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.

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.

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.