The Drowsy Chaperone

So here's something new. Lydia and I are both going to speak on this show. This isn't because the show's special or something, it's more borne from the fact that I'm bored off my bajujus at work, and Lydia's apparently really busy. So I'm going to start it, but let her fill in her thoughts as well. A little point-counterpoint if you will. Exciting, huh? If you like this format, please leave a comment, and we will try to incorporate it more. Ha. It might not even be point-counterpoint, that was a cheap plug to get our reader(s) to leave comments. Especially if you don't watch theater, we'd like to hear your opinions on some of these shows. In any case, on to the show!

We've had a good run of enjoyable theater lately. Namely with The History Boys, which I've decided I think is the best thing play on Broadway right now, if not best show (I know, it was a difficult decision, but I think I have it just slightly over Inishmore, but I might have to watch that one again). In any case, The Drowsy Chaperone was also quite an enjoyable feat of musical theater.

It's another one of those shows that is very geared towards poking fun of itself, of musicals, and of the theater scene in general, which has kind of become the trend in good, successful musicals lately, I feel (starting with Spamalot, and moving on). It starts out just blatantly talking about what theater has become, and how bad it is nowadays, and how there are all these tourists, and so right from the get-go it was rather entertaining.
- Lyda here - the difference in this show to me is that it is not really making fun of musicals but really passionately paying homage to them, especially musicals of the 1920s - those grand musicals. It made me think about the true fundamental reasons I love theatre - not just musical theatre but really any type of theatre in general. The feeling of escape and at times pure bliss and how that can come through in a show.

So the show plot is a pretty simple one. This guy is in his apartment, and he puts on an old musical "The Drowsy Chaperone" on the record player, and it comes to life in his living room. "The Drowsy Chaperone" as the musical within the show really is not much of a plot, some wedding drama or whatnot, and there's not a particular reason it's called "The Drowsy Chaperone," I guess, except maybe the title character is supposed to be this big star from the 20's, which is when the fictional musical staged.
- Lydia again - The Drowsy Chaperone (played by Beth Leavel) really steals the show every time she comes on stage. I think she was my favorite character in this great ensemble.

It was a very high energy, fun show, with a lot of little gags and fun things that you can kind of predict will happen, as it jumps back from real-time to musical-record-reenactment time throughout the show, but all these little gimmicks are done very well and are very funny and clever. It really keeps the show on its toes, and brings a fun air of originality to the production.
- I agree with Kevin that the show is fast paced and the humor flows throughout - but I didn't find it terribly predictable. Of course, the story of The Drowsy Chaperone musical is predictable, as most of the shows in that era were - but this show as a whole was truly fresh. From the opening segment in which the audience sits in the dark for about 10 minutes listening to a voiceover narrative to the scene after the "intermission" when the narrator puts on the wrong record.

The cast overall was just great. Sutton Foster was great, doing her little starlet thing that I'm sure she always does, and the Drowsy Chaperone was hilarious. The cast looked like they were having fun, camping it up and just being silly, since it's just a silly show. My favorite cast members were this pair of really short pastry chef gangsters. They were just hilarious and well synchronized. Which I like.
- Lydia once more - I already mentioned that I loved the Chaperone character, but as a good friend said to me, he thinks this is the best ensemble cast on Broadway right now (probably second to History Boys) and I agree. There really isn't one weak link within the show and everyone has his and her moment to shine. I think we'll see Drowsy go on to win many many awards this season and give Jersey Boys some true competition.

The History Boys

So I failed because I was going to post this before Brantley's review came out, and I forgot. For what it's worth, I'm not going to read his yet.

So The History Boys.... PHENOMENAL. I haven't walked out of a play in a long time with that feeling of "WOW. I want to see that again. Like soon." I think not since The Pillowman. So the show. I loved it. I thought it was great, and witty, and serious, and funny, and fun. I was enthralled through the entire thing, and I kind of didn't want it to end. I am also an academic who went through a lot of competitive application processes for both undergraduate and graduate school, so I think I just related to it a bit. Lydia didn't love it quite so much as me, and we determined that might be the reason, or that she's a girl, and it's all about boys.

So basically, the play revolves around this group of boys, who are all trying to get into Cambridge and Oxford, and they have these two different teachers, and things get kind of muddled and stuff happens. I don't really want to tell you so much, because I thought there was a little shock value that I want you to retain.

The story does take a different angle than I was expecting. I guess I was thinking more of a Dead Poets Society type thing, and it wasn't quite that. It's hard to say how believable it is, as this theme kind of spreads throughout the play, and there is a general acceptance by the boys and whatnot, but it was still great. You have no idea what I'm talking about unless you see it.

But in any case, I loved the writing, and the pretentious quoting of texts and movie scenes and poetry that I always think would be so fun to do. I love the random musical interludes and the piano playing and the video scene changes and the crazy interactions in the classroom, and how all this lightness counteracts with a pervasive heaviness that is brought upon by the kind of blanketing subject matter. I've seen video excerpts or backgrounds work horribly on stage (a la In My Life or Ring of Fire), but I kind of liked it here.

The cast I thought was great. I really liked Scripps; he basically has the coolest voice ever. Everyone just worked well together.

So, yeah. I liked the play. And I would say go see it fast.

Sweeney Todd (finally!)

Well I'm a few months late in seeing this show - but seriously, better late than never. Kevin saw it early while the show was still in previews, but somehow I missed out until now.

This was my first time seeing a performance of Sweeney Todd - and I've heard from other people that this might be a good thing. The show is portrayed in a concert style. All of the actors play a musical instrument (some of them play several - look out for Patty Lupone on the tuba), and I believe only one actor leaves the stage at one time in the show. As you can imagine, it must be quite a draining yet exhilerating show to perform each night. Michael Cerveris and Patty Lupone are luminous together on stage - they play off of one another so well.

Speaking of exhilerating for the actors - it's breathtaking as an audience member. I determined that I might have liked it a bit better than my blogging counterpart, because my seats were very intimate to the performers, and I felt entranced by each move they made.

I thought that the music was wonderful and I'm actually listening to it as I sit here and write this. Johanna is a song that has been stuck in my head since I saw the show. All in all - I'd recommend this show to anyone - I think it's a great tribute to theatre and also a uniquely staged event.

Three Days of Rain (with Julia Roberts...)

Julia Roberts on Broadway. It seems like a pretty good idea, huh? You're definitely going to draw a whole crowd of non-theater enthusiasts in, since she's probably one of the most loved movie actresses, like, ever, right? Unfortunately, when they all get there, it might be a tad disappointing.

Personally, I thought the play was quite good. I rather enjoyed it, and I thought the production was pretty cool, replete with real rain and all. I thought the play itself was a pretty neatly written show. The first act revolves around these three characters who have theories and views about their parents, and then the second act uses the same actors to portray three different characters, which reveals the lives and secrets of their parents. I liked it. I also rather like Richard Greenberg. Lydia, on the other hand, did not really care much for the play, and also does not really care much for Richard Greenberg. Of course, I am basing my judgment on this play and "Take Me Out," and she is basing hers on this play and "Naked Girl on the Appian Way." If you have seen/read both of these, you will probably understand the difference of our opinions.

So I liked the play. I thought it was well-written and it moved along well. I thought the set was pretty cool, and the production was worthy. Unfortunately, however, I was not blown away by Julia's acting. And by "not blown away," I mean, "severely underwhelmed." And by that, I mean she wasn't very good. Everything seemed so awkward and stoic coming out of her, like she was reading a script, rather than being a character. It is a difficult transition from screen to stage, what with memorizing an entire play and realizing that everyone's staring at you the whole time (especially if you're, say, Julia Roberts), and I guess I'm proud of her for making the effort (confused, quizzical look on my face), but that doesn't mean I'm going to say she was very good.

The rest of the cast, however, Paul Rudd and Bradley Cooper, was much better. Paul Rudd I thought was quite good, with two very different characters from Act I to Act II, and I thought he did a good job with them. Bradley Cooper, however, stole the show. I thought he was great. I've liked him since the short-lived "Kitchen Confidential," so I was pretty excited when I saw him in it, and I think it was wonderful that, in my opinion, he totally stole the show from two much bigger names. He was just so natural and funny with his role. Granted, his two characters didn't change as dramatically between the two acts as did Paul's and Julia's, and his parts were definitely much smaller, but I think he was just so much more engaging, entertaining, and natural on stage than his co-stars.

So the show I quite liked, although Lydia notsomuch. It is neat to see Julia Roberts up close and live, and it is I guess this big entertainment milestone of an event, perhaps even the theatrical event of the season. But that's just because it's her being her, and not being a terrific stage actress, so don't get your hopes up too high.

The Maids x2 ..... /2

Okay, so this was an interesting night of theater. I went to go see The Maids x2 done by EgoPo productions of New Orleans, who I believe is teaming up with the Jean Cocteau Repertory and playing at the Bowerie Lane Theatre. I walk in, and there's an announcement that they don't have the rights to show the second half of their show, so it was essentially just The Maids. And not x2. I was pretty bummed, because I was pretty intrigued by the second half.

Let me give you some backstory. The show The Maids x2 was written by Jean Genet. It's a one act play about two sister maids who are plotting to kill their Madame. They're crazy. As is the Madame. It's intense. But anyhow, Genet had written it with the maids to be played by boys in drag, which is apparently how he likes all his female parts played. In any case, the evening was supposed to showcase The Maids pretty traditionally with an all female cast, and then The Maids again after a dinner break with all males in a prison cell. This second version, however, did not make people with rights so happy.

So my allotted three and a half hours of theater became one and a quarter, and I only saw the female version. It was a pretty solid production of the Maids. The play itself is great, in my opinion, if you like really twisted messed up plays. The acting is not too bad, and I thought overall it was a pretty good show. I have a little bias because I did a little of The Maids when I was in school.

I would really have liked to see the contrast of the second version of The Maids. I think that it would have been a pretty intriguing artistic interpretation, but c'est la vie. We'll see how the whole rights controversy goes.

Take Me Out and Peer Gynt

So this past week I made my way down to Brooklyn to see a couple of shows. I won't write too extensively on them, since they're both done with their runs, but I just wanted to mention them and let you know that heading down to Brooklyn for theater can definitely be worth it.

First stop was Take Me Out at the Gallery Players, which just finished its final weekend. It's a phenomenal play and this was a very well done production. I was impressed. I'd seen it on Broadway, and this was pretty darn good. The cast was pretty great for the most part, and the play itself is just wonderful. I was impressed.

Peer Gynt at BAM was also a pleasant night of theater. It was a beautiful staging, very trippy, but very visually appealing. It was, however, just about four hours long. The first two hours didn't feel that long, but by the end it was pretty trying. I was also pretty annoyed at the subtitles; they were really really high, so you could either read them, or watch the action, and you couldn't really do both at once very well. Or at least I couldn't. It was tough.

Anyhow, while both of these productions are worth the trek to Brooklyn, they are no longer playing, so you can't go see them. But I guess keep in mind that Gallery Players and BAM have some good shows, so keep them in mind.

Landscape of the Body

This was the show where I really felt like I was really part of the theatre community. As Kevin and I are in the lobby waiting for the doors to open to the theatre, in walks Mr. Ben Brantley (of the NYT) himself. I'm not sure why, but I was a little star-struck, but for only half of a second. It's just ironic to think that most powerful theatre critic in the world is sitting in the same audience as me, and we're both playing roles in the success of the show (granted his is much more vital)...

Well - onto the show. I'd heard rumors of it not being very entertaining, a bit stagnant, and most of all - just plain long. Well, long it was, but I can't tell you that I was ever bored. Some of the scenes were a tad bit extended - but shave 5 minutes off here and there, you have a nice story and a nice show to stage.

Plot summary - A series of flashbacks and flashforwards tell the story of two sisters - Betty and Rosalie. The plot weaves as it tells us the story of the murder of Betty's teenage son but also takes a look at Betty's live previous to ending up in NYC on Christopher Street. Sherie Rene Scott plays Rosalie, Betty's sister, who for most of the story is narrating from the afterlife. This woman is hilarious. I saw her in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels last season, and she was entertaining - but here I couldn't stop laughing, just from the smallest flicks of her hand to a slight facial expression. I'm not sure if I should attribute that to the director or to her, but either way it's a classic way to play the role. Lili Taylor is powerful as Betty - especially at the beginning of the play. I was a little unimpressed by the turns in her performance toward the end, especially in the last scene - but other than that, a good role for her. The supporting characters, especially Betty's southern and detective wanna-be lovers, are a great addition to the show.

Set design is simple and the lighting is really effective in putting forth a sense of film noir. Does anyone else notice lighting? Well I do - as I find it really helps (or hurts) certain if not all aspects of a show. The musicians also hold their own as they are wheeled out onto stage whenever they are needed.

In conclusion it's a nice solid play with some interesting themes. I would cut a little time off of it's 2 1/2 hour length - but really a nice effort.

Pen

What a pleasant surprise this show was. I mean, I was really intending to go in there and prepare myself for a bit of boredom and brace myself for a fight with sleepiness, especially since we had just seen a very funny, uplifting show just a few hours earlier (see Based on a Totally True Story). But in reality, I came out really enjoying this show. It was really quite enjoyable.

Basically it's this overbearing, dominant (psychotic...) mother who has MS and is wheelchair ridden. She has basically become dependent on her son, who is looking to go to college. His mother wants him to stay nearby in Long Island and basically has him on a leash. His father, on the other hand (who divorced his mother), wants him to go to USC. Much ensues, and then the Pen plays this significant role, and suddenly there's this big thing and all these new things happen and viewpoints are exchanged, etc. That was my vague non-spoiler ending.

Anyhow, it was a pretty good show. Maybe because I'm so close to the college application process it was just fun to see it. Or maybe not. It was an interesting take on these family relationships, highlighting three very different relationships and how they changed throughout the turn of events - mother/son, mother/father, father/son. I thought it made you think a bit, and presented some interesting situations that forced you to think about the people around you.

The premise, while obviously unreal, was a little bit weird, with this whole pen thing. I mean, I understand the fictionality of it all, but it just seemed kind of random and unexplained. But I guess I forgive that. He needed an excuse to execute his concept somehow. I don't want to ruin the show for anyone, so I'll just leave it at that.

I do, however, think that the relationships were still a little unbelievable, especially on the mother's end. There were so many times where it was like, in this relationship, and in this situation, the mother can't ACTUALLY be this selfish and not recognize what this kid is doing for her. And I can't imagine any mother would actually be okay doing what she did to him. So I do think it was a bit over the top.

I thought the cast in general was strong, and the plot and progression was loose enough to allow for some interpretation in what was happening and what would happen with each set of relationships. Usually I like a bit more closure in plays, but I really think the lack of it worked in this one.

I wouldn't say this was the best theater of the season, but it was definitely a commendable show, raising some interesting questions and worth watching.

Based on a Totally True Story

Kevin tells me it's important to post our blog before a review comes out so I'm writing before Based on a Totally True Story opens tonight. No matter what THOSE reviews say, mine is telling you right now that this show is fantastic. It's a fast-paced story (partially autobiographical) about two gay men dating, living in new york, and both trying to really make it as writers.

We learn that the main character, Ethan, is a comic book writer (for The Flash), playwright, and soon to be screenwriter. The show starts out with Ethan telling a whimsical horror story that he has just written as a play. He told it so fast that I missed a lot of it, partially because a weird beeping noise behind me, but the gist of it is that a giant monster comes out of the sea and kills the two children in the play.

We rewind a little bit in time to go through how Ethan met his boyfriend, Michael, at a coffee shop called Java Boy. The two start dating and the playwright gives all of these great examples of their dates - very relevant to nyc. Ethan learns from a producer, Mary Ellen (played hysterically by Kristine Nielsen from Miss Witherspoon last fall), that he should adapt his play into a screenplay. After several phone calls "suggesting" changes to his screenplay, and many arguments with Michael, Ethan finally finishes. Meanwhile, his Dad has just told him that he's having an affair with him Mom. So the basic picture is that Ethan has a LOT going on in his life and he's trying to juggle it all equally. He gets some good news that the screenplay has sold - but right about at that point, things start to unwravel in his life. I don't want to give too much away - but the show has a really great ending. Not picture-perfect happy, but uplifting.

In a nutshell it's a great show if you live in NYC, because you'll get all of the little references. Having said that - I think it works for everyone else as well, not just us ny'ers. Our audience (the sunday matinee crowd) was primarily 50+ and there was laughter abounding. The set was really nice - very basic with only a table and a few chairs on stage at a time. The digital projections added a nice touch and the geometric carpet patterns were lovely as well.

So if you're looking for a nice 2 hours at the theatre - I really say check this play out, it'll put you in a great mood!

A Random Post on a Pretty Neat Panel

So we've been having a little lull in our theater going, mainly because Lydia's taking the FOREIGN SERVICE WRITTEN EXAM on Saturday, but we do manage to stay in the thick of things. Last night we went to a Stanford Alumni panel about "The Future of Theater in America: Are we in peril?" It was pretty great, with actress Lois Smith, David Auburn (playwright, Proof), Florie Seery of Manhattan Theater Club, and Warren Leight (playwright, Side Man. It was really interesting to hear some perspectives on the future of theater. We covered many topics.

Why is London so much different than New York? Why are there edgier shows and longer runs for smaller shows? They talked about how London has government-subsidized theater, and how people come to New York to see giant spectacles.
Are theater audiences graying? Is this a bad thing? Young people just can't afford tickets to theater a lot of times. And of course with the exorbitant prices of tickets in New York, expectations are much higher as well.
Charles Isherwood wrote an article a few months back about theater being too "safe," do you think this is the case? Florie didn't think shows were safe at all, and Warren was like, it's ironic that he writes that, because he's single-handedly shooting down every new play from a new American writer that comes out.
And on that note, why has the New York Times become the make it or break it source for theater these days? One review really determines the success of a show, which is pretty interesting.

Lydia and I had some other thoughts that we didn't get a chance to voice, but we thought were interesting as well.

For instance, Broadway seems to be dominated by the same like 5 directors. Once one wins the Tony, it seems like everything the next year is directed by the same person (witness Joe Mantello and Doug Hughes). Does this seem to stifle creativity on Broadway, kind of creating a very uniform feeling across many of the plays, or at least limit opportunities for others?

What are your thoughts? Is the future of theater in America in jeopardy?