I've been terrible about updating this blog, and even more terrible about writing worthwhile reviews of the shows I see. So I'm listing everything I've seen lately that I haven't written about, and you can decide whether or not you want to know what I thought.
Smart People -- Second Stage Theatre
Fiddler on The Roof -- Broadway Theatre
School of Rock -- Winter Garden Theatre
Familiar -- Playwrights Horizons
Straight -- Acorn Theatre
Robber Bridegroom -- Laura Pels Theatre/Roundabout
Smokefall -- Lucille Lortel Theatre/MCC
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Prodigal Son
Today (this was 1/31) I saw an interesting little play produced by MTC but at City Center's Stage 1 -- the same theater I saw Ripcord in a few months ago). It's really a great little space, aside from the lack of leg room -- if I can't cross my legs in front of me in a theater, no one can. Anyway, that's beside the point. This play, Prodigal Son by John Patrick Shanley was an interesting and gripping look at a teenage boy going through an existential crisis. It's like part identity crisis and figuring out who he is, and part trying to define his place in the world and fight adversity brought on by his not feeling like he's good enough. I'm a total sucker for these kinds of plays. Give me teenage boys having identity crises any day and I'm happy.
It wasn't perfect by any means -- the play itself has some flaws. But Timothée Chalamet was completely stunning as the 17-year-old boy from the Bronx trying to find his place at an elite boarding school in New England. Obviously those who grew up in this particular environment (looking at you, Nicole) will have a certain connection to the piece that I didn't have. Still, I found it to be an interesting look at how important it is to know yourself and know when the elders you are entrusting with your life have a hidden agenda.
Also, the set was great. I wasn't crazy about the forced perspective -- there was something off about it, not small enough I think. But the feeling of New England and the changing seasons was captured quite well.
It wasn't perfect by any means -- the play itself has some flaws. But Timothée Chalamet was completely stunning as the 17-year-old boy from the Bronx trying to find his place at an elite boarding school in New England. Obviously those who grew up in this particular environment (looking at you, Nicole) will have a certain connection to the piece that I didn't have. Still, I found it to be an interesting look at how important it is to know yourself and know when the elders you are entrusting with your life have a hidden agenda.
Also, the set was great. I wasn't crazy about the forced perspective -- there was something off about it, not small enough I think. But the feeling of New England and the changing seasons was captured quite well.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
I'm so late posting this, but I was extremely late to the game in seeing it as well. I cannot believe it took me over a year to get myself over to the Barrymore for Curious Incident but gosh I'm glad I finally did. What a spectacular piece of theater. Just really all around incredible. I've never read the book, and only knew a basic outline of the plot, so I walked into the theater blind aside from what others had told me about the show. To say the play had been hyped up for me is an understatement. I was expecting a majorly impressive work of art. And Curious Incident delivered. I spent the first act in such a trance that by intermission I realized I hadn't moved a muscle and had to stand to rid myself of the tension I was unconsciously carrying. I was engrossed in every moment, and very moved. Then the puppy came out of the box and I lost it. From that moment on I was in tears until leaving the theater. The most special line in the show for me is when Christopher acknowledges going to London all by himself. I related to so many aspects of his character, similarly to how I relate to Matilda (her song "Quiet" could be the theme song to my life). Really, I just am so pleased that this play exists and that this story is being told in such a beautifully magnificent fashion. If you haven't already seen it, get yourself there. But I'm pretty sure you all have and I was just way off my game.
Monday, January 11, 2016
The Humans
Okay this one is a long time coming. Sorry about that!
Where do I even begin with this show? It's honestly impossible for me to think about how "The Humans" will be on a Broadway stage. To me, the show requires an intimacy that's hard to find in commercial theater (of course I say that lovingly).
But I have some good news... I liked almost everything about this production. Wow! If you've seen the show, you can probably guess what I didn't like. I don't want to give anything away, but just know that there's a sort of supernatural aspect that didn't quite fit. But other than that? Strong story, incredibly strong acting, great set, interesting dialogue. "The Humans" was a great family drama and I'm glad I had the opportunity to see it before the move to Broadway. The ending of the play was breathtaking, even with the supernatural poking through. The story was filled with twists and turns, most of which I wasn't expecting, which is always fun because it's rare that theater surprises these days.
It was also so real. Although this family's experiences aren't the same as my own, I related to so much throughout the show. Being a twenty-something living in NYC in a relatively shitty apartment that you constantly tell your parents is "fine" was definitely something I could relate to. Dysfunctional families are my favorite -- whether on page, stage, or screen. I felt invested in the characters and wanted to know what would happen next.
"The Humans" will make you think about your own life and experiences and family. I wanted to see more, but I also wanted it to end so I could be set free from the tension created onstage. I highly recommend this show. It's a good one.
Where do I even begin with this show? It's honestly impossible for me to think about how "The Humans" will be on a Broadway stage. To me, the show requires an intimacy that's hard to find in commercial theater (of course I say that lovingly).
But I have some good news... I liked almost everything about this production. Wow! If you've seen the show, you can probably guess what I didn't like. I don't want to give anything away, but just know that there's a sort of supernatural aspect that didn't quite fit. But other than that? Strong story, incredibly strong acting, great set, interesting dialogue. "The Humans" was a great family drama and I'm glad I had the opportunity to see it before the move to Broadway. The ending of the play was breathtaking, even with the supernatural poking through. The story was filled with twists and turns, most of which I wasn't expecting, which is always fun because it's rare that theater surprises these days.
It was also so real. Although this family's experiences aren't the same as my own, I related to so much throughout the show. Being a twenty-something living in NYC in a relatively shitty apartment that you constantly tell your parents is "fine" was definitely something I could relate to. Dysfunctional families are my favorite -- whether on page, stage, or screen. I felt invested in the characters and wanted to know what would happen next.
"The Humans" will make you think about your own life and experiences and family. I wanted to see more, but I also wanted it to end so I could be set free from the tension created onstage. I highly recommend this show. It's a good one.
Friday, November 27, 2015
A View From The Bridge
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)