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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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...

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).

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.