Awake and Sing!

So I meant to post this earlier, but after some complications, I had to postpone my posting. But whatever. I'm posting now and that's all that matters. Woohoo!

So. Awake and Sing. I mean Awake and Sing! It was good. Like it started and it was okay. And then it got progressively better. And then at the end it was like, wow, that was good. So it just got better as it went on. There were three acts, two intermissions and one "two-minute pause," but it never felt long, and that was good. The first act introduced you to this family, the second act let the family progress, and then some action started happening and then the third act okay, just told more story, and it was a bit more actionful. That's why it got progressively better. I don't make sense.

The play was an old one, and some of the issues it dealt with did feel a bit dated, specifically marriage, gender roles, etc. But it was a good little period piece. I thought the set was pretty great and its progression throughout the play and how it reflected on the family. I thought the cast was very strong. Mark Ruffalo was great, although Pablo Schreiber kept reminding me like a hundred percent of the little kid in Mr. Marmalade. And when the grandpa spoke, he was just too slow to keep my attention. But in general, it was a strong cast.

One thing that was pretty interesting was the fact that, in my opinion, none of the characters were terribly likable. Although the play itself still turned out good. There were some characters that were a bit more likable than others, and in the end, the likable ones kind of make a case and pull through, but throughout the beginning acts, it was a little weird, and I think that might be why it just kept getting stronger. At the end, I got chills during the final monologue, and it was a pretty strong show. Check it out.

A Tour of London Theatre

This week I was gallivanting through London and Italy (with a stop through Croatia) and managed to see three shows along the way. All three being very different, I enjoyed each very much.

First stop was Billy Elliott, the flashy, yet touching new musical on the West End. Thanks to a good friend, I was lucky enough to score a seat in the theatre even though the show is sold out most every night. Everything about the show was lovely. The little boy who played Billy (one of 7) carried the entire show as if this was something he was born to do. The dancing is breathtaking, from the ballet scenes to the tap scenes this young boy is wonderful. The show is really just a great night of entertainment. I had listened to the cast recording before seeing it - but the live performance is really amazing. I think it will do quite well when it transfers to Broadway in 2007 - looking forward to seeing it again.

Next was the very first preview of Titus Andronicus at the Globe Theatre. At Kevin's recommendation, I bought a standing room ticket for only 5 pounds (about 10 dollars) and I do believe this was the best use of money I had on the entire trip. I stood for the show (3+ hours) in the front row of what is called the Yard. It was unbelievable. The actors used the Yard for several scenes and at times I could reach out and touch them. Being in the center of the show gave the opportunity to see each and every movement. I believe that we had the best "seat" in the house. As for the show itself, the Globe's website describes it as: "Returning to Rome from a war against the Goths, the general Titus Andronicus brings with him the queen Tamora and her three sons as prisoners of war. Titus’ sacrifice of Tamora’s eldest son to appease the ghosts of his 21 dead sons, and his decision to refuse to accept the title of emperor, initiates a terrible cycle of mutilation, rape and murder. At the centre of the nightmare moves the self-delighting Aaron."

Lastly, I caught the final performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie at the Playhouse Theatre. The show was directed by Alan Rickman, and it was a joy that he was there for the last performance. You may know this show from all the controversy surrounding its being brought to the US. It was supposed to be the next show this season at the New York Theatre Workshop, but that fell through due to its "controversial" nature. I have to say that the current show at NYTW, columbinus, is just as controversial and a bit more entertaining than Rachel Corrie. That having been said, My Name Is Rachel Corrie is a nice effort. It's a straightforward, one-woman acted show that is taken from the notes of Rachel Corrie herself. The story begins as Rachel is a young girl (12 years old I believe) and starts her first journal in her hometown of Spokane, Washington. One can tell right away that she is a very politically-minded person and being an activist is certainly in her future. At the age of 23, Rachel decides to move to the Gaza Strip to help in the Israeli-Palestinian cause. While she is there, she befriends many Palestinian families and watches as their homes are destroyed to make way for new boundaries of Israel. She ultimately has her life ended standing in the way of a bulldozer taking over one of these homes. The show is put to a sombering end as an eyewitness account of her death is played over the loudspeaker. The audience then watches a home video of a young Rachel Corrie delivering a speech on ending hunger and hoping for peace. The show brings out some interesting new perspectives on the Palestinian cause, things that I had not thought about before, and I'm glad to have had the opportunity to see it.

Well, that concludes my romp around London - hoping to go back again soon and see some more of the theatre gems from across the pond.

columbinus

So Lydia got called off to Europe to review some West End shows and some European tours, so I'm holding down the NY fort this week. Last night I saw columbinus, and first off. Wow. So, Mr. Isherwood (or Chuckie Ish as I like to call him) and I have been pretty not in accord for NYTW's shows. For instance, I really liked Bach at Leipzig, he did not. He really liked The Seven, and I ...well, let's just say "your king." Lydia knows what that means. Go back and read the review. So I haven't read Ishy's review yet, but the little blurb on top made me seem like he was less than impressed. I however, really enjoyed it (although, as an usher, we were told not to tell people to "enjoy the show").

So the first act of the show deals with a generic high school with its generic stereotypical students and all. "Columbinus" if you will. The second act is straight up Columbine, from like real text, Laramie Project style. So the second act I was a little like, eh, is this necessary? Especially after really enjoying the first act. The first act is staged creatively (well, the second act is too), a little light, but also not, but basically fun. There's a bit of skin (which is always a plus), and it's quite intriguing. The first few scenes kind of make you question the style, but as the play goes on, it kind of fits together and becomes more understandable/enjoyable.

The striking thing about it, and the reason I'm okay with the second act of straight-up Columbine is because the first act really presents a kind of universality for everyone. There are pretty much characters that anyone can relate to in some sense, and you see everyone has an issue. You kind of sympathize for the killers, which is scary, and it really makes you think, this could have happened to me, this could have BEEN me, why wasn't it me? It's very intriguing, but it doesn't really throw it in your face. It's more of a retrospective thought, and I liked that.

After discussing with a fellow usher after the show, he felt the second act was staged too safely, without any actual re-enactments, but just readings. I however, though it was very powerful how it was; the sparse staging made you actually picture it all for yourself. All in all I thought it was quite good.

Monday Night Lear

So this is something cool. On Monday Nights, or at least some Monday nights, the Classic Stage Company does these "working rehearsals" of Shakespeare plays. This time around was "King Lear," and we attended a couple scenes from Act III I think (sorry, we're late on posting and I become forgetful).

I'll keep this brief, but basically it was cool. Well, okay, it was mostly cool. Okay, it was cool that Richard Easton was King Lear (which was a bit different than the role we saw him in last as the old guy who gets beat up in Entertaining Mr. Sloane). It was a pretty amazing thing watching this actor read this role, not only because he's amazing, but also because he's been in some pretty amazing productions of Lear over the past 50+ years.

Okay, so it was cool, but the working rehearsal part got a little annoying every now and then, but it would probably have been much cooler if we had liked the director a bit better. It was a little sad, because the director was way out of his league with Richard Easton, and I felt a little bad. And you just didn't want the director to keep interrupting Richard Easton, because he was pretty phenomenal.

So all in all, cool concept, cool show, cool reading. Richard Easton is great.

Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris

So we've been really behind on our posts. We saw Jacques Brel like two weeks ago, but I'm just now getting to posting about it.

So Jacques Brel. So I've never been a fan of those shows that are just like concert shows, where it's just music, without a whole lot of plot, and just four people singing songs. This was pretty much one of those shows. However, for some reason, I found myself liking it a lot more than I thought it would.

So let me summarize, the show is basically four people singing Jacques Brel songs, with some kind of acting out with each song but no real plot, or at least one we couldn't really figure out. Maybe bits and pieces, but not really altogether.

The cast was not too bad. They were a pretty strong quartet, but nothing terribly impressive, but I guess together they were quite good.

The music I liked a lot. Like, I thought it was great, and it explains why I was so gripped throughout the show. Like I wasn't even bored. It's crazy! I particularly liked the song "Amstersdam" and "My Death."

So bottom line I guess, I thought the show had great music and was oddly compelling, but other than that I can't really say why. Ha. This posting sucked.

Faust - Part I and II

That's right, Kevin and I experienced 6 hours of Faust last week over two days at Classic Stage Company. Funny thing is, we actually saw Part II before Part I, and I believe I liked it better this way.

For those of you out there who are intimidated by Faust, I am certainly among your ranks. Going into this production, I wasn't quite sure what I was getting myself into. I'd heard that this was one of the rare times that both parts of the play were being performed, seemingly because it's quite complicated to stage. CSC and Target Margin have both done a great job in bringing the story to life. The cast is young and vibrant and the depth as well as shock-value (for the time period it was written) of Goethe's writing really comes forth.

The plot outline is long and convoluted but here goes - Faust is a doctor who is dabbling in black magic. The devil has made a deal with God to have his way with Faust and try and tempt him. So enter Mephistopheles (or Mephisto), the devil, into Faust's study/work room. Faust consents to the devil's deal, and the two of them begin a series of wild travels. The highlights in part I are Faust's love and seduction of Gretchen - a pretty, God-fearing teenager. The two fall in love, and Gretchen become pregnant. Faust is whisked away by Mephisto (the Devil) to a crazy event called Walpurgis night. Faust comes back and finds Gretchen is in a prison cell for having murdered her mother and their child. He's devastated and struggles to convince her to leave with him. Mephisto interferes and just as the act ends Gretchen calls out "I am saved," reminiscent of the how the entire play ends.

Part II is quite a bit crazier. Faust and Mephisto begin in the emperor's court where Faust solves the emperor's huge conflict by creating paper money. Helen of Troy and Paris appear, at which point Faust falls in love with Helen. Complications, of course, ensue, and Helen vanishes when Faust tries to reach out for her. A brief interlude with a test tube baby, Homunculus, is quite hilarious. Next, Helen re-appears later in the plot at which point Faust and Helen have had a child, Euphorion. This child procedes to throw himself off of a cliff and as he dies, Helen again disappears. Walpurgis night happens once more and Mephisto leads Faust into more craziness. Time goes on and Faust is growing old. As an old man, Faust becomes blind and eventually passes away. The ultimate struggle at this point is his future and if he will end up in heaven, or go to hell with Mephisto. Finally, after this struggle, Faust makes his way upwards to heaven and Mephisto slumps over in defeat.

Well, I bet you're wondering about the actors. For the most part, I thought this was a really strong cast. I happened to love David Greenspan as Mephisto. He had the most impeccable comic timing, and even though he was a small guy, he projected a sense of pure evil when he was on stage. The woman who played Helen was also quite good- young Faust as well. Generally, it seemed as though the cast seemed to really like each other and that made for some great chemistry on stage. The props, although seemingly a bit juvenile, worked quite well. There were hundreds of different items brought on stage through both parts of the show, and they were a nice touch. Very nice job of pacing by the director, David Herskovits.

All in all - I don't have anything to compare this to, but I am willing to say this is one of the best performances of the entire Faust drama that has been staged, especially being able to relate to it as a twenty-something. It's only running until the end of May, so try to make it to CSC if you can.