I walked into the Lyceum with extremely high expectations. I'd heard nothing but great things about the production and was eager to see it for myself. Unfortunately my evening at the theater did not live up to my high expectations. It wasn't bad or boring or unenjoyable, it was just not my thing. And I can appreciate that the production was stunningly well designed and the concept was really incredibly. I can appreciate the lack of set, monochromatic color scheme, and subtle lighting design. I thought Mark Strong was unbelievable as Eddie - definitely a Tony Award winning performance in my opinion.
My feelings on "A View From The Bridge" are difficult to put into coherent thoughts because I have no problem saying the production was brilliant, but I can't say I really enjoyed the show. When the kiss scene happened - if you've seen the show or know the play you understand - I was immediately thrust into the action. I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed the show from that point on. But there were literally moments where I wanted nothing more than the pace to speed up because it was agonizingly slow. Still, as an intelligent theater-goer, I can recognize the reasons behind the pace and all that jazz. Like, in my head I understood the concept but in my heart I just couldn't get behind it - "it" being the concept and the story.
I love me some Russell Tovey, but he was miscast here as Rodolpho. Everyone else was strong, but Mark Strong (his last name is hilariously ironic) was so good that no one else really had the chance to measure up. Also, why cast another actor as the INS officer who barely said more than two words and had all of 10 seconds where he was onstage.
There was nothing tangible about this production, and thus I couldn't really connect to any of the characters or situations. The ending got me interested because something was happening, and I have a hard time with shows where nothing happens but the characters are living in a barren universe. If a character in a realistic/naturalistic play are sitting around doing nothing, that's easier to relate to because I've been there, I've existed in that same world and done nothing. But an empty stage doesn't provide for much except the action and dialogue between the people, and there wasn't enough of that to keep me involved and interested. Stripping everything down - including the lack of accents - sometimes works for me, but not with this particular play. The accents, or absence of accents, frustrated me and took me out of the world of the play at times. The actress playing Catherine had a distinct accent, but she was the only one. The Italian immigrants didn't have accents, which was obviously a strong choice but unrealistic. Every choice that was made in the production made sense when I went back and thought hard about it, but even thinking it all through I still couldn't get behind the concept with this play.
Long story short, the production was great but I was not emotionally stimulated or overwhelmed.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Important Hats of the Twentieth Century
Alright. So last time I saw an MTC show at City Center I disliked the first act and loved the second act (Ripcord). Today's MTC show at City Center was the opposite. I loved the first act and disliked the second. I'm honestly not sure I've ever come across a play with such a weak ending... as if the playwright literally had no idea how to end the show so he just stopped writing. Really, it was pretty dreadful. But Act I was just so much fun! I was really into it -- the story, the acting, the set changes. Everything worked really well. And then the last twenty minutes of Act II were TOTALLY BIZARRE. There's no other word to use except bizarre. Seriously. The acting was still fine, the set changes were as well. But the story took a bizarre turn -- hairy cavemen with GIANT... reproductive glands... using a time travel helmet to... pleasure themselves. I'm not making that up. That actually happened.
So the play was a little wonky. But the acting was actually all around fabulous. The cast could've been cut down with multiple people playing multiple roles, not as intense as 39 Steps, but in a similar vein.
The audience for a 2:30 pm matinee was made up of primarily blue hairs, but they were laughing. The best part of the whole afternoon was when two very old women got up during the applause and literally walked into two actors as they were running up onstage to bow. The actors already onstage noticed and, being in the front row, their remarks were audible. You kind of had to witness that situation to understand just how ill-timed and hilarious it was.
Wasn't my favorite, but certainly wasn't my least favorite. I got some good chuckles out the show, and thoroughly enjoyed all the actors.
So the play was a little wonky. But the acting was actually all around fabulous. The cast could've been cut down with multiple people playing multiple roles, not as intense as 39 Steps, but in a similar vein.
The audience for a 2:30 pm matinee was made up of primarily blue hairs, but they were laughing. The best part of the whole afternoon was when two very old women got up during the applause and literally walked into two actors as they were running up onstage to bow. The actors already onstage noticed and, being in the front row, their remarks were audible. You kind of had to witness that situation to understand just how ill-timed and hilarious it was.
Wasn't my favorite, but certainly wasn't my least favorite. I got some good chuckles out the show, and thoroughly enjoyed all the actors.
Steve
When I walked out of Steve I realized that two nights in a row I had seen almost the same show. Obviously different in concept, acting, and execution, Steve and Dada Woof Papa Hot dealt with the same themes (save for the cancer side plot in Steve). Again we have an affluent New York City gay couple with a kid trying to figure out how to be a functional family. One of the men is caught sexting, the other sleeps with an Argentinian waiter named Esteban. One of them is good with the son, the other has a hard time understanding how to handle the kid. Oh and the first scene was the two couples (and female friend) sitting at a table in a restaurant -- I didn't actually go into detail, but that's how Dada Woof Papa Hot starts too .
And yet Steve had moments of farce and stepped out of the world of realism every once in a while. For that reason the play was uneven. I kind of felt that it needed to go deeper into being a drama or decide it was a comedy, instead of see-sawing back and forth. The funny moments were deliriously funny but the dramatic moments were so-so. So in the end I wasn't emotionally drained like I might've been if the dramatic moments went deeper like the funny moments did.
I saw Matt McGrath just a few weeks ago in George McBride at MCC. He was completely brilliant as an aging drag queen downtown. And in Steve he was completely brilliant as aging ex-Broadway chorus boy, Steven. So I'd say Matt McGrath is just a pretty darn good actor. His comedic timing is great, and his facial expressions are hard to beat.
Steve was much more minimalist than Dada Woof Papa Hot, which was good because if the set had been more complicated it would've ruined the transition from realism. This would've created an issue similar to the one I had with the Bachelors. The idea of pausing reality to rewind and do it over is explored in Steve, and it's an interesting idea that I wish had been used once more -- it was used twice and needed to happen a third time to really seal the deal.
The show didn't amaze me, but I enjoyed myself. Those who love a good musical theater reference will love the show as the characters practically speak in references to musicals old and new.
If you're going to the show, make sure to get there early when the house opens. There's a fun little thing that happens before the show.
And yet Steve had moments of farce and stepped out of the world of realism every once in a while. For that reason the play was uneven. I kind of felt that it needed to go deeper into being a drama or decide it was a comedy, instead of see-sawing back and forth. The funny moments were deliriously funny but the dramatic moments were so-so. So in the end I wasn't emotionally drained like I might've been if the dramatic moments went deeper like the funny moments did.
I saw Matt McGrath just a few weeks ago in George McBride at MCC. He was completely brilliant as an aging drag queen downtown. And in Steve he was completely brilliant as aging ex-Broadway chorus boy, Steven. So I'd say Matt McGrath is just a pretty darn good actor. His comedic timing is great, and his facial expressions are hard to beat.
Steve was much more minimalist than Dada Woof Papa Hot, which was good because if the set had been more complicated it would've ruined the transition from realism. This would've created an issue similar to the one I had with the Bachelors. The idea of pausing reality to rewind and do it over is explored in Steve, and it's an interesting idea that I wish had been used once more -- it was used twice and needed to happen a third time to really seal the deal.
The show didn't amaze me, but I enjoyed myself. Those who love a good musical theater reference will love the show as the characters practically speak in references to musicals old and new.
If you're going to the show, make sure to get there early when the house opens. There's a fun little thing that happens before the show.
Dada Woof Papa Hot
My biggest regret is that I didn't see The Normal Heart back in 2012. Seriously. Missing that production is the one move I've made that I will regret for the rest of my life. So when I saw John Benjamin Hickey's name attached to Dada Woof Papa Hot obviously I bought a ticket. I missed him once, I wasn't going to miss him again.
Dada Woof Paper Hot illustrates what is seemingly the new normal onstage these days -- an affluent New York City gay couple with a couple of kids fighting over issues of fidelity and navigating the waters of middle age. These are themes most everyone can relate to. I was surprised how close to home the story hit for me, my being a by-product of a marriage that stayed together for the kids.
The story followed three couples, all married with kids, navigating the waters of staying faithful to their spouses while having their attention divided among work, family, and extramarital affairs. Pretty standard plot really.
I was most surprised by the set, as there seemed to be a constant stream of new locations from one scene to the next. Entire rooms moved in and out of the playing space, each one showing a different glimpse into the world of the main couple, Rob and Alan.
The one element of the show that really irked me was the use of a recorded voice for Rob and Alan's daughter. She called out during a dinner party from her bedroom, and her voice was so obviously coming from the speakers on either side of the stage that I almost wanted to laugh at the ridiculousness. There was no need for her voice to be heard at all -- or if it was really that necessary it should've been a live voice.
Simply put, John Benjamin Hickey was superb. Patrick Breen, playing Hickey's husband, was great and they were well cast together. I really really really disliked Alex Hurt as Jason, but it wasn't Mr. Hurt as an actor that I didn't like, it was the way he played the character of Jason. Jason was just a hateful (that might be too strong of a word) character to begin with, and his mannerisms and flippant tone frustrated me to no end. But each character had some redeeming quality, and those qualities centered around their love for the children. No matter how much trouble Alan (Hickey) had with the daughter, it was clear he just needed guidance on how to handle her and he was scared of how much he loved her.
Overall, Dada Woof Papa Hot was a heart-warming, enjoyable, family drama worth the $34.00 I payed for the ticket.
Dada Woof Paper Hot illustrates what is seemingly the new normal onstage these days -- an affluent New York City gay couple with a couple of kids fighting over issues of fidelity and navigating the waters of middle age. These are themes most everyone can relate to. I was surprised how close to home the story hit for me, my being a by-product of a marriage that stayed together for the kids.
The story followed three couples, all married with kids, navigating the waters of staying faithful to their spouses while having their attention divided among work, family, and extramarital affairs. Pretty standard plot really.
I was most surprised by the set, as there seemed to be a constant stream of new locations from one scene to the next. Entire rooms moved in and out of the playing space, each one showing a different glimpse into the world of the main couple, Rob and Alan.
The one element of the show that really irked me was the use of a recorded voice for Rob and Alan's daughter. She called out during a dinner party from her bedroom, and her voice was so obviously coming from the speakers on either side of the stage that I almost wanted to laugh at the ridiculousness. There was no need for her voice to be heard at all -- or if it was really that necessary it should've been a live voice.
Simply put, John Benjamin Hickey was superb. Patrick Breen, playing Hickey's husband, was great and they were well cast together. I really really really disliked Alex Hurt as Jason, but it wasn't Mr. Hurt as an actor that I didn't like, it was the way he played the character of Jason. Jason was just a hateful (that might be too strong of a word) character to begin with, and his mannerisms and flippant tone frustrated me to no end. But each character had some redeeming quality, and those qualities centered around their love for the children. No matter how much trouble Alan (Hickey) had with the daughter, it was clear he just needed guidance on how to handle her and he was scared of how much he loved her.
Overall, Dada Woof Papa Hot was a heart-warming, enjoyable, family drama worth the $34.00 I payed for the ticket.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
The Bachelors
Unless you plan on giving me step by step directions over the phone, don't expect me to be able to find my way around the West Village. Finding Rattlestick Playwrights Theater was an adventure. Let's just say I might've called for backup and Amanda (I just assume at this point my "readers" are people who know who I'm talking about...) had to come rescue me. Really I'm making this all out to be more dramatic than necessary.
The Bachelors is a new play written by Caroline V. McGraw. This production was directed by Portia Krieger, the Associate Director of Fun Home, and starred Black DeLong, Quincy Dunn-Baker, and Babak Tafti. I was immediately interested in seeing the show after hearing that Babak had been cast as I'd seen (and loved) him in The North Pool and at Barrington Stage Company (the summer I was interning there) in Much Ado About Nothing. Also, I got a free ticket for volunteering to usher... so even more exciting.
I was told I would enjoy The Bachelors. I was told it was "my kind of thing" and yeah, it definitely was. An all-male cast, naturalistic/realistic, kind of gross, kind of sad, very dysfunctional. My kind of play. I enjoyed the show. I didn't love the theater itself, and I found the squeakiness of the chairs distracting. I know it sounds like a stupid complaint, but there were times when audience members moved around so much I was convinced the squeaking was playing on a track in the background of the play. All squeaking aside, the acting was quite good. Each of the three men had established personalities that were all different, but you could see how they kind of fell into this easy way of living together without really knowing each other. They're all scared of growing up. I hated each of them at different moments throughout for very different reasons.
The practically scathing review in the NY Times was, in my opinion (but really what does that matter), unjust. The script, while not perfect, is not the shit show the Times review makes it out to be. My biggest issue was the two times the play took a sharp turn away from the realistic world the characters were living in. For those of you who had the fortune of seeing the show, I'm talking about the door moments. If you haven't seen the show it doesn't matter -- just know there are two moments where the front door magically opens and the characters are like OMG A GHOST.
Good stuff happening at Rattlestick Playwrights Theater. And a good foray into the work of Lesser America (the company that put the production on) for me.
The Bachelors is a new play written by Caroline V. McGraw. This production was directed by Portia Krieger, the Associate Director of Fun Home, and starred Black DeLong, Quincy Dunn-Baker, and Babak Tafti. I was immediately interested in seeing the show after hearing that Babak had been cast as I'd seen (and loved) him in The North Pool and at Barrington Stage Company (the summer I was interning there) in Much Ado About Nothing. Also, I got a free ticket for volunteering to usher... so even more exciting.
I was told I would enjoy The Bachelors. I was told it was "my kind of thing" and yeah, it definitely was. An all-male cast, naturalistic/realistic, kind of gross, kind of sad, very dysfunctional. My kind of play. I enjoyed the show. I didn't love the theater itself, and I found the squeakiness of the chairs distracting. I know it sounds like a stupid complaint, but there were times when audience members moved around so much I was convinced the squeaking was playing on a track in the background of the play. All squeaking aside, the acting was quite good. Each of the three men had established personalities that were all different, but you could see how they kind of fell into this easy way of living together without really knowing each other. They're all scared of growing up. I hated each of them at different moments throughout for very different reasons.
The practically scathing review in the NY Times was, in my opinion (but really what does that matter), unjust. The script, while not perfect, is not the shit show the Times review makes it out to be. My biggest issue was the two times the play took a sharp turn away from the realistic world the characters were living in. For those of you who had the fortune of seeing the show, I'm talking about the door moments. If you haven't seen the show it doesn't matter -- just know there are two moments where the front door magically opens and the characters are like OMG A GHOST.
Good stuff happening at Rattlestick Playwrights Theater. And a good foray into the work of Lesser America (the company that put the production on) for me.
On Your Feet!
This is long overdue.
I saw On Your Feet! during press performances, so right before it officially opened. I went into the show not knowing much about Gloria Estefan -- really I just knew all the words to "Get On Your Feet" (for reasons only a few of you trusty readers will understand). I had a fantastic seat -- H 115 right smack dab in the center of the orchestra. Once seated I settled in for an entertaining evening.
The second the curtain speech ended and the music and lights started I was transfixed. I don't think there's anything on Broadway right now quite as amazing as the band playing onstage at On Your Feet! (I understand that people will argue Hamilton, but please people I haven't seen it... want to buy me a ticket?) The first few minutes of On Your Feet! are IMPOSSIBLE not to smile through. Honestly, the music was just perfect and set the scene so well. Not a song went by that I wasn't impressed by the musicians -- some of which are original members of Miami Sound Machine.
Jukebox musicals are hard to get right. On Your Feet! didn't get it perfect, but let's be honest there can only be one perfect jukebox musical... Jersey Boys. Gloria Estefan puts up a good fight though. Unfortunately the book of the musical just can't compete with the Rick Elice's genius playing a few blocks away. Alexander Dinelaris' book just skims the surface of emotion, provides a basic outline of Gloria and Emilio's love story, and then puts you through a hellaciously slow second act. I had no idea there was a bus accident that almost killed Gloria Estefan, and while it was well done the whole recovery process was a tad too long.
My biggest problem with On Your Feet! is the timeline of events. I never really knew what year it was, or how much time passed between one scene and another. I needed some reference aside from clothing styles and quick quips from sassy music producers. Who knew the bus accident happened in 1990? I thought it was like 2005 at that point. Perhaps I should've realized the timeline on my own, but a little help would've been appreciated.
Ana Villafane's performance as Gloria Estefan was just stunning. Truly she was amazing and hard to take your eyes off of. She was a triple threat up there and a joy to watch. I can only imagine how satisfied Gloria must be to know that her story is being portrayed by such a talent. Josh Segarra, portraying Emilio Estefan, was absolutely charming but I felt his thick accent got in the way of his singing voice. The supporting cast was great and I had a lot of fun watching them throughout the show. The one shock of the night was the father's voice -- Eliseo Roman. He has a couple of solo moments and his voice SHOCKED me it was so beautiful.
Long story short, I was thoroughly entertained and truly had a great time.
I saw On Your Feet! during press performances, so right before it officially opened. I went into the show not knowing much about Gloria Estefan -- really I just knew all the words to "Get On Your Feet" (for reasons only a few of you trusty readers will understand). I had a fantastic seat -- H 115 right smack dab in the center of the orchestra. Once seated I settled in for an entertaining evening.
The second the curtain speech ended and the music and lights started I was transfixed. I don't think there's anything on Broadway right now quite as amazing as the band playing onstage at On Your Feet! (I understand that people will argue Hamilton, but please people I haven't seen it... want to buy me a ticket?) The first few minutes of On Your Feet! are IMPOSSIBLE not to smile through. Honestly, the music was just perfect and set the scene so well. Not a song went by that I wasn't impressed by the musicians -- some of which are original members of Miami Sound Machine.
Jukebox musicals are hard to get right. On Your Feet! didn't get it perfect, but let's be honest there can only be one perfect jukebox musical... Jersey Boys. Gloria Estefan puts up a good fight though. Unfortunately the book of the musical just can't compete with the Rick Elice's genius playing a few blocks away. Alexander Dinelaris' book just skims the surface of emotion, provides a basic outline of Gloria and Emilio's love story, and then puts you through a hellaciously slow second act. I had no idea there was a bus accident that almost killed Gloria Estefan, and while it was well done the whole recovery process was a tad too long.
My biggest problem with On Your Feet! is the timeline of events. I never really knew what year it was, or how much time passed between one scene and another. I needed some reference aside from clothing styles and quick quips from sassy music producers. Who knew the bus accident happened in 1990? I thought it was like 2005 at that point. Perhaps I should've realized the timeline on my own, but a little help would've been appreciated.
Ana Villafane's performance as Gloria Estefan was just stunning. Truly she was amazing and hard to take your eyes off of. She was a triple threat up there and a joy to watch. I can only imagine how satisfied Gloria must be to know that her story is being portrayed by such a talent. Josh Segarra, portraying Emilio Estefan, was absolutely charming but I felt his thick accent got in the way of his singing voice. The supporting cast was great and I had a lot of fun watching them throughout the show. The one shock of the night was the father's voice -- Eliseo Roman. He has a couple of solo moments and his voice SHOCKED me it was so beautiful.
Long story short, I was thoroughly entertained and truly had a great time.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Allegiance
I, with my stone-cold bitch-face, shed a tear twice during the two and a half hours I spent inside the Longacre Theatre. The first tear fell during the opening number -- Lea Salonga's voice live is just astounding. The second tear fell during the last few moments of the musical, when everything is wrapping up and the story comes full circle.
So great, I cried a couple of times. But those two moments were the only two times I felt anything during the show. There's so much there -- the story is interesting, moving, and deep. Unfortunately Allegiance did not live up to expectations. George Takei, the man behind the story, making his Broadway debut, was barely a supporting character. The characters were two-dimensional. The story dragged. The romances were anything buy romantic.
I had a huge problem with the lighting and projection design. It was all too dark. I expressed my feelings about blackouts in my last post -- blackouts take me out of the performance, make my mind start to wander. The most creative part of the musical was the recreation of the Atom bomb dropping on Hiroshima. The lighting design at that moment was gorgeous and evoked emotion, which is what was lacking during every other moment.
The standout performance was Michael K. Lee. Although I wasn't necessarily on his side (the resistance), Lee's character, Frankie, was the most fleshed out and three-dimensional. Telly Leung's voice has grown since Godspell, but his character was undeveloped. There was so much heart put into the musical, but poor direction killed it. If the book of a musical is bad but the music, characters, story itself, direction, etc works... who cares how lame the book is. In the case of Allegiance, the music isn't memorable enough and the characters aren't fleshed out enough.
Overall I had a good time, but was underwhelmed. Go see the show if only to see George Takei onstage and experience his story. There's a lot of heart behind the production, but the execution left me wanting more.
So great, I cried a couple of times. But those two moments were the only two times I felt anything during the show. There's so much there -- the story is interesting, moving, and deep. Unfortunately Allegiance did not live up to expectations. George Takei, the man behind the story, making his Broadway debut, was barely a supporting character. The characters were two-dimensional. The story dragged. The romances were anything buy romantic.
I had a huge problem with the lighting and projection design. It was all too dark. I expressed my feelings about blackouts in my last post -- blackouts take me out of the performance, make my mind start to wander. The most creative part of the musical was the recreation of the Atom bomb dropping on Hiroshima. The lighting design at that moment was gorgeous and evoked emotion, which is what was lacking during every other moment.
The standout performance was Michael K. Lee. Although I wasn't necessarily on his side (the resistance), Lee's character, Frankie, was the most fleshed out and three-dimensional. Telly Leung's voice has grown since Godspell, but his character was undeveloped. There was so much heart put into the musical, but poor direction killed it. If the book of a musical is bad but the music, characters, story itself, direction, etc works... who cares how lame the book is. In the case of Allegiance, the music isn't memorable enough and the characters aren't fleshed out enough.
Overall I had a good time, but was underwhelmed. Go see the show if only to see George Takei onstage and experience his story. There's a lot of heart behind the production, but the execution left me wanting more.
Catch The Butcher
(I'M SO BEHIND! I saw this show a few weeks ago...)
My mind wasn't blown, but I had an enjoyable time. This show didn't leave me with too much to think about -- other than why in the word someone thought it was a good idea to have seating be general admission.
I was a die-hard fan of the television show Dexter up until the last two seasons when it just imploded on itself and was too shitty to stomach. Lauren Luna Velez who played Lt. Maria LaGuerta on Dexter was once again thrust into the world of a serial killer in "Catch The Butcher" at the Cherry Lane Theatre. I never really cared for her on TV and I didn't really care for onstage. She wasn't bad, just okay. Jonathan Walker, playing the serial killer, was just fabulous. Absolutely perfect for the role and I enjoyed all of his moments. The third character (played by Angelina Fiordellisi, who is the Producing Artistic Director of Cherry Lane Theatre) added a bit of comic relief and was very good, if not slightly annoying.
My mind wasn't blown, but I had an enjoyable time. This show didn't leave me with too much to think about -- other than why in the word someone thought it was a good idea to have seating be general admission.
I was a die-hard fan of the television show Dexter up until the last two seasons when it just imploded on itself and was too shitty to stomach. Lauren Luna Velez who played Lt. Maria LaGuerta on Dexter was once again thrust into the world of a serial killer in "Catch The Butcher" at the Cherry Lane Theatre. I never really cared for her on TV and I didn't really care for onstage. She wasn't bad, just okay. Jonathan Walker, playing the serial killer, was just fabulous. Absolutely perfect for the role and I enjoyed all of his moments. The third character (played by Angelina Fiordellisi, who is the Producing Artistic Director of Cherry Lane Theatre) added a bit of comic relief and was very good, if not slightly annoying.
My biggest issue with the production was the lighting. There were so many blackouts to indicate the passage of time. But blackouts just make me want to take a nap, and they totally throw me off and take me out of the world of the play. I totally understand what the production was trying to get across with the blackouts but I wish the stage didn't go dark as often as it did. I found my mind wandering during every blackout, and there were so many that basically my mind was constantly wandering.
Aside from ridiculous audience behavior, it was an enjoyable evening at the theater. I got to experience a new (well, new to me) Off-Broadway theater.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
China Doll
Until I have words to describe this disaster, please check out what others are saying... here.
*Note: I saw final dress rehearsal on Tuesday 10/20.
*Note: I saw final dress rehearsal on Tuesday 10/20.
The Haunted Train
I went to see this show because my roommate was the music director/the band -- I say "the band" because there was only a piano. First of all, I'd never been to Theater For A New City on the Lower East Side before. It was... not the nicest space ever. There are a bunch of theaters in the building, and "The Haunted Train" was in a small basement theater. I guess you could call the theater a black box since it's literally a room made of cinder blocks that is painted black. The theater space itself was perfect for this particular show.
There were two moments of this new musical that were so preachy I wanted to get up and walk out. A show about mental illness is bound to have preachy moments, and "The Haunted Train" was no exception. Let's start a revolution so patients locked up in psych wards aren't taken advantage of! Here here! Interestingly enough, the few times the script was weakest were the times the music died down the most.
The songs were the most entertaining part of the show -- partly because the voices of the five actors were incredible. We all know it takes an amazing voice to get me really into a musical. The main character, Cloyd, played by Jarrad Biron Green was just a total delight to watch and listen to. Everyone else sang beautifully, but Green could act and sing (often at the same time).
Overall, I was impressed by this musical. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the worst thing I've seen in the last few weeks by far. Did it feel a bit like a rip-off of "Next to Normal" once in a while? Yes. But it was original enough that I wasn't totally bothered by the last song ending on the word "light" a la the finale of N2N (okay fine, that one ends on "dark" but you know what I mean). My biggest problem was the length -- 100 minutes with no intermission. Cut out the two preachy parts and it would've cut down the show and been a much more reasonable length. But having no intermission in a musical that deals with mental health and being locked up was very smart, as it gave off an air of danger. While it was obvious you weren't locked in and unable to get out during the duration of the piece (we were told we could get out if necessary through a VERY loud door), once the lights went out it was clear you were supposed to feel as though you were in the hospital right along with Cloyd.
I was told by someone I went to college with who happened to see the show the night before I did that a giant rat scurried across the stage at one point... did I mention the theater itself was janky?
There were two moments of this new musical that were so preachy I wanted to get up and walk out. A show about mental illness is bound to have preachy moments, and "The Haunted Train" was no exception. Let's start a revolution so patients locked up in psych wards aren't taken advantage of! Here here! Interestingly enough, the few times the script was weakest were the times the music died down the most.
The songs were the most entertaining part of the show -- partly because the voices of the five actors were incredible. We all know it takes an amazing voice to get me really into a musical. The main character, Cloyd, played by Jarrad Biron Green was just a total delight to watch and listen to. Everyone else sang beautifully, but Green could act and sing (often at the same time).
Overall, I was impressed by this musical. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the worst thing I've seen in the last few weeks by far. Did it feel a bit like a rip-off of "Next to Normal" once in a while? Yes. But it was original enough that I wasn't totally bothered by the last song ending on the word "light" a la the finale of N2N (okay fine, that one ends on "dark" but you know what I mean). My biggest problem was the length -- 100 minutes with no intermission. Cut out the two preachy parts and it would've cut down the show and been a much more reasonable length. But having no intermission in a musical that deals with mental health and being locked up was very smart, as it gave off an air of danger. While it was obvious you weren't locked in and unable to get out during the duration of the piece (we were told we could get out if necessary through a VERY loud door), once the lights went out it was clear you were supposed to feel as though you were in the hospital right along with Cloyd.
I was told by someone I went to college with who happened to see the show the night before I did that a giant rat scurried across the stage at one point... did I mention the theater itself was janky?
Monday, October 19, 2015
The 39 Steps
Last year when I was at McCarter, I saw Ken Ludwig's "Baskerville" many times and experienced the show from the inside out. I wish I had seen "39 Steps" BEFORE seeing "Baskerville" because they're so similar and one clearly took tropes and ideas from the other. The Off-Broadway production of "39 Steps" was very low-key and seemingly low-budget. The acting, aside from the lone woman who was an understudy, was superb. The lone woman didn't seem to know what it means to project because I had trouble hearing her throughout the show.
I like the Union Square Theatre quite a bit and it was the perfect location for this show. Unfortunately the audience was very small - maybe 100 people were there. But every single person on that stage gave off the aura that they were having fun and loving every second of the performance. That's an amazing feeling as an audience member - to feel like the actors aren't concerned about the number of butts in seats, but rather just living in the moment and performing.
I didn't dislike the show, but I didn't love it either. Nothing blew me away, but I enjoyed myself.
I like the Union Square Theatre quite a bit and it was the perfect location for this show. Unfortunately the audience was very small - maybe 100 people were there. But every single person on that stage gave off the aura that they were having fun and loving every second of the performance. That's an amazing feeling as an audience member - to feel like the actors aren't concerned about the number of butts in seats, but rather just living in the moment and performing.
I didn't dislike the show, but I didn't love it either. Nothing blew me away, but I enjoyed myself.
The Gin Game
Alright. So, I'm writing this after the reviews came out, and the NY Times review is a rave as I knew it would be. I'll start by saying I was given a comp to the show, and it's no shock that my opinions on shows can be skewed when I don't pay for my ticket.
By no means was this a bad piece of theater, but it just wasn't exciting or noteworthy. I cannot imagine paying full price to just sit and watch these two actors (no doubt they're legends) bicker and play gin rummy for two hours. Someone told me that the show was basically watching your grandparents fighting except on a stage. But why do I want to see that when I could just experience it? (Well not anymore if you know what I mean, but at one point I could've.)
I'm glad I got to see James Earl Jones and Cicily Tyson onstage - both were great. I have nothing bad to say about the play, production, or performances. I just didn't really care about what was happening. I didn't have much of a stake in the outcome. The play went around and around in circles, never really going anywhere. The audience seemed to be LOVING it, totally eating every word up. At one point I turned to my friend and asked why the audience was applauding, because really there was rarely a need for the abundance of applause. People were getting so into it! And I was kind of like oh okay well I'm glad I saw Mufasa onstage before... well, before he can't perform any longer.
By no means was this a bad piece of theater, but it just wasn't exciting or noteworthy. I cannot imagine paying full price to just sit and watch these two actors (no doubt they're legends) bicker and play gin rummy for two hours. Someone told me that the show was basically watching your grandparents fighting except on a stage. But why do I want to see that when I could just experience it? (Well not anymore if you know what I mean, but at one point I could've.)
I'm glad I got to see James Earl Jones and Cicily Tyson onstage - both were great. I have nothing bad to say about the play, production, or performances. I just didn't really care about what was happening. I didn't have much of a stake in the outcome. The play went around and around in circles, never really going anywhere. The audience seemed to be LOVING it, totally eating every word up. At one point I turned to my friend and asked why the audience was applauding, because really there was rarely a need for the abundance of applause. People were getting so into it! And I was kind of like oh okay well I'm glad I saw Mufasa onstage before... well, before he can't perform any longer.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Ripcord
Never in my life have I been so utterly dismayed by a first act only to love the second act of a play. The utter dislike of the first act was no fault of the acting or direction, rather the play itself. So many bizarre and unfathomable things happen that I found myself wondering if was actually seeing a piece of professional theater with a world renowned actress. Too much was going on. I think that's what the issue was. There were too many set changes and blackouts. I was constantly taken out of the world of the play.
But the second act was quite remarkable. The story line took a turn for the better, the relationships between characters were more interesting and realistic, and I just got a lot more out of the second act. Ripcord was not the best show I've seen lately, but certainly not the worst. It was nice to see Holland Taylor, and she was fabulous as expected.
But the second act was quite remarkable. The story line took a turn for the better, the relationships between characters were more interesting and realistic, and I just got a lot more out of the second act. Ripcord was not the best show I've seen lately, but certainly not the worst. It was nice to see Holland Taylor, and she was fabulous as expected.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
The Christians
I don't think it's any surprise that I enjoy plays and musicals of a religious nature. So when I first heard about The Christians at Playwright's Horizons I bought a ticket on the assumption that it was going to be my kind of thing. I judged a book by the cover, I guess you could say.
The Christians is indeed a play of a religious nature. But I should've done some research before walking into the theater. I should've had some idea of the piece, it's history, and maybe learned a little about the playwright. This wasn't the kind of show you could just walk into without knowing the playwright's (Lucas Hnath) background, and a bit about other shows he's written. I wish I had known what I know now about him when I arrived at the theater.
I'm about to go on a little rant. Do not read further if you're sensitive re: religion because it's not going to be pleasant.
I was infuriated by The Christians. Not because of the physical production or the acting - honestly I didn't care about most of that. The words spoken made me angry. I absolutely believe religion is the root of all evil. It pisses me off. It makes me furious that a woman can marry a man and be in his religious shadow for 22 years (this is part of the play, not just a hypothetical situation), without expressing her own beliefs because she loves him and is willing to play her part of preacher's wife. Marriages in my family have been torn apart by religion. Whatever religious beliefs I might've held as a kid were completely destroyed when I watched members of my family go through the whole "my beliefs are too strong to be married to you because you're not religious enough" situation. I try so hard to be accepting and to understand how people find healing power in God or whatever, but I can't imagine believing in something I cannot put my hands on. Religion is intangible, God is intangible, and I can't understand how you can put all your faith in something intangible. I've been preached at in churches so many times in my life (at weddings, funerals, etc.) - told that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in whatever is being spewed at me. It makes me feel physically sick. There were moments during The Christians where my stomach turned over.
What I appreciated about The Christians is how incredibly divisive it is. Out of the thousands of people who will see the show during its run, every patron's own personal experience with religion will determine how they feel upon walking out of the theater. Me? I felt reaffirmed in my Atheist beliefs. I felt unsettled. Also, how does anyone have the time and attention and head-space to deal with the voice of God? I can't even deal with my own voice inside my head telling me what to do, think, feel.
The production was fine. I wasn't a huge fan of the use of microphones, which I'm told is a production element Lucas Hnath uses frequently. It made sense, made me feel like I was in a megachurch, during the sermons. But no one has a private conversation in their bedroom using a microphone. And if we're talking about God hearing what's going on? Well, pretty sure you don't need a microphone for God to hear you, right? Isn't that the point? The acting was good - again it was perfect for the play because Preacher Paul could've stepped out of any church. I liked the music and the choir. It was funny at times and moving at others.
I'm so incredibly firm on my beliefs (or lack there of I guess), that it was difficult for me to feel anything for the characters... except the wife. All those years ago the preacher's wife married a man believing she would spend the rest of her life with him, that they would grow old together and be connected through their religion. Little did she know he was keeping secrets - he had radical beliefs buried deep down that he wasn't sharing. The wife is left with a choice, stay and be miserable or leave. She leaves, THANK GOODNESS, but not before expressing her utter devotion and love to the man who destroyed her life.
It's impossible for a play like The Christians not to offend, to mean different things to different people, and I'm a perfect example of that. This is the first time where my personal struggles and beliefs have gotten so in the way that I wasn't able to be objective about a piece of theater. I take full responsibility for how I felt about the show -- it's not a fault of the show.
I waited to post this until a few weeks after I saw the show, trying to figure out if my thoughts would change or I would have a moment of brilliance where it all became clear to me. But that didn't happen. So this post is what you get. And I'm sorry if I offended anyone during my anti-religious rant.
The Christians is indeed a play of a religious nature. But I should've done some research before walking into the theater. I should've had some idea of the piece, it's history, and maybe learned a little about the playwright. This wasn't the kind of show you could just walk into without knowing the playwright's (Lucas Hnath) background, and a bit about other shows he's written. I wish I had known what I know now about him when I arrived at the theater.
I'm about to go on a little rant. Do not read further if you're sensitive re: religion because it's not going to be pleasant.
I was infuriated by The Christians. Not because of the physical production or the acting - honestly I didn't care about most of that. The words spoken made me angry. I absolutely believe religion is the root of all evil. It pisses me off. It makes me furious that a woman can marry a man and be in his religious shadow for 22 years (this is part of the play, not just a hypothetical situation), without expressing her own beliefs because she loves him and is willing to play her part of preacher's wife. Marriages in my family have been torn apart by religion. Whatever religious beliefs I might've held as a kid were completely destroyed when I watched members of my family go through the whole "my beliefs are too strong to be married to you because you're not religious enough" situation. I try so hard to be accepting and to understand how people find healing power in God or whatever, but I can't imagine believing in something I cannot put my hands on. Religion is intangible, God is intangible, and I can't understand how you can put all your faith in something intangible. I've been preached at in churches so many times in my life (at weddings, funerals, etc.) - told that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in whatever is being spewed at me. It makes me feel physically sick. There were moments during The Christians where my stomach turned over.
What I appreciated about The Christians is how incredibly divisive it is. Out of the thousands of people who will see the show during its run, every patron's own personal experience with religion will determine how they feel upon walking out of the theater. Me? I felt reaffirmed in my Atheist beliefs. I felt unsettled. Also, how does anyone have the time and attention and head-space to deal with the voice of God? I can't even deal with my own voice inside my head telling me what to do, think, feel.
The production was fine. I wasn't a huge fan of the use of microphones, which I'm told is a production element Lucas Hnath uses frequently. It made sense, made me feel like I was in a megachurch, during the sermons. But no one has a private conversation in their bedroom using a microphone. And if we're talking about God hearing what's going on? Well, pretty sure you don't need a microphone for God to hear you, right? Isn't that the point? The acting was good - again it was perfect for the play because Preacher Paul could've stepped out of any church. I liked the music and the choir. It was funny at times and moving at others.
I'm so incredibly firm on my beliefs (or lack there of I guess), that it was difficult for me to feel anything for the characters... except the wife. All those years ago the preacher's wife married a man believing she would spend the rest of her life with him, that they would grow old together and be connected through their religion. Little did she know he was keeping secrets - he had radical beliefs buried deep down that he wasn't sharing. The wife is left with a choice, stay and be miserable or leave. She leaves, THANK GOODNESS, but not before expressing her utter devotion and love to the man who destroyed her life.
It's impossible for a play like The Christians not to offend, to mean different things to different people, and I'm a perfect example of that. This is the first time where my personal struggles and beliefs have gotten so in the way that I wasn't able to be objective about a piece of theater. I take full responsibility for how I felt about the show -- it's not a fault of the show.
I waited to post this until a few weeks after I saw the show, trying to figure out if my thoughts would change or I would have a moment of brilliance where it all became clear to me. But that didn't happen. So this post is what you get. And I'm sorry if I offended anyone during my anti-religious rant.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
The Legend of Georgia McBride
The word "legend" in the title of this play says it all. It's a fairy-tale really, where the princess is a broken (and broke) man with a baby on the way and a job as an Elvis impersonator that sends him home with nothing in his pockets but disappointment. But guess what? There's a happy ending. A sappy, happy, heart-warming ending. Not my favorite kind of ending, but it worked here.
The Legend of Georgia McBride was the most spectacular drag show I've ever been to.
Now, I haven't witnessed many drag queens perform -- unlike my mother and sister who spent every night in Miami Beach last March at the same drag club. But I'm pretty confident in my ability to recognize good drag when I see it, and let me tell you the drag show I saw onstage at the Lucille Lortel Theatre tonight? Well, it was just great. And a really great drag show would've been a fun way to spend an evening, but Georgia McBride provided a narrative as well! It wasn't the most brilliant narrative I've seen play out onstage, but who cares? I wasn't there to have my mind blown. I was there to have a good time.
Honestly, I'm not sure when the last time I laughed so hard at a show was. The jokes were spot on. The costumes were pretty darn impressive. It was one of the most joyous evenings I've had at the theater in a long time. Also, the show was an hour and forty minutes with no intermission and started at 7:00 pm. The play was over by 8:45 pm, and the talk-back with the cast and crew was over by 9:15 pm. I wish every night at the theater was timed like that.
My interest in the show was piqued after I found out Matthew Lopez was the playwright. Last winter (spring maybe?) I saw Reverberation at Hartford Stage and was just blown away. To be quite honest, I had high expectations walking into Georgia McBride because I loved the last Lopez piece I saw so much. My expectations weren't exactly met, but it didn't matter. There's just no way to compare. Two completely different shows, both great in their own right.
I was happy to see all five actors stay for the talk-back because I always enjoy seeing them interact with each other as real people and not characters. The choreographer, director, and one of MCC's Artistic Directors were also in attendance. The questions asked by audience members were not earth shattering by any means, but the cast had some good answers to stupidly asked questions. To me that shows the actors understand the meaning behind what they're saying and doing onstage. Many of them had been with the production for years in various iterations and it was obvious they were all very invested in the piece.
Two of the five performers were stunning in every way -- Dave Thomas Brown (Casey) and Matt McGrath (Tracy). Brown made a gorgeous woman, and his transformation into a remarkable drag queen was exciting to watch. McGrath was just made to play the role of a drag mother and stole the scene time and time again. There was something about the character of Jo (Casey's wife) that just didn't sit right with me. She wasn't as believable as the others. As a character Jo was well written, but I had issues with the Afton Williamson's delivery of lines.
My biggest problem with the entire production? SPOILER ALERT. The freaking babies at the end. It was enough for Jo to come out without the baby bump, we didn't need to see the twin babies (one in pink and one in blue) too. I get that it tied together the theme of family (which, as the actors discussed in the talkback, was extremely important), but for me it killed any sense of realism because they were SO OBVIOUSLY dolls. But let's be real, unless we start casting out of maternity wings, this is how babies will be represented onstage.
All in all? I liked it. It didn't blow my mind. But I laughed... a lot. And I got to spend a night with friends -- both of which loved the show. Do you realize how unusual it is to see a show with two extremely critical theater-going friends and all three of you walk out at the end smiling? Let me be the first to tell, it's rare. So hats off to the cast and crew of The Legend of Georgia McBride for taking away my resting bitch-face for the evening!
The Legend of Georgia McBride was the most spectacular drag show I've ever been to.
Now, I haven't witnessed many drag queens perform -- unlike my mother and sister who spent every night in Miami Beach last March at the same drag club. But I'm pretty confident in my ability to recognize good drag when I see it, and let me tell you the drag show I saw onstage at the Lucille Lortel Theatre tonight? Well, it was just great. And a really great drag show would've been a fun way to spend an evening, but Georgia McBride provided a narrative as well! It wasn't the most brilliant narrative I've seen play out onstage, but who cares? I wasn't there to have my mind blown. I was there to have a good time.
Honestly, I'm not sure when the last time I laughed so hard at a show was. The jokes were spot on. The costumes were pretty darn impressive. It was one of the most joyous evenings I've had at the theater in a long time. Also, the show was an hour and forty minutes with no intermission and started at 7:00 pm. The play was over by 8:45 pm, and the talk-back with the cast and crew was over by 9:15 pm. I wish every night at the theater was timed like that.
My interest in the show was piqued after I found out Matthew Lopez was the playwright. Last winter (spring maybe?) I saw Reverberation at Hartford Stage and was just blown away. To be quite honest, I had high expectations walking into Georgia McBride because I loved the last Lopez piece I saw so much. My expectations weren't exactly met, but it didn't matter. There's just no way to compare. Two completely different shows, both great in their own right.
I was happy to see all five actors stay for the talk-back because I always enjoy seeing them interact with each other as real people and not characters. The choreographer, director, and one of MCC's Artistic Directors were also in attendance. The questions asked by audience members were not earth shattering by any means, but the cast had some good answers to stupidly asked questions. To me that shows the actors understand the meaning behind what they're saying and doing onstage. Many of them had been with the production for years in various iterations and it was obvious they were all very invested in the piece.
Two of the five performers were stunning in every way -- Dave Thomas Brown (Casey) and Matt McGrath (Tracy). Brown made a gorgeous woman, and his transformation into a remarkable drag queen was exciting to watch. McGrath was just made to play the role of a drag mother and stole the scene time and time again. There was something about the character of Jo (Casey's wife) that just didn't sit right with me. She wasn't as believable as the others. As a character Jo was well written, but I had issues with the Afton Williamson's delivery of lines.
My biggest problem with the entire production? SPOILER ALERT. The freaking babies at the end. It was enough for Jo to come out without the baby bump, we didn't need to see the twin babies (one in pink and one in blue) too. I get that it tied together the theme of family (which, as the actors discussed in the talkback, was extremely important), but for me it killed any sense of realism because they were SO OBVIOUSLY dolls. But let's be real, unless we start casting out of maternity wings, this is how babies will be represented onstage.
All in all? I liked it. It didn't blow my mind. But I laughed... a lot. And I got to spend a night with friends -- both of which loved the show. Do you realize how unusual it is to see a show with two extremely critical theater-going friends and all three of you walk out at the end smiling? Let me be the first to tell, it's rare. So hats off to the cast and crew of The Legend of Georgia McBride for taking away my resting bitch-face for the evening!
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Spring Awakening
This was a preview performance on September 15th at 8:00 pm.
I sat in the front mezz/row B/seat 21.
The ticket was $51 on TDF (that's including fees).
* I'm going on the assumption that people reading this post have an idea of what Deaf West does, and at least a basic knowledge of how this revival of Spring Awakening is performed.
I have a lot of thoughts regarding Deaf West's production of Spring Awakening. Let me first say that until last night I had never seen a production of SA onstage. I knew all the music and I knew the basic plot, but I'd never actually seen the show before. The original cast recording has never been my favorite -- there are a few songs I really love, but I've never really been blown away by what I was listening to when I put the recording on.
In terms of artistic value? This production was unreal. Stunningly gorgeous in the technical and visual sense. But I had serious issues with the book of the musical. And when I say serious I mean a lot of the dialogue is laugh inducing. The stupidity of the dialogue was made more obvious through the voice-overs. Let me just say that the "voice of" part was so much more than just a voice-over, but that's the best way to describe in words what was happening. The "voice of" part was kind of an alter ego, one that could verbally express what the character was signing. They acted as a beautiful kind of support system, which was interesting.
I wanted so badly to be obsessed with this production because it's definitely my kind of musical. Did I get chills? Yes. But overall, the show just doesn't hit me in the solar plexus -- which is my gauge for whether or not I can truly say I love a show.
Honestly? I think SA wants to be deep. It wants to prove a point. It wants to say something about the human condition, about growing up, about navigating young adulthood. But it falls short. I want more. The book is poorly written, and thus the importance of what's happening doesn't come through.
I sat in the front mezz/row B/seat 21.
The ticket was $51 on TDF (that's including fees).
* I'm going on the assumption that people reading this post have an idea of what Deaf West does, and at least a basic knowledge of how this revival of Spring Awakening is performed.
I have a lot of thoughts regarding Deaf West's production of Spring Awakening. Let me first say that until last night I had never seen a production of SA onstage. I knew all the music and I knew the basic plot, but I'd never actually seen the show before. The original cast recording has never been my favorite -- there are a few songs I really love, but I've never really been blown away by what I was listening to when I put the recording on.
In terms of artistic value? This production was unreal. Stunningly gorgeous in the technical and visual sense. But I had serious issues with the book of the musical. And when I say serious I mean a lot of the dialogue is laugh inducing. The stupidity of the dialogue was made more obvious through the voice-overs. Let me just say that the "voice of" part was so much more than just a voice-over, but that's the best way to describe in words what was happening. The "voice of" part was kind of an alter ego, one that could verbally express what the character was signing. They acted as a beautiful kind of support system, which was interesting.
I wanted so badly to be obsessed with this production because it's definitely my kind of musical. Did I get chills? Yes. But overall, the show just doesn't hit me in the solar plexus -- which is my gauge for whether or not I can truly say I love a show.
Honestly? I think SA wants to be deep. It wants to prove a point. It wants to say something about the human condition, about growing up, about navigating young adulthood. But it falls short. I want more. The book is poorly written, and thus the importance of what's happening doesn't come through.
One of my biggest issues was the freaking moving staircase. That set piece is so overused lately. I'm pretty sure Michael Arden climbed a staircase just like that one every single night during his run at Papermill in Hunchback last spring. American Idiot? Moving staircase. The 2012 revival of Jesus Christ Superstar? Moving staircase. Oh and I haven't seen Hamilton yet, but I've been told there's a moving staircase... get the picture? It's used a lot these days. So nothing new happening there.
I am totally obsessed with the idea of seeing newbies onstage. The majority of the cast was making their Broadway debuts. I'd seen 5 of the cast members onstage before. That's it. And that was refreshing. Were some of the actors green? Yeah. Did it matter? No. It's not a show that requires precision and perfection in all things -- pitch, for example.
I can't stop thinking about the show. It was well worth the money I paid. It didn't make me cry, but it made me think. It made me think about what makes a perfect musical, and how a musical that really didn't need a revival could be transformed to be worth being on Broadway again. So go see it and form your own opinions. I'm not part of the SA fan club, but I am a part of the Michael Arden fan club. Let me tell you, that guy knows how to make meaningful directing decisions. Very impressed with the production as a whole. It's the show itself that I don't connect with.
Monday, August 31, 2015
On The Town
Just realized I never posted this. I saw On The Town for a second time -- same cast except for a new Ivy and an understudy Ozzy. Loved it. Not much to say. Is it my favorite piece of theater? No. Is it a really awesome revival of a classic? Yes. Is Alysha Umphress a goddess? Yes.
Go back to read my thoughts on the last time I saw the show...
Go back to read my thoughts on the last time I saw the show...
Monday, August 17, 2015
Mercury Fur (The New Group)
I wanted to see a show and I wanted it to be exciting and interesting and new. I chose Mercury Fur because I could get a $25 ticket. I knew nothing about the play -- didn't even watch the trailer on the New Group's website. I simply bought the ticket based on price and figured it would be an experience. And boy was it an experience. After I bought the ticket last week I checked around on the Broadway message boards to see what people were saying. The reactions were extremely divisive -- either love or hate, but mostly hate. And, as you've all come to know, that's my taste in theater -- I tend to be into shows that the majority of the population doesn't like. Mercury Fur was no different.
First let me mention that I'd never seen a show at Signature Center. The space is so cool and it's very reminiscent of theaters in London -- the Off-West End spaces that have multiple venues in one building and a large open sitting area. It's neat to walk into a room where there's a lot of people milling about but ultimately going separate ways to see different shows.
There's no easy way to explain what Mercury Fur is about. Basically a group of young adults have survived (or are currently in the process of surviving?) the apocalypse. It's unclear why everything is falling apart, unclear why there are riots and bombings, and unclear whether or not a sandstorm where it rained butterflies set the whole thing in motion. The butterflies are reminiscent of the milk in A Clockwork Orange, and each different color butterfly has a different effect. Nothing tied together nicely. A cool idea would be touched on during one conversation but then the idea wouldn't be followed through. The play itself was very uneven, but for me that left me wondering what was going to happen next. As the "story" unfolds, you learn very little and that kept me on the edge of my seat. Because the less you know, the more shocked you're going to be at the end -- whether or not anything big happens.
The acting wasn't stellar, but surprisingly that didn't sway my opinion of the piece one way or another. The concept behind what was going on drew me in and I could get past the stiffness of some of the acting. One character I really didn't understand or like was "Duchess" and I think her character could've been cut to trim the fat -- the show was over two hours long with no intermission. There were moments that alluded to her being far more important of a character than she seemed, but that story line was vague and not fleshed out enough to be anything more than a passing thought.
The technical elements were on point -- for example, how the light faded as the sun went down, the change dramatic but realistic. The house lights went out and the audience sat in the dark for a couple of minutes. People coughed, people fidgeted, people laughed. Those uncomfortable moments of silence in the dark just heightened the audience's awareness of the space, which allowed the ending to be even more powerful. The play went from quick and dark to loud and bright, but after the explosion (literally and figuratively) we were bathed in darkness. And the kicker was no one knew if the show was over when the lights went out because it was the same darkness that started the play.
Was I head-over-heels in love with this show? No. Did I find it worth my time? Yes. Do I think it could be tightened up and trimmed? Yes. I think this all boils down to Mercury Fur being "just my kind of thing." But it certainly isn't for everyone. My guess is the reviews won't be positive at all. And The New Group will no doubt lose subscribers over this one.
Two interesting things to note: The playbill is handed out at the end as you're walking to the lobby, and Susan Hilferty did the costumes (which is interesting because everything worn could've been picked out of a random twenty-something's closet -- so very different from Wicked, etc).
First let me mention that I'd never seen a show at Signature Center. The space is so cool and it's very reminiscent of theaters in London -- the Off-West End spaces that have multiple venues in one building and a large open sitting area. It's neat to walk into a room where there's a lot of people milling about but ultimately going separate ways to see different shows.
There's no easy way to explain what Mercury Fur is about. Basically a group of young adults have survived (or are currently in the process of surviving?) the apocalypse. It's unclear why everything is falling apart, unclear why there are riots and bombings, and unclear whether or not a sandstorm where it rained butterflies set the whole thing in motion. The butterflies are reminiscent of the milk in A Clockwork Orange, and each different color butterfly has a different effect. Nothing tied together nicely. A cool idea would be touched on during one conversation but then the idea wouldn't be followed through. The play itself was very uneven, but for me that left me wondering what was going to happen next. As the "story" unfolds, you learn very little and that kept me on the edge of my seat. Because the less you know, the more shocked you're going to be at the end -- whether or not anything big happens.
The acting wasn't stellar, but surprisingly that didn't sway my opinion of the piece one way or another. The concept behind what was going on drew me in and I could get past the stiffness of some of the acting. One character I really didn't understand or like was "Duchess" and I think her character could've been cut to trim the fat -- the show was over two hours long with no intermission. There were moments that alluded to her being far more important of a character than she seemed, but that story line was vague and not fleshed out enough to be anything more than a passing thought.
The technical elements were on point -- for example, how the light faded as the sun went down, the change dramatic but realistic. The house lights went out and the audience sat in the dark for a couple of minutes. People coughed, people fidgeted, people laughed. Those uncomfortable moments of silence in the dark just heightened the audience's awareness of the space, which allowed the ending to be even more powerful. The play went from quick and dark to loud and bright, but after the explosion (literally and figuratively) we were bathed in darkness. And the kicker was no one knew if the show was over when the lights went out because it was the same darkness that started the play.
Was I head-over-heels in love with this show? No. Did I find it worth my time? Yes. Do I think it could be tightened up and trimmed? Yes. I think this all boils down to Mercury Fur being "just my kind of thing." But it certainly isn't for everyone. My guess is the reviews won't be positive at all. And The New Group will no doubt lose subscribers over this one.
Two interesting things to note: The playbill is handed out at the end as you're walking to the lobby, and Susan Hilferty did the costumes (which is interesting because everything worn could've been picked out of a random twenty-something's closet -- so very different from Wicked, etc).
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Wolf Hall Parts 1&2
If you've read any of my reviews of RSC shows, you know they're hit or miss with me. I don't love Gregory Doran's (RSC Artistic Director) style or choices when it comes to directing. But what I've seen from the RSC that Doran hasn't directed personally I have loved. So I'm often unsure of how I'll feel about an RSC production.
Here's a quick little refresher from my London blog. Two different shows at the RSC, two very different reviews...
Shakespeare's "Merry Wives of Windsor"(Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford-upon-Avon) -- This show was absolutely fabulous. I loved every second of it. The production was updated, set in November 2012, and for the first time ever I found myself relating to characters in Shakespeare.
"The Orphan of Zhao" (Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford-upon-Avon) -- Not good. Just kind of ridiculous actually. There was no sense of respect for the Chinese culture and the ritual that is Chinese theatre. The set was interesting and some of the effects were good. One actor was great.
The RSC itself has a certain feel to it. It's a feeling that you don't get on Broadway usually. But during the six hours I spent in the Winter Garden Theatre last week, I truly felt that classic RSC feeling. Ringing cell phones, patrons texting, and old men snoring aside, I felt transported to England.
I saw Part I on a Thursday night at 7:00 pm. After a busy day at work I expected to be trying hard to stay awake, but not once did I yawn or start to drift. Part II I saw on closing night - the Sunday after July 4th - at 6:30 pm. The company had done Part I earlier that day, so by the time the cast gave their final bow around 9:15 pm, Ben Miles (Thomas Cromwell) had been onstage for nearly six hours. The energy in the theater was amazing during the final performance and the cast seemed truly grateful looking out on an immediate standing ovation.
Where to begin with the acting. Well, I can tell you that it was some of the best acting I've seen onstage. Ben Miles was exquisite. His performance was full of nuance and passion. He lived and breathed Thomas Cromwell. He barely left the stage (if at all) and he just gave everything to his scene partners. I would be interested to know what his fellow actors have to say about being onstage with him, because he seems like a very giving actor and a great scene partner.
Ben Miles was the standout and absolutely deserving of his Tony nomination. The other two nominated actors, Lydia Leonard (Anne Boleyn) and Nathaniel Parker (King Henry VIII) were outstanding. The supporting cast was fabulous AND there were some extremely attractive men, which never hurts.
Wolf Hall Parts I and II, my good people, is good theater. I would pick a show like Wolf Hall over a classically done production of Shakespeare. I would've loved to see this show at the RSC or on the West End. I'm pretty sure the NY Times reviewer (don't remember if it was Brantley or Isherwood) used the word "boring" in his review. I wasn't bored. I was enthralled.
Here's a quick little refresher from my London blog. Two different shows at the RSC, two very different reviews...
Shakespeare's "Merry Wives of Windsor"(Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford-upon-Avon) -- This show was absolutely fabulous. I loved every second of it. The production was updated, set in November 2012, and for the first time ever I found myself relating to characters in Shakespeare.
"The Orphan of Zhao" (Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford-upon-Avon) -- Not good. Just kind of ridiculous actually. There was no sense of respect for the Chinese culture and the ritual that is Chinese theatre. The set was interesting and some of the effects were good. One actor was great.
The RSC itself has a certain feel to it. It's a feeling that you don't get on Broadway usually. But during the six hours I spent in the Winter Garden Theatre last week, I truly felt that classic RSC feeling. Ringing cell phones, patrons texting, and old men snoring aside, I felt transported to England.
I saw Part I on a Thursday night at 7:00 pm. After a busy day at work I expected to be trying hard to stay awake, but not once did I yawn or start to drift. Part II I saw on closing night - the Sunday after July 4th - at 6:30 pm. The company had done Part I earlier that day, so by the time the cast gave their final bow around 9:15 pm, Ben Miles (Thomas Cromwell) had been onstage for nearly six hours. The energy in the theater was amazing during the final performance and the cast seemed truly grateful looking out on an immediate standing ovation.
Where to begin with the acting. Well, I can tell you that it was some of the best acting I've seen onstage. Ben Miles was exquisite. His performance was full of nuance and passion. He lived and breathed Thomas Cromwell. He barely left the stage (if at all) and he just gave everything to his scene partners. I would be interested to know what his fellow actors have to say about being onstage with him, because he seems like a very giving actor and a great scene partner.
Ben Miles was the standout and absolutely deserving of his Tony nomination. The other two nominated actors, Lydia Leonard (Anne Boleyn) and Nathaniel Parker (King Henry VIII) were outstanding. The supporting cast was fabulous AND there were some extremely attractive men, which never hurts.
Wolf Hall Parts I and II, my good people, is good theater. I would pick a show like Wolf Hall over a classically done production of Shakespeare. I would've loved to see this show at the RSC or on the West End. I'm pretty sure the NY Times reviewer (don't remember if it was Brantley or Isherwood) used the word "boring" in his review. I wasn't bored. I was enthralled.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Something Rotten!
I bought my ticket on TodayTix and used a code, bringing the price to $37. Not bad. The only issue was that I'm not good with heights and the balcony at the St. James Theatre is pretty damn steep. Needless to say I spent the majority of the show trying not to freak out about the location of my seat. Despite the location of my seat, I had a fantastic time at Something Rotten! and I would highly recommend the show to anyone who is looking for a solid night at the theater.
I saw the show a week after Christian Borle won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical, and the audience was living for his performance. He was fun to watch, as was the rest of the cast. There were a few members of the ensemble that were impossible not to watch during the dances -- Eric Sciotto was a total standout. This was my first time seeing Brian D'Arcy James, Christian Borle, and Heidi Blickenstaff in a show (I missed Borle in Starcatcher by just a few days), and all three are fantastic performers. John Cariani, who I last saw play Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing at Barrington Stage Company, was adorable and endearing. Really, I don't have anything all that exciting to say about any of the actors because they were all great and there wasn't one casting decision I didn't agree with or would've liked to change.
The show literally stopped a few times because of extended applause. There were two huge numbers that got the audience on their feet for a standing ovation in the middle of the show! It was exciting and crazy and even though it was the final show of a five-show weekend, the cast appeared to be having a great time.
Was the show perfect? No. Brilliant? Eh, it had it's moments. Offensive? Definitely. A lot of fun? Yes.
Something Rotten! wasn't life changing, but I had a really great time. Also, I am loving listening to the cast recording. A musical that has music enjoyable enough to just listen to without watching the action is a hit with me.
I saw the show a week after Christian Borle won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical, and the audience was living for his performance. He was fun to watch, as was the rest of the cast. There were a few members of the ensemble that were impossible not to watch during the dances -- Eric Sciotto was a total standout. This was my first time seeing Brian D'Arcy James, Christian Borle, and Heidi Blickenstaff in a show (I missed Borle in Starcatcher by just a few days), and all three are fantastic performers. John Cariani, who I last saw play Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing at Barrington Stage Company, was adorable and endearing. Really, I don't have anything all that exciting to say about any of the actors because they were all great and there wasn't one casting decision I didn't agree with or would've liked to change.
The show literally stopped a few times because of extended applause. There were two huge numbers that got the audience on their feet for a standing ovation in the middle of the show! It was exciting and crazy and even though it was the final show of a five-show weekend, the cast appeared to be having a great time.
Was the show perfect? No. Brilliant? Eh, it had it's moments. Offensive? Definitely. A lot of fun? Yes.
Something Rotten! wasn't life changing, but I had a really great time. Also, I am loving listening to the cast recording. A musical that has music enjoyable enough to just listen to without watching the action is a hit with me.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
2015 Tony Awards
For the last few (at least three) years I have live-Tweeted the Tony Awards. I'm a Broadway fanatic, so it's only fitting that the Tony Awards are the most exciting day of the year for me. This year, however, there was little fanfare. I attended a family wedding on Sunday evening, so for the first time in many years I had to record the Tonys and watch later. I think the situation caused me to feel very mehhhh about the awards this time around. Usually I'm hooting and hollering at the TV and wouldn't dare change the channel for the entire broadcast. This year I fast-forwarded through a lot of the show. It was late, I had to drive back to Jersey at 7:30 am the next morning, and I hadn't seen enough of the nominated shows to feel emotionally involved.
I haven't even gone back to check if any of my predictions were correct because, let's be honest, they're probably not. I really enjoyed the performances, although I don't think Gigi, Finding Neverland, or It Shoulda Been You should've been highlighted. For a year so full of dance-heavy shows, the award for Best Choreography belonged in the broadcast, not during a commercial break. Instead of showcasing shows that will be closing in a few weeks from lack of ticket sales, how about giving Christopher Wheeldon his time in the spotlight. I don't need to go any further into the debate about what awards should be shown because we all know it's already happening, and my opinions on the subject don't matter. I'll leave that to the bigwigs who actually have clout and might be able to enact change.
As for the hosts, I was indifferent. Like the rest of the night, they were enjoyable and had some cute moments. Nothing was shocking. The opening number was not a showstopper like it has been in the last few years. It just wasn't all that special.
None of the winners were surprising, which just meant the whole show was kind of a snooze-fest. Yeah, history was made with Fun Home's wins and Kelli O'Hara finally has a trophy after all this time. Kelli's win was the most exciting moment of the night and her speech was great. I enjoyed the majority of the speeches and each one had its own little quirks. But nothing made me jump up and want to shout with joy. (By the way, finishing the show with Jersey Boys was great. I'll probably catch some flack for saying that, but honestly, I just adore that show and it was so fun to watch.)
Broadway's biggest night is usually mine too. But this year it all just fell flat for me. Again, it was probably because of the way my evening turned out -- Sunday night wasn't the event it usually is for me, and that influenced how I felt about the actual award show.
I haven't even gone back to check if any of my predictions were correct because, let's be honest, they're probably not. I really enjoyed the performances, although I don't think Gigi, Finding Neverland, or It Shoulda Been You should've been highlighted. For a year so full of dance-heavy shows, the award for Best Choreography belonged in the broadcast, not during a commercial break. Instead of showcasing shows that will be closing in a few weeks from lack of ticket sales, how about giving Christopher Wheeldon his time in the spotlight. I don't need to go any further into the debate about what awards should be shown because we all know it's already happening, and my opinions on the subject don't matter. I'll leave that to the bigwigs who actually have clout and might be able to enact change.
As for the hosts, I was indifferent. Like the rest of the night, they were enjoyable and had some cute moments. Nothing was shocking. The opening number was not a showstopper like it has been in the last few years. It just wasn't all that special.
None of the winners were surprising, which just meant the whole show was kind of a snooze-fest. Yeah, history was made with Fun Home's wins and Kelli O'Hara finally has a trophy after all this time. Kelli's win was the most exciting moment of the night and her speech was great. I enjoyed the majority of the speeches and each one had its own little quirks. But nothing made me jump up and want to shout with joy. (By the way, finishing the show with Jersey Boys was great. I'll probably catch some flack for saying that, but honestly, I just adore that show and it was so fun to watch.)
Broadway's biggest night is usually mine too. But this year it all just fell flat for me. Again, it was probably because of the way my evening turned out -- Sunday night wasn't the event it usually is for me, and that influenced how I felt about the actual award show.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Friday, May 29, 2015
An Act of God
I've missed Jim Parsons in all his previous stints on Broadway, so I was pleased to be able to catch him this time.
I saw the show in previews, and walked out of the theater feeling confident that it would not get good reviews. Then this morning I went to the trusty http://www.didhelikeit.com/ and was shocked to see a thumbs up from the NY Times (along with other various news outlets). Isherwood LOVED this show.
Was it the funniest show I've ever seen? No. Was it the most creative/clever show I've ever seen? No. Does it rank in my top 10 shows I've seen? No. Was it an enjoyable afternoon on Broadway? Yes.
I had a good time. I wasn't blown away. The jokes made me laugh, and that's the point isn't it? Jim Parsons is endearing and adorable. His cute face could make any non-believer believe, if just for ninety minutes.
Onstage with Parsons was Christopher Fitzgerald (Michael) and Tim Kazurinsky (Gabriel). Fitzgerald walked around in the house with a microphone, feeding questions from the audience to God/Parsons. I'm assuming that nothing the three actors were saying or doing was improvisational. Everything felt very staged (it's theater, so that would make sense) and I couldn't help but feel that after a few weeks it would all feel a bit stale. You can't see this show more than once because once you've heard the jokes the first time, they're not funny anymore -- think end of Act 1 of "One Man, Two Guvnors" and how the first time you see the show you think it's a real audience member, but the second time you know the joke. But the cast of three certainly did their best to make, and Parsons' facial expressions made me feel at times that he really was getting a kick out of what he was saying. Probably not, but a girl can dream.
I don't think An Act of God made me think about theater differently, but it was certainly a creative way to discuss important topics. You're not going to see the world in a new light when you walk out of the theater, but you might say "Hey, that made me think about..."
All jokes and nonsense aside, Jim Parsons is a great stage actor and I hope to see him again.
Read Isherwood's review here. It's way more detailed than mine because he had more to say, but the last paragraph is really superb.
I saw the show in previews, and walked out of the theater feeling confident that it would not get good reviews. Then this morning I went to the trusty http://www.didhelikeit.com/ and was shocked to see a thumbs up from the NY Times (along with other various news outlets). Isherwood LOVED this show.
Was it the funniest show I've ever seen? No. Was it the most creative/clever show I've ever seen? No. Does it rank in my top 10 shows I've seen? No. Was it an enjoyable afternoon on Broadway? Yes.
I had a good time. I wasn't blown away. The jokes made me laugh, and that's the point isn't it? Jim Parsons is endearing and adorable. His cute face could make any non-believer believe, if just for ninety minutes.
Onstage with Parsons was Christopher Fitzgerald (Michael) and Tim Kazurinsky (Gabriel). Fitzgerald walked around in the house with a microphone, feeding questions from the audience to God/Parsons. I'm assuming that nothing the three actors were saying or doing was improvisational. Everything felt very staged (it's theater, so that would make sense) and I couldn't help but feel that after a few weeks it would all feel a bit stale. You can't see this show more than once because once you've heard the jokes the first time, they're not funny anymore -- think end of Act 1 of "One Man, Two Guvnors" and how the first time you see the show you think it's a real audience member, but the second time you know the joke. But the cast of three certainly did their best to make, and Parsons' facial expressions made me feel at times that he really was getting a kick out of what he was saying. Probably not, but a girl can dream.
I don't think An Act of God made me think about theater differently, but it was certainly a creative way to discuss important topics. You're not going to see the world in a new light when you walk out of the theater, but you might say "Hey, that made me think about..."
All jokes and nonsense aside, Jim Parsons is a great stage actor and I hope to see him again.
Read Isherwood's review here. It's way more detailed than mine because he had more to say, but the last paragraph is really superb.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Tonys 2015 Noms (nom nom nom nom nom)
8:58 am: Playbill.com refuses to load for me.
8:59 am: Gave up on Playbill.com and switched over to Broadwayworld.com
Okay. So disclaimer, I didn't see a whole lot this season because 1) I don't live in NYC right now and 2) Broadway is expensive and I'm but a lowly college grad with no income (yet...) But I'm going to do my best and predict winners anyway, because although I haven't physically sat in the audience for all of them, I like to think I keep pretty well informed. If there's a category I really can't predict, it'll be notated.
Click here for list of nominations.
Best Play
I only saw one of the plays in this category, and it was honestly one of the best shows I've ever seen on Broadway. But I think it closed too soon to be remembered, and thus the race is really between Hand to God and Curious Incident. I've heard amazing things about both, and since I've seen neither I can't make a final prediction.
Best Musical
Again, I only saw one of these musicals, which is just depressing. Based on reviews alone, the race is between An American in Paris and Fun Home. My prediction is An American in Paris just because it's the one I saw and I absolutely adored every second.
Best Revival of a Play
Wow. I sucked at seeing shows this year. I only saw This is Our Youth, and as much as I love that show, it's not going to win. I can't make a prediction here.
Best Revival of a Musical
Oh how I wish I could be absolutely positively certain that On the Town is taking this category by storm. I'm going to predict On the Town just because I am in love with the production, the cast, and its journey from Pittsfield, MA.
Best Book of a Musical
Haven't seen it yet, but Fun Home will win here.
Best Original Score
Can I be completely honest? I want The Last Ship to win here, but it won't. My guess is Fun Home.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Play
What a crazy category this year -- and I'm saying that having seen none of these performances. Based on what I know, I think it'll be between Steven Boyer and Alex Sharp. But obviously the rest of the world is rooting for Bradley Cooper. Also, Cooper winning a Tony would be good press . . .
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Play
I mean, Helen Mirren should probably win.
8:59 am: Gave up on Playbill.com and switched over to Broadwayworld.com
Okay. So disclaimer, I didn't see a whole lot this season because 1) I don't live in NYC right now and 2) Broadway is expensive and I'm but a lowly college grad with no income (yet...) But I'm going to do my best and predict winners anyway, because although I haven't physically sat in the audience for all of them, I like to think I keep pretty well informed. If there's a category I really can't predict, it'll be notated.
Click here for list of nominations.
Best Play
I only saw one of the plays in this category, and it was honestly one of the best shows I've ever seen on Broadway. But I think it closed too soon to be remembered, and thus the race is really between Hand to God and Curious Incident. I've heard amazing things about both, and since I've seen neither I can't make a final prediction.
Best Musical
Again, I only saw one of these musicals, which is just depressing. Based on reviews alone, the race is between An American in Paris and Fun Home. My prediction is An American in Paris just because it's the one I saw and I absolutely adored every second.
Best Revival of a Play
Wow. I sucked at seeing shows this year. I only saw This is Our Youth, and as much as I love that show, it's not going to win. I can't make a prediction here.
Best Revival of a Musical
Oh how I wish I could be absolutely positively certain that On the Town is taking this category by storm. I'm going to predict On the Town just because I am in love with the production, the cast, and its journey from Pittsfield, MA.
Best Book of a Musical
Haven't seen it yet, but Fun Home will win here.
Best Original Score
Can I be completely honest? I want The Last Ship to win here, but it won't. My guess is Fun Home.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Play
What a crazy category this year -- and I'm saying that having seen none of these performances. Based on what I know, I think it'll be between Steven Boyer and Alex Sharp. But obviously the rest of the world is rooting for Bradley Cooper. Also, Cooper winning a Tony would be good press . . .
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Play
I mean, Helen Mirren should probably win.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Musical
All five of these men deserve this award. My heart says Tony Yazbeck, but my head says Robert Fairchild. And the world says one of the other three. It's a toss up in my opinion.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Musical
Again, how could one possibly choose?! I think Kelli O'Hara will win, because she was totally snubbed last year, and gosh that woman is just amazing. But Fun Home . . .
Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Play
Absolutely no opinion/prediction here.
All five of these men deserve this award. My heart says Tony Yazbeck, but my head says Robert Fairchild. And the world says one of the other three. It's a toss up in my opinion.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Musical
Again, how could one possibly choose?! I think Kelli O'Hara will win, because she was totally snubbed last year, and gosh that woman is just amazing. But Fun Home . . .
Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Play
Absolutely no opinion/prediction here.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Featured Role in a Play
I'm guessing Sarah Stiles for Hand to God.
I'm guessing Sarah Stiles for Hand to God.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Musical
Max von Essen deserves this Tony. Christian Borle will win this Tony.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Featured Role in a Musical
Judy Kuhn for Fun Home. If it's not her, it will be one of the other two women/girls from Fun Home.
Best Scenic Design of a Play
My bet is on Curious Incident.
Best Scenic Design of a Musical
No clue, although An American in Paris had some pretty neat set stuff going on.
Best Costume Design of a Play
The costuming for Wolf Hall looked unbelievable. My money is on Wolf Hall.
Best Costume Design of a Musical
How is one to choose?! They're all so different, but all so good.
Best Lighting Design of a Play
Curious Incident.
Best Lighting Design of a Musical
Fun Home.
Best Direction of a Play
Hand to God.
Best Direction of a Musical
Oh this is a tough one. Big names here. My money is on John Rando, but really it could be any of the five.
Best Choreography
Josh Bergasse deserves it, Christopher Wheeldon will win. Or in a total upset, Scott Graham & Steven Hoggett for Frantic Assembly (Curious Incident) will come out on top.
Best Orchestrations
Wow. This is some tough competition. I'm just going to say Fun Home.
So there's my predictions, or at least some of them. I probably won't be very accurate, but it's still fun to predict. Do a little looking around this blog if you haven't read reviews on the shows I did see this season. They're all here. And tune in June 7th!
Monday, April 13, 2015
An American in Paris
I've been waiting to read the reviews until I wrote this blog post, because I don't want my thoughts to be influenced by what's written in the New York Times.
While I haven't read any reviews yet, I have checked http://www.didhelikeit.com/ just to see which way the thumb was pointing (check out the site and you'll understand what I mean if you don't already).
Here's a hint . . . the thumb is pointing up.
Deservedly so, in my opinion, because "An American in Paris" is stunningly gorgeous in every way. From the set to the costumes to the lighting to the projections to the acting to the dancing . . . it's all beautiful.
You might be thinking, "But Emily doesn't like old-timey musicals! How could she have such great things to say about this one?!" Over the last few seasons, I've learned that it takes two things to get me really into a classic musical -- an unbelievable cast and unbelievable dancing. "On the Town" for example, has both. "An American in Paris" has both.
Usually it's the music that gets me, but that wasn't the case here. Yeah, the songs are nice and pretty and classic, but it's the dancing that pulled me in here. The dancing left me awestruck. I swear to you my mouth was hanging open in shock half the time. Everything else that happened during the two and a half hours on the stage of the Palace Theater was secondary to the dancing, and only served to enhance the beauty of movement.
I don't even feel the need to single anyone out to discuss their performance, because the entire ensemble as a whole was just that good. Obviously there were moments when my eye was drawn to certain actors over others -- Charlie Sutton was just too perfect not to watch at times -- but everyone was on the same level.
The three men -- Robert Fairchild, Max von Essen, and Brandon Uranowitz -- all steal your heart at different moments throughout. They each brought something different to the show as a whole. Fairchild, obviously, is the dancer, von Essen is the singer, and Uranowitz is the actor. But Fairchild and Uranowitz could sing and act when called upon, von Essen and Uranowitz could act and dance, and Fairchild and von Essen could act. It just worked.
Shocker: Leanne Cope was fantastic. You couldn't help but root for her and hope she got the happy ending alluded to throughout. The costumes added to the float-y feel of the whole show. Also, all set pieces (except for what was flown) was brought in by the ensemble, or rather danced in. I thought that was a lovely touch.
Don't you wish your family was as fantastically amazing as the Fairchild family? (Figure out who Robert's sister is you didn't understand that reference.)
"An American in Paris" comes highly recommended from me and Charles Isherwood. So you really must go see this show.
While I haven't read any reviews yet, I have checked http://www.didhelikeit.com/ just to see which way the thumb was pointing (check out the site and you'll understand what I mean if you don't already).
Here's a hint . . . the thumb is pointing up.
Deservedly so, in my opinion, because "An American in Paris" is stunningly gorgeous in every way. From the set to the costumes to the lighting to the projections to the acting to the dancing . . . it's all beautiful.
You might be thinking, "But Emily doesn't like old-timey musicals! How could she have such great things to say about this one?!" Over the last few seasons, I've learned that it takes two things to get me really into a classic musical -- an unbelievable cast and unbelievable dancing. "On the Town" for example, has both. "An American in Paris" has both.
Usually it's the music that gets me, but that wasn't the case here. Yeah, the songs are nice and pretty and classic, but it's the dancing that pulled me in here. The dancing left me awestruck. I swear to you my mouth was hanging open in shock half the time. Everything else that happened during the two and a half hours on the stage of the Palace Theater was secondary to the dancing, and only served to enhance the beauty of movement.
I don't even feel the need to single anyone out to discuss their performance, because the entire ensemble as a whole was just that good. Obviously there were moments when my eye was drawn to certain actors over others -- Charlie Sutton was just too perfect not to watch at times -- but everyone was on the same level.
The three men -- Robert Fairchild, Max von Essen, and Brandon Uranowitz -- all steal your heart at different moments throughout. They each brought something different to the show as a whole. Fairchild, obviously, is the dancer, von Essen is the singer, and Uranowitz is the actor. But Fairchild and Uranowitz could sing and act when called upon, von Essen and Uranowitz could act and dance, and Fairchild and von Essen could act. It just worked.
Shocker: Leanne Cope was fantastic. You couldn't help but root for her and hope she got the happy ending alluded to throughout. The costumes added to the float-y feel of the whole show. Also, all set pieces (except for what was flown) was brought in by the ensemble, or rather danced in. I thought that was a lovely touch.
Don't you wish your family was as fantastically amazing as the Fairchild family? (Figure out who Robert's sister is you didn't understand that reference.)
"An American in Paris" comes highly recommended from me and Charles Isherwood. So you really must go see this show.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Paper Mill Playhouse
Disclaimer: I hope you have a few minutes to sit down and actually read, because this one is quite long. Just a friendly warning to bookmark the page and come back if you're interested but don't have time!
Sunday night was my first time at Paper Mill Playhouse. I will definitely go back.
First, I have to say that I did not pay for my ticket. New Jersey Theater Alliance has a reciprocal ticket program, where if you work at a theater that is part of the organization, you can call the box office and get free tickets when available. I truly believe that seeing a show for free can alter (in a good or bad way) how I feel walking out the theater. A comp ticket is always exciting, but it was especially exciting because I've heard a rumor that Disney and Paper Mill pulled the plug on reciprocal tickets just a few days after I got mine.
Needless to say, I would've been happy sitting anywhere, so we -- two other interns, Jenny and Kim, took the trek to Millburn with me -- were shocked to be seated in Orchestra Row O. The usher sat us in row Q and about ten minutes before the show started we had one of those awkward "you're in our seats!" run ins and had to be moved. In the end we were closer to the stage, but the guy in front of me was tall and I didn't have a clear view of the stage at all. But again, I paid nothing for the seat, so I was able to enjoy myself even though I was constantly shifting to get a better view.
Now on to the good stuff . . .
I cannot remember when I last watched The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Honestly, I probably saw it once in my youth and was so terrified I repressed all memories of that viewing. So I kind of felt like I was walking into the theater not knowing anything, which was nice. Usually when you walk into the theater to see a Disney show, you know everything about the plot and the characters and the overall feel. That was not the case for me with Hunchback. I didn't know any of the music and I only knew a few basics about the story.
I've read a lot of the reviews, and there are parts of each that I definitely agree with. No review has been stellar and I understand why. There are several inconsistencies with the show. The biggest, most jarring one, in my opinion, is that the show doesn't know if it's a dark tragedy or a Disney musical with some dark themes. The musical has not been marketed by kids. It's really Hugo's novel onstage with the Disney name attached to the project. But Disney's name attached means parents will bring children. The show is incredibly dark. The girl in front of Jenny was gasping and covering her eyes quite often. There's a whole lot of death in Hunchback. There's also heavy themes such as rape and prostitution. In the car on the ride home I told my peers I wish the creators had stayed to one side. For example, when Frollo propositions Esmeralda, telling her that he will let her free if she just gives herself to him. This scene was unnecessarily long and they were just jumping around certain themes -- instead of outright telling her that she could have sex with him or die (not really, but basically), Frollo kept talking and talking about how he was going to set her free and she just had to give herself over. I truly don't know if kids understand the underlying themes of what's going on here. To them maybe Frollo is just a bad guy that doesn't like Esmeralda because she's a gypsy. Right? Like, what kid under the age of twelve can understand that he is propositioning her for sex to save the man she loves?
Putting Disney onstage has definite perks, money and success, for one. But, the successful Disney musicals are very obviously Disney-fied. This production takes the Disney out of Hunchback, bringing out more of the adult themes in Victor Hugo's novel. The most Disney-esque element of the whole production was the ensemble narrating the story -- certain plot points were narrated in a simple story-telling manner, such as "And then Quasimodo rang the bells..." (That's not a real moment of narration, but you know what I mean.)
I liked this narration, at least I liked it a lot more than most of the reviewers. Because to me, yeah it was helping kids understand the story, but it was engaging the ensemble in different ways. I don't want to give away too many spoilers, but the ensemble is a huge part of this show -- the portrayal of the gargoyles especially. The narration didn't take away anything for me, and it just added a little here and there. It wasn't a deal breaker, but it wasn't the most inventive story-telling technique either.
The production elements were on point. I am in love with the set. I don't have a whole lot more to say about it other than it was breathtaking and everything space of the stage was used quite a bit. Lighting design was gorgeous. The lights really captured the feeling of every moment, and I was impressed at how perfectly many of the light changes fit with sound q's.
For me, the draw was Michael Arden. I'd never seen him onstage before, but his voice has always been like a knee to the solar plexus. It's so stunningly beautiful that I want to catch it and put it in a jar like Ursula did with Ariel's voice. Arden is very involved in the deaf community, having directed a production of Spring Awakening with Deaf West Theatre last year. Arden's Quasimodo was hard of hearing, using bursts of sign language to communicate and express himself. When he sang his voice was unaffected and strong. Arden's Quasimodo had two sides -- he was one person when he was alone in the bell tower singing out to the audience, and another when around other humans. He brought a real youthful humanity to the character, and Quasimodo felt real.
I have no qualms about the casting. All the voices were perfect. I would've liked more intense choreography -- Esmeralda is supposed to be a dancer, right? Patrick Page's Frollo was just as spine chilling as expected, bordering on flat out disgusting in his advances of Esmeralda and his treatment of Quasimodo.
For me, the music was the most important aspect of this musical (shouldn't it always be?), and did not disappoint. I was mesmerized by the music, and to me that means the show was successful.
Many wonderful choices were made -- most notably having Quasimodo walk out for the first time without any deformity and transforming into the hunchback before our eyes. I really don't want to give too much away, so if you're absolutely intent on knowing what was done, feel free to reach out to me and I'll go into detail. Otherwise, just know that the transformation was simple, effective, and important.
The show was lovely. I truly enjoyed my evening at Paper Mill. I hope the show has a future, but I do think it still needs some tightening and tweaking. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Sunday night was my first time at Paper Mill Playhouse. I will definitely go back.
First, I have to say that I did not pay for my ticket. New Jersey Theater Alliance has a reciprocal ticket program, where if you work at a theater that is part of the organization, you can call the box office and get free tickets when available. I truly believe that seeing a show for free can alter (in a good or bad way) how I feel walking out the theater. A comp ticket is always exciting, but it was especially exciting because I've heard a rumor that Disney and Paper Mill pulled the plug on reciprocal tickets just a few days after I got mine.
Needless to say, I would've been happy sitting anywhere, so we -- two other interns, Jenny and Kim, took the trek to Millburn with me -- were shocked to be seated in Orchestra Row O. The usher sat us in row Q and about ten minutes before the show started we had one of those awkward "you're in our seats!" run ins and had to be moved. In the end we were closer to the stage, but the guy in front of me was tall and I didn't have a clear view of the stage at all. But again, I paid nothing for the seat, so I was able to enjoy myself even though I was constantly shifting to get a better view.
Now on to the good stuff . . .
I cannot remember when I last watched The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Honestly, I probably saw it once in my youth and was so terrified I repressed all memories of that viewing. So I kind of felt like I was walking into the theater not knowing anything, which was nice. Usually when you walk into the theater to see a Disney show, you know everything about the plot and the characters and the overall feel. That was not the case for me with Hunchback. I didn't know any of the music and I only knew a few basics about the story.
I've read a lot of the reviews, and there are parts of each that I definitely agree with. No review has been stellar and I understand why. There are several inconsistencies with the show. The biggest, most jarring one, in my opinion, is that the show doesn't know if it's a dark tragedy or a Disney musical with some dark themes. The musical has not been marketed by kids. It's really Hugo's novel onstage with the Disney name attached to the project. But Disney's name attached means parents will bring children. The show is incredibly dark. The girl in front of Jenny was gasping and covering her eyes quite often. There's a whole lot of death in Hunchback. There's also heavy themes such as rape and prostitution. In the car on the ride home I told my peers I wish the creators had stayed to one side. For example, when Frollo propositions Esmeralda, telling her that he will let her free if she just gives herself to him. This scene was unnecessarily long and they were just jumping around certain themes -- instead of outright telling her that she could have sex with him or die (not really, but basically), Frollo kept talking and talking about how he was going to set her free and she just had to give herself over. I truly don't know if kids understand the underlying themes of what's going on here. To them maybe Frollo is just a bad guy that doesn't like Esmeralda because she's a gypsy. Right? Like, what kid under the age of twelve can understand that he is propositioning her for sex to save the man she loves?
Putting Disney onstage has definite perks, money and success, for one. But, the successful Disney musicals are very obviously Disney-fied. This production takes the Disney out of Hunchback, bringing out more of the adult themes in Victor Hugo's novel. The most Disney-esque element of the whole production was the ensemble narrating the story -- certain plot points were narrated in a simple story-telling manner, such as "And then Quasimodo rang the bells..." (That's not a real moment of narration, but you know what I mean.)
I liked this narration, at least I liked it a lot more than most of the reviewers. Because to me, yeah it was helping kids understand the story, but it was engaging the ensemble in different ways. I don't want to give away too many spoilers, but the ensemble is a huge part of this show -- the portrayal of the gargoyles especially. The narration didn't take away anything for me, and it just added a little here and there. It wasn't a deal breaker, but it wasn't the most inventive story-telling technique either.
The production elements were on point. I am in love with the set. I don't have a whole lot more to say about it other than it was breathtaking and everything space of the stage was used quite a bit. Lighting design was gorgeous. The lights really captured the feeling of every moment, and I was impressed at how perfectly many of the light changes fit with sound q's.
For me, the draw was Michael Arden. I'd never seen him onstage before, but his voice has always been like a knee to the solar plexus. It's so stunningly beautiful that I want to catch it and put it in a jar like Ursula did with Ariel's voice. Arden is very involved in the deaf community, having directed a production of Spring Awakening with Deaf West Theatre last year. Arden's Quasimodo was hard of hearing, using bursts of sign language to communicate and express himself. When he sang his voice was unaffected and strong. Arden's Quasimodo had two sides -- he was one person when he was alone in the bell tower singing out to the audience, and another when around other humans. He brought a real youthful humanity to the character, and Quasimodo felt real.
I have no qualms about the casting. All the voices were perfect. I would've liked more intense choreography -- Esmeralda is supposed to be a dancer, right? Patrick Page's Frollo was just as spine chilling as expected, bordering on flat out disgusting in his advances of Esmeralda and his treatment of Quasimodo.
For me, the music was the most important aspect of this musical (shouldn't it always be?), and did not disappoint. I was mesmerized by the music, and to me that means the show was successful.
Many wonderful choices were made -- most notably having Quasimodo walk out for the first time without any deformity and transforming into the hunchback before our eyes. I really don't want to give too much away, so if you're absolutely intent on knowing what was done, feel free to reach out to me and I'll go into detail. Otherwise, just know that the transformation was simple, effective, and important.
The show was lovely. I truly enjoyed my evening at Paper Mill. I hope the show has a future, but I do think it still needs some tightening and tweaking. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
I'm unsure how to start this post. I feel like most of you (my faithful readers... I think there's a few of you...), are expecting me to flip out about how much I absolutely adored it and how 90-minute rock operas are the way of the future.
You'd be half right. I love me a good 90-minute rock opera, and I do believe they are the way of the future, or at least what gets millennial butts in seats.
The first part though, about expressing absolute unabashed love and adoration for this show? Not so correct. Because honestly? I didn't love it. I barely even liked it. And I am having a really hard time coming to terms with how I felt about the show. I wanted to love it more than anything. How could you not want to love this show? Especially with my track record - I mean, American Idiot is like my second favorite show ever. Hedwig just seems like a show I would want to see over and over again. But I don't.
I've never seen the movie. I went into the show knowing very little about the plot. I knew Hedwig was born a man and that the "angry inch" referred to a botched surgery. That's basically all I knew. As an audience member, when you walk into a theater not knowing specifics about the show you're about to see, you expect to be taken care of, right? Well, in the case of Hedwig, apparently not. I felt abandoned. Lost in a sea of Hedwig super-fans that knew all the words to the songs and all the punch lines to the jokes. I had no idea what was happening, I had no idea what the point of the story was, and I had no idea how I was supposed to be feeling. I was literally lost. To make matters worse, I couldn't understand one word being sung. Literally the only time I understood lyrics to a song was when Whitney Houston was sung by Yitzak.
I'll admit that part of my lack of enthusiasm about the show was my complete lack of knowledge. But that shouldn't be a make or break kind of thing. I've seen plenty of shows I didn't know the plot to beforehand, and walked away being able to discuss the plot. With Hedwig, I literally knew one plot detail after the show, and that's the thing I already knew before walking into the theater!
I'm glad I got to see John Cameron Mitchell because Hedwig is his baby. He was a great performer. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him navigate his way around the stage with a leg brace. He's adorable, and you would never know he's getting up there in age from his body.
The real star of the show to me was Lena Hall as Yitzak. For the first half of the show I was like "why the heck did she win a Tony for this... all she's doing is sitting and looking sad." Then the Whitney Houston moment happened and I was like "oh hot damn" because she can sing. Not that I was surprised she could sing, I'd seen her onstage before and, while not totally memorable in Kinky Boots, she sang pretty. So basically I had no idea what the heck was happening, but I was mesmerized by Lena Hall. And then she came out dressed as a woman in the end and I was even more confused (which honestly I didn't think was possible at that point), and sang her face off.
Production wise, the show was amazing. The lights? Unreal. Sound? Unreal. Usually when I can't understand the lyrics, I blame it on the sound guy, but here I think it's just a fault of the music and the style. It was a lot of screaming and a lot of slurred words - I think the point was to sound sexy? If so it was unsuccessful in my opinion.
I don't remember being warned about strobe lights, and holy shit they were intense. So there's another instance of not taking care of your audience. How about an insert in the Playbill to warn us that there's a long sequence of strobe lights? I don't know. At this point it doesn't even matter because it's selling well, the show won a crap ton of awards, and John Cameron Mitchell will always be beloved.
I know I'm supposed to feel something. There's some emotion that's supposed to be evoked by this show. But it didn't do it for me. I get more choked up just listening to the soundtrack of American Idiot than I did watching the ending of Hedwig.
I tend to have unpopular opinions on shows, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised.
You'd be half right. I love me a good 90-minute rock opera, and I do believe they are the way of the future, or at least what gets millennial butts in seats.
The first part though, about expressing absolute unabashed love and adoration for this show? Not so correct. Because honestly? I didn't love it. I barely even liked it. And I am having a really hard time coming to terms with how I felt about the show. I wanted to love it more than anything. How could you not want to love this show? Especially with my track record - I mean, American Idiot is like my second favorite show ever. Hedwig just seems like a show I would want to see over and over again. But I don't.
I've never seen the movie. I went into the show knowing very little about the plot. I knew Hedwig was born a man and that the "angry inch" referred to a botched surgery. That's basically all I knew. As an audience member, when you walk into a theater not knowing specifics about the show you're about to see, you expect to be taken care of, right? Well, in the case of Hedwig, apparently not. I felt abandoned. Lost in a sea of Hedwig super-fans that knew all the words to the songs and all the punch lines to the jokes. I had no idea what was happening, I had no idea what the point of the story was, and I had no idea how I was supposed to be feeling. I was literally lost. To make matters worse, I couldn't understand one word being sung. Literally the only time I understood lyrics to a song was when Whitney Houston was sung by Yitzak.
I'll admit that part of my lack of enthusiasm about the show was my complete lack of knowledge. But that shouldn't be a make or break kind of thing. I've seen plenty of shows I didn't know the plot to beforehand, and walked away being able to discuss the plot. With Hedwig, I literally knew one plot detail after the show, and that's the thing I already knew before walking into the theater!
I'm glad I got to see John Cameron Mitchell because Hedwig is his baby. He was a great performer. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him navigate his way around the stage with a leg brace. He's adorable, and you would never know he's getting up there in age from his body.
The real star of the show to me was Lena Hall as Yitzak. For the first half of the show I was like "why the heck did she win a Tony for this... all she's doing is sitting and looking sad." Then the Whitney Houston moment happened and I was like "oh hot damn" because she can sing. Not that I was surprised she could sing, I'd seen her onstage before and, while not totally memorable in Kinky Boots, she sang pretty. So basically I had no idea what the heck was happening, but I was mesmerized by Lena Hall. And then she came out dressed as a woman in the end and I was even more confused (which honestly I didn't think was possible at that point), and sang her face off.
Production wise, the show was amazing. The lights? Unreal. Sound? Unreal. Usually when I can't understand the lyrics, I blame it on the sound guy, but here I think it's just a fault of the music and the style. It was a lot of screaming and a lot of slurred words - I think the point was to sound sexy? If so it was unsuccessful in my opinion.
I don't remember being warned about strobe lights, and holy shit they were intense. So there's another instance of not taking care of your audience. How about an insert in the Playbill to warn us that there's a long sequence of strobe lights? I don't know. At this point it doesn't even matter because it's selling well, the show won a crap ton of awards, and John Cameron Mitchell will always be beloved.
I know I'm supposed to feel something. There's some emotion that's supposed to be evoked by this show. But it didn't do it for me. I get more choked up just listening to the soundtrack of American Idiot than I did watching the ending of Hedwig.
I tend to have unpopular opinions on shows, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised.
Les Miserables (Take 2)
I have to preface this post by saying that yes, there are a million and one other shows I should've/could've seen this weekend. But instead I chose to see Les Miserables... again. Why? Because as over-hyped and totally over-commercialized as it is, it still does something to me, makes me feel something.
My cousin once said that she is happy to buy a cheap ticket to Phantom of the Opera just so she can sit in the back, close her eyes, and listen to the music. At this point that's how I feel about Les Mis. And it was especially true this time because I was sitting in the very last row of the balcony.
Now aside from all the mushy-gushy lovey-dovey feelings about why I chose to see this production again, there was actually a legitimate reason. The cast recently changed over and I was curious to see how the newbies stacked up. Eponine, Fantine, Marius, Thenardier & wife, and Enjolras were all new.
Marius: How could you not want to experience Chris McCarrell? He's positively adorable. His voice is stronger than Andy Mientus', but the character choices were pretty much the same, and definitely in keeping with the incredibly awkward feel Eddie Redmayne brought to the part in the movie.
Eponine: As much as I love Nikki M. James, her voice never fit the character of Eponine for me. Brennyn Lark, making her Broadway debut, sang beautifully. Other than that there's nothing all that inventive or interesting about her Eponine, but she was great.
Fantine: Another Broadway debut -- Erika Henningsen was great. Like Brennyn, she didn't bring anything new to the part, but her voice was lovely.
Thenardier: So, I saw Gavin Lee at the Goodspeed in Holiday Inn a few months ago and thought he was amazing. I mean, he's so light on his feet for such a tall guy. How can you not be impressed by the way he moves?! I'll admit him being cast at Thenardier was a deciding factor in seeing this production again. Gavin did not disappoint. He brought so much to the character and it was obvious they did a bit of re-staging to showcase Gavin's talent. I don't remember Thenardier ever dancing around quite as much. He was just fantastic, bringing life to a part I never much cared about.
Madame Thenardier: I literally have nothing to say about the re-cast of this role because there was nothing interesting or special about Rachel Izen. She was great, just didn't bring anything new to the role.
And now... for the biggest, most important moment of this entire post... DRUMROLL PLEASE...
We all know how I feel about Enjolras. He is my home boy. I would marry him if he weren't a fictional character... or dead. I want everyone to take a minute and re-read (or read for the first time) how I felt about Enjolras last year when I saw this production:
- Kyle Scatliffe as Enjolras. Okay, Enjolras is and has always been my favorite character in this show. I've always been fascinated by him and I always have high hopes for Enjolras when I see the show. This was the absolute worst casting decision I have ever seen on a Broadway stage before. Scatliffe acted like Marius' father, scolding him when he was late to the meeting, treating him like a baby. There was no friendship there AT ALL. The relationship between Enjolras and Marius is one of love, not romantic but brotherly and admiration and absolute love. Marius makes an incredible choice to "join [his] brothers there" rather than run after Cosette. In this production there was no chemistry. In fact, I don't know when I've ever seen such a freaking lack of chemistry between two characters before in my life. Like I can't even express how saddened and angry this made me. Enjolras is supposed to be a strong man, who is really still a child, fighting for a cause that he believes in so strongly that he's willing to sacrifice his life. From Scatliffe, all I got was an egotistical douchebag who didn't care about anyone else but himself. He was dragging everyone else down with him because of how badly he wanted to win, not giving a second thought about the "friends" that might die. Scatliffe and Mientus just didn't connect at all, and it was disappointing because I truly think that relationship is one of the most important in the entire show. Enjolras' death is the most iconic death in the show, the way it is traditionally staged with the barricade turning and we see him hanging by his foot with the flag draped over him. I felt nothing but "thank goodness" when Enjolras died here, and boy if that didn't make me furious.
"This was the absolute worst casting decision I have ever seen on a Broadway stage before..." Pretty intense, right? I truly want to believe that Kyle Scatliffe grew into the role in the months after I saw him. It was still previews, after all. Maybe he was just finding his footing. He's clearly not a bad performer, I just think this wasn't the role for him - or at least not playing alongside Mientus. Maybe I would feel differently now if Scatliffe was playing alongside Chris McCarrell.
Anyway, back to the present. Wallace Smith is the new Enjolras. I'm pretty sure Wallace is the one actor I've seen on Broadway the most times - twice in American Idiot, twice in Godspell, once in Rocky, and potentially once in Hair (I can't remember if I actually saw him as the replacement for Hud or not). So naturally, when Wallace's name was announced, I was excited. His voice is just one of those voices that sticks with you, makes your soul break because you wish you could wrap his voice up in a blanket and sleep with it for the rest of your life.
Wallace did not disappoint. Now the one thing I can say is that this production of Les Mis just doesn't do justice to Enjolras as a character. I'm not sure why I felt such a strong connection to the character when I saw the show in London all those times, but there was something else there. Even though I loved Wallace Smith's Enjolras, I didn't get the feels like I did in London. So last year it wasn't ALL Kyle Scatliffe, it was the production's take on Enjolras. But, Wallace as Enjolras matched Chris as Marius ten million times better than Kyle and Andy. And man, I just can't with Wallace's voice. Those moments when he comes out of nowhere with high notes and you just want to sob because you know he's going to die. Ugh. Gets me right in the feels.
Obviously, even Wallace can't save the lack of epic Enjolras death, but I felt a heck of a lot more when he was in the wagon than I did last year with Kyle.
So, I saw Les Miserables again. It was fun, and intense, and beautiful, and everything I ever want this show to be. I didn't walk out of there with my mind blown - although I'm so happy I got to hear Ramin sing "Bring Him Home" again. I'll forever be in love with this show no matter how overrated it becomes. And, like always, I'm interested to see how much longer it lasts this time around.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
City Of
I totally forgot to mention that I saw this show, and then I just happened to read the New York Times review. There's not much I can say about "City Of" because it was an overacted, jumbled, hot mess. Let's take a second to remember my taste in plays -- realism and naturalism. This was neither, although the characters were real (most of them), and Paris is actually a place that exists. I honestly don't think I can put how I felt about this piece into words, at least not in any eloquent fashion. It was not my thing at all.
Read the NY Times review. It's short, but accurate.
Biggest pet peeve -- either commit to nudity or have a character keep his clothes on. None of those stupid spandex nude colored modesty shorts.
Read the NY Times review. It's short, but accurate.
Biggest pet peeve -- either commit to nudity or have a character keep his clothes on. None of those stupid spandex nude colored modesty shorts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)