The Lieutenant of Inishmore

Martin McDonagh is my hero.

Pretty much, yeah. It's great to see some hilarious, dark, gorey, incredible theater, and last night was no exception. I'll be honest, the show wasn't as good as The Pillowman (but really, what is? Exactly. NOTHING), and I actually think I liked the performances (and the accents) of Tisch's The Cripple of Inishmaan slightly better. Which I guess is kind of weird. But the cast was still pretty darn tootin'. And the show is definitely still great. While I've only read McDonagh's other plays (besides the two I just mentioned), I'm pretty sure there's a bit more blood and gore in Lieutenant than in, say, The Beauty Queen of Leenane. So if that one was too graphic for you, be forewarned.

The play starts out with the death of the best friend of this pretty psychotic killer guy. He basically comes back to avenge this death, and it kind of snowballs into a lot of violence and blood. So my plot summary is a little vague and I took some liberties with it (okay, a lot. That's not really the plot), but I didn't want to give anything away.

So the show's hilarious. It's definitely worth seeing, but it's not for the weak of stomach. Well, it is, because I don't want you to miss it just because you have a weak stomach, just be forewarned that you'll probably groan and have to close your eyes a bit. It's nice to see some fresh, not boring, funny, edgy theater in New York, so don't miss this one.

The Wooden Breeks

This was sort of a slow weekend for theatre - only one show, a bit unusual for Kevin and me, but having seen only one show makes me appreciate it a bit more. That show was The Wooden Breeks, at Lucille Lortel. Going in to the show, I can't lie, I had very low expectations, having heard some rather uninspiring things about the production.

It's a bit hard to explain the plot, as it's a fantasy story set in a made-up world - but let's just say that the main character deals with the loss of his great love and being left to care for her child. This main character, played by Adam Rothenburg, constructs the tale as he goes along - leading the audience on all sorts of twists and turns, all the while trying to figure out a sort of riddle - which has a very cool unveiling at the end of the play. I won't give it away here, but it's also nice to hear the young boy in the story tell the audience what Wooden Breeks really are.

I don't really want to get into the plot much more, because it's too confusing to read, I'd suggest going to see it instead. Kevin's main qualm with the show was its length, at 2:15. I agree, some of it could be cut, but as I've been told, the playwright spent about 12 years constructing this story, and I'm sure he was very connected to each word. I also was told that it started out at 3:00 and has been cut significantly.

All in all, some solid acting in the show by Adam Rothenburg, T. Ryder Smith as the lighthouse attendent, and Ron Cephas Jones as the grave-digger. The set was impressive, and I was surprised by how much was done with what seemed like such a sparse space. I suppose all together I was glad that I had low expectations for the show because I came out really liking what I had seen. It'll be interesting to see what the reviewers say after opening night, which is tonight, 2/21.

I Love You Becaauughhh

I feel like Lydia's usually the harsh critic, and I'm a bit more forgiving. However, sometimes they're not so much to forgive. So we went and saw this musical in the Village called "I Love You Because." Let me summarize the plot for you. Boy and girl meet. Boy and girl fall for each other. Silly friends make jokes. Boy and girl end up together. Thrilling, huh? Such intrigue, such suspense, such originality. Apparently, this show is supposed to be based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Disclaimer: This doesn't mean it's any good.

Okay, so here's the deal. This is the impression I got after this first ten minutes of watching this show. Imagine you have a pair of kids who have never really written a musical. So they think of a bunch of things they know about in college that they think are funny, like using febreze, and funny pick up lines, and they try to make a musical out of these silly little vignettes. And then they try and just tie them together with a plot. And by "with a plot" I dont' really mean a plot, but rather a generic love story that people use as plots when they can't think of anything creative (and then say it's a modern re-telling of Pride and Prejudice). And then they fill the musical with slightly catchy, poppy, sappy love songs that are easy to write and not in any way memorable and exciting and basically all sound the same. I would go look up what the songs are, but they're basically just as follow: song about loving girl, song about wanting girl, song about loving boy, song about being scared to love boy, angsty love song about hating girl, angstly love song about being mad at boy, sappy love song about needing girl, sappy love song about getting together, angsty love song about not being ready, angsty love song about being angsty, sappy love song about discovering the girl, sappy love song about ending up together. Except maybe not in that order. So that's the issue I guess with the musical itself. The characters are just so uninterestingly stereotypical and cliche, and it was just blaaahhh.

The production I guess has its own points. The show is pretty not greatly cast. You have this pair of brothers that look nothing alike. The main guy walks out, and after his first line, it was just like, "I'm sorry, I can't believe this guy is a heterosexual romantic male lead." Mind you, I think they all had pretty good pipes (for belting those generic love songs), but it was still just like these characters just don't work. It didn't help that every third time Stephanie D'Abruzzo spoke, I had to turn to Lydia and say "Kate Monster!"

Okay, to be fair, a lot of the audience seemed to love the show. I even turned to Lydia and asked if the laughs and "awwws" were the audience mocking the show, and she said they were actually sincere! So I guess if you want a silly, generic love story that is neither creative nor interesting, then by all means, check it out! It wasn't even particularly feel-good. I mean, it wasn't feel-bad, but it wasn't really all that warm and fuzzy. Maybe it would have been more feel-good if I wasn't opening the playbill every two songs to count how many were left, and thinking, "Dear god, we just heard this song, why are they singing ANOTHER version of it? Why do they keep singing?"

Yeah, so obviously I highly recommend. That was sarcastic. But if you're looking for a perfect date evening for Valentine's Day, skip the show and go do something romantic and fun.

Why am I so mean tonight?

Kismet at City Center

Just a really quick post - last night I saw Kismet at City Center Encores. It was my first time seeing Brian Stokes Mitchell perform live - and man was I missing out before. He's INCREDIBLE - he sings with such ease, what a rich voice! Marrin Mazzie is also fantastic - she's got great stage presence - something you don't see that often anymore.

So the show only runs for about a week or so - but it's really cool to see how much work has been done for the short run - great choreography, direction, etc. etc. And the music isn't half bad either!

Looking forward to more Encores....

Red Light Winter (!!!)

FANTASTIC - this is probably the best show I've seen all season (yeah yeah, it's been a weak season, but this is truly great). It's a new show, first staged in Chicago at Steppenwolf. Now it's come to NYC at the Barrow Street Theatre, with the original cast fully intact. It's written and directed (masterfully) by Adam Rapp.

I'm going to explain the plot now, so if you haven't seen it and are planning on it - skip this!!

ACT I - So the show starts out in Amsterdam, where a guy is sitting alone in a really awful hotel room. He takes off his belt (and because of the sexually explicit notice - I thought something would happen right away but..) and loops it into a noose. He proceeds to put it around his neck, hang it on the coat rack and tries to end his life - unsuccessfully. The minute he does this, his friend Davis walks in. Let me just say that this guy has fantastic comedic timing - both of the male leads are hilarious - but Davis is really spectacular. So he goes on and on, ranting and raving, and then introduces Christina - who we learn is a prostitute that he has brought home for Matt, the guy who's just tried to kill himself. Right - so Christina has become pretty attached to Davis - and there is much deception going on here as she admits to "making love" with him - while he won't admit it at all - and pretty much lies about it. Meanwhile, Matt finds himself drawn to Christina as she bats her eyes when he tells her about the play he is writing. She goes out of the room and Davis and Matt talk about what's about to happen. So let's jump forward - Matt and Christina have very quick, very awkward sex (thus the explicit sexual situations disclaimer) and she runs out of the door - leaving a couple of items behind, purposefully.

ACT II - set in the East Village - Matt is pining away on his computer - showing the audience how he is still in love with Christina - and there's a knock on the door - guess who? Right, Christina, now Christine, now Annie. So - they talk - she doesn't remember him at all - he's crushed but defiant as he launches into this brilliant monologue about his obsession for her (this is after she's told us she has AIDS and no money - when Matt jumps in to save the day). She's taking it all in, and Matt leaves to get food - well, who shows up? Davis. Some seriously disturbing things take place as pretends to not remember her at all. We're left with a situation in which all three of them have pretty much been crushed by the circumstances - a pretty seamless ending. There's so much I've left out of this plot summary. Adam Rapp really twists some details in the story and I don't want to give every little thing away.

All in all, the play is so well written and the laugh-out-loud moments so pervasive, that I found myself really enjoying every moment. I think it's a show that will stay with me for a very long time - the kind of subject matter that really gets in your head. I say try to go before a great review comes out from the NYT and it sells out for a while.



All right, this is Kevin finishing Lydia's post. I just wanted to put my two cents in. Also LOVED it. I was a little like, 'ugh, is this going to be cliche..' at points, but then it all worked out to be great. The writing is tremendous. It's the type of hilarious, witty, slightly pretentious dialogue floating between Ivy Leaguers jabbing at each other that I love. But it was so moving at the same time. You see these three extreme characters and how they interact. You can sort of guess what's going to happen, but you don't really know where it's going to go. It's powerful and hilarious and really plays with the idea of falling in love with people who could really care less about you. In terms of sexuality, I thought it was going to be a lot more explicit and graphic and stunning and 'edgy,' but it was like whatev. The nudity was minimal compared to "Bug" or some other shows. Also quite interesting, according to my friend, Adam Rapp apparently based the play on some real instances (at least with the first act), where he was kind of in the "Davis" situation. Pretty surreal.

Go see it.

Beauty of the Father

First - yes, Rabbit Hole was total crap - I don't know what Ben Brantley is talking about and why he is recommending it - but if you want to sit through 2+ hours of a boring, stagnant, un-directed mess, by all means, go for it!

Second - we saw Beauty of the Father at MTC this Saturday, a new play by Nilo Cruz, of Anna in the Tropics fame (which I didn't see, but have heard great things about). It's hard to begin to tell the story - because as I look back at this show - it's difficult to know what the playwright hopes for his audience to take away. The setting is on the coast of Spain, at the house of Emiliano, a painter, father, lover, etc etc. The story wraps around a love triangle between several people: Marina, Emiliano's daughter, has just come to visit him after more than a decade. She meets Karim, Emiliano's Moroccan house-guest, and they immediately begin a fling. Paquita, the housekeeper, is also in love with Emiliano. And get this, Emiliano and Karim have once been lovers.

Did you catch all of that? Well, the story goes back and forth - Marina wants her father to be happy so she breaks off relations with Karim - and things end in what we think will be death (but thankfully isn't). I have to say that the set was pretty fantastic in terms of the limited room that the designer had to work with. I found myself at times really feeling like I were on the coast of Spain, instead of a small theatre in mid-town Manhattan. That to me is what theatre is supposed to be about - it should transport you to another place - so that you forget that you are an audience member - and begin to really be entrenched in the story being unfolded.

All in all, not a remarkable show - it could use some work and might be able to be buttoned up for a future run - but try it out if you get the chance.

The Rabbit Hole - Kevin's Thoughts

All right - we just saw The Rabbit Hole, with Cynthia Nixon of "Sex and the City" fame. So I thought it was okay. It was a little contrived, and it kind of struck me as a little awkward and really trying for sappy tearjerkiness. But I guess I was pretty into it, since I didn't nod off even though it was pretty slowly paced. I didn't even check my watch, but I did get pretty restless during the second act. You know, where things and noises in the theater started to distract me. But I was compelled, and I wouldn't say I disliked it (For comparison, I slept through the first half of the anomalously well-reviewed Apparition, and then got really annoyed in the second half that I wasn't falling asleep. And A Touch of the Poet made my wrist sore from twisting it to check the time so often). However, I didn't really walk out of this play feeling like I got much out of it. I guess my feelings toward it were pretty neutral.

There were definitely many moments where I laughed out loud, perhaps even guffawed (but that may just be relative since it was kind of a heavy play), and it could be pretty entertaining at moments. I thought Tyne Daly, who plays the mom, was really quite good. I guess I was expecting to be moved a lot more than I actually was; I thought only one scene was really powerful, but not even overwhelmingly so. Like I admit, my eyes well up at some really moving movies or shows (okay, I've even cried some, but I usually have to be in some kind of mood), but I didn't really feel it for this show. Perhaps it was because I couldn't really relate with the characters, or that the chemistry between Cynthia Nixon and her onstage husband was not really there, but it just didn't pull me the way I think the subject matter should have. I thought a lot of the little things, like some of the random toys or whatever, were more moving than the dialogue and interactions. A lot of people we talked to afterwards really loved it, but I thought it was just okay, or maybe a wee smidge better than okay. Definitely not bad, but I wasn't blown away. I would give it like a thumb that maybe wavers between angling 14 -42 degrees upward.

Lydia, however, has some pretty strong opinions (I believe the word sh*tty was used multiple times in our post-show discussion), so she can post or comment this one. ..