We had reservations about some of the casting when we saw James MacDonald's production of Mike Bartlett's witty, minimalist play, COCK, at the Royal Court Theater Upstairs a while back (review somewhere below), and were curious to see what New York actors would do with this blueprint of a script. The New York cast was better, the play both funnier and more impassioned.
Barlett has said that he got the idea for the style of this play when he witnessed a cockfight in Mexico (the New York Times, unable to print the title of the play, calls it "The Cockfight Play"). The audience is seated on benches in a plywood ampitheater looking down on a small, circular playing area. The only lighting is fluorescent and the audience is as lit as the actors. There are no sets, furniture or props, nor is there any specific miming of actions like eating or copulating. Everything is in the words. Bartlett's script, obviously influenced by Pinter, is filled with pauses. Exposition is sketchy and only delivered when necessary. Scene breaks are indicated by the sounding of a tone. All this creates great challenges for the actors.
Bartlett's story is a simple one. John (the only character with a name), is in a contentious seven-year relationship with a somewhat older and more successful man who is a bit of a psychological bully. Shortly after John tries to break off his relationship with M, he meets W, a young female divorcee who does not like being single. John, both attracted to W and frightened of his first heterosexual relationship, runs back to M. Both M, W and, at the dinner from hell, M's father, push John to make a choice. Is it M or W? Is he straight or gay? COCK would be a simple minded play if it were just an argument against rigid categories like gay, straight or bisexual. John's real problem is that he doesn't know who he is. He has no fixed identity of any kind. Oddly, it is his blankness that seems to attract needy people like M and W. They can project their needs and fantasies onto him. The question that frustrates one watching this play -- one of the key questions Bartlett is asking -- is why people are drawn to this amiable cipher who is doubly crippled by the fact that he knows he has no identity. COCK is a rich play about loneliness, neediness and contemporary anomie. It's funny, smart and a bit disturbing.
There were some problems with the London cast. Ben Whishaw seemed good casting for John -- homely, scrawny and an expert at playing angst. However, Andrew Scott, the same size and looking the same age as Whishaw (though he's half a dozen years older), was a bit small-scaled as M and Katherine Parkinson, a one note actress if ever there was one, did nothing with W. The New York cast was infinitely superior. The opening battles between Cory Michael Smith's John and Jason Butler Harner's M were much more passionate. Harner is taller and obviously older than Smith, a necessary set of contrasts. One felt both their sexual attraction and the frustrations that were killing their relationship. I never felt any passion between Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott, but here saw that, whatever was driving them apart, John and M were physically attracted to each other. Amanda Quaid made W an interesting character; attractive, smart and tough. She really stands her ground when forced to fight for her dignity and for John. Smith made you realize why people were attracted to John even though they should run for the hills. Harner is magnetic as M, registering every aspect of his bafflement, hurt and need for John. Cotter Smith made his brief appearance as the father subtler and more complex than his London counterpart. This was a more physical, more intense performance than the London one without losing any of the wit and humor. It was thrilling to watch these actors at work in this small space. And it was a joy to see this fine play again.
COCK. The Duke on 42nd Street. June 23, 2012.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT
This is the third Gershwin anthology show in recent years. MY ONE AND ONLY (1983), with Tommy Tune and Twiggy was a moderate hit. Then CRAZY FOR YOU, based on GIRL CRAZY, ran for four years in the early nineties. Now we have NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT, with a book by Joe DiPietro loosely based on the 1924 musical, LADY BE GOOD, which starred Gertrude Lawrence. We still have bootleggers and a playboy about to marry the wrong girl, but the book is much more coherent than the original. DiPietro has given us a delightful old-fashioned musical comedy with a lot of music and laughs. Director Katleen Marshall has wisely cast the show with strong comic performers. There are lots of leading roles, all deftly played. Matthew Broderick and Kelli O'Hara are the name, "above the title" stars. On paper they seem like a mismatch. Broderick can carry a tune, but it isn't a great singing voice. He's not a born dancer, but he gamely gets through his dance numbers. What he can do is deliver comic lines in a winning, low-key manner. He has always been good at playing harmless naughty boys and that is what is required of him here. O'Hara is a competent actress, but a terrific singer. She's not a natural at comedy, but she's surrounded by so many great comic performers that it doesn't matter. Oddly enough, they work as a couple. They aren't Astaire and Rogers, but their dance numbers seem in character.
Michael McGrath as the gangster turned surly butler is a delight as is the great Judy Kaye as the prohibitionist who discovers the joy of booze. Chris Sullivan and Robyn Hurder make a wonderful comic couple as not-too-bright gangster Duke and dumb chorine with dreams of being queen of England. And Estelle Parsons make a grand second act appearance as Jimmy's mother.
This is what musical comedy is supposed to be -- great songs; a well constructed, truly funny book; superb comic performances; good singing and enjoyable dancing; lovely costumes; simple but effective sets and a great pit band. Too bad nobody around now can write a score anywhere near this good. Everyone who aspires to writing a musical should be required to see this show.
As expected, the near-capacity Tuesday night audience was comprised mostly of folks middle-aged and older (how many under-25s have even heard of George Gershwin?). They weren't as wildly enthusiastic as the younger audiences at some shows I have seen recently (or as despondent as the audience at ONCE), but they were obviously having a good time. Highly recommended.
And once again, I noted how shabby the Shubert's theaters are looking. The Imperial Theatre has housed some of the greatest musicals of the twentieth century. I spent much of my youth in the balcony of the Imperial. It deserves to look as grand as its place in the history of the musical.
NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT. Imperial Theatre. June 19, 2012,
Michael McGrath as the gangster turned surly butler is a delight as is the great Judy Kaye as the prohibitionist who discovers the joy of booze. Chris Sullivan and Robyn Hurder make a wonderful comic couple as not-too-bright gangster Duke and dumb chorine with dreams of being queen of England. And Estelle Parsons make a grand second act appearance as Jimmy's mother.
This is what musical comedy is supposed to be -- great songs; a well constructed, truly funny book; superb comic performances; good singing and enjoyable dancing; lovely costumes; simple but effective sets and a great pit band. Too bad nobody around now can write a score anywhere near this good. Everyone who aspires to writing a musical should be required to see this show.
As expected, the near-capacity Tuesday night audience was comprised mostly of folks middle-aged and older (how many under-25s have even heard of George Gershwin?). They weren't as wildly enthusiastic as the younger audiences at some shows I have seen recently (or as despondent as the audience at ONCE), but they were obviously having a good time. Highly recommended.
And once again, I noted how shabby the Shubert's theaters are looking. The Imperial Theatre has housed some of the greatest musicals of the twentieth century. I spent much of my youth in the balcony of the Imperial. It deserves to look as grand as its place in the history of the musical.
NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT. Imperial Theatre. June 19, 2012,
Friday, 1 June 2012
RAPTURE, BLISTER, BURN
What a delight it is to experience a play that is intelligent, provocative and highly entertaining. Essentially, Gina Gionfriddo has taken on the challenge of writing a discussion play, the sort of thing Shaw did so brilliantly a century ago. In RAPTURE, BLISTER, BURN, Gionfriddo has set her sights on the position of women in 2012 through conversations between women of three generations and one man.
Katherine (Amy Brenneman) is a highly successful forty-something academic and writer. Like many successful academics in the humanities, she has found a gimmick to give her crossover success -- books on the intersections between feminism, pornography and violence. Her books, typical of this kind of pop academic, are filled with some knowledge and a fair amount of unsupported generalizations and facile connections. Katherine sees herself as a feminist, but is in the midst of a mid-life crisis. She has come back to her New England home town after her mother has had a heart attack. Katherine has come to realize that, other than her mother, she has no one to love and no one to love her. When we meet Katherine, she is in the back yard of her college roommate, Gwen (Kellie Overbey), a stay-at-home mother, and Gwen's husband, Don (Lee Tergesen) whom Gwen "stole" from Katherine fifteen or so years ago. Gwen and Don's marriage is anything but passionate. Gwen resents Don's lack of ambition and his preference for pornography rather than her. Also in the mix are Gwen and Don's baby sitter, Avery (Virginia Kull) , a twenty-one year old who has very definite ideas about female empowerment, and Katherine's mother (Beth Dixon), whose views were shaped in the pre-feminist era.
In order to allow these characters to banter and battle, Gionfriddo depends on two gimmicks. First, that Katherine and Gwen would want to switch roles, at least temporarily, and that Katherine would be hired to teach a seminar on feminism that only two students sign up to take, Gwen and Avery. Katherine conveniently holds the seminar in her living room so her mother can join in. One buys into these somewhat shaky premisses because the characters are so sharply drawn and well acted, the dialogue so lively and the perceptions so astute. Essentially the women come to realize that the ideas of that enemy of feminism, Phyllis Schlafly, actually have some merit. Women can't have it all. Through Don's character, we also see how men still have problems dealing with women who are smarter and more ambitious than they are. Like Shaw, Gionfriddo knows to give everyone a convincing argument. Shaw prided himself on being an iconoclast, and Gionfriddo seems to have proudly taken on that mantle.
The cast does justice to this stimulating play, managing to make all the discussion spring from the characters' conflicting emotions and confused objectives. Director Peter Dubois has deftly paced the production.
I thoroughly enjoyed Gina Gionfriddo's last play, BECKY SHAW. RAPTURE, BLISTER, BURN is more ambitious. I can foresee some negative criticism from New York reviewers and politically correct academic critics. The audience at Playwrights Horizons gave it the enthusiastic reception it deserved.
RAPTURE, BLISTER, BURN. Playwrights Horizons. May 31, 2012.
Katherine (Amy Brenneman) is a highly successful forty-something academic and writer. Like many successful academics in the humanities, she has found a gimmick to give her crossover success -- books on the intersections between feminism, pornography and violence. Her books, typical of this kind of pop academic, are filled with some knowledge and a fair amount of unsupported generalizations and facile connections. Katherine sees herself as a feminist, but is in the midst of a mid-life crisis. She has come back to her New England home town after her mother has had a heart attack. Katherine has come to realize that, other than her mother, she has no one to love and no one to love her. When we meet Katherine, she is in the back yard of her college roommate, Gwen (Kellie Overbey), a stay-at-home mother, and Gwen's husband, Don (Lee Tergesen) whom Gwen "stole" from Katherine fifteen or so years ago. Gwen and Don's marriage is anything but passionate. Gwen resents Don's lack of ambition and his preference for pornography rather than her. Also in the mix are Gwen and Don's baby sitter, Avery (Virginia Kull) , a twenty-one year old who has very definite ideas about female empowerment, and Katherine's mother (Beth Dixon), whose views were shaped in the pre-feminist era.
In order to allow these characters to banter and battle, Gionfriddo depends on two gimmicks. First, that Katherine and Gwen would want to switch roles, at least temporarily, and that Katherine would be hired to teach a seminar on feminism that only two students sign up to take, Gwen and Avery. Katherine conveniently holds the seminar in her living room so her mother can join in. One buys into these somewhat shaky premisses because the characters are so sharply drawn and well acted, the dialogue so lively and the perceptions so astute. Essentially the women come to realize that the ideas of that enemy of feminism, Phyllis Schlafly, actually have some merit. Women can't have it all. Through Don's character, we also see how men still have problems dealing with women who are smarter and more ambitious than they are. Like Shaw, Gionfriddo knows to give everyone a convincing argument. Shaw prided himself on being an iconoclast, and Gionfriddo seems to have proudly taken on that mantle.
The cast does justice to this stimulating play, managing to make all the discussion spring from the characters' conflicting emotions and confused objectives. Director Peter Dubois has deftly paced the production.
I thoroughly enjoyed Gina Gionfriddo's last play, BECKY SHAW. RAPTURE, BLISTER, BURN is more ambitious. I can foresee some negative criticism from New York reviewers and politically correct academic critics. The audience at Playwrights Horizons gave it the enthusiastic reception it deserved.
RAPTURE, BLISTER, BURN. Playwrights Horizons. May 31, 2012.
Sunday, 27 May 2012
MEDIEVAL PLAY
Kenneth Lonergan's odd, flawed but highly enjoyable MEDIEVAL PLAY raised some questions. 1. Should a playwright direct his own play? In doing so, he loses an important editor and critic. 2. Can one judge a production from a preview? As enjoyable as we found MEDIEVAL PLAY, particularly at the Signature Theatre bargain price of $25, we could tell that the play desperately needs editing. It could benefit from losing half and hour. Right now, the second act loses focus. Actually, it would be better as a tight 105 minute one-act rather than a 2 1/2 hour play that lacks some sense of forward momentum. Moreover, at least one of the leading performers was getting tongue tied on her many expository speeches. 3. Is our aesthetic judgment partly dependent on price and circumstances. At the Signature's ticket price of $25, I am more indulgent than I would be if I paid Broadway prices, particularly at a wonderful place like the Signature. Even at this price, I must acknowledge that a lot of people left at they intermission. Clearly they were not as amused as we were.
MEDIEVAL PLAY (with an emphasis on PLAY) is the tale of two knights during the Hundred Years War. These guys are like Beckett's Vladimir and Estragon caught in the Middle Ages. One, Sir Ralph (Josh Hamilton), wants to become virtuous and serve Jesus, but he can't avoid getting trapped in situations that require him to slaughter people. His buddy (Tate Donovan) is less reflective, but will follow his friend almost anywhere. In one sense, this is a medieval bromance. Lonergan has done his research about the various Papal feuds and intrigues during the time period the play covers. However, he wants to play with the conventions of an historical play. In the long first scene between the two friends, they lament being caught in the Hundred Years War. The scene plays with the anachronisms that are always part of historical drama. The men talk about the fourteenth century as if they are experiencing it with the
minset of our own time. Clearly this is a playful version of the fourteenth century very much from the point of view of the twenty-first century. There is no medieval romance here, no chivalry. The knights are basically bandits and thugs, the clergy either libidinous brutes or fanatics. There's a lot of funny stuff here, but a lack of structure. When Lonergan tries to tie up the loose ends of his history in Act 2, the focus moves from his two central characters.
This is quite a lavish production with lots of lovely, colorful if purposely cartoonish scenery. Lonergan has directed his play well, but like many writers staging their own work, he would have been better served by working on the script and letting someone else helm the production. The cast is uniformly good. Hamilton and Donovan are a good comedy team, ably supported by a solid ensemble playing multiple roles. I hope that between now and the June 7 opening night, Lonergan does the necessary pruning and tightening. As it is, MEDIEVAL PLAY is an witty, enjoyable diversion. There are no deep insights here, but lots of laughs.
MEDIEVAL PLAY. Signature Theatre, May 27, 2012
MEDIEVAL PLAY (with an emphasis on PLAY) is the tale of two knights during the Hundred Years War. These guys are like Beckett's Vladimir and Estragon caught in the Middle Ages. One, Sir Ralph (Josh Hamilton), wants to become virtuous and serve Jesus, but he can't avoid getting trapped in situations that require him to slaughter people. His buddy (Tate Donovan) is less reflective, but will follow his friend almost anywhere. In one sense, this is a medieval bromance. Lonergan has done his research about the various Papal feuds and intrigues during the time period the play covers. However, he wants to play with the conventions of an historical play. In the long first scene between the two friends, they lament being caught in the Hundred Years War. The scene plays with the anachronisms that are always part of historical drama. The men talk about the fourteenth century as if they are experiencing it with the
minset of our own time. Clearly this is a playful version of the fourteenth century very much from the point of view of the twenty-first century. There is no medieval romance here, no chivalry. The knights are basically bandits and thugs, the clergy either libidinous brutes or fanatics. There's a lot of funny stuff here, but a lack of structure. When Lonergan tries to tie up the loose ends of his history in Act 2, the focus moves from his two central characters.
This is quite a lavish production with lots of lovely, colorful if purposely cartoonish scenery. Lonergan has directed his play well, but like many writers staging their own work, he would have been better served by working on the script and letting someone else helm the production. The cast is uniformly good. Hamilton and Donovan are a good comedy team, ably supported by a solid ensemble playing multiple roles. I hope that between now and the June 7 opening night, Lonergan does the necessary pruning and tightening. As it is, MEDIEVAL PLAY is an witty, enjoyable diversion. There are no deep insights here, but lots of laughs.
MEDIEVAL PLAY. Signature Theatre, May 27, 2012
PETER AND THE STARCATCHER
Thirty or so years ago, the superb British actor Roger Rees played the title role in Trevor Nunn and John Caird's legendary adaptation of Charles Dickens's NICHOLAS NICKLEBY for the Royal Shakespeare Company. In that production an ensemble of actors played a narrative chorus and took multiple roles. The settings were quite simple -- the audience was asked to imagine a lot of the setting. The acting was physical in ways not expected of British actors. Since that time, British theater has done a lot of work like Nicholas Nickleby. I think of Emma Rice's delightful production of BRIEF ENCOUNTER or Melly Still's CORAM BOY at the National or, of course, WAR HORSE. So much of our theater is still so realistic that something like PETER AND THE STARCATCHER, co-directed by Roger Rees (with Alex Timbers, movement by Steven Hoggett) of all people, and written by Rees's life partner Rick Ellice, seems new. To say this enchanting production is influenced by Nicholas Nickleby should not at all reduce the pleasure it offers.
Like the enormously successful megamusical, WICKED, PETER AND THE STARCATCHER is a prequel to a familiar children's classic, in this case Peter Pan. Based on the novel by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson, this is the story of how a young orphan becomes Peter Pan and how a bumbling, egomaniacal pirate, Black Stache, becomes Captain Hook. Yes, this is a children's story, but it is full of adult jokes, as the best family entertainment should be. Even Ayn Rand and Marcel Proust crop up in the witty banter. Occasionally there is a musical number, like the hilarious Ziegfeldish mermaid chorus that opens the second act. The script is both funny and touching.
Though this is an ensemble piece, things really comes to life when Christian Borle appears as Black Stache. His performance alone is worth the price of admission. Borle is now best known for his role as the gay composer on NBC's awful but unmissable SMASH, but like everyone else on that show, he is wasted in soap opera when he is a master of comedy (I felt the same way when I saw SMASH's Megan Hilty in GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES a few weeks ago). Like James Corden in ONE MAN, TWO GUV'NORS, Borle is a master of farce. He can take a bit of slapstick to the breaking point without losing the laugh. Borle is surrounded by a great ensemble. Adam Chanler-Berat seems to specialize in playing dorky adolescents (as he did in NEXT TO NORMAL), but his Peter is winning. One almost believes that he is a child (one of the conceits of this production is that adults are playing children and, in all but one instance, men are playing women). Celia Keenan-Bolger is charming as hyper-competitive Molly, who becomes Peter's friend and gives him his first kiss, a taste of the adulthood he will never experience.
The sets are witty -- go early and study the Victorian style false proscenium that is full of funny details. The costumes are clever. Most of all, however, you will be impressed by a script that is a joy for children of all ages, the constantly inventive staging, and the consistently excellent cast. This is one of the few Broadway shows I have seen in recent years that I would call unmissable.
PETER AND THE STARCATCHER. Brooks Atkinson Theatre. May 26, 2012.
Like the enormously successful megamusical, WICKED, PETER AND THE STARCATCHER is a prequel to a familiar children's classic, in this case Peter Pan. Based on the novel by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson, this is the story of how a young orphan becomes Peter Pan and how a bumbling, egomaniacal pirate, Black Stache, becomes Captain Hook. Yes, this is a children's story, but it is full of adult jokes, as the best family entertainment should be. Even Ayn Rand and Marcel Proust crop up in the witty banter. Occasionally there is a musical number, like the hilarious Ziegfeldish mermaid chorus that opens the second act. The script is both funny and touching.
Though this is an ensemble piece, things really comes to life when Christian Borle appears as Black Stache. His performance alone is worth the price of admission. Borle is now best known for his role as the gay composer on NBC's awful but unmissable SMASH, but like everyone else on that show, he is wasted in soap opera when he is a master of comedy (I felt the same way when I saw SMASH's Megan Hilty in GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES a few weeks ago). Like James Corden in ONE MAN, TWO GUV'NORS, Borle is a master of farce. He can take a bit of slapstick to the breaking point without losing the laugh. Borle is surrounded by a great ensemble. Adam Chanler-Berat seems to specialize in playing dorky adolescents (as he did in NEXT TO NORMAL), but his Peter is winning. One almost believes that he is a child (one of the conceits of this production is that adults are playing children and, in all but one instance, men are playing women). Celia Keenan-Bolger is charming as hyper-competitive Molly, who becomes Peter's friend and gives him his first kiss, a taste of the adulthood he will never experience.
The sets are witty -- go early and study the Victorian style false proscenium that is full of funny details. The costumes are clever. Most of all, however, you will be impressed by a script that is a joy for children of all ages, the constantly inventive staging, and the consistently excellent cast. This is one of the few Broadway shows I have seen in recent years that I would call unmissable.
PETER AND THE STARCATCHER. Brooks Atkinson Theatre. May 26, 2012.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
ONCE
"Falling slowly, snoring loudly"
It is difficult to discuss ONCE without launching into a dissertation on the crisis in contemporary musical theater, a crisis that has been coming on since pop music parted ways with what we call The Great American Songbook. For a dwindling number of us, the greatest American music is the popular music written between the end of World War I and the rise of rock and roll. This is not to say that everything that followed is bad. It's just not as good. The Broadway musical was once the major medium for introducing great songs. Those songs were often strung together by a flimsy and nonsensical, if amusing, story, and performed by stars who were great singers and forceful stage presences. Some of us had a taste of how wonderful all that could be in the recent City Center Encores revival of GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES. Jule Styne wrote better scores than this (think BELLS ARE RINGING or GYPSY) and worked with better lyricists than Leo Robin (think Comden and Green or Sondheim) but this is a delightful, tuneful score and Robin's lyrics, particularly in Lorelei's two big numbers, are witty and great at defining character. More important, the score and the silly, but often witty book (Anita Loos and Joseph Stein) are "big" enough to delight packed audiences in the mammoth New York City Center which is twice the size of most Broadway houses. With excellent performances by Megan Hilty, Rachel York, Deborah Rush, Aaron Lazar et al, the revival was a delight. Yes, it was larger than life and, perhaps other than real life, but it was exciting as musical theater should be. Or take BOOK OF MORMON, a show that is in some ways a valentine to the Broadway musical. Silly, irreverent, often outrageous as classic musical comedies were at their best, self-reflexive, and celebrating the traditions of the Broadway musical from the opening chorus to the dream ballet to the silly denouement. I'm not saying that this is what all musicals have to be, but there has to be an innate theatricality to the work a larger than life quality that works in a theater. RENT had it, as does SPRING AWAKENING. One thing the musical does need is a good, theatrical score. Not necessarily great -- I liked NEWSIES, which has a pleasant, serviceable score but not a great one. The show doesn't have to be "big" -- NEXT TO NORMAL was a small show that worked because its ideas were big and it was well written and composed.
Why all this as a preamble to ONCE? In part, because the best moments musically came in the pre-show which had more energy than anything that followed despite the silly gimmick of bringing the audience onstage as if the pub set were a real pub. Everything that followed was too small for a Broadway theater. The score is too small, the story is too small, and the performances are too small (indeed, from the fourth row of the mezzanine, the terminally bland leading lady, Cristin Milioti, was unintelligible). I felt the cast was sleepwalking their way through the performance. One couldn't forget that a little art house film was being put on stage for no particular reason. What did the show offer that the film didn't?
Why didn't the leading characters have names? Usually in drama that suggests a universality, but these characters have quite specific backgrounds. So why no names? On one hand, we are to see the musical as realistic, but on the other hand the stylized production in which the musicians play all the supporting roles screamed "we're in a theater" (and isn't the business of actors playing instruments, or musicians also doing the acting, getting to be a tired cliche). Are we really to believe that "the guy" is a particular brilliant songwriter? The lyrics are Hallmark and the tunes are generic (listen to the Acoustic Cafe channel on Sirius XM). Steve Kazee is a good singer, but who could care about the dirges he is given to sing?
Everyone involved in the production, particularly director John Tiffany, who gave us the brilliant BLACK WATCH, seems to be working for something both theatrical and anti-theatrical, something not "Broadway musical." Why do a Broadway musical if you don't care for the art form and are working with relatively weak material?
A lot of the critics have raved about ONCE and it has already won a bunch of awards and will probably win the Tony. It is not doing the kind of business that NEWSIES and THE BOOK OF MORMON are doing, so audiences are voting for Broadway musicals that aren't ashamed to be Broadway musicals. I found ONCE dreary and a bit depressing. And, though it got the obligatory standing ovation (what doesn't these days?) I didn't feel that the audience with me was particularly enthusiastic about the show. Perhaps it would work in a small venue at lower prices, but at these prices this isn't a Broadway musical.
And a post script -- the Shuberts should do something about the shabby state of some of their theaters. When I went to THE BEST MAN at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre, some of the upholstery was being held together by tape. The Bernard Jacobs, that now houses ONCE, looks positively dingy. There's a theatre restoration fee added on to our ticket price. Does anybody ask where it is going? The dreariness of the theater only added to the dreariness of the experience of seeing ONCE.
Another post script -- we now have a new category of shows that are neither just plays or musicals. I am thinking of END OF THE RAINBOW, which has a band and a number of musical numbers, and the wonderful ONE MAN, TWO GUV'NORS that has a score that is up for a Tony -- delightful original numbers in the sixties "skiffle" mode. The score to ONE MAN, TWO GUV'NERS is far stronger than the score to ONCE -- and I believe contains as many songs.
ONCE. Bernard Jacobs Theatre. May 15, 2012.
It is difficult to discuss ONCE without launching into a dissertation on the crisis in contemporary musical theater, a crisis that has been coming on since pop music parted ways with what we call The Great American Songbook. For a dwindling number of us, the greatest American music is the popular music written between the end of World War I and the rise of rock and roll. This is not to say that everything that followed is bad. It's just not as good. The Broadway musical was once the major medium for introducing great songs. Those songs were often strung together by a flimsy and nonsensical, if amusing, story, and performed by stars who were great singers and forceful stage presences. Some of us had a taste of how wonderful all that could be in the recent City Center Encores revival of GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES. Jule Styne wrote better scores than this (think BELLS ARE RINGING or GYPSY) and worked with better lyricists than Leo Robin (think Comden and Green or Sondheim) but this is a delightful, tuneful score and Robin's lyrics, particularly in Lorelei's two big numbers, are witty and great at defining character. More important, the score and the silly, but often witty book (Anita Loos and Joseph Stein) are "big" enough to delight packed audiences in the mammoth New York City Center which is twice the size of most Broadway houses. With excellent performances by Megan Hilty, Rachel York, Deborah Rush, Aaron Lazar et al, the revival was a delight. Yes, it was larger than life and, perhaps other than real life, but it was exciting as musical theater should be. Or take BOOK OF MORMON, a show that is in some ways a valentine to the Broadway musical. Silly, irreverent, often outrageous as classic musical comedies were at their best, self-reflexive, and celebrating the traditions of the Broadway musical from the opening chorus to the dream ballet to the silly denouement. I'm not saying that this is what all musicals have to be, but there has to be an innate theatricality to the work a larger than life quality that works in a theater. RENT had it, as does SPRING AWAKENING. One thing the musical does need is a good, theatrical score. Not necessarily great -- I liked NEWSIES, which has a pleasant, serviceable score but not a great one. The show doesn't have to be "big" -- NEXT TO NORMAL was a small show that worked because its ideas were big and it was well written and composed.
Why all this as a preamble to ONCE? In part, because the best moments musically came in the pre-show which had more energy than anything that followed despite the silly gimmick of bringing the audience onstage as if the pub set were a real pub. Everything that followed was too small for a Broadway theater. The score is too small, the story is too small, and the performances are too small (indeed, from the fourth row of the mezzanine, the terminally bland leading lady, Cristin Milioti, was unintelligible). I felt the cast was sleepwalking their way through the performance. One couldn't forget that a little art house film was being put on stage for no particular reason. What did the show offer that the film didn't?
Why didn't the leading characters have names? Usually in drama that suggests a universality, but these characters have quite specific backgrounds. So why no names? On one hand, we are to see the musical as realistic, but on the other hand the stylized production in which the musicians play all the supporting roles screamed "we're in a theater" (and isn't the business of actors playing instruments, or musicians also doing the acting, getting to be a tired cliche). Are we really to believe that "the guy" is a particular brilliant songwriter? The lyrics are Hallmark and the tunes are generic (listen to the Acoustic Cafe channel on Sirius XM). Steve Kazee is a good singer, but who could care about the dirges he is given to sing?
Everyone involved in the production, particularly director John Tiffany, who gave us the brilliant BLACK WATCH, seems to be working for something both theatrical and anti-theatrical, something not "Broadway musical." Why do a Broadway musical if you don't care for the art form and are working with relatively weak material?
A lot of the critics have raved about ONCE and it has already won a bunch of awards and will probably win the Tony. It is not doing the kind of business that NEWSIES and THE BOOK OF MORMON are doing, so audiences are voting for Broadway musicals that aren't ashamed to be Broadway musicals. I found ONCE dreary and a bit depressing. And, though it got the obligatory standing ovation (what doesn't these days?) I didn't feel that the audience with me was particularly enthusiastic about the show. Perhaps it would work in a small venue at lower prices, but at these prices this isn't a Broadway musical.
And a post script -- the Shuberts should do something about the shabby state of some of their theaters. When I went to THE BEST MAN at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre, some of the upholstery was being held together by tape. The Bernard Jacobs, that now houses ONCE, looks positively dingy. There's a theatre restoration fee added on to our ticket price. Does anybody ask where it is going? The dreariness of the theater only added to the dreariness of the experience of seeing ONCE.
Another post script -- we now have a new category of shows that are neither just plays or musicals. I am thinking of END OF THE RAINBOW, which has a band and a number of musical numbers, and the wonderful ONE MAN, TWO GUV'NORS that has a score that is up for a Tony -- delightful original numbers in the sixties "skiffle" mode. The score to ONE MAN, TWO GUV'NERS is far stronger than the score to ONCE -- and I believe contains as many songs.
ONCE. Bernard Jacobs Theatre. May 15, 2012.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
FEBRUARY HOUSE
A while back I read a fascinating book, FEBRUARY HOUSE by Sherrill Tippins, about a short lived artists' commune in a ramshackle boarding house in Brooklyn just before Pearl Harbor. There lived an unlikely group of artists: Carson McCullers, WH Auden and his young lover Chester Kallman, Benjam Britten and Peter Pears, Erica Mann (political writer and daughter of Thomas Mann) and Gypsy Rose Lee. The leader of this crew was editor-novelist George Davis. This group was, for its time unconventional in every way. Auden/Kallman and Britten/Pears were gay couples, McCullers and Mann had an affair, Davis loved to troll the docks for sailors and Gypsy Rose Lee was . . .Gypsy Rose Lee.
I couldn't conceive of anyone turning this into a musical, but two young artists, composer-lyricist Gabriel Kahane and book writer Seth Bockley have done just that. Here is a musical theatre version of the start, middle and end of this noble experiment. Bockley's book focuses on the love lives of this interesting group. Kahane's music is not conventional show tune stuff. Occasionally we have something like a simple folk tune (usually for McCullers), but this is mostly a post Sondheim score sounding often more like a contemporary chamber opera than a musical. My impression is that Kahane is a more interesting composer than lyricist. The lyrics are often clumsy, but above all he is trying to avoid Broadway slickness. Occasionally the ensemble would sing lovely choral versions of parts of Auden poems. I wondered how a composer would try to write music for a character named Benjamin Britten. Does one try to imitate Britten? Kahane made the interesting choose to give Britten and Pears some of the most conventional music: a Gilbert and Sullivan duet, a mock operatic duet about bedbugs and the number that sounded most like a show tune for their farewell.
I had never heard of anyone in the cast, but they all acted and sang well. The Peter Pears even looked something like Pears. The women weren't cast as strongly as the men. Kristen Sieh (Carson McCullers) was a weak singer which was unfortunate as she has some of the best music. Kacie Sheik did not have Gypsy Rose Lee's wonderful alto voice. She is given a self-descriptive number, "A Little Brain," that, alas, is nowhere near as clever as Rodgers and Hart's classic depiction of Lee, "Zip" (PAL JOEY). The men were uniformly strong as actors and singers.
Davis MacCallum provided the simple, but effective staging and succeeded in creating an ensemble out of his young cast.
This was one of those shows I admired but didn't totally warm up to.
FEBRUARY HOUSE. New York Public Theatre Martinson Auditorium. May 13, 2012.
I couldn't conceive of anyone turning this into a musical, but two young artists, composer-lyricist Gabriel Kahane and book writer Seth Bockley have done just that. Here is a musical theatre version of the start, middle and end of this noble experiment. Bockley's book focuses on the love lives of this interesting group. Kahane's music is not conventional show tune stuff. Occasionally we have something like a simple folk tune (usually for McCullers), but this is mostly a post Sondheim score sounding often more like a contemporary chamber opera than a musical. My impression is that Kahane is a more interesting composer than lyricist. The lyrics are often clumsy, but above all he is trying to avoid Broadway slickness. Occasionally the ensemble would sing lovely choral versions of parts of Auden poems. I wondered how a composer would try to write music for a character named Benjamin Britten. Does one try to imitate Britten? Kahane made the interesting choose to give Britten and Pears some of the most conventional music: a Gilbert and Sullivan duet, a mock operatic duet about bedbugs and the number that sounded most like a show tune for their farewell.
I had never heard of anyone in the cast, but they all acted and sang well. The Peter Pears even looked something like Pears. The women weren't cast as strongly as the men. Kristen Sieh (Carson McCullers) was a weak singer which was unfortunate as she has some of the best music. Kacie Sheik did not have Gypsy Rose Lee's wonderful alto voice. She is given a self-descriptive number, "A Little Brain," that, alas, is nowhere near as clever as Rodgers and Hart's classic depiction of Lee, "Zip" (PAL JOEY). The men were uniformly strong as actors and singers.
Davis MacCallum provided the simple, but effective staging and succeeded in creating an ensemble out of his young cast.
This was one of those shows I admired but didn't totally warm up to.
FEBRUARY HOUSE. New York Public Theatre Martinson Auditorium. May 13, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)