Festen

Festen is a funny name for a show. Especially when the show doesn't give you any clue why the show is named Festen. But anyhow, it's a play that's on Broadway that came from London and was not too shabby. Here's the lowdown.

The show is basically about this family that gets together for the father's birthday party. It's a huge cast for a play, there are like 20 people in it or something, grown sons and daughters and family friends attending this bash in this big old house. During this party, some disturbing things about the family's past come to light, and you see this crazy night unravel in this family that pretty much epitomizes dysfunction.

The show is very sparse, with very simple and empty sets and long periods of inaction and silence. Even with this however, I was still gripped the whole time, in a state of maybe less than suspense, but more intrigue I guess. I was pretty impressed, and I think the whole show kind of makes you think - not so much about the action, but about what's going on, the family's reaction to the news, and what the play is trying to say. The show was kind of weird and twisted (which I like), and really just made me ponder aftewards.

There are however, a number of things that I think could have been improved. While the show was suspenseful and eerie a little bit, it had the potential to be much more. Although it's hard to say if that's what it was actually going for. The show kind of channels The Shining, which is cool, except that instead of having these surreal, freaky, haunting moments be because of this weird house (which at one point is implied, but never carried out), it explains things, and it's not all that weird. Like there's a little girl, who has crazy eerie potential, but she's just not. She's just cute.

On that note about implied things that are never carried out. There are so many lines in the play that just seem ominous or foreboding, like they are foreshadowing something significant to come, but then they're all just left alone and ignored. So there are a lot of items that just feel open-ended or unexplained, and you wonder, why did they say that, or was there any significance to such and such, especially when they get mentioned recurringly. That also applies to the characters. There are many characters, and each one seems to be distinct, and you'd think each one would have some sort of significant contribution to the show. Why are there 20 people, what role does each one play? It feels very Clue or murder mystery dinner-esque, and there are lines that imply that each person is significant or needs to be in the show, but then you watch it and you say, why were there so many people? Why couldn't this have been done with just 5 people?

While there are some flaws, I think the show and the subject matter was intriguing enough. The large cast was very strong and they flowed together rather seamlessly, using the space to intertwine and overlap stories very well and setting a very dark, eerie tone. I think the production set a more appropriate tone that the writing just didn't quite live up to, but all in all I think it was a pretty good show, worth watching and definitely instigating some interesting thought.

[title of show]

What a breath of fresh air this show was. It's really tough to write about this one because I am not anywhere near as funny (really they're on another planet) as the two writers.

So everything about the show is funny - from the opening disclaimer to unwrap all candy (and suck it!) before the show to the answering machine messages and everything in between. The plot is basic - it's the story about these two writers, Hunter and Jeff, really writing the musical we are watching. They decide three weeks before the NY Musical Theatre Festival that they want to enter - and the idea they come up with is the process of writing the show. Two of the supporting characters are their friends, Susan and Heidi - whom I loved, esp Heidi. The plot follows the show from conception to its run at the Vineyard.

I loved the references to old musicals - especially in the amusing Playbills and Monkeys number. The whole show really boils down to the idea of a good original musical and how there just aren't any out there right now, which is completely true and oh-so-sad. Vampires is another great number (about tackling the insecurities eating away at us all) and is still resonating with me after seeing the show a few days ago.

I'm glad this show made it - really made it from an off-the-wall idea to an off-broadway run. It's encouraging for everyone out there to write and produce fantastic, original work.

Show People

So we walked out of Show People, and Lydia said, "Don't bother posting about this one, it's not worth your time." Sad, but oh so wrong. Bad reviews are so fun to write. It's the one thing that redeems the show; its sole source of entertainment. So here I am. For some lucky reader(s) (that is a hopeful (s)), I am trying to save the two hours of wasted life that I had to sit through and replace it with 5 minutes of blog-reading time. But before you think this show is altogether horrible, let me outline some of its slightly more redeeming qualities.

1. Liev Schreiber was in the audience. That was cool. I sat almost next to him during the second act (he was across the aisle). So at least when the show got boring, I could turn to my left and go "oooh, look! a famous person's foot!" You can't imagine how often I did this. Creepy, I know. Sorry Liev.

2. Judy Greer was in the show. So I'm not saying Judy Greer was great in the show, and I'm not saying that her performance was even comparable to the Judy Greer we know and love (I say, "we" because if you are not familiar with Judy Greer now, in about four sentences I am going to force you to go out and rent perhaps the single funniest television scene in recent history, and by "force" I mean urge you with my emphatic rhetoric). So whenever the show got dull, you could always make yourself laugh by thinking of one of the greatest scenes from one of the greatest shows on television. I make myself laugh just thinking about it. I just spent like an hour at work looking for the episode, and I found it: http://the-op.com/episode/106 "Visiting Ours" from "Arrested Development." Hair up, Glasses off... It hurts I am laughing so hard thinking about it. Go watch this now.

Okay, so now we've gone over the two highlights of the show. I guess we can move on to the rest of it. I almost forgot I was writing about Show People. Man. I just got really depressed. Like I was riding that high from thinking about the Arrested Development episode, and then Bam! I thought about Show People. Now I'm kind of bummed. Tough.

So the show. Paul Weitz wrote it. And you might be thinking, oh yeah, Paul Weitz, he did American Pie, and In Good Company, and About a Boy. Should be good, right? WRONG. If you saw "Privilege" at Second Stage last season, you would understand why. Let me summarize: Privilege - sucked. Show People - sucked. Apparently, I am too generous with my second chances.

The show basically started out, and something happens plotwise, the ground is set, and it's a little like, hmmm. what's he trying to do with this? And then it gets weirder, and seemingly more pointless. And you're watching this show, and you're just like, this plot is not really a plot, we haven't really progressed, it's not contributing to anything, the dialogue is awful, the characters are not likable, the acting is bad (okay, that has nothing to do with plot), but, you think, with an inkling of hope, if he twists it at the end, just maybe, it might be able to redeem itself, it might even be kind of a little cool. And there is a little twist at the end, I guess, but [SPOILER ALERT] IT SUCKS. Yeah, you're just like. Wow, that was bad. Conceptually, it had potential. It seemed like it could be kind of neat. I only dozed off once. I tried really hard not to, because I was in the front row, and Lydia kept me in line, but after about 20 minutes, it was just hard to help.

That was my plot summary. Obviously it is a very intriguing, well-written show. As for other baffling elements - there was a lot of laughing. Like loud, guffawing. I laughed three times in two hours, I think. I also sat there with a confused look on my face while everyone was laughing and thinking, did I miss something? But Lydia looked the same way, so I felt better. And I turned around and Liev wasn't laughing either. So I must be cool. Yes, I was watching to see if Liev laughed at bad jokes (I use the word "jokes" loosely). Creepier, I know. Sorry Liev.

So the show was not funny. I think about why everyone was laughing, and I attribute it to the same principles and reasons that got our president elected. I might be alienating some of our reader(s) here, but you know the something's wrong with the show when I'm comparing it to Bush. But anyhow, enough politics for me. Back to the show. I admit, Judy Greer has one funny line in the show. I laughed at it. I even remember it. But I won't spoil it for you. All the other bad lines she makes up for by being in that episode of Arrested Development (mind you, she has many good scenes in other episodes of Arrested Development, that is just the pinnacle of the world in my eyes). Unfortunately, the other cast members are not so lucky.

And the cast. Yeah, it was poor. Some poorer than others. And they're pretty much all in American Dreamz, which Paul Weitz I believe also wrote. Guess how much this makes me want to see that movie. Yeah, zero. The whole show kind of channeled something like a bad SNL skit, especially when the mother character talked. You know that whole this-is-so-not-funny,-stop-trying,-please-end-now-or-give-me-a-shotgun-so-I-can-blow my-own-head-off feeling. That's the one. I just thought of it! It was totally like Lisa Kudrow in HBO's short-lived "The Comeback." Like when Lisa Kudrow is in the television show that she's in in "The Comeback" (Room and Bored, I believe it was called). Like cheesy, bad, painful, unfunny sitcom, I'd rather be chewing on aluminum foil feeling. With a laugh track...which would explain the laughing in the audience. A laugh track! Man, it was just painful to watch.

So in summary. Don't go see the show. And if you are going to, make sure you watch that episode of Arrested Development first and that someone famous (preferably as cool or cooler than Liev Schreiber) is in the audience.

House of Bernarda Alba

I must admit - I'm beginning to really like Michael John LaChiusa. I loved See What I Wanna See (at the Public last Fall) and I now adore the cast album (which Kevin can attest to). Bernarda Alba is another very satisfactory piece by Mr. LaChiusa.

The show is a musical adaptation of the play House of Bernarda Alba by Federicao Garcia Lorca. Bernarda is a tremendous woman who has just been widowed for the second time. Left behind are her mother, five daughters and three servants. She's proclaimed throughout the household that she is now in complete control and that everyone must stay inside for a period of mourning. Oddly enough, one of her daughters (Angustias) is allowed visits by her lover (Pepe el Romano) every night at her window. Rumors throughout the house are that this lover only is interested in the daughter because of her money. Lots of songs are sung about this - and we learn that the youngest daughter (Adela) is secretely in love with Pepe. Several of the daughters try to warn Bernarda of the dangers of this - but their warnings go unheard. Needless to say, this does not result in a happy ending.

Looking back after seeing the show I think I probably should have read or read about the play before seeing this musical. Not that it was terribly difficult to follow - but I think I may have taken more away from it. I found the sexual represssion within these women to be very powerful - especially in the way some of the choreography was presented. The clapping and stomping (Chiusa has a great spanish term for both that I can't recall) are very interesting and add a nice touch to the piece. I'm happy to have finally seen Phylicia Rashad on stage, after missing her on Broadway a few times. I really liked Daphne Rubin-Vega as well - and seeing an entirely female cast was empowering. Overall a solid show, and I look forward to more of Michael John LaChiusa's work.

Confessions of a Mormon Boy

So when someone writes their own show, and performs it, and gets it off-Broadway, it's quite commendable. Unfortunately, as commendable as it was, I just didn't dig it all that much. I thought the concept was great. It was the performer's story as a gay man growing up Mormon, being excommunicated from the church, and turning to a life of gay escorting. It definitely had its moments - moments of shock, or sympathy, or surprise - but overall, I just didn't feel it so much. Maybe it's because I was expecting it to incorporate a little more of a comic element to it (like reparative therapy for same sex attraction is just a funny topic). Or maybe it's because it was a tough crowd to play to. There were like 4 rows of people in the house (maybe less than 20), and at one point there was a definite glitch in the dialogue, and it wasn't covered up very smoothly. I felt like there was a chunk missing at some point, and I guess that was a possibility.

I guess I also didn't think it was paced very well. I think it was about half an hour too long. A lot of time was spent in the beginning building up his Mormon time growing up, which I guess provided some needed background, but just seemed to me like it took too long. I felt like the climax would be when he was excommunicated and moved to New York, but it just seemed to take too long to get there. And when it did get there, while the subject matter of his dark gay lifestyle was interesting enough, it just didn't seem to have very much substance. I didn't feel like it brought me up to where he was now. Although it was a very interesting, very compelling story, I think it just lacked some execution that would have really tapped its full potential. I think froma content perspective though, this is a pretty interesting show, and it could really tug at some strings for many. The interested audience is probably limited in scope, but I think it's a good one to just see and hear about this guy's experiences. In trying to do this though, I just felt like it tried a bit too hard, and ultimately didn't reach the point it could have.

Entertaining Mr. Sloane

I've been pretty happy with the selection of shows at the Laura Pels. I liked Mr. Marmalade, and I liked Entertaining Mr. Sloane. Even if they're not great, I like their edginess (e.g. The Paris Letter), and they move at a nice pace for plays. The Laura Pels itself, however, is a little annoying. They start their shows at 7:30, which means everyone gets their half an hour late, thinking they start at 8:00. And since Roundabout does this General Admission thing, people get booted from their seats at intermission, and it's annoying. But I digress. Back to the show.

Entertaining Mr. Sloane was a very entertaining evening of entertainment, I thought. The plot basically revolves around a brother and a sister who both fall for this young male, who has some prior connection to their lives via their father. It's pretty fun. It's basically a show that plays on the hormones of two undersexed (or oversexed? I'm never sure how to use those words. I basically mean: does not get enough sex, although has very high sex drive) old people. Which is a pretty great concept. The cast was great. Jan Maxwell was hilarious (if you recall, she was the one that made Chitty Chitty Bang Bang watchable. Or, if you are normal and chose to skip Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, she was pretty much the best thing about it). Alec Baldwin was great, I think in large part because his character kept reminding me of him as the scoutmaster in that SNL Cabin Boy skit with Adam Sandler, which I think is one of his finest, most memorable screen roles to date. Only Chris Carmack, who played Mr. Sloane, wasn't as aptly able to hold my attention during his monologues, but I think he definitely looked the part.

So the play was pretty fun. It moved really fast, on top of the fact that it was pretty short, so it was a nice little jaunt to the theater. I think I would have liked a bit more character development on all counts, but in general I wouldn't say the show was heinously lacking in anything in particular. Except for the set. I wasn't a huge fan. It didn't use the space well. Okay, yeah, so I'd say this is a pretty recommendable show, better than a lot of the stuff that's out there now.

Ring of Fire

This is going to be a short post because this show was so tremendously awful! I think Kevin had pretty high hopes for this - and I guess somehow I had a small hope for it too. After seeing Jersey Boys and having renewed faith in the "jukebox musical" this show came and knocked those hopes to the ground. Let's say it ranks up there with the likes of Good Vibrations and Lennon - coming out only slightly ahead of each.

What you should know first is that the producers of the show are calling this a Johnny Cash Concert - meaning there is absolutely no semblance of plot. It starts on a slow number - and right away Kevin and I looked at each other knowing we were in store for another bad show. It picks up the pace a little with numbers like "Daddy Sang Bass" and "Get Rhythm" but there are too many boring songs in between. The set actually really bothered me as well. The set designer uses two large panels with digital projections to act as the set. Call me old-fashioned but I'd still rather see a hand-crafted set than something that someone built on a computer using animation.

Lari White was my favorite performer. She carried the country tunes with her velvet voice quite wonderfully. Jarrod Emick is second in the cast, and at times he got close to sounding like the man in black. All of the rest are easily forgotten. I will say that I was impressed by the musicians who also sang and danced with the main cast. Also - in one of the numbers each member of the cast plays a guitar - I found that a bit impressive as well.

There's not much more to say about this show - but if you're going for an entertaining night of listening to Mr. Cash - I say go to a music store and buy his album rather than pay for tickets to this show.

Grey Gardens

Lydia here...and yes - I'm the one who's behind on blogging - I admit it!

But this show is definitely worth a blog entry, so here we go. Last week, while Kevin was seeing All's Well That Ends Well, I was privy to a little show at Playwright's Horizons called Grey Gardens. First, if you haven't seen the documentary, Grey Gardens, go watch it before you read any more and everything will start to make sense. I have to say that the first 3-4 minutes of the show are dead-on for the film - I haven't laughed so hard in a while as to see these two women yelling at each other in this dilapidated old house.

The premise - Jackie O's aunt and first cousin are two high society ladies. The first act of the show starts off showing them on top of their game. Little Edie, the daughter, is spending her time in the Hamptons at the Beale estate, Grey Gardens. She's about to enjoy a huge party - thrown for her engagement to Joe Kennedy - the oldest Kennedy brother. Her mother, Big Edie (Christine Ebersole), is singing happily at a piano, practicing the tunes she plans to sing later that night. We're introduced to Sara Gettelfinger as Little Edie and Matt Cavenaugh as Joe Kennedy. First - no chemistry at all between these two and Sara Gettelfinger seems very awkward in the role. So cut to more plot - Joe gets nervous that Little Edie has too many secrets in her past - that she may have slept around with men before. Of course, as a Kennedy, he can't ruin his reputation - so he chooses (minutes before the engagement party is to begin) to leave her. Not to mention, a telegram has just arrived from Mr. Beale announcing that he's divorcing Big Edie and moving to Mexico. Whew....Little Edie is in ruins - she screams that she must get out of Grey Gardens and leave her mother forever. Big Edie sings a beautiful song while we watch Little Edie sneaking out of the house...and lights up for intermission.

Second Act - Now we're many years later into the lives of Little and Big Edie. Christine Ebersole is playing Little Edie and Mary Louise Wilson plays Big Edie. This is the real heart of Grey Gardens. The house is literally falling apart, there is a huge number devoted to cats - as these two women live with 50+ felines in this 28-room house. Half of the time they don't know what they're eating - it may be cat food, it may be liver pate. Big Edie sits in her bed and cooks corn from a little boiler on the side. Their only company here is a young man, Jerry, who drops by to visit. Little Edie fashions the most outrageous (but admittedly very cool) outfits and prances around the house as if she were a big star. Big Edie seems to have resolved that this is her life - and she seems content.

We start to see the true underbody of the show here as Little Edie sings about the choice between leaving her mother or staying at Grey Gardens - for what may be the rest of her life. We know that inherently these two women certainly have many problems but they are both hilarious and sympathetic at the same time.

Bottom line on this show: Christine Ebersole is really brilliant - her performance shouldn't be missed. The first half is a little slow, second we really see Doug Wright's writing start to shine. It comes highly recommended from me!

Measure for Pleasure

A certain blogging partner of mine is very behind in posting. But we won't mention any names.

So. This weekend. Yeah. Great show. Let's discuss why:

A great actor from The Pillowman (recall: Martin McDonagh is my hero.) - check
Amazing pronunciation of the word succumb - check
Giant penises carved in stone - check
Two characters whose sole purposes are to move stuff and run around without pants - check
Major boobage - check

These, among other things, contributed to the greatness of this show.

I'm never one for plot summaries, and I think the above four elements take the place of a plot summary, so let's just get into my commentary.

It was funny. It was dirty. It had a lot of sex in it. And the cast was great. Michael Stuhlbarg was amazing as Will Blunt. The two older ladies, who played Lady Lustforth and Dame Stickle, were both phenomenal. They were just so perfectly over the top. Euan Morton was also very good. The cast in general was just great. Unfortunately, based on how the Public is set up, and how you sit around the stage, every now and then you lose some facial expressions that I'm sure were absolutely priceless but were unfortunately facing the wrong direction. But you can just imagine what they're doing, and it's still hilarious.

The plot was fun and pretty straightforward, a little Shakespeare, a little Wilde, a little random plot twist switchups. You know. But it was just filled with so many great jokes and double entendres. You know when the Playbill has a paragraph explaining ancient British orgies to you, the play's gonna be a good one.

So the show is very entertaining, a tad risque, and an altogether good time. It's got a great cast, some saucy wit, and some very memorable scenes. Unless you don't like things that have to do with sex, I would definitely recommend this show.

All's Well That Ends Well

So, gasp! Lydia and I split shows last night. She went to Grey Gardens, which she will talk about in another post and I am slated to see later this month, and I went to Billy Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well at the Duke on 42nd Street. I was definitely pleased.

So sometimes, I'll admit, even though I've taken Shakespeare classes and whatnot, Shakespeare is a little hard to follow, especially when the people who are delivering the lines suck. However, this performance is very clear and you really get a lot of Shakespeare's witticisms and sexual jokes. Oh that Shakespeare. Unfortunately, All's Well That Ends Well is not one of his stronger plays, in my opinion. It's just a little hard to believe and a bit frustrating. It's got the quintessential Shakespeare comedy elements: rings of proof, well-timed letters, and the old switcheroos, but its protagonist (the heroine Helena) just doesn't have any substance. I don't know if that's the right word, but it's like, there's no reason for her to be obsessed with Bertram, who's not a good person, and there's really no justification for her actions throughout the play.

Anyway, beyond the choice of play, I think it was a pretty durn worthy production. There was a large cast, all of whom were very solid. I especially enjoyed Adam Stein as Parolles, among others. I think the production did a good job of combining different elements without overdoing anything - a bit of singing, a bit of lightning, good use of space in the theater.

It was, however, a long show. The first act is slow as beans. Very exposition heavy and not particularly action-packed and intriguing. It really picks up in the second half, and there are some hilarious scenes, some good drama, and a nice ending. If you know the play, while it is a comedy, it's not a very satisfying one considering its end result. However, I really liked how the play closed, drawing the conclusion of the relatively weak play into a more believable ending that leaves you a bit more content and with less of a sour taste in your mouth.

I'd say this is one of the better shows I've seen recently. It's a good production of a Shakespearean (albeit a mediocre Shakespearean) play, which I think is relatively rare, so I'd say it's worth a go.

Barefoot in the Park

When Corie shouts the line"six days does not a week make," I found myself at the same time thinking "barefoot in the park does not an entertaining evening of theatre make." And so - I start by saying - you might not want to go to this unless you can get free tickets (yes harsh, but realistic).

Really - I thought - I'll go, enjoy this light-hearted fun show with some actors who I had high hopes for - but no, I was disappointed. The show has good intentions - but it always seems to be trying too hard. Amanda Peet as Corie is pratically SHOUTING her lines at the audience and her range as an actor is demonstrably weak - not to mention that her emotional scenes are barren. Jill Clayburgh has some funny moments but most of the time I saw her being Jill Clayburgh, not Corie's mother, Ethel. Tony Roberts also has good moments - but the overall performance is not particularly stellar. On the flip side, Patrick Wilson is great a Paul Branner, one half of the newly married couple living in New York City. I found myself genuinly interested in his character - and his was nice to see him playing a comic role - one which I haven't seen before.

The set's a nice feature of the show - but like Mr. Brantley says, it would be nice to have something to watch at times (a nice coat of paint drying) instead of the action in the show. I had higher hopes for the costumes - done by Isaac Mizrahi - which seamed only to scream that he wants the audience to know know know that this play is set in the 1960s.

Well that's enough - you know how I feel - there are many better things out there on which to spend your time & money.