed/choreographed by Rob Ashford. Ashford is one of those choreographers who I both love and hate. When his choreography grows out of the song, it's wonderful (case in point, "Coffee Break", "Brotherhood of Man"). But sometimes, he lets the choreography overshadow the song and that irritates me. The choreography in "Company Way," while funny, was too much for the song and kept pulling my focus from Finch and Twimble to the mailroom guys dancing around them. And the movements in both the opening "How to Succeed" and "A Secretary is not a Toy" were just bizarre looking. Some people have stated that they don't like the dance number interpolated into "Grand Ole Ivy", but oddly enough, I like the addition of the ensemble to this number. There is one song that was in the original and is in this production but had been dropped in the last revival. It's called "Cinderella, Darling" and while it was nice to have the female dancers showing off their skills, I think I prefer the reprise of "How to Succeed" that was in the last revival.

The costumes for the show were an interesting mix. The men's costumes were mostly dark suits, business formal wear (including hats), while the women's were very colorful and not really what I think of when I think of secretarial wear for the 1960s. One problem with the costumes was that (except for one party scene), Rosemary was in the same dress! Come on, give the girl a wardrobe! But one interesting thing I noticed about Radcliffe's wardrobe. While he is in what seems to be the same black pants and white shirt throughout, his jacket changes to reflect that of the person he has most recently supplanted. Nice little touch.

Since the CD of this new cast is not yet available, I pulled out my copy of the last revival recording. And I have to admit, I like Radcliffe's voice better than Broderick's. Matthew seemed to be stressing vowels for the humor, but Radcliffe didn't. The two Rosemarys are equal, but again, I prefer Victoria Clarke to Mary Faber as Smitty. And I most definitely miss the sonorous voice of Walter Cronkite as the Narrator. Anderson Cooper provides the voice this time around, and while pleasant, it doesn't have the punch of Cronkite's voice.

Finally, I find myself wondering how this show will do once Radcliffe leaves. They've already cancelled a few shows during the summer when the last Harry Potter movie comes out. Is he in it for the long haul? Will he stay in the States for a couple of years to do the show? And if he goes, will the audiences that have flocked to see a dancing Harry Potter still show up? Only time will tell....


----------



## telracs

Born Yesterday 5-1-11

Looking at the title I just typed, I have added one more question to the list I have regarding this play. What exactly does this title mean? Who was born yesterday? Or who wasn't born yesterday? And most importantly, why should I care?

I spent a lot of time during this play wondering why I should care about these people and their lives. Jim Belushi plays Harry Brock, a New Jersey junk dealer who comes to Washington DC to make a deal with a senator. He brings along his dumb blonde girlfriend (Broadway newcomer Nina Arianda), and decides that in order to keep her from embarrassing him, she needs to be smarter. To accomplish that he hires the reporter who lives down the lane, Robert Sean Leonard as Paul Verrall. Add to this mix Frank Wood as Brock's drunk lawyer, Micheal McGrath as Brock's sidekick and Terry Beaver as the bought senator and you have a cast that sounds great on paper. But on stage, the reality is different. There is no chemistry among the three leads, and I couldn't understand why Arinanda's character stays with Brock, or why she falls for Verrall. Belushi plays the less refined edges of Brock well, but when he erupts into violence in the second act, it seems to come out of nowhere. Robert Sean Leonard has a dry delivery to his lines, but at times it is too dry for the comedy. Arianda comes off best as the former Anything Goes chorus girl who learns the hard way that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I found her voice grating and her yelling annoying. The supporting cast blends into the background, with Frank Wood slurring his lines, Michael McGarth barking his, and Terry Beaver trying to smile through his.

The costumes well reflect the 1946 timeframe, as does the single set staircase ladeden hotel room. But for all the pretty visuals, and an abundance of funny lines, the show lacks the fundamental spark that would make me recommend it.


----------



## telracs

*Wonderland 5-8-11*

The children's story that I was thinking about while at the Marquis theater was The Wizard of Oz. Which is sad, because I had really been looking forward to this modern re-working of Lewis Carroll's tale. I fell in love with the concept CD done during the Tampa original run. But it seems to me that in re-working the show between Tampa and NY, they lost the things I enjoyed. Songs I'd been humming were gone, the love story between Alice and the White Knight was pared down, and even Alice's motivation for going down the rabbit hole is changed.

Janet Dacal plays Alice, a woman separated from her husband who has just moved her daughter Chloe into an apartment in Queens. Returning to the apartment from her job as a school-teacher, she hits her head on a light fixture in the service elevator. After commiserating with her daughter about how bad things are, she lies down on Chloe's bed, her head propped on Chloe's copy of Alice in Wonderland. Suddenly, a door opens, and in runs a large white rabbit. Oddly, it's the door that should be the one leading out of the bedroom into another part of the apartment. How did the Rabbit get past Chloe and her grandmother? The Rabbit darts through the room, and Alice dashes after him. And falls "Down the Rabbit Hole". Now, I'm already having issues here. Has she fallen asleep and is dreaming? This interpretation seems reasonable, since the "Welcome to Wonderland" has her stating that she's gonna wake up screaming. Oh, that song references "Lion, Scarecrow or Tin Man", a misguided joke in my opinion, because it immediately brings Wizard of Oz (and Wicked) to mind. Not something that works in the favor of this show.

The next few scenes have a disjointed/episodic feel, and lack a coherent narrative. Alice meets the Caterpillar, El Gato (a hysterical but stereotypically Latino version of the Cheshire Cat), and then Jack, the White Knight. All three of these characters get a song, and while the Marc Anthony inspired "Go with the flow" and Boy Band knock-off "White Knight" are fun, they don't really advance the plot. The Caterpillar's "Advice from a Caterpillar" annoyed me, since this version (changed from the concept CD) feels like it consists of the question "Who Are You?" repeated way too many times.

[interjection 5-10-11: just read on playbill that the show will be closing on Sunday. sorry for the out of work actors.]

Once Alice meets up with the Mad Hatter and the Queen of Hearts, we get a bit of a narrative. The Hatter who is in charge of the "Land beyond the Looking Glass," is plotting to overthrow the Queen. Alice insinuates herself into the Queen's good graces and in revenge, the Hatter and March Hare kidnap Alice's daughter. The act 1 Finale has Alice and her band of merry characters jumping through the looking glass to save Chloe.

Act 2 has Alice and the boys trying to track Chloe down while the Hatter forwards her plot against the Queen. It also has a unneeded and annoying interlude between Alice and a "Victorian Gentlemen" who I guess is supposed to be Lewis Carroll, and an interlude between Alice and her younger self (unfortunately, played by the girl playing Chloe, who looks nothing like the adult playing Alice). Eventually, the good guys win, Alice and Chloe get back home, and Alice's husband (who looks ALOT like the White Knight), reconciles with the family....

The songs are a mixed bag, borrowing from a variety of styles as mentioned above. And again, they seem to serve more to showcase the talents of the singers instead of advancing the plot. Kate Shindle does a bravura job belting the Hatter's anthem of "I will Prevail" but I kept wondering why she had some many songs. It felt to me as though she actually had more songs than the supposed main character of Alice. And in the back of my brain, a little voice get mentioning different Wildhorn songs that the Wonderland songs resembled.

A Victorian look is attempted in the set design, but unfortunately the heavy use of projections sinks this attempt. The psychedelic lighting effect for the Rabbit Hole fall was dizzying and not in a good way. When Alice takes a sip from the bottle that says "Drink Me... responsibly" the door behind her expands on the projection screen. Now, that might have been a cool effect, but it was ruined by Alice's line of "figures, I don't get smaller, the door gets bigger." Another way that the projections didn't serve the show were by giving us the original to compare it with. Before the start of the show and at intermission, the screen shows quotes and illustrations from the original book. This raises the bar for the show to a level that it ultimately fails to reach.

Most of the cast tries their best with what they are given to work with. Kate Shindle and Karen Mason (as the Queen of Hearts) are appropriately over the top. Carly Rose Sonenclar is fun as Chloe and has a pretty good voice. Jose Llana as El Gato is fun to watch, as is Edward Studemayer as the White Rabbit. The ensemble all work hard and dance well.

Costumes range from Alice's plain shirt dress and leggings to a chess piece inspired red outfit for the Hatter and a card concoction for the Queen of Hearts. The most enjoyable costume for me was Darren Ritchie's tight tights as the White Knight. That boy can rescue me anytime.

And sadly, the White Knight will have plenty of time to work on his resume after the final show on Sunday.


----------



## telracs

The Importance of Being Earnest

During the first intermission at The Importance of Being Earnest yesterday, gentleman behind us turned to his companion and asked "Do you remember how this ends?" My sister muttered, "Please, don't tell us." Fortunately, either the gentleman heard my sister, or his companion said they did know, so we didn't have the ending spoiled for us. And I'm not going to spoil it for you, except to say that it does end happily for those who deserve it. Although we did wonder a bit about the ultimate legality of one of the relationships.....

This three act play (with incredible sets by Desmond Heeley), revolves around 2 young men who fall in love with women who will only marry men named Earnest and who think that the 2 men are actually named that. Why do the women think this? Because Jack Worthing, in order to escape his responsibilities in the country, has created a "brother" named Earnest and wooed Miss Gwendolyn Fairfax under that assumed name. When her cousin Algernon Moncreiff discovers the deception (and the fact that Worthing has a young ward), he goes out to the country and pretends to be Earnest. And in one of those improbable things that happen in plays, he and Cecily (the ward), fall instantly in love. Throw in Brian Bedford as Gwendolyn's mother (yes, mother), Jayne Houdyshell as Miss Prism and Brian Murray as the local rector, and you have the ingredients for a fun show.

Act one is the slowest of the three, since it has to set up the story. But act 2 is better and act 3 is hysterical. Of course some of it is predictable, since it is an old story, but the way it gets where it's going is enjoyable.

The is a limited run at the American Airlines Theater and was supposed to end in March but has now extended until July. And I'm happy I got the chance to see it.


----------



## Carol Hanrahan

Scarlet, you certainly know your shows!  I just got back from London where I saw Wicked for the first time!  All by myself, but still loved it.  I don't see enough plays to be critical at all.  I just go along for the ride!  I was wondering if you had seen War Horse?  I saw it in London 2 years ago and loved it!  The puppets were awesome - well, I love horses anyway, so how could I not love this show. I had to read the book after I saw it, and loved that too!


----------



## telracs

Carol,

Sometimes I wish I could go back to just going along for the ride when it comes to shows. I miss those days! But seeing an average of 25 shows/year for the last 17 years has corrupted my eyes!

Regarding War Horse. It kind of came in under my radar and is now a difficult ticket to get. If I see a discount, I may try and snag tickets.

Oh, and I love going to shows by myself. Since I'm a gregarious person, I almost always find someone around me to talk to...

Follow-up to Wonderland--At the curtain call of Wonderland's last performance, Darren Ritchie (Jack, the White Knight) surprised Janet Dacal (Alice), with an ENGAGEMENT ring. It was bittersweet, but at least their love songs will go on.


----------



## telracs

Sister Act

I vaguely remember the movie version of this show, starring Whoopi Goldberg. And as far as I remember, the story line of the musical follows that of the movie in broad categories. Delores Van Cartier (new-comer Patina Miller) witnesses a crime and is spirited off to a convent to hide. There, she comes into conflict with the Mother Superior (the wonderful as always Victoria Clark) and energizes the church choir so that they become such a great draw that the end up playing for the Pope. However, unlike the movie, which I'm pretty sure ends in Las Vegas, the entire musical takes place in Philadelphia.

The show starts with Delores singing "Take me to Heaven" for her boyfriend Curtis (the appropriately slimy Kingsley Leggs) and his "gang" (John Treacy Egan, Demond Green and Caesar Samayoa). After deciding to leave Curtis, Delores sees him shoot one one of his henchmen. That scene was disturbing, and I really feel the shooting should not have been done on stage. I think it would have been just as strong if done off-stage. Especially since the rest of the show tries for a tone of comedy, and this scene is anything but.

Patina Miller was enjoyable in the role of Delores, and happily, I did not find myself comparing her to Whoopi, she makes the role her own. Chester Gregory is hysterical as Cop Eddie Souther, and he has one of the best costume changes in his solo number "I Could be That Guy". Egan, Green and Samayoa score in the vocal department also with "Lady in the Long Black Dress" and Victoria Clark's second act "Haven't Got a Prayer" reinforced my belief that she is always wonderful. Marla Mindelle is forefront of the excellent ensemble of nuns, bringing to mind Kerry Butler. In fact, when I first heard Mindelle, I had to remind myself that Butler was not in this show, but around the corner in Catch Me If You Can. Fred Applegate is his usual funny self as Monsignor O'Hara, and he gets the first laugh, stating for the pre-show announcement that "recording the show is a sin."

I have some issues with how Dolores fits in (or fails to fit in) at the convent. She has claimed that she spent 12 years in Catholic school, but seems ignorant of certain basics of what goes on in a Catholic Church.

The costumes and set are, for the most part, appropriate for the show, with the nuns starting out in basic black and ending in glitz. However, there is a fine line between glitzy and tacky, and to my eyes, the finale crosses the line to tacky, especially the enormous silver spangled rotating statue of the Virgin Mary.


----------



## telracs

Baby It's You

I keep wanting to insert a comma into the title of this show, turning it into "Baby, It's You." I don't know why, or which version of it would be the grammatically correct one.

The show is advertised as the story of Florence Greenberg, a housewife from Passaic, New Jersey who "discovers" the Shirelles and turns them into one of the biggest girl groups of all-time and becomes the first woman to head a record company. But at the end of the show, I didn't really feel that I'd learned all that much about any of the characters.

Part of the problem is that the story is told to us, not shown to us. The book of the musical seems only to serve to introduce the (familiar) music. In addition, a large portion of the show depicts recording studio sessions and concert scenes. While this gives us the chance to appreciate the on-stage band, it ill serves the overall arc of the show.

Some 40 songs are shoehorned into 2.5 hours, but unfortunately, the songs, short to begin with, are truncated even more in the show. The original versions of the songs may be as long as 3 minutes, but we get one minute snips. Well sung snips, but ultimately, unsatisfying. Just as you get into the song, it's over.

Beth Leavel, sporting an overdone NY/NJ accent did her usual powerhouse job of singing, but never really engaged me in the character. Her Florence seemed distant from the rest of the characters on the stage, and I wondered why anyone put up with her. And why the Shirelles (Christina Sajous, Kyra Da Caosta, Erica Dorfler, and Erica Ash), would call this woman "Ma" and follow her. Allan Louis, as songwriter Luther Dixon, was the most enjoyable of the actors on stage, and brought the most emotional depth to his character.

Leavel and Louis are the lucky ones in the cast, as they each play only one character. In a move that struck me as bizarre, the rest of the cast is double or triple cast. I don't know if the producers were trying to save money by having Geno Henderson play Jocko the DeeJay, and singers Chuck Jackson, Ronald Isley and Gene Chandler and having the Shirelles double as the Romantics, but if so, it was penny wise and pound foolish. I walked out of the show wondering if someone still held the notion that all African-American males looked alike and one man could pass for 4. It seems an odd choice for a show about a woman who was romantically involved with an African American male and who (at least according to a scene in the show), stayed with the Shirelles in a motel when the girls were not allowed to stay at the whites-only hotel in Atlanta.

The cast recording of the show was released last week, with only 26 tracks. And they are the shortened ones of the show. I think I'll go onto iTunes and download the original versions of the songs. I think I'll enjoy them more than I did the show. And I think I'll recommend others do the same, skip the show and just listen to the originals. You can't really improve on them.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

For those who loved "The Book of Mormon" (or think they might love it), Amazon.com is selling the original cast album of the show for only $1.99 in their MP3 store.  This is "for a limited time", whatever that means.  If you want it, I'd get it now.  They caution that some of the lyrics are explicit.  I've bought it, but haven't got around to listening to it yet.


----------



## telracs

The Hooded Claw said:


> For those who loved "The Book of Mormon" (or think they might love it), Amazon.com is selling the original cast album of the show for only $1.99 in their MP3 store. This is "for a limited time", whatever that means. If you want it, I'd get it now. They caution that some of the lyrics are explicit. I've bought it, but haven't got around to listening to it yet.


It's all weekend. And be warned, some of the songs do not have the explicit warning but do contain obscenities.


----------



## telracs

Okay, I'm three shows behind in my reviews, sorry.... (well, two after this post....)

The Normal Heart

I wonder how I would have felt about this play if I'd seen it before NY state passed the marriage equality act. Would one character's comment that "this wouldn't have happened if we shot for marriage first" have rung differently? Perhaps. But this play, portraying life during the early days of the AIDS epidemic and showing the formation of the Gay Men's Health Crisis organization still has a message to convey.

I woke up with a migraine the day of this show, and was worried that I was going to have a hard time of it. A few people had commented that the show is very loud, and our seats were in the second row. Well, there is a lot of shouting (too much shouting) in the play, but the play itself was so engrossing that for the most part I did not notice my headache until intermission, when I realized that it had not gone away, but in fact had gotten worse.

The two people doing the bulk of the shouting are Joe Mantello as Ned Weeks (the stand-in for writer Larry Kramer in this semi-autobiographical work), and Ellen Barkin as Dr. Emma Brookner, the physician that Weeks and his friends are consulting, and the lone female in the cast. Mantello, who is better known as a director than an actor, is powerful, getting the character's hard edges right, but lacking a bit of the softer side that might make him more sympathetic. The relationship between Ned and Felix Turner (the incredible John Benjamin Hickey) doesn't ring entirely true to me, because I was wondering why anyone would put up with Ned's abrasiveness. And it is that abrasiveness that costs Ned most of his other friends and his position with GMHC. His righteous anger leaves no room for any other approach and ultimately alienates the people who he is trying to help. The rest of the cast was also strong, even if I found the characters to be somewhat simply drawn, representing types, and not people (the homophobic lawyer brother, the closeted exec who thinks people don't know he's gay, the city employee afraid of rocking the boat and losing his job, etc). The stand out for me was Jim Parsons as Tommy Boatwright. His was a fairly understated performance, but it may be that the reason I liked him best was that his character was the closest to the way I think of things.

The set was a deceptively simple one, at first appearing to be 3 white walls, but as you looked closer, it could be seen that the walls were covered with quotes from various newspapers and reports of the time.

One interesting thing that was done was that during the scene changes, the names of AIDS victims up to that point were displayed. At the end of the show, the names filled all 3 walls of the stage, and even extended out into the wings of the theater. And then they projected the statistics of how many people had been infected and died. I wish they had put one more sentence there, stating that there is still no cure. Thanks to advances in drug therapy, AIDS is now considered a "manageable" disease here in the US (if you have insurance or the means to pay for the expensive drugs). But with a new generation coming of age in the US without first hand knowledge of that time of fear of the disease, cases are increasing and the message of the play, that there is a killer out there, needs to be spoken again.


----------



## Randirogue

This is an awesome thread, Scarlet!  I can't wait to see what you think of "War Horse."


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak

I'm glad I found this thread, Scarlet. 

I worked in the theater in NYC in the late 1970s and early 1980s--many of my friends died, including Charles Ludlam of the Ridiculous Theatrical Company. The street in front of his old theater has been named for him.


----------



## telracs

WarHorse

How far would you go to find a missing loved one?
How about if that loved one was four-legged?

That is the quest at the heart of the play War Horse. Albert Narracott (the wonderful Seth Numrich) bonds with a horse his father buys at auction. Boy and horse grow up together, and the first 1/2 hour of the play shows their burgeoning relationship. But then reality, in the form of World War One intrudes, and Albert's father sells Joey the horse to the British Army. When word reaches Albert that the officer who had vowed to care for Joey was killed in action, he runs away and joins the fighting in France with the sole purpose of finding his friend. After a number of (somewhat predictable) twists, boy and horse are reunited and return home. The book on which the play is based is apparently written from the horse's point of view, and some of the play seems to be that way also. While we watch Albert search for Joey, we also see the journey Joey takes through France, first as an English Cavalry horse ridden by Albert's cousin, then in the company of a German Cavalry officer who hates the war and disguises himself as a medical orderly and attempts to help a French woman and her daughter escape to Switzerland.

The cast of the show is quite large, and for the most part, the acting is good. While I could not fully sympathize with Albert's obsession for this horse, Seth Numrich made me care for the character. Elliott Villar as the German cavalry captain kept my attention whenever he was on stage, and his ambiguous feelings about the war were palpable. David Pegram as Albert's Army buddy was fun to watch, as was Alyssa Bresnahan as Albert's mother. But some of the actors were difficult to hear at times, and the Devonshire accents employed made for some tough going in spots.

But the big stars of the show are not the people, but the horses. The puppets are incredible works of iron, and are gorgeous. The puppeteers inside the frames do absolutely fantastic jobs of making the horses move realistically. While carrying actors on the back of the horses! A nice touch was that those handling the roan horse Joey were in rust colored shirts, and the black stallion Topthorn's handlers were all in black. The puppeteers inside the horses were invisible for the most part, but the one doing the head and neck movement was standing outside the frame and there were a number of times that I found that distracting. It looked to me as though a person was handling the horse, and had to remind myself that he was supposed to BE the horse. During some of the battle scenes, there were single handled horse puppets on the stage and those looked a bit odd. There are also some bird puppets on stage, with the funniest of the lot being a poor goose that is just trying to get into the house.

While the puppets were technical marvels, in the end, they did not save the show for me. I found it long, with a slow start and a number of drawn out scenes and folk song interludes that served little narrative purposes. And, I found it a bit annoying that (understandably) all the actors were speaking English (some with a bit of an attempt at German or French accents), but there are a number of points where people are talking at each other and keep saying that they don't understand the language that the other person is speaking. If this had been done once or twice, it might have been interesting, but the device is overused to the point that I just shook my head each time it happened. Finally, while there is a reunion of boy and horse and their return home, I can't really feel that the show has a happy ending. Too many people don't make it home. Yes, I know it is WWI, but I felt that there is a large amount of graphic violence and some of the deaths seem gratuitous and too "in your face" for my taste.


----------



## Randirogue

Your review is fair.  Some of the things you found annoying, I found beautiful, but I think that's a matter of personal opinion so I can't fault you having a differing opinion.  I also think that my being in the front row really enhanced my perspective of the show overall.  While this is not typically my favorite position in the seats, I found it to be prime for this one.  A completely lucky accident.

Some examples as to the excellence of my seat are as follows: 
1) The foal, at the beginning of the play came right up to me. He leaned over the edge right over my lap. I wanted to touch it so badly that my decadent hubby was ready to clamp my hands down to the arm rests.  
2) The rows of barbed wire angled right over top of me when the horses leaped over it. 
3) The tank treads swung over my lap.
4) The left-side stairs were on my immediate left so the scenes there put the actors within a literal foot of me.
5) The actors controlling the horses' heads were so close in view that they became a part of the horse for me.  This was especially true when I saw their breaths huff out as they mimicked the horse's snorts and breathing.  When they were right at the edge in front of me, it was as if I could feel their breaths blowing faintly against me.  Nuances of their expressions and vocalizations synched perfectly with the horse, and as such, they melted into the background, allowing the horses to take on more life.  

There were other such benefits to my position, the culmination of which significantly increased the intimacy of the more poignant moments of the story, thus enhancing my personal experience of it.  This was most especially true of the horses themselves, which were the real stars of this production (in my opinion, of course).  

While I had a fondness for Albert's army buddy, as well as Albert and the enemy captain, I found myself wishing those scenes would pass swiftly and get back to the horses. lol.  

The only downfall of my position was when the stage rose.  My vantage of that was at such a sharp angle that I hardly saw anything that happened on that part.  I was glad when it settled back to the main level again. 

I'm glad you found some enjoyment of it though, because I loved it!


----------



## telracs

The Mountaintop

I wanted to jot down a few thoughts about this Samuel L. Jackson/Angela Bassett play, since if I don't do it now, I'll probably forget what I want to say while I'm away on vacation...

Let me say that both Jackson and Bassett are incredible on stage. Jackson's Martin Luther King Jr was a complex character, and Jackson played the complexity well. Angela Bassett's Camae is a fictional character, who at first seems to be a simple sounding board for MLK's need to talk to someone in the Lorraine Hotel after giving his Mountaintop speech in a Memphis church.

*Spoiler Alert- Spoiler below*


Spoiler



Those familiar with history will know that the speech was given the night before MLK was shot, and thus may not be surprised when Bassett's room service maid turns out to an angel of death come to prepare MLK for his return "home."


*End Spoiler*

Most of the show takes place in the hotel room in Memphis, and while the floor space itself was good, the ceiling seemed a bit low and I wondered if people higher in the mezzanine might have trouble seeing the rear of the set.

Both actors are using appropriate Southern accents, but at points I had trouble understanding each of them. I'm not sure if that was due to the accents or the speed of the speech.

The show runs 1 hour and 20 minutes with no intermission, and I must admit, there were a number of times where I found my mind wandering and wondering when and how the playwright was going to end things.

The playwright lets a lot of what I assume are her personal feelings and philosophy bleed into the work. Which I found heavy-handed. And I found an intentional anachronism very annoying.

Ultimately, I walked out of the play a bit unsatisfied. While the acting was great, the story itself was not my cup of tea.


----------



## telracs

Forum/Follies 

Last weekend was a fun Sondheim theater weekend. Saturday night was a production of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum performed by The Blue Hill Troupe. Blue Hill is a theater group of talented people who put on two shows a year, a Gilbert and Sullivan show in the spring and a non G-S musical in the fall. I've been attending their shows for a few years now (though I missed last year's Little Shop) and every year have been throughly entertained. Forum is a show I'd seen on Broadway, with both Nathan Lane and Whoppi Goldberg. Alan J. Abrams seems to be chanelling Nathan Lane's Pseudolus a bit, but it works. Michael Macaione as Hysterium was also quite enjoyable. All of the courtesans were fun, and the choreography for them and for the Proteans made good use of the stage at St. Clement's Theater. Less effective was the sound design, a problem I have had at that theater before. For some reason, no matter where I sit, the orchestra always seems to overpower the singers at some points. And while I'm all for "colorblind" casting, when it makes a plot twist farfetched, it took me out of the enjoyment of the story a bit.

Hurricane Irene caused the cancellation of Broadway shows when she came through, and so we had to rebook our tickets to Follies, so that became my second Sondheim of the weekend. And gotta tell you, I enjoyed Forum quite a bit more. Follies is a complicated show with too many layers for my taste. The framework of the show is a reunion of "Weismann's Follies" girls on the occasion of the imminent destruction of the theater in which they performed. But our supposed main characters are two married couples, Sally Durrant Plummer (Bernadette Peters) and her husband Buddy (Danny Burstein), and Phyllis and Ben Stone (Ron Raines). At this performance, Phyllis, usually played by Jan Maxwell, was played by Colleen Fitzpatrick. While I was a bit disappointed not to see Maxwell, Fitzpatrick did an excellent job, nailing Phyllis's big act two song. The two couples have a history together, and that history is played out through their "young" counterparts. This story would have been enough to sustain a musical, I think, but in addition to these four main characters, we get production numbers from a number of the other Weismann girls. Backed up by "ghosts" of their younger selves. Jane Houdyshell scores with "Broadway Baby" and Terri White leads all the women in a wonderfully choreographed "Who's that Woman". Elaine Page brings a different spin "To I'm Still Here" and although there have been stories that she's been missing lyrics, she was fine at this performance. The most confusing (and annoying to me) part of the show is a sudden descent into a full fledged "follies" type set of numbers in the 2nd act. They don't really serve to advance the plot and the change from the "present day" soon to be demolished theater set to bright red feathered set was too jarring. And to be honest, while listening to Bernadette Peters heartwrenching version of "Losing My Mind," I had my eyes closed.

I know that there are people who absolutely love Follies, but if given the choice, I'll see Forum again before I'll see Follies again.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

I saw the film version of "A Funny Thing Happened...." several times long ago, and loved it.  But I haven't seen it or been aware of it airing in literally decades.  Glad it is still being performed on stage!


----------



## telracs

Chinglish

David Henry Hwang is a playwright whose exploration of Chinese (and the intersection of Chinese and other countries's) culture I found fascinating in both the plays of his I have seen. In Golden Child, a Chinese-American man explores his family's past. In Chinglish, an American business man travels to China to try and sell signs to a new cultural center. But things turn complicated pretty quickly.

The play is told in flashback form, starting with businessman Daniel Cavanaugh (Gary Wilmes) addressing an Ohio business group. As he tells them that the most important thing for them to remember is to bring their own translator, we are transported to China, where Cavanaugh hires Peter Timms, a British born English teacher as a business consultant and translator. Unknown to Cavanaugh, Timms has an agenda of his own, as do both of the government officials they are working with.

I found the show most enjoyable when it focused on the business aspect of Cavanaugh's trip. When it shifts to the burgeoning relationship between Cavanaugh and Vice-Minister Yan (the phenomenal Jennifer Lim), it started to lose me, and when it shifted even more to the dealings between Timms and Minister Guoliang, I really didn't care.

The show is performed with the Chinese characters all speaking in Mandarin, with their words being translated for us in surtitles. I found myself examining each scene change to figure out where exactly the English would be projected. Most interesting, in a scene where Yan is attempting to convey a word to Cavanaugh that ultimately has no equivalent to him, no translation is projected.

I laughed at the bad translations and the misunderstandings stemming from cultural differences, but in the end, I felt that the play fell flat and that the some of the personal interactions scenes could have been cut to make it a tighter show.


----------



## telracs

Bonnie and Clyde

A musical about bank robbers and murderers runs the risk of glorifying the violence too much. And while Frank Wildhorn's latest musical does show us quite a bit of blood, and it does portray the duo in a fairly sympathetic light, in the end, it does not turn them into heroes.

Act one of the musical chronicles the pair's youth (with Kelsey Fowler and Talon Ackerman giving wonderful performances as the young Bonnie and Clyde) and subsequent meeting, ending with Bonnie helping Clyde escape from prison. Act two shows them on their robbing spree and the efforts of law enforcement to apprehend them.

I found act one a bit draggy, taking too long to get to their meeting and partnering. Also, the subplot of Clyde's brother Buck and his wife takes up a bit of time. While the attempt to show the dichotomy between the two couples is a good idea, the sub-plot breaks up the action a bit too much. Act two is more action packed, and very bloody. This is not a show for those who dislike gunshots.

There has been a demo recording floating around for a while, so I went in thinking I would know the songs. Nope... Most of the songs on the demo have been dropped, and the lyrics on the others have been altered. And near the beginning of the second act I had a moment of confusion, because the song being performed was one I think Wildhorn used already in a different musical.

We saw understudy Cassie Okenka as Bonnie, and I really liked her. She had an excellent voice and I felt that she played well with Jeremy Jordan's Clyde. Melissa Van Der Schyff had the alomst comic role as Blanche Barrow, and she made you believe that she would follow her husband anywhere. Louis Hobson, although looking quite nice as the "good boy" deputy who has a thing for Bonnie, seemed to be a bit wasted. His only song ends up as a duet with Clyde, and he's hampered by the fact that he's holding a cigarette the entire time. The ensemble is quite good, but I think the Preacher has a bit too much stage time. And with a decent ensemble, why is the actress playing Clyde's mother also playing the governor? It was a very odd moment seeing her in the second role.

The show uses (but does not over-use) projected photographs and video. The best effect is the updated tally of people killed by the gang, this makes it clear that these were not nice people.

Which leads me to my biggest problem with the show. I know it's based on "fact" but I don't quite get the motivation for Bonnie going with Clyde. I'm never a fan of "You love who you love" and the I will follow him wherever he goes mentality. Both Bonnie and Blanche think they can "change" their men, but in the end, they end up paying horribly for that belief.


----------



## telracs

*Memphis*

After seeing Memphis for the first time, I did not recommend it to friends. But now, after seeing it a second time, I will actually recommend it. The main reason for the change? Adam Pascal is now playing Huey Calhoun. But there might be a secondary reason. Due to some mess up by the theater last time, we missed the first few minutes of the show and had to stand for part of the opening. Which may have colored my feelings of the show, but I think I was trying to give it a fair shake even so.

I don't want to spend this time contrasting Chad Kimball, the original Huey, to the new one, so I'll just try and review today's show on it's own merits.

Memphis tells the story of Huey Calhoun, a man who loves music and finds his way to a club on Beale Street. A club where he is the only white patron. But Huey is a unique person, seemingly colorblind, and he manages to convince the club's denizens to trust him. His entry into this world helps him find a job on the radio and as his professional life improves, he starts a romantic relationship with the club owner's sister and lead singer, Felicia (Montego Glover). Unfortunately, this is Memphis of the 1950's and the course of true love doesn't run smooth. A number of people are against the relationship, most notably Huey's mother and Felicia's brother Delray and there are scenes where things get ugly.

As I mentioned, Adam Pascal has taken over the role of Huey, and he commands the stage when on it. Even when he wasn't the person doing the talking or singing, I tended to watch him. Also fun to watch was Derrick Baskin as Gator, the bartender and James Monroe Inglehart as Bobby. We saw an understudy as Delray and I enjoyed him more than the original, I felt he had more of a believable edge to him. The weakest link in the cast for me is Montego Glover's Felicia. While she and Adam have a believable chemistry, I found her strident and not didn't really root for her.

She also is the worst victim of an annoying directorial choice. Too many of the musical numbers end with the singer(s) standing downstage center belting to the rafters.

The show is heavy on dancing, and a couple of numbers run a little long for my taste, but the ensemble and dancers are so good that I could easily ride out those more boring moments.

I don't know how long Adam Pascal will be in the show, but if you're going to catch Memphis, make sure you do it with him.


----------



## telracs

Hugh Jackman Back On Broadway

You know the phrase "I'd pay to see him read the phonebook"? Well, I've decided that there isn't anyone I'd pay to read the phonebook. If I'm paying over 100 dollars, I want more than phonebook reading. And at _Hugh Jackman Back on Broadway_, I got a bit more than that, but only a bit. There were some wonderful moments in the show, including his strolling on stage singing "Oh What a Beautiful Morning" and the act one closer of "Soliloquy" from Carousel. He was also excellent slipping back into the character of Peter Allen for part of the second act (even if the gold lame pants didn't really fit too well).

But a lot of the time when Hugh was singing, I was watching the on-stage orchestra. And when he started telling his stories, I tried to listen, but after a while, I just felt my mind wandering and thinking to myself, "stop talking and go back to singing." And when he did, I was very happy.

All in all, I'm glad we went to the show, especially since I had decent seats, but I am happy that his next outing on Broadway will be as a character, not as himself.


----------



## telracs

On A Clear Day You Can See Forever

I started writing this after seeing the show, but before it posted its closing notice.

I have never seen the movie On A Clear Day You Can See Forever, or listened to either the Broadway cast recording or the movie soundtrack. 
I did of course know the title song, and the basic plotline (person goes to a psychiatrist, psychiatrist regresses patient to a "former life", psychiatrist is attracted to that person....). In the original 1960s version, Daisy Gamble is the patient, and her past life was in 18th century England. In this version, Daisy is now David, with a past life as Melinda Wells, a 1940s jazz singer. As one can imagine, this causes some interesting complications when Dr. Bruckner (Harry Connick Jr looking very nice in a suit) finds himself attracted to Melinda (Jessie Mueller in her Broadway debut). Since David is hypnotized and does not remember what happens during their sessions, he thinks the good doctor is interested in him, leading to more stress on an already tense relationship with his boyfriend.

I've read comments on-line about David Turner's performance as David Gamble being over the top, and that people were unhappy with how the Bruckner/David relationship was portrayed. Personally, I liked David Turner. I felt he was fun to watch and he matured nicely as the show went on. Harry Connick Jr. was a bit stiff in the first act, but that was fine for the character. But I felt that he was wasted a bit in the role. He's on stage for most of the show, since he is narrating, but he really doesn't get to shine that much. As for the portrayal of the "kiss" between Bruckner and David/Melinda, I think it was handled well. Since Bruckner himself is unsure who he is kissing, our not seeing the actual kiss worked for me.

The show wasn't perfect, the orchestra was overpowering singers in first act and there was a lot of walk downstage and sing staging, and the costumes and attitudes of the characters seemed more 1960s than 1974 which is listed as the time of the play in the Playbill. There was some nice lighting effects, and some color changes to the set from Act 1 to Act 2 to show how Bruckner had changed his attitude. When I walked out of the show, I had every intention of seeing it a second time, but unfortunately, the show didn't run long enough for me to get that chance.


----------



## telracs

mini-reviews....

seminar

For a while, there were two Harry Potter alumni on Broadway. While Daniel Radcliffe was playing scheming businessman J. Pierpont Finch, Alan Rickman was once again playing a teacher. This time, a fiction writing teacher of four very different students. Seminar had a number of funny lines, and a wonderful set change late in the show, but even while I was laughing, the logical part of my brain kept having issues with the action. Why is this fiction class being held in the apartment belonging to one of the students? Why hasn't Leonard (the teacher) read any of the assignments before class time? How come one of the students gets a pass at actually handing in an the assignment? Oh, wait, did he actually assign stuff or is the stuff they're reading stuff they've already writing and want critiqued? When is Rickman's character actually going to talk about WRITING? And why does Jerry O'Connell's character opening monologue run so long and make him seem so gay? And if he is gay, why is he then pursuing Izzy? Is this the type of place where playwright Theresa Rebeck learned her craft? And ultimately, why should I care about any of these people? The show has moments of greatness, especially an eruption of temper of Rickman's that could easily have been stereotype and shaded too much into his character of Snape, but which was actually quite well done. But at the end of the day, I was glad when this Seminar had ended and I could admit that I didn't really care what happened to any of these characters.

look back in anger

Again, a show where I had to wonder why I should care about characters. This four person show comprises Jimmy Porter, who may or may not own a candy store or just run it, his wife Alison, who is apparently from a wealthy family, their friend/roommate Cliff, and Alison's friend Helena who wanders into the dysfunctional trio with an agenda of her own. This revised version cuts out the character of Alison's father, and drops at least one scene from the original. Jimmy is the prototype for the "angry young man" of the 1960's, but I found him too grating to be sympathetic. And I'm not sure what the author (or in this case, perhaps the director) was trying to say about women that Helena slips easily from her independence into Jimmy's bed when Alison leaves, or the fact that Alison returns to a man that seems to me to be emotionally, if not physically, abusing her. Are we supposed to root for anyone in this squalor? The director made a choice with this play to construct a wall across the stage and give the actors a very narrow playing area. While I understand the attempted metaphor, I just found the playing area too crowded and instead of drawing me into the action, it jolted me out of things when the actors had to exit through the rear theater door instead of being able to just go off stage through the wings.

porgy and bess

The Gershwins' (and in truth Dubose and Dorothy Heyward's) Porgy and Bess has always been in my mind as an opera, not a musical. Now, please understand, opera is not meant as a derogatory term. Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserable and Miss Saigon also fall into my mental category of opera. And I love all three of them. But Porgy and Bess had an operatic quality to it that made it harder for me to like; the use (in fact overuse) of high soprano singing. If I can't understand what the singers are singing in a show that is almost all sung with little dialogue, I'm not going to be satisfied. Especially since I knew very little of what the actual storyline of the show is. All I knew was that it was about a woman named Bess (Audra McDonald) and a man named Porgy (Norm Lewis). Now, Audra's acting of the town tramp with a good heart falling for the crippled Porgy was good, but I lost a lot of her singing in the high notes. Norm Lewis does an incredible job as Porgy, contorting his body in a way that must be extremely painful. The highlight and surprise of the show was David Allen Grier as drug dealer Sportin' Life. I vaguely remember seeing him years ago in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, but forgot how well he can move, and sing. People who know Porgy and Bess well have been commenting that this is a pared down version, and runs much shorter than the almost 3 hour usual version. I'm glad. I don't think I could have taken much more of this show than I did.

Godspell

If Jesus had 12 disciples, why don't productions of Godspell have 13 actors? Why are there only 10 actors on stage at Circle In the Square? And why does the same actor play John the Baptist and then Judas Iscariot? Okay, and why am I analyzing these things this much? Godspell should just be a nice afternoon, good songs, fun enactments of parables, and then let's go home... The problem is that the show is uneven. Some of this comes from the fact that since the show ends with the crucifixion, the show has to change tone in the second act. Some of it comes from the fact that the show attempts to stay current by updating pop culture references, not all of which really work. And some of it comes from use of audience members in the show. This is something that I almost always dislike. I find that dragging someone out of their seat to play pictionary or charades, or act the part of Lazarus just pulls me out of the story and makes me cringe. Godspell is an ensemble show, giving all the actors a chance to have their moment in the spotlight, and while all the actors in this production were enjoyable, some were stronger than others. Telly Leung was his usual wonderful self, not only singing well, but doing a great job of piano playing for the entre'acte. I also enjoyed Uzo Aduba's By My Side. Hunter Parrish was good as Jesus, but just once, I wish they would cast someone not blonde and blue-eyed for that role.

Carrie

On May 12, 1988, a musical adaptation of Stephen King's Carrie opened on Broadway. It closed on May 15, 1988. You'd think would be the end of it, wouldn't you? But nope, some 23 years later, it has resurfaced in an updated form, off-Broadway, at the Lortel Theatre. I didn't see the original, and while I think I might have heard some of the songs from it at some point, I don't really remember them, so I can only comment on this production. I also don't really remember the book all that well, in fact, I'm not sure if I ever read it. And I know I've never seen the movie. Well, this production seemed to me to be more a treatise against school bullying than a horror story about a girl with telekinesis. And it felt like Sue Snell, the narrator, had more stage time than Carrie White, the title character. But Christy Altomare was enjoyable as Sue, so I didn't really mind that fact. The entire cast was quite good, with Jeanna De Waal well cast as snotty Chris, and Derek Klena fine as football captain/poet Tommy Ross. Of course, a good production of Carrie rests on the abilities of the actresses playing Carrie White and her mother, Margaret. And both Molly Ranson and Marin Mazzie do wonderful jobs in their roles. The set is minimal, but the projections used help set the tone and are excellent in the "destruction" scene. The show is a limited run at this time, but I'm holding out hope for a new cast recording.

Wit

We know very early on in this play that there will be no happy ending. As Cynthia Nixon as poetry professor Vivian Bearing informs us, "I believe I die in the end." But the journey getting to the end is well worth watching. Nixon owns the stage as the overbearing, always in control woman who slowly loses control over her body as she undergoes chemotherapy for metastatic ovarian cancer. While her character seems fully fleshed, some of the others strike me as a bit cookie cutter. The researcher who has a brilliant mind for science but no bedside manner, the compassionate nurse who may not be the sharpest tack in the box, the older mentor who is so far into analyzing poetry that she even finds metaphors for the soul in a children's book. They seem to be there only as foils for the main character to work with, not people in their own right. I had seen the show in its original off-Broadway incarnation, so knew the key scenes, and found myself cringing in advance of one disliked scene, while anticipating another that I always enjoy. I found myself drifting at points, but the show does not really run that long, so it might have just been me being tired.


----------



## telracs

*Jesus Christ Superstar*

I like Jesus Christ Superstar. I will happily sit through a production of it whenever it comes to town. I saw it at Madison Square Garden in 1992 with Ted Neeley, Carl Anderson and Dennis DeYoung. And in 2000 at the Ford Theater. So I was looking forward to this production that had its genesis at Stratford in Canada. But at the end of the day, I was a bit disappointed in this production. The pre-show announcement was amusing, "if you feel the need for a candy, open them any time, the score will drown you out." For the most part, true, since the score is BLASTED through the Neil Simon's sound system. Not true for the time the woman next to me decided to rustle in her bag during one of the few quiet numbers (Can We Start Again Please?) of the show.

After the amusing announcement, the show almost immediately lost me. During the overture, the show set the tone that this was going to be an "urban revolution" take on things. Roman centurions who resembled something out of Star Wars clashed with disciples carrying backpacks and dressed in distressed modern garb. And Jesus's first meeting with his disciples looked more like a war briefing than a preaching session.

One of my favorite songs of JCS is the opening, "Heaven on their Minds," but while I liked Josh Young's singing, the fact that he was singing to Jesus instead of about him kind of bothered me. As did the continued presence of Mary Madgelene. In a bright yellow dress, she was almost always present, and usually between Judas and Jesus. It seemed like the director was attempting to play up some kind of romantic triangle, making it seem that Judas's reason for betraying Jesus was some sort of jealousy. Josh also did a decent job on the title song, and looked really nice in the blue suit they had him in for that scene. We saw an understudy for Jesus, Nick Cartell, who did well on the very difficult "Gethsemane," but who I found less effective during his confrontation scenes (in the Temple, with the lepers, at the Last Supper). Also ineffective was Bruce Dow's Herod. His one number is usually comic relief, but this version fell flat (and why is Herod not present at Pilate's after sending Jesus back to him?) My favorite of the show was Tom Hewitt as Pontius Pilate. The expression on his face when he recognized Jesus as the man from his dream and his discomfort during the flogging scene were wonderful. And where exactly does Marcus Nance (Caiaphas) keep that deep a voice? It sounded like it was coming from the basement!

The show was unexpectedly projection heavy. Starting with a count backwards from "Year 2012" to "Year 33" in the beginning and ending with Bible verses during the Crucifixion. I found most of the projections annoying and distracting. Don't keep telling me what day it is and where we are? It just makes me start thinking about all the discrepancies between the Gospels and whether or not the Last Supper was a Passover Seder and stuff like that. Completely took me out of the story. But some of the projections did work for me. The "light" streaming in through the "windows" when the priests met was effective (oh side note, why did they look like a cross between Chasidic Jews and Rasterfarians?), as was red stripe projections during the flogging. And the streaming Biblical verses was a nice touch to use during the instrumental part of John 19:41. Although I'm curious as to whether they actually projected that particular verse.

All in all, I'm not sure if I'd recommend this show. People who've never seen it might enjoy it, but I think die-hard fans would be disappointed.


----------



## That Weird Guy....

*Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark*

Saw the show Wednesday Feb 15, 7pm performance. 
The sets, costumes and effects in this show are beyond top notch. Having seen over 130 productions in the past 20 years I do have shows to compare it to (Wicked, Lion King, Ragtime). If they were going for a comic book feel, they truly succeeded. I am not a fan of comic books myself, but I loved the way the sets folded out and opened up. The costumes totally fit the feel of the show. Again with the comic book feel. I loved the Sinister Six costumes. Especially Carnage! Such fun. 
The flying effects were lots of fun to watch. Being in the 3rd Mezz were perfect. I was able to see a good 90% of the flying action. It really did not add to the story or anything like that. It was just spectacle for spectacle sake. But it worked. 
The story was nothing to shout about, but it was not the incoherent mess that a lot of the reviewers say it is. Sure, it's nothing real intelligent, but it is a great time waster. Like a summer blockbuster come to life before your eyes. I never saw the original version of the show so I don't have anything to compare it to in that aspect, but what i did see last week flowed pretty well and made sense. It's not Chekhov, it's Spider-Man. the relationship between MJ and her father should have been touched on more though. there was the once scene after No More, but nothing else was every said about it. that was a little disappointing. 
Now, for the score. This was the only let down in the show. It wasn't completely horrible, but it wasn't that great either. I do agree they should have brought in some actual Broadway Composers to help Bono and The Edge make the music a bit more 'theatrical.' By themselves, the songs are great, but they do not help move the show along that well. I got the CD when it came out and (yes I know the CD is missing almost half the songs and is not in show order) it does nothing to help tell the story of the show. Other cast albums I have easily tell the story of the show through the songs. Some of the songs are lots of fun to listen to and it is great to have fun visuals to go along with them (mostly "A Freak Like Me Needs Company"). I would love to have them come out with an actual Cast Album of the whole show. This show deserves it. Also, the performance they did at the Tony Awards last June did not so the show any justice. It's a pretty song, but it was a poor representation of the show. Freak Like Me should have been the choice. Also, and this is strictly related to the performance I saw, Reeve Carney was a little flat most of the time. I am sure doing the show can't be easy but, at least try to be on key. 
Now on to the cast themselves. Reeve was not too bad. As stated above he had some pitch issues, but he was charismatic and did well in his scenes. Rebecca Faulkenberry was a great replacement for Jennifer Damiano. She was pitch perfect and her acting was wonderful. For me, the star of the show was Patrick Page. As Norman Osborne/Green Goblin he stole the show. Every scene he was in, he dominated. I almost wish they had changed the show and focused on him. He got the best lines and the best songs. As Arachne, Christina Sajous had such little stage time that i really can't critique it. But I did enjoy her mythology and her scene with Peter in Act 2 during his dream. Michael Mulheren was serviceable as J. Jonah Jameson. The character is so repugnant that I wanted to watch him die onstage. d*mn! 
In all, I really enjoyed the show as a whole. You really should go see it and formulate your own opinion. everyone likes different things.


----------



## telracs

*waves*  Hi TJ!


----------



## telracs

Peter and the Starcatcher

I went into Peter and the Starcatcher with the idea that it was a musical prequel to Peter Pan. Well, that's not entirely correct. There are a handful of songs, including a cute Act 2 opener involving Mermaids, but it's not really a musical. And while it does ultimately end up telling the story of a boy called Peter Pan, it didn't feel to me like it was a prequel to the Peter Pan story I know.

The show started out slowly, reminding me a bit of the beginning monologue of Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth. Each actor spoke one or two lines, setting up the story. I kept thinking, show me, don't tell me. I want see things, not hear them. Eventually we do get into the action, meeting Molly Aster and her father, three orphan boys, two ships' captains and crews, some islanders with a love of Italian cuisine, Molly's nanny, and ultimately, a bunch of pirates, lead by the infamous Black Stache. Molly and her father are on a secret mission from Queen Victoria (G-d save her), to destroy some starstuff. Of course, the mission doesn't go smoothly and all sorts of fast action hijinks ensue. Too many and too fast. I kept feeling like I was on a roller coaster log flume ride. But I must admit that they do some wonderful things with a simple piece of rope.


----------



## telracs

*Death of a Salesman*

Okay, I admit it, it's me. There must be something wrong with me. I don't get why Death of a Salesman is such a classic. Why it is studied in colleges. Why it is revived every 15 years or so. And most importantly, why I should care about any of these characters. Now please understand, I'm not looking for explanations, so please don't answer this with comments on how/why this play is so wonderful. I admit that the lack is in me. I did not enjoy a play where most of the time is spent watching people who lie to each other and to themselves. Mostly in support of a central character who is the biggest liar of all.

Now, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays that liar quite well. Even as he contradicts himself, his conviction never wavers. But while Hoffman plays slow and schlubby well, he is not convincingly 63. Throughout the whole play, during "present" scenes and flashbacks, he looked like he was in his late 40s. Linda Edmond, as Mrs. Loman, dons a gray wig for present day scenes and has black hair in the flashbacks. The actors playing Biff and Happy (neither of which look like Hoffman or Edmond), merely have costume changes to signify the difference in ages. This leads to another problem I had with the production. The physical set and most of the costuming gave a "timeless" feel to the production. This might have worked if the production claimed to be set now, but the playbill lists the time as late 1940s. Nothing in the physical production suggests that time frame, and very little suggests that the flashbacks are the 1930s. So when Willie Loman is talking about his father crossing the country in a covered wagon, I was truly confused.

And that's what I was at the end of the show. Confused. Confused as to why Mr. Miller chose to write about this family. And what was I supposed to take away from the story. All in all, I'm afraid that while Linda Loman says "Attention must be paid," there was no pay off for my attention and time.


----------



## Tony Richards

lacymarankevinmichael said:


> At least Spiderman didn't fall from the rafters and have to have back surgery after your performance. I think after all the calamities this show has had, they wouldn't dare say "break a leg" before a performance.


BIG LOL!!!


----------



## That Weird Guy....

Here are some reviews from the shows I saw during my WHIRLWIND trip to New York in Feb.

*Porgy & Bess*- I was a little hesitant about seeing this one. I saw the Seattle Opera production of it last summer when my roommate was in it and I very difficult time staying awake. But, with a cast consisting of Audra MacDonald, Norm Lewis and David Allen Grier I was pretty excited. Plus with all of the 'controversy' surrounding the production, I had to see what the hype was about. So, I got into New York the morning of Feb 15 at 5:30am. The show was at 2pm. Got into the theatre and saw that Audra was out! Grrrr. So not cool. I was very disappointed. I should not have been. Her understudy was PHENOMENAL. Her acting was superb, her vocals were crisp and clear. Norm as Porgy was a little boring. Nice vocals and the way he contorted his leg was a nice touch. The biggest surprise for me was DAG as Sporting Life. He was _perfect_! His vocals were stunning, his acting was spot on and when he was onstage, he just commanded your attention. His version of "There's a Boat That's Leavin'" was the best I have heard. The set was very simplistic and I expected more. The set in Seattle was much more elaborate and really conveyed the poverty of Catfish Row. 
The only real issue I had with the show was the trimmed down run time. They took a 4½ hour opera and turned it into a 2 hour musical. They cut out some of my favorite scenes. Where was the buzzard scene? I am glad they cut a lot of the unneeded reprises. But to get rid of entire scenes? All in all I am glad I saw it. But I do not think I need to see it again any time soon.

*Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark*-- Is posted above. That was the second show I saw on Feb 15.

*Silence! The Musical*-- Feb 16 8pm. 
I have been following this show for years! Ever since the original composer demo CD was posted on their website. I thought the premise was hilarious. A Parody Musical version of Silence of the Lambs? Really?! This show was a joy to behold. The writing is very smart, the songs are so funny, the actors are spot on impersonations of their characters. I have nothing bad to say about this show. It was a 90 minute show with no intermission. there was no need for one. The show clipped along at a very quick pace. From the opening strains of "Silence!" complete with a chorus of singing sheep, I was lost in the world they created. 
Jenn Harris as Clarice is a true comedic genius. Her skills with 'playing it straight' mixed with her very subtle winks to the audience are things of musical comedy dreams. She impersonates the voice and mannerisms of Jodi Foster's Clarice so well. They are a little exaggerated, but not to the point of it being a total mockery. You believe she is in a life or death situation. Albeit a parodied comedic one... David Garrison as Hannibal Lecter was really good. His voice is beautiful. It was so heavenly that it sounded really wrong singing his first number (For those of you who know the show, you know what song, for those that do not, I cannot print the title here). There were a few times though during the song "Quid Pro Quo" that he did get a little off of the beat and rushed through some of his lyrics. Other than that he was flawless. 
The remaining cast were all equally as good. Deidre Goodwin as Ardelia had a great song towards the end of the show and her comic timing again was stupendous. Annie Funke as Catherine Martin was funny as hell. Her voice was also top notch. As Buffalo Bill, Stephen Bienskie was a treat. Great voice, great acting chops, and fearless. 
If you ever get the chance, you _have_ to go see this show. It is a laugh a minute riot and one of the best pieces of musical theatre I have seen in a long time.


----------



## That Weird Guy....

Part 2!!!

*Priscilla Queen of the Desert*-- Feb 17 7:30pm
I love this movie! I love this movie! The show is like a 2½ hour dance party. They did some trimming of the plot for the musical, but really, it is not about the story. This show is just an excuse to put on a dress and dance to disco music. This is not to say that I did not have a good time and enjoy myself. I surely did. But this show is pretty much all style and not much substance. If you love the music and you want to party down, go see the show. If you really love the movie and are hoping for that same connection, you might be disappointed. The cast is gorgeous and talented (though I must say, Nick Adams really got on my nerves!), the music is funky and fun, the costumes deserved their Oscar and Tony Award and the bus is a technical marvel.

*Carrie the Musical*-- Feb 18 2pm. 
This show was the ENTIRE reason for my trip. I have been obsessed with this show for over 20 years. I have been dying for it to be produced again. I had a fear it would never happen. But, it did! For that I have to give a resounding *THANK YOU* to Stafford Arima for getting the original writers together and have them re-visit their original show. Now, first things first, I have heard and seen the original show. I heard a recording of the 2009 Workshop they did with rewrites. I knew right off the bat that this show was going to be different than any of those productions. I was NOT disappointed in the least. This was a stunning show! I do commend them for not going the gory horror route with the story and instead making a story of today and the effects of school bullying. It is a very timely issue and one that needs to be addressed. Of course with this being Stephen King, there is bound to be some bloodshed along the way. 
The show started with Sue being interrogated by 2 unseen people. This got me hooked right off the bat. This is just how the book was. I love the book. It was the first King book I read (I was 8 years old). Then the scene shifted to the beginning of the school day with all of the kids singing about their insecurities ("In," a song from the original, but extensively re-written and re-staged). I love the new lyrics, I love the new staging. No more horrible Gym Class togas! Plus it was nice to see the male ensemble get more to do in this show. Instead of gong through an entire synopsis of the show (which i really want to do), I will just point out some highlights. 
Molly Ransom as Carrie was beautiful. Her acting was strong and her voice was powerful. When she gets mocked and made fun of, you really felt her pain. She held nothing back. Christy Altomare as Sue Snell had a much larger role than in the original. She almost acts as a Greek Chorus/Narrator. The scenes shift between the action of the story and Sue being interrogated. It was a wonderful device. I know some people felt that giving Sue the larger role almost made her the lead character and took the focus away from Carrie. I disagree. I think it added a stronger narrative to the story that was lacking in the previous productions. Plus she has a golden voice. 
Carmen Cusak as Miss Gardner (In the book Miss Desjardain, in the original movie Miss Collins) was a nice change for the role. The original Miss Gardner, Darlene Love, was a little too much of a one-note-character. Ms Cusak gave the role depth and made it her own. I first saw her in the National Tour of South Pacific as Nellie, so I knew she had amazing vocal chords. She spoke the role with a slight southern accent and sang like an angel. Her version of Unsuspecting Hearts was soaring. Jeanna de Waal as Chris Hargenson was the epitome of a rich b***hy privileged girl who thinks she does nothing wrong. At times she was a little too much, but in all she was very effective. I love the new song they wrote for her character "The World According to Chris," though I do miss the song it replaced "Don't Waste the Moon." 
Of course I had to save the best for last! That unstoppable, powerhouse that is known as Marin Mazzie! Before this, I thought the definition of Margaret White in the dictionary had a picture of Betty Buckley. Nuff said! But then I saw Marin's deeply moving portrayal of Margaret. She took a very different direction than Buckley did. Instead of playing up the fanatical religious crazy woman, she was a mother with strong beliefs who would do anything to shield her daughter from the evils of the world. Her rendition of "When There's No One" was an emotional high point. The way they had the spotlight on her and as the song progressed the spot kept getting smaller and smaller until it only illuminated her tear stained face was a genius choice. It tripled the emotion and punch of an already emotional song. The scenes between Carrie and Margaret are still some of the most powerful ever written for musical theatre. The new arrangement of "Open Your Heart" with full backing chorus was a nice introduction to the family unit (for lack of a better phrase). Each moment builds and builds until it snaps! 
The sets design was a nice touch. With the simple wooden walls and the projections on the back wall, the were able to convey, a high school, the White's Living Room, Chris' bedroom and of course, the gymnasium for the famous Prom Scene. the scene I was most waiting for was the Destruction scene. I wanted to know what they were going to do for it. I was not disappointed. the projections and the effects were more than I hoped for. I was riveted to my seat for the entire thing. 
I am sad that this show has closed, but I am so very happy that they recorded a Cast Album last week. I finally get to have an official album instead of the Soundboard bootlegs that I have had for years.

*Shatner's World: We Just Live in It*- Feb 18, 8pm
This was the last show on my whirlwind tour. I could not pass up the chance to see William Shatner live on stage. I am not a Star Trek fan. I did grow up watching TJ Hooker on TV. I am really glad I got to see it. It was a funny show. I do like 'one-person shows.' It gives the audience a chance to look into the lives of those we grow up seeing on TV and in movies. This show gave me all of that and more. Shatner is a very intelligent and talented man. Once in a lifetime chance that i am glad i got to do!


----------



## telracs

I thought seeing me was the reason for the trip....


----------



## That Weird Guy....

Well, yes there is that. Maybe I should have said the entire reason for the timing of the trip!


----------



## telracs

Reading my most recent reviews, one might get the impression that I have not liked anything this year. But that would be incorrect. In fact, I really liked 3 different shows, so I'm going to discuss them for a bit....

The first, unfortunately, you will not get a chance to see, because _Leap of Faith_ was a victim of the fierce competition for ticket buyers' money and had its last performance today. The show is based on the Steve Martin of the same name, concerning a con-man/preacher stuck in the small town of Sweetwater, Kansas and pitching his revival tent to scam the locals. The conceit of the show is that we, the audience, are attending a revival meeting at the Saint James Theater in NY and being told the preacher's story in flashback. This allows for an interesting "pre-show" set up, and also allows a number of the characters to break the 4th wall during the show and address the audience directly.

Raul Esparza starred as Jonas Nightingale, and boy, was he fun to watch. He was in great voice, and unlike some other stars of Broadway shows, he can actually hold his own with the other dancers on stage. Some actors might have been tempted to just take it easy on their last day, but Mr. Esparza gave it his all. And indeed, he showed not only professionalism, but a wonderful charm. At the end of one number, the audience would not stop clapping for 3 of his co-stars (Kendra Kassenbaum, Kecia Lewis-Evans and Krystal Joy Brown). He broke character (well since he's actually supposed to be telling his own story in flashback, he half broke character) and brought the three ladies back to the front of the stage to take another bow. Esparza also had great chemistry with Jessica Phillips, who played Marla McGowan, the local sheriff and his eventual love interest. The entire cast (which was pretty large and consisted of a wonderful diversity of performers) was fun to watch, and while the show had a somewhat predictable arc, it was still a bus ride that I enjoyed taking with these folks. And I'm hoping that someone decides to preserve a cast recording of this show.

Next up is _Newsies,_ based on the Disney movie of the same name. This show had its start at the Papermill Playhouse in New Jersey last year, and with the quick closing of Bonnie and Clyde, Jeremy Jordan who starred it in there was able to reprise his role for this limited engagement, now on sale through August. Jordan plays Jack Kelly, who ends up leading a strike of Newsies (paper-selling newsboys) against the great Joseph Pulitzer in 1899. The newsboys strike really did happen, but the events have been edited and altered for storytelling sake. In addition, those familiar with the Disney movie will notice a number of changes and the deletion and insertion of different characters. The show is high energy, with an incredible amount of dancing and acrobatics. While the dancers are incredible with a number of them getting wonderful moments in the spotlight, they are not exactly believable as a bunch of preteen or teenage orphans/runaways. But a little suspension of disbelief went a long way and at the end of the show I was willing to forgive any niggling little discrepancies with history.

Finally we come to a London import, a stage production of the movie _Ghost_. Of the three shows I'm discussing, this is the movie I know the best. So, I knew exactly what was going to happen and when. The show took a while to get going for me, not really hitting its stride until after Sam's murder. The cast of the show does well invoking the characters without mimicking the actors that originally played the parts, but the Molly character gets saddled with the bulk of the bland ballads and thus is a bit hard to sympathize with. We saw an understudy as Oda Mae Brown, but she was so good that I didn't really care. She gets a song late in act 2 that while pointless, is still a lot of fun. The show makes heavy use of projections, which I normally don't like, but these are done well. Especially well done is the "effect" when Sam is trying to walk through things and move objects. It actually took me a minute to figure out how they were doing it! People who like shows to be identical to the movies on which they are based may not like what's done here, but I was in a very good mood when I walked out of this show, and I definitely recommend it.


----------



## telracs

well, first off, apologies to loyal readers. i didn't realize how far behind in reviews i had fallen. so this is going to be another mini-review session.

Streetcar Named Desire- the "hook" of this production was that it was an "African American cast". To me, the color of the cast doesn't matter and didn't make a difference to the story. What did make a difference was that for some reason, this play, which I've always thought of as a drama, if not an all out tragedy, seemed to be hitting the audience as a comedy. Which made the rape scene in the second act come as an even bigger surprise to the audience than might usually be. I don't enjoy stories about women who stay with abusers, so in the end I was left unsatisfied by this production.

The Columnist- John Lithgow starred as columnist Joseph Alsop, an apparent big wig columnist in 1960s Washington D.C. He was excellent, as was the supporting cast of Boyd Gaines, Margaret Coin and Grace Gummer. The only problem I had with the show was that it was difficult to tell when each scene was taking place.

Evita- I'd never seen this live, but know the original cast recording quite well, so I was really looking forward to it. What I wasn't looking forward to was the leading lady. Someone decided that it would be a nice idea to have an Argentinean play the title role. Well, it might be, but what I heard of Elena Roger on disc did not impress me, and I was happy to find out we were going when she was on vacation. Her understudy was wonderful. The big draw of this production was Ricky Martin as Che. Fortunately, he was in when we saw him. He was nice to watch and moved well, but his acting was a bit bland. Michael Cerveris as Peron acted the best, but for some reason, he was the only one sporting an accent.

Harvey- Another show that has a movie in its background (though it started as a play actually). It tells the story of a man (played by the adorable Jim Parsons) who sees a large white rabbit that nobody else can. Part of what I thought the play would be about was whether the rabbit was real or not. And I didn't expect it to be revealed until the end. Well, I was wrong, it's established relatively early that the rabbit is not a figment of Elwood P. Dowd's imagination. The best part of the show was Parsons, and when he was off-stage, the show dragged. Especially annoying was a long scene with Carol Kane, whose voice could drill right through you.


----------



## DYB

Within the last few weeks I saw "Harry Potted" (actually off-Brodway) and it was really wonderful. Takes a few minutes to get going, but once it goes it's a lot of fun. (That's the play that tells you about all 7 books in 70 minutes.) Last week I also saw "One Man, 2 Guvnors" and it was brilliant. (I believe it closed yesterday.) Sensational performances (the lead, James Corden, definitely deserved the Tony he got, but the whole cast was superb.) A lot of it was improvised. Like when - as part of the play, Corden wonders if anybody has a sandwich and 2 people from the audience are supposed to offer him something. The night I saw it suddenly random people from the auditorium started offering him food, including granola bars. He handled the unexpected audience participation with great aplomb. I'd say you must catch the show, but it's already closed. Here's a cute behind-the-scenes tour hosted by a scene-stealing supporting character.

http://www.broadway.com/videos/154217/tony-nominee-tom-edden-gives-a-hilarious-and-shocking-look-backstage-at-one-man-two-guvnors/#play


----------



## telracs

Okay, I really, really meant to write reviews of these 2 shows (Bring It On and Nice Work If You Can Get It) when I saw them, but, well, I didn't.....

However the cast recordings for both came out this Tuesday which brought them back to mind and I figured I'd write them up now.

Played both recordings today and was reminded why I enjoyed both shows. They were fun. In different ways since they are very different shows, but ultimately, I had a good time at both.

Bring It On is based on a series of movies that I've never seen, and that you don't need to have seen to enjoy the musical. The plot is a bit stereotypical (which is jokingly touched upon in the show), white upper class girl gets redistricted and ends up in a mostly African-American school where she doesn't fit in and tries to "help" them. But she's really trying to exact revenge on a perceived (or is it a real?) rival from her old school. She does this by turning the school's dance crew into a cheerleading team. Yes, cheerleading. That is Campbell's (Taylor Louderman's) reason for breathing. And while the first reaction might be to dismiss cheerleaders, let me tell you, the cheerleaders on stage at the St. James are incredible. When they perform, you realize that these girls and guys are true athletes. And while the cheer sequences are fun to watch, they are not the only thing that's fun. The characters are broadly drawn, but that's part of the appeal. The songs and non-cheer dance numbers are well done, but I do have one quibble. Almost all the songs have Campbell in them, either as a solo, part of a duet, or in ensemble. The only person to get a true solo is Campbell's rival, Eva, and even that song is ABOUT Campbell. I would have liked Adrienne Warren's Danielle (the leader of the dance crew) to have one number to herself. The show is a bit heavy on projections, using them instead of actual sets, but that seems to be the fad these days and for the most part they are well used. At the end of the day, this is not a show that will change the world, but I think it will put a smile on most faces.

Nice Work If You Can Get It is a show with an interesting concept. Take a bunch of Gershwin songs from various musicals and put them together with a new story. Add in a cast including Matthew Broderick (usually), Kelli Ohara, Michael McGrath, Judy Kaye and others and you should have fun, right? Well, for the longest time I couldn't get a decent discount for the show, and then came the Tony Awards. I caught Matthew Broderick's performance and was glad that I hadn't bought tickets. But things changed when it was announced that Mr. Broderick was taking vacation and Will Chase (lately seen as Joe DiMaggio on the TV show Smash) was taking over. And there were discounts! SOLD! Shortly after ordering the tickets, I got an e-mail from Telecharge informing me of Mr. Broderick's absence. A nice gesture on their part, but unnecessary for me. And Mr. Chase did not disappoint. He played the part of idle rich inebriated slightly dim James Winters to perfection. Kelli Ohara was her usual wonderful self, and the two leads meshed well together. The supporting cast was also fine, with Michael McGrath hysterical as Cookie. And I discovered the next day that what I thought was a planned pratfall by Mr. McGrath was an actual fall. But being a true professional, he never broke character and covered the fall wonderfully. I'm glad he didn't get hurt! The plot of the show is quite predictable, and I had figured out most of the upcoming "twists" before intermission. Also, while I love large ensembles, I felt that the show had at least one sub-plot too many. But that large ensemble was fun to watch and the choreography was beautiful. The costumes and sets of this show are sumptuous as befits a show set in the 1920s and it was nice to see a show with real set pieces and no projections. I'd happily see the show again, but once again, I'll wait until Mr. Broderick is on vacation.


----------



## telracs

Okay, first I want to correct something that might be implied in my review of Nice Work. I do not dislike Matthew Broderick. I've enjoyed him in a number of shows over the years. But I didn't feel that this role was right for him, and seeing the clip at the Tony Awards reinforced that.

Now on to tonight's entry:

Chaplin

At intermission of this musical biography of Charlie Chaplin, I turned to my sister and said "Tell me when the movies become color."

One of the creative conceits of this show is that for the bulk of the time, the costumes and sets are shades of gray. Even the skin-tones of the actors are muted. To me, this effect got a bit tiring to look after a while; downright annoying during a scene incorporating Russian and US flags. Movies were shot in black and white (and silence) because of technical constraints not creative ones. And Charlie Chaplin might have worked in black and white, but his life was very colorful. Several marriages, moves from studio to studio, a partnership with Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and others that gave us United Artists Studios (an event left out of this biography), and being denied re-entry into the US because of his political views.

The costumes and set might be dull, but the acting most definitely is not. Rob McClure is fantastic as Charlie Chaplin and if the show lasts long enough, I think he is definitely a contender for a Tony Award. He is ably backed up by the rest of the cast, with Christiane Noll giving a heart wrenching performance has his mother Hannah. Jenn Colella plays gossip columnist Hedda Hopper, a part which seemed to be a bit of a cartoon, and seemed to exist just to give the piece a villain for us to dislike. Michael McCormick played a number of small parts, and I was actually a bit confused for a bit when I thought that Mack Sennett was playing Charlie's father in a movie. Oh, no, it's not Mack Sennett, it's a re-used McCormick.

Ultimately, while the acting was wonderful, it wasn't enough to save the show for me. I can't remember any of the songs in the show, and strange for me, really don't care if they ever do cast recording.

As I said above, Rob McClure should be a contender for a Tony, but I suggest you see the show fast if you want to catch him, because I fear that it won't last until Tony season.


----------



## telracs

_An Enemy of the People and The Lorax_

You might wonder what a 19th century Norwegian play and a movie based on a book by Dr. Seuss might have in common. Well, the first thing is the fact that I saw them on the same day. An Enemy of the People was the Manhattan Theatre Club's production at the Samuel J. Friedman Theatre. The Lorax on DVD from Netflix. The second common thread is that both deal with a collision between economics and environmental concerns.

In An Enemy of the People, we have Dr. Theo Stockman (played by the wonderful Boyd Gaines) discovering that the water supply to the baths that are the economic foundation of his town is contaminated. Dr. Stockman is idealistic and intelligent, but naive and lacking in political skills. He believes that his news will be embraced and that the powers-that-be in the town will do all that is necessary to correct the problem, no matter what the cost. In this he is mistaken, as the powers, led by his brother the mayor (played by Richard Thomas in a role performed stridently in the first act but more subtly in the second) refuse to make any changes. While some people originally back Dr. Stockman (most with their own agendas), eventually, the whole town turns against him and he is labeled "An Enemy of the People".

In The Lorax, we start in a world after the environment has been destroyed and the town has become a dictatorship. One young man starts looking into what happens, and gets told the story of the Lorax, a forest guardian.

Of the two stories, the Lorax has the happier ending. In An Enemy of the People, we end with Dr. Stockman defeated, standing in the ruins of his life (and home). In The Lorax, the boy gets the girl, the dictator is overthrown, and the animals return.


----------



## telracs

The Mystery of Edwin Drood

Charles Dickens died while in the middle of writing a mystery novel. So the world will never know the truth behind "The Mystery of Edwin Drood." In the 1980s, Rupert Holmes wrote a musical version of this mystery tale. It premiered as part of Central Park's Shakespeare in the Park and then moved to Broadway where it played for about 18 months. And now, until March 2013, the Roundabout Theater Company is producing a mostly wonderful, but slightly confusing limited run revival at Studio 54.

The action takes place at London's Music Hall Royale, in 1895, where a troupe of thespians is presenting "their" version of The Mystery of Edwin Drood. This is part of the confusion in the show, since the actors are playing both the actors in the troupe, as well as the characters in Dickens story. And while some of the songs in the show pertain to the mystery, others are purely London musical hall and have no bearing on what happened to Edwin Drood. A bigger problem for me was the speed at which the narration is done. Jim Norton as the Chairman of the troupe talks so fast that even though I knew his lines, I had difficulty following him. Chita Rivera as Princess Puffer also seems to be rushing through her part. Of the other actors, the one I enjoyed the most was Will Chase, as the most obvious villain of the piece. However, as much as I enjoyed him as John Jasper, I felt as though I was watching an odd version of Jekyll and Hyde. Stephanie J. Block is her normal wonderful singing self, but I never really believe her as a male character.

The hook of the piece is the fact that Dickens did not finish the book. So, Rupert Holmes came up with answers to questions that Dickens did not resolve. The troupe of actors lays out the possibilities to the audience, and the audience gets to vote on the identity of a mysterious character appearing in Act Two and on who murdered Edwin Drood. The voting can go on a bit long, but once the resolution is decided, the actors do a marvelous job of presenting it. And that's the most enjoyable part of the show, the fact that the actors all seem to be having a lot of fun on the stage.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

tipsy telstar said:


> _An Enemy of the People and The Lorax_
> 
> In The Lorax, the boy gets the girl, the dictator is overthrown, and the animals return.


What, what, no spoiler warning or shading? 

Drood sounds like fun, though I'm not generally a Dickens fan.

Stupid ipad autocorrect wanted to turn that into 'Drool'....First Poultry Anderson, now Edwin Drool....


----------



## telracs

The Hooded Claw said:


> What, what, no spoiler warning or shading?
> 
> Drood sounds like fun, though I'm not generally a Dickens fan.
> 
> Stupid ipad autocorrect wanted to turn that into 'Drool'....First Poultry Anderson, now Edwin Drool....


gee, sorry... you want me to go back and change it?


----------



## telracs

oh, oops, i'm even farther behind then i thought!

unfortunately, i hadn't realized i'd typed up nothing for 2013, so we're gonna skip to last sunday first (i promise to go back and write up at least brief reviews of the shows seen in january and february. if anybody is interested, that is.....)

The Big Knife

I can usually figure out what the title of a play or musical means, but The Big Knife by Clifford Odets has me stumped. There isn't a knife to be seen on stage at the American Airlines Theater. Bobby Cannavale stars as Charles Castle, a Hollywood film star in the late 1940's. Castle is trying to get out of a long term contract with his studio, believing that if he can escape, it will induce his estranged wife to return. Unfortunately, studio head Marcus Hoff (Richard Kind) and his henchman Smiley Coy (the appropriately slimey Reg Rogers) have some kind of leverage on Castle that prevents him from breaking his contract. Exactly what the leverage entails is not entirely clear at the beginning of the play, but is hinted at enough that when the full details come out, it's not as big a shock as it might be. Cannavale is on stage almost the entire running time of the show and has an excellent stage presence. He plays the complexities of Castle quite well, showing us that both Castle and Cannavale himself are more than just a pretty face. Unfortunately, while his acting is powerful, his voice is not always as forceful, and he's not helped by staging that has him turning his back to half the audience at various points in the play. This was a problem shared by Richard Kind and Chip Zien (as Castle's obsequious agent trying to play both sides at once). I'd not seen the movie version of this play, but having recently seen a production of Odets' Golden Boy, I kind of figured that poor Charlie Castle wasn't going have a happy ending. And unfortunately, he doesn't. And I don't really think anyone else in the play gets one either.


----------



## Jeff

telracs said:


> if anybody is interested, that is.....)


I am.


----------



## telracs

Forever Dusty

I'm familiar with the name Dusty Springfield, but never really knew all that much about her. But I like musical bios, so off we went to see this as our first show of 2013. Kirsten Holly Smith wrote the play, and plays Dusty. According to people familiar with Dusty, Smith channels Springfield quite well. I don't know about that, but I did find her performance riveting. The play itself felt a little stereotypical at times, talented girl from nowhere makes it big and alienates her friends and family due to her self-destructive behavior. But the play shows enough of the good in Dusty that I was able to tolerate the stereotype. I found out things that I'd never known about. That she died of breast cancer in 1999. I thought she was still alive. That she got thrown out of South Africa for performing to mixed crowds. That she was a lesbian. That she brought the Motown sound to the UK. That she was diagnosed bipolar and hospitalized for cutting herself. That she recorded at the legendary Sun Studios in Memphis.

One thing I didn't like about the show was the use of flashback. We started in Memphis, with Dusty trying to record a new album at Sun Studio and storming out when it's not going well. She gets into a cab and introduces herself to the cabbie as Mary. That's our flashback cue, taking us back to her school days and first band. And setting up her pattern of being part of a group and jumping ship as soon as she gets a better offer. We follow her career and personal life from then until we get back to where we started, then keep going. I'm tired of the use of this device in TV shows (thanks Joss Whedon), and found it even more annoying here. Another annoyance was that while Smith only plays Dusty, the other actors all play multiple parts. I kept wondering who the guys were supposed to be. If you have to have a character say someone's name so the audience can keep them straight, then hire a couple more actors.


----------



## telracs

Annie

The two songs people associate most with Annie are Hard Knock Life and Tomorrow. Unfortunately, the current revival seems to me to be more about how bad things are then how good they can be. The stage is very dark, and the costumes for much of the first act are too realistically drab. Adding to the depressing tone was a number titled We'd Like to Thank You, set in a Hoovervile filled with out of work New Yorkers. I don't know remember this number from the 1997 production, but watching it now, I wondered how many of the kids in the audience (or even the parents in the audience) understood any of the 1930's references.

The Miss Hannigan I saw in 1997 was Nell Carter, and while her Miss Hannigan was definitely one of the villains of the piece, she was also funny. I found no humor in Katie Finneran's man hungry, alcoholic shrew and just wanted her off the stage. Lilla Crawford as Annie had a great singing voice, but her speaking accent was so broad that she was difficult to understand at times. Anthony Warlow, who is a big musical star in Australia was bland as Daddy Warbucks, and a bit creepy. The one actor I did find enjoyable was Clark Thorell as Rooster Hannigan. He's fun to watch, and as long as I ignored Katie Fineran, the song Easy Street was enjoyable.

As I stated above, the stage lighting was dark, but there was one set piece that impressed me. When Annie is being given a tour of Warbucks' apartment, the different rooms are unfolded like the pages in a storybook. This gave a wonderful feel to the show for a brief period of time. But too little and for too short a time.


----------



## telracs

Old Jews Telling Jokes

This show was recommended to my sister and me by my niece's future father-in-law, an old Jew himself. The title is a bit misleading, since of the 5 people on stage, 3 might be old Jews, but the other 2 are definitely young, and possibly not Jewish. Also, it's not just jokes, there are also a few songs. The ninety minute, no intermission show is broken into sections, including (if I remember correctly) childhood, family, business, and marriage. Unfortunately, most of the jokes were familiar, and many relied on that old standby, sex. After a while, that gets a bit boring. Fortunately, each of the performers are fun to watch, and each gets a moment to shine. The radio ads I've heard for the show say you don't have to be Jewish to have a good time, and the audience when we saw it was mixed and almost everyone seemed to be having a good time.

Barry Manilow in Concert

Yes, I am a Barry Manilow fan. But I am not a "fanilow". By that I mean that while I will spend money to see him, I don't go crazy to see him. So, when it was announced that Manilow was going to be doing a decent run of shows at the St. James Theater, I thought a while, then decided to buy tickets for myself, my sister and a friend of ours. I admit, I had a bit of an ulterior motive inviting this friend, since I knew that in addition to being a fan, she would also be kind enough to drive my sister home. That meant that I could convince my sister to attend an evening performance......

I figured that there would be no discounts for this limited run, so bought full price ticket for seats in the mezzanine. Sigh... Shortly after I bought the tickets, discounts appeared. Oh, well, that's life. And I was quite happy with our seats.

Manilow was in wonderful voice when we saw him, but he's definitely showing his age. And his plastic surgery. He moved very stiffly, and it looked as though he couldn't fully open his mouth. But that didn't matter to the audience, who (mostly) were simply thrilled to be there. And the audience ran the age gamut from young to old. It was nice to see all different kinds of people there.

My biggest issue with the concert was its length. I admit it's been a number of years since I've seen him in concert but I expected a concert that was at least 2 hours. Even longer if he took an intermission. This concert barely ran 90 minutes. And while his patter was interesting, I would have liked less talk and more singing, especially at the ticket price that I paid.


----------



## telracs

Cinderella

I saw a production of Rodger's and Hammerstien's Cinderella at the Papermill Playhouse in New Jersey in 2005, and really enjoyed it. So when Cinderella's Broadway debut was announced, we pounced. I scored very good seats in the mezzanine at a discount and looked forward to a magical afternoon. And for the most part, Cinderella delivered. The costumes were gorgeous, with some very impressive quick change moments. The set was beautiful, especially for the wedding finale scene (although I would have liked it if the trees weren't in the house). The singing and dancing was wonderful, and the cast gave the show their all. However, not all was perfection. For some reason, the producers didn't trust the original story as written and attempted to "update" it and make it more politically relevant.



Spoiler



Instead of our prince being raised by his parents who are anxious for him to marry, he's got a guardian who is taxing the peasants and holds a ball to distract the Prince. The Prime Minister is in cahoots with Cinderella's step-mother to get one of her daughters to marry the Prince so they can keep the power. There's also a subplot of a peasant political activist who is trying to raise the consciousness of the peasants and who is in love with one of the stepsisters. And the fairy godmother? She starts out as the local crazy lady, to whom only Cinderella and the Prince show any respect. But the worst thing they did was not have Cinderella lose her slipper after the ball. She trips out of, but manages to grab it back. So after an interminable chase scene to start act 2, the Prince decides to hold a banquet in the hopes that the girl of his dreams will reappear. This time she does leave her slipper behind, setting up the classic scene of all the ladies in the land trying on the shoe


.

Laura Osnes makes a spunky and fun Cinderella, but if you're expecting Disney's blonde Cinderella, you'll be disappointed, as Osnes is a brunette (or possibly a redhead, I really can't tell). Santino Fontana is a cute Prince Topher, but is a bit lacking in the vocals. The three best people on stage are Victoria Clark as Marie/Fairy Godmother, Harriet Harris as Madame (Cindy's stepmom) and Ann Harada as Charlotte (one of the stepsisters). Of course one needs to suspend one's disbelief that Harada could ever be Harris's child.

I tried listening to various version of the music after seeing the show, but none of them quite worked for me. So, I'm hoping that the cast recording when released is as magical as the show was.


----------



## crebel

I would have been so disappointed to not see the "original" version.  I still sing "10 minutes ago I saw you" and "In My Own Little Corner".

Leslie Ann Warren was a brunette version of Cinderella in the television remake of the Broadway show, but the red-haired version that was on one of the morning shows a few weeks ago doesn't fit my picture of Cinderella at all.

I love reading your reviews, telracs.  I'm envious that you can see shows all the time, a real plus to living in NYC!


----------



## Leslie

I've been waiting for your review of Cinderella, telracs. The "updating" seems to mixed reactions and I don't think I'd like it. I have the DVD of the original TV production with Julie Andrews (which I love) and I remember the Lesley Anne Warren version very well, too. I'd love to see the costumes and dancing of the new one, but why can't they just leave the story alone?

L


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> I would have been so disappointed to not see the "original" version. I still sing "10 minutes ago I saw you" and "In My Own Little Corner".
> 
> Leslie Ann Warren was a brunette version of Cinderella in the television remake of the Broadway show, but the red-haired version that was on one of the morning shows a few weeks ago doesn't fit my picture of Cinderella at all.
> 
> I love reading your reviews, telracs. I'm envious that you can see shows all the time, a real plus to living in NYC!





Leslie said:


> I've been waiting for your review of Cinderella, telracs. The "updating" seems to mixed reactions and I don't think I'd like it. I have the DVD of the original TV production with Julie Andrews (which I love) and I remember the Lesley Anne Warren version very well, too. I'd love to see the costumes and dancing of the new one, but why can't they just leave the story alone?
> 
> L


even within my little group we were mixed on the update. my sister like it, but i found it annoying.

The choreography on "10 minutes ago" was gorgeous, but as I stated, I don't think the Prince had the best voice. And I have a quibble with how they did "my own little corner", she was sitting outside the house and nowhere near a corner!


----------



## telracs

Hands on a Hardbody

Okay folks, get your minds out of the gutter. The Hardbody of the title is not some hunky guy, but rather a Nissan truck. The musical is based on a documentary about folks in Texas attempting to win a truck by keeping one hand on it at all times. My first thought was that the creative crew were gonna have a hard time making this seem interesting, and unfortunately, it's my final thought as well. I think the show would have worked better as a 90 minute, no intermission show, because once you give the audience a break to stretch, it's hard to recapture their attention. Another problem I had with the show was that I really didn't have anyone to root for. All of the characters seemed a bit generic, and since there were so many of them, it was hard for me to pick one out to care for. Because of the large number of characters, it kind of felt to me more of a character song cycle. Each person got their big number which basically described why they were trying to win the truck. Fortunately, and somewhat unexpectedly, the authors did manage to avoid having each big number happen right before that contestant fell out of the running. Besides the contestants vying for the truck, we also have 2 spouses on stage, and we have to watch the going's on between the two salespeople running the contest. While the backstory of why they are holding the contest is interesting, it was too much of a diversion from the main story. And I found it hard to believe that they did not have someone watching the contestants at all times, in the end, nobody realizes that there's only one person standing!

The best part of the show was the songs, which mostly have a country/rock kind of feel, with a bit of gospel thrown in. Fortunately, even though the show closed yesterday, it is getting a cast recording.


----------



## telracs

People often ask me what my favorite show is. Well, my favorite recent show as The Mystery of Edwin Drood.  All told, I ended up seeing it 6 times in 10 weeks, including the final performance.  Why keep going back?  Well, one reason was the incredible cast, especially Will Chase as John Jasper.  Although at times he seemed to be auditioning for Jekyll and Hyde, he was fun to listen to and even more fun to watch.  And I must admit, that his understudy (who I caught one time) was almost as much fun.  Stephanie J. Block as the title character was also fun, and she even got her dog into the act.  And the chance to see Chita Rivera is always one that should be taken.

As I stated, I managed to see the last performance of the show, but I also lucked into some other fun times at the show.  As those of you who read my initial review back in December might remember, the show is based on an unfinished Dicken's novel and the audience gets to select the murderer.  Well, at one point they opened the voting for the murderer up to the facebook community and for one night the killer was (mostly) determined by on-line votes.  I was at that performance and got to admit the attempted set up by one of the actors in 19th character ("the town of internet got to vote") was a bit corny, but since I liked who was chosen as the murderer, I still had fun.  I also attended the performance the day after the Westminster dog show and got to see the show winner.  Cute doggie.  But was even more fun for me that night was that I got to go on-stage during the opening number.  I can now say I've been on a Broadway stage with Chita Rivera!

The show was a limited run, and because they extended, there were a couple of cast changes.  I have to admit, I preferred the original cast to the replacements, but they weren't bad.  And I had the luck to see both Chita Rivera and her understudy, and I must say that I preferred some parts of the understudy's performance a bit better.

The final show was a bit sad, but ultimately uplifting.  The audience was really into the show, and since there is a lot of direct talking to the audience, it went well.  And what I found funniest was the reminder that no matter how obsessed I am with something, there are people even more obsessed.  Two girls in front of me were talking about how they had tried to influence the vote on line and how they'd seen the show 20 times.  More power to 'em!


----------



## telracs

Kinky Boots

This show had the BEST turn off your cell phone bit I've seen in ages. Since there is no show curtain, we start by looking at the outside of the Price and Son Shoe Factory. A burly gentleman walks on stage, and his cell phone rings. He answers it and says "No, I can't talk now, I'm going to work. no, i can't text you. I've got to turn off the phone. And no, no photos. EVER." While I won't say that was the funniest bit of the show, it was one of the highlights. The show tells the story of two men, Charlie, the "son" of Price and Son Shoes, and Lola, the drag queen he meets in London and from whom he gets the inspiration to make women's style boots for men in order to save his shoe factory. The show starts with the two characters as boys neither of whom wish to follow in their fathers' footsteps. Then it focuses on Charlie, who moves to London with his fiancee (a wasted Celina Carvajal). When his father dies, Charlie discovers that the factory is in dire straits and after getting help from an old friend (played by an ex-waiter acquaintance of mine named Andy Kelso who gets to sing a nice bar song that has no purpose in the show), Charlie comes across some men accosting a woman and tries to help. Well, this woman has a mean left hook, and turns out to be our cross-dressing Lola.

Billy Porter looks wonderful as Lola, but I don't believe that anyone would ever mistake him for a woman (as our burly factory worker does at one point). I think it's because I know in advance that he's a he, so I don't ever manage to forget that. I had the same problem with Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria.... Porter has a strong voice and shines in the big production numbers, but again, these numbers seem to have no purpose in the show, except to be big production numbers. Actually, that's my problem with most of the show. Too many big production numbers and not enough real heart. Of the sixteen songs listed in my Playbill, only 3 were character driven, and even of those, one was done as a performance number, not a real character driven song.

Stark Sands as Charlie has the harder role to my mind, as he is attempting to play the "realer" person. Unfortunately, the writing does not serve his character well. He seems to accept Lola as a drag queen almost immediately, but during the second act, he turns on her in a particularly vicious way. Of course, at that point he seems to be turning on everyone, but honestly, I didn't buy it. This is where Stark gets his one solo number of the night but while he sounds okay, he's hampered by some very odd staging.

Now, I have to admit, I seem to be in the minority about this show. The audience the day I saw it was really into it, and most of the on-line chatter has been positive. The show is fun, and has a good message about acceptance, but I wish they'd given us less big glitz and more soul.


----------



## That Weird Guy....

*FLASHDANCE*

Okay, where do I begin? Let's start with the good things. 
1.	The dancing was really, really good, but a little overdone. The dancers were great if not a little out of synch. Emily Padget did a great job.

Okay, now on to the not so good things&#8230;
2.	The score. The music is very forgettable. Many of the songs reminded me of other, better shows. The lyrics (when I could understand them) were laughable. I could not understand anything they sung in the opening number. I realize that people were wearing body mics, but just because you are wearing a mic does not mean that you cannot sing without projection of your voice. The solos were pretty clear, all of the ensemble numbers were unintelligible. One song/scene totally reminded me of Wedding Singer. 
3. The Finale! What finale?! The programs states that the finale is "What a Feeling (Flashdance)" sung by the Full Company. Um&#8230; where was it. The finale consisted of Alex walking over to a record player, putting on a record, starting it and then three girls enter the stage and sing about 2 minutes of the song while Alex dances to it. Very uninspiring. They missed a grand opportunity of having the entire cast rock the heck out of that song. But alas, that did not happen and I left the theater a little deflated. 
4.	The character of Hannah. They never really explained who she was, why she was in Alex's life and why Alex felt compelled to give her money every week. All they said was that they first met when Alex was 9 and Hannah saw her dance for the first time. Other than that, there was NO back story. And this was a character we were supposed to care about later on in the show. 
5.	The set. The set was actually not that bad. It was a very projection heavy set. But, the way that the set moved and did the scene changes it totally reminded me of the way they did it in The Full Monty. Even the set itself reminded me of The Full Monty. 
6.	The song "Manhunt." The staging of this number made absolutely NO sense to me. The song was a "montage scene" of Alex and Nick's first date. But the song was performed by one of the Exotic Dancers wearing like a Grace Jones type Barbarian outfit and flanked by 4 men wearing leather straps and skimpy underwear, while dancing against a backdrop of psychedelic orange and yellow swirling patterns. WHAT!?!?!? Did I miss something? 
7.	The character of Gloria. She was supposed to be this really bad dancer (the girls at the club made fun of her routines). But yet, when she danced during her songs and stuff, she was flawless and spot on with all of the other girls. Another missed opportunity here. The character had absolutely NO arc. She reminded me of a watered down version of Holly from Wedding Singer. Also, I could totally picture Amy Spanger playing that role and kicking its ass.

I think that is enough&#8230; All in all, I did not hate the show, did not love the show. Glad I saw, but I really don't need to see it again. Maybe I will get a cast album if they ever release one so I can actually understand the lyrics.


----------



## telracs

Breakfast at Tiffany's

Okay, I have to admit something. I have never seen the move Breakfast at Tiffany's. All I know is that it starred Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard and featured the song Moon River. Unfortunately, Emilia Clarke (from Game of Thrones) is no Hepburn, Cory Michael Smith is no Peppard, and Moon River is nowhere to be heard. The play does not claim to be based on the movie, but rather on the same Truman Capote story that was the basis for the movie. For those few like me who were unfamiliar with the plot, it revolves around a woman called Holly Golightly, who catches the interest of our narrator, who is referred to as Fred. Why Fred? Because he reminds Holly of her brother, and she calls him that, so everyone else does. Holly is supposedly a vivacious woman who attracts a lot of male interest, but I couldn't understand why. Clarke's accent is impossible to figure out, and I found her acting wooden. And I wasn't exactly sure if she's supposed to be a prostitute or not. As for Smith as "Fred", I do have to give him credit for stamina, since he is on stage almost the whole show as the narrator. But this device didn't work well for me, since he was telling us everything, and with his Southern accent, it was not fun to listen to. And his attraction to Holly was another confusing point, as there seemed to be some serious suggestions that the character is gay. I did enjoy some of the supporting actors, especially George Wendt as a bartender and Suzanne Bertish as a ditzy neighbor. And I have say I was impressed by the fact that there was a real cat in show. I've seen shows with dogs in them, but I think this was the first cat I've seen on stage.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

How about an Off Broadway Review?

This past weekend I went up to Bloomfield NJ to see _In The Heights_ as produced by the Montclair Operetta Club. I was seriously impressed! Full Disclosure, my brother is the President of this non-profit community theater organization so I've seen several shows of theirs -- I support them because I support the arts. They give stage time and experience to young actors, dancers, and musicians as well as scholarships to students who plan to study dramatic arts in College. My son is also the Theater Manager for the Van Fossen Theater at the Westminster Arts Center of Bloomfield College, where the performances take place. For this show, he was also the sound designer.

_In the Heights_ is a relatively new musical about the neighborhood of Washington Heights, formerly an Irish neighborhood but now primarily Hispanic. ON Broadway it won Tonys for Best Musical and Best Score. The MOC production was directed by Bob Cline and starred Gonzalo Valencia as Usnavi who owns the neighborhood bodega. He's assisted by his young cousin and is interested in Vanessa who works at the neighborhood salon. There's also local taxi dispatcher and his wife: their daughter Nina is just home from her first year at Stanford and interested in Benny who works for her father. And of course Abuela Claudia who holds the neighborhood together. The story, about "family, love, and finding your new home" according to Mr. Cline, takes place over the course of some 3 days around the 4th of July: there's a heat wave, a black out, fireworks, and neighborhood drama -- both ups and downs.

Mr Cline is a known quantity for Broadway shows -- he's directed touring companies for shows you've heard of starring people they put on magazine covers! Also a genuinely nice guy who's directed frequently for the MOC. Gonzalo "Gonzo" Valencia has been the music director for a number of the club's performances over the past few years -- he's really great at putting together small pit bands -- they usually have very limited space -- that just sound huge and utilize every skill the musicians have. And he starred in the show, this time, too! This pit had two percussionists as well as guitars, keyboards, brass, and one reed player who covered all the saxophones as well as clarinet and flute. The musical numbers were of many styles and were extremely well done. These mostly young musicians did a fantastic job!

The stage is small but the dance numbers were huge -- and I'm not even usually a huge fan of dance. But the ensemble cast made the tight choreography work and it was clear that they really really loved the show. . . . .with mostly amateurs, it is sometimes kind of obvious that there are nerves on display or bits that they don't particularly like. But as far as I could tell, everyone in the whole show really loved all the numbers -- I credit the director for instilling his love of the show into the cast. He has described it as "one of the few perfect musicals" and it's pretty clear the whole cast feels the same way. All in all, it was really pretty spectacular. I've seen a LOT of shows the group has done and this was, by far, the best one yet.

The technical aspects were great as well -- due to a hiccup with the lighting on Thursday during dress rehearsal, the opening night performance on Friday was the real 'tech' rehearsal. And it all came off great. The lighting design was really amazing -- I especially liked the fireworks -- and the sound was just right: you could hear what you needed to hear. Which was a lot as there were more than the usual number of actors who needed personal microphones. You might be surprised to know that, after a show like this, the sound and light guys are just as soaked in sweat from the exertions as the performers on the stage! Fact is: if you don't notice the lights and sound, that's probably a good thing -- but I bother to pay attention because I know those guys work as hard as the performers. 

For more information, check out Montclair Operetta Club, show info via NJ On Stage, or this interview with director Bob Cline. Seriously, if you're anywhere in the area it's worth it to make the trip. There's a matinee this afternoon, I believe, and then next weekend as well -- shows on Friday and Saturday evening as well as Sunday afternoon.


----------



## telracs

thanks Ann, i was hoping you'd post about it.


----------



## Jeff

Ann in Arlington said:


> This past weekend I went up to Bloomfield NJ...


Not that anyone cares, but my mother and father, aunts and uncles all graduated from Bloomfield High School.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Jeff said:


> Not that anyone cares, but my mother and father, aunts and uncles all graduated from Bloomfield High School.


Cool! Connections, especially unexpected ones, are always cool.


----------



## Jeff

Ann in Arlington said:


> Cool! Connections, especially unexpected ones, are always cool.


Sorry, Ann. I should have offered congratulations to your son and brother as well as gushing about the unexpected connection. I was disappointed that your brother didn't post any Christmas pictures this year, but happy that it was because he was busy doing what he loves.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

No worries, Jeff. . . . . he really does love the theater stuff . . . but is also still looking for work to pay his bills!


----------



## telracs

Little Shop of Horrors

My work and leisure schedules don't allow me as much time to attend productions of smaller theater groups as I would like, so when my friend Beth suggested we see the St. Bart's Players' production of Little Shop of Horrors and our dates aligned, I was thrilled. I have fond memories of Little Shop, starting with the Head of the Class episodes in which the gifted kids performed it, the movie version with Rick Moranis, Ellen Greene and Steve Martin, and the 2003-2004 Broadway production starring Hunter Foster, Kerry Butler, Doug Sills and Rob Bartlett. And I'm glad to say that this production will also go into the fond memory files.

Erik Hanson was wonderful as Seymour, ably helped by Jim Mullins as Mushnik and Dominic Paolillo as Orin (et al). Especially fun was David Pasteelnick as the voice of Audrey II. Usually this is an offstage role, but in this production, we get to see him. And in his green lounge singer outfit, he handles himself (and a recalcitrant mike) quite well. But while I enjoyed him, at times his presence drew my attention away from the plant that he was voicing. Luisa Boyaggi, Kristina Hoti and Zehra Abdi sang well as Chiffon, Crystal and Ronnette, but I found their characterizations a bit odd. Usually the trio is played by young women, often African-American (their characters are named after 3 girl groups), but in this production they were older, and in costume as a waitress, a cashier and a homeless woman. This led to a definite "huh?" moment when Mushnik asks them why they're not in school. Another thing that was confusing was that the show seems to be set in a diner. Since Beth knows Erik Hanson from another theater troupe, we waited to speak to him, and he said the director hadn't wanted to do a copy of a copy of the show and so set it as a show within a show, with us starting out in the diner and then all the denizens of the diner becoming the characters in the flower shop. It was an interesting idea, and for the most part it worked. The weakest link in the cast was Hope Landry. She had the Audrey voice down pat, but from my second row seat, she seemed a bit old for the role. Also, except for some moments in Suddenly Seymour, her singing voice did not seem very powerful.

As I stated above, the set is that of a diner, which the cast manages to convert nicely enough to a flower shop (and dentist office), but I did find the counter stools a bit distracting. There were some nice lighting effects during the show, and the costumes were quite good (kudos to Dominic Paollillo for his set of quick changes in the second act).

This may have been my first experience with the St. Bart's Players, but it managed to remind me of the fact that there are good theater opportunities outside of Broadway and I'll be sure to keep them on my radar and try to catch them again in the future.

One final note. In chatting with the lady next to me, I found out that she'd never seen any version of Little Shop. I found that difficult to believe, and had to remind myself that not everybody sees everything..


----------



## That Weird Guy....

*Jersey Boys*

Saw this tour on Friday. Honestly, I cannot understand what they hype surrounding this show is. I will say that the musical performances are stellar, but the book of the show leaves a little more to be desired. 
For those that do not know what this show is, it is the story of Frankie Valli and the Four Season. The narrative of the show is broken down into four seasons (get it) with each guy narrating it. Spring was narrated by Tommy DeVito (Colby Foytik), Summer by Bob Gaudio (Jason Kappus), Autumn by Nick Massi (Brandon Andrus) and finally winter by Frankie Valli (Brad Weinstock). The show really does not have that much in the way of 'book scenes.' The boys narrate a portion, then they go into a song. More narration, then another song. This was a little off-putting for me. I guess I prefer to actually see the scene and not just hear about it through someone narrating. It's like being read a story out loud and I HATE that. That is why I don't like audiobooks. When the book scenes actually happened, I was very engrossed in the story. But those were too few and far between. 
Now on to the performers. All of them did a stand up job vocally and when they actually had to act, it was very well done. Brandon Andrus as Nick Massi was my favorite. Throughout the whole show he was very quiet and a little quirky/strange. But during the second act when he finally snaps and launches into this huge tirade, it was beautiful! Really made the show for me. Weinstock as Frankie Valli definitely had the vocal chops for the role. He sounded fantastic. The entire cast sounded wonderful. Another shout out to Barry Anderson as Bob Crewe. He was quite funny in his role. The only thing that kinda made me scratch my head was the girl who was singing lead on "My Boyfriend's Back." I do not know her name, but it seemed the song was a little too low for her and she was growling half the song. It was a little too modern and did not fit the time of the show. 
All in all, I am glad I saw the show for the vocal performances, but I do not think this is a show that I need to see every time it comes to town on tour.


----------



## telracs

Macbeth

Macbeth has always struck me as Shakespeare's creepiest play. And this three person production of it really ramps up the creepy factor. The play starts with a doctor and orderly (Jenny Stirlin and Brendan Titley) helping a man (Alan Cumming) out of his clothing and examining him for wounds and such and placing his clothing in "evidence" bags. This all takes place with no audible dialogue, but when the medical people start to leave, the patient (or is he a suspect?) declaims the first line of the play, "When shall we three meet again?". Mr. Cumming then proceeds to perform the play, giving voice to most of the famous characters and their speeches. He is adept at giving each character a different voice and some mannerism that made it easy to distinguish which character is which. At least for me. I'm not certain how easy it would be for someone unfamiliar with the play or who didn't read the synopsis and character line in the playbill. The presentation is aided by some technological wizardry, three video screens that allow Mr. Cumming to portray all three witches. While Mr. Cumming voices most of the characters, the doctor and the orderly enact the dialogue between a doctor and Lady Macbeth's maid. The production has some clever breaks in the action worked in, in order to give Mr. Cumming a chance to rest. Unfortunately, these breaks in the action break the momentum of the play and at times it seems very slow. We never find out why Mr. Cumming's character is being held, or why he decides to perform Macbeth for his unseen audience, but these are quibbles that I managed to ignore thanks to Mr. Cumming's bravura performance.


----------



## telracs

The Last Five Years

Jason Robert Brown's song cycle has an interesting twist. We follow Jamie (Adam Kantor), an author and Cathy (Betsy Wolfe), a struggling actress through their 5 year relationship, but in opposite directions. We watch Cathy from end of things traveling back to the beginning, while we watch Jamie starting at the beginning and traveling forward. The pair only interact in the middle of the relationship, at their wedding. This causes some awkwardness in the staging, since there are times when we are watching what is supposedly a conversation, but we only see/hear one of the participants. Both Wolfe and Kantor make their characters sympathetic and show their strengths and flaws, so that even though I knew the ending, I still held out hope. I enjoy Jamie's early songs a bit more than Cathy's since he gets the bulk of the "up" moments. But her "Summer in Ohio", a lament about the joys of summer stock "..forty miles east of Cincinnati.." is absolutely spot on and hysterical.


----------



## telracs

Pippin

One of the best known songs from the show (Corner of the Sky) was the "theme" song of my graduating class in high school. Now, the words to the song are really inspiring, all about finding your place, being true to yourself and all that stuff. HOWEVER, in the context of the show, the song is sung by the self-centered title character who thinks he's so wonderful that he deserves everything and that he knows it all. Sort of like a number of the people I went to high school with...

But I digress. The play tells the story of one man-child's search for something extraordinary. And a lot of the fun is in the way it is presented. We are watching a troupe of players (lead the day I saw it by the excellent Stephanie Pope), perform the story of Charlemange's son, Pippin. In the original production (with the leading player portrayed by Ben Vereen), the troupe was an acting/dancing troupe. In this revival, we have a circus troupe. So in addition to Bob Fosse inspired dance numbers, we also get acrobats, balance artists and trapeze acts. While all the acts were enjoyable (most especially Andrea Martin on the trapeze), I found them a bit much. Instead of supporting the story, at times they overshadowed it.

Most of the acting in the show was wonderful, especially the aforementioned Stephanie Pope as the Leading Player and Andrea Martin as Berthe. Terrence Mann was wonderful as Charles, but I can't help wondering when he got so grey. His real life wife, Charlotte d'Amboise, plays Charles' wife Fastrada, and does well in the dance heavy role and Rachel Bay Jones was fun as Catherine. Unfortunately, the weakest link for me was Matthew James Thomas as Pippin. His voice wasn't that strong, and I never really warmed to him.

My biggest problem with the show was an "updated" ending. 
Spoiler...


Spoiler



In the original, Pippin decides to settle down with Catherine and her son, even though that means giving up all the lights and colors and magic. In this production, Pippin and Catherine exit, leaving the son alone on the stage. He starts playing with some of the left over props, and the players reappear, setting the stage for the next self-centered, searching generation.


 I found this to be a disappointing ending, having always enjoyed the original.

This is a fun show, and I think it'll be around for a while, and it's one that I am currently recommending.


----------



## That Weird Guy....

Right now it looks like me next review won't be until I see Sister Act in August. Oh wait, there is Hairspray in Concert at the 5th Avenue with Jinkx Monsoon (Winner of Season 5 of RuPaul's Drag Race). And if I can go with my friends to see Evil Dead the Musical again (would be my third time!)


----------



## telracs

Motown

At intermission, my sister turned to me and said "you're not enjoying this much are you?" Honestly, no, I wasn't. During the first act, I was reminded of Dreamgirls, Jersey Boys and Memphis. And Motown was paling in comparison to them, especially Dreamgirls. But that made sense to me, since Dreamgirls was the fictionalized story of Diana Ross and the Supremes with one of its characters based on Motown founder Berry Gordy, and Motown the Musical is Gordy's version of his life story. So it follows a similar path to that in Dreamgirls, but it does give more stage time to other Motown artists. Unfortunately, it keeps repeating the same actions. Gordy discovers an artist (Mary Wells, the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, the Jacksons), makes them into big stars, and then they abandon him and move on. The musical tries to excuse Mr. Gordy's controlling behavior and set him up as a misunderstood marketing genius who just wanted the best for everybody but was betrayed by most people in his life. Sorry, not buying it.... I found the character manipulative and the story self-serving and couldn't sympathize with the main character. Diana Ross comes out pretty good in this story, not quite as pathetic and needy as her fictionalized counterpart in Dreamgirls. Of the big Motown artists, Smokey Robinson fares the best, coming across as sympathetic and being Gordy's friend. Marvin Gaye is also well portrayed, but a line that Gordy is "not my father" leaves a bit of a sour aftertaste, seeing as how Gaye was shot by his own father. Unfortunately, in an attempt to shoehorn a large number of Motown artists and songs (the playbill lists almost 60 songs) into the show, a number of them get shortchanged. We get to see "performances" by Stevie Wonder and by the Jacksons, but the characters are cardboard cut-outs.

Lest it seem that there was nothing I liked about the show, let me say the performers were great. While I didn't like the character, I did enjoy Brandon Victor Dixon's stage presence. Valisa LeKae does a wonderful Diana Ross, and Charl Brown as Smokey Robinson and Bryan Terrell Clark as Marvin Gaye sound and look like their characters. The show is heavy on "concert type" performances, and the sets and lighting are quite good. And the music is the best part of the show. Hearing all those Motown classics was a real treat.

Interesting point about the music. The playbill lists some 60 songs, but the cast recording seems to have only 1/3 of them on it. I guess while they got the rights to perform the songs, they weren't able to obtain recording rights. So, I think I'll just go listen to the original versions, which is available as a CD titled "Motown: The Classis Songs that Inspired the Broadway Show!" (exclamation point is theirs, not mine).


----------



## telracs

The Assembled Parties

This was a show that I walked out of wondering what its point was. The play takes place at two Christmas dinners (which is odd, since the family is almost stereotypically Jewish), in 1980 and 2000. There's a lot of talking amongst the 7 characters, most of which adds up to nothing much, but there are some hints about problems within the family. The second act has only 4 characters on stage (with the voice of a 5th), and rehashes the same stuff from act one with a lot more talking which in the end left me feeling that I had been eavesdropping on people I didn't really care about. Judith Light commands the stage as Faye, and Jessica Hecht is mostly fun to watch as Julie, but the menfolk in the cast left me cold, especially Jake Silberman who played the roles of Scott and Tim. The set director had way too much fun with the set during act one, with rotating rooms that were meant to show how big the apartment was, but just got irritating.

Interesting side note.... I keep getting a google banner ad for this show on the bottom of my KB page....


----------



## telracs

The Trip to Bountiful

For some reason, I keep mangling the title of this show to "A Trip to The Bountiful." Okay, the correct title is "The Trip to Bountiful", Bountiful being the name of the town in Texas that the elderly Carrie Watts (played by the incredible Cicely Tyson) wants to visit one last time before she dies. Carrie is living in Houston with her henpecked son Ludie (Cuba Gooding Jr.) and his *itch of a wife (Vanessa Williams). Carrie manages to hide her pension check from her daughter-in-law and board a bus that will get her close to Bountiful. On her trip she meets a young army wife going home to her parents while her husband is overseas (Condola Rashad), a helpful bus depot employee (Arthur French) and surprisingly sympathetic sheriff (Tom Wopat). And ultimately, when Ludie and his wife catch up with her, even they get caught up in the joy of her journey. While the entire cast is good, the show ultimately belongs to Tyson,who is on stage for almost the whole thing and is the center around which everything revolves. Her determination to get back to the home she once had tugs at the heart, and when she starts singing a hymn in the bus station, not only do the other characters join in, but so did some of the audience. And without breaking character, Tyson made it clear that she heard the audience and that we were all part of her. Adding to the enjoyment of the show was the wonderful scenic design, from the Watts' cramped apartment in Houston, to two bus depots, a bus itself and ultimately the house in Bountiful where Carrie was raised. 
Until the appearance of Tom Wopat as the sheriff, I hadn't consciously realized that this production was an African American re-casting of a show that was originally produced with a Caucasian cast. Sometimes this color blind casting can feel like a gimmick, or a bit forced, but since the desire for return to ones roots is a universal one, in this show it didn't really seem to make a difference. We all have a Bountiful inside us to return to, and I hope the we are as lucky as Mrs. Watts to find people along the way who will help us find it.


----------



## telracs

Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike

Let me get this out of the way right away. This was the FUNNIEST show I have seen in quite some time. Even my sister laughed out loud.

Vanya (David Hyde Pierce) and his adopted sister Sonia (Kristine Neilsen) are spending a typical day squabbling outside of the Bucks County home where they were raised and where they took care of their aged parents, until their sister Masha (Signourney Weaver) arrives with her boy toy Spike (Billy Magnussen). Masha is a movie actress who has been supporting her siblings, but has now come to town to attend a costume party and to tell them she is selling the house. Adding to the hilarity is the siblings' housekeeper Cassandra (Shalita Grant), who true to her name is a prophetess that no-one believes, and a young neighbor Nina (Leisel Allen Yeager). The show is a true ensemble piece, with each of the performers getting a moment to shine. Both Grant and Neilsen have wonderful moments, but it is Hyde Pierce's diatribe against cell phones and modern technology that stole the show for me.

This is a show where all of the elements work. The acting as mentioned above, the incredible beauty of the set, even the costumes which ranged from practical to whimsical. While the play is heavy on Chekov references, a knowledge of the Russian playwright is not necessary to have a laugh filled experience.


----------



## telracs

The Nance

There has been a lot of on-line chatter about what the final scene of The Nance means. Unfortunately, by the time the show was over, I didn't really care what happened to the main character.

Nathan Lane plays Chauncey Miles, a vaudeville actor who specializes in playing a "nance". A nance was an overly broadly played homosexual character usually portrayed by a straight male. However, Chauncey is gay. The play starts with Chauncey trolling for a one night stand, and meeting up with Ned, a recent arrival to NY from Buffalo. Although Chauncey thinks their encounter will be a quick one, the men connect on more than a sexual level, and start a real relationship. This brings Ned, and us, into Chauncey's vaudeville world, which is being threatened by Mayor LaGaurdia and his morality laws. Chauncey is a complex character, but I did not find him sympathetic. For those expecting Nathan Lane's comedic persona, it was difficult to find here in Chauncey. Lewis Stadlen was actually the more comic presence here, and he was amusing. The trio of Jenni Barber, Andrea Burns and Cady Huffman as the supporting ladies of the vaudeville show were funny at some points, but like Nathan's Chauncey, Huffman's Slyvie was too abrasive. Jonny Orsini was excellent as Ned, I found his character the most sympathetic and realistic. In fact, I think the show would have been better if it were his story, since he's the one who actually matures and changes over time.

Since Chauncey and most of the rest of the characters are vaudeville actors, the production incorporates a number of vaudeville-esque numbers. I found these distracting, and not all that enjoyable. In fact, I guess that sums up my ultimate opinion of The Nance. Too much going on, too distracting and not really enjoyable.


----------



## telracs

Murder Ballad

From the pictures below, hopefully you will get the feeling that this was not your standard staged musical. The four actors in the show performed in the center area, standing on the stage at the far end, walking on the bar, sleeping on the pool table and moving around (and even standing on) the tables in the middle. Tables at which audience members were also seated. When I bought my tickets, I couldn't quite figure out the lay out of the theater (when last I was there, it was a normal theater with seats and a stage). But I lucked out, and our seats were in the perfect spot, behind the bar and looking down on the action, and out of the hustle and bustle. I would not have been happy being in the middle of things, I find it too distracting.

Murder Ballad is the story of Tom, Sara and Michael, and told by an unnamed narrator who may be more than she seems. The show is completely sung through, and VERY loud, which makes it a bit difficult to follow. But, basically, Tom and Sara were living together and broke up. She then meets and marries Michael and has a child with him. Five years later, feeling depressed about the fact that her baby is no longer a baby, Sara reconnects with Tom, who gets a bit obsessed and threatens her marriage and happiness. Michael goes to confront Tom, Sara goes to keep them from fighting, and in the end


Spoiler



//our narrator, who is in fact Tom's current girlfriend, kills Tom//.



As I said, the music is very loud and the lyrics are sometimes difficult to decipher. The actions are even harder to decipher, because even though 5 years have supposedly passed, the actors don't change their costumes or mannerisms, and seem frozen in time. And the "costumes" for the most part are simply street clothes, and could be from any time from the 1980's to now. All four of the performers work hard, but I never really felt any sympathy for the characters and felt that the whole thing was to much of a gimmick for me.

Side note: The day did have one interesting bit. At one point, Cassie Levy's mic pack died. So suddenly, she's trying to sing, unamplified over the loud music. When she was near one of the other actors, her voice was picked up, but when she moved away, she was inaudible. So, one of the stage hands gave her a hand mike. Which didn't work.... A few minutes later, the narrator handed her a second hand mike. Which.... didn't work. Eventually, she was able to exit the playing area long enough to get the pack either fixed or replaced. Gotta give her credit for trying so hard, but in the end, it just pointed out how loud everything was and how dependent the actors were on their amplification.

Second note: I don't normally take pictures inside a theater, but they said we could take pics before and after, but not during, the show.


----------



## Jeff

Good review, thanks. Sounds like an awful opera. Aside from being too loud, was the music any good?


----------



## telracs

Jeff said:


> Good review, thanks. Sounds like an awful opera. Aside from being too loud, was the music any good?


listening to the cast recording after the show, i found that there were some songs i liked, but i won't be pulling the recording too much.

The Little Mermaid

For this show, we are going off-Broadway. Way out to the middle of New Jersey actually. The Papermill Playhouse in Millburn, NJ is one of my favorite places to see shows. It's an hour train ride from Manhattan to Millburn, and the trains only run every hour, making it a long day, but it's usually worth it. We haven't been out to Millburn in a while, due to the fact that the Playhouse has shortened the runs of their shows, which made it more difficult to fit a trip to NJ into our schedule. But I found out that a friend of mine was going to be going to see Little Mermaid with her family on a day we were free, so I snagged two tickets for me and my sister. And a long day was indeed had, but it was a fun one.

Little Mermaid played Broadway in 2008-2009, during Disney's string of Broadway productions. It actually replaced another Disney musical at the Lunt-Fontanne theater. The live show expands the story from the movie, making Ursula the sea witch into Ariel's aunt, looking to depose her brother Triton. However, it drops the sea-witch's attempt to trap the Prince by using Ariel's voice. This production at Papermill seems to have changed the ending as it was on Broadway, or else I'm mis-remembering, because I thought that Prince Eric was present at the final battle between Ariel and Ursula.

As is always the case at Papermill, the cast was wonderful. Jessica Grove was cute and fun as Ariel, and Nick Adams was fun as Prince Eric. I had been a bit worried about him carrying off the part, because the last thing I'd seen him in was Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. I found Edward Watts a bit dull as King Triton, but he was going up against the magnificent Norm Lewis in my memory. Liz McCartney was incredible as Ursula, ably backed by Scott Leiendecker and Sean Patrick Doyle as Flotsam and Jetsam.

The hardest part of presenting Little Mermaid is showing under water movement. The Broadway production utilized "heelys" for smooth movement, which kind of worked, looked a bit silly. In this production, they didn't use the wheeled approach that much (Flounder used a modified skateboard), but instead had the actors swaying as if they were being buffeted by the water. Gotta admit, it made me a bit seasick at point, but it didn't detract from the show. In the end, the show was fun and I'm glad we decided to go.


----------



## telracs

Much Ado About Nothing

Okay, we're going to switch from live theater to a movie version of a Shakespeare play. Joss Whedon filmed this version of "Much Ado About Nothing" in less than two weeks in the midst of doing "The Avengers." The movie is filmed in black and white and was filmed at Whedon's home with a number of actors familiar in the Whedonverse. At the core of the story are Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof), two people with a past who refuse to admit they love each other. While their friends attempt to trick them into falling for each other, Claudio (Fran Kranz) falls for Beatrice cousin Hero (Jillian Morgese). Surrounding the couples are Hero's father Leonato (Clark Gregg), the "governor" of Messina and his superior, Don Pedro (Reed Diamond) who has in tow his rebellious brother Don John (Sean Maher) and the brother's henchmen (Riki Lindhome and Spencer Treat Clark). The brother and his cronies want to cause unhappiness and manage to convince Claudio and Don Pedro that Hero is, ahem, "tainted". Nathan Fillion has a bit part as a constable, one of Shakespeare's country bumpkin roles.

While I had been worried about the story being set in modern times (complete with iPhones, SLR digital cameras and Secret Service type earpieces), in fact the updating works. Of course, some plot points (like Don John's rebellion and the whole not marrying Hero because she's not pure thing) require some suspension of disbelief, but for Whedon and this cast, I was willing to do it.

All of the acting in this movie was incredible, with the Shakespearean lines sounding like real conversation. Best of all, in my eyes, was Reed Diamond as Don Pedro. He inhabited the role perfectly and was clearing having fun with it. Clark Gregg was also excellent as Leonato, and Sean Maher was appropriately oily as the evil Don John. Although I was a bit confused at first, since Diamond and Maher do not look anything alike, so having them play brothers was odd. Acker and Denisof as the sparring lovers were fun, but I must admit I preferred Denisof with the beard he was sporting in the beginning of the movie. And I have to give him (and the cameraman) credit for a soliloquy filmed while he was running up and down stairs. The only person I didn't quite click with was Fillion, but that may be because I don't like when Shakespeare writes "fools" and malaprops.

To show how much I liked the movie, as we walked out of the movie, I turned to my friend and remarked that I'm getting this as soon as it is out on DVD. Well, actually, I'm hoping it ends up on amazon streaming soon.


----------



## Jeff

Good review, as usual. I'll make it a point to see the movie.


----------



## telracs

iLuminate: Artist of Light

This hip-hop dance/light effect group will be known by those who watch America's Got Talent. I don't watch the show, so this "electrifying story told through dance and technology" was a blank canvas to me. For those of you like me who haven't heard of them, the dancers perform in "light suits" which are black costumes outfitted with neon lights. While this may sound weird, the lights outline their forms and so we are watching characters made of light. Because of the incredible control of the lights (and the fact that the piece is performed in a very dark theater), dancers can seem to disappear from one spot and reappear across stage, or float in the air. The "story" is that of Jacob, a young man with a magic paintbrush that creates lines of light and can bring light to life. The brush is stolen, and Jacob must rescue it and his girlfriend. There is practically no dialogue, and the 60 minute dance performance is done to very loud music. VERY loud. Way too loud. While the light effects were incredible, and the dancing was fun, the painfully loud music gave me a headache that tempered my appreciation of the show. I also found the "story" a bit hard to follow, and as time went on, I was impressed by the artistry, but not really enjoying the show.


----------



## geniebeanie

My favorite musical of all times is Rent.  I was lucky enough to see it with the original cast.  I have seen a lot of musicals,starting with Mary Martin's Peter Pan.  I have seen every thing from Rocky Horror Picture Show to Phantom Of The Opera,with Michael Crawfort.  Another face was a all black musical called Don't Bother Me I Can't Cope,  I have tried to find the soundtrack for years.  I had it on eight track but would like a CD.  The cope was in the seventies.  Even saw Donny Osmond in Joseph and the Technicolor Dream Coat.


----------



## telracs

Matilda

Okay, I may be the only person I know who never read the Roald Dahl book or saw the movie version of this story. However, since the show was originally mounted in London and that production has a cast recording, I had heard some of the music. Good thing that I had, because between impenetrable accents and over-miking, some songs were impossible to understand when sung live. The show starts out with a loooooong song extolling the virtues of the children on-stage. Then we meet the Wormwoods, a couple so self-absorbed that Mrs. Wormwood didn't even realize she was 9 months pregnant. Poor Matilda is smarter than all the rest of the Wormwoods put together but unfortunately, this just earns her scorn in her family. She finds some solace at the library, where she spins the story of an acrobat and an "escapologist" to the sympathetic but clueless librarian. Also sympathetic, but ineffective is her teacher, Miss Honey, who is firmly under the thumb of the headmistress of the school where Matilda is sent. Things do work out for our heroine at the end, but to be honest, the story is so dark that I expected Matilda to be kicked out and living on the street at the end of it.

The sets were quite interesting, with the stage surrounded by what my mind classified as "scrabble" tiles. The start of the show was slightly delayed, so we had fun sitting in our seats and stringing the letters into words. The labelling continues when the show starts, the Wormwoods' fireplace has the word "soot" on it, and when Matilda is at Miss Honey's home, the floor reads "home sweet home". One inventive song even had a section where alphabet tiles popped out of the wall while the kids sang. It worked during the show, but listening to it again afterwards, I find it a bit annoying, since they do not use the first letter of the word during that section, but rather a sound (ended for N, why for Y and phys ed for Zed). There was an incredible swing set scene which was fun to watch.

For some unexplained reason, the role of Miss Trunchbull, the headmistress of the school and the main villian of the piece is being played by a man in drag. Bertie Carvel was excellent (and has great legs), but the knowing that he was a man took me out of the piece a bit. I found Lauren Ward appropriately "Pathetic" as Miss Honey. We saw Oona Laurence as Matilda (there are 4 girls rotating in the role) and she was cute, but a bit difficult to understand, as I stated above.

For the most part, I got swept away in the show while watching it, but even during the show I found parts of it that didn't work for me. I felt that the all the characters were played too broadly and the roles of the librarian and the "Russian Mafia" characters were drawn so broadly as to border on racist. And I don't find situations amusing that would be considered child abuse in real life. And lastly, even though there are kids in the show, I don't think I would take a 6 or 7 year old to see this.


----------



## telracs

First Date

Going on a blind date can be painful, embarrassing, and frustrating. Or they can be fun, festive and a triumph of hope over past experience. Fortunately, the new musical, First Date is more the second than the first. At least for the audience.... We get to observe buttoned down Aaron (Zachary Levi) and hipster Casey (Krysta Rodriguez) as they navigate all the pitfalls of two strangers meeting for the first time. We also get to eavesdrop on the voices in their head giving them some helpful (and not so helpful) advice and on the cell phone messages left by Casey's gay friend Reggie (an over the top Kristoffer Cusick) in order to "rescue" her if she needs to escape from the date. The play takes place in real time, so except for an opening ensemble number about dating, we are experiencing things as the couple does, including "First Impressions", "The Awkward Pause", and "The Check". Unfortunately, we also get to experience a love song delivered by their waiter, a production number titled "I'd Order Love" that really didn't do much for me. Most of the songs are fun, but a couple go on a bit long.

Zachary Levi (who apparently is some big TV star) is quite good as Aaron. He moves well on stage and has a nice singing voice. Krysta Rodriguez (who I last saw as Wednesday Addams in the Addams Family) is appropriately brittle as Casey, but I felt I was seeing her do the same things that she'd done in Addams Family. The ensemble of Bryce Rynesss, Kristoffer Cusick, Blake Hammond, Sara Chase and Kate Loprest all slip into and out of the action well, taking center stage as appropriate, then fading into the background when their moments are done.
The restaurant set was nice, and the opening projections were incredible.

While watching the show, I was swept along in it, but thinking back, I find myself considering the characters as a bit stereotypical. The buttoned down professional, the NY hipster who loves bad boys, the gay waiter who wants to be an actor, the over the top gay friend, the emasculating ex-girlfriend, the player best friend..... These aren't people, they are types. So, while I cared about Aaron and Casey while I was on their First Date, I don't really care to hear more about the second if they ever have it.


----------



## telracs

Soul Doctor

I've been struggling with how to write up this review ever since seeing the show. Not because of what I want to say about the show, but because I'm not sure how familiar people are with the subject of this bio-musical, one Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. Growing up, I knew Carlebach as the person who took Hebrew music mainstream and started a whole industry. He took portions of the daily prayers, set them to repetitive but catchy melodies and infused them with fun. To my conservative community, he also seemed to be a bit "far out", a hippie who had turned his back on Orthodoxy and embraced the New Age philosophies prevalent in San Francisco during the summer of love.

All of the above was re-enforced for me during "Soul Doctor: Journey of a Rockstar Rabbi." But in addition to what I already knew, I found out that Carlebach had escaped Nazi Austria with his family, moved from Orthodoxy to Hasidism before moving west, and apparently had a deep and abiding friendship with Nina Simone. When watching bio-musicals, I'm always a bit skeptical (especially when both of the parties involved are deceased), so watching the supposed first meeting of Carlebach and Simone at a bar where she was performing left me cold. As did his wandering into a church (coincidentally across from his father's synagogue), where Simone's mother was preaching. Or his giving a street performer 20 dollars and her giving him her guitar which leads to his being "discovered."

Some of the problem with the show is the dialogue, which is very stiff and stilted. I always got the impression of Carlebach as a loose and flexible kind of guy, so the speech patterns used by Eric Anderson and the rest of the cast felt off. Another big problem I had with the show is that it is told in flashback. Carlebach is in Vienna performing and his old teacher (who Carlebach calls a "holy heckler") shows up and berates him for performing in a city where such terrible things happened. This of course starts his memory going, and off we go back to the past.

I found the story bland and predictable, and at times I felt sorry for the actors. Amber Iman sings wonderfully as Nina Simone, but I felt that both she,and Zarah Mahler, playing a character who may or may not be based on Carlebach's wife are wasted. The only two people who I felt weren't wasted were Eric Anderson as Shlomo, who is on stage almost the whole time, and Ron Orbach, who has the chore of playing not only Shlomo's Holy Heckler, but a host of other minor characters. The show attempts a feel good vibe, with the ensemble going out into the audience during some songs and trying to get people to sing and clap along. I never did, because even though in my youth I had sung and enjoyed some of Carlebach's songs, that day at the theater I just wanted the whole thing to be over. On a happier note, I did take the opportunity to look up some of Carlebach's and Simone's music on amazon when I got home. While I doubt I'll pick up the cast recording of Soul Doctor if one gets made, I might actually pick up some of the original songs.


----------



## telracs

Odd Couple

Today we're going WAY off Broadway, all the way to the West Coast and the Historic Everett Theatre in Everett Washington. My friend TJ played Vinnie in this production of Neil Simon's The Odd Couple and he was really funny. He walked off with a potted plant at one point. Ric Calhoun was hysterical as Oscar and I enjoyed everyone in the ensemble. But I think their curtain was out to get them. It didn't quite want to close all the way, and it tried to eat a couple of people.


----------



## telracs

Romeo and Juliet

I like Shakespeare. I like reading Shakespeare and I really like watching Shakespeare. As a matter of fact, I'm seeing five Shakespeare plays between September and January. However, I don't love all Shakespeare equally. I prefer comedies to histories and tragedies. And yesterday was Romeo and Juliet, perhaps the quintessential Shakespearean tragedy. This production stars Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad. I'm not a big movie goer, so Bloom is not really all that familiar. Condola Rashad, on the other hand, enthralled me last season in "A Trip to Bountiful." Mr. Bloom is Caucasian, and Ms. Rashad is African-American. So, once Ms. Rashad was cast, a decision was made to have all the Montagues be portrayed by Caucasians, and all the Capulets by people of color (I do not use the phrase African-American because I'm not certain that all the Capulets were played by American actors). One odd bit of casting had the incredible Jayne Houdyshell as Juliet's nurse. While Ms. Houdyshell was her normal hysterical self, she is Caucasian and having her as the sole pale face in the household was a bit jarring.

In the acting department, both Ms.Rashad and Mr. Bloom did well. I don't know how old Ms. Rashad is, but she looks young enough to be innocent and plays the role as a love struck teenager. She does her parts in the balcony scene quickly, and is convincing as a young girl talking to herself. Unfortunately, in her haste, she makes it difficult for the audience to hear and enjoy Shakespeare's words. Mr. Bloom does the same thing at some points. In fact, most of the cast seem to be speeding through their lines, so I suspect directorial, not performer choices. As I stated above, I enjoyed Jayne Houdyshell as the nurse, and I also very much enjoyed Roslyn Ruff as Lady Capulet. Justin Guarini did well enough as Paris, but they cut some of his part (Paris does not show up at Juliet's tomb in this production), which annoyed me quite a bit. Partially for his sake, but also because the scene between Paris and Romeo serves to show how far both men are willing to go for love and honor. All of the supporting cast did well, although both Chuck Cooper as Lord Capulet and Geoffrey Owen as Prince Escaulus seemed to be having some vocal issues.

The production is done in modern dress, well, modern dress for the men at least. Mr. Bloom is in jeans and a poet shirt (and is in the SAME outfit throughout the entire play), his Montague kinsmen in similar outfits, while the Capulets seem to be the better dressed menfolk, most of them are in suits or button down shirts and nice pants. The woman are in simple shifts and dresses which don't suggest any specific time period. Mr. Bloom makes his entrance on a motorcycle, much to the enjoyment of the fangirls sitting in the first row of the theater.

My biggest disappointments with the show were the abridgment of Paris's part and the haste in which the actors spoke. But then again, as my sister said, if they'd taken their time, we would have been there for 3 hours.....


----------



## telracs

Lady Day

Whenever I watch a musical biography, I wonder how "right" the writers have gotten it. And when part of the musical is a recreation of a concert, I wonder even more. Lady Day, currently running off Broadway at Little Shubert, takes us to London in 1954, for the rehearsal and last concert of Billie Hollday's European tour. And if it's an accurate representation, I'm glad I wasn't there that day. Holliday was hours late for the rehearsal and nasty to her band. And unfortunately for the audience at the Shubert theater, the playwright has Holliday remembering her childhood in a series of flashbacks that are boring at best and painful at worst. Watching Dee Dee Bridgewater skipping as a ten year one moment then writhing in a simulated rape scene made me shudder. The Billie Holliday song that I most wanted to hear was "Strange Fruit" and it is performed in the first act. But it is done so subtly that my sister didn't even notice it, or catch the lyrics. As I mentioned, the second act recreates the concert that night. Holliday is portrayed as drunk and staggering and rambling. Again, this was painful to watch. However, once video projections start and Bridgewater moves on to singing, the concert effect is wonderful. Unfortunately, it's not enough to rescue the rest of the depressing show.


----------



## telracs

The Glass Menagerie

Once upon a time, I was told the difference between movies and plays was that movies were usually the director's vision, while plays were the domain of the writers. I guess that is true of living writers, but lately it seems that the directors are driving the revivals of classic plays. Case in point, the new production of Tennessee Williams' "Glass Menagerie". When Williams' words are the center of our attention spoken by Zach Quinto, Cherry Jones and Celia Keenan-Bolger, the production is wonderful. But when we drift from the words into arty concepts and design, the play drags. The playing space is surrounded by water, and at various times, three of the actors lean over the edge of the stage in what I thought of as the "Titanic" pose. In addition, although there are no dishes or props on the dining room table, Zach Quinto stirs a huge cup of coffee (it must be huge to make him circle his arm that much), and Cherry Jones and Celia Keenan-Bolger spent a good 5 minutes pantomiming what I think was a setting of the table.

You may have noticed that I only mentioned three of the four actors in this play. That's because Brian J. Smith as the Gentleman Caller wasn't in the league of the other three. He came across as strident instead of self assured, and I found him grating. I expect great things from Cherry Jones and Celia Keenan-Bolger, and both women lived up to my expectations. I had been worried about Zach Quinto, since I was in the minority and did not particularly enjoy his portrayal of Spock. Happily, I forgot about Spock within the first few minutes of the show and was drawn into the world of Tom Wingfield.

I didn't love the water around the stage effect, but the rest of the set was beautiful, with fire escapes climbing up to the ceiling. Also beautiful were the costumes especially the dresses worn by Jones and Keenan-Bolger in the second act.

The play is ultimately depressing, but the audience around me seemed to enjoy it. I appreciated the acting, but wish the director had trusted the words more.


----------



## That Weird Guy....

Carrie the Musical (Balagan Theatre, Seattle. Directed by Louis Hobson):
                As a whole it was a really good production and I really enjoyed it. There were a few flaws though. Let’s start with the good things. Keaton Whittaker was perfect as Carrie. This 17 year old actress has a great set of pipes and her acting skills are top notch. There were a few vocal missteps, but it only added to the performance. Her voice is not quite fully matured and it helped relate to the character as a young girl who is scared of what is happening to her and not sure of where she fits in into the scheme of things. It was a nice change from the vocal powerhouses we have heard before in this role. Kendra Kassebaum was good as Miss Gardner. Her vocals were nice and clear and her duets with Carrie were soft and pleasant. Her acting was a little stilted and it did not look like she was trying that much. She needed a little more emotion in here scenes with Carrie. Billy Nolan was played by Andrew Brewer and I liked him better than Ben Thompson in the 2012 New York production. He had a better vocal range and his acting complimented his scene partner. Plus it helped that we was really good looking and there were a few scenes where he removed his shirt and we could bask in his physical glory. Tessa Archer as Chris was so perfect for her role. She played Chris with a maniacal, bitchy glee. She rocked on her songs and during ‘The World According to Chris,” you really saw the inner struggle that Chris is battling. The scenes with her and Billy were riveting. They played evil off each other really well. The best thing about the production was the piece I was most worried about, Alice Ripley as Margaret White. The acting was, of course, spectacular and you can definitely tell she is a Tony winning actress. The acting choices she made were very different from other actresses I have seen in the role on stage and in film. Then again, no one plays crazy like Alice. The things she can do with her facial expressions, saying one thing while her face conveys another is nothing short of stunning. Her vocal quality has greatly improved since I first heard her sing “When There’s No One” in June. She was still a little shaky on some parts, but as with Keaton, it only added to the performance. The only downside was that sometimes she would cradle Carrie during their duets and Alice was singing right into Keaton’s mic and was drowning her out. 
Now for the no-so-great things. Larissa Schmitz sang really well as Sue Snell, but her acting was real wooden. It looked like she was just phoning it in. No real emotional arc or anything. And of course there were sound issues. You would think after a few weeks of tech and a week of performances, the sound people would know when actors are onstage and saying their lines and turn on their mics. That got a little annoying and it was a little unbalanced. During “In,” the boys’ vocals drowned out the girls’ vocals. Those were really the only downsides to the show. 
As for the physical production itself, the set was sparse and interesting. Just a back wall with cut outs for doors and windows and parts of it broken and crumbling. It looked like it was painted dark grey with white splatters. It was really effective when hit with different colored lights. The few amounts of furniture were also used effectively. The lighting was also stand-out. Though some uses of the Disco Ball did not really fit. Oh and unless you were sitting close, you could not see Margaret’s facial expressions that well as she almost seemed to me lit in shadows 90% of the time. It was great to have them actually dump a bucket of ‘blood’ on Carrie during the prom and not use digital projection for the effect. That was neat to see. And when Margaret stabbed Carrie at the end, she did it slowly and you could see the blade ‘going into her back.’ 
The costumes were typical High School kid clothes for the ensemble, a track suit for Miss Gardner and frumpy jeans, shirt and sweater for Carrie. Margaret’s costumes were… interesting. A mid knee-length nightgown with a floral patterned Housecoat over it. A little too revealing for the kind of character she was supposed to be playing, and (I am not sure if this was a character choice or a personal choice) she kept tugging at the bottom of it to cover her knees. For the final scene, she wore what almost seemed like an homage to the original Broadway production. She wore a very severe floor length black dress which reminded me of the costume Betty Buckley wore in the original. 
I am really excited to see the show again next Saturday.


----------



## Sapphire

We saw the traveling production of "Book of Mormon" last week. This satire of Mormon mission life offered great music with fun lyrics. The quality of the acting, singing, and dancing was excellent. I found the production hilarious. I would be interested in hearing the opinion of some Mormons about this show. I do have to say that Jews and Christians took their share of punch lines, too.


----------



## telracs

Sapphire said:


> We saw the traveling production of "Book of Mormon" last week. This satire of Mormon mission life offered great music with fun lyrics. The quality of the acting, singing, and dancing was excellent. I found the production hilarious. I would be interested in hearing the opinion of some Mormons about this show. I do have to say that Jews and Christians took their share of punch lines, too.


my review of BOM is on page 2 of this thread. I'm glad you found it hilarious, but I did not.


----------



## telracs

Honeymoon in Vegas (the musical)

Tony Danza, song and dance man? Not an image that really sprang to mind before seeing this show at the Papermill in New Jersey, and while the dance part was decent, his singing was not so great. His acting, however, was spot on. Danza plays Tommy Korman, the Vegas "businessman" who sees a girl who looks like his deceased wife, and decides to do anything to get her. While Mr. Danza is the big name in the cast, the real star for me was Rob McClure, who plays Jack Singer, the hapless boyfriend. McClure played Charlie Chaplin on Broadway last year, and brings the same flexibility of body and voice to his role now. From his entrance with the infectious song "Betsy Loves Me" to his attempts to deflect the amourous advances of a Hawaiian hottie, to his confrontation of deceased mother in the "garden of disapponted mothers", to derring do as a "flying Elvis", every time he was on the stage I was smiling. Also fun to watch was David Josefberg who plays a cheesy lounge singer in Act 1 and the head flying Elvis in Act 2. Byrnne O'Malley was a bit bland as Betsy, the girlfriend. Nancy Opel is fine as Jack's dead mother, popping up in unexpected places, but I felt she was a bit underused as was Mathew Salvidar as Danza's henchman. 
The band was on stage and was well used in both the Vegas and Hawaii segments, and the costumer even had them in different outfits for the two acts. 
The musical follows the movie pretty closely from what I've been told, so was familiar to most of the audience. I knew the basic storyline, but have never seen the movie, but the plot is pretty easy to follow and it was a fun journey. 
The show is hoping to transfer to a Broadway theater, and if it does, especially if Mr. McClure is still in it, I'll be getting tickets.


----------



## telracs

Twelfe Night Or What You Will and The Tragedie of King Richard The Third

I've written the titles above as they are on tall the promo material for the shows. The plays are being done in repertory by a group of very talented actors, some British and some American. And yes, they are all actors, that is, male. The company is priding itself on presenting the plays as they would have been in Elizabethan times, no women in the cast, period correct costuming, even candelabras as onstage lighting. Well, kind of as on stage lighting. Like other aspects of the productions, the candelabras felt more like a gimmick then anything else. In fact, during one scene of Twelfth Night, the electric stage lights failed and it was clear how little light the candles shed. And watching the actors pick up bits of fallen wax was comical and distracting.

I saw Twelfth Night first, so I'll discuss that first.

As I said above, I found the candelabras gimmicky, and I found the actors "dressing" on stage the same. I guess watching them interact and get sewn into their costumes is a decent way for some folks to pass the half hour between the opening of the theater and the starting of the show, but it just felt forced to me. One interesting thing, in order to tell the actors that were playing women, they were all in whiteface for this show.

Mark Rylance is given top billing in the Playbill (and they use the same Playbill for both shows) and seems to be one of the big draws. Unfortunately, I didn't like him in either play. For me, Twelfth Night is Viola's story, she is the one cast adrift in this society and caught between Count Orsino and Olivia, the woman the count loves, who instead falls for Viola in her male guise. Rylance plays Olivia, actually, overplays her, and I found his characterization and body language annoying. And I never believed him as a woman, and definitely not one that men would fall so head over heels in love with. I felt a lot of the cast in addition to Rylance were overplaying their roles. Yes, this is a comedy, and yes, I know that Shakespeare was writing for the common people, but long drawn out fart jokes don't amuse me, nor does broad playing of the buffoons. So, I didn't enjoy Rylance, Angus Wright as Sir Andrew Aguecheek, or Colin Hurley as Sir Toby Belch. On the other hand, Paul Chahidi as Maria was convincingly female and absolutely hysterical. Samuel Barnett as Viola and Joseph Timms as Sebastian looked quite alike, enough to make their being mistaken for each other quite plausible. I loved listening to Liam Brennan's Scottish accented Orsino and John Paul Connolly was an excellent Antonio (and has a great moment at the end of the play when he gets left out of all the festivities). The best part of Twelfth Night was Stephen Fry as Malvolio. Fry has a wonderful voice (check out the British Audiobooks of the Harry Potter series) and played the role with just enough of an edge to be unsympathetic yet fun and his interactions with the on-stage audience was nice to watch.

The lighting failure during the show was distracting as was the use of music in the production.
Since they are interested in replicating the "original" feel of the shows, Twelfth Night ends up with a number of musical interludes that go on a bit long for my taste. Especially the "bergomask" dance after the last lines are spoken.

The Tragedie of King Richard The Third

I saw this a week after seeing Twelfth Night. Once again, I was not engaged by the dressing of the actors on stage. Actually, I found part of it a bit wryly amusing. As I mentioned above, the actors playing women in Twelfth Night had white make up on. For Richard, most of them had white makeup. The exception was the actor playing the Duchess of York (and later Richmond). The actor who happens to be the only African American (or Black Briton, since I'm not sure of his nationality). I guess putting him in the pale make up would have made it look like a minstrel show. 
As far as the acting in this production, all of the actors that I liked in Twelfth Night, I liked in Richard. Angus Wright was quite good as Buckingham, and Colin Hurley was better as Stanley than he had been as Toby Belch. Unfortunately, as I said, I didn't like Mark Rylance much in this play either. Note, it is the "tragedy" of Richard the Third. Richard is usually seen as a fratricide and regicide, and pretty much a monster. Well, Rylance does Richard's first monologue (the famous "now is the winter of our discontent....") almost as a comedic speech, flirting with the on-stage audience and gamboling around like a clown. As the woman behind me said (loudly), a bizarre interpretation. And when he descends into madness (at least that's what I think his Act two behavior is supposed to be), it just falls flat. His body language as the deformed king is interesting however, and I must admit that his one handed sword fighting was impressive. In fact, the choreography of the whole finale was impressive. Although Richard and Richmond are on opposite sides of the battlefield, the director has the actors sharing the same space and it was fun to watch. As was the interaction of the ghosts with Richard during the final battle. Unfortunately, once again, after the play itself ended, we were treated to another long dance sequence.

As those who read some of my earlier reviews may remember, I don't like it when directorial vision overshadows the text of a play. In the case of these productions, their attempts to replicate an "authentic" experience just seem like more gimmicks. Yes, Shakespeare only had actors, but that was because of English law, not out of choice. And sewing them into the costumes? That didn't add anything to the experience. And as I mentioned, the candelabras were more annoying than illuminating. So, in the end, while some of the acting was enjoyable, the ultimate experience was a bit disappointing.


----------



## telracs

Sleeping Beauty

I have now upped my ballet total to four. The old standby of The Nutcracker, and three less traditional ones. One was based on the Tim Burton movie "Edward Scissorhands" and two were from choreographer Mathew Bourne. If you've seen the movie "Billy Elliot" then you saw a bit of his "Swan Lake" which was controversial for its use of an all male bevy of swans. His newest work is a version of Sleeping Beauty. While it utilizes Tchaikovsky's familiar score, Bourne changes the time frame and quite a bit of the story and throws in a bit of a gothic twist. The ballet breaks down into what the program calls four acts, although I thought of them as two acts each with two scenes. They are "The Baby Aurora-1890", "Aurora Comes of Age-1911", "Aurora Wakes Up-2011", and "Aurora's Wedding-Yesterday". In "The Baby Aurora" we see the harried palace staff trying to contain a rambunctious baby. The puppet work on the baby Aurora was incredible, the puppeteers were not visible at all, and the puppet was moved very realistically. Once the baby is put to bed, the good fairies led by Count Lilac (remember this name, it's a clue to later stuff) arrive and dance for her. I didn't really enjoy this part, because the music and the moves didn't sync well for me. But then again, I'm not a brilliant choreographer, so what do I know? After the good fairies exit, the evil fairy appears. And boy, was she malevolent. The company then enacts a rendition of the upcoming curse. Fortunately for the king and queen, the good fairies return and show how the curse will be lifted. Not by some princely looking fellow, but by a man dressed like a peasant. The second scene "Aurora Comes of Age" was my favorite. We see the now relatively grown up Aurora on her birthday, getting ready for a party. And we are introduced to the man who we saw in the first scene, who we now see is the gardener and Aurora's secret boyfriend. From there we move to the actual birthday party, done as a European lawn party. The dancing in this scene incorporates waltz and other styles of dance from the early 1900's and was beautiful. The party is interrupted by an unexpected male guest, a darkly handsome (okay, let me admit this, a REALLY hot) aristocratic looking gent who both draws and repels Aurora. She manages to sneak off and spend some time with her boyfriend, but the evil one follows her and ultimately she pricks her finger on a rose he leaves for her. The gardener is thought to be responsible for her condition and is chased out of the castle. So, when the castle gates are closed, he is stuck outside while Aurora sleeps. Well, how is Bourne going to handle a 100 year old lover? Simple. As our hero mourns, "Count" Lilac returns. And bites him on the neck. Yup, Bourne's fairies are in fact, vampires. I told you this was gothic. After intermission, "Aurora Wakes Up" starts with 4 teenagers in modern dress coming upon the castle and taking pictures (I immediately thought of Edward Scissorhands). As they exit, we see a small tent on the side of the stage, and our gardener, now with fairy wings on his back, appears. The castle gates finally open for him and he goes through an extended dance with other members of the cast, all initially blindfolded. While I had to admire the expertise of the dancers, this bit went on slightly long for me. While the gardener is wandering in the woods, we find the evil fairy keeping watch over the sleeping Aurora and trying to wake her. The dancer playing Aurora (sorry, I didn't check out the call board, so I don't know who I saw in each role) did a marvelous job in this scene, relaxing her body wonderfully as the evil one manhandles her like a rag doll. Eventually, our hero wins his way into Aurora's room and kisses her. But the evil one's minions grab him, so the first person Aurora sees is not him, but the evil fairy. The final scene, although it is titled "Aurora's Wedding" really felt more like a dark disco party with it's red and black lighting and costumes and it's very modern and sensual style of dance. Count Lilac and the gardener manage to crash the party, kill the evil one before he kills Aurora, and the lovers are reunited. And, as the story goes, live happily ever after.

Since I've only seen 4 ballets, I don't consider myself an expert, but I thought that most of the dancing was excellent (there was one bit where I felt two of the dancers who should have been moving together were a bit out of time). The sets were gorgeous, as were the costumes, which were also quite period appropriate. The plot was easy to follow for a couple of reasons. One, the use of projections on the show curtain which gave a bit of text to the story (starting with the obligatory, "Once upon a time..." and ending with "And they lived happily ever after". And the dancers were able to show what was going on through their moves and expressions quite well which is the most important part of ballet to me. I admit that I found the fairies=vampires bit slightly amusing, but giving Aurora a boyfriend in Act 1 gives the ballet a bit of conflict that is missing if she just falls asleep and then gets awoken by a stranger's kiss. At one point, I found myself singing to myself. Can anyone tell me if Disney used Tchaikovsky's music as a melody to a song in the Sleeping Beauty movie?


----------



## crebel

Vampires in Sleeping Beauty sounds too strange for me.  However, according to Wikipedia on the Disney film: "Sleeping Beauty spent nearly the entire decade of the 1950s in production: the story work began in 1951, voices were recorded in 1952, animation production took from 1953 until 1958, and the stereophonic musical score, mostly based on Tchaikovsky's ballet of the same name, was recorded in 1957."


----------



## telracs

Big Fish

Another Broadway musical based on a movie I never saw. For the rest of you haven't seen it either, the basic plot deals with a father who tells lots of stories and a son who is too grounded in reality to appreciate them. Norbert Leo Butz does his usual phenomenal work as Edward Bloom, story tell extra-ordinaire. Bobby Steggert plays his son, Will, and unfortunately, maybe due to the way the role is written or directed, he was a bit stiff. Supporting them are Kate Baldwin as Sandra, Edward's wife/Will's mom and Krystal Joy Brown as Josephine, Will's wife. And the roles are quite supporting. While Baldwin gets to shine in couple of numbers, Brown is relegated to being the sounding board and the one who encourages Will to seek the reality behind the tales. The rest of the ensemble inhabits the world of Edward's mind quite well, especially Brad Oscar as circus owner Amos Calloway.

The show flits back and forth between reality and Edward's stories. The reenactments of the stories are wonderfully presented, and Butz seems to have fun going from an older man to a teenager. One interesting thing, perhaps due to vanity, is that when Butz is playing Edward in his teens or twenties, he is always wearing something on his head. I guess we shouldn't think Edward's hair was that thin that early. The show relies heavily on projections, but they are so skillfully used that I enjoyed them quite a bit, something that is not always true when a show is projection heavy. I especially enjoyed the use of projections on the proscenium arch. I don't think I've ever before seen an effect like it. The non-projection set work is also good, with the daffodil scene being incredibly done. The costumes were also good with bright colors predominating during the story enactments. The one costume/effect that did not quite work for me was the mermaid. I think it was a case of a set designer not sitting in the mezzanine to see how the effect worked up there. From where we sat, it was a bit hard to see the mermaid at points, and at others, it was pretty clear that her tail was being manipulated by an unseen puppeteer under the "water."

My sister enjoyed the show so much that she recommended it to my niece and her husband, so the three of them are going to see it again. I won't be joining them, and I won't get the chance to revisit it because they have announced their closing date. And while I'm hoping that they release a cast recording, it is such a visual show that an audio version won't do it justice.

Side note: While I enjoyed the show, I also have to tell about the fun I had during intermission. When I went out to the restroom, I spotted a gentleman wearing an interesting vest. I took a closer look when I got back to my seat and realized that the vest was COVERED with Broadway pins. I asked him if he minded me looking at the vest and we had a very nice conversation about shows. He has more pins than I do! I'm impressed. And a bit envious.


----------



## telracs

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Although this musical claims to be based on a novel, it is based on the same novel that gave us the Alec Guiness movie "Kind Hearts and Coronets." And the casting joke in this musical is the same as in the film, having one actor play all people who stand between our hero and his fortune.

It's understandable that Jefferson Mays, playing the "D'ysquith Family" gets top billing, but I actually enjoyed Bryce Pinkham as murderer Monty Navarro a bit more. I felt that Mays's characterizations got more and more bizarre and that the multicasting wore thin after a while. And because Mays was playing all the roles, I wasn't sure at one point which character was which. Pinkham seems to be making a career of playing murderers, his last role on Broadway was as the villain in Ghost. The two men are surrounded by a wonderful ensemble, led by Jane Carr as Miss Shingle, the woman who informs Monty that his mother was a D'Ysquith and sets him on his murderous path. Lauren Worsham is Phoebe D'Ysquith (fortunately, NOT in the line of succession) and Lisa O'Hare plays Sibella Hallward, the woman who Monty is in love with at the beginning of the play. One of the most hysterical scenes in the show has Monty trying to keep Phoebe from discovering Sibella in his rooms.

Part of the conceit of the show is its set. It is a stage upon a stage, so that the action resembles an English music hall, but actors step off of that stage onto the regular one at points, even utilizing a walkway in front of the orchestra. The costumes are gorgeous, very Victorian English. And my heart goes out to whoever is helping Jefferson Mays, some of his costume changes are quite quick.

At times the show descends almost into slapstick, but the twists and turns of the plot are fun to traverse. The songs are as hysterical as the action when/if they release a cast recording, I'm sure I'll be playing it a lot.


----------



## Sapphire

We saw "Elf - The Musical" last night at the Orpheum Theater in Omaha. I thought it very well done; my husband thought it was ho-hum. We usually enjoy the same shows and are critical of the same shows. I don't know why we saw this one so differently.


----------



## NapCat (retired)

Sapphire said:


> "...the Orpheum Theater in Omaha."



Wow, did that bring a multitude of happy memories. I lived in Omaha for many years and held a membership at the Orpheum.

As they say_..."Thanks for the memories_"


----------



## telracs

A Night with Janis Joplin

Pretty much the only Janis Joplin song I know is "Me and Bobby McGee." And I'm also pretty ignorant of her life story other than the fact that she died quite young. So I went into this show hoping to find new songs and new info. I got both, but I also got a bit of a headache. I like rock music, and I like loud music, but the loud rock music playing at the Lyceum theater was overkill. The first note hit me in the chest like a hammer and it never really let up. I felt like they had amped up the sound for an arena, and forgot they were playing in a 1000 seat theater with incredible acoustics.

We learn about Janis's early life, but in a bit of a disjointed fashion, which, while confusing, plays well with Joplin's persona. The show also focuses on the singers who influenced her. So in addition to an actress playing Joplin, we have 4 actresses playing Etta James, Bessie Smith, Odetta, Nina Simone, Aretha Franklin, and an unnamed "Blues Woman". All of the actresses sung beautifully, and each seemed to channel their characters quite well. And the on stage band did an excellent job playing blues and rock and roll and were fun to watch. Of course, the main attraction is Mary Bridget Davis as Joplin. She really evokes Janis, to a point where I almost began to fear for her being able to put off the character at the end of each day.

The costumes were gorgeous, great replicas of costumes that Joplin would have worn back in the day, and an incredible Aretha Franklin gown was seen in the Act 1 finale. The stage set was a bit odd, however. On the stage itself we had our rock band on a platform and scattered around the stage were numerous lamps of different styles. Jutting slightly off the stage was another platform where Davis did the bulk of her singing/talking, although she also had use of a large armchair stage right. A metal staircase led up to a metal catwalk, used throughout by various of the singers. Behind that was a video wall, which was used for the lyrics to Bobby McGee at one point, some "screensavery" looking effects at other times, and projections of some of Joplin's artwork at another. Annoyingly, the proscenium of the stage was covered with what looked to me like huge LED matchsticks with bulbs for the flame. They looked way too modern for the rest of the set and when they changed color during songs, they kept pulling my focus. There are 26 songs in the show, most sung by Joplin. A couple of the Joplin songs are her versions of a song done by someone else, which was a bit weird. I didn't know a lot of the songs in the first act (and honestly, didn't realize that Davis was singing a version of Gershwin's Summertime till it was halfway done). "Me and Bobby McGee" is done in the second act, and was enjoyable, but I'd pretty much checked out by then, the show wasn't really engaging me and my ears were hurting.
The audience enthusiastically embraced every song Davis did as Joplin, to the point of a couple of standing ovations during each act. And I will admit to having Mercedes Benz stuck in my head for a couple of days.


----------



## telracs

I'm going to put two reviews in one post because both of them have similar pros and cons.  The pros?  The beautiful language of William Shakespeare.  The cons? Directorial "visions" that interfere with that language.
The first play was Macbeth, a very dark play made darker by director Jack O'Brien's view that Macbeth is a victim of fate, as embodied by the three witches (played by Malcolm Gets, Julian Glover and Byron Jennings) and their mistress, Hecate (a character often dropped from productions of the play).  It is also visually dark, with low lighting, and a preponderance of black costumes. Many members of the cast have good theater backgrounds, but in this show, I felt as though different actors were in different plays.  The best performances I felt came from Anne-Marie Duff as Lady Macbeth and Bianca Amato as Lady Macduff.  The three witches were also good, when they were being the witches, but O'Brien interpolates them into other roles to an extent that gets annoying.  Four wonderful actors, Daniel Sunjata, Brian D'Arcy James,  Richard Easton and Jonny Orsini, who I have enjoyed in the past, all try their best, but are hobbled by the director's choice.  They are also hobbled by the "star" of the show, Ethan Hawke.  His diction was sloppy, he was difficult to understand at times, and I never really got a sense of ambition and urgency from him.  His interactions with Duff as his lady were good, but otherwise it felt like he was talking around the rest of the cast, not to them.  
As I said, the costumes were mostly black and of a relatively modern look.  One nice touch was Macbeth showing up in a red bathrobe the morning after Duncan's murder.  But the modern look took me out of the show at points, I never really felt that I was in Scotland.  The lighting was also dark, but there were some good effects, a seven pointed star outlined on the stage was my favorite.

Wednesday was A Midsummer Night's Dream.  Dream is one of my favorite plays, but Julie Taymor is not one of my favorite directors.  She is a very visual director and I was afraid that her visuals would overwhelm the words, and unfortunately, almost from the beginning, my fears were reinforced.  Instead of starting with the words of the play, she starts with Puck on a bed on the stage, and a whole bunch of manipulation of a large white sheet.  And for the rest of the show, instead of the stagecraft working in support of the words, it distracted from them.  The cast of of this production is huge, with a large number of children and young adults playing the fairies (or as the playbill calls them "rude elements").  The performers I enjoyed most were Zach Appelman as Demetrius, Mandi Masden as Helena and especially Tina Benko as Titania.  While she sounded and acted beautifully, Taymor put her in a costume with two "candles" at her shoulders which were quite ugly.  The rest of her costume was gorgeous and made me think of winter, while David Harewood's Oberon was in a costume that evoked summer.  While Harewood's costume was nice, and his diction wonderful, his movements were annoying.  As were those of Kathryn Hunter's Puck.  She is a contortionist and some of the poses she got herself into looked painful.  I didn't enjoy the other two lovers, I felt Lilly Englert's Hermia was too whiny, and Jake Horowitz was land as Lysander.  I found the Athenian workmen ridiculous, and not in a good way.  Max Casella's Bottom sounded like he was from New Jersey, and Francis Flute was a  Hispanic from the Bronx.  I don't really like when actors sounded regional when doing Shakespeare, especially when it leads to mispronunciation of names. One of Taymor's early successes was "Lion King" and some of the effects in this production are identical to those in Lion King.  And the Lion costume used in the "Pyramus and Thisbe" done by the Athenian workmen looked like a nod to the parody of Lion King done by Forbidden Broadway. 

This is the end of my Shakespeare marathon for a while, so I'll go back to reading the plays and staging them in my mind.  That way I get my own interpretation and no one else's.


----------



## telracs

Murder for Two

There seems to be a surfeit of multi-casting (one actor playing multiple roles) on and off-Broadway this year. In "Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder", Jefferson Mays played 8 different members of one family. In a new adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" (review to follow), one actor plays Scrooge, while 4 others tackle the rest of the roles. And in "Murder for Two" currently at New World Stages, Jeremiah Ginn (understudying for Jeff Blumenkrantz) plays all the suspects in the murder of novelist Arthur Whitney while Brett Ryback plays Marcus Moscowicz, a policeman trying to make detective. Not only do they play all the roles, they also play the piano, sometimes dueling on it. While both men were fun to watch, it did get to be a bit much at times. Ryback is saddled with some annoying backstory/subtext that just gets in the way of the action. And there are so many suspects that while Ginn managed to make each one subtly different, it started to grate on me. In the beginning, I was unsure whether one of the characters was supposed to be a woman or an extremely effeminate man (turns out it was supposed to be Delilah Whitney, wife of the deceased). The resolution of the mystery was kind of silly. Actually, as I was writing this, I had to stop and think it through to remember who the murderer was, that's how non-memorable it was. I think I enjoyed the piano playing the most of the show, especially when it was in dueling mode. I was restless during the 90 minute no intermission show, and found myself fidgeting quite a bit, but I am willing to sit through it again for the sheer fun of watching the actors.


----------



## telracs

Little Miss Sunshine

Ah, another musical based on a movie I've never seen.....

All I knew about this show was that it involved a family that goes on a road trip so that the daughter can be in a beauty pageant. Now, I'm going to admit a bit of a deep, dark, secret. For a while I was watching Toddlers and Tiaras. You know, the "reality" show about kids' pageants. I stopped watching because I really started getting creeped out by what some parents were willing to do and what the kids were put through. So, I went into this show with a bit of trepidation. But I came out laughing and cheering. The show is a satirical send up of dysfunctional families and the dysfunctional world of pageants. The setting has been updated to the present, so we get texting and GPS jokes which probably were not in the movie. The cast was wonderful in the acting department, but I felt that a couple of them were a bit off in the singing department. The stage was interesting, the floor and back wall of the stage were a map of arizona and california and the map continued up above the seating area. The van was represented by rolling chairs that came together and separated as dictated by the action and was fun to watch. Most of the music was good, but there a bit too many slow songs and reprises for me.


----------



## telracs

A Christmas Carol

I love the story of A Christmas Carol in almost every version. I have two audio versions of it on my iPod, a recording of Patrick Stewart's one man version and Tim Curry reading the unabridged version. And I tend to listen to them frequently, especially as we get close to the 25th. This was a bit of a mistake because I went into this show expecting a musical version of the traditional story, done with just 5 actors. Unfortunately, they took liberties with the plot, changing elements in ways that really annoyed me. They completely altered the character of Scrooge's sister and overplayed the political aspects of poor and inserting a weird subplot concerning a book of stories and Scrooge's obsession with his "box of coins." And the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was quite a bit talkative. The most interesting part of the show was the casting. One actor played Scrooge, while 4 other folks (2 actors, 2 actresses) played the rest of the roles. Peter Bradbury had the Scrooge look down, but I felt he wasn't well served by the story changes. Mark Light-Orr was incredible as Marley, moving his body wonderfully. He also made an enjoyable Cratchitt. Mark Price had the difficult job of acting as a puppeteer for Tiny Tim, and he was quite good at it. The actreses, Jessie Shelton and Franca Vercelloni didn't do anything that stood out in my mind. The production used the small space at St. Clement's quite well, and I enjoyed the fact that it was a 90 minute no intermission show. My sister, who has never seen any version of Christmas Carol was supposed to go with me, but she had to cancel. I'm sort of glad she did, because this is NOT the best version of the story and definitely not the one I would like as someone's first experience.


----------



## telracs

Beautiful: The Carole King Musical

This year we were treated to an exceptional amount of female singing talent. And I don't just mean the actresses on stage, but also the women they were portraying. My year started with a musical about Dusty Springfield, included musicals about Bilie Holiday and Janis Joplin (in which we were treated to appearences by Aretha Franklin, Odetta, Bessie Smith and Nina Simone), the story of Motown founder Berry Gordy (which gave us Dianna Ross, Martha and the Vandellas and others), the story of Shlomo Carlebach (in which Nina Simone also plays a part), and ended with a bio of Carole King. Of the shows listed above, I enjoyed the last one the best. But I have to admit, while the opening and finale numbers were about King, I felt that the show spent too much time on the songwriters she was in competition with (Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil). Maybe King didn't write enough songs for the playwrights and they felt they needed to pad it? I don't know. Whatever their reasons, I will admit that the songs are great. The show starts with King appearing at Carnegie Hall, then flashes back to when she was 16, attending Queens College and trying to sell songs in NYC. Eventually she team up with lyricist Gerry Goffin (and ends up marrying him) and carving out a career as a writer, one upping and being one upped by the team of Mann and Weil. One of the interesting things the playwright has done is showing the deterioration of the King/Goffin marriage while Mann and Weil grow happier pursuing their unconventional relationship of "living in sin". All of the acting in the show is good, with Jessie Mueller impressing as King. Jarrod Spector and Anika Larsen are fun to watch as Mann and Weil. Jeb Brown is good as record producer Don Kirshner, but I felt that is character was a bit flat, and only existed to give songwriters structure. Jake Epstein fares the worst, saddled with the unsympathetic role of Gerry Goffin. The ensemble is excellent, and for the must part, the show is enjoyable. The second act is a bit slower than the first, but the recreation of King's studio recording of Natural Women is worth the wait, and the "encore" number of I Feel the Earth Move during the curtain call was an excellent way to end a pretty fun day.


----------



## telracs

700 Sundays

Oddly enough, although Billy Crystal's one man show is titled "700 Sundays," he didn't do too many Sunday performances during this limited run. Fortunately, one was the last Sunday of 2013 and even more I was able to grab 2 mezzanine seats. The show was hysterical, touching, sad, poignant, hysterical and a wonderful way to end the theater-going year. The title refers to the fact that Crystal's father passed away when he was a teen, and they had only 700 Sundays together. Crystal tells a lot of stories about his family and their involvement in the jazz scene. He mentions spending time with Billie Holliday and how his uncle was responsible for recording Holliday's most famous song "Strange Fruit." He does impersonations of a number of his relatives, showcasing his enormous talents. Especially enjoyable were his bit of his elderly aunt discussing his cousin's same sex wedding (no, it wasn't a Jewish ceremony, it was lesbertianism), and his re-enactment of a "silent" movie. It's interesting to note that certain words get a laugh even when they are only mouthed. The second act is a bit more serious, dealing with adolescence, the change in fortune of the family, the death of his father and eventually, his mother also. I will admit to tearing up quite a bit when he spoke of his father's death and its aftermath. I really could have done without his reminiscence of being led around by his hormones, but that's a minor quibble in the midst of a great 2 hours. Crystal has stated that this is last time he's going to do the show, but I hope that it's not, because I think a lot of people can relate to it and enjoy it.


----------



## telracs

Year end wrap up:

Counting, I have 44 tickets, and saw 41 different shows (yeah, there was one show I saw multiple time)

The breakdown was 28 shows on Broadway (14 musicals, 12 plays, 1 one-man show, and 1 concert).
Off-Broadway was 7 musicals, 1 dance show, 1 comedy show, 1 play in Brooklyn and 2 musicals out in New Jersey.

There were 7 different Shakespeare shows, with 2 different versions of "the scottish" play.  After so many Shakespeare plays I had planned to take a break, but I couldn't resist getting a ticket to see Frank Langella as King Lear next week, and Kenneth Brannagh in June as the Scottish Thane.  

My favorite musical of the year was Beautiful, a musical bio of Carole King.  The show that I saw multiple times was Mystery of Edwin Drood, but I can't count it as my favorite of this year, because I count it as my favorite of 2012, when it started.  The overall favorite was Billy Crystal's 700 Sundays. 

And in case you're interested, I already have tickets for a bunch of shows in 2014!


----------



## Sapphire

That makes my four to five shows a year seem pretty meager. They're still delightfully entertaining and mind stimulating.


----------



## telracs

King Lear

As followers of the Shakespearean adventures of telracs may remember, I've been disappointed in most of the recent productions I've seen. Well, I'm happy to say that 2014 started off on a great note. Frank Langella assayed the title role in King Lear at the Harvey Theater at BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music). I had only vague recollections of the play, so before going, I read about 2/3 of it. I stopped because I wanted the ending to be as much of a surprise as possible. Knowing that it's one of Shakespeare's tragedies, I didn't expect a happy ending, but boy, this ranks up there for body count. Although Langella as Lear is the main focus of the show, most of the other actors ably hold their own. All three of the ladies playing Lear's daughters were excellent, each putting enough of their own spin on the characters to make them memorable. I also enjoyed Max Bennett as Edmund, he did "slimy" very well, and his soliloquies were fun to watch. The weakest link for me was Sebastian Armesto as Edgar, he was a bit dull in the beginning, but redeemed himself near the end, especially in the sword fight with Edmund. While the stage and scenery for the production are fairly simple, what was not simple was the rain effect used when Lear is on the heath. Did I say rain? No sorry, it wasn't raining, it was POURING. As the woman next to me muttered, I hope it was warm water, because they are there for a long time, and the actors don't even get a chance to dry off for quite a bit. Sometimes special effects take away from a show, but in this case, it enhanced it wonderfully. I did find the play a bit long, even with some edits that I know the production took (I couldn't figure out what happened to the King of French until I finished reading the play on the way home), but fortunately, it was an early curtain and since it's in Brooklyn, a shorter ride home for me. I have already recommended the show to some friends, and am now happy to be out of my Shakespeare doldrums.


----------



## telracs

Wicked

Wicked celebrated its 10th anniversary on Broadway in October 2013. I was lucky enough to see it back in 2013 before the hype got high. In fact, I liked it so much that I immediately bought a ticket to see it a second time. Ultimately, I saw it 4 times in 2003, 4 times in 2004, once in 2005, once in 2011, and once in Melbourne Australia in 2008. The musical is based on Gregory Maguire's book which details the backstory of the witches of Oz. but the tone of the musical is a lot different from the tone of the book. In fact, while I highly recommend this musical, I make sure to warn people who love the book that this is NOT the book.

People sometimes ask me how I can see the same show multiple times. Well, as flippant as this may seem, you never really see the same show. Even if you see the exact same cast. And as you can imagine, after 10 years, the cast of this show has changed. So all the actors were new to me. I try not to compare new casts to the original, but of course, at points I just couldn't help it. Christine Dwyer as Elphaba (the green one) was enjoyable, but I felt that Tiffany Haas was rushing through her lines as Glinda and losing some of the humor. I liked watching Kyle Dean Massey as Fiyero, but his voice was a bit off in the singing. It was nice to see Carol Kane as Madame Morrible, her voice was recognizable even if her face and hair were hidden under gobs of makeup and a series of wigs. Tom McGowan was a wonderfully human wizard of Oz, and Michael Wartella was a cute Boq. Because we were in the fourth row, I was able to see the ensemble quite well, and it was fun to see how each performer put an individual spin on their places in the crowd scenes. I also had a chance to really appreciate the intricacy and beauty of the costumes. The downside to being so close was that I lost some of the lighting effects and missed some of the majesty of the large set. Also, we were able to see off into the wings, which got a bit distracting at points.

The day was an expensive one. Not only did we pay for the tickets, but I went on a bit of shopping spree for clothing. Picked up 2 short sleeved shirts, one long sleeved fleece shirt and a zippered hoodie. Guess I'll wait to go back for a lucky 13th visit until my shirts wear out.


----------



## telracs

Bronx Bombers

When I read an interview with Peter Scolari about his playing Yogi Berra in the new play Bronx Bombers, I got the impression that the play was about the death of Yankee catcher Thurman Munson. Don't know why I got that impression, but boy was it the wrong one. While Mr. Munson does appear as a character in the play and his death is touched upon, the main focus of the play at first appears to be the aftermath of a fight between manager Billy Martin and outfielder Reggie Jackson, and Berra's attempt to smooth the waters. The first scene has the four men meeting in a hotel room in Boston, and throws in a room service waiter who has no knowledge of baseball or who the men are. While all four actors portray the characters well, I just didn't care all that much about was going on and knowing Munson's ultimate fate, I found references to his airplane a bit creepy. The men don't solve their problems in the hotel room, and our next scene takes us to the Berra household and a long conversation between Berra and his wife Carmen, about the Billy/Reggie situation, what Berra would do if offered the manager's job, and the fact that they have just had 30 thousand tons of potato dumped on their lawn by an irate Dakota farmer. The scene ends with Berra seeming to control a thunderstorm, and hearing Babe Ruth's voice. That lead me to believe that the scene after intermission would be some kind of dream sequence. Which at first it did play out as. Yogi appears to be dreaming about a dinner with a number of Yankee greats and trying to figure out how to solve the team's problems. While I understood the presence of Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio and Lou Gehrig, and accepted the presence of an unsung catcher by the name of Elston Howard, when Derek Jeter entered, it just threw me. What would Jeter be doing in a dream in 1977? The dinner party scene had some fun bits, including references to potatoes, but it ultimately became painful to watch. The personal animosity between Mantle and DiMaggio was played up too much, and Jeter's cut off comment almost referencing 9/11 made me cringe. Worst of all was the portrayal of Gehrig. When he first enters, he is strong and tall, but as the scene went on, the deterioration caused by ALS is shown, and the actor barely makes it off stage in one piece. While this deterioration is truth, I couldn't figure out what the point was. Or what the point of the whole scene was, because again, there's a lot of talking, but nothing resolved. The final scene is set before the last game at the old Yankee Stadium and involves an interview between Berra and a sportswriter, a reconciliation of sorts between Berra and Jackson, and Berra asking Jeter to give the final speech at stadium. We don't see the speech, but instead, we hear it over the PA, while Lou Gehrig stands in a spotlight, a device I found cloying and annoying.

I enjoyed the acting in the show, but ultimately not the show itself. Scolari moves in a way that evokes Berra's awkward gracefulness, and has his speech peppered with "Yogisms". So many in fact, that I kept feeling that the playwright was just throwing them in to be clever. Scolari's real life wife, Tracy Shayne, does well enough as Berra's wife Carmen, but the character is underwritten. Francois Battiste has a tour de force monologue as the egotistical Jackson, but I found myself wondering if he Reggie actually talked like that in private, or if he would have saved it for his press conferences. He also does well as Elston Howard. Bill Dawes manages to portray Mickey Mantle and Thurman Munson well, but did overplay Mantle's drinking a bit. The best part of the play was the costumes. It was really cool seeing each of the players in appropriate costume at the dinner party and again when each actor takes their bows (Battiste takes his bow as Jackson, Bill Dawes takes his as Mantle, and it is the one time we see Keith Nobbs in Billy Martin's uniform).

I had been looking forward to seeing this and was glad when my sister got tickets, but unfortunately, it left me so confused that I won't be recommending it to folks.


----------



## telracs

Little Me

The City Center theater in NYC has a program they call "Encores!" which was inaugurated in 1994 to "celebrate the rarely heard works of America's most important composes and lyricists". Since the productions usually only run for a week, I haven't made it too many of them, since I forget to look at the series for the year in advance, and then find myself already booked when the shows come around. This time I lucked out, one of my bosses had tickets he couldn't use, so I got to see Little Me.

The show is based on the fictional memoir of Belle Poitrine, written by Patrick Dennis. I recognized the name Patrick Dennis as the person who also wrote the book that the musical Mame is based on. The basic plot is that Belle is narrating her life story, from poor small town girl to star of stage, screen and television, and enumerating the men who helped get her where she is. The device of the musical is that most of the men in her life are played by the same actor. In the original Broadway production, that was comic king Sid Ceasar, in this production it was Christian Borle (who most people probably know from the TV show Smash). I've seen Borle in a number of Broadway shows, including his TONY winning performance in Peter and the Starcatcher, and I've always enjoyed his work. I wouldn't call him classically handsome, but he is cute and he has a wonderful way of moving. He was able to inhabit 7 roles and make each one unique, even when doing a quick change back and forth between two of them. And he managed to ad lib hysterically when part of the wig he was wearing fell off. Rachel York as "young" Belle was in good voice, and I liked her in the beginning, but as her character aged, I didn't like her costumes and acting. Judy Kaye was fun as "older" Belle and Robert Creighton did well in his own multitude of roles, but I felt that both David Garrison as Patrick Kelly and Tony Yazbeck as George were a bit wasted (although Yazbeck gets a decent solo dance moment in "I've Got Your Number").

This play was Neil Simon's first musical, and plays more like a series of sketches rather than a through-story. While all of the scenes are enjoyable, a couple go on a bit too long, especially in the second act. One annoying thing was during Rachel York's number "Poor Little Hollywood Star", they projected names of Belle's films behind her. Since they were all humorous, the audience was laughing and paying attention to them and not to York's singing. I think it was unfair for her to have to compete with the scenery like that.

While the show had some shortcomings, in the end all that matters was that my friend and laughed a lot, enjoyed most of the acting and dancing, and left the theater in a much better mood than we had left work a couple of hours earlier.


----------



## BTackitt

> And he managed to ad lib hysterically when part of the wig he was wearing Rachel


? twisted? fell off? blew away?


----------



## telracs

okay that's what i get for posting tired....

"fell off"


edited to add:  original post fixed.


----------



## crebel

I figured you left it out intentionally to make sure we were reading your reviews all the way through!

Little Me sounds like fun, glad you and your friend enjoyed it.


----------



## telracs

All the Way

This show is being touted as Bryan Cranston's (Malcolm in the Middle, Breaking Bad) Broadway debut. Because of the way it's advertised, some people thought it was a one man show with Mr. Cranston as Lyndon Baines Johnson (the title apparently comes from a campaign slogan of LBJ). While LBJ is the central character of the play, Mr. Cranston is just one member of a large and extremely talented cast. The stand outs for me were Brandon J. Dirden as Martin Luther King Jr., Micheal McKean as J. Edgar Hoover, and John McMartin as Richard Russell. Even though it is a cast of 20, a number of the men (and all of the women) were playing multiple parts. Thanks to excellent wigs, costumes and acting, Susannah Schulman wonderfully pulled off 4 different roles. Unfortunately, a couple of the actors were not as lucky. Two actors with somewhat distinctive voices, Richard Poe and Ethan Phillips (Neelix for ST:Voyager fans), couldn't overcome their vocal qualities and make their multiple roles believable. In fact, I wondered at the choice of having Richard Poe play four different parts.

I never watched either of Mr. Cranston's TV shows, and I was not born until after the events of this play, so I was able to go into it clean. Mr. Cranston commands attention while on stage, and his characterization of LBJ goes from Texas "good-ole boy" to iron-fisted president so quickly at times you can get whiplash. Fortunately, he does not overpower his fellow actors, and I didn't miss him when he was off stage, which made the play all that more enjoyable.

The show is long, running almost 3 hours including a 15 minute intermission. The play starts on Air Force One, right after JFK's assassination and ends on Election Day 1964. The plot focuses heavily on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and how it and events surrounding it affected LBJ's re-election campaign. Some of the scenes went on a bit long for my taste, and some of Hoover's machinations were annoying and I felt they could have been omitted. I mean, really, why show Coretta Scott King getting FBI sex tapes of her husband juxtaposed with LBJ winning the election? As with any play showing historical events, I wondered how much of it was based on supposition and how much on actual evidence. Also, although we see George Wallace is seen in the play, we only get passing mention of Robert Kennedy and only see ad photo of Barry Goldwater.

The set of the show was interesting, a circular playing space with gorgeous wooden seating curving around it. A lot of the action takes place in the Oval Office, so I actually found the carpeting of the playing area odd, it was an ugly green color. At various points, LBJ's desk emerges from a trap in this area. Annoying, they used the same set piece (covered with bunting) as a platform from which George Wallace gives a speech. And in the second act, the same space is used to represent a grave and then has a coffin arise from it for the funeral of a murdered Mississippi Freedom Summer volunteer. I really wish they had incorporated a couple of different traps for these different items, it just felt odd having the one space. The production makes excellent use of projections, and I have to say they were some of the most realistic ones I've seen. It is helpful that they project "X months to election" so that the audience knows when in time were are as we go along.

For the most part, I enjoyed the show, but if you're going in to see Mr. Cranston play his character from Breaking Bad, you might be disappointed.

One last note that has to do with the theater, and not the show. I had a seat in row E of the mezzanine, . Behind me was a space of about 6 empty rows, and behind that, full rows in the rear of the mezz. Shortly before curtain, the ushers let all the people in the rear mezz move down, but ONLY to the row behind me, not in to the empty row next me. I was surprised at all the empty seats, because I had been speaking to a gentleman before the theater opened who was trying to get a ticket from someone on the line. I guess he should have just gone to the box office.


----------



## telracs

Kung Fu

I think the only time I ever saw Bruce Lee was a Batman episode where the Green Hornet and Kato were guest stars. The Green Hornet show is mentioned in this bio-play of Bruce Lee, but while we get a fight scene choreographed to the Green Hornet theme song, any real connection we might have to it is glossed over. That was my ultimate feeling about the play, it skims the surface of Lee's life, giving us little to hold on to. Except for the times when we sink into flashbacks to Lee's tempestuous relationship with his father. We also get to see that Bruce's relationship with his son Brandon mirrored that of Bruce and his father. I must admit that I wondered if the mother of the young actor playing Brandon read the script, since her son is subjected to a good 5 minutes of curse words. Cole Horibe is fun to watch as Bruce, but the character is shown as a self-centered egotist, and it was difficult to sympathetic to him and his overdone accent made him difficult to understand. Francis Jue was good as Hoi-Chuen, Lee's equally self-centered father, and Phoebe Strole did the best she could with the underwritten role of Linda, Lee's Caucasian wife. At least I assume Linda Lee was Caucasian, I can't be sure just because the actress playing her was. The show goes broadly for "color blind" casting, having William Dozier (the executive producer of Batman and The Green Hornet) portrayed by an Asian actor, and having James Coburn played by an African American actor. I found this casting added to the confusion of the show. While the fight choreography was amazing, after a while it got a bit repetitive, and it wasn't enough to keep my interest in the show. I was happy to see Signature Theater's new complex, and even happier that they subsidize ticket prices and I only paid 25 dollars for this show, but I don't think I would recommend this show to anyone.


----------



## Jeff

I'm really surprised you'd be interested in Kung Fu.


----------



## telracs

Jeff said:


> I'm really surprised you'd be interested in Kung Fu.


why?


----------



## Jeff

That's the very word I would have asked you. I guess I don't know you as well as I thought I did.


----------



## telracs

Jeff said:


> That's the very word I would have asked you. I guess I don't know you as well as I thought I did.


it wasn't as if i was going to a kung fu competition. i went to an off-broadway play about Bruce Lee, written by a playwright whose works I've enjoyed before, that just happens to be titled Kung Fu.

(and on a tangent, I liked the old TV series Kung Fu, which had actually been suggested by Lee as a vehicle for himself)


----------



## Jeff

telracs said:


> it wasn't as if i was going to a kung fu competition. i went to an off-broadway play about Bruce Lee, written by a playwright whose works I've enjoyed before, that just happens to be titled Kung Fu.
> 
> (and on a tangent, I liked the old TV series Kung Fu, which had actually been suggested by Lee as a vehicle for himself)


I wasn't trying to start an argument - I just thought that Bruce Lee's brand of entertainment was very incongruous with the type of plays that you normally like and the review genuinely surprised me. Foregtaboutit. I mean you no harm.


----------



## telracs

Jeff said:


> I wasn't trying to start an argument - I just thought that Bruce Lee's brand of entertainment was very incongruous with the type of plays that you normally like and the review genuinely surprised me. Foregtaboutit. I mean you no harm.


wasn't arguing, and definitely wasn't upset with you.


----------



## Jeff

Good. I'd hate that. Good night, Gracie.


----------



## telracs

Bridges of Madison County

I have never read the book or seen the movie on which this musical is based, so I only knew the basics of the storyline. Photographer for National Geographic in Iowa to take pictures of the titular bridges, meets lonely, dissatisfied war bride, and they have a 4 day affair. Unfortunately, I didn't really have sympathy for the adulterous wife, the traveling photographer, or the cuckolded husband. Kelli O'Hara is attractive as Francesca Johnson, but at times her accent and soprano make her hard to understand. Steven Pasquale is handsome, and sings well, so it was easy to understand Francesca swooning over him, but his character has enough opportunities to be the responsible one that I just didn't like the character. The rest of the Johnson family (Hunter Foster as Bud, Caitlin Kinnunen as Carolyn and Derek Klena as Michael) are seen at the Indiana State Fair, but their scenes seem unnecessary and they are just unlikable people. The most fun to watch were Micheal X. Martin and Cass Morgan as the Johnson's neighbors, giving us some needed comic relief. The show turns a bit maudlin near the end (note, the ending of the show is apparently different from the movie), and I found the final moment cloying.

Costumes are functional, but don't really suggest any specific time period. Pasquale is sporting longer hair than I've seen on him before, but not of such a length that the word "hippie" immediately came to my mind, so I was a bit surprised when that was the word used to describe him. The set was fairly simple, with cast members moving stage pieces on and off, and at times various members of the ensemble sit in chairs at the periphery of the playing area. I think this was meant to signify, as one of the songs states, "You're Never Alone", but it felt a bit clunky. The songs of the show are lyrical, but somewhat slow moving, and a bit repetitious. In fact, on the way home, as I started humming one song from this show, my brain morphed it into a completely different song from another of Jason Robert Brown's musicals.

I was underwhelmed by the the show, and even though the first act was short by comparison to other shows, I felt it went on too long. When I got home, I thought about getting the book or renting the movie to see the differences, but decided to hedge my bets and save my money. And we saved our money in another way, both my sister and I passed on the show's t-shirts.


----------



## crebel

Bridges of Madison County - yuck.  I don't like stories with adulterous themes.  I am, however, still waiting for the "Patron Saint of Iowa Housewives" to bless me with a cleaning lady (or man, I'm not picky).


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Bridges of Madison County - yuck. I don't like stories with adulterous themes. I am, however, still waiting for the "Patron Saint of Iowa Housewives" to bless me with a cleaning lady (or man, I'm not picky).


for some reason, i can't get through to the Patron Saint to get you some of the cabana boys for cleaning help.


----------



## Jeff

Good review, telracs.

I read and saw _The Bridges of Madison County_ and thought the story mediocre in print and on screen.


----------



## telracs

If/Then

If you want me to spend two and a half hours watching the parallel lives of a woman following a chance connection or missed connection in a NY park, then you need to write a character about whom I will care. Unfortunately, that didn't happen today. Idina Menzel sings wonderfully, and is surrounded by an excellent cast, but from the very beginning of the show until the end, I didn't care about either her Beth or her Liz. I was more interested in the secondary characters played by Anthony Rapp (Lucas) and LaChanze (Kate). Rapp's Lucas is the most directly effected by Liz/Beth's life choices and his story arc was fun to watch even while feeling sorry for him. Kate is the steadiest character, and the one major choice she makes because of Beth's influence seemed ridiculous to me. Since the show is in previews, I don't have a song list, but I will say that there is one song whose title may not be appropriate for print (it happens after Liz/Beth's one night stand [with different men in her different lives]). There are a lot of soaring numbers, and Menzel, Rapp, and Lachanze all get a chance to shine. Also in excellent voice was Jason Tam (as David, Lucas's boyfriend in one iteration) and who is given two great songs. James Snyder, as Josh (the missed/made connection) was a bit bland, but he did well in his one big number.

I went in knowing that the show dealt with parallel timelines, and the opening number (with lyrics inserted this weekend) makes that pretty clear also. However, the transitions between the timelines were not always smooth, and unless a character addressed Menzel as Liz or Beth, which seemed forced, it could be a minute before you know which line you're on. When the show played out of NY there were lighting cues for the different timelines, but those have been toned down. Also confusing to me was the fact that her more relaxed iteration, Liz, wore these really school-marm looking glasses, while the Beth iteration, the uptight career woman didn't wear glasses at all, and no comment was made about contacts or anything. At least their taste in clothes was the same (although the two versions have different taste in men). As I said, from the very beginning I didn't care much for the character, and as the show went on, I found her choices and her insistence (or the writers' insistence) that she could have either love or career but not both annoying.

The second act dragged quite a bit of me, and although it's only been a couple of hours, I can't tell you what the wrap up for the Liz time line was, although I think it was the big 11 o'clock number about getting on with your life and how every day is a new chance. Oh, wait, I remember now. In BOTH iterations we end up back in the park where we began, some five years after the start of the stories. And now that I think of it, the writers throw us a bit of a bone. Liz, who made the connection and found love and loss, gets offered a job. And Beth, who missed the love connection but career connection, now meets the man she missed that day.

The set of the show was interesting, split level at times with a mirror reflecting the stage itself. The best part was during a song about how everyone in NY is interconnected, the lights on the stage floor formed a subway map. But it's not a good sign when I was paying more attention to the lighting effects than to the action on stage.

I think that fans of Idina Menzel and Anthony Rapp will enjoy the show (they were screaming even before the show started today). But I'm not sure how well it's going to go over with the general public. And if I want to look at alternate timelines, I'll pull out the movie "Sliding Doors".


----------



## Sapphire

We saw Sister Act last night at the Orpheum in Omaha. It was a great show: lots of laughs, outstanding singing, characters with good stage presence. I had seen the movie several times, so I was curious how the musical stage show would work. It was different, of course, but well done and well worth our time to see. The evening at the theater was preceded by a wonderful dinner at the Flatiron along with a group of friends and neighbors.


----------



## lj.briar

Last musical I saw was Avenue Q last year, and I loved it. Saw it at a small theatre so it was on the cheap side, but would definitely see it again in a bigger theatre for more money. 

Oh no wait...actually I've seen two other things since then. Oops. Saw the restaging of Les Miz, which I thought was good although I understand some more die-hard Les Miz fans have an issue with it. I'm not so super familiar with the show so I'll trust the experts, but I enjoyed it enough.

I also saw Aladdin during its Pre-Broadway engagement in Toronto and it was....okay. The genie stole the show of course. The rest of it was just "eh".

Planning a trip to NYC right now to see Phantom again as well. I'm really, REALLY excited about Norm Lewis and Sierra Boggess taking over the two principle roles. I really liked Sierra in the 25th anniversary performances, and Norm Lewis from all interviews seems to really understand the role of the Phantom.


----------



## telracs

Of Mice and Men

I read this book in high school, and remember finding it depressing back then. So, I wasn't really too keen to see the play, but my sister wanted to, and well, it's her birthday weekend.... I remembered that the plot concerns George and Lennie, two itinerant workers starting a new job on a ranch in California. Lennie is large, extremely strong man, with the intellectual and emotional capability of a young child. He understands the difference between right and wrong, but he has not comprehension of consequences. George tries to look out for Lennie, and although he sometimes complains about the bigger man, there was a real bond between them. But George is a bit of a dreamer himself, and although he tries to think things through, he sometimes fails. And ultimately, this has tragic consequences for not just the two men, but others around them as well.

James Franco as George and Chris O'Dowd as Lennie were excellent. They had a real connection on stage, and I could believe that they had been friends for years. George's ambivalence towards his relationship with Lennie was palpable, but never overdone. The supporting cast was mostly great also, except for Leighton Meester as Curley's Wife (yes, the character has no name). I didn't really feel anything from her, and wondered why any of the men would give her a second look. She is supposed to be giving the men "the eye", but I didn't get that at all.

The set and costumes were effective, evoking the 1930s quite well. I especially enjoyed the music used during scene transitions, in fact, I'm going to look for David Singer's music on line.

Even though I remembered that the book has a depressing end, I didn't remember all the details, so the final scene, while not a total surprise, was still a shock. While I walked out of the theater unhappy at the turn of events in George and Lennie's lives, I was not unhappy that I'd indulged my sister. The show is powerful, and definitely worth seeing.


----------



## telracs

lj.briar said:


> Last musical I saw was Avenue Q last year, and I loved it. Saw it at a small theatre so it was on the cheap side, but would definitely see it again in a bigger theatre for more money.
> 
> Oh no wait...actually I've seen two other things since then. Oops. Saw the restaging of Les Miz, which I thought was good although I understand some more die-hard Les Miz fans have an issue with it. I'm not so super familiar with the show so I'll trust the experts, but I enjoyed it enough.
> 
> I also saw Aladdin during its Pre-Broadway engagement in Toronto and it was....okay. The genie stole the show of course. The rest of it was just "eh".
> 
> Planning a trip to NYC right now to see Phantom again as well. I'm really, REALLY excited about Norm Lewis and Sierra Boggess taking over the two principle roles. I really liked Sierra in the 25th anniversary performances, and Norm Lewis from all interviews seems to really understand the role of the Phantom.


I'll be commenting on Aladdin in a bit, saw it yesterday.

And I'm currently trying to figure out when I can get back to Phantom. I am a huge Norm Lewis fan, and am interested on how he'll play the role (I've seen Phantom 20 times in 3 different cities). And I LOVE when I get a baritone Phantom rather than a tenor.


----------



## telracs

I have a three show "weekend". Saturday night...

Jasper in Deadland

As I've stated before, I don't get to as much off-Broadway as I would like, so this year I'm trying to make an effort to see shows done by smaller companies. Jasper in Deadland popped into my thoughts due to the fact that it is written by Hunter Foster (currently in Bridges of Madison County) and is based on the Orpheus myth. I found the poster artwork intriguing, it looked like it would be a nice dark musical. That mood was continued by the dark red lighting of the space before the show started. So I was a bit taken aback when the show started and it became clear that it had a more comedic tone than I expected, at points so broadly comic that I disliked it. Jasper, our teenage angst filled hero, is a loner dealing with divorced parents, trouble at school, and a female best friend who has just told him she loves him (all of this exposition was crammed into a long, loud opening number). Best friend Agnes, to prove to Jasper that she's not afraid (don't ask me of what), decides to do a cliff dive from their favorite spot. Jasper follows her, and when he dives into the water, he ends up in City Circle in Deadland. But, he's alive, which causes problems for Mr. Lethe, the guy running things in the city. Jasper meets up with Gretchen, a tour guide in the City, and together they go hunting for Agnes. Unfortunately, Jasper starts losing his memory (as do all residents of Deadland), and he can't quite remember what Agnes looks like, and when he does find her, it's a bit of a shock (and a plot twist I didn't see coming, for reasons I'll explain in a bit). Jasper and Agnes rescue each other from difficulties, and thanks to a Deus ex Machina, manage to return to the "real world".

There are only 9 actors in the cast, and except for Matt Doyle as Jasper and Alison Scagliotti as Gretchen, they all play a plethora of roles. I wish that they had sprung for a bigger cast, as some of the multiple roles got confusing. But I did enjoy Ben Crawford in his Mr. Lethe role, and John-Micheal Lyles as Lester. Matt Doyle is cute and played a high school boy well, but at times I wanted to smack the character. My biggest issue was with Alison Scagliotti. She was fine as Gretchen, but when it was revealed at the end of Act One that SHE is actually Agnes, I found it unbelievable, because she seemed much too old for a high schooler. Part of me had been wondering during Act One why we hadn't seen Agnes, so the reveal wasn't a huge shock to me, but it was disappointing. And since I know my Greek mythology, I figured out WAY too early that the source of the forgetting was the "Lethe" water everyone in City Circle was drinking.

The play mashes up Greek, Egyptian and Norse mythology. And even throws in an unnecessary appearance by Beatrice, Dante's muse. Most of the Greek stuff played well, except for Cerberus and the use of the River Lethe as the boundary instead of the River Styx. The Egyptian goddess Ammut gets a nice scene, but the Norse Hel and Loki were too broadly comic for my taste.

While the company used the small playing area well for the most part, I had difficulty understanding the singing at points. In a space that size, I can't understand what why the sound balance was so off at times.

One interesting thing that the company did that had nothing to do with the play itself. Instead of tickets, they issued "seat location" cards. They were handed to the ushers, who pointed out your seat, and are being recycled. I like the recycle idea, but I noticed that people were having issues finding their seats without having actual tickets to refer to. I guess we don't really pay attention when ushers tell us where to go.


----------



## telracs

Aladdin

Sometimes it seems that the main character of Aladdin isn't the title character, but rather the Genie.  So having the Genie narrate the opening production number of Disney's latest venture on Broadway might have seemed like a good idea (especially since Robin Williams did the voice of both the "salesman" and Genie in the movie).  But having James Monroe Iglehart on stage for 10 minutes and then gone for most of the rest of act one didn't quite work for me.  Adam Jacobs is a cute Aladdin, and does well in his first two songs, but when the action switches to Jasmine in the palace, the show just falls flat.  This may be due to the fact that Courtney Reed doesn't look like an Arabian Princess to me, or that the new song written for her by Alan Menken and Chad Beguelin was just boring.  

There are three types of songs in the show.  Ones that were used in the movie, ones that had been written for the movie but not used, and new songs written for the stage version.  The songs from the movie work the best, as do scenes that stick closest to the movie.  A couple of the songs that were written but not used in the movie involve 3 friends of Aladdin's who were cut from the movie but are re-inserted here.  While I enjoyed their street musician song "Babkak, Omar, Aladdin, Kassim", the interpolated sword fight in "High Adventure" was a bit boring.  As I mentioned, Jasmine's new solo "These Palaces Walls" failed to thrill me, but a duet for Jasmine and Aladdin was a bit better.  A buddy song between Aladdin and the Genie in Act Two just felt like a waste of time and the scene it is in, where Aladdin uses his second wish was too great a departure from the movie for my taste.

Jonathan Freeman, who was the voice of Jafar in the movie, is now playing the role on stage.  So the voice is wonderful, and he gets some great costume changes in the finale, but something just didn't click for me with him.  Clifton Davis was okay as the Sultan, but it is a bit of a bland part.  Of Aladin's friends, Brian Gonzalez as Babkak was the most fun, hearing everything as referring to food.  This production has eliminated the animals of the movie, Iago is now a flunky (Don Darryl Rivera, annoyingly channelling Gilbert Gottfried's voice), not a parrot, and Abu is gone completely (although during the Prince Ali segment, we do see a picture of a monkey that looks like him).  

The show is filled with big, glitzy, sparkly production numbers.  The opening one went on a bit too long for me, as did "Prince Ali" and "High Adventure" in Act Two.  But the "Friend Like Me" number was the most fun in a long time, with glitz, sparkle, tap, a magic trick and even interpolated lyrics from other Disney shows.  It was fun, and was one of the reasons I'm recommending the show.

All of the sets and scenery were great, but the best part of the show was the flying carpet effect.  It is used twice, during "A Whole New World" and the finale and was definitely magical.  And has been the most discussed aspect of the show on the chat boards, because nobody can figure out how it's done.


----------



## crebel

Sounds like a fun show.  For some reason Aladdin is not one of the Disney movies we own.  I'll have to find it and watch with my grandkids.

What have the chat boards decided are the most likely mechanics for the flying carpet?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Sounds like a fun show. For some reason Aladdin is not one of the Disney movies we own. I'll have to find it and watch with my grandkids.
> 
> What have the chat boards decided are the most likely mechanics for the flying carpet?


nobody has put out any ideas. the folks doing the effect have worked with illusionists, so it's probably something like David Copperfield's flying effect.


----------



## Sapphire

"War Horse" was the show we saw last week. I loved it; my husband hated it. After more discussion, I deduced that the heavy British accent, combined with his hearing problem, caused him to miss most of the dialogue. He also prefers lighter subject material. On the other hand, I thought the show had tremendous impact, the right mix of historical context and personal pathos.


----------



## telracs

Heathers: The Musical

Well, another movie to musical adaptation of a movie I managed to miss. Because I went in with no expectations, I mostly enjoyed this musical. However, people who have seen the move felt that the musical missed the point. And after going home and watching the movie (thanks amazon Prime), I would agree that the movie is better in many ways.

For the other 3 people out there who might not have seen the movie, the plotline concerns our narrator, Veronica (the miscast Barrett Wilbert Weed) joining up with the popular clique of 3 girls named Heather. In the musical, we see her before joining up with them, while in the movie Veronica is already a Heather when the action starts. Veronica falls out of favor with the lead Heather and hooks up with local bad boy Jason Dean. Trying to make up with Heather, Veronica and JD accidentally (or is it on purpose by JD?) kill Heather. Because our girl is an expert forger, people believe that Heather killed herself. Things spiral out of control, with two more deaths before Veronica tries to break up with the increasingly unstable JD.

As I said, I found Barrett Wilbert Weed miscast in this role. I think that she would be better cast as on of the Heathers, she comes across too much of a snob and I didn't find her attempts at redeeming herself believable. Alice Lee was the weakest of the Heathers, overplaying the role and looking like she'd had botox injections. Elle McLemore was okay as Heather McNamara and Katie Lander was okay as Martha Dunnstock (she gets one good song to herself). As far as the adults in the piece, Anthony Crivello was good as JD's dad, but not as good when playing Ram's dad and singing "I Love My Dead Gay Son." The best female performance was that of Jessica Keenan Wynn as Heather Chandler. She was sufficiently bitchy, and didn't over play the role. The performance I enjoyed most of was Ryan McCartan as JD. He projected sexy menace incredibly, and even from the eighth row, he drew me in. I could understand how Veronica fell under his spell and his acting elevated hers in their scenes together.


----------



## telracs

Rocky

I had been afraid that this was going that this was going to be a cheesy production, but for the most part, it was actually a very touching story. With a really exciting finale. I knew the basic plotline of the show, but (surprise, surprise), I've never seen the movie. So I was surprised at how central the love story is to the show. Andy Karl made an enjoyable Rocky. He doesn't look like Sylvester Stallone, and I can't imagine Stallone singing, so I was able to enjoy him cleanly. Unfortunately, the accent he employs while speaking was a bit thick and annoying, but that was a minor problem. We saw an understudy as Adrian, who was quite good in the role. She gets a couple of really good songs, in fact, I think her songs are the best in the show. Terence Archie gets a couple of big numbers as Apollo Creed, but they were big without being good. And that's my biggest complaint about the show. There's a lot of spectacle, and while it's enjoyable for a while, at times it is a bit of overkill. There are wonderful projections used during the training montage, but the use of multiple doubles for Rocky to show his speed just didn't work for me. And most of the music wasn't great either. As I said, Adrian had a couple of good ballads, and there is a nice duet for Rocky and Adrian, but Rocky's solos were a bit boring, and Apollo Creed's too over the top.

For a lot of people, the show isn't about the music, but rather the climactic fight between Rocky and Apollo. And the show doesn't disappoint there. Before the fight, the patrons in the first 10 rows are moved out of the orchestra and up on to bleacher seats on stage. The boxing ring is then shifted over those now empty seats. A "jumbtotron" is lowered over the ring and we get to watch the fight on multiple screens. To add to the sense that we are in the Philadelphia Spectrum, Philadelphia Flyer's pennants are hung from the rafters of the theater. That didn't really make me feel like I was at the Spectrum, because the inside of the Winter Garden Theater is way too pretty to pass for an arena. The fight choreography is incredible, and I can't imagine doing it 8 times a week.


----------



## telracs

Bullets over Broadway

Has anyone else noticed the recurring theme of my reviews lately? I mean, seeing shows that are Broadway musical versions of movies I've never seen. This one is based on a Woody Allen movie about a playwright who gets involved with a mobster. Zach Braff is cast in the role of playwright David Shayne, seeming to want to channel Allen, but missing the mark in my opinion. In fact, that's my overall opinion of the play. It tries, but it misses the mark. The bulk of the actors are playing extremely broadly (worst of the lot are Brooks Ashkamkas and Marin Mazzie, both performers that I have loved in other things), and this gets annoying quite quickly. Also annoying is the fact that instead of using original songs, the productions employs "standards" of the 1920s. Because songs are interpolated instead of arising organically, most of them seem forced. And they lead to too many productions numbers and not enough character songs. While productions numbers can be fun, when they are the bulk of the numbers and seem somewhat repetitive, it gets boring. There was one number that wasn't boring, instead it was puerile and borderline disgusting. I know the mobster's girlfriend is supposed to be stupid and crass but having a big production number around a song titled "A Hot Dog for My Roll" which leaves nothing to the imagination had me cringing. As did the accent employed by the actress. Nails on a chalkboard are more attractive then what they are making her do. The story line had some promise, with the theme about how one should be true to one's art, but the background of gangland murder and the subplot of the writer's affair with his leading lady just confused me. And the actions of some of the characters went beyond silly into stupid. These weren't people, they weren't even stereotypes, they were "characters" and I had little sympathy for any of them.

The one enjoyable thing of this show was the visual. Both the sets and costumes were gorgeous, however they weren't enough overshadow the broad acting and plot holes. Susan Stroman's (the Producers) choreography was up to her usual standard, but as I said, there was too much of it at points. I can handle a couple of long dance numbers in a show, but when every number is long, I start to tune out.

I had really been looking forward to this show, as a co-worker had seen it and enjoyed it, but ultimately, it just didn't work for me.


----------



## Amyshojai

Last night I saw our local high school perform THE ADDAMS FAMILY. This is an award winning theater program that won the right to the HS Texas premier of the show, and they did a fine job. I was familiar with the TV program, and wondered how it'd come out in the play and what a hoot! 

Has anyone seen the Broadway production? I was told they got permission to cut some of the (multi-verse) songs for this production and a couple of songs the kids couldn't handle and it was still over 2 hours. That's a lot of camp--but fun camp.


----------



## telracs

Amyshojai said:


> Last night I saw our local high school perform THE ADDAMS FAMILY. This is an award winning theater program that won the right to the HS Texas premier of the show, and they did a fine job. I was familiar with the TV program, and wondered how it'd come out in the play and what a hoot!
> 
> Has anyone seen the Broadway production? I was told they got permission to cut some of the (multi-verse) songs for this production and a couple of songs the kids couldn't handle and it was still over 2 hours. That's a lot of camp--but fun camp.


The show has undergone a few changes. The original production ran in Chicago, and then changes were made before it hit Broadway. More changes were made for the touring production (I have a friend in the tour playing Mal).

We enjoyed the show on Broadway, although I didn't love Morticia. I think Uncle Fester got the best songs.


----------



## Amyshojai

Agreed, Uncle Fester had the best part. 

Shows always get revised, hopefully for the better.


----------



## telracs

Amyshojai said:


> Agreed, Uncle Fester had the best part.
> 
> Shows always get revised, hopefully for the better.


unfortunately, not always for the better.


----------



## Amyshojai

telracs said:


> unfortunately, not always for the better.


True. Sometimes they fiddle and mess with it way too much. *sigh*


----------



## telracs

Violet

Finally, a musical NOT based on a movie. Violet is based on a short story of a (literally) scarred young lady from North Carolina who in September 1964 embarks on a bus trip to Tulsa Oklahoma to get help from an evangelist she has seen on TV (yes, I know this was a run on sentence). On the bus she makes the acquaintance of a few people, most importantly a pair of US soldiers, Flick and Monty (one African American, one Caucasian). Both men bond with Violet, but because this is the segregated South, and the era of Vietnam, all relationships seem doomed. Adding to the tension is Violet's absolute conviction that the healer will be able to help her and her difficulties accepting that people might not care about her scar. Unfortunately, the healer lives up to the cynical beliefs of the two men, not Violet's high hopes, but fortunately, in the end, she is able to accept love as offered to her.

The musical is almost completely sung, and flips between Violet's journey on the bus and her childhood. It's easy tell the flashbacks, but they don't seem to be chronological, so the time line gets a bit confusing. Also a bit confusing for me was the artistic decision made to not show us Violet's scar. Sutton Foster does a great job projecting wounded vulnerability, and the performers interacting with her do good reaction shots. But I would have like something, if only a token thin line to show where the scar was.

As I said Sutton Foster was wonderful, in great voice and moving well in a simple sundress. As Flick and Monty, Josh Henry and Colin Donnell were both great, but Henry gets the better songs. Both men look quite nice in and out of uniform. Annie Golden scores as an old lady Violet meets on the bus and then as a worn out hooker that the men ignore. Alexander Gemignani does well as Violet's father in the flashbacks and Rema Webb has a phenomenal turn as a gospel singer (and she has a great line reminding the preacher that she is singing for Jesus, not for him).

The show takes a bit of time to get going, due to the fact that everything is sung, and the first number goes on a bit long and since it is an ensemble song, it's a bit difficult to understand. Worst offender is the first voice we hear, Emerson Steele as young Violet, she swallowed a lot of her notes. The scenes in Tulsa go on for a long while, and while the evangelist's choir was excellent, and their song toe-tapping, I think they could have cut a couple of minutes of it. Especially since the show is done without an intermission.

The set is fairly simple, just chairs and tables, and in a couple of scenes, a bed. We have to imagine the bus as we do Violet's scar, and line up the passengers in our mind, since the chairs are scattered on the stage. The band is on the stage also, and I must admit that there were points I was watching them and not the actors.


----------



## telracs

Irma La Douce

Some of our more mature members might remember a movie by this name starring Shirley MacLaine and Jack Lemmon. That movie, although based on a French musical that played both London and NY, had no songs in it, supposedly because the director wasn't comfortable staging dance numbers.

The basic plot of the musical has a prostitute (Irma) meeting a law student (Nestor) and immediately falling in love. Because he doesn't like being supported by her, and doesn't like her being with other men, Nestor masquerades as a rich older man who becomes her only "customer." Eventually, he becomes jealous even of himself, and disappears the old dude. Unfortunately, he is accused of murdering his alter ego and ends up sentenced to Devil's Island. Fortunately, he and some cohorts escape and the couple is reunited in time for the birth of their twin sons.

A co-worker went to the show before us, and when he gave us the tickets he warned me that he hadn't enjoyed the show. The friend I went with so disliked it that she left at intermission. I stayed, because I wanted to see how the whole thing wrapped up, but my friend wasn't the only one who left, a number of seats around me were empty for act two.

A big part of my problem with the show was the execution of the story. Perhaps it was "sophisticated" when it premiered, especially as since it debuted on Broadway the same year as "Sound of Music" which some people might have thought too sweet. But this production just seemed crude, and most of what I think were originally meant to be jokes fell flat. This I think is the fault of the director, John Doyle. Everything I've seen directed by him has been lacking in humor, even when prior productions of the same show have been funny. Rob McClure, who I have seen and enjoyed in Chaplin and Honeymoon in Vegas, seemed flat here, and by the time he was able to let loose, it was too little too late. Also problematical was the fact that I felt no chemistry between McClure and Jennifer Bowles' Irma. In fact, I felt nothing from Bowles, the only woman on the stage, and the only person even attempting a French accent. I didn't believe her as an irresistible sexy women who men would stand on line to patronize. I did enjoy Malcolm Gets as narrator/barkeep Ben, who seemed to be having a good time on stage and tried to help the audience to enjoy things. I knew that I wasn't engaged by the show when I spent a lot of time during Act One trying to figure out where I had seen one of the ensemble members before.

The set of the production was the best thing. It was a wonderfully dingy bar, with all manner of French signage above it. Also enjoyable was the fact that the band was visible throughout the entire show, and I liked watching the accordion player. One thing that bothered me about the set, though, was the fact that sometimes people used the door on stage to enter the bar, but other times went around it and just walked through what would have been a wall. I dislike inconsistencies like that.

City Center's Encore! series was set up to showcase musicals that don't get revived often. Most of the time, the productions are wonderful (see my earlier review of "Little Me"). Unfortunately, Irma La Douce, while it might have seemed like a good idea, failed to live up to its predecessors. But fortunately, Encore's shows only run for 5 performances each, so Irma has strolled her last street for a while.


----------



## telracs

Hedwig and the Angry Inch

People may be drawn to this show because it stars Neil Patrick Harris, but I have a warning: This is NOT "How I Met Your Mother" Neil Patrick Harris. Or Doogie Howser. Or even "Harold and Kumar." This is a performance piece by the internationally ignored song stylist Hedwig and her band, The Angry Inch.

The immersion into Hedwig's world begins as soon as you enter the Belasco theater. The pre-show music has a definite punk edge to it, and scattered around the theater are what appear to be cast off Playbills. They are not playbills for Hedwig, but rather for "Hurt Locker: The Musical". And they are hysterical. What is "Hurt Locker: The Musical", you ask? Well, in this alternate reality, it is the show that played at the Belasco theater last, and closed at intermission of its opening night, which allowed Hedwig to get the theater for her concert.

There are only 11 songs performed during the 90 minute piece, so we get a lot of patter from Hedwig, some of which is interesting, but some of which I found a bit boring. Parts of the story of Hedwig's (nee Hansel) life in East Berlin felt a bit forced, and, being the prude I am, some of the sexual innuendo just felt like too much. And the vitriol towards Hedwig's former partner Tommy and her current husband Yitzhak made me cringe. If I'm supposed to feel sympathy for Hedwig, it didn't happen for me. As for Yitzhak, I just don't understand a lot of that character. He is supposed to be a former drag queen now consigned to playing second fiddle to Hedwig, and keeps opening the back tour of the theater so that we hear a distant Tommy Gnosis performance. I really wanted to like Hedwig and Yitzhak, but neither of the characters was likable. For the most part, during the show, I just got caught up in the story and went along with it. But afterwards I keep wondering about things. Like why the playwright made the decision to have Yitzhak played by a woman. Maybe so that when he comes out if full drag at the end, he looks a lot better then Hedwig ever did? And what exactly does the ending mean?

The set for the show starts out as a set for "Hurt Locker" and consists of burned out buildings, a burned out car center stage (which is used amazingly well for a number of things), and hanging from the rafters, what looks like the stuff you would get if you froze an explosion mid-frame. During the show Hedwig pushes the background set pieces off the stage and what is supposed to be the real entrance of the theater is revealed.

Harris truly loses himself in the role of Hedwig, and does an excellent job with both the vocal and physical demands of the role. Lena Hall as Yitzhak is believable as a man, and shines in the few places she is allowed to. The Angry Inch band were wonderful, although the joke behind their character names was another thing I didn't get.

For fans of the original off-Broadway production, or the movie, I think this is a nice addition. For fans of NPH who want to see him do something completely different, I would recommend this. But if he will forever be Doggie Howser to you, skip it.

Two final warnings. If you have sensitive hearing, bring earplugs, I left the theater with my ears ringing, and we were sitting pretty far back. And if you are sensitive to strobe lights, this show has them in abundance.


----------



## telracs

Act One

It's bad when the biggest laughter an actor gets is because his current role reminds the audience of an ionic role he has played in the past. This is the case with Tony Shalhoub in Act One. Although at this point in the story Mr. Shalhoub is playing George S. Kaufman, Kaufman's neurotic dislike of being touched reminded everyone of "Monk", and got a laugh. This was one of the few times I laughed during this play. The play is based on the autobiography of playwright Moss Hart, a man with a number of credits to his name, but only one that I even vaguely recalled, "The Man who Came to Dinner." Later in his career he was also a director, of the Broadway versions of "My Fair Lady" and "Camelot".

Unfortunately, Act One dwells on Mr. Hart's younger life, ending with the opening of his first collaboration with Mr. Kaufman, titled "Once in a Lifetime." In fact, we don't even see Mr. Hart as a character for a while in the beginning, but instead we watch his Aunt Kate attending a play. Instead, we have Mr. Hart as narrator. Or should I say "narrators" because we have a young version of him, played by Santino Fontana, and an older version played by Mr. Shalhoub. Yes, that's right, Mr. Shalhoub gets saddled with more than one role. He plays the older narrator, George S. Kaufman, and even Moss Hart's father. I have to give Mr. Shalhoub and his dresser credit, he slips back and forth between characters well, but with a cast as large as this one, I felt that they could have given one or more of the roles to another actor. And the double narrating gets a bit annoying at times. Andrea Martin is also stuck playing multiple roles, as Hart's aunt, Kaufman's wife, and an agent for the Broadway producer. While costuming and movement make clear which character is which, again, I felt that it was just too much of one actress. Because of multiple casting, I found myself wondering if the character of Max Siegel really was African American (I don't think so), or if they director just wanted to give the always wonderful Chuck Cooper more stage-time. The cast tries hard, but because the story is not engaging, I just didn't care about most of the people on stage.

What I did care about was the absolutely incredible set. It is multi-leveled and turns and allows for wonderful scene changes. And when you care more about the set then the actors, you know it's not a good sign.


----------



## telracs

Casa Valentina

My first cultural experience with transvestism was Jamie Farr's Corporal Klinger on the TV show M*A*S*H. I remember one episode that made Klinger's feelings clear. A Swedish doctor is visiting, and she tells him that she has colleagues back in Sweden that can make his desire to become a woman reality. Klinger is horrified. While he seems to enjoy dressing as a woman, he is doing it mostly to try and escape the army. So, for the longest time, I thought no straight man dressed as a woman for pleasure. Well, I was wrong. Harvey Fierstein, who has taken on the subject of drag queens before (with him, usually gay men who dress as women or men who want to be women), now takes us to a resort where heterosexual men who "fem-personate" come together in the Catskill region during the summer of 1962. The first people we meet are Rita (the one "genuine girl" in attendence) who runs the resort with her husband, and Jonathan, a first time visitor. I think if the story had followed Jonathan and his making his way in this new world, and interacting with the other men, it would have been a great story. Unfortunately, we almost immediately get pulled into a second plot, where Rita's husband George comes back from a meeting with the postal inspector because someone has sent him homosexual pornographic pictures. Adding to George's anxiety is the fact that the resort is losing money and may have to close. Again, just that crisis would have been enough for me. George is hoping that two of the people coming to the resort that weekend will be able to help him with both of these issues. Or should I say that Valentina is hoping, because George is not only the owner of the resort, but also one of the men who dress as women.

[side note: I have to admit to having issues with how to word things. From what I can tell, the phrase "drag queen" can be seen as derogatory, and to me, it has usually meant a male who dresses as a female in order to perform an act. And usually, a gay male. A transvestite is a man who dress as a woman. I also use the phrase "cross-dresser" simply to mean a person of one gender who dresses in the clothes of the other. No sexual orientation is inferred by me in the word transvestite or the phrase cross-dresser. I'd never heard the phrase "fem-personator" before this play, but for me it seemed to imply "playing," a man playing at being a woman. And no sexual orientation was inferred by me. So, I'm going to stick to the word transvestite to describe the men of Casa Valentina.]

So, as I mentioned, Jonathan is a first time visitor to the resort (which is NOT called Casa Valentina, but is actually named for Chevalier D'Eon, a French person who lived part of their life as a male and part as a female. It's in interesting story, told in the play, which I looked at on the net afterwards). Also in attendance are old-timers Betsy, Terry, Amy and Gloria, and another new-comer, Charlotte. Charlotte is the head of a national organization of transvestites, called The Sorority, and she is there to organize the group into a local chapter. However, there is one catch. She needs all the men to sign an affidavit stating they are not homosexuals. This does not go over well with the others, and exposes cracks in the group and ultimately leads to a confrontation between Charlotte and one of the others. This examination of the prejudice against gays by the transvestite community was interesting, and again, this story alone would have been enough. But putting all the subplots on stage just got to be too much for me and I felt the whole thing got disjointed. Even more annoyingly, nothing really gets resolved at the end, and the fates of most of the characters are left hanging.

The two things that were great about the show were the cast and the set. All of the characters seemed real, which was a tribute more to the acting than the writing. Not all of the men were believable as women, but honestly, that is true of transvestites across the board. The split set used for the interior of the resort was gorgeous, and was used quite well. The costumes were nice, appropriate for the time period.

There were a few wonderful lines in the play, one of them being spoken by Gloria, when asked why homosexuality doesn't disgust her. Her response; "I find tapioca disgusting. But your enjoyment of it doesn't effect me in any way." I think that is the idea that the author is trying to get across, but unfortunately, the message fails in this show with just too much other noise going on around the central theme.


----------



## telracs

Macbeth

One of the themes that comes up on KB periodically is whether we appreciate something more if we've paid more for it. Or if we expect more because something was expensive. With this production of Macbeth, I'm really having a hard time putting aside the amount I paid for the ticket and looking at the production just for its own merits. One reason this ticket was so expensive (if not THE reason) was that it starred Kenneth Branagh. Unfortunately, I found him a bit weak in the role (more on that later).

The production is being mounted at the Park Ave Armory, using their drill hall (55,000 square feet space). It has been tailored to make the Armory part of the show itself, starting from moment you enter the building. When your ticket is scanned, you are given a clan wristband, and directed to your clan meeting room. There you get a program, with the clan tartan as the cover, and with a map of Scotland and info on your clan in it. I got there early enough that I had time to wander around the armory rooms (which are gorgeous, and include a room designed by Tiffany), and read about the other clans. When the time comes, each clan is mustered in their room and one by one they are marched through the hallway into the drill hall which has become the dark Scottish heath. Since they are only using 1/2 of the drill hall for the playing space, you have a bit of a walk to get to your seats, but since the clans represent seating areas, the concept helps keep the seating efficient. One of the bad things about the production, which I knew in advance, is that the seating is on backless benches. People had been claiming on line that the benches were not padded, but in fact, they are padded. However, since the show does not start on time, due to seating each section separately, and has no intermission, by the time it's getting near the end, I was getting uncomfortable. The playing area was a rectangle, with seats on the two long sides. One of the short sides (the one closest to where I was sitting) had 3 standing stones arranged in a semi-circle. The other short side seemed to resemble a church, with portraits of 3 saints. And a lot of candles.

I love watching Shakespeare plays. But I go to them for the words, so starting a production (which I already knew would have no intermission) with a 10 minute battle just didn't work for me. Especially since the fight choreography was obvious and too stilted for me. Once the witches appeared, I got more caught up in things. Unfortunately, with the entrance of Macbeth and Banquo, I almost got lost again. While Mr. Branagh looked great, he was speaking his lines way too fast, and it was hard to follow. And I didn't realize that the actor with him was playing Banquo at first, due to the fact that he was older and I expected him to be playing Duncan. Alex Kingston (River Song from Dr. Who) played Lady Macbeth, and she was wonderful. She did a great job in the letter scene transitioning into "unsex me here" and she and Branagh had a good chemistry. I also enjoyed Richard Coyle as MacDuff and Alexander Vlahos as Malcolm.

One unfortunate effect of the rectangular playing area was that the actors had to constantly turn to play to each section of the seating. This was something that Kingston did and made seem effortless, but with Branagh it was obvious when he was doing it and it became a bit distracting. And while I felt pretty close to the action when it was down my side of the area, things that took place at the far end (Duncan's death, Macbeth's meeting with the murderers) seemed farther away then if I'd been in a traditional playing space.

The costumes for the show were well done, using the clan colors well, and having a distinctive look for the English who help Malcolm at the end. There were some cool special effects, during the "dagger of the mind" speech and after Banquo's death.
I went to see the show because I figured it would be the only chance I'd get to see Kenneth Branagh perform live, and while I enjoyed the production and the experience (and especially getting to explore the Armory), I really wish I had enjoyed his performance more.


----------



## telracs

Holler if You Hear Me

This show came into NY with minimal fanfare. And if the buzz is correct, it will be leaving the same way fairly quickly. The hook of the show is that it uses the lyrics of Tupac Shakur, one of the founding fathers of the hip hop movement. I don't really know Tupac's music all that well, but I like different things so I was hoping to enjoy his songs here. My interest in Tupac came about tangentially, when I read a book by a former Black Panther who was friends with Shakur's mother Afeni Shakur and knew the singer as a young man. 
I think if the show had been a biography using Tupac's music it would have worked. Instead, we get the story of John, an ex-con returning to his "block" and at first attempting to go straight. But due to external and internal stresses, he slips back into the violence of the street, but then he flip flops again and walks away from a confrontation only to come (in true West Side Story fashion) to a violent end himself. I found the main character sympathetic at first, trying to do the right thing, but later on he becomes short tempered and instead of listening to the one person trying to help him, he throws that help back in his employer's face and walks away. Therefore, his decision to turn his back on the violence didn't ring true, and his return to his employer just annoyed me. The secondary characters were equally annoying, even when played by extremely talented actors. Christopher Jackson tries to bring some depth to Vertus, the friend John left behind and who is now the big man on the street and with John's ex-girlfriend. Tonya Pinkins' voice soars as always, but her role as Vertus's mother gives her little to do but stand around trying to look wise. And the "surprise" reveal about John's relationship with the seemingly crazy street preacher was not a surprise to me and felt a bit silly. The ending of the show was predictable, but by that point, I really didn't care what happened to any of the characters, so I was just glad when it was over.


----------



## telracs

Faust
I'm not sure why I decided to see this one night concert version of Randy Newman's Faust. Maybe because it was a one night performance of a show that has had a long but not successful life? Maybe because I like supporting City Center's mission of bringing overlooked musicals to stage? Maybe I liked the announced cast (Micheal Cerveris, Laura Osnes, Tony Vincent, Newman himself)?
Whatever my reason for going, I sort of wish I had made a different decision. The show is meandering and disjointed. Although it is supposed to be based on Goethe's Faust, the character of Henry Faust is barely seen. Instead, we get a lot of the conflict between "the Lord" played by the enjoyable Isiah Jackson, and the Devil played by Newman. In fact, this felt more like a Newman concert with guest appearances then a well-fleshed out show. Each of the secondary performers get a song, but most of them have little to do with the story. Vonda Shepard has a nice duet with Newman, which does a little bit to flesh out his character, but her later number made no sense in context. Jackson has some nice moments, Vincent has one okay song, as does Osnes, along with a young girl named Brooklyn Shuck. Cerveris (sporting a bizarre English accent) had almost nothing to sing, but shared narration duties with Newman. Newman played the piano for the whole show, so he didn't do much moving around. The only real movement was done by members of the Broadway Inspirational Vocal chorus. The 15 or so people were conducted by Micheal McElroy and were one of the most enjoyable parts of the show. 
The costumes were pretty basic, blue outfits for the chorus, a bright white suit for Jackson, a white dress for Osnes, and variations on black outfits for Vincent, Shepard and Newman. The orchestra and chorus took up most of the stage, and there was no real set except for these two weird white "clouds". The backdrop changed color at times throughout the show, but I never really felt they correlated with any of the action. 
A lot of the audience seemed into the show and I'm certain fans of Newman enjoyed themselves. However, I really wish the book had been tightened up a bit and that Newman had let other people do a bit more.


----------



## telracs

Heroes and Villains

Last year, my friend Beth invited me to go with her to an off-Broadway of Little Shop of Horrors with a couple of friends of hers in the cast. I really enjoyed it, especially Erik Hanson as Seymour. So when Beth told me Erik was doing a cabaret show at Don't Tell Mama, I was in. The title of Erik's set was "Heroes and Villains" and his facebook page had him in costume from "Book of Mormon" and what I thought was Mr. Hyde from "Jekyll and Hyde." The opening number was the perfect start, the title song from "Man of La Mancha" and Erik did a great job on it. His voice was good and his body language for the mad knight was good. He went from one of my favorite songs to a song from one of my favorite show, A Man Could Go Quite Mad from "Mystery of Edwin Drood." It's a pretty fast patter song, and it was fun to watch. The next song he did was titled "Kenesaw Mountain Landis" and along with two other songs later in the show, they are not from musicals, but are from a songwriter/singer named Jonathan Coulton. I didn't like this song, but the other two from Mr. Coulton were more fun. Next he did two more villain songs, stating they were Disney. The first one was, Poor Unfortunate Souls from "Little Mermaid." I didn't recognize the next song when he started it, but realized it was from "Nightmare Before Christmas." I was confused because I don't really consider that movie to be Disney. Segueing from a misunderstood hero in Jack the Pumpkin to a idiotic/egotistic one, Erik then did Everyone's a Hero from "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog." Since the villain of that piece also has some great songs, he then did "Brand New Day." Boy, he was picking all my favorite songs....

He did a very creepy version of "Lonely Room" from Oklahoma, which I felt was stretching his them a it, but was still well done. Another Jonathan Coulton song followed, Skullcrusher Mountain, which is a hysterical number sung by an evil genius to the love of his life who he has kidnapped. Then he did a song by the ultimate villain, Good Old Days from "Damn Yankees." Sticking with songs I love, Erik next sang Who I'd Be from "Shrek." I was curious how much of the song he would do, because the end of it is actually a trio. He cut it right before the trio spot, which sounded a bit odd to me, but I think I was in the minority. His penultimate number was Confrontation from "Jekyll and Hyde". That is an incredibly difficult song, requiring quick vocal flips from Jekyll to Hyde, and I was afraid that Erik's glasses were going to fly off his face. The final song of the evening (Erik stated it was the last song and that he did not have an encore) was another Coulton song. It was a cute song, Chiron Beta Prime, about a family on a distant planet, but it seemed an odd choice for a finale.

We talked to Erik briefly after the show. He was very grateful that people came and seemed happy to hear comments. Beth contacted him after the show to get the song list, and he said that he had been planning on doing to more songs, Believe from "Book of Mormon" and My Name from "Oliver!" but he had dropped them for various reasons. Oh, it wasn't Hyde on his facebook page, it was Bill Sykes from "Oliver!" While I would have enjoyed I Believe, I am glad he dropped My Name, I don't enjoy that song, especially since he did Jud's song from "Oklahoma."
While Erik's singing was wonderful, with only one minor flub, he seemed a bit uncomfortable talking on stage and his patter seemed forced. He says he's planning another cabaret set, and I'm looking forward to it and hope he finds his comfort zone for his narrative. But I'm not worried about his singing or acting.


----------



## telracs

Buyer and Cellar

This show has an interesting premise. Back in 2010 Barbra Streisand published a coffee table book about the new estate she built in Malibu. One of the more bizarre aspects of the estate is a "strip mall" in the basement of the barn. It was supposedly inspired by a museum in Delaware, and is a spot for Barbra to exhibit some prized possessions. The playwright asks what would have happened if an underemployed actor was hired to be the sole clerk in this mall. 
The show takes a while to get going, first we get the explanation as detailed above. Then we get background on our fictional clerk, including how he loses his job at Disney and then gets the job on the estate and his meeting with the estate manager. Eventually see "Alex's" interactions with Barbra herself. As can often happen in a situation like this, Alex begins to think that he and Barbra are friends, and takes her side against his boyfriend, a cynical screenwriter. Unfortunately, the relationship between the sole clerk and his sole customer hits a bumpy spot and Alex gets fired. But the show does have a happy ending, Alex and his boyfriend reconnect and Alex learns to stand up for himself.
Barrett Foa (known to TV watchers from NCIS:LA) is currently starring as Alex, and he is quite adorable. He morphs well between characters, doing an understated Barbra without parodying her, as is too easy to do. His switches between Alex and Barry (the boyfriend) occur in split seconds, and with just a change in body language he makes the two men distinct. 
The set is simplistic looking a first, a white box with just a bench, a chair and a table with a teapot on it. As the show goes on, however, the back wall of the stage becomes the screen for projections of color and pattern representing the various stores. The show runs 100 minutes with no intermission, but the time flies for the most part. Barrett flubbed a few lines, but he caught himself well, and considering that he's all alone up there with all those words, a few minor flubs are understandable and didn't detract from the fun


----------



## telracs

Atomic (The Idea that Shook the World): A New Musical

Okay, the idea of musicalizing the invention of the atomic bomb struck me as odd, but potentially enjoyable. When we got to the theater and I saw the names of Euan Morton and Jeremy Kushnier among the cast, the potential for enjoyment went up in my mind, both actors have been fun in the past. Unfortunately, in the end, while Kushnier was moderately enjoyable, and there were a couple of good moments, the whole was definitely less than the sum of its parts.

The play starts with a couple speaking in Japanese, only to be interrupted by the blast of the bomb in Hiroshima. But instead of flashing back from that moment, we next are taken to the trial of J. Robert Oppenheimer (portrayed by Morton). The character comes across quite unsympathetic and while trying to deflect the prosecutor, starts taking about Leo Szilard, calling him "the atomic bomb's prodigal son." While Oppenheimer narrates, we see Szilard (Kushnier) in England dealing with his "partner" Trude (while they are referred to as married in the play, according to what I've read, they did not actually marry until 1950), talking with a student who leaves England to return to Germany, and finally confronting Lord Rutherford about the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction. Leo and Trude relocate to NY and Szilard hooks up with Enrico Fermi (played as a stereotypically amourous Italian by Jonthan Hammond, and given a buffonish song about Fermi desiring American women). We are also introduced to Edward Teller, played by the adorable Randy Harrison. Too adorable in fact. Teller was a bit older then Harrison is, and was not really an attractive man. The trio eventually move from NY to Chicago, meeting other scientists and working with one Arthur Compton, who had the unenviable job of being the liaison between the scientists and the military. We even get a convenient meeting between Szilard and a young man named Paul Tibbets who has just joined the Air Corps. The second act sees the move from Chicago to New Mexico and the full injection into the story of Oppenheimer. Szilard quits (or is fired) from the project, having moral objections to the use of the bomb. However, he goes back to the project and we watch as the bomb is fabricated (leading to an interesting song I'll discuss below) and eventually (after a second meeting with Tibbets) we finally get back to the scene in Japan. Fortunately, we now get most of the dialogue in English before the big flash that symbolizes the bomb. Unfortunately, the creative team decides to put Szilard into that scene after the flash and we have the painful scene of Szilard slo-mo karate chopping the young Japanese couple. We also have a subplot thread running through this act, of Szilard being diagnosed with cancer and formulating a way to use radiation to cure it. The penultimate scene has all the scientists from the project discussing how they have dealt with people asking them about their work. We end with Szilard and Trude, now looking forward to working with Jonas Salk and walking off into the sunset.

Szilard was a name I had heard before, and I knew that he had been the one who actually crafted Einstein's 1939 letter to FDR. I did not know all the contributions he had made to atomic physics or the fact that he held some important patents. But I knew enough history to find the timeline in the show a bit suspect. I also found the meetings between Szilard and Tibbets unbelievable. And I found most of the characters annoying. Oppenheimer is played as a conniving, back stabber, and I couldn't figure out why he would have been talking about Szilard at his trial. Compton is a martinet and bully, Teller an obsequious boot licker, and Fermi thinks more about sex then science. The women fare a bit better, Trude is shown as a loyal companion with a backbone and scientist Leona Woods is portrayed as an equal with her male compatriots. And Szilard is obviously the authors' favorite, shown as a incredibly intelligent man who also has great moral convictions. Almost too much morality, it felt as if the authors are casting Szilard as a messianic figure. 
Most of the music was rock, pushing the actors to the limits of their vocal abilities. Kushnier also has the hard job of climbing up on the table that is the main set pice of the production. The exception to the rock score is a song in the second act "The Holes in the Donuts". The song is sung by the 3 women in the case, all dressed as Rosie the Riveter, portraying women working at the Tennessee plant and performing in the style of the Andrew Sisters. It was an amusing song and presentation, without being as annoying as the "America Amore" song given to Fermi.

As I stated, the main set piece is a large conference table that does duty as all kinds of tables. Large screens are move on and off stage, and at one point we have what is supposed to be a phone booth. The set itself is interesting, an abundance of boxes that evoke the periodic table. Above this is a marquee-like light bar, which give us the location of scenes. At times I found looking at the lights more interesting then the action on the stage.

I was glad to hear more about Leo Szilard, and am looking at the biography that the authors of "Atomic" recommend, but I don't think that I'll be recommending this show or picking up a cast recording if they produce one.


----------



## telracs

Piece of My Heart

I figure if I said the name "Bert Berns" most people will say "who"? The tagline for this musical was something about knowing the music, now know the man. Mr. Berns wrote a number of songs, including "I Want Candy", "Tell Him", "Hang on Sloopy" and the title of the show "Piece of My Heart." But due in part to the fact that he died at the age of 38, and apparently made some bad business decisions, and the fact that people remember the singers, not the songwriters, people don't remember the name.

This musical seems to want to set the Berns' story straight. Unfortunately, all it did was bore me and annoy me. The tale is told as a story within a story, Berns' daughter (the usually enjoyable Leslie Kritzer) gets a phone call out of the blue and travels to NY to her father's old office and meets up with a mysterious figure from the past. This person wants to tell her the truth about her father, claiming that everything her mother told her was a lie. And so we flashback to her father's life and we watch as she is told. Berns is played by Zak Resnick, who sings and acts well, but I found I just didn't care about the character. And the book goes into some pretty explicit details that I didn't really think we needed to know about. Berns' wife, Ilene, is the villain of the piece, being shown to have lied to her children for years and now on the verge of selling out Berns' legacy to the big companies. Oh, there is a second sort of villain, a record company exec who originally mentors Berns but then vows to crush him when Berns leaves to branch out on his own. Or does he do it because one of Berns' friend, a seeming Mafia wannabe (and our narrator) threatens him stupidly? I found it hard to believe that the person telling the story to the daughter would actually make himself out to be such an idiot, and didn't believe much of what was told on stage.

I was also annoyed by the use of songs in the show. They weren't presented in chronologic order, but rather to play up scenes, so I felt that the timeline was all skewed. I mean yes, he might have written "I Want Candy" because he met a girl named Candace, but I don't think he managed to sing it to her the first time they met and have a full ensemble of dancers. And trying to convince me that an office in a high rent NY building has been kept unoccupied but filled with Berns memorabilia for 30 years? Not believable.

The show did accomplish one good thing, it made me curious about the man behind the music. Hopefully other people will also be interested and his versions of the songs will be made available once again.


----------



## telracs

Brigadoon

I enjoy the movie version of Brigadoon, and enjoyed a version of it done by the Blue Hill Troupe in NY a few years ago, so when I found out that it would still be playing in Chicago the weekend I was traveling there, I convinced my travel companion to go see it. Actually, it didn't take much convincing, she enjoys theater and doesn't get to much as I do. I did, as I often do, remind her that it was NOT going to be exactly like the movie. I had read that the production alters the reason that Brigadoon was cast loose in time. And it's true, they did, now instead of protecting the town from "witches", Mr. Forsythe asks that they be freed from time in order to protect them from war (namely the depredations of the English against the Scots). They also play up the fact that Tommy and Jeff are WWII vets and might be having difficulty adjusting to civilian life.

The Goodman Theater was a bit smaller than I was expecting but was quite pretty. We lucked into fourth row seats and had a great view of the stage. The show curtain was used as screen to project an absolutely gorgeous view of the Scottish Highlands at the top of the show. The sets and the costumes were wonderful, but I felt that the ensemble was a bit small for the amount of clans they had during the wedding scene.

I had hope to catch Kevin Earley as Tommy Albright, but he was out, and I didn't really enjoy his understudy that much. The actor we saw as Jeff was wonderful, but I don't know his name because I can't find my program (apparently, the actor we saw as Tommy usually plays Jeff, so we saw understudies in both roles). Also wonderful were the female leads, usually the role of Fiona is played by a high soprano who is difficult to understand when singing, but I had little trouble with this actress.
The show is a bit dance heavy, heavier than I remembered, but for the most part the dancing was good and not too boring. As expected there were differences from how things are done in the movie, and while found a couple of things jarring, all in all the show was enjoyable.

One other thing that I enjoyed about the show. We happened to attend a performance that was being sign language interpreted. Because of the angle of our seats I couldn't see them at all times, but it was fun to watch them when I could. They left just at the end of the show, so didn't get any applause, but we ran into them outside and thanked them for their work.


----------



## Leslie

I actually had a (brief) wild and crazy idea to fly to Chicago to see Brigadoon, after reading the rave review in the New York Times. But when I figured out it would probably cost me $2000, I decided to stay home.

Thanks for the review.

L


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> I actually had a (brief) wild and crazy idea to fly to Chicago to see Brigadoon, after reading the rave review in the New York Times. But when I figured out it would probably cost me $2000, I decided to stay home.
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> L
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


2000 dollars? Ouch.


----------



## Leslie

If I may borrow your thread, telracs, for a brief commentary...

*The Witches of Eastwick* at the Ogunquit Playhouse

We (my husband, me, son and daughter-in-law) went to see *The Witches of Eastwick* at the Ogunquit Playhouse last night. My overall impression is that it was full of sexy fun and _mostly_ good. I read the book years ago (which I remember not liking very much) and saw the movie ages ago too (and have very little memory of that) so I went into the show without a whole lot of preconceived ideas. For this show, I didn't read any reviews beforehand, which is unusual for me, so I got to experience it in the moment.

This review probably the closest to the review I would write:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/maine/article/BWW-Reviews-Sassy-Sexy-WITCHES-OF-EASTWICK-at-Ogunquit-Playhouse-20140911

including the two disappointments that the reviewer mentions. However, I would add a third. There is a scene in the 2nd Act where Clyde Gabriel goes after his wife Felicia (played by Sally Struthers) with a golf club. This is after she sings the song "Evil" and she ends up dead. When this happened there was a very noticeable hush across the whole audience. Maybe it is because I am viewing this through the lens of events of the past week but I don't think that domestic violence is ever funny. In the next scene, a character says that after killing Felicia, Clyde hanged himself, which I think was a way to try to make the golf club business "okay" (ie, that the bad guy got what he deserved)--still, for me it cast a sort of a pall over the rest of the show.

I know this is a musical and I keep trying to tell myself not to read too much into this...still, times, tastes, and sensibilities change. There are things that were considered funny (or acceptable) once that are not funny now. I wonder if I had seen this two weeks ago if I would have had the same reaction?

Even with that one little blip, I certainly enjoyed the music, songs, terrific dancing, and fantastic set. Ogunquit puts on fantastic shows. I feel like Broadway has landed in my backyard for the summer, which is great. While I am not sure I would rush out to see TWOE again, I am glad I saw it last night.

This was the fourth show of our season tickets. We've seen *Grease*, *Billy Elliott*, and *Mary Poppins*. Closing the season next month will be *The Addams Family*. I am looking forward to that!

L


----------



## telracs

I vaguely remember Clyde killing Felicia, but the way it was played when i saw it was that it was along the lines of a mercy killing, to stop the spell she was under and that he also was not quite in his right mind.  i agree that it is a shocking scene, and since it is onstage we see it more than we do in the movie i think.  

i also think that the killing of felicia is one of the things that turn the witches against darryl.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> I vaguely remember Clyde killing Felicia, but the way it was played when i saw it was that it was along the lines of a mercy killing, to stop the spell she was under and that he also was not quite in his right mind. i agree that it is a shocking scene, and since it is onstage we see it more than we do in the movie i think.


In the show last night, he was drinking and may not have been in his right mind (in more ways than one). Felicia came across as a real harridan and after singing Evil (where she railed against everyone) I got the feeling he just wanted her out of his life.



> i also think that the killing of felicia is one of the things that turn the witches against darryl.


Yes, that was very clear.

I found another review and had a good chuckle at this description of Sally Struthers:



> The Struthers of 2014 is not the same actress we came to admire. She has a hard time keeping up with the true Broadway professionals who anchor the show, and the costume designer did not do her any favors by dressing her in a very tight outfit that had me wondering why there was a senior US Airways flight attendant in the opening number.


L


----------



## telracs

OMG!  I just read the broadwayworld review and realized that darryl was played by someone i have a SERIOUS fangirl crush on! And I've met the actress who played Sukie (she's a friend of a friend) and she's always been very nice.  I can't quite see her in the role, but it must have been fun.  

I figured Stuthers would be playing Felicia and I was afraid it would be too much for her.


----------



## Leslie

Sally Struthers loves Ogunquit and Ogunquit loves Sally--she shows up every summer for a show and has for years. I thought she did just fine but I chuckled at the description of her costume.

So, telracs...TWOE is playing 'til the end of the month. Want to make a trip to Maine to see *James Barbour*? He was really fabulous and at the Playhouse, you would see him up close and personal. I'll pick you up at the train or plane or whatever...we could have dinner...maybe I'll even see the show again! It would be fun (and I am serious....)

L


----------



## telracs

well, i'll just have to form my own opinion of it in a couple of weeks.....


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> well, i'll just have to form my own opinion of it in a couple of weeks.....


----------



## telracs

This is Our Youth

I will say one thing about the three person cast of this show, they are physically attractive people. Unfortunately, they are not morally or ethically or socially attractive and as the play went on, I cared less and less for them. Both Tavi Gevinson as Jessica and Micheal Cera as Warren have grating voice, and in one scene, Gevinson is so strident and high pitched that it she was hurting my ears. Culkin's voice was the least annoying, and while his character of Denise was the most morally lacking, he was the most interesting. The plot has Warren being thrown out of his father's home and stealing 15 thousand dollars. Since he is socially inept, he ends up at his "friend" Dennis's apartment and after a start where he berates Warren and, honestly, verbally abusing the guy, comes up with an idea to use the cash to buy heroin and sell it at a profit. Of course, more profit for him then Warren and listening to his logic of why he deserves more money annoyed me. When Dennis goes off to score the drugs, he runs into his girlfriend (who we don't see) and her friend Jessica, who Warren has a crush on. Jessica and Warren hook up (completely unbelievably) and go off together. The next morning, we find Dennis alone, and watch as Warren returns and the two of them start arguing again. Because Warren blew more cash on Jessica, Dennis goes off to sell some items of Warren's. At this point, Jessica reappears, and she and Warren argue some more about the night before.

If you get the impression that the play consists of a series of annoying and unbelievable arguments, you'd be right. And to add to the annoyance, the play has no decent ending. Warren doesn't reconcile with either Jessica or his father, no resolution of what to do with the cash is shown, and the heroin that Dennis bought is in a mess on the floor.

Even though the actors were nice looking, I found myself sitting with my eyes closed and just listening to the words instead. I found myself disinterested in the action, but I must admit that I was highly impressed with the actors talking with, to and over each other.


----------



## telracs

Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill

I delayed seeing this show for three reasons. First: price. For a long time there were no discounts, and I didn't really want to pay full price. Second: Audra McDonald. The last few times I've seen her, her acting was fantastic, but her high soprano voice was difficult to understand. Lastly: Billie Holiday. There was recently an off-Broadway show about Ms. Holiday that was painful and boring at the same time. I finally scored a decently priced ticket (and a pretty good seat) for a Wednesday matinee. Somehow, Ms. McDonald has transformed her voice into Holiday's signature graveled tone. In fact, it's so different from her natural sound that I was a bit afraid she might be straining her vocal cords. Unfortunately, as with the last show about Billie Holiday, I found this one boring at times and painful to watch at other. The show is set near the end of Holiday's life and is set in a Philadelphia club where she is performing. When she's singing, the show is wonderful, even though I only recognized two songs. But when she starts talking about her life, I got bored, and when she starts descending into what is either an alcoholic overdose or maybe coming down from a drug high, it was excruciating to watch. I felt sorry for one of the guys sitting at a table down front, he helped Ms. McDonald on the stairs a couple of times, and looked worried that she was going to fall into his lap as the show went on.

The three piece band backing up Ms. McDonald was wonderful, getting the audience into the blues mood before the show started. Each member of the band had a moment to shine, even though only one of them actually got to talk, Shelton Becton as Holiday's pianist Jimmy Powers. Also appearing is Roxie,a rescued pooch who is playing Holiday's dog, Pepi. I'm not sure why the puppy was there, but he was cute, and I now know why the audience was laughing in the middle of a song on the live cast recording.

I loved the way the theater looked, with table seating in the "bar" area on what is usually the stage space at this theater, as well as lights hanging from the ceiling. At times I found myself following the sparkling mirror balls and lighting effects instead of the action, especially during the pure instrumental numbers.

Ms. McDonald won her sixth Tony award for this role, and I can see why. Although I didn't love the show, she once again impressed me with her singing and her ability to transform herself into her characters.


----------



## telracs

Witches of Eastwick

Okay, this is ALL Leslie's fault. She went to see the show at the Ongonquit Playhouse a few weeks ago and mostly enjoyed it. I was jealous, because I had seen the show in London a few years ago and have been hoping it would come to NY. And when she told me that James Barbour was playing Darryl Van Horne, I was really jealous, because I am a fan of his and he has not been on Broadway for a few years. Well, this is a play about temptation, and Leslie tempted me into a quick trip to Maine. And I do mean quick; I was in Maine for only 24 hours. But boy, it was worth it.

Most people are familiar with Witches from either the John Updike book, or the movie with Cher, Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer and Jack Nicholson. While the movie Van Horne seduces the women through sheer charisma (sorry, I don't think Nicholson is all that attractive), this production throws in some definite sex appeal in its Van Horne. Barbour embraces the role, appearing to have a lot of fun. I felt that he overplayed the drunken and male chauvinistic aspects of the role but for the most part I enjoyed him. Of the three witches, I liked Sara Gettelfinger's Alex the best, although I found her singing voice a bit odd in some numbers. Nancy Anderson was fun as Sukie, and I was disappointed that this production cut one of songs that I saw in London. Mamie Parrish was okay as cellist Jane Smart, but I didn't love her. I think part of my problem with her character was the wigs she was wearing, they did nothing for her. Sally Struthers was excellent as Felica, the town harpy, although the costume designer did not do her any favors by dressing her like a flight attendant. The ensemble was all on point, and a couple of them did well catching props that went awry. Oh, and one other person I want to single out is Lily Ramras as the "little girl". More on her later.

The scenic design of Eastwick was nice, although I dislike sets that extend out all the way to the edge of the stage and block some views. Also, I was seated on the side and could see into the wings. I found this distracting, because I kept seeing the changing lights in the back. I wish they had a scrim there or somehow block that area. But the women's houses were presented well, and the town diner was excellently shown. This production was set in the 1960s, so the costumes and wigs evoked that era (Nancy Anderson's beehive was especially nice, but some of the other wigs were less successful). Most of the costumes were fairly simple and pretty, except, as I already stated, Sally Struther's flight attendant outfits. There were obvious hooks on the main trio's dresses for the flying scene, but then again, they may have not been as obvious to people who were not expecting a flying scene.

The authors have made some changes since I saw the show in London, and one of the ones that worked well was the use of the Little Girl. I only remember her singing in the beginning of the show in London, but here she kept appearing, and while singing about Chicken Little handed Barbour the props he would need to seduce the trio. The were also lyric changes which confused me, so that I found it hard to understand the opening number. They altered the scene and song between Alex and Darryl, which worked, but unfortunately, they didn't follow up on it in a way that advanced anything. I also missed Loose Ends, the song that Sukie had in the second act. One scene that really didn't work was when Felicia is killed by her husband. As I remember it, in London we saw him lift a fire poker to kill her, but the stage immediately blacks out, so we don't see the actual killing. In this production, we see the murder and it is extremely violent. There was an audible gasp from the audience and then dead silence as if they weren't sure how to react. Since the show started during the Ray Rice controversy, I'm surprised they didn't do a quick change and alter this scene.

We saw the show on its closing night, and the whole cast seemed into it. There was one point where it seemed that Barbour and Struthers were trying to make each other break down and laugh. The theater itself is quite nice, and I found the seating pretty comfortable. I got a survey to say what shows Ongonquit should do next year, and if they do something I like, I may plan a longer trip to Portland.


----------



## telracs

You Can't Take it With You

Sometimes I get obsessed with a show. Well, this is my latest obsession. After seeing it last Sunday, I wanted to take a friend to it. She couldn't go last week, so I went alone. But she could go this week, so we went last night.

This show by Moss Hart and George Kaufman introduces us to the Sycamore family in 1930s New York. They are an eccentric family, mother Penny (the always hysterical Kristine Nielsen) writing plays because she got a typewriter by accident. Husband Paul (Mark Linn-Baker) and his assistant (Patrick Kerr) are making fireworks in the basement. One daughter, Essie (Annaleigh Ashford) goes through life on her toes, turning everything into a ballet while turning out homemade chocolates for her husband, amateur xylophone player and printer Ed (Will Brill) to sell. Overseeing this eccentric family is patriarch Martin Vanderhoff (played by James Earl Jones), a man who thirty years ago turned his back on the business world. Since every eccentric family needs one "normal" member, we have Alice (played by Rose Byrne making her Broadway debut). Alice has fallen in love with Tony Kirby her boss's son, and two-thirds of this three act play deal with the meeting of the families and the aftermath of that meeting.

While I felt that the Vanderhoff/Sycamore family didn't really look they were related, the three actors of the Kirby family (Byron Jennings, Joanna Day and Fran Kranz) could easily pass as parents and son if you saw them on the street. Now, if the cast listed above isn't enough, we also have the Sycamore family's housekeeper and her boyfriend, Essie's ballet teacher, a set of government agents, a drunk actress that Penny Sycamore brings home to read one of plays and a Russian Grand Duchess.

Plotwise, we not only have the primary plot of the meeting of the families, we also have a subplot dealing with Mr. Vanderhoff's tax situation as well as the visits from the actress and the Grand Duchess. The story takes a while to get going; we spend quite a bit of time meeting most of the denizens of the Sycamore household before Alice enters and announces that her young man will be calling for her. Then we get the entrance of an IRS agent (a man who loses his composure a bit too quickly for my taste). Finally Tony Kirby appears on the scene and we get to watch an outsider dealing with this odd family. After he and Alice depart, the family sits down to dinner and Mr. Jones has an excellent monologue of saying Grace. The latter part of the first act has Tony proposing to Alice (although due to interruptions, he never actually ASKS her to marry him). Act two starts with the dipsomaniac actress and progresses to the Kirby family arriving on the wrong night for dinner. The highlight of this act is a word association game played while waiting for the meal, a game which reveals some cracks in the facade of the elder Kirbys' relationship. The act ends with the arrival of government agents (who are not there following up on Grandpa's tax issue, but rather Ed's printing hobby) and the explosion of all Dad's fireworks. In act three, the despondent Alice tries to leave town. First Tony, then the Grand Duchess, and finally Mr. Kirby show up at the house. Grandpa explains his way of life to the skeptical Mr. Kirby, and Tony shows a nice backbone in confronting his father about choices made. And, in a twist I didn't expect,


Spoiler



Tony admits that he didn't make a mistake on the date, he intentionally brought his parents a day early because he wanted them to see the Sycamore family as their true selves


. Ultimately the young couple reconcile, the group sits down to enjoy the Grand Duchess's blintzes and we end with another Grace spoken by Mr. Jones.

The show is set in 1936, and the women's costumes seem pretty spot on for the era. The men are mostly in suits, which are timeless. One thing I didn't like was the use of a boater hat for Tony Kirby. It might be period correct, but it looked odd with the tuxedo he was wearing. The set was absolutely gorgeous. As you enter the theater, you are seeing the outside of the Sycamore home, and it looks like a dollhouse writ large. When the action begins, the house rotates and we see the interior. I could spend hours looking at that interior without seeing everything. Almost every inch of the walls is covered with paintings, photographs, drawings and masks.

Most of the acting in the show is incredible. Katherine Nielsen opens the show well, managing to evoke laughs without saying a word. Fran Kranz was fun to watch as Tony Kirby, and Day and Jennings were wonderful as his parents. I also enjoyed the ensemble actors (except for the IRS man). I felt that Rose Byrne was trying a bit too hard, and Will Brill's odd mannerisms became a bit annoying. What is nice about this play was that most of the members of the cast get a moment to shine. Elizabeth Ashley as the Grand Duchess is the last person to enter the action, but she still manages to make her presence felt. As for Mr. Jones, that iconic voice is as powerful as ever. The first time I saw the show I felt that he was stumbling a bit with some of his lines, but the second and third time he was better. And he was much better in this than he was in the last couple of shows I saw him in. For someone 83 years old, he does a better job than some actors half his age.

After seeing the show, I asked my friend if my obsession made sense to her. She paused for a moment, then explained that while the she understood my enjoyment, this seemed a bit different from my normal obsession. I guess that's true, as she said, it is a more traditional show than I usually enjoy. The three act structure is not used much anymore, and the two intermissions make the show seem long, even though the acts are fairly short. And it's a play, not a musical, which is my normal fare. But I like a good comedic romance, and this show is a good one. You may not be able to take it with you since the show is a limited run, but I will enjoy it while it's here.


----------



## crebel

This sounds like a really fun show, I'd love to see it.  Maybe it will show up in Des Moines one of these days (even if it won't be with the amazing Mr. Jones).  Thanks for the great review.


----------



## Leslie

The Addams Family - Ogunquit Playhouse

We closed out the season (23 weeks!) at Ogunquit with the creepy, spooky, Addams Family musical. I have always been a fan of Charles Addams' cartoons, and I watched the Addams Family TV show back in the day. I wasn't quite sure what to expect for this show.

telracs told me that it was a variation on "You Can't Take It With You," in that Wednesday has fallen in love and asks her family to act normal for one evening while her new boyfriend and family come over for dinner. That's sort of the story but there is the added twist of keeping secrets/telling lies which is used as a device to "transform" several characters.

My overall impression: 1) the show was fun; 2) the costumes were great; 3) the singing and dancing, when the entire ensemble was on stage was great; and 4) the first act was better than the second. Frankly, the plot was pretty thin and the second act mostly dealt with trying to take care of problems created in the first act, none of which were all that serious.

Rachel deBenedet was Morticia. She has played the role on Broadway (opposite Nathan Lane) and of course she was great. David Engel played Gomez and he was very good, although I have to say, I kept picturing Nathan Lane in the role (maybe I shouldn't have read my Playbill beforehand!). The guy who played Lurch--first time ever in the role, and first time ever in Ogunquit--was terrific. Likewise Uncle Fester (who has played the role internationally) was terrific. The actress who played Wednesday (Jennifer Fogarty) is local talent but has played the role on the international tour for 17 months. She certainly had the role nailed but I found her voice a little strident. Others may disagree with me on that.

The other main characters were all fine but didn't send me over the moon. The "ancestors"--spooky characters dressed in white with black eyes were great in the background but it was hard to tell them apart. Many of them had to play statues for extended amounts of time and I am amazed at how they were able to hold completely still without wavering. I couldn't do that!

The sets were good but not as inventive as some of the others I have seen this summer.

Overall, a fun show and completely appropriate for this time of year. While it wasn't my absolute fav of the 5 shows I saw this summer (*Billy Elliott* gets the nod for that) it wasn't the worst (sorry, *Grease*, you end up at the bottom of the list). I think the *Witches of Eastwick* and *Mary Poppins* are tied for second, so this would be number 3 overall.

If anyone is in the neighborhood, I'd recommend this. It is not looking like a sellout so I am sure there are plenty of good seats available for the remaining 2 week run.

Leslie


----------



## telracs

I am NOT coming up to Maine again!


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> I am NOT coming up to Maine again!


What, you didn't have a good time??


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> What, you didn't have a good time??


Okay, rephrase...

I am NOT going up to Maine again this month. Next year, however is a different story. Gonna figure out a way to bring my sister.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> Okay, rephrase...
> 
> I am NOT going up to Maine again this month. Next year, however is a different story. Gonna figure out a way to bring my sister.


That sounds like a plan!


----------



## telracs

Can-Can

I am familiar with the Shirley Maclaine, Frank Sinatra, Louis Jourdan movie version of this musical, and so I expected a lot of dancing. And we got that.  I also expected the story line from movie, but we didn't really get that.  Instead of the love triangle between the dance hall owner, the judge and whatever character Frank Sinatra was playing, we  mostly got Pistache (played ably but not fantastically by Kate Baldwin), the dance hall owner who runs afoul of a new judge, Ariestide Foriestier (the wonderful Jason Daniely).  Turns out, the two have a history, and we are treated to their trying to reconnect despite their differences.  Besides the fact of their legal issues, we have a serpent in the garden, art critic and man about town, Hilaire Jussac who worms his way into their lives, as well as those of Claudine, one of Pistache's dancers and her boyfriend Boris, a sculptor.  I found the plots a bit thin, and wished there had been more of a conflict between Pistache and the judge and the legality of the Can-Can.  I also felt that the show took too long to really get started, we spend too much time with Baldwin introducing us to her club and meeting the secondary characters. She talks directly to the audience, and that can be annoying if the audience doesn't play along.  The show also uses the device of having a character talk to the audience at the top of act two, to get "suggestions" for rhymes for the finale, and  that got on my nerves.  The show is supposedly moving to Broadway, and I hope they tighten up these interactions.  

I was really waiting for Jason Daniely to appear, and once he did, he was the most fun on the stage.  He looked good, sounded wonderful and although he doesn't do much dancing, he was fantastic in a long drawn out fencing bit.  Micheal Berrese as the other half of the fencing number moved with his usual feline grace (helped by skin tight black outfit).  Berrese also got to show off his dancing moves and had one fun song.  The character was a bit broadly written, and I found his final downfall oddly done.  I enjoyed Megan Sikora's Claudine, and Greg Hildreth was fun as her sculptor boyfriend.  He was ably assisted by Mark Price and Justin Robertson as starving artists.  Also fun was Micheal Kostroff as the head waiter at the Bal du Paradis.  In fact, I would have like to have him doing the opening introduction to the club rather than Baldwin.  I had enjoyed Baldwin in Finian's Rainbow and in Big Fish, but found her lacking her.  I didn't believe her as a girl who had fought hard to own a dance club and buy off officials.  And I felt there was no chemistry between her and either Daniely or Berrese.  

The one thing that Baldwin had going for her was her costumes.  Ann Hould Ward did a wonderful job on costumes, especially for the women.  The men were mostly in suits, which looked nice on them, but were nothing special.  The set was interesting, with the orchestra perched above the stage and an open area where the orchestra pit normally would be.  I was worried that someone would unintentionally fall into that pit, but no-one did, and the pit was used as an entrance and exit point.  There was also a clever use of paper cut-outs, which I wish had been used a bit more.  

As I stated, the show is dance heavy.  Most of the dances were enjoyable, especially the first act Can-Can.  I didn't enjoy the "Apache" dance, but I didn't expect to.  It is a violent and sexist dance, and although it was played a bit for laughs, it just doesn't sit well with me.  The movement I enjoyed most, however, was the act 2 finale duel.  It starts off as a bit of a joke, but then gets serious and I got caught up in it.  

The Paper Mill is touting this as a pre-Broadway production.  Although I enjoyed it, I doubt I will see it again on Broadway unless I hear that they have tightened it up.  And maybe if Kate Baldwin's understudy goes on.


----------



## telracs

On The Town

My sister and I have a shared fear. If the restrooms at a theater are great, coupled with really nice t-shirts, there is a high probability that the show will not be that enjoyable. The restrooms at the Lyric (formerly the Foxwoods Theater, the HIlton Theatre, and originally the Ford Center for the Performing Arts) are relatively large and there was a nice assortment of t-shirts, so we worried that the show would not thrill us. I knew that the show would be dance heavy, but I had hoped that the story line and actors would engage me enough to get me through the dance. Unfortunately, I spent most of my time being bored. And because of this boredom, I found myself fixating on small (and annoying) details that I might have missed if I were caught up in the show.

This production has an interesting opening. When we enter the auditorium, the stage is fronted by a huge American flag, with the period appropriate 48 stars. When the orchestra starts playing, it takes a few seconds to realize they are playing The Star-Spangled Banner. As understanding sweeps through the audience, everyone comes to their feet. As the last few lines are sung, we hear one more voice singing. Philip Boykin comes down the aisle of the theater in costume and as the song ends and the flag raises, we are transported to the Brooklyn Navy Yard during World War II.

I always thought that "New York, New York" was the first song in the show, but it is in fact the second. Before we met our trio of sailors on shore leave, we have to listen to a group of workmen (led by Mr. Boykin) complaining about having to get up early to go to work. Things pick up a bit when we meed Gabey (Tony Yazbeck), Ozzie ( Clyde Alves) and Chip (Jay Armstrong Johnson). Ozzie is on the hunt for women, Chip has an old (and out of date) guidebook that his father once used, and Gabey... well, I'm not really sure what Gabey is interested in at first. Ozzie wants to find him a girl, Chip wants him to see everything, and Gabey is just along for the ride. That is until he sees a picture of Ivy Smith, Miss Turnstiles for June. He falls instantly in love and the three men separate to find her. So now we have three parallel stories. Ozzie and Chip fail to find Ivy, but they both find romance. No, wait, let me correct that. I don't really feel either man finds romance, they both find sex. Ozzie meets "anthropologist" and engaged woman Claire (the bizarrely accented and stiff Elizabeth Stanley), while Chip ends up with cab driver Hildy (the hysterical Alysha Umphress). Gabey does manage to find Ivy, but due to the machinations of her voice teacher (one of the roles assayed by the wonderful Jackie Hoffman), he loses her by the Act 1 finale. For Act 2, we follow five of the main characters as they club hop and then try and find Ivy in Coney Island. Along the way we also follow Claire's fiance and various ensemble members. "True Love" triumphs and the 3 couples are reunited (and even Claire's ex finds love) only to have the boys return to the ship and another group of sailors disembark to have their turn at the big wicked city. Which confused me, because if the ship is still in port, why are they boys acting like they will never see the girls again?

I had a number of problems with the show. I felt that each of the actors was in a different show and there was no consistent tone. Jackie Hoffman and Alysha Umphress brought great comedy to the proceedings, as did a recurrent joke of a conversation between 2 ensemble members. Elizabeth Stanley seemed to be a caricature of a character, as did Clyde Alves as Ozzie. Tony Yazbeck was nice to look as Gabey, and his dancing was incredible as I expected, but the character seemed flat and I just didn't care about him. I also felt that the show leaned too much into the sexual aspect of the relationships. Both Claire and Hildy are played as man eaters, only interested in one thing. Ozzie is played the same way, while Chip is a bit of an innocent at first but succumbs very quickly to Hildy's charms.

Another problem I had with the show was the set and the projections used. The Lyric stage is HUGE and it seemed empty at times, even with a large cast. The back wall seemed to be shielded in plexiglass, which caused reflections at awkward times. There was also a weird reflection on a "chandelier" used during act two. The show is projection heavy, especially during the scene/song where Hildy is taking Chip around NY in her cab. I really disliked the projections in that scene, feeling that having shadows of people and carriages and horses flying around was in bad taste. And the projections just looked ugly.

But it wasn't all bad. Although the scenery was too modern for me, the costumes seemed spot on and pretty. In addition, the cast entered and exited through the seating area a few times, which was fun, especially since it meant hearing people without their microphones. 
I'm looking at my Playbill right now, and to me, the cover of the Playbill sums up my feelings for the show. The cover has a photo of Tony Yazbeck and Meagan Fairchild, seemingly in the middle of Times Square. But it's obviously a Photoshop job. A bad one. And that's how the show felt to me. Too much modern stuff edited onto what should have been a nice old-fashioned show.


----------



## telracs

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

I saw this show just about a year ago (see my original review here http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,50021.150.html ). I went with a friend to see "You Can't Take it With You" on a Wednesday evening and decided to get myself a matinee ticket for Gentleman's Guide. Somehow I bought my ticket for the wrong day and ended up seeing the two shows on two different days. I had hoped to see the two shows on the same day because I felt that the two comedies would work well together. But instead, I got to laugh a lot at different days.

For those who didn't read my original review, the show tells the tale of Monty Navarro (Bryce Pinkham) who discovers that he is eighth in line for the earldom of Highurst. After being rejected by the family, he decides to take his revenge and embarks on a murder spree, killing off all his cousins (each played by Jefferson Mays). Along the way he falls in love with a distant cousin, now played by Catherine Walker, while having an affair with one Sibella Hallward (Lisa O'Hare).

I've been listening to the cast recording ever since it was released, so I remembered most of the show. However, as often happens on recordings, things that happen on stage are glossed over on the CD. While the Act 1 finale runs 6 minutes on the CD, it runs almost 10 minutes on stage and felt cluttered.

Seeing a show for the second time (especially as in this case from a seat a lot closer to the stage) means seeing different details. I was able to hone in on Bryce Pinkham's expressions throughout the show, and my admiration for his quick changes of face and body language increased. Although, as I felt the first time, there are points in the show where his movements were bordering on slapstick and over the top. My favorite number for him was the song "Sibella". It was the one moment when Monty truly seems evil and his interaction with Ms. O'Hare was wonderful. I was also able to track one background character during a scene to see exactly how one murder was accomplished. I hadn't expected it the first time, so I focused on other things during the scene and missed it.

Sitting as close as I was made it possible to enjoy the beautiful costuming even more than I had the first time, and catch a couple of details in it that hadn't noticed last year. The set was fun, but a skating effect worked no better from the front then it had from the mezzanine. One good thing about where I was sitting this time was that I was in the middle of the row and had to stay all the way to the end of the bows. This meant that I caught a joke that I hadn't seen the first time.

The cast was collecting for BC/EFA, so as I exited, I was able to express my appreciation of the show to Ms. Walker, the newest member of the cast.


----------



## telracs

The Band Wagon

About half way through Act 2 of the show currently on stage at City Center, an ensemble member declares "Musicals are fun!" And this one definitely is. It is apparently based on a movie musical, but the book seems to have been extensively rewritten. Tony Hunter (Brian Stokes Mitchell) is a movie star returning to NY attempting to pick up the pieces of his career. He agrees to appear in a new musical directed by Jeffrey Cordova (the hysterical Tony Sheldon) and written by two former friends Les and Lily Martin, played by Micheal McKean and Tracey Ullman. Cordova has tapped modern dance master Paul Byrd (Michael Berrese who is wasted and doesn't get to dance at all or even really sing) to choreograph. To placate Byrd (for some unknown reason) Cordova has agreed to allow Byrd's girlfriend Gabrielle (the always ethereal Laura Osnes) to be the leading lady. The course of launching a new musical doesn't run smooth, and much of the show concerns the metamorphosis of the show within a show and the clashes of egos and hearts of the principals. Supporting all this is Don Stephenson as Cordova's "right hand man" Hal, an ensemble of incredible dancers, and an onstage orchestra.

Encores! productions are quickly put together affairs, and in the past, a number of the actors I've seen have been performing with script in hand. No one in Band Wagon was on book, which made this feel like more than a concert version of a show. And I was impressed at the size of the ensemble. When the show started and I saw how many people were in the cast, I was surprised and pleased. The costumes were quite nice (except for an odd choice for Osnes in the finale) and the set pieces were sparse but effective. Although I have to admit, I don't love when they put what is supposed to be a proscenium of a stage on the stage and then have the actors moving in front and around it.

I really enjoyed the show, but I found some of the show within a show numbers a bit odd. This may be because the numbers were written as revue numbers, with no real through line. I liked watching Mitchell, Sheldon and Osnes doing the hysterical "Triplets" song, however, I couldn't figure out where that song would have fit in the plot of the show as described by Les and Lily. I also had some problems with the book of the show. It felt too contemporary for show that by its costuming is meant to take place in the 1940's. Can someone tell me when the term "spitballing" come into use to mean "brainstorming"? Also, Don Stephenson uses the word "showmance". While I've been going to the theater for over 20 years, I have only started hearing that term in the last 3 or 4 years. Lastly, I had figured out fairly early on that Cordova and Hal were supposed to be a couple, but the way the reveal was handled between Cordova and Hunter seemed a bit odd. Hunter looks surprised that Cordova is gay, but immediately accepts the couple as if he'd always known.

Brian Stokes Mitchell retains his amazing voice, was marvelous to listen to and he showed off some serious tap skills in the finale. Unfortunately, I didn't quite buy him as a matinee idol or someone that both Lily and Gabby would fall for. McKean and Ullman have a wonderful chemistry, and the scene where they do their sales pitch for the new musical to the rest of the cast was incredible. Don Stephenson, who I'm used to seeing as the over the top comic member of the cast, here plays second fiddle to Sheldon but they have a great rapport on stage. Osnes was perfectly cast as the ingenue and she gets a lot of the great singing and dancing moments. As I said, Berrese was wasted as Paul Byrd, I wish he'd been given more to do. And I hope that the next time I see him, it's in a show where he is not the villian (he was the oily critic in Can-Can at Papermill last month). In fact, I kind of wish that he'd been cast as Tony Hunter, I would have loved to hear him sing and get the chance to dance. But, as stated in an article in the show's Playbill, director Kathleen Marshall wanted a Broadway star to play the Broadway star, so she went with Stokes Mitchell.

The show is a comedy, and has some really funny lines. My favorite was the one I quoted in the first paragraph, but a close second was a quick by-play between Stephenson and McKean. When Stephenson reproaches Sheldon for quoting "the Scottish play," McKean responds with a deadpan "Brigadoon?" The audience responded well to most of the jokes in the show, and were appreciative of the singers.

Rumor has it that the show might be moving to Broadway for an open run. I'll have to decide if I want to see it again if that happens. Most likely, I will, but I think I'll wait for Brian Stokes Mitchell's vacation and see his understudy. And I'll keep my fingers crossed that it might be Michael Berresse,


----------



## telracs

Lucky Stiff

Blue Hill Troupe is an amateur theater group that does two shows a year. Their fall show is usually a "Broadway" type musical, while their spring show is a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. My friend Beth is a member of the troupe (they are a membership group and use their dues to put on the shows, profits of the shows go to a designated charity), and I've managed to catch about 1/2 dozen of their shows over the last 10 years. Because they are a membership troupe, the actors repeat, and I tend to look for favorites while watching the shows.

Lucky Stiff was the first musical written by Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty, the team who went on to write "Ragtime", "Suessical" and "Rocky." According to the notes in the program, it is based on a book titled "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo." It's a silly plot, with an English shoe salesman Harry Witherspoon (the cute but not incredible Christian Smythe) forced by his dead uncle's will to take Uncle Anthony's embalmed corpse to Monte Carlo for a week's vacation. If he fails to follow all his uncle's instructions, the 6 million dollars he's promised will instead go to the Universal Dog Home of Brooklyn. The dog people are determined to get the money, so they send someone to watch over Harry, one Annabel Glick, played bit stridently by Sydney Ransom. Also after the six million are Uncle Anthony's paramour (the truly annoying Jen Jurek) and her optometrist brother (Erik Hanson who is a personal favorite of mine).

The show starts in what I feel is typical Ahrens/Flaherty style, a big ensemble number that lays out the opening of the plot and introduces us to a few of the characters. I didn't love this song, and was having some difficulty understanding lyrics, due to the less than wonderful acoustics at the St. Clement's Theater (a problem I often have at this theater). We then move to England and meet Harry. I admit, as early as this point I was wondering why an English shoe salesman had a New Jersey uncle, how Uncle Tony had gotten six million dollars, and why said uncle looked the same age as Harry. Harry of course jumps at the chance to gain 6 million dollars and agrees to the terms of the will before even hearing them or seeing the embalmed corpse. The program does not list a time period for the show, so we never really have to wonder how an embalmed corpse in a wheelchair managed to get across the Atlantic or how Harry gets him through customs to get them to the Continent and then on to the train to Monte Carlo. While Harry and Anthony are on the train, we meet an ensemble of characters and see a young woman following them. My thought at that point was that this was a journalist who knew something about Anthony. I missed a big clue to her identity, the fact that her tote bag had a pattern of dogs on it. Not only are Harry and Annabel at odds over the money, it turns out that Harry hates dogs and Annabel would rather spend time with dogs than people. Rita LaPorta admits to her brother that she shot Anthony and that the two of them stole 6 million dollars worth of diamonds from her gangster husband. Oh, okay, that's how he got the six million. And what must be in the heart shaped box that Harry has been told to hide. This show is a farce, so at one point, the body goes missing, and we get a series of people trying to find "him". This leads to some bonding between Harry and Annabel, and a totally unnecessary nightmare sequence. Once the corpse is found, Rita announces that it is NOT Anthony. Wait, what? Anthony's not dead? Nope. Rita (who is legally blind without her glasses) thought she shot Anthony, but instead had shot his best friend Luigi. And the man now calling himself Luigi who has been lurking in the background? He is the resurrected Anthony. Oh, okay, that's why (not bad casting) that "Anthony" looked the same age as Harry. In the end, Anthony and Rita end up together, her brother ends up with a showgirl, Annabel gets 10 thousand dollars for the Dog Home, and Harry has 500 dollars, a system to win at roulette, a Monte Carlo hotel room for a week, and maybe, Annabel.

I enjoyed Erik Hanson as the optometrist and liked the song he had enacting a phone call from Monte Carlo to New Jersey. Christian Symthe was okay as Harry, and Geoff Gabe as the corpse was fun to watch. I also felt that the male ensemble was excellent in a variety of roles. Unfortunately, I didn't like the women of the show. Sydney Ransom was stiff and shrill as Annabell, and Jen Jurek's speaking and singing voice grated on my nerves. She also seemed awkward on the stage. The female ensemble was fine, but nothing spectacular.

Blue Hill always does an excellent job with costumes and sets for their shows, and this production was no exception. They have been getting more and more elaborate with their sets over the past few years, a fact that I'm not sure works to their advantage, sometimes the sets overpower the actors. The most fun set element was the proscenium arch, which was covered by names and drawings of the various locations, onto which a spotlight was shone to let us know where we were in the action.

I found the plot silly and full of holes. When the denouement happened, while I found it amusing, I didn't find it completely satisfying, and I understand why this show hasn't been revived since it was first produced.


----------



## crebel

Sounds like a fun but confusing show!


----------



## Sapphire

Radio City Christmas Spectacular is currently playing at the Orpheum Theater in Omaha. We attended last night's road show performance. It was typical Rockettes and matched what we have seen in the past at Rockefeller Center. I enjoyed it tremendously and left very much in the Christmas spirit. My husband was somewhat disappointed. It had been a number of years since we last saw the Rockettes perform and I suspect his fond memories led to higher expectations than reality could deliver. If the show plays near you, take the time to go see it. If you can see it in New York City, I'm sure that adds to the magic.


----------



## Leslie

My mother was a member of the Blue Hill Troupe way back when. I remember seeing her in The Mikado (she was one of the "Three Little Maids from School").

The Blue Hill Troupe started in Blue Hill, Maine back in 1924. I've heard the story that they would have their performances on sailboats that were moored in the harbor. How true that is, I am not sure, but it is fun to imagine!

L


----------



## telracs

The Underclassman

This is a show that suffers from a bad title.  It was previously known as "Pursuit of Peresphone" which actually works better in my opinion.  The production is listed as "a new musical inspired by F. Scott Fitzgerald" and "adapted from F. Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise."  The plot concerns Fitzgerald's time at Princeton and a romance with one Ginevra King, a Chicago debutante.  I liked the music in the show, written by lyricist/composer Peter Mills.  I previously enjoyed the cast recording of his "Golden Boy of Blue Ridge."  As I told him after the show, the songs reminded me of one of Stephen Sondheim's early shows.  The story was okay, but in the end I didn't really care about "Scott" and Ginevra and their relationship, and found the inclusion of numbers from Princeton Triangle Club shows unnecessary even if they were fun to watch.  

The best part of this musical was the cast.  Matt Dengler was nice to watch and listen to as F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Jessica Grove was good as Ginevra.  Actually, there was one point where Dengler wasn't fun to listen to, he completely missed a note near the end of his big number in act two.  Because of the small size of the theater, everyone in the audience could see the panic in his eyes, and his determination to recover.  And he did that quite well, hitting the note perfectly on the second try.  The supporting cast was excellent, especially Marrick Smith as JP Bishop.  Billy Hepfinger and Piper Goodeve paired well as the best friends of the lead couple, and had a cute little song of their own.  

The men's costumes were a bit boring when they were in male garb, simple suits.  The women (and men's drag) costumes were a bit more fun, looking period appropriate to me.  The one quibble I had was with the wigs.  To me, they didn't look maintained, with wisps of hair sticking out at odd angles.  One interesting costume angle that I liked was that at the curtain call, most of the male characters were in WWI era uniforms.  Except for the one actor whose character had been killed in a car crash.  He was in a plain suit.  

I only recently discovered this theater company (I saw their Jasper in Deadland in the spring) and I'm sorry that it took me so long.  Both of the shows I've seen have been excellently done, as was the cast recording of one show that I didn't see but have enjoyed on disc.  I'm looking forward to more shows from them.


----------



## telracs

Side Show

Okay, I must beg your indulgence with this review, it may be a bit odd (and incredibly long).  That's because this show is a "revisal" of a show that originally ran on Broadway in 1997.  I will be trying to review this production on its own merits and then separately comparing it to the original, but some of my feelings about the original may creep into the first part of this.

The musical concerns conjoined (at the time referred to as Siamese) twins Daisy and Violet Hilton.  We meet the girls while they are in a side show (also referred to inconsistently as a freak show) in Texas.  Vaudeville impresario Terry Connor hears them sing and brings along a dancer named Buddy Foster to see the girls and secretly they teach the girls a new song.  The denizens of the side show, including the twins' protector, Jake,  are split on whether the girls should trust Buddy and Terry, but ultimately they do.  In a flashback sequence (which I felt went on too long and disrupted the action), the twins tell the men (and the audience) the story of their childhood (including a meeting with one Harry Houdini), ending with the fact that the owner of the side show is also their legal guardian (read owner).  The men persuade the girls to sue for emancipation, and once they win it, launch them on a vaudeville career.  The girls develop feelings for the two men, and for a while the feelings seem reciprocated, with Buddy proposing to Violet. Violet is thrilled by this, but Jake is not, and declares that he loves Violet and his rejected by her because he is African American.  Terry arranges to have the wedding performed at the Texas Centennial, turning everything into a spectacle.  In addition, he starts pushing the girls to have an operation to separate them, so that he can have Daisy to himself.  Unfortunately, Buddy gets cold feet right before the wedding (not surprising to the audience because we've been given HUGE clues that Buddy is actually gay) and the girls discover that a Hollywood producer is only interested in them if they remain conjoined, and Terry is shown to as exploitive as their guardian was.  The girls find strength within themselves to be as they are and move on with their lives, together but alone.  The show ends in Hollywood, on the sound stage for the filming of Tod Browning's movie "Freaks."

Erin Davie and Emily Padgett were excellent as Violet and Daisy.  They look enough alike that it was no problem accepting them as twins.  They spent most of the show joined at the hip, and they moved together wonderfully, coordinating the position of their arms in ways that felt as though they had been born with each other.  Although they look alike, they do not act alike, bringing interesting distinctions to the twins' emotional states.  As impresario Terry Connor, Ryan Silverman scored well, especially in his big solo number in act two.  I didn't love Matthew Hydzik's Buddy or David St. Louis as Jake, I found Buddy bland, and Jake too strident and felt St. Louis was overacting.  The stand outs for me in the ensemble were Kelvin  Moon Loh as the "half man/half woman" and Lauren Elder as the Fortune Teller.  Oh, yeah, a word about the ensemble.  Since the show starts at the side show (the opening number is titled "Come look at the Freaks"), we are treated to a full assortment of "freaks."  In the original production, the freaks were done in stylized manner, letting the audience use their imaginations.  In this production, we have an attempt at realism, with members of the ensemble having to don costumes for "dog boy," "bearded lady", "lizard man", and "elegant geek."  I found this over the top and felt that in a show about the rights of people to not be exploited, it was exploitive.  What was interesting was that the ensemble members took their bows not in their freak costumes, but held the full head prosthetics that they used for those roles so that the audience would know who they played.

The costumes for the freaks were well done, but as I said, I could have lived with a little less realism.  The costumes for Violet and Daisy were gorgeous, and I found it amusing that most of them were designed so that the patterns on them flowed towards the center, where the girls were joined.  The men's costumes, and the ensemble's non-freak costumes were fine, period appropriate, but nothing fantastic.  One male costume had me scratching my head a bit, the jacket worn by the girls' guardian/side show owner Sir looked like it was made out of a prison uniform broad stripe.

The songs are a combination of plot driven and stage production numbers.  While I understood the need to show the girls performing on vaudeville, I felt the production numbers went on a bit long.  And on thing I found annoying was the inconsistent use of the phrases side show and freak show.  The set starts out as the side show site and stays that way even during the flashback and court case.  I found that a bit odd, and wondered if they were going to keep the side show risers for the entire show, but as soon as the girls go to vaudeville, we lose the risers and get a more traditional looking set.  I kept noticing the lighting in the show, which usually means it is too overdone.  
The spotlights for the actors were very obvious, and the floor effect lighting was distracting.  Also distracting was the sound mix in the show, there were points where the volume was way too loud and other points where the orchestra overpowered the singers.

My sister never saw the original production, and she enjoyed this one quite a bit.  I liked it, especially the leads, but too often I was comparing it to the show from 1997 and found this one lacking.  

The actresses playing the twins were as good as the originals, but not identical.  Emily Skinner and Alice Ripley are belters, where Davie and Padgett are sweeter sopranos and thus their delivery of songs is quite different.  David St. Louis will never replace Norm Lewis in my mind as Jake, and the new characterization of Buddy as gay did not work for me.  The relentless realism of the freaks in the show was something I really didn't like, it felt as though the creative staff no longer trusted the imaginations of the audience as they did back in the 90s.  Another thing that differed was the handling of the connection of the twins.  In the original, the girls were not together until the end of the opening number, and then were not separated until the end except for during "Private Conversation" when Terry is having an imaginary conversation with Daisy.  In the current production, we see the twins as one unit from the very beginning but they separate during their 11 o'clock number, "I Will Never Leave You."  Which was weird, watching them stalk around each other while singing about staying together.  The number was also blunted a bit in its impact due to the fact that the composer put a shorter version of it in act one, instead of introducing it in act 2.  I was careful to not listen to the original cast recording before going to see the show on Sunday, but even so, I kept getting jolted by songs in "wrong" places and altered lyrics.  I liked the new production number songs, and didn't miss the originals, but one song from the original that I did miss was "Tunnel of Love," because it was another big moment for Terry, and I liked the actor who played Terry in 1997.  

The show is apparently not selling well.  Part of this is the subject matter, people still find a musical about conjoined twins a bit off-putting.  And the advertising has been a bit confusing, some has made the show look like a glitzy production, while other ads have played up the freaks.  The mezzanine was about 1/2 half full on Sunday, and because of this, the ushers were allowing people to move down to the front of the mezzanine.  This annoyed me, because I had bought mid-mezz tickets intentionally, and since we had aisle seats, I didn't rush in. And people were in my seats.  The usher offered me 3rd row mezzanine seats, but I didn't want them, because I need aisle seats.  We ended up a couple of rows ahead of where we should have been, and ended up with rude people around us.  Including the people who were in my actual seats....


----------



## telracs

My Favorite Year

The York Theatre Company is an off-Broadway house that each year presents a series they call "Musicals in Mufti." As they define it, "mufti" means: In street clothes; Without the trappings of a full production. I've never understood who gets to pick what shows they do, or why the particular shows are selected and sometimes I find their choices odd. The shows this year included two musicals that were on Broadway in the 1990s, a production of one of Stephen Sondheim's first musicals (which never played Broadway) and a show I've never heard of before now. I missed that one, but I did catch York's final show of the series, the Flaherty and Aherns' musical, My Favorite Year. This is my third Flaherty/Aherns musical of the year, following Rocky and Lucky Stiff. And I think it was my favorite of the three.

My Favorite Year follows the adventures of Benjy Stone, a young writer for the King Kaiser Comedy Cavalcade, a TV show that is broadcast live every Saturday night. As the newest employee of King Kaiser, Stone gets the job of babysitting this week's guest star, washed up movie star Alan Swann. Since Swann is a lush and is determined to have a good time, this is not an easy job. Even for Benjy, who is a major fan of Swann's swashbuckling movies. The two men bond and interact well and when you throw in Benjy's loving but smothering family (who want to meet Swann), a producer's assistant with no sense of humor who Benjy has a crush on and Benjy's fellow writers, comedy genius ensues.

According to the notes in the program, the version now being presented has been changed from the original with new songs added, scenes moved and some motivations changed. The core of the show is still our narrator, Benjy and a lot is riding on his shoulders. Unfortunately, while I liked Adam Chanler-Berat as Benjy, I found him a bit flat. When I listen to the original cast recording, Benjy comes off as a cross between Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks, but Chanler-Berat was more subdued and I didn't get the manic comedy I expected from him. I did get it from Richard Kind as King Kaiser and Leslie Kritzer as comedy writer Alice Miller. They were hysterical separately, and when they shared the stage for "Professional Showbizness Comedy" they had the audience eating out of their hands. I liked Rose Hemingway as KC Downing, but the role is not a great one. Christine Pedi as Benjy's mother was quite good, but I found the casting of Asian Francis Jue as what I assume was supposed to be her Italian second husband a bit odd. One of the reasons I had decided to see the show was to see Douglas Sills as Alan Swann, and he did not disappoint. He played the movie star and the man behind the movie star wonderfully and I'm looking forward to seeing him on stage again soon (in Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol next week).

The costumes for the show were fine, except that one joke would have gone over better if they'd clothed an actress in a white dress instead of a black outfit and a wedding veil. The only set pieces were tables, chairs and a door, but I didn't mind that. What I did dislike was the lack of hand props. While they did have coffee cups, and pencils, I found the sword-fighting scenes annoying without swords. Since the actors only have 4 days to learn their roles, they were all carrying scripts which can be distracting at times. But there were few funny moments because of the scripts, one involving Christine Pedi missing a line and having to recover, and one where Richard Kind has to flip through a bunch of pages because his character's hands were tied during a long scene. Doug Sills impressed me by seeming to not need his script as much as the others, and Leslie Kritzer did a lot of her bits without the her script in hand. The York doesn't spring (nor I think do they have the room) for a full orchestra for their mufti productions, but the show worked well with just two pianos, which the cast also used as a seating platform at one point.

I had fun at the show, and the rest of the audience seemed to enjoy it. Especially the lady sitting two seats over from me, who it turns out played the role of KC in the original Broadway production some 20 years ago.


----------



## crebel

I had the opportunity to see Motown last Sunday afternoon at the Des Moines, Iowa, Civic Center.  I did not know much of the Motown or Berry Gordy history, so I have no idea how accurate or fictionalized the portrayals were.  I did know most of the music and enjoyed the performances tremendously.  

I was particularly impressed with 11-year old Reed L. Shannon, who played the young Michael Jackson, Berry Gordy, and Stevie Wonder.  He looked like, sounded like, and moved like the young Michael - WOW!  Trisha Jeffrey performed the role of Diana Ross; her voice was fantastic and while she certainly sounded like Diana Ross, I needed to close my eyes and listen because she visually did not match my perception of Diana at all.

The early days of the first Motown tour were difficult to watch as the audience segregation and personal risks the performers took were emphasized.  A later conversation between Berry Gordy (Jamarice Daughtry) and Marvin Gaye (Jarran Muse) about "good cops and bad cops" and the commercial viability of the protest songs Marvin wanted to sing seemed very current in light of recent events in Missouri and New York and had me thinking "The more things change, the more they remain the same".  

Motown didn't seem so much to me to be the Berry Gordy story as much as it was the story of him being the catalyst for the careers of many of the great singers we still love today.  I enjoyed the show very much and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys the Motown sound.


----------



## telracs

The Last Ship

Elton John tried it with mixed success, Paul Simon and Bono tanked at it, Cyndi Lauper did pretty well, and now it's Sting's turn. To you what you ask? Pen a Broadway musical.

The Last Ship is apparently inspired by Sting's boyhood, growing up in a shipbuilding town. But it is not Sting's story, and in a way, I almost wish it was. Young Gideon Fletcher escapes from Wallsend leaving behind an abusive father and a girl that he loves. Fifteen years later, after the father's death, Gideon returns to town having failed to acheive a much better life for himself. He finds the town failing also, the shipyard closed and most of the men out of work. As for Meg, the girl he left behind, she is now a single mother (can anyone guess the daddy?), working the pub and dating the local guy working for the company that wants to turn the shipyard into a salvage yard. The men regain their pride thanks to the local parish priest, who wants them to build one last ship. Unbeknownst to most of the men when they start the project, the priest is dying, and his wants the ship to carry him out to sea. Gideon, who at first states he's only staying in town until his father's house is sold, tries to rekindle the romance with Meg and gets caught up in the ship building (for no good reason that I could understand).

I have to admit, the show bored me. The show took a long time to get started, with too much exposition in the first song giving us Young Gideon and Young Meg's story. Once Gideon returned home, I could see most of the plot coming way before things happened, and I since I disliked most of the people in the town, I didn't care about it. Micheal Esper was nice to look at as Gideon and his singing was fine, but the character gave no good reason for staying away for so long and seemed like a selfish, self-centered prick (and his quick turn arounds to help the ship builders taxed my suspension of disbelief). The shipyard workers were caricatures, not characters, and even though they had names, they were treated as interchangeable . Rachel Tucker fared best as Meg Dawson, I could see her hanging on to hope for 15 years. I also enjoyed Aaron Lazar as the local boy who has made good and is in love with Meg and her son. Fred Applegate as Father O'Brien was hysterical, but sometimes I felt that he was in a different play than the folks around him. This may be because the last thing I saw Mr. Applegate in was Sister Act, where he played the monsignor and he is still playing the comedic role. One annoying bit of casting was having Collin Kelly-Sordelet play both Young Gideon and Tom (Meg's son). I think it would have been better to have a different actor as Tom, it would have kept the audience from involuntary laughter when Meg says Tom looks more and more like Gideon as time goes on.

I was having a lot of issues understanding the lyrics to the songs, due to the accents being used and the songs seemed repetitive. As to the plot, I felt there were holes in it large enough to fit the Titanic. Father O'Brien can get a cable to Gideon about his father's death, but never told him about the son? A parish priest manages to get his hands on the cash to buy supplies to build a ship and nobody notices (well, okay, that one is possible)? A big corporation buys the shipyard, arrests only a couple of the protesters (conveniently Tom and Gideon), padlocks the yard but somehow the men still manage to build the ship? How much time is passing during the building of this ship (and how long can the town keep the priest's body before the officials start asking questions)? A bunch of shipbuilders are going to CREW this ship miraculously down a river and out to sea with no proper papers or sailors? And a mother, who has wisely chosen the stability of the man who has stood beside her for 15 years, is going to let her son go off with his feckless father on this crazy voyage? Well, that last bit I can forgive, it made for good theater.

The show is not selling well (the mezzanine was only about 1/2 full, and the row I was in was practically empty), so the show's creator is coming in for a month to take over one of the lead roles. While I wish Sting and the cast well, I don't think it's going to help the show last past the month he's in.

One note to those who saw the production number from the show on the Macy's Parade. In the show, that song is NOT sung by the character Sting will be playing, but by a female character. And while it does take place in the pub, it's at the wake for Father O'Brien and a coffin is center stage for most of it. Kind of creepy, if you ask me.

Sting did a special performance of songs from The Last Ship on PBS last year, which is available on PBS video and on Amazon (I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's there). In it, he sings songs from the show and talks about the show. Not all the songs he sings made the final cut, and the characters who sing songs have changed, but I recommend the video for those will never get to see the show on Broadway.


----------



## Leslie

I am excited! I bought season tickets (4) to the Maine State Music Theater next summer. The shows at Ogunquit didn't zing me, and the subscription was pricey. MSMT was a little more within my budget.

The shows are:
The Full Monty
The Music Man
Young Frankenstein

plus another comedy that they can't announce until the end of January (licensing restrictions). Apparently it is great and also very funny. The woman on the phone seemed to hint that I could figure out what it will be (ie, what shows are playing in regional theaters in the summer of 2015) but I don't have a clue.

telracs, if you want to join us for a show, let me know! I bought extra tickets on purpose!

L


----------



## telracs

Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol

The Actors Fund is an organization that provides social services, health services, housing services and employment and training services to people in the entertainment community. One of the things they do to raise money is to present one night benefit concerts. I've not really gotten the chance to support them by seeing their shows because they are usually on Monday nights, and that's my busiest worknight. But, when they announced they were doing a one night LIVE performance of Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol, one of my favorite versions of the story, starring one of my favorite actors, at a theater only 2 blocks from work, I was in. Because it was a benefit, tickets were pricey, so I opted for a second row mezzanine (or balcony as the folks at the Gerald Lynch theater call it) seat. The seat was pretty comfortable (I've never been in this theater, which is part of John Jay College before) and the sightlines were fine.

For those of you unfamiliar with the cartoon, it actually is a story within a story. The visually challenged Mr. Magoo is returning to Broadway to star in a Christmas Carol. Unfortunately, he is a bit late for curtain, and when he does arrive, he's a bit of a klutz. The production Monday night had a full orchestra on stage, and started with an overture which was what played during the opening credits of the cartoon. There was a large projection screen hung over the orchestra, and they put the cartoon logo up, and then showed the animated opening. Throughout the rest of the show, they used screen captures of the animation to show the background. Whoever did the screen caps did a great job, grabbing shots that had no characters in them Except one scene. During the song "Despicable" they ran the open mouth animation from the cartoon while the cast song. It was hysterical.

The cartoon runs 60 minutes or so, and the live production was 90 minutes, no intermission. They added (or reinserted) scenes from the book that were not in the cartoon, giving us back Scrooge's interactions with his sister and nephew. The stage version also corrected a weird change the cartoon made to the story. For some unknown reason, the cartoon has the Ghost of Christmas Present appear first, then Past, then Future. On stage we had Past, Present and Yet to Come in the correct order. Makes a lot more sense to me. And although we the audience didn't get an intermission, they also gave the actor playing Magoo a bit of a break by showing some "backstage" moments during the performance he is supposedly doing.

Doug Sills almost never leaves the stage as Magoo/Scrooge and while he was enjoyable, I didn't like him as much in this as I did in My Favorite Year a few weeks ago. Perhaps I would have been better not seeing him in both things, but I'm not sorry I did. While Doug does not fit the Magoo body type at all, he did do clumsy nearsightedness quite well. But whoever came up with his costume did him no favors, it didn't fit him well and looked uncomfortable. Joshua Henry made an excellent Bob Cratchit, well supported by Janet Dacal as Mrs. Cratchit. Zachary Unger was adorable as Tiny Tim, and he and Mr. Henry handled a technical mishap very well. Unger's mike pack came loose, so Mr. Henry held it in his hand while lifting the boy and tried to slip it back into the child's pocket. As young Ebenezer, Eli Tokash was heartwrenching singing "Alone in the World" and the staging of that number with him and Mr. Sills was excellent. I felt that Robert Cuccioli was wasted as Jacob Marley, his scene seemed truncated to what I'm used to. As the three Ghosts, Don Darryl Rivera, Tony Sheldon and Frederic Odgaard were good, but nothing spectacular.  Betsy Wolfe was blah as Belle, and poor little Oona Laurence rushed through her lines as Scrooge's sister Fan. Best in the acting category were Klea Blackhurst, Jennifer Cody, Jeff Blumenkrantz and Christopher Seiber as the charwoman, the laundress, the undertaker and the junk shop owner. They had the whole audience in tears of laughter and brought down the house.

The staging of the show was fun, but I do wish they had sprung for a bed instead of using the same table as Scrooge's desk, his bed and the Cratchit's dinner table. I enjoyed seeing the orchestra on stage (and I feel sorry for the violinist who popped a string or tuning peg early in the show). The costumes were provided by the tdf costume collection, and for the most part were quite good. There was an attempted strobe effect for the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, but it fizzled. I think the stagelights were too bright for it to work well. Because this was a benefit with little rehearsal time, most of the cast had their scripts in hand. This was distracting at a couple of points, but not too terrible.

All in all, I had a great night, got my Christmas Carol fix for the year, and actually got home the same time I would have if I'd worked my normal day.


----------



## crebel

Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol sounds like big fun!  What a great way to enjoy yourself and contribute to others at the same time.


----------



## telracs

Year End Round Up

Since I've seen my last show for the year, I figured it was time for a wrap up. I attended the theater 45 times in 2014, seeing 42 different shows (saw one show 3 times). I saw shows in four different states (NY, NJ, Maine and Illinois). I leaned heavily towards musicals this year, seeing 12 plays (well actually 10) and 35 musicals. The bulk of shows this year were new, I only saw 3 shows that I'd seen in previous years. One of those was because of out of town visitors (Wicked) and one was because a new lead actor (Phantom of the Opera). Thanks to a co-worker, I got to see everything in the Encores series at City Center. Only two Shakespeare plays this year, King Lear with Frank Langella at Brooklyn Academy of Music, and Macbeth with Kenneth Brannagh at the Park Avenue Armory.

If I had to pick a favorite of new musicals this year, I'd probably go with my out of town trip to Maine to see Witches of Eastwick. Pretty much everything about that show was wonderful. A lot of the new Broadway musicals fell flat for me, with my favorite nights being my 13th trip to Wicked and my second trip to Gentlemen's Guide to Love and Murder. As for plays, the winner for the year in my book is the show I saw three times, You Can't Take it With You. It may be old-fashioned, but every time I saw it, I loved it. It is the one show putting a strain on my resolution for 2015 to not see repeat shows. I may cave due to the fact that two new performers are coming in to the cast.

Looking to 2015, I have tickets for a bunch of shows already, and am most looking forward to Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth. And plotting when to return to Maine for another visit.


----------



## crebel

Nice round up!  What about the other end of the spectrum?  Any shows you wish you hadn't spent time or money on?


----------



## Leslie

I am tickled pink that *The Witches of Eastwick* made it to the top of your list. I loved that show too and had such a good time for your quick visit to Maine!

Here's a video for anyone who wants to see some highlights (and James Barbour being sexy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOneAYRiT-k

I just bought tickets to go see *Sister Act* at the Merrill Auditorium in Jan 17, which happens to be my husband's birthday. For Christmas, I received tickets to a bunch of shows at the Biddeford City Theater so I guess live performance is on tap for me in 2015!

L


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> I am tickled pink that *The Witches of Eastwick* made it to the top of your list. I loved that show too and had such a good time for your quick visit to Maine!
> 
> Here's a video for anyone who wants to see some highlights (and James Barbour being sexy):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOneAYRiT-k
> 
> I just bought tickets to go see *Sister Act* at the Merrill Auditorium in Jan 17, which happens to be my husband's birthday. For Christmas, I received tickets to a bunch of shows at the Biddeford City Theater so I guess live performance is on tap for me in 2015!
> 
> L


Enjoy Sister Act, and let us know exactly what other shows you're seeing. And let me know when you hear what the last show of the Maine State Music Theater is. And dates....


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Nice round up! What about the other end of the spectrum? Any shows you wish you hadn't spent time or money on?


hmm....

honestly, the only shows i regret are the ones i don't see.

didn't really hate anything, but found on the town a bit boring. bronx bombers was weird but we had front row seats and didn't pay a lot and got to see Peter Scolari, so no major regrets. Kung Fu was weird, but I had a nice conversation with a fellow theater-goer, so....


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> hmm....
> 
> honestly, the only shows i regret are the ones i don't see.
> 
> didn't really hate anything, but found on the town a bit boring. bronx bombers was weird but we had front row seats and didn't pay a lot and got to see Peter Scolari, so no major regrets. Kung Fu was weird, but I had a nice conversation with a fellow theater-goer, so....


That makes 2014 an excellent year!


----------



## telracs

Into the Woods

The first review of the year is actually going to be about the last show I saw in 2014, a trip to the theater that was unplanned on my part.

The Fiasco Theater Company is doing a production of Stephen Sondheim's "Into the Woods" at Roundabout's Laura Pels theater. A co-worker mentioned to me that he was going to see it, so when he was getting ready to leave the office on Tuesday the 31st, I reminded him to tell me about it so that if he liked it, I would consider getting a ticket for later in the run (okay, yeah, run on sentence). Turned out that the person who was supposed to go with him had a bad cold, so he offered me the extra. A free theater ticket? I'm there. Even if it meant having to rush out of work early and brave the pre New Year's Eve crowds around Radio City Musical Hall.

Fiasco recently did this production out on the west coast, so I'd seen some buzz online about it. They are touting this as a "scaled-down" production, but it felt pretty full scale to me. The 11 people on stage (10 actors and one pianist) cover all the roles well and small costume changes make it clear who each person is presenting. Some of the double casting was a bit silly, but most of it was hysterical. For example, utilizing the two Princes as Cinderella's stepsisters and having one of them also play Milky White (a cow) was a bit hard to take at times. Especially since they weren't very handsome princes, so made really ugly stepsisters.

Sondheim's show is representation of classic tales with a new "quest" story thrown in. We have Cinderella, Rapunzel, Little Red Riding Hood and Jack and the beanstalk representing the classics, with a poor baker and his wife attempting to undo a curse as the new story. The opening number has always struck me as one of the longest of any show I've seen, introducing us to all the characters and getting them all to the point where they enter "the woods". Normally the show is done with one person outside the action narrating the story, but here every actor is involved in the narration, a device that I enjoyed. The first act involves the main characters all searching for something, and at the end of act one, they seem to have found happiness. Now, if the show ended there, it would be a great fairy tale. However, the show goes on, and act two deals with the aftermath of the happy endings. And it turns out they maybe not so happy after all. A lot of people feel that the play is two plays in one, and the two acts do differ in tone quite a bit. It's always been a sticking point that people who want happy endings dislike act two of "Into the Woods." This was a big issue I think with the new movie version of it, the movie has the bad stuff happening almost immediately after the characters get their wishes, while in the stage show, we know that a bit of time has passed. Because of the time passing, folks having regrets makes a bit more sense to me.

I enjoyed most of the Fiasco Company's acting, especially Ben Steinfeld as the Baker. Jennifer Mudge was an excellent Witch, and seemed to be having a great time on stage. Noah Brody and Andy Grotelueschen were fun as the Princes, and Grotelueshen's expressions as a cow were wonderful, but I didn't like them as the stepsisters. I found Emily Young a bit strident as Little Red Riding Hood and Rapunzel, and didn't really care for Patrick Mulryan as either Jack or the Steward.

The costumes were fairly basic, what look like shifts for the ladies and simple shirts and pants for the men, supplemented with jackets or capes. The Witch's post transformation outfit was bit over the top, she seemed to be dressed for a night at a club. The stage was fantastic with the upstage covered with ropes, and keyboards and harps covering the proscenium front. There were not a lot of set pieces, just some tables and chairs, a ladder for Rapunzel's castle and the piano which various characters sat on or climbed.

While watching the show I was able to be in the moment and enjoy it, but afterwards, when I start thinking about it, a number of flaws comes to mind. Most of those have to do with the story, not the presentation, so I have to give the Fiasco Company kudos for their work, even if the plot still has me shaking my head.


----------



## crebel

You were going to see the movie of Into the Woods on Christmas day, was it hugely different than the play and which do you prefer?


----------



## telracs

Into the Woods movie vs. stage production

This had popped into my mind when I was writing up my review of the Fiasco Company's production, but I wanted that to be judged on its merit, so I resist the temptation. But since crebel asked....
I have now seen 4 different productions of Into the Woods, three on stage and the movie. The three live were the Fiasco Group one reviewed above, a Broadway production in 2002, and a Blue Hill Troupe version in 2008. Each had its good points and its bad. Of the four, I'm going to have to say that the Fiasco Group was the best. And by a slim margin, the movie would go down as my least favorite.

Meryl Streep was wonderful as the Witch, and her singing came off a bit better than it did in Mama Mia. I liked James Corden and Emily Blunt as the Baker and his wife. I am not a big fan of Anna Kendrick and I found her Cinderella a bit bland and her voice a bit thin. Tracy Ullman was wasted as Jack's mother, as were Christine Baranski as Cindy's stepmom and Frances de la Tour as the female giant. Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen were both nice to look at as princes, but the filming of their big song was so oddly done that the audience burst into laughter. In fact, I'm laughing again just at the thought of it. And not in a good way. Worst of all for me was Johnny Depp as the Wolf. Part of that was due to the make up they used on him and part of it was that everyone else in the movie (including the witch) seemed so human that having a talking human sized wolf jolted me out of the story. And the wolf's song has always had a creepy sexual undertone and it was even creepier in the movie.

I found the cinematography in the movie quite good, especially during the song "On the Steps of the Palace." And although I found the acting over the top in the Princes' song, the river background was gorgeous. The forest set was atmospherically shot but in a way, it was too realistic for the fairy tale story.

The biggest problems I had with the movie stem from the story and how it is presented. The first "half" of the movie consist of fairy tale quests leading to happy ending. But the rest of the movie deals with the repercussions of the actions taking in the first half and turns very dark and gloomy. In stage productions, this disconnect is handled by the intermission and it is clear that a significant amount of time passes between the happy endings and the rest of the action. In the movie, there is no such time passage, and the change in tone is harder to accept. The movie also drags with the disappearance of Streep's Witch which is not adequately explained.

The finale song of the show was done over part of the credits, and in a way that Cinderella's final line from the show is preserved. That was a nice touch, but in the end it was too little too late to truly save the movie


----------



## telracs

Elephant Man

A few months ago, I told my sister that she could pick one full price play for us to see. Her choices were "Elephant Man," "It's Only a Play," and "The River." She chose Elephant Man. But it worked out well, as we got discounts for the other 2 and are seeing them in February.

The big draw for this show seems to be Bradley Cooper as Joseph (usually called John) Merrick. And I will admit that Mr. Cooper is quite good in the role. He contorts his body into an approximation of what Merrick's gait would have been, and must be terribly uncomfortable doing so. He plays the role as that of an innocent, almost child-like being, asking questions that perplex people because they've never really considered them. Unfortunately, while Mr. Cooper is enjoyable, the show seems to be more the story of Merrick's doctor and not Merrick. And it was a bit boring. I felt that Alessandro Nivola was too laid back as Dr. Frederick Treves and had difficulty understanding him at times. Patricia Clarkson struck me as too old for Mrs. Kendal, something about her just didn't work for me. The supporting cast was quite good, but not good enough to lift the story from mediocre. There was no real tension to the tale, and no real reason to care about most of the people on stage. The person who we do care about, the Elephant Man himself becomes not a character, but as is said by his doctor, a reflection of everyone around him.

My biggest issue with this show is that I never understood the actors' reactions to the Elephant Man. Mr. Cooper is not in any makeup, in fact, we get quite a good view of his excellent physique when the show starts. During a scene where Dr. Treves is lecturing to a group about Merrick, we see photos of the actual man, and it is during this talk that Cooper twists his face and posture. But he still looks the same. So I never quite believe it when a trained nurse goes running out of his room on first sight. I admit that the fault here is mine, but maybe if the set up were done a bit differently I could get into the spirit of things.


----------



## telracs

A Delicate Balance

I knew going into this play that it was going to be a hard slog. Edward Albee's play almost always strike me as weird and dense. And this was no exception. The play tells the story of Tobias (John Lithgow) and Agnes (Glen Close) a married couple who share their house with Agnes's sister (Lindsey Duncan). Suddenly, their neighbors Edna and Harry (Claire Higgins, Bob Balaban) arrive, claiming some un-named terror has frightened them out of their home. And then their adult daughter (Martha Plimpton) returns after the break up of her fourth marriage. She goes ballistic at finding the neighbors in her room and the audience is treated to weird conversations and interactions.

Albee has a wonderful way with words, his dialogue sounds lovely, but it doesn't seem realistic and never really goes anywhere. Nor does the story. At the first intermission my sister said something about finding out what the un-named terror is in act two. I didn't have the heart to tell her that I already knew that we would NEVER find out why the couple descends on Agnes and Tobias. We don't know why they put up with her sister's alcoholism or their daughter's serial returns. Or even why the couple are still together.

Most of the actors do well in their roles, almost making us care about their characters. Glen Close comes off best, as the matriarch of the home and the solidest seeming center of their group. Lithgow is charmingly vague as Tobias, until the last act where he has a rant that seems to come out of nowhere. Plimpton also has a few rant moments, but they at least seemed to fit her character. I think Lindsey Duncan's character is meant as comic relief in this dreary household, but it was too little. Higgins was just unlikable, some of that being how the character is written, but the rest was due to her acting.

The set and the costumes were both beautiful. The set is a "living room of a large and well-appointed suburban house." And it is well-appointed and quite pretty. The women's costumes are classic and timeless and look good on all of them. The show is set "Now," which works for the furniture and costumes, but not for some of the social aspects of the script. The characters talk about servants and the fact that they can't find the coffee beans for breakfast (well, then where are the servants this morning, and what do you do every other Sunday morning?). Also, some of the daughter's comments about her soon to be ex-husband sound more 1960 than 2015. But in the end, these small details don't matter, because the play as a whole exists in some other timeless world, one that Albee might like revisiting, but one that I dislike, but keep going to see because my sister likes Albee plays.


----------



## crebel

Whew.  Two dramas in a row.  Do you have some lighthearted entertainment coming up?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Whew. Two dramas in a row. Do you have some lighthearted entertainment coming up?


next week is a show about Edgar Allan Poe. Don't think it's very light-hearted. February first is Honeymoon in Vegas. We enjoyed it in New Jersey, and I'm hoping it's as much fun this time.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> next week is a show about Edgar Allan Poe. Don't think it's very light-hearted. February first is Honeymoon in Vegas. We enjoyed it in New Jersey, and I'm hoping it's as much fun this time.


I want to see Honeymoon in Vegas. It had a fabulous review in the Times and I have always loved the movie.

L


----------



## telracs

Nevermore: The Imaginary Life and Mysterious Death of Edgar Allan Poe

It's a bad sign if I spend intermission wondering how many people will not be returning to the theater for act two of a show. And quite a few didn't return for act two of Nevermore, a steampunk rendering of a musical about the life of Edgar Allen Poe. The show was visually interesting, and I really liked some of the music, but in the end, the flaws outweighed the strengths.

The show suffers from the use of on-going narration instead of action. We are constantly told things instead of being shown them. And since 6 out of the 7 actors are narrating, it gets a bit confusing at points. I think the idea was to evoke language similar to Poe's, to tell his story in words he might have written, in voices that could be recognized as coming from him, but it fell short for me. The musical starts with Poe on a ship traveling to NY and encountering a troupe of performers who take him in out of the rain and tell him that they knew his mother. Poe claims to not remember things, so they start telling him the story of his own life. Near the end of the show, when we get back to the point in time where we started, there is a twist regarding the troupe (


Spoiler



they turn out to actually be Poe's own characters


) that I found a bit silly (especially since they go on to narrate his death).

The most interesting thing in the show is the costumes. They evoke the steampunk/goth milieu beautifully and I spent a lot of time looking forward to the next one. Most impressive were over-sized horses head (that reminded me of Warhorse) and a set of ravens. While the costumes worked for the show, I felt that the hairstyles didn't. They looked more Soho in the 70s than either Poe or steampunk. The set was simple, just a line of screen doors across the stage, but they are used well. I found the choreography bizarre, and laughable at times.

I enjoyed most of the acting, most especially Garret Ross as David Poe/Jock Allen. Each of the actors play multiple roles and thanks to the inventive costumes, it is easy to see which character is which. Scott Shpeley's Edgar seemed distanced from the action, rarely a part of his own story. And the eye makeup they used on him made him look like he had two black eyes. He was also saddled with the bizarre choreography which made me feel sorry for him.

I walked out of the theater humming the final song, but two days later, it's gone from my mind. There was an interesting recitation of "The Raven" during the second act and the highlight of the first act was something that I think is called "Israfel". Looking it up on-line, Poe did write a poem with that title, but what was sung in Nevermore bears no resemblance to what I see on line which strikes me as odd. I guess that poem is not public domain or that the company was not able to get the rights to use it.

All in all, the show lived up to its tag line, it was "imaginary" and "mysterious." Unfortunately, it wasn't really enjoyable.


----------



## telracs

Lady, Be Good sitzprobe

Sometimes, I feel extremely lucky to be where I am when I am. Last Thursday and Friday was one of those times. On Thursday evening, one of the people I work with showed me an e-mail he had gotten from the folks at City Center. It was an invitation to the sitzprobe for City Center's Encore! production of Lady, Be Good. I was happy for him, but became even happier when he told me that the second spot reserved was for me! So Friday afternoon, we left work at 2:45 and headed over to the sitzprobe for Lady, Be Good.

What is a sitzprobe, you ask? It is the first time the orchestra and the singers get together and work on the songs of a show together (earlier rehearsals are usually just done with a piano accompaniment). We got to sit behind the violins and cellos of the orchestra, right in the midst of where the principal singers were sitting while waiting to sing. I got to sit about 20 feet from Tony Award winner Tommy Tune. And got to watch him rehearsing both the singing and a bit of the dancing of his big second act number. He can still move well, and I have to tell you, the man is all leg! I am a big fan of a couple of the other people who will be in the show, so I was really enjoying listening to Colin Donnell (fans of TV's Arrow will know him as Tommy Merlin) and Douglas Sills (who starred on Broadway as the Scarlet Pimpernel). It was amusing to listen to Mr. Sills muttering to himself as he was listening to other people sing.

I have gotten used to seeing the conductor of the orchestra from the back, and it was great fun to once again see the movement of the conductor from the orchestra's POV (I used to play violin in high school, so this was a nice memory for me). There was a nice bit of back and forth between the conductor and the orchestra and singers, tweaking tempo, cutting measures, adjusting volume and making minor corrections to the score. Definitely a great behind the scenes look at things.

During a break, one of the production people from City Center came over and asked if we wanted a copy of the script so we could follow along. Of course we did! When she brought it, she said that I could just leave it on the chair, or that I could take it with me if I wanted. Well..... When the rehearsal was done, I turned to Douglas Sills and asked if he would sign the script for me. He was very gracious, asked my name and seemed happy to autograph it. The rest of the cast was also gracious enough to sign for me and chat for a few seconds (I was happy to congratulate Mr. Donell on his engagement to one of the actresses in the show). I was not able to get Tommy Tune's autograph, since he left quite quickly. However, I was able to get the conductor, Rob Fisher's autograph. He seemed surprised that I wanted him to sign, but he has been music director at City Center for a while, and I think he's done a wonderful job.

Lady, Be Good will be running next week at City Center, Wednesday through Friday. Thanks to this same co-worker, I have a ticket to the Friday night performance, and look forward to seeing the full production of this show.

_edited to fix a typo-- nobody noticed i typed enragement instead of engagement?_


----------



## telracs

Honeymoon in Vegas on Broadway

This is sort of a revisit, as the show played Papermill Playhouse in New Jersey in 2013 (see my review here http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,50021.msg2390341.html#msg2390341 ). At the end of that review, I stated that if the show came to Broadway I would see it again, especially to see Rob McClure who plays Jack Singer. Well, unfortunately, Mr. McClure was out today. I was a bit disappointed at first, but his understudy, Zachary Prince was quite good in the role. He doesn't have McClure's flexibility and does not bring the same Chaplinesque moves to the role, but moves good enough and is fun to watch. Mr. Danza was still excellent as Tommy Korman, although once again, I felt his voice was quite rough. Oddly, Byrnne O'Malley was a brunette in New Jersey but has now become a blonde. I found it a bit disconcerting, but eventually just ignored it. Nancy Opel, Matt Salvidar, David Josefberg and Catherine Ricafort are all as excellent here as they were at Papermill, but again, I felt that Opel and Salvidar were a bit underused.

The plot remains mostly the same (thinking carefully I noticed some changes in secondary characters), as do the songs, however, with the move to a new theater, we have gotten a brand new set. It was beautiful, heavy on the use of projections, but they work well. In some cases, it takes quite an effort to realize that something is a projection, and not an actual object. The skydiving effect for the Flying Elvises was wonderful, and I admire both Zachary Prince and Nancy Opel for their parachute work.

My sister and I both really enjoyed this show. It was nice to have a happy show with a fun score and we hope it finds an audience and lasts a while.


----------



## telracs

Lady, Be Good

Last week I got to watch a rehearsal of this show, and tonight was the full performance. In some ways, I preferred last week, because we were right behind the orchestra and up close to the singers. With the show, we were fairly close,but still felt distant from the action.

Lady, Be Good was written by George and Ira Gershwin as a showcase for Adele and Fred Astaire. At the time, Adele was the bigger star, so the role of Susie Trevor is the larger one. Patti Murin was cute as Susie Trevor, but I have to admit, I got a bit tired of her after a while and wanted to see a bit more of the other people in the cast. Danny Gardner had some excellent moments and Douglas Sills did a wonderful job with the title song. Tommy Tune's two numbers were enjoyable, but they had nothing to do with the flimsy plot of the show.

The plot concerns (mostly) Susie and Dick Trevor. They get evicted by their landlord, and Dick decides to propose to Jo Vanderwatter (a wasted Jennifer Laura Thompson). Susie despises Jo, and knows that Dick is in love with one Shirley Vernon (Erin Mackey), so she teams up with crooked lawyer J. Watty Watkins (Douglas Sills) to masquerade as the Mexican widow of one Jack Robinson. However, Jack is alive, and he and Susie accidentally meet and instantly fall in love and he throws a monkey wrench into her impersonation. We also have the couple of Bertie Bassett and Daisy Parker (the hysterical Jeff Hiller and Kirsten Wyatt). In the end, love triumphs and we have four happy couples seeming to tie the knot.

Notice that I didn't mention Mr. Tune? That's because while his character of the Professor interacts briefly with Dick and Susie, he exists outside of the story and only appears during his two numbers (neither of which involve any of the other principals) and in the finale. He even comes right out and says "it's time for my second act number."

One thing I love about Encores! presentations is the fact that the orchestra is on the stage. Since I'd heard all the songs last week, it was even more fun to watch them this time. The show is fairly simple scenically, but what was there was fine. Costume-wise, the men were mostly in tuxedos, and the ladies in what appeared to be period appropriate 1920s dresses. Except for during the finale, when they were in dresses that I felt were REALLY ugly and made them look like cupcakes. Mr. Tune was in a scarlet outfit in the first act and a sky blue one in the second, making him stand out from everyone else. Because the company has a short rehearsal period, all the actors are carrying scripts. In some Encores! shows, I have seen actors heavily relying on their scripts, but in Lady, Be Good, the scripts were rarely consulted, and in fact were used more for humorous effect than for lines. One cute bit, Susie is supposed to be carrying a red book, so during those scenes, Patti Murin was carrying a script in a red looseleaf book.

While the plot is lacking, the show was light, frothy and fun and a great way to spend 2 hours on a winter night.


----------



## telracs

The River

While some people can only think of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, to theater folks, he is quite a bit more. He has been Curly in Oklahoma, Peter Allen in The Boy from Oz, and a Chicago cop in A Steady Rain, not to mention a concert run on Broadway in 2011-2012. Today he finished up a run as The Man in Jez Butterworth's The River.

The action of The River takes place in a cabin by a river. We first meet The Woman (Cush Jumbo), who is singing a Yeats poem. Then we meet The Man, who has brought her to the cabin and is obsessed with fishing on this moonless night. The opening scene between them is funny and touching, two people assaying the steps in the dance of a romantic relationship. The scene ends with the couple going out to the river to fish. In the second scene, we see a frantic Man calling the cops (and having hysterical issues with service on his cell phone in their remote location) to say that a woman has disappeared. Shortly a woman appears, but it is not The Woman we have already seen, it is The Other Woman (Laura Donnelly). From then on, we follow the two timelines in parallel, watching The Man try to connect with the women. At times you think that the relationship of the Man and the Other Woman predates that of the Man and the Woman, but as time went on, I began to wonder which really came first and how many other women he had brought to this cabin.

After the first scene, whenever one of the women would leave the stage, I would patiently wait for the entrance of the other. This became predictable and annoying. Also annoying was the length of time used in the transitions between the scenes. Mr. Jackman is nice to look at, but watching him slowly gut a fish and cut vegetables was boring. Even worse was watching him reshelf books, clean glasses and rearrange furniture or watching Laura Donnelly light candles and fill a bowl with water.

I enjoyed the first two scenes of the show, but stopped caring shortly after that. The Man seemed to want to connect with the women, but while his some of his words said the right things, his actions didn't back them up, and eventually, the women both gave up on him. As the show went on, I wondered how Mr. Butterworth would end it, and I have to admit, he surprised me. I wasn't looking at my watch, so didn't know how close we were to the end, so when Mr. Jackman is yet again cleaning things up, I suspected that would be the ending. But no,


Spoiler



we end with the entrance of yet another woman and we seem to be back at the beginning of a relationship. This came as a surprise because there is no listing for a third woman in the Playbill, Jessica Love is listed as an understudy.


. To be honest, I found this a bit manipulative and unfair to the audience.

The set was nice, a well appointed living room of a rustic cabin. The theater is "in the round" and the company moved around nicely to allow for everyone to get good looks at the action at various points. During the fish preparation scene, Mr. Jackman utilizes every angle of the table, not because that is what the prep needs, but in order to face each section of the theater. It was pretty obvious, and while I could appreciate the effort, it looked a bit silly.

As I mentioned, today was the final performance of the show. The audience was very appreciative at the end and the whole cast received flowers. This wasn't my favorite of Jackman's outings, but it's always fun to see him on stage, and I look forward to his next visit to Broadway.


----------



## telracs

It's Only a Play

The good news is that I laughed a lot during "It's Only a Play." The bad news is that at the end of the show, I was disappointed. The play is set in the home of Julia Budder, Broadway producer on the night of the opening of a new play. The first person we see in the play is Gus, a newcomer to NY who is acting as coat check boy. He's a wannabe actor, and is a it weird. Next to enter is James Wicker (Martin Short) who is described as the best friend of the playwright, but who turned down the chance to do the play because he is starring in a show in LA. Short is saddled with all the exposition, giving us all the info about who's who and what's what. There's even a joke about it. Over the course of the rest of the act, we meet one of the stars of the opening play, the director, the producer, a theater critic and eventually, the playwright himself. I liked Martin Short and Maulik Pancholy was hysterical as the kleptomaniac British director Frank Finger. Katie Finneran was good as the clueless Broadway producer, but Isabel Keating (substituting for Stockard Channing) was shrill as star Virginia Noyes, and F. Murray Abraham started out slow as the theater critic but got better as the show went on. Worst of all was Matthew Broderick as playwright Peter Austin. I felt that Broderick was too old for the role and his voice was incredibly annoying. He also seemed to be moving and talking at half the speed of everyone else on the stage. The act one ending dragged on and on and on. And on....

Much of the humor of the play is inside jokes, referencing a number of current Broadway shows, and Broadway tropes. And most of the rest of the humor is due to the fact that the play written by Broderick's character is terrible. I found the humor redundant after a while, and felt that the playwright had shoehorned too many references into a slight plot.

The best part of the show was the set, a large bedroom with nice furniture and even a remote controlled light and music system. Unfortunately, while the room was interesting, the people in it weren't ones that I want to spend more time with.


----------



## telracs

On the Twentieth Century

The Twentieth Century was a train that ran between Chicago and New York in the 1930s. So, I thought that all the action of the show would take place on a train. A lot of it does, but thanks to flashbacks and imaginative sequences a lot of it doesn't. And even when the action takes place on the train, the cast frequently comes so far downstage that if they were really on a train, they have gone through compartment walls.
The plot of the show sounds simple. Theater producer Oscar Jaffe (Peter Gallagher) boards the Twentieth Century after the failure of his latest show in Chicago to try and woo his former star (and girlfriend) Lily Garland (Kristin Chenoweth) to sign a contract to appear in a new play. But Lily has a new boyfriend (Andy Karl), a new career and has already committed to a script being produced by Oscar's rival. Oscar is supported by two cohorts (Michael McGrath and Mark Linn-Baker). Also in the mix is Letticia Primrose (Mary Louise Wilson), a religious fanatic with deep pockets, four tap dancing porters and an odd mix of train passengers. But while the plot is simple, the show is not simplistic. We get slamming doors, flashbacks and gorgeous production numbers and ultimately a happy ending for most of the participants.

While Gallagher and Chenoweth share top billing, I really felt she did a better job than him. She looks great, moves well and for the most part sounds good (at times she was difficult to understand, and her high soprano can grate me a bit). Mr. Gallagher has missed several performances due to a sinus infection, but he was in fine voice today, and chewed the scenery wonderfully. Unfortunately, I don't think he has aged well in the 20 years since I saw him in Guys and Dolls and I felt he was too old for the role. As his sidekicks, McGrath and Linn-Baker are their normal fun selves, but they don't have any big stand out moments. Mary Louise Wilson's antics were fun to watch (although her voice was getting close to nails on a chalkboard). Andy Karl (showing that he has not let his physique go to pot after the closing of Rocky) was hysterical as the strong but not too smart Bruce Granit. Because Chenoweth is under 5 feet tall and quite slim, the director had Mr. Karl lifting her in almost a barbell fashion. And a "mirror" number between Karl and Gallagher was well staged, but I admit I was watching Mr. Karl and not Mr. Gallagher. The ensemble were uniformly excellent with a number of cute bit parts. The four tap dancing porters injected a nice diversion when they came on stage, however, I think they were a bit overused.

The set was art deco to the hilt and the train represented in the show curtain was absolutely gorgeous. Costumes by William Ivey Long were beautiful and period appropriate. As has happened before at this theater, I had trouble understanding lyrics and dialogue at the beginning of the performance. I don't know if it's me or the theater's acoustics or the sound man, but this is getting a bit annoying.

I didn't know any of the music of the show going in, which is a fun thing when I so often have the songs in my head before getting to the theater. Roundabout frequently records their musicals and I'm hoping they continue that tradition with this one. I'd like to hear it again.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

crebel said:


> Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol sounds like big fun! What a great way to enjoy yourself and contribute to others at the same time.


Somehow I missed this review earlier. The review inspired me to finally order this, which I've been meaning to get for years:



The original TV cartoon was a favorite of my childhood.


----------



## Leslie

Tick Tick...Boom at the Biddeford City Theater, Biddeford, ME

My husband bought tickets to several shows at the Biddeford City Theater as a Christmas present and this last Sunday we went and saw Tick Tick....Boom. This is written by the man who wrote *Rent* (Jonathan Larson) and is an autobiographical tale of the time he was literally a starving playwright and wondering if he would ever get his show(s) produced on Broadway.

I saw *Rent* a few years ago and I am not a fan, so I was not particularly excited about this show. So, I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed it more than I expected to. Larson's story is poignant and makes me wonder why anyone would try to create a career in musical theater--it is certainly not for the faint hearted! The music, story, and singing were all enjoyable and very well performed by a local community theater cast.

While I doubt anyone reading this will be in Biddeford in the next few weeks, if you are, I would certainly recommend seeing Tick Tick...Boom as worth 90 minutes of your time. The Palace Diner reopens on March 18th, so go there for brunch then catch the Sunday afternoon matinee.

L


----------



## telracs

well, reading Leslie's review points out to me that i did NOT review Tick, Tick, Boom... when I saw it last year at City Center.


----------



## telracs

Settle down for a marathon folks, I just saw 4 shows (and a sitzprobe) in 5 days.

First off was a one man show titled "Churchill."  Ronald Keaton resembles Churchill fairly closely, and his moves and voice evoke the former Prime Minister.  Unfortunately, I was never really engaged by the production.  One person shows can be problematic for me, I wonder WHY this person is talking to us.  And this show didn't really give a reason.  It's not a Churchill lecture or speech and Mr. Keaton bounces around in time a bit too much for me.  Also annoying was the use of projections behind the actor.  When we first enter the theater, the back of the stage is a large Union Jack projected behind the cross bars of a window.  And reflecting the Exit sign in the back of the theater.  Throughout the entire show, that reflection was there, whether the projection was supposed to be a landscape view through the window, is showing places where Churchill lived or people he knew, and it felt a bit anachronistic for a man who died in 1965.  I am pretty familiar with Churchill's history, and didn't find anything new or significant in this production.  I applaud Mr. Keaton's efforts, and his dedication to advancing the art of single person shows, but at the end of the night I went home a bit disappointed. 

Side note:  New World Stages, the theater complex where Churchill is playing is also home to Nevermore (which I saw a few weeks ago), and will soon host "Clinton: The Musical."  I think the best part of my visit Wednesday was getting a ticket to that show for a couple of weeks from now.


----------



## telracs

The Phantom of the Opera

One of the things I am trying to avoid in 2015 is revisiting shows already seen. However, when one of KB's own mods tells me she is coming to NY for a visit, paired with the fact that an actor she and I enjoyed in "Witches of Eastwick" is now playing the title role in "Phantom of the Opera," resolutions get broken.

My sister and I went to Phantom back in July in order to see Norm Lewis in the title role, and were a bit disappointed in the show. When something has been running for 25 years, there is the risk that it can become stale, and in July, I felt it was. But not this time. Thursday night it was sublime.

The Phantom is a role that depends on voice and body movement to bring it to life, and James Barbour does a wonderful job. He has an incredible voice and he can make it do really sexy things. Okay, there, I said it, I found this Phantom sexy. Most of the time. Until the end when he gets really creepy stalkerish. But he still sounded great even then. Barbour is also fairly tall, and used his long, lean body well, stalking across the stage like a predatory feline. Julia Udine was an excellent Christine (oh wait, not sure if we saw her or Kayle Ann Voorheees who is one of the Christine alternates) and Jermey Hays was a handsome Raoul. Michelle McConnell was incredible as Carlotta, she brought a humor to the role that was different than I've seen before. Greg Mills and Scott Mitika were fun as the Opera Managers, and Linda Balgord did a great job as Madame Giry.

Unfortunately, there was one aspect of the show that got on my nerves. Due do some weird lighting in the orchestra pit, the conductor's arm movements were showing on the side of the orchestra boxes in shadow. It got a bit distracting at times. Since I've seen the show multiple times, there really wasn't anything new for me, but it was Leslie's first time and I'm hoping she weighs in on it (and on Honeymoon in Vegas).


----------



## crebel

James Barbour as the Phantom and an evening with Leslie sound just wonderful to me.  Sigh...


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> James Barbour as the Phantom and an evening with Leslie sound just wonderful to me. Sigh...


yes, we will ignore the less than enjoyable work aspects of the evening...


----------



## Leslie

I have seen 4 live performances in 11 days! One might think that I am a patron of the arts! LOL. I have already reviewed *Tick Tick...Boom*. Now I will get going on some of the others.

~~

Phantom of the Opera

Readers will know from telracs' review that this is what we saw last Thursday. I was in a fever pitch once I heard James Barbour was the latest Phantom (as of Feb 9). I still haven't recovered from his performance in *The Witches of Eastwick*. I'm so pathetic I keep watching this little 2 minutes promo video that they made for the show--since there isn't an original cast recording or anything else as a remembrance. But I digress...

After a nice Italian dinner at a little restaurant on Restaurant Row, we headed off to the Majestic Theater. We had great seats in terms of the view, but they had to be some of the most uncomfortable seats I ever sat in in a theater in my life! I actually switched seats at intermission (there were quite a few empties near us) and was more comfortable during the second act.

Let's cut to the chase: James Barbour was magnificent. What a voice he has--deep and rich and just so beautiful. I am beginning to think that tenors are a dime a dozen but a good, deep baritone is like a fine wine--something to be enjoyed and savored. Barbour did not disappoint!

I had never seen *Phantom* before and if I had been thinking (or had time), I probably should have done a little prep work. There were parts of the show that sailed right by me--little subtle things that help put all the pieces together. Doing reading *afterwards* I figured out what I missed. Of course, that makes me wish I could see it again to capture all the details. Oh well.

Even with missing bits and pieces, of course it still made sense and I enjoyed the show immensely. The sets are amazing and the costumes are beautiful. Everything is bright and shiny and new--this does not look like a 26 year old show with a tired set or bored performers. Someone might think that it just opened last week. Personally, I think Barbour is infusing a lot of fresh energy into the show since he is new but that's my opinion based on seeing it once.

The music was wonderful. Of course there were lots of familiar tunes but plenty of stuff was new to me. I loved the "opera within an opera" conceit (another one of those details I should have expected). And there was even some dancing although that was not the emphasis.

All in all, a wonderful, wonderful show. I am so glad I saw it and I am so glad I saw it on Broadway with James Barbour. Big huge thanks to telracs for making this happen!

L


----------



## telracs

Paint Your Wagon sitzprobe

Last month I was lucky enough to get the opportunity to go the the sitzprobe (first rehearsal of orchestra and singers) for City Center's Encores! "Lady, Be Good." Well, Encores does three shows in its season, and last Friday I got to go to the sitzprobe for their second show, "Paint Your Wagon." Some of you might remember a movie version starring Lee Marvin, but apparently the stage version is a bit different. Also, the version that Encores! is doing is different from the original Broadway production. I can't state whether that is true, never having seen the movie or listened to anything from the show. In fact, I had no familiarity with any of the songs I got to hear Friday.

The co-worker who got me the invite was not able to go on Friday (and Leslie was unable to join me), so I was all by myself. Fortunately, one of the tech people remembered me, so I didn't feel so alone. Last time we were sitting behind the string section, but this time I was next to the trombones which meant things were a bit loud, but afforded just as nice a view.

There was a stack of scripts by the door when people came in, so I was able to follow along from the beginning. The plot is pretty thin, having to do with miners in a gold rush town and subplot of a miner's daughter being in love with a Mexican miner.

The lead miner is played by Keith Carradine, who even gets to play guitar in the piece. Alexandra Socha is his daughter, and Justin Guarini is Julio, the Mexican miner and her love interest. Carradine gets some nice songs, and as I said, he even gets to play guitar. Socha has a nice light voice and Guarini sings well and looks even better. He seemed a bit tentative in his timing, asking Rob Berman, the conductor if he would be visible when Guarini was singing. Among the ensemble are some actors I've seen in other things, including Robert Crieighton, Jenni Barber and William Youmans. There was one actor I didn't know, Nicholas Hackman, who gets the solo "They Call the Wind Maria" and he was excellent.

During one of the breaks I mustered up my courage and got some autographs. Everyone was quite nice, and took a few minutes to talk to me. Mr. Guarini thought I was with the orchestra, which I found understandable, but amusing. It was fun to be able to tell him that I had missed his character's appearance in the tomb scene in Romeo and Juliet.

It was fun to watch Rob Berman conducting, his style was a bit different from Rob Fisher who was the conductor last time. There seemed to be more tweaks that needed to the score, so there was a bit more give and take between Mr. Berman and the orchestra. I look forward to next week when I get to see the full production, and next month, when I hopefully get to attend the third sitzprobe of the season, for "Zorba the Greek".










Justin Guarini










Keith Carradine and Rob Berman


----------



## crebel

I have never seen Paint Your Wagon on stage, but have enjoyed the movie (Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, Jean Seberg) many times. I had no idea the storyline had been modified so much regarding Elizabeth (the miner's daughter in the stage version?).  In the movie she comes to town as the second wife of a Mormon man and is sold to the highest bidder (Ben Rumson/Lee Marvin) after she agrees that being the single wife of any man would be better than the situation she was in!  

It appears the songs are the same between the two versions.  There are some wonderfully funny as well as poignant lyrics throughout.  "I Was Born Under a Wanderin' Star" would be one of my favorites, whereas DH thinks "They Called the Wind Maria" (but pronounced Moriah?) is one of the best movie songs ever.

There was a discussion in the Writer's Café in the last week or so about whether "bear naked" or "bare naked" is correct usage.  I almost posted Ben Rumson's line to his wife in the movie after she was returning from an early morning bath in the river: "You was down at the rapids just now, bare beam and buck naked?"  It certainly provides an accurate word picture, doesn't it?  I have no idea if anything resembling that funny scene is in the stage play.

Thanks for the review, telracs.  I would love to see Paint Your Wagon on stage.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> I have never seen Paint Your Wagon on stage, but have enjoyed the movie (Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, Jean Seberg) many times. I had no idea the storyline had been modified so much regarding Elizabeth (the miner's daughter in the stage version?). In the movie she comes to town as the second wife of a Mormon man and is sold to the highest bidder (Ben Rumson/Lee Marvin) after she agrees that being the single wife of any man would be better than the situation she was in!
> 
> It appears the songs are the same between the two versions. There are some wonderfully funny as well as poignant lyrics throughout. "I Was Born Under a Wanderin' Star" would be one of my favorites, whereas DH thinks "They Called the Wind Maria" (but pronounced Moriah?) is one of the best movie songs ever.
> 
> There was a discussion in the Writer's Cafe in the last week or so about whether "bear naked" or "bare naked" is correct usage. I almost posted Ben Rumson's line to his wife in the movie after she was returning from an early morning bath in the river: "You was down at the rapids just now, bare beam and buck naked?" It certainly provides an accurate word picture, doesn't it? I have no idea if anything resembling that funny scene is in the stage play.
> 
> Thanks for the review, telracs. I would love to see Paint Your Wagon on stage.


Okay, the main plot of the show (as in the script I have) is Rumson finding gold and a bunch of miners coming to town. Subplot one is his daughter falling in love with the Mexican miner. Subplot two involves Ben buying a wife from a Mormon settler (she subsequently runs off with someone else).


----------



## NogDog

Cool: there's probably a good chance I'd enjoy those orchestra rehearsals as much or more than the actual production.


----------



## telracs

Long Story Short

There is a jazz trio I like, called GrooveLily. Over the years, they have written albums, and also some concept musicals (as a trio, as individuals, and in this case, the show was written by two of them). Long Story Short was written by Brendan Millburn and Valerie Vigoda, based on David Schulner's play "An Infinite Ache." A number of years ago, there was a concept album of the musical, which I owned and enjoyed (it seems to no longer be available). Because the album only included the songs, I was unsure about some details of the action of the piece and did not know how it ended.

The story is a simple one. We meet Charles (Bryce Ryness) and Hope (Pearl Sun) after what he thinks was a date but she did not. He thinks they have a connection, but she doesn't think he's the one for her. They discuss the different concepts of "soul mates" they hold, hers coming from the Chinese tradition, his Jewish. Hope is not feeling well and asks if she can rests in Charles' bed for a bit. Since he's infatuated, he agrees. And off we go, following the next 50 years of the couple's life in song and minimal dialogue. They move in together, get married, have a baby, lose the baby, have another child, watch her grow up (in the space of one song), separate, reconnect and ultimately grow old together.


Spoiler



Hope falls ill and dies, which I thought would be the end, but now, it turns out it's all a dream. As she slips away, Hope re-awakens and we are back where we began, the night of their first date. This seriously annoyed me. I had always felt it was a "real" story and felt the twist ruined the whole thing for me.



Both performers were wonderful, with Ryness playing the geeky Charles excellently, while Sun was an appropriately brittle Hope. They each "aged" well, moving differently as their characters grew older. The set was minimal, a bedroom in what is supposed to be Charles's apartment in the beginning and morphing into other bedrooms with just some prop changes. The band is visible through the windows upstage, which seemed a bit odd at first, but they faded out of my consciousness as things went on.

My favorite song of the piece was "There She Goes", the duet chronicling the maturing of their daughter. Also fun was Hope's song "Empowered" about re-entering the dating scene. I was emotionally invested in the show and their trials and tribulations, which I think is why I found myself so annoyed and disappointed in the ending. I'm glad I finally got to see a performance of the show, and am thankful to the Prospect Theater Company for producing this show in NYC.


----------



## telracs

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

When I walked out of the Ethel Barrymore theatre on Sunday, I was entranced. I got so caught up in the technical and acting incredibility of the show that all else faded. However, as time went on, some reservations have cropped up in my mind and I am less thrilled than I was Sunday. Don't get me wrong, I still think the show was wonderful, but it was not the perfection it first seemed.

The most fantastic part of the show is Alex Sharp playing Christopher Boone, a fifteen year old autistic boy who finds his neighbor's dog impaled on a garden fork (we in the States would say pitchfork). At first he is accused of the crime (and apparently spends the night in jail), but eventually he is cleared and decides to find the culprit himself. Along the way he discovers the truth about death of the dog, but also finds out that his father has been lying to him about his mother. He ventures from Swindon to London on his own, and even takes his Math A level exams. Sharp is believable as Christopher, and he makes you feel almost everything Christopher experiences. At times he addresses the audience directly, which helps us connect with a character who could otherwise seem distant. Unforunately, as the show goes on, it becomes more and more meta, moving from Christopher narrating the action to another character reading the book that Christopher is writing about the detecting, to her suggesting he write a play about it, to a scene where Christopher corrects two characters in their actions and coaches them on their acting and ultimately to his teacher interrupting him and telling him that what he is talking about (his Math exam) is not interesting to people and he should wait until the end of the show to show how he solved the problem.. I didn't mind the narration and the reading of the book, but once they start talking about it as a play, I found myself a bit annoyed.

While Sharp is the undeniable star of the show, on stage practically the entire time, he is ably assisted by the ensemble around him. Stephanie Roth Heaberle played Siobhan, his teacher (or therapist. it's never made quite clear) at the performance we saw, and she supported Sharp wonderfully. Ian Barford was appropriately sympathetic as Christopher's devoted father and I think he showed well the complexity of a man pulled between the love of his child and the realities of that child's limitations. Enid Graham handled the less sympathetic Judy (the mother) pretty well, and I could relate to some of her choices, but not all. As her boyfriend Roger, Richard Hollis gets saddled with the most annoying character in the play, but he does have one scene that I found interesting. He confronts Christopher with the thought that Christopher never thinks of anyone but himself. This scene is meant to make him seem mean, but in some ways, I agreed with him. Christopher IS self-centered and while this is an off-shoot of the autism spectrum, I could understand Roger and Judy's frustration at having to rearrange their lives for this man-child. Emphasis is laid to the fact that Christopher cannot lie, and that he has difficulty understanding non-verbal cues and that he finds people confusing, but if he is self-aware enough to know that he doesn't always understand things (there is a stupid scene where someone says "park it" and he backs up and beeps like a truck before sitting down, and then looks at the other character as if to say "why am I parking?") I felt that his parents and teachers might have done a better job helping him process the fact that other people have feelings also and that not everyone will revolve their world around him. Now, I know that some people will say that I'm being unfair to folks with on the autism spectrum, but believe me, I know that each person is different. And I felt that some of how Christopher was portrayed was internally inconsistent.

The set was used to great effect. When you enter the theater, the back and side walls resemble graphs, with Space and Time as the two axis. The stage floor is interactive, and when Sharp draws on it, the drawings are shown on the back wall. In addition, during some scenes Christopher is shown putting together a train set, which (not coincidentally), starts in Swindon and ends in London. When Christopher announces that he is going to travel to London, a train moves along the track and London models light up. During the second act, when Christopher takes the train and then the Underground, the lights and sound effects show us how Christopher experiences things. I find train stations to be loud places, and this section of the play came close to being painful for me. But it was an excellent technical feat, even if I found the actions of the characters around Christopher unbelievable. He hides in the trains baggage compartment, and people take their bags and ignore him? The security guy who was on the train with him doesn't have the whole train searched? A kid jumps on the tracks of the Underground and nobody calls security? And the father doesn't warn anyone that his runaway child is special needs? I might have accepted some of these things, but after a while, I felt the author (the play is based on a book) just put too many unbelievable characters and actions into too small a space of time.

And the action doesn't stop at the curtain call. After the company takes their bows, Alex Sharp reappears on-stage and proceeds to tell us how Christopher solved the first math question of his exam. He uses all of the technical toys the theater holds (and he tells us what they are) and it was a fun way to end the show. It also was a moment where Christopher felt most human, actually addressing a group of strangers.

As I said, my sister and I were both entranced when we walked out of the show, and we talked about it all the way to the train. And other people that I've spoken to who have seen the show were also been impressed. But in the end, I think the technical overshadowed the rest and hid the flaws in the actual story and characterizations.


----------



## telracs

Paint Your Wagon

After seeing the sitzprobe last week, I was looking forward to seeing the full production of City Center's "Paint Your Wagon." And boy, Encores! did a great job with this show.

As I stated last week, the plot is pretty thin, the action taking place mostly in a gold rush town and following the ups and downs of such a life. Keith Carradine plays the lead miner, a tall tale spinner with a taste for wandering, and a 16 year old daughter. The daughter's role was taken on by Alexandra Socha, who has a sweet voice and made a believable tomboy confused by the action of the men around her. And she was fun to watch mature in her relationship with Justin Guarini's Julio. Guarini's voice was on display in a couple of songs, and it was a pleasure to listen to it. Also fun to watch were William Youmans, Melissa van der Schiff and Jenni Barber as a Mormon settler and his wives. Barber gets a few fun moments in a scene with Socha, but unfortunately, she pulled focus from the girl and some of the lyrics got lost due to laughs at her actions. Nathaniel Hickman had a couple of solo songs, and although his character isn't essential to the action, the songs were wonderful. Robert Creighton did well as Irishman Mike Mooney, and he was featured in one of the dance numbers. Some of the humor stems from stereotypes, and some people found them offensive, but I didn't think they were overdone and fit with the light tone of the show.

The dancing was one of the highlights of the show, ranging from Latin inspired, to Irish jigs to French style can-cans. Costumes were evocative of the time period and the set pieces were fun. Especially a stagecoach prop that was used in one song. At first there was a small one, then a larger one, then a bigger one, and finally a full size one. It was integrated into the song wonderfully and got a good laugh from the audience. The orchestra had a nice full sound, the sound design was impeccable for this production. I didn't love the downstage standing microphones, especially since they were never really used. What was also not used were scripts. This was the first production of Encores! that had no-one using their scripts. It was a bit odd, but was nice to see. And nicest of all, I heard that they are recording this production, so I can listen to Guarini's "I Talk to the Trees" and Hickman's "They call the wind Maria" to my heart's content.


----------



## telracs

Larry David in Fish in the Dark

I am somewhat sarcastically putting Mr. David's name in the title here because he is unavoidable in all the publicity and merchandise of the show. Sorry, as much as I liked the logo (a fish in a lightbulb), I refused to buy a t-shirt or even a magnet with Mr. David's name on it.

I've never really watched either of the TV shows Mr. David was involved with, "Seinfeld" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm," but I felt the plot of this show was lifted from one of them. Mr. David is "playing" a character named Norman Drexel, and we follow him in the action before and after the death of his father. He is surrounded by a bevy of feuding relatives and also has to deal with a bombshell dropped by his housekeeper.

Unfortunately, although Mr. David's Norman is the main character and is on stage the most, I found him the least enjoyable. I always felt that he was acting, and his movements were overly exaggerated and ridiculous. Rita Wilson was a bit stiff as his wife, but she has some fun moments. Ben Shenkman was also a bit stuff as brother Arthur and he got stuck having to play off of David too much. Best of the acting was Rosie Perez as housekeeper Fabiana and Jayne Houdyshell as Norman and Arthur's mother Gloria. The rest of the large supporting cast was good, but at times, they felt like characters, not people. One thing I did like was that each character was played by a different actor, there was no double casting. But I sort of felt sorry for the actor who has a 5 minute scene at the top of the show and then is never seen again. Or the actor who has a 2 minute scene almost at the end of the things.

The most interesting thing about the production was the show curtain. Before the show and at intermission, it shows the fish in the lightbulb logo. A fish that blinks at times. Between scenes the curtain is a large death certificate. First the info on the certificate gets filled in as things go on, and then the text does some fun things. The sets for the show were nice, although I found it odd that both parents ended up in the same hospital room although their symptoms were different.

There were a number of funny moments during the show, and a number of fun small details. The gentleman in front of me found the show hysterical, but I didn't. In fact, I found some of it excruciatingly not funny. Part of me wonders if it might have been better if Mr. David had been reined in, but I doubt it. My feeling is that the fault lies in the writing, and the fact that what would probably work as a 45 minute comedy is stretched to two hours and has too much filler and repetition of jokes to work for me.


----------



## telracs

Something Rotten

I think this show will have a hard slog. First off there is the title, which although it is a reference to Shakespeare, doesn't work well in conversation. Secondly, there is the preponderance of theater (musical and Shakespeare) in jokes. The lines are funny, but at times I felt like they were too much. Also too much was the "unintentionally" sexual humor in lines spoken by a Puritan character. Not my cup of tea. The show also has a few too many anachronistic touches which kept pulling me out of the story.

The main characters of the show are brothers Nick and Nigel Bottom (and yes, there are interminable jokes using their surname), playwrights who are living in the shadow of "The Bard." Nick, increasingly jealous of Shakespeare and desperate for money, goes to a soothsayer to find out the next big thing. Turns out, it's musicals. But this isn't enough, he then goes back to the soothsayer to determine Shakespeare's greatest hit. "Omelette" states the soothsayer. So, our hero determines to write a musical called "Omelette." Along the way, we have Shakespeare infiltrating the Bottom brothers' theater, Nigel Bottom falling for a Puritan lass, and Nick's wife masquerading as a man.

Brian D'Arcy James and Christian Borle are touted as the stars of the show and have been showing up everywhere together, so I thought they were playing the brothers. Nope. D'Arcy James is playing Nick Bottom, but his brother Nigel is played by John Cariani. Borle is assaying Shakespeare, and is channelling either Mick Jagger or Tim Curry. D'Arcy James was fairly enjoyable and managed to keep a straight face throughout a technical mishap early in Act One. Cariani has a thin voice, and honestly, I didn't like his character or his singing. Heidi Blickenstaff and Kate Reinders are wasted as Nick's wife and Nigel's love interest. Also wasted is Michael James Scott who opens both acts of the show as a Minstrel but disappears for most of the action. However, he can't really disappear into the ensemble, as he is the only African-American male in the cast. Brooks Ashmankas as the Puritan leader overplays his role and has the most cringe worthy lines. The person who steals the show is Brad Oscar as Nostradamus, the soothsayer (no, not THAT Nostradamus, his nephew). He gets the bulk of the theater jokes in a number titled "A Musical" and even gets to don a Phantom of the Opera mask at one point in the show.

The production of "A Musical" was wonderful, and got a standing ovation in the middle of the show. But some of the other songs just didn't work. Blickenstaff is saddled with a song titled "Right Hand Man" where she tries to convince Nick to let her get a part time job, and a quartet for D'Arcy James, Blickenstaff, Cariani and Reinders just dragged. Borle has two decent numbers, "Will Power" and "Hard to be the Bard." D'Arcy James gets the Act One Finale, the unfortunately titled "Bottom's Gonna Be On Top" and does well with it and the song from the show within the show "Make an Omelette". There is a song titled "To Thine Own Self" which utilizes lines from Hamlet. Unfortunately, I kept thinking of the episode of "Gilligan's Island" which also referenced the Hamlet lines, so I found this song lacking.

The audience was quite into the show the night I saw it. However, I fear this may be because it was comprised of theater fans who managed to get a great discount. The production sold many of the seats for the first three previews for $15.95 (the year the play takes place). I never really related to any of the characters and felt that a lot of the jokes were being clever for the sake of being clever. Alternated with lines being obscene for the sake of being obscene. I laughed at a lot of the jokes, counted the show references, and loved Nostradamus, but I worry that the show will not last long enough for me to take my sister to see it come summer.


----------



## telracs

Clinton: The Musical

This musical has a fascinating premise. There are two sides to William Jefferson Clinton, the upstanding WJ and the salacious sax playing Billy. And as she explains in her opening lines, Hilary is the only person who can see both of them. If the show had stuck with the exploration of the two sides of the man, and the trouble this causes, I think it would have been wonderful. Unfortunately, it makes Hilary the center of a lot of the action, and the parody of her as king-maker and wannabe president just didn't click for me. And the constant referencing of her misinterpreting Eleanor Roosevelt quotes got old fast.

The two actors playing Clinton, Tom Galantich as WJ and Duke Lafoon as Billy were sensational. Galantich more resembles Clinton, but both men felt like him. And I must admit, I don't think the casting director was going for realism of appearance in any of his actors. Kerry Butler somewhat resembles Hilary, but John Treacy Egan barely looks like Newt Gingrich, and Kevin Zak is nowhere near a Kenneth Starr impersonator. Veronica Kuehn comes of the best, looking like a slim Monical Lewinsky. Judy Gold plays both Eleanor Roosevelt and Linda Tripp and manages (mostly due to costuming) to make the two characters different, but I wished they had been played by different actresses.

As for characterizations, I felt Galantich and Lafoon came off the best. Lewinsky is also portrayed somewhat sympathetically, but Hillary, Gingrich, Starr and Linda Tripp are so broadly played that I got annoyed. We are also treated to a spoof of reporters that mostly works, but goes on a bit long. One interesting touch in the show is that most people see the WJ part of Clinton, except for Lewinsky who at first only sees the Billy part. But this switches as the show goes on. Late in Clinton's first term, Hilary starts backing Billy and WJ gets foisted into obscurity. What is also interesting is that the two halves talk to each other, and get to observe the action. WJ is at first unaware of the Lewinsky affair, and the scene where he discovers Lewinsky and Billy in flagrante delecto is wonderful. We get all the details you would expect, the cigar, the blue dress, the definition of "is" issues.

One thing I didn't like about the show was the use of the stage. I have been in this theater before, and I know it is a decently sized stage, but this production barely used one third of it. There is a center playing area on a rotating platform, and the set changes got a bit dizzying after a while. There were two doors also used for entrances and exits, but I feel like the company was crammed onto about 1/3 of the normal playing area. It's not a huge cast (which leads to some weird doubling) but still, give the folks some more room, guys. When I looked at the Playbill, I was a bit confused, because although I knew the show was 100 minutes with no intermission, it was showing an Act 1 and Act 2. Apparently, an earlier incarnation of the show had an intermission, but they've decided to keep it as one act (although the action splits into Clinton's two terms). It felt a bit long to me, and I was checking my watch at about the 60 minute mark.


----------



## SteveHarrison

telracs said:


> Paint Your Wagon
> 
> After seeing the sitzprobe last week, I was looking forward to seeing the full production of City Center's "Paint Your Wagon." And boy, Encores! did a great job with this show.
> 
> As I stated last week, the plot is pretty thin, the action taking place mostly in a gold rush town and following the ups and downs of such a life. Keith Carradine plays the lead miner, a tall tale spinner with a taste for wandering, and a 16 year old daughter. The daughter's role was taken on by Alexandra Socha, who has a sweet voice and made a believable tomboy confused by the action of the men around her. And she was fun to watch mature in her relationship with Justin Guarini's Julio. Guarini's voice was on display in a couple of songs, and it was a pleasure to listen to it. Also fun to watch were William Youmans, Melissa van der Schiff and Jenni Barber as a Mormon settler and his wives. Barber gets a few fun moments in a scene with Socha, but unfortunately, she pulled focus from the girl and some of the lyrics got lost due to laughs at her actions. Nathaniel Hickman had a couple of solo songs, and although his character isn't essential to the action, the songs were wonderful. Robert Creighton did well as Irishman Mike Mooney, and he was featured in one of the dance numbers. Some of the humor stems from stereotypes, and some people found them offensive, but I didn't think they were overdone and fit with the light tone of the show.
> 
> The dancing was one of the highlights of the show, ranging from Latin inspired, to Irish jigs to French style can-cans. Costumes were evocative of the time period and the set pieces were fun. Especially a stagecoach prop that was used in one song. At first there was a small one, then a larger one, then a bigger one, and finally a full size one. It was integrated into the song wonderfully and got a good laugh from the audience. The orchestra had a nice full sound, the sound design was impeccable for this production. I didn't love the downstage standing microphones, especially since they were never really used. What was also not used were scripts. This was the first production of Encores! that had no-one using their scripts. It was a bit odd, but was nice to see. And nicest of all, I heard that they are recording this production, so I can listen to Guarini's "I Talk to the Trees" and Hickman's "They call the wind Maria" to my heart's content.


I was very interested in your review, as I performed in the chorus of an amateur version of Paint Your Wagon here in Australia in 1989. This was made more interesting in hindsight due to my chorus singing partner being a very young and then unknown Hugh Jackman.

The show was great fun to be in and I love the music, but I was surprised at how 'thin' the storyline is compared with the movie version, which I much prefer.

For anyone interested, there's a photo of Hugh (who we nicknamed Huge) in the show near the bottom of this page: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-amateurs-hoping-to-reach-for-the-stars/story-fni0cx12-1226962344374 I'm the guy next to him in the brown 50 gallon hat!


----------



## Sapphire

Last week we saw Motown - The Musical.


The evening kicked off with a prime-rib dinner and lovely wine with three other couples. Our walking the 2-1/2 blocks to the Orpheum on a cool spring night left us alert and ready for entertainment.


My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed Motown. That is saying something because we tend to have different tastes in theater and often only one of us truly enjoys a particular production. The music carried a bit of nostalgia for us, but it wasn't just that. The performers were excellent. Most played their parts so well one tended to forget they weren't the original singers.


A woman in our group commented she wished there had been less dialogue and more music. Yes, we all loved the music, but it was never meant to be a concert. It was the story of the man who built Motown and took his singers to fame along with his label. The day came he had to face the eventuality that all had grown way beyond their roots. Motown moved from Detroit to California and everything changed, even him. One by one, the artists left for better offers and even bigger careers, and Motown came to an end. The influence and the music never ended though, and remnants are found in music today and will, also, continue to be there in the future.


----------



## telracs

Finding Neverland

This musical is apparently based on a movie of the same name. I think i've heard of the movie, but I have no clue who is in it. The basic plot is the interaction of JM Barrie and the Llewelyn Davies and the writing of Peter Pan.

The show started in a surprising way. It looked like someone threw a lit up superball from the rear mezzanine at the stage. Took a second, but then as the ball of light flew around, we realized it was Tinkerbell. Eventually, she darted through the show curtain which opens to reveal Peter Pan who dances with the fall of light for a bit. Finally, we see JM Barrie (Matthew Morrison sporting a beard and a nice Scottish accent [when he speaks, he loses it when he sings]) who sets the time and place. We are a year before the premiere of Peter Pan, on opening night of a different Barrie play. We meet all kinds of people, the actors of Barrie's play, his wife Mary (an underused Teal Wicks), and his producer, American Chrles Frohman (Kelsey Grammer). Barrie is unhappy with the play, and even more so with this next work, but he then finds inspiration in the antics of the Llewelyn Davies boys, eventually forming a connection with the boys and their mother Sylvia (Laura Michelle Kelly), much to the chagrin of his acquaintances and her mother (Carolee Carmelo doing her best in a small role).

The show took quite a bit of time to get started, and I found a lot of the first act boring. I didn't really care about Barrie, and his relationship with Sylivie Llewelyn Davies seemed forced, and his relationship with the boys a bit creepy. There are a number of "imagination" production numbers, and after a while, they seemed repetitive. Act One picked up with the appearance of Captain Hook (also played by Grammer) and a wonderful Act One finale. Act Two focuses more on the relationship between Barrie and Sylvia and her declining health. There were wonderful effects in this act, including excerpts from the production of Peter Pan, but I found things a bit maudlin at times. I also found the alteration in the character of Charles Frohman unbelievable. A man who states he dislikes children and is rude to them in the first act, suddenly has the acting company embracing their inner child during rehearsals for Peter Pan. I would have found it more authentic if Barrie or Sylvia had initiated the change. But then it would have left Grammer with little to do. One scene I really liked was when the eldest Llewelyn Davis boy, Sawyer Nunes, steps up and stands up to his grandmother to defend his mother's wishes.

I really liked the costumes in the show, and some of the backdrops were quite nice. However, some of them were less successful, especially a park background that was used a number of times and had a large clock incorporated into it that never changed time. It seemed out of place and was actually a bit ugly.

Like any biography or "inspired by true events" production, this show raised questions as to the facts behind the story. In Finding Neverland, the romance between JM Barrie and Sylvia is played up, whereas in real life it appears that they were not really involved romantically. As I said, I found Barrie's interactions with the children a bit creepy, and the show acknowledges that to outsiders, things in Barrie's life seemed a bit odd. I have to admit, that while I enjoyed Morrison, and some of Grammer's work, I found most of the show odd and wonder why anyone decided to make a musical of this story.


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> Finding Neverland
> I have to admit, that while I enjoyed Morrison, and some of Grammer's work, I found most of the show odd and wonder why anyone decided to make a musical of this story.


I have wondered that about several shows you have reviewed! Setting some stories to music doesn't make sense to me, but your reviews have shown that is possible for them to at least try to turn any story into a musical.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> I have wondered that about several shows you have reviewed! Setting some stories to music doesn't make sense to me, but your reviews have shown that is possible for them to at least try to turn any story into a musical.


You CAN turn anything into a musical (in some alternate universes in my demented dreams everything is a musical), but in this universe sometimes things SHOULD not be turned into one....


----------



## Leslie

SteveHarrison said:


> I was very interested in your review, as I performed in the chorus of an amateur version of Paint Your Wagon here in Australia in 1989. This was made more interesting in hindsight due to my chorus singing partner being a very young and then unknown Hugh Jackman.
> 
> The show was great fun to be in and I love the music, but I was surprised at how 'thin' the storyline is compared with the movie version, which I much prefer.
> 
> For anyone interested, there's a photo of Hugh (who we nicknamed Huge) in the show near the bottom of this page: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-amateurs-hoping-to-reach-for-the-stars/story-fni0cx12-1226962344374 I'm the guy next to him in the brown 50 gallon hat!


Thanks for that link and the great picture!


----------



## Leslie

Honeymoon in Vegas (New York, March 13)

So...I am way overdue on posting this review but better late than never!

When I was in NYC last month, I was able to see two shows: Phantom of the Opera (with telracs) on Thursday, then on Friday I took myself to see Honeymoon in Vegas, and I am glad I did! I picked this show for two reasons: 1) I have always enjoyed the movie and the show got good reviews; and 2) I wanted to see something that was only on Broadway and new, not in a touring company that I could catch (maybe, someday) at home.

The plot in a nutshell: Jack Singer and Betsy have been dating for 5 years and are very much in love. Betsy is eager (and ready) to get married but Jack made a deathbed promise to his mother that he would never marry. So he has cold feet. Betsy is ready to ditch him and faced with this prospect, he says, okay, let's do it--let's go to Las Vegas and get married. When they arrive in LV and are checking into the hotel, Tommy Korman, a card shark/low level hoodlum type, sees Betsy and thinks she is the spitting image of his dead wife, a sun worshipper who died of skin cancer. He decides he must have Betsy, one way or another, and the story proceeds from there.

Part of the thing that made the movie great were the great performances by Nicholas Cage (Jack), Sarah Jessica Parker (Betsy), James Caan (Tommy) and Ann Bancroft (Jack's mother) plus a bunch of others, including Peter Boyle.

The movie was not a musical but turning this into a musical was a no-brainer and they did a great job. The show follows the movie pretty closely in the overall arc but there were lots of little changes, especially in the second act, where a lot of the action takes place in Hawaii.

Tony Danza played Tommy Korman and he was terrific. He sang, he tap danced and overall, I enjoyed every second he was onstage. The performers who played Jack and Betsy were also great (but not names I recognized) with lots of energy and great singing and dancing talent. Jack's mom shows up more often than she did in the movie and was funnier--a scene where Jack wants to buy an engagement ring at Tiffany's and she morphs out of the jewelry case (in her hospital bed) was priceless.

I am always amazed with what they can do with sets on a stage. In this show, the action takes place in New York City, Las Vegas, and Hawaii; people are in stores (Tiffany's), in hotels, near the pool, near the ocean, on planes, in jeeps, and even jumping out of planes. How do they do all this and make it feel realistic (or at least make the audience realize what was going on)? I am in awe of the creativity and talent.

Overall, this was a great show and I am so glad I saw it. I just checked the website and apparently the last show is tonight, April 5th! So, this is a show that will live on in memories only, I guess. I don't know all the ins and outs of Broadway productions so I don't know why it's not running longer. I certainly would give it 5 stars!

You can hear the music and see a video at the website here: http://honeymoonbroadway.com/

L


----------



## telracs

Hunchback of Notre Dame

If anyone reading this has read the Victor Hugo novel, can you please PM me? I have a question regarding Captain Phoebus. Is he a nice guy, or a jerk? A hero or a villain? Does he spend all his time in Paris or does he leave Paris at some point during the novel?

I ask these because the three musical versions of Hunchback that I am familiar with portray him in 3 different ways and have him doing different things. For those interested, the three versions are a concept album done by Dennis DeYoung with him singing all the male parts, a London cast recording of a show titled Notre Dame de Paris, and today's experience of a stage version of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame. I have never seen the Disney movie and was familiar with only two songs from it, Quasimodo's "Out There" and Esmeralda's "G-d Help the Outcasts."

As my sister and I were walking to the theater from the Millburn, New Jersey a young lady admired my jacket and we started talking theater. Turns out she was a member of the choir that appeared in the show. So we went in knowing there was an on-stage chorus. They are dressed in monks' robes and sit in 4 boxes upstage in the cathedral based set. They got a solo number in Latin at the top of Act 2, and mostly were there for effect and Latin chanting.

The show starts with a fairly long expositionary number, telling the tale of the Frollo brothers, one who ultimately becomes a priest and the other a wastrel who runs off with a gypsy. On his dying bed, this brother entrusts his baby son to the priest, but due to the boy's deformities, he is confined to the bell tower of Notre Dame. As Quasimodo grows, he knows only Frollo's world, but longs to walk among the people he sees from his perch. Encouraged by the gargoyles and plaster saints around him (or are they really just aspects of his own mind?) he ventures out on the day of the Feast of Fools. He encounters the gypsy Esmeralda and Captain Phoebus, who rescue him from the crowd. And Frollo sees Esmeralda and falls in lust with her while Phoebus and Esmeralda seem to find love. Frollo is already harboring a festering hatred of Gypsies, and blaming Esmeralda for his attraction he goes a bit off the deep end and hunts her and her fellow Gypsies down, ultimately having her burned at the stake.

All of the acting was wonderful. Patrick Page almost made Frollo seem human and was in excellent voice. Michael Arden contorted his body and moved great as Quasimodo, but his voice was not consistent. The two men interact well, and the use of sign language when they communicate was nice to watch. Andrew Samonsky was nice to watch as Phoebus, and Ciara Renee as Esmeralda handled her dance duties well and made me understand why all the men would fall for her. The weakest actor was Erik Liberman as Clopin, the king of Gypsies. I didn't quite get him and found him odd. The ensemble did yeoman duty as priests, townspeople, gypsies and even gargoyles. Although I have to admit that some of their poses when they were assaying the gargoyles and statues were quite weird.

Comparing the song list in today's program to the movie soundtrack, I see that one song from the move was dropped, but a number of new songs added. And one song that appears on the soundtrack as an over the credits song has been changed to a song for Esmeralda. Oddly enough, one song that I thought was new "Hellfire" was actually in the movie. I thought that the song was too dark for a Disney movie, but apparently Hunchback was Disney's darkest animated movie.

The set was quite interesting, a checkerboard floor (with some vented squares for the orchestra below), side galleries and upstage boxes for the choir. There were about 1/2 dozen huge bells hanging above, which came down when the action took place in the bell tower. Unfortunately, I kept noticing the lighting, which to me meant it was overdone and distracting. The costumes were nothing fantastic, but at times I was afraid that a few of the ladies were going to pop out of their tops.

Papermill always does first rate productions, and once again the trek out to New Jersey was worth it. Although I think my sister enjoyed the Red Mango frozen yogurt we bought more than she enjoyed the show.



















And in June we will be seeing....


----------



## Leslie

I just bought tickets to see Dirty Dancing in Boston on May 9th. Woo-hoo!


----------



## telracs

okay, i'm pouting.

i know people read this thread, but nobody could at least comment if they had or hadn't read hunchback of notre dame.

i'm going to go sit in my corner and eat cookies until someone other than leslie or crebel posts in this thread.

(and leslie, i can't wait to hear what you think of dirty dancing, reviews on line have been mixed)


----------



## Anne Victory

Hey, Scarlet  You are making me wish we had more theater here in the area. Sadly, there's not a lot, plus hubby isn't much on musicals. I need to find a local friend who likes going to plays and such. Louisiana Tech usually has something every quarter.

Regarding Hunchback--sorry, I'm no help. It's one of the classics I've managed to avoid, which I'm not sure why. It's a great story  You might try Wikipedia's plot synopsis. They tend to be fairly unbiased. Not always, but mostly.


----------



## mlewis78

Telracs, I read Hunchback at least 5 years ago, and I have no recollection of that character.  Please come out of your corner!


----------



## telracs

mlewis78 said:


> Telracs, I read Hunchback at least 5 years ago, and I have no recollection of that character. Please come out of your corner!


since i know have proof of life, i will be coming out of my corner.

(anne didn't count because she and i were discussing things in PM and i pointed her towards this thread).

next review will be posted in a couple of days.


----------



## Anne Victory

Hey! What do you mean, I don't count? :sniffle:


----------



## telracs

Anne Victory said:


> Hey! What do you mean, I don't count? :sniffle:


okay, okay, bad phrasing.... i should have said you weren't eligible to lure me out of my corner because i just pointed you to this thread.

and anne, you can always go to the theater all by yourself. it's fun.


----------



## telracs

The Visit

This Kander and Ebb musical has been kicking around for years and has gone through a number of incarnations. At one point Angela Lansbury was attached to the product, but eventually the starring role went to Chita Rivera. And if we can all move that well and look that good at age 82, I'll be happy.

Ms. Rivera, looking gorgeous in all white for most of the show, plays Claire Zachnassian, a billionaress who is returning to her hometown after many, many decades away. The town has fallen on extremely hard times and the people of the town are hoping she is returning to help them out of their plight. At first, it does seem that all is well and that Claire wishes to reconnect with the people of the town (especially her former lover Anton [Roger Rees]) but as things go on, her real motive comes out and she declares that she is willing to give the town 10 billion marks, and every man, woman and child in the town 2 million marks, but there is a proviso.


Spoiler



She wants them to kill Anton. Of course, the upstanding citizens turn her down at first, but as time goes on and they realize all the things money can buy, they turn on Anton. He eventually accepts his fate and reconciles with Claire. In what I found to be an interesting twist (but folks on line didn't like), at the end of the show Claire is now in black.



There is no doubt that Rivera is the star of the show, but she is ably assisted by the rest of the cast. Rees looks every inch the broken down small town shopkeeper with loads of regrets. Mary Beth Peil does well as Anton's wife and David Garrison as the mayor and Jason Daniely as the school-keeper both have their moments. I did not recognize Tim Shew as the constable and I found Matthew Deming, Chris Newcomer and Tom Nelis kind of creepy as Claire's aides. Michelle Veintimiulla and John Riddle as the younger versions of Claire and Anton were pretty to look at, but they seemed a bit wasted, since they had no spoken lines.

The set is also creepy, it reminded me of a deteriorating greenhouse. As is appropriate for the dark theme of the show, the set is dark and the lighting is subdued. The were no real set pieces, with Claire's luggage doubling as tables and chairs. It took me a bit to realize that the largest piece of her "luggage" was in fact a coffin. I didn't mind it being on stage the whole time, but when it was used as a platform, I thought it was a bit odd. As I stated above, Claire states in white, while the townspeople are in distressed outfits, some of which are to showcase their occupations. Claire's aides are in black, and initially they are in yellow shoes while everyone else is wearing ordinary footwear. As the show goes on, and folks start buying things on credit in anticipation of their windfall, the townspeople add yellow touches to their costumes, and in the course of one number, they all don yellow shoes. Young Claire and Young Anton are both barefoot and in simple beige outfits.

Unfortunately, the weakest part of this musical was the music. There were no songs I would call great, although I did like "A Car Ride", a song for Anton and his family. and I found the "Yellow Shoes" songs to be interesting, if not all that melodic. The show runs a little under 2 hours with no intermission, and at times I found scenes redundant and a bit boring. At the end of the show I walked out mostly satisfied with this musical, and I loved the chance to see Ms. Rivera on stage again.


----------



## crebel

Did the lyrics to "Yellow Shoes" provide the significance to the choice of that color?

I wish I could move as well in my 50s as Ms. Rivera does in her 80s!  

Again, I find it interesting how any story can be turned into a musical.  I think I grew up thinking of musicals as light-hearted and happy overall even though serious themes can be addressed during some scenes/songs (South Pacific immediately comes to my mind as one I thought of as 'happy' as a child, but it really isn't even though there are fun songs).  However, on reflection of the few I have seen on stage or more as movies, and from reading your reviews, I recognize that is not true at all and many (most?) are real dramas told through song.  it is probably naïve of me not to recognize this earlier in my life.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Did the lyrics to "Yellow Shoes" provide the significance to the choice of that color?


nope. they probably picked yellow because it is one of the brightest tones and played well against the dark background.



crebel said:


> I wish I could move as well in my 50s as Ms. Rivera does in her 80s!


you and me both



crebel said:


> Again, I find it interesting how any story can be turned into a musical. I think I grew up thinking of musicals as light-hearted and happy overall even though serious themes can be addressed during some scenes/songs (South Pacific immediately comes to my mind as one I thought of as 'happy' as a child, but it really isn't even though there are fun songs). However, on reflection of the few I have seen on stage or more as movies, and from reading your reviews, I recognize that is not true at all and many (most?) are real dramas told through song. it is probably naïve of me not to recognize this earlier in my life.


i think the thing is that happy folks are boring. if there's no conflict, no drama, why should we care? so even "happy" musicals have to have something dramatic in them.


----------



## telracs

The Heidi Chronicles

As patrons were leaving the Music Box theater after seeing the revival of Wendy Wasserstein's "The Heidi Chronicles", we were invited to take a button. I took one because, hey, I like swag. The button reads "I am Heidi". Well, no, actually, I'm not. I'm not Heidi, and while I think she might be interesting to hang out with under certain circumstances, I don't think even think I'd like her as a friend. I'd rather be friends with her gay male pediatrician companion. Unfortunately, where Heidi (Elizabeth Moss) is bland and indecisive, her friend Peter Patrone (Bryce Pinkham) is usually caustic and sarcastic so I don't know if I'd be able to take him in large doses. Her friend Susan (Ali Ahn) is annoying and constantly reinventing herself while the man Heidi loves and loathes, one Scoop Rosenbaum (Jason Biggs) is a philandering know-it-all who I'd probably end up smacking if I met him in real life. The core quartet are supported by a quartet of ensemble actors who take on a myriad of roles, but manage to make each one unique.

The show starts with Heidi giving a lecture in 1989 NY then flashback to a high school dance in 1965, where we meet Susan, and Heidi meets Peter and the two vow to be friends. We travel next to 1968 New Hampshire and a political rally where we encounter Scoop. From then on, we get Susan in Michigan, Peter in Chicago, and all of them in NY for Scoop's wedding. For Act Two, we geographically in NY the whole time, traveling in time from 1980 to 1989.

Thinking back, it almost seems that in each of the vignette's we see Heidi with one of her 3 main friends (sometimes along with other people). The only time all 3 intersect is the final scene of Act One, which is Scoop's wedding. Peter is Heidi's "date" for the wedding and Susan and Scoop are tangentially acquainted, so all 4 main characters are there. Unfortunately, although the show is titled "Heidi Chronicles", it doesn't really feel like her story, but the story of how one woman interacts with different people. She never seems to be taking action, but rather reacting to things around her. This is especially noticeable in a send up of morning talk shows where for some reason that escapes me, Heidi, Peter and Scoop are the guests. Heidi barely gets a word in edgewise while the men monopolize things, and even when she does stand up for herself, it is ignored. Moss does the best she can with this character, and the one scene where Heidi is alone on the stage (a mini-breakdown in the midst of an alumni association speech) is most believable. Bryce Pinkham is hysterical as the over the top Peter, and Ali Ahn works well as the chameleon Susan. Jason Biggs was fun as Scoop but one thing that confused me with his character is the fact the Scoop always seemed to know what was going on in Heidi's life even though she tried to hide things from him. In the moment, I accepted it, but contemplating it now, the writing makes Scoop almost omniscient and that is probably as annoying for me as it would have been for Heidi.

I didn't love the set of the show, it was a plain white stage with two doors through which all the set changes revolved. There was some nice use of projections and a couple of scrims, but still, not my favorite. The costumes were period appropriate and nice enough, however, I think some of the wigs could have used a bit of work. In some ways, the best part of the show was the music used to cue us in to the time period we were entering. Janis Joplin, Aretha Franklin, Betty Everett, Herb Alpert, and more were all used excellently. So, in the end, while I might not want to spend more time with these people, I wouldn't mind borrowing some CDs to burn.


----------



## crebel

At least the music was great.  Time to find the Herb Alpert albums on the Mp3 player.


----------



## telracs

An American in Paris....

Wanna hear about the Broadway musical?  Tell me if you ever saw the movie.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> An American in Paris....
> 
> Wanna hear about the Broadway musical? Tell me if you ever saw the movie.


I have seen the movie and would love to hear about the show!


----------



## telracs

An American in Paris

I knew that I would be challenged by An American in Paris, because the movie on which the show is based starred Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. So I expected a dance heavy show, and boy did I get it. And boy, was I bored. The show starts with a narration by Brandon Uranowitz as Adam Hochberg, a "composer" in Paris. He introduces us to the titular American (well the other American, since Adam is also American), artist Jerry Mulligan (an extremely handsome Robert Fairchild). We next spend 10 minutes on a ballet following Jerry as he decides to stay in Paris and first encounters Lise Dassin. By the end of the ballet, Jerry and Adam meet and bond as fellow ex-soldiers. The third member of their three musketeers is Frenchman Henri Baurel, a textile merchant who wants to be a song and dance man. Although the three men don't realize it, they are all in love with the same girl. I admit that Leanne Cope is pretty as Lise Dassin, but I couldn't understand why Jerry and Adam fall for her so quick (Henri has known her for years). Turns out she is the daughter of a famous dancer, and with the help of Henri's mother (the hilariously subdued Veanne Cox) and an American woman with money and an eye for Jerry, she gets hired at the ballet. The American female, played by Jill Paice, manages to get Adam hired as the composer of the ballet and Jerry as set designer and puts the moves on Jerry. Jerry seems to reciprocate her feelings when he discovers Lise and Henri are a couple, but eventually he realizes who he loves, and since this is a "happy" musical, Jerry and Lise end up together.
There were a lot of little things going on in the story, and my sister and I both missed things, as we discovered when we were walking to the subway after the show. She missed Henri's family's backstory, and thought he sounded more German than French. I missed an important part of Adam's character. Fairchild was difficult to accept as a painter, he moves too much like a dancer, and is featured in most of the dance numbers. He moves quite well, and I enjoyed watching him, but felt the dance numbers went on too long. Max Von Essen gets a moment to shine as Henri in "Stairway to Pardise" but the insertion of Uranowitz's character in that number was jarring. The best part of the number was something that I am certain was difficult for Von Essen, he had to dance badly. He knocks over a chair and almost takes out a couple of other actors and so when he starts moving well, it's incredible. Uranowitz acts as the narrator of the show, which I found illogical. And I was annoyed at the fact that his composer character is writing Gershwin songs. Iconic Gershwin songs. Every time it happened, it took me out of the show. I also found the plot improbable, and felt the book was simply something shoehorned into a dance show. I would have liked to have more time to connect with the characters.
The costumes were pretty enough, but nothing fantastic. The scenery was a bit sparse, more representational than real. There were a lot of flats being moved in and out, and a lot of animated projections. I didn't get a sense of cohesion in the set design, the disparate elements did not mesh together well. And while there was a lot of dancing, I wished that there were more songs. Jill Paice deserved a bit more singing time, and having her singing "But Not for Me" at the same time as Uranowitz was a waste of talent. I think that is my final takeaway from this show. Opportunities for story, song and acting were wasted while dance overwhelmed everything else.


----------



## mlewis78

I have seen the movie (Gene Kelly).  Liked the dancing.

Telracs, do you know yet when you are going to see Wolf Hall (I & II)?


----------



## telracs

mlewis78 said:


> I have seen the movie (Gene Kelly). Liked the dancing.
> 
> Telracs, do you know yet when you are going to see Wolf Hall (I & II)?


May 13th and May 20th. Wednesday matinee for each. decided not to sit through them in one day.


----------



## mlewis78

telracs said:


> May 13th and May 20th. Wednesday matinee for each. decided not to sit through them in one day.


I wouldn't want to go to both in one day either. I work near the Seaport TKTS. On Saturday they had the Sunday performances (1pm-Part I and 6 or 6:30 for Part II). I didn't want to wait in line but thought I might buy another time if they are available on Saturday for Sunday. I really would need to go an hour before work or when they open at 11am. I'm sure there is a line when they open though.


----------



## telracs

mlewis78 said:


> I wouldn't want to go to both in one day either. I work near the Seaport TKTS. On Saturday they had the Sunday performances (1pm-Part I and 6 or 6:30 for Part II). I didn't want to wait in line but thought I might buy another time if they are available on Saturday for Sunday. I really would need to go an hour before work or when they open at 11am. I'm sure there is a line when they open though.


that's the good part of the seaport TKTS site, day before tickets! let me know if you do decide to get tickets.


----------



## telracs

The Audience

Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth the Second.

Care to hear more? Tell me who you think should play an English monarch and why....


----------



## mlewis78

telracs said:


> The Audience
> 
> Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth the Second.
> 
> Care to hear more? Tell me who you think should play an English monarch and why....


Yes, tell us more! Helen Mirren was good in the movie about her. Cate Blanchett was a good Elizabeth I on screen.


----------



## telracs

The Audience

Sometimes, you just gotta spend the cash to get something special. Last year it was Kenneth Branagh as a Scottish tyrant and this week it was Dame Helen Mirren as the current English monarch.

The premise of the show is the dramatization of meetings that Queen Elizabeth holds privately with her Prime Minister. No one knows exactly what is said in these meetings, and it is made clear that The Audience is pure fiction. I was able to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the show thanks to the acting of the company members. Most of the people on the stage seem real, and Ms. Mirren is an almost perfect Elizabeth. We are told that the Queen has had an even dozen PMs, but this refers not to people, but to terms, as PM Harold Wilson served two separate terms. Inside the Playbill is an insert listing the Prime Ministers, which I thought was a full list of PMs, but it only lists 9 people. Of those, 8 appear in the play.

Mirren is the undeniable star of the show, but she is excellently supported by the actors playing PMs as well as a variety of actors playing servants. Sadie Sink plays the young Elizabeth, and does an excellent job, although the lady sitting next to me thought that the character was meant to be Princess Anne, not Elizabeth. Geoffrey Beevers as "Equerry" is our entry point into the royal presence, talking directly to the audience at the top of each act and being a constant on the periphery of the action. The PMs do not get the same amount of time in the limelight, with poor Tony Blair (Rufus Wright) getting short shrift, having barely 5 minutes stage time, and that in a memory as the Queen is talking to another PM. Rufus Wright gets a bit more to do, as he also plays PM David Cameron. Richard McCabe gets the most exposure as PM Harold Wilson, and I liked him quite a bit. I also liked Dylan Baker as John Major and Michael Elwyn as Anthony Eden. Dakin Matthews is spot on as Winston Churchill, and I wish we'd seen more of him. The weakest link for me was Judith Ivey as Margaret Thatcher. Hers was the one performance that didn't feel real, it came across as a caricature.

The show does not follow a straight chronologic timeline, so Dame Helen jumps around in age. While I found her performance wonderful no matter her costume and wig, from the fifth row, she never really looked younger than 40. So in her interactions with Churchill and Eden I felt she seemed older than the age Elizabeth would have been at the time. In some cases, Mirren goes from age to age right on stage, and the transformations are done so well that unless you watch carefully, they are missed. I noticed some continuity in the costumes, with each outfit having a beautiful pin somewhere on the ensemble and of course, the Queen's signature pearls are in evidence.

Also in evidence are the corgis that one associates with Her Majesty, and they were adorable. Most of the play takes place in the private audience room, which is described to us by the Equerry at the beginning of the play. Unfortunately, I did not feel that the room he describes was what I was seeing on stage, and I was a bit confused. Part of the second act takes place at Balmoral Castle in Scotland and I thought the backdrop representing the Scottish countryside was gorgeous. 
I don't know all that much about British Prime Ministers, so at some points I had no idea who people were or where in time the action was taking place. I know there were some references that went over my head, but that could happen at any play. For the most part, I was able to follow along, and experience being in the presence of great actors portraying interesting people.


----------



## loonlover

Enjoyed this review but the one in person was even better.


----------



## telracs

loonlover said:


> Enjoyed this review but the one in person was even better.


well, there was cheesecake with that one.


----------



## telracs

It Shoulda Been You









Please note: There are a number of spoilers below. I was not able to write about this without giving away a couple of plot twists and blacking things out would just have looked silly.

Welcome to the St. George hotel. We are gathered here to witness the preparations for and the aftermath of the wedding of Rebecca Steinberg (Sierra Boggess) to Brian Howard (David Burtka). Oddly enough, while this might be Rebecca and Brian's big day, the action centers more on Jenny Steinberg (Lisa Howard), Rebecca's older, "big boned" sister. We also witness the on-going feud between the future mothers-in-law, played by Tyne Daly and Harriet Harris. Oh, and we also watch a seemingly psychic wedding planner, the over the top Edward Hibbert. On the periphery of things are the best man, maid of honor, an ex-boyfriend, the fathers of the happy couple, a couple of distant relatives, and the aides to the wedding planner.

The show starts with a woman singing "I Never Wanted This". People who do not know the actresses in the show might be thinking this is the bride, but no, it is her sister. The sister who has always been pushed aside in favor of her younger, prettier, skinnier sister. We watch as Jenny handles her mother, deals with the wedding planner, and then accidentally calls up one of Rebecca's ex-boyfriends. This scene was hysterical, Lisa Howard is on stage, and in the audience we hear a cell phone ring. Lights come up on someone in one of the boxes, and it turns out this is not an audience member, but an actor (Josh Grisetti) playing Marty, the ex-boyfriend. He runs through the theater, determined to stop the wedding. We soon get the title song, but instead of it being sung by the bride, groom or about them, it is sung by the Steinberg relatives to Marty. Marty accidentally overhears Brian and his father "bonding" (and the father trying to foist a pre-nup off on to the couple). This was the one number where David Burtka got to shine. He dances well, and has a nice singing voice, but the character just wasn't that interesting at this point. Tyne Daly gets her moment in the spotlight in a scene where the ladies of the wedding party are having their hair and make up done and following an interlude about the wedding planner, we have Harriet Harris's song lamenting the fact that she never wanted her son to marry (a song with a number of politically incorrect gay references). We do not see the actual wedding ceremony, and move on to the post wedding reception. As is normal in Jewish custom, the couple go off to spend some time together. However, they are joined by the best man and maid of honor, and the two couples are caught kissing by Jenny and Albert the wedding planner. However, it is not the bride kissing the groom, it is the bride kissing the maid of honor and the groom kissing the best man. As is eventually revealed to the entire family, the two couples were in collusion to allow Brian to inherit money by marrying Rebecca. But there is real affection between Brian and Rebecca. Real enough that one drunken night, they conceived a child. Well, nothing brings people together than the thought of a grandchild, and the Steinbergs and the Howards come together reveling in the knowledge that someday their grandchild will do to the couple what the couple just did to them. Along the way, Jenny bursts out of her shell, and it is revealed that Marty has always had a thing for her, so in the end we have five happy couples; the two sets of parents, the bride and her maid of honor, the groom and his best man, and Jenny and Marty.

I knew the main plot twist of the show going in, so was able to pick up some subtle clues as things went on. Well, subtle clues about the women, there is nothing subtle in Nick Spangler's performance as best man Greg. However, I did not see the secondary plot twist coming, basically because I could not ever imagine David Burtka's character "doing sex" with a woman. Sierra Bogges is radiant as Rebecca, and has one good song, but Montego Glover was wasted as maid of honor Annie Shepard, having only an intentionally badly done song with Spangler to sing. Daly and Harris were spot on as the feuding in-laws to be, and were ably supported by Chip Zien and Michael X. Martin as their husbands. Hibbert and his assistants, Anne L. Nathan and Adam Heller (the duo also play Aunt Sheila and Uncle Morty) are fun, but after a while, I found the omniscient/omnipresent Albert a bit much. Grisetti was hysterical as Marty and played well against Howard, who is the biggest star in this show, and gets the final bow in a gorgeous wedding dress.

Our hotel is a two tiered set and is beautiful and used well. Both the wedding dresses worn in the show are wonderful, and I have to admit, that the dresses for Jenny and Annie were not awful bridesmaids' concoctions. I'm guessing that the wedding color was a light blue, since as a bonus when I bought items at the show, I got a light blue rose stick pin.

The show runs a bit less than 2 hours with no intermission, and there were very few lags in it. I felt it was a fun, fast romp, reminiscent of old romantic comedy TV shows with a few modern twists. Unfortunately, the show did not get any Tony nominations today, so there is fear it might close soon. I hope not, because it was fun and sometimes that's all you need a show to be. And I really want a cast recording.


----------



## crebel

That sounds like a really fun show to me.  I would love to see it.


----------



## telracs

Hamilton

Lin-Manuel Miranda's first show, "In the Heights" took place in Washington Heights over the course of a steamy 4th of July weekend. It was a wonderful show, with great characters, interesting storylines and music that celebrated the community. Miranda's new show, "Hamilton" is a musical biography of Alexander Hamilton as narrated by the man who killed him, Aaron Burr. It is currently playing at the Public Theater downtown, but its popularity is such that it will be moving to Broadway in the summer and is already scaplers' favorite sell. The show has interesting characters, gorgeous costumes, and an intricate set. It tells the story of a complex man in a complex time, and has music that evokes Washington Heights over the course of a steamy July 4th weekend.

"Hamilton" starts with an explosive title song, introducing us to the characters of the show and eventually the main character, played by Mr. Miranda himself. I found myself shaking my head in disbelief during this song and the second song, "My Shot". Both songs were loud, fast sung and I kept hearing "In the Heights" and wondering why Mr. Miranda chose hip-hop as his musical basis. Throughout the show I kept wondering that, and finding that the music, contemporary dialogue and use of hand held mikes took me out of the story.

I enjoyed Christopher Jackson as George Washington and Phillipa Soo and Renee Elise Goldsberry as Eliza and Angelica Schuyler, Hamilton's wife and sister-in-law. I liked Leslie Odom's Burr during the first act, but in the second act his acting and movement took a weird turn and I did not find him as enjoyable. Jonathan Groff has a couple of hysterical numbers as King George III, but they almost seemed to be part of a different play. I did not like Daveed Diggs as Jefferson or Okieriete Onaodowan as James Madison, finding both characterizations bizarre. Most disappointing to me was Lin-Manuel Miranda as Hamilton. At one point his character admits that he talks to much, and that is part of the problem for me. Hamilton never seems to shut up, but he doesn't really seem to have much to say. For most of the show, Burr is the more sympathetic character, and I never really understood why 3 women would fall for Hamilton or why Washington would consider him so indispensable. In fact, part of me is still wondering how historically accurate the story is.


----------



## crebel

I've mentioned before that the subject of some shows seem really odd to me as musicals.  Hamilton falls into that category for me, I think.

I really like you adding pictures to your reviews, thanks!


----------



## telracs

Doctor Zhivago

April and May are busy times in NY theater. A number of shows open, in order to come in right before the Tony Award cutoff so they are on the nominating committee's radar. Unfortunately, if a show doesn't do well in the nominations, they post a closing notice. Doctor Zhivago did not get any nominations, and I worried that the performance we were scheduled to see would be the last. Not quite, they are lasting one more week, closing May 10th. I'm sorry to see the show close, basically because I'm afraid that it means that I won't get a cast recording. And I almost always want a cast recording. 
I am not familiar either the movie or novel on which this musical is based, other than knowing it involves a relationship between a doctor named Zhivago and a woman named Lara. The show is told in flashback, starting with Zhivago's funeral (the supertitle states the time as 1930 [more on that later]), where we see a beautiful woman and a young girl at the grave. We quickly switch to an earlier funeral ("Decades earlier") of Yurii's father. Young Yurri moves in with the aristocratic Gromeko family, including their daughter Tonia. Parrallel to this, we see lower class Lara and her mother dealing with the death of her father. Interestingly, there is an intersecting character between the two family, the lawyer Viktor Komarovsky, played by Tom Hewitt. It is this character that first brings Zhivago and Lara together, when she crashes Yurii and Tonia's wedding to shoot Viktor on the same night of a student protest led by Lara's boyfried, Pasha. For some unknown reason, Zhivago is immediately drawn to Lara and starts writing poems about her. We are then subjected to the Russian view WWI, from both the viewpoint of Zhivago, a doctor on the front just trying to save lives, and Pasha, a soldier on the front trying to convince his compatriots to desert. Lara re-enters the narrative as a volunteer nurse coincidentally assigned to Zhivago's unit. The two resist their attraction for the most part, until they bond over a love letter written by a young soldier. At the end of the war, the two separate, but Lara just happens to mention the town where she is returning. And, guess what, that same town is where the Gromeko family has an estate. An estate that the family decide to escape in an attempt to escape the ravages of the Russian civil war that erupted after the Russian Revolution. Act two finally finds the lovers coming together, but their happiness is short lived when Zhivago is conscripted again by the partisans. After escaping the partisans (in a really well done production number), Zhivago and Lara reunite on the estate, but this is a love story, not a romance, so the couple do not end up together, Lara reluctantly goes off with Viktor, Pasha kills himself, and eventually we are back at Zhivago's funeral.
I liked the music in the show. Oddly enough, the one song imported from the movie "Somewhere My Love" wasn't among my favorite, probably because it did not fit the rest of the score. The feel of the show was very Miss Saigon or Les Miz, with similar big, soaring anthems. I felt most of the acting was wonderful, Tam Mutu was excellent as Zhivago and Hewitt excelled as Viktor. Paul Alexander Nolan had the most interesting arc as Pasha/Strelnikov and while I disliked the character, I loved the actor. However, the same cannot be said for the women in the show. I did not find Kelli Barrett engaging as Lara, and could not understand why the three men fell for, and Lora Lee Gayer just didn't have much to do as Tonia Gromeko-Zhivago. I thought the costumes were gorgeous, but they seemed too nice for people who were supposed to be struggling in the midst of a war. Most of the set effects were wonderful, and there were several full fire effects. Unfortunately, the stage floor had a bizarre and distracting design. The stage was covered with what could best be called the "popping" cubes picture. (You know, the optical illusion where depending on how you look at the cubes, the top and bottom alternate?) I don't know why anyone would put that on a Broadway stage, but at times when I was bored I tried to force the cubes to pop in different directions. One other thing I found confusing was the timeline of the play. The play opens in 1930, but Zhivago and Lara seem to separate at some point in the 1920s. Where was Zhivago the rest of the time? How was Lara able to get back into Russia after he died and manage to make it to his funeral. What happened to Vicktor? Were he and Lara still together? And also, how old is Viktor? Tom Hewitt looked wonderful throughout the whole show, and never seemed to age. In fact, except for the Gromekos, no one got older in this play and in the end, that was one of the little things that detracted from the enjoyment of the show.


----------



## crebel

I saw the movie many years ago and honestly don't remember much of the story.  I do remember being awed by the sweeping, epic scenes in the snow and that I had a young girl's crush on Omar Sharif.  As a rule, I really dislike "tragic" love stories where you are supposed to hope for an adulterous couple to ever end up together.


----------



## telracs

Iowa
From the Playwrights Horizons website:

_When a mother and teenage daughter uproot their lives and move to Iowa, nothing can prepare them for what they'll find. From the imagination of Jenny Schwartz and Todd Almond, a fanciful, absurdist and intoxicating new musical play.

Synopsis:
Mom found her soul-mate on Facebook, and he lives in Iowa. So Becca says goodbye to her mildly deficient teenage life and follows her wayward mother to a new, uncharted beginning.
_
Okay, you read that synopsis and think you're going on a journey to Iowa, right? Well, late in this 100 minute play we do get to Iowa, but it's not one that people who live there (crebel) or someone who has visited (me) might recognize. Becca (Jill Shackner) and her friend Amanda (Carolina Sanchez) enter Becca's apartment to see her mom Sandy (Karyn Quackenbush) on line. Sandy is on-line with Roger, an ex-boyfriend, and announces that she has agreed to marry him. And off Sandy goes, into the first of her stream of consciousness monologues that prove her disconnect from the world in general and her daughter in particular. Becca attempts to reach out to other people in her life, first her absent father and then her math teacher, both played by Lee Sellars. Mr. Sellars, the only male in the cast also plays Roger and a pony. Yes, a pony. A pony who later in the show has sex with a cheerleader. But I digress... (which the show keeps doing, also giving us Amanda's run in with cheerleaders, a cheerleader connecting with the pony, and a multiracial group of Nancy Drews). Although Becca reaches out to people, the authors of the show do not allow any of the characters to actually communicate in productive ways. Eventually, Becca and Sandy reach a farm in Iowa to find that Roger does not have 6 children, but rather has 60 and bunch of wives. Wives who have a song that is extremely long and makes no sense. Near the end of the show, Roger has a drawn out silent moment, then says "I thought I had something to say, but I don't". That was my final take away from the show, the actors try, but ultimately, they don't really have anything to say.


----------



## crebel

*shudder* 

This sounds like a revolting show!  I'm so glad you have a better impression of Iowa than that.


----------



## telracs

didn't get to post the photos from Iowa....


----------



## The Hooded Claw

As was said earlier,you can make a musical out of anything....my only observation is that using the @ for an "a" is SO 2003....


----------



## telracs

Chichester Psalms and Carmina Burana

Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?


Spoiler



Practice, practice, practice. Or leave the office and walk along 57th street from 10th to 7th Ave.



A former coworker is a member of the Oratorio Society of New York, which does periodic concerts at Carnegie Hall. I ran into her a few weeks ago in the company of another coworker and found out the Society was doing a concert of Carmina Burana and Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms. She had tickets available, and since my coworker was going, I decided to go also.

The Chichester Psalms were written in 1965 by Leonard Bernstein and encompass text from a number of Psalms. They are performed in Hebrew, but the program for the show included transliterated and translated lyrics, and the house lights were left at a high enough level that the audience was able to read along. The set has some definite West Side Story influences, and was fairly enjoyable, although it was a bit shorter than I expected.

Carmina Burana, on the other hand was quite a bit longer than I expected (I wish they hand done Carmina first, then Psalms) and I was getting antsy near the end. I know some of the music from Carmina Burana, and it was nice to hear the whole thing and follow the "story" as it were. The set has a few solo numbers, but is mostly choral. Because of this, the soloists were sitting at the front of the stage doing nothing for long stretches, and I felt a bit sorry for them. Of the soloists, I enjoyed the baritone the best, I liked his voice, and he really got into the songs.


----------



## telracs

Zorba

This was the 3rd and final production of City Centers 2015 Encores! season. On May 1st I got to attend the sitzprobe (first rehearsal of singers with orchestra) and May 8th was the full production. In some ways, I enjoyed the rehearsal more, partially because it was a more fun time, partially because it was just the songs without the depressing book and partially because the singers were in a bit better voice during the rehearsal.

One nice thing about going to the rehearsal was that I got a copy of the script. I got to follow along as the singers performed the musical numbers, and got to read the script to see what was going to happen in the show. Based on the other two shows of this season (Lady Be Good and Paint Your Wagon), one might have expected the final show to be a nice happy show. And I did. I thought that Zorba was a show about the title character who embraced life, love, drink and dance, and taught others to do the same. Well, kinda sorta. Zorba does embrace life, but it is in the midst of depressing circumstances. Three characters die, and neither of the romances in the show end well. So, while the music is enjoyable, and the show attempts to end on an uplifting note, it was not a happy show.

I found the casting of John Turturro as Zorba a bit odd when it was first announced, and watching him at the sitzprode reenforced my misgivings. He seemed uncomfortable with the orchestra (it turns out that he has never performed a musical before and that rehearsal was the first time he had ever worked with an orchestra). At both the rehearsal and the show, I didn't love his characterization of Zorba, he seemed too abrupt and down-trodden. Zoe Wanamaker was funny as Madame Hortense, but her voice was a bit grating, and the costume designer did not do her any favors with wigs and costumes. Marin Mazzie was luckier in those departments, gorgeously outfitted in a Greek almost Muse-looking outfit, and her blond hair covered by a brunette wig. She also has a soaring voice, and was a joy to watch. Santino Fontana was good as Niko, the American that Zorba attaches himself too, and Adam Chanler-Berat was adorable as Mimiko.

One of the highlights of any Encores! production is the orchestra, and this one did not disappoint. There were a number of traditional Greek instruments, and a couple of them were in the spotlight during the entr'acte. During the sitzprobe, I had the good fortune to be sitting near the percussion guys and had fun watching one of them playing tom-toms, kettle drum and xylophone, and even shaking some interesting bells on his leg. I was a bit disappointed that he was not visible the night of the full production, he got a bit lost all the way in the back of the stage.

Because of the large size of the orchestra, the actors were relegated to a relatively small playing area. This meant that the large ensemble looked a bit crowded and some of the choreography looked uncomfortable. Of the three shows at Encores! this year, I'd say this was my least favorite, with Paint Your Wagon number one, and Lady Be Good in the middle.


----------



## telracs

Two Gentlemen of Verona

This show had 4 points of appeal for me. A Shakespeare play that I've never seen, being done by a theater company whose work I enjoyed, at a decent price for a good seat, at a venue that I could consider walking to (it's only 4 miles). And at the end of the day, it was fun all around.

My only experience with Two Gentlemen was a production of the musical version of it done in Central Park a number of years ago. The basic plot deals with Valentine and Proteus, the titular two gentleman. Valentine leaves Verona for Milan to make his fortune, while his friend Proteus stays behind to win the hand of the fair Julia. While in Milan, Valentine falls in love with Sylvia, the daughter of the Emperor of Milan, who is unfortunately betrothed to Thurio. Back in Verona, Proteus's father declares that Proteus is to join Valentine in Milan. When he gets there, he also falls under the spell of Sylvia, forgetting about the girl he left behind and he betrays Valentine to the Duke (oh, yeah, in typical Shakespeare manner, the ruler of Milan is referred to at different times as Duke and Emperor). Meanwhile, Julia with the aide of her maid, disguises herself as a boy and travel to Milan. Eventually, the correct lovers are reunited, and things end well. Except for maybe the servants of Valentine and Proteus, and Julia's maid left behind in Verona.

Notice that I mention a whole bunch of characters? Well, there are only 6 performers on stage, four male, two female. And they not only act, they also play instruments, providing background music. Character changes are accomplished with minimal costume and jewelry changes, along with alterations of manner and voice, and they work quite well. Andy Grotelueschen plays the most parts, switching between Proteus's servant, Proteus's father, and the Duke of Milan quite well. Zachary Fine is fine as Valentine, and hysterical as the dog, Crab and he and Grotelueschen played well against each other. Before the show started, a lady behind me wondered how they would do the dog, and I have to say, it was wonderfully done. Paul Coffey plays cello (he even gets do to so center stage), Valentine's servant and Thurio. Noah Brody was wonderful as Proteus, as well Jessie Austrian as Julia. I found Emily Young a bit strident as the maid Lucetta, but felt she was better as Sylvia.

The costumes were simple and pretty, evoking almost a 1920's feel to me. The set was gorgeous, with the sides and ceiling covered with white paper and flowers made of the paper, with two pillars going from stage to ceiling. When the actors were not part of the action, they were seated on two benches on the sides of the stage, either observing the show or playing the background music. There was one point where Emily Young got a case of the giggles on stage, and it was fun to watch the rest of cast catch her giggles and try to recover.

One nice thing was how the production utilized the theater itself. Before the show started, the actors came out into the audience to greet friends, and I got a chance to compliment Noah Brody having shaved the beard he had when I saw him in Into the Woods. The actors used a pass through aisle in the orchestra to enter and leave, and a couple of times actors delivered lines from the mezzanine. There were a number of times where the actors broke the 4th wall, and Andy Grotelueschen ad-libbed a number of "happy mother's day" moments.

In the first paragraph, I mentioned that I was hoping the theater was in walking distance. Well, I didn't manage to walk TO the theater, making it about 1/2 way before getting on the subway because it was too hot. But, the heat and humidity had gone down by the time the show was over, so I was able to take the 4 mile hike from the theater to my neighborhood.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

I am trying to visualize Zachary Fine listing portraying a dog on his resume.


----------



## telracs

The Hooded Claw said:


> I am trying to visualize Zachary Fine listing portraying a dog on his resume.


He's an actor. So he'll put the production and the characters played.


----------



## Brownskins

Telracs, i've gone back to infrequent visits to kboards...

My wife and I may have a chance to watch a Broadway show around august this year at NY.  We've only seen Phantom and Les Mis among those currently being shown.  What would you recommend?  Just from a quick browse, I am thinking of Lion King as my first choice.  Next to that would probably be Wicked, Book of Mormon, or Newsies.  Well, what do I know.  Any recommendations?  We're not critics, we just want to have a good and fun time watching a show.

Recommendations from any one else is welcome, too.


----------



## telracs

Brownskins said:


> Telracs, i've gone back to infrequent visits to kboards...
> 
> My wife and I may have a chance to watch a Broadway show around august this year at NY. We've only seen Phantom and Les Mis among those currently being shown. What would you recommend? Just from a quick browse, I am thinking of Lion King as my first choice. Next to that would probably be Wicked, Book of Mormon, or Newsies. Well, what do I know. Any recommendations? We're not critics, we just want to have a good and fun time watching a show.
> 
> Recommendations from any one else is welcome, too.


I sent you a PM.


----------



## telracs

Wolf Hall, Part One

This will be a multi-part review, due to the nature of the production. Wolf Hall, based on Hilary Mantel's novel (the same source material as the BBC series), is being presented on Broadway in two parts, Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies. Therefore, in order to see the entire production, one needs to visit the Winter Garden Theater twice. One can attend both portions in one day, or split them between two. I opted for the latter, seeing them a week apart. I am also watching the BBC series, so at the end of it all, I will be comparing the two. The Winter Garden has a gorgeous artistic interior, which makes the spartan metallic set of the show even more stark. The seating area has also been reconfigured, with the stage projecting further out into the orchestra than usual, and leaving a space for actors to enter and exit through the audience. This worked for me, as the seat that I thought was 5th row was actually 3rd row and it was incredible to be that up close.

Wolf Hall is another examination of the court of King Henry VIII. As is true of most looks at the court, this one focuses on the relationship between Henry and Anne Boleyn. But this version takes as one of its central characters Thomas Cromwell, low born lawyer who rises to be one of Henry's advisors. I found this interesting, as Cromwell is a secondary character in the play "A Man for all Seasons" which was the story of Thomas More. I saw "A Man for All Seasons" with Frank Langella in 2008 and enjoyed it. So watching Wolf Hall's characterization of these characters was interesting and a bit odd. More and Cromwell were portrayed quite differently in the two plays, and I have to wonder, which, if either, of the versions are true. But the questioning came after the show, while watching it I was too caught up in the action to care about anything. The play starts not in Henry's court, but with the interplay between Cromwell and Cardinal Wolsey, at the time, the Lord Chancellor, but not for long. We also see the home life of Cromwell, and learn a bit about Cromwell's background and religious beliefs. This helps us to understand some of Cromwell's actions later in the story.

Ben Miles is excellent as Cromwell, playing a complex man and making us care about him if not exactly like him. Nathaniel Parker is Henry, and whenever he was on stage, he held my attention. I didn't like Lydia Leonard as Anne Boleyn, but part of that is because she is portrayed as a really unlikable woman. There are a huge number of characters in the show, and most actors are portraying multiple roles. Thanks to incredible wigs and costumes, I didn't realize which performers were playing which roles until consulting my Playbill after the show. One of the double-castings is a bit creepy, Leah Brotherhead is cast as both Mary Tudor and Jane Seymour, meaning she is playing Henry's daughter and future wife.

Wolf Hall Part One ends with Henry beginning to doubt Anne, and in a very heavy handed manner. The final scene has Cromwell and Henry on stage talking, and a woman comes on. Henry asks who she is and Leah Brotherhead as the last line, stating she is Jane Seymour. Yeah, okay folks, we know she's next in line for his affections, we didn't need it shoved down our throats.


----------



## telracs

Hand to God

Any show that includes a character doing both parts of a portion of "Who's on First?" is going to get my vote for fun. And a lot of Hand to God IS fun. Laugh out loud fun ("you're so far back in the closet, you're in Narnia"). But a lot of it is not fun. Act One ends with an act of violence and Act Two continues in that vein, at points extremely disturbingly so.

The premise of the show is that Jason (the incredible Stephen Boyer) while helping out his mother in their church puppet theater, is possessed by his sock puppet, Tyrone. Tyrone becomes more powerful as Act One progresses, finally attacking another teenager (Timothy, played by Michael Oberholtzer). Act Two deals with the aftermath of the attack and the attempts of Jason to rid himself of the puppet with the help of the local pastor (Marc Kudisch) and a female friend (the hysterical Sarah Stiles). If the show only dealt with Jason/Tyrone and his issues, I think it would have been better, but we also have a subplot about Margery, Jason's mother and her affair with Timothy. I did not like Geneva Carr as Margery, her voice grated on my nerves and the character was just not sympathetic.

The show is bookended by appearances by Tyrone, which I didn't feel added anything to the show. The monologues seemed anti-religon and just mean-spirited. I also didn't like the interaction between Margery and Timothy, although my sister was laughing at the scene. I did admire both Boyer and Stiles' ability to remain stone-faced during a scene in which their respective puppets have sex, although I wished the scene wasn't quite so long.

This is may sound silly, but there were some continuity issues that I felt detracted from the show. Somehow, Tyrone manages to repair himself and return to Jason after being ripped in half, and Jason vandalizes the church basement in quite a short period of time. And while it seemed funny to people, a scene where Timothy's ear is sewed on using craft yarn just made me cringe.

I think that sometimes people find the shocking humorous and certain words get a laugh no matter what comes after. That was in evidence a lot during the first act. But except for a few minutes in the second act, the laughter was lacking. I wish the author had not taken the play in as dark a direction as he did, and I really hope that no one decides to bring the kids just because it has puppets in it.


----------



## mlewis78

Thanks for the Wolf Hall Part One review, Telracs.  I've read the two books and have seen the TV series that aired recently on Ch. 13 (PBS).  There has been a lot of online chat about how Hilary Mantel portrayed Thomas More.  It is historical fiction, so she has some leeway, but I do think most people see More as he was in A Man For All Seasons in the movie.  There is a lot that we will never know for sure about them.


----------



## telracs

mlewis78 said:


> Thanks for the Wolf Hall Part One review, Telracs. I've read the two books and have seen the TV series that aired recently on Ch. 13 (PBS). There has been a lot of online chat about how Hilary Mantel portrayed Thomas More. It is historical fiction, so she has some leeway, but I do think most people see More as he was in A Man For All Seasons in the movie. There is a lot that we will never know for sure about them.


Part Two tomorrow. Am waiting to finish the PBS series until after that. Maybe tomorrow night, maybe later.


----------



## telracs

Wolf Hall Part Two- Bring Up the Bodies

I stated last week that I found the last image in Wolf Hall Part One to be heavy-handed. Unfortunately, Part Two starts out the same and stays that way. The lighting becomes obvious, Henry becomes an idiot shell of himself, dead people walk in Cromwell's memory, and Cromwell goes from ambitious to Machiavellian caricature. And the final scene is even worse than the finale of Part One. We have three women enter, their faces covered with black veils. The immediate assumption is that it will be Anne going to her execution. However, when the veils are removed, we see that it is Jane, going to her wedding, but the other two women behind her are Henry's former queens. I almost groaned at the "reveal" and walked out of the theater disappointed in the show.


----------



## telracs

Fun Home

My sister and I sometimes don't agree on shows, but this time when I turned to her and said "this is another show I don't understand all the hype about," she concurred. Fun Home is based on Alison Bechdel's autobiographical graphic novel about her childhood growing up in Pennsylvania and reconciling herself with her homosexuality and the enigma that is her father. Alison gets the most stage time, as three separate characters, Small Allison (the adorable Sydney Lucas), Medium Alison (Emily Skeggs) and adult Alison (Beth Malone). The adult Alison narrates the piece as she is creating her graphic novel, and one thing that bothered me was her constant use of the word "caption" as a reminder of the graphic novel basis of the show.

The story is told in a non-linear manner, jumping back and forth between Alison's childhood and college days. This led to some confusion on my part, as I did not recognize Medium Alison when she first appeared. None of the Alisons are portrayed as girly girls, but when I first saw Medium Alison, I thought it was an older version of one of her brothers. But no, it couldn't be, because we only see John and Christian Bechdel (Zell Steele Morrow and Oscar Williams) as children, and they are relegated to very secondary roles. I disliked the fact that there were scenes involving the father, Bruce (Michael Cerveris) that Alison did not witness and could not be familiar with the details of. While we had 3 actresses playing Alison, there was only one actor (Joel Perez) playing all of Bruce's male sex partners as well as a David Partridge take off. Rounding out the cast are Judy Kuhn as Helen Bechdel, and Roberta Colindrez as Joan, Alison's first girlfriend.

I found the tone of the show inconsistent, ranging from melodramatic to over the top silly. Young Alison and her brothers perform the title song (a "commercial" for their family funeral home), and later on we have a Partridge Family spoof called "Raincoat of Love." The lyrics of the songs were redundant and attempts to reuse lyrics in different songs to link situations together fell flat for me. I also felt that the lyrics were predictable and cliched.

Circle in the Square is a theater in the round, which leads to some challenges for scenic designers and the actors. For the most part, Fun Home manages to play to all areas of the theater. However, at times I felt that I was looking characters' backs for too long and that in trying to play to all areas, they were not playing to any well. The set pieces were beautiful, as befits a show that is supposed to take place in a home that is almost a museum, but the constant rearranging of the furniture got a little annoying. There were some interesting lighting effects, especially during the Partridge family parody song.

The show's website is touting it as "a new kind of musical", but honestly, except for the fact that the main character is a lesbian, I didn't find anything new in the characters or the situations. I can understand Bechdel wanting to come to terms with her past relationship with her father, but I don't understand all the hype about the musical. While the actors did their best, and the set and lighting designs were nice, at the end of the day, I didn't care about any of the people in the family.


----------



## telracs

the Something Rotten Cast recording is on sale for $3.49 for the MP3. It is a hysterical listen (especially the song A Musical)


----------



## telracs

Wolf Hall TV vs. Live Production

I finally got around to watching the BBS production of Wolf Hall last week. While both it and the Broadway show draw from the same source material (Hilary Mantel's books), they emphasize different things and change how certain scenes are played. I found the mini-series visually stunning, the production crew did a wonderful job evoking the period with lighting, costumes and scenery. They were also able to have a larger cast, which made things seem more real than the doublecasting of the stage show. Both shows had excellent costumes, but the mini-series wins in terms of scenery. And lighting. The lighting in Part Two of the Broadway show was overdone and obvious. As far as the acting went, although I normally love Damien Lewis and he had a couple of great moments in the BBC production, I enjoyed Nathaniel Parker's Henry a bit more. I am not a fan of Mark Rylance but found his Cromwell and interesting departure from his earlier work, and both he and Ben Miles played the man well. Each actor put his own mark on the character, and I felt that while they were similar, their motivations were not the same. And the directors put the men in different positions at the end of the productions. In the mini-series, Cromwell is embraced by King Henry, and looks uncomfortable, almost unhappy with what he's done. On stage, Cromwell is confronted by another character and compared to Machiavelli. And Cromwell seems quite with where he is and what he's done. As I stated in my review of Bring Up the Bodies, dead people walk in Cromwell's memory on stage. I found this annoying, and just as annoying was the BBC production's use of repetitive flashbacks to the play about Cardinal Wolsey. Making revenge for Wolsey to be Cromwell's main reason for prosecuting/persecuting four noblemen just didn't sit well with me.

Because of the nature of the beasts, Wolf Hall on Broadway will be gone soon, while the BBC production will continue to be available. I wish more people had the chance to see both and compare, but I'm glad that a different view of Cromwell will continue to exist.


----------



## telracs

Gigi

While discussing various shows with a co-worker, I told her to NOT watch the movie version of Chicago before going to see the Broadway production. Well, I forgot my own advice and not only listened to the soundtrack of the movie version of Gigi, but also bought and watched the movie on amazon (Gigi) the night before the show. BIG mistake. Gigi is one of my favorite movies, and having Leslie Caron, Louis Jourdan, Hermione Gingold and Maurice Chevalier in my head did not do any favors to Vanessa Hudgens, Corey Cott, Victoria Clark or Howard McGillin. Also, having re-experienced the movie, I found myself sitting at the Neil Simon Theater getting annoyed with a number of changes made to scenes and songs.

Most ridiculously annoying was the movement of the movie's opening song ("Thank Heaven for Little Girls") to later in the show and changing it from being sung by Honore Lachaille to being song by Gigi's Grandmother and Great Aunt. My sister, who did not really remember the movie, knew that that was wrong, and asked if they moved it because they thought it seemed pedophiliac for an older gentleman to sing it. Apparently, yes, the producers thought that having Honore sing about girls growing up was worse than having Gigi's relatives sell her out as a high priced prostitute. Oh, sorry, courtesan.. Also silly was the new staging of "She Is Not Thinking of Me". Poor Corey Cott as Gaston is skulking around Maxim's while spying on his paramour Lianne (the beautiful but bland Steffanie Leigh). The scene made me laugh, but not in a good way. . One of the new songs inserted for Aunt Alicia and Grandmama, called "The Contract" I found very crass and felt it worked against the romantic theme of the show. I did like that Victoria Clark, who has a wonderful singing voice was given more songs than her counterpart in the movie, and loved that Grandmama and Honore were given a better chance to connect, and at least in my mind, hopefully have a second chance at romance themselves

The main attraction for many of the people in the audience was Vanessa Hudgens. I liked her, but didn't love her. When she gets the chance to dance, in a new song "I Never Want to Go Home Again" she was quite enjoyable. And she and the others covered well when she blew her lines in "The Night They Invented Champagne." While her singing voice is good, I had an odd issue with her speaking voice. Her enunciation seemed too perfect. I felt I was watching Eliza Doolittle at the beginning of lessons, when things did not yet come naturally. And I never really bought Hudgens as Victoria Clark's grand-daughter (but then again, Leslie Caron and Hermione Gingold didn't look and sound like relatives either). Hudgens' Gigi is a modern girl, well aware that as a female her choices are limited. The chemistry between Hudgens and Corey Cott was nice, and I enjoyed watching him. However, he sounded more American than French, and this pulled me out of the show a couple of times. Howard McGillin and Victoria Clark also had a nice chemistry, and I enjoyed their scenes. Dee Hoty was brittle as Aunt Alicia, and I found some of her body language bizarre. The ensemble did well dancing and supporting the main characters, but seemed like too few people to populate the Neil Simon stage.

The costumes in the show are beautiful, especially Ms. Hudgens' final dress. One line irritated me, however. Grandmama makes a comment about having to let down the hem of Gigi's dress because they can't afford another one. However, in the next scenes, Gigi is completely different outfits. The stage is dominated by a huge metal staircase that occasionally detracts from the action. The show does not seem to be selling well, patrons who had seats in the rear mezzanine were moved down to the mid-mezzanine and the seats around me were empty. They are hoping to get a boost from tonight's Tony awards, but it seems likely that a closing notice will be posted soon. A bit of a shame, but there is a cast recording available (Gigi (New Broadway Cast Recording) ) and as always, the original movie survives.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

telracs said:


> the Something Rotten Cast recording is on sale for $3.49 for the MP3. It is a hysterical listen (especially the song A Musical)


I bought it. Probably give it a listen tomorrow.


----------



## crebel

I have to say that it was fun watching the Tony Awards "with" you in chat after reading all of your reviews through the year.  It meant I knew something about almost every show nominated!


----------



## telracs

Cagney

Before the show started, the gentleman next to me said to his companion, "Well, I guess a lot of people here liked Cagney movies". Honestly, I think the only movie I saw in which Cagney appeared was "Mister Roberts" and he was the third billed quasi-villian of the piece. I was at the theater that night because I've liked the previous work done by Robert Creighton, who not played Jimmy Cagney, but also wrote some of the music and lyrics. I say some because the also incorporated some of Cagney's famous musical numbers, originally done by George M. Cohan.

The show is done in flashback, with Cagney and studio head Jack Warner meeting in 1978 on the night of Cagney's receiving the Screen Actors' Guild's Lifetime Achievement Award. The two man spar over who "made" Cagney, and off we go into the past. I didn't love the flashback approach, but I understand that it sometimes is the best way for authors to bring us into a biography. I also didn't like the fact that although the story is titled "Cagney" we spend a lot of time with Warner. Although Bruce Sabath did his best, the character was unpleasant, and the songs given to him were repetitive. Robert Creighton moved well as Cagney (he is a terrific dancer) and his acting was spot on, but he seemed to be having issues with his singing voice. Creighton and Sabath are supported by 4 other performers, two women and two men, taking on roles ranging from Cagney's mother to Warner's secretary, his brother, his wife and even Bob Hope. Unfortunately, Jeremy Benton looks nothing like Hope, and the character had to be refereed to by name every time he entered so we knew it was him.

I knew that Cagney was both a song and dance man and a tough guy actor, and this show played to both those images. It also explored Cagney's attempt to break free of the studio system that had him locked in to the tough guy image. But while the show was pretty, I didn't find it entirely engaging. Part of this was the story-telling, part of it was the fact that the actors were playing multiple roles, and part of it was due to the staging. The show has some fantastic tap numbers in it, but I could never really see the feet of the dancers from my fifth row seat. The playing area at the York is fairly small, and with the band taking up some of the upstage area, everything was played down front and so feet were not visible from much of the house, I'm afraid. There also seemed to be some problems with the sliding partitions between the upstage and downstage areas, during the second act, they were being moved by stagehands, and not automatically as they had during the first act.

I wish someone had checked their projections, the flag used during WWII scenes had 50 stars, not the period correct 48. The costumes were okay, but fairly basic, and once again, as I've said before about York productions, they need to take better care of their wigs. I was also jarred by the fact that Cagney's first line to the SAG rep is that he was never big on unions, only to later find out that he was one of the founding members of that union and eventually a president of it. And when I got home and did some research, I discovered that the story changed the timing of two movies, which called into question the motivation given in the show for Cagney doing them. I'm not sorry I saw the show, but I wish the staging had been a bit better and I doubt this will make my top ten list of 2015.


----------



## Leslie

Hello, hello...after an absence, summer theater season has started in Maine and last night we saw

The Full Monty

at the Maine State Music Theater.

Last year I bought season tickets to the Ogunquit Playhouse but this year I opted for MSMT because I liked the line-up of shows better. Last night was my first show of the year (although it closes tonight). My season ticket seats are GREAT...row E in the orchestra so I can see everything!

The Full Monty--I saw the movie years ago but much except that it involved coal miners in England doing a strip show because they are desperate for money. In this version, the action has been transplanted to Buffalo, NY and the out of work men are former steelworkers whose mill has closed, but they don't want to go to work at the Mall or WalMart. Their wives, ex-wives, and girlfriends are packing Tony Giordano's to see a Chippendales type act, and the guys get the idea of putting on a similar show to raise $50,000 in one night. And with that, we are off and running.

The show was very good--lots of good acting, dancing, and singing. The sets, especially for MSMT, were extremely well done (with complex set changes for practically every scene). The piano player, Jeannette, almost stole the show, IMHO.

I don't know the rankings for regional theater, but I believe that MSMT is a tier below Ogunquit. Ogunquit gets Broadway caliber stars (ie, James Barbour, and the woman who is closing in Sister Act tonight) while MSMT seems to have a host of regulars, supplemented with local talent and up-and-comers. The Full Monty included Charis Leos and Chuck Ragsdale, both of whom I have seen at least 5x at MSMT. Still, they are very good and very versatile and know how to sing and dance, even if they are not quite at the level to make it to the Great White Way.

One plus for MSMT--it's a small, intimate theater with great sightlines from practically any seat. Ogunquit doesn't have much of a pitch for the seats and I have had my vision blocked by a big head in front of me on more than one occasion. On the other hand, I missed Ogunquit's super-deluxe porta-potties which mean no waiting at intermission.

Sister Act is next on the playbill--we'll be going July 10th. I have already seen this show once this year (in January) but I enjoyed it, so it will be fun to see how MSMT interprets the show.

L


----------



## telracs

wait... both Ogunquit and MSMT are doing Sister Act?  With different casts?


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> wait... both Ogunquit and MSMT are doing Sister Act? With different casts?


Yes, with different casts. The Ogunquit version of Sister Act is heading to a theater on Long Island after it closes tonight.

Sister Act was also at Merrill Auditorium back in January--a one night show. I bought tickets for that before it was announced at MSMT (and Ogunquit) this summer.

Clearly, producers think this is a show that will be popular with audiences!

L


----------



## telracs

The King and I

It took me a while to figure out what exactly it was that I disliked about Kelly O'Hara's performance as Mrs. Anna in this production. After thinking about it for a couple of days, I came to the conclusion that the schoolteacher never shows proper respect to the Siamese King and this lessened my sympathy for the character. There is a fine line between standing up for oneself and being overly demanding. She starts out on the wrong side of that line and stays there throughout the whole show. And the character seems unaware of the fact that she is dealing with a monarch and his high officials and should act appropriately. Would she have been that rude to Queen Victoria? While some of the characterization may be directorial choice, some of the problem lies with her co-star, as Ken Watanabe's King is not one who inspires confidence at all times. He seems unsure in the part, and he is difficult to understand at times.

The production is visually spectacular, starting with a huge boat bringing Anna and her son Louis to Siam. The costumes are gorgeous, although I found Kelli O'Hara's dresses a bit ridiculous and found myself wondering if hoop skirts were really that large. And where exactly was she getting her clothes made while in Siam? The King's wardrobe was extensive, and looked nice on Mr. Watanabe. I found it interesting that Tuptim, the Burmese concubine, was always dressed in a way that made her stand out from the Siamese women. It was a nice touch to keep her from blending in and getting lost in the crowd.

And it is a crowd. There are a large number of wives and children on-stage during the show. The "March of the Siamese Children" elicited the standard "aws" as the children entered and were presented to their new teacher, but the number felt rushed to me. During this scene, I felt that Anna did not show proper respect to the crown prince. Which was a shame, as Jon Viktor Corpuz was quite commanding as Prince Chulalongkorn. I found myself watching him during certain scenes and he made the Prince's confusion about life palpable. He plays well against the leads, as well as Jake Lucas as Louis. The two even have a song, a reprise of "It's a Puzzlement" which they do quite well.

The most enjoyable singing in the show for me was Ashley Park as Tuptim and Billy Bustamente as Lun Tha. Their scenes together were excellent and I found myself rooting for them. The only time I didn't like Ms. Park was during the "Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet, as her voice was quite strident throughout her recitation. But the ballet was excellently done, if staged so that some of it was probably blocked if you were sitting in the center orchestra seats that would normally be considered prime.

This staging was one of the myriad of little things that kept me from loving the show. I think I'll try and put it out of my mind and go back to the memories of Lou Diamond Philip's King from the last revival.


----------



## telracs

Ever After

Sometimes it's hard to turn off the music in my brain. Such was the case of hearing the title of this musical, based on the Drew Barrymore movie. The line "Ever After" pops up in another fairy tale musical, "Into the Woods". So on the train ride out to Millburn and on the way to the theater, that song was going through my head. The good news is that today's show managed to engage me enough that I wasn't longing for "Into the Woods". Margo Seibert plays Danielle, the "Cinderella" character in this almost feminist version of the tale. This is a girl who does not rely on a fairy godmother or her deceased mother's ghost to get the man she wants. But she does get help from Leonardo DiVinci.

The show starts with the young Danielle and the family servants waiting for the arrival of her father, his new wife (the Baroness Rodmilla of Ghent)and her daughters. After an opening scene that establishes the young girl's independent streak and her love of her reading, her father dies (a very oddly telegraphed scene, as the actor playing him walks off stage rubbing his left arm after tucking Danielle into bed). Fast forward 10 years to find Danielle a servant to her stepmother and sisters. But she is not alone. For some unknown reason, stepmother has kept 3 other servants [who oddly have not aged a day in 10 years], a married couple and their nephew, a budding artist. The Baroness has been slowly selling of the artwork and crystal ware and silver of the house, but blaming the servants, even to setting it up for the husband to be transported to America for theft. Fortunately, after encountering a runaway Prince Henry (he runs away because he doesn't want to marry a Spanish Princess), Danielle has enough money to rescue her friend. Borrowing a gown from the artist, she sneaks into court and again meets up with the Prince, who of course doesn't recognize her, but is nonetheless smitten. The two manage to see each other a few times, and bond when Henry shows her a marvelous library (a touch of Beauty and the Beast in a Cinderella story). And they bond even more after a troop of Gypsies is bested by Danielle's intelligence and proclaim her the Gypsy Queen. Of course, true love can't run easily, and the couple face obstacles and distrust before their happy ending.

Margo Seibert is excellent as Danielle, with a good singing voice and great sword-fighting moves. She manages to make the character seem real, and gives a good depth to a grown woman's desire for the mother's love she never had as a child. James Snyder also had great moves, and was a lot of fun to watch even when his character was not the main focus of the scene. I felt Tony Sheldon was wasted as Da Vinci, and honestly, I'm not sure why the character was portrayed as the great artist, any sidekick character could have filled his place, and I think it would have been nice if Charl Brown had more to do as Captain Laurent. He had a nice chemistry with Annie Funke, the nice stepsister, and I wish they had been given more stage time together. Charles Shaughnessy and Julie Halston were fun as the King and Queen of France, and Liz McCartney, Nick Corley and Andrew Keenan-Bolger were good as the last servants in the house. Mara Davi played spoiled Marguerite to perfection. Christine Ebersole managed to keep Rodmilla from being simply a caricature of an evil stepmother, showing us the love she has for (one of) her daughters.

The costumes in the show were pretty, but I found the set disappointing. Once again, the set designer had two large wooden structures on the side of the stage, blocking the view of the action from the side orchestra. And this production opted for projections instead of scenery upstage. Far upstage. So far that I could barely make out what some of it was supposed to be. The songs were good, but nothing that had me humming. The movement, both dancing and sword-fighting was excellent and I was impressed with both.

I enjoyed the show, but I feel there were a number of plot holes. Why doesn't the Prince recognize Danielle when she comes to court? How come he's clutching his head when she never hit him there when throwing apples at him? Why doesn't the Baroness wonder at the return of the servant she tried to send off to America? How has the nephew of servant become an artist with a commission to paint? Why doesn't anyone notice that Danielle is wearing the exact same dress every time she's with the Prince (okay, other women seem to have limited wardrobes, but not all of them)? How come the Captain of the Guard tracks down the Prince once, but after that he seems to go wherever he wants? How does a servant girl manage to slip away and spend so much time with the Prince? How come Danielle is the only person who grew older in 10 years? And why does the portrait revealed at the end look more like Drew Barrymore than Margo Seibert? Or as my sister asked, why does it look like Lady Gaga?


----------



## telracs

A New Brain

Most of the shows that City Center has done for Encores! are shows that have not been done for quite a while, and shows I've been unfamiliar with. But with their Off Center series, they are doing more recent shows and mostly shows I know. I saw the original production of "A New Brain" twice when it played off-Broadway. I very carefully did not listen to the cast recording before seeing the show, but I was still comparing this cast and production to the original. While the cast of tonight's offering stood up to comparison to the originals, I found the staging disappointing. And I disliked the tweaking of lyrics and songs. And I was annoyed at the audience. People arriving late and being seated during songs (ruining one of my favorite numbers) and people in rows ahead of me who felt compelled to hold their program to the light in the aisle after almost every song to see how much longer the show had to go.

Gordon Schwinn (Jonathan Groff) is a songwriter currently working on songs for the children's show, Mr. Bungee. During a meeting with his agent, he suddenly collapsed and is taken to the hospital. There it is discovered that he has fluid on the brain, and needs an operation. His mother (Anna Gasteyer) and boyfriend (Aaron Lazar) want him to relax before the operation, but his agent convinces him to work on a song for Mr. Bungee (who keeps showing up in his imagination). Rounding out the people on stage are the doctor, two nurses (one thin and one nice), a minister, and a homeless lady.

Groff is cute as Gordon, and has a nice chemistry with both Lazar and Gasteyer. But I have to say, the boy spits a lot. I was in row M, and it was noticeable, so I feel sorry for the people in the front row. Lazar has a gorgeous voice and looked very nice as Roger, and I really wish I'd been able to enjoy his first song without having to get up to let people into the middle of the role. I was surprised when I read that Gasteyer had been cast as Mimi, I really don't think she reads old enough to be Groff's mother. I didn't love her singing during her first number, but she did well in her two later numbers, showing a great range of emotion. Dan Folger was hysterical as Mr. Bungee, and Quention Earl Darrington showed off a beautiful voice as the minister. Josh Lamon was funny as the "nice nurse" but his role seemed cut down from the original. The same was true for Alyse Alan Louis as Rhoda, and Jenni Barber as "the thin nurse". Both of their characters had songs deleted in this production, although in the case of Rhoda, I was glad, as I disliked her song from the original. Rema Webb's character, however, seemed to have more stage time than in the first production. Her homeless lady has two great songs, and I found her presence in other scenes distracting.

While I liked most of the singing and acting, I feel that the staging did not support the story. Actually, I felt like that someone did not have faith in the audience and felt the need to hit us over the head with what was happening. The lyrics for what was a song near the end of the show have been moved to the opening, where they do not make sense and tell too much of what is to come. I n the original we hear about Gordon's family in a wonderful number "And They're Off", but tonight we had everything acted out. It took away from the beauty and simplicity of the scene. I don't remember so much time given to the neurologist and the details of Gordon's condition, which seems unnecessary. The set pieces were almost none existent, but I did like the huge poster of the brain. But, one word to the costume designers, please, guys, if you have action taking place over the course of a couple of weeks, give the characters a couple of different shirts!


----------



## telracs

Okay, as difficult as it is for me to do this, I have to admit I am wrong....

I thought that a song got moved from near the end of A New Brain to near the front.  But listening to the original cast recording, I discovered that my memory was faulty and the song was actually near the beginning.  But I still think it telegraphs too much.


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> Okay, as difficult as it is for me to do this, I have to admit I am wrong....
> 
> I thought that a song got moved from near the end of A New Brain to near the front. But listening to the original cast recording, I discovered that my memory was faulty and the song was actually near the beginning. But I still think it telegraphs too much.


  Say it isn't so!

I read an online synopsis of the show as well as your review, it sounds like an interesting production and I have put it on my "would like to see someday" list.


----------



## Leslie

I see from the New York Times that Misty Copeland is going to be in On The Town for two weeks at the end of the summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/theater/misty-copeland-of-american-ballet-theater-to-join-on-the-town.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

I know reviews of this show have been mixed but seeing Copeland might make it worthwhile, although I doubt I will get to NYC for this.

telracs, any chance you saw Little Shop of Horrors in its two day run? The NYT review for that was amazing!

L


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> I see from the New York Times that Misty Copeland is going to be in On The Town for two weeks at the end of the summer.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/theater/misty-copeland-of-american-ballet-theater-to-join-on-the-town.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region
> 
> I know reviews of this show have been mixed but seeing Copeland might make it worthwhile, although I doubt I will get to NYC for this.
> 
> telracs, any chance you saw Little Shop of Horrors in its two day run? The NYT review for that was amazing!
> 
> L


if you like ballet, On the Town is great. But I found it boring, and found the characters cartoonish and unsympathetic. and it's playing in a barn of a theater.

and yes. I was at opening night of LSOH. review is in the works.


----------



## Leslie

Sister Act - Maine State Music Theater

Last night we saw Sister Act, second show of the MSMT season. It a nutshell, it was terrific!

Tony, Hannah and I saw Sister Act at the Merrill Auditorium back in January. That version was great, too, but I think the show last night was better. It certainly had more interesting sets, plus the theater is smaller which makes the whole experience much more "up close and personal."

If you have seen the movie, you know the story: Deloris Van Cartier, an aspiring club singer, sees her married lover/hoodlum boyfriend murder another guy. To keep her safe, the police hide her out in a convent, where she proceeds to teach the nuns how to actually sing. In the process, life lessons are learned, bonds are forged, etc. etc.

The big difference between the movie and the show is that they have moved the location from Las Vegas to Philadelphia, and reeled the time back from 1992 to 1978. Both of these were great decisions and really make the show work. The music covers a real range--disco, pop, rock, heavenly choirs--with lots of fun dancing to go along with the singing.

The singing, dancing, and acting were all great, as were the costumes. As this is a regional theater, there were some familiar faces, which is fun. The audience was super-enthusiastic and the cast really got into that. The show closes tonight so I think we got to experience some sense of "Let's go out with a bang!"

I mentioned in another post, Sister Act was also at Ogunquit. That version has moved to NY, the Gateway Playhouse in Bellport, NY and runs through July 18th. The Ogunquit version also had terrific reviews so for anyone in metro-NY who wants to see the show, head east to Bellport!

L


----------



## telracs

i started working on a Little Shop review before I went away and apparently never finished it.  promise it will be posted over the weekend.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> i started working on a Little Shop review before I went away and apparently never finished it. promise it will be posted over the weekend.


Still waiting....


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> Still waiting....


and here i was hoping your post would be about Nice Work if You Can Get It.

I'm now 4 show reviews behind, sorry, life has been hectic. Will post LSOH tonight.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> and here i was hoping your post would be about Nice Work if You Can Get It.
> 
> I'm now 4 show reviews behind, sorry, life has been hectic. Will post LSOH tonight.


Actually, I have The Music Man to write (saw that last Friday, before we left for Las Vegas). We'll see Nice Work on 8/14.

L


----------



## telracs

Little Shop of Horrors

City Center scored a major casting coup earlier this year when it announced that Ellen Greene, the original off-Broadway and movie Audrey would reprise her role in a concert version of "Little Shop of Horrors." The short run quickly sold out, and City Center was obliged to add another show. There was some concern that the now 64 year old would have a difficult time playing the world weary ingenue. Further concern was voiced when Jake Gyllenhaal was announced as her Seymour. While Mr.Gyllenhaal has done a couple of Broadway plays, he had never done a musical. In addition, the handsome leading man seemed an odd choice for the nerdy Seymour. And the third member of the romantic triangle, playing Orin Scrivello, DDS, and a host of other roles, was Taran Killam, an SNL alum with no Broadway experience. But all three acquit themselves quite well. Ms. Greene still has a wonderful voice, if not quite as high as it used to be. Her "Somewhere That's Green" was simply done and absolutely gorgeous. There were times it felt like she was trying too hard, and was almost a parody of herself, especially during "Suddenly Seymour." Mr.Gyllenhaal is stuffed into an ugly button down shirt and glasses to downplay his looks, and his body language was wonderful for the most part (but his main gesture was a befuddled running of his fingers through his hair). Unfortunately, he blew a couple of lines, completely skipping a verse in "Closed for Renovations" and throwing off his co-stars in that song. They recovered quickly, but you could see they were both confused. Mr. Killam was quite good in his multiple roles, and had a pretty good voice. However, the production's prop person did him a bit of a disservice. They had him donning a latex glove, and they did not get a powder free one, so when he snapped it off, there was a cloud of talc in the air, and on his pants. He kept going, but it must have been uncomfortable for him.

Rounding out the cast were Joe Grifasi as Mushnick, Tracey Nicole Chapman, Marva Hicks, and Ramona Keller as the urchins, and Anwar Kareem and Eddie Copper as Audrey II. I liked the three ladies as Crystal, Ronette and Chiffon, and Anwar Kareem was quite adorable in the silent role as "Young Audrey II". I didn't really like Mr. Grifasi, he seemed bland, and not comfortable in his role.

Since this was a concert version with a short rehearsal period, scripts and music stands were in evidence. For the most part, those were used well. Seymour's klutziness was shown by Mr. Gyllenhaal dropping his script upon entry, and the line when he cuts finger (usually "lousy roses, lousy thorns"), was changed to "lousy script, lousy concert staging". The music stands had flowers climbing up their bases. There were few props on stage, so Mr. Killam had to mimic a drill with his hand and give the urchins imaginary dollar bills, Ms. Greene wrapped invisible flowers for a customer, and Mr. Gyllenhaal used two fingers to simulate a gun. It was a bit distracting and looked silly at times.

One of the things people look forward to in "Little Shop" is the puppet artistry of Audrey II. But City Center went in a different direction, having two actors visible on stage. Mr. Kareem held two different small puppets as Young Audrey II, but when the plant grows, we were given Mr. Cooper in a green "fur" coat. In some ways it was disappointing to not have the traditional plant puppet, but it was fun to actually see an actor do the role, when normally we just get to hear him. Mr. Cooper has a great, deep voice and his mannerisms as Audrey were excellent. However, the choice to have the actors cross the stage after the plant eats them didn't work for me, it seemed silly. I think the production would have been better served if they exited from where Mr. Cooper was sitting instead of marching off the other side.

The show ended with a projection listing a number of facts about the show and its productions. This was interesting, but then they projected information about Howard Ashman, the writer of the show. I found it odd and jarring that they made a point of stating he died of AIDS. What does that have to do with a production of Little Shop, or a celebration of Ellen Greene's return to the stage?


----------



## telracs

The Wild Party

In 2000, two different musicals titled "The Wild Party", based on the poem of the same name by Joseph MOncure March, premiered in NY. One, by MIchael John LaChiusa, played the Virginia Theater on Broadway. The other, by Andrew Lippa, played off-Broadway at Stage One at New York City Center. I saw the LaChiusa musical back then, but did not see the Lippa one. And at first, I thought I would miss Encores! production of the Andrew Lippa's "The Wild Party" due to a vacation, but I was able to get tickets to the Saturday matinee performance.

The basic premise of both musicals is a party thrown by Queenie (Sutton Foster) and her lover Burrs (Steven Pasquale) at their apartment during prohibition. Among the guests are Kate (Joaquina Kalukango) and her date Black (Brandon Victor Dixon). Kate is hot for Burrs and tries to get him away from Queenie, while Queenie and Black find themselves bonding. A few of the other quests at the party get time in the spotlight, including Miriam Shor as Madeline Ture singing "Good Old Fashion Lesbian Love Story" and Ryan Andres and Talene Monahon dueting on "Two of a Kind". But the bulk of the songs and action in this production focussed on the 4 main characters, to the point where there were at least two songs cut from the beginning. One of which introduced all the characters and I felt was need. And looking at the character listing from the Encores! production and the one on the original cast recording, this production cut and entire character.

Of the cast, I enjoyed Miriam Shor's brief moment the most, and of the main characters, I liked Steven Pasquale the best. He played the psychotic Burrs quite well, and was in good voice and physical form. I found Sutton Foster and Brandon Victor Dixon bland and didn't feel any chemistry between their characters. Joaquina Kalukango sounded good as Kate, but something about the way she played the character just rubbed me the wrong way. I think part of the problem was her costume and wig, she just looked sloppy. The rest of the costumes were fine, simple outfits for all the actors which while not evoking the 1920s in any big way, at least looked good on most of them.

I knew going in that this was going to be a disturbing, violent show, and it was. Early on we have an Burrs attempting to rape Queenie, and we end with a shooting. In between we have drug use, lovers cheating on each other, consensual sex, a pretty intense fight between Eddie and Burrs, and just a whole lot of darkness. I don't expect every musical to be sweetness and light, and I understand that exploring human psychology can be interesting, but in the end, I didn't really like these people and felt that most of them got what they deserved and I just wanted to wash my hands and leave the party.


----------



## crebel

Okay, that show sounds yucky!  Too bad being on vacation didn't prevent you from seeing it at all.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

Don't just wash your hands, take a shower!


----------



## telracs

Act of God

Most people think of Jim Parsons as Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory", but for me, he's quite a bit more. This is the third Broadway production I've seen him in (Normal Heart and Harvey being the other two), and in this one, he is mostly playing himself. As possessed by the Almighty, who has come to Earth to impart an updated 10 Commandments. The show is based on a book by David Javerbaum, which I believe actually started as Javerbaum tweeting messages from "God." The script does deal with the fact that its Parsons on stage, and that part is a bit cute. Parsons is assisted by two other actors, Chris Fitzgerald and Tim Kazurinsky as the angels Michael and Gabriel. The show had some funny points, and some poignant parts, but for me, a lot of it fell flat. And I found the ending very abrupt, as if the scriptwriter had run out of ideas and just decided to cut everything off and go home. It looked like they had spent more time and money on the physical set and projections then they did on figuring out how to wrap up the piece in a way that would be enjoyable.


----------



## Brownskins

I enjoy reading these reviews although I doubt if I could even afford to watch even 5% of all these shows that Telracs watches...  but anyway, I was able to get good tickets (J9 and J10 - I saved up for it) for Les Mis at the Imperial Theater and my wife and I was able to catch one of the last appearances of Ramin Karimloo as Valjean.  It was great!  It was moving and inspiring.  Our only gripes were the acting abilities of the one who played Fantine and the singing ability of Little Cosette.  

I am not going to give a full review of the show, but.... (drumroll please)

My real news is - We were able to meet up with Telracs for brunch!  She was a delightful lady who loves chocolate and we appreciate the time she took to meet us.  Just wanted to highlight this under BW reviews!


----------



## telracs




----------



## Leslie

Great pics and a Kindle on display!

L


----------



## Brownskins

Hi Leslie!  Telracs shared that you, crebel and her go a long way.  Hi telracs!  Thanks for posting the pics.  I only brought my Kindle basic with me without any Oberon since I was worried I would somehow leave it in the plane or somewhere in NY.  But I was able to squeeze in good reading at night (between 1-2 AM) and during the to/from flights.

Telracs, did you say you have tickets to Amazing Grace?  Our church elder's wife asked about it, and all I remember from what we discussed was that it was about the composer/lyricist who wrote the song...


----------



## Leslie

The Music Man at Maine State Theater, July 31

I bought season tickets to the MSMT this year, primarily because I wanted to see The Music Man. I've seen the movie a few dozen times, but I had never seen the show live on stage--here was my chance. And, I wasn't disappointed!

I read somewhere that The Music Man is the perfect American musical, and I think that's true. It has lots of familiar songs and fantastic dancing, sets, and costumes. Right from the opening scene, I was humming along with the characters, and never really stopped!

The music director for MSMT played Professor Harold Hill. (Last time I saw him on the stage at MSMT was as the UPS guy in Legally Blonde, which I think was five years ago!). He has a great voice and with his thick brown hair, he definitely evoked Robert Preston. The actress who played Marian Paroo had a beautiful voice, too but she was a brunette. Isn't Marian supposed to be a blonde? LOL. I am just quibbling. She was great.

Everyone else was also terrific and the dancing was fabulous. This is a complicated show with lots of scenes, sets, and costume changes but everything was handled perfectly. The grand finale had everyone in the audience standing up and cheering, it was that good!

Here's a little video to give you a taste of the show:

http://msmt.org/main-stage/music-man/

My rating: 5 stars!

Leslie


----------



## Leslie

Nice Work If You Can Get It, Ogunquit Playhouse, Aug 14

I had season tickets for Ogunquit last year (but not this year) and when all the great reviews for Nice Work starting pouring in, I decided I needed to make a trek. And boy am I glad I did! This was one fantastic show. Great tunes (Gershwin, how could it not be great?), great singing, dancing, fantastic costumes--it was tremendous.

The story is very silly which makes it so much fun. You don't have to actually believe any of it, just laugh along and enjoy.

Sally Struthers shows up every summer at Ogunquit and she is always hysterical. This year was no exception. She has one priceless scene where she got completely plastered ("Let me have some more of that interesting-tasting lemonade!") and ended up swinging from the chandelier--literally! For a woman who is 68, she is an amazing physical comedienne.

The other big guest star was Brenda Vaccaro, who doesn't show up until the last 15 minutes, but she almost stole the show. (Valerie Harper was originally scheduled and she played a few performances, but then collapsed on the stage! That must have been frightening for the audience to see!). It is amazing to see someone with real "star power" come on stage and take over.

You can see a video here:

http://www.ogunquitplayhouse.org/2015/nice-work

Another 5 star show in my summer of musicals!


----------



## Leslie

Young Frankenstein, Maine State Music Theater, Aug 21

I think they saved the best for last at MSMT because this show was absolutely outstanding! Someone wrote in a review that you will laugh until your sides hurt, and it's true.

I saw YF two years ago at Ogunquit and this version was definitely as good--maybe even better. Or maybe it seemed better to me because I was closer to the stage and could see more!

Everyone knows the story (from the movie) and it follows the movie pretty closely, but with the addition of songs and dancing (which also helps to flesh out some of the characters, like Frau Blucher). The dancing is amazing. All of the choreography was great, but "Putting on the Ritz" was absolutely unbelievable. There was a standing ovation_ in the middle of the scene_ and everyone was cheering before it was over! In the video (link below) you can see a few seconds of it at the end. I wish I had a video of the whole entire thing!

http://msmt.org/main-stage/young-frankenstein/

They announced next summer's lineup during the intro: Ghost, Fiddler on the Roof, Evita, and Mamma Mia!. I've seen the movies of Ghost and Mamma Mia!; never seen Evita; and I have seen Fiddler several times (including the Washington DC preview, before it went to Broadway, with Zero Mostel. I was about 8 or 9). If I buy tickets before Oct 31 I can get the same seats and lock in the price at this year's pricing...may just have to do that, after this summer's success!

Another 5 star show for me. Hard to believe the summer season is over...it goes so fast!

Leslie


----------



## telracs

Amazing Grace

One would expect that in a musical about the writer of Amazing Grace that he would be the most interesting character. Unfortunately, while Josh Young is quite adorable to look at, and has a wonderful voice, the character of John Newton is so unsympathetic throughout most of the show that I couldn't care about him. He starts out as the rebellious son of the owner of a slave trader, gets impressed into the British Navy and is derelict in his duty, gets captured by an African princess and becomes her lackey (and possibly her lover) then has a last minute revelation that slavery is wrong during a hurricane. HIs epiphany came way too late in the story for me, and happened so fast that I found it unbelievable. Fortunately, while I found his story unengaging, the secondary plot revolving around the girl he left behind was better. While John Newton is off sailing the world making bad decisions and having things happen TO him, Mary Catlett (the enchanting Erin Mackey), helps a runaway slave and becomes a spy for the local abolitionist group. In essence, both Newton and Catlett eventually come to the conclusion that Africans are people and that slavery is wrong. But her story is more interesting because she does things to help people throughout most of the show, while he is coasting along until near the end.

Young and Mackie are supported by a wonderful ensemble, especially Chuck Cooper as Newton's slave/conscience Thomas. Laiona Michelle was also excellent as Nanna, Catlett's slave. I liked Tom Hewitt as Newton's father, but found his accent a bit odd. Hewitt last appeared in Doctor Zhivago on Broadway and for some reason, his English accent sounded Slavic to me at times. Chris Hoch was saddled with the ridiculous role of Major Gray, the man the abolitionists are fighting. I found myself watching actor Stanley Bahorek in every scene, he brought a simple gravity to every ensemble role he played, especially the Newton's factor, Robert Haweis. And I must not forget Savannah Frazier as Princess Peyai, the women was extremely scary and sexy and smart.

The costumes for the show were incredible, as were the storm effects. There was some good dancing and I enjoyed most of the music. But, while snippets of the title song were heard during the show (as an African melody), we do not get to hear all of Amazing Grace until the curtain call.

As with most biographies, I found myself wondering how much of the story was true, and how much was fiction. Especially because I felt that the show did not serve as a valid telling of Newton's life, but rather as an anti-slavery story. A valid story, one needing to be told, but not one that should be advertised as the story of the man who wrote Amazing Grace if we never see him write it!


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> Amazing Grace
> 
> The costumes for the show were incredible, as were the storm effects. There was some good dancing and I enjoyed most of the music. But, while snippets of the title song were heard during the show (as an African melody), we do not get to hear all of Amazing Grace until the curtain call.
> 
> As with most biographies, I found myself wondering how much of the story was true, and how much was fiction. Especially because I felt that the show did not serve as a valid telling of Newton's life, but rather as an anti-slavery story. A valid story, one needing to be told, but not one that should be advertised as the story of the man who wrote Amazing Grace if we never see him write it!


It is bizarre to me that the song which is the title of the show and a show about the man who wrote it does not figure predominantly in the story.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> It is bizarre to me that the song which is the title of the show and a show about the man who wrote it does not figure predominantly in the story.


bizarre to you, me and a whole lot of people.


----------



## crebel

Leslie said:


> The Music Man at Maine State Theater, July 31
> 
> My rating: 5 stars!
> 
> Leslie


Of course it was 5 stars! It is, after all, based on a town in Iowa.


----------



## Brownskins

telracs said:


> Amazing Grace
> 
> ...has a last minute revelation that slavery is wrong during a hurricane. HIs epiphany came way too late in the story for me, and happened so fast that I found it unbelievable.
> 
> As with most biographies, I found myself wondering how much of the story was true, and how much was fiction. Especially because I felt that the show did not serve as a valid telling of Newton's life, but rather as an anti-slavery story. A valid story, one needing to be told, but not one that should be advertised as the story of the man who wrote Amazing Grace if we never see him write it!


Telracs, this is a good review. I appreciate you making a comment on the heart of the whole show. I am disappointed at the way the producers approached what could have been a perspective-changing show for the good. There so much material that can be zeroed in on how Josh Young personally experienced how amazing "grace" is that it inspired the lyrics to the song. It makes it look like he was just a self-absorbed person who just happened to be a gifted lyricist, not necessarily passionate about grace.

Thank you for posting. I will pass the review along.


----------



## telracs

Brownskins said:


> Telracs, this is a good review. I appreciate you making a comment on the heart of the whole show. I am disappointed at the way the producers approached what could have been a perspective-changing show for the good. There so much material that can be zeroed in on how Josh Young personally experienced how amazing "grace" is that it inspired the lyrics to the song. It makes it look like he was just a self-absorbed person who just happened to be a gifted lyricist, not necessarily passionate about grace.
> 
> Thank you for posting. I will pass the review along.


I think you mean John Newton (the song writer/character), not Josh Young (the actor playing the character)?

And like so many musical biographies, I try not to let it color my feelings about the real person. For all I know, Mr. Newton's revelation came at a different point and in a different way and he did indeed find grace and true inspiration.


----------



## Brownskins

telracs said:


> I think you mean John Newton (the song writer/character), not Josh Young (the actor playing the character)?
> 
> And like so many musical biographies, I try not to let it color my feelings about the real person. For all I know, Mr. Newton's revelation came at a different point and in a different way and he did indeed find grace and true inspiration.


Yes, I meant the song writer. Agree with your attitude...


----------



## telracs

Daddy Long Legs

The authors among us will understand the importance of a good tag-line. Well, the advertising folks for the new off-Broadway musical "Daddy Long Legs" came up with one that confused me. The line is "She wrote the perfect love story one letter at a time." Of course she wrote it one letter at a time, how else would one write something? However, the line refers not to letters in the alphabetical sense, but in the epistolary sense. "Daddy Long Legs" is based on a novel of the same title, written by Jean Webster as a series of letters from an orphan, Jerusha Abbott to the benefactor who is paying for her college education. In the book (which I read after seeing the musical), everything is from Jerusha's POV, while the musical has two characters, Jerusha (Megan McGinnis) and Jervis (Paul Alexander Nolan). This means that all along we know the identity of Jerusha's benefactor, a man known to her as "Mr. Smith" and called by the pet name of "Daddy Long Legs". The staging is done in a way to conceal Jervis in the beginning, to do a slow reveal on the dichotomy of what Jerusha thinks he looks like and his actual appearance, but it didn't quite work for me because I am familiar with Mr. Nolan. During the show I got caught up in the interactions through correspondence, and felt Jervis's conflict about revealing himself to Jerusha. But thinking about it afterwards, his actions seem a bit creepy and stalkerish. Here she is pouring out her thoughts to what she assumes is an older man who she will never meet, while in fact, it is her suitor she is writing to. Also, I felt that Jerusha was a bit naive not to pick up certain clues pointing to Jervis being "Daddy Long Legs."

I enjoyed the music in the show. After reading the book, I can see how the lyricist used the words from the letters quite well in the songs. While most of the music seemed to "fit" with the early 1900s time period, a few of the songs sounded a bit off to my ears. The costumes were fairly simple, but quite nice. Ms. McGinnis made both of her entrances and her act one exit through the audience, which was interesting, but made me fear for her safety walking down the stairs after intermission. The stage had two distinct playing areas, with Jervis's desk being upstage, and Jerusha not entering that area until the end of the show. Jervis moves downstage when he begins to interact with Jerusha in person. The walls of the stage are covered in bookcases, one area of which is used for projections giving the date (and sometimes location) from where Jerusha is writing. The projections worked fine during the first act, but they were flickering oddly during the second. This detracted from my enjoyment of the show, as did a weird high-pitched noise that was present occasionally during the first act and frequently during the second. I think it had something to do with the air-conditioner, which was not on during the first act but was turned on during the second due to audience complaints.

The Davenport is a small theater, seating around 150 people, and I was glad to see it pretty full on a Saturday night. The show is currently listed as running through the beginning of January, and I'm hoping to get back to see it again.


----------



## crebel

After seeing the show Daddy-long-legs, telracs was convinced I would love the story. I bought this public domain version for free and found it to be well-formatted.



She was correct, I loved the story as told through the correspondence of Jerusha to her mysterious benefactor. It is a short book at only 146 printed pages listed. I would love to see the stage production some time and hear the music chosen to represent the lyrics of the letters.

Thanks for the recommendation, telracs!


----------



## telracs

Spring Awakening

I was not a huge fan of Spring Awakening when it first played on Broadway a few years ago. To the point where I gave a friend my ticket instead of seeing it a second time. So when Deaf West announced it their latest show, I was a bit disappointed, as I would have preferred seeing their "Pippin." Deaf West is an LA based theater group that employs both hearing and hearing-impaired performers. So, on stage we have actors who both sing/speak and sign, and actors who only sign, with other actors playing their "voices". In this production, the some of the "voices" also were the band, playing instruments on stage. The show utilized captioning in spots when something was only sung or only signed, so that the entire audience could follow along. I found that part of things fairly well done (it helped we were in fairly center mezzanine seats so could see the whole stage).

The main characters in Spring Awakening are Melchior (the wonderful Austin P. McKenzie), his friend Moritz (Daniel N. Durant, voiced by Alex Boniello) and naive Wendla (Sandra Mae Frank, voiced by Katie Boeck). They are surrounded by other teens, and a few adults. In the original production, there were only 2 people playing the adults, one male, one female. Here the adult roles have been split, 2 male/2 female, one of each hearing (Patrick Page and Camryn Manheim), one of each hearing impaired (Russell Harvard and at our performance Alexandria Wailes subbing for Marlee Matlin). The hearing adult actors also acted as the voices of their hearing impaired counterpart and did the job quite well. Actually, I found all 4 adults some of the best parts of the show. A scene where Patrick Page as Melchior's father confronts Ms. Wailes as his mother was excellently acted and signed on Page's part. Also outstanding was Krysta Rodriguez as village outcast Ilsa.

The plot of the show mostly concerns the "coming of age" of the main trio in a repressive town, where the adults keep secrets from the children (Wendla's mother is too embarrassed to explain sex to her, and thus when Wendla ends up pregnant, she doesn't understand what's going on). Moritz is the perennial outsider (here due to his deafness) and is despised by his teachers and eventually failed by the system in more ways than one. We also have a conniving gay student taking advantage of another student and a subplot about the sexual abuse of some of the teenage girls by their fathers. A lot of the scenes in the show make me cringe, two masturbatory scenes, the song about the sexual abuse of the girls, a scene where Wendla asks Melchior to beat her with a stick, and the sex scene between Melchior and Wendla (questions are raised in many minds as to whether Wendla actually knows enough to give consent). And a lot of the show is just odd. The opening and closing songs have never made any sense to me, with extremely bizarre lyrics. In this production, there is an attempt at an uplifting ending for the teens, but honestly, this is one depressing piece of theater.

The main attraction for me was to see how the signing was integrated into the production and that is done well. Mr. McKenzie has actually trained as a sign language interpreter, and has stated in interviews that at the beginning of rehearsal, he was the only person who could talk to everyone. His character is shown as the bridge between the hearing and hearing-impaired worlds in the play, signing to Moritz and defending him when their teacher comes down on him for incorrect speech. The class is shown as trying to teach the hearing impaired students to lip read and speak instead of sign, which is accurate for the time period of the show. I understand some ASL, so was able to follow a few things, and noted that the signing was done in ASL order, not spoken English order, which made for a bit of oddness when the signs didn't match the words being sung by the cast, but is the correct way for the ASL folks in the audience. I giggled a bit when Mr. Page spoke the word "listen" but signed the word "look" in the scene with Ms. Wailes. I was not distracted by the singing being done by different actors but I must admit that I wish the girls acting and singing Wendla looked a bit more alike.

The set was multi-level, stark and shades of grey, fitting with the tone of the show. The voices/band utilize various areas of the set and I felt it was well used. As I stated, I was able to see the projected captions quite well, but others have complained they are not visible from side seats. The costumes of the characters are period appropriate (I feel sorry for Ms. Manheim and Ms. Wailes in those corseted dresses), while the "voices" seemed to be dressed a bit more modernly. While I enjoyed parts of the show, and am not sorry we went, I still wish Deaf West had brought in Pippin instead of this downer.


----------



## Brownskins

Nifty inclusive idea, but I guess a poor selection of material.  I agree that they could have used lighter material.  This should be a celebration of combined talents - and let's burst into song!


----------



## telracs

One thing I want to reiterate was how well they incorporated the alienation that can be felt by the hearing-impaired in the hearing world.  It did not feel added on or stuck in, it was a valid new interpretation of the material.


----------



## telracs

Dames at Sea

I guess technically this show is a revival, but I knew very little about it going in except that it is a parody of small town girl comes to big city and makes good as a dancer shows. In this case, the girl from small town Utah is named Ruby and played with innocent joy by Eloise Kropp. At the theater, she meets fellow hoofer Joan (Mara Davi), leading lady Mona Kent (the hysterical if a bit over the top Lesli Margherita), and stage manager Hennesey (John Bolton). Also in the mix are 2 sailors, lyricist Dick (Cary Tedder) who hails from the same small town as Ruby and his buddy Lucky (Danny Gardner) who has a history with Joan. The first act takes place in a 42nd Street theater which unfortunately is about to be demolished. But the show must go on, and the sailors and Mona convince The Captain (also played by Mr. Bolton) to let them use the battleship for that night's opening. Joan and Lucky manage things so that Ruby gets her big break, and all three girls end up with their guy at the end.

The show is frothy and fun, and does not really stand up to much analyzation. One thing we liked was that Rudy and Dick had a bit of a back-story together, so it wasn't just love at first sight. The songs evoke the 1940s setting well, but none of them really stood out in my mind. The dancing was wonderful, heavy on the tap as expected, and all of the actors move well. In some scenes I wished there were more than just the 6 performers, the stage seemed empty, but I guess it was part of the joke of the show. One other thing that I both liked and disliked was the opening black and white "credits" bit. It was cute, but I don't feel it added anything to the show. The backstage theater set was done well in act one, and the finale of that act while expected, was still a little surprising. The act two wasn't as well done, but the lighting effects were great. The costumes and wigs were fine, but one nitpick. On all of the advertising material (and the front of the Playbill), Ruby is shown as a blonde, but on stage, she's actually a brunette and Joan is the blonde. I don't know when/why a change was made, and it's a confusing when we first see them. All in all, the show was fun, but slight, and I'm not really sure how long it will last with all the other new shows coming in this season.


----------



## telracs

King Charles III

Wednesday October 21st 2015 was "Back to the Future" day, so it was fitting that I saw a play billed as "future history." The play posits some near future time when Queen Elizabeth II has passed on, and their son, Charles is finally King. We start with the Queen's funeral (a scene which honestly goes on a bit too long in Latin), then move on to the new King's first meeting with his Prime Minister where Charles unexpectedly shows a backbone in objecting to a new law which (in my opinion) seems to be curtailing the liberties of the press under the guise of protecting people's privacy. The Prime Minister does not understand the King's dissent, even to the point of bringing up the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. This does not enamor the PM to the new monarch, and Charles then seeks the counsel of the leader of the Opposition party in Parliament who privately reminds him that he does not actually have to sign the law. Of course, once Charles takes his stand and sends back the law unsigned, all sorts of consequences arise and from this one small inaction, we get protests in the street, the first monarchial dissolution of Parliament in years, and rebellious sons. Along with the main story, we have a subplot of Prince Harry falling in love with a commoner and trying to escape the chains of royalty, and a conniving Kate Middleton determined to see her husband (and herself) on the throne. Oh, and there is also the appearance of the ghost of Diana telling both her former husband and her son that they will be the "greatest king".

The story is Shakespearean in scope, evoking mostly the Scottish play, but to me also aspects of King Lear. While the language is modern, much of the play is in blank verse which at times I found distracting (I could predict the next line before it happened based on the rhyme needed). Keeping with the Shakespearean format, we get a number of soliloquies, some of which seemed unnecessary and (because of the staging) seemed more like addresses to the audience than the internal thoughts of the characters. Kate's soliloquy in particular was a bit heavy-handed and her dialogue the most unnatural sounding, almost as if she were playing a part in this life. Which may very well be the author's intention. While the language of the play was elaborate, the set was not. There were no background changes, and most of the action took place on a 4 step red platform on the stage. The aisles of the theater were used as well, for some exits from the stage, and the climatic entrance of the to be crowned King and Queen to their coronation. The ensemble members have the most costume changes, due to the number of characters they play, but unfortunately, Prince William and Kate Middleton are not as well served. Although Kate makes a comment to William that they should dress in their best for a meeting, Williams is still in the same shirt with sleeves rolled up in the next scene. And the three main female characters, Kate, Camilla and Jess (Harry's new girlfriend) are in the same outfits the entire show even when the outfits would have been inappropriate.

I found all of the acting excellent. Tom Pigott-Smith doesn't really look like his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, but that didn't really bother me. Richard Goulding was fun as Prince Harry, and Oliver Chris and Lydia Wilson had great chemistry as William and Kate. Mr. Chris is quite tall, so the director kept putting him on a step below Ms. Wilson so they were eye to eye when speaking, which I'm trying not to read a lot of subtext into. I would have liked to see more of Margo Leicester's Camilla, I think that character was ill-served (although she does get in one good moment). Taflien Steen was good as Jess, but honestly, I found that sub-plot a bit annoying and unrealistic. I disliked both Adam James and Anthony Calf as the PM and Opposition leader, finding them both a bit harsh and overblown. The stand out in the ensemble was Nyasha Hatendi, whose bit as a kabob was wonderful.

I was engaged by the story line, caught up in the action as the show went along and not really questioning things. After the show, however, I started to find parts of it far-fetched and out of character for the real people portrayed. I found the author's choice to have the point of dissent be a privacy bill interesting but felt he could have toned down the rhetoric about it just a bit. Eventually Charles may actually become King and then we'll see how good Mr. Barlett was at predicting future history. Personally, I think his record will be as bad if not worse than the "Back to the Future" writers.


----------



## crebel

That sounds like an interesting concept (and great seats!).  Dumb question of the day - was it a musical at the Music Box Theater?  Or when you review "a play" as opposed to "a musical", have you already given me the answer?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> That sounds like an interesting concept (and great seats!). Dumb question of the day - was it a musical at the Music Box Theater? Or when you review "a play" as opposed to "a musical", have you already given me the answer?


well, there were two musicians, and some chanting, but no singing......

(yes, when i say play as opposed to musical, i've given the answer)


----------



## crebel

Thanks, that makes sense.  I thought maybe "Music Box Theater" implied all musical productions.


----------



## Brownskins

Education-gathering time...

Last weekend, my wife and I had dinner with this couple who LOVES the opera.  We listened and took note of their impressions, then moved on to talking about other things.

Telracs, my dumb question of the day (following crebel's not-really-dumb question) is this:  From a layman's perspective, what is the difference between an opera and a musical (where each line is sung, not spoken), other than the language used, theater location, and the price of tickets?  Can you help identify some basic differences, pros and cons?   Please.... and thank you!


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Thanks, that makes sense. I thought maybe "Music Box Theater" implied all musical productions.


the full name is Irving Berlin's Music Box Theater. it was originally used for Berlin's shows.

most theaters are used for both plays or musicals, but some are favored more from one or the other (bigger theaters tend to house musicals).


----------



## telracs

Brownskins said:


> Education-gathering time...
> 
> Last weekend, my wife and I had dinner with this couple who LOVES the opera. We listened and took note of their impressions, then moved on to talking about other things.
> 
> Telracs, my dumb question of the day (following crebel's not-really-dumb question) is this: From a layman's perspective, what is the difference between an opera and a musical (where each line is sung, not spoken), other than the language used, theater location, and the price of tickets? Can you help identify some basic differences, pros and cons?  Please.... and thank you!


ah, the old debate. personally, i think it's a matter of marketing. opera is the older term, and opera aficionados wanted to keep it. and "popular" theater marketers avoided it because opera sounds too high brow and implies something hard to understand. to me, anything that is completely (or almost completely) sung through can be classified as an opera if you want to call it one (POTO, Les Miz, Miss Saigon, Porgy and Bess).

also, there are a number of classic operas that keep opera companies in business, which keeps the tradition going.


----------



## Brownskins

telracs said:


> to me, anything that is completely (or almost completely) sung through can be classified as an opera if you want to call it one (POTO, Les Miz, Miss Saigon, Porgy and Bess).


Thank you! I thought I was crazy to think as they were describing an opera, that it was very much like a musical - which they refer to as "musical theater", and strongly said it isn't the same, since theater combines spoken and sung script. Well I was thinking of POTO, Les Miz and Miss Saigon and I really don't remember spoken script.

I think I agree with you, but I will not go into a debate with my friends. I will gladly let them enjoy their French opera, since that is what they are used to.


----------



## telracs

Annie Get Your Gun

This was another of City Center's staged concert productions. In this case, Megan Hilty as Annie Oakley was announced about 6 months ago as their autumn gala concert. Well, a few weeks ago they added a second night to the run, and I picked up a ticket. Most people know Ms. Hilty from "Smash", but she has also starred on Broadway in "9 to 5" and "Wicked". She was quite good as Annie Oakley, but at times I felt like I was hearing a bit too much Dolly Parton when she sang. She seemed quite comfortable in the role, and was gracious and funny when she flubbed a line and had to figure out her place in the script. I found Andy Karl was a bit weaker as Frank Butler. It seemed that he was unable to decide whether he should play the role straight and let Ms. Hilty be more comedic or if he wanted his Frank to be funny. He also was not helped by the fact that the costumers had him in a Stetson hat the whole night, it blocked his face and hair and seemed to limit some of his moves. It was nice to see Chuck Cooper on the City stage after he had to withdraw from "Little Shop of Horrors". Veterans Ron Raines, Judy Kaye and Brad Oscar were all excellent in supporting roles, as were youngsters Sam Chuck and Olivia Edward. Marshall Factora (an actor who looked familiar but who it turns out I've never seen before) made a wonderful Sitting Bull. There were no real stand outs in the 12 member ensemble, but they all looked and sounded good. The City Center orchestra, conducted by Rob Berman, took up at least half of the stage and were their usual incredible selves. I enjoy watching Mr. Berman conduct and it was nice that he got to have a little interaction with the cast.

The script of "Annie Get Your Gun" that was used for the concert was apparently based on the 1966 revival, but with some lyric and song changes to remove lines that are offensive to Native Americans. However, there was no change made to the overture, so it was a bit odd to hear a line from "I'm an Indian, Too" while knowing the song itself was cut. The old standards were mostly wonderful, although "Anything you can do, I can do better" didn't land too well. I disliked the "immediate reprise" bit that was overused in the show. The song appears to end, the singer(s) walk off stage to applause, but then come back on right away and repeat the last verses. I like the move when done occasionally, but it there were too many instances of it in this production. I knew when it was happening and just didn't applaud until AFTER the reprise.

The costumes were fairly simple, with only Ms. Hilty having any real costume changes (and I think she could have used one more, since she goes from a party scene to a shooting contest the next day in the same tight red dress). Once again, the lack of hand props annoyed me, couldn't they have gotten a deck of cards for the actors to use?

As usual, once the show ended, there was immediate speculation of a transfer to Broadway. While I would enjoy Ms. Hilty and Mr. Karl in a new production, I really hope they would add some scenery and props. And although it is not PC, I think they should re-instate "I'm an Indian, Too."


----------



## telracs

On Your Feet

The latest entry in the musical biography genre trend on Broadway focuses on Gloria Estefan (mostly), her husband Emilio, and her family.

The show starts with a concert reproduction. A loud concert reproduction. I was afraid I was going to have a headache fairly quickly if the volume persisted, but fortunately, while the concert scenes are done at high volume, the rest of the show was at a tolerable level. I didn't know when or where this concert was supposed to be, because as is often done in bio-musicals, there is no scene/song list and the show gave minimal clues to when events were occurring. I guess the writers expected the Estefans' fans to know when things happened, so didn't feel the need to clue the rest of us in. Backstage at the concert there is what at the time appears to be an innocent conversation between Gloria (Ana Vilafane) and Emilio (Josh Segarra), discussing a stop in NY the next day. From there we flashback (I don't remember exactly how), to a soldier listening to a recording from home, and recording a letter back to the family. The soldier is Jose Fajardo, who is encouraging his daughter Gloria (named for her mother) to keep singing. Back in the US, young Gloria (Alexandria Suarez, who has an incredible voice) annoys her mother (Andrea Burns in an unsympathetic but ultimately winning role) by singing instead of doing chores. In the long number surrounding this scene, young Gloria morphs into her teenage counterpart. Although Gloria's mother does not support her, her abuela (Alma Cuervo) does and when Emilio (Josh Segarra, who is very attractive but whose voice grated) shows up, she encourages the professional and personal relationship. The rest of the first act shows the evolution of the Miami Latin Boys to the Miami Sound Machine to Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine. The conflict in the act arises from the Estefans' attempts to get wider airplay, ending with a very long but incredibly stage number involving the song "Conga." We also have a subplot involving the fact that Gloria's father is suffering from MS, but this is glossed over. We also learn that the elder Gloria objects to her daughter's career partially because her own father had refused to let her go to Hollywood. This sets up a glorious flashback to Cuba and allows Ms. Burns to take center stage and shine. The second act concerns the groups attempt to "cross-over" to the mainstream market and shows the group on world tour, eventually bringing us back to the concert where we started. By this point I had figured out the that concert must have been the one before the bus accident that almost ended Ms. Estefan's career. The accident allows Gloria to reconcile with her mother, and finally the elder Gloria accepts her son-in-law. Unfortunately, this is done in a song that is beautifully song by Ms. Burns, but mangled by Mr. Segarra. We are next shown Ms. Estefan's recovery, and while there are a couple of brief moments of conflict between her and her physical therapist and her and Emilio, they are done so quickly that I felt cheated. I wanted a bit more emotional connection between Gloria and Emilio. He has letters forwarded to her from their office, and suddenly, in the span of one song, she agrees to take the stage at the American Music Awards, ending the show with the song done there.

Ms. Villafane sings and acts the role of Ms. Estefan wonderfully. When Andrea Burns is allowed to sing, she is riveting, and Alma Cuervo has some of the funniest lines as Gloria's grandmother. Eliseo Roman does well as Jose Fajardo and a number of ensemble roles and Lee Zarrett has some great moments as the Estefans' agent. The youngsters in the cast are wonderful, with Eduardo Hernandez shining in his role as a bar mitzvah boy as well as Nayib (the Estefans' son) and as young Emilio. The weak link in the show for me was Josh Segarra, he really sounded terrible, although I would throw him out of bed for eating crackers. The cast of the show is huge, and the ensemble is incredibly hard working, especially in the concert reproductions. The orchestra is also big, and it was fun to be able to see them during those reproductions, and in the finale. The costumes seemed appropriate for the time period, I commented to my sister after the show that some of the concert outfits looked like they came from the Michael Jackson era.

The audience was swept up in the show, and it was a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon. But I found the conflict lacking, and wished for a bit more emotion between Emilio and Gloria. I know that bio-musicals are a popular thing on Broadway these days, but I can't quite understand why someone decided to tell this story in this manner at this time. Although I did get a pretty funky t-shirt.


----------



## crebel

Cool t-shirt!  I saw Gloria Estefan and Ana Villafane together in an interview on some show recently.  Their similarities in looks, voice, and upbringing was remarkable, I thought.  They grew up in the same town and even went to the same high school (although years apart) in Miami.  In the piece I watched, they returned to the high school together and the students seemed equally thrilled to meet and listen to both of them.


----------



## telracs

Rothschild & Sons

Okay, I need to get something off my chest. I really, really think the York Theatre Company needs to get either better wigs, or a better wigmaster/mistress. Every time I see a show here, I notice that the wigs look uncombed, frizzie and straggly, and it detracts from the usually fine costumes and wonderful acting. Rothschild & Sons was no exception. Glory Crampton's outfits were beautiful, and her acting and singing superb, but her hair made me cringe.

Rothschild & Sons is a re-working of Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick's 1970 musical, which at that time starred Hal Linden as Mayer Rothschild. I know very little of the musical, but do know a bit about the Rothschild, the Jewish European bankers. The musical shows the origins of the banking firm, focusing on Mayer (played by Robert Cuccioli) and his wife Gutele (Glory Crampton) and their 5 sons. Ms. Crampton played well as Gutele matured, but I never believed her as a young maiden waiting for Mayer to return to the ghetto and take her away to another town where they can marry. Although Gutele would be happy just with a small home, Mayer is convinced that he can make money where they are, and taking off the armband that identifies him as a Jew, he goes out to sell the ancient coins he has obtained in his travels. He comes to the attention of the Prince of the town, and strikes his first deal, managing to get a license to marry despite the quota regulating Jewish marriages. Over the years (it's hard to tell how many), the Rothschilds have 5 sons and Mayer grooms them to be smart, savvy, charitable and loyal. Things go well for a while, until Bonaparte starts invading Europe. The sons are then dispatched to various points in Europe to safeguard their fortunes. Most of our attention is with Nathan (Christopher M. Williams) the most headstrong of the family who has taken up residence in London. Near the end of the war, Nathan convinces the family to back a war bond for Prince Metternich, with the proviso that after hostilities cease, the Prince will arrange for the lifting of restrictions on Jews. Unfortunately, the Prince goes back on his word, leading to Mayer's decline in health. But the sons have the last laugh on the double dealing Prince, risking everything to undercut a new "peace bond". This time the Prince gives in, the agreement is signed, and the first Baron Rothschild is created.

Mr. Cuccioli and Ms. Crampton played well off each other, with both having solo numbers that allowed them to shine. The five actors playing the sons were quite varied (the youngest son was played by an African American actor), and there was an attempt to give them individual personalities, but Mr. Williams was the most interesting and fun to watch. Mark Pinter did well in a trio of roles, although all three were quite similar (the back stabbing Gentiles), and Peter Cormican did well as Budurus, an aide to the Prince who becomes an ally of the Rothschilds.

The York playing area is quite small, and at times seemed a bit cramped, however, it was mostly well used. The costumes were quite nice (except the wigs, as mentioned), and period appropriate. Once again, the musicians were visible stage left, which was distracting at times. The show was performed without an intermission, and I found it a bit dragging at times. The music is similar to Bock and Harnick's more famous work, "Fiddler on the Roof," but it was enjoyable in its own right, and I am looking forward to the cast recording that was announced the day we saw the show.


----------



## telracs

Misery

This may come as a shock to my reading audience, but I have never read the book (or is it a short story) "Misery" by Stephen King, nor have I (deep breath) seen the movie starring Kathy Bates and James Caan. However, I did know the basic details. Author somehow ends up at the mercy of a deranged fan, who makes him write. Oh, and she breaks his legs with a sledgehammer at some point.

Not seeing the movie turned out to be a good thing, as I was able to view the actors on stage without any pre-conceived notions of how they should act. Bruce Willis was a bit too low key as author Paul Sheldon, and I had difficulty hearing at points, but his physicality was pretty good. Laurie Metcalf (you might know her as Roseanne's sister on TV) was excellently creepy as Annie Wilkes and while people might be going to see Mr. Willis, I think they will come out remembering Ms. Metcalfe. Leon Addison Brown rounds out the cast as Buster, the sheriff, a small role, but one he plays well. The set is excellent, on a turntable that allows us to follow Mr. Willis as he rolls his wheelchair through it. The exterior of the house is not quite as good, the "snow" on the roof looks fake, and while some of the snow disappears as the show goes on, some of it sits there and looks more and more unrealistic. The costumes are non-period specific, as easily 2015 as 1987, and I don't know if setting the show in 1987 really adds/detract anything.

As to the production itself, something just seemed to be missing. I had thought that seeing it "live" would make the chills more immediate and intense, but it just didn't happen. I felt distanced from the show, and only one bit of action actually startled me. And no, it wasn't the hobbling scene, which elicited laughs from the audience, and not shouts of terror. Part of the issue may have been the tall gentleman in front of me, but I didn't really feel like exerting the effort to move my head to see around him.


----------



## crebel

I know which scene startled you because we talked about it in chat, you don't want to spoiler it here?

I get creeped out just thinking about the movie! Maybe the hobbling scene is so well known now that it loses its impact in a large group setting. *shudder*


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> I know which scene startled you because we talked about it in chat, you don't want to spoiler it here?
> 
> I get creeped out just thinking about the movie! Maybe the hobbling scene is so well known now that it loses its impact in a large group setting. *shudder*


No, I want someone to prove they are reading this thread and ASK ME!


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> After seeing the show Daddy-long-legs, telracs was convinced I would love the story. I bought this public domain version for free and found it to be well-formatted.
> 
> 
> 
> She was correct, I loved the story as told through the correspondence of Jerusha to her mysterious benefactor. It is a short book at only 146 printed pages listed. I would love to see the stage production some time and hear the music chosen to represent the lyrics of the letters.
> 
> Thanks for the recommendation, telracs!


I think my original thread about the live stream was lost in the great KB outage, but the show was live streamed last night from the theater and is being rebroadcast right now. You can rewind to the beggining of the show which is around the 20 minute mark.

www.daddylonglegs.com

(as an aside, i was actually there)


----------



## telracs

Year end wrap up:

Plays on Broadway 16
musicals on broadway 18 new (1 seen twice), repeats from previous years 2

plays off broadway 7
musicals off broadway 7 (one seen twice) plus one blue hill troupe

2 musicals in New Jersey
7 musicals in concert a City Center.

most fun (broadway): Something Rotten, It Shoulda Been You, Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time
least fun (broadway): Fun Home, An American in Paris, Gin Game, Misery
most fun (off-broadway): Daddy Long-Legs

most over-hyped shows that I didn't enjoy:  Fun Home, Hamilton

you may have noticed that I have not posted any reviews since November.  i had written a review for Gin Game, but lost it and didn't feel like re-writing something when it seems like i'm just talking to thin air. 

i have a number of shows already for 2016.  i will re-start this thread if i get some indication that there is interest in it, and if people actually TALK to me, rather then just reading it.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Love the movie, Daddy Long Legs, with Fred Astaire and Leslie Caron. Great music and great dancing.


----------



## Brownskins

telracs said:


> i will re-start this thread if i get some indication that there is interest in it, and if people actually TALK to me, rather then just reading it.


Got it... i will be TALKing...


----------



## NogDog

While geographically we're pretty close, I don't think talking will cut it -- probably not yelling really, really loud, even.


----------



## Andra

I'm sorry for not contributing - for some reason I thought it might not be correct to get in the middle.
I don't get to many shows like the ones you see so it's a good chance for me to live vicariously through your reviews.  If you want conversation, I'll try to do my part better also.

Having said that, we missed a touring show of Phantom of the Opera in either November or December because we had other plans.  Do you think that the shows that travel can capture the same feelings as the ones on Broadway (especially since I've never seen a show on Broadway so have nothing with which to compare)?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I've always enjoyed going to the theater when I lived in Miami. I don't know how you can compare local theater with Broadway unless you see the same play done in both places with a different cast.

Let's see. On Broadway, I saw _Any Wednesday_ but I don't know if that was the original cast or if they had moved on by then. In London, I saw _M. Butterfly_ and _The Mousetrap_. In Stratford I saw _As You Like It_. In Miami, I saw _Cats_, _Phantom of the Opera_, _Godspell_ (still one of my two favorite albums), _Nunsense_, _Equus_, _Hair_ and probably more that I can't remember.

One thing about the London theater, their staging is fabulous. Minimal sets that can be moved around to suggest different locations. I remember in _As You Like It_, all of a sudden, the floor came popping up as the good Duke and his followers left their hiding place in the forest.

As for Godspell, I have the original cast CD and the touring company was absolutely every bit as good.


----------



## telracs

Andra said:


> I'm sorry for not contributing - for some reason I thought it might not be correct to get in the middle.
> I don't get to many shows like the ones you see so it's a good chance for me to live vicariously through your reviews. If you want conversation, I'll try to do my part better also.
> 
> Having said that, we missed a touring show of Phantom of the Opera in either November or December because we had other plans. Do you think that the shows that travel can capture the same feelings as the ones on Broadway (especially since I've never seen a show on Broadway so have nothing with which to compare)?


Thanks, Andra. I can understand why you might have hesitated posting, but hopefully you will continue now.

And yes, I do think that touring shows can evoke the same feelings as seeing a show on Broadway. I have been fortunate to attend theater in NY, Buffalo, Toronto, Chicago, London, Edinburgh, Melbourne Australia and Ongonquit, ME. Oh, and an amateur production of The Odd Couple in Everett, Washington.... I really need to get to something in DC at some point... and Boston, I wanna go to Boston.

As a matter of fact, I've seen Phantom of the Opera over 20 times, in 3 different cities. Each experience is different, but each was special. Some casts were better than others, some theaters are more suited to one show (Miss Saigon fit the Royal Alex in Toronto better than POTO did) but I've never found "touring" to be inferior.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Oops, I forgot _Fiddler on the Roof_.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Oops, I forgot _Fiddler on the Roof_.


i'm sitting here thinking now what shows i've seen in multiple cities (as opposed to multiple times of the same production in NY or two different productions in NY.....)


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Love the movie, Daddy Long Legs, with Fred Astaire and Leslie Caron. Great music and great dancing.


while the movie is based on the same novel that the new musical is, the material is handled completely differently and this production has nothing in common with the movie.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

telracs said:


> while the movie is based on the same novel that the new musical is, the material is handled completely differently and this production has nothing in common with the movie.


You know, movies of that era were only loosely based on the books. I'm sure the musical is more closely related.


----------



## Leslie

As I look ahead to 2016--

I haven't bought any season tickets yet, for either Ogunquit or MSMT. Still debating.

I will be in London in August and would like to see a show while I am there. In 2006 I saw Billy Elliott, which was fabulous.

And another trip to NYC for a show would be nice.

L


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> As I look ahead to 2016--
> 
> I haven't bought any season tickets yet, for either Ogunquit or MSMT. Still debating.
> 
> I will be in London in August and would like to see a show while I am there. In 2006 I saw Billy Elliott, which was fabulous.
> 
> And another trip to NYC for a show would be nice.
> 
> L


i'm trying to coax crebel to NY, so if we can get all three of us together...

and i am WAY overdue for a trip to London.

I have tickets for 9 shows already in 2016.


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> i'm trying to coax crebel to NY, so if we can get all three of us together...
> 
> and i am WAY overdue for a trip to London.
> 
> I have tickets for 9 shows already in 2016.


BOTH of those trips would be big fun with the three of us!


----------



## NogDog

Only thing I've ever seen on Broadway was "Blast" several years ago, which was quite good (though I would have preferred to have been a few rows further back -- we were 2nd row center). Probably the best show I've seen elsewhere was a production of "Jesus Christ, Superstar" in Toledo, Ohio, with minimal sets and effects, but a very good cast and group of musicians. (The champagne in the foyer was good, too, though I don't recall what the occasion was that warranted it.)


----------



## telracs

semi-interesting statistic....

there were 40 shows that opened on Broadway this season.  Of those, I saw 28 in 2015, have a ticket for one in 2016.  In one case, I saw the show off Broadway and have not seen it since it moved to Broadway.  One show we had tickets for, but it closed before we could see it.  One show that just opened is a revival of a show I didn't love 10 years ago but may ultimately see in 2016 if there is a discount.  Most of the rest were limited runs, including 2 magic shows that only ran a few weeks.


----------



## Leslie

More interesting statistics:

Broadway Has a Record-Breaking Week

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/broadway-has-a-record-breaking-week/


----------



## telracs

Noises Off

One of the fun things about attending "Noises Off" at the American Airlines Theatre is that you not only get a Playbill for that show, but you also get a program for "Nothing On" at the Grand Theatre Weston-Super-Mare. Although, to be honest, we only stay Weston-Super-Mare for the first act "Noises Off" and we only get to witness the first act of "Nothing On." But we get to witness it three times, in various presentations. In Act One, we witness a dress rehearsal of the play, Act Two is a backstage view of the play as presented a few weeks later, and for Act Three we are watching the final performance of the tour, where everything that can go wrong, does. I like Act Two the best, watching the backstage antics of the performers was hysterical. Act One was a bit slow, because the action is not fluid, but constantly interrupted as the "actors" try to grapple with the difficulties of the play they are performing. Act Three is funny, but definitely in the schadenfreude vein, finding humor at the misfortune of others. After a while it just stops being funny to me and becomes painful to watch.

The cast does excellently, working well together, and executing the split second timing needed to keep a good farce going. Andrea Martin is appropriately befuddled as Doty Otley/Mrs Clackett, though I found her reading as a bit old to play a romance opposite David Furr's Garry LeJuene/Roger Tramplemain. Megan Hilty was hysterical as Brook Ashton/Vicki, the actress so bad that she just keeps going on with her lines even as things are literally falling apart around her. I felt that Rob McClure was wasted as Tim Allgood and would have preferred to see him as LeJuene. Or as Lloyd Dallas, the director of the play within a play. I didn't like Campbell Scott in that role, although I will admit that part of that may have been due to bad miking as he made his way up and down the theater.

The two level set was beautiful, although I got a bit confused about which doors led where during the backstage action. The costumes were nothing special, being functional enough for the play within a play. One quibble I had was how come the sardines were obviously glued to the plate during acts one and two, but were not during act three. Oh, actually, I know why, it was so they could be used as another joke. But I found that one detail hard to believe and wondered why no one in the acting troupe noticed it before hand. Guess they had their hands full with all the backstage drama that the playwright turned into humor so well.


----------



## crebel

Sounds confusing!  Would you recommend it? Are you interested in seeing it again?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> Sounds confusing! Would you recommend it? Are you interested in seeing it again?


it's not confusing, sorry if i made it sound that way. it's just watching the same act 3 times from different perspectives.

my sister and i both found it hysterical, so yes, i would recommend it. Please note: although there is a movie based on the original play, i have never seen it and so have nothing to say about that.

this is actually the second production of it i've seen, it played broadway in the 1990s with Patti Lupone and Peter Gallagher, so I would say, yes, I would see it again.


----------



## telracs

Okay, I thought I'd lost this review, but going through files, I found it so am posting it...

The Gin Game

I saw this two person play in 1997 with Charles Durning and Julie Harris. Since I vaguely remembered that I liked it, I ponied up for a great seat to see Cicely Tyson and James Earl Jones do it. While Ms. Tyson was wonderful, and Mr. Jones still has his incredible voice, overall, I was a bit disappointed.

The story (such as it is) concerns Fonsia Dorsey and Weller Martin, two inhabitants of a "home for the aged" in an unspecified state. Ms. Dorsey happens upon Mr. Martin on the back porch of the home, and he convinces her to join him in playing gin rummy. She has unprecedented luck (or is it skill) and keeps winning, which causes him to get more and more frustrated until he finally "explodes." Along the way they talk about a variety of things; their fellow inhabitants, the staff at the home, their past and their families. Some of it is interesting, some of it boring.

Ms Tyson has the more sympathetic of the two characters, and does well in the part, although I have to wonder why Fonsia keeps returning to the back porch. Mr. Jones does well showing some of Weller's growing frustration, but his two major outbursts happen almost in slow motion, and his "explosion" at the end was a dud. Especially from my fourth row seat. I misremembered the play's ending, so when they came out to take their bows, I was thinking, "that's it?" There is no resolution to anything, and we are still where we were halfway through the play.

The costume designer served Ms. Tyson excellently, spiffing her up during the scenes when she is trying to connect with Weller. Mr. Jones gets simple shirts and pants, which do nothing to hide his weight. Looking at him, I could share Fonsia's worry that his temper was going to cause him a stroke. I found the set quite annoying. The back porch of an old age home littered with broken furniture? Any decent health inspector would have that stuff gone in an instant. But then again, maybe that's the overall point of the show, that old people get stuck in second rate homes and forgotten by their families and have to depend on each other?


----------



## crebel

I would have ponied up to see the two of them acting together as well.  Should have been an amazing combination.


----------



## telracs

The Screwtape Letters

Every autumn, my sister and I do a bunch of walks (for breast cancer, MS, and Alzheimer's). In one of the cosmic coincidences that rule the universe, one of the walks takes place the same day of the Third Avenue Street Fair. So, after the walk, my sister and I exit Central Park and walk across to the Fair. One block of this fair is devoted to Broadway and Off-Broadway theater groups and websites. One table, run by the website theatermania, allows you to spin a wheel and win a prize. Usually we've won pens or magnets and been happy. Last September, I won a free one year membership in their gold club, entitling me to free/discount theater tickets. I didn't get much use out of it at first, since you have to check it frequently, and we were fairly heavily booked for shows already. However, I've now managed to use it 3 times in the past 2 months. The first was for a revisit to "The 39 Steps" in December, and the second was to see a new production of CS Lewis's Screwtape Letters as done by the Fellowship for the Performing Arts, at the Pearl Theater. The FPA, in the words of its artistic director...."guided by a miplemision- to creat theatre from a Christian worldview that can engage a diverse audience." The group seems to have an affinity for C.S. Lewis, they presented "Great Divorce" late last year, are presenting "The Screwtape Letters" in January, and Max McLean, FPA's artistic director will be appearing as C.S. Lewis in a one man show titled "The Most Reluctant Convert". The fourth work they will be presenting is not C.S. Lewis, but a show titled "Martin Luther on Trial" which sounds quite interesting.

I had seen a production of "The Screwtape Letters" in 2007 in which Mr. Mclean played Screwtape and quite enjoyed it (interesting, THAT production was presented at the Church at St. Clement's, a church that doubles as an off-Broadway theater). So, when I heard that FPA was doing the show again, I mentioned it to a co-worker. And when the tickets showed up on the theater club site for a great discount for a Wednesday evening, we were in.

This time Screwtape is played by Brent Harris, a tall, thin man who does an excellent job commanding the stage. He is aided by an alternating trio of actresses playing Screwtape's assistant, Toadpipe. Toadpipe has no lines, but embodies various characters that Screwtape is describing to his nephew Wormwood, a Tempter on Earth, as Wormwood works to bring his "patient" into Hell's grasp. As can be deduced from the title, the story is told in a series of letters from Screwtape to Wormwood, so we mostly get Screwtape's side of things. The book was written in 1941, so the action that is described as happening on Earth referred to World War II. Mr. Mclean's new adaptation has changed some of the timeline, so that references to bombings have become references to terror weapons. I found the updating a bit jarring, since the last time I saw the show, it used the old references, and I had also read the book between times. But that's a minor quibble in an otherwise excellent production. One other quibble I had was with the backdrop of the set, I really, really hated the skeletons lining the back the wall. They were creepy and served no purpose. The show is done without an intermission, and is so engaging that I didn't look at my watch. And Mr. McLean would have been proud, the audience the night we saw it was definitely diverse.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I read _The Screwtape Letters_ 50 years or so ago and loved it. I probably didn't understand is as well then as I do now.

It's available on audio and in fact, I've already listened to it and enjoyed it even more. I've got the one narrated by Ralph Cosham. I probably got it on an audible daily deal.


----------



## telracs

Trip of Love

As mentioned in my last review, I won a free year's membership in theatermania's gold club and have finally been using it. Well, two of the three shows I saw were worth more than I paid, but this one was barely worth the five dollar service fee. "Trip of Love" is billed as the story of a young girl and her dream after falling down the rabbit hole. And if that had been the whole of the show, it would have been great, especially with the wonderful music they were using. Unfortunately, the "Alice" story line becomes incredibly heavy handed. In addition, there are two other story lines throughout the show, one concerning an artist and his muse/girlfriend, and one concerning a girl trying to break into dancing and the guy she ends up. And the entire thing has a REALLY depressing last 10 minutes (and the whole thing turning into a flashback kind of....). The actors try and perk things up with a final musical number at the bows, but it did not redeem the downer.

The show starts with "Angela" (Laurie Wells) sing "Windmills of Your Mind" in a dress that did nothing to enhance her appearance. Then we segue into "White Rabbit" and meet our Alice (here called Caroline, played by Kelly Felthous). She's pretty, and blonde and moves well, but I found her voice a bit squeaky. We get some more good music sung by various members of the cast, including "Wipe Out," "In-a-gadda-da-vida", a weird "Venus" with some pretty light effects, a fun "It's not Unusual" and "These Boots Are Made for Walking" which for some unknown reason involved a girl (Dionne Figgins) auditioning for a bunch of music shows. Then we came to a song that struck me as an odd choice, "Where have all the flowers gone?" sung by a Pat Boone-esque looking Austin MIller to Miss Felthous as a love song. Sorry, but that song is NOT a love song, it's an anti-war song with a depressing finale. By the end of Act one, Mr. Miller and Miss Felthous are engaged during the last song "Moon River," Act two sees them married, sees the dance audition girl together with the "it's not unusual guy" and the artist and his muse having issues. And then, suddenly we have reached the Vietnam War era, with all three men drafted (although Miller and Felthous spend some time as war protesters). The three men sing "Blowin In the Wind" and the song ends with what is clearly meant to be their deaths. So we come back to the beginning, with Caroline "falling" down the rabbit hole and encountering her dead husband and the other couples. Why? No clue. She and Ms. Wells sing a depressing version of the "Way of Love" and Ms. Felthous walks back out through the audience. End of show. Except then they try and cheer us all up during the bows with "Born to be Wild" and confetti.

The theater is pretty, with the walls covered in a soft fabric with psychedelic patterns on them. The costumes were mostly nice, especially during Act Two when we got some really groovy sixties looking outfits. I had some quibbles with the staging, especially during scenes that were supposed to take place in a TV studio. If the cameraman was really filming, he would have been getting a lot of side and back shots. The cast tries hard, and I must admit, there were some nice looking shirtless guys in the dance ensemble and they all moved well. I didn't love Ms. Felthous or Mr. Miller's singing voices, but the rest of the singers did excellent jobs. And when divorced from the story line, the music was excellent. But unfortunately, by the time the show ended, I was too depressed to really be impressed by it.


----------



## crebel

At least there was the redeeming feature of golden oldies music. Sorry the rest of it didn't live up to the good songs.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Sounds confusing. But I wouldn't have minded listening to the music.


----------



## telracs

Merchant of Venice

This was a quick impulse buy through the Gold Club. I'd seen it pop up for the past few weeks and was curious about a "Sephardi adaptation" to be presented at the American Sephardi Federation, starring opera singer David Serero as *******. Oh, not just starring him, but also adapted and directed by him. I knew they would be scaling down a lot when I saw that there were only 5 actors performing (one playing 3 parts), and that there would be some music since there is a pianist listed. When I asked the running time when I got to the Federation's space, I was told 1 hour and 15 minutes. Okay, that means major cutting.

[side note: for those of you unfamiliar with the term Sephardi refers to Jews of Spain, and Northern Africa [and some would say Germany]. They tend to have a more Middle Eastern as opposed to Eastern European viewpoint, and speak a polyglot of Spanish and Hebrew called Ladino.]

Mr. Serero started (and ended) the show with a song in Hebrew, and during the "play" interpolated a song for himself and one for Portia (Dina Desmone) in Ladino. As he exited after the song, he is accosted by Antonio and we got a short introductory scene involving Antonio (the excellent Justin Waldo, speaking Shakespeare's lines as written) and Bassanio (Joseph Talluto, speaking his lines in modern English). We next move on to the scene where Bassanio pleads with ******* for a loan and eventually ******* and Antonio make the infamous "pound of flesh" agreement. Then we meet Portia, and have one of the scenes between her and a suitor (I guess Mr. Serero left this scene so that the audience sees the caskets and understands the set up when Bassanio arrives to try and win Portia). Mr. Serrero gives us a scene between ******* and his servant (the versatile Sean Dube who plays not only Sallerio, but also Portia's suitor and the Duke of Venice [oh, and Jerry Springer]). Antonio's fortunes reverse, and he ends up defaulting on the loan and ******* demands the bond as written. Although Bassanio tries to pay him off, and the Duke of Venice pleads for mercy, ******* refuses their entreaties. It is only when a young lawyer (the disguised Portia) realizes that *******'s bond does not include blood, that ******* is stopped from killing Antonio. Oh, and since he threatened a Venetian, he is now subject to hefty fines and forced to convert to Christianity. This should be the end of *******, but Mr. Serero leaves himself on stage in abject misery to have the rest of the cast play one last scene, where Portia rebukes Bassanio for giving away a ring she gifted him. This is where Mr. Serero throws in Jerry Springer, and again has his cast use phrases that are not in the Bard's original.

Merchant of Venice can be seen as a very anti-Semitic work, and I was puzzled as to why Mr. Serero decided to adapt it. ******* is the villain and loses everything (daughter, ducats and religion) by the end of the play. Mr. Serero did nothing to mitigate this and I was left feeling disappointed. And with a bit of a headache. The actors started out fine, but as the performance went on, they started getting louder. By the end of things, Mr. Sereor and Mr. Talluto were shouting so much as to make their lines unintelligible.

After the show I had some fun walking around the Center and must admit for my five dollars, the museum was worth it. The show, not so much.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Jerry Springer? How odd. Was that supposed to give it a modern twist?


----------



## Leslie

I used some Christmas money to buy tickets to the Maine State Music Theater--again. Same great seats as last summer (Row E). The line-up:

Ghost - June 24
Evita - July 15
Fiddler on the Roof - August 5
Mamma Mia! - August 26

telracs, you have first dibs on a ticket for one (or more) of these shows. Let me know which one--would love to see you!


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> I used some Christmas money to buy tickets to the Maine State Music Theater--again. Same great seats as last summer (Row E). The line-up:
> 
> Ghost - June 24
> Evita - July 15
> Fiddler on the Roof - August 5
> Mamma Mia! - August 26
> 
> telracs, you have first dibs on a ticket for one (or more) of these shows. Let me know which one--would love to see you!


glad you finally broke down and bought some tickets. any word on the London trip?


----------



## telracs

A View from the Bridge

"A View from the Bridge" is a tragedy in the classic Greek sense of the word. A man, Eddie Carbone, who may be a good man in all other ways, has one tragic flaw which colors his world and ultimately leads to his downfall. For those unfamiliar with the work, Carbone is a Brooklyn longshoreman who lives with his wife Beatrice and their niece Katherine who the couple raised. As a favor to relatives back in Italy, the Carbones take in two illegal immigrant cousins of Beatrice's. The stolid Marco is just there to work and send money back to his family but his brother Rodolpho is more of a dreamer and his presence and attraction to Katherine set of Eddie's sparks. The audience's entry into the action is provided by neighborhood lawyer Alfieri, who introduces us to the characters and comments on the action, even as he is drawn into Eddie's downward spiral.

Arthur Miller's play is very powerful (this is the third production of it I have seen) and when the production relies on Mr. Miller's words, it is wonderful. Unfortunately, the show is full of directorial decisions that detract from the action. The theater is set up with seating on stage, which while it is supposed to "bring people closer to the action" seemed to me to just be a way to make more money by selling more seats. It didn't seem like the actors were playing to those seats well, and I'm sure people spent a lot of time looking at actors in profile and from behind. The show was done in one act, running about 2 hours, but the first five minutes or so are wasted with the audience watching two men shower. And then watching the actors (who are all barefoot for some unknown reason) have to be careful where they step. We also get a water effect at the final tableau of the piece, with all the actors in a huddle while red rain pours down. I found that moment almost laughable, and worse, whatever they put in the water make it stink. I was in the fourth row and found myself covering my nose and mouth to stop from gagging. Most annoying to me was the constant underscoring of the piece, which at times was like the funereal droning of bagpipes and while I understood the desire for the deliberate pacing of an awkward scene involving the company, the use of a metronome during it made me cringe.

While I didn't love the physical production, for the most part, I did enjoy the acting. Mark Strong was wonderful as Eddie Carbone, and was well supported by Nicola Walker as his wife. Michael Gould was excellent as Alfieri, and showed us his conflict well. Micheal Zegen as Marco and Russell Tovey as Rodolpho were fine, but I found the choice to not have them use Italian accents disconcerting. Weakest for me was Phoebe Fox as Katherine. I found her strident and just could not connect with the character. She also had the misfortune of having the worst costume of the show. As stated above, all the actors are barefoot when in the playing area, and all are in simple street clothes. But Katherine's outfit is just ugly. A too short skirt and a blouse which does not match the skirt. The set is simple, a square playing area surrounded by a knee high transparent barrier. The only prop used is a single chair which is pivotal to a scene.

I bought this ticket quite a while ago because as a British import presented by a popular director, good seats were hard to get. I'm glad I got a fourth row seat, and am equally glad I did not get a stage seat. And while I'm happy I got to see this production, I think it goes to the bottom of the list of the three I've seen of this show.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I guess every family has a Rodolfo. When my grandfather and his brothers came over from Italy, they sponsored another brother. Cosmo. Cosmo didn't want to work and just loafed around until the brothers sent him back. Somehow, Cosmo managed to come back to the U.S. Of course, he was still the same, so the brothers sent him back again. This time, he stayed put in Italy.

Anyway, that was my first thought about the story.

Red rain, huh? And stinky red rain at that. <shudder>


----------



## telracs

Martin Luther on Trial

"A trial in the afterlife, and the prosecutor...is the Devil. In the new original play Martin Luther on Trial, Luther's beloved wife Katarina defends him as witnesses including Adolf Hitler, Sigmund Freud, Rabbi Josel, St. Paul, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Pope Francis take the stand. Even as 2017 marks 500 years since Luther ignited the Protestant Revolt against Rome, he continues to spark intense debate. You be the judge in this witty, provocative exploration of one of history's most explosive personalities and the religious and political controversies he unleashed."

The Fellowship for Performing Arts (see my Screwtape Letters review) is presenting 4 shows at the Pearl theater this winter. Three of them have a C.S. Lewis connection (Screwtape, The Great Divorce and a one mane show called "The Most Reluctant Convert"). The fourth is a "lab" production (read: work in progress) titled "Martin Luther on Trial". I found the blurb interesting, so ponied up for a ticket. And that is the word I think I will use to describe the work. Interesting. I don't think I'll quite say I enjoyed it. Parts of it, yes, but as a whole I think it was lacking.

The show starts with the Devil (an incredible Paul Schoeffler) examining a pile of books reaching from stage to ceiling. A woman enters, who we eventually realize is Katie Von Bora (Victoria Frings) the wife of Martin Luther. The Devil explains that they are there to try her husband for "the Unforgivable Sin". The judge is St. Peter (John Fitzgibbon in hippie garb), Von Bora is there to defend, and the Devil to prosecute. I found it odd that Luther himself wasn't at the trial, but more on that later. The prosecution and the defense take turns presenting witnesses, starting with Adolph HItler and including Sigmund Freud, Martin Luther King Jr., and ending with Pope Francis. All of the witnesses and other people in Luther's life are played just by two actors, one Caucasian (Mark Boyett), the other African-American (Leopold Lowe). Because of this casting, characters who are historically Caucasian are played by Mr. Lowe, which jarred me at times. Fletcher McTaggart fills out the cast as Luther, who we see mostly in flashbacks throughout the show. The switching back and forth between the trial and scenes from Luther's life was fairly well done, illustrating the aspects of his life that the court was discussing. I found both aspects of the show interesting and was willing to go along for the ride, until the calling of Pope Francis as a witness. I found the use of a living person for a trial in the Afterlife a bit bizarre, as were the machinations St. Peter had to go to try and keep the Pope in the dark as to where he was and who he was talking to. I probably would have gotten past the calling of the Pope if the show had continued in the same vein it had been going for 2 hours. But unfortunately, while the Devil is cross-examining the Pope, the play veers off the rails. Suddenly, Luther enters with a chessboard, interrupting the procedures stating that he and the Devil never finished their game. While the two play, they have a conversation and somehow, in the midst of it, the Devil "realizes" that the whole trial was not about Luther, but was an attempt reconcile the Devil to Heaven. And so we get a flashback of the Devil rebelling, and then the Devil rejects being "saved" and storms off. The Pope returns to Earth, Katie and St. Peter exit, and Luther is left alone on the stage contemplating the chess board.

The play had good drama and also had decent amounts of humor in it, and most of the acting was excellent. There were parts of it that I found confusing. It takes them a while to explain what the "Unforgivable Sin" is [side note, I kept thinking about Harry Potter's Unforgivable Curse], and the Devil's last lines which I now know are Milton quotes were inaudible, and the final music cue meant nothing to me, but is apparently a hymn that Luther wrote. The costumes and set were simple, and worked well for the production. But in the end I felt cheated by the sudden change in the plot and action and think the final scenes pretty much ruin what was otherwise a great examination of Luther and his life and legacy.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I love this kind of show no matter who the historical character is.


----------



## crebel

I think it sounds like a fascinating premise for a show, even the twist at the end you didn't really care for.  Not being able to hear the last lines would be very irritating.  Do you know the name of the hymn now?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> I think it sounds like a fascinating premise for a show, even the twist at the end you didn't really care for. Not being able to hear the last lines would be very irritating. Do you know the name of the hymn now?


Um, "Mighty Fortress"?


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> Um, "Mighty Fortress"?


Thanks, I know it well!


----------



## telracs

Cabin in the Sky

City Center reaches quite far back for the first show of this year's Encores! "Cabin in the Sky." The show originally opened in 1940, running 156 performances. And along with the long reach, the folks at City Center had to do a lot of work to get this production running, as all the orchestrations and choreography were lost, and the show was a product of its time, leading to what would now be considered objectionable lines.

The plot tells of one Little Joe Jackson, a womanizing gamble on his death bed after a bar fight. His wife Petunia is a righteous woman, and her prayers attract the attention of Heaven. She asks for 6 more months for Little Joe and states that at the end of that time, if he is to die, she will be willing to die with him. Representatives of Heaven and Hell make a bet as to who will get Joe's soul, and the six months begin. Joe does not remember the bet, and at first he manages to stay on the straight and narrow but eventually he succumbs to temptation, and he and Petunia find themselves back at Death's door as the sixth months ends.

I enjoyed the plot line of the story and was looking forward to seeing a very rarely mounted show. Unfortunately, I found some of the acting/singing lacking and ultimately wasn't thrilled. Micheal Potts was the best in the cast as Little Joe, doing his best singing opposite Carly Hughes as his ex-girlfriend, Georgia Brown. Ms. Brown also does well in her solo number "Honey in the Honeycomb", but the number comes so late in the show that I felt that there was no point in it. LaChanze as Petunia seemed mis-cast, her voice not quite right for the songs, and her acting stiff. I never felt any chemistry between her and Mr. Potts, so found their relationship difficult to believe. I also had little sympathy for the character's overbearing sense of righteousness. Also mis-cast in my eyes was Chuck Cooper as Hell's representative, Lucifer Jr. He doesn't read as anyone's "junior" and like LaChanze was quite stiff in his role. He and Norm Lewis (playing Heaven's representative) both seemed to be rushing their lines, even to the point of stepping on each other's words. Norm was in gorgeous voice, but his songs were kind of boring.

Oddly, for a show that had it's choreography lost, there was a lot of dancing, and the production numbers went on too long for my taste. Already mentioned was Ms. Hughes number, "Honey in the Honeycomb", and there were two more numbers that bored me. One was in the first act, a long drawn out rendition of "Dry Bones" (also known as "Dem Bones"). The song is just a recitation of the bones in the body, and I still can't figure out what the point of it was. The act two "Vision Ballet" was well danced, but by that point I was checking my watch and wanted it over.

As is typical of Encores! the set was minimal and the orchestra took up a lot of space on the stage. The backdrop projections were nice, but I could have used a bit more variety in them. The costumes were not extensive, with most of the leads being in the same outfit almost the whole show. The chorus were in suits and dresses, nothing spectacular, and the Angels and Imps were color coded, Angels in blue, Imps in red.

I have to admit, that while I am impressed with all the work the people at City Center did to resurrect this musical, I was not impressed with the results. I'm hoping for better results with their next show, "1776".


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Now that is definitely strange because it was made into a movie with Lena Horne, Rochester, Ethel Waters and both the movie and the score are still available. 

I thought I recognized the name and looked it up on Wiki and Amazon.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Now that is definitely strange because it was made into a movie with Lena Horne, Rochester, Ethel Waters and both the movie and the score are still available.
> 
> I thought I recognized the name and looked it up on Wiki and Amazon.


I was wondering if anyone would recognize the name as that of the movie. The movie jettisoned most of the music from the Broadway show, and the choreography in the movie was completely different from the original.

One song from the movie was interpolated into this production, as it was the most famous one people would remember and the producers at Encores! didn't want people asking why it was "cut".


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I can imagine that the choreography was completely different. There's a lot more room to move around on a sound stage.


----------



## crebel

I've not heard of the show or the movie, but I do know the spiritual "Dem Bones" which has been around a long time.  "Toe bone connected to the foot bone. Foot bone connected to the heel bone..."  If I recall correctly, it comes from Ezekiel in Bible when he went to the Valley of Dry Bones and is supposed to represent the resurrection of the body in an afterlife.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I might just watch it this week. A lot of good people in that movie.


----------



## telracs

The Woodsman

I'm sure that fans of L. Frank Baum will be able to tell me what HIS origin story for the Tin Man was, but I went into this adaptation with little knowledge. This show is approximately 70 minutes, and has minimal dialogue, utilizing mime and puppetry to convey its story. When the audience enters the theater, they are greeted with a variation of the usual "turn off your cell phones" message. We are informed that photos can be taken before and after the show, but not during. The reason for the exception to the usual "no photos" admonishment are clear, the playing space is fantastic, and the final image one that many people will want to capture (see below).

As soon as we enter the theater, we are immersed in the world of the woods, including sound effects (only quibble, the loop on the sound effects was a bit short, and I heard the same thing 3 times while waiting for the show to start). The show begins with a brief narration of life among the Munchkins and introduces us to a pair of Munchkins who manage to escape into the woods (if not all the way the Emerald City), and raise a son. We watch the father teach his son Nick (the wonderful James Ortiz) to chop trees. We also meet the Wicked Witch of the East and her slave Nimmee. Turns out Nimmee has some powers of her own, and eventually she escapes from the Witch. Nimmee and Nick meet and fall in love. Unfortunately, the Witch manages to get her revenge by having Nick's ax turn against him. As parts of Nick are chopped off, the Tinkers replace them with metal parts until at the end he is a heartless robot unable to love Nimmee anymore. In what I guess is an attempt to give us a happy ending, the show tacks on a house landing on the witch and a gingham dressed girl appearing.

While watching the show I was able to suspend my disbelief and go with the flow, but thinking about it a week later, I have to admit that the way the storyline was portrayed was a bit improbable. I'm able to accept the replacement of limbs, but when Nick's head is chopped off and replaced, you lose me. And annoyingly, Nick has a heart amulet that he gives to Nimmee. She tries to give it to the Tinkers when they reconstruct Nick's torso, but the refuse. Um.... I know this would ruin the whole "If I Only Had a Heart" thing, but why make it so blatantly obvious that there is one they could use.

The show is technically wonderful, with each member of the cast taking on multiple jobs and doing them well. All of the actors convey feeling and action without words, aided by a single violinist. The puppetry manipulation is superb and the puppets themselves incredible. And one bit I really liked,


Spoiler



the Witch's slippers were the correct color


.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I had no idea there was a backstory to the Tin Man, either. Seems pretty gruesome, but then most of the original fairy tales are.


----------



## telracs

Disaster!

Disaster! is a send up of 1970's disaster movies utilizing 1970's songs in clever (if sometimes painfully obvious) ways. The plot concerns "New York's first floating casino" which unfortunately is attached to a pier that has been drilled into a fault line and has been constructed with shoddy materials and little regard to building codes. The first act is a lead up to the "disaster" and the second act is the follow up of same. During the first number "Hot Stuff" we are introduced to most of the characters, from party crashing Chad (Adam Pascal) to the ship's owner (Roger Bart), to a reporter trying to get a story (Kerry Butler), a couple out for a night on the town (Faith Prince and Kevin Chamberlain), a down on her luck disco diva (Lacretta Nicole), a nun with a gambling addiction (Jennifer Simard) and disaster expert Professor Ted Schneider (the show's creator, Seth Rudetsky). Also thrown in are a lounge singer (a wasted Rachel York) and her twin children Ben and Lisa (both played by Baylee Littrell).

At the performance we attended, the show was two acts and ran about 2.5 hours. There is online chatter that the show has been cut down and trimmed to one act, which may or may not work better. I think the show spends too much time in the build up and with too many different characters and their stories. The character of the nun, which is one that has been garnering a lot of good buzz, seemed pointless to me. The actress gets two songs, both sung to a one armed bandit. I think one would have been enough. Actually, I think the character could have almost been cut entirely. The same goes with the disco diva, her sub-plot is silly and her actions could have been switched to another character. This is not to say anything a bad about the actresses, both are wonderful. In fact, most of the cast is wonderful. The exceptions are York, who is shrill and not given the chance to show her talents, and Rudetsky, whose acting is ridiculously wooden even for the character and who really can't sing. I thought the best acting came from Baylee Littrell, and hope this son of a Backstreet Boy keeps on acting.

There are a lot of good songs in the show, but for some of them, we only get snippets in order to make a joke. And as I said, a lot of the jokes were obvious. A line would be said, and even before the music started, you knew what song was coming. There is no song list in the Playbill, so songs should be a surprise, but often are not. The costumes are period appropriate, and appropriately ugly. The set was okay, with an interesting effect to simulate an upside down ship. Since this is a disaster show, a number of characters are killed off, some in quite bizarre ways. The show has had a long history, playing off-off Broadway, off-Broadway and now playing the Nederlander for a limited run. Personally, I think it should have stayed off-Broadway and wonder exactly why anyone thought it wouldn't be a "disaster" on Broadway.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

That's one I would never go see.


----------



## Andra

Thank you for keeping us updated.  I really enjoy reading about the shows that you get to see.  The picture from The Woodsman is terriffic.


----------



## telracs

Our Mother's Brief Affair

This is a four person show with five characters. Greg Keller plays Seth, a gay obituary writer coping with his ailing elderly mother Anna (Linda Lavin). Kate Arrington is his twin sister Abby who seems to know more about a bombshell Anna drops then Seth. John Procaccino plays two roles, that of the twins' father, and of Anna's putative lover. The story jumps back and forth in time, and the characters frequently comment on the action taking place and break the fourth wall a number of times, even to the point of giving a history lesson at the end of act one. (anyone recognize the name David Greenglass?)

Ms. Lavin is wonderful as Anna who may or may not have had an affair with David Greenglass, or even had an affair at all. Mr. Keller's voice did not sound good the day we saw the show, and became somewhat grating. I found Abby an under-developed character. The set was plain but worked for what the show was, as did the costumes. There were some funny lines regarding the NY Post newspaper, but there were also a lot of cruel lines that made me uncomfortable.

At the end of the show, while I wasn't unhappy about seeing it, I wasn't in love with it and wished for a better ending.


----------



## crebel

I only know who David Greenglass was from reading about him a couple of years ago when he died in prison (at least I assume it's the same David Greenglass, the Soviet spy).

I'm sure you've talked about it before, but will you explain what "breaking the fourth wall" means again? Talking directly to the audience?


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> I only know who David Greenglass was from reading about him a couple of years ago when he died in prison (at least I assume it's the same David Greenglass, the Soviet spy).
> 
> I'm sure you've talked about it before, but will you explain what "breaking the fourth wall" means again? Talking directly to the audience?


do you remember who David Greenglass was related to?

and yes, breaking the fourth wall means talking to the audience directly. the "fourth wall" of any room on a stage is the invisible one between the stage and the audience.


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> do you remember who David Greenglass was related to?
> 
> and yes, breaking the fourth wall means talking to the audience directly. the "fourth wall" of any room on a stage is the invisible one between the stage and the audience.


Brother to Ethel Rosenberg.

Thanks for the fourth wall explanation.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Had no idea who David Greenglass was. 

But Linda Lavin is certainly a blast from the past.


----------



## telracs

Don't Bother Me, I Can't Cope

This was an impulse buy thanks to theatermania's gold club. The York Theatre Company does a series they call "Musicals in Mufti". These are similar to City Center's "Encores!" in that they are productions done in scaled down versions, with the actors mostly consulting their scripts and only run for a few performances. This year they are doing two revues (shows consisting mostly of songs with no real through plot), "Don't Bother Me...." and "Starting Here, Starting Now." I'm not a huge fan of revues, I like my musicals with a story, but for the price that gold club was asking, I was willing to try it.

As the gentleman sitting next to me said at intermission, you could tell when this piece was written. It is squarely based in the African-American community of NYC in the 1970s. The characters (such as they are) are typical, if not stereotypical of that era, as are most of the costumes and music. I can't comment on set, because, this being a Mufti production, there is almost no set, just some boxes serving as benches. The production uses projections, and while I usually feel projections are overused, I think this production could have used more. Most of the actors were excellent, with great singing and movement of music stands. At times I was a bit bored, and felt some of the songs were repetitive, but for a 20 dollar donation to York Theater, I'm not sorry I saw the show.










Broadway and the Bard

Len Cariou is known to most people as Sweeney Todd, but this Canadian actor has done got his start on Broadway in Henry V, and the musical Applause. As he states in this one man show, even back then he had the idea to pair Shakespeare with songs from Broadway musicals. In Broadway and The Bard, he does just that, performing scenes from Shakespeare (all roles he has played) and then sing songs that comment or expand on them. Each pairing comes as a surprise, since there is no song list in the playbill (a listing of the scenes and songs is handed out when leaving the theater). Some of the song choices were obscure, but for the most part I was able to place them. I enjoyed his scenes more than his singing, at 76 he still looks handsome, his speaking voice is still strong, but I don't think his singing voice is up to doing 8 shows a week.

He ended the night with Brush Up Your Shakespeare from Kiss Me, Kate, and apparently this was a new song for one audience member, her laughter at the jokes in the song had me cringing.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I didn't know all that about Len Cariou. The first thing I ever saw him in was Four Seasons. He also plays the grandfather in Blue Bloods although Tom Selleck seems to be the paterfamilias.


----------



## telracs

She Loves Me

I have been looking forward to this show since Roundabout announced they were doing it, and I must say, it did not disappoint. The musical is based on the same source material as the movies "The Shop Around the Corner" and "You've Got Mail." This version is set in 1930's Budapest and tells the tale of Georg (Zachary Levi) and Amalia (Laura Benanti) sparring clerks at Maraczek's Parffumerie. While Georg and Amalia are the main characters, there is a subplot of a romance between Ilona (Jane Krakowski) and the slimy Kodaly (Gavin Creel). Also present are Michael McGrath as Sipos, Nicolas Barasch as Arpad, and Byron Jennings as Mr. Maraczek. Peter Bartlett has a bit part as the headwaiter at Cafe Imperiale, a small but usually hysterical role.

I adored the leads, as well as Ms. Krakowski and Mr. McGrath (they have 2 of my favorite songs in the show). Mr. Jennings did well enough, and Mr. Barasch is cute (and has grown a few inches since "Mystery of Edwin Drood"). I liked how Gavin Creel looked (I had been worried he was too young for the role of Kodaly), but felt he was overacting. Also overacting was Peter Bartlett, whose manic headwaiter completely spoiled the Cafe Imperiale scenes. Zach Levi was clean-shaven, which made him look younger than he did in "First Date". He played Georg well, and I really enjoyed him. Ms. Benanti acted well, but many of her songs are written for high soprano, which made the lyrics hard to understand. Ms. Krakowski is as limber as ever, and her "Trip to the Library" was wonderful. Mr. McGrath always impresses me on stage, and he did an excellent job on "My Philosophy". And I was very impressed with the box stacking effect used in that song.

One of the highlights of the show is the Parfumerie set. It is two stories, functional and incredibly colorful. Unfortunately, because it takes up so much space, the other settings lose out a bit. The Cafe Imperiale scene looked very cramped, and I was afraid one dancer would end up in the front row. Amalia's bedroom scene was fine, with the actors staying inside the boundaries. However, in the hospital scene was not as well done, Mr. Barasch is playing too far downstage and facing the audience instead of addressing the other actor in the scene.

The show overall was fantastic and I envy a coworker who is going to see it multiple times thanks to the fact he has a friend attached to the production.


----------



## telracs

Hughie

This one act play by Eugene O'Neil runs less than an hour, but it is a tedious and long 60 minutes. Forest Whitaker plays Erie Smith, a gambleer who returns from a long drunken binge to the fleabag hotel he calls home. There he begins to regal the new night clerk (Frank Wood) with tales about the prior clerk, the titular Hughie. But the stories are long and rambling and repetitive. Mr. Wood's clerk is either hearing impaired or mentally impaired and does not really interact with Erie until late in the show. And just when things start to get interesting, the show is over, leaving a lot of loose ends.

Early in the run, there were a number of complaints about Mr. Whitaker forgetting lines and relying on an off-stage prompter. There was no sign of this prompter at our performance, but Mr.Whitaker's delivery was so laconic that I wouldn't be surprised if he was running the lines in his head or if they were concealed elsewhere on the set. The set is a masterpiece, appropriately decrepit, dimly lit, with a battered staircase leading up and an out of order elevator. The audience gets to appreciate the set for quite a while, as there is no curtain, and we spend the half hour between seating and the show starting looking at Mr. Woods staring at nothing. Since the show has posted its closing notice 10 weeks early, I wonder if he was considering how to find a new job.


----------



## crebel

Either too bad the show wasn't longer so they could flesh it out when it started to get interesting or thank goodness it was only 60 minutes long as boring as it was.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

That sounds ... strange.


----------



## telracs

The Royale

According to the program notes, The Royale was "loosely inspired by the life of Jack Johnson (1878-1946), the famed African-American boxer who sought to bring heavyweight champion James J. Jeffries out of retirement." The Johnson character (here called Jay) is played by Khris Davis who does an excellent job of protraying the man who just wants to fight the best and be the best, regardless of color. He is supported by the excellent Clarke Peters as his trainer who has seen the realities of race relations in the South and John Lavelle as his manager (the only Caucasian in the piece) who understands the realities of business and tries both to shield Jay from them while educating him about the perils and pitfalls of his choices. The cast is rounded out by McKinley Belcher who plays a young boxer who becomes Jay's sparring partner, and Montego Glover, who plays his sister, and in an odd device, his opponent in the heavyweight title fight. The boxing is presented in a very stylized manner, with the boxers standing apart from each other, and light and sound effects denoting the blows.

The show is visually appealing,with an interesting set that utilizes the Newhouse space well. The costumes were pretty and period appropriate, and cast moved well in them. Unfortunately, I felt that the story started slow, got a bit better, then got heavier and heavier until a depressing ending. Ms. Glover does not show up until the last 20 minutes of this hundred minute play, and her character's appearance and objections to the fight seem too little, too late. The violent end to the show was just too much for me and ultimately, I don't think I'd recommend this piece.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Gee, for a minute I thought there was a show that you really enjoyed every aspect of. That thing with the lights sounds really neat, though.


----------



## telracs

Bright Star

I went into this show knowing it only as the Steve Martin/Edie Brickel musical The poster art didn't tell me much, it's a picture of a woman looking off at a train with a star above. The stage is open to view when entering the theater, showing a fairly bare stage with a wooden structure on it. This "house" is where most of the band sits, and it gets moved around throughout the show. I felt a bit sorry for the players and wondered if they ever got motion sick.

The musical opens with a woman (I guess the one from the poster) singing that we're going to hear her story. The cast joins her on stage as she sings and we end with her between two men (one in a business suit, the other in an uniform). At that point I figured this was a love triangle and those were the two men in her life...

Oddly, and not interestingly, we then lose the woman, and spend the next 15 minutes with the guy in uniform, Billy Cane (the adorable A.J. Shively), who has just returned from WWII. He comes home to his small town in North Carolina to find that his mother has passed away (a plot device and song that struck me as totally unnecessary) and that the girl next door has grown up. Billy wants to be a writer, so he goes off to the big city of Asheville (during a production number that used the ensemble quite well) to sell his stories. There he meets editor Alice Murphy (Carmen Cusack). Hey,wait a second, that's the woman who sang the opening number! But she seems a bit old to be involved with Billy, and aren't we supposed to be rooting for him to end up with Margo (Hannah Elless), the girl back home? Alice agrees to mentor Billy, much to the surprise of her assistants (sex and comic relief Emily Padgett and Jeff Blumenkrantz). They wonder about Alice and off we go into a flashback of Alice the hick town preacher's daughter with a secret boyfriend (Jimmy Ray, played by Paul Alexander Nolan). Ooops, turns out the boyfriend is the MAYOR'S son! Well, things happen, as things do, and Alice turns up pregnant (gee, anybody surprised?). The kindly town doctor ships her off to a cabin in the woods. Once Alice gives birth, she figures she and Jimmy Ray and the baby can be together, but Daddy Mayor and Daddy Reverend have other ideas, and the Mayor takes the baby from her and tells her he's taking it to Raleigh to be adopted. However, in a plot twist that makes no sense, he throws the bag with the baby off the train. The suitcase throwing effect was well done, and elicited quite a gasp from the audience, and made a great act one ending.

Act two begins with Alice going off to college thanks to a sudden scholarship. When Jimmy Ray packs to visit her and search for their baby, Daddy Mayor admits to throwing the baby off the train. Jimmy Ray goes to pieces and since he feels he can never tell Alice the truth, he never goes to see her. Now we jump back to 1945 and Billy trying to write and bond with his co-workers. Emily Padgett gets a rousing barroom number titled "Another Round", but I felt the number did nothing for the show and was not needed. Alice takes time off to go back home (and to Raleigh to look at the files again), and gee, coincidentally, Billy is going home also, and you know what, the train that Alice will be taking goes right through his town. Why doesn't she stop off and visit? Alice reconciles with her parents, and also visits Jimmy Ray, who finally tells her the truth about why he broke up with her. Alice is devastated, and goes to visit her new writer, who has finally realized his feelings for Margo. Billy takes Alice to meet his dad and to pick up some stuff he left behind. His dad tells him to use the old suitcase, and when Billy brings it out.. GASP.... it is the one Alice's baby was in. And LOOK! His old baby sweater is the one Alice knit for her baby!

Okay, maybe I"m being mean, but how could anyone not have seen this coming? Billy does not react well to the news of his adoption, and turns his back on both Alice and his adopted father. But all's well that ends well, Alice and Jimmy Ray reconcile, Billy and Margo come to Asheville and announce they are getting married, and everyone is happy.

The music was heavily bluegrass, which I don't dislike, but I found the lyrics repetitive and as I stated above, I felt a couple of songs were unnecessary. The band was fun to watch on stage, and the each musician was given a moment to show off at the beginning of act two, which was fun. The costumes were pretty enough, but nothing special. The set was nice, with a good mountain effect, and the best part was the train track above the stage and the train going across it. There was no show curtain at the beginning of the show, but there was a gorgeous one at intermission, based on a photograph by Galen McGee.

While all of the acting was good, especially Carmen Cusack as Alice, I felt that there were too many characters and so some actors got lost. I love Paul Alexander Nolan, and wish there was more of him. And one annoying thing about the casting. The show has a huge ensemble, but they used the same distinctive actor for the doctor in the first act and a bartender in the second. Micheal Mulheren was good as Daddy Mayor, to the point where he got booed at the curtain call.

My sister found the first act confusing, with the time jumps, and we both predicted who Billy was within the first 20 minutes of the show. But not everybody seemed to, as there were audible gasps from the audience at the big reveal. I would have liked a better reconciliation scene between Billy and his real parents, it seemed a bit rushed, but I guess the show was long enough they didn't need to add anymore. It was a good, but not great show, with excellent acting, but I think Mr. Martin should stick to comedy and make this his only musical.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Okay, I'm confused, too. Did Billy almost marry his real mother?


----------



## crebel

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Okay, I'm confused, too. Did Billy almost marry his real mother?


Oh my! My synopsis...

Wait, what?? Where did you get that?

Billy's adoptive mother is dead. Alice and Jimmy Ray are his biological parents. In the super-coincidental conflagration of events, Billy is working for his biological mother (Alice), they all end up back in the same home town at the same point, Billy's adoptive father kept the suitcase Billy was 'thrown away' in, and Alice figures it out when she sees the suitcase after Billy takes his 'boss' to meet his father. Margo is the girl-next-door. Billy + Margo, Alice + Jimmy Ray live HEA.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Okay. I re-read the synopsis and I see where I read it wrong. Phew!


----------



## telracs

1776

When City Center announced they were doing 1776 as one of their 2016 Encores! shows, I was thrilled as I love the show. When they announced they were going with a "multicultural" cast, I sighed in slight annoyance. It seemed like they were trying to ride the coat-tails of "Hamilton" (a lot of their publicity has enforced this belief). When the cast was announced, i withheld judgement, since I like most of the actors announced, but I thought some of them were not good matches for the parts. And when word leaked out that the show was being done in a modern setting, I threw my hands up in despair, as I thought modern dress was going to be a distraction.

Well, I'm happy to say that for the most part, the show worked well. I had been afraid the Santino Fontana (you might know him as the voice of Prince Hans in Frozen) would be too adorable for the "obnoxious and disliked" John Adams, but he was incredible in the part. He did well in most of the singing parts of the role and brought was appropriately harsh when needed, but he also did wonderfully in the more tender moments with Christiane Noll as Abigail. Ms.Noll was also in good voice in her solo numbers, but oddly, the pair's voices did not blend well, so their duets sound a bit off to me. John Larroquette was a bit subdued as Franklin, and didn't land all of his jokes well (and missed a line the night I saw the show). Most of the ensemble was good, and I quite enjoyed Robert Sella as the Congressional Secretary. The production cast well for the oldest member of Congress, Andre De Shields as Rhode Island's Stephen Hopkins, but I found the casting of Alexander Gemignani odd for the youngest member, South Carolina's Edward Rutledge. Mr. Gemingnani looked older than a number of the other actors on stage, and didn't seem quite right for the role. Until his big number in Act Two. His "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" was the most chilling version of the song I have ever heard. On the flip side, an actor I very much enjoyed prior to this show, Bryce Pinkham, played John Dickinson in such a fey manner that I was severely disappointed. I was also not impressed with John Behlmann as Thomas Jefferson. Part of that may be due to the fact that Mr. Behlmann is a brunette, and Jefferson should be a redhead!

While I was able to overlook some of the color blind casting, some of it stood out and not in a good way. Jubilant Sykes played Richard Henry Lee and for some reason, seemed to have been directed to sing his one number in a minstrel fashion. It did not work. Having an African American actress playing Martha Jefferson (in a dress that seemed to want to evoke Michelle Obama), conjured up some unfortunate connections in some people's minds. And having the North Carolina representative, who always defers to South Carolina, and walks out on the slavery issue played an African American just seemed weird.

I had no issue with the courier being played by a young African American man in a hoodie and camo pants, but other people felt it was too reminiscent of Trayvon Martin. While Nikki Renee Daniels was dressed to evoke the current First Lady, Christiane Noll did not fare as well as Abigail Adams, looking as if she just stepped out of an LL Bean ad. I know she's supposed to be a farmer's wife running things in his absence, but the costuming was awful. The Congressional delegates were all in suits, most sporting a small US flag pin, with some individualization. And while I did find the modern dress slightly distracting at first, I was able to get past it. What was more annoying was that they signed the Declaration with a fountain pen!

As is the norm at Encores! the orchestra takes up a large amount of stage space, forcing the action of the show downstage. For the most part this did not cause a problem in 1776, except during the song "He Plays the Violin". Adams and Martha Jefferson dance, but because of the placement of the chairs and desks on stage, they were somewhat cramped, and Mr. Fontana was not able to show off his moves. And after seeing him as Cinderella's Prince, I can tell you, he's got some nice moves.

1776 is a long show, and the director made the choice to cut some lines to cut the running time. I know the show quite well, and was disappointed in this, especially since he cut lines from the beginning of the show. That cut made me worry that a lot of the show would be lost,but fortunately, it wasn't and in the end Mr. Fontana and most of the rest of the delegates had me spellbound and praying that they WERE going to vote for independence. Spoiler alert-- they did.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Interesting. I saw As You Like It in Stratford, done in modern dress and it was really good.


----------



## telracs

The Crucible

Based on my experience with Ivo Van Hove's recent production of "A View From the Bridge", I went into this show with some qualms that once again there would be bizarre directorial touches that would take away from the play. And unfortunately, I was right to be worried. As in View, there was a constant underscoring of music throughout the show, which was very grating at times. Someone needs to tell Mr. Van Hove that nothing needs underscoring all the time and that he should trust Arthur MIller's words.

It is thought that Mr. Miller did not believe there were witches in Salem and the play is a treatise on how one accusation can spiral out of hand when the wrong authorities get involved. Unfortunately, Mr. Van Hove has added gimmicks to the play (a levitating girl, a wolf-like dog walking across the stage, "magically" appearing writing on a blackboard, a falling light fixture) that undermine this and are quite heavy handed. Even the opening is odd, the curtain rises on what appears to be a classroom full of girls, then falls again. When it rises again, the action of the story starts, but the stage still looks like a classroom, with classroom type lighting, desks and a blackboard upstage. And the girls are still in their school uniforms, while the rest of the cast is on modern dress. Some of the modern dress worked for me, but not all. Putting Sophie Okonedo in pants and a sweatshirt made it difficult for me to accept her as a Puritan woman.

Most of the acting was wonderful, especially Ms. Okonedo. Ben Whishaw was good as John Proctor, except where he was hampered by the staging. Saorise Ronan (a movie actress who has been getting a lot of buzz) was appropriately b*tchy as Abigail Williams, the foremost accuser of witches who is trying to hide her own sins and terrorizing her peers and adults alike. There are number of unlikeable characters in this play, and some of the actors did excellent jobs in unsympathetic roles. The stand out for me was Ciaran Hinds as Judge Danforth,the voice of authority who takes all dissent as guilt. Bill Camp starts out on the side of the law as Reverend Hale, and makes the reverend's switching of sides believable. Less successful in her role was Tavi Gevinson as Mary Warren, one of the girls who initially is an accuser, then recants, then switches sides back to the accusers. I found her acting stiff, and her voice shrill.

While I found the words of the show engrossing for the most part, during the second act I kept taking off my glasses and closing my eyes. I couldn't figure out why I was dong it until after the show, when my sister commented on how glaring the lighting was during the second half. Another instance of Mr. Van Hove putting his stamp on the show in a way that didn't work for me.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I never read The Crucible. I seem to remember that I had a copy but I'm sure I never got around to reading it.


----------



## Leslie

Summer theater season has started here in Maine. On Wednesday, my friend Caroline and I went down to Ogunquit to see "Let It Be" a musical tribute to the Beatles. This review pretty much sums up the show:

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/05/23/theater-review-ogunquits-let-it-be-will-transport-you-to-the-days-of-the-beatles/

Caroline, who is British, thought the English accents were terrible. I thought the Ringo character's voice was too high--but other than that, we really enjoyed the show.

Next up is "Ghost" at the Maine State Music Theater!

L


----------



## telracs

Apparently I wrote a review before the Crucible one but never posted it....

Robber Bridegroom

Robber Bridegroom takes place in the Mississippi Territory along the Natchez Trace. The way the show is presented, it's as if the audience has wandered into a barn and is being regaled with the tale of the Robber Bridegroom as enacted by a group of performers. There's an (intentionally) improvised feel to it, with actors using whatever is at hand to tell the story. The plot concerns the title character, Jamie Lockhart (played by Steven Pasquale), who is a gentleman by day, but a robber by night. However, because he "Steals with Style", instead of just robbing a rich planter, he ingratiates himself into the man's life as Jamie, hoping to walk off with all the man's riches as well as his daughter. Unfortunately, said daughter has encountered the bandit in the woods and fallen for him, and neither recognizes the other when they meet in the daylight. Adding to the chaos is the planter's new wife (the hysterical Leslie Kritzer), who wants the girl dead, the dimwitted boy she hires to kill the girl, and a rival bandit traveling with his brother's head in a trunk.

The show was 90 minutes without an intermission, and felt a little long at times. The opening number introducing all the characters went on a bit, and some of the subplots felt unnecessary. While our seats were comfortable (good leg and butt room), we had trouble understanding some of the songs and I think this detracted from our enjoyment.


----------



## crebel

About time you started reviewing shows for us again!  Thanks.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

That was kind of mixed. So is it a thumbs-up or thumbs down? More bad than good or more good than bad?


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> That was kind of mixed. So is it a thumbs-up or thumbs down? More bad than good or more good than bad?


I guess in the end, more good than bad, but a close call.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> About time you started reviewing shows for us again! Thanks.


Some of you may have noticed there has been a gap in reviews. This is not due to a lack of shows being seen, but me pouting and not wanting to post in a vacuum. However, as the writers among us may understand, sometimes the words just keep rolling around the brain until they come out....

Waitress

I'm conflicted about this show. I admire some of the premise, but hate some of the plot. Jessie Mueller plays Jenna, a waitress in a small town diner (maybe a small town, it's a bit hard to tell where the show is set) with a talent for pie making. She is an unhappy, unhealthy and at least emotionally, if not physically, abusive marriage. After finding herself pregnant after a drunken night with hubby, she determines to escape the relationship by entering and winning a pie contest. Most of this aspect of the plot works well for me, Ms. Mueller shows the conflict well, and I could sympathize with her plight and how she was handling that. However, I had issues with the character having an affair with the new OB/GYN in town (the adorable Drew Gehling). I dislike any doctor crossing the patient/doctor boundary, and found it especially creepy for an OB/GYN having sex with a pregnant patient. Also a bit creepy is the relationship between Jenna's coworker Dawn (Kimiko Glen) and her the date she met on-line, the hysterically geeky Chris Fitzgerald as Ogie. At first it seems funny, but his song "Never Getting Rid of Me" is really stalkerish and cause for calling the cops for a restraining order. As if those dysfunctional relationships weren't enough, we also have the third waitress at the diner having an affair with its cook. Both of whom are stated as being married. Keala Settle gets a song to rationalize the affair, but while I could enjoy the song, I can't quite embrace the philosophy that sometimes cheating is okay. At the end, Jenna dumps both the doctor and her husband, and with the deus ex machina of the diner owner leaving her the diner, she starts a new life as a pie maker. Unfortunately, the show jumps a few years from the birth of her daughter to the success of the pie company, and I found myself wondering if Jenna's controlling husband would have just walked away when she told him she didn't love him after the baby was born. Considering some of his behavior during the story, I didn't think he'd be very cooperative.

The main set of production was gorgeous, a wonderful evocation of a diner and its denizens with glass pie cases on both sides of the proscenium. I spent part of the time at the show trying to decipher the names of the pies listed on the diner's menu board, but sitting in the mezzanine, it was difficult. The show's band was frequently on stage, and watching them was a lot of fun. And they are acknowledged as being there, in on scene when a Ogie buys "Pie for everyone", even the band members are handed a slice. During a duet between the Dr. Pomatter and Jenna, the stand up bassist is under a street light upstage. Got to admit, I was watching him more than listening to Mr. Gehling. What was also wonderful was the diversity of the cast, it really looked like a cross-section of humanity, not just one small part of it. All of the acting was excellent, with the performers deeply invested in their characters.

The original cast recording of the show was released digitally last week (the CD comes out July 1st), and I've been listening to it a lot. I like a lot of the songs, even if I find Jessie Mueller's voice a bit wispy on it. I wonder if she is trying to sound like the show's composer, Sara Barielles. But there is one song I didn't like in the show and skip on the recording. A few songs from the show were released on a CD by Ms.Barielles a few months ago, all song by her. There was no context given, and I assumed that a song titled "She Used to be Mine", was a song of Earl's (Jenna's husband), finally realizing the error of his ways. But no, it's sung by Jenna and to me that makes no sense to me. The recording is not entirely suitable for work, due to one song about taking a pregnancy test. I don't think I can post the problematic line with out triggering our filters, but let's just say it's about where you should NOT insert the stick....

As I said at the beginning of this, I'm conflicted about this show. I applaud Jenna's attempts to free herself, and Dawn's (and even Becky's) desires to find love, and can enjoy some of the music and dancing, but there are too many other aspects that make me hesitant in my overall enjoyment of the show.


----------



## telracs

Tuck Everlasting

The cast recording for this was released at the same time as Waitress, but unlike that recording, I can't seem to get through this one. This musical is based on a book that somehow, I've never read. It tells the tale of young Winnie Foster (the very talented Sarah Charles Lewis) who just wants one day of freedom from her stifling mother and grandmother. When the fair comes to town, Winnie decides to escape into the woods owned by her family. Coincidentally (yeah, sure, right), it is the same day that the eponymous Tucks are reuniting. Turns out the Tucks drank from a magic spring and haven't aged for 100 years. The youngest Tuck, Jesse (Andrew Keenan-Bolger) takes a liking to Winnie and brings her home to meet his parents and brother who react with varying degrees of fear and suspicion. Then he persuades her to run away from the Tuck home and spend time at the Fair. There they encounter the "villain" of the piece Terrence Mann's bizarrely costumed and acted "Man in the Yellow Suit." On the periphery of the action are the Constable and his son, trying to track down the missing Winnie. Jesse gives Winnie some of the water from the magic spring, asking that she drink it when she is 17 (his apparent age). The last 10 minutes of the show are a ballet showing us Winnie's life after she makes her decision of what to do with the spring water. While the ballet was beautifully done, it did fit the rest of the show, and I found it an odd addition.

The entire show was gorgeous, the costumes and sets striking and fitting the story. Unfortunately, I found the story boring and the music bland and felt that some wonderful actors were wasted. Carolee Carmelo showed off her normal thrilling voice, but seemed at a loss as to exactly how to portray Mae Tuck. Micheal Park as Angus (Pa) Tuck had almost nothing to do, as his character just seemed tired and bored with life. Robert Lenzi as older brother Miles had one great song, but that was all he had. Andrew Keenan-Bolger came off the best of the Tucks, even if his character was immature and unthinking. A discussed this show with a friend who felt that on the recording Jesse's interactions with the 11 year old Winnie seemed creepy, but while watching the show I didn't feel that. Jesse just seemed to want a friend, a cohort in fun. He wanted Winnie to wait till 17 to drink the water because he understood how limited things would be if she drank it as a child. I enjoyed Fred Applegate and Micheal Wartella as the comic relief of the Constable and son and felt they were the "realest" characters on the stage.

Even though I was bored by the show while seeing it, it has stuck with me. Part of me wishes the ending had been left ambiguous, while part of me is very happy that the gave us a definite resolution, even though WHY Winnie makes her decision is not clear. And I find myself wondering (as I do after anything the deals with offering immortality), why would anyone want to live forever? The Tucks did not have a choice, they didn't know the spring's properties when they drank, and they obviously dealt with it in different ways. Perhaps I would have liked the show more if it had really been about the Tucks and their struggles, instead of a runaway 11 year old encountering them. Or maybe not.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I'd hear that title before but didn't know anything about it. I always had Friar Tuck in my mind. Obviously not.


----------



## telracs

You're a Good Man Charlie Brown

Someone at the York Theatre Company seems to have had an epiphany one day. Since the characters in You're a Good Man Charlie Brown are children, we should cast child actors in the roles. While this sounds like a good idea on paper, it was less than successful in execution. Yes, the Peanuts gang are child sized, but the humor in the strips and the show is not really childish. And it was evident that the young cast did not understand some of the humor of the show, a lot of the jokes fell flat and the pacing was off. One doesn't want to say bad things about kids, but I have to be honest, a couple of the actors in this show were just not good. Joshua Colley was painful to watch as Charlie Brown, with terrible delivery of lines and a voice near to cracking at times. Gregory Diaz as Schroeder was unintelligible most of the time and almost looked like he was suffering from stage fright. Jeremy T. Villas danced well as Linus, but had issues with Linus's hyper-intelligent sound lines. Aidan Gemme was okay as Snoopy, doing well with his big number "Suppertime" and Milly Shapiro was good as Sally. Mais Simpson-Ernst was the best of the cast in the role of Lucy, she seemed to "get" what was going on.

The show is a series of vignettes in the life of Charlie Brown, things that are familiar to the readers of the Peanuts cartoon. They touch on Charlie Brown affection for the "little red-haired girl", Lucy's affection for Schroeder and his for Beethoven, Linus's affection for his blanket, and Snoopy's affection for food. We also get a play by play of an interesting baseball game, Charlie Brown's on-going turmoil with his kite, and a showdown between Snoopy and the Red Baron (a scene that just never works for me). Some of the vignettes are funnier than others, and I have to admit that while a lot of the spoken humor was lost, most of the songs went fairly well. This may be because I know them well, and in some part of my brain I was hearing the last revival cast.

I worried about the staging when we first entered the theater, since the piano took up a lot of space mid-stage. However, they used the piano as a set piece quite well, and I had no quibbles with the set. The effects used in the show were wonderful, especially in the kite flying and blanket dancing scenes. The middle aisle of the theater was used for entrances and exits, which at times was a bit distracting since we were sitting in the back of the house, but it mostly worked well. The costumes were cute, the traditional look based on the look of the strips, each character with their own color and pattern. Snoopy came off worst in this, the floopy ears Mr. Gemme was saddled with looked silly, and his "dog tag" kept reflecting light into the audience.

And what an audience. I guess because it was based on a comic strip, and had children in the cast, people thought it would be entertaining for children. Well, I hope the kids had a good time, because some of us adults could have done without the children answering back to the stage. The show is supposedly being recorded, and as a completist, I may buy it, but for enjoyment of the actual show, I'll stick to the recording of Adam Rapp, Roger Bart, B.D. Wong and Kristin Chenoweth.

The best part of the day for me was the fact that the theater was selling the cast recording to Rothschild and Sons, a production they did last year (see my review here http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,50021.msg3153952.html#msg3153952 )


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Would this have worked with adult actors? Or maybe teens?


----------



## crebel

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Would this have worked with adult actors? Or maybe teens?


It's a really popular show with high school/college/community theater programs. I can't imagine it being done by actual kids.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Would this have worked with adult actors? Or maybe teens?


it worked quite well off broadway and on broadway with adults.


----------



## telracs

The Father

My main reason for going to see this play was to see Frank Langella. And he was worth the price of admission. The play concerns Andre (Mr. Langella) and his relationship with his daughter and her boyfriend. And with reality. The first scene is straightforward, Andre and his daughter Anne having a conversation about him scaring away his caregiver and him insisting she stole from him. In the second scene we once again have Andre and his daughter, but she is now played by a different actress and her backstory and current situation is presented differently. The confusion for the audience continues as Anne's boyfriend appears and again is played by two different actors at different points. And then set pieces start disappearing from the stage. And are we in Andre's apartment with Ann visiting him, or in Ann's apartment where Andre is now living with her and a man named Pierre? By the end of the show, we are left with a bare stage with just a hospital bed, and a confused and child-like Andre being comforted by a nurse who assures him "everything will be alright in a minute". To me this signified that Andre had been in the rest home the whole time and everything we saw was in his memory, and in a minute he would be forgetting his fears and back remembering happy times. I had to take something hopeful from this show, as the 90 minutes preceding were difficult to watch. Mr. Langella captured a dementia patient wonderfully but following someone down that path is painful. Brian Avers as Pierre and Charles Borland (listed as "Man" but playing the alternate Pierre at times) were both good, mostly supportive, but showing the frustration that can come of dealing with a partner's parent's problems. Kathryn Erbe as Ann struck me as odd, she was very stiff and I never the sympathy for Anne that I did for Andre and Pierre.

The show is set in Paris, with references to London, and part of me wishes it had been re-set into NY, and the word apartment was used instead of flat. As for that flat/apartment, the set starts out quite nicely, well furnished and airy. I think the ending might have worked a bit better if the walls were white instead of green, but that's a quibble. In order to perform the disappearing set piece trick, flashing lights were used between scenes. These got annoying at points, as there was nowhere to look to avoid them. Some people who have discussed the show on line said that thought that the lights were meant to symbolize the increasingly erratic behavior of Andre's brain, but sometimes, flashing lights are just flashing lights.

It seems to me that lately Mr. Langella has specialized in playing men losing their faculties (last year's King Lear and now this), but while his characters are declining, he is not and I look forward to whatever he decides to do next on stage.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Most of us will have to go through that with a parent or loved one. Or go through it ourselves.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

telracs said:


> The Father
> 
> My main reason for going to see this play was to see Frank Langella. And he was worth the price of admission.


And won the Tony for his performance.

Betsy


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> The Father
> It seems to me that lately Mr. Langella has specialized in playing men losing their faculties (last year's King Lear and now this), but while his characters are declining, he is not and I look forward to whatever he decides to do next on stage.


In his extremely poignant acceptance speech at the Tony Awards last night, he said something about bringing reality to his role because this is currently his brother's reality.

It has been interesting this morning to revisit your reviews of shows that were featured throughout the Tony Awards last night. Even the brief clips we saw showed how thorough your reviews are. Thanks, telracs.


----------



## telracs

Do I Hear a Waltz?

This was the third of this year's Encores! presentations, and it was the middle one in terms of my enjoyment. It tells the story of an American woman, Leona Samish (an effervescent Melissa Errico) who travels to Venice on her own. While there she has an affair with an Italian shopkeeper and encounters two American couples, one younger and struggling (Sarah Hunt and Claybourne Elder) and one older and prudish (Nancy Opel and Richard Poe). Also on hand is the owner of the hotel where they are staying, the wonderful Karen Ziemba, and a young man who becomes Leona's tour guide. I didn't know the show going in, but knowing that the music was by Richard Rodgers, I hoped for a happy show. Unfortunately, the lyrics are by Stephen Sondheim, and the book by Arthur Laurents, and their depressing point of view is the one that carries the night.

Leona is a confusing character, shy and repressed one moment, then boisterous and outgoing the next. She is judgmental and unforgiving, and ultimately, makes decisions that make her unhappy. The man she falls for, Renato Di Rossi played by the handsome Richard Troxell is another enigma, I never really figured out how much money he has and exactly what he is interested in Leona for. Karen Ziemba's Signora Fioria is the one of the easiest characters to understand, she is a woman making her way alone in Italy and living life on her own terms and trying to enjoy the ride.

All of the acting was wonderful, especially Sarah Stiles as Giovanna, the housemaid who speaks no English. Melissa Errico, Karen Ziemba and Claybourne Elder all had wonderful singing voices and moved well, but Mr. Troxell's singing voice didn't seem to match his speaking voice and left me cold. He was also not helped by staging that had him singing upstage at a couple of points, blocked from view by the musical director. Sarah Hunt's voice was wispy and I couldn't understand a lot of her singing. The costumes were quite pretty, as was the set. And as usual, it was fun to watch a full orchestra on stage.

Normally, I am given tickets to the Friday night performance and the seats in the side section. This time, the co-worker who gives me the tickets needed to use the Friday night ones, and he gave me Wednesday's seats. Nice.... These seats were 10 row and dead center. Spoiled me a little bit, but I'll happily go back to my side seats next year if he is generous to me again.


----------



## telracs

Broadway by the Year, Songs from the 1960s

The coworker who gives me Encores! tickets apparently also has a subscription to the Broadway by the Year concert series, because a couple of weeks ago, I found tickets to this show and next month's on my desk. The series has been going on for a few years, but I have never attended, because the concerts are Monday night, and that can be a difficult day for me to get out early. The concerts used to focus on just one year (hence the title), but last year and this year, they span a decade. While the performers are announced in advance (but always "subject to change"), the song list is not announced which lends a nice air of surprise to the proceedings.

Scott Siegel is credited as creator, writer, director and host. His patter was pretty good, although he did stumble over his script a few times, and I found his need to inject a reference to current fad "Hamilton" a bit annoying and his insistence that every singer take a second bow had things dragging a bit. The singers comprised two men (one tenor and one baritone) and four women. I had never heard of either of the men, but three of the women were familiar. I knew about 80% of the songs performed, and was quite impressed with Cooper Grodin's version of "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" from 1776. Christina Bianco was hysterical doing multiple impressions while singing "Cabaret" and Jeannetete Bayardelle was wonderful in the two songs she got to sing. I did wish for a bit more of her and a bit less of Kerry O'Malley, who while fun, seemed to have every other number. Christiane Noll's soaring soprano was a beautiful as ever, but I felt that she was given songs that were too similar and blended together after a while. The only performer I did not enjoy was the tenor, Scott Coulter, who seemed to be trying too hard. Unfortunately, the names of the trio accompanying the singers isn't listed, because there were a lot of times I was watching them instead of the vocalists.

Oddly enough, not only was this my first Broadway by the Year event, it was also the first time I'd even been in the Town Hall theater. It was small than I expected, but very pretty inside, and I look forward to Songs from the 1970s in a couple of weeks.


----------



## crebel

What were some of the other songs performed?  Would I have been tempted to sing along?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I'm assuming they were all songs from Broadway shows of that decade and not acid rock songs from the 60's.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> What were some of the other songs performed? Would I have been tempted to sing along?


This is from memory and not in order, as there was no song list in the program.

Before the Parade Passes By- Hello Dolly
One Boy- Bye, Bye Birdie
I've Got to Be Me- don't remember what show it's from
On a Clear Day- On a Clear Day
Boy with the Bugle- Mame
Once Upon a Time-?
Rain Song-?
As long as he needs me-Oliver
What Did I Have?-On a Clear Day
Sunrise Sunset- Fiddler

Fireworks
My Cup Runneth Over-I Do, I Do
Greatest Star-Funny Girl
Dear World- Dear World
Anyone Can Whistle- Anyone Can Whistle.
Cabaret
Where Am I Going? 
Molasses to Rum- 1776
Don't Rain on My Parade- Funny Girl
Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In- Hair


----------



## Gertie Kindle

A few familiar songs.


----------



## telracs

Shuffle Along (or the making of the musical sensation of 1921 and all that followed)

This is a musical about the making of a musical. Honestly, I wish that they had just revived Shuffle Along from 1921 and presented that, instead of giving us snippets of numbers from it and shoehorning other songs into the book. One problem with the show in my eyes is that there are just TOO MANY characters to keep track of. There are the songwriting team of Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake (Joshua Henry and Brandon Victor Dixon), their partners in the writing of Shuffle Along, vaudevillians F.E. Miller and Aubrey Lyles (Brian Stokes Mitchell and Billy Porter) and their leading lady, Lottie Gee (Audra McDonald). Also thrown in are some character actresses in the play, played by Adrienne Warren and Amber Iman. And the ensemble for this musical is huge. While it's always great to see a large troupe of dancers, I felt that this show went overboard. Another problem is that this is a show heavy on the narration. I prefer show to tell on the Broadway stage. And because there were so many primary and secondary characters, the last 10 minutes of the show felt like reading an obituary column as all the actors told what happened to their characters after the show. Also unnecessary was a brief but annoying subplot/story telling regarding a musician in the orchestra of Shuffle Along and whether one of the Gershwin brothers stole a song from him. Even their version of the story seems pretty clear it was not stolen, and the theory has been disproved, and they had been told early on that it was false and had time to cut it, but left it and that irked me.

At times the musical reminded me of 42nd Street, another show about putting on a show, especially since a pivotal number in both takes place in a train station. But where 42nd Street told the story of Betty Sawyer and Julian Marsh and all the rest, Shuffle Along tells us about Sissle and Blake etc, and does not really give us much of a chance to connect with them. Brian Stokes Mitchell did well as Miller, doing the bulk of the narration. Billy Porter was extremely fey as Lyles, to the point where when he is discussing his later life and mentions a wife, he then says "Yes, I was married. Surprised?" I found this a bizarre choice. Mssrs. Henry and Dixon were fine as Sissle and Blake, with Mr. Dixon doing well against Ms. McDonald in their romantic scenes. Ms. McDonald recently announced she was pregnant, and is at that awkward stage where looking at her you're not sure if she's put on weight or is carrying a child. I think some adjustments to her costumes are needed. Crebel and I had a discussion about this when Ms. McDonald and the company appeared on the Tonys. Crebel did not think she looked pregnant, and I did. Maybe because I knew she was and Crebel didn't. Ms. Warren and Ms. Iman each played two characters, and did great jobs differentiating them. Ms.Warren has a high soprano voice that got a bit annoying (I can't tell you the song name, as there is no songlist in the Playbill, and my computer is not liking the Broadway database website tonight). The costumes were gorgeous, especially Ms.McDonald's and there were a number of costume changes. The set was not as successful, it was a bit bare-bones, and the use of projections to name each scene made me feel like they were evoking vaudeville, not Broadway. The choreography in the show was spectacular (and it deserved the Tony over Hamilton for that), and was the most enjoyable part of the show for me. Ms. McDonald is scheduled to leave the show shortly (this was a pre-arranged leave to do Lady Day in London before she found out she was expecting), and I somehow suspect the show will not survive her departure.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Loved _42nd Street_ the movie. And you know I love great dancing.


----------



## telracs

American Psycho

Note: This show has already closed.

I have never read the novel or seen the movie on which this musical is based. The friend I took to see it was familiar with both and found this an acceptable adaptation.

Benjamin Walker is a very buff Patrick Bateman (he gets to show off most of his well toned body for a long period of the show), and while the character is intended to be unsympathetic, he just never clicked with me. As I said, I don't know the movie, so I don't know if it is as narration heavy as this musical was, but after a while, I got really tired of him addressing the audience. His opening narration outlining his daily routine garnered some laughs that were probably not intended. It is an ode to 1980's products and while in the 1980s and 1990s would have shown how "in" he was, now it just sounds ridiculously dated.

I found a lot of the acting stiff, and the characters were all one-dimensional. The best actor on stage I felt was Drew Moerlein, playing Paul Owen, Bateman's nemesis and victim. The set was a stark, almost painfully so, white, with set pieces moved in and only turntables. The costumes were nothing special, and even though there is a song extolling the virtues of a number of designers, the costumes themselves didn't really evoke any one person. And they didn't really seem specific to the 1980s, I'm sorry, but to my eye, a man's suit designed in the eighties looks the same as one designed last year. The songs were heavy on electronic and synthesizer beats (apparently to the point where if the cast misses a cue, they can't stop and restart).

The ending of the show (and I'm told of the movie and the book) is ambiguous, leaving it open to our interpretation whether Bateman is really a mass murderer or if the murders just took place in his head. I don't much care, and I find it quite funny how "sure" people are that their interpretation is the correct one. [to quote another show, "very quickly what he will fight to prove that what he does not know is so....."]


----------



## crebel

I looked up American Psycho after reading your review as I have never seen the movie or read the book either.  The genre is listed as 
"Transgressive fiction, postmodern novel, satire".  After reading your review and the synopsis of the movie and the book, I can unequivocally say I have no desire to read or see it in any form!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

crebel said:


> I looked up American Psycho after reading your review as I have never seen the movie or read the book either. The genre is listed as
> "Transgressive fiction, postmodern novel, satire". After reading your review and the synopsis of the movie and the book, I can unequivocally say I have no desire to read or see it in any form!


Have no desire to see anything with "psycho" in the title. I was about 17 when the original Psycho came out (assuming this is related to that movie). My Dad took me to see it in the drive-in. As soon as we got to the shower scene, I dove under the dashboard and didn't come up until the movie was over.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Have no desire to see anything with "psycho" in the title. I was about 17 when the original Psycho came out (assuming this is related to that movie). My Dad took me to see it in the drive-in. As soon as we got to the shower scene, I dove under the dashboard and didn't come up until the movie was over.


Gertie, no, this is not related to the Alfred Hitchcock movie. It's a completely different story, based on a book titled "American Psycho". However, if you're not a fan of blood, this would be a show to avoid.


----------



## telracs

Two trips to the Papermill Theater

Pump Boys and Dinettes

We saw this show back in April. I was going to write it up when I did my "Waitress" review, as both shows are set in diners, but got two wrapped up in other stuff in that review, so put it on the back burner. So I'm going to write it up now, along with a review of West Side Story, seen in June.

This show is a revue, with no really story line. It takes place in a diner and gas station on "Highway 57, somewhere between Frog Level and Smyrna." To me, Smyrna implies Georgia, and since the actors affect Southern accents and dream of driving to Florida, I'm going to stick with that in my head. The cast comprises 4 men (the Pump Boys) and 2 women (the Dinettes). The women are supposed to be sisters Prudie and Rhetta Cupp, but Julie Foldesi and Alysha Umprhess don't really like that much alike. Julie is thin and blonde and perky, while Alysha is red-headed, zaftig and spunky. From what little story we are told, Rhetta is dating one of the Pump Boys (don't ask me which one at this remove) and some of the songs in the revue address their relationship. The Pump Boys are also the on-stage band, with the girls helping on percussion (and if I remember correctly, accordion at one point). Each of the cast gets a moment to shine. My favorite was James Ostrowski as L.M. singing a song listed as "T.N.D.P.W.A.M." If you want to know the full title, respond to this thread with your favorite female country singer.

The set was very nice, holding its own nicely next to the diner in "Waitress". The costumes were functional, pretty but not fantastic. The Pump Boy band was great, especially the bass player, who did some acrobatics with the stand up bass that were very impressive. All in all, the show was fun, a bit short, but a nice way to spend an afternoon.

West Side Story

My sister LOVES West Side Story, so we take any chance to see it. We were disappointed in the last Broadway revival, for a few reasons. One was the blandness of the actor playing Tony, second was the lack of chemistry between him and his Maria, and lastly, due to someone's idiotic idea to change some lyrics and dialogue from English into Spanish. They just sounded wrong. And changing iconic lyrics like "I Feel Pretty" was like putting a clown nose on the Statue of Liberty. But enough of that failure, on to Papermill's success.

Matt Doyle and Belinda Allyn as Tony and Maria were wonderful. Natalie Cortez danced, sang and vamped as Anita wonderfully, and she was great paired with German Alexander's Bernardo. My sister and I split on our feelings about Mikey Winslow as Riff. I really liked him, but my sister didn't. I think part of that had to with the fact that he was smaller than the other guys and had a BLOND dye job that probably would not have worked on the West Side of NYC during the gang wars. That is something else that requires a suspension of disbelief, if gang guys were built like these dancers, the real gangs would have eaten them for lunch.

The dancing is a prime player in this show, from the very first notes, to the dance at the gym, to the incredible "Somewhere" ballet in the second act. And this cast nails it. All of the dancing was beautiful, although I did feel the ballet went on a little long (but that's just my tolerance for ballet). My sister did not like the choreography in "Gee Officer Krupke" finding it too sexual. She doesn't like it when they change anything from how she saw it the first time, and I don't argue with her. I found it a bit annoying, but not that bad. The scene that bothers me is Anita at the drugstore. Probably due to "standards and practices" rules, the movie portrays the scene more mildly than does the play. Here it is clear that the Jets sexually assault Anita and I find that unnecessary and makes the Jets even less sympathetic than they could be. There was one slip during "America" when one of the ensemble took a tumble, but she got up quickly and didn't miss a beat. Kudos to her. And to the whole cast for wiping 2009 out of my head and leaving me with a great version of West Side Story to remember.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I've never seen the play, but I saw the movie when it first came out. Really impressive. I know I would be upset if they changed the lyrics or any scene having seen it multiple times.


----------



## telracs

Himself and Nora

At the Broadway of the 1960s concert, I saw a CD for this show, so I investigated it. And when I got a discount for it, I bit. I thought it would be a two person show, just James Joyce and his wife/muse Nora, but there are 3 other cast members who are saddled with multiple parts, costumes and accents.

The story is told in one of least favorite ways, a flashback. We start at Joyce's (Matt Bogart) death, with a priest (Zachary Prince who also plays the Joyce's son Giorgio) in attendance. Nora (Whitney Bashor) storms in, berating Joyce for not waiting 15 more minutes to die and Joyce springs back to life and we flashback to Joyce's first experience with death, that of his mother (Lianne Marie Dobbs) and his dissatisfaction with the Catholic church. Next we see him meeting hotel chambermaid Nora, with whom he enters a lustful and lusty relationship. For some reason, the pair decides to leave Ireland and go off to the even more restrictive country of Italy, where they have to pretend to be married, and where Nora bears two children and James starts to have vision issues. There is an enjoyable, though illogical patter song listing cities and counties of Ireland while Joyce teaches an English class. Eventually, Joyce comes to the attention of poet Ezra Pound (Michael McCormick) and the publisher Harriet Weaver (in a ridiculous vaudeville-esque number) and the family moves to Paris. Mr. Prince and Ms. Weaver also play the Joyce children and have a song about how difficult it is to be the children of a famous author.

Mr. Bogart was a handsome if wooden Joyce, with Ms. Bashor an enjoyable Nora. The ensemble did yeoman duty with quick changing of characters, costumes and accents. But in the end, the show did not really engage me and I found the sexuality over the top.


----------



## telracs

A Bunch of revisits

I have been trying to see mostly new shows this year, but sometimes, one has to revisit shows already seen.

Ave Q has an interesting history. It started off-Broadway, moved to Broadway (winning a Tony award), and has now moved back off-Broadway to New World Stages. The theater ticket club I belong do frequently has discounts for it, and my friend Kandis had never seen it, so off we went. We got great seats and had a great time. I've described the show as what would happen if the Sesame Street puppets had grown up. We have Princeton, a new graduate who moves into an apartment on Ave Q and meets Rod and Nicky old friends and roommates. Also living on Ave Q are Kate Monster and Trekkie Monster, who are NOT related even though both are monsters. There are 3 human residents of the street, Brian, his fiance Christmas Eve, and the superintendent of the buildings, Gary Coleman (yes, the character is supposed to be the former child star, and is usually played by a woman in order to get his high pitched voice). The show is definitely not for children, it depicts drinking, homelessness, homosexuality and full frontal puppet nudity and sex and the lyrics are often raunchy and politically incorrect. But for open minded adults, it's loads of fun.

I saw the most recent revival of "The King and I" when the original cast was in and found it less enjoyable than the last revival. While there have been a string of Kings in this production, it was only recently that Kelli O'Hara was replaced by Marin Mazzie. The chance to see Ms. Mazzie back on Broadway after cancer treatment was irresistible (especially with a discount). And this time I took my sister who very much enjoyed the show. Ms. Mazzie made a more mature and worldly Anna, and her voice was in great shape. She played well off the new King, Daniel Dae Kim, who was an excellent king, and who unexpectedly, has a very good singing voice.

On Monday, June 27th, I got an e-mail that a bunch of shows were offering 40 dollar tickets for the July 4th weekend. One of them was "She Loves Me", which I really wanted to see again. I mentioned this to a co-worker, who asked if she could come. So three tickets were purchased for the Sunday matinee. On Tuesday, she asked if I could get 2 more. I gave her the 3 already purchased, and asked my sister if she wanted to see "She Loves Me" or one of the other shows that were discounting. She picked "Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time," so I got us tickets for that for Sunday, and then bought myself a single ticket for "She Loves Me" on Saturday. The show was as wonderful as it was the first time (see review here. ) and I once again walked out with a smile on my face. I wish I could have walked out with a cast recording, but even the theater doesn't have them yet.

"The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" was the show my sister wanted to see on the discount this weekend. Unfortunately, the 40 dollar seats for this were really bad, but there were good seats available at a higher (but not full) price, so I opted for 2 on the aisle in the orchestra. The current male lead was not as good as the original, but was still excellent. The rest of the cast was wonderful, the staging incredible. I knew when the parts that were too intense for me would come up, and was able to look away which made things a bit easier to take. I was quite tired, and definitely zoned out at points, but I'm glad we revisit the show.

As some people may know, this year's obsession for me has been the musical "Daddy Long Legs". Unfortunately, my obsession was apparently not shared, and the show posted its closing notice at the end of May. June 6th was the final performance, and I bought a ticket to be there. It was a very touching last show, with an interesting coincidence. During the opening number, the character of Jerusha Abbott bemoans the fact that the first Monday of every month is a perfectly awful day. Well, June 6th was the first Monday of the month, and for Megan McGuiness and her co-star/husband Adam Halpin, and the audiences who had loved the show, it was indeed an awful day. Ms.McGuiness and Mr.Halpin gave wonderful performances and Ms.McGuiness had everyone in tears after the show when she read a short speech. I will miss this show, but am glad I have a cast recording to keep the memories going.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Daddy Long Legs is one of my favorite Astaire movies. 

You're lucky to see so many live shows, especially musicals.


----------



## telracs

Othello

Earlier this year, I saw "The Merchant of Venice" at the American Sephardi Foundation. At that time, they announced they would be doing a version of "Othello" in June. I kept an eye out for a deep discount, and once again, scored a ticket for 5 dollars. After "Merchant" I knew that I would be getting a scaled down version, with songs by the lead actor, David Serero thrown in. And that's what I got. A ninety minute version of the play, with a couple of "Judeo-Arabic" songs, and an aria from Verdi's Othello. The female costumes were Moroccan inspired, and poor Desdomona did a belly dance at one point. Mr. Serero has a wonderful voice, but also has a thick accent, making his Othello difficult to understand. Christopher Romero Wilson was excellent as Iago (bad crossthought, I good easily see him doing the parrot of that name from Aladdin). The rest of the cast was okay, nothing spectacular and the costumes were also just okay.

While I went into this knowing exactly what I'd get, I don't think everyone else in the audience did. I overheard a couple as I was walking to the subway, and they had apparently been expecting Verdi's opera and were extremely disappointed. The seating was general admission, and the rest of my row appeared to be a group of high school students. They did not seem engaged and definitely wanted out of there. Annoyingly, one can't get out right away, because Mr. Serero spent a good 15 minutes introducing the rest of the cast, and then going on about his inspiration for the show. Then he introduced the director of the Sephardi Foundation, but kept interrupting the gentleman, making it even harder to escape. I think if Mr. Serero announces he's going to be doing more Shakespeare, I'm going to pass.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

At least you only paid $5.


----------



## telracs

Broadway by the Year-the 1970s

This concert took place on June 20th, the longest day of the year. So it sort of made sense for the show to start with "Here Comes the Sun" from Beatlemania sung by Kerry Butler. The artist list in the program lists 5 women (Farah Alvin, Kerry Butler, Rachel Bay Jones, Maxine Linehan and Morgan Weed) and 2 men (Robert Creighton, and Noah Racey). However there were 2 more men present, Jeremy Benton and an African American singer whose name I can't remember. Mr. Racey and Mr. Benton only did one number each, and I think that Mr. Benton was brought in to do "You're Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile" with Mr. Creighton because Mr. Racey didn't get there in time. And I wish the African American gentleman had been given something else to sing besides songs from the "Black" revues that sprouted up in the 1970s. I had recently seen Morgan Weed in "American Psycho", so it was nice seeing her again, but I wish she'd picked a different dress. She sang a song I absolutely love, called "I Remember Sky". It is originally from a TV musical called "Evening Primrose" but was apparently done on Broadway in a Stephen Sondheim revue. As expected, there were some Andrew Lloyd Weber songs, two from Jesus Christ Superstar, and Don't Cry for Me Argentina as the Act 1 finale. I enjoyed the first act better quite a bit, and the second act started strong and kept going strong through Mr. Racey's tap dance to "I Can't Buy You Anything But Love." But then it got sappy. I know this is going to sound odd, but I am NOT a fan of the song "Tomorrow" and the decision to present it a capella and unamplified was annoying. Then we had another sappy song, "Home" from the Wiz, and the show ended with the sappiest of all Broadway songs (and again one that I dislike) "What I did for love." I would have liked something happier to end the night, but I can't complain, since most of the show was wonderful, and the tickets were free..

Song list (not necessarily complete or in order)

Here Comes the Sun
There are Worse Things I Could Do
Your Feets too Big
Sleepy Man
You're Never Fully Dressed without a Smile
Ordinary Woman
I don't know how to love him
Gethsemane
Dont' Cry for Me Argentina

West End Ave
Mr. Cellophane
I Remember Sky
Stormy Monday Blues
Send in the Clowns
I Can't Buy you anything but love
Tomorrow
Home
What I did for Love.


----------



## crebel

I'd MUCH rather hear "What I Did For Love" than "Send In The Clowns"...


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I know some of these songs. I'm guessing those I don't know are from Broadway shows.


----------



## telracs

The Color Purple

I had little desire to see this show, as I enjoyed the original and didn't really feel I needed to see a revival. Especially when staged by a director that I don't exactly love. But... I had an open Sunday, and a good discount, and it was the only show of all the Tony nominated musicals revivals I hadn't seen this season (if you're interested, I saw all but one of the best new musical nominees on Broadway, and the one I didn't, I'd seen at the Public Theater last year), so off I went. I scored a decent seat, slightly left, last row of the front mezzanine, on the aisle.

For those of you who have never heard of the Color Purple (the book or the movie), the show tells the story of Celie (Cynthia Erivo) a young woman in Georgia from 1909 to 1949. Although you wouldn't be able to tell that there is any passage of time, Ms. Erivo does not "age" at all during the show, nor does anyone else (more on that later). After giving birth to two illegitimate children, Celie is given away by her Pa to Mister (Isaiah Jackson), a cruel man who is in love with singer Shug Avery (Heather Headley). Along the way, we also spend time with Mister's son Harpo and his wife Sophia (Kyle Scatliffe and Danielle Brooks). Celie has a sister, Nettie (played by an understudy the day I saw it and I don't have her name) who Mister bans from the house and eventually ends up in Africa with Celie's children (sorry, I have always found that coincidence a bit much). Eventually, Celie finds her own inner strength, leaves Mister, outlives Pa, and finds a life for herself. She even gets to see Nettie and the children in the end, thanks to a reformed Mister.

One of the reasons I went to see the show was Cynthia Erivo's performance on the Tony Awards. Man, that woman can sing. Unfortunately, while I loved her singing, I found her acting wooden. And I felt she was rushing her lines and stepping on other people's lines. Isaiah Jackson was great as Mister, as usual, the actress playing Sofia (it's the best part) stole the show at points. But while the singing was wonderful, and most of the acting good, all the actors were hampered by John Doyle's direction. As he has in the past, he keeps his actors distant from each other, even to the point having two people having a conversation standing one in front of the other, with both facing the audience. While this staging might work to show Celie's emotional distance from other people at the beginning, it distanced me from the scenes that should have been close and loving between Harpo and Sofia and Celie and Shug and Celie and Nettie. Another reason I went to see the show now was to see Heather Headley. While her voice is still as powerful as ever, she looked almost anorexic, and I was scared she really would collapse during her big number. There is a spark between her and Ms. Erivo, which would have worked wonderfully if not for the awful staging. The ensemble of the show does great work, especially during the second act opener "African Homeland" when Celie reads Nettie's letter. However, Mr. Doyle apparently didn't want to spring for child actors, and Celie's children are played by adult members of the ensemble, which grated on my nerves. Especially since they poor actors were in the same outfits in Africa and when they finally meet their mom. There are minimal costume changes for any of the players, until late in the second act, when most of the town adopts "Miss Celie's Pants".

The set (credited to Mr. Doyle) is also bizarre. All of the action takes place on a series of wooden platforms. The upstage wall is also wooden, with chairs hanging from it. Why chairs? I have no idea. There are no set pieces other than chairs taken from the wall which makes it difficult to tell where we are and when we are. There are few props, except for some baskets, and some gorgeous blankets used during "African Homeland."

The completist part of me is happy that I saw this, but another part of me wishes I'd stayed home and slept in.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I saw the movie (Oprah Winfrey was outstanding), but I don't remember it being a musical.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> I saw the movie (Oprah Winfrey was outstanding), but I don't remember it being a musical.


the movie is not a musical. there have been a number of shows that are now musicals based on non-musical movies.


----------



## telracs

Hadestown

Hadestown is a version of the Eurydice/Orpheus, Hades/Persephone stories reset in a New Orleans jazz milieu. Poet Orpheus finds his muse in the beautiful Eurydice, but although he claims that nature will clothe, fed and nurture them, when summer ends the two are starving and Eurydice finds herself taken in by the powerful and charismatic Mr.Hades. Things are not as wonderful in Hadestown as she thought they would be, and when Orpheus comes for her, they are allowed to leave thanks to the intercession of Hades' wife, Persephone. A recent modern version of the tale called "Jasper in Deadland" gave us a happy ending, but this version sticks to the original, and the lovers don't end up together.

This show is based on a concept album by Anais Mitchell, which they were selling at the theater. Ms. Mitchell's original is a bit shorter and the songs are in a different order, but it is an excellent CD [see below for link]. The narrator of the piece is Hermes (Chris Sullivan who does a wonderful job), looking like a cross between a hobo and a street performer. He is aided by the Fates (Lulu Fall, Jessie Shelton, Shaina Taub) who not only sing, but play instruments during the show. I noticed something interesting about the Fates, each of them had something on their costume to denote which Fate (Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos) they were. I have been a fan of Patrick Page for years, and his Hades was seductive and dangerous. And he seemed at times to be pulling that bass voice right out of the ground itself. Amber Gray's Persephone was fun, but she seemed a bit careworn for the goddess of spring. Weakest of the cast were Orpheus (Damon Daunno) and Eurydice (Nabiyah Be). While the two had excellent chemistry, I found both their voices extremely grating. Miss Be's voice was a high girlish soprano that went right through me. Mr. Daunno reminded me of the lead singer of the band "Train", but not as good.

The costumes were pretty basic, and not evocative of any era. There were some nice little touches, Peresphone was in a dress with a floral design and carried a bouquet of flowers, and as I mentioned above, the Fates each had a symbol of their character. The orchestra was visible at all times and it was fun watching them.

The theater was redesigned for this show, with the normal seats and stage taken out and a series of risers put in surrounding the central playing area. The audience was seated on wooden chairs. There was a cushion on the seat, but I moved it to between my back and the seat to give me some support. There were walkways between the "rows" and sections of the audience, and the actors moved around the theater quite a bit. I liked having Patrick Page walk right by me the first time, but at other times the movement was distracting.

The songs worked well in the context of the show, and a few of them were quite enjoyable. The young man sitting next to me felt that the show (and one song in particular) took on a new meaning in this era of Donald Trump's candidacy. I can understand how a song about building a wall could evoke thoughts of Mr. Trump, but I feel that it was more what the audience member was inferring, and not what Ms. Mitchell and NYTW were implying.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Lot's wife, Eurydice ... cautionary tales about not looking back.


----------



## telracs

Runaways

This show was a part of NY City Center's Off-Broadway Encores! season. Oddly enough, it actually played on Broadway, so I am surprised they decided to do it as part of their summer series. The show is based on interviews by Elizabeth Swados of runaway children in NY in the 1970s. There is no "story", we don't follow any one particular runaway long enough to find out what happens to them, and I kept wondering why this large (the production used a cast of 25) was all in one place at one time to talk to us. I also felt that some of the cast was under-used, while others where given too much to do. And to put it bluntly, the show was depressing. There was no uplifting take-away, no rescue of the children, no hint that anything will get better. Or that we could make things better. I also found it disturbing that a lot of the kids were shown as having mental health issues, I know it's always been true that there have always been cracks in the system, but the way this show presents things those cracks seemed as wide as the Grand Canyon.

City Center casting picked a talented group of young people to populate this world. A couple of them I have seen before (one of them was Snoopy in the York Theatre's "Your a Good Man Charlie Brown)". And it was also a diverse cast. There were Caucasian, African-American, Latino and Asian children. There were actors clearly portraying gay or bisexual characters. There was one actor whose gender was indeterminate. Most interesting to me were two girls who were using ASL. One of them also spoke, but one only signed. The backstory given to her was that she couldn't communicate with her parents and they couldn't communicate with her,so she ran away. I found myself watching her during the ensemble numbers to see if I could follow along with her signing. Unlike the recent Deaf West "Spring Awakening", her signing was closer to English. She had one "monologue" where she signed everything and the interpretation was projected. The projectionist was a bit behind her, so it was a bit odd.

Since this was an Encores! production, with a short rehearsal time, most of the performers had their scripts in hand for most of the show. I was sitting in the 5th row and could see that each of them had personalized their books, which I thought was a nice touch. The costumes were as varied as the actors and the set consisted of a number of sofas on a bare stage that looked like something out of warehouse. I found a couple of the songs memorable, but there are a couple too many reprises, and a couple of false endings that confused things. All in all, I think I'd give Encores! an A for effort, but the show itself gets a D for being such a downer.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Too depressing!


----------



## telracs

Fully Committed

Jesse Tyler Ferguson is probably known to most people thanks to his stint on "Modern Family," but before he got into TV, he had a couple of great roles on Broadway. In this new show, he has something like 30 roles. He plays Sam, a reservation agent in the basement of a new,hot NY restaurant. Not only does voice Sam, but he also does EVERYONE Sam talks to. This includes a horde of people trying to get tables at the restaurant, the rest of the workers upstairs, the chef everyone fears, as well as Sam's father and brother, his theatrical agent and a "friend" who is up for the same part that Sam just auditioned to play. Mr. Ferguson does a great job differentiating between the characters, switching his tone and body language wonderfully. The show gets a bit repetitious and I found myself fidgeting quite a bit. There is a stretch where Sam goes out of the office to clean a restroom, and while I understand giving the actor a rest, I was definitely losing focus. Sam starts out down-trodden, and on the lowest rung of the social ladder, but as things progress, events turn in his favor and he ends up on top, and able to go home to Indiana for Christmas. I was glad for the happy ending, but ultimately, I didn't care enough about Sam to be rooting for him.


----------



## crebel

A one-man show with 50-zillion characters?  Sounds confusing. lol


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> A one-man show with 50-zillion characters? Sounds confusing. lol


i think i said 30 characters....

and as i said he does a great job changing up his voice and body language. there was one instance where Sam addresses someone as sir and gets corrected to madam which didn't really work.


----------



## crebel

telracs said:


> i think i said 30 characters....
> 
> and as i said he does a great job changing up his voice and body language. there was one instance where Sam addresses someone as sir and gets corrected to madam which didn't really work.


Takes real talent to differentiate that many characters with voice and body language. I think Robin Williams was the best I've seen at that.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

He's been a judge on SYTYCD. Never liked the way he slobbered over the young male dancers.


----------



## Leslie

Busy theater time for me!

So far this summer we have seen *Ghost* (very good) and *Evita* (excellent) at Maine State Music Theater. Next week we see *Carmen* (Port Opera) at the Merrill Auditorium.

Then I am off to London where I will see *Kinky Boots* and *Groundhog Day*. Return home to the US and see *Fiddler on the Roof* at MSMT. Phew!

L


----------



## telracs

Leslie said:


> Busy theater time for me!
> 
> So far this summer we have seen *Ghost* (very good) and *Evita* (excellent) at Maine State Music Theater. Next week we see *Carmen* (Port Opera) at the Merrill Auditorium.
> 
> Then I am off to London where I will see *Kinky Boots* and *Groundhog Day*. Return home to the US and see *Fiddler on the Roof* at MSMT. Phew!
> 
> L


I want to hear about ground hog day, a bit more then just a one or two word description, please...


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Love London theater. They do so much with so little.


----------



## crebel

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Love London theater. *They do so much with so little.*


Would you elaborate what you mean by that, Gertie? How is London theater different in what or who they have to work with?


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> I want to hear about ground hog day, a bit more then just a one or two word description, please...


Will do. I may actually see a show that you haven't seen, or at least, before you have seen it! (If it makes its way to Broadway, which seems iffy, depending on what you read!).

L


----------



## Gertie Kindle

crebel said:


> Would you elaborate what you mean by that, Gertie? How is London theater different in what or who they have to work with?


It's been a long time since I've been there . But the two shows no make that three shows, that I saw used very minimal sets and made the most of what they did have. I especially loved the Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford . When the good duke came out of his cave, he came up from the floor, and each person that came in behind and lifted another piece of the flooring away. That was just one scene. The rest of them were equally as well done.


----------



## crebel

Thanks, Gertie.  We saw 'The Producers' in London in 2005 (can't remember the name of the theater right now) and there was nothing minimalist about the venue or the production.  Well, the air conditioning was minimalist, as in nonexistent, and it was during an unusual heat wave.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

crebel said:


> Thanks, Gertie. We saw 'The Producers' in London in 2005 (can't remember the name of the theater right now) and there was nothing minimalist about the venue or the production. Well, the air conditioning was minimalist, as in nonexistent, and it was during an unusual heat wave.


Well, it was much longer ago than that.


----------



## telracs

The Merchant of Venice

This play is often described as "difficult". I think part of this is because no one knows what Shakespeare's intent was in writing it. We do not know if lines are meant to be serious or jokes, literal or puns. We do not know what Shakespeare's feelings towards Jews were or how ******* and Antonio were originally portrayed. So, every person reading the play filters it through their own life experiences. And when we watch it on stage or film, we get the director's vision. To me, this director's vision was dark, and unfocused.

The play is titled "The Merchant of Venice" but poor Antonio gets short shrift in this production even though he really does have some great lines and actions and Dominic Mafham does well in the part. Everyone seems to gravitate to ******* who honestly, I would call the villain of the piece, but who has become the one most people feel for. And we do feel for Jonathan Pryce's *******. Even before he has a line, the character is punched, kicked and spit upon. The abuse continues throughout the play and I found it a bit over the top.

The story has a number of plotlines and a lot of characters. The best known is ******* lending money to Antonio and demanding "a pound of flesh" as the payment if Antonio defaults. But the money isn't even FOR Antonio. It is for Antonio's friend Bassiano (Dan Frendenburgh), who needs it to doll himself up to woo Portia (a very stiff Rachel Pickup). However, Portia cannot chose her own husband, she is bound by a promise to her father to marry whoever picks the right casket out of three. Two subplots deal with members of *******'s household, his servant Launelot Gobbo (the hysterical Stefan Adegbola) who uses two audience members as his conscience and the fiend on his shoulder to decide if he should leave *******'s employ, and *******'s daughter Jessica (Mr. Pryce's daughter Phoebe) who runs away with a young friend of Antonio and Bassiano, the absolutely adorable Andy Apollo as Lorenzo. Of course, Bassiano picks the right casket (after we have watched two other men pick the wrong ones), but then leaves Portia to help Antonio in his court case with *******. Portia, who conveniently is related to a famous "doctor" (read lawyer), masquerades as male and saves the day. As a fee, the doctor manages to wheedle a ring from Bassiano, the one Portia made him swear never to remove. Since this is technically one of Shakespeare's comedies, Portia and Bassiano (and his friend Gratiano and her maid Nerissa) end up happily. Whether Jessica and Lorenzo are happy at the end is subject to interpretation. That is where Shakespeare ends the play, with the couples all exiting together, and Antonio's fortunes returned. But director Jonathan Munby decided to tack on an epilogue, where we watch ******* being baptized as Jessica sings a Hebrew lamentation.

Both this ending and a carnival-like opening made the show run extremely long. And neither one really had basis in the text. And the prologue confused the guy sitting next to me. He pulled out a paperback copy of the play and then said to his wife, "I don't mind it, but I don't understand the point of it". I was really bored at the beginning, and really would have liked the show to have ended on a happy note. I also could have lived without the background music and interpolated singing that made things hard to understand. Actually, I had a number of issues understanding the actors. I kept closing my eyes and screwing up my ears in vain attempts to follow dialogue. This is only the second time I have been in this theater (more on my first visit later), so I don't know if was the acoustics or the actors.

Jonathan Pryce was a subdued and self-contained ******* and I found his acting excellent. Mafham and Frendenburgh was good as Antonio and Bassiano, but I found their casting a bit odd. Both men were considerably older than the actors playing Lorenzo, Gratiano and the rest of their friends. Phoebe Pryce's Jessica was an enigma (what were her feelings about Lorenzo and becoming a Christian?) and Pickup's Portia was a whiny spoiled child with a really annoying voice. Dorothea Myer-Bennett was hysterical as Portia's maid, and as I said, Stefan Adegbola was hysterical as Gobbo. Christopher Logan and Giles Terera was both fun as the two unsuccessful suitors

The set was striking but distracting. The upstage wall was wooden, with small openings in it. There seemed to be torches or something behind the wall, and I kept finding my eyes drawn to the flickering. The costumes were gorgeous and probably the best part of the show. I have now seen three productions of this play, and I think I'll skip it if it ever comes around again. Unless, as with this one, I'm drawn in by the casting.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

It always amazes me how many plays you go to see.


----------



## telracs

Lincoln Center Festival- Kanze Noh

A couple of weeks ago, I got into work to find an envelope with tickets on my desk, and a note to check my e-mail. One of our manger's father had passed away and he had to fly back to Texas and could not use the tickets he had bought for a performance of the Kanze Noh troupe from Japan.

According to Wikipedia No is "a major form of classical Japanese musical drama that has been performed since the 14th century. Developed by Kan'ami and his son Zeami, it is the oldest major theatre art still regularly performed today." The performance was very stylized and deliberate, and at points, very boring. It was performed in Japanese with English supertitles, and they were repetitive at times.

The company imported a full Noh stage, which was set on the Rose Theater's stage. Normally Noh seating is in the 3/4 round, but this was done as a normal proscenium production. When we entered, the stage was bare, and the house lights were up. When the show started, the lights were dimmed, but not to normal theater darkness. The performers all enter slowly, the "band" first, and then the chorus and the actors. The actors have an interesting gait, it is almost like skating. At the end of the first portion of the show, all the actors and then the chorus and the musicians filed off-stage. This caused some confusion, and people thought it was intermission, and started going out. But there was a second story, and people scrambled back to their seats.

The troupe was performing different pieces each night. The night we went we saw 2 Noh (Sumida Gawa and Shakkyo) and one kyogen (Busshi). The kyogen is a comedic piece, meant to break up the gravity of the Noh. And it was quite funny and the best part of the night, even if the ending was a bit abrupt....

Sumida Gawa (in English Sumida River), the first piece of the evening tells the story of a ferry operator, a monk and a mad-woman. The monk arrives at the Sumida ferry and wants to cross. The ferry operator, seeing someone else coming, asks him to wait, as it is dangerous to cross twice. The person coming is a woman (played by a man in a mask) who, because she is carrying a bamboo branch, the ferryman knows to be insane. He baits her for this insanity, but she maintains her dignity and he realizes that she is/was a woman of stature. She appears to be looking for a lost child, stolen by slave traders. As the trio crosses the river, the ferryman relates a sad tale to the monk, about a boy in the possession of slavers who died and was buried by the river, crying for his mother. Once the ferry lands, the operator realizes the woman is the boys mother and takes her to the grave site. A ghost appears but the mother can not touch it. Eventually dawn comes and the ghost vanishes, leaving only tall grass behind. Was the ghost real, or just a figment of a poor woman's imagination? As I said above, this piece was very slow and repetitious. The friend I was with said "I guess I'm too American for this", and I think that might have been part of the problem for both of us.

The second piece, Busshi (aka the Fake Sculptor) was a two man comedy piece. It concerns a country yokel who goes to Kyoto to buy a statue of the Buddha. He runs into a con man who convinces him that he can carve the sculptor in 24 hours. When the yokel returns, the con man sends him around the corner to see the statue, which is really the con man in a mask. The bumpkin goes back and forth between statue and sculptor a number of times, asking the sculptor to change things, and eventually realizing it's a fake and chasing the sculptor off the stage. It was really funny, and I enjoyed it the most of the evening.

Finally, we were treated to Shakkyo (The Stone Bridge). I think I would describe this as a dance/acrobatic piece. A monk is trying to cross a bridge and is told if he waits, he will see a miracle. The "miracle" is the appearance of four lions who dance among the flowers. This piece had the most beautiful costumes, and the dancing was interesting. For a while. But the movements, while nice to watch at first, became repetitive and went on too long. I think if there had been more variety, it would have kept my attention longer. The movements were again very stylized, reminding me of Tai Chi moves, with a bit of jumping thrown in.

I didn't know about this part of the Lincoln Center Festival before being given the tickets, and might have bought myself tickets if I had. I wanted to see a Noh performance when I was in Japan a number of years ago, but did not get the chance. I'm glad I got the chance to experience it, but and even more glad that I didn't have to pay for it.


----------



## crebel

Sigh...  I lived in Japan for 3 years and never got to a Noh performance.  I understand the wanting to go just to be able to say you have seen it.


----------



## telracs

Cagney

This was technically a re-visit for me, as I saw the show last year at the York Theater, but it was my sister's first time. I enjoyed the show both times, fingding Act 2 more fun than Act 1 (which seems to be the consensus, my sister felt the same way, and overheard people saying the same thing after the show). The show seems to be a labor of love for its star, Robert Creighton, who does a wonderful job as Cagney and also supplied some of the music and lyrics. And dyed his normally black hair an interesting shade of red. I knew Mr. Creighton mostly as a dancer, so it was good to see him getting the chance to show off his acting and singing skills here, as well as killing it in the tap numbers.

The cast is small with everyone except Mr. Creighton taking on a variety of roles. Most enjoyable was Jeremy Benton as Bob Hope. However, he looks nothing like Mr. Hope and the other characters have to address him by name to clue in the audience. I have to admit that I wish they had expanded the cast, as some of the doubling gets a bit confusing and the women in the cast, Danette Holden and Ellen Zolezzi have to do some pretty fast costume changes.

The show does not start with Mr. Cagney as the focus, but rather with Jack Wagner (Bruce Sabath) reminiscing at a Screen Actors Guild event how he was responsible for the careers of a number of actors, including Cagney. Cagney objects to this and we flashback to his youth in NY. The show is not told exclusively in flashback, we come back to the SAG awards a few times. We also have scenes at Warner Brothers Studios told from Warner's POV, that I think could have been tightened or cut completely. Some of the best parts of the show are when they recreated some of Cagney's iconic film scenes, including the grapefruit in the face and the end of White Heat. The most fun parts of the show are when Mr. Creighton and the cast get to show off their dance skills, once recreating Grand Old Flag, another time doing a medley of songs at a USO show, and lastly in a "dance off" between Mr. Creighton's Cagney and Mr. Benton's Hope. Gotta admit, I never really thought of either Cagney or Hope as dancers, but apparently they both were excellent. The show touches on some of Mr. Cagney's difficulties with the studio system, and his run in with the Dies Commission (which I guess was a precursor to HUAC). It also shows Mr. Cagney's wrestling with how he will be seen by future generations and bemoaning the fact that it is his tough guy persona that everyone remember. In some ways, this show felt like the writers' attempt to ensure that we learn more about this complicated man. And they succeed, and we had fun watching them.


----------



## telracs

The New York Spectacular starring the Radio City Rockettes

The Rockettes are known mainly for their Christmas show, but last year, Radio City decided to do a Summer Spectacular. Unfortunately, there were technical issues, and the show closed before I got a chance to see it. But they tried again, and this year was great. The plot concerns two children (Lilla Crawford and Vincent Crocilla) who get separated from their parents (Danny Gardner and Kacie Sheik) in the subway under Grand Central, and instead of doing the logical thing and STAYING there so their parents can come back and find them, the kids go off looking for the adults at all the places the adults had mentioned to them. Oh, and coincidentally, Mom has taken the daughter's phone, so no tracking the kids that way. And no intelligence on the kids' parts to find a pay phone or a COP. Or even better, having a plan with your kids to meet somewhere specific if you get separated. or wow, keeping an eye (and a grasp) on a child who has never been in NY before... Okay, okay, I've got that rant out of my system, and have re-suspended my disbelief, so back to the gorgeousness that was this show.

The kids' journey around NY take them to:
Grand Central Terminal
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Wall Street
The New York Public Library
Central Park
Times Square
Fashion Ave
Empire State Building
Statue of Liberty

In all of these places, the children interact with statues come to life. Some of the statues are portrayed animatronically, some by real people, and some by both. And let me say, the animatronics were incredible. However big their budget, it was worth every penny. There were also big production numbers at each stop along the way, featuring the Rockettes in some and an ensemble of dancers (male and female) in others. I never really realized how many Rockettes there are, and seeing them all on stage moving with such precision was thrilling. In the Fashion Ave scene, they re-enacted a catwalk, so each Rockette got a few minutes in the spotlight in some pretty fantastic costumes. My favorite Rockettes' number was "Singin in the Rain", where they drenched the stage by the end of it. I wonder how they managed to get all the water off the stage so quickly. My least favorite was the Wall Street number, not because of the dancing, but because the production used a bizarrely orchestrated version of "Money Makes the World Go Round" done at strangely altered tempo. My favorite non-Rockette number was Mr. Gardner as George M. Cohan, he is a wonderful dancer and I was afraid he would be wasted as just the father.

The costumes for the show were great, I especially enjoyed the scene with the light up jackets and one where the Rockettes were dressed in Egyptian outfits. Also great was the use of the ceiling of Radio City, especially during the Grand Central scene where the sky filled ceiling of GCT was projected onto the auditorium's ceiling. The production also made use of the aisles in the auditorium, with a street scene dance pouring out into the audience. The stage at Radio City is huge, and for the most part I felt the show made great use of the space. Except for one thing.... All of the set pieces were scaled down versions of the real thing. I have stood next to Patience and Fortitude (the NYPL lions) and they are much bigger than portrayed. Also, there were some logical inconsistencies in the show. I mentioned the starting one above, but they continue throughout the show. Firstly, if the kids have little or no money, how do they get into the Met or to the Statue of Liberty (we see them tricking a doorman at the Empire State Building, which honestly, wouldn't have done them much good, as the building teems with guards and hosts). Also, their trajectory makes no sense, and is impossible to accomplish on foot in the time they supposedly do it. I probably wouldn't have minded that if the show had kept my attention, but I found mind wandering at times, and the show felt a lot longer than the 100 minutes it ran.


----------



## crebel

That sounds like a fun show.


----------



## loonlover

It does sound like a fun show.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I meant to say a few things about Cagney but life is pretty hectic right now. 

Anyway, there's a movie called The Seven Little Foys staring Bob Hope as vaudevillian Eddie Foy. He and George M. Cohan (Jimmy Cagney, of course) had quite the rivalry both their professional careers and their kids.  There's a very entertaining challenge dance number in the movie. I think I need to watch it again.

Hollywood legend has it that JC was auditioning for a movie role and they asked him if he could dance. He said sure, figuring he could fake it. You can see the results in Yankee Doodle Dandy when he starred as George M. Cohan.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> I meant to say a few things about Cagney but life is pretty hectic right now.
> 
> Anyway, there's a movie called The Seven Little Foys staring Bob Hope as vaudevillian Eddie Foy. He and George M. Cohan (Jimmy Cagney, of course) had quite the rivalry both their professional careers and their kids. There's a very entertaining challenge dance number in the movie. I think I need to watch it again.
> 
> Hollywood legend has it that JC was auditioning for a movie role and they asked him if he could dance. He said sure, figuring he could fake it. You can see the results in Yankee Doodle Dandy when he starred as George M. Cohan.


Yes, the Seven Little Foys is the set up for the "dance off" I mention between Hope and Cagney in the show. The show seems to imply that Cagney was a decent dancer in his youth, and that he was already at WB doing movies before Yankee Doodle, so it's interesting to hear there might be different versions of the story.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

As I said. "Hollywood legend." Sort of like Lana Turner in Schwab's. True or False? 

I can get the Foys dvd very cheap. What the heck. I love those old musicals.


----------



## telracs

Two Shows in Vegas

My sister and I just spent a week in Vegas. The trip was for her, so I let her do the planning and pick the shows. She is a huge Beatles fan, so she wanted to "Love" the Cirque show using Beatles music. Her son-in-law told her we had to see Terry Fator, and since that was who I wanted to see, I readily agreed. Both shows are at the Mirage hotel, so she purchased tickets for both of them for the same night.

Terry Fator was first. For those of you who don't know him, he is a singing ventriloquist. He won one of the reality talent shows a few years ago and that lead to his Mirage show. The first time I saw him, he started with ventriloquism and then in the middle he sang a couple of songs as "himself/" I liked that format, as it really showed his range of talents. Unfortunately, he has altered the format, and started this show by singing as himself. He is still wonderful, but it blunted things a bit for me. One of his "dummies" is a Caucasian girl. When I last saw the show, he had "her" sing as Aretha Franklin, and it was stunning. Now he does an Adele number with her and wasn't as much fun. He has a number of puppets he uses, and he does excellent jobs with each one, making them unique. He also has an audience member come up on stage and end up dressed as a woman (now Lady Gaga) in a mask that Terry controls. Fortunately, the night we saw the guy was willing to play along and was wonderful. The most touching bit is when Mr. Fator sings a song he wrote titled "Heroes". It is dedicated to all current and past service members and to all first responders. And it's a tearjerker. Both my sister and I were sniffling at the end of it. Mr. Fator also donates all profits from merchandise sales to a wounded veterans' charity. From a documentary done about ventriloquists I know that not everything has been sunshine and roses for Mr. Fator, but he seems like a genuinely good guy and I highly recommend his show if you're in Vegas. Or his CDs or DVDs if not...

We scrambled out of the Terry Fator theater and rushed over to the Love theater. We needn't have bothered rushing, as the first Love show of the evening had been delayed, and it ended late. My sister got what she had thought were good seats for this show, but in fact, were a bit closer for a Cirque show than I would have liked. I find Cirque inconsistent, with some great bits interspersed with some really boring bits. As there is no through story, it just felt like a jumble to me. And too frenetic for my tastes. Because they are using Beatles songs, they are limited to how long each "act" is, and some of them seemed really short, they ended just as I was getting into them. My favorites were a bunch of skaters on ramps, and a trampoline act using a painted up van as the centerpiece. All in all, I didn't love it, but the music was great, and my sister enjoyed it, and that was the important thing.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Do you think you would have liked the Terry Fator show more if you hadn't seen him before?


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Do you think you would have liked the Terry Fator show more if you hadn't seen him before?


I enjoyed him quite a lot. I just didn't like the new format as much. And no, I think I would have disliked this format even if I hadn't seen him before. I think he does himself a disservice by singing solo first then bringing out the puppets.


----------



## telracs

The Humans

Sometimes plays can be uplifting and make the spirit soar. Plays where you care about the characters and want to spend time with them and be their friends and find out all the good things that will happen to them. And then there are plays like "The Humans" which can drag you down to the depths of despair and make you want to slit your wrists and get away from this dysfunctional group as fast as possible. Which you can't do as fast as you want, because there is no intermission in this Thanksgiving dinner from Hades. It's enough to make one worry about the Tony voters, because this was voted best play of the year for the 2015-2016 season. That was the reason my sister wanted to see it, she figured that if it won best play, it most be good. So off we went.

I can't even tell you the names of the characters, I have blocked them from my mind and don't want to be bothered looking on-line&#8230;. Suffice it to say, we are witnessing the first Thanksgiving dinner that a recent college graduate and her slightly older boyfriend are hosting for her parents in their new apartment in Chinatown in downtown Manhattan. Mother and father are in from rural Pennsylvania, brining along father's mother who is non-verbal and in the latter stages of what appears to be Alzheimer's disease. The other guest at the table is the elder daughter, a lesbian lawyer from Philadelphia. There is one other character in the play, who we briefly see near the end, an elderly Chinese lady who lives above our hosts and seems to be the source of mysterious loud noises from the apartment above.

While Thanksgiving is a time to reflect on our blessings (and in fact, the group briefly does, utilizing a peppermint pig), most of this show deals with depressing issues. No, that's not right, it doesn't deal with them, it just puts them out there without resolving anything. As already stated, Grandma has Alzheimer's disease. Younger daughter is living in sin to the dismay of her Catholic parents, and can't find a job in her chosen field. She announces that this is because the one teacher that she has been asking for recommendations has been giving less than stellar praise. Mom is unhappy in her work because she has been at the same job for umpteen years and is now answering to people 20 years younger making 5 times her salary. Dad has just lost his job and pension at the Catholic school because he was having an affair with another teacher. This means that the parents have had to sell both the family home, and some property on a lake that they planned to use as a retirement home. And the elder daughter? Well, she is reeling from the effects of a bad break up with her long time girlfriend, has been told she will need to have part of her colon removed due to Crohn's disease and will probably lose HER job shortly due to all the sick time she's been taking. As if all this personal drama isn't enough, the authors throw in one more tidbit. The father goes on about how the last time he was in NY was to support his older daughter during a job interview. As he states, the only reason he was in the Dunkin' Donuts was because the Observation Deck didn't open until nine. Yup, on top of all the other stuff, we have to revisit 9/11.

When Dad tells the daughters about losing his job and having the affair, everything kind of falls apart. Lights start going out, the noises increase, the girls each exit the apartment, and eventually everyone does, leaving the basement door open. This is when we see a figure pushing a shopping cart cross upstage and the door magically closes. And that's it. We get absolutely no closure of any of the wounds the dinner opened. I don't expect everything to be tied up with a pretty bow, but I really felt let down that NONE of the issues were resolved.

The set of the play was fantastic (in both senses of the word). It was two levels, with the main living area upstairs, and the kitchen in the basement. The construction of the set was wonderful, but I found it difficult to imagine such an "apartment" existing in Chinatown, especially with an elevator in the building. There was little in the way of furniture (explained that the movers were stuck in Queens due to the holiday), and the costumes were appropriate for a casual family dinner. The actors did the best they could with this dismal group, but in the end, I left wondering why this won the Tony. And wondering exactly the title was meant to convey.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I got depressed just reading about it.


----------



## crebel

Ugh.  Sorry you can't reclaim the time you wasted watching.


----------



## telracs

"Weird" Al Yankovic

A few months ago I was walking by Radio City Music Hall and saw Weird Al's name up on the marquee.  Well, I've been a fan for most of his career, so after a bit of hemming and hawing (I don't usually buy tickets months in advance), I broke down and bought myself a seat.  I was hesitant because I don't really know a lot of current music and was afraid I'd be lost.  And I'll admit, there were things he did for which I did not recognize the source material.  But that didn't detract from the fun, because it isn't always necessary to know the source to enjoy him.  And he did enough of his older stuff to satisfy me.  He paces himself well, alternating videos of parody interviews and references to himself on shows with his live singing.  The use of the videos gives him a chance to dress for each new song, and he runs the gamut from fat suit to flame covered suit to old style rap outfit to Amish garb.  One medley of songs had him changing costumes multiple times, with the aid of a stoic stagehand who got his own round of applause.  The show "ended' with Amish Paradise, and a lot of people started leaving, but since he had not done his Star Wars/American Pie song (and the house lights did not come up), I stayed standing.  And after a long wait, out came the band in Jedi robes and he brought the house down again.  Part of me wishes I had sprung for the more expensive tickets closer to the front (or that the dude in front of me would have sat still), but I was sitting next to a nice pair of ladies and all in all had a great time.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Nice to see you enjoy yourself. Wouldn't have minded seeing that myself.


----------



## Brownskins

Is the New York Spectacular family friendly (for a 10 and 11 year old)?  Sounds like a good musical to go watch as a family!


----------



## telracs

Brownskins said:


> Is the New York Spectacular family friendly (for a 10 and 11 year old)? Sounds like a good musical to go watch as a family!


The show was a limited run summer show, and definitely family friendly, if a bit loud. I can't speak to their Christmas show, as I've never seen it, but i would be very surprised if it was not family friendly also.


----------



## telracs

Holiday Inn (the "new" Irving Berlin musical)

I don't have as familiarity with old movies as some people here, so I will not be comparing this stage play to the movie with which it shares a name. However, I do have to laugh at Roundabout Theatre Company calling this a "new" musical, because as the gentlemen behind me said to his wife before the show, all the songs are old.

The show takes quite a while getting to the titular inn. For most of the first act, we have the action split between Connecticut, where Jim Hardy (Bryce Pinkham) is trying to live out his ideal life as a farmer, and his former partners performing in various night clubs around the country pursuing their dream of breaking into Hollywood. While I enjoyed the performance numbers, I didn't really care much for the dance team of Ted Hanover and Lilla Dixon (Corbin Bleu and Megan Sikora), I found Bryce bland as Hardy and I didn't really have that much sympathy for his farm's former owner, Linda Mason (Lora Lee Gayer). And because Jim is engaged to Lilla, the flirting between Jim and Linda falls flat until Lilla dumps him, and then blossoms so quickly that i found it unrealistic. I also had issues with the timings of things. Everything seemed to happen too fast, even though we are eventually skipping from holiday to holiday. And why if the dance team's manager says that the Hollywood producers are in a hurry are they able to take the time between Valentine's Day to Easter to July 4th to deal with them? I know, I know, suspension of disbelief, but with so many long dance numbers, my mind wandered.

While I found the leads a bit bland and unlikable, two minor characters more than made up for it. Morgan Gao stole the scene every time as precocious child banker in training, Charlie Winslow, and Megan Lawrence was hysterical as fix it man (and eventually Parson) Louise. But the real star of the show is the dancing. Heavy on the tap, with quite a few long numbers, it was quite enjoyable to watch, especially such classic numbers as "Easter Parade" and "Heat Wave." When the first notes of "White Christmas" started to play, a sigh went through the audience, but I wished they had done the longer version with the first verse that always gets omitted.

The costumes were quite pretty, although I did wonder how the Inn managed to get such incredible dance costumes so quickly. I guess Jim managed to call on some professional costuming friends along with all the dancers who showed up. The sets were gorgeous and utilized the Studio 54 space quite well. Although it takes a bit to get going, ultimately the show is a fun bit of froth, and a pleasant way to spend an afternoon or evening.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

And you know I love those old time B&W movies. Of course, this is the movie that introduced the song "White Christmas" and not the movie "White Christmas." This is one I would love to have seen. All that dancing and great music. Think I'll check out Netflix for _Holiday Inn_. I know _White Christmas_ is on there somewhere.


----------



## telracs

Maestro

Hershey Felder seems to have made a career of doing one man shows of famous pianists (I saw him as George Gershwin in 2001). I remember enjoying his characterization of Gershwin, but zoning out a bit during the piano recital portion of that show, so I went in expecting the same issues, and indeed, had them. In addition, I recently purchased an e-book of Bernstein's letters, so was interested in seeing how Felder would portray him.

When the audience enters the theater, a video of Bernstein lecturing on the conductor's art is showing. While this was a good way to kill the time before the show, it puts a certain image of Bernstein in one's head that is not met when Felder comes out. He is playing Bernstein a lot older than in the video, and does not resemble him much physically, or aurally, and the wig he wears really looks bad.

From both the letters and the play, I got the impression that Bernstein really wanted to be a composer and not a conductor, but I think Bernstein's personality may simply have been one that would not have been satisfied with things no matter what. So after a while, I just wanted to smack him and say, "Yes, you are famous and have a great life, shut up!" The beginning of the play was enjoyable, but I felt it spent too much time on Bernstein's father. As the play goes on, it becomes an exercise in musical name-dropping, and alludes to, without coming out and facing, the fact of Bernstein's bisexuality. Near the end of the play this aspect of his life is more openly dealt with, but I felt it was not done well. And I hated the last 10 minutes or so of the show, where Bernstein morphs into a bitter old man convinced that no one will remember him because no one remembers his classically composed pieces. Yes, more people will be able to hum things from "West Side Story" and "Candide" then know his "Kaddish," but I think he is just as remembered for his TV work and introducing children to music.

As with his George Gershwin, Mr. Felder interpolates quite a bit of piano playing into "Maestro." Some of it was enjoyable (not surprisingly, for me that was the Broadway stuff), and some of it was tolerable (Bernstein's classical works, Copland) and some was too much for me (Mahler and especially Wagner).

A co-worker asked me my opinion of the show, as she had been thinking of seeing it. I think I dissuaded her, and while I like sending people to shows, I can't quite recommend this one, especially with the brittle ending.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Funny, I hadn't thought about him in decades, but I certainly remembered him.


----------



## telracs

Falsettos










When we walked out of the theater on Sunday, my sister said to me, "This is one we're going to disagree on, right?" Right. She loved it, and I... didn't. What is now called "Falsettos" started out as two one act plays with the same basic characters. And to me, that origin is glaring, and the two acts are so different that I don't find a coherent whole in them. The show starts with "Four Jews In a Room B*tching" in which we are introduced to 1. Marvin (Christian Borle) a self-absorbed *insert expletive here* who left his wife and 2. son (Jason, played by Anthony Rosenthal) for 3. the hot young Whizzer (Andrew Rannells). Also present is Jew number 4, Marvin's psychiatrist, Mendel (Brandon Uranowitz). Passing through this number, bizarrely done in Semitic costumes (I guess to symbolize Passover), is a fifth Jew, Marvin's ex-wife Trina (Stephanie Block). Although Marvin has left Trina and Jason behind, he wants a "tight knit" family and in his self-absorption he suggests Trina visit Mendel for help. And in a weird twist, Trina and Mendel become a couple, and ultimately marry. I found this really squicky, I dislike plots that have doctors breaking the ethical boundary between professional and personal. I also disliked most of the characters, finding only Jason sympathetic, and only because his immaturity and selfishness made sense for his age. I felt that Trina deserved better than either Marvin or Mendel, and that Whizzer deserved better than Marvin and should have walked out or thrown him out. The show is mostly sung through, and I couldn't really figure out the plot or what the point of the whole thing was during act one.

Act two takes place in 1981 (2 years after act one), but was written more than a decade after the first half. In addition to the 5 characters from before, we now have 2 more characters, described as the lesbians next door. I guess the playwright wanted to include more lifestyles, but the women being lesbians adds nothing to the show. And the characters felt shoe-horned in, existing because the plot required the presence of a physician. Why? Because between act one and act two, the illness that would eventually be recognized as AIDS had started spreading. It is not the self absorbed Marvin who contracts the disease, but the fun loving Whizzer. The last 20 minutes of the show are heart wrenching, and I will admit to sobbing as Whizzer succumbs even while Jason his having his Bar Mitzvah in the hospital room.

Although I didn't like the characters, I found most of the acting quite good. Stephanie Block does a wonderful job as the insecure Trina, doing a great job on her big number "I'm Breaking Down." Andrew Rannells came across best among the men, giving a fairly large range to the shallow Whizzer. I didn't like either Betsy Wolfe or Tracie Thoms as the two lesbians, both seemed a bit miscast and they had minimal chemistry. Brandon Uranowitz sings well as Mendel, and looks so different from his look in "An American Paris" that I didn't recognize him.

The background of the stage was a stylized cityscape of NY, with the buildings getting taller and shorter. I found myself losing focus of the stage at points to look at the "buildings." The furniture for much of the show came from manipulating the big puzzle box pictured below. I know it's difficult to see, but that glowing thing was not a one solid piece, but resembled those trick boxes where you slide different panels to open it. It seemed to be made of soft, light material, and the cast pulled it apart and rotated it as needed. I liked the concept and wished they had used it all the way through, instead of moving to a more realistic hospital room setting near the end. That choice again made the show feel disjointed.

A lot of people who are old enough to remember the original productions are commenting that this revival is not as good as that show was. I have nothing to compare this one with, but while I left touched by Whizzer's death and Jason's struggles with maturity, in the end I didn't like the characters enough to spend any more time with them.


----------



## telracs

Sunday in the Park with George

Last year City Center did a concert version of "Little Shop of Horrors" with Jake Gyllenhaal as Seymour. Well, I guess they liked him, as they cast him as the titular George in "Sunday in the Park." The show was inspired by Georges Seurat's painting "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of Grande Jette." Act one tells a fictional version of the creation of the painting, focusing on George and his mistress, Dot (Annaleigh Ashford) and the various characters that inhabit the park and eventually the painting. These include "An Old Woman" aka Georges' mother, played wonderfully by Phylicia Rashad, her nurse, a rival artist (the adorable Zachary Levi), his wife (Carmen Cusack in a very odd colored dress) and daughter (Gabriella Pizzolo) and their servants (Gabriel Ebert and Ruthie Ann Miles), two shopgirls both named Celeste (Lauren Warsham and Solea Pfeiffer), two soldiers courting them (Claybourne Elder and Max Chernin), a boatman (Phillip Boykin) and eventually a pair of American tourists (the wasted Brooks Ashmanskas and Liz McCartney) and Louis the baker (Jordan Gelber). There is also an "ensemble" of Micheal McElroy, Stephanie Jae Park and Jaime Rosentstein, who don't have any lines and their presence confused me, because they characters have not been in any other version of the show I've seen. Act two catapults us to 1984 Art Museum (I've always assumed Chicago), where Dot's daughter Marie and her grandson George are presenting his new "Chromolume" in celebration of the anniversary of the painting. All the actors from the first act appear in the second and revolve around the latter day George and his neurotic fear of failure (and success). The finale of the show brings present day George back to the island and reconnects him with (the ghosts of?) Dot and the Old Lady.

The bulk of the show falls on Mr.Gyllenhaal's shoulders, and I must say he does a wonderful job. There are two difficult songs, a first act one where he sings as a pair of dogs, and one in the second act which is an incredibly fast patter song with a huge amount of internal rhymes. I know Annaleigh Ashford as an over the top comedic actress and had been worried about her playing Dot, but for the most part, she was restrained and enjoyable. Phylicia Rashad was excellent and rose above some miking issues. In fact, most of the acting was excellent, which each actor shining at different points. Mr. Ashmanskas and Miss McCartney were wasted in act one, but stood out in act two, while Mr. Boykin made his mark in act one and faded a bit in act two.

Since this production was a concert version (and had originally only been scheduled for one performance), I was worried about the set and how much reliance the actors would place on their scripts. I was pleasantly surprised by the projections used in the production of the painting in various stages of completion and then the interior of the museum and the island as it would appear in the "present." As for the scripts, that was imaginatively handled. During the first act, while Mr. Gyllenhaal is holding the script, he treats it almost like a sketchbook. In both acts, first Ms.Ashford then Mr. Gyllenhaal have a small scriptbook, meant to represent a grammar book Dot used to learn to read that was left to her daughter. The main playing area is a fairly small raised square, and I felt it became too crowded, especially with the addition of the three ensemble members. The orchestra was upstage, and was smaller than usual for a concert at City Center. Apparently the orchestra consisted of only 13 players, to represent the number of colors Seurat used in the painting. They may have been few in number (and slightly outnumbered by the cast), but they did a wonderful job.

For me, the best moment in this show is at the end of act one when Georges starts manipulating people and as the last note of the finale sounds, he creates the picture. Because of this moment, I had to go and see the original painting, which is on display at the Chicago Museum of Art. I admit, it was a bit anticlimactic, because, I guess due to the size of Broadway theaters, I thought the painting was bigger than it is. But it was still a thrill to see in person and a thrill to see another good production of the musical.


----------



## telracs

the real thing....


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Yay! You liked it.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Yay! You liked it.


sigh... i know, i know, i'm too critical and it seems that i dislike more things than i like.

Heisenberg

Some show titles are obvious references to something in the show, some are more subtle, and some seem to have no connection with the show at all. This one falls into the last category. Neither of the characters is named Heisenberg, no one references either the physicist Werner Heisenberg or his uncertainty principle. What was uncertain to me was why Alex (Denis Arndt) doesn't run screaming from Georgie (Mary Louise Parker).

The story starts after an event that we do not see, Georgie kissing the back of Alex's neck in a train station in London. She claims that he looks like her ex(?)/deceased(?) husband(?)/lover(?) and that's why she kissed him. But as time goes on, her story changes and just confused me. We don't see the ending of this conversation, as the scene ends abruptly and then shifts in time and place to a week later and Alex's butcher shop where Georgie has tracked him down. We are then treated to their first date, their sleeping together and then Georgie asking Alex for money, Alex GIVING Georgie the money and the pair going off to New Jersey to find her son. Each scene ends without a real resolution, with the actors moving around two tables and chairs between scenes. And the show ends abruptly also, with the pair not finding her son or making any real decisions about things.

Of the two actors, I enjoyed Mr. Arndt more. Although I thought Alex was a bit nutty to stay with the certifiable nutty Georgie, Mr. Arndt made Alex sympathetic and interesting. Ms. Parker irritated me, both due to the character she was playing and an odd speech impediment that she affected at the beginning of the show. She was not well served by the costume designer of the show, stuck in jeans and and unflattering shirt with a huge handbag for the entire show. I also did not like the bare set (see below) and the fact that the theater sold seats on stage. I found myself looking at the folks sitting upstage instead of the actors. In fact, I spend a lot of time with my eyes closed because there was just nothing to look at. There were a few fun lines in the show (none of which I remember now), and there was one wonderful moment near the end of the show, with Georgie and Alex doing a tango without music but in the end, I was glad to get away from this couple and leave them to their uncertainties.


----------



## telracs

In Transit

This musical is touted as Broadway's first a cappella musical, meaning that all the music is supplied by human voices. This was mostly true here, except for some electronic looping and reverb and a shaker microphone used by the Boxman character. This character serves, not quite as a narrator, but as a thread that runs through a group of interconnected stories. The show title is a pun, referring to people traveling both physically and through their lives, and the main setting of the show is the NYC subway. I emphasize the phrase "main setting" because the impression I had going in was that the entire show was set on trains or in stations. This isn't the case, we spend time in a bar, a couple of scenes are set in a NY office, and we follow two of the main characters on a long weekend in Texas.

The show started with an ensemble number that I found very hard to understand. It was too loud and too muddled. In fact, my sister heard something in it (that I didn't) that led her to be confused about a character's actions later on in the show. After seeing all the characters on the subway, we are first introduced to Jane (Margo Seibert), an actress who is working as an office temp. On her way to an audition, she runs into the Boxman (played by Chesney Snow at the performance we saw) and Nate (the adorable James Synder) who is out of work and trying desperately to keep up appearances. Jane is late for her audition and phones her agent Trent (Justin Guarini) who is on his way to Texas to visit his mother, along with his soon to be husband, Steven (Telly Leung), who he has to pass off as his "roommate" because his mother does not know he's gay and it is against his mother's fundamentalist beliefs. Through Trent and Steven we are introduced to Ali (Erin Mackey) who was dumped by her boyfriend David (David Abeles) and is now obsessed with him, and with running. We watch Nate get into a power struggle with a token booth clerk (Moya Angela, who also plays Trent's mother and Jane's boss at the office) and be saved by the Boxman. Nate, still trying to pretend all is well goes with some friends to a bar, where he meets Jane (during an annoying song using sports metaphors led by Nicholas Ward) and they hit it off. But true love does not run smooth when the cell number Nate gives Jane is no good. Jane's live seems to be going well, she gets offered a starring role in a Broadway show, but then, on her last day at the office, the offer is rescinded and given to Pippa Middleton (I admit, I had no idea who that was and why the joke was funny). Her boss then sings what sounds like it will be a great uplifting song ("A Little Friendly Advice") but turns out to be an anthem to giving up your dreams and living in the real world (and getting a job that includes health insurance). We also follow Trent and Steven's relationship, which includes an attempt by Steven to force Trent's hand by sending Mom a plane tickets and leads to a very touching song by Trent dealing with the fact that sometimes people choose not to know what they already know. Ali runs the NY marathon and runs into Dave at the end with his new girlfriend (Gerianne Perez) and realizes she needs to move on. Since she needs plus one for Steven and Trent's wedding, she enlists her brother, who in a twist I didn't expect, is Nate. The siblings decide to move in together so they can save money and Ali can apply to grad school, having discovered a desire to get into sports medicine. Nate and Jane run into each other on the train and manage to reconnect. In the finale, we see the future of the characters, Trent and Steven in their wedding tuxedos, Ali in a lab coat, Nate carrying a baby while Jane goes off for an audition. And Jane's former boss, Ms. Williams, who is now running for some political office, asks Boxman the $64,000 question. Does he have a permit to be performing in the subway?

There were 11 actors in the show, and quite a bit of double casting. Or in Ms. Angela's case, triple. I felt sorry for a couple of the actors, as they were relegated to the background and never got to shine. I loved Mr. Guarini and Mr. Leung and felt their characters were the most rounded and the most interesting and they had a great chemistry. I liked Mr. Snyder's interactions with the token booth clerk and with Boxman, but felt he was a bit lat with Ms. Seibert, who felt too stereotypical to me. As did Ms. Mackey, she seemed like a sitcom character and I didn't really care about her. I was a bit confused by the Boxman character. At one point it is intimated that he has some money from doing a Dr. Pepper commercial and is doing this for fun, while in another spot he seems to be doing this for the money after leaving the big bad world of business behind. All of the singers had great voices and I especially loved Mr. Ward's big bass voice. A lot of the songs felt similar, possibly due to the constraint of a cappella singing and the need for background harmonies. The book scenes served the purpose of stringing things together, and were laced with a lot of humor, some of which may go over the heads of non-NYers (and some of which went over my head, as I said above).

The theater is a thrust stage, with the audience seated in 3/4 oval around the playing area, with a split level area at the back of the stage. The split level area represents the upper level of a subway station, where the token booth and turnstiles are. There are stairs that come down from offstage above, and stairs that go down to the lower platform level. Confusingly, the upper level of the area has the signage for a subway station in Brooklyn (and may I say, incorrect signage for the current station), while the lower level has walls mimicking a Manhattan subway station. Through the middle of the lower playing area there is a conveyor belt that is meant to denote the subway track and that is used to bring subway seats and other set pieces on and off. For some unknown reason, I was fascinated by the piece of the conveyor belt where it is connected and kept watching that go round and round.

Speaking of round, since the audience is on 3 sides, the actors have to do quite a bit of turning and twisting to play to the entire house, I felt at times they were not doing a great job. I intentionally chose seats that would put us pretty face on to the back of the stage, but even then, I was looking at too many backs and profiles for my liking. And I felt sorry for people on the long sides of the "U", they were definitely looking at backs for quite a bit.

While watching the show, I was engaged, but thinking back on, there were some aspects that I think could have been better. I was really hoping that the show would end with Steven and Trent's wedding and that that would be where Nate and Jane reconnect. The "flash forward" epilogue was a bit of a cop out. As was the resolution of Trent's relationship with his Momma and with Steven. A NY talent agent getting married and thinking that the news is not going to be all over social media and that people back in Texas won't know? A gay man who is sure of himself and accepted by his family saying that it's okay if when his mother-in-law comes to visit he'll go back in the closet? And honestly, as portrayed, I can't see Steven being able to fit in any closet, or putting up with the homophobic trip to Texas without major issues. I think the show was a noble effort with an attempt at a good hook of the first a cappella musical, but as the Boxman said "Due to weekend construction, all express trains are going local, all local trains are going express." And this train will be going back to the station pretty quickly, I think.


----------



## The Hooded Claw

telracs said:


> I was glad to get away from this couple and leave them to their uncertainties.


Good one!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Confusing. But I do love a cappella.


----------



## telracs

The Front Page

We went from a modern 100 minute, small cast, no-intermission musical to a classic almost 3 hour, huge cast, 2 intermission play this week. The play is set in the pressroom of the Chicago courthouse on the night before a murderer is to be hanged. For most of the first act we are subjected to a lot of exposition and the annoyance of watching a bunch of reporters play poker, abuse one of their number and a policeman, and just be generally ill mannered. Oh, and throughout the act, one of the phones in the pressroom keeps ringing with an editor looking for his reporter. The reporter, one Hildy Johnson (John Slattery), finally shows up and announces to his cronies that he is quitting the journalism game and moving to NY to go into advertising (a cute inside joke, as Mr. Slattery starred in the TV show "Mad Men"). But before he can make good his exit, everything is thrown upside down by the escape of the murderer, which leads to more hijinks and annoyances.

Mr. Slattery and Nathan Lane are given top billing in the Playbill, which is deceptive, as Mr. Slattery does not show up until late in Act One, and Mr. Lane does not appear until late in Act Two. Instead we get a series of short interactions between the core group of reporters and a country hick of a city sheriff (John Goodman), a heart of gold streetwalker who was the only person who stood up for the murder (Sherie Rene Scott) and a put upon policeman (Michah Stock). And even when the actions shifts to the relationship between Slattery and Lane, and their hiding of the murderer, we get more interruptions of the action for scenes with Hildy's fiancee and her mother, a scene between the mayor, the sheriff and a process server (a totally wasted Robert Morse) who has a stay of execution order. I really felt that the show could have been tightened, and most of the first act ditched, but since the authors are long dead, the producers probably didn't want to deal with estate issues.

The single set was gorgeous, a nice big room with big breakaway windows and lovely furniture. The costumes were simple, period appropriate (the play is set in 192 suits and dresses, nothing spectacular. The acting was good for the most part, with Jefferson Mays a stand out as a germaphobic hypochondriac. Mr. Lane took lines that would have sounded foolish with another actor and made them work. I found Mr. Slattery too strident, and many of the other actors over the top and just unlikable. Actually, I think that is one of my biggest issues with the play, none of the characters were the kind of people I wanted to spend time with. I also did not like the ending (although it was funny), as it turns what should be an ending into a "to be continued" sort of thing.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

His Girl Friday .....


----------



## crebel

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> His Girl Friday .....


Telracs explained to me that His Girl Friday (the Cary Grant movie) is based on the play, The Front Page. Learn something new every day!


----------



## telracs

Love, Love, Love

If the title of this show makes you start singing a Beatles tune, then you're thinking the right time frame for the first act of this three act play. A co-worker saw and enjoyed this show and since he is a donor to the theater, he was able to get me a single front row mezzanine seat. He told me that the music before the show and during the intermissions was good, so I made sure I got to my seat early. And he was right, the pre-show music was wonderful. And the show is about love, but it's not a nice pretty love story. In act one, set in the 1960s, we meet Kenneth (Richard Armitage) a student living in London sponging off his older brother Henry (Alex Hurt). Henry is planning on bringing a girl over for the night and attempts to get rid of Kenneth, but the self-centered Kenneth weasels his way into staying and spending time with Sandra (Amy Ryan). Sending Henry out for fish and chips, the two youngsters bond and when Henry returns, he finds the pair in a clinch. Act two moves to (I think) the 1980s, with the couple now married with children, careers and a house.  But they are still interested mostly in themselves, and their teenage children(Ben Rosenfield and Zoe Kazan) pay the price. The third act takes place 10 to 15 years later, with the couple retired, their son in his own world living with his father, and their daughter a failure at her music career and the couple still so self centered that the poor daughter is left at the end still trying to get their attention.

While the characters were not likable, the acting was incredible and drew me in. My biggest problem was with Amy Ryan, her character was supposed to be 19 in the first act, and even from the mezzanine she looked in her 40s. I would also have liked to see more of Alex Hurt, he is only in the first act (although his ashes appear in Act 3). As I stated above, the music played before the show and during the intermissions was good, and the lady next to me and I were singing along to the 60's stuff. The best part of the production were the sets, three distinctly different living rooms that reflect the periods and the characters. The first set is visible when you enter the theater, but the 2nd and 3rd are hidden during the intermissions, giving a fun start to the acts. A nice touch to change the sets so much when the people never do really change.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Interesting, but it sounds like there was no resolution in the end. Useless self absorbed people leading useless self absorbed lives.


----------



## telracs

Dead Poet's Society

I went into this show with two deficiencies. One is that I never saw the movie with Robin Williams, and the second is that I never watch Saturday Night Live, so I have never seen Jason Sudeikis in anything. These deficiencies actually worked to my advantage, as I wasn't comparing Mr. Sudeikis with Mr. Williams or thinking about him as a comedic actor. I watched the movie trailer after seeing the show, and have to admit that I found Mr. Williams a bit over the top as compared to what was on stage. And while the part had some funny bits, this show was definitely not a comedy.

This was the first time that my sister and I were at the Classic Stage theater, and I liked the way it was set up with the audience around 3 sides and the back wall filled with bookcases and a blackboard. And the audience is brought into the show from the beginning, as the "students" go through the audience giving out the Playbills, the headmaster addressing the audience as if they are alumni, and Mr. Sudekis coming out into the audience at various points. There was one annoying part about the way the theater was set up, as when the actors had to get from one side to the other, we could hear them walking under our seats and that was a bit distracting.

Another problem that I had with the production was that I had difficulty telling the students apart. While each one was a particular "type" behaviorally, a couple of them were so physically and vocally similar that I couldn't' tell which was which in some scenes. And I felt that the character we see first, that of the new boy in school, was underdeveloped and in a way unnecessary. Since I had not seen the movie, while I was certain about that a particular choice would be made, I was shocked by which of the characters made it. And boy, that final scene was a downer. All in all, I think the cast did a wonderful job, and I was glad to be in a new spot, but I don't think I'll be pulling up the movie on amazon any time soon.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I didn't care for the movie.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I thought it was an outstanding movie, not a comedy, and definitely a downer ending.  I think it would be interesting seeing the play, thanks for posting this.

Betsy


----------



## crebel

I hated it because of the ending.


----------



## telracs

The City That Cried Wolf

There is an interesting little off-Broadway theater complex called 59E59 theaters.  It is, unsurprisingly, at 59 East 59th Street in Manhattan, and has 3 theaters stacked on 3 floors, ranging in size from 50 seats to 100 seats to 200 seats (okay, technically 97 seats and 195 seats, but I like rounding up....).  Over the years, I've been in Theaters A and B, but "The City That Cried Wolf" was my first time in the third floor Theater C.  Start times for shows are scattered, but people arrive early for everything and I always find that the waiting area on the first floor and the bar on the second get very crowded.  And since my show was the latest start, I had a bit of time to be uncomfortable.  Tickets for "...Wolf" were general admission, but I was lucky enough to get one in the last (6th) row, dead center, with plenty of legroom.  The playing area is very small, and the whole thing felt a bit cramped at times, and the actors made some entrances from the main hallway door, but for the most part it worked.

I bought the ticket for the show based on a mailer I got, which made it sound like a parody of fairy tales mixed with film noir.  It was a parody, and at times quite funny, but ultimately, it was predictable and had a ridiculously depressing ending.  

The show started out with a film clip, the opening to a movie with the same title, and narrated by Jack B. Nimble (a scruffy but handsome Adam La Faci) ex-cop, now private eye.  He is hired by Humpty Dumpty to follow Humpty's wife, Little Bo Peep, now a lounge singer.  Jack falls for Bo, but when Humpty is found dead, she becomes the prime suspect, and the chief of police, Mother Goose and her henchmen, The Brothers Grimm are determined to use Jack to find her.  But both Bo and Mother Goose are hiding secrets (one of which I guessed way other, the other of which did actually surprised me) and nobody gets a fairy tale ending in this noir world.  Which annoyed me!  After they utilized so many characters, I wanted Bo to get her sheep back and for Jack to get the girl. 

I liked Chloe Demrovsky as Little Bo Peep, and Michelle Concha was  a wonderful Mother Goose.  The rest of the cast takes on multiple roles, and is fantastic at quick costume changes and making each character subtly different.  The costumes were fantastic, and the scenery was fun, but the wigs were not great. Poor Ms. Concha almost lost her wig near the end of the show but recovered nicely.  The story was complicated and I felt that it threw in too many characters and twists (most of which I saw coming), but the actors were into their roles and I enjoyed it enough that I'd see it again if comes back to NYC.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Personally, I prefer a fairytale ending. But then I am such a sissy. Glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## telracs

tick, tick, boom....

Jonathan Larson won the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for Drama, and the 1996 Tony for Best Musical, both for Rent. Unfortunately, both accolades were awarded posthumously, because Mr. Larson died before Rent moved to Broadway. Fortunately, he left behind an series of autobiographical songs depicting how it felt to turn 30 years old in 1990. After his death, friends and family got together and turned the song cycle into an off-Broadway musical titled "tick, tick, Boom!" The show played the Jane Street Theater in downtown Manhattan in 2001. In fact, it was one of the first shows I saw after the attacks of 9/11, and the first time I had been in that area since the attacks. So the show was poignant on many levels, knowing that the author of it never got to see either of his pieces produced and thinking about all the people who were no longer around to see anything.

But, enough depressing memories. The show revolves around a character named Jon, who is approaching his 30th birthday and is having difficulties in his personal and professional lives. The piece employs just 3 actors, in this case Nick Blaemire as Jon, Lilli Cooper as his girlfriend Susan (and all other female roles) and George Salazar as his best friend Micheal (and almost all other male roles). The four piece band was on stage, and the band members got into the act as co-workers of Michael's at one point in this intermissionless piece. Not only do we watch Jon cope with the fact that his girlfriend is unhappy and wants to leave New York, but his best friend has left show business and moved on up to the East Side and is also dealing with an AIDS diagnosis. And all of this is taking place against the background of Jon trying to get good buzz for the workshop of a futuristic show he has written.

This was the third production of TTB that I've seen, following the 2001 at Jane Street and a concert version at City Center in 2014. I liked Mr. Blaemire as Jon in this production, but his costars suffered a bit in comparison to the originals that I'd seen. Unfortunately for Ms. Cooper, the one song of hers that I was looking forward to hearing was spoiled for me by the person sitting in front of being unable to sit still. I really wanted to reach out and grab his head to keep it still so that I didn't have to keep moving to keep her in view. I found Mr. Salazar bland, which was in keeping with the almost empty stage and boring staging and costumes. I understand the desire to show off Ms. Cooper's statuesque physique, but in 1990, a female dancer with that many tattoos was not common. Also, I don't think any of the characters were well served by the lack of changes of costumes. Having the actors in the same clothes throughout made it difficult to distinguish who exactly Ms. Cooper is supposed to be later in the show.

The three actors did their best, and there were some great numbers in the show (most notably an homage to Steven Sondheim), but once again, I found it depressing and the ending a bit of a let down. But I am glad that keen theater group decided to revive it for a new generation, and especially glad that I scored a ticket at the amusing discount price of $30.90. A price I had to explain to the young man next to me, but which we both got a good chuckle out of when I did explain.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

$30.90. I get it . 30 years old in 1990. Definitely amusing.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I understand what you mean about the man in front ruining the song for you. I'm a big Agatha Christie fan and I always wanted to see The Mousetrap. When we went to England I was able to see it the day before we had to leave. I had a bad cold and I was squeezed in between these two huge men. Which made it even more difficult to breathe. But I got to see the play as annoying as the circumstances were.


----------



## telracs

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> $30.90. I get it . 30 years old in 1990. Definitely amusing.


30/90 is also the title of one of the songs in the show


----------



## The Hooded Claw

That's darn close to how old I was in 1990. Thankfully, my life was much less complicated! I almost wrote "less complicated then and now," but I'm not so sure about now, with aging relatives and other complications, even good ones!


----------



## telracs

Something Rotten

One of the joys of live theater is when a cast changes and you get to see how different actors are on stage. When it was first announced that Adam Pascal would be taking over the role of Will Shakespeare in Something Rotten, I was unsure how he would do, but since we like him, and there was a good discount, my sister and I visited the show one last time (it closed on January 8th). Pascal managed to make the role his own, being a bit sexier than Christian Borle had been, but not as over the top as Will Chase had been. Seeing a show multiple times allows one to focus on different things, so this time I was watching to see how certain quick change costume tricks were done, and honing in ensemble members in certain scenes. We were glad to see this enjoyable show one more time before it goes off on tour. If it comes to your city, I highly recommend it.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Somehow, I never think of Shakespeare as being sexy. Guess I'd change my mind if I saw the show.


----------



## telracs

Last review of 2016....

Striking 12

Everyone has their own holiday traditions, and one of mine was attending Trans-Siberian Orchestra concerts with some friends. However, since the Nassau Coliseum closed for renovation a few years ago, TSO has moved their NYC area concerts to New Jersey, and we haven't gone. So I was happy this year when Prospect Theater announced they were doing a one night concert version of jazz trio Groovelily's New Year's Eve based musical, "Striking 12." When "Striking 12" was first done by Groovelily, it was billed as a combination of a Groovelily concert and a New Year's story. I have seen it done by the trio a few times at different venues in NYC, and had good memories of it and looked forward to Prospect's version

Although the original Groovelily version utilized only 3 people, the licensed version allows for expansion of both musicians and actors. While this worked for me in some instances (having different actresses playing " the light seller" and "the little match girl"), in enlarging the band, they split the violin playing, and I missed the use of the electric violin. Some of the "patter" that sounded ad-libbed and fun when done by the trio fell a bit flat with so many people on stage.

Since this was a concert version, all the actors were on book, and some of the actors were better than other. Zachary Prince was wonderful as "the Man Who's Had Enough" who is the driving character in the show, and who takes us into "The Little Match Girl" story. Ashley Park was fun as "The Light Seller" and Krystina Alabado was good as "The Little Match Girl." Unfortunately, I found Jared Loftin rushed his lines a bit and Ben Moss, while good on the piano, was a bit bland in his acting. In the end, I felt a few of the extra actors were superfluous and that the extra musicians didn't really add anything.

The show took place in the Times Center, a theater complex I'd not been in before. The theater itself was a nice size, with a nice sized stage and was comfortable. However, the back wall of the theater is glass and even though the production used a screen for projections, it didn't cover the whole wall, and I found my attention wandering to things visible through the wall. I watched several people enter and leave the Times building elevators, the traffic on Eight Avenue and kept being distracted by a sign across the street that kept changing colors. While I will happily attend another production of "Striking 12" if someone does it, and will keep attending shows produced by the Prospect Theater Group, I think I'll skip things at the Times Center.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

A glass wall in a theater? Who thought that would be a good idea? Might as well pipe in the street traffic noises.


----------



## telracs

Year End Review

Broadway:
Plays: 11 (One repeat from 2015, Curious Incident....)
Musicals: 17 times, a total of 14 different shows. One show was seen twice (She Loves Me), one show seen 3 times (Something Rotten). Three shows were repeats of shows seen in previous years (The King and I, Phantom of the Opera, Something Rotten).

Off-Broadway
Plays: 9 (plus 1 Noh performance)
Musicals: 20 times (19 different shows [one show seen 3 times])

There were 2 more shows seen off-Broadway, one that I would classify as a play with music (The Woodsman), and the second a one man concert (Broadway and the Bard). There were also two "Broadway by the Year" concerts, one the music of the 1960s, one the 1970s and two visits to Radio City Music Hall (for a Weird Al concert and for their Summer Spectacular). Four musicals were repeats from the previous years (Shear Madness, Ave Q, Cagney and Daddy Longlegs), as was one play (The Screwtape Letters). We went to New Jersey's Paper Mill Playhouse twice, for West Side Story and Pump Boys and Dinettes. Not counted in the list are 2 shows in Las Vegas, a Terry Fator Concert, and Cirque du Soleil show Love, and a weird concert at the Park Ave Armory called Circle Map.

Of course, everyone always wants to know what my "favorite" show(s) are. Taking JUST 2016 shows (which leaves out Something Rotten, POTO, The King and I), I guess that the most fun musical was She Loves Me, followed by Holiday Inn. Reviewing the plays, the most fun was Noises Off, which led off the year, and I was most impressed by Frank Langella's performance in The Father and Jesse Taylor Ferguson in Fully Commited. Off-Broadway, my favorite musical was Hadestown at New York Theatre Workshop and my favorite play was Martin Luther on Trial at the Pearl.

As to the worst of the year, I truly wished I had skipped Runaways at City Center, it was depressing and dreary and not well done. Also depressing was the play The Humans which threw way too much into the kitchen sink and tried too hard. I also disliked Heisenberg, and once again, being in the minority, I didn't enjoy either of director Ivo Von Hove's play, The Crucible and A View From the Bridge. Both of them were triumphs of directors over playwrights, something that just annoys me.

Twenty seventeen is already off to a good start, with a revisit to The Lion King with my sister, my niece and my niece's husband.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I don't remember you reviewing The Screwtape Letters. Marvelous little book. I read it first in my teens and again when the e-book came out . It was just as good as I remembered it from so long ago.


----------



## crebel

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> I don't remember you reviewing The Screwtape Letters. Marvelous little book. I read it first in my teens and again when the e-book came out . It was just as good as I remembered it from so long ago.


I hope this is a link to telracs' Screwtape review http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,50021.msg3199236.html#msg3199236 (and your response immediately following).

I love the year-end wrap up. At the beginning of the year I know you said something to me about trying to avoid seeing as many repeats, it sounds like you stuck to that pretty well. Thank you for patiently continuing to answer my silly questions!

One other statistic you had in the past was the number of new shows available to see and how many of them you actually saw. Was your attendance up, down, or about average in the past year?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

crebel said:


> I hope this is a link to telracs' Screwtape review http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,50021.msg3199236.html#msg3199236 (and your response immediately following).
> 
> I love the year-end wrap up. At the beginning of the year I know you said something to me about trying to avoid seeing as many repeats, it sounds like you stuck to that pretty well. Thank you for patiently continuing to answer my silly questions!
> 
> One other statistic you had in the past was the number of new shows available to see and how many of them you actually saw. Was your attendance up, down, or about average in the past year?


Yes, now I remember. Thanks, Chris.


----------



## telracs

crebel said:


> One other statistic you had in the past was the number of new shows available to see and how many of them you actually saw. Was your attendance up, down, or about average in the past year?


Okay, since you asked.... this is for Broadway shows only (and figuring out is not easy, since the season runs June to May....)

There were 38 shows that opened on Broadway in 2016. I saw 19 of them, and have a ticket for a 20th.

Of the ones not seen, 2 were depressing plays I avoided, 6 were revivals of shows seen previously, 6 were short term "event" type shows, one is a cirque du soleil show, and 2 we will probably eventually see.

as to absolute numbers, I seem to have done a lot more off-Broadway in 2016 (29 vs 14 in 2015), and a bit less Broadway, 28 in 2016 vs 34 in 2015. In total, a few more times in the theater in 2016.

and 2017 is already shaping up to be busy in the front end, one show already seen, and tickets for 20 shows on tap.


----------



## crebel

Impressive stats.  Thanks for the vicarious thrill!


----------



## EC Sheedy

Lots of reviews . . . so just Wow! (And thanks for mentioning Broadway.com to see what's currently running.)

My sister thinks she'd like to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard if she manages to get to NY in late Spring. Have you seen it? I have to think Close would be great as Norma Desmond.


----------



## Leslie

telracs said:


> Holiday Inn (the "new" Irving Berlin musical)
> 
> I don't have as familiarity with old movies as some people here, so I will not be comparing this stage play to the movie with which it shares a name. However, I do have to laugh at Roundabout Theatre Company calling this a "new" musical, because as the gentlemen behind me said to his wife before the show, all the songs are old.
> 
> The show takes quite a while getting to the titular inn. For most of the first act, we have the action split between Connecticut, where Jim Hardy (Bryce Pinkham) is trying to live out his ideal life as a farmer, and his former partners performing in various night clubs around the country pursuing their dream of breaking into Hollywood. While I enjoyed the performance numbers, I didn't really care much for the dance team of Ted Hanover and Lilla Dixon (Corbin Bleu and Megan Sikora), I found Bryce bland as Hardy and I didn't really have that much sympathy for his farm's former owner, Linda Mason (Lora Lee Gayer). And because Jim is engaged to Lilla, the flirting between Jim and Linda falls flat until Lilla dumps him, and then blossoms so quickly that i found it unrealistic. I also had issues with the timings of things. Everything seemed to happen too fast, even though we are eventually skipping from holiday to holiday. And why if the dance team's manager says that the Hollywood producers are in a hurry are they able to take the time between Valentine's Day to Easter to July 4th to deal with them? I know, I know, suspension of disbelief, but with so many long dance numbers, my mind wandered.
> 
> While I found the leads a bit bland and unlikable, two minor characters more than made up for it. Morgan Gao stole the scene every time as precocious child banker in training, Charlie Winslow, and Megan Lawrence was hysterical as fix it man (and eventually Parson) Louise. But the real star of the show is the dancing. Heavy on the tap, with quite a few long numbers, it was quite enjoyable to watch, especially such classic numbers as "Easter Parade" and "Heat Wave." When the first notes of "White Christmas" started to play, a sigh went through the audience, but I wished they had done the longer version with the first verse that always gets omitted.
> 
> The costumes were quite pretty, although I did wonder how the Inn managed to get such incredible dance costumes so quickly. I guess Jim managed to call on some professional costuming friends along with all the dancers who showed up. The sets were gorgeous and utilized the Studio 54 space quite well. Although it takes a bit to get going, ultimately the show is a fun bit of froth, and a pleasant way to spend an afternoon or evening.


I actually made it to NYC in November and saw this with my friend Cathy. Between us, we have probably seen the movie *Holiday Inn* about a million times, along with *White Christmas*, which is called a remake but really isn't. Having all that background in my brain, I thought they adapted this and updated it very well--people fell in and out of love faster in the movie and I thought they did a good job with trying to make this slightly more realistic. As realistic as a musical can ever be, that is!

L


----------



## Leslie

So I am all afire about *Groundhog Day*. I saw it last summer at the Old Vic in London and thought it was absolutely FANTASTIC. At that time, it was up in the air about whether it would make it to Broadway. One producer bailed in June and the budget was over $16 million, so there were lots of questions. But--it is on its way! It begins with previews on March 16 with the official opening on April 17. I saw it as a preview in London and wouldn't change a thing and I am counting on the Broadway previews to be just as great. I am hoping to get to the show on Thursday April 6--plans are still up in the air.

It is opening in time to be considered for this year's Tony awards--I predict many nominations and lots of wins. Keep your eye on Andy Karl, the lead!

L


----------



## NogDog

telracs said:


> ...I also disliked Heisenberg...


Are you certain about that? 

Everybody loves physics jokes, right?

Right?


----------



## The Hooded Claw

NogDog said:


> Are you certain about that?
> 
> Everybody loves physics jokes, right?
> 
> Right?


Of course, the Heineken Uncertainty Principle has a more limited application, proving that you can never be sure how many beers you had last night....


----------



## telracs

EC Sheedy said:


> Lots of reviews . . . so just Wow! (And thanks for mentioning Broadway.com to see what's currently running.)
> 
> My sister thinks she'd like to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard if she manages to get to NY in late Spring. Have you seen it? I have to think Close would be great as Norma Desmond.


Close WAS a great Norma Desmond, 20 years ago. Apparently this is not a fully staged show (no big sets, orchestra is on stage) that is being imported from London. I'll know more after 2-22 when we see it.



Leslie said:


> So I am all afire about *Groundhog Day*. I saw it last summer at the Old Vic in London and thought it was absolutely FANTASTIC. At that time, it was up in the air about whether it would make it to Broadway. One producer bailed in June and the budget was over $16 million, so there were lots of questions. But--it is on its way! It begins with previews on March 16 with the official opening on April 17. I saw it as a preview in London and wouldn't change a thing and I am counting on the Broadway previews to be just as great. I am hoping to get to the show on Thursday April 6--plans are still up in the air.
> 
> It is opening in time to be considered for this year's Tony awards--I predict many nominations and lots of wins. Keep your eye on Andy Karl, the lead!
> 
> L


You were in NY and didn't e-mail me? I'm not happy with you right now.

As to Andy Karl, he has been around for a number of years (along with his wife, Orfeh, who is also a Broadway singer), and starred in Rocky last year. He was also in 9 to 5, Legally Blonde and the original Altar Boyz off-Broadway. We're seeing it Memorial Day weekend.


----------



## telracs

Milk and Honey

This was a fairly late purchase, we had an open Sunday (we don't have many more...) and I saw an e-mail for it.  It is the first of York Theatre's "Musical in Mufti" series this year, and our first time at the theater since they redid their seats.  First off, I will say their new seats are very comfortable, and I now the perfect seats to get when I see a show there.  But I wish they'd invest some cash and update their 2 seater restroom.  I'd donate for that.

I went into the show knowing very little about it, but by the end of Artistic Director James Morgan's opening speech, I knew that it had been written by Jerry Herman (Hello, Dolly! La Cage aux Folles, Mame) and was set in Israel in 1961.  The show starts off with a woman (Ruth) observing a man (Phil) standing up for a shepherd who wants to bring his sheep down a main street (the sheep cleverly represented by 3 music stands tied together).  We find out that Ruth is an American tourist on a tour, and Phil is visiting is daughter who has married an Israeli farmer and is living in the Negev dessert.  The two hit it off, with the help of one of the other women on the tour and the man's daughter.  After spending the day sightseeing around Jerusalem, Phil persuades Ruth to come to the Negev for a visit.  Unfortunately, we find out that Phil has a secret, he is still married.  But he doesn't tell Ruth this and we watch the blooming relationship knowing that things are going to have to be settled at some point. The B plot concerns the rest of the women on the tour and their attempts to change their widowed status to married.  The C and D plots follow Phil's daughter and her husband, and an expectant couple on the farm planning for their wedding and incipient arrival of their child.  Everyone but Phil and Ruth get a happy ending, as one of the touring woman finds a mate, Phil's daughter and son in law work out their differences (or do they? is it a happily ever after or a happily for now? thinking about it now, i'm not sure), the baby is born and the expectant parents seem fine.  But Phil sends Ruth back to the States, with the promise that the will ask his wife for a divorce and they WILL be together at some point and we watch sadly as she gets on the plane, leaving him behind.

As is usually the case at York, the cast was wonderful.  Anne Runolfson as Ruth and Mark Delavan as Phil had a nice chemistry together, and he has a wonderful voice.  Alix Korey was hysterical as the interfering/matchmaking/husband-hunting Clara, although I felt she rushed some of her lines and especially her one big song.  The two younger couples, Jessica Fontana and Perry Sherman and Abby Goldfarb and Jacob Heimer each had good chemistry and were fun to watch.  Sherman has a wonderful song call "I Will Follow You" that I really enjoyed.  Due to the small size of the cast, most of the women played more than one role, and 2 of the men doubled as women in the tour.  Since both of them sort facial hair, this was quite amusing.  The costumes were simple, but the fact that everyone was always in the same outfit made some scenes a bit less enjoyable than they could be.  As did the lack of hand props (something I've complained about before in Mufti productions).  However, for once, I have nothing bad to say about the hairstyling in a York show.  The projections used were good and added a nice touch to things.  The cast did well moving benches and music stands around, and except for a recalcitrant page in Mr. Delavan's script near the end, everyone handled their books well.  The single piano was enough musical accompaniment, but at times the ensemble was overwhelmed by him and it was difficult to understand things.  I must also give the cast credit for handling the Hebrew in the script.

In some ways, the show is not just about the couples and the tourists, but is a valentine to Israel itself.  The title song is all about loving the land and being true to it (with some funny interjections from the one person who wants to move to the city or America and live in air-conditioning).  But honestly, I didn't feel that the setting added anything to the show.  It could just have easily been set in any country where a stranger meets a stranger or even in America with city versus country living.  I was also confused about the timeframe of the show, at first Ruth is on a 2 week tour, but then it seems like she's on the farm for a month.  And, although I suspended my disbelief during the show, I really dislike couples falling in love and changing their lives in a day.  Especially "mature" couples.  

While the show on the stage was quite entertaining, it was not the only one we watched.  I bought two seats in the second to last row, one on the aisle, and one next to it (seats that I'm going to get whenever I can from now on, they are perfect).  There were 5 more seats in the row to my right.  A couple sat in the seats next to me, and 3 women had the remaining seats, with the last one being next to the wall.  Well, one of the women apparently REALLY did no like the seat and tried moving.  The first seat she tried to move to appeared empty, but someone in the row said that if the seat was empty, she had dibs on it.  By the time the lights went down, that person had the seat on the aisle, the woman who should have been in my row had a seat a couple of seats in.  Then the volunteer ushers were seated, and they took the seat between the two women and that caused another kerfuffle, because now the first schemer was surrounded.  And it got even more interesting at intermission, when it was revealed that the people who had the tickets for those seats now wanted them (they had arrived late and been seated in folding chairs during Act One).  The poor house-manager did her best to accommodate everyone, and showed more patience than I ever would.  I actually complimented her on it and told her that we appreciated her behavior.  I wanted her to hear something nice, instead of all the complaining.  And oddly enough, the two women in our row didn't seem to miss their friend at all.


----------



## telracs

I have started a new thread for the new year, see below.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,248324.0.html


----------

