Tony Awards 2017

You thought you’d get away with no Tony recap post this year, did you? Fat chance! And plus, I’ve belatedly decided to write about the shows I saw this year, too. I composed half of it and then decided to split up the posts. This one’s just about the Tonys themselves.

Yesterday I kept asking colleagues and friends if they had watched the Tonys. “Oh I forgot about them!” “I never watch the Tonys.” “I was watching the hockey game!” “I don’t see much theater, so…” (And this is New York City! Imagine what people think in the rest of the country!) How disappointing! Once again this Sunday’s show illustrated that even a mediocre Tony ceremony is miles more fun than the Oscars. The speeches are better (and shorter!), for one thing. The musical performances, good or bad, are always interesting and fun to discuss. The show usually ends at 11, although this year was a little late. And it’s much less annoyingly grandiose than the Oscars. Like last year, I watched the show at my friend Cheryl’s house. This time, it was just the two of us, which gave us the opportunity to truly nerd out and play Scrabble during the commercials. (She won by a hundred, but I shall have my revenge someday.)

The Performances
The first performance to discuss, of course, is the one that never happened at all. Bette Midler in Hello, Dolly. Cheryl just about squawked with outrage when she realized that they wouldn’t be featuring Bette in a song from the show. It’s all we wanted. It’s all any of us wanted. How could this possibly have happened? Who’s to blame? Now, I was lucky enough to see Hello, Dolly a few weeks ago, and could tell you firsthand that Bette Midler lives up to the hype. You’ll have to take my word for it, though, because it looks like most of the country won’t get to see any part of her performance. Just think of all the kids who won’t get a chance to see her. I lived for those Tony performances as a kid. Plus, the song they actually performed (“Penny in My Pocket”) was downright lame. I’m still outraged. I’m banging my fist on a table! I mean, it’s bad enough without Bette performing but couldn’t they at least put on a song that shows how much fun the production is? (“It Takes a Woman!” “Elegance!” “It Only Takes a Moment!” ANYTHING!) As I said last year, I’ll occasionally spend hours looking at old Tony clips and reliving the magic of theater gone by. This will never happen with the 2017 Hello, Dolly. How could you, Scott Rudin? Now, I do realize there are a lot more important things going on in the nation. But surely this is something Republicans and Democrats can agree upon.

The other performance that worked me into a lather, though to a lesser extent, was Groundhog Day. Last year, I ranted against big Act Two “diva numbers” as Tony showcases. The Groundhog Day performance, a song called “Seeing You,” is similar in that it’s another big Act Two emotional payoff song. I don’t know the show well enough to say for certain what song would have been better (the suicide song? Or the car chase song? I don’t know. I’ll think on this), but this one gives you no sense of the show. It’s clever, it’s joyous, it’s funny as hell. “Seeing You” is nice in the context of the show, but came off as boring and treacly as a standalone number. And the song doesn’t even really indicate how terrific Andy Karl is as Phil Connors. Missed opportunity, guys.

No complaints about Dear Evan Hansen, Come From Away or Great Comet (especially Great Comet! How much fun was that number?), but War Paint and Falsettos did not come across well. Miss Saigon showcased its leading lady well but was far too heavy with its murder in the first five seconds. Or maybe I just don’t tend to much like overdramatic Tony performances. And I’m undecided about Bandstand. I have a ridiculous and ill-placed concern about the historical accuracy in its (Tony winning!) swing dance choreography. Stay tuned for developing thoughts on this Very Important Issue when I actually see the show.

But what I really want to do is get back to complaining about the lack of Bette Midler, so I guess I’d better stop here.

The Host
What on earth was going on with the opening number? I am a big fan of Broadway and musicals and would seem to be the target audience, but a few of the in-jokes about specific shows went over my head. If I’m not getting it, then you are doing it wrong. Plus, seeing Stephen Colbert and Billy Crystal reminded us of all the things we couldn’t have. And the closing number was even worse. I don’t know that song. and it seemed lugubrious, and a waste of Patti LuPone. And it was under-rehearsed and sloppy. Didn’t they learn anything from Neil Patrick Harris? Kevin Spacey started and ended on the wrong foot (note: I am not making a lame Keiser Soze pun). I wonder how much of this is his own responsibility, and how much was a producers’ decision. In any case, things weren’t going very well for Kevin Spacey.

But then in the middle of the show he came out and did an adorable Johnny Carson impression. I hadn’t thought about Johnny Carson for years and seeing the wig and hearing the hokey jokes and that rimshot after every punch line… It brought me back to my childhood when I occasionally got to stay up late to watch Carson on TV. I thought it was an absolutely delightful bit of nostalgia and I forgave Kevin Spacey for everything that came before and after. I realize this makes no sense. Yesterday on the Today on Broadway podcast they mocked Spacey’s impersonations, especially the Carson one, as totally out-of-touch. I agree with them. It’s corny! It shouldn’t make up for a mediocre hosting job! And that Clinton impression was pretty lousy, as well. I can’t really explain it. Occasionally while watching the Tonys you learn things about yourself, and this year I came to realize that I can be totally won over by an unexpected Johnny Carson impersonation.

The Winners
I’m actually going to save most of my thoughts for a separate post, as I saw all four of the nominated plays this year and three of the nominated musicals. (Sort of — I saw Great Comet in the tent, but not on Broadway. Yet.) I will say that once again the Tonys proved that theater makers know how to craft an awards speech. My personal favorite: Pasek and Paul. Clearly rehearsed and yet so heartfelt and winning. “Are they together? Are they a couple? I LOVE THEM!” I squealed to Cheryl. “I don’t know if they are together but they definitely have that mind meld thing going on,” she responded. (Update: they are NOT a couple but this makes them no less wonderful. Maybe I’m a sucker for a good old fashioned productive writing partnership. They even share credit on everything just like Lennon and McCartney.)

And of course, Bette Midler’s refusal to be played off. You tell ‘em, Bette! Love you forever! (PS — I’m still mad at you for not performing.)

What’s Next
Well, there’s Frozen, of course, and Harry Potter, which are probably going to be the two massive hits of the year. I don’t have much interest in either, but I’m am more or less certain that I’ll end up seeing both. (And of course, for the people involved in both productions, I truly hope that both are as wonderful as they are expected to be.) I will say my lack of interest in Frozen is a little unfair, since I still haven’t got around to seeing the movie. Harry Potter’s script underwhelmed me (to say the least), but everyone is always saying that it’s a lot better in person. I’m more interested in The Band’s Visit — will it be the third Best Musical in a row to come from an acclaimed off-Broadway run? Or maybe it will be Mean Girls or Freaky Friday. I’m excited just thinking about it! As for plays, I’m interested in Junk, Farinelli and the King, and who knows what else. I think I’m going to try and see 1984 soon, too. We’ll see. I can’t wait for another wonderful year of theatergoing. Bring it on!

Review: Sunset Boulevard

sunset playbillSo I haven’t had much interest in blogging lately. Clearly! As it turns out there’s a (possibly fatal) flaw in having a theater blog: seeing a ton of shows and writing about them too (on top of job, social life, and an overwhelming number of ridiculous hobbies)… Well, it seems to burn me out. Since I have started this blog, I’ve lost interest in updating it after every Tony Awards. And for longer and longer stretches! I’ve still seen plenty of shows, but I just haven’t been writing about it. So what should I do? Delete the blog?

But then a revival of Sunset Boulevard opens and it turns out I really do want a forum for my opinions. Because here’s the thing: no one is more qualified to pontificate about Sunset than I am. Remember when I mentioned my teenage love of Phantom and Les Miz? My love for Sunset trumped them all. Sunset was the show I saved for two years to see on Broadway during my first-ever trip to New York City. I had cast recordings, audio bootlegs, video bootlegs, merch. You name it. Ask anyone in my family: I was completely obsessed. I moved on, eventually, but Sunset still brings to mind my overenthusiastic, overjoyed 18-year-old self in the first row of the Minskoff Theater during my first trip to New York City.

And then there’s my love for the movie. I’m second to no one in my appreciation of the Billy Wilder original. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen it. It’s certainly one of my top five movies ever (probably my favorite movie ever, now that I’m thinking of it). I get irritated whenever I see a Best Movies of All Time list and Sunset isn’t in the top ten or fifteen. If you haven’t seen it, stop reading, go watch, and come back later. The rest of this review is going to assume you’re familiar with the property.

Most people who truly love the original movie also hate the musical. There are a lot of very good reasons for this. In short, the movie is much tougher, much cleverer, has brilliant performances, and an authenticity the musical can’t match. It’s also more artful: Things that are only implied in the movie are stated outright in the musical. (Joe, in the show: “I’ve seen too many optimists sinking like stones/Felt them suck all the marrow clean out of my bones.”)

That’s not all. There are a ton of fantastic moments in the movie that disappear in the musical:

  • Joe’s love interest Betty admits to having a nose job because she came from a “picture family” who always expected her to become a big star. In the musical, she tells the exact same story, minus the nose job. This leaves me spluttering. They took out the best part! In Hollywood even the young innocent white bread love interest has had a nose job!
  • There’s a scene in which Norma puts on the “Norma Desmond Follies” for a very, very, very bored Joe. Absolutely brilliant moment from both William Holden and Gloria Swanson. The poor woman. I’ve joked around with friends about doing a tap dance to try and sustain male attention before, so I definitely know where she is coming from.
  • The quietly disgusted look on Joe’s face when Norma dries him off with a towel.
  • Max had a black patent leather dressing room on the Paramount lot. Let me say that again. Max had a black patent leather dressing room on the Paramount lot.
  • This exchange between Betty and Joe: “Don’t you sometimes hate yourself?” “Constantly!”
  • The bit with the vicuna coat. The musical, again, misses the entire point of this moment. (Jesse Green explained this one really well in his review, so I won’t get into it.)

I could go on and on.

As you can see, I know every reason you should like the movie better. I also don’t care. I love the show. I love it. I love the story, I love the music, I love the characters. Why? Well, to begin with the songs are lovely. Norma’s songs are reminiscent of Phantom, with soaring, dramatic melodies. Joe’s numbers, on the other hand, are jazzier, more energetic. Both fit their characters really well. And the story is tailor made for the Lloyd Webber treatment, too: A friend pointed out the other day that Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lush scores don’t always have a story that can hold up the outsized music, but Sunset‘s script is better than most of his other shows. And people make fun of the lyrics sometimes, but I think they’re fine. They get the job done, and Norma’s big numbers (“With One Look” in the first act and “As If We Never Said Goodbye” in the second) are huge crowd-pleasing showstoppers. It’s not Sondheim, but it’s not embarrassing, either.

I’ll even stand up for the Joe and Betty scenes. Now, granted, this is never going to be the most interesting part of the show, but with the right Joe and the right Betty, their story can work beautifully as a counterpoint to Norma’s. Norma’s numbers are all emotion and volume, while the Joe/Betty numbers are sweeter, more thoughtful, more intellectual. In some productions of Sunset, they really do feel like they’re meant for each other, making the upcoming tragedy even sadder. (That is, if the cast and staging are right. A very big if.)

So, I dunno. Perhaps because I knew the musical before I ever saw the movie. Perhaps it’s just grandfathered in because I loved the musical as a teenager. Perhaps it’s just because I like theater even better than I like movies. Perhaps it’s just because the musical is more, well, fun. I think it’s a good show. It’s a good adaptation of the movie. Of course, this should be put in perspective. Sunset the movie may be one of the best films ever made, but Sunset the musical probably wouldn’t be on my top fifty greatest musicals ever. I love it to pieces, but come now. It’s no My Fair Lady or West Side Story in ambition or innovation.

So that’s where I stand as far as Sunset is concerned. If I haven’t lost you yet, perhaps I should say something about the production? It’s directed by Lonny Price, and is quite different from the original. Where the original had a gigantic and ornate set, this production is minimal. It’s meant to look like a movie set with lots of platforms and steps and catwalks. (A friend asked after we saw it: when are Broadway musicals going to stop duplicating the Jersey Boys set?) The movie set theme is continued throughout: essentially, this Sunset has Joe as film director, guiding us from one scene to the next with a snap of the fingers or an aside to the audience. The new interpretation works fine, though I wouldn’t necessarily call it an improvement over the much more realistic original production. And there are some nice touches: archival video footage of Los Angeles opens each act and really brings us into the world of Old Hollywood. The real problem occurs when Mr. Price’s direction gets intrusive. For example, a ghost of young Norma Desmond (in all her glory as a movie star) wanders the stage through a bunch of scenes. She’s supposed to be a haunting presence, I suppose, but she mostly just distracted me from whatever the characters were doing at that moment.

Of course, there’s very little possibility of being distracted when Ms. Glenn Close is on the stage. In fact, she’s the major reason to see the show.  Now, I never saw her original performance live, but you can catch bits of it on YouTube. Go ahead and watch! I’ll wait. Now, did it seem a bit overdone to you? According to my friend Heather, who saw the original many times, as a live performance it worked beautifully. But man does it ever come across as hammy on the video! In any case, her performance now is quite different. She’s still got stage presence for days, and is completely nuts of course, but it’s a lot less over the top throughout. Her Norma Desmond in this production is textured, hilarious, convincing, heartbreaking.

Even as familiar as I was with the story, I found myself incredibly moved by Norma’s plight. A colleague and I had a discussion recently about mentally ill patients during that era — just imagine what Norma’s life would have been like after the show ends. Electroshock, hydrotherapy, maybe even a lobotomy. The poor woman. There was nothing good in her future.

It should be noted, however, that Glenn Close can’t sing very well. I mean, she’s fabulous as an actress, but she really can’t do justice to Norma’s numbers. In the theater she sounds even more wobbly than she did on the original CD. And that’s a shame, of course. But in this universe — where Emma Stone wins the Best Actress Oscar for La La Land even though she can’t really sing or dance — I’m hardly going to complain. You can’t have everything in life, and what we get from Glenn Close — weak voice and all — is plenty good enough to justify buying a ticket. (Or, three separate tickets on three separate nights, if you are me.)

Now, let’s talk about Joe Gillis. To be honest, I think this character is the key to the show, and I think he’s an even harder character to nail than Norma is. This isn’t a criticism of Glenn Close, but Norma’s a big character. If you’ve got a big stage presence, you’re already well on your way to being a good Norma. Joe’s a trickier sort. He’s the narrator, so he needs to be fairly likable, but he’s also a bit of a user and makes a lot of icky decisions throughout. The one thing you absolutely don’t want is a standard musical comedy performance. Which brings me to Michael Xavier. If you want to get a sense of how he plays the role, all you’d need to do is watch the jokey vlogs he posted to Broadway.com. His Joe is a lot like that. Mr. Xavier is a cheerful, likable performer. Great charisma, strong rapport with the audience, expressive face, nice voice, and very handsome. And absolutely the wrong choice for Joe Gillis.

Again, go back to the movie. With all the times I’ve seen Sunset, I’ve never seen a Joe that even comes close to William Holden’s performance. To be honest, I’m not sure it’s possible, given the way the musical is written. As Heather pointed out, do you really want your leading man in a musical to be so full of self-loathing? That said, I have certainly seen Joes that do a far better job of holding their own against Norma. It’s not entirely Mr. Xavier’s fault: Lonny Price’s direction did him no favors. He’s given almost no moments in which to show his uglier side. Even the title number — traditionally the moment when the character can really let loose, show us his cynical worldview and explain why he’s decided to stay with Norma — is treated here as simply a chance to show off Joe’s toned physique in tight swimming trunks. (To be fair, Mr. Xavier looks fantastic in tight swimming trunks. So did William Holden, but Mr. Holden had the benefit of closeups and a better take on the character. What I mean to say is that the movie can afford to let us goggle at Joe for a minute or two. The musical can’t.)

Without a strong Joe, the show feels incredibly lopsided. Another friend freely admitted that she barely even watched the actors when Norma was offstage. (She gazed at the wonderful 40 piece orchestra onstage instead.) It didn’t surprise me to hear her say this, because Mr. Xavier and Siobhan Dillon as Betty have no chemistry at all. I have never felt less invested in their love story than I did here. (And like I said before, I love the Joe and Betty songs.)

And so what are we left with? We’ve got two fantastic performances (Ms. Close as Norma and Fred Johanson as Max) and a 40-piece orchestra that makes the score sound even lovelier than it did 20 years ago. We’ve got a fabulous story and a lot of fun songs. But we don’t have a great musical. And I think it’s a shame that the critics are blaming the material, when I really believe that intrusive direction and miscasting account for most of the production’s problems.

Even so, it still just makes me happy to know that Sunset is alive on Broadway and this wonderful story gets retold every night. It’s not a perfect production — in fact, I’d say the original was superior in almost every way — but I’ll take it.

Tony Awards 2016

A recap of the Tonys is something of a Show Me Shows tradition, but it’s also a little dangerous. Truth is, I’m not generally very critical about the Tonys. You could even call me a Tony cheerleader. So, fair warning: You may be up for several paragraphs of Julia squealing about how much she likes Broadway.

The other thing, of course, is that it feels a little wrong to post merry Tony ramblings after a national tragedy like the mass murder in Orlando. My sister Elizabeth admitted this morning that she couldn’t even really think about the Tonys in the light of the massacre, and I can understand that.

But I’ve decided to put up a few thoughts for anyone who might like to think about something a little happier for a few minutes.

The Host
James Corden was a really wonderful Tony host: charming, unobtrusive, fun. Hard for me to imagine anyone disliking him, to be honest. And I’d have him back anytime. His variety-show type opening number seemed cute but not memorable. In fact, I feel like I barely remember it even now, and it was only a day ago. But then he brought it up a notch (and I got a lump in my throat) when all the kids onstage transformed into the 2016 musical acting nominees. Bringing the nominees together in that way is one of those ideas that seems so obvious in retrospect, but I don’t remember seeing anything like it before. Such a beautiful idea to bring these talented folks together before ruining all the fun by actually picking favorites.

My only Corden quibble that I can think of: I didn’t quite understand why they showed the Carpool Karaoke segment again. It’s still cute, but we all watched it already five days ago! In a year when the Tonys went 17 minutes over its three hour time slot, it seemed completely unnecessary.

The Numbers
Hamilton and School of Rock were particular highlights in the song department. Since I’ve had little-to-no interest in School of Rock, I was a little surprised at how much fun it was. (So this is the show I’ve been sneering about for all these months. Hmm. Maybe I should rethink my uninformed opinion.) As for the other shows: not bad, for the most part! I generally take an anti-medley stance, but the She Loves Me numbers worked well, probably because they all look like they’re having so much fun. Spring Awakening‘s number was which was a jubilant excerpt, whereas Shuffle Along seemed a little jumbled. (But maybe that’s because everyone watching at Cheryl’s house got distracted trying to figure out how far along Audra McDonald is. Surely no more than four months? Four and a half?)

Some other ones didn’t quite work for me, though: On Your Feet gave me no indication that this was a must-see. Although I believe people tend to like it, so maybe I’m not giving it a shot. Maybe I’ll check it out eventually, but it’s pretty low on my priority list. As for Gloria Estefan, who performed with the cast: my friend Meredith hilariously pointed out how annoying it would be to have to sing and dance next to a decades younger, and far more limber version of yourself. Yikes. But maybe Gloria Estefan isn’t troubled about things like that. (After all, it didn’t seem to bother Carole King back in 2014.) Bright Star was all right, I suppose, because Carmen Cusack really is great, but those lyrics sound worse and worse every time you hear them.

More problematic: I really wish musicals would stop featuring the Big Act Two diva number on the Tonys. I’m referring specifically to Waitress and The Color Purple. Now, as I said in my reviews, I’m a big fan of both Jessie Mueller and Cynthia Erivo, but both of their songs come as the climax after a long build-up through the course of the show. Why not save the big number for the theater, and include something a little more accessible for the Tony viewers? I vividly remember seeing the Caroline or Change Tony number in 2004 and thinking “WHAT is this woman shouting about???” Of course, that song is incredibly powerful in context, but it seemed so incomprehensible without knowing the show itself. I later fell in love with the song — and the show — but only because I was given a free ticket and gave it another chance.

On the other hand, I can admit that Bernadette Peters’s Rose’s Turn, which is exactly the kind of song I usually rail against, was a wonderful documentation of an incredible performance. The same can be said for many others, I’m sure. I generally go for winning over the audience rather than documenting a performance, though, and I tend to think producers are crazy for not agreeing with me.

The Big Winner
I just looked over my Tony recaps from 2014 and 2015, and funnily enough, both of them end with a mention of Hamilton. In 2014 I mentioned the shows I was looking forward to in the year to come:

… And all the exciting Off-Broadway shows we’ll be getting, like Hamilton and who knows what else.

Then in 2015:

In any case, I’m happy to relax and celebrate Fun Home‘s very well deserved win while waiting for Hamilton‘s coronation next year. For once, a Best Musical race won’t be stressful. (I’d say “famous last words” but seriously. No one is beating Hamilton.)

Last night was the culmination of all that. It felt like the end of the road in a sense — I know the show isn’t going anywhere, but I can’t afford another ticket, and Lin-Manuel Miranda is leaving in a month, and I know the CD by heart. What more is there to do, or say here? I’ve even found myself listening to Hamilton a lot less lately. Just feels like time to move on.

Yesterday I spent an embarrassingly large portion of the day watching old highlights of Tony performances. I couldn’t get enough. Seeing those shows again after all these years — shows like like Ragtime, A Chorus Line, Sunday in the Park with George, Annie, Cabaret, In the Heights and dozens more — I felt as though I was getting a welcoming hug from an old friend. It brought back so many good memories. So who knows? Maybe in 20 years when Hamilton is well past its prime or long closed, I’ll turn on that clip and see Barack Obama’s introduction, and the youthful and vibrant cast, and Lin-Manuel Miranda performing his own songs and I’ll think. “Oh yes. What a magical time.”

What’s Next?
I’m freely admitting that I’m way behind on plays, and I hope to catch up over my summer blogging sabbatical*. Obviously I’ll have to get to The Humans, but I don’t think I’ll get to The Father before it closes. Intellectually, I’m interested in Long Day’s Journey Into Night, but I must say that Cheryl dampened my enthusiasm a bit at her Tony party by reminding me that it’s four hours of people making each other miserable. (Ugh, do I hafta? Sounds like homework.) As for musicals, I’m going to try and catch School of Rock, and everyone at Cheryl’s party felt like Fiddler would be fun to experience again. We may arrange an outing.

As for next year? I missed Dear Evan Hansen at Second Stage, but rumor has it it’s already a strong contender for Best Musical next June. Looking at Playbill’s schedule of upcoming Broadway shows, it looks like we’re in for a lot of play revivals (The Cherry Orchard, The Front Page, The Master Builder, etc). What else is new, though? We have a lot of play revivals every year. But a few of the new musicals (A Bronx Tale, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Bandstand) look intriguing. And I did like Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet a whole lot when I saw it in the tent a few years ago. I will say that nothing on Playbill’s upcoming shows page makes me think we’ll have anything like another Hamilton on our hands. But as a great man once said: “There is one word in America that says it all, and that one word is, ‘You never know.'” So who knows what 2016-2017 will feature? Bring it on!


* – Note: I am not announcing that I am absolutely taking a summer sabbatical from writing blog posts, but it may happen despite all my best intentions. Seems to be a pattern with me.

Tony Nominations 2016

First of all: Happy Tony day, everyone! I’ll be watching the show from my friend Cheryl’s house and playing Tony Bingo. (Aside: You wouldn’t believe the Hamilton-related prize I have for the bingo winner. ) I had been planning to do a full post on a few of the plays and musicals nominated for a Tony. And here it is, Tony Sunday already, so I’d better get something up before I run out of time! I’m a little behind on plays, to be honest, so I’ll just focus on musicals for today.

Hamilton

hamiltonHamilton is, of course, nominated for nearly everything and a lock to win quite a few awards tonight. I haven’t mentioned Hamilton much on this blog since my original review of the Off-Broadway production. (I’ve been telling people to buy tickets since I first saw the show back in February of 2015. This has the effect of making everyone even more annoyed at my I-told-you-sos than they are at Hamilton’s producers for the ticket prices.) I have since seen it twice on Broadway, and am proud to take full responsibility for introducing nearly my entire family to the show. (They all love it. But then so does everyone.)

What’s left to say? It’s a wonderful show, and it deserves much of the hype it has received. And yet. Like many others, I have been feeling a bit of backlash. I mean, Hamilton is a great show, but there are lots of great shows on Broadway. Can’t get a ticket to Hamilton? Go see Fun Home, or The Color Purple, or Waitress, or Shuffle Along, or any one of a dozen other terrific shows currently on Broadway.

Oh, and one more thing: If you do snag tickets to Hamilton, I’d recommend doing what I did when my mom and sister came to see the show: try visiting Hamilton Grange before your performance. It’s a great and quick tour of his uptown home, and seeing it gives a wonderful context to the show’s history. And if you get the same tour guide as I did, you’ll be amused at how hilariously dismissive he is of the musical. (Ask him if he plans to see it, or if he knows the song “It’s Quiet Uptown”, or what he thinks of the cast recording. It will drive him up the wall.)

Bright Star

bright starI’m going to try and be quick about this, because I’m really trying not to get too negative on this blog these days. I mean, I am sometimes of two minds about this blogging thing altogether. These people are working their hardest to put on a Broadway show, and I come in and announce that it’s no good for x, y and z reasons. It just seems hubristic, right? Who the heck am I to say anything about the ultimate quality of a show? Maybe it was always their dream to get to Broadway. And here I’m dismissing it altogether?

On the other hand, I use this blog as a way to engage with the art that I love. And I pay for most of the shows I see, and the box office is very happy to accept my money. So why shouldn’t I express my opinion? Furthermore, this is not a high-trafficked blog, anyway, so I don’t worry about it too much. But I still don’t want to be mean about shows just for the fun of it. Which is why I never blogged about Bright Star, even though I saw it back in February. I hated it, and I hated it so much that I get a little startled when some people tell me they kinda liked it. My honest opinion is that it would never have made it to Broadway if it weren’t written by Steve Martin and Edie Brickell.

Why did I hate it? Well, mostly because of the book. It’s a totally ridiculous story about a fortyish book editor (Carmen Cusack, who is actually really great) who meets an aspiring young writer with a surprising connection to her secret past. (Hmm. That doesn’t sound so bad. Well, it would sound awful if I told you the ridiculous plot twists. Let’s just say the show may or may not feature a baby being tossed off a bridge.) And it’s so, uh, white. (I believe they’re calling it “White Star” over on Twitter.) I don’t know. I mean, writers have to tell the stories they want to tell, but here’s the thing. A story set in the post World War II South that doesn’t even mention that black people exist, or portray any onstage, just seems a little tone deaf in a season of musicals like Hamilton and Shuffle Along.

That said, there’s one thing I did like about Bright Star, and that’s the music. Mr. Martin and Ms. Brickell apparently got the idea for the show from their award-winning bluegrass album. So the songs are good, though the lyrics are pretty trite and ridiculous (“If you knew my story, my heaven and my hell, if you knew my story, you’d have a good story to tell”). The voices and the band and the harmonies sound so glorious in the theater that I was occasionally tempted to forgive the show’s flaws and just flow with the music. Other bluegrass lovers may feel the score washes away the show’s problems, for the most part. But I wasn’t able to overcome my distaste for the story. So I can’t recommend this show.

She Loves Me

she loves meI just saw this one ten days ago, actually, and have been too busy with work and travel since then to write a full blog post about it. Critics have been calling this production a nearly perfect restaging of a nearly perfect musical. I don’t know that I’d go so far, to be honest. I’ve only just realized it, but I have some problems with the show’s writing.

But that sounds a bit negative, doesn’t it? Let’s start with the positive: first of all, the music is just as good as it ever was. Everyone else grew up listening to the cd too, right? (If you didn’t: She Loves Me is based on the same story as You’ve Got Mail or The Shop Around the Corner). What fabulous musical theater songs!

The set is so beautiful that I wanted to get a job at Maracek’s Parfumerie myself — imagine working in that jewel box! Scott Ellis’s direction is smooth, perhaps even occasionally overly slick (I could have done with a little less physical comedy, perhaps). But that’s a quibble. Because best of all is the cast: Zachary Levi is completely charming as leading man Georg, and both Jane Krakowski and Gavin Creel are letter-perfect in their featured roles. This is truly an ensemble show, and absolutely everyone does a wonderful job.

Including leading lady Laura Benanti. Let it be said that I totally love Laura Benanti. She’s a great actress, her voice is lovely and she has fantastic comic timing. Basically, she’s a gift to Broadway and has an awesome Twitter feed to boot. I truly don’t think what I’m about to complain about is her fault. But why is everyone calling this a perfect musical when the character of Amalia is a bit of a mess? This is a girl who charges into a parfumerie and gets a job through sheer moxie. She doesn’t seem shy. She seems awesome! But then her lyrics tell a different story:

Will he like me when we meet?
Will the shy and quiet girl he’s going to see
Be the girl that he’s imagined me to be?

Or:

I make believe nothing is wrong
How long can I pretend?
Please make it right, don’t break my heart….

I don’t know. Maybe I’m being unfair. I guess this is supposed to represent the inner life of the character, but I wasn’t convinced. Because Laura Benanti can play a shy and quiet character. (She won a Tony as Louise in Gypsy for crying out loud.) But this role isn’t shy! She’s open, brash, fun, a little klutzy. Why aren’t her songs more reflective of the character we see in the book scenes?

If your big complaint about a show, though, is a nitpick about some a few of the lyrics for the leading lady, you are sitting pretty. She Loves Me is a great pick if you are looking for a show to take your parents, or your date, or if you just want to take your mind off your troubles, or if you just want to see a musical that truly appreciates ice cream.

The Color Purple

color purpleI was in the ticketholders’ line outside the Jacobs a few weeks ago when I heard the news: Cynthia Erivo was out sick that night. (I do believe I moaned in dismay.) I’d heard so many good things about her performance that I decided to rebook. The box office folks switched my ticket with no extra charges, and the next week I tried again.

And wow. Does she ever live up to the hype! Where do I begin describing her performance? Well, let’s start with this: she’s got a voice and a half. I mean, we’re talking Whitney Houston-caliber vocals. The songs sound incredible. And she is onstage for the vast majority of the show. It must be an incredibly physically demanding role. (How on earth did she run a half-marathon and do two shows, all in one day?) But that’s not really what impressed me so much. Her character, Celie, transforms from an abused and downtrodden girl into an independent powerhouse woman, and is totally believable throughout. She nails the comedic moments, and the drama, and the songs as well. Ms. Erivo is a beautiful lady, of course, but her demeanor in the first act of the show even had me believing it when other characters kept calling her ugly. And then by the end of the end of the show, when Celie has made a new start for herself, I thought “Oh my goodness. She radiates joy.” I’ve said before that expressing joy is what musicals do best, and Cynthia Erivo is doing it better than anyone I’ve seen in a long time. For the first time in my life, I burst into tears at the curtain call. Bravo.

As for the rest of the cast — well, they’re all great. And I don’t mean to pick favorites, but Heather Headley (a new arrival to the cast) is fabulous as Shug (Celie’s friend and sometime love interest). Confident, sexy, warm — no wonder everyone onstage loves Shug so much. It is so good to see Heather Headley on Broadway again. And Danielle Brooks lights up the stage as Sophia, Celie’s ballsy friend.

And what did I think of the show itself? Well, I thought that it seemed like a pretty strong musical, actually. The songs were lively, the story propelled along nicely, the characterization was great, and all in all I liked it a lot.

If my description sounds like it’s a new musical, that’s because it was a new musical to me. I had missed the entire original run of The Color Purple (I don’t recall why — perhaps I was busy ushering?). So who can say if I’d have liked it? The critical consensus is that original was not great, whereas this new production is revelatory. I wonder if that’s really true. Don’t get me wrong. I loved the show, and I would certainly vote for it as Best Revival of a Musical. (And I think it will win! Hooray!) But — and I’m just throwing this out there — maybe the fault is a little more with us than we’d like to admit? Could it be that The Color Purple had virtues that few noticed in the original run? I make this suggestion because my friend Vanessa, who has seen both, seemed a little confused about why this production was considered so superior to the original. I think for those who were looking, The Color Purple was always a little better than what it had been given credit for.

Best of luck to all the Tony nominees and congratulations to everyone one such a stellar season. I feel so lucky to have been a witness to it. Cheers to Broadway!

Review: American Psycho

IMG_20160503_215155191Have I lost my critical faculties? Do I just like everything now? I wondered, as I walked away from the Schoenfeld theater after seeing American Psycho on Broadway. Because the truth is that I had a great time, and found the new musical daring, dynamic, funny, and memorable. I felt a little embarrassed, because I wasn’t totally sure that it was a good show. But then as my friend Christine said: “I know a lot of people who liked American Psycho, and they’re all kind of embarrassed about it.”

So why did we like it? And why are we a little embarrassed?

Let’s start with the story. I know that everyone else has seen the movie American Psycho, or finished the book. I haven’t done either, and I found the slasher story pretty compelling. Patrick Bateman is a shallow, preppy, materialistic 1980s Wall Street type who is obsessed with Donald J. Trump. (It’s hard to believe the Trump thing is actually from the original source material, but it certainly is.) He’s a wealthy consumer — he loves telling us about his high-end lotions, clothing, electronics and so on — with an equally consumerist fiance (Helene Yorke) and materialistic group of friends. And he just happens to be a serial killer.

It’s a razor-sharp satire — or, well, to be more exact, American Psycho WAS a razor-sharp satire. I’m still in the middle of reading Bret Easton Ellis’s original novel, and it pulls no punches. The musical, on the other hand, is half murderous satire, half 1980s nostalgia comedy. Part of this can’t be helped: that’s where the story is set, after all. But this show has a lot of fun with its 1980s backdrop. This is certainly evident in Robert Aguirre-Sacasa’s sometimes uneven book. Much of Ellis’s original prose is preserved, but now functions as a knowing wink to the past. And the nostalgia is amplified in director Rupert Goold’s production. Everything from the movement to the scenery to the costumes is totally, outrageously of its era. So maybe this adaptation distances us from some of the more horrifying aspects of the story, or the more biting satirical commentary. Oh well. Who cares? American Psycho the musical (like its characters) may be a little relentless in its search for a good time. But it kind of feels like something that Patrick Bateman himself would love.

The music and lyrics are by Duncan Sheik, of Spring Awakening fame. His songs sound vaguely 1980s: high energy, pulsing rhythms, electronic instrumentation, a little cheesy. The music is good; the lyrics are not. (“You’re such a card,” the guys sing to their business cards.) There are also a few genuine 1980s songs, as well: Hip to Be Square, Everybody Wants to Rule the World, Don’t You Want Me, In the Air Tonight. Given that I always want original music in a musical, I felt a little guilty for preferring the real 1980s music (by Phil Collins et al) to Mr. Sheik’s score. On the other hand, most people in my generation would probably feel the same way. It’s in our bloodstream by this point.

As for the cast: I’ve already gone too long without mentioning Benjamin Walker. In other words: I’m starting to understand the hoopla. From his first moment he was mesmerizing, charismatic, creepy. He’s hilarious too. The role is enormous — he’s onstage nearly the entire show — and he absolutely commands the space. It’s a highly physical part, too. I honestly don’t understand why Mr. Walker wasn’t nominated for a Tony. (But more on that in a different post.) It was that kind of compelling performance, as far as I was concerned. (On the other hand, I’m a little worried that people will think I only liked him because he is quite handsome, very toned, and spent half the show in his underpants. Not true! Not true at all!)

Then there’s Helene Yorke, who I remember well from her brassy performance in the mediocre Bullets Over Broadway. Evelyn, Patrick’s fiance, is a similarly cartoonish character to Olive of Bullets Over Broadway, but it seems to fit Ms. Yorke better, somehow. It could be the characterization is funnier, or it could be that the tone of American Psycho fits better with her style of comedy than Bullets did. Either way, she’s great here.

I was at a bit of a loss with Jennifer Damiano’s performance. Ms. Damiano plays Patrick’s secretary Jean. She’s a sweet girl and secretly in love with Patrick. (Bad choice, Jean!) Ms. Damiano surprised me with the utter expressionlessness of her performance. Seemingly every line was delivered in a deadpan monotone. I was completely fascinated by this. I mean, this is clearly a performance decision and not just bad acting. But I couldn’t really figure out why. Maybe to set Jean off from the cartoonishness of the rest of the company? Or… or… maybe she is speaking in a completely normal voice, and it only sounds monotonous because the rest of the cast is so over the top? Or… is it actually bad acting? I’m not sure.

So maybe by this point you can see where I’m coming from. There are reasons why I’m embarrassed (the lyrics, the overt nostalgia, the sometimes clunky book) and reasons I liked American Psycho anyway (Benjamin Walker and the rest of the cast, the compelling story, the excellent comedic moments, the music). At this point it seems pretty obvious why the show got such divided reviews. And why it got mostly ignored by the Tony nominators. But I call “no fair.” This is a show that takes more risks than any other new musical on Broadway this season (except Hamilton). And I think that’s something we should root for.

My Grade: B
Running Time: 2 hours, 40 minutes
Ticket price: $59 (Box office with discount)
Worth it: Yes
Standing Ovation Watch: Yes

Next Up: My Tony nomination reactions

Review: Shuffle Along

IMG_20160420_194957555

not one but TWO fabulous retro Playbills

This might surprise you, but I’ve never really been a tap dance person. (And this coming from a swing dancer!) It wasn’t necessarily in vogue when I fell in love with Broadway (the dominant shows at that time were, of course, Les Miserables, The Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon, etc.) and musicals that spoke to me most weren’t likely to use tap much anyway. I liked the big, emotive music and dramatic, expressive dances. The kind of thing you’d see in West Side Story or Cassie’s dance in A Chorus Line. In comparison, 42nd Street or any of the other shows that featured a ton of tap dancing seemed stodgy, old fashioned. I’d see those chorus members (with smiles PASTED on — those fake toothy smiles still grate on me, by the way) tapping and the whole feel of it would be along the lines of “Hey this is BROADWAY so we are going to tap for you!” It’s always seemed a little… cheesy? Dorky?

I know that way back in 1996, George C. Wolfe and Savion Glover’s Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk changed the way a lot of people viewed tap, but I never saw Noise/Funk, unfortunately. As I said, tap just didn’t seem all that interesting to me at the time. And nowadays you don’t see a lot of really innovative tap. (Well, maybe you do if you are paying attention, but I can’t say that I have been. I’ve probably been actively avoiding it, now that I think about it.) Shows like The Book of Mormon and The Producers (among many others) use it to brilliant comic effect, of course, and that’s where I thought tap fit best.

Now. Shuffle Along, or, the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed might have transformed my attitude towards tap dancing. And that’s not even the best thing about it. It’s not a perfect show, but I thought it was a truly wonderful, kinesthetic production. The performances are phenomenal, the story is fascinating and moving, and the staging is wonderfully clever.

And, of course, there’s tap dancing. But I’ll get to that.

It’s about Broadway’s biggest hit of 1921: Shuffle Along, an all-black extravaganza full of terrific songs, raucous dancing and lots of jokes. Now, the original Shuffle Along is all but unperformable now. It didn’t age well, to say the least. The original had black performers wearing blackface for further comic effect, for one thing, and a ridiculous, cliched storyline. So what our Shuffle Along has done is use the (still-terrific) songs from the original and enfold them in the story of how the show came to be, and what happened after it barnstormed Broadway.

It’s right in my wheelhouse in a lot of ways. I love plays that teach me about an era of history (All the Way and Wolf Hall, for example), and Broadway in particular (Act One). Go ahead and toss in any “let’s put on a show” cliche you want to, because as I established when I saw Act One, I’m a sucker for that stuff. I’m also a sucker for old-fashioned theatrical delights, and this show is full of them. An old-style playbill, song title cards above the stage, and so on. It’s like they made a show specifically for people obsessed with old-timey jazz, vintage Broadway, and 1920s dance. And you wonder why I liked it?

In the new Shuffle Along, F.E. Miller (Brian Stokes Mitchell) and Aubrey Lyles (Billy Porter), two comic performers, join together with songwriters Eubie Blake (Brandon Victor Dixon) and Noble Sissle (Joshua Henry) to write the show that became Shuffle Along. All four of these performers are outstanding. Charm, individuality, fantastic voices, terrific comic timing. When will you see a better cast than this? And boy is it ever good to see Brian Stokes Mitchell back on Broadway. (It feels like it’s been awhile. Is that true?)

I know what you’re thinking: Yeah, yeah. But why hasn’t she mentioned Audra McDonald yet? From what I understand, I got really lucky as Ms. McDonald missed the next few performances with bronchitis. But she was in the night I saw the show, and giving a typically fabulous performance. If she was already getting sick, I heard no hint of it. Her voice is as stunning as ever. She was warm and dignified as Lottie Gee, the fashionable and proud but minor diva given the leading role in Shuffle Along. But more than that, she was also hilarious. Frankly, it’s just refreshing to see her having fun, after all the horrible onstage suffering that has earned her so many Tonys. This isn’t the kind of performance that is likely to win her another one, but I almost liked her better for all of that. This show is an ensemble piece, and Ms. McDonald fits in beautifully.

And that tap dancing. This wasn’t the Broadway tap I thought I knew. This was hoofing: percussionistic, passionate. The large ensemble numbers burst onstage like a locomotive, driving the narrative and adding syncopation to the music. And there are quieter solo moments that shine, as well. It’s fantastic stuff, and I can’t wait to see which song they choose for the Tony broadcast. Choreographer Savion Glover gets the credit for this, of course, but dance is so seamlessly incorporated into George C. Wolfe’s cinematic staging that basically everything feels choreographed. I can’t say enough about the charismatic staging, to be honest. There are a ton of joyous or clever moments in the piece that surprised me: I was left with the sense of Broadway masters showing us how it’s done.

If there’s something to pick at in Shuffle Along, it’s probably the book, also by Mr. Wolfe. The first act, which tells the story of Shuffle Along‘s gestation and journey to Broadway, is so zippy, energetic and well-constructed that the show seems unstoppable. I noticed some tried-and-true Broadway bits, such as the leading lady jazzing up her big hit number (a moment straight outta Showboat!) but I was having too much fun to care. The second act, however lacks that narrative drive. It’s all about what happened after Shuffle Along opened, and feels a little messier and directionless at times. And the show as a whole is probably overlong, at nearly three hours the night I saw it. No matter, really, though. By the end, it packed quite an emotional punch as you see the (sometimes tragic) outcomes of the people we met and fell for in Act One. I was sobbing.

It’s a show that fits perfectly into the season: while Hamilton reimagines American history through wonderful multiracial storytellers, it’s still about a bunch of white guys. Shuffle Along focuses on actual black history. Both are smashingly powerful. Look around, look around at how lucky we are, Broadway fans.

My Grade: A
Running Time: 2 hours, 50 minutes
Ticket price: $69 (Box office with discount)
Worth it: Yes
Standing Ovation Watch: Yes

Next Up: American Psycho

Review: Waitress

IMG_20160421_103343371_HDRMovies turned into Broadway musicals. We are in the midst of an onslaught, and there’s no end in sight. I tend to roll my eyes whenever I hear of a new one. I mean, they can bring out the worst of Broadway’s qualities, right? It can force a weird, hilarious, original piece of film into a standard Broadway template: “I Want” song followed by comic relief followed by conditional love song followed by Big Act 2 number followed (almost always) by a happy ending. All clocking in at exactly 2 hours and 30 minutes.

(I’m not just bashing Broadway here. Stage musicals turned into movies are even worse. Remember when the film version of Jersey Boys extracted all the joy out of the show?)

On the other hand: they’re not uniformly bad. Once breaks the pattern with beautiful staging and choreography. Hairspray’s terrific score makes up for the loss of John Waters’ original voice. The Bridges of Madison County easily surpassed its hokey source material with an intelligent adaptation, beautiful music, and transcendent performances. The stage version of The Lion King, with its staging and use of puppetry, is certainly superior to the movie. Lin-Manuel Miranda and Andy Blankenbuehler’s contributions to Bring it On vaulted it from humdrum movie remake to vibrant, energetic stage production. I could go on, of course. But overall these are the unusual ones. In my experience, most musical versions of movies simply aren’t as good as the original.

So where does Waitress fall? Well, good news, musical theater fans: this is more of a Hairspray than a Legally Blonde. It’s got an excellent and very tuneful score from singer-songwriter Sara Bareilles, a wonderful and warm leading lady in Jessie Mueller, a lot of humor, and a lovely production. It’s an audience-pleaser: a clever show with a soul. It got a rapturous audience reaction when I saw it, and it seems pretty clear this will be a big hit.

If you haven’t seen the movie: small-town waitress Jenna (Ms. Mueller), surrounded by a group of colorful friends and colleagues (it’s like the southern version of Stars Hollow), finds herself knocked up, further entrapping her into a loveless marriage with the brutish Earl (Nick Cordero). Things get complicated when she finds herself attracted to her obstetrician (Drew Gehling).

Now. About Jessie Mueller. Throughout the show people kept raving about Jenna’s homemade pies as “unearthly” or some equally hyperbolic adjective. That’s basically how I feel about Jessie Mueller’s voice, which is gorgeous, soulful, powerful. And combine that with her ever-appealing persona (she honestly seems like the nicest person on the stage) and you get a sense of how lucky we are to have her on Broadway. She also sounds quite a bit like Sara Bareilles at times, interestingly enough. (Well, since she can mimic Carole King perfectly too, I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise.) The rest of the cast is also really strong. Drew Gehling’s performance as Dr. Pomatter is hilarious, klutzy and appealing (and isn’t it nice to see the MAN as the klutzy one in a romantic comedy?), though his performance might be a little less riotous for those of us who have seen the movie. (The funniest moments were straight out of Nathan Fillion’s book.) And both Keala Settle and Kimiko Glenn are memorable and in great voice as Jenna’s best friends. I do wish that Nick Cordero got to show off some of the charm we saw in Bullets Over Broadway, though. He’s flat-out villainous here. His one-note characterization seems, frankly, a little out of sync with the rest of the show. I wish the role had been written with a lighter touch.

Ms. Bareilles, it seems, grew up a theater nerd, which is why I wasn’t too surprised that the score was so strong. She can write everything from a standout opening number to a throaty act two climax, and do it all well. The music is buoyant, and the lyrics are thoughtful and honest, full of the humor and warmth that is infused throughout the show.

Waitress is notable for having an all-female creative team: in addition to Ms. Bareilles, it was directed by Diane Paulus, written by Jessie Nelson (relying heavily on the movie version by Adrienne Shelly), and choreographed by Lorin Lotarro (who I remember well as the associate choreographer and swing when I ushered at American Idiot). It does indeed feel like a women’s musical, and I mean that as a compliment. It passes the Bechdel test within the first few moments of the show, and it’s all about the importance of friendship, love, community and food.

On the other hand, I could see those who love the movie not caring for the musical Waitress. Sentiment is tuned up a notch. Its harsh and quirky edges have been rounded off (or turned into “musical theater quirky”, which is an entirely different thing). The comedic moments seem brasher, the romantic ones lusher. Jessie Mueller is warm and endearing in a way that Kerri Russell never was in the film, so I could see how some might say the piece overall feels a little less brave, somehow. It’s easier on the senses.

But I didn’t care about any of that. It’s a good show: smart, tuneful, well-cast. The band sounds great and the company is wonderfully diverse. It does exactly what it sets out to do, and what more can you ask? I’m happy it’s on Broadway and I’m even happier it looks to be a big hit.

Now, it must be said that Waitress has zero chance of winning the Best Musical Tony this year. If I thought it would win, I might be less enamored of it. Sound crazy? Well, here’s what it comes down to: this is a really well-executed adaptation, and I certainly liked it better than the movie. But I like musicals best when they (in the words of Mr. Sondheim) “tell ’em things they don’t know,” or when they do something unexpected in terms of writing, staging, performance. And in a season where so many productions do all of those things, Waitress falls just a tiny bit short. It’s just like the movie, only better.

My Grade: A-
Running Time: 2 Hours, 30 minutes
Ticket price: $79 (Box Office with discount)
  Worth it: Yes
Standing Ovation Watch: Yes

Next Up: Shuffle Along