I don't usually review television here, but since SMASH is supposed to be a depiction of the making of a Broadway musical, I think it is worth some attention. I have to admit I watch the show, though I record it and watch it later so I can speed through the dull bits as well as the commercials (we do that with every tv show). Here's my list of problems with the show:
1. A musical about Marilyn Monroe is simply a bad idea. No sane producer would take it on.
2. The two women vying for the starring role aren't star quality. Megan Hilty is homely and charmless and her singing is generic. The brunette, whose name I can't recall, is bland except when she sings.
3. The songs for MARILYN are really awful -- they sound like songs out of some 1950s flop. Ditto the musical staging. Get better songwriters for season 2. Robert Lopez, perhaps? And a better choreographer.
4. There are two male leads, Brian D'Arcy James (who plays Debra Messing's husband) and Raza Jaffrey ( who plays the brunette's boyfriend) who really are star quality musical performers (both have starred in musicals). Yet they're never allowed to perform. They're a heck of a lot more charismatic onstage and onscreen than Will Chase or the two Marilyns.
5. What is the problem with Debra Messing's character's son? He look eighteen but acts like he's 8.
6. So few gay people involved with a Broadway musical?? Really???
There's a lot of major talent involved with SMASH. One expects that they could turn out an edgier show. I'll continue watching it -- for a while.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Monday, 19 March 2012
Edward Albee's THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE at the Signature Theatre
As theatre buffs know, Edward Albee's 1980 play THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE is one of Broadway's legendary flops. At that point in Albee's career, the critics didn't think he could do anything right. It's fair to say that he doesn't do everything right in the play, particularly in the overlong, somewhat tedious first act. When the play goes surreal in its second half, it becomes totally absorbing.
At the opening, Sam and his wife Jo are playing party games with their friends. This is an Albee play, so the friends all seem to need and despise each other in equal measure. Indeed, my problem with the play is that I don't believe these people ever were or could be friends, but one of the givens of the play seems to be that friendship is an illusion. What gives this gathering a particular edge is the fact that hostess Jo (Laila Robins) has terminal cancer. She is in great pain and lashes out at everyone around her. It is also clear that her husband, Sam (Michael Hayden) can't deal with the thought of losing her. After the guests have been repeatedly insulted and finally leave, Sam carries Jo, now crying out in pain) upstairs to the bedroom. Enter a glamorous elderly lady and a well-dressed sophisticated Black man and the first act curtain falls. The second act takes us into surreal territory. The mysterious "Lady from Dubuque" claims to be Jo's mother and she and her companion take charge. The friends reappear (where else would they go?) and refuse to believe Sam when he tells them the lady is an imposter. The play moves from verbal to physical violence, particularly directed toward Sam. Sam has to deal not only with the loss of is wife, but with his own lack of a distinctive identity. The crucial question for Sam becomes not who are the strangers who have taken over his house, but who is he? At the end he has been reduced to silence and immobility, a kind of death in life. The Lady from Dubuque and her companion are not only agents of death; they are also agents of truth.
This is not Albee's best play, but it is certainly worth reviving, particularly in a production this good. David Esbjornson has made his actors into a solid ensemble. Laila Robins is both vulnerable and cooly vicious as the ailing wife. Michael Hayden moves effectively from charm to terror to despair. Peter Francis James is suitably amusing but frightening as Lady's companion and henchman. And Jane Alexander is superb as the mysterious Lady from Dubuque. The original Lady, Irene Worth, was magisterial. Alexander is ethereal. She looks gorgeous and can be grand but maternal when she needs to be. She is perfect for the role. John Arnone's set looks lovely but sterile, which is perfect for these characters.
THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE is one of the three plays now running at the brand new Frank Gehry designed Signature Theatre Center on West 42nd Street. This is a lovely space. The lobby is extremely spacious with a lovely cafe and small bookstore and the small theaters are beautiful. It's a great place to experience theatre.
THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE byEdward Albee, directed by David Esbjornson. End Stage Theatre at the Pershing Square Signature Center. March 14, 2012.
At the opening, Sam and his wife Jo are playing party games with their friends. This is an Albee play, so the friends all seem to need and despise each other in equal measure. Indeed, my problem with the play is that I don't believe these people ever were or could be friends, but one of the givens of the play seems to be that friendship is an illusion. What gives this gathering a particular edge is the fact that hostess Jo (Laila Robins) has terminal cancer. She is in great pain and lashes out at everyone around her. It is also clear that her husband, Sam (Michael Hayden) can't deal with the thought of losing her. After the guests have been repeatedly insulted and finally leave, Sam carries Jo, now crying out in pain) upstairs to the bedroom. Enter a glamorous elderly lady and a well-dressed sophisticated Black man and the first act curtain falls. The second act takes us into surreal territory. The mysterious "Lady from Dubuque" claims to be Jo's mother and she and her companion take charge. The friends reappear (where else would they go?) and refuse to believe Sam when he tells them the lady is an imposter. The play moves from verbal to physical violence, particularly directed toward Sam. Sam has to deal not only with the loss of is wife, but with his own lack of a distinctive identity. The crucial question for Sam becomes not who are the strangers who have taken over his house, but who is he? At the end he has been reduced to silence and immobility, a kind of death in life. The Lady from Dubuque and her companion are not only agents of death; they are also agents of truth.
This is not Albee's best play, but it is certainly worth reviving, particularly in a production this good. David Esbjornson has made his actors into a solid ensemble. Laila Robins is both vulnerable and cooly vicious as the ailing wife. Michael Hayden moves effectively from charm to terror to despair. Peter Francis James is suitably amusing but frightening as Lady's companion and henchman. And Jane Alexander is superb as the mysterious Lady from Dubuque. The original Lady, Irene Worth, was magisterial. Alexander is ethereal. She looks gorgeous and can be grand but maternal when she needs to be. She is perfect for the role. John Arnone's set looks lovely but sterile, which is perfect for these characters.
THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE is one of the three plays now running at the brand new Frank Gehry designed Signature Theatre Center on West 42nd Street. This is a lovely space. The lobby is extremely spacious with a lovely cafe and small bookstore and the small theaters are beautiful. It's a great place to experience theatre.
THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE byEdward Albee, directed by David Esbjornson. End Stage Theatre at the Pershing Square Signature Center. March 14, 2012.
TRIBES at the Barrow Street Theatre
We had seen Nina Raine's fine play, TRIBES, at the Royal Court Theatre in London last year and liked it so much that we were eager to see it's New York production, superbly directed by David Cromer.
TRIBES begins at a typical dinner of a voluble London family. Both parents are writers and their children, though now grown, live at home because they can not cope outside the family home. Daughter Rachel is a would be actress who can't keep a man. Son Daniel is a severely bipolar young man. Younger son Billy is deaf, but the family has never learned sign language because the patriarch doesn't believe people's differences should be emphasized. Billy can't hear a the passionate conversations going on around him, but he is expert at lip reading and also has a high quote of compassion, something the rest of his family seems to lack. At a party, Billy meets Sylvia, the child of deaf parents who is going deaf herself. Through his relationship with Sylvia, Billy comes to take on the identity of deaf person and joins the deaf community his parents despise. Sylvia, who has lived with deaf people all her life, is more skeptical of that community. When Billy vents his anger toward his family for never bothering to learn to sign and leaves home, the family goes into a state of crisis, particularly Daniel who cannot cope without the brother he loves inordinately.
TRIBES is far more universal than a play about deafness. As the title suggests, it is about the communities with which we identify. When Billy tells his family that he is now part of the deaf community, his father mockingly asks him if he is coming out. In a way, this is exactly what is happening to Billy. He identifies more with other deaf people than with his family and doesn't see the two worlds as compatible. Sylvia loves Billy but doesn't feel comfortable with his militancy or his inability to understand what she is going through. If the deaf community is, as she says, insular and hierarchical, so is Billy's family, presided over by a father who is an intellectual bully (Jeff Perry brings much more nuance to this role than his London counterpart did).
This is an intense drama that works beautifully in the small Barrow Street Theatre. Cromer has staged the play in the round which brings the audience even closer to the actors (no one is more than four rows away). All the performances are superb, particularly Russell Harvard as Billy. Harvard is deaf, so watching speakers intently and signing are second nature to him. But he also has an extremely expressive face. Special praise must also be given to Will Brill who gives a gut wrenching performance as Daniel. His relationship with Billy is really the center of this production. It's interesting how direction and casting can change a play. The most memorable performance in the London production was Michelle Terry's Sylvia. Here the two brothers dominate which alters the focus, but makes total sense.
This is a beautifully written and superbly acted play that can't help but leave one shattered. Highly recommended.
TRIBES by Nina Raine. Directed by David Cromer. Barrow Street Theatre. March 11, 2012.
TRIBES begins at a typical dinner of a voluble London family. Both parents are writers and their children, though now grown, live at home because they can not cope outside the family home. Daughter Rachel is a would be actress who can't keep a man. Son Daniel is a severely bipolar young man. Younger son Billy is deaf, but the family has never learned sign language because the patriarch doesn't believe people's differences should be emphasized. Billy can't hear a the passionate conversations going on around him, but he is expert at lip reading and also has a high quote of compassion, something the rest of his family seems to lack. At a party, Billy meets Sylvia, the child of deaf parents who is going deaf herself. Through his relationship with Sylvia, Billy comes to take on the identity of deaf person and joins the deaf community his parents despise. Sylvia, who has lived with deaf people all her life, is more skeptical of that community. When Billy vents his anger toward his family for never bothering to learn to sign and leaves home, the family goes into a state of crisis, particularly Daniel who cannot cope without the brother he loves inordinately.
TRIBES is far more universal than a play about deafness. As the title suggests, it is about the communities with which we identify. When Billy tells his family that he is now part of the deaf community, his father mockingly asks him if he is coming out. In a way, this is exactly what is happening to Billy. He identifies more with other deaf people than with his family and doesn't see the two worlds as compatible. Sylvia loves Billy but doesn't feel comfortable with his militancy or his inability to understand what she is going through. If the deaf community is, as she says, insular and hierarchical, so is Billy's family, presided over by a father who is an intellectual bully (Jeff Perry brings much more nuance to this role than his London counterpart did).
This is an intense drama that works beautifully in the small Barrow Street Theatre. Cromer has staged the play in the round which brings the audience even closer to the actors (no one is more than four rows away). All the performances are superb, particularly Russell Harvard as Billy. Harvard is deaf, so watching speakers intently and signing are second nature to him. But he also has an extremely expressive face. Special praise must also be given to Will Brill who gives a gut wrenching performance as Daniel. His relationship with Billy is really the center of this production. It's interesting how direction and casting can change a play. The most memorable performance in the London production was Michelle Terry's Sylvia. Here the two brothers dominate which alters the focus, but makes total sense.
This is a beautifully written and superbly acted play that can't help but leave one shattered. Highly recommended.
TRIBES by Nina Raine. Directed by David Cromer. Barrow Street Theatre. March 11, 2012.
THE BEST MAN Revival on Broadway
It is too bad that someone has not written an election year play that mirrors our current political situation with some with, political savvy and a sense of melodrama. Instead, Broadway producers have once again trotted out Gore Vidal's 1960 melodrama, THE BEST MAN, with one of those all star casts that will attract an audience to see just about anything. Unfortunately what audiences are seeing are veteran actors doing their schtick, one really poor performance and a few good ones. A lot of money has been spent on the production, but little imagination.
Most of us old timers have at least seen the 1964 film of THE BEST MAN with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson. The setting is the 1960 political convention of a nameless party back when candidates were chosen through back room deals and floor votes (perhaps this will happen again with the Republicans this year). The winning candidate must win the support of conservatives, liberals and moderates (clearly this is not the present ultra-right wing Republican party). The two leading candidates are William Russell (John Larroquette), a middle-aged upper class Northeastern liberal, a man of principal, and a ruthless, young midwestern populist, aptly named Joe Cantwell (Eric McCormack). Cantwell will do anything to win; Russell will do anything to stop Cantwell. The two men despise each other. Russell is estranged from his wife (Candice Bergen) but she is willing to pretend to be happily married to help his campaign. Cantwell's wife (Kerry Butler) is as hungry for position and as resentful of her elite competition as her husband is. Both these men are courting the support of the retiring president (James Earl Jones), a plain speaking old time pragmatist and of the most powerful woman in the party, a dowager who claims to speak for all women (Angela Lansbury). There's a bogus homosexual scandal (very daring in 1960 but dull now).
THE BEST MAN is a creaky, old-fashioned Broadway melodrama that, frankly, isn't worth reviving. It certainly isn't worth doing in this production which is technically slick, but looks like the actors haven't been directed at all. There are some good performances. Larroquette and McCormack make the most of their roles. Michael McKean is solid as Russell's campaign manager. There is a dreadful performance by Kerry Butler who seems to think she's still in XANADU, bad accent and all. James Earl Jones flubs lines and shouts what he remembers. Candice Bergen wears great outfits and acts competently. Angela Lansbury plays a cartoon, but that's all her part is.
Like many theater buffs, I couldn't resist seeing this bunch of actors. It wasn't worth it. I'd love to see what Gore Vidal would make of our current crop of political candidates. There would be a play worth seeing.
Most of us old timers have at least seen the 1964 film of THE BEST MAN with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson. The setting is the 1960 political convention of a nameless party back when candidates were chosen through back room deals and floor votes (perhaps this will happen again with the Republicans this year). The winning candidate must win the support of conservatives, liberals and moderates (clearly this is not the present ultra-right wing Republican party). The two leading candidates are William Russell (John Larroquette), a middle-aged upper class Northeastern liberal, a man of principal, and a ruthless, young midwestern populist, aptly named Joe Cantwell (Eric McCormack). Cantwell will do anything to win; Russell will do anything to stop Cantwell. The two men despise each other. Russell is estranged from his wife (Candice Bergen) but she is willing to pretend to be happily married to help his campaign. Cantwell's wife (Kerry Butler) is as hungry for position and as resentful of her elite competition as her husband is. Both these men are courting the support of the retiring president (James Earl Jones), a plain speaking old time pragmatist and of the most powerful woman in the party, a dowager who claims to speak for all women (Angela Lansbury). There's a bogus homosexual scandal (very daring in 1960 but dull now).
THE BEST MAN is a creaky, old-fashioned Broadway melodrama that, frankly, isn't worth reviving. It certainly isn't worth doing in this production which is technically slick, but looks like the actors haven't been directed at all. There are some good performances. Larroquette and McCormack make the most of their roles. Michael McKean is solid as Russell's campaign manager. There is a dreadful performance by Kerry Butler who seems to think she's still in XANADU, bad accent and all. James Earl Jones flubs lines and shouts what he remembers. Candice Bergen wears great outfits and acts competently. Angela Lansbury plays a cartoon, but that's all her part is.
Like many theater buffs, I couldn't resist seeing this bunch of actors. It wasn't worth it. I'd love to see what Gore Vidal would make of our current crop of political candidates. There would be a play worth seeing.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
NEXT FALL at Actor's Express
I read Geoffrey Naufft's NEXT FALL when I was on the Pulitzer Prize drama jury. At the time, I was lukewarm about the script. The hospital scenes seemed like television drama and I couldn't see how the couple at the center of the play had stayed together for four years. Seeing the very good production at Actor's Express convinced me that half of the play is fascinating.
At the heart of the play is the relationship of Adam, a highly neurotic forty-year-old hypochondriac, and Luke, a young actor/caterwaiter. They meet at a party when Luke helps Adam through an anxiety attack. Luke, a fundamentalist Christian, sees Adam as someone to save. Adam, sees Luke as a sexy young man who has some strange ideas (the rapture, for instance). Adam's feeling about Luke's religion grows from skepticism, to malice to jealousy of Luke's love for Christ. Adam may be right that Luke has to be honest with his family, but he can be downright nasty and Luke's acceptance of Adam's cruelty seems masochistic. Luke is all forbearance. Perhaps he sees Adam's cruelty as just punishment for his love of another man. I was convinced by Naufft's depiction of this odd couple and by some of the ancillary characters, particularly Luke's old friend Brandon, whose religion will not let him accept Luke's love for Adam. Occasional sin followed by atonement is one thing, but for Brandon, Luke has "moved the line" in an unacceptable way.
The play alternates scenes of the history of Luke and Adam's relationship with hospital scenes that follow the horrible accident that Luke experiences. Here Adam must deal with Luke's parents who have control of the situation -- Nauffts never explains why Luke and Adam have not gotten Health Care Power of Attorney -- a must for gay couples. Also there are Brandon and a self-confessed "fag hag" friend. Luke's father is stolid and bigoted, like fathers of gay men in 1980s made for tv movies. His biological mother (she and Luke's father are divorced) is a pill-popping eccentric who, of course comes to be kind to Adam. There scenes put us in all-too-familiar territory.
So half of an interesting play.
Kate Warner's production was effective, though once again there were too many long scene breaks that could have been simplified. Mitchell Anderson captured Adam's bitchiness but not his vulnerability. I'm sorry I didn't see Patrick Breen pay it in New York. Joe Sykes seemed perfect as Luke -- tough in his own way, compassionate (unusual for a fundamentalist Christian) and totally decent, if unable to see the logical holes in his theology. The supportive cast was all that one could ask. I was happy to see 3/4 staging instead of the usual seating arrangement.
NEXT FALL isn't the best gay drama in recent years, but it is something of a crowd pleaser.
NEXT FALL. Actor's Express Atlanta, January 27, 2012.
At the heart of the play is the relationship of Adam, a highly neurotic forty-year-old hypochondriac, and Luke, a young actor/caterwaiter. They meet at a party when Luke helps Adam through an anxiety attack. Luke, a fundamentalist Christian, sees Adam as someone to save. Adam, sees Luke as a sexy young man who has some strange ideas (the rapture, for instance). Adam's feeling about Luke's religion grows from skepticism, to malice to jealousy of Luke's love for Christ. Adam may be right that Luke has to be honest with his family, but he can be downright nasty and Luke's acceptance of Adam's cruelty seems masochistic. Luke is all forbearance. Perhaps he sees Adam's cruelty as just punishment for his love of another man. I was convinced by Naufft's depiction of this odd couple and by some of the ancillary characters, particularly Luke's old friend Brandon, whose religion will not let him accept Luke's love for Adam. Occasional sin followed by atonement is one thing, but for Brandon, Luke has "moved the line" in an unacceptable way.
The play alternates scenes of the history of Luke and Adam's relationship with hospital scenes that follow the horrible accident that Luke experiences. Here Adam must deal with Luke's parents who have control of the situation -- Nauffts never explains why Luke and Adam have not gotten Health Care Power of Attorney -- a must for gay couples. Also there are Brandon and a self-confessed "fag hag" friend. Luke's father is stolid and bigoted, like fathers of gay men in 1980s made for tv movies. His biological mother (she and Luke's father are divorced) is a pill-popping eccentric who, of course comes to be kind to Adam. There scenes put us in all-too-familiar territory.
So half of an interesting play.
Kate Warner's production was effective, though once again there were too many long scene breaks that could have been simplified. Mitchell Anderson captured Adam's bitchiness but not his vulnerability. I'm sorry I didn't see Patrick Breen pay it in New York. Joe Sykes seemed perfect as Luke -- tough in his own way, compassionate (unusual for a fundamentalist Christian) and totally decent, if unable to see the logical holes in his theology. The supportive cast was all that one could ask. I was happy to see 3/4 staging instead of the usual seating arrangement.
NEXT FALL isn't the best gay drama in recent years, but it is something of a crowd pleaser.
NEXT FALL. Actor's Express Atlanta, January 27, 2012.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
WIT
Margaret Edson's WIT is a brilliant play, but like many fine plays, it is one that is at times painful to watch. A middle-aged university professor, a specialist on the metaphysical poetry of John Donne, finds out that she has ovarian cancer. For the rest of the play's one and three quarter hours, we watch the professor be reduced from a chilly, independent authority figure to a lab rat for cancer researchers to a dependent child. Edson has captured what a lot of people with advanced cancer go through. Fortunately for her audiences, she has also created a fascinating character. Vivian Bearing (symbolic name) represents one type of an older generation of female scholars: a force in a traditionally male preserve, a demanding intellectual who is not adept at human relations or empathy. Actually audiences are more fascinated with characters like Vivian these days than they were when the play was first produced. Just look at all the anti- or non- social characters now appearing on television: Dr. Greg House, Sheldon on THE BIG BANG THEORY, Temperance on BONES, and on British tv Doc Martin and the latest, delightful iteration of Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberpatch on television, not Robert Downey, Jr. on film), among others. We are fascinated with brilliant characters who can't relate to other people. None of these (except, perhaps Sherlock Holmes in the finale of series 2) is humiliated the way Vivian is. She is even denied a dignified death by the medical establishment.
There's definitely an element of gender politics in WIT. The dehumanizing medical establishment is represented totally by male doctors (most of the specialists I go to are women). The only compassionate figures are a Black female nurse and an older female colleague. Edson wants us to see the parallels between the chilly way Vivian treats her students and the way the doctors treat her (the younger doctor, totally lacking in bedside manner, was a student of hers). Her body is merely a text to them as Donne's poetry is a text to Vivian. We get a little bit of John Donne's poetry -- not enough to scare off people who don't know his work, but enough to show its power and its difficulty.
The success of a production of WIT depends on the actress performing Vivian. She never leaves the stage. Many of her lines are spoken directly to the audience which creates a rapport, but we must feel Vivian's chilliness while feeling empathy with her. Cynthia Nixon performs the role as if it were written for her. She has always been best at playing intelligent women (she was the brightest of the four pals on SEX AND THE CITY). Her voice isn't one of the strongest -- in the front of the mezzanine I lost some of her words (perhaps this is a result of days of amplified musicals) but this is a superb performance that should gain Nixon a Tony. The supporting cast all play their roles convincingly. I particularly admired Greg Keller's performance as the young researcher, Jason Posner. He was a perfect foil for Nixon's Vivian -- totally dedicated to his research but caring little about then human beings he had to deal with. There was nothing the least bit stagey about his performance. Lynn Meadow's direction on Santo Loquasto's simple revolving set was all that one could ask for. If I had any qualms, it was that WIT works better in a more intimate theatre than a Broadway house. Because of the size of the theatre, the pace had to be a bit slower than is good for the play and one didn't feel quite the same connection to the characters. Nonetheless, Margaret Edson has given the theatre one of the best female characters written since the heyday of Tennessee Williams. WIT is a play well worth reviving and this production more than does it justice.
WIT by Margaret Epson. Samuel J. Friedman Theatre. January 14, 2012.
There's definitely an element of gender politics in WIT. The dehumanizing medical establishment is represented totally by male doctors (most of the specialists I go to are women). The only compassionate figures are a Black female nurse and an older female colleague. Edson wants us to see the parallels between the chilly way Vivian treats her students and the way the doctors treat her (the younger doctor, totally lacking in bedside manner, was a student of hers). Her body is merely a text to them as Donne's poetry is a text to Vivian. We get a little bit of John Donne's poetry -- not enough to scare off people who don't know his work, but enough to show its power and its difficulty.
The success of a production of WIT depends on the actress performing Vivian. She never leaves the stage. Many of her lines are spoken directly to the audience which creates a rapport, but we must feel Vivian's chilliness while feeling empathy with her. Cynthia Nixon performs the role as if it were written for her. She has always been best at playing intelligent women (she was the brightest of the four pals on SEX AND THE CITY). Her voice isn't one of the strongest -- in the front of the mezzanine I lost some of her words (perhaps this is a result of days of amplified musicals) but this is a superb performance that should gain Nixon a Tony. The supporting cast all play their roles convincingly. I particularly admired Greg Keller's performance as the young researcher, Jason Posner. He was a perfect foil for Nixon's Vivian -- totally dedicated to his research but caring little about then human beings he had to deal with. There was nothing the least bit stagey about his performance. Lynn Meadow's direction on Santo Loquasto's simple revolving set was all that one could ask for. If I had any qualms, it was that WIT works better in a more intimate theatre than a Broadway house. Because of the size of the theatre, the pace had to be a bit slower than is good for the play and one didn't feel quite the same connection to the characters. Nonetheless, Margaret Edson has given the theatre one of the best female characters written since the heyday of Tennessee Williams. WIT is a play well worth reviving and this production more than does it justice.
WIT by Margaret Epson. Samuel J. Friedman Theatre. January 14, 2012.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Darren Criss -- HOW TO SUCCEED IN SHOWBUSINESS WITHOUT MUCH TALENT
I must admit that I am not a fan of GLEE. We tend to watch the musical numbers and speed through the dialogue scenes. The characters are cardboard and the stereotypes offensive The problem with Chris Colfer's character is not that he's gay but that he is beyond nelly. I find the sound of the musical numbers bland -- until The Warblers came along. With Darren Criss and his boy singers, suddenly there was an energy the show lacked. Criss isn't a particularly good singer but he has a sense of showbiz pizzazz and hunger for mass love that gives him a star quality the other performers lack.
On stage during his three week stint at J. Pierpont Finch in Rob Ashford's revival of HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WIHOUT REALLY TRYING, Criss is a living demonstration of the mystery of stardom. Criss is barely a singer, dancer (he got seriously winded after his first big number), or actor (he rushed through some of the dialogue as if he were afraid of forgetting it). Frankly I was amazed that a graduate of the University of Michigan's fine musical theater program would show so little basic training. I have seen many kids in Duke student productions who have more skill in all those categories. Everyone on stage with him has more ability than he, but it is because of Criss that the theatre was filled with screaming teenagers and a fair number of gay folk. His Finch has none of the delight in his Machiavellian plots that Robert Morse or Matthew Broderick had in previous productions. What he has is charm, energy and an obvious love of the adulation he is receiving. Will his career last beyond GLEE (whose ratings have been waning of late)? Clearly this is a question he and his handlers are thinking about or he wouldn't be on Broadway during his GLEE hiatus. This is the second time in the past month I have sat through a revival of a musical starring a famous name who isn't up to the task (see my review of the revival of ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER).
Rob Asford's staging is nothing if not energetic. It puts big dance numbers in wherever possible and barely cares about telling the story. It throws itself at the audience rather than draws the audience in. It's a big cartoon. Perhaps the satire is too dated to be presented with any credibility. Beau Bridges seems to be having a great time as the company president. Everyone else is efficient. The production just doesn't have much personality. Criss does give it that, if little else.
The kids in the audience saw their beloved Darren. Many rushed out before the show was over to get a good position by the stage door with the Darren Criss posters they paid $20 for. For them, the stage door appearance was as important as the show.
HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. Al Hirschfield Theatre. January 12, 2012.
On stage during his three week stint at J. Pierpont Finch in Rob Ashford's revival of HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WIHOUT REALLY TRYING, Criss is a living demonstration of the mystery of stardom. Criss is barely a singer, dancer (he got seriously winded after his first big number), or actor (he rushed through some of the dialogue as if he were afraid of forgetting it). Frankly I was amazed that a graduate of the University of Michigan's fine musical theater program would show so little basic training. I have seen many kids in Duke student productions who have more skill in all those categories. Everyone on stage with him has more ability than he, but it is because of Criss that the theatre was filled with screaming teenagers and a fair number of gay folk. His Finch has none of the delight in his Machiavellian plots that Robert Morse or Matthew Broderick had in previous productions. What he has is charm, energy and an obvious love of the adulation he is receiving. Will his career last beyond GLEE (whose ratings have been waning of late)? Clearly this is a question he and his handlers are thinking about or he wouldn't be on Broadway during his GLEE hiatus. This is the second time in the past month I have sat through a revival of a musical starring a famous name who isn't up to the task (see my review of the revival of ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER).
Rob Asford's staging is nothing if not energetic. It puts big dance numbers in wherever possible and barely cares about telling the story. It throws itself at the audience rather than draws the audience in. It's a big cartoon. Perhaps the satire is too dated to be presented with any credibility. Beau Bridges seems to be having a great time as the company president. Everyone else is efficient. The production just doesn't have much personality. Criss does give it that, if little else.
The kids in the audience saw their beloved Darren. Many rushed out before the show was over to get a good position by the stage door with the Darren Criss posters they paid $20 for. For them, the stage door appearance was as important as the show.
HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. Al Hirschfield Theatre. January 12, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)